N.A.A.A.P. Perspective

Fall 1994—Vol. I, No. 2

AIDS vs. the Population Bomb

As I write, (8 Sept.) there is a major international conference underway in Cairo, Egypt. The topic of discussion is how to put the breaks on the world population explosion. Government sponsored birth control and abortion are always hot topics of debate at such gatherings. The accepted terminology is "family planning." But what we are really seeing discussed is how governments, individual governments and eventually a world government, will be controlling our personal reproductive lives in the future.

For decades the population explosion has been recognized as a potential threat to human comfort levels — especially those of the industrialized West. Though the problem is probably not as critical as it is being made out to be, it is nonetheless a matter for concern. After all, there's only enough room for so many. Nature's own population control mechanisms have been thwarted by the good intentions of those in the developed countries who have worked tirelessly to save lives and reduce child mortality rates. Now the same people are overcome with concern for the problems their successes have caused. Modern medicine has stymied nature's own attrition systems and mass warfare, (which has always served as a form of population control) has become too dangerous for the ruling elites of the world to consider. (At least until they consolidate their power into a single world government with a monopoly on all weapons of mass destruction.)

The reasoning in the ivory towers of the world elite is if something isn't done about alarming Third World birth rates, the teaming masses of poor and under nourished could someday threaten their own peace and tranquility. The growing numerical imbalance between haves and have-nots is looked upon as a potential powder keg, fused and awaiting a spark to set it off. The explosion, they reason, will lead to the have-nots rising up and taking whatever they need from the haves. Better defuse the bomb now than face the hordes later.

The leaders of industrialized nations feel that the problem can best be addressed by limiting reproductive freedom. They see stopping the ungodly high birth rates in the poor countries as the most promising solution. Third World leaders, on the other hand, tend to think the primary problem is the ungodly high per capita levels of consumption in the industrialized West. The solution they seek is a more equitable distribution of wealth and resources. The great debate, therefore, centers on a two-pronged approach.

1. International birth control . Of course this primarily effects the poor to whom children are either wage earning capital assets, or extra helping hands, and their old age social security (in the case of the Third World), or little welfare-enhancing bread tickets, (in the case of the Western welfare state, such as the United States). Wealthy people, to whom children are often little more than a pain in the neck, are self-limiting. They don't have time for more than the one or two children necessary to carry on the family name. Working people in industrialized nations are also self-limiting, since they usually cannot afford more than one or two children. (In the U.S. many white people have come to feel a little doubtful of the seemliness of perpetrating their race at all. Anglo-Saxons, in particular, seem to have been conditioned to accept guilt and a form of racial self-loathing.)

2. A forced lowering of living standards in the advanced nations. This is so the poor under-privileged classes in the Third World can hope to get their rightful share. This is international redistribution of wealth from those who produce it to those who, for whatever reason, do not.

Naturally, the first option is played up in the rich nations while the second is played up in the poor nations. Both are on the table, and both are part and parcel of the globalist agenda. Neither solution threatens the ruling elites, of course, since they are securely above the fray. Their intent and expectation is to rule and do well no matter what happens.

The idea of population reduction through nuclear war, of course, has long been discarded as too dangerous to the ruling elite. Now the problem is preventing such wars, at least until they've found out how to do it without taking too much risk themselves. The concept of population control through super-secret biological warfare is never mentioned, but it is probably also very much on the table — or more accurately, under the table. Both world wars ushered in and developed the technological concepts of a variety of methods of selective mass destruction of large populations. Now, with the advances in the fields of genetic engineering, truly startling things are possible and probably likely, if not already underway.

Take the AIDS epidemic for example. Now I don't pretend to have any special expertise or knowledge in this field. I merely point out some rather suspicious and conspicuous points of interest that have caught my attention. Call me a cynic and perhaps an over-eager conspiracy theorist, but it appears that AIDS could easily have been a modestly successful pilot population reduction project. I say modest because people don't seem to be dying of AIDS in quite as large of numbers as at first predicted and feared. It now seems very unlikely that the epidemic will come near solving the population problem. But take a close look at the groups who have suffered most from AIDS. At a glance it is obvious that they comprise a spectrum of peoples that a Hitler might have targeted. Essentially, poor blacks and other minorities, homosexuals, and drug abusers. Coincidence? Perhaps.

Look at all of the other strange incongruities relating to AIDS. Everything about the disease and how it has been handled has been somewhat peculiar from the very beginning. One would have had to be blind and deaf to fail to note the strange character of the official response to it. Several authoritative books have been written on the peculiarities of this new killer in our midst. Many are written by AIDS dissidents to counter the conventional wisdom on the subject. Some have argued convincingly that AIDS is indeed a man-made disease that was either intentionally or unintentionally unleashed upon humanity. Was AIDS developed in a biological warfare lab? If so, the perpetrators would go to great lengths to prevent the truth from being told.

Initially there were charges and counter charges by the U.S. (presumably CIA) and the Soviet KGB with regard to the origin of AIDS. Each pointed an accusing finger at the other. These charges promptly disappeared from the print media and were never mentioned on national TV.

Then it was discovered that the outbreaks of AIDS in central Africa and other places coincided geographically with the World Health Organization's smallpox vaccination programs in those areas. The experimental hepatitis-B vaccine pilot program in the United States that essentially targeted the homosexual community appears, according to some, to correlate with the outbreak of AIDS among homosexuals. These things made headlines around the world, but not in the United States. Was this "responsible reporting," on the part of our news media, by failing to report at all? Maybe so, but something smells fishy. We did hear quite a bit about the green monkey connection, however — a laughable, likely story. No newspaper bothered to mention, however, that the green monkey is used extensively in laboratory research. In any case, the whole green monkey hypothesis has subsequently been allowed to quietly disappear. Coincidence? Maybe.

What really struck me was that while the medical and scientific community professed to know so little about the disease, they also professed to know just a little too much, too quickly. Tracing it to the green monkey in the wilds of Africa, was just one instance. Confidently assuring us that AIDS couldn't be spread by casual contact, while at the same time declaring that it was spreading into the general population at an alarming rate, and that it had a latent period of up to a decade and more was another. This seemed like classic double-speak bordering on the criminally insane — unless, of course, they actually knew a lot more than they were telling.

Both were glaring instances of claiming to know a little too much too quickly in my opinion. Either AIDS was the dangerous killer it was being made out to be, or it wasn't really that much of a threat. The message seemed to be both. But how could that be? Right off the bat I got the distinct feeling that more was known about the disease than was being told to the American people. The alternate was that somebody with too much power was spreading comforting "facts" that were not yet possible to know.

Even more telling, and less understandable, was the fact that when the HIV virus was officially declared the cause of AIDS, and it became generally acknowledged, (or wrongfully declared) that the disease was spreading into the general population, HIV testing to determine how widespread it might already be, and perhaps get a handle on it, was effectively outlawed! This, more than any other single thing, demonstrated that there was something strikingly unusual and unprecedented about the alleged AIDS epidemic. An official policy to prevent normal medical procedures and preventive measures in the case of a deadly communicable disease epidemic made no sense whatsoever. Even I, an ignorant hillbilly, could see this. AIDS had apparently become more of a political problem than a public health problem. Why? Was AIDS so special that it warranted an entirely new, and seemingly bizarre, patently reckless, approach? It appears so.

Why? The question begs at least some speculative answers. Perhaps, if a broad testing program had been undertaken, more people would have been found to have HIV than was politically or medically expedient in light of stated "facts." It might have been somewhat embarrassing had the numbers turned out to be too large — or even too small. Then, too, if HIV had been found to be almost entirely confined to the homosexual community, the homosexuals, (now a powerful political force) would have been embarrassed, and perhaps a little suspicious. Maybe even a little mad.

Maybe it was true, and known to be true, (as many distinguished dissident doctors and scientists claimed, and were consequently disowned, disenfranchised, and discredited by the AIDS establishment) that HIV really wasn't the culprit in the first place. Another possible reason, (particularly plausible because of the homosexual community's aggressively active role in formulating AIDS policy) was that testing was intentionally delayed in order to give the disease time to become more widespread in the heterosexual community, and thus hopefully shed its apparent homosexual connection in the public eye. Unthinkable? Sorry, the seemingly inexplicable nature of our official AIDS policy provokes unthinkable thoughts.

Another possible reason — and this one is the most diabolical, conspiracy-mongrelized theory of all — was that spread of the disease was to be intentionally unchecked in order to eliminate large segments of certain populations. Selective population reduction. Planned mass liquidations to enhance and supplement ineffective family planning efforts. Another unthinkable possibility? Remember, the population problem is perceived by many at the very highest levels of authority as perhaps the most serious problem ever to face mankind. It may be deemed, by a diabolical few, to justify radical, unthinkable, solutions. Even if it were true, who would ever believe such a thing? Anybody suggesting it would be laughed, or put, away.

As startling as it may seem, long after we had all been assured that the nation's blood supply had been cleaned up and could be considered pretty safe, I was recently shocked to read in an establishment newspaper that (Surprise!) the blood supply hasn't been cleaned up at all! What could possibly be the justification for one of the nation's largest blood banks to knowingly, and seemingly criminally, refrain from screening its blood supplies for HIV these past many years? What is shocking is that they admit it, and don't seem to be overly concerned at the repercussions. Nor are they apparently in any hot water with the Public Health Service.

In spite of this admission, the latest reports claim that although African and Asian HIV infection rates continue to sky-rocket, HIV infections in the U.S. and other Western countries seem to have leveled off or are falling. How can this be? Are we all practicing safe sex, avoiding doctors and dentists, and staying out of hospitals? Are we being careful to send all our contaminated blood to Africa and Asia? Apparently so.

The one and only measure being actively promoted to cope with the spread of AIDS, both domestically and internationally, is condom usage. If everybody in the world, through fear of AIDS, can be coerced into habitually using condoms, an effective means of birth control has automatically become a byproduct of the AIDS epidemic. Could this be the real purpose and reasoning behind the AIDS scare? An elaborate birth control scheme? In any case, the apparent message is that condom use is up and AIDS is down, so go on enjoying unlimited safe, non-procreative sex kids! (I'd like to have a list of Trojan stockholders. I'm sure it would be revealing.)

There are many reputable AIDS dissidents who don't buy into the official lines. But they too often disagree and sometimes contribute to the confusion. One school of thought has HIV and AIDS spreading like wildfire, faster than ever imagined, and the future death toll truly cataclysmic. This school believes that HIV is spread more easily than is assumed, and that safe sex, as promoted by the international health powers, is not safe at all but patently suicidal.

Another school claims that HIV and AIDS are rather difficult, or almost impossible according to some, to spread from person to person by either casual or normal sexual contact. In this line of thinking, the initial spread of the disease must have come through massive inoculations using contaminated vaccines, as mentioned above. Subsequent spread of the disease, according to this theory, is almost exclusively through blood to blood transfers or direct inoculation, i.e., promiscuous, rough, reckless, and kinky sex, I.V. drug use, blood transfusions, invasive surgery, or visits to diabolical dentists.

GOOD NEWS?

There is yet another twist, and this one makes as much sense as any of the other allegations and "truths" surrounding AIDS and HIV. Perhaps more. Only time will tell.

This third line of thinking is that the HIV virus has nothing to do with AIDS in the first place. Many prominent medical people have held this position from the beginning but have been shouted down in the multi-billion dollar feeding frenzy that has evolved around officially accepted HIV/AIDS doctrine and approved research. HIV/AIDS has become a multi-billion dollar industry rivaling even the cancer establishment. AIDS medical research grants are eagerly sought by those willing to agree with the accepted AIDS dogma. Those who don't are locked out from the goodies.

This school of thought concedes that HIV is probably wide-spread but that it is really of little concern. It is a generally acknowledged fact, (even among straight-faced AIDS establishment types) that not all AIDS patients test HIV positive, and that not all HIV positives come down with AIDS. Since general testing for HIV is illegal, nobody has the slightest idea how many people are HIV positive. (HIV statistics are extrapolated.) It may even be more common than the flu. Magic Johnson is still alive and apparently well, as are many other "long term survivors." Children born of HIV mothers are often found negative. Some HIV positives turn negative. How can this be if HIV is supposed to be a death sentence?

A medical doctor named Robert E. Willner is so sure that HIV and AIDS are unrelated that he has publicly inoculated himself with blood from an HIV positive hemophiliac to prove it. His contention is that the whole AIDS scare is nothing more than a gigantic and deadly fraud. He has written a recently published book called Deadly Deception: The Proof That Sex and HIV Absolutely Do Not Cause Aids which documents his research and findings.

AIDS, Dr. Willner claims, is not a disease at all but a cruel hoax. At best, it is a syndrome which leads to death only because the AIDS patient is sick and immune deficient in the first place — due to factors relating to lifestyle, general health, or medications, rather than HIV. HIV, he states, can accompany any number of medical conditions, but is not itself a factor of concern. But once a person is diagnosed HIV positive, (and remember, only a very few people are tested) the diagnosis tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The patient then "knows" he will sooner or later get full-blown AIDS and die. In order to stave it off, and enhance his quality of life, he is encouraged to take AZT, the approved AIDS drug.

This particular treatment for HIV infection is apparently almost universally prescribed. Yet it has long been known to be a very dangerous drug, crippling the immune system and causing the very diseases and symptoms and complications associated with AIDS, according to Dr. Willner. It makes healthy HIV patients sick. Then, after some time of declining health, they get AIDS and die. Others with HIV, who avoid AZT treatment, often live on in apparent good health for years. The establishment doctors are baffled by this.

Even many of the mainline researchers who subscribe to the official AIDS line admit that there is probably an unknown co-factor, or co-factors, involved in AIDS — that HIV may not act alone. Could the co-factor be an unhealthy life-style or the use of recreational drugs? Could AZT be the co-factor that seals their doom? It seems unthinkable, but Doctor Willner believes that AZT is what is actually killing AIDS patients, and that HIV is innocent of all charges.

Being neither a medical doctor, scientist, or prophet, I don't know where the truth of the matter lies. But I have the distinct impression that lies abound in what the government and medical establishment has been telling us about AIDS, as well as many other things. Just why our own, or any, government would fall into lock-step on the wrong side of the fence on any given issue, especially something like AIDS, is difficult imagine. (Unless you are a cynic like me.)

Obviously, there is an ongoing fear campaign with regards to AIDS. I see it regularly on TV. It was admitted a long time ago that a cure or vaccine for AIDS is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. Since there is no hope in the offing for a medical solution, (though billions of dollars are being poured down the rat-hole) the answer for well into the next century appears to be confined to more and better condoms. No matter what the truth is regarding AIDS, a massive, world-wide, defacto birth control program is already well underway whether or not any agreements are reached in Cairo. Pretty sneaky! Camden

The last issue of CC, on women's suffrage, received surprisingly little reader condemnation. It must have been boring — or maybe our readership is made up of essentially male chauvinist warthogs. We received not one piece of hate male, or even so much as a single bomb threat.

THE CRIME BILL

Now that the much ballyhooed Crime Bill has become law, we can all feel a little less secure in our pocket-books, homes, and out on the streets. The details of the bill, good or bad, are less important than the fact that it is a further infringement on several constitutional rights. Namely, the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth. Why not just do away with the Bill of Rights all together and be done with it? The federal government isn't supposed to be the civil law enforcement agency for the nation. That is constitutionally state and local business.

The federal government does have one constitutionally mandated federal administrative district in which it has constitutional control over the civil authority. It happens to be Washington, D. C., the place where both guns and drugs are illegal as hell. Coincidentally, Washington D. C. is also the uncontested crime and murder capital of the nation.

While our mis-representatives are reaching out to touch everybody, and solve the crime problem from sea to shinning sea, they have allowed their own city to become an absolute disgrace to the nation. Bo Gritz aptly calls it the District of Criminals.

If our president and Congress could just clean up their own ballywhack, (in-house as well as out on the streets) maybe they could set an example for the rest of the country to follow. That's about the extent of their constitutional crime fighting mandate. Until they at least do that, it is shear arrogance for them to think about helping the fifty sovereign states solve their crime problems.

The way Washington works, in all its collective wisdom, soon the rest of the nation's cities will become as crime-ridden as the nation's capital. The Crime Bill goes a long way toward nationalizing the crime business.

P.S. I agree it's time to get tough on crime. I propose some cruel and unusual punishment. The fact that it is unconstitutional shouldn't bother anybody in government — the Crime Bill (itself a crime) is an example. For starters I suggest a 50% Congressional pay cut, followed by similar across the board pay cuts and reduction of force, (RIF) for the executive and judicial branches of government. Along with this, of course, we need to vote all of the rascals out and vote in some real public servants.

The time may come when we The People can take full advantage of NAFTA, GATT and the New World Order business. The global village concept should eventually allow us to elect Filipinos, Indonesians, or Mexicans to replace our expensive, non-competitive American politicians. What's fair for industry ought to be fair for government. We can save hundreds of billions by moving the whole federal government offshore to some Third World , cheap labor, country!

Return to NAAAP Perspective Home Page