African AIDS and Intellectual Hypocrisy
 
 
You may have seen the purveyors of this outrage, this New World Order, yourself, last night.  Yes, Virginia, there is a New World Order, but it is not a secret conspiracy.  It is a public movement.  It is not run by a few Bilderberg super-rich white guys, but by the millions of liberal rats of all colors which infest government bureaucracies  and universities around the planet,  and by their friends who daily crawl out of the sewers to infect the minds of the average world citizen via the media in all its forms.

On the evening of Thursday, March 22, they had a very public meeting on America’s Public Broadcasting Service.  And there, on the Charlie Rose program, for the zillionth time they decided that capitalism was evil and must be replaced with a proper government bureaucracy that recognizes which people should be given which freedoms.  All people, they decided are created equal not by God but by secular post-modernism, and have certain unalienable rights, among these being the right to subsidized medical care to save them from a plague they spread to the world by way of  their personal behavior – a plague which now threatens to destroy every nation in Africa by way of massive ongoing stupidity.

At the public broadcasting NWO meeting were, among others,  Gauling Mtshali of South Africa and Tina Rosenberg of the New York Times. Their essential point was that in the past two weeks the evil capitalist American drug companies have come to their senses and begun to give up their intellectual property rights.  Bear in mind that these are the same intellectual property rights, based in the same international agreements and law, that Hollywood, the music industry and American publishers have so dramatically defended in recent years. 

As it turns out, there are intellectual property rights and there are intellectual property rights.  (I know you are shocked to hear self-serving inconsistency emanating from liberals. )  Some intellectual property, it seems,  is sacrosanct,  and other intellectual property is not. 

Gauling Mtshali, the black S. African woman pointed out that AIDS drugs are not getting to her country because they cost too much, and that this high cost is created by the unfeeling attitude of big American drug companies like Merck, who expect a profit (this is a dirty word) from their research into new drugs.   The developed countries, she said, must work with the undeveloped (African) countries in this matter.  This can be translated as follows: Those nations which are wealthy have stolen their riches from poor people.  Capitalism is a lie.  All wealth belongs to the state.  A rich nation which does not give all its money to S. Africa so socialist leaders can all drive Rolls Royces is an evil, racist nation, and will hear about it from former long-haired, maggot-infested, bathless, Birkenstock-wearing Berkely, Harvard and Columbia revolutionaries who now control the American mainstream media.

Just as an aside, South Africa, because people like this woman are now in total control, is not long for this world.  The current president has many times denied there is a connection between the HIV virus and AIDS.  He did it not four months back.  The man is a complete fool, but because he is black, it is politically incorrect to mention the condition.  The plague aside, however, South Africa is being rapidly socialized into an American Mainstream Media utopia where at last blacks will demonstrate the complete superiority of socialism.  (It just hasn’t been tried correctly, yet.)  The same thing that always happens, of course, will happen again.   Without massive foreign aid from capitalist economies which actually do work, even without the scourge of AIDS, South Africa will collapse into just another African tribal bloodbath before this decade is over.

The others around Charlie Rose’s NWO table, however, don’t see things this way.  They agreed heartily with Gauling Mtshali.  Unlimited funds must be poured into Africa from top to bottom.  This money must be earmarked for two purposes. 

First, it must go to buy drugs manufactured via processes invented by big American drug companies, but without any compensation for their huge monetary investments in the creation of the cures.  Movies we must protect, drug companies are no big deal.  Private movie companies must survive.  Drug companies should be nationalized.

Next, money must go to subsidize condom use by sex workers.

You don’t know what a “sex worker” is?  You must be unfamiliar with the habits of liberals.  To a liberal, the murder of an unborn baby is known as “choice.”  To a liberal, a racial quota system is known as “affirmative action.”  To a liberal, completely unnatural reproductive behavior like homosexuality is known as “sexual preference.” 

(This latter item is a double-digit logic leap since these same people also claim homosexuality is a genetic trait, like eagles having lungs and fish having gills.  This, unfortunately,  is the opposite of a “preference,” and additionally causes one to wonder about Darwinism.  How can a gene requiring, or at least promoting a tendency toward, non-reproductive sexual activity survive a single generation?  Based on Darwin’s central premise, that which is least efficient at survival becomes extinct.  Is there any more central survival characteristic than reproduction?   Is there a single example of asexual human reproduction in medical history?  If there were ten such examples, would they be enough to keep the behavior genetically around?  Of course not.  Then,  why does homosexuality, a gentic trait they say, exist?) 

The euphemism previously referred to will now make sense to you.  Rationality, logic and descriptive consistency and accuracy are not important to a liberal.  It is the political goal that is important.  Thus, since to a liberal all restrictions on personal behavior are terrible, and all religious-based definitions of morality, particularly in the sexual area, are anathema, we will now refer to a “prostitute” as a “sex worker.” 

The term “prostitute” is “judgemental,” you see.  The term “sex worker” brings to mind the Stalinist statue of the idealized socialist citizen with his sleeves rolled up and his hammer in his hand, about to go forth and in the foundry of proletarian revolution remake the world into a people’s paradise.

So, now we have the picture.  Profits made by companies who cure plagues are evil.  Profits made in Hollywood or by other liberals like those in the media, are good.  Drug companies must forego profits so that socialist nations can have drugs for virtually nothing.  And the citizens of economically productive nations like America must shell out tax dollars to pay African prostitutes to use condoms.   It’s quite simple, actually.  The fact that most of the money will do none of the stated things is unimportant.

By this, I mean the fact that the money will be run past a continent overrun with corrupt black political chiefs, almost all of whom will take for their personal use a great deal of the proceeds, should not be a matter under discussion.  The politicians who profit from the slave markets of the Sudan, the Western chiefs who buy ten year old virgins, believing that by having sex with them their AIDS will be cured, the “veterans” of Zimbabwe, who have raped and butchered and expropriated the land of thousands of white farmers, thus in the process destroying the nation’s agricultural sector (guaranteeing kwasiorkor, which is an African word for the scourge of mass starvation), the politicians of the emerging South African socialist economic structure – all of these and more will redirect much if not most of the foreign aid to militias designed to keep them in power by force, to goon squads that will crosscross the countryside hacking off the forearms of the children of their opponents, and to offshore bank accounts and villas on the French Riviera.   But, we shall not speak of this.  It is racist even to bring this subject up.

And, now we come to the gigantic $2.50 New York Times Hypocrisy.  The final nail in the lid of this coffin of liberal insanity.

At the heart of the program’s discussion is a treatise by one of the participants, Tina Rosenberg, a woman who writes for the New York Times. This treatise, which was a cover story for the Sunday New York Times magazine,  is titled “How To Solve The Aids Crises.” (Her premise won't.)  If you wish to read this solution to the problem, you may access it via the internet and retrieve it from the archives of the New York Times for a fee of  $2.50 

The reason why it’s not free is because it’s intellectual property.

                                        ***

Cover | Table of Contents | Back to Editorial Page