Category Archives: Explaining leftism

Personal story of dentistry under Socialism in Czechoslovakia

Posted on by — 16 Comments ↓

By Xanthippa Socrates with much thanks

I was born and raised behind the Iron Curtain, the daughter of a political dissident.

Yeah, fun times.
I would like to talk to you about the socialized dentistry I grew up with.
As a kid, you were not entitled to just making a dental appointment:  in grade 3, a screener came to our school.  Those of us who needed dental work were given an appointment at a dental clinic.
On the appointed day and time, I showed up at the dental clinic.  My parents were going through a rough patch and did not come with me, but apart from a parent/chaperone, the big thing that I was missing was a ‘present’ for the dentist.
All the other kids and the adults accompanying them had packets of imported coffee beans, expensive boxes of chocolates, bottles of alcohol, or other rather expensive gifts.  I had nothing, but did not realize the significance of this.
While in the waiting room, I became rather afraid, because I heard howls of pain from the dentistry room.
Once it was my turn, I entered and there were 6 dental chairs, side-by-side, and I was shown into the second from left one.  A dentist came up to me, told me to open my mouth wide, and looked in.  Then, without any notice, I felt a horrible burning pain…
I screamed and, without consciously thinking of it, my jaws shut closed.
“We have a biter here!’ the dentist called out and everyone stared at me, shaming me…I wished I could have fallen through the floor, that is how ashamed I felt.
At this point, I would like to point out that in this type of dentistry, there was no freezing (thought a waste of resources) and, unlike in the West where a stream of cooling water is directed at the tooth – well this was never considered.  Plus, nobody ever warned me this might hurt, or when they were about to drill…
Shamed and shunned, I was moved to the rightmost chair where there was an assistant who had ‘the finger’ – a metal sleeve that went over her finger, with really sharp edges.  I suspect the sharp edges were a feature – to condition the patients against the need for their use.
She had stuck this between my jaws – again, no notice – and kept them apart while the dentist drilled away, no stopping or pausing for a breath or to relieve pain.  When she had smugly removed ‘the finger’, I did not know what was more painful – the four drilled teeth or the cut-up insides of my cheek.
By the way, all 4 of my cavities were in baby teeth – so no fillings were put in because that would be a waste of resources.  After all, they would fall out, eventually – so why fill them?
My next dental visit, they pulled 4 (different) teeth.
I had learned from my earlier mistake and brought presents, but they still thought using anaesthetics was a waste of resources.
Yeay for free dental care!!!  Yeay for socialism!!!

A solid explanation of what is a “Colour Revolution” and how it played out in the USA

Posted on by — 14 Comments ↓

(This is really good. It also seems like the time to add that during most of the ANTIFA/BLM riots, i often noticed a much higher than chance, occurrence of specific clothes. For example, for some weeks during various riots in Portland and other cities, I noticed that a lot of people who might be directing the violence, wore Rolling Stones T shirts with the tongue on it. It seemed to me that they were too young and there was too many of them to accidentally be wearing that symbol. Even at the time it looked like that was a secret uniform maybe showing rank of some kind. This would fit with the “colour” part of the Colour revolution in the following explanation.)

There are several other segments to the show of which part 1 is above. We will add them here as soon as they are found.

Below, is a video from October 29, where Rich Higgens discusses what might happen on November 4th. Now that we are at November 20th, its interesting to test their models against their predictions.

Guest spot on Laura Lynn Tyler Thompson

Posted on by — 7 Comments ↓

Yesterday I was privileged to be invited to come on as a guest on Canada’s Webcast live show, Laura Lynn. I don’t get much chance to do radio/podcasts as much as I used to, so it was fun and a little scary to do a live broadcast again.

Basically, we covered the events today as they are playing out from the perspective of a more or less Coughlin-esque view of the strategics of what we see manifested on the streets. For regular readers of this site, I hope it makes sense and is enjoyable for those that want to give it the time.

For all interested, Stephen’s analysis on the left from a strategical and historical point of view, can be read here. it is highly recommended reading.

It is also on Youtube as an Audio Book and some find that easier to process. A briefing with slides is in the works I believe, and that should be fantastic when it comes out. To give you an idea of what that would be like, check out The Red Pill Brief, which has its own page at Vlad.

