Social Justice Warriors Members Only


In America, the battleground of ideas used to reside on the college campus. Debates would take place about policy. Discussion would be had about the meaning of truth and justice. Diversity used to be genuinely embraced, in both outward appearance and inner ideological philosophies. Students used to be able to disagree with one another—and those disagreements fostered a productive exchange of information in the classroom and on the quad. Today, however, the American college campus is a police state, and a diversity of ideas is the sworn enemy.

Social justice warriors (“SJW”s) rule the public space. They have weaponized their beliefs in a “holier-than-thou” way that leaves no room for disagreement or dissent. These are the students you hear about demanding that the “rapist” statue of our third President, Thomas Jefferson, be removed from the campus at the University of Missouri. Or the students at the University of Texas calling for the removal of the statue of the “racist” George Washington, the man who led the victorious American Revolutionary forces and then willingly gave up the power of the Presidency after two terms. Or those students at Hamilton College in New York petitioning the university to use only gender neutral pronouns in the classroom. (She and he are replaced with the neutral “ze”; while him and her become “hir”.) Or those students at UCLA who have demanded the creation of an “Afro-house”—a residence hall designated as a segregated black community.

Students at UC Berkeley, in a petition to create more social justice “safe spaces,” decided that the appropriate action to combat racism was—to use racism. A human “wall” of SJWs locked arms on a bridge located central to campus and refused to white students pass, forcing many to hop along rocks in the stream to get to class.

Numerous college campuses have hosted anti-law enforcement demonstrations and called for the dismantling of the police force. The SJWs at Occidental College didn’t think it was enough to simply disarm the campus police, they wanted to take their bullet proof vests, too. And Washington University’s new student group, “The Assembly for Power and Liberation,” wants to make sure that the SJW’s totalitarian ideology is not only respected, but forcefully seared into the brain of every willing (or unwilling) student comrade by calling on the University to found a new “Office of Social Transformation” and a “College of Power and Liberation” that offers an abundant course selection of “oppressive studies.”

Sure, it can be argued that these are examples of the worst, but these types of tactics are not one-offs. They are consuming American college campuses, garnering ever more media attention, and normalizing the millenial mindset to their regressive tactics.

Anything other than whole-hearted support of the Social Justice Warrior’s agenda on campus is grounds for public character assassination. College deans and even university presidents have been threatened, harassed, and forced to resign over as little as remaining neutral on an issue. In desperate attempts to keep their jobs, university administrators have caved in to demands. They are instituting social justice compliance policies, printing informational pamphlets on avoiding “microagresssions” (commonly used words or phrases that should be avoided to prevent emotional damage to others), canceling speakers that may violate a student’s intellectual “safe space”, and even creating new university offices designed to “re-educate” students who don’t conform to the social justice way of thinking. All of this hit very close to home during my time as a graduate student at Columbia University. Navigating the politically correct waters at Columbia is like walking through a minefield. My friend Ben Sweetwood was sent to the “gender misconduct office” for jokingly calling himself handsome in a Chinese language course.

It’s time to stand up to the thought police.

Prepare yourself—you will be called a bigot for even questioning their self-ordained righteousness.

Before she was killed under a pretense of “the greater good,” Anne Frank wrote: “Despite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart.” That thought is missing from the mind of the social justice warrior. To the SJW, people at their core are racist, misogynist beings that have a tendency to fall “on the wrong side of history.” Racism is no longer an ugly choice of the individual, but an unconscious and inseparable part of the ‘privileged’ from birth. Those who can’t see this ugly truth about themselves are ignorant; and those who question the methodologies of the social justice warrior become the embodiment of the racism, sexism, and the fill-in-the-blank-aphobia that SJW’s claim to fight against. Every action of the social justice warrior is done with a righteous indignation that steamrolls past self-criticism and temperament. There is no opposing view point on the college campus, only the exclusive in-group ideology of the SJW or the backwards, simple-minded outgroup of everyone else. The Social Justice Warrior Club: members only.

In many ways, the social justice movement resembles strict authoritarianism. People cannot be trusted to be left to their own devices. The right actions, and the right thoughts, must be forced onto the masses. There is no room for disagreement with the social justice warrior, because there is no room for any other opinion. The “greater good” requires unquestioning loyalty to the prevailing narrative. This is why SJW’s are able to get away with using the term “justice” as loosely as they do. SJW’s pursue “justice” because to most people it is an innocuous term, and it is just vague enough to mean whatever they need it mean on any given day. On one day, justice is fighting racism. On another day, justice is segregated housing and demonstration spaces. One day, justice is abhorring violence down to the microaggression. On another, justice is justified violence. One day, their “justice” will be coming for you.

