A previously deported illegal alien has been accused of raping, kidnapping, and sex trafficking a teenage girl in Ohio, law enforcement officials say.

According to the Ohio State Patrol, state trooper Mitch Ross pulled over 33-year-old illegal alien Juan Carlos Morales-Pedraza, from Mexico, who had a 15-year-old girl in the car with him.

Law enforcement officials said they confirmed that the illegal alien had allegedly kidnapped, raped, and was sex trafficking the teenage girl from New Jersey to Chicago.

Over the last week, President Trump’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a total of about 12,500 border crossers and illegal aliens into the interior of the United States, federal data confirms.

According to catch and release totals obtained by Breitbart News, DHS has released about 12,500 border crossers and illegal aliens into the U.S. over a nine-day period between April 9 and April 17. At this rate, DHS is releasing more than 1,300 border crossers and illegal aliens every day into the country.

The catch and release process often entails federal immigration officials busing border crossers into nearby border cities and dropping them off with the promise that they will show up for their immigration and asylum hearings, sometimes years later. The overwhelming majority of border crossers and illegal aliens are never deported from the country once they are released into the U.S.

Should illegal aliens be prohibited from taking advantage of government benefits?

A key difference between conservatives and liberals is the way in which they handle a presidential election loss.  When conservatives lose a presidential election, they take a moment to lick their wounds, then use the rest of their time in the wilderness to examine, analyze, and strategize to win the next election.

Conversely, as many commentators have noted, and as liberals’ behavior since Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to Donald Trump has demonstrated, when liberals lose under the existing rules, they seek to change the rules, specifically, the Electoral College whereby the individual states choose the president, replacing it with a nationwide “popular vote.”

It is obvious why liberals, whose political philosophy and preferences are anathema to much of the nation, would want to do this.  Eliminating the Electoral College means Democratic presidential candidates never having to say they’re sorry to, or consider the opinions and values of, those ignorant, gun-totin’, Bible-thumpin’ rubes in flyover country.  That it would also destroy our federal system, transforming the 50 independent states into satraps of an all-powerful federal government is icing on the cake.

But if there is one thing on which liberals and conservatives can agree, it is that, the odds of convincing enough smaller states to cut off their own electoral cojones lies somewhere between zero and zilch.  So our ever-inventive (when it comes to disempowering their opponents) friends on the left have conjured up a Plan B, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

At last count, the total number of electoral votes among the states so far agreeing to the NPVIC is 189, with Ohio set to vote, soon.  But none of the so-called blue states has approved the NPVIC, so it remains to be seen whether, ultimately, NPVIC proponents will garner the required number of states.  It also remains to be seen whether the NPVIC is constitutional.  NPVIC proponents typically support their argument by paraphrasing a portion of the Constitution in order to assert that the states “determine the time and manner of elections.”  But their paraphrasing is incomplete.  And misleading.  Here is the precise language (Article I, Section 4, emphasis added):

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

So, the “Times, Places and Manner” language to which NPVIC proponents point applies only to senators and representatives.  The language for presidential elections appears elsewhere, in Article II, Section 1:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…

As Article II, Section 1, makes clear, when it comes to presidential elections, the states have just one power:  the power to decide how to choose their electors.  They cannot tell the electors for whom to vote.  Can our liberal friends have forgotten, already, their ples in 2016 for “Trump’s electors” to eschew their pledges to vote for Donald Trump and vote instead for Hillary Clinton?

Bottom line, a state cannot “assign” its electoral votes to anyone, including the “popular vote” winner.  So, one way to thwart the “popular vote truthers” would be to make every effort to get “stealth constitutionalist” electors appointed, who will cast their votes for whichever candidate wins their state’s popular vote.  Risky, but certainly worth a try; surely, there would be some electors, who would think twice before casting their ballot for a candidate whom their state’s voters rejected.

But may the writer to suggest a quite possibly even better way to defeat the NPVIC?

The “popular vote” is a created concept a mere tidbit of trivia for the idly curious, having no place in, and as much relevance to the Constitution and our federal system of government as the number of holes in Blackburn, Lancashire.  The states’ sole and absolute power, under the Constitution, over how they choose their electors, on the other hand, is very relevant.  To wit:  each state can use its popular vote to select its electors (but, again, cannot guarantee how their electors will vote).  But nothing in the Constitution requires a state to publish the specific vote total.

