Social Justice Warrior 'Numskulls' Give Themselves Too Much Credit

What's in a name? A lot if it's Social Justice Warrior, aka, SJW, hypocrite, numskull, paid "volunteer," thin-skinned moron and over-privileged whiner --- for starters.

Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program, Doc and Skip from The Morning Blaze filled in for Glenn with a few choice words of their own on the hypocrisy of these so-called "warriors."

"You're a social justice warrior? Listen, numskulls, you might be giving yourself just a little bit too much credit. And by that, you're definitely giving yourself too much credit," Doc said.

RELATED: Stever Crowder Unloads on Social Justice Warrior

Doc was shocked at their over-inflated sense of self-importance --- and ticked off at their ignorance.

"It's just amazing to me that these people have the audacity to bitch in America about all of the inequalities between races, religions, genders. They go off on all this stuff. Meanwhile, America may be the best place in the world as far as equality between races, genders, religions, whatever," Doc said.

While America is up in arms about who can use what bathroom based on gender identity, other parts of the world are throwing gay men from buildings and stoning women to death.

"There are headlines every day about the horrible things that happen around the world, not just to Christians, but to Muslims," Doc said. "ISIS is killing Muslims, right? You're not Muslim enough. What about the way women are treated in parts of the world? And you social justice warriors have the audacity to tell me I'm not doing enough? Like the notion of, well, we're so biased in America."

Based on the issue of race alone, America is way ahead of the curve. Doc noted the opening ceremonies for the 2012 Olympics, in which each country was represented by their dominant race --- Chinese for China, Africans for Nigeria --- while the U.S. was represented by a rainbow of color.

"It gets to the point of saying that we're not enough of a melting pot... I mean, are we not going to be happy in America until there is a perfectly equal distribution --- I mean, 12 percent white, 12 percent black, 12 percent Chinese? Where does it end?" Skip asked.

As a fully functioning contributor of society, real life settles in and there just isn't time to worry about all this nonsense.

"I have so much other stuff going on in my life. And by that, I mean my wife and mother-in-law nagging me to get stuff done. I don't have time for this." Doc said.

It's obvious who does have time to stir up trouble where it doesn't exist in great measure.

"I guess these social justice warriors fancy themselves as a warrior. It's almost to the point --- what are they, like superheroes or something?" Dock said.

No, just self-identified "warriors" with a skewed sense of reality and an overabundant amount of time on their hands.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

Featured Image: So-called "social justice warriors" at Brown University.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

DOC: Doc and Skip in for Glenn today. We're regularly heard on TheBlaze Radio Network. For more information on us, you can go to theblaze.com/Doc. That's TheBlaze.com/Doc.

We're talking about social justice warriors. And the failure of not only name, but of attitude. Is this the big progressive movement right now on college campuses. All across -- the little movements, whatever they are. Whether it's Black Lives Matter. Whatever they call themselves. Social justice warriors. SJWs.

And it's just amazing to me that these people have the audacity to bitch in America about all of the inequalities between races, religions, genders. They go off on all these stuff. Meanwhile, America may be the best place in the world as far as equality between races, genders, religions, whatever. I mean, we're at least in the top, would you agree?

SKIP: No, truly. We're having a big fight in America about what bathroom you can use based off what you identify with. When tonight, today, there's going to be a gay person thrown off a building in the Middle East. There's going to be a woman who is stoned to death for looking at somebody that she shouldn't have been looking at.

DOC: So, Skip, even if they believe -- these knuckleheads -- these social justice warriors believe that they have to do more -- America has to do more. Okay. Even if you believe that, and we do more, how much of a change is that? Very incremental change right now. Versus, hey, we're social justice warriors, and we got Iran to stop throwing people off the roofs if they're gay. That's a pretty big change, right? That's like -- Skip, you want to lose weight, and you lose, you know, 4 or 5 pounds. You know, you trim up a little bit. But you have the guy that's, hey, Jerry Springer, come rescue me. Cut the wall out of my house and get me out because I'm 700 pounds. Right? He loses 500 pounds. That's more of a significant change.

