Hide Raphael’s ‘The School of Athens’
Hide : : Raphael’s ‘The School of Athens’ : : Show

Lessons in Dissent

Revolution is not a dinner party, not an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be advanced softly, gradually, carefully, considerately, respectfully, politely, plainly and modestly. – Mao Tse-Tung

One of the biggest problems with HIV/AIDS dissidence is that many who call themselves dissidents, including many who would like to believe they are politically sophisticated, are almost completely ignorant of revolutionary theory. After all this time and after all we have written  in all kinds of styles for all kinds of tastes, we still get comments like the one below:

I recognise the spreading nuances within RA and it is annoying that they carry on oblivious to the oddities they made themselves, but still it seems like PG has more of a grudge against RA than AIDS Inc.  Apparently Anthony got mad at Christine Johnson for wanting to remain neutral between RA and PG.  She might have joined PG if it had not been for him.  That’s the way it seems. (Received Oct 27, 2011)

[NOTE! The author of this message has asked us to make clear that when using the words "oddities" he refers to theories not personalities. We interpreted it as a comment on theories rather than individuals and believe our answer reflects that]

Our answer to dissidents in general:

If you want to be considered more than a joke who has chosen to dissent because it justifies not getting a real job, there are some fundamental things you should know by now. One of them is that dissidents will always be destructive, disruptive, bad-mannered, foul-smelling, and holding “more of a grudge”. It is intrinsic to dissidence if you’d care to stop and reflect just one second:

Dissidents are pitted against the status quo, which necessarily means disrupting and destroying everything that has its orderly functioning within the status quo. In this case Rethinking AIDS represents the status quo, entrenched power, as much as AIDS Inc. does, and the Perth Group are the dissidents.

Those already in power benefit from conciliation, hence they almost always advocate it, at least out of one side of their mouths, while their money, their media and their political influence are put to work subverting, slandering, co-opting and destroying the revolution, as are their police and the full force of their laws, with batons, pepper spray, searches, permanent surveillance and random arrests among the powerless.

Conciliation means keeping the staus quo that is inherently biased in favour of Power and against dissidents. Therefore those in power ALWAYS, and almost always successfully, assume the role of the reasonable compromise-seeking grown-ups and cast the dissidents as immature, unrealistic, ignorant. With their boots on the dissident’s neck they will tell him, “You are free to dissent and that shows how great and tolerant our democracy is, but be civil about it, follow the procedures that are built into our fine system of governance, that’s the right way, the responsible way to go about it.”

If you follow the Occupy Wall Street protests, as any serious dissident should because that is where the trenches are dug in the Western world at this point in time, you will have seen this dynamic being played out real time. Were you fooled by Wall Street’s own President Obama for one second?

Those in power control the propaganda machinery aka the mainstream media, thus the day-to-day narrative. Your own President Crowe has taken over the Rethinking ADS initiative, the Hivaidsparadigm forum and now the Rethinking Facebook forum by force, at least some of it while you were watching, uninvolved. Were you  fooled by this president for one second?

Internal house-cleaning is always more vicious than the battle against the external foe. That is because the enemy within is the most dangerous. If you allow him to subvert you it will be impossible to even begin battling the enemy without.  The Parenzee case provides the most vivid illustration of this truth imaginable.

Now, Christine Johnson is supposedly an intelligent woman, if she really made her decision in this matter of untold historical consequence based on whether “Anthony got mad at her”, what does that tell you about her? There is no such thing as “neutral”. Neutral is a weasel word for unprincipled, siding with Power.

What does it tell you about yourself when you say: “Yeah it’s kinda annoying, I guess, when the organisation that claims to represent us all make oddities of themselves – make oddities of us all – however, if only Anthony hadn’t become mad at Christine Johnson everything might be different, at least that’s how it appears to me”?

What does it tell you about yourself when in one mail you tell me you can’t be bothered getting involved and in the next you tell me how things appear to the uninvolved and the unreflective? It tells me that you should read the Mao quote a hundred times over before calling yourself a dissident again.

 

CLAUS JENSEN

2 Responses to “Lessons in Dissent”

  1. Um, when did I get ‘mad at Christine Johnson’?

  2. Gene Semon says:

    Apparently, Lenin also had something to say to scientific revolutionaries based on what he wrote before the Revolution (Left Wing Communism-An Infantile Disorder) cited by Paul Feyerabend, “Against Method”, pg 17:

    “History as a whole, and the history of revolutions in particular, is always richer in content, more varied, more multiform, more lively and ingenious than is imagined by even the best parties, the most conscious vanguards of the most advanced classes.”

    One has to wonder about the “infantile disorder” of our time as AIDS dissidents are reduced to fighting over whom is PG angry at more. Since journal editors rejecting PG Manuscripts