To understand how, and whether, such an idea could work, one need simply look at the real estate broker test this writer took to get licensed in New Jersey.  The writer passed his test (fortunately!)  But, to this day, does not know his actual score because New Jersey keeps the scores confidential and simply tells the applicant whether he passed or failed.

Nothing in the Constitution would prevent New Jersey from doing with its presidential elections what it already does with its real estate broker test:  announce the winner of New Jersey’s popular presidential vote, but not the actual number.

So how about a state law making it unlawful to reveal the precise vote count sooner than 24 hours after the House of Representatives has counted the electoral votes and certified the winner?  The popular vote number would still be published for those curious to know it; it will just be published later, when the House has counted the electoral votes, declared a winner, and it is too late to be used for purposes of the NPVIC.  For how can a “NPVIC state” “assign” its electoral votes to the “winner of the popular vote” if it does not know what the popular vote is?

Obviously, the more the merrier.  But just a single state, the bigger, the better (Texas?), sealing its popular vote until the winner is certified could be enough to defeat the NPVIC and perhaps even make it pointless to continue to pursue the NPVIC at all.

Perhaps, taking inspiration from the NPVIC itself, two or more states could create their own “sealed popular vote” (SPV) compact that would take effect only if and when the NPVIC takes effect.

There is, however, one issue with the SPV concept we must address:  the occurrence of a “Florida 2000” situation, where a SPV state’s popular vote is close enough to trigger a statewide recount.  One obvious solution would be to conduct any recount under seal, supervised by a judge or panel of judges.

And finally, to any NPVIC proponent tempted to dismiss the writer’s SPV concept out of hand, let the writer point out an apparently unconsidered flaw in the NPVIC.  The nationwide Electoral Vote distribution typically changes with every census.  Surely, the brilliant minds behind the NPVIC have noticed the exodus of Americans from “blue” states to “red” states, such that after the 2020 census, some electoral votes will “shift” from blue states to red ones.  And, of course, at least so far only blue and “purple” states have enacted the NPVIC.  So, what happens to the NPVIC if interstate migration causes the “NPVIC member state electoral vote total to drop below the 270 electoral votes required to trigger the NPVIC?  Does a collection of states comprising only, say, 260 electoral votes continue to “assign” their electoral votes to the popular vote winner?  Does the NPVIC periodically go into and out of effect as the collective EV total falls below or rises to 270?

A key difference between conservatives and liberals is the way in which they handle a presidential election loss.  When conservatives lose a presidential election, they take a moment to lick their wounds, then use the rest of their time in the wilderness to examine, analyze, and strategize to win the next election.

Conversely, as many commentators have noted, and as liberals’ behavior since Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss to Donald Trump has demonstrated, when liberals lose under the existing rules, they seek to change the rules, specifically, the Electoral College whereby the individual states choose the president, replacing it with a nationwide “popular vote.”

It is obvious why liberals, whose political philosophy and preferences are anathema to much of the nation, would want to do this.  Eliminating the Electoral College means Democratic presidential candidates never having to say they’re sorry to, or consider the opinions and values of, those ignorant, gun-totin’, Bible-thumpin’ rubes in flyover country.  That it would also destroy our federal system, transforming the 50 independent states into satraps of an all-powerful federal government is icing on the cake.

But if there is one thing on which liberals and conservatives can agree, it is that, the odds of convincing enough smaller states to cut off their own electoral cojones lies somewhere between zero and zilch.  So our ever-inventive (when it comes to disempowering their opponents) friends on the left have conjured up a Plan B, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact:

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

At last count, the total number of electoral votes among the states so far agreeing to the NPVIC is 189, with Ohio set to vote, soon.  But none of the so-called blue states has approved the NPVIC, so it remains to be seen whether, ultimately, NPVIC proponents will garner the required number of states.  It also remains to be seen whether the NPVIC is constitutional.  NPVIC proponents typically support their argument by paraphrasing a portion of the Constitution in order to assert that the states “determine the time and manner of elections.”  But their paraphrasing is incomplete.  And misleading.  Here is the precise language (Article I, Section 4, emphasis added):

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

So, the “Times, Places and Manner” language to which NPVIC proponents point applies only to senators and representatives.  The language for presidential elections appears elsewhere, in Article II, Section 1:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…

As Article II, Section 1, makes clear, when it comes to presidential elections, the states have just one power:  the power to decide how to choose their electors.  They cannot tell the electors for whom to vote.  Can our liberal friends have forgotten, already, their ples in 2016 for “Trump’s electors” to eschew their pledges to vote for Donald Trump and vote instead for Hillary Clinton?

