Monday, March 27, 2023



Why So Much Anti-Jewish Hatred?

The article below asks the question but provides no real answer to it. Yet the answer is as old as the hills: Envy of Jewish success and dislike of Jewish supremacism. I have been studying antisemitism since the 1970s and published my findings mainly in Jewish journals. My comprehensive paper on the subject is here

In
Zur Judentum, even Karl Marx despised Jewish success in business and after Prussia emancipated the Jews in 1812, Jewish success spread into many other fields. In prewar Germany, Jews sat at the pinnacle of most endeavours in society, as they do to this day in the USA. It is a little less obvious in the USA today as few Americans recognize Askenazi names when they see them. The mames concerned are of German origin and they stand out if you know German, as I do: Fink, Blum, Bankman-Fried etc. So even to me it is slightly irritating to see the surnames of most of the prominent people that I read about. The names are overwhelmingly of Jewish origin and their frequency leaves the impression that you have to be Jewish to get anywhere these days. Hitler drew that conclusion.

So people have learned from Hitler what not to do but what irritated him still exists. Both blacks and many whites resent Jewish success and such resentment will almost certainly always be with us


In the words of New York City Jewish leader Eric Dinowitz, “hate is on the rise—and the high-profile cases on the news are often the endpoint of hate.” He continued, “We see the assaults in Hell’s Kitchen and Times Square. We see mass murders at synagogues and supermarkets. And what this report card shows us are those seeds of hate are the precursors to physical violence.”

Dinowitz was responding to a new report from the Simon Wiesenthal Center on Digital Terrorism and Hate. And he was speaking in particular about hatred and violence against Jewish people.

According to JNS, “The report warns of increased antisemitic, racist, anti-LGBTQ messaging and calls for violence against black, immigrant and Jewish residents.”

What motivates such attitudes and actions? Why is that, “Among all racial and religious groups, Jews remain the greatest hate crime target”? And why is it that Jews are targeted by both White Supremacists and Black Supremacists? (I began documenting this more than 30 years ago. It is even worse today.)

One group that received attention in the report was the Black Hebrew Israelites (or, just Hebrew Israelites as they call themselves today), whose views have been popularized by high-profile figures like Kanye West and Kyrie Irving.

Not only do they claim to be the true Israelites, they even supply a chart that purports to connect the 12 Tribes of Israel to various people groups in North and South America (seriously!). But they also deny that the Jewish people (which would include me) are true Jews.

In their eyes, we are the “synagogue of Satan” (based on a misinterpretation of Revelation 2:9 and 3:9) and “white Edomite devils.” (Yes, according to this cult, Jacob’s son Esau, also called Edom, was white, and White Jews today are actually his devilish descendants.)

On a regular basis, we receive comments like this on our YouTube channel: “Hitler is an Idumean [= Edomite] devil like yourself Dr. Brown. The holocaust never happened. So stop lying to the world.” And it was posted by – get this – “The Tribe of Levi”!

If that’s not enough, consider that, according to the Hebrew Israelite chart used by the Sicarii, which is the most militant sect among them, the people of Haiti today are the tribe of Levi. I bet you didn’t know that before!

I recently debated the leader of the Sicarii on the subject of “Who Are the Legitimate Children of Israel? Ashkenazi Jews or the 12 Tribe Chart?” (You can watch the debate here.)

And while we have interacted cordially since the debate, I did challenge him on his rhetoric, including lines like this from February 2022: “That's how this movie ends man all right. That's the future of this world. Black and Latino people ruling the world.

“[Jesus Christ] is a big angry black man, a black man whose eyes are red and he's ready to come and kill. He wants to stomp people’s brains out of their cranium. He wants to step on you people’s heads until your brains come out.

“Remember when 50 Cent [said], ‘and his brain came out the top like jack-in-the-box’? Remember? That’s one of my favorite lines, right? That's what Christ is coming back to do.”

You can be assured that “you people” includes those of us who are not people of color, especially White Jews.

Yet my quotation of these words at the end of the debate only brought a smile to his face, along with lots of affirmation from his followers in the large chat. (There were as many as 4,500 people watching at once on the host’s channel. And moments ago, when I went to the channel while writing this article, they were playing a clip from my recent YouTube video discussing the debate. A comment posted on the screen read: “Who is this pink devil?” So, I graduated from white to pink!)

In reality, though, this is nothing to joke about. It was reported one year ago that, “Antisemitic hate crimes were up 400% last month, according to new data released by the New York Police Department.”

