The Artful Dilettante is a native of Pittsburgh, PA, and a graduate of Penn State University. He is a lover of liberty and a lifelong and passionate student of the same. He is voracious reader of books on the Enlightenment and the American colonial and revolutionary periods. He is a student of libertarian and Objectivist philosophies. He collects revolutionary war and period currency, books, and newspapers. He is married and the father of one teenage son. He is kind, witty, generous to a fault, and unjustifiably proud of himself. He is the life of the party and an unparalleled raconteur.
I miss Jimmy Carter. At least when HE was wrecking the country, everyone–including himself–viewed inflation, military weakness, poor national self-esteem, cultural and economic decline as BAD things. Today, those things are enabled, championed and supported by the media, by teachers, by so-called intellectuals, by huge woke corporations and by the government. Carter’s era was one of temporary “malaise.” Today we’re witnessing the sociological equivalent of murder-suicide. We thought Carter was bad back then…but Biden’s unaccountable wrecking ball of today is much, much worse.
If you read the North American and European press, you will get the impression that the Chinese have, geopolitically, reached their westernmost geographical limit in offering themselves as the new patrons of Afghanistan. It’s a bold strike against China’s NATO competitors, who have left, or who have been driven out of Afghanistan by the Taliban. And so, China is making the new government of Taliban rulers in Afghanistan its tributary, or client state.
The Taliban do not have money and look to the Chinese for aid and investment because the only shrewd and right thing the U.S. government did before its panicked retreat from Afghanistan was to ensure that the gold of Afghanistan and its currency reserves were safely in a vault in or around New York City. From these funds, no doubt, the Biden administration is now offering its first sixty-four million dollars of “development assistance,” or perhaps ransom money, to that self-declared Islamic dictatorship. We can be sure that the Taliban will use these funds to empower women and protect ethnic minorities.
Despite the hybrid and contorted Marxism of today’s ruling Communist Party of China, the Chinese and their leaders are a country and people with a long historical memory, at least 2,500 years of it. It is common Chinese practice to look at the present through the lens of the past. And so, Chinese people are well aware that they once ruled or at least lorded it over Afghanistan, for at least about one hundred years.
This was during the period of the Tang Dynasty, whose imperial rulers of the Tang Empire (618–907) controlled a landmass that began in the Pacific and reached the Hindu Kush in the west. During that time, what is today Afghanistan, Pakistan, and much of Northern India was part of a series of sophisticated, urbane, and literate Buddhist cultures.
At the time, the area was a world center of Buddhist scholarship and teaching. Its artisans and sculptors were the creators of the massive Buddhist rock sculptures of the Bamiyan valley in Afghanistan, which were blown up by the iconoclastic Afghan Taliban on the 21st of February, 2001.
During the seventh century A.D., a traveling monk from China knew that the texts and the teaching of Buddhism were purer in the Afghan and Indian monasteries, and so Chinese Buddhist monk and pilgrim Xuan Zang (602–664) walked from China to Afghanistan, India, and back, after having spent years studying Sanskrit and collecting Buddhist manuscripts, which he then brought back to China.
The emperor of China at the time welcomed him home, subsidized his translation work, rewarded him highly, and thus triggered yet another and one of the more substantial waves of Buddhist influence on the Chinese people, an imported religion that has waxed and waned there until the present day.
All literate Chinese know about Xuan Zang, and he is still a national hero. So, from a Chinese historical and political perspective, they are not replacing the Americans in today’s Afghanistan. They actually feel that they are simply and justly re-asserting their manifest destiny in a land they once ruled, just before the rise of Islam destroyed every vestige of Buddhist civilization in and around the Hindu Kush.
During the sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen hundreds, the Chinese empire began to shrink. It suffered losses against the Russians to the west and northeast and to the Western Europeans, who occupied its eastern coast, where they created independent enclaves.
Nevertheless, in the late nineteenth century, the Chinese empire reasserted itself in eastern central Asia and conquered the Uighur Turkish-speaking Muslims who have dominated the Sinkiang region for centuries. This became China’s unruly “Muslim wild west” and is a sore spot in the national consciousness and the foreign policy establishment in China.Read More
The Uighurs of Sinkiang have witnessed the successful disengagement from the Soviet Union (since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991) of most Central Asian peoples and republics, who comprise Turkish- and Persian-speaking Muslim townspeople, farmers, and nomads. They reasserted their Muslim identities and religious practices after the enforcement of Russian-dominated Marxist secular governments during the previous seventy years (that is, from the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990).
