Ann Barnhardt, whom I have criticized in this space for her crusade against Pope Francis as the true Pope, has made a really good point about masking: if masking really protects people from disease, why no masks around AIDS patients? Today we are being told that we must mask up to protect Grandma and her compromised immune system (by the same liberals who think that same Grandma should have a "right" to be euthanized). Yet during the height of the AIDS crisis, we were never taught to mask up to protect AIDS patients who, as Ann points out, basically had no immune system at all and were apt to die of infections from microbes that people carry around on themselves harmlessly as a matter of course. It pays to reflect on these two crises, AIDS and the coronavirus, and how their different tactics reveal the same underlying long-term objectives.
I was in early adolescence about the time AIDS first appeared on the scene forty years ago, and it was much on everyone's minds during my high school and college years. Seeing the pictures of Princess Diana holding hands with emaciated AIDS patients brings back memories of the fact that at that time, not only were there no face muzzles around these patients, but we were all encouraged to touch them, shake their hands, get into close physical proximity, so that they wouldn't feel like lepers (and also, incidentally, to signal our own high virtue). I don't remember ever hearing a syllable about transmitting diseases to people suffering from the lack of an immune system; back then, if anybody had suggested masking, it probably would have been laughed off by Anthony Fauci -- who was around at the time, pushing AZT -- just as he laughed it off at the beginning of the present crisis before deciding we need to wear TWO masks. Looking back, protecting the well-being of AIDS patients or potential AIDS patients cannot have really been the point anyway. The soothing reassurances came alongside threats, particularly in the attempt to convince the public that persons not engaged in particular risky behaviors were just as likely to catch it as those who were. There was never any talk about discouraging the risky behaviors, as there should have been if there was really a serious desire to save lives; instead, the focus was on making the risky behaviors somehow less risky so that people could go on engaging in them without fear, and on discrediting those who believed AIDS was a divine retribution for the risky behaviors. Both the bromides and the fear-mongering were aimed at the same objective: not the promotion of health, but to fend off the stigmas that would otherwise attach to either the risky behaviors or their practitioners. For people who like to run other people's lives, there is no benefit to having the Great Unwashed be freed from slavery to sin.
The tactics of today's crisis propagandists have changed, but, like the propagandists of yesteryear, their strategic objective also has nothing to do with promoting health. Now the idea is precisely to stigmatize both the risky behavior and those who practice it, with "risky behavior" being re-defined to mean living your life, going about your daily business and being sociable. Now we need to treat each other as plague carriers, stay home, avoid human contact, live in fear, dry up the milk of human kindness, submit to an experimental vaccine on pain of losing our jobs, crash the economy, jump through all sorts of illegitimate hoops to manage our private affairs, and even stifle our oxygen intake and surrender our unique identities and personalities in the name of "saving lives" against a disease with a survival rate of nearly 100%. Today's intended leper class is not AIDS patients, but people who won't take the shots whose inefficacy is at once publicly admitted and downplayed. As depression, suicide, domestic violence, child abuse, addiction and financial ruin mount, together with the erosion of our traditional rights and freedoms, it becomes clearer and clearer that the "solutions" to the corona problem are worse than the problem itself. For people who like to run other people's lives, there is no benefit to having the Great Unwashed be free to live their lives and fulfill the purposes for which they were made without interference. If it is not the goal of our ruling classes to destroy society in the name of "building back better," it is hard to imagine what they would do differently if it were.
Underneath both the AIDS crisis and the coronapanic is a sinister agenda, on the altar of which the real lives of flesh-and-blood human beings must be sacrificed, whether by keeping them enslaved to their vices or by choking off their ability to engage in their legitimate and lawful pursuits. Ultimately the agenda is pure destruction and ruination. The people who serve this agenda are, at best, either grossly incompetent or completely deluded as to the abyss from whence this agenda came.
There is another connection too. It has ben said (don't have the link to the research at hand) that the jabs are causing auto immune deficiency.. In other words, AIDS. Imagine that.
ReplyDeleteI lived through the beginning of AIDS, before it even had a name - at least a name we had heard. No one wore a mask or distanced from the people who had "the disease that had no name." Heck - we didn't have a clue what it was and how you caught it. Just about 100% of my daily contacts and friends were homosexuals since I was a hairdresser and recently retired from ballroom dancing instruction and professional competition (also almost 100% gay.) I remember my first AIDS death who was the partner of one of my work mates. He officially died of TB. Very common back then. So, about a week before he died I was drinking out of my workmate's glass, and spent a few very nervous making months. Much, much later, we found out if we stayed out of bath houses and the activities in preponderance therein, the chances of "catching" AIDS was nil ;-)
ReplyDeleteHaving to just go through the pre-surgery questionnaire (by phone call), I was asked if I had Hep A, Hep B, and a myriad of other infections possibilities. The nurse caller was a very nice young lady and doing a good job. After covering all the possibilities, I had to ask, "Hmmmm, that's odd. They've covered every possibility except AIDS. Don't you find that odd?"
There was a fairly long pause before she said, "I never thought about it, but you're right - that's very odd."
The point? Wuflu isn't the first politicized disease. However, the political reasons are different. AIDS was ignored so as to not give credence to the idea of it being a homosexual disease (it is), and Wuflu is all about power. But the end game is the same - a whole bunch of dead people.