Specifically, “Many of these incidents targeted Orthodox people dressed in distinctive clothing, like the Jewish man who was punched in Bed-Stuy on Feb. 7 while walking on Shabbat.”

And what is a typical, Hebrew Israelite response to such things, “This edomite [meaning me, when I referenced such crimes during the debate] showed himself to be a devil. He said *fake*Jews are being attacked by African Americans.”

The reality is that words have consequences, and attitudes of hatred will leads to acts of hatred. But the question still remains: Why? Why the Jews?

When I debunk the nonsense of the 12 Tribes Chart, I feel no animosity towards any of the peoples on the chart, including Mexicans (who are supposed to be the lost tribe of Issachar!) or the Seminole Indians (who are supposed to be the lost tribe of Reuben!) or African Americans (who are supposed to be the tribe of Judah!). And, based on the comments I see when I address these things, no one who agrees with me feels animosity as a result of these people being fake Israelites. (To be clear, there are Black and Hispanic Jews. No one is questioning that. What is being utterly rejected is the information on the chart.)

Yet when the Hebrew Israelites call Ashkenazi Jews (and other Jews) “fake Jews,” it triggers visceral hatred and anger towards us. Why?

I can only offer two suggestions. First, these Black Americans, who have historically suffered so greatly at the hands of White Americans in the past, have fastened their resentment and anger on White Americans today, in particular White Jews.

Second, antisemitism is demonic and needs no rational explanation. As Sigmund Freud commented in 1927, “With regard to anti-Semitism, I don’t really want to search for explanations; I feel a strong inclination to surrender my effects in this matter and find myself confirmed in my wholly nonscientific belief that mankind on the average and taken by and large are a wretched lot.”

What we can say with assurance is that we must confront these hateful attitudes and ideologies wherever we find them, since they will not go away on their own. And we must be determined to overcome hatred with love and lies with truth. It’s a long battle, but it’s a winning strategy.

**********************************************

Understanding the uproar in France

The demonstrators at Place de la République in Paris were chanting, weirdly, in Italian: “Siamo tutti antifascisti,” — “We are all antifascists.” In French, they targeted their chief enemy, the president: “We are here, even if Macron doesn’t want it.”

Watching them were ranks of massed riot police, who, in the French policing tradition, made no effort to mingle with the crowd and defuse trouble, but instead stood waiting for the moment to unleash their tear gas and batons. The crowd were waiting for it, too. “ACAB,” they chanted, the English abbreviation for “All Cops Are Bastards”. “A-ca-buh”, it came out in French.

Then someone set a dustbin on fire — the perfect Instagram image — and other demonstrators began filming it. They knew they were taking their places in a glamorous Parisian tradition, stretching from 1789 through 1944 and 1968. At last the police advanced, and people began chucking bottles.

France was in turmoil even before Emmanuel Macron’s unilateral decision last week to raise the minimum general retirement age from 62 to 64, after he couldn’t get it voted through parliament. In Paris, following a winter of rolling strikes, the metro is becoming a theoretical concept, while rats pick through heaps of uncollected garbage. Peak Paris was arguably reached last Saturday, with a demonstration for the rats. “NO, rats are not responsible for all that’s wrong with France!” said the organising group, Paris Animaux Zoopolis.

French anger transcends pensions and Macron’s high-handedness. There’s a generalised, long-term rage against the state and its embodiment, the president. After 20 years living here, I’ve become used to the French presumption that whoever they elected president is a moronic villain, and that the state, instead of being their collective emanation, is their oppressor. But Macron’s unpopular ramming through of a higher retirement age without a vote increases the risk that the French will follow Americans, Britons and Italians and vote populist: President Marine Le Pen in 2027. The far-right’s vote in presidential run-offs has gradually risen this century, to 41 per cent last year.

France can’t go on like this. It’s time to end the Fifth Republic, with its all-powerful presidency — the closest thing in the developed world to an elected dictator — and inaugurate a less autocratic Sixth Republic. Macron might just be the person to do it.

The Fifth Republic was declared in 1958, amid the chaos of the Algerian war and fears of a military coup. The constitution was written for and partly by Charles de Gaulle, the 6ft 5in tall war hero, the “man of providence” whose very name made him the embodiment of ancient France. He consented to return as leader if France muzzled political parties and parliamentarians. (He even disliked his own party, the RPF, the Rassemblement du peuple français.)