Bottom line, a state cannot “assign” its electoral votes to anyone, including the “popular vote” winner.  So, one way to thwart the “popular vote truthers” would be to make every effort to get “stealth constitutionalist” electors appointed, who will cast their votes for whichever candidate wins their state’s popular vote.  Risky, but certainly worth a try; surely, there would be some electors, who would think twice before casting their ballot for a candidate whom their state’s voters rejected.

But may the writer to suggest a quite possibly even better way to defeat the NPVIC?

The “popular vote” is a created concept a mere tidbit of trivia for the idly curious, having no place in, and as much relevance to the Constitution and our federal system of government as the number of holes in Blackburn, Lancashire.  The states’ sole and absolute power, under the Constitution, over how they choose their electors, on the other hand, is very relevant.  To wit:  each state can use its popular vote to select its electors (but, again, cannot guarantee how their electors will vote).  But nothing in the Constitution requires a state to publish the specific vote total.

To understand how, and whether, such an idea could work, one need simply look at the real estate broker test this writer took to get licensed in New Jersey.  The writer passed his test (fortunately!)  But, to this day, does not know his actual score because New Jersey keeps the scores confidential and simply tells the applicant whether he passed or failed.

Nothing in the Constitution would prevent New Jersey from doing with its presidential elections what it already does with its real estate broker test:  announce the winner of New Jersey’s popular presidential vote, but not the actual number.

So how about a state law making it unlawful to reveal the precise vote count sooner than 24 hours after the House of Representatives has counted the electoral votes and certified the winner?  The popular vote number would still be published for those curious to know it; it will just be published later, when the House has counted the electoral votes, declared a winner, and it is too late to be used for purposes of the NPVIC.  For how can a “NPVIC state” “assign” its electoral votes to the “winner of the popular vote” if it does not know what the popular vote is?

Obviously, the more the merrier.  But just a single state, the bigger, the better (Texas?), sealing its popular vote until the winner is certified could be enough to defeat the NPVIC and perhaps even make it pointless to continue to pursue the NPVIC at all.

Perhaps, taking inspiration from the NPVIC itself, two or more states could create their own “sealed popular vote” (SPV) compact that would take effect only if and when the NPVIC takes effect.

There is, however, one issue with the SPV concept we must address:  the occurrence of a “Florida 2000” situation, where a SPV state’s popular vote is close enough to trigger a statewide recount.  One obvious solution would be to conduct any recount under seal, supervised by a judge or panel of judges.

And finally, to any NPVIC proponent tempted to dismiss the writer’s SPV concept out of hand, let the writer point out an apparently unconsidered flaw in the NPVIC.  The nationwide Electoral Vote distribution typically changes with every census.  Surely, the brilliant minds behind the NPVIC have noticed the exodus of Americans from “blue” states to “red” states, such that after the 2020 census, some electoral votes will “shift” from blue states to red ones.  And, of course, at least so far only blue and “purple” states have enacted the NPVIC.  So, what happens to the NPVIC if interstate migration causes the “NPVIC member state electoral vote total to drop below the 270 electoral votes required to trigger the NPVIC?  Does a collection of states comprising only, say, 260 electoral votes continue to “assign” their electoral votes to the popular vote winner?  Does the NPVIC periodically go into and out of effect as the collective EV total falls below or rises to 270?

It was with much trepidation that I planned a recent trip to Chicago. I was informed by many friends that Chicago was a great city and a great place to visit. However, Chicago is in the news for all the wrong reasons with daily reports of shootings and violence reaching historically high levels.

The Chicago you experience as a tourist is very different from the city being reported on daily basis in the news. Downtown Chicago was crowded with tourists and provided a visitor every impression of being a prosperous, vibrant and highly livable city

Visiting the areas around The Loop, the Magnificent Mile, and the neighborhoods located directly north of Downtown, we were impressed by the large numbers of young professional people that have made Chicago their home. For these selected few young educated elites, Chicago does provide opportunity for a good life in an appealing urban environment. The neighborhoods of choice for these mostly white and Asian American young people are located on the North side of the city in this most segregated of large cities in our country. 

