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.

On March 2, 2017, Vermont’s elite Middlebury College made national news when some of its students barred writer Charles Murray from speaking, because of a book (The Bell Curve) he’d written 23 years earlier.  It was bad for public relations, and in response, the college initiated a new program in its political science department, “The Alexander Hamilton Forum” intended “to engage scholars and thinkers with diverse points of view, including points of view that are uncommon at elite colleges.”

On April 17, 2019, Middlebury College was compelled to cancel one of The Alexander Hamilton Forum’s premier events.  This time, leftist opposition was directed at Polish author and politician Ryszard Legutko, and focused on his alleged “homophobic” comments from 2011 (though Legutko had been invited to address intolerance by the Left in liberal democracies, not homosexuality).

On the Middlebury protesters’ Facebook events page, remarks such as this were postedL “Ryszard Legutko is a f*cking homophobe (and racist and sexist),” the protest is advertised as “EXTREMELY NON-DISRUPTIVE.”  Yet within minutes of the cancellation, those who silenced Legutko disingenuously posted: “We are reiterating that it was never our intention to shut this event down, nor prevent the speaker from speaking.”  In an interview with local media, “Jason Duquette-Hoffman, assistant director of the Center for Community Engagement at Middlebury College, agreed. “I think [protesters] were very clear that that was not their intent….’ ”

But Jason Duquette-Hoffman (as “Assistant Director for Privilege & Poverty”) was a signatory, with some 830 others, to an open letter demanding that Middlebury’s Political Science Department and Rohatyn Center for Global affairs withdraw support for Legutko.  The letter insists that Legutko not be permitted a forum:

Students have voiced again and again that bringing speakers such as Legutko is not productive….A cornerstone of any kind of “thoughtful citizenship” should always be listening, and we urge you all to recall the events of March 2, 2017 where the administration, including President Laurie Patton and the PSCI Department failed to listen to the voices of students.

After the college was unswayed by this latent threat to repeat the Murray embarrassment, an addition to this letter ominously warned: “More decisive action will follow.”

The letter states “the PSCI department and the RCGA should be sending a strong message that bigotry of any form is unacceptable instead of giving bigots a platform at the expense of student well-being.”  Yet signatories still say it was “never their intent” to shut down the event, and as authority they invoke… a Middlebury assistant director who had demanded that the speaker be denied a platform.

More ironically, the speaker at issue is a professor of philosophy at the storied Jagellonian University in Krakow, whose recent book alleges that left-wing extremism in liberal democracies parallels the stifling of speech under totalitarian communist regimes, and that “…both systems refuse to undertake any critical examination of their ideological prejudices.”  Under Poland’s communist rule, Legutko served as editor of an illegal publication in that country. He was subsequently elected to the Polish senate, where he was deputy speaker, and later served as education minister, then secretary of state.  He is currently a member of the European Parliament, on the foreign affairs committee, where he is engaged in Brexit discussions.

What did this distinguished international dignitary do to merit such derision in Vermont? Chief among the complaints of students was his 2011 statement: “I don’t understand why anyone should want to be proud of being a homosexual…. Be proud of what you do, not of being a homosexual.”  Also, he allegedly “argued that gay marriage is an ‘unnecessary, destructive experiment.’ ”  A Catholic from a nation which is 96% Catholic, Professor Legutko’s views are not so extreme there, and his 2011 statement could be rephrased, with political correctitude: “I don’t understand why anyone should want to be proud of being a heterosexual…. Be proud of what you do, not of being a heterosexual.”

But the students were determined.  Opposition leader Taite Shomo declared “….I think it would be irresponsible not to protest against such a person’s presence…. I intend on exercising my own right to free speech and protest by refusing to allow Legutko to speak here without informing the community of his harmful ideas.”  Another protest organizer claimed that “…queer identity [is] ….something that we feel this institution is implicitly undermining by giving Legutko a platform to speak….”  The Rohatyn Center Student Advisory Board unanimously signed a letter expressing their opposition to the College’s sponsorship of the lecture.

Professor Legutko has some intriguing views unrelated to homosexuality.  His Society as a Department Store argues that “…with the triumph of liberalism over communism, these [Eastern European] intellectuals feel compelled to digest an ideology that shares many elements with the oppressive system from which they just liberated themselves.” In a 2013 essay he asserts that modern secular liberal democracy is disconnected from classical foundations and seeks an imaginary utopia based solely on an ill-defined rights-based ideology, leading to ‘misbegotten ideological enthusiasms incited by the prophets of a better world.’ 