SKIP: That's going to have a bigger net swing with the pendulum of fairness or equality.

DOC: Right. Or health, in that case.

SKIP: Or health. Exactly. But, no, they want to come over here and say that America is filled with bigots because there are some people that are concerned about somebody who will take a loophole in a law about a bathroom to be a pervert.

DOC: There are headlines every day about the horrible things that happen around the world, not just to Christians, but to Muslims. ISIS is killing Muslims, right? You're not Muslim enough. You're not doing what we say. They're extremist. In this case, you have a 70-year-old woman who is stripped naked and paraded through the streets after being beaten because a mob went after a bunch of Christian households in Egypt because a -- a Christian man was dating a Muslim woman, or so they believed. And the place went crazy.

Where is the equality there? For the Christian? For the old woman? What about that? What about the way women are treated in parts of the world? And you social justice warrior have the audacity to tell me I'm not doing enough?

Like the notion of, well, we're so biased in America. There's so much racism. Look how divided we are. You know, there's no equality in America among races.

Have you ever looked around at other countries? You know what Chinese people have almost exclusively? Asian people.

SKIP: It's your Olympic analogy that put it perfectly in my mind that blew my mind. In fact, I think it was 2012. We were watching the London Olympics. Opening ceremonies. And you made the brilliant point of, take a look at the Chinese team. It's all Chinese people.

DOC: All Chinese.

SKIP: Okay. The Nigerian team.

DOC: All black.

SKIP: Huh. A bunch of black people. And then you see the American team. And you have this coloring book.

DOC: Melting pot.

SKIP: Tall, short, black, white, Chinese. I mean, any color.

DOC: And we get no credit. We're still labeled the racists by these social justice --

SKIP: Not even that we don't get credit, but the fact that we're still this horrible place.

DOC: Yeah.

SKIP: That's worthy --

DOC: Oh, yeah, the unforgivable sin of slavery or whatever.

SKIP: It's amazing.

DOC: How about going after those? You're straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel.

SKIP: It gets to the point of saying that we're not enough of a melting pot. And again, that's the same thing with my previous question about, how much acknowledgment do you have to give to your whiteness or your privilege? How much equality do we need? How much -- I mean, are we not going to be happy in America until there is a perfectly equal distribution of -- I mean, 12 percent white, 12 percent black, 12 percent Chinese? Where does it end?

DOC: No, no, because the pendulum will swing back, and they'll say, in some cases, this minority will be doing better. You're limiting them to 12 percent. That's what they'll end up saying. It will never end, because it's not really about race or gender or religion. It's about control from these people.

I have one more clip from this Portland Community College and their Whiteness History Month. I want you to hear a little bit more of their attitude. Portland Community College.

VOICE: Black or other, we'll always talk about the white guy smile.

(inaudible)

Like awkward smile. And it's kind of like, well, what are you supposed to do? I smile at everybody, but then -- so now I'm conscious about that, when I do the white guy smile.

SKIP: The white guy smile. This is what she's going to bring up. She's saying she's from -- it's a little hard to hear that clip too. She's from a multi-ethnic background too. A mixed race family. And they're always wondering too about how they should be able to react like when you see a black person on the street, when you try to cross a street, if that's going to --

DOC: How do you react when you see -- oh, my stars, a Negro. Like from Blast From the Past. You know how you react? You don't. It's a non-issue. Black, white, Asian on the street, it doesn't matter.

SKIP: But coming out and saying she has to be concerned that she's giving the white guy smile. You know, it's not a sincere. Oh, I'm smiling because I'm supposed to smile. No, I don't have a problem with you being black or any other ethnicity. But I'm white, and I want to make sure that I'm not giving that white guy smile. Because I'm concerned with my white fragility as well.

