Spend any amount of time in California, and a new foreign word will enter your vocabulary: Untermenschen.      

In German, this means “subhumans.”   

Or “Unters,” for short.

California has a population of nearly 40 million people—and has nearly one-third of the nation’s “homeless” population. The majority of that population consists of hardcore drug addicts, hardcore alcoholics, the mentally ill, and those who refuse to work for a living.

In short: Druggies, Drunks, Mentals and Bums—or DDMBs.  

And their numbers are growing much faster in California than in other states, according to an analysis of federal data by the Public Policy Institute of California.

Tent encampments block pedestrians from walking along sidewalks. And when pedestrians aren’t contending with tents, they’re forced to navigate around empty beer cans, empty wine bottles, piles of human feces, pools of human urine and used hypodermic syringes.

California’s Governor, Gavin Newsom, has a plan for addressing this catastrophe. He will ask allies in the Democratic-controlled Legislature for a measure on the 2024 ballot to authorize funding to build residential facilities where up to 12,000 people a year could live and be treated.    

But 12,000 is essentially meaningless when the numbers of Untermenschen in California are estimated at 171,000.   

And how much does Newsom want to spend on people who make absolutely no positive contribution to society?  From $3 billion to $5 billion.

The money would partially come from general obligation bonds that would go toward construction of “campus-style” facilities along with smaller homes and long-term residential settings.

“Modernizing” California’s Mental Health Services Act is another goal of Newsom’s office. It would cost at least $1 billion every year for housing, treating drug abuse and providing other services.

  Gavin Newsom 

On March 16, Newsom announced a plan to spend about $30 million to build 1,200 small homes across the state to help house people living on the streets. The homes can be assembled quickly and cost a fraction of what it takes to build permanent housing. Federal courts have ruled cities can’t clear homeless encampments if there are no shelter beds available.

This is a difficult time for California. The state has an estimated $22.5 billion deficit, with state revenues falling as the stock market slows.

And many Californians are convinced the state is headed in the wrong direction. After years of growth, the state’s population has been dropping.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California’s total population declined by more than 500,000 between April 2020 and July 2022. California is one of only 18 states that saw its numbers decline and had the fourth biggest drop as a share of its population.

The reasons: They’re seeking more affordable homes and a better quality of life.

And a major reason for their unhappiness:  The state’s intractable “homeless” problem.

Decades ago, being “homeless” meant you lost your home due to fire, flood or earthquake. For a few weeks or months, you lived with friends or family as you searched for a new residence. Then you resumed your former life as a productive citizen. 

Today, being “homeless” means living for years—even decades—on the street. Selling drugs, using drugs, getting drunk, staying drunk, living in filth, refusing treatment for drug and/or alcohol addiction, refusing even shelter from the cold, rain and terrors of street life—these are the realities of most of today’s “homeless” population. 

To fully understand the consequences of this, one needs only to look at what this population has done to San Francisco.

In 2022, the San Francisco “homeless” population was officially estimated to be 7,754. Of these, 3,357 were staying in shelter. Many of those who could find shelter refused to make use of it—or were refused entry due to their rampant drug and/or alcohol addictions.

If it’s a mystery why so many people would prefer to live on the streets—especially during a cold and rainy winter—it’s equally mystifying why so many politicians cater to this population.

Politicians are notorious for “going where the votes are.”

Thus, during his first meeting with Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin (November 28 – December 1, 1943) in Tehran, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said he could not openly support Stalin’s ambitions to conquer Poland.

The reason: The 1944 Presidential election was fast approaching. And Poles made up a substantial portion of the voters FDR needed to win a fourth—and unprecedented—term. He could not afford to alienate them.

Yet drug addicts, alcoholics, the mentally ill and bums are infamous for not showing up at the polls on Election Day. So what can be the reason San Francisco politicians cater so fervently to this population?

In his 2021 bestseller, San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities, author Michael Shellenberger provides the answer. 

According to its dust jacket:

“Progressives claimed they knew how to solve homelessness, inequality, and crime. But in cities they control, progressives made those problems worse.

“Michael Shellenberger has lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for thirty years. During that time, he advocated for the decriminalization of drugs, affordable housing, and alternatives to jail and prison.

“But as homeless encampments spread, and overdose deaths skyrocketed, Shellenberger decided to take a closer look at the problem. What he discovered shocked him. The problems had grown worse not despite but because of progressive policies.”