What's the matter, you dissentious rogues,I don’t care much for debating the science behind HIV and AIDS. If HIV is a lie and AIDS a construct, then no amount of science can validate it or disqualify it, no matter how outlandish, convoluted or truly plausible the explanations may be, they are based on a banal, convenient and deadly lie.
That, rubbing the poor itch of your opinion,
Make yourselves scabs?
It is enough to know one thing: official science on AIDS makes no sense, dissent science on AIDS does. Science serves here in as much as it exposes the mechanics by which the HIV=AIDS faction have turned it into the Whore Of Babylon. Again, I don’t even think that mechanism is science; it’s really just basic common sense. That’s what has been totally buried by the establishment and then subsequently the human race in general to support the big lie.
People need lies to shield them from the truth, which is usually too painful to face, and whilst most would feign horror at the thought of humans being killed off for profit, if truth be said, if it were also serving their need for denial, or maybe in some cases feeding their prejudices, they will follow that initial gasp of horror with just looking the other way and suggest watching a few episodes of Six Feet Under or Desperate Housewives for distraction.
In this world full of greedy and needy people, AIDS fills some very deep and well hidden needs perfectly, and no scientific theory can even begin to explain it, let alone challenge it, unless it is also going to be bold enough to adopt a warriors stance and shoot a few truth bullets into people’s thick heads as well, and some, thankfully, will not shy away from doing that either.
The HIV=AIDS=DEATH lie has now become very well established after so many years, it has become an absolute need people to cling on to. Belief in it is absolute and automatic, just like eating, defecating and reproducing. Every one needs it; save those who have decided that they don’t anymore and reject it because they have seen it as grotesque human sacrifice, cannibalism and necrophilia all rolled into one word: Genocide.
Should science and logic have been used to argue against the profiteering, genocide driven, ludicrous, science fiction the establishment and the mass media have used to explain AIDS? I think not, but still, it’s done now and I understand that maybe it was the only way at the time to fight back and try to inform people of the dangers that faced them in those horrible early days full of confusion, fear-mongering and general deceit, so we may as well just accept it and move on to look at the future from the present.
People have grown to need and even love the HIV virus; well I think that’s a fair assumption to make judging by the violent reactions most have at the mere suggestion that it may not even exist, or when you openly question the outrageous supernatural powers of destruction that are attributed to it. They will not listen when you explain to them that this virus has been invented and concocted more politically than scientifically. That it was sold to us much like the Catholic Church sold the idea of the “devil”, whilst for many scientists within the (almost dead) cancer research program at the end of the 70’s, like Gallo & Co. it became their “saviour”. They all jumped on board the AIDS bandwagon getting billions of dollars in funding to find “the virus that causes AIDS”, after Gallo had actually lied when he announced to the world that he had found it already. He never did.
People don’t want to listen to all this because the virus also served some very basic and well hidden needs for them too, apart from greed it also represents: God’s punishment for degenerates, and undesirables, as well as appeasing feelings of fear, shame and guilt about being happy and supportive of God’s fury. Then came the genocide in the form of rituals of human sacrifice that so many have already talked about more eloquently than I ever could. It’s now perhaps easier to see that the AIDS paradigm in its first days was never really about what kinds of science people would believe, but more about what people really need to justify the things they do themselves and to others, and if lies can be dressed up as science, and used for personal profit, or to avoid facing difficult issues, then better still. This is how everyone became involved in it, and why it has stood for so long.
People embraced willingly the banal HIV virus theory, and still defend it with vehemence, even when the vast majority do not have a clue about the kind of toxic, pseudo-scientific garbage that has held it up for so long. Believe me, the vast majority of people don’t have a bloody clue, no matter how intellectual and bright they think they are.
Take Germaine Greer’s article for The Guardian newspaper, where she is supposedly arguing her point of view regarding the literary ownership of the novel Frankenstein, attributed to Mary Shelly. She does not miss the opportunity to take a very lowbrow swipe at John Lauritsen’s monumental and courageous work on the AIDS dissent front, at a time where it took real valour to stand up and talk. She takes this dirty swipe at him in order to defend her opinion that Mary Shelly is the author of Frankenstein; which Lauritsen claims was really written by Shelly himself and not his wife Mary. Greer ends up making an ass of herself on all counts by basing her entire argument on the view that as John Lauritsen is an AIDS “dinialist”, therefore he is unworthy of even being alive, let alone having an opinion on anything.
It is evident from the start that she blatantly attempt to condition the readers responses by demonizing him, using a dirty and very below the belt tactic to try and disqualify Lauritsen’s argument, and in doing so reduces the argument about Mary Shelly’s alleged “stupidity” (her words here) to an irrelevance, After just reading the first paragraph it become immediately clear to me that it is her who should be up as candidate for that debate and no one else.
She also left me with the horrific impression that she is now an expert on “poppers” too, as she implicitly seems to disagree with the idea that their toxicity, and constant use, lead many gay men to develop Kaposi Sarcoma; a point I would love to hear her explain better, as unless I were totally sure that poppers did not cause KS, I would never use such an example as part of a manipulative disqualification of John Lauritsen, and of that well proven and universally accepted fact: that what caused KS, and possibly other life threatening conditions in gay men were poppers.
She also seems to think that John invented that theory. He is surely one of its original and strongest advocates, which was then, and still is now, held by everyone who knows and understands that a combination of factors really causes AIDS in gay men and not a convenient harmless retrovirus. John is also certainly the one who has written the best material on the subject, including a detailed history of what poppers are and how they ended up being pushed on gay men as a blueprint for health and butchness by the same gay media.
The only people, who reject the idea that poppers are highly toxic, are the ones who would like to see us all dead with purple blotches all over out faces and bodies, and those who use them. Is she simply a supporter of gay men poisoning themselves with daily regular doses of toxic fumes or does she use poppers herself? For as surprising as that would be to me, and many others, it would at least explain the toxic quality of her argument in that article.
Her obtuse ideas in general about what HIV dissent is are odious, because they are blatantly prejudicial. To those who know a thing or two about this issue it is nothing less than the usual cheap, propaganda-based claptrap, AIDS apologists’ use to defend the HIV fantasy, which of course is completely wrong. I think she should explain what all these points she makes to introduce her argument have to do with who wrote Frankenstein, because it doesn’t even seem like she has one. I don’t question her expertise, she is a valid voice among many others who give us valuable and interesting points of view on literature and other issues; it’s her integrity I question here.
Maybe she should stop reading poetry just for a while and revise her basic first and second grade science, especially if she pretends to enter that arena to trash someone like John Lauritsen, and in passing all of us who poopoo the HIV lie as we know quite a lot about things like: what does it means to have antibodies, and what are Kosch’s Postulates, and why they are still the only real valid and absolute standards we have in defining weather an agent is or not the cause of any given disease, even if the AIDS science-fiction-star-troupers say they are outdated. She obviously needs to if she is going to attack him on those grounds, which seems to me to be the basis of her argument.
It’s obvious she is the one who should shut her trap, and not talk (let alone try to be clever) about things she obviously knows nothing about. Maybe she should stick to what she does really well, which is talking exclusively about Romeo and Juliet; as simple straightforward, delightfully-flawed, perfectly-symmetrical and highly popular tragedy, seems to be more, her kind of thing. Maybe she should do with life's tragedies what she does with Shakespeare's ones: leave the more complex, dark and unpopular human tragedies like AIDS to others who understand them a little better.
Here gender politics are much less important than understanding and accepting that evil is an intrinsic, universal and personal human quality, and not a separate entity like us Catholics so conveniently are led to believe, that it serves many purposes, that we all decide to use it to attack others or to defend ourselves, when it is to our benefit, that we all deny vehemently having done so. Facing these truths helps us learn that evil can never be kept in check, confronted or defeated by anyone, especially not by cowards and hypocrites, like the Volumnias’ of this world, who in order to preserve their status and interests go around disguised in “intellectual drag” using the manipulative and delightfully simple language of Rosalind, who will always give it to you “as you like it” rather than how it really is.
She should listen to those who have proved through their actions that they know how to put their intelligence at the service of courage and integrity, because they really have these qualities, of those who know how to think for themselves and are not afraid to expose themselves to personal attack and ridicule by speaking out. These people never end up arrogantly believing that we are all as stupid as they are, and we are always grateful to them for sparing us all the embarrassment of having to remind them that they don’t know it all. Maybe she should stick to chatting on TV shows for pseudo-left-wing-wannabe-intellectuals like me, who used to enjoy hearing what she had to say many years ago.
She should visit one of our many websites and take a good look at the fact that John is not a solitary “voice howling in the wilderness” at all, and that there are many of us who agree with him, as well as hundreds more of us who openly defy the HIV lie daily by just being alive, and that we are ever swelling in numbers and more vocal. She can then go on and publicly demonize us all as well under the guise of literary critique.
Since when has hard-hitting truth, clarity, sound scientific argument and clear logic appealed to people? It must be since they were given to the likes of Germaine Greer to expound about them on TV; she makes it all so easy to understand and predictably entertaining. Maybe John should have tried burning his jockstrap whilst trying to save all those lives from being poisoned by AZT and taking a hell of a beating for it, maybe then it would have all made so much more sense to everyone, especially to her.
Looking at the vehemence and blind belief people like her adopt, makes it clear that it’s not the science itself that holds the AIDS paradigm from hell up; it’s people’s enormous need for lies that does. And people like her represent that in the eyes and minds of people like me. She is just one among many such personalities who will all eventually have to “eat humble pie” on this issue at some point in the future.
People like complex sounding garbage and predictable stupidity that can (through its sheer lack of logic) be very easily elevated to the status of “mystery based dogma”: one of the sacred pillars of any religion. The less sense it makes, the “holier” it becomes. So when non-believers (dissidents) are attacked and ostracised for not believing in the HIV virus, or those same survivors of this gross and poisonous lie are frowned upon, shut out and hated, pushed into a spectral existence because they have defied this virus-God and keep living on healthy without any medication for many years beyond their given date of expiry, it is people who project these hateful ideas and beliefs on them, and not necessarily scientists and doctors alone.
The doctors and scientists are like the priests or cardinals of this death-church, their economy and status benefits from the holy lie, so their need to keep it going is perhaps more understandable. It is the people’s need for our death that hurts most. It is true that we threaten to demolish their death-cult religion simply by living on, we shake their faith in the virus-God like no science can, and they need it so desperately to redeem them from their imagined sins. They need genocide and its horrific rituals to make them feel better about themselves.
Trying to convince people that the whole HIV theory is a lie has become a bizarre spectacle where anything can happen. They start praying to it with even more crazed fervour. They will cry “treason” and “heresy” and will happily light the faggots to burn as many heretics as it takes to defend the holy lie, now endowed with mystical life-saving powers. They even have a pseudo-holy language of moral rectitude and defence of the weak and afflicted to push ahead and feed their basic and well-hidden desire: to destroy all those who they secretly hate because they are not like them, or those they envy or feel are better, worse or unacceptable to them on whatever level that may be. They would all deny this of course.
Some say that people are hypnotised. That’s also true of many, however even taking that into account; at best people can come off as plain stupid, at worse pure evil, but innocent, never. I am also quite convinced that Oprah, Elton, Bono, Clinton, Gore, Stone, Gear and the rest of the AIDS clowns are not hypnotised at all. In my opinion they are profiteering under the guise of doing good.
The sad thing is that the real and logical (dissident) science opposing the HIV lie has unwittingly also helped establish the viral religion with even more strength, as it became the other side of the same coin, without which the necessary duality, or natural opposite force needed to understand and define the nature of all things, cannot exist for the vast majority of simple humans, who cannot have a God without having the devil too, so they turned real science and it’s advocates into the devil. All those who support them: murderous fornicating demos. We are the enemies of God. Does this sound familiar?
Both sides in very different ways have given people a complete lexicon to deify their basic need to worship and fear, love and hate, accept and reject, embrace or kill, create and destroy in the holy name of HIV & AIDS. Both sides have done this with very different intentions and purposes, which are plain to see now, and there for future generations and all eternity. Time will judge them both.
The most truly bizarre thing of all for me personally to accept is that the vast majority of people who take this line would call themselves left-wingers, politically speaking, and align themselves with progressive and caring social policies. I have always considered myself to be part of this same collective. The AIDS lie has exposed a whole new side I had never seen before, and has forced me to very gladly extricate myself from their midst.
The left is full of people who declare themselves to be convinced secularists, enlightened thinkers, intelligent atheists, humanists, liberals, caring politicians, deep thinking and highly aware artists, writers, philosophers and visionaries. They are all very progressive, free, deep, transcendental, caring and (of course) highly artistic, and though different qualities would apply to different people, they all seem share one essential quality they could never admit to, but that none-the-less, binds them together as a group. I used to think it was: profoundly humanitarian. Now I would define it kindly as: profoundly stupid.
They don’t even seem to realize that they have converted a harmless passenger retrovirus into God, they have adopted with faith-like blind belief the junk-science that supposedly proves it, they have used it all as a substitute for the religious idea of God, which they claim to have rejected through progressive and enlightened reason, they have endowed it and empowered it with the same destructive thirst, contradictions, banality, ignorant vengeful cruelty, stupidity and fear so characteristic of that same Judeo-Christian idea of God they claim to reject. Above all they feel secretly ashamed that they still need to worship him; they just changed his name from God to "science". They are unable to see that this garbage science, they still insist in believing in, is so bad, that in order to swallow it, they have had to deify it; that way it does not need to make any logical sense at all. Of course if this did not have such dire consequences for those being sacrificed in it’s name, it would be hilarious.
Through this sham, they are left exposed to be nothing more than this Gods tragic, lost, needy and very confused children, yearning for his lovingly vengeful hand to strike them down and punish them for it all. This image of themselves horrifies them, so they not only reject it but also try to violently suppress it, and like all things suppressed, it ends up projected with that same violence elsewhere, and at great cost to others… great human cost.
AIDS has left them all looking; at worse, like collaborators or perpetrators of pure evil. At best; like a bunch of stupid moronic clowns, who through direct action or activism, overrated talk show hosting, televised testing, a poison pen writing, a big mouth talking nonsense, singing crappy songs with horrendous lyrics (live or on record) at vulgar macro-concerts to raise money to save Africans by feeding them toxic medication and wrapping their huge over-active penises in condoms, or more classically through that pact of insidious silence so many have adopted to preserve their fragile ratings and popularity, thus leaving the door open for them to later be able to declare with crocodile tears in their eyes: we just didn’t know.
I have one question for them all: How much junk-science piled on dead bodies from toxic medicine, lies, stupidity and self-deceit does the word “pathetic” need to hold it up long and high enough for them to see it, and themselves reflected in it’s mirror, or hear their names echoed in it’s reverberating sound?