They are therefore sympathetic to their ethnic, linguistic, and religious Turkish-speaking cousins and co-religionists, the Uighurs of Sinkiang, who would like to break away from China and create an additional Central Asian Turkish-speaking state based on Islam. At least four hundred thousand Uighurs have fled persecution in Sinkiang and have crossed over to neighbouring Kazakhstan so that they can live more freely. The Chinese will have none of this.
The first thing the Chinese have done is drown the Turkish-speaking Uighur Muslims with secular, Christian, Buddhist, Confucian, or Taoist Chinese Han immigrants, which is the dominant Chinese ethnic group. After the communist revolution in China in 1948, one year later, the Han population of Sinkiang numbered 300,000 people. By the year 2000, of the 7.8 million people living in Sinkiang, more than 40% were Han Chinese, an increase of 2,200% over a mere half-century.
The local Uighurs have been treated to a carrot-and-stick approach by their Chinese overlords: increased investment in infrastructure, linking Sinkiang with its “Silk Road” initiative, alongside merciless persecution of any political resistance to Chinese domination.
In 2018, Human Rights Watch published a report on Chinese behavior in Sinkiang. This paragraph distills the report:
Inside political education camps, detainees are forced to learn Mandarin Chinese, sing praises of the Chinese Communist Party, and memorize rules applicable primarily to Turkic Muslims. Those outside the camps are required to attend weekly, or even daily, Chinese flag-raising ceremonies, political indoctrination meetings, and at times Mandarin classes. Detainees are told they may not be allowed to leave the camps unless they have learned over 1,000 Chinese characters or are otherwise deemed to have become loyal Chinese subjects; Turkic Muslims living outside are subjected to movement restrictions ranging from house arrest, to being barred from leaving their locales, to being prevented from leaving the country. Inside, people are punished for peacefully practicing religion; outside, the government’s religious restrictions are so stringent that it has effectively outlawed Islam. Inside, people are closely watched by guards and are barred from contacting their families and friends. Those living in their homes are watched by their neighbors, officials, and tech-enabled mass surveillance systems, and are not allowed to contact those in foreign countries.
At the same time, the Chinese have established working groups such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which comprise China and most of the newly independent states of Central Asia. The SCO has become one vehicle for aid, investment, diplomacy, and security, linking China’s stand against radical Islam in central Asia with its anti-terror metaphor for its suppression of the Uighurs. This has, for example, included the Chinese National Petroleum company gaining ownership of 60% of gas-producing companies like Aktobemunaygaz in Kazakhstan.
Simply put, China is building roads, creating air links, flooding the central Asian markets with Chinese manufactured goods, and creating a security and intelligence network that ensures that its Central Asian neighbors will not challenge it in Sinkiang. This is close to the kind of thinking of the Tang emperors who through trade (gifts/bribes), luxury goods, and military domination ensured Han dominance of Central Asia for a period.
The Chinese have done and continue to do all they can to offset the influence that NATO has created with the central Asian republics, slowly bringing them within the NATO umbrella, a policy until recently pushed most aggressively by the U.S., while also keeping Russia at bay, which conquered Central Asia during the 19th century until driven out in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union.
And so, we must conclude that despite the new Afghanistan’s radical Islamic agenda, it is unlikely that the Taliban will engage in a jihad to free their “Muslim brothers in Sinkiang.” Like the rest of their “brothers” in the Islamic world, they will gladly ignore the destruction of the Uyghur people and nation so that they may feather their own nests and increase their share in the China-driven Silk Road initiative.
The Chinese, who have been the off-and-on imperialists of Central Asia for centuries, will know how to insulate themselves from the Taliban through their Central Asian quid pro quo.
The Chinese Communist Party cadres are laughing all the way to the mineral riches of Afghanistan, which they will exploit mercilessly while sticking it to Russia and the West. The empire strikes back.
Here is a collection of articles from Global Research documenting the Covid Deception that has been fostered on the Western World. The deception that is being forced on people is so counterfactual that it is difficult to avoid the question whether a very dark agenda is in play. Our insouciance and inaction are allowing the net of deception to close us in and prevent our resistance.