The social justice warrior is wrong. People are good, and can come to the right decisions on their own. Some people may make bad choices, but no one is predisposed to being a bigot by birth. Disagreement, and even asking questions, does not by default make anyone a racist or phobic. Intellectual honesty requires people to be human, make mistakes, and resist thought conformity. Diversity for the sake of diversity is racist. But as MLK said, diversity as a product of a true desire to shift focus from the color of one’s skin to the content of one’s character is genuine societal progress.

We cannot let SJW’s define justice. We cannot let them divide us into ideological “in” and “out” groups. Racism, sexism, bigotry—these are indeed all ailments of society that should be resisted. But these things only hide in different forms under the groupthink of the social justice movement. Anyone that attempts to tell you what justice is does not know the meaning. Justice herself is blind to her own form. Justice is a product of a free people, living in a free society, exchanging information openly on the college campus and elsewhere, and using their own moral compasses to individually weigh each circumstance as it comes before them for the right and wrong decision.



By Bryan Griffin

Noncompliance of the Condorcet Criterion: Does Plurality Voting Justify a Contested Convention?

Screenshot (40)

In the current election, spectators have often wondered why someone like Trump, who has a 64% negative rating by likely voters according to the latest WSJ/NBC poll, has been dominating the primary season so far. For political scientists the answer is simple: plurality voting is not Condorcet compliant. In political science, a Condorcet method, is one in which a candidate that wins in a 1v1 matchup with each of the other candidates wins overall. If such a candidate exists, that person is called the Condorcet winner. Furthermore, a Condorcet loser is a candidate who loses to each opposing candidate in a 1v1 matchup, and the Condorcet criterion says that if such a candidate exists, he cannot win. If these criterion are satisfied, then the voting system is what is known as Condorcet consistent. Trump is a Condorcet loser because he loses to every other candidate in a head-to-head matchup. The question thus arises, do the flaws of plurality voting justify losing candidates remaining in the race past their point of feasible victory, in pursuit of a contested convention? First, I digress.


Condorcet winners and losers are very simple concepts in their most basic sense but are really difficult to apply to the United States system. The Condorcet criterion is an extension on majority rule and is compliant in majoritarian voting systems. In terms of this election the Condorcet loser violates the majority loser criterion because a majority of voters prefers every candidate one-on-one to Trump but Trump still wins. This is a great example of noncompliance of plurality voting to the Condorcet method. Here it doesn’t work because of the plurality. Trump can beat the lot when the entire field of candidates exists (by a margin of about 14 points).

Read more

John Kasich is Bothering Me


As of Sunday March 13, 2016, There are 1,368 delegates left to be won in the Republican presidential primaries. It takes 1,237 delegates to lock up the party’s nomination. Ohio Governor John Kasich has currently won 63 delegates, leaving him needing 1,174 more delegates to win the nomination. Now, 17 of the 30 states/territories remaining in the primary election season have winner-take-all delegate election systems, meaning candidates who win those states take all of the delegates from that state. Those 17 winner-take-all states comprise 901 of the delegates remaining. So basically, in order for John Kasich to win the nomination pre-Convention, he would need to win every single winner-take-all state and then on top of that dominate in the states with proportional delegate election systems. In other words, there’s a 0% chance John Kasich wins the nomination before the National Convention. Actually, given just how low Kasich is in the polls, it can be stated with 100% surety that Kasich will not even be able to take the lead either. Marco Rubio is on the verge of being in both of these categories too.


Yet, Kasich claimed as late as February 28th that if he wins Ohio he’s “off to the races.” Then last Friday, March 11th at an MSNBC town hall, he claimed that he can “absolutely win enough and go into the convention with the greatest number of delegates,” and reaffirmed, “That absolutely can happen.” Um, no Governor Kasich, no it can’t and you are not serving the American people well by telling them it can.

Read more

Statistical Outlook: Can the GOP Candidates Really Beat Hillary?

meta-chart (1)

(In the graph above, anything below zero means Hillary loses)

All the GOP candidates say that they beat Hillary in the polls. This is true and untrue. It’s true because each has at least one major poll that has them beating Hillary in the general election, it’s untrue because they disregard average margin of error, which is based on sample size. The only one who REALLY has a legitimate claim is Marco Rubio, who even only slightly exceeds the average margin of error. My point is this: it’s a virtual tie across the board  right now between any GOP candidate and Hillary. As a note, there is almost no polling data on a Kasich v. Clinton general election, so he’s discluded from this. Let’s run it down:


Trump vs. Hillary:


Trump beats Hillary in one of the last six major polls. In all, the average of the polls gives Hillary a +6.3 lead. The average margin of error is 3.13, For a percentage interval of +3.17 – +9.43 for Hillary. Trump fares worse than the other GOP candidates, and yet in terms of electoral history, this too is a virtual tie.

