VIDEO: Red Tide Rising

Yesterday, a protest was held in Aurora, Colorado demanding abolishment of (1)  U.S. borders and (2) the Immigration & Customs Enforcement administration. Over the last three years, thousands of similar anti-ICE, anti-border demonstrations have been held across America, all of which have been supported by leading Democrats.

Here is a link to a video posted by a group known as the Party for Socialism and Liberation/Denverone of the many Democrat front groups that took part in the protest. To make sure its Marxist ideology doesn’t go unnoticed, PSL/D’s Facebook reads “building a worker’s party in the heartland of world imperialism.” The group’s name incorporates the word socialism, but the communist flag flown at its protest shows that to this anti-American group, socialism and communism are heads of the same snake.

The demonstration was also attended by other openly communist Democrat front groups, including Rocky Mountain Antifa and Denver Communists. In this short video, a member of Denver Communists affirms that the protesters are demanding elimination of U.S. borders and an end to enforcement of U.S. immigration law.

A screengrab of Denver Communists Facebook shows members of the group carrying a banner demanding no borders and no nations. A borderless world without nations represents the culmination of the communist dream of a world united under the banner of the hammer and sickle. For that dream to be realized, the sovereignty of the United States must be yielded to an international governing body run by the UN, an organization dominated from top to bottom by communists.

Occupy Denver is another anti-capitalist group that participated in the demonstration. Hundreds of Occupy affiliates are active in cities towns and campuses across America. Like other Democrat identity politics groups, Occupy affiliates are openly pro-communist—Occupy Denver’s Facebook contains an image of the Raised Fist, one of communism’s most recognizable call to arms. When Occupy protests burst on the scene in 2011, President Obama (“We are on their side”) and Nancy Pelosi (“God bless them”) openly supported the nationwide movement, as did the rest of the Democratic Party.

The people shown in the images above—and millions more like them—have three things in common:

►They all are Americans.
►They all are revolutionary communists committed to overthrowing America’s two-party capitalist system.
►They all fully support, and are fully supported by, the modern Democratic Party. I do not say that to be inflammatory; I say it because it is true.

The red tide of communism is rising in America. Whether it succeeds in overwhelming our constitutional republic will be determined by the 2020 elections. Click here to see the stark choice voters will face.

How you vote matters.

Democrats’ and Medias’ Evil Mission to Divide Americans

Watching this year’s 9-11 remembrances on TV, it was heartwarming to hear commentators repeatedly use “we” and “our” when referring to Americans and America. Commentators said on September 11, 2001, “our” country was viciously attacked by Islamist terrorists. They said, “we” came together as a nation. A WWII vet said the unity of our nation on 9-11 felt the same to him as it did during WWII.

Rather than unifying Americans, each 2020 Democrat presidential candidate is campaigning on dividing us into bogus victimized voting blocs. They seek to convince every American that they are a victim in one way or another; a victim of racism, sexism, white privilege, environmental racism, income inequality and so on. The tag team of Democrats and fake news media are promoting the insane lie that the earth will be uninhabitable in 12 years unless we elect a Democrat president.

Delusional Democrats and fake news media actually believe they can win the White House by dividing Americans, encouraging blacks to hate whites, women to hate men and homosexuals to hate heterosexuals.

Democrats believe it is immoral to refer to America as “our” country. We have allowed old hippies to teach our children the lie that America ravaged the world for our prosperity. Therefore, it is only fair that we abandon borders, sharing our ill-gotten wealth with the world. Democrats also believe allowing needy unskilled people to freely invade our country will increase Democrat voter registration.

My wife Mary and I moved to a tiny town in West Virginia, population 500, which we have affectionately nicknamed, “Trump Country USA”.

In honor of 9-11, Main St in our town was decorated with American flags. The marque of the small public library read, “Never Forget 9-11”. Students were encouraged to come to school attired in red, white, blue and American flags. Students were taught history lessons about patriotism. This is the polar opposite of California schools banning American flag attire on Mexican holidays because it is offensive to illegal alien students. Democrats and fake news media say displays of patriotism are insensitive, racist and hateful. Shockingly, the U.S. flag was not seen on stage during the televised ABC Democrat presidential debate. Democrat controlled schools divide Americans by teaching black students to resent white students, absurdly claiming whites are “born racist”. Students are taught to hate their country.

In their ongoing evil mission to demonize America and divide Americans, Democrats and fake news media say the election of president Trump proves that widespread racism is alive and well, particularly in rural America. As I stated, Mary and I live in a tiny town. We are a black/white interracial couple, married over 40 years.

Because our home internet is not working, we took our laptops to the local country store to use their internet. The store was filled with white hunters and country boys. Thirty years ago, I might have felt uncomfortable. Neither Mary nor I felt an ounce of racial tension at our country store.

Clearly, America has come a long way baby in regards to race relations. Americans elected Obama two times to prove our nation has moved beyond widespread racism. And yet, Democrats and fake news media persist in selling their insidious lie that everyone who voted for Trump and supports his make America great again agenda are white supremacists. Because I am a black outspoken supporter of Trump and his America First agenda, Democrats and fake news media brand me a self-loathing Uncle Tom. See how these evil people seek to divide us folks?

I wore my “Trump 2020” cap to a local church flea market. I saw a white guy wearing a “Trump 2020” cap. I said, “Sir, you must be a racist white supremacist?” Seeing my cap, he burst into laughter as we spontaneously embraced in a bear hug.

Americans crave to be unified. Before singing my “American Tea Party Anthem” at a tea party rally in 2008, I told the audience, “I am not an African-American!” I am Lloyd Marcus, American!!!” The audience of 6,000 erupted in thunderous applause. After the rally, several audience members thanked me with tears in their eyes.

I thought I had made great headway in convincing my black relatives that Democrats and fake news media are lying about America’s police routinely murdering blacks. I was taken aback when a relative who I assumed knew better, helped to spread an initiative on Facebook to stop “trigger happy cops” from murdering young black men.

Stats confirm that cops are the greatest defenders of black lives. The greatest threats to black lives are black men and Planned Parenthood. Racist Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to exterminate Negros. Planned Parenthood disproportionately aborts blacks with 70% of their dead-baby-body-parts-chop-shops located in black neighborhoods.

My deceived relative confirms that we must remain diligent in our efforts to educate misinformed Americans.