Some of these articles below give one part of the deception but aren’t aware of other parts of the deception and thus give some ground to the official narrative. When you read them keep in mind these established points: (1) the PCR test is faulty and the false positives from this test are the foundation of the alleged “pandemic,” (2) deaths and injuries from the mRNA vaccines are attributed to Covid, not to the vaccine, and are not reported as reactions to the vaccine, (3) the mRNA vaccines in effect train the virus to escape immune response, thus creating variants that are not controlled by immune responses. Alternatively, adverse vaccine reactions are called “variants.”
Clearly, the mRNA vaccines do not protect. They worsen the situation. Pfizer’s own former Vice President and Chief Science Officer tells you this himself.
I have given you enough facts in articles on my website that if you don’t understand by now that The Covid Deception is an attack on your health, your career, and your civil liberties there is no hope for you. If the information below fails to rouse you, you are as good as dead.
Prediction: Soon, our federal regime will propose legislation, or perhaps issue an executive order, to quantify and identify the “social credit” or “trustworthiness” of a person from the government’s point-of-view. I guarantee it’s coming. As with vaccination mandates and government access to your private bank accounts–what’s to stop them? Chief Justice John Roberts?
Here’s how the social credit system works in Communist China, according to Communist-friendly Wikipedia:
The social credit initiative calls for the establishment of a unified record system so that businesses, individuals and government institutions can be tracked and evaluated for trustworthiness. Initial reports suggested that the system utilized a numerical score as the reward and punishment mechanism; recent reports suggest there are in fact multiple, different forms of the social credit system being experimented with. A numerical system has been implemented only in several regional pilot programs, while the nationwide regulatory method has been based primarily on blacklisting and whitelisting. The credit system is closely related to China’s mass surveillance systems such as Skynet, which incorporates facial recognition, big data analysis, and artificial intelligence.
The Social Credit System is an extension to the existing financial credit rating system in China. The origin of the system can be traced back to the 1980s when the Chinese government attempted to develop a personal banking and financial credit rating system, especially for rural individuals and small businesses that lack documented records. The Chinese government aims to enhance trust in the society with the system and regulate businesses regarding issues such as food safety, intellectual property theft, and financial fraud.
Supporters claim that the system helps to regulate social behavior, improve the “trustworthiness” of citizens (which includes paying taxes and bills on time), and promote traditional moral values. [TRANSLATION: Conformity and adherence to the State.] Critics of the system claim that it oversteps the rule of law and infringes the legal rights of residents and organizations, especially the right to reputation, the right to privacy as well as personal dignity, and that the system may be a tool for comprehensive government surveillance and for suppression of dissent from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). [TRANSLATION: That’s exactly what it is. And it will be part of the mandatory federal vaccine passport in America.]
Anti-Biden chants are growing in intensity and frequency at sports games. So which government agency will be employed, as OSHA was for vaccine mandates, in shutting down the games and silencing the chants against our nasty old dictator? If you don’t think they will try, you haven’t been paying attention to anything for the last year and a half.
56 percent of Americans reportedly don’t like the direction of the country under Biden. Only 56 percent, you might ask? That’s beyond disturbing.
Usually, a dictator generates fear, and even a resentful, odd respect. America’s dictator is an unpopular fool. As Ben Franklin would have said: he’s a blockhead. Biden’s cackling understudy would be even worse. So how in the world do they think they can pull this off?
“Civil war,” wrote Algernon Sidney, “is a disease, but tyranny is the death of the state.”
The aftermath of war extends beyond physical destruction. Not just PTSD in individuals, but rarely does war leave the combatant societies unaffected. The victors of our 1861-1865 conflict imposed their will on an upended South and subsequently opened their arms and welcomed back the vanquished on condition that they submit post-war constitutions for congressional approval. Big changes. But, upon curing the disease, the division over slavery, the US grew to new heights in prosperity. During the war, and less well-known, government for a time suppressed freedom of speech and the press. These are elements of tyranny.
While reason justifies these anti-republican acts for national survival, they aren’t justifiable in peacetime. Thanks to over a century of conditioning, too many Americans are either ambivalent about, or actually support oppressive income taxation, unfree speech, press, and surveillance not for the purpose of deflecting foreign threats, but to suppress domestic political opponents.