So the constitution created a strong executive, albeit not centred on the president. Clause 49.3 allowed the executive to over-rule parliament, and pass laws without a vote. Triggering the 49.3 allows opposition parties to file a no-confidence motion. If the motion fails, the law is considered passed. The pensions manoeuvre was the 11th time that Élisabeth Borne, Macron’s prime minister, had invoked 49.3 in 10 months in power.

In the 1958 constitution, the president was still a relatively modest figure, elected by about 80,000 officials. But in 1962, de Gaulle enhanced the president’s status: he would be elected by universal suffrage. As de Gaulle later explained: “The indivisible authority of the state is entrusted entirely to the president.”

The Fifth Republic’s governing philosophy became a sort of French-Confucian rule by the cleverest boys in the class, plucked from all ranks of the population. Prime Minister Pierre Mendès France’s father sold affordable ladieswear, President Georges Pompidou’s was a small-town schoolteacher, and President François Mitterrand’s the stationmaster of Angoulême. Typically at G7 summits, the leader with the highest IQ and broadest hinterland beyond politics is the French president.

The republic’s technocrats gradually extended their writ to the most isolated villages. Almost everything that moved in western Europe’s largest country was administered from a few square kilometres in Paris. The various waves of “decentralisation” since 1982 never got far. The guiding belief of Parisian technocrats, says the liberal writer Gaspard Koenig, is “étatisme”, statism. He notes that they are typically described as “servants of the state”, rather than of the people.

The deal became that the French would hand over a big chunk of their income to the state, and navigate an often nightmarish bureaucracy, in exchange for free education, healthcare, pensions and often even subsidised holidays.

Into the 1990s, the system more or less worked. France experienced its “Trente Glorieuses” — 30 glorious years of economic growth, from 1945 until 1975. It built Europe’s fastest trains, the TGVs; co-created the world’s fastest passenger plane, Concorde; it went on to invent the proto-internet, Minitel, which French people used to book tennis courts and have phone sex; it pushed Germany into creating the euro; and became an independent actor in world affairs. The all-powerful presidency enhanced France’s international standing: the administration spoke with one man’s voice, and foreign leaders always knew which French number to call.

The moment when the Fifth Republic lost its sheen was possibly the oil shock of 1973, since when the economy has mostly stagnated. Or perhaps it was April 21 2002, when far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen reached the run-off of the presidential elections. He lost to Jacques Chirac, but from then on, spurred by French disquiet over immigration and unemployment, there was a credible threat to the republic.

The disenchantment with the president showed in approval ratings. Mitterrand (president from 1981 to 1995) and Chirac (1995-2007) generally had ratings between 40 and 60 per cent, according to pollsters Kantar Sofres. But the last three presidents, Nicolas Sarkozy, François Hollande and Macron, have usually ranged between 20 and 40 per cent. Hollande’s rating in one poll hit 4 per cent (not a typo). These figures from the post-heroic age were too small for de Gaulle’s job. Few voters now even expect that the next president will be the national saviour. Although Marine Le Pen may become president, she too has lost her magic after years of scandals. It’s hard to attach fantasies to her today.

But the technocrats look tarnished too, especially since they have congealed into a self-perpetuating caste. Today’s ruling class consists disproportionately of white sons of the book-owning high bourgeoisie, who travelled together from Parisian Left Bank nursery school to Left Bank école préparatoire, where they crammed for exams for the grandes écoles, before acquiring their own Left Bank apartment. If they didn’t come from Paris, they generally moved there as teenagers, like Hollande, a rich doctor’s son from Normandy, or Macron, a neurologist’s son from Picardy.

It was as the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, a south-western postman’s son, had warned decades earlier: the French elite was reproducing itself. (And nobody mastered elite self-reproduction better than Bourdieu himself: all his three sons followed him to the most intellectual grande école, the École Normale Supérieure on the Left Bank, which trains social scientists.)

French technocrats spend their working lives in a few arrondissements inside the Périphérique, the ring road that encircles the Parisian court like a moat. They treat the rest of France almost like a colony, inhabited by smelly peasants who failed to absorb the Parisian culture they had been taught at school, and who vote far right or far left.

The fundamental facts of life outside Paris escape many decision makers. Jean-Pierre Jouyet, an École Nationale d’ Administration (ENA) classmate and right-hand man of Hollande, realised that large swaths of the countryside had no broadband internet only because he suffered the experience in his second home (his parents’ old house) in Normandy. He never got around to alerting Hollande. “In my defence,” he notes in his memoir L’Envers du décor, “nobody in government was interested in the subject.” When Macron decided to add a few cents to the fuel tax in 2018, he had no idea it would spark a months-long nationwide uprising by the gilets jaunes, the “yellow vests”, because he and the technocrats around him hadn’t grasped how much people beyond the Périphérique relied on their cars.