Folks, I could go on and on with examples of Democrats’ and fake news medias’ evil mission to keep Americans divided, in fear and at war with each other.

Instead, I wish to leave you with an inspiring act of random unifying patriotism. In Denver, a flash mob performed “God Bless America” with brass instruments. Please enjoy.

© All rights reserved.

ISRAEL: A strange thing happened on the way to the polling booth

Arguably, Netanyahu’s gravest strategic miscalculation was not to call elections in May 2016 rather than capitulate to Liberman’s demand to be given the Defense portfolio.

Syria is not lost. Assad is Western educated and is not a religious man. He can still join a moderate grouping – Former IDF Chief of Staff , Gabi Ashkenazi, Haaretz, November 13, 2009, today fourth on the Blue & White Knesset list.

The greatest tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that everyone knows how it will end. We will divide up the region. Israel will return most of the West Bank, and the Palestinian flag will fly on public buildings in east Jerusalem…The only unanswered question is how many more people will have to die along the way. And so we will fight against the extremists on both sides, including our extremists, the settlers – Yair Lapid, Der Spiegel, May 8, 2008, today number two on the Blue & White Knesset list.

The disengagement was …a legal action… approved by the government of Israel and carried out by the IDF…with great pain but done very well. We have to take its lessons and implement them in other places.Former IDF Chief of Staff, Benny Gantz, Ynet, February, 6, 2019, today number one on the Blue & White Knesset list.

Earlier this month, I wrote a column with the interrogative title: Sept. 17: Will the Right snatch defeat from the jaws of victory…again?

Judging from the emerging election results, it certainly seems as if it has…

(As I pointed out in my earlier article–and for the unfortunate readers who may have missed it—in the Israeli political context, the Left-Right rift is not along the usual welfare state vs free market divide in the socio-economic sphere; but more along the Dove-Hawk split on security and foreign policy, particularly with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—with the former advocating Palestinian statehood and far-reaching territorial concessions by Israel, and the latter opposing them.)

Detriments of democracy?

True, at the time of writing, the official results are not yet in, but it is highly unlikely that there will be a sea-change in what we already know: Neither of the main protagonists, the Likud (ostensibly representing the electorate “right” of center), and Blue & White (ostensibly representing the electorate “left” of center) can form a majority coalition to govern the country—and certainly not a durable and stable one.

Almost incredibly, the prospect of yet another—a third—election in the space of a year cannot be discounted as totally inconceivable—portraying Israel in an extremely unfavorable light in terms of its governability and political maturity.

Thus, although things are still in a state of great flux, it is difficult to see any positive outcome emerging from the current electoral impasse. Even if some coalition could be cobbled together, embracing factions and individuals of wildly differing—indeed even opposing—political credos, it is unlikely to endure for long.

In many ways, it is Israel’s fractured electorate that has itself to blame for the mess in which it finds itself. After all, for all its manifest advantages over other forms of governance, perhaps the greatest drawback of democracy is that the demos can never complain that the dictator is responsible for its plight.

In this regard, the Israeli electorate has proved itself to be distinctly dysfunctional in that it has not been able, after almost six months of collective contemplation, to elect anything approaching a stable governing coalition.

The demos: Not entirely to blame

However, it is probably unfair to lay all the blame on the partly—indeed poorly—informed man-in-the-street and his female counterpart.

For they have been badly served by their elected representatives and by the central institutions that underpin Israeli society.

Indeed, as I pointed out in my earlier column, not only have the elected representatives of  the right-wing —despite being in power for the better part of two decades—proved unable to consign the failed credo of their Left-wing rivals to well-deserved oblivion; they have been unable to produce a convincing counter-credo that would sweep along dominant sectors of the voting public, long disillusioned by the misleading mirage of promise and hope, dangled before it by purveyors of a “New Middle East”.

But they have also been ill served by those seeking to replace the right at the helm of government. For while there may be a valid case for their claim that, after over a decade of Netanyahu incumbency, there should be a change of leadership, the manner in which they have gone about trying to effect it, has been both inappropriate—and hitherto—ineffective.

Thus, at the polls, they endeavored to unseat him with what is essentially a contrived “pseudo-opposition party”, an amorphous political hotchpotch, embracing members of radically opposing view-points whose only unifying feature appears to be a severe case of “Bibiphobia”—and with an unproven leadership, whose judgement has proved highly questionable in the past.

The second prong of the assault to replace Netanyahu was via the legal system, and a series of alleged charges that, to anyone but a rabid “Bibiphobe”, appear transparently contrived, creating a deep sense of unease that Israel’s legal establishment is being exploited for patent political ends.

Over 50% of the Jewish vote

Clearly, Netanyahu had formidable odds ranged against him: An amalgam of three parties (Gantz’s “Israeli Resilience”, Lapid’s “Yesh Atid”, Moshe Yaalon’s “Telem”) that make up “Blue & White”; four former IDF Chiefs-of-Staff (Gantz, Yaalon and Ashkenazi—and Ehud Barak in the Left-wing Democratic Front”), much of a vitriolic anti-Bibi mainstream media and the shadow of prosecution hovering over his head.

Yet despite this, Netanyahu and the parties endorsing his continued premiership still managed to win a majority of the Jewish vote (55 mandates out of 107—with the remaining thirteen won by the anti-Zionist Arab Joint List).

By contrast, Gantz’s Blue & White, together with other Left-of-Center parties (excluding the Arab Joint List) won barely 40% of the Jewish vote—and just over one third of the overall ballot.

For Netanyahu, this is no mean feat, and testifies to his enduring public stature and the widespread recognition of the impressive accomplishments he attained during his tenure—economically, diplomatically and, even to a large degree, in the field of security—where apart from what appears excessive restraint in the South, his record is far better than any of his recent predecessors.

Netanyahu’s greatest strategic error?

Even though I am not remotely an uncritical Netanyahu apologist—having even called for his resignation in the past –it is difficult to ignore that he managed to hold out against the hostile Obama regime, engaged the current US administration in a remarkable manner that has brought about the annulling of the atrocious Iran nuclear deal, recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the country and establishment of the American embassy there, and US recognition of Israeli sovereignty of the Golan. In addition, he has also managed to forge a close bond with Russia, India and formerly hostile Brazil, while overseeing an almost 60% increase in the country’s GDP per capita.