DOC: Unbelievable. You know what this is, I think this is people that have that white guilt. It's playing on them. It's not me. But they want to extend it to all people. They don't want to be the one that is thinking to themselves, oh, I have to offer this uncomfortable white person smile or whatever. When the rest of us are like, okay, I got crap to do. I have to do this when I get home. I got to whatever. Oh, the wife is texting me. What did I screw up now? That's what I'm going through in my day.

SKIP: Beyond that, I don't deal with any white guilt or anything. I don't care about race.

DOC: I have so much other stuff going on in my life. And by that, I mean my wife and mother-in-law nagging me to get stuff done. I don't have time for this. All day, it's either checking stuff off the list or nagging me for this. I'm cutting strawberries the wrong way. Really? Seriously? This is the type of stuff -- yeah, cutting strawberries the wrong way. That was the one a couple weeks ago. How do you cut strawberries the wrong way? Anyway, that's what I have going on. I'm not worried about, oh, there's a black person. No, it's just, hey, there's a person. I guess these social justice warriors fancy themselves as a warrior -- it's almost to the point -- what are they, like superheroes or something? Is that what it is?

VOICE: In the dead of night, a lonely telephone rings, deep within the lair of solitude. In his parent's basement.

VOICE: Don't judge me, I'm paying off my student loans.

VOICE: When you're at the end of your rope, who is on the other end of the line?

VOICE: Social Justice Warrior here.

VOICE: Social Justice Warrior. The mild-mannered, politically correct, not offensive, progressive superhero.

VOICE: That's me.

VOICE: Called upon by the oppressed to fight social injustice, income inequality, and occasionally scurvy. Social justice warrior, defender of progressive enlightenment. #Socialjusticewarrior.

VOICE: Together with my social justice league superheroes, The Free Lantern, Tax Man and Robin, Hermaphroditey, and Irony Man.

VOICE: Tune in next time when we hear Social Justice Warrior say...

VOICE: Feel the Bern, baby.

VOICE: Only on the Doc Thompson show.

EXPOSED: Why Eisenhower warned us about endless wars

PAUL J. RICHARDS / Staff | Getty Images

Donald Trump emphasizes peace through strength, reminding the world that the United States is willing to fight to win. That’s beyond ‘defense.’

President Donald Trump made headlines this week by signaling a rebrand of the Defense Department — restoring its original name, the Department of War.

At first, I was skeptical. “Defense” suggests restraint, a principle I consider vital to U.S. foreign policy. “War” suggests aggression. But for the first 158 years of the republic, that was the honest name: the Department of War.

A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

The founders never intended a permanent standing army. When conflict came — the Revolution, the War of 1812, the trenches of France, the beaches of Normandy — the nation called men to arms, fought, and then sent them home. Each campaign was temporary, targeted, and necessary.

From ‘war’ to ‘military-industrial complex’

Everything changed in 1947. President Harry Truman — facing the new reality of nuclear weapons, global tension, and two world wars within 20 years — established a full-time military and rebranded the Department of War as the Department of Defense. Americans resisted; we had never wanted a permanent army. But Truman convinced the country it was necessary.

Was the name change an early form of political correctness? A way to soften America’s image as a global aggressor? Or was it simply practical? Regardless, the move created a permanent, professional military. But it also set the stage for something Truman’s successor, President Dwight “Ike” Eisenhower, famously warned about: the military-industrial complex.

Ike, the five-star general who commanded Allied forces in World War II and stormed Normandy, delivered a harrowing warning during his farewell address: The military-industrial complex would grow powerful. Left unchecked, it could influence policy and push the nation toward unnecessary wars.

And that’s exactly what happened. The Department of Defense, with its full-time and permanent army, began spending like there was no tomorrow. Weapons were developed, deployed, and sometimes used simply to justify their existence.

Peace through strength

When Donald Trump said this week, “I don’t want to be defense only. We want defense, but we want offense too,” some people freaked out. They called him a warmonger. He isn’t. Trump is channeling a principle older than him: peace through strength. Ronald Reagan preached it; Trump is taking it a step further.

