I’m Sorry Democrats, but your Social Justice is Terminal

Carter Laren
Jul 17 · 12 min read
Daily #Covfefe: July 16th, 2019

This is a written synopsis of my show notes for the Daily #Covfefe episode dated July 16th, 2019 on Unsafe Space.

Understandably, not everyone has been paying attention to the increased bickering between establishment Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and the new breed of “Justice Democrats,” who first barged into the Capitol following last year’s election. After all, watching political infighting is apt to do more brain damage than reality television. It’s usually just about as consequential and easy to dismiss, too, especially when the arena in which most battles are fought is Twitter. But this particular quarrel is a symptom of something much larger and more ominous than representatives duking it out over who gets to take home more pork. What we’re seeing is the culmination of nothing less than a decades-old revolution for which control of the Democratic Party is the penultimate goal.

Background on the Justice Democrats

Established in the wake of Trump’s 2016 victory, the Justice Democrats bills itself as a “progressive political action committee.” It has a cool if not pretentious logo derived from that of DC Comic’s Justice League, implying that these young idealists are today’s super heroes here to save us all from ourselves, which for Marxists usually comes with a body count that would make even comic book villains blush.

Left: DC Comics’ Justice League logo; Right: Justice Democrats logo

Its founders include Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks and former leadership from the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign, including Saikat Chakrabarti, who is now the chief of staff for NY Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (Remember Chakrabarti, because he’s at the center of much of the infighting between legacy Democrats and Justice Democrats.) Justice Democrats are unabashed warriors for “social justice,” and their strategy is explicit and straightforward. First, they identify “centrist” Democrats in blue districts whom they view as politically vulnerable (read: “Democrats who haven’t fully consumed the SJW Kool-Aid”). This is noteworthy because targeting incumbents is an explicit signal that they are not cooperating with the Democratic establishment. Next, they scout for the role of SJW Politician, sometimes casting people with years of political aspirations such as Ro Khanna, and sometimes taking a chance on hip young bartenders from the Bronx. Mike Reagan made a great video about this titled, “The Brains Behind AOC,” which can be seen here:

Mike Reagan’s video: “The Brains Behind AOC”

With their actors in place, the Justice Democrats spin-up their candidate support and campaign machines — largely fueled by social media expertise — and run their candidates in Democratic primary elections. If they win, of course, it’s on to the general election. The goal is to systematically and methodically replace the entire Democratic Party with pseudo-celebrity mouthpieces for “woke” neo-Marxism. Their first attempt at pulling this off was the 2018 mid-term elections. Justice Democrats ran 79 candidates in total, giving more support to some and less to others, and 26 of their candidates won their primary races. Of the 26, seven went on to win the general election. That’s less than a 10% success rate, but altogether not too shabby for a group of unknown Washington outsiders, especially considering it was merely their first attempt at penetrating a hugely complex, unpredictable, and colossally important game.

Of the seven “Justice Democrats” in Congress, four are part of what has been dubbed “The Squad.” These are four freshmen congresswomen (women of color, as they are wont to remind us all) who stand out from legacy Democrats as younger, more adept at leveraging social media, and, most importantly, grandmasters of the collectivist chess game of intersectional ideology colloquially referred to as “identity politics.” They are: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley. They don’t wear capes — yet — but they certainly act like it.

The Coup Begins

Late last month, Congress passed a border funding bill that was supported nearly unanimously by House Democrats. Four — and only four — House Democrats voted against it: the Squad. As the bill was being considered (and in the wake of its passage), Chakrabarti was back at Justice League HQ, busy throwing shade at non-SJW Democrats on Twitter. While this may be business-as-usual for the Justice Democrat machine, the old school Democrat targets didn’t appreciate it all that much. One of those targets was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Frankly, Chakrabarti seems to have it out for Pelosi (shoot the officers first?), and after his repeated spankings on social media, Pelosi finally responded exactly as one would expect an out of touch 79-year-old politician to respond: via the New York Times.

In an interview on July 6th, Pelosi dismissed the Squad with the same kind of sweeping gesture an aristocrat uses to shoo peasants out of the banquet hall. They “have their public whatever and their Twitter world. But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got,” she quipped. The subtext was clear and played right into the Squad’s self-portrayal as marginalized grassroots outsiders snubbed by a complacent political elite: “Washington is my town, sweetheart, so let’s not get too uppity.”

As if on cue, several days later AOC feigned the surprise and injury of an abused puppy before whipping out her race card and slapping Pelosi over the head with it. “When these comments first started, I kind of thought that she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm’s distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood,” she said. “But the persistent singling out … it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful … the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.” She went on to lament that old school Democrats use communities of color as “bargaining chips” to “auction off” for political points, which may be a bit like the pot calling the kettle bla — calling it a kettle of color — but it is true nonetheless.

Conflict escalated shortly thereafter when the “House Democrats” Twitter account crawled out from under a rock and noticed that there was some dude named Saikat Chakrabarti in the Universe, and that during his live tweets of the first Democratic primary debates he’d been comparing “centrist” Democrats to racist Southern Democrats from the 1940s, even going so far as to call out Congresswoman Sharice Davids by accusing her of voting in a way so as to “enable a racist system.” Without bothering to do basic research to find out who Chakrabarti was, and armed with a rudimentary understanding identity politics (and a firm grasp of the latest trends in the deployment of clapping emojis), the House Democrats Twitter account strutted into the arena with a move that the admin surely thought would be “killer.”

Who is this guy and why is he explicitly singling out a Native American woman of color?

Her name is Congresswoman Davids, not Sharice.

She is a phenomenal new member who flipped a red seat blue.

Keep <clap> Her <clap> Name <clap> Out <clap> Of <clap> Your <clap> Mouth.

Of course, this brain-dead response pushes Chakrabarti’s agenda for him. First, it validates the philosophy behind social justice by introducing the race of Sharice — I mean Congresswoman Davids — as somehow relevant to the discussion. Second, the ignorance of whom Chakrabarti is demonstrates how clueless establishment Democrats actually are about the social justice movement; they may try to learn the magic spell of the hour to stay relevant, but at the end of the day they’re really just a bunch of Muggle groupies. Third, it reveals Pelosi and her ilk as haughty, elitist, and pompous: “Address us by our formal titles, peasant! Better yet, revere us as gods whose names shall <clap> not <clap> escape <clap> your <clap> fetid <claps> lips!” Faced with an attitude like that, even I’d be tempted to vote for AOC, if only out of spite.

The most recent scuffle between the “Justice” Squad and Democrat noblesse came over the weekend when Squad member Ayanna Pressley’s remarks at the Netroots Nation conference in Philadelphia were interpreted by the Congressional Black Caucus as a direct attack against its members. “I do quote Shirley Chisholm a lot, who said ‘if they don’t give you a seat at the table bring your own folding chair,’” she began.

“But I’ve amended that because I don’t want to bring a chair to an old table. This is the time to shake the table. This is the time to redefine that table. Because if you’re going to come to this table, all of you who have aspirations of running for office — for whatever lived experience and identity that you represent — if you are not prepared to come to that table and to represent that voice, don’t come. Because we don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice.”

The idea that “marginalized” status may no longer grant one at least some level of immunity from the rabid neo-Marxist revolutionaries sent shivers down the spines of CBC members and other run-of-the-mill Democrats. This surprise is a result of Democrats never fully understanding the role they’ve been playing in the revolution all these years. This whole time, they thought that they were the ones in charge. They were so wrong.

Representative Pressley’s comments at Netroots Nation

Digging Your Own Grave

As it turns out, the intellectual class and other members of the Cathedral have been advocating for collectivism — the nemesis of individualism and the putrid soul of Marxism — for decades. But collectivist ideology and its Marxist implementations are a hard sell to prosperous and relatively free Americans, especially in light of the very real horrors perpetrated by those implementations. To triumph, the Marxists needed help from at least three major groups. First, they needed academia to de-emphasize the horrors of communism and the ideology behind it; to focus on the ample atrocities committed by the Nazis, but gloss over the killing fields of Cambodia; to glorify the vicious sadism of two-bit leaders like Che Guevara; to completely ignore the death tolls in the tens of millions for Mao, and the even greater numbers for Stalin. And if the truth did emerge somehow, they needed students to believe that none of that was real Communism; none of it was related to actual Marxism, or actual socialism (or whatever other label was in current fashion with death peddlers). They needed professors to corrupt the noble instinct of Americans to learn from past mistakes through critical examination of their own culture’s shortcomings. That instinct for introspection needed to be dialed up to eleven — and beyond — until it became a masochistic obsession that would drown out the bloodcurdling screams of Communism’s 100 million victims. The academics happily obliged.

Second, the Marxists needed help from the media. They needed the New York Times to lie about Potemkin villages and for Pulitzer to hand out awards to Soviet propagandists like Walter Duranty. They needed all of society’s ills blamed on Capitalism, especially those caused by interference from that perpetual thorn in Capitalism’s side: government intervention. They needed to sensationalize every problem so that Americans would feel the chaos creeping in and begin to lose trust in the very ideas that built the most envied country on the planet. Most of all, they needed the king makers in the media to facilitate the third prong of their agenda: politics. Political discussion needed to move slowly and progressively to the left, and the media could enable this by shifting the Overton window, either intentionally, or unwittingly as a consequence of their prior academic indoctrination. The media happily obliged.

Finally, the Marxists needed a political party they could take over and use as a vehicle when the time was right. That party was the Democrats. Whether they realized it or not, Democrats spent the last several decades performing three main tasks necessary to prepare the country for Marxism.

First, Democrats have functioned as collectivist ombudsmen to the rest of American society. Democrat (and most Republican) leaders understood how to plant seeds of collectivist ideology in ways that Americans would accept. As power-hungry masters of rhetoric willing and able to dress up collectivist concepts in language palatable to American sensibilities, Democrats could take incremental steps left so long as words like “freedom,” “rights,” and “opportunity,” were used to describe them. This had the added benefit of obfuscating the meaning of these values, which weakened their importance to average Americans. As collectivist ambassadors, Democrats could also introduce confusion into the set of core American values by adding terms like, “diversity,” “unity,” “hope,” and anything else that sounded nice but had very little relation to the philosophic underpinnings of the United States.

Democrats also helped to change America’s demographics by opening up immigration to populations more likely to support Marxist or socialist policies. On the legal immigration front, a major step in this direction was the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which eradicated the national origins formula that had been in use for the previous 45 years. Outside of legal paths to citizenship, Democrats consistently used emotional arguments and powerful imagery to encourage policies that either ignored or actively encouraged illegal immigration. Once the desired demographic population is within the porous borders of the US, it takes only a simple act of Congress to mint millions of new voters overnight, most of whom would be sympathetic to Marxist ideology. To inoculate themselves from being called out for this obvious ballot stuffing measure, Democrats simply conflated the word “racism” with innocent observations of a strong correlation between country of origin and political ideology. Problem solved.

Third and finally, Democrats led the charge in creating an enormous dependent class. For obvious reasons, dependence on the government greatly increases the odds that someone will support government expansion and oppose contraction. This is a clear win for the Marxists. Of course, the Democrats didn’t do this alone. The welfare state, Social Security, Medicare, endless subsidies, and especially military expansion were all accomplished with help and support from Republicans. But it’s the Democrats that the Marxists relied upon to lead the efforts in preparing the country for a soft revolution. The Democrats happily obliged.

The Naked Rise of Marxist Millennials

Unfortunately for the Democratic establishment, their work is now over. They’ve spun the webs of sophistry brilliantly — so well, in fact, that there is no need to mince words anymore: blatant thuggery can replace debate. When Pressley talks about using “lived experience” to push a political agenda, she’s signaling that the time for rhetoric is done and outright bullying may begin en masse. The culture is ready for Marxism, and the big tech companies are falling over themselves to play the role of thought police, ensuring that vocal dissenters remain mute. Democrats have changed the demographics sufficiently enough to virtually ensure a perpetual Democrat majority will be achieved within a generation. That’s not counting the estimated 10–30 million immigrants here illegally, the majority of whom will loyally pull the donkey lever as soon as President Ocasio-Cortez signs the bill granting them citizenship. And as for a dependent class, almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax at all. Another 8% actually work for the government, which doesn’t include so-called private sector jobs like government contractors, institutions that rely on grants, and others.

So here were are. The Democrats have successfully cleared the path, and the prize they get for a job well done is that they will be unceremoniously booted out to make room for the Marxists. Led by charismatic Millennials, the Justice Democrats or someone like them will eventually take over the entire Democratic Party. They’ll continue to position themselves as empathetic, earnest, ragtag outsiders who just want to make the world a better place in the name of “social justice,” which by the way is definitely not any kind of Marxism at all. Nope. It’s not that. Just so you know.

Once in control of the machinery of the Democratic Party, they’ll purge non-believers (or coerce them into submission) and start making moves toward their ultimate goal: a single party system with only one acceptable opinion, enforced at gunpoint. They’ll want to complete this before the less controllable generation Z rises to power and before a black swan event (like economic collapse) triggers widespread discontent, but it’s a solid plan that’s been in the works for decades. In The Fate of Empires, Sir John Glubb estimated that the average lifespan of an empire has been around 250 years. We’re getting old, America, but let’s not give up just yet.

If you enjoyed this story, please consider clapping for it on Medium, or subscribing to Unsafe Space at: youtube.com/unsafespace

Unsafe Space


Carter Laren

Written by

Cryptographer and serial entrepreneur turned angel / VC. Peaceful parent & anarcho-capitalist. http://carterlaren.com

Unsafe Space


Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade