SHAM WAR

Why The War On AIDS Is A Sham
By FRANK MORRISS
http://thewandererpress.com/a7-24-02.htm>http://thewandererpress.com/a7-24-02.htm

The Associated Press led off its report from Barcelona with the "wild cheers" greeting Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela's declaration that the "battle against AIDS must be won." That, however, was nearly an aside to news that the famous Muppets show will introduce a character afflicted with HIV, precursor to the dread disease that destroys the immune system's resistance to a host of fatal sicknesses.

Both Clinton and Mandela saw victory over AIDS depending on "more money, more action." The Muppet HIV doll will urge little children to accept sufferers as "normal." The incoming president of the International AIDS Society, Dr. Joep Lange, said that even if the anti-AIDS funds were $25 billion (rather than the present $2 billion-plus) "that would be peanuts"! Some peanuts! Some normality!

The truth is this is all sound and fury unless the world is ready to face something it has refused to admit - AIDS, unlike every other epidemic that has ravaged mankind, has as its root cause human conduct (or more properly misconduct) and it can be subdued if not conquered only by a change of conduct. Money, propaganda, "safety" measures won't do it. But the human will can do it - and for free, without a further dollar - much less $25 billion - needed. Chastity must replace promiscuity, homosexual practice must become as unacceptable as smoking and racial discrimination, and narcotics addiction must be suppressed as something against the common good.

The planned Muppet contribution to this deception is particularly unfortunate. Would the show introduce a character who chain-smoked cigarettes, the message being such person should be "accepted" as normal, particularly when all the other Muppets had to endure a cloud of smoke this character created? If the thrust of the Muppet endeavor is that the average HIV victim is perfectly innocent, it would be promoting a less-than-realistic situation. Some who get AIDS are undoubtedly innocent, but the percentage is exceedingly small proportionate to the total. And even in cases of those who get AIDS before birth or from contaminated blood transfusions, the innocent victims have in effect been assaulted somewhere back in the AIDS parade by a deliberate abuse of sex and/or addictive abuse of the human body using injected drugs. End those abuses and victory over AIDS will become assured.

How much money is used for education along those lines? A few million? A few hundred thousand? Probably much, much less. Abstinence is "out;" indulgence is "in." And that is undoubtedly why the war on AIDS is a sham; it uses only ineffective weapons, because if it used the only effective one - abstinence, reform of morals - the modern permissiveness in pursuit of freedom for pleasure - would take a hit.

Telling children they should accept HIV victims as "normal" is to hide from them that the usual way of getting that sickness is "abnormal" - that it is, in fact, unnatural. Indeed for healthy persons to carry out to its full the deception of this epidemic being "normal" is to risk spreading the AIDS plague to themselves. It wouldn't be normal to deliberately eat raw meat that is possibly contaminated with e. coli; or to swim in water that is reported to be possibly polluted with bacteria. That would be abnormal by reason of being unreasonable and highly imprudent.

Human intimacy today is unreasonably risky not only for those directly involved but for everyone unless it is fulfilled in the way nature intended - monogamously between those of opposite sex who have not previously contaminated their bodies through sexual promiscuity. The Muppet character may seem cute; one might be tempted to find "it" lovable, as child viewers probably shall. But if TV shows should warn about adult language or violence, then even more should this one include a message that HIV is dangerous if ignored as to just what it is and how it is usually contracted. If that isn't part of the message, then the child viewers are being sold a lie - and a dangerous one at that.

Do youngsters of Muppet-viewing age need such a message? Of course not, which is one reason this proposal is ridiculous. Bringing up the subject for tots is ridiculous in that there is no reason for it. But if HIV and AIDS are going to be forced upon them as a subject of consideration, better the truth about it than a deception. It would be dangerous for them to get the idea HIV and AIDS are no different than measles, chicken pox, or an upset tummy.

Yet even with those sicknesses, children aren't encouraged to consider them so normal that it is OK to buddy up to the little patients until the contagious phase is passed. Unfortunately, in regard to HIV and AIDS the contagious phase never passes. Will the Muppet show get that truth across? Of course not, since society as a whole is unwilling to consider the insanity of simply ignoring as political incorrectness the truth that AIDS is in our midst as a menace and terror because we will it to remain, rather than honestly face that it can be driven out by cultural changes that few are willing to make.

AP reports Nelson Mandela as saying at the Barcelona conference, "AIDS is a war against humanity." He is right, of course. But why then do we not consider those spreading AIDS by homosexual sex, use of prostitutes, and sharing narcotics needles as enemies of humanity? They are, no matter on what impulse they do such antisocial acts.

We see Saddam Hussein as our enemy because he is developing and storing weapons of mass destruction. AIDS is just such a weapon. Yet we are "understanding" and "compassionate" to the point of irrationality of those who develop AIDS by deliberate acts and store such disease in their bodies to be passed on by continuing the acts that sickened themselves. There would be something far less than wild cheers if someone got up at an AIDS conference and told the truth - AIDS isn't necessary; it is epidemic because society lets it be by ignoring the reality about it. That reality is that chosen conduct invites it and chosen conduct spreads it - and only a change of conduct to what is decently natural and moral will drive it back to the brutes where scientists speculate it originated.

If smokers have become virtual pariahs for a habit that is at the least far less dangerous than AIDS, why is there no indignation at the boasting of homosexuals and lesbians about their lifestyle, which is a guaranteed gamble with AIDS? Why do we allow pro-homosexual propagandizing of young pupils when it is indisputable fact that homosexual acts have sky-high HIV and AIDS risk? Why is there little resistance to the homosexual drive for same-sex "marriages," and adoption of children by such couples?

There would be far greater resistance if a heavy-smoking couple wanted to adopt children, than there is to the drive for homosexual "marriage" to be accepted as normal. We might consider that the Muppet "normalization" of HIV for its young audience is a step toward desensitizing them to the idea of "two dads" or "two moms."

Mandela and Clinton are reported to be launching a "World Leaders AIDS Action Network" intended to "raise the global commitment to end AIDS." Don't hold your breath waiting for such a network to point out the truth that AIDS is the bad fruit of human abuse of our sacred faculty of generation. The abuse of that faculty by contraception is now so fully accepted and even recommended that national populations are endangered. The idea of sexual immorality has all but disappeared, so that the world population finds itself endangered by an epidemic that threatens to rival the Black Death in its expurgation of peoples. If the Clinton-Mandela network of leaders is serious it will help launch a moral revival and rebirth of respect for the natural law, educational systems that teach respect for true human values, rather than only pragmatic efficiency. But that is not possible in view of the fact that most modern leaders are determinedly secular, and that the idea of a society without religion other than what may be tolerated in private is taken as a requirement of "democracy."

Expunging God from society, making God and faith the equivalent of fantasy, installing science as the sole measurement of certainty, defining man as a superior brute brought into being by blind material forces is to guarantee a society ravaged by the consequences of undisciplined human indulgence. If there is no higher law than that enacted by man himself, then there will be no reason for the restraints necessary for health of soul (which does not exist) or body (which is each individual's to be abused as each chooses).

In that light we can certainly conclude of the sound and fury coming out of Barcelona that it signifies nothing, and it will matter nothing at all if children grow up being either nasty or nice to those sick as a result of human nothingness.