Just this week, Trump also suggested limiting nuclear missiles — hardly the considerations of a warmonger — echoing Reagan, who wanted to remove missiles from silos while keeping them deployable on planes.

The seemingly contradictory move of Trump calling for a Department of War sends a clear message: He wants Americans to recognize that our military exists not just for defense, but to project power when necessary.

Trump has pointed to something critically important: The best way to prevent war is to have a leader who knows exactly who he is and what he will do. Trump signals strength, deterrence, and resolve. You want to negotiate? Great. You don’t? Then we’ll finish the fight decisively.

That’s why the world listens to us. That’s why nations come to the table — not because Trump is reckless, but because he means what he says and says what he means. Peace under weakness invites aggression. Peace under strength commands respect.

Trump is the most anti-war president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter. But unlike Carter, Trump isn’t weak. Carter’s indecision emboldened enemies and made the world less safe. Trump’s strength makes the country stronger. He believes in peace as much as any president. But he knows peace requires readiness for war.

Names matter

When we think of “defense,” we imagine cybersecurity, spy programs, and missile shields. But when we think of “war,” we recall its harsh reality: death, destruction, and national survival. Trump is reminding us what the Department of Defense is really for: war. Not nation-building, not diplomacy disguised as military action, not endless training missions. War — full stop.

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Names matter. Words matter. They shape identity and character. A Department of Defense implies passivity, a posture of reaction. A Department of War recognizes the truth: The military exists to fight and, if necessary, to win decisively.

So yes, I’ve changed my mind. I’m for the rebranding to the Department of War. It shows strength to the world. It reminds Americans, internally and externally, of the reality we face. The Department of Defense can no longer be a euphemism. Our military exists for war — not without deterrence, but not without strength either. And we need to stop deluding ourselves.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Censorship, spying, lies—The Deep State’s web finally unmasked

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

From surveillance abuse to censorship, the deep state used state power and private institutions to suppress dissent and influence two US elections.

The term “deep state” has long been dismissed as the province of cranks and conspiracists. But the recent declassification of two critical documents — the Durham annex, released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and a report publicized by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard — has rendered further denial untenable.

These documents lay bare the structure and function of a bureaucratic, semi-autonomous network of agencies, contractors, nonprofits, and media entities that together constitute a parallel government operating alongside — and at times in opposition to — the duly elected one.

The ‘deep state’ is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment.

The disclosures do not merely recount past abuses; they offer a schematic of how modern influence operations are conceived, coordinated, and deployed across domestic and international domains.

What they reveal is not a rogue element operating in secret, but a systematized apparatus capable of shaping elections, suppressing dissent, and laundering narratives through a transnational network of intelligence, academia, media, and philanthropic institutions.

Narrative engineering from the top

According to Gabbard’s report, a pivotal moment occurred on December 9, 2016, when the Obama White House convened its national security leadership in the Situation Room. Attendees included CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others.

During this meeting, the consensus view up to that point — that Russia had not manipulated the election outcome — was subordinated to new instructions.

The record states plainly: The intelligence community was directed to prepare an assessment “per the President’s request” that would frame Russia as the aggressor and then-presidential candidate Donald Trump as its preferred candidate. Notably absent was any claim that new intelligence had emerged. The motivation was political, not evidentiary.

This maneuver became the foundation for the now-discredited 2017 intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference. From that point on, U.S. intelligence agencies became not neutral evaluators of fact but active participants in constructing a public narrative designed to delegitimize the incoming administration.

Institutional and media coordination

The ODNI report and the Durham annex jointly describe a feedback loop in which intelligence is laundered through think tanks and nongovernmental organizations, then cited by media outlets as “independent verification.” At the center of this loop are agencies like the CIA, FBI, and ODNI; law firms such as Perkins Coie; and NGOs such as the Open Society Foundations.

According to the Durham annex, think tanks including the Atlantic Council, the Carnegie Endowment, and the Center for a New American Security were allegedly informed of Clinton’s 2016 plan to link Trump to Russia. These institutions, operating under the veneer of academic independence, helped diffuse the narrative into public discourse.