Visiting the areas around The Loop, the Magnificent Mile, and the neighborhoods located directly north of Downtown, we were impressed by the large numbers of young professional people that have made Chicago their home. For these selected few young educated elites, Chicago does provide opportunity for a good life in an appealing urban environment. The neighborhoods of choice for these mostly white and Asian American young people are located on the North side of the city in this most segregated of large cities in our country. 

More often than not, socialism is associated with Marxism.  But this is a misconception, as Marxism is an ideology of communism, an extreme and exceptional current of socialism. Marxism left a significant ideological imprint in socialist doctrines; nevertheless, it did not constitute a mass movement of the Left.

The reality is trivial: Marxism belongs to the Left, but the mainstream of the Left ideologies is not Marxian.

Ironically, main currents of socialism emerged as a reformation, revision of Marxian thoughts.  Those revisionists can be divided into two groups: conformists and non-conformists.  To the latter group belongs, for example, revolutionary syndicalists and Bolsheviks that emancipated themselves from the determinism of Marxian materialist conception of history and saw a violent revolution as the only means to overthrown capitalism.  The former group—Social-Democrats—constitutes the majority of the socialist movement in Europe then and now.

Social-Democrats representing the flavor of the evolutionary socialism have been incorporated in the framework of the democratic state and sought to undermine capitalism from within.  In the beginning, they symbolized the labor and fought for improving its welfare on the sites of parliament by securing a wealth redistribution in the laws of the land.  At some point, an erroneous division of society on two classes—the proletariat and bourgeoisie—had vividly manifested itself as an emerging middle class, became a dominant stratum in the contemporary industrial countries.

It became inconvenient representing a proletariat as it made sense only in the framework of the Marxian theory of class struggle.  Therefore, contemporary social Democrats are on a constant search for a suitable electorate that they would fight for.  At present, they have managed to be representatives of amorphous strata of the “unfortunate,” “unprivileged,” “chronically oppressed,” and “minorities” organized as an underclass.  They stopped representing genuine and original labor in the way it was understood at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.

The vast majority of the socialist literature of the past was devoted to the resolution of the conflict between labor and capital.  Socialist intellectuals produced an enormous pile of ideas on how to achieve a fair and just society.  As good students of an old school system, they are eager to base their propositions on broad philosophical concepts; they tried to build their reasoning on the first axiomatic notions and infer logical conclusions as practiced in any viable scientific theory.  Modern leftists pale in comparison to their predecessors.  For the most part, they are mediocre and have not produced any sophisticated or novel philosophical and socio-economic analyses; they operate mostly by recycling old socialist ideas and slogans.

The contemporary Left in the United States managed to penetrate mainstream politics through the Democratic Party.  Like their counterparts in Europe, Democrats stopped representing the labor a long time ago.  They do not possess a coherent ideology that is based on the fundamental views about the universe, humans, and society.  Democrats are in the perpetual struggle to formulate issues that they could run on and to find people who support their agenda.  They need a constituency to vote them into the corridors of power; thus, they lured in a motley conglomerate of people who believed in the issues that Democrats supposed to defend.

Every election cycle, Democrats brought to the surface a different set of issues that is supposed to bring them electoral success.  At present, Democrats are very concerned with promoting a global warming hoax, free education, free healthcare, gay marriage, late-term abortions, the rights of illegal immigrants, and the immorality of closed borders.  Contrary to the notion of the proletariat that was designated to be an agent of the socialist revolution, Democrats assigned a class of victims that they rally to gain power.

As was pointed out earlier, the modern Left did not create any significant theoretical breakthrough in the field of socialism that would overshadow the works of their predecessors.  They are reduced to cherry-picking ideas, methods, and slogans from old socialist textbooks.  The modern Left in the United States entertains ideas predominantly taken from the archives of European Social-Democracy, Italian Fascism, and French Syndicalism.  It is difficult to say if leftists borrowed those ideas purposefully or arrived at them by chance.  Nevertheless, here they are:

1. The modern Left subscribes to the Bernsteinian idea of evolutionary socialism.  Most likely, leftists have no idea about the origin of this particular current of socialism and simply adhere to its provisions. Evolutionary Socialists work within the framework of the democratic state and seek to chop off pieces of capitalism through legislation of laws undermining a free market and entrepreneurial initiatives.  The main effort is concentrated on wealth redistribution by all means and the promotion of a broad variety of social programs and state regulations.  Bernstein emphasizes a tendency to increase the role of ethics in the political struggle in contemporary society. The Left has capitalized on this idea and portrayed itself continuously as the moral authority of humanity.  Its modus operandi is to politicize and moralize about any issues facing society.
2. The Left understands and appreciates the power of the state.  They seek to solve all problems through state interventions.  Democrats support the growth of the state’s influence, regulations, public property, and state generosity.  The Left either consciously or casually subscribed to the provisions of the theory of the totalitarian state developed by Italian Fascists.  The modern Leftists are, as a rule, atheists, yet they religiously believe in the power of the omnipresent and omnipotent state.  Intolerance of the Left to the opinions of their opponents is evidence of the adherence to the totalitarian state of mind, as well.
3. The Left creatively adopted the theory of the political myth developed by the French revolutionary Georges Sorel.  He was a theoretician of revolutionary syndicalism and national syndicalism and a progenitor of Italian Fascism.  Moreover, again, it is doubtful that the majority of the Left has ever heard about Sorel’s work.  However, Sorel’s idea of myths as mobilizing and politicizing factors got transmitted from generation to generation of revolutionaries and reformers.  The vast majority of issues submitted for public discussion by the Left are political myths.  Some myths used to be a real thing, such as racial segregation, but in the contemporary setting, continuously playing a racial card is undoubtedly a political myth.  Evidently, the essential type of myths developed by the Left is the victimhood of the different strata of the population.  The leftist elites encourage the captivity of the people in the aureole of victimhood and link them to the wealth redistribution engine of the government.  Thereby, the elites generate a cohort of obedient electors, the whole purpose of whom is to guarantee the elites’ coming to power.

Capitalism was overthrown in dozens of countries, and something that was called “socialism” by revolutionaries was tried there with great failure.  All known socialist regimes failed to exceed the prosperity of capitalism and committed an assault on individual rights as well as freedoms.  The modern Left is employing an approach of partial socialization of property and partial collectivization of consciousness, at least in the beginning.  It is evident as they are promoting policies of over-taxation, over-regulation, wealth redistribution, government spending, the creation of a nanny state, the indoctrination of the youth in schools and colleges with leftist ideology, and outright rejection as well as ridicule of other points of view.

Socialism happens to be a political myth itself.  It is used by the contemporary Left as a vehicle to gain political power and exploit the state as a money-making machine for the enrichment of the chosen elites.  Meanwhile, their voters continue to be in a state of perpetual victimhood and are forgotten until the next election.

More often than not, socialism is associated with Marxism.  But this is a misconception, as Marxism is an ideology of communism, an extreme and exceptional current of socialism. Marxism left a significant ideological imprint in socialist doctrines; nevertheless, it did not constitute a mass movement of the Left.

The reality is trivial: Marxism belongs to the Left, but the mainstream of the Left ideologies is not Marxian.

Ironically, main currents of socialism emerged as a reformation, revision of Marxian thoughts.  Those revisionists can be divided into two groups: conformists and non-conformists.  To the latter group belongs, for example, revolutionary syndicalists and Bolsheviks that emancipated themselves from the determinism of Marxian materialist conception of history and saw a violent revolution as the only means to overthrown capitalism.  The former group—Social-Democrats—constitutes the majority of the socialist movement in Europe then and now.

Social-Democrats representing the flavor of the evolutionary socialism have been incorporated in the framework of the democratic state and sought to undermine capitalism from within.  In the beginning, they symbolized the labor and fought for improving its welfare on the sites of parliament by securing a wealth redistribution in the laws of the land.  At some point, an erroneous division of society on two classes—the proletariat and bourgeoisie—had vividly manifested itself as an emerging middle class, became a dominant stratum in the contemporary industrial countries.

It became inconvenient representing a proletariat as it made sense only in the framework of the Marxian theory of class struggle.  Therefore, contemporary social Democrats are on a constant search for a suitable electorate that they would fight for.  At present, they have managed to be representatives of amorphous strata of the “unfortunate,” “unprivileged,” “chronically oppressed,” and “minorities” organized as an underclass.  They stopped representing genuine and original labor in the way it was understood at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries.

The vast majority of the socialist literature of the past was devoted to the resolution of the conflict between labor and capital.  Socialist intellectuals produced an enormous pile of ideas on how to achieve a fair and just society.  As good students of an old school system, they are eager to base their propositions on broad philosophical concepts; they tried to build their reasoning on the first axiomatic notions and infer logical conclusions as practiced in any viable scientific theory.  Modern leftists pale in comparison to their predecessors.  For the most part, they are mediocre and have not produced any sophisticated or novel philosophical and socio-economic analyses; they operate mostly by recycling old socialist ideas and slogans.

