Thursday, February 21, 2013

Sinful Queers and Stupid Minorities Syndrome

Let's work on an epic story together. This one will be a fictional drama, beginning in the vicinity of the late 1970s. For this story, let's pretend that we're evil villains from, say, America, and that we care only about money.

Problems and Objectives

We've got problems. People are still pissed about the Vietnam War, and a bunch of blacks and Mexicans are growing up after that whole "Civil Rights" thing. It makes them think they should do more than just use public restrooms and vote and stuff.

Worse yet, along with Civil Rights for dark people came the perverts. With 1980 approaching, it becomes increasingly clear that we're not going to be able to consistently shame certain sexual behaviors in public.

On the international stage, Iran is really pissed about that operative we put in charge of their country. The one with the secret police and executions and torture prisons who stole all their natural resources to give to us. That's right, the "Shah." The Iranians actually want that stuff for themselves! And they have a lot of natural resources over there. If they get strong and ally with Russia or China, we might become slightly less rich.

It's like a perfect storm is brewing. What we need is a way to accomplish three objectives:

1) Weaken Iran;

2) Weaken domestic minority populations, and make the darkest of the minorities, blacks, look responsible for poisoning the planet with their evil African seed;

3) Make gross queers look evil and responsible for the destruction of mankind.

The problems we're going to face in this are:

1) We can't look like we're weakening Iran on purpose. It can't be "our fault." Someone else needs to do it.

2) We also can't look like we're trying to weaken our own domestic minority populations, especially after that whole Civil Rights thing. We definitely can't look like we're deliberately making "Africa" appear to be the source of the world's problems. When we make Africa look evil, it needs to seem innocuous.

3) We ultra, triple-definitely can't look like we're specifically targeting queers as bad. If possible, we have to look like we're helping them out, rather than pushing them down the stairs.

4) Money. Lastly, we have to PAY for all this stuff. We're already spending secret dozens of millions on stuff all the time, and it's getting really expensive with, like, Russia out there. So whatever we do needs to make some cash that nobody knows about (see 1-3 on "secret").

Weaken Iran and Make Money

So, we need to weaken Iran. Let's have that guy in Iraq do it--the one we put in charge there recently. We can give him chemical weapons and stuff so he really hurts Iran. But, we don't want Iran to entirely lose, or it won't be there later for new wars. So we need to help both sides. If we sell Iran weapons, it could make them strong enough to fight Iraq for a long time. Let's play both sides.

We can pick up some extra cash by selling more weapons to Iran. Stupid people think the weapons are for "our armed forces," so they won't question when we tax them to pay for building those weapons. Then we sell them to Iran, and it's like, "free money, party!" We can use that cash to fund other proxy wars if we need to.

Weakening Modern Urban Stuff, Like Minorities and Queers

How can we destroy minority communities, and yuppie gays, without it looking like it was our fault? It needs to be something they do themselves, but they'll need help. What we can do in our story is take our cash from selling those weapons to Iran, and use it to buy drugs from warlords in South America. We'll take those drugs to the U.S.A. and flood urban communities with them, so that all of those "free love" queers and annoying poor dark people will find themselves surrounded by highly armed, well-connected criminal gangs that encourage young dark people to use and deal drugs.

These won't just be the same coco leaves and other stuff that people have been growing and using for thousands of years just fine. We'll mix new drugs up in careful ways, load them with chemicals like cigarettes, and make sure that they are terrifically more addictive and harmful. We'll fry the coco leaves with baking soda if we fricking have to, so that it hits those dark brains differently than ever before.

Unexpected Bonuses

Then, let's have a twist! Things turn out even better for our heroes than we suppose. All the drugs start destroying the immune systems of their users. Amazingly enough, all that stuff we put in them is causing users to be less healthy overall, to lose their free, organic, all-natural, inborn immune system responses, and to get weird cancers and diseases that should've been wiped out already in the first-world. Blacks in inner cities are, like, poor and stuff, and don't have medical care, so they just die of weird diseases that nobody notices and that never make it into statistics because they're so irrelevant--if those black people don't get shot first by the Crips. But wealthier, whiter, party-going people have been using the drugs, too. (It's the 1980s now in our story, and we'll have all those potent recreational drugs start to weaken people and kill them off.) Millions of people are using these new drugs, so this will eventually be a big deal.

Obviously, we can't find fault with the drugs. For separate reasons, we can blame the drugs for everything EXCEPT hurting immune systems. We need to come up with something that we CAN blame the damaged immune systems for. So we'll blame GAYSEX. GAYSEX caused damaged immune systems all of a sudden. And sex in general is sorta guilty too, because gays are so dirty and horny they'll do EVERYONE. So they spread this condition to even straights. Young, party-going straights who have NON-MARRIED SEX are also partly responsible for this. Also, we have a population that is already worried about dark people--blacks, Mexicans, and stuff like that--having too much sex. MINORITIES are having too much sex also. And some of them are GAY.

It's settled, then. When people who are using these new recreational drugs start getting sick, we'll find one of the millions of kinds of passenger viruses that are already in a lot of people, and blame that thing.

We need a name for the damage that happens to people after they use the drugs. Let's call it something evocative--something that indicates that GAYSEX or just NON-MARITAL SEX is to be blamed...something like "gained" or "obtained" or...hm...no, our P.R. guy is out today, so let's just call it "SINFUL."

All right, Sinful. Sinful Queers, and Stupid Minorities, have given people this Syndrome. SQSMS! Rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? Too bad we didn't have a more clever-sounding name--something that sounded like a real word would be even better and catchier. But we'll stick with SQSMS.

Billions

The heroes of our new story are smart. When a few years have gone by, and the TVs and newspapers have started to notice the sick people, we'll take, like, hundreds of millions of dollars and give it to drug companies and research labs to investigate this mysterious phenomenon. They'll formally release to the public that "SQSMS," or "Sinful Queers and Stupid Minorities Syndrome," is responsible for all the bad stuff that happened. And then we'll spend hundreds of millions of more telling people that it is because of GAYSEX and HORNY MINORITIES that this "disease" has spread. Everyone will get really scared. We will predict that, because people are too horny and too gay, SQSMS will spread across the entire world and end humanity. So people will want to spend billions of dollars more on drug companies and research labs to cure this disease. Oh boy, our main characters are evil--and rich! And, we look like heroes the entire time, because we're fighting to save even those dirty gays and minorities from their condition!

In the meantime, remember those crazy Iranians and Iraqis that we gave all those weapons too? They're dangerous! Really dangerous! Now that we sold them all those weapons, we can actually use those weapons to justify attacking them. We'll start with Iraq and hold a major war. (I know, I know--just like the "drugs" and "SQSMS" part of our story, this sounds way too evil to believe. In the real world, no one would actually do things this malevolent, or try to kill and deceive people across the entire world. But this is only a movie plot.)

Setbacks

Then, another plot twist! Recreational drug use will peak in the late 1980s, but begin dropping off as too many DEA agents and cops actually do their jobs, and too many minority communities and gay groups react by educating people about the dangers of the new drugs. People stop using our drugs at such a high rate.

Amazingly, SQSMS rates start to DROP. It's completely weird how that happens. The rates just drop and drop and drop the lower recreational drug use gets, and suddenly, people start to think less about SQSMS. We make a major movie about it, blaming PUBLIC GAYSEX for the plight of the main character, who dies of SQSMS. It's a tear-jerker, but people still won't care about SQSMS as much as we'd like. It's not scaring them anymore as a worldwide deathkill epidemic. How are we going to make it look like this disease is an epidemic disease, which spreads by fluid transfer, and not just some lifestyle disease caused by using dangerous drugs?

Treatment

I gotta warn you--this next part of our story will seem to make completely no sense. It will seem almost too evil to believe. But it's just a fictional movie we're making, so we'll stick to our story.

Here's the next part of the story. In order to fight SQSMS, people need to have SQSMS. And people aren't getting it enough. So, what we'll do is give them SQSMS. As we know, SQSMS is caused by drugs that suppress the immune system. We need to find a way to destroy immune systems with drugs, but make it look like the drugs aren't responsible.

What drug should we use? How about a drug that was created for chemotherapy a few years ago? A drug that was classified as highly toxic years ago, that was designed for cancer treatment but not disseminated widely because it harmed the human immune system too much? That drug would be perfect. The evil villains in our movie will have an immensely wealthy, powerful drug company produce this drug, which we'll call something cool, like "Retro-Viola."

But how will we get people to take the drug, and actually catch SQSMS? Simple: remember how we blamed SQSMS on one of the millions of passenger viruses that so many millions upon millions of potential customers, I mean people, carry harmlessly, anyway? We'll start a national drive to test everyone for that virus. As our finest scientists have shown us, this virus came from Africa, created by great apes and transmitted to horny dark people. Those awful, horny minorities then transferred it to perverted gay people, who brought it to America. So it is both the fault of MINORITIES and GAYSEX. Anyway, the point is, we'll start to require that everyone be tested for the SQSMS virus. (The "positive" test will never actually SHOW the virus present, but any kind of evidence that lets us call the test positive is good enough to get them prescribed.) And a lot of those positive people will get scared, and start taking the new Retro-Viola drug. Then, this drug will destroy their immune systems, and after a few years, they'll have no immune systems left, and get SQSMS. This will prove, completely prove, that SQSMS is caused by a minority/gay virus, and not by drugs!

The Bad Guys

We need some bad guys for our movie. There will actually be characters in the United States--WHITE, UN-GAY characters--who will notice something really, really weird. They will notice that SQSMS never develops in Americans who have not either heavily used recreational drugs, or used immunosuppressant drugs like Retro-Viola. These bad guys will try to get people to stop taking drugs. They will even claim that there is no such thing as SQSMS--that SQSMS is not the fault of GAYSEX or HORNY BLACKS, but actually the fault of our drugs.

To make the bad guys look wrong, we'll need to find some people who have SQSMS-like conditions who haven't taken drugs. Even after years of searching, we can't find any in America. So, we'll blame Africa. When we can't find enough cases occurring in America among drug users, we'll go to Africa and claim there are a lot of cases there. Everyone knows that American sexual discipline, education, safe sex, condom use, and inherent reduced American sinfulness has caused American SQSMS rates to drop under the wise guidance of the AMA. However, those stupid horny Africans just won't listen, and they keep having unprotected sex. Not at all like responsible Americans.

But where will we find cases of SQSMS in Africa? Luckily, people in Africa die all the time of easily preventable diseases, because they don't have patented American vaccines. They still die of stuff like dysentery and TB, over there. So when they do, we'll just track those statistics and say they died of SQSMS. See? The Africans were responsible for it from the beginning, with their stupid monkeys and chimps, and now they're responsible for continuing it, what with their unsafe sexual practices! Problem solved!

Then, we'll get a bunch of people to be emotional about the Africans' plight. We'll get them to donate money to buy drugs to cure SQSMS in Africa. We'll feed those drugs to Africans and it'll be so emotional and stuff when drugged Africans finally develop some of the same SQSMS-related diseases that Americans have.

Naysayers

A lot of crazy (and DARK!) politicians in Africa have tried to keep American researchers from foisting drugs on their people. These crazy Africans have gone so far as to call SQSMS an "American conspiracy" and a "CIA conspiracy." But, African political leaders aren't to be trusted. Just like weird gay people in America who say that drug companies are trying to make a profit by creating deadly illnesses in order to justify drug sales. Those people aren't to be believed, because they don't understand how implausible it would be that someone could tell a lie to start a war or sell a drug.

Sigh. So many crazy people actually think our story is real. But we'll just make a nice, simple action-drama movie for people to enjoy.

1) Iran-Iraq War.

2) Iran-Contra affair.

3) CIA drug coordination--Dark Alliance.

4) DEA drug coordination--Powderburns.

5) Specific black targeting of cocaine/crack--From The Wilderness.

6) Gays and Canadians brought AIDS to Americans. Perverted gays just wouldn't change their lifestyles. Some delightful selections: "...the initial failure of the gay community to accept changes in life style allowed AIDS to rage out of control in the early years of the disease." And, "At one time, Gaeten had been what every man wanted from gay life,'' Mr. Shilts writes. ''By the time he died, he had become what every gay man feared." (Those stupid, horny queers! Look what they did to themselves! They think gay sex is okay! Well, we'll teach them.)

7) That stupid dark continent created the scary death epidemic disease of unending world destruction via queersex. Monkeys/Chimps create SIV/HIV.

8) AZT.

9) And, the indispensable Duesberg. The final piece in this particular puzzle. Reading his research twenty years ago was like reading Elliot Abrams' notes on how to make sure Iraq got invaded twice. Even if you're not into medical journals, his abstracts and Q&As are laystyle.

Updated with a couple more links:

10) Coalition of scientists ask for Robert Gallo's original research identifying HIV to be withdrawn, because his identification was faked.

11) A gay man shot Gianni Versace, also a gay man. The media went wild over the shooting, claiming that the shooter, Andrew Cunanan shot Versace because Cunanan had tested positive for HIV, and panicked over it. After Cunanan's body was tested again, he tested negative. The AIDS-related publicity suddenly vanished.

9 comments:

  1. More on Peter Duquesne with a few hundred links to peer-reviewed journals to disprove his denialist view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism

    Unfortunately Gary Webb was rubbed out... Some claim Michael Ruppert's style of investigative reporting had too much in the way of conspiracy theory. (i.e He doesn't need to be dealt with if we can prove him to be a kook?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (By "Duquesne," did you mean Duesberg?)

      After years of mainstream acceptance of leeches, bleeding, electroshock conversion therapy to cure homosexuality, and the surgical alteration of hermaphroditic infants without parental consent or even notification, the blessing of any given professional licensing association, or its expert membership, does not conclusively prove an issue. All the mainstream military and foreign affairs experts, astrophysicists, and medical experts tend to agree with each other, but any person should be able to look at a file folder, through a telescope, or through a microscope and independently verify--in the spirit of inductive observation--whether WMD are being built, a comet is heading this way, or intact pieces of a virus exist.

      (Or, for that matter, whether receiving a shock while being shown a picture of an attractive man will cure you.)

      What makes AIDS so interesting is that mankind had conquered viruses decades ago, and all of a sudden a single virus, blamed on Africans and gays, is trumpeted across the world as the post-Cold War threat to humanity. Then, it doesn't follow any of the models for the spread of epidemic disease that epidemiologists have been able to track for centuries, and that's attributed to straight America's sexual responsibility. It drops out of mainstream attention, and then, what new movies are out this summer? A peculiar tale, if nothing else.

      Delete
  2. Yes, Duesberg. :)
    And I, too, am a fan of AF Chalmers', "What Is This Thing Called Science?" His assertion that anyone can *do* science but not all are taken seriously if they a) don't have the proper higher-ed credentials or b) don't conform to accepted dominant paradigms or c) don't use standard protocols within the hierarchy of command.

    As always, skeptical of *everything*. :) xo

    ReplyDelete
  3. Check this out: http://aras.ab.ca/articles/popular/200706-RobertR.html

    Damned strange, isn't it, that Robert R (as he was known) developed the same constellation of symptoms and illnesses as the early AIDS victims more than a decade before any of them did? Isn't it also strange that he was in St. Louis, far from the early centers of the disease, and never traveled outside the Midwest? And isn't it interesting, to put it mildly, that the samples taken from him after his autopsy would disappear just after they were tested for the first time for AIDS?

    Plus; Did you notice that the Army and CIA were testing chemical weapons in poor minority neighborhoods--including the one in which Robert was born and spent nearly all of his days on Earth?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There have always been evil people--call them "corrupt policymakers," if we prefer--who have used minority populations to test out new ways of controlling large groups of people. It's not even considered controversial anymore that the FBI/CIA investigated and wiretapped Martin Luther King, or that the Army tested hallucinogenics, panic and truth drugs, and radiation exposure out on unknowing soldiers.

      Prophylactic vaccines were developed just at the end of the 18th century, and during the 19th and 20th century, a swarm of early vaccines were able to wipe out most viral diseases. They became so cheap that it looked like working classes were not going to have to spend their lives in fear of expensive, crippling diseases being continually fought by the highest officials of Oceania, which is, and has always been, at war with AIDS.

      Just that quickly, this new super-virus appeared, along with the massive rise of the multi-billion-dollar oncology and vegetative life support industries, and the progressive science of virology became all but useless.

      Even incredibly dynamic, highly advanced, killer staphylococcus infections have not managed to do the supernatural things that HIV is supposed to be able to do. And even postgrad lab technicians can easily identify actual, living staph in samples taken from infected patients, easily satisfying Koch's postulates--something that HIV can only satisfy when the definition of "present" is extended to include "antibodies present."

      The failure to satisfy Koch's postulates is the biggest insult to Edward Jenner. Virologists spent over a century being able to develop vaccines using weakened virus, but because HIV is already "beaten" when it's "discovered," the human body already has antibodies to it, ergo why billions of dollars and the entire world of doctors can't develop a simple vaccine.

      So, bring on the chemo.

      (Oh, and while we're at it, depleted uranium doesn't cause cancer, Lucky Strike is the cigarette brand most doctors trust, and OJ is still looking for the real killer.)

      This is why the arts, and critical thinking--basic, non-professional education--is so important. Most MDs and pharmacists don't really understand research or statistical methodology, and as long as they prescribe what Pfizer and GSK's journals tell them to, they think they're responsible scientists.

      Delete
  4. An AIDS denialist, no less. Color me unsurprised. I'd introduce you to S. But she died of AIDS. HIV caused AIDS. Too poor for anti-retrovirals. Too poor for AZT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually try reading The AIDS Dilemma all-through, thinking just about the cited studies and not about a pro or con agenda. You may be correct, but learning about the data that support the drug hypothesis would be valuable anyway.

      Also, Jack, try running this particular narrative through your usual filter: when Glaxo SmithKline, the U.S. Congress, the health insurance industry, mainstream American male academics, and the corporate media speak with one voice about a particular topic, what does it usually indicate to you about the veracity of that particular topic?

      Delete
    2. You don't know fuck about my usual filter. You also don't know fuck about AIDS, clown. HIV really does cause AIDS. I know and love people who have or have had both.

      Delete
    3. I know someone fourteen years in after a helpful, friendly, "at-work" diagnosis, who's still just fine, because she failed to follow up with her GP's favorite specialist, and never took any "preventative" drug cocktails. She does eat a lot of grapefruit, though, which was a fad somewhere around ten years ago.

      Also, like all the other HIV tests, she was diagnosed as "positive" not because she had living HIV in her blood, but because she had general antibodies that have been used to satisfy the mangled version of Koch's postulates GSK has been using ever since they came out with their new product in 1984.

      None of that matters, because it's an anecdotal example. I also know a man who thinks that if I wear a crystal bracelet for a week, I'll feel better about the economy. He has more anecdotes than you, but I still haven't tried the bracelet. :)

      Delete