When things go wrong, the French blame the technocrats — and above all the president, who decides without consulting them. Ordinary people’s lives feel determined, down to the day they can retire, by a Parisian pretend meritocracy from which they were excluded at birth. Three-quarters of people who identify as belonging to “popular classes” say they feel the object of social contempt and lack of recognition, reports Luc Rouban, an expert on politics at Sciences Po, an elite Paris university. This is particularly galling, given the country’s promise, proclaimed from the facades of every post office and primary school: “Liberté, égalité, fraternité”. France isn’t the UK or US, where the power of social class or money is frank.

While the French population defy the technocrats, so the technocrats defy the population, diagnoses Chantal Jouanno, who has just served five years as head of the National Commission for Public Debate. French “deciders” often describe society as “conflictual, uncontrollable, irreformable”, she told Le Monde. Perhaps she was thinking of Macron’s jibe about “refractory Gauls”. On Wednesday he lamented, “We have not succeeded in sharing . . . the necessity of doing this reform,” as if the problem were the public’s inability to understand reality.

Since Macron became president in 2017, popular anger has targeted him. It was said of US President George HW Bush that he reminded every woman of her first husband. Macron reminds every French person of their boss: an educated know-it-all who looks down on his staff. He understood that Hollande had lacked presidential grandeur, and cast himself as “Jupiterian”; but most voters just saw a jumped-up little ex-banker dressing up as king. Even many who voted for him never liked him, nor felt that they were endorsing his platform, with its pledge to raise retirement ages. In both the 2017 and 2022 run-offs, the other choice was Marine Le Pen. The French president has gone in 60 years from “man of providence” to “not the devil”.

Macron’s brief employment at Rothschild inevitably generated antisemitic conspiracy theories among people who confuse today’s boutique Parisian investment bank with the Europe-straddling behemoth of the 19th century. A common jibe is that Macron is “neoliberal” or worse, “ultraliberal”: busy dismantling the French social safety net to benefit the shady forces of global capital.

The charge is ludicrous: France remains about the least neoliberal place on Earth. Government spending in 2021 was 59 per cent of GDP, the highest in the OECD, the club of rich countries. The perennial French fear of losing entitlements — above all, their 25-year retirements — betrays how good their lives are. On the downside, people pay so much to the state that many run out of money at the proverbial “end of the month”. The French net median income — €22,732 in 2021 — is lower than in the northern European countries that France likes to see as its peers.

Especially after the gilets jaunes, Macron has tried to rein in the elite’s privileges. Sarkozy and his former prime minister François Fillon have both been sentenced for corruption, though neither has gone to jail yet and both are appealing. A new sobriety has been imposed on parliament: gone are the days of deputies taking pretty interns for Château Lafite-fuelled lunches on unregulated expenses.

Macron’s ministers have been taken off dossiers where they have conflicts of interest — though that has highlighted the sheer number of these conflicts within the tiny Parisian ruling caste: Marlène Schiappa, minister of state for the social economy, had to hand in much of her portfolio after shacking up with the boss of a big mutual health insurance provider. The minister for energy transition, Agnès Pannier-Runacher, cannot touch matters involving petrol company Perenco, which her dad used to run, nor deal with the energy company Engie, where her ex-husband is a senior director. And Jean-Noël Barrot, minister delegate for the digital economy, cannot handle matters involving Uber, where his sister is a communications chief.

These concessions haven’t appeased the population. Nor has the melting-away of the longstanding French scourge of unemployment. It’s now at 7.2 per cent, its lowest since 2008, without Macron getting any thanks. Such is the anger over ramming through the new pensionable age without a vote that he might struggle to pass any laws these next four years, unless he dares to resort to ramming them through without votes again.

The fruits of the Fifth Republic aren’t so bad. But the system itself has gone out of date, says Catherine Fieschi, founder of the think-tank Counterpoint. The state’s autocratic nature helps explain why the French are so angry despite living relatively well. You could describe the republic’s workings without mentioning the almost irrelevant parliament. France today has three branches of government: the presidency, the judiciary and the street. If the president decides to do something, only the street can stop him — by stopping the country through protests and strikes. Street and president rarely seek compromise. One wins, one loses.

Historically, the trade unions control the street. But as they too lose relevance — Macron barely consulted them over pensions — the street has become increasingly violent and undirected, from the leaderless gilets jaunes to today’s burning dustbins. My daughter’s lycée is intermittently blockaded by pupils waving banners with slogans such as “Against Capital”. At a neighbouring school, a group of pupils and teachers are conspiring to turn their own blockade into a week-long occupation, a sleepover with fun activities including designing banners and repainting buildings. My daughter’s friend there plans to participate till Saturday: “Then I’ll take my weekend.”

This is no way to run a country. In last year’s presidential elections, far-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon campaigned on a promise of a “Sixth Republic”. He wanted a new constitution that shrank the powers of the “monarch president”.

But the person best-placed to usher in the Sixth Republic is Macron himself. He’s a politician who hunts big game, notes Fieschi. He has already variously tried to charm Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, and to remake the French labour market, European defence and the EU. His schemes usually founder, but at least he aims high. A Sixth Republic is an idea on a Macronian scale. It could be his legacy, suggests Fieschi. It might just get the French train back on the rails.

On Monday his party, currently called Renaissance, sent an email to members headlined, “On the Reform of Institutions”. Members were invited to give their views on elections to parliament, the use or otherwise of referendums, and local powers. There was an open-ended question: “In a few words, on which subject(s) do you think it would be useful to organise a citizen’s convention?”

It’s a strength of France that it can update itself by revising its constitution — as it has done 24 times in the Fifth Republic. What might a Sixth Republic, or at least a reformed Fifth one, look like? Koenig recommends scrapping de Gaulle’s innovation of an elected president. That would deflate the role, and boost parliament’s status. Koenig also favours devolving powers to France’s 35,000 communes: in effect, local authorities. Surveys repeatedly show that the French have much more trust in their local representatives than in national ones.

Koenig made a symbolic run for president last year on a liberal platform of a shrunken presidency. Travelling around the country, he was enthused: many French people live in beautiful places, near mountains or beaches or sheep meadows. They are reasonably well off, eat well, and have the time to develop passions outside work.

They might function even better without some guy in Paris micromanaging their lives.

*******************************************************

Barbie Kardashian and Ireland’s trans madness

Why are politicians so incapable of answering basic questions about biology? Yesterday it was Taoiseach Leo Varadkar’s turn. A journalist asked him a yes or no question: ‘Do you believe that Barbie Kardashian is a woman?’ Barbie Kardashian, whose birth name was Gabrielle Alejandro Gentile, is a violent man who identifies as a woman. Last week he was sentenced to five-and-a-half years in jail – a women’s jail – for threatening to torture, rape and murder his own mother. He is, as the journalist who cornered Varadkar put it, ‘a violent biological male with a penis’.

So what was Varadkar’s answer to this easiest of questions? This was a straightforward query as to whether a person who was born male and has male genitalia and who issues violent threats against women is, as he claims, a woman. It wasn’t ‘No’. It wasn’t ‘Yes’, either. The questions seems to have stumped Ireland’s leader, which is bizarre given he studied medicine at Trinity College Dublin. Varadkar answered with a short, awkward silence followed by this statement: ‘Well, look, I, I, I, I don’t, I actually don’t know anything about the case yet, I saw, I first saw it reported at the weekend, erm, and, and, I’m going to have look into it.’

Look into it? All the facts were right there in front of him. The journalist laid them out. What’s more, if Varadkar had already heard about the case, at the weekend, that means he had plenty of time to come to the same conclusion that every other rational person in Ireland has come to: that this man is a man. That this biological male, who made vile threats against his own mum, is a bloke. And, furthermore, that he has absolutely no place in a women’s prison. Varadkar’s shirking of reason – presumably because he’s terrified of being targeted by hardline trans activists – was an embarrassment. He let down the women of Ireland. This is his Sturgeon moment.

To be fair to Varadkar, he did respond more sensibly to the follow-up question on whether he thinks violent biological men should be put in women’s prisons. ‘No, I don’t, quite frankly,’ he said. ‘If a situation that arose in Scotland has now arisen in Ireland,’ he said (referencing the notorious case of the female-identifying Scottish rapist Isla Bryson, who was initially put in a women’s prison before being moved to a male jail), ‘then we’re going to have to deal with it in a similar way.’ That’s promising. But huge questions still lurk. Including the question of why a clever, well-educated Taoiseach cannot say that an individual who threatened to use his penis to rape a woman is a man.