Hydroxychloroquine and “consensus” medicine

Posted on by — 9 Comments ↓

I am currently in a small back and forth on Twitter with someone who objects to my statement that Social media owners should be arrested and indicted for their blocking of information about HCQ as a potentially effective treatment for Covid19. As well as politicians that made the unprecedented step of making it illegal to prescribe for that purpose.

The argument my interlocutor is using, is that there is no medical or scientific consensus on the efficacy of HCQ, and therefore, social media policies etc. are justified.

My arguments are multifold but for the purpose of this post, two things need reenforcing.

1. Social media is perfectly fine with any and all fully bulls**t and even dangerous medical advice on any number of subjects as they should well be, as freedom of speech is much more important than if the science is right. That is up to us to determine for ourselves.

2. His repeated use of the word “consensus” feels like a club and therefore, is likely being used in the manner described in the following video.

It is a little hard to follow, but I would ask all of our readers to make the effort to follow this explanation, even if it takes a few times through the video. It is very important to understand what “consensus” really means, as well as how we are to think of it. It is not agreement. It is an imposition of the will of leftist authorities.

A couple of thoughts on the bait and switch which is “gender”

Posted on by — 2 Comments ↓

The notion that men who pretend to be women should be able to compete in women’s sports is back in the news again.

Listening to Dennis Prager this morning on replay brought a few thoughts to mind.

The first thing is how the whole misguided concept came to pass.

We used to use the word sex, (as an adjective rather than a verb), to describe what sex a person was. Male, or female. The answer to that tells us a lot about the person’s biology. Then the notion of Gender was introduced. Gender is what sex a person thinks they are, as opposed to what they are. Pseudo-reality over reality. This concept was advanced by several notorious Marxist doctors since the 60s including Drs Money and Ehrhardt  as well as others who I am too lazy to look up right now. But Money and Ehrhardt I had to study in university in the 70s. There are actually more famous ones than Money.

Gradually, the word sex disappeared from popular use, as well as use on forms, and was replaced by Gender. And now leftists could safely say that there are as many genders as people can imagine, as its circular reasoning so of course there is because gender means what sex you imagine you are, and that any attempt to impose gender on someone, is fascism, which is it in the Marxist logic using that rhetorical trick/line of reasoning.

The next phase came when they claimed that gender, the imaginary thing, is real and we all must submit to that, and bear with me, this is where it gets wiggy, biological sex, is not.

And therefore, any attempt to stop a man from competing in women’s sports is racist. Using the expanded definition of racist to mean failing to support any taxonomy at all that the left creates at any given moment.

But wait! Since we have disposed of biology altogether in favour of a more Marxist one, much like the Soviet communists did when they banned Darwin and forced Lysenkoism on everyone, why stop there?

Why not allow adults to compete in Children’s sports? Certainly we have to get rid of all weight classifications in contact sports like boxing and wrestling. Why can’t heavyweight boxers fight fly weights? How about special Olympics against normal Olympians? The Philadelphia Eagles Vs. high school flag football?

The distinctions are all biological and are all therefore “racist” by the same definition? Why are these demands not made yet, and more importantly, why is this obvious and important comparison not made as an argument against this insane dialectic negation tactic being used to obliterate something which allow women’s sports to exist at all?

All the distinctions and categories made above are created in order to make competition fair, and therefore fun and exiting. These distinctions are a part of Western taxonomies. The science of categorization which allows things to work, to be properly judged without having to examine each thing from scratch on every encounter. They are imperfect and from time to time, need to be modified even using science as a modifying examiner. It allows people in many biological categories to be able to compete against people with the same rough class of attributes so that training, effort and talent can create the win as opposed to seeing Randy Macho Man Savage crush a 12 year old in grade school wrestling.

Males and females as categories are not 100% accurate for 100% of the people. But it works. And the current cancelling of actual scientists who deny the Marxist pseudo-reality of “gender” is actually an attack on our entire taxonomy. Because the left, with an insight on Western thought and Western civilization that only people with a burning, even demonic hatred of it can have, intend to destroy us with ideas and words, and taxonomy is one of Western civilization’s most powerful ones.

For the rest of us, taxonomy is just the background noise of our culture. People may get together in bars and debate or banter or joke about the attributes that make up a taxonomy, like women, or men, or dogs or cats. But the left intends to destroy the very concept altogether. And by doing so, all sense of fairness within all of our cultures.