Given the fact the Netanyahu was elected to be Prime Minister, not Pope, none of his untried prospective successors appear to have anything approaching his proven ability for the post of which they seek to deprive him.

Of course, one of Netanyahu’s gravest strategic miscalculations –arguably his gravest–was not to call elections in May 2016, rather than capitulate to Liberman’s demand to be given the Defense portfolio. Readers will recall that following the 2015 elections, Liberman refused to join the ruling “right-wing” coalition”, after Netanyahu’s somewhat unexpectedly strong showing against the now forgotten duo of Herzog and Livni. Had he done so then—before Liberman  embraced his current anti-Haradi posturing, he not only could have laid the blame squarely on Yisrael Beteinu for “toppling a right wing government”—which would then, in all likelihood, not have passed the minimum threshold for Knesset membership. Moreover, he would have avoided the resultant friction with then-defense minister Yaalon, who probablyw ould not have resigned, and he would have nipped the then still-nascent Gantz-led opposition mergers in the bud—well before they could gather their current momentum.

Parade of perverse paradoxes?

But setting aside Netanyahu’s error in judgement in his timing for calling elections, it is difficult to disregard that the September 17th elections were preceded by a parade of perverse and perturbing paradoxes.

The first is that the Arab Joint List, an unabashedly anti-Zionist party, composed of wildly diverse elements (from left wing Communists to Islamic fundamentalists), whose only commonality is their rejection of Israel as a Jewish state—much like Blue & White is composed of wildly diverse elements whose only commonality is the rejection of Netanyahu, came out of the election with 13 mandates, making it the third largest party in the Knesset.

Three things are worthy of note here.

First, since according to the Basic Law: Knesset, the rejection of Israel as a Jewish state is grounds for barring candidacy for the Knesset, the anti-Zionist platform of the Joint List should—by letter of the law—be reason to preclude its running for the Knesset.

Second; the size of the Joint List is a direct result of an initiative by none other than Liberman to raise (from 2%-3.25%) the threshold for eligibility to the Knesset originally intended to block the election of the previously small Arab factions—which now seems to have backfired…(or not???)

Thirdly, without the anti-Zionist Joint List, Blue & White would have no chance of seriously challenging Netanyahu for the premiership. All this at the by the hand of the ostensibly anti-Arab Liberman????  The law of unintended consequences??? Or not???

Puzzling and perturbing (cont.)

Another puzzling and perturbing occurrence was the manifest reluctance and tardiness of the Central Election Committee to investigate allegations of gross irregularities in numerous polling stations, which according to some reports, may have affected the outcome of the April elections and the possible elimination of one of the Arab factions elected (as the Joint List did not run in April).

Perhaps one of the most incomprehensible aspects of the last election is that the party most responsible for creating the mess in which we find ourselves was the very party that appears to be most rewarded by voters—Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beitenu.

This seems even more puzzling since the repeat elections were precipitated by Liberman reneging on his April pre-election commitments (or at least, what many perceived as such) to cooperate in establishing a “Right-wing” government—which appears to indicate that for the new Liberman acolytes –anti Haredi opprobrium trumps political integrity.

It is important to note that Liberman, whose personal history is strewn with wheeling and dealing with Haredim, was not compelled by irresistible political constraints to take the uncompromising stance he took in the wake of the April poll. Indeed, it was not even central to his election campaign and was never presented up until the last minute of the coalition negotiations. It was little more than cynical political opportunism, tinged with personal vindictiveness against Netanyahu. The price to be paid by all Israelis may soon be upon us.

Much at stake…

There is much at stake in the outcome of the Sept. 17 elections. Topping the list is the ability to continue to reap the fruits of the clement Trump administration and proceed with extending sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and parts (hopefully all) of Judea-Samaria. With a Gantz-led center Left government, the chances that the opportunities that might have presented themselves will be seized, are considerably lower.

So while history may judge Liberman’s shenanigans harshly, the Israeli public should bear in mind: In a democracy the demos has no dictator to blame for what befalls it.

© All rights reserved.

VIDEOS: What is the connection between Socialism, World War II and Shrinking Markets? Watch and learn. . .

published two videos on its YouTube channel that connects the dots on Socialism. Here they are:

The REAL Reason why Hitler HAD to start WW2.

Why they don’t tell you about Hitler’s “Shrinking Markets” problem.

RELATED ARTICLE: The False Promise of ‘Democratic’ Socialism

EDITORS NOTE: Videos courtesy of TIK© All rights reserved.

Helping Protect Itself Against Iran, Israel Helps Protect Many Others by Hugh Fitzgerald

Not long before tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran reached an unprecedented high point, with the possibility looming of a war that could engulf many other countries besides those two, Israel located a secret Iranian site in Beirut, right near the airport, in the midst of a heavily-populated area (surrounded by thousands of civilians, as a way to discourage Israeli air attacks). The site, according to Prime Minister Netanyahu, holds radioactive material and missiles. The Israelis, after all, have been running circles around the Iranians for years. They assassinated, one after the other, four key Iranian nuclear scientists right in the middle of Tehran. They concocted the fiendishly brilliant Stuxnet worm, the first computer program that caused real-world damage, for it sent messages to the computers it infected, the computers that were regulating Iran’s centrifuges, causing those computers to send messages that made the centrifuges speed up and destroy themselves and even damage other centrifuges. At the same time, other messages were sent back that the computer program was working perfectly.

The Israelis have destroyed, in Syria, hundreds of Iranian missiles, and have kept up the bombing of Iranian bases in Syria, and of Iranian soldiers on Syrian bases, preventing any kind of permanent Iranian outpost to be established. Some time ago Israeli agents carried out a night-time raid in a nondescript commercial district in Tehran, lasting six hours and 29 minutes, bringing away 50,000 pages of documents, and countless discs, which constituted the most important part of Iran’s secret nuclear archive, proving to the world that Iran had never abandoned its nuclear project, and had gotten much farther with it than the world previously believed.