President Trump recently signed an executive order protecting free speech on college campuses.  Not one of Professor Legutko’s alleged statements remotely approaches the limits of hate speech as established in numerous Supreme Court decisions.  And yet these students launched a vicious offensive in bad taste, once again employing the “my free speech is the denial of yours” mantra.

On its “Statement of Protest Event,” organizers pontificate that “Middlebury’s elevation of Legutko to a legitimate academic platform echoes that of Charles Murray in 2017 and once again represents an attack on Middlebury students of marginalized identities.”  That is, having a speaker about free speech must not be permitted any more than Murray, because his very speaking is ‘an attack.’  Organizers then lash out at a Middlebury professor’s appeal to ‘academic freedom’:

We feel that it is necessary to interrogate the nuances of “academic freedom,” as the academy has long been a sphere that reproduces and legitimizes oppressive rhetoric, action, and knowledge claims under the guise of “freedom”. We see the legitimization of Legutko’s speech as inseparable from other instances of unethical educational practice.

The Statement of Protest assures that “We are not protesting his right to say these hateful things.  We are protesting Middlebury’s decision to invite him to our campus, give him a bigger platform….”  Apparently he can say these things — that he last said in 2011, and that most any Catholic or Christian, or Muslim or Jew, might say — just not in public.  And he can’t say any new things, or unrelated things, or anything at all, at Middlebury, ever….

The day before the event, organizer Taite Shomo posted on her ‘Ryszard Legutko is a f*cking homophobe’ facebook page:

Hi everyone!  Middlebury College is bringing Ryszard Legutko, far right member of Polish party PiS and raging homophobe and racist, to speak!  Go Panthers!!!!!!!

If you’re as pissed off as I am, join us outside of Kirk Alumni Center to show Midd that we will not stand for blatant homophobia on our campus.  Signs, and informational pamphlets about Legutko’s homophobia will be provided, but feel free to make your own sign too!!

Also, PLEASE don your ~gay~ apparel!  We’re here, we’re queer, we’re ready to fricken educate.

Then, minutes after cancellation: ‘we are reiterating that it was never our intention to shut this event down, nor prevent the speaker from speaking.”

Someone needs an education.

Image credit: Middlebury College, via Wikipedia // CC BY-SA 3.0

On March 2, 2017, Vermont’s elite Middlebury College made national news when some of its students barred writer Charles Murray from speaking, because of a book (The Bell Curve) he’d written 23 years earlier.  It was bad for public relations, and in response, the college initiated a new program in its political science department, “The Alexander Hamilton Forum” intended “to engage scholars and thinkers with diverse points of view, including points of view that are uncommon at elite colleges.”

On April 17, 2019, Middlebury College was compelled to cancel one of The Alexander Hamilton Forum’s premier events.  This time, leftist opposition was directed at Polish author and politician Ryszard Legutko, and focused on his alleged “homophobic” comments from 2011 (though Legutko had been invited to address intolerance by the Left in liberal democracies, not homosexuality).

On the Middlebury protesters’ Facebook events page, remarks such as this were postedL “Ryszard Legutko is a f*cking homophobe (and racist and sexist),” the protest is advertised as “EXTREMELY NON-DISRUPTIVE.”  Yet within minutes of the cancellation, those who silenced Legutko disingenuously posted: “We are reiterating that it was never our intention to shut this event down, nor prevent the speaker from speaking.”  In an interview with local media, “Jason Duquette-Hoffman, assistant director of the Center for Community Engagement at Middlebury College, agreed. “I think [protesters] were very clear that that was not their intent….’ ”

But Jason Duquette-Hoffman (as “Assistant Director for Privilege & Poverty”) was a signatory, with some 830 others, to an open letter demanding that Middlebury’s Political Science Department and Rohatyn Center for Global affairs withdraw support for Legutko.  The letter insists that Legutko not be permitted a forum:

Students have voiced again and again that bringing speakers such as Legutko is not productive….A cornerstone of any kind of “thoughtful citizenship” should always be listening, and we urge you all to recall the events of March 2, 2017 where the administration, including President Laurie Patton and the PSCI Department failed to listen to the voices of students.

After the college was unswayed by this latent threat to repeat the Murray embarrassment, an addition to this letter ominously warned: “More decisive action will follow.”

The letter states “the PSCI department and the RCGA should be sending a strong message that bigotry of any form is unacceptable instead of giving bigots a platform at the expense of student well-being.”  Yet signatories still say it was “never their intent” to shut down the event, and as authority they invoke… a Middlebury assistant director who had demanded that the speaker be denied a platform.

