CALIFORNIA DREAMIN' (OF CATCHING AIDS)

Last month saw California decriminalise knowingly infecting another person with HIV. It is, in effect, now legal there to give another person a death sentence through sexual intercourse. The two chief proponents of the bill were Scott Wiener and Todd Gloria, both of whom are open homosexuals and Democrat politicians. The former is also Jewish and the latter a confused jumble of several different races, including Alaskan Indian tribes, Philippino, Dutch and Puerto-Rican. One notes the higher tendencies towards homosexuality of people from such ethnic backgrounds. Weiner's purported reasoning was that:

 

Legislators passed a number of laws three decades ago, at the height of the HIV epidemic, that criminalized behaviours of people living with HIV or added HIV-related penalties to existing crimes. These laws were based on fear and on the limited medical understanding of the time. In the decades since, societal and medical understanding of HIV has greatly improved. Effective treatments dramatically lengthen and improve the quality of life for people living with HIV — treatments that also nearly eliminate the possibility of transmission. HIV is a public health issue, not a criminal issue. These felonies, which treat HIV differently than all other serious communicable diseases, stigmatize people living with HIV and discourage people from getting tested and into treatment.

 

 

Let us examine these words carefully, for they reveal the character of the man behind them and betray his real thoughts on the matter. The first thing to examine is his belief that the 'behaviours of people of people living with HIV' were criminalised. The question that begs is what behaviours were criminalised? The only behaviours that were criminalised were in fact those relating to the deliberate infection of others without their knowledge. People also had to declare that they were carriers and he is right that there has been stigma attached to the disease, largely because carriers generally contract the disease because of a degenerate lifestyle. It is unfortunate for the minority, but they are the minority. The laws were to protect the public at large from the majority of carriers, whose lifestyle of drugs and/or sexually deviance we will look at later.

 

What is not addressed in Wiener's statement is why social stigma arises in general. There are two ways. One is the organic way of a natural reaction to behaviour that is unnatural and to things or persons that are harmful. The other is promoted and enforced by the ruling clique and depends upon their whims what constitutes social acceptability and deviance. The stigma attached to HIV/AIDS has been a naturally, organically developed one as a reaction to something deadly. The stigma attached to so-called 'homophobia' has been dictated top-down as a religion by people like Wiener and Gloria.

 

Wiener in particular is characteristic of the lifestyle led among homosexuals of what they call the 'gay scene'. Catching HIV is all part of the lifestyle, where they play Russian roulette with penises. Not only do they run the risk of catching HIV, but many actively try to catch it and refer to HIV as 'the gift' and carriers as 'gift givers', while those wishing (yes, wishing!) to be infected are called 'bug chasers'. One can readily see just how perverse this is, for there is a will to self-destruction at its heart - a will that contradicts and nullifies the survival instinct and thus abrogates Natural Law in the self. Wiener's statement is a perverse articulation of this psycho-sexual perversity. Wiener has perverted the truth of the fact that he wishes to see the general public at risk and ever more people catching HIV in an ever-more promiscuous, drug-addled and sexually fluid society. 

 

Indeed, as regards drugs, one notes his last intimation about getting more people into treatment. For the shareholders and boards of directors of the 'big pharma' conglomerates and mega-corporations, this is music to their ears. Imagine swathes of the population dependent on their products. How happy they would be. Just two years ago, Turing Pharmaceuticals' CEO Martin Shkreli hiked up the price of Daraprim, a drug used in the treatment of AIDS-related illnesses, by 5,000%. He then gave Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders, who had called him a 'poster-child of greed' a $2,700, which Bernie, true to his ethnicity, readily accepted - and then donated to an LGBTJQ+ charity when he was found out. The charity, Whitman-Walker Health, is a clinic that specialises in the treatment of AIDS in the LGBTJQ+ community - although mentioning the disease's prevalence in that community would be 'homophobic'.

 

 

Aside from the whole issue over HIV, homosexuality is in and of itself unnatural. The fundament at the base of homosexuality is the perversion of the sex-act, a natural act designed by Nature as pleasurable in order to promote procreation. Therefore the pleasure gained is secondary to the primary function intended. With the homosexual sex-act, there is no primary function; it is therefore a perversion of that given by Nature. Advocates of homosexuality often attempt to pervert the argument by citing heterosexual couples unable to have children as being a moral equivalent in that they too cannot produce offspring. Ignoring the fact they have used unfortunate exceptions rather than the rule, this is a straw-man argument. We are not talking about the result, but the subconscious urge given by Nature to produce the result. Thus, while all heterosexuals have that natural urge, whether they are physically capable of achieving the result or not, all homosexuals do not have that urge. Homosexuality is thus, by extension of that argument, unnatural, for their urge is a perversion of that given by Nature for the purpose of instigating procreation.

 

Is homosexuality genetically transmitted, a result of hormonal imbalances in the womb, or a matter of socialisation and/or psychological trauma? I suspect it is a mixture of all of the above. Whatever the cause, one must look at its treatment wherever possible, just as one would look at the treatment of a psychological disease like schizophrenia or a genetic disease like Huntingdon's. And thus, when Wiener talks about treatment, perhaps we should begin at the beginning.