In locating the site in Beirut, Israel again did not just itself but the entire Western world a great service. For the missiles whose guidance systems Iran is improving for Hezbollah, and the nuclear material that Iran is storing in Beirut, to be someday used either by its forces or possibly by Hezbollah, are not a threat only to Israel. Iran has designs on Yemen, as its proxy war against Saudi Arabia, that has already lasted several years, demonstrates. Iran would love to project and solidify Shi’a power in Yemen, right on the Arabian Sea, and to be able to threaten Saudi Arabia from the south, made easier by the porous border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Iran has a desire, too, to deal a direct blow to Saudi Arabia itself, as the richest and most powerful Sunni state, whose clerics talk of the Shi’a as if they were Infidels. That could mean supporting the discontented Shi’a in Saudi Arabia, some 15% of the population, almost all of whom are located in the Eastern Province, where the major oilfields are to be found. Iran also wants to take revenge on the United Arab Emirates, for helping to fight the Shi’a Houthis  in Yemen and, Iran now suspects, helping Arab separatists in Khuzestan, in southern Iran. Of course, Iran always proclaims as its chief enemy, more so even than Israel, the Great Satan, America. All of these countries have reason to be grateful to Israel for slowing down, for several years, Iran’s nuclear project. Stuxnet alone, a computer worm which destroyed 1,000 centrifuges at the Natanz Enrichment Plant, set back Iran’s nuclear project, according to the German scientist Ralph Langer, by as much as two years.

These acts of derring-do did not end there. Israeli agents managed to locate in a dusty part of Tehran the top secret Iranian nuclear archive, to break in, to blowtorch open the many steel doors, to go through the archives and select the huge amounts of material that they then spirited out of Iran to Israel. This archive offered proof to the world that the Iranians had continued to work on their nuclear project after they had supposedly stopped, and that they had gotten much farther along than anyone suspected.

During the last few years, the Iranians have tried to establish their own bases in Syria, and from there hoped both to threaten Israel from closer up than from Iran itself, and to supply Hezbollah with more advanced weapons. But no matter where they put those bases in Syria, and even when the Iranians tried to conceal themselves inside  Syrian bases, Israeli planes have always managed to find and to bomb them. And the Israelis have been staggeringly successful at interdicting Iranian weapons shipments meant for Hezbollah.

And now Israel has uncovered, and shown to the world, a secret Iranian facility near the airport in Beirut, which contains fissile material and machines to manufacture precision-guided missiles. At this point, the Iranians may wonder: do we empty the facility of its contents, or will Israel, with its uncanny spying ability, including eye-in-the-sky drones, be able to see everything that comes out of that building and where it is taken? And if, and when, these machines and that material are taken out of the facility, and are in the open, will it not be easier for Israel to bomb both? Perhaps, by making public its knowledge of this facility, the Israelis are hoping to lure the Iranians into doing just that. It is hard for the Iranians, who have so often been outsmarted by the Israelis, to know what to do. What can Israeli spy drones and spy planes and spy satellites and human spies, find out? Do the Iranians try to smuggle the material and machines out, or do they keep everything as it is, but move even more civilians into close proximity to the building, in the hope that this civilian presence will dissuade Israel from attacking it?

As the Iranians have discovered, to their great displeasure, wherever or whomever or whatever they try to hide from Israel, the Israelis always find them out. The Israelis identified, and then assassinated, four of Iran’s top nuclear scientists; they found, and sabotaged, the computers that controlled the centrifuges at Natanz, they found the secret nuclear archives in Tehran and spirited them away, they found and bombed Iranian bases in Syria, and they found, and showed to the world, the once-secret Iranian facility in Beirut. Iran’s rulers are surely in a quandary.

All of this limits Iran’s aggressive plans. Israel has accomplished these feats in order, of course, to protect itself. But the rest of the West, and some Arab states, too, should recognize that they also benefit from these fantastic acts of human and technological derring-do. Some, at least, from agents in Langley to princes in Riyadh, know enough to be grateful. And so should we.


Texas: Teen converts to Islam, says he hates America and “it was Allah’s will to turn him into a killing machine”

Miami: Muslim migrant who sabotaged plane says he acted “out of my evil side,” wished Allah would hurt non-Muslims

Lebanese ‘New American’ Indicted for Terrorist Activities

‘Islam Is Right About Women’ Posters Spark Fury

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

President Trump orders the declassification and release of un-redacted Russia Investigation related documents and text messages

The following is the September 17th, 2019 Statement from the Press Secretary:

At the request of a number of committees of Congress, and for reasons of transparency, the President has directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to provide for the immediate declassification of the following materials: (1) pages 10-12 and 17-34 of the June 2017 application to the FISA court in the matter of Carter W. Page; (2) all FBI reports of interviews with Bruce G. Ohr prepared in connection with the Russia investigation; and (3) all FBI reports of interviews prepared in connection with all Carter Page FISA applications.

In addition, President Donald J. Trump has directed the Department of Justice (including the FBI) to publicly release all text messages relating to the Russia investigation, without redaction, of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr. [Emphasis added]

This will give the people the opportunity to see who said what to whom, and who knew what about the attempt to take down a sitting President of the United States.

This was a coup d’etat or putch.

The truth must be revealed so that it can never again happen to anyone, let alone the President.

Florida’s Congressional Delegation not helping lower electricity bills

In an email, Thomas J. Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, released its Energy Scorecard. Pyle noted:

Major pieces of legislation get the spotlight and shape the national debate. But each year, Congress considers hundreds of smaller measures that have a big impact on our country and our lives.

That’s where the American Energy Alliance comes in.

AEA analyzes and tracks these bills, including what they do and who co-sponsored them — and shares those summaries and key points with supporters like you. When it comes time for a vote, AEA tracks that, too, and includes it all in a scorecard for each Member of Congress.

With the AEA Energy Scorecard, you can see — at a single glance — where your representatives stood on the most important energy votes of the year … and who the true energy champions are in Congress.

The higher the score on the AEA Energy Scorecard, the more you can count on that elected official to advance a Pro-American energy agenda.

Electricity Local reports:

Residential electricity bills in Florida

  • Residential electricity bills in FL [1]
    • The average monthly residential electricity bill in Florida is $123, which ranks 9th in the U.S.
    • This average monthly residential electricity bill in Florida is 14.95% greater than the national average monthly bill of $107.
    • Average monthly residential electricity bills in the U.S. range from approximately $75 to $203.

Residential electricity rates in Florida

  • Residential electricity rates in FL [1]
    • Residential electricity rates in Florida average 11.42¢/kWh, which ranks the state 22nd in the nation.
    • The average residential electricity rate of 11.42¢/kWh in FL is 3.87% less than the national average residential rate of 11.88¢/kWh.
    • The approximate range of residential electricity rates in the U.S. is 8.37¢/kWh to 37.34¢/kWh.