Read more

Super Tuesday Breakdown: Trump and Clinton Dominate

Here’s the likely winners for Super Tuesday states with avg. of polls lead in parenthesis:

GOP primaries:

Alabama: Trump (+17)

Georgia: Trump (+14)

Tennessee: Trump (+18)

Oklahoma: Trump (+11)

Massachusetts: Trump (+27)

Vermont: Trump (+15)

Virginia: Trump (+15)

Alaska: Trump or Cruz (Trump + 4 but only from one poll)

Arkansas: Trump or Cruz (Cruz +4)

Minnesota: Rubio (+2 but only from one poll)

Colorado: Trump or Rubio (Carson led in last major poll from Nov)

Wyoming: Any

Texas: Cruz or Trump (Cruz +9)


Democratic primaries:

Alabama: Clinton (+48)

Georgia: Clinton (+37)

Tennessee: Clinton (+26)

Oklahoma: Clinton or Sanders (Clinton +2)

Massachusetts: Clinton or Sanders (Clinton +7)

Vermont: Sanders (+74)

Virginia: Clinton (+22)

Arkansas: Clinton (+29)

Minnesota: Clinton (+34)

Colorado: Clinton (+28 but last major poll from Nov)

Texas: Clinton (+30)


Liberal Leaders Meet in D.C. to Discuss Rising Violent Crime in Their Cities


So there was a meeting in D.C. about two weeks ago to discuss the stark rise in violent crime over the past year, especially in cities with liberal policies and mayors. The conclusion: police are “cowering” because of the war against them. And it’s true. Why would NYPD officers put themselves at risk for a leader like de Blasio who doesn’t stick up for them and has even attacked them? In general liberal leaders across the country have destroyed police morale and are contributing to the crumbling of American society. They need to be removed from office, because we are all in danger under their failed leadership. Police killings are fairly rare. Murder in general is not though; Nor is rape, or violent assault. These crimes are all skyrocketing under liberal leadership. But no one cares about the victims of these crimes. All anyone cares about is the rare unjustified police shooting. And so the mob has been riled up against the police under false pretenses. We get the society we deserve.

An Open Letter to Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois


Dear Sen. Mark Kirk,

You have violated the American public by voting against de-funding Planned Parenthood. The issue is not about abortion, it’s about basic human values. Taxpayer funds are going to an organization that might possibly be in violation of federal law and who are clearly callous and despicable when it comes to the treatment of human life. It is horrifying that Americans are being forced to give their hard-earned money to them. You knew very well that there was a provision in the bill that rerouted the funding Planned Parenthood is receiving to other community health centers and you are being purposely dishonest with the American people when you claim that de-funding Planned Parenthood would “cut access to basic healthcare and contraception for women.” The staff at Planned Parenthood themselves often refer women to other doctors where they can get actual care. Again, you KNEW this when you voted but you still chose to let down the American people for the sake of your own reelection interests. This country has a rising “progressive far left” constituency, a President in power who is destroying American exceptionalism and the free market, and an educational system that trains students to hate this country. Those of us who still believe in American values (many of whom elected you into office) can use every helping hand we can get. You Senator, failed us. What was seen on those videos shocked humans across the country and world, pro-life and pro-choice alike. What those Planned Parenthood doctors said is a direct product of the loss of American principles and of the disintegration of the value of human life. I know that your vote might not have turned the tide but it would have shown that you stand for justice and for restoring this country to the land of compassion and prosperity that it was created to be. The men who founded this country dreamed of a land where people would rise up to lead this country out of their own benevolence. I believe they would be shocked and appalled to see what has manifested in Washington, D.C. today and they certainly would not respect a man who violates American integrity and humanity for the sake of his own benefit. I am only one disappointed American, but I can promise you there are many more, and if there is any justice left in this country, you will be voted out of office come your next election.


Ben Ryan

Columbia University


Please, For the Sake of Human Values, Let Us Not Turn From This


America is facing a horrific scandal. No, this is not about Cecil the Lion (though certainly a troublesome story in its own right), instead this is about something a whole lot darker and more depraved. This is not the story of one man’s psychotic lust for animal heads on his wall, but of an entire system of ethics and morals gone awry. Yes, it’s time for Griffwood to cover the Planned Parenthood scandal, because hardly anyone else will give it a thorough examination.

As you may or may not know the Center For Medical Progress, an anti-abortion organization, recently conducted a sting in which it sent actors to pose as buyers of fetal tissue interested in obtaining specimens from Planned Parenthood (an organization that receives hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars every year). The “buyers” met with Planned Parenthood higher-ups and engaged them in discussions about the costs and techniques involved in the transfer of the fetal parts. All of it was secretly recorded on video and what transpired in the conversations shocked people across the country on both sides of the political aisle.

In this video we see Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola happily nosh away at her food and sip wine as she casually describes the techniques Planned Parenthood Doctors use during abortions to avoid “crushing” fetuses, in order to remove the parts more intact: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.” We also see her explain how the Federal Law banning partial-birth abortions is up for “interpretation” and seems to imply that some fetuses could be coming out alive.

Read more