The War on Terror, sold to the public as the means to defeat muslim attacks, turned inward. Years ago we stopped reading “islamic” as an adjective to “terror.” Two Presidents either allowed or promoted islamic immigration in such numbers that openly anti-American, pro-sharia and pro-tyranny muslim colonies have representation in Congress. After almost twenty years, Americans endure heretofore unacceptable and outrageous levels of surveillance and intrusive searches as the condition for simply going about their lives.
President Obama didn’t appoint public servants. He appointed public enemies. Together, these people, unburdened by conscience or virtue, work to this day to remove President Trump. Their felonies are open and notorious, yet there is little public rebuke or cries for indictments, because, like uttering the term, “islamic terror,” speaking the truth about the forty-fourth President and his accomplices is dangerous to one’s person or employment.
Commentators and keen observers like Dennis Prager often touch on this civil war, a true revolutionary civil war in which Leftists set out, through any means necessary, to overthrow the existing government, our Constitution, and assume all powers. This isn’t a clash of political parties. The conflict rhymes with the downfall of the Roman Republic, in which afterward, tyrannical emperors kept Rome’s republican institutions. Similarly, if victorious, the Deep State will keep the visible institutions of our republic, meaning the three branches, offices and regular elections. Except, they won’t matter. Once fully corrupted, US elections will serve as comforting placebos, pretend exercises in un-free government.
Citizens risk assault for wearing MAGA ballcaps. In social media, thou shalt self-censor, or else. Few are in greater danger for their safety and liberty than the close associates of President Trump. Imprisonment for non-crimes, financial and family ruin are their rewards. The law, once the hallmark of our republic, has become a snare. No man, brought before Deep State judges, escapes. Should crimes be wanting, diligent prosecutors supply the defects.
Sidney also observed, “It cannot be denied that the best men during the liberty of Rome thrived best, and that so soon as liberty was subverted, the worst men thrived best.” Indeed. As American liberty wanes, the worst among us, the Bidens, Clintons, Obamas openly thrive on pay-to-play, kickbacks, and no-show jobs paying millions that subvert national security.
In this death-struggle with the Deep State for Americas’ soul, there’s no guarantee patriots will emerge victorious, and unlike after the last civil war when our first freedoms returned, who among us expect the renewal of free speech, press, association and liberty?
To answer the question of who is controlling the Biden presidency, we should consider the Biden administration’s disastrous policy decisions. “Cui bono?” – Who benefits?
Why would Biden abandon Bagram Air Force Base? It is key to all of Southwest Asia – just 400 miles to China and 500 miles to Iran. It is a vitally important geopolitical, military and intelligence platform with consequences and “reach” that involve far more than just Afghan regional matters. Who, specifically, made the recommendation to just walk away from Bagram – and then who gave the order?
If we suggest that there is a combination or passing alliance of these various interests and groups, each seeking to advance their own agenda behind the official, hollow, front of “President Joe Biden” – then we run the risk of being branded conspiracy theorists. That is both dishonest and unfortunate, because asking questions of, and seeking accountability from, elected officials is not “crazy.” Interest groups do, in fact, lobby presidential advisors, White House staff, and even members of the president’s family.
We must press on – asking questions, examining records, seeking accountability and documenting facts. The truth will prevail.
The question has been asked dozens of different ways, depending on the questioner and the public policy issue. “Who is controlling the Biden presidency?”
A May 2021 powder-puff profile of President Biden in the Washington Post was written as both a hagiography and a politically therapeutic assurance that there’s been a “return to normalcy” in the White House. The article’s author, Ashley Parker, was clearly given extraordinary access to personal details by White House staff and Biden handlers in order to compose her report. The resulting article is an interesting mix of Ms. Parker taking careful dictation from the White House, and her own ambition to pledge allegiance to the larger Biden “family.” In fairness, here is how Ms. Parker describes the sourcing of her article:
“This account of Biden’s daily schedule is based on interviews with seven people familiar with the president’s daily life, most speaking on the condition of anonymity to disclose private details.”
There is genuine journalistic value in Ms. Parker’s work – and a mere four (+) months later – given the lightning fast and tumultuous downturn in the Biden presidency, 20/20 hindsight and review of her article may help answer our question: “Who is controlling the Biden presidency?”
