Thursday, June 08, 2006


Quite frankly, Western musical audiences are largely ignorant and musically undernourished (if not starving). In terms of African music, Westerners generally have no idea on what they are missing out and appear to be afraid to find out.

Many people would, no doubt, not wish to hear about Africa at all, but the aim of the Live8 concert was to promote the discussion of African issues - both at the G8 conference and amongst the general populace. These type of concerts are supposed to appeal to as wide a Western audience as possible - including UK ethnic Africans and other people who enjoy African music.

When was the last time Elton John and Paul McCartney appeared on Top of the Pops? They made the bill despite current failure to make Top of the Pops - lack of chart success does not mean that an artist lacks an audience. There were even attempts to sideline contemporary stars such as Ms Dynamite and Dizzie Rascal - probably because their dynamic music is naturally political and would show up the musical inanity (and the contrived political stance) of the 'chosen' musicians.

These concerts attempt to employ positive musical forces to help resolve problems - but these problems are the concern of both Africans and Westerners and the music should reflect this fact; just as Africans must humbly accept aid from Westerners in order to promote African causes so must Western musicians humble themselves and accept that Western music needs the truly superior positive force of African music.

The current African problem is essentially a problem of free trade and, to improve the current situation, Western musicians must set an example and open up their market-place to African musicians - after all the Western participants reaped huge personal publicity by supporting Live8, but, as usual, Western music promoters left African musicians in the shadows. It's about time that Western musicians acknowledged the contribution of African music to Western music - without African music there would be no Jazz, no Funk, no Rap and no Rock......there might even be no Grunge!! (what a thought!) This is not about about charity, it's about paying Africa its dues - both for its musical power and its enslaved muscle power.

Although I recognise that Bob Geldof has tried harder than most to change our world, he is, at heart, an utterly miserable fucker and, as such, will always lack the positive force required to succeed. Rather than seeking to solve problems by drawing sour water from the negative pool of Western music, Bob Geldof should replenish his soul by taking time to enjoy the sweet vibrant bouquet of African music - and accepting that Africans can help him.

Live8 should not have been a showcase of African inadequacy (soulless Western music interpolated by clips of starving dying Africans), it should have been a showcase of African creativity (African music mixed with shots of an emotionally enlivened Western audience). Let's not pretend that Africa's existence and culture depends on the charity of Western civilisation - it's actually the other way round...

Or are Western musicians and audiences afraid of the African comparison? Africa is the powerhouse of Western culture and the West should pay its bill.


Here, the problem is not that journalism has been conceived and published by racists (this is inevitable), but that other branches of the media (ie. Black and Asian ones) are exactly that - branches! They have not developed their own roots in this country as independent organisms with enough stature to cast their seeds over a wide area (including the large white domains). Truly independent Black and Asian media organisations are too parochial, and have too narrow a vision, to reach the wider national audience and thus acquire the volume and punch required to counter the racism inherent in White organisations. Asian and Black media must become stronger, taller and louder without the help of White money.

Of course, a paradox evolves when taking this course of action: to gain a universal constituency one must have a universal appeal - and this means becoming less focused on minority-based issues and, instead, addressing issues from a universal moral perspective (Right & Wrong); to be successful one must issue black and white views - but not have Black or White vision!

When the current minorities have developed stronger voices, they will no longer have to resort to stifling the voices of others - because they will gain confidence from hearing their own messages and making their own mistakes.

Until Black & Asian media can mature and communicate on a larger scale they will not (as organisations) establish that there are White people who are not racist and evil - and that White people could be potential customers.

This process of development needs time, effort and energy - but, bear in mind, that the cost of freedom for the minority is freedom for the majority (and that evil can come in packages of any size - or colour!).

Tuesday, June 06, 2006


In the UK, the concept of Black political empowerment is a wholly justifiable reaction to the racist political policies supported by most paler-skinned inhabitants who, finding themselves in a majority, have chosen to capitalize on a situation where most darker-skinned inhabitants, being in a minority, have, hitherto, chosen not to resist the racist dynamics of these divisively oppressive policies.

The Dynamics of Darkness

Although discouraged by an education-system dominated by paler-skinned inhabitants, most darker-skinned inhabitants are, assisted by the spur of financial necessity, increasingly arming their minds through ever greater commitment to developing productive mental acuity (ie learning useful skills!) - whilst most paler-skinned inhabitants, encamped in positions of privileged status which obviate the financial need for meaningful productive work, have become so complacent that their formerly developed mental edge has been severely blunted by neglect (ie they have disavowed reality-relevant skills!). One's mental edge can only be properly sharpened on the hard whetstone of reality.

By using their majority to exercise a strong control of the security forces, many paler-skinned inhabitants have, in effect, armed themselves physically, but, due to bad diet, sedentary lifestyle, and excessive alcohol and drug consumption (both illegal and prescription), many paler-skinned inhabitants have ruined their general health. Conversely, many darker-skinned inhabitants have maintained their health through an adherence to more traditional diets. Many paler-skinned inhabitants rely on the force of their numbers in order to effect a policy of oppression, but this strategy has been undermined by the fact that their communities are generally more socially dislocated and dysfunctional than those of many darker-skinned people. Many darker-skinned inhabitants are developing greater individual resilience than paler-skinned inhabitants - as a result of experiencing more situations where, being alone amongst groups of a largely oppressive paler-skinned majority, they have had to think for themselves and defend their own rights. The criminal elements of both paler-skinned and darker-skinned inhabitants are ever more arming themselves with illegal weapons.

In general, neither darker- nor paler-skinned inhabitants are well armed emotionally - as illustrated by the wide number of adult UK inhabitants' obsessed with one or more of the following: drugs, alcohol, food, cigarettes, social status, positions of power, religious belief, physical appearance, sex, fashion, crappy television programmes, juvenile pop-music, celebrity, shopping, money, luxury products, (social) insurance, and racial differentiation. However, due to an increasing reliance upon the life-sustaining efforts (ie essential productive work) of many darker-skinned inhabitants, many paler-skinned inhabitants' have been afforded less and less exposure to the emotionally nutritional effects of the sunlight of reality.

Immature obsession with the designation of sub-strands to the Human Race (something which should only be of academic importance to anthropologists) has caused many UK inhabitants to subscribe to a multi-racial view of humanity (originally promoted by certain paler-skinned inhabitants) whereby Humans are conferred with varying social status according to shade of Human skin-colour. As a result of multi-racialism, many of the paler-skinned inhabitants have, without reason, chosen to believe themselves racially superior Humans and have used demographic superiority to 'democratically' adopt an immature culture of domination - whilst many of the darker-skinned inhabitants, by accepting the precepts of multi-racialism and UK 'democracy', have effectively chosen to be treated as racially inferior Humans, and have adopted a commensurately immature culture of submission. After all, why would anyone bother to invent (or subscribe to) a social theory of multi-racialism in which every sub-division carries equal status?

Many paler-skinned people in the UK are increasingly tending to lose the struggle that constitutes real life and this is why they are increasingly attempting to compel darker-skinned people (ie those proving more effective in life's struggle) to come to their aid. The obsession of paler-skinned inhabitants with the unreality of a restrictive unworkable 'democratic' system of complex rules and regulations (a means for a majority of UK inhabitants to exploit minorities) is simply salting the fields of creativity - and this bureaucratic obsession with control is an intrinsic factor in the current failure of the UK economy. Freedom of the Individual to engage reality is the key to the promotion of creativity and wealth. The success of many darker-skinned (and indeed some paler-skinned) inhabitants in establishing efficient worthwhile independent businesses has not been down to a blind adherence to UK 'democratic' law. In the main, it is only those (paler-skinned) businesspeople, commanding illicit influence amongst the ruling (paler-skinned) establishment, who can afford the luxury of achieving commercial success 'within' the law.

Could Black Ever Become The New White?

Black politics are meaningless without Black policies and the only policies which can hope to unite all non-pale-skinned people are those policies which promote the possibility of freedom for those non-pale-skinned people; and policies which promote the possibility of freedom for non-pale-skinned people must promote the possibility of freedom for All people, because any definition of freedom for non-pale-skinned people which precludes the possibility of freedom for All people is not a definition of freedom - it is a definition of oppression; and an oppressor is not free because, by definition, he must be committed to the cause of oppression - whereas to be free one must be committed to the cause of freedom. It's a black and white issue!

Skin colour cannot be a political end in itself - unless one has the aim of genetically engineering the entire human race to a uniformly standard shade! (I believe I borrowed that one from the Frank TALKER Book of Awfully Abstruse Jokes!) What is the purpose of voting non-pale-skinned people into Parliament if they then proceed to vote for wars and policies of oppression against other non-pale-skinned peoples?

Despite enjoying the flair football of the Arsenal soccer team, I would not desire membership of a club whose supporters are renowned for their habit of trashing the surrounding North London neighbourhood when celebrating the winning of a trophy. Nor would I expect a paler-skinned person to identify himself with genocidal Nazis and North Atlantic slave-traders. Nor would I expect a darker-skinned person to identify with those who committed genocide in Rwanda.

The concept of Black politics can only be meaningful to those who consider themselves oppressed by racism - without the existence of the racially oppressive policies of paler-skinned people, the concept of Black politics, in a just sense, would be meaningless. Black politics needs the Evil of paler-skinned people to absolve darker-skinned people from their own sins (this is, of course, also a mutual feast for paler-skinned people who wish to indulge in racial oppression). In a world free of the oppression of racist paler-skinned people, Black politics would itself become synonymous with the divisive oppression of racism.

There DOES exist a movement of White Supremacist politics, but its expression comes in the form of capitalizing actions rather than capitalized words. We know this movement as the force of everyday UK 'democratic' politics - comprising the interactions of Conservatism, Socialism and Liberalism. Oppressors do not need to describe themselves - just their victims.

There also exist darker-skinned (and paler-skinned) Individuals who have struggled to develop a Human capability of sufficient maturity as to enable them to overcome the adverse effects of such oppressions as racism - these Humans have no need to subscribe to an emotionally comforting Colour club. These Human Individuals (each one different) are united only in their struggle to define and do what is Right. Rather than rallying round a random flag, a common colour chosen by chance, Humans only achieve a true unity when, in the search for Human progress, they value the potential of Individual difference.

Unfettered difference is essential for ascertaining the Truth. It's pointless for everyone to search for dinner down the same rabbit-hole at the same time - it's far better to let everyone follow their nose and to discover who has the best sense of smell! A commitment to difference is essential for progress down the path of Truth. A thriving organic culture must be nourished by such values.

For a Human Being to call himself Black is to utter a cry of despair and is a justifiable expression of awareness of his victim status - but for a Human Being to commit himself to being Black is a divisive act of complicity in his own racial oppression. There is only one Human Race, composed of uniquely created individuals, and further racial subdivisions are a sociological myth - a system of pseudo social science set to snare suckers.

Confusion of Terminology

Many darker-skinned people do not identify themselves as Black - especially Human Beings who have one paler-skinned parent and one darker-skinned parent. These particular Human Beings are all walking talking witnesses to the fraudulence of race because they know both parents to be members of the same Human Race - and the names of these Human witnesses are duly besmirched in an attempt to invalidate their vital testimony. They are patronizingly called 'mixed-race' and 'dual-heritage', but are no less 'mixed' than any other Human who has the mixed genetic and cultural heritage of two separate parents originating from the Human Race - some people may be shocked to discover that these curiously-named-people are normal members of the Human Race! After all, were we Humans not all mixed, we would be clones! Whatever will the next term be? Variegated? Does one win a special sociological prize for inventing a new label? Commonly used descriptive conventions are fine and practical, but to constantly re-invent such terminology is ever to re-enforce the mythical and divisive concept of a multi-racial world.

The term 'half-caste' has its meaning complicated by connotations of class (especially for anyone with a Hindu parent) - however, 'half-caste' has always maintained a strong 'streetspeak' currency due to this term's convenient homophonic associations with the word 'cast' (meaning hue). Of course, I would still stress that all Humans are naturally cast (moulded) from two halves - half father and half mother. It is interesting that, although 'zebras' are a common sight on UK streets, we do not use this somewhat amusing American term for couples of contrasting skin-colour - instead, the British seem to prefer to agonize over the etiquette of socially acceptable terminology for the offspring of 'zebras'!

I recently read a report where an African described an African born child as 'half-white' and, as a descriptive convention, this label struck me as simple and practical - although Europeans would probably favour 'half-black'.

There is no racism implicit in any of the aforementioned terms - they are just words. Racism is in the mind of the reader and in the eye of the beholder. May the best word win!

Colour Schemes

Nearly every Human is slightly genetically different from the next, and through sexual selection, Humans can, in minor ways, adapt relatively quickly to suit the environment in which they find themselves. For example, skin pigmentations can either be evolved to give protection against the sun's strength (ie dark pigmentations in tropical and equatorial regions) or can be evolved to allow extra absorption of solar energy (ie pale pigmentations in colder regions where the sun's rays are less powerful). This means that a paler-skinned person who migrates from Europe to Africa will probably suffer a little over-exposure to sunlight (causing sunburn and heat-stroke), whilst a darker-skinned person who migrates from Africa to Scandinavia will suffer a little under-exposure to the sun's rays (causing coldness and under-production of vitamin D3). This could explain why darker-skinned people get SAD (Seasonal Adjustment Disorder) in the European wintertime and why paler-skinned people go MAD (Mental And Deranged) under the African midday sun! Humans can also fine tune their skin pigmentation by tanning.

The House of Colours

It makes little sense for Black politicians to join the UK's major political parties - the need to implement all-Black short-lists in specific constituencies demonstrates that these parties suffer from institutional racism and an unwillingness to undergo general change. Although a Black political party would make a strong political point (vis à vis the depth of racism in the UK), the establishment of a voluntarily-funded and separate Black Parliament (without legislative power) would make an even stronger one. Surely would not Black MP's be more conspicuous by their complete absence from the Houses of Parliament?

(Incidentally, I consider that, for a dissenting Labour or Conservative MP, the honourable response to Parliamentary approval of the Iraq War would have been to have rolled his/her party membership into a fat joint and to have smoked it in the middle of Parliament Square! That's what I would call really strong action!)

Oppression Flows Red - What Colour is Freedom?

Ultimately, however, it is the freedom-hostile nature of UK political 'democracy' which facilitates the oppression of UK minorities and, thus, racism. Participation in the present (institutionally racist) UK 'democratic' process, inane compliance with compulsory UK taxation and acceptance of the UK's compulsory piss-poor public services (the institutional tools of racists) will only prolong oppression (and racism).

The real problem is oppression - racism is simply one tool employed by the oppressor. After all, when someone puts a gun to one's head does one:-

A: try to remain calm?

B: crap oneself?

C: wonder which box one's assailant would tick when answering an ethnic diversity questionnaire?

D: any combination of the above?

If one survives this ordeal, the shit in one's underpants will always emit the same stink - regardless of one's assailant's skin-colour. Should one be shot dead, the colour of one's brains on the pavement will always be the same - regardless of the skin-colour of one's assailant.









Well! Shiver me timbers! Trevor Phillips has uttered one sentiment with which I can whole-heartedly concur! It does not follow, when racists have used a particular word against non-white-skinned people, that this particular ‘radio-active' word should be buried in a leaden tomb at the very bottom of the deepest, darkest ocean - lest it contaminate those reckless souls that may be tempted to use it! Why should racists be allowed to determine the lexicon of those they seek to oppress? After all, if racists were to decide to ‘sully' a long list of hitherto ‘innocent' words, ‘religiously' observant non-racists would find very little ‘pure' word-room in which to manouevre! No wonder that so many non-whites (with a sense of humour) enjoy ‘reclaiming' words such as ‘nigger' - even the filthiest white-trash and racist-scrap would appear to have some value after recycling! It's definitely a case of cutting out one's tongue in order to spite one's mind.....

Lester Holloway reckons that "The word also takes us back years to an era when signs saying 'No Coloureds, No Irish, No Dogs' hung on windows. We should not allow Trevor to turn back the clock. If he likes the word 'coloured' and doesn't like the word 'multicultural' we have to wonder what's going on."

Well fear not Lester! There is no mythical present which has vanquished the racist terrors of the past - a past where blacks were negros and the favour of whites had to won. Politically-correct patch-makers do not want anyone to ‘turn back the clock' because they know, deep-down, that the UK's ‘clock' of human decency was never wound up - and that, despite a multi-culture of liberal and leftist policies, this ‘clock' has never moved on.

As for Lee ‘rose-tinted' Jasper, he needs to get himself down to Specsavers, on the double! In effect, Britain has always been ‘segregated' and continues to be ‘segregated' to this day. In fact, while UK minorities continue to be oppressed, it is in the interests of survival for minorities to become more ‘segregated'. Mr Jasper states that Mr Phillips "should seriously consider whether he is in the right job." Is Lee Jasper after Trev's job?

Unfortunately, the meat of Trevor Phillips' speech was, as usual, comfort food for racists. Just as his ‘Sleep-Walking into Segregation' address was a coded attack on Muslims who, quite reasonably, choose to keep themselves-to-themselves (he implied, with a cynicism which Blair would have envied, that Muslim self-segregation is causing terrorism - whilst totally disregarding the slaughter of Middle Eastern Muslims caused by Western military occupation), so Trevor Phillips' latest offering now contains a dictat which states that there should be "national agreement on some of these issues" ie. he believes that minorities should gratefully accept the names that they are given by racists.

Fortunately, Shami Chakrabarti recognises that "it's all too easy to bang on about shared language and rather harder to stand up for non-negotiable values such as ... freedom from arbitrary arrest." She alone seems to recognise that it's people (through their actions) who are racist - and that words, on their own, can never be racist. She's obviously somewhat irritated by the irrelevance of this discussion in the context of a society where Muslims and other non-whites are being arbitrarily arrested and summarily executed.
In a country where race mythology is used to divide, rule and oppress, we should not be worrying about which race-label to use - we should really be questioning whether we ought to give any Human any race-label at all.


“Phillips speech will be particularly galling for those who have fought for years against words like 'half-caste' and 'coloured' to assert their identity as being Black.”

Trevor Phillips' casual approach to the word ‘coloured' is probably due to a generational influence. One's use of language often gives away one's age. People from different age groups will refer to the National Assistance Board, the DHSS, the DSS or the DWP, but they will usually all be describing the same government department - likewise different people will refer to people of Afro-Carribean origin as either negro, coloured, people of colour and black. The use of these words is simply a matter of personal preference - in the same way as my experiences of traffic conditions and roadworks, when I used to drive from Clerkenwell to Shoreditch, tended to make me a ‘City Road man', rather than an ‘Old Street man'; similarly, the lottery of one's formative experiences might lead one to be a ‘tit man' instead of a ‘bum man'!

I cannot count the number of times I have heard people from older generations (both black and white) use the word ‘coloured' - but does this make a black pensioner, who uses the word ‘coloured', ignorant about race-issues? Equally, I am not bothered when I hear a racist use the word ‘coloured' - because I realize that his actions speak far louder than his words. Clearly, this sort of terminology only becomes important when a society dominated by white racists demands it to be so - but it is that same racialized society which has today necessitated the racial description ‘black'. It is, of course, not the skin-description ‘black' about which we are arguing, but the insidiously weighted racial-description - which is the result of a sinister fabrication (race).

In terms of physical description, I will always consider a particular friend of mine to be ‘half-caste' - because, in 1983, when I had mislaid his address and was attempting to locate him, my then girlfriend described him as ‘half-caste'. I had never before heard this term used (indeed, I did not even know that there existed a term to describe his particular complection), but the term proved invaluable in finding his exact whereabouts in the general area in which I knew him to reside. However, I will always primarily think of this man as my friend rather than as a ‘label'. It is unfortunate that so many people are more concerned with the label than with the Human to which it is attached - though, I suppose, this is hardly surprising in an age where people are obsessed with ‘designer labels'...

Moreover, not only have I, by accident of circumstances, internalized the term ‘half-caste', but I also prefer this term to the racially-loaded ‘mixed-race' and the sociological non-descriptive mouthful of ‘dual-heritage' - because I am attracted towards the term which, in Western understanding, has the least racial connotations.

Sunday, June 04, 2006


Prompted by references on the Blink website, I have recently viewed the film Rabbit-Proof Fence and it’s theme has now been instantly suggested to me by Frank TALKER’s image of ‘dark purlieus’ within the racist psyche (see Frank TALKER comment, 13.04.05 Being a huge Ingmar Bergman fan, I naturally enjoyed this film’s scenes of wild windswept grassy plains, the latent leporine symbolism and the tense psychological drama! However, the most impressive aspect of the movie was its beautifully blatant and simple symbolism - which was right down this rabbit’s rambling intellectual warren! I was especially struck by the way the thought-sequestrating reason-proof fence, which, in the racist mind, divided Aboriginal from European, was outwardly expressed by the attempted creation of a culturally asphyxiating human-proof fence, which was intended to prevent the communicative free-flow of life-enhancing human intercourse. Inspiringly, though, this story describes how the vision of two committed children extended far farther than the range of this fearful Fence of Futility - such that they outflanked the reach of its unrealistic ambition. Accordingly, I would prescribe Rabbit-Proof Fence as a welcome antidote to the pervading toxic futility of the film Walkabout.

Urgent to emulate the former German oblivion to the function of the Konzentrationslager, we in the UK are also building fences behind which we are increasingly reluctant to let our conscience venture.


See post by 'Lester' Blink Forum:

It's for the individual parent to choose whether to play a full and influential part in the upbringing of children - and this is largely a question of the maturity of the relationship.

Unless there is an enforced prohibition of culture in the Carribean and in Africa, I see little chance of these cultures being 'lost'! I'm fairly sure that traditional European rather than Afro-Carribean culture is in need of being granted heritage preservation orders and the designation of sites of special scientific interest! Nevertheless, true cultural values must be rediscovered, reproved and re-authorised by each new and independent generation - in order to prove the real worth of those individuals. And if worthy individuals fail to endorse certain aspects of their forefathers' culture, those cultural phenomena will have lost currency - according to a natural order. Cultures which must be preserved are cultures which have given up the will to face reality and which have failed and died. Cultures are based upon the universal recognition of the achievements of individuals - individuals who recognise that there is always room for improvement. A culture which considers itself to be of such perfection as to be deserving of a glass case is yesterday's culture. Culture must live and develop to be worthy of the name.

One has only to read a few of Frank TALKER's posts to become aware of the comprehensive failings of traditional European culture, but traditional Afro-based culture too has it's drawbacks eg. male and female circumcision. On the other hand, the invention and vision of Ghanaian music is truly marvellous.

Any good relationship (no matter the cultural background) is founded upon love and the joy of creating something which is original and which aspires to fulfill the highest human ideals. Such relationships are the only possible nurseries of culture and it's amazing how we humans compost and recycle that which has real worth. I would reckon that the freedom of spirit required to enter a 'non-conformist' relationship is a promising ingredient for the soup of culture.

If individuals (whatever the colour of their skin) do not to fail in their relationships, do not get married for the wrong reasons and do not fail as parents, how are those same individuals ever to learn to recognise what is of value? Everybody must be able to make mistakes.

I have complete respect for what 'Lester' has (most sincerely) written, but the problems which he identifies concern individual maturity and are not problems which arise from the colouration of culture. Real cultural values can always be shared. What is more important: the value, or the skin-colour of the person who holds the value?

Thursday, June 01, 2006


African Sexuality Is Not Abnormal

Many people blame Africa's second Apocalypse (the AIDS epidemic) on the sexual promiscuity of Africans - but do they not realise that they are continuing to infect Africa with a form of Western propaganda, the evil of which has not been beheld since the indoctrination of Christianity? These medical ‘missionaries’ are disseminating information, about causes for the spread of AIDS in Africa, which is so incomplete that it constitutes a falsehood - they have swallowed Western racist propaganda hook, line and sinker.

Do these medical ‘missionaries’ never wonder why the African populations in Britain (which, naturally, continue to adopt the same patterns of sexual activity that are prevalent in their countries of origin) have not been completely decimated by AIDS related deaths? Do they not notice that the young people of every continent of the world are all naturally prone to eager sexual promiscuity - with scant regard for the use of condoms? No! They obviously have not! Furthermore, this observation about youthful promiscuity must even include young Westerners - despite their consumption by a stultifying culture of reckless drinking and drug-taking!

It is evident that the reason for this dreadful continental disparity in AIDS fatalities has nothing at all to do with heterosexual promiscuity - but is inextricably linked to poverty, indigenous custom and ignorance of the full reasons for AIDS-infection.

People in poor communities are bound to share razor blades (for shaving etc) and the same impoverished people are likely to use (and share) the same razors for making traditional ceremonial markings on their bodies. African people have, in ignorance, been spreading AIDS amongst their own families and communities.

The severity of the AIDS epidemic in Africa is abnormal: one should look for a cause which is abnormal.

Western Medicine Spreads AIDS

On a more insidious note, it is reckoned that, in the clinics of impoverished communities, the medical re-use of insufficiently sterilized hypodermic needles and surgical equipment has greatly added to the spread of AIDS infection in Africa.

For several years, I, together with friends, have questioned the ‘official' explanation for the discrepancies in data for AIDS infection rates. Although not experts, we could not understand why the AIDS prevention campaigns in Africa placed such a huge emphasis on the sexual transmission of AIDS - it made no sense when, in a poor continent, there are many more obvious reasons for widespread AIDS infection, such as shared use of razors and hypodermic needles.

Then, a couple of years ago, a doctor broke ranks and challenged the validity of AIDS prevention campaigns - he said that campaigns were wrongly concentrated on combatting the sexual transmission of this disease and that research data did not support this undue emphasis in policy. However, if one blinked, one would have totally missed this news story - because it had very little coverage and disappeared immediately.

The afore-mentioned challenge to establishment policies is based on the wilfully ignored medical research papers of Dr David Gisselquist (which are fully-listed below in The AIDS Debate: Some General Points. This detailed research shows that the transmission of AIDS in Africa occurs mainly through medical care. In fact, countries, such as South Africa and Zimbabwe, which are trying to extend medical-care to rural areas (with undoubtedly limited finances), are suffering the worst AIDS infection rates - even though other STD rates are falling due to the increasing use of condoms. AIDS also tends to be prevalent in urban African areas where people have enough money to take advantage of medical care - but do not have enough money to afford medical care of a standard high enough to prevent the medical-transmission of AIDS. In fact, my understanding (from discussions with Africans) is that medical "short-cuts" are commonplace in the treatment (see:

These medical research papers show that normal heterosexual activity is not responsible for the explosion of AIDS in Africa - just as it has not been responsible for an Aids explosion in Europe.

The rate of AIDS infection has decreased in some parts of the African continent and one might hope that, behind the scenes, Western health officials have been listening to the concerns of the whistle-blowers and have been quietly changing their policies on AIDS prevention - however, this would be a most dangerous assumption whilst Westerners continue to believe in a wild and sex-crazed Africa continent, which should be subdued under the full weight of Christian guilt. Indeed, recent research in Uganda (see:
) has indicated that (subsequent to the initial devastating wave of AIDS-infection) it was the massive increase of AIDS-related deaths which caused a sharp decrease in the numbers of AIDS-sufferers - despite recent increases in the rates of local sexual promiscuity.

Christian Guilt Kills

In poor countries, AIDS is spread by shared use of basic domestic items (eg toothbrushes and razors) and by re-use of basic medical equipment (eg hypodermic needles). By concentrating their anti-AIDS campaigns on messages about safe-sex, Western agencies have created the belief that AIDS is a predominately sexually transmitted disease and that AIDS carriers must be sexually promiscuous, adulterous or homosexual - in societies whose members have been brain-washed by the fear of a Christian God, this false belief causes AIDS sufferers to remain dangerously anonymous.

Where people cannot individually afford condoms, razor-blades and toothbrushes, the anti-AIDS message would be more productively concentrated on the dangers of sharing hygiene-implements and on the dangers of using sub-standard medical services - whilst, of course, continuing to inform people about the risks of contracting AIDS through sexual contact, especially anal-sexual contact.

The Chalice Is Poisoned

Bill Gates should ensure that his vaccination programmes are being properly funded and administered at the grassroots level (ie. a separate hypodermic needle and syringe for each individual vaccinated). He should also ensure that all his hypodermic needles and syringes are collected up and taken back to America for incineration. If Bill Gates is not prepared to fund his vaccination programmes to this level, then he should not initiate such (potentially cataclysmic) programmes at all.

Wake-Up Call

AIDS probably originated from the botched testing (in Africa) of a Western Polio vaccination programme - and AIDS has been spread by the underfunded introduction of frankly controversial Western medicinal practices (such as immunisation) to the African continent.

All in all, the campaign against AIDS-infection in Africa is a complete and criminal fuck-up and, while this situation persists, rates of AIDS infection will never drop below 5% or 6% of the population.

Millions of Africans are dying from the ignorance that the medical ‘missionaries’ (and millions like them) insist on perpetuating. Perhaps they have shares in a condom-manufacturing companies? Or perhaps they have some other vested interest in the virtuous portrayal of current medical programmes in Africa? Has their insight been bought with directorships of high-profile Western medical agencies? Whatever their reasons, when analysing yet another appalling African Apocalypse, for obstinately and bloody-mindedly refusing to employ basic common-sense, the medical ‘missionaries’ should please, please now face the facts - after all, they have seen the state of beleaguered African hospitals.

If the medical ‘missionaries’ have allowed others to burden them with guilt about their own sexuality - they should not now attempt to transfer that guilt onto the shoulders of those already crushed.

High-ranking medical ‘missionaries’ are in a uniquely powerful position to understand the African AIDS epidemic and to influence the strategy of AIDS campaigns - but do they really want to get to the bottom of the AIDS problem in Africa?

African people have been cheated once again - and now they are expected to buy AIDS drugs from those very Westerners who have once again caused their destruction. Medical ‘missionaries’ should WAKE UP before millions more Africans drift into an early sleep.


I am listing (below) the web-pages of the three medical reviews that (for me) opened the can of worms which constitutes the debate on AIDS:-

Mounting anomalies in the epidemiology of HIV in Africa: cry the beloved paradigm:

Let it be sexual: how health care transmission of AIDS in Africa was ignored:

Heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa: an empiric estimate:

I have recently also noticed this media release and review:-HIV risk assessment based on false assumptions:

Establishing valid AIDS monitoring and research in countries with generalized epidemics:

These reviews appear, without any satisfactory scientific refutation, to have been unceremoniously buried by the medical community - and it would not be the first time that medics have, at the expense of patients’ lives, deliberately ignored sound scientific research in order to maintain personal reputation, to preserve establishment positions and to protect the profits from certain drug sales.

There are medical forums (such as the one provided by the BMJ) where doctors are clearly involved in a raging debate about all aspects of AIDS. Amongst these forums, I noticed that there has been a study which claims to undermine the theory that medical injections have caused widespread AIDS transmission - the validity of this study is subsequently brought into serious question by the medical criticisms of another doctor, but the author of the original paper then refuses to answer these medical criticisms and ‘contents’ himself by engaging in some ‘ad hominem’ attacks on his critic...

My general understanding is that there exists:

1. No general medical agreement about AIDS.

2. Considerable opposition to the theory that HIV causes AIDS - since no adequate test, which proves this link, has ever been devised. The respected researcher, who, in 1987, initially cast doubt on the HIV-AIDS link, was thereafter refused funding and sidelined by the medical establishment. HIV could be a symptom of several serious diseases. If the link between HIV and AIDS is uncertain, so then is the theory of a ‘contagious’ AIDS virus and also the effectiveness of the current direction of AIDS-prevention campaigns.

3. No agreement on a single definition of AIDS - a confusion which calls into question the true number of AIDS sufferers in Africa, but which does not obscure the fact that millions of Africans are dying from some form of illness. It has been proposed that the African sickness, now termed AIDS, encompasses a number of serious pre-existing diseases (eg. tuberculosis and hepatitis C) which are epidemic, but ignored - and that this is possible because most African AIDS sufferers do not receive an AIDS test of sufficient quality to conclusively diagnose AIDS. It is even claimed that anti-retro-viral drugs could be dangerous for many of the so-called AIDS sufferers.

My personal conclusion is that ‘AIDS’ (in Africa) is caused by a massive scale of medical malpractice which, whilst not necessarily affecting general population growth, is certainly continuing (post-colonially) a destruction of African health, African societies and the African continent. By the way, I do criticize Africans - for their naivety in trusting the ‘magic’ of the improperly-implemented medical procedures of Westerners. Even in the rich West, there is concern about the validity of compulsorily-funded state health-care programs - after all, is the UK a country of healthy people? I would suggest that, in the UK, the healthiest people could well be fresh African immigrants who have just landed at Heathrow airport. One must simply open one’s eyes and look around.