More ironically, the speaker at issue is a professor of philosophy at the storied Jagellonian University in Krakow, whose recent book alleges that left-wing extremism in liberal democracies parallels the stifling of speech under totalitarian communist regimes, and that “…both systems refuse to undertake any critical examination of their ideological prejudices.”  Under Poland’s communist rule, Legutko served as editor of an illegal publication in that country. He was subsequently elected to the Polish senate, where he was deputy speaker, and later served as education minister, then secretary of state.  He is currently a member of the European Parliament, on the foreign affairs committee, where he is engaged in Brexit discussions.

What did this distinguished international dignitary do to merit such derision in Vermont? Chief among the complaints of students was his 2011 statement: “I don’t understand why anyone should want to be proud of being a homosexual…. Be proud of what you do, not of being a homosexual.”  Also, he allegedly “argued that gay marriage is an ‘unnecessary, destructive experiment.’ ”  A Catholic from a nation which is 96% Catholic, Professor Legutko’s views are not so extreme there, and his 2011 statement could be rephrased, with political correctitude: “I don’t understand why anyone should want to be proud of being a heterosexual…. Be proud of what you do, not of being a heterosexual.”

But the students were determined.  Opposition leader Taite Shomo declared “….I think it would be irresponsible not to protest against such a person’s presence…. I intend on exercising my own right to free speech and protest by refusing to allow Legutko to speak here without informing the community of his harmful ideas.”  Another protest organizer claimed that “…queer identity [is] ….something that we feel this institution is implicitly undermining by giving Legutko a platform to speak….”  The Rohatyn Center Student Advisory Board unanimously signed a letter expressing their opposition to the College’s sponsorship of the lecture.

Professor Legutko has some intriguing views unrelated to homosexuality.  His Society as a Department Store argues that “…with the triumph of liberalism over communism, these [Eastern European] intellectuals feel compelled to digest an ideology that shares many elements with the oppressive system from which they just liberated themselves.” In a 2013 essay he asserts that modern secular liberal democracy is disconnected from classical foundations and seeks an imaginary utopia based solely on an ill-defined rights-based ideology, leading to ‘misbegotten ideological enthusiasms incited by the prophets of a better world.’ 

President Trump recently signed an executive order protecting free speech on college campuses.  Not one of Professor Legutko’s alleged statements remotely approaches the limits of hate speech as established in numerous Supreme Court decisions.  And yet these students launched a vicious offensive in bad taste, once again employing the “my free speech is the denial of yours” mantra.

On its “Statement of Protest Event,” organizers pontificate that “Middlebury’s elevation of Legutko to a legitimate academic platform echoes that of Charles Murray in 2017 and once again represents an attack on Middlebury students of marginalized identities.”  That is, having a speaker about free speech must not be permitted any more than Murray, because his very speaking is ‘an attack.’  Organizers then lash out at a Middlebury professor’s appeal to ‘academic freedom’:

We feel that it is necessary to interrogate the nuances of “academic freedom,” as the academy has long been a sphere that reproduces and legitimizes oppressive rhetoric, action, and knowledge claims under the guise of “freedom”. We see the legitimization of Legutko’s speech as inseparable from other instances of unethical educational practice.

The Statement of Protest assures that “We are not protesting his right to say these hateful things.  We are protesting Middlebury’s decision to invite him to our campus, give him a bigger platform….”  Apparently he can say these things — that he last said in 2011, and that most any Catholic or Christian, or Muslim or Jew, might say — just not in public.  And he can’t say any new things, or unrelated things, or anything at all, at Middlebury, ever….

The day before the event, organizer Taite Shomo posted on her ‘Ryszard Legutko is a f*cking homophobe’ facebook page:

Hi everyone!  Middlebury College is bringing Ryszard Legutko, far right member of Polish party PiS and raging homophobe and racist, to speak!  Go Panthers!!!!!!!

If you’re as pissed off as I am, join us outside of Kirk Alumni Center to show Midd that we will not stand for blatant homophobia on our campus.  Signs, and informational pamphlets about Legutko’s homophobia will be provided, but feel free to make your own sign too!!

Also, PLEASE don your ~gay~ apparel!  We’re here, we’re queer, we’re ready to fricken educate.

Then, minutes after cancellation: ‘we are reiterating that it was never our intention to shut this event down, nor prevent the speaker from speaking.”

Someone needs an education.

Image credit: Middlebury College, via Wikipedia // CC BY-SA 3.0