Ms. Parker’s article offers clues:
On many days, Biden then summons his brain trust, including Klain and top advisers Mike Donilon, Anita Dunn, Bruce Reed, Steve Ricchetti and Cedric L. Richmond. These sessions rarely have a formal agenda; Biden simply declares, “Here’s what I want to talk about,” or the aides raise subjects they have discussed in advance for Biden’s consideration.
“There are very few issues that get to the level of the president,” Dunn said. “Those are the ones that only he can make a decision on.”
Donilon, who has been with Biden for decades, is seen by the others as his conscience, alter ego and shared brain. One longtime Biden adviser estimated that no fewer than 10,000 times in their working relationship has the president turned to Donilon and asked, “Mike, what do you think?”
The closest Ms. Parker comes to addressing other influencers of the Biden presidency is passing reference to President Biden’s son, Hunter. She writes: “He also calls his son Hunter, who has struggled with addiction, every night before bedtime, texting him if he doesn’t pick up right away.”
One thing Ms. Parker does not mention: Federal prosecutors are currently investigating Hunter Biden over details related to the extraordinary sums of money he purportedly earned from China-related business deals. Readers will recall that Hunter Biden profited from two separate deals, each worth billions of dollars, with Communist Chinese “business” entities during the time his father was vice president. Reports on Hunter Biden’s email communications indicate that (in just one instance) remuneration plans of 10% of the value of a Chinese energy company deals were earmarked for “The Big Guy” – possibly indicating then-VP Joe Biden.
We have the extraordinary (and outrageously scandalous) story of Hunter Biden and his deep Biden family financial ties. Air travel records, alone, document the deep connections between the president and Hunter. The air travel records also offer an investigative roadmap for any serious law enforcement officials seeking to examine questions of Biden corruption. More than 330,000 Americans have demanded just such an investigation from the Department of Justice. The information and emails contained in the Hunter Biden laptops reportedly detail President Biden’s knowledgeability of his son’s overseas business dealings.
We have documentation and details of key influencers around President Biden. Ms. Parker has identified Biden’s “brain trust” and their role in guiding the president.
To answer the question of who is controlling the Biden presidency, we should consider the Biden administration’s disastrous policy decisions. “Cui bono?” – Who benefits? White House spokesperson Jen Psaki has been placed in impossibly contradictory positions, attempting to defend administration policy reversals. One need look no further than the Biden position on border issues (security, health, humanitarian, drug smuggling, human trafficking, impact on US border communities, etc.) – and – the humiliating collapse of the Afghan government, and the American diplomatic and military response.
Just consider for one example concerning Afghanistan: Why would Biden abandon Bagram Air Force Base? It is key to all of Southwest Asia – just 400 miles to China and 500 miles to Iran. It is a vitally important geopolitical, military and intelligence platform with consequences and “reach” that involve far more than just Afghan regional matters. Who, specifically, made the recommendation to just walk away from Bagram – and then who gave the order?
Which brings us back to our fundamental question: Who is controlling the Biden presidency?
Here are some potential answers – individually, in combination with key influencers of President Biden (his “brain trust,” above), or via convenient, passing, alliance. Each of these have their own objectives for influencing those closest to President Biden:
Professional Washington political operatives of the Democrat Party and the corresponding leftist “deep state” federal government officials that have incrementally occupied the headquarters of every executive branch department and agency in Washington DC.
Lobbyists representing the military-industrial complex; big pharma; energy interests; and/or foreign powers and multinational corporations.
Big tech and the related Silicon Valley business interests.
Witting and unwitting agents of Communist China and its state “business enterprises” who pretend to operate independent of the government.
Militant leftists from organizations like Antifa, BLM and associated organizations who see an opportunity for unchecked and sometimes subsidized activities purportedly endorsed by the Democrat establishment.
If we suggest that there is a combination or passing alliance of these various interests and groups, each seeking to advance their own agenda behind the official, hollow, front of “President Joe Biden” – then we run the risk of being branded conspiracy theorists. That is both dishonest and unfortunate, because asking questions of, and seeking accountability from, elected officials is not “crazy.” Interest groups do, in fact, lobby presidential advisors, White House staff, and even members of the president’s family.
Without devolving into the stereotypes of the conspiracy theories described in Richard Hofstetter’s, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” the American public can and must seek accountability for the decisions and actions of the government. The left enjoys sensationalizing and marginalizing their political opponents by leveraging pejoratives, ad hominem and cartoonishly simplistic derision to undermine legitimate questions and concerns. We must not take their insidious tactics to heart. We must press on – asking questions, examining records, seeking accountability and documenting facts. The truth will prevail.
Chris Farrell is Director of Investigations at Judicial Watch and Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.
“Vaccines and boosters forever. Masks forever. Whatever else the government scientists say.”
“But some scientists say otherwise.”
“Don’t listen to them. Google, Facebook and Twitter have blocked them. The people who run those companies are very, very smart. Only listen to the scientists they endorse. And the White House guides them.”
“But how is that science? Isn’t that authority? Authority isn’t science. Science refers to facts, logic, reason and proof. If one scientist says the science is settled, and another scientist says here’s a fact or an outcome you didn’t consider, then doesn’t science consist of considering those claims? Scientists discuss among themselves. Thinking people can follow or reject their reasoning. That’s how we get to objective knowledge, isn’t it?”
“That’s none of your concern. The doctors at the CDC, at WHO and in the White House will tell you what’s worth considering and not considering.”
“But isn’t that for science to decide? And for my own investigation to decide, in that case, since masks and vaccinations affect my body? Aren’t I free to choose?”
“You are not free to harm others. If you don’t do as you’re told, you will harm others. That makes you bad and, potentially, a criminal.”
“But what about doctors? Some doctors disagree with some of what the doctors in the federal government are saying. My own doctor knows my own body, and my own medical situation, better than doctors at CDC and WHO speaking for everyone-in-general.”
“The doctors at CDC and WHO are superior. They are higher in rank. You must follow what they say. Your doctor will follow them, unless he or she is a bad doctor.”
“That doesn’t sound like science to me. That sounds more like the military.”
“It’s a war. Fighting this virus is a war. Until we have 100 percent victory, nobody can rest. It’s the new normal.”
“But viruses have always been with us. Nobody has yet found and absolute cure for any virus. If we can’t do anything until a particular virus is defeated, doesn’t that make us all slaves under a dictatorship for the rest of our lives?”
“That’s not your concern. The ONLY concern is eradicating the virus. The CDC and White House are in charge of this effort. We must obey them in order to defeat the virus. This is no time for thinking or independence.”
“And what about money? The companies making these vaccines and treatments are making billions. I don’t expect anyone to do anything for free. I’m fine with free market prices. But these companies are selling a product that the government is forcing everyone to take. Isn’t that an unfair advantage for the profit-making company? Isn’t that a breeding ground for corruption?”
“That’s not your concern.”
“And most doctors get most of their income from Medicare and Medicaid, programs run by the government. They might be afraid to speak up about differing opinions from the CDC or the White House on treatments for COVID, vaccinations and the like, because doing so could cut off their income stream. Isn’t that a concern for bias?”
“That’s not your concern. If you oppose Medicare and Medicaid, you are immoral, and possibly even a crimnial. Discussion closed.”
I constantly hear stories of people getting harassed or threatened for still supporting Trump or even Republicans. For example, I recently heard of two incidents where people with Trump bumperstickers or MAGA hats were told, “I hope you die of COVID.” Yet I never hear the opposite. How many Republicans tell Biden voters they hope they die of COVID? Which leads me to ask: Are leftists/collectivists/DemCom Bidenistas inherently mentally abusive people? Isn’t this behavior verbal abuse, at the minimum? Of course it is. What fuels such hatred? Leftists are getting everything they want. Absolutely everything, with more horrors daily. They consider the horrors good things. How far will they go in their nastiness, vitriol and hatred? Will they ever be satisfied? Or maybe they are like heroin addicts…only their drug of choice is not heroin, but a relentless stream of toxic idiocy culminating in the annihilation of us all.
During Trump’s presidency, PsychologyToday and other blogs relentlessly asked what made Trump supporters tick. 100 percent of the articles took it for granted that all Trump supporters are racist, misogynistic, stingy, etc. Yet nothing — absolutely nothing — can be found anywhere on the questions I am now asking. Where does all the hate come from? Psychology 101 will tell you: Hate usually comes from ANXIETY. Ayn Rand wrote in the 1960s of metaphysical terror within the college radicals “stamping their feet at objective reality.” Are leftists metaphysically terrified? Are they terrified of reality itself? Which would explain why a truth-teller and B.S.-identifier like Donald Trump is vilified by them like nobody ever before. He — and we — have got them all figured out.
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 