Media coordination was not incidental. On the very day of the aforementioned White House meeting, the Washington Post published a front-page article headlined “Obama Orders Review of Russian Hacking During Presidential Campaign” — a story that mirrored the internal shift in official narrative. The article marked the beginning of a coordinated media campaign that would amplify the Trump-Russia collusion narrative throughout the transition period.

Surveillance and suppression

Surveillance, once limited to foreign intelligence operations, was turned inward through the abuse of FISA warrants. The Steele dossier — funded by the Clinton campaign via Perkins Coie and Fusion GPS — served as the basis for wiretaps on Trump affiliates, despite being unverified and partially discredited. The FBI even altered emails to facilitate the warrants.

ROBYN BECK / Contributor | Getty Images

This capacity for internal subversion reappeared in 2020, when 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter labeling the Hunter Biden laptop story as “Russian disinformation.” According to polling, 79% of Americans believed truthful coverage of the laptop could have altered the election. The suppression of that story — now confirmed as authentic — was election interference, pure and simple.

A machine, not a ‘conspiracy theory’

The deep state is a self-reinforcing institutional machine — a decentralized, global bureaucracy whose members share ideological alignment and strategic goals.

Each node — law firms, think tanks, newsrooms, federal agencies — operates with plausible deniability. But taken together, they form a matrix of influence capable of undermining electoral legitimacy and redirecting national policy without democratic input.

The ODNI report and the Durham annex mark the first crack in the firewall shielding this machine. They expose more than a political scandal buried in the past. They lay bare a living system of elite coordination — one that demands exposure, confrontation, and ultimately dismantling.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's proposal explained: Ukraine's path to peace without NATO expansion

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / Contributor | Getty Images

Strategic compromise, not absolute victory, often ensures lasting stability.

When has any country been asked to give up land it won in a war? Even if a nation is at fault, the punishment must be measured.

After World War I, Germany, the main aggressor, faced harsh penalties under the Treaty of Versailles. Germans resented the restrictions, and that resentment fueled the rise of Adolf Hitler, ultimately leading to World War II. History teaches that justice for transgressions must avoid creating conditions for future conflict.

Ukraine and Russia must choose to either continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

Russia and Ukraine now stand at a similar crossroads. They can cling to disputed land and prolong a devastating war, or they can make concessions that might secure a lasting peace. The stakes could not be higher: Tens of thousands die each month, and the choice between endless bloodshed and negotiated stability hinges on each side’s willingness to yield.

History offers a guide. In 1967, Israel faced annihilation. Surrounded by hostile armies, the nation fought back and seized large swaths of territory from Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Yet Israel did not seek an empire. It held only the buffer zones needed for survival and returned most of the land. Security and peace, not conquest, drove its decisions.

Peace requires concessions

Secretary of State Marco Rubio says both Russia and Ukraine will need to “get something” from a peace deal. He’s right. Israel proved that survival outweighs pride. By giving up land in exchange for recognition and an end to hostilities, it stopped the cycle of war. Egypt and Israel have not fought in more than 50 years.

Russia and Ukraine now press opposing security demands. Moscow wants a buffer to block NATO. Kyiv, scarred by invasion, seeks NATO membership — a pledge that any attack would trigger collective defense by the United States and Europe.

President Donald Trump and his allies have floated a middle path: an Article 5-style guarantee without full NATO membership. Article 5, the core of NATO’s charter, declares that an attack on one is an attack on all. For Ukraine, such a pledge would act as a powerful deterrent. For Russia, it might be more palatable than NATO expansion to its border

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

Peace requires concessions. The human cost is staggering: U.S. estimates indicate 20,000 Russian soldiers died in a single month — nearly half the total U.S. casualties in Vietnam — and the toll on Ukrainians is also severe. To stop this bloodshed, both sides need to recognize reality on the ground, make difficult choices, and anchor negotiations in security and peace rather than pride.