Residential electricity consumption in Florida

  • Residential electricity consumption in FL [1]
    • Residential electricity consumption in Florida averages 1,081 kWh/month, which ranks 13th in the U.S.
    • This average monthly residential electricity consumption in FL is 19.71% greater than the national average monthly consumption of 903 kWh/month.
    • Monthly residential electricity consumption in the U.S. ranges from approximately 531 kWh/mo. to 1,254 kWh/mo.

How do the members of the Florida delegation vote on energy legislation? Here are their voting records:

State Results: Florida


It appears that the Florida delegation, especially the Democrat Party members, are not interested in helping lower the electric bills of Floridians.

Conservatives prefer WalMart and NASCAR. Why are they partnering with CAP?

The Center for American Progress is one of the nation’s most influential liberal think tanks. It supports abortion until birth, wants to reduce gun ownership, and has fully endorsed the high-tax, open-borders, and LGBT agendas of the Left.

So why are WalMart (1.3 – liberal) and NASCAR (2.7 – lean liberal) betraying their conservative customers by joining hands with CAP’s liberal agenda?

Taking your guns by force

Last week, 31 U.S. Senators backed a bill to restrict your gun rights. The Keep Americans Safe Act bans high-capacity firearm magazines, authorizes firearm buyback programs, and authorizes certain federal agencies to destroy high-capacity magazines, among other provisions.

CAP backed the bill, along with a number of left-wing gun control groups like Everytown and March for Our Lives. Buyback programs are especially problematic because they would force citizens to give up their arms and their right to self-defense – potentially at the point of a government gun.

Slippery slopes

A logical 2ndVote American would say that it’s time to take a stand for the Second Amendment. However, NASCAR is banning advertisements with certain kinds of weapon images. WalMart just banned open carry in their stores and further limited what they will sell. These are private-sector decisions which are able to be made in a free market – and 2ndVote Americans can reply in kind.

But will these corporations know when to stop kowtowing to the Left? Nearly 150 corporate leaders signed a letter pushing for “red flag” and other anti-gun laws which are bound to be abused by governments. Since WalMart already funds the Left through its corporate donations, we know they are only a short distance from formally standing behind these atrocious violations of your human rights to self-defense and defense of loved ones.

Corporations must stick to business

2ndVote’s GunCam shows the fact that guns don’t kill people. They are simply tools, like cars or airplanes. Nobody – except for The New York Times – thinks they have agency. People have agency. America’s laws are already strict enough; corporations should stick to business. Citizens and elected officials must ensure that law-abiding, mentally sound people have the ability to be legally armed for self-defense, the defense of loved ones, and defending the helpless.

We urge you to contact NASCAR and WalMart to tell them to stop butting into our business instead of sticking to their own. They should not be buying into CAP’s agenda – their only agenda should be providing their services and products to customers.

EDITORS NOTE: This 2nd Vote column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: What would a young woman who was a sane environmental activist sound like?

Posted by Eeyore

Direct link.

RELATED ARTICLE: Child Hostages Obey Their Climate Captors: Julie Kelly

Trump administration threatens funding for UNC/Duke course promoting Islam

This is long overdue: “The Trump administration is threatening to cut funding for a Middle East studies program run by the University of North Carolina and Duke University, claiming that it’s misusing a federal grant to advance ‘ideological priorities’ and unfairly promote ‘the positive aspects of Islam’ but not Christianity or Judaism.”

There are courses of this kind in universities and colleges all over the country, and have been for years without any pushback. None of the academic institutions that promote this Islamic proselytizing should receive any federal funding at all. Universities and colleges from great to insignificant, from Stanford University in California to Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, have long been radioactive wastelands of Leftist indoctrination and Islamic apologetics in an increasingly totalitarian and threatening atmosphere. They need to be cut off. They need to be cut off immediately. They need to be cut off yesterday.

As it happens, I took a UNC/Duke graduate course on Islam back in 1985, when I was a graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Even that many years ago, the violent aspects of Islamic doctrine were downplayed and whitewashed. There is no doubt whatsoever that in the intervening years, the impulse to absolve Islam of all responsibility for the crimes committed in its name and in accord with its teachings has only intensified.

“Jay Smith, a history professor at UNC and vice president of its chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said that the Education Department official who signed the letter threatening funding, Robert King, “should stay in his lane and allow the experts to determine what constitutes a ‘full understanding’ of the Middle East.”

“Experts.” Yeah. Everyone at this point should be wary of what historian Christopher Dummitt calls “the so-called proof presented by alleged experts.” He notes, in a fascinating article about his own promotion of currently fashionable gender fictions, that his “own flawed reasoning was never called out—and, in fact, only became more ideologically inflected through the process of peer review.” Yes, and that is happening in every academic department.

“DeVos Threatens College Funding Due to Islam Course,” Associated Press, September 20, 2019 (thanks to Henry):

(AP) — The Trump administration is threatening to cut funding for a Middle East studies program run by the University of North Carolina and Duke University, claiming that it’s misusing a federal grant to advance “ideological priorities” and unfairly promote “the positive aspects of Islam” but not Christianity or Judaism.

An Aug. 29 letter from the U.S. Education Department orders the Duke-UNC Consortium for Middle East Studies to revise its offerings by Sept. 22 or risk losing funding from a federal grant that’s awarded to dozens of universities to support foreign language instruction. The consortium received $235,000 from the grant last year, according to Education Department data.

A statement from the UNC-Chapel Hill said the consortium “deeply values its partnership with the Department of Education” and is “committed to working with the department to provide more information about its programs.” Officials at Duke declined to comment. The Education Department declined to say whether it’s examining similar programs at other schools.

Academic freedom advocates say the government could be setting a dangerous precedent if it injects politics into funding decisions. Some said they had never heard of the Education Department asserting control over such minute details of a program’s offerings.

“Is the government now going to judge funding programs based on the opinions of instructors or the approach of each course?” asked Henry Reichman, chairman of a committee on academic freedom for the American Association of University Professors.

“The odor of right-wing political correctness that comes through this definitely could have a chilling effect.”

More than a dozen universities receive National Resource Center grants for their Middle East programs, including Columbia, Georgetown, Yale and the University of Texas. The Duke-UNC consortium was founded in 2005 and first received the grant nearly a decade ago.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos ordered an investigation of the program in June after North Carolina Rep. George Holding, a Republican, complained that it hosted a taxpayer-funded conference with “severe anti-Israeli bias and anti-Semitic rhetoric.”