The contemporary Left in the United States managed to penetrate mainstream politics through the Democratic Party.  Like their counterparts in Europe, Democrats stopped representing the labor a long time ago.  They do not possess a coherent ideology that is based on the fundamental views about the universe, humans, and society.  Democrats are in the perpetual struggle to formulate issues that they could run on and to find people who support their agenda.  They need a constituency to vote them into the corridors of power; thus, they lured in a motley conglomerate of people who believed in the issues that Democrats supposed to defend.

Every election cycle, Democrats brought to the surface a different set of issues that is supposed to bring them electoral success.  At present, Democrats are very concerned with promoting a global warming hoax, free education, free healthcare, gay marriage, late-term abortions, the rights of illegal immigrants, and the immorality of closed borders.  Contrary to the notion of the proletariat that was designated to be an agent of the socialist revolution, Democrats assigned a class of victims that they rally to gain power.

As was pointed out earlier, the modern Left did not create any significant theoretical breakthrough in the field of socialism that would overshadow the works of their predecessors.  They are reduced to cherry-picking ideas, methods, and slogans from old socialist textbooks.  The modern Left in the United States entertains ideas predominantly taken from the archives of European Social-Democracy, Italian Fascism, and French Syndicalism.  It is difficult to say if leftists borrowed those ideas purposefully or arrived at them by chance.  Nevertheless, here they are:

1. The modern Left subscribes to the Bernsteinian idea of evolutionary socialism.  Most likely, leftists have no idea about the origin of this particular current of socialism and simply adhere to its provisions. Evolutionary Socialists work within the framework of the democratic state and seek to chop off pieces of capitalism through legislation of laws undermining a free market and entrepreneurial initiatives.  The main effort is concentrated on wealth redistribution by all means and the promotion of a broad variety of social programs and state regulations.  Bernstein emphasizes a tendency to increase the role of ethics in the political struggle in contemporary society. The Left has capitalized on this idea and portrayed itself continuously as the moral authority of humanity.  Its modus operandi is to politicize and moralize about any issues facing society.
2. The Left understands and appreciates the power of the state.  They seek to solve all problems through state interventions.  Democrats support the growth of the state’s influence, regulations, public property, and state generosity.  The Left either consciously or casually subscribed to the provisions of the theory of the totalitarian state developed by Italian Fascists.  The modern Leftists are, as a rule, atheists, yet they religiously believe in the power of the omnipresent and omnipotent state.  Intolerance of the Left to the opinions of their opponents is evidence of the adherence to the totalitarian state of mind, as well.
3. The Left creatively adopted the theory of the political myth developed by the French revolutionary Georges Sorel.  He was a theoretician of revolutionary syndicalism and national syndicalism and a progenitor of Italian Fascism.  Moreover, again, it is doubtful that the majority of the Left has ever heard about Sorel’s work.  However, Sorel’s idea of myths as mobilizing and politicizing factors got transmitted from generation to generation of revolutionaries and reformers.  The vast majority of issues submitted for public discussion by the Left are political myths.  Some myths used to be a real thing, such as racial segregation, but in the contemporary setting, continuously playing a racial card is undoubtedly a political myth.  Evidently, the essential type of myths developed by the Left is the victimhood of the different strata of the population.  The leftist elites encourage the captivity of the people in the aureole of victimhood and link them to the wealth redistribution engine of the government.  Thereby, the elites generate a cohort of obedient electors, the whole purpose of whom is to guarantee the elites’ coming to power.

Capitalism was overthrown in dozens of countries, and something that was called “socialism” by revolutionaries was tried there with great failure.  All known socialist regimes failed to exceed the prosperity of capitalism and committed an assault on individual rights as well as freedoms.  The modern Left is employing an approach of partial socialization of property and partial collectivization of consciousness, at least in the beginning.  It is evident as they are promoting policies of over-taxation, over-regulation, wealth redistribution, government spending, the creation of a nanny state, the indoctrination of the youth in schools and colleges with leftist ideology, and outright rejection as well as ridicule of other points of view.

Socialism happens to be a political myth itself.  It is used by the contemporary Left as a vehicle to gain political power and exploit the state as a money-making machine for the enrichment of the chosen elites.  Meanwhile, their voters continue to be in a state of perpetual victimhood and are forgotten until the next election.