Peace or bloodshed?

Both Russia and Ukraine claim deep historical grievances. Ukraine arguably has a stronger claim of injustice. But the question is not whose parchment is older or whose deed is more valid. The question is whether either side is willing to trade some land for the lives of thousands of innocent people. True security, not historical vindication, must guide the path forward.

History shows that punitive measures or rigid insistence on territorial claims can perpetuate cycles of war. Germany’s punishment after World War I contributed directly to World War II. By contrast, Israel’s willingness to cede land for security and recognition created enduring peace. Ukraine and Russia now face the same choice: Continue the cycle of bloodshed or make difficult compromises in pursuit of survival and stability.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

The loneliness epidemic: Are machines replacing human connection?

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Seniors, children, and the isolated increasingly rely on machines for conversation, risking real relationships and the emotional depth that only humans provide.

Jill Smola is 75 years old. She’s a retiree from Orlando, Florida, and she spent her life caring for the elderly. She played games, assembled puzzles, and offered company to those who otherwise would have sat alone.

Now, she sits alone herself. Her husband has died. She has a lung condition. She can’t drive. She can’t leave her home. Weeks can pass without human interaction.

Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

But CBS News reports that she has a new companion. And she likes this companion more than her own daughter.

The companion? Artificial intelligence.

She spends five hours a day talking to her AI friend. They play games, do trivia, and just talk. She says she even prefers it to real people.

My first thought was simple: Stop this. We are losing our humanity.

But as I sat with the story, I realized something uncomfortable. Maybe we’ve already lost some of our humanity — not to AI, but to ourselves.

Outsourcing presence

How often do we know the right thing to do yet fail to act? We know we should visit the lonely. We know we should sit with someone in pain. We know what Jesus would do: Notice the forgotten, touch the untouchable, offer time and attention without outsourcing compassion.

Yet how often do we just … talk about it? On the radio, online, in lectures, in posts. We pontificate, and then we retreat.

I asked myself: What am I actually doing to close the distance between knowing and doing?

Human connection is messy. It’s inconvenient. It takes patience, humility, and endurance. AI doesn’t challenge you. It doesn’t interrupt your day. It doesn’t ask anything of you. Real people do. Real people make us confront our pride, our discomfort, our loneliness.

We’ve built an economy of convenience. We can have groceries delivered, movies streamed, answers instantly. But friendships — real relationships — are slow, inefficient, unpredictable. They happen in the blank spaces of life that we’ve been trained to ignore.

And now we’re replacing that inefficiency with machines.

AI provides comfort without challenge. It eliminates the risk of real intimacy. It’s an elegant coping mechanism for loneliness, but a poor substitute for life. If we’re not careful, the lonely won’t just be alone — they’ll be alone with an anesthetic, a shadow that never asks for anything, never interrupts, never makes them grow.

Reclaiming our humanity

We need to reclaim our humanity. Presence matters. Not theory. Not outrage. Action.

It starts small. Pull up a chair for someone who eats alone. Call a neighbor you haven’t spoken to in months. Visit a nursing home once a month — then once a week. Ask their names, hear their stories. Teach your children how to be present, to sit with someone in grief, without rushing to fix it.

Turn phones off at dinner. Make Sunday afternoons human time. Listen. Ask questions. Don’t post about it afterward. Make the act itself sacred.

Humility is central. We prefer machines because we can control them. Real people are inconvenient. They interrupt our narratives. They demand patience, forgiveness, and endurance. They make us confront ourselves.

A friend will challenge your self-image. A chatbot won’t.

Our homes are quieter. Our streets are emptier. Loneliness is an epidemic. And AI will not fix it. It will only dull the edges and make a diminished life tolerable.

Before we worry about how AI will reshape humanity, we must first practice humanity. It can start with 15 minutes a day of undivided attention, presence, and listening.

Change usually comes when pain finally wins. Let’s not wait for that. Let’s start now. Because real connection restores faster than any machine ever will.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.