The conference, titled “Conflict Over Gaza: People, Politics and Possibilities,” included a rapper who performed a “brazenly anti-Semitic song,” Holding said in an April 15 letter….

In the UNC-Duke case, the department’s findings did not directly address any bias against Israel, but evaluated whether the consortium’s proposed activities met the goals of the National Resource Center program, which was created in 1965 to support language and culture initiatives that prepare students for careers in diplomacy and national security.

Investigators concluded that the consortium intended to use federal money on offerings that are “plainly unqualified for taxpayer support,” and that foreign language and national security instruction have “taken a back seat to other priorities.” The department cited several courses, conferences and academic papers that it said have “little or no relevance” to the grant’s goals.

“Although a conference focused on ‘Love and Desire in Modern Iran’ and one focused on Middle East film criticism may be relevant in academia, we do not see how these activities support the development of foreign language and international expertise for the benefit of U.S. national security and economic stability,” the letter said.

Investigators also saw a disconnect between the grant’s mission and some academic papers by scholars at the consortium. They objected to one paper titled “Performance, Gender-Bending and Subversion in the Early Modern Ottoman Intellectual History,” and another titled “Radical Love: Teachings from Islamic Mystical Tradition.”

The letter accused the consortium of failing to provide a “balance of perspectives” on religion. It said there is “a considerable emphasis” placed on “understanding the positive aspects of Islam, while there is an absolute absence of any similar focus on the positive aspects of Christianity, Judaism or any other religion or belief system in the Middle East.”

It added that there are few offerings on discrimination faced by religious minorities in the Middle East, “including Christians, Jews, Baha’is, Yadizis, Kurds, Druze and others.” Department officials said the grant’s rules require programs to provide a “full understanding” of the regions they study.

Jay Smith, a history professor at UNC and vice president of its chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said the letter amounts to “ideologically driven harassment.”

He said the Education Department official who signed the letter, Robert King, “should stay in his lane and allow the experts to determine what constitutes a ‘full understanding’ of the Middle East.”…


Winchester, Massachusetts: “Islam Is RIGHT About Women” flyers plastered all over town

Sinead O’Connor says that she was “born Muslim in the first place”

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Chinese Totalitarianism and Catholic Witness

Thomas F. Farr: The Vatican’s charism in China is not diplomacy but witness to the truth about God and man. 

The current assault on religion in China under President Xi Jinping is the most comprehensive attempt to manipulate and control religious communities since the Cultural Revolution.” Or so I argued in congressional testimony last fall. Part of Xi’s plan is to force “fundamental alterations in Catholic doctrine and witness.”

The 2018 Sino-Vatican Provisional Agreement on nominating and ordaining bishops must be assessed in the harsh light of Xi’s policy. Bishops are critical to the well-being of Catholics and the Church. They are simultaneously shepherds and public witnesses to the truths taught by the Church. If they are deceivers, history and contemporary events make abundantly clear that everyone suffers except opponents of the Church. If they are holy and courageous men, willing to witness the truth as taught by the Church, Catholics and non-Catholics benefit. This is as true in China as it is in any other country.

The doctrines of apostolic succession and Petrine supremacy, and common sense, mandate that the pope choose Catholic bishops. Historically, some popes have made deals granting secular rulers a role in nominating bishops. As late as 1996, Pope John Paul II agreed to a process in which the Vatican forwards three bishop-candidates to the Vietnamese government, which then chooses one of the three. The critical step is the first – Hanoi can delay, but cannot substitute its own candidate.

The Chinese Communist regime under Xi Jinping presents a far greater challenge. The evidence for Xi’s malign intent is unarguable. He is targeting Catholics, Protestants, Uighur Muslims, and Tibetan Buddhists as internal fifth columns, loyal to something greater than the Communist state.

Unlike Mao Zedong in the Cultural Revolution, Xi understands he cannot simply eliminate religion. But he is heir to Mao’s belief, channeling Stalin, that religion in general, and some religions in particular, pose mortal threats to Communist authority, and must at all costs be harnessed to the state. His strategy is to terrorize, intimidate, and transform.

Accordingly, Xi employs DNA testing and facial recognition technologies to track religious and political opponents. He has installed video surveillance cameras in churches. He has imprisoned over a million Uighur Muslims in “reeducation camps,” which brainwash, terrorize, and threaten. He has pursued China’s goal of emasculating Tibetan Buddhism with population replacement and violence against Buddhist monks and nuns. He has continued the policy of murdering practitioners of Falun Gong and harvesting their organs for sale.

Protestants and Catholics who resist control by the state agencies established for that purpose (the Protestant Three-Self Movement and the Catholic Patriotic Association) suffer imprisonment, torture, and destruction of churches. Two Marian shrines were recently bulldozed. Catholic bishops and priests in the “underground” Church are increasingly targeted. Prior to the Agreement, these men were seen by at least some in the Vatican as the pope’s brigade, the loyal, courageous, suffering ecclesiastical vanguard of the Church’s witness in China, deserving of prayer and support. Such a view seems to have vanished from Rome.

Within the Chinese regime, however, there is a renewed appreciation of the dangers posed by unapproved bishops faithful to Catholic teachings on human rights and religious freedom. The Catholic Patriotic Association recently issued a detailed set of instructions to China’s bishops, priests, and lay Catholics that will render the Church little more than an arm of the Communist Party. Here’s one key passage:

The [Catholic] Church will regard promotion and education on core values of socialism as a basic requirement for adhering to the Sinicization of Catholicism. It will guide clerics and Catholics to foster and maintain correct views on history and the nation and strengthen community awareness.

Xi’s “Sinicization” policy deepens a perennial dilemma for the Church in China. The number of Chinese bishops is declining, especially those capable of speaking the truths about God and man, without which the Church is not the Church.

Since the 1950s, priests and bishops loyal to the pope and the Magisterium have generally been ordained in the underground Church, often clandestinely to avoid arrest, imprisonment, or worse. Others were appointed only with the regime’s approval, and were placed under the Catholic Patriotic Association. As underground bishops aged and died faster than they were replaced, Pope John Paul II began to accept private letters of fealty from some bishops appointed by Beijing. But until the signing of the Provisional Agreement, the Vatican refrained from granting any authority to the Communist government in the appointment of bishops,

Unfortunately, because the text of the Agreement has not been made public, it isn’t entirely clear how much authority has actually been ceded. Some reports indicate the Vatican is allowing the regime a significant role: Candidate-bishops are presented to gatherings of diocesan priests, nuns, and lay Catholics, who then vote. The winner’s name is sent to officials who may accept or reject the elected candidate. If Beijing accepts, the candidate could still be vetoed by the pope.

Such a process raises serious questions. If the Chinese control the choice of candidates, they will inevitably prove harmful to the Church. The Xi regime will certainly nominate bishops who will “Sinicize” the Church, altering its teachings and eroding its influence. A right of papal veto would provide some protection, but vetoes would seem to frustrate the Vatican’s overarching goal of increasing the numbers of bishops, period.

Given that goal, would Pope Francis veto men who were little more than Communist apparatchiks and insist on the ordination solely of holy priests faithful to the teachings of the Church? It’s worth recalling that in signing the deal he acceded to Beijing’s demand that he accept seven official bishops, some of whom had been excommunicated by earlier popes. Some reportedly are sexually promiscuous, have fathered children, and are known for “excessive support for the ruling Communist party.”  In addition, the pope agreed to require two underground bishops, loyal to the Magisterium, to step aside.

There are faint signs that the pope will retain authority to nominate bishops. Last month the first two bishops were ordained under the Agreement. Both were sanctioned by the Vatican in advance – one had secretly been approved by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010. In both cases, the voting procedure outlined above was followed. Asia News reports that the initial vote took place in a hotel “under the full control of the local civil authorities.” In one case, Catholic voters reportedly assembled under the supervision of 100 police and government officials were told there was only one candidate, and that they must vote for him.

One might quibble over Catholics “voting” for their bishops, and the coercive presence of Communist officials during the vote. If these two ordinations signal, however, that the pope, not the Communists, will nominate bishop candidates, that is a good sign. But that is probably not the case. Given his draconian efforts to harness the Church to his Communist designs, it seems unlikely that Xi would agree to choose among candidates provided by Rome. Only time, or the release of the text, will tell.

In the end, the Provisional Agreement may indicate a return to the Vatican’s failed Cold War “Ostpolitik” diplomacy of the 1960s, before Pope John Paul II changed it. That diplomacy failed from a want of realism about the evil of communism. It deeply harmed the Church in parts of Eastern Europe. The Vatican was not then, and is not now, a secular power capable of changing the behavior of Communist governments through diplomacy.

And yet, the Vatican is arguably the only authority in the world constituted precisely to address the root causes of totalitarian evil, just as Pope John Paul II did in the 1980s in cooperation with President Ronald Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The Holy See’s role should be now, as it was then, to press for human rights and, especially, for religious freedom for all religious communities in China.

As for China’s Catholics, the Vatican should demand nothing less than libertas ecclesiae, the freedom of the Church to witness to its adherents, to the public, and to the regime its teachings on human dignity and the common good.

It is beyond dispute that the Chinese know what they are doing. The Vatican’s charism, on the other hand, is not diplomacy, but witness to the truth about God and man.


Thomas Farr

Thomas Farr is president of the Religious Freedom Institute in Washington D.C. He was founding director of the State Department’s Office of International Religious Freedom (1999-2003), and of the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University’s Berkley Center (2011-18). He was an associate professor of the Practice of Religion and International Affairs at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service from 2007-2018.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. Copyright 2019 The Catholic Thing. All Rights Reserved. For reprint rights, write to: The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

VIDEO: A Genius Level Tactic in the War to Speak Truth about Islam

Posted by Eeyore

One of our go-to arguments here at Vlad, used to be the idea of saying to people:

“If I said I wanted for Islam, what Islam wants for the rest of humanity, am I guilty of a hate crime?”

The idea of course is it forces people to either admit that Islam is a doctrine of global and genocidal manifest destiny, or they keep pretending its the religion of peace and are annoyed as hell that I can continue to say that.

There is a loop hole of course that renders this tactic less useful, and that is the socialist notion that you can adjust the context of anything said by anyone to suit your specific and immediate purpose and therefore attack the speaker on something other than the objective truth.

But this guy, this guy gets it right and you can see the results in people’s reactions.

I hope he does a series:

“Islam is right about black people.”

“Islam is right about dogs.”

“Islam is right about Jews”

“Islam is right about all non-muslims”

This is forcing people to examine what Islam really says to know if its a problem or not.

I doubt this tactic will work as well as it would in a nation of reason and truth based events. But damn it is an excellent try.

© All rights reserved.


Winchester, Massachusetts: “Islam Is RIGHT About Women” flyers plastered all over town

Two Big Wins Against CAIR in 24 Hours

How The Left Could Erase Republicans In The 2020 Election

The Orwellian dystopia found in 1984 is our future if the trendline continues. And a startling pathway to that future is beginning to congeal before us.

George Orwell presciently wrote “The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.” This was accomplished in the novel through a device called the Memory Hole.

Protagonist Winston Smith’s job, along with innumerable other workers, was to search the news archives for any stories, phrases or even people who did not line up with the current official worldview and history as dictated by Big Brother. If he found an instance, he dropped it down a literal Memory Hole and it was erased from ever having happened. People’s entire lives disappeared, completely erased as though they never happened. Wars and movements and ideologies never happened and were replaced by a newly re-written history that aligned with Big Brother.

The internal operations of the Memory Hole were never described by Orwell. That was not important, it simply functioned as a metaphor for what Communism was doing around the world in 1948.

But today we are seeing how such a Memory Hole could practically function. No metaphors. Simple reality. And it could happen faster than we think. And like Communism, it comes entirely from the left.

It is the unholy union of the leftwing mainstream media, the leftwing social media giants, leftwing Google and leftwing website and platform hosts. These are virtually all of the avenues for information outside of old-school radio and TV. Talk radio is already dominated by conservatives, but it also does not reach many people in the middle. Ditto for Fox News.

For elections, communicating to voters in the middle, those who swing elections, is critical. Talk radio and Fox News largely do not do that. There is a conservative media such as the Daily Caller, Daily Wire, Newsmax and so on. But they are in the same category of reaching and informing conservatives, who by definition are not swing voters. This dynamic holds for openly progressive media, such as the Huffington Post, Slate, Buzzfeed, Salon, etc.

Let’s walk through how the Memory Hole is beginning to come together. We’ll start with the mainstream media.

The legacy media of newspapers and network television and CNN has long been dominated by leftwing reporters, editors and producers. It has become more obvious over recent decades, increasing sharply in the non-coverage of Obama-era scandals and now being completely unmasked in the age of Trump. So that is in place now.

Google has been outed repeatedly, most recently by Veritas, which interviewed whistleblowers at Google who leaked documents showing that Google is intent on not letting another Trump or Trump-type election ever happen again. They’ve been placing their thumbs on the scales for awhile, but this is a new level and it is now not just fellow travelers at the same company, it is coordinated from the top. That means it will be quite effective.

The result already is that searches for things that were readily available even a year ago, are almost impossible to find now. News stories from “trusted sources” get top play. And of course Google trusts only the mainstream and even outwardly leftists sources. I am reminded of this daily. I googled Tropical Storm Humberto and just today. is a top 300 website. Yet the first two hits were for CNN and then NBC before getting to — even when I included the specific URL.

In this way, Google employees have become a little army of coding Winston Smiths to develop their part of the Memory Hole.

The social media giants of Facebook, Twitter, Youtube (owned by Google), Instagram, Pinterest and even the giant aggregator Reddit are run and dominated by leftwing executives and operatives. This is a crucial component, because social media was one of the few places where right, left and center could see everything if they wanted to. Everyone could post and link and be as political or nonpolitical as they desired. Since it was a social and familial gathering place, it allowed for the possibilities of seeing a real variety of views, even crazy ones. I described it as the Wild West and considered it a great step forward.

But alas, as the modern left has an instinct for censorship and shutting down discussion, debate and alternative views, so the social media giants are doing all those. From shadow-banning and demonetizing to de-platforming and outright banning, they are all creating what they call “community standards” that is simply leftwing ideology. So by definition, things that are overtly conservative are regularly running into the censor.

It’s not just whackadoodles like Alex Jones. It ranges from conservative comedians like Steven Crowder, who was actually trying to follow all of YouTube’s rules, to the mainstream pro-life outfit Live Action. But when the conservatively doctrinaire PragerU has large numbers of their videos hidden, you know the digital noose is tightening.

And finally, there are the website hosts and platforms such as Godaddy, WordPress, Weebly and so on that are also run by leftists. They have the ability to simply shut down original websites if they deem those have violated their standards. So far, it has only been done with the most egregious sites, such as the white nationalist, Holocaust-denying,  neo-Nazi website Stormfront.

But the line has been crossed.

When you combine the mainstream media, Google, the social media sites, and the website hosts as all leftists, anti-Republican and virulently anti-Trump, they could act in concert — without ever holding a meeting — to scrub the conservative or pro-Trump message from most of the Web — and all the places where swing voters might be exposed.

This includes both organic reach of conservatives and promoted reach. Facebook, YouTube and Twitter can decide that Republican or Pro-Trump ads are violating their community standards and refuse them. This, too, has already happened. This would mean that the GOP would have virtually no pathway for reaching swing voters other than expensive and much less effective direct mail.

Played in unison, these elements substantially become a Memory Hole.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: President Donald Trump Tours the Progress on the Border Wall in San Diego, CA

In San Diego, California, President Donald J. Trump got an up-close look yesterday at the great progress being made on new and replacement border wall.

“We’re building it at a breakneck speed,” the President said after receiving an update from Border Patrol officials. All told, the wall will “be over 400 miles. And we think we can get it close to 500 miles by the end of next year,” he added.

President Trump’s goal has always been to stop illegal immigration and protect the American people. Now, with border wall construction underway, the results are undeniable: Illegal border crossings plummeted 30 percent between July and August.

“Nobody is coming in unless they’re coming in legally. They’re coming in through a process,” the President said.

© All rights reserved.

VIDEO: How the Frankfurt School Managed to turn Disagreement with the State into Hate Speech

Posted by Eeyore

Below, is an explanation of this video by the translator, Ava Lon. Thank you very much for this difficult work, and Gates of Vienna for the edit and format.

This is 7 minutes long part of a longer video, from Krzysztof Karo? – the very Polish writer, who informed us about Spinelli and his role in the creation of the European Union. The entire video is about the semantic changes uttered by the -as he calls them- Neo-Marxists, in order to appropriate the language, the debate and finally be able to create the narrative.

They reach this goal by starting by a premise (a false premise) that Truth cannot be known at all, it is only described by our imperfect language which can vary from one person to another, and therefore causes the Truth to be un-knowable or creates many Truths. [if you’re confused already, please keep in mind that 2+2=4, no matter how you say it, in what language, and how poor your grammar might be]

If the Truth depends on language, nothing seems simpler than modify it by modifying the language, on purpose. Who decides how the Truth will be modified, or rather: what will be called the Truth once the necessary changes have been performed?

Jürgen Habermas, belonging to the second generation of Frankfurt School philosophers, after suggesting the nonexistence of objective Truth and the possibility therefore of molding it at will, answers this question by proposing a collective solution in the endeavor of deciding what the Truth is, or rather what it should be.

The process in which the Truth is established is called the Discourse, according to the Communicative Action Theory -known in Poland as the Discourse Theory and this is the name used in the argument of Krzysztof Karo? in this video, ‘discourse’ being the key word- [and Discourse, unlike a normal discussion, doesn’t admit dissent], and the consensus that is reached in that process isn’t reached by presenting better arguments, but rather by pressuring everyone to abandon their views and adhere to the consensus.The difference between this and a compromise is that in a compromise everybody gives up something in order to agree on a common ground. In the Neo-Marxist Consensus Discourse certain positions are entirely given up and the person whole-heartedly takes the Truth established by the discourse and its consensus as HIS OWN [just like in Orwell’s 1984, it wasn’t enough to just ACCEPT the Big Brother, you had to truly LOVE him].

Once everybody agreed what the Truth is (in every particular case), doubting, criticizing, speaking about different possibilities, or even just asking questions about that Neo-Marxist “revealed Truth” is sowing discord, enmity and hate speech.

I thought this was very important in the light of the sentencing of ESW in Austria, where clearly the truth was not a defense, and anyway, the court seems to have had already some sort of consensus about what the truth was.

Direct link.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness.