What is this chatter in the AIDS dissidence community lately about banning the word “denialist”? When did this become the most compelling matter for us to confront at this time in our history?
Of course the use of derogatory terms by others to define us should be challenged, and AIDS Dissidents have been challenging the label of “AIDS Denialist” since it was first coined. Hyperventilating publicly about our distaste for being labeled with that name, however, is not a good strategy. It is playing the game by their rules, not ours. It is reactive, rather than proactive. It is a defensive posture, not an offensive one.
Are we in retreat? Who blew the bugle? I think I missed the call.
What’s in a name?
Drawing comparisons to other derogatory names like Holocaust Denialists, is flawed. Those groups really don’t exist. Oh, there may be a couple of websites that would seem to indicate otherwise, but no one takes them seriously. OK, maybe a handful of truly loose screws take them seriously, but give me a break. Name a single Nobelist, or tenured professor, or even a rational and articulate and educated person who espouses their view?
Global warming is a much better comparison. In that field, one can find expert opinions to reasonably support two divergent points of views, as with AIDS. In both cases, the more established side resorts to dismissing those with opposing views as Denialists.
Global warming Denialism recently had its Waterloo, in the form of leaked emails exposing the corruption and lack of integrity in that established scientific industry. While the questions about the cause and effect, or even the existence of global warming are far from resolved, those who are questioning the previously unassailable Paradigm of Global Warming now have a firmer, more mainstream, if you will, position from which to pose their challenges.
There have been some similar breakthroughs for AIDS questioners and rethinkers. The publishing of Robert Gallo’s original edits of his research papers by Janine Roberts comes to mind. Unlike Global Warming though, backers of AIDS scientism have managed to hold onto their perch as controllers of information to the masses, especially the lamestream media.
Where is our agenda?
We AIDS Dissidents definitely have our work cut out for us:
- There is research to be done that needs funding.
- In the West, gay men especially need support to come together and challenge the assault on our community by the AIDS industry that has so successfully overwhelmed us in such short order.
- Those of us with health problems have our work cut out just trying to recover and stay alive long enough to do some good. That work is not easy in a community as diverse and divisive as the AIDS Dissident community.
- The mass poisoning of Africans with dangerous drugs funded by otherwise well-meaning celebrities, billionaires and governments needs to be exposed for the genocide it is.
Wield, don’t yield
So what if those who support the prevailing AIDS Paradigm call us Denialists? I’ve grown kind of fond of that name, myself. When I see that word used in a news report or comment, I can immediately position the author as having a particular worldview, which helps me consider their message in its proper context.
When neutral observers see the term AIDS Denialist used, I trust that there is some sort of shift—however subtle—that occurs in their subconscious. A doubt is planted where none existed before. This is especially true for those who are Affected with a HIV-positive diagnosis and who are already distrustful of the status quo standard of care of “controlling” the virus with toxic drug cocktails. The more often they read the name AIDS Denialist, the better, I say.
Of course I choose to self-name myself with other terms. I call myself an AIDS Dissident mostly because it seems to be the term used and accepted by a majority of those I have found myself aligned with. I actually prefer to call myself an AIDS Questioner, while others consider themselves AIDS Rethinkers.
It is my observation that, outside of some narrowly defined scientific circles, few people come to AIDS Dissidence based on any arguments we make. Instead, people find reasons to question the AIDS dogma on their own. That was certainly the case for me when I realized I could not tolerate the ARV cocktail and that drugs were making me sicker than any disease.
That is the case of a long time friend I have recently reconnected with who continues to have no viral load, despite testing HIV-positive a couple of decades ago. Dissidence doesn’t draw people away from the Paradigm; the Paradigm drives people to Dissidence.
How did I find the AIDS dissidence community? By searching and reading, of course. Try googling “AIDS Denialist” for yourself and you will see that the AIDS promoters who control wikipedia have done an admirable job of telling the world that we exist.
Don’t feed the Trolls
I am just asking my AIDS Dissident friends and family to consider that we do ourselves no favor by calling for a ban of a name, a word, even if we do find it derogatory and offensive. We should not protest it too much. Instead, let’s reclaim the word and use it for ourselves. Can we perhaps embrace being “denialists”? At the very least, can we not lay claim to the right to give ourselves permission to deny AIDS control over our lives?
While publicizing and rallying a cause to ban the term “AIDS denialist” may make us feel better for a click or two, in the end it is nothing more than one of thousands of online parlor games. We are only telling those who try to use that derogatory term to belittle and discredit us how effective their tactics are*. We only encourage them to use it more. I choose to not send that message because the cause is hopeless. We cannot succeed in banning words and I will not expend my precious energy and time trying.
So, to all of you AIDS believers, promoters, mainstreamers and dogmatists (how’s that for naming one’s opponents?): Please, call me an AIDS Denialist all you want. Make my day!
As for you AIDS Dissidents, especially the ones personally Affected, tell me what you think by commenting below.
—
* Late note: I have been very hesitant to publish this post, which was written a few days ago, because I was concerned about how it might be perceived by some of my friends in the AIDS Dissident community. Then I became aware of yet another post yammering away at AIDS Denialism that went up a couple of days ago on splicetoday.com, by none other than than Baylor backed mouthpiece J Todd DeShong, supporting my point that we only encourage such diatribes when we focus so much on the wrong message.
3 Responses to “Dissenting from Dissent – I am an AIDS Denialist”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Hi Jonathan,
I greatly admire your openness in revealing the details of your life, your thoughts, your process. I don’t mind that there are different responses to being called bad names – it seems good to point it out, because the issue underneath is the issue being intentionally buried by the ad hominem. So, I’m not sure I see any great problem with people banding together for one reason or another. On verra, as the francaise dit…
The issue for me is scientism. This is the practice of bluffing the public with lousy research and blanket proclamations that go unquestioned by a generally trusting American public, and a deeply complicit (and intellectually lazy and dishonest) American and world press.
So, what are the questions that are covered by the name-calling? I think that goes to the point for me.
In historical battle against discrimination, so many tactics were employed that it’s hard to say which one mattered most. I’m thinking of a speech given against serfdom – economic and personal slavery in essence – to the State. It was given in the 14th Century by a priest called John Ball, who was an important figure in the Peasant’s Revolt (1381).
If we look at it on its face, we can say that he had a long way to wait for slavery to be over. Some would point out that it isn’t over yet for many…
Point is, well, we don’t know the long view, we don’t know everything, we can’t see how the world will turn, and regard all of this in retrospect.
I think of the freedom riders and marchers of the American Civil Rights movement. All of the various means and methods of speaking about an issue, each emerging from a different set of personalities and passions within a dispossessed group. I hear your frustration in the lack of a cohesive ‘dissident’ identity, but maybe you’re not a dissident. I never signed up to be one. I don’t really buy into the meaning of the word – to dissent as a total characterization of self? It seems to want the authority figure to ‘do right’ by everybody, to be a reasonable entity, after all.
I suppose I see gov’t differently; something to keep an eye on, to give limited power to; to refer to in times of irresolvable conflict, to sit in as an arbiter. I don’t want a nanny state, or a nice, paternalistic father figure in charge – I don’t think that exists. I’m happiest when the public limits gov’t power and expenditure; and I suppose that goes to my philosophy in many areas.
The issue of the day that irritates me (and gets my particular personality engaged) is the religious quality of the science (or scientism) that sits on top of our backs and is funneled into our homes via satellite and radio and ipod and ipad and blackberry and all the other ‘we love you big brother’ devices we live through these days.
(Aldous Huxley was right, by the way. George Orwell would have been surprised to hear that it was we, the people who welcomed constant surveillance and publicity of all our minute actions via electronic device. It wasn’t forced, it was purchased, gleefully).
So, anti-“denialist” or pro, or undecided, I’m glad to know you personally because you tell the difficult truths, and think complexly. I like you because you’re a good person, and you’re generous with your time and life, you share the details so that others might benefit, or have a reflecting point.
We’ll see what the world says in another 800 years, what phantasms it has invented to entertain and frighten itself; what belief systems dominate, to the exclusion of all others.
In the meantime, I will take some delight in poking holes in the scientisms of our day. Given all their hard work and PR in creating webs of fiction to sell to the public, giving a little back to them is certainly the least I can do.
Jonathan, I jumped on that idea last year. The term denialist doesn’t really bother me, in fact I have often shared my story with people here in Florida and in opening up I explained “I am an AIDS Denyalist” then the question comes back ” what is an AIDS Denyalist/Denialist”? and I say we are a growing world wide movement of HIV/AIDS dissenters and rethinkers.
“Journal of an AIDS Denyalist” I believe Eden Greyfaulk was a little confused before we met about the title of my video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1N2_w5dCyY but what’s in a word? when so many people who are attracted to such a new age term take a peak or ask a question? nah the term can’t be re-newed, taken away and there is no damage done,average viewers stumbling across the word can see the politics smeared everywhere. The Denialist Inquisition is happening now, then the truth becomes “self evident”. i personally beleive that the term denialist should be embraced and taken away from those who conspire to silence and censor us.
I would tend to agree. Name-calling being our adversaries’ only real recourse against us (since they never can seem to produce the “overwhelming proof” that they claim exists,) we need to take that word away from them and turn it against them.
When I am confronted by someone who calls me a “denialist”, I use the opportunity to point out that that word is a monosyllabic ad hominem attack, and that ad hominem attacks are invariably the refuge of those who don’t have the facts on their side. So if they’d like to produce some evidence that HIV actually exists — much less that it causes AIDS — I’d be glad to discuss and debate that evidence with them, but if the best they can do is to resort to name-calling, then all they’ll accomplish is to expose the fact that they have no valid scientific argument to present.
I am of a race of people (Cajun) who actually prefer to be called by the vulgarized and derogatory names for our race, rather than by the proper name. If you want to endear yourself to a Cajun, the best way is to call him a “Coonass”. If you’re not comfortable calling him a Coonass, then calling him a Cajun is considered perfectly proper, despite the fact that “Cajun” is to “Acadian” what “Injun” is to “Indian”. In fact, if you call a Coonass an “Acadian”, he’ll look at you like he’s never heard that word before (and chances are he hasn’t.) We are actually proud to be Coonasses and Cajuns, and we literally never use the word “Acadian” to describe ourselves. (Some African-Americans have similarly co-opted the infamous “N-word”, but it’s still pretty rare for them to be comfortable being called by that name if it comes from a Caucasian or Asian. Given my Coonass heritage, I am of the opinion that they will never truly conquer the power of that word until they have conquered the indignation they feel when it is spoken by members of some races.)
Likewise, when we replace our indignation with pride at being called a “denialist” — when that word makes us feel victorious rather than indignant because we know that the speaker is exposing the scientific bankruptcy of his position — we will truly have denied our adversaries the very last bit of ammunition that remains in their arsenal against us.
And if they can’t refute us with evidence and they can’t enrage us with name-calling, what power can they possibly have over us?
— Gos
— gos@nerosopeningact.com
— http://myspace.com/nerosopeningact