A man whose crime was to plot the atrocious torture and murder of a woman is being housed with women

The Barbie Kardashian case is deeply disturbing. Kardashian was convicted of seven counts of threatening to kill or cause serious harm to his mother. He hatched a plan to go to his mother’s house and overpower her with a knife, a screwdriver and boiling water. The judge described him as ‘unrepentant’ about his vile matricidal ideations. Perversely, Kardashian has been placed in the women’s section of Limerick prison. A man whose crime was to plot the atrocious torture and murder of a woman is being housed with women. This is a new low in the Irish state’s embrace of the transgender ideology.

It is nothing short of psychotic that someone like Kardashian has been put in a jail that will have many inmates who have experienced male violence. Gardai told Limerick Circuit Court that Kardashian poses a ‘significant threat’ to ‘the wider public’. One source told the Irish Mirror that Kardashian is considered ‘one of the most dangerous inmates in the system’. Prison authorities believe he is ‘far too dangerous’ to be allowed out to ‘interact with anyone else’, so he is currently in isolation. Apparently he’s taken out for one hour of exercise a day, during which he has to be ‘unlocked by several staff, as she [sic] poses that much of a threat’.

What madness is this? It’s like putting a fox in a henhouse and keeping a close eye on it to make sure it doesn’t attack the hens. Let’s be clear about what is happening here: the emotional and physical safety of female prisoners is being sacrificed to the narcissistic needs of a man who thinks he’s a woman. Kardashian’s desire to be treated as a woman is being elevated above the right of actual women not to be locked up with a violent man. The validation of this man’s gender identity is considered more important than the security of the women in Limerick’s prison estate. The reorganisation of the prison around flattering the identity of a dangerous man is a disgrace. It is state-endorsed misogyny.

Indeed, it is striking how much New Ireland – post-Catholic, politically correct – resembles Old Ireland. The religion might have changed – back then the state was beholden to old-world Catholicism, now it’s enamoured with the new religion of identity politics – but it is still women who lose out. In the past, the ruling ideology dictated that women should be incarcerated, in so-called laundries, if they committed sins of the flesh. Now the new ruling ideology, the furious insistence that every gender identity be respected and validated, dictates that women will sometimes have to be incarcerated with violent males, whether they like it or not. Then and now, ideological zealotry overpowers reason and subjugates the rights of women to the whims of men.

The Irish state and the Irish media need to get a grip. It is surely a type of delirium that media outlets are running with headlines like ‘Woman jailed for… threats to murder her mother’, and that so many in the Irish elite accept that Kardashian is literally a woman. Let us hope Kardashian is removed from Limerick Women’s prison with extreme urgency. But even then, Varadkar will have to answer the question that was put to him yesterday. Is Barbie Kardashian a woman: yes or no?

*****************************************************

Woman Finds Out the Truth About Free Health Care the Hard Way: 'I Was in Excruciating Pain'

Leftists are often talking about how cruel it is that the United States does not have a free public health care system.

They say America should ditch its health care system in favor of the socialist universal health care provided in several European countries.

With that said, it would be interesting to hear what a European has to say when it comes to the benefits of free health care.

Now, we have a video that does just that, and it would be helpful for every American socialist to see it.

British model and reality TV star Chloe Veitch recently posted a video on TikTok in which she compared her experience at a U.K. dentist with her experience at an American dentist.

The beginning of the video left no doubt about where she was going.

“Health care in the U.K. is free,” she said, “but it’s rubbish.”

Veitch then described how she went to a dentist in the United Kingdom a few months ago as she was in “excruciating pain” because of a tooth problem. There, she said, the dentist told her nothing was wrong with her tooth.

“They didn’t do an X-ray. They didn’t do any checks,” she said in the social media post.

She then traveled to the United States, where she paid $700 for a visit to the dentist. Veitch said she was told her tooth was “rotten” and required a major procedure if she wanted any relief from the pain. She had it done, of course.

Obviously, this experience was very frustrating for Veitch, who ended the video by making an obscene gesture and saying, “F*** free health care.”

Many people on Twitter responded to the video saying it was unsurprising that a socialist health care system, which looks good in theory, would not work in practice.

Of course, Veitch is not the only one to notice the problems with the U.K.’s health care system. In December, amid a massive strike by nurses in the country, a 93-year-old woman in Wales was left on the floor with a broken hip for 25 hours waiting for paramedics to arrive.

Despite all the evidence of the failings of “universal health care” in other countries, there are still many in this country, such as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who want to see a similar system in place in the United States.

Why does the left keep insisting on a system that has proven time and again to provide patients with poor care?

Veitch has the means to travel to see an American dentist, but what about the millions of people who cannot afford to do so? Don’t they deserve to have a good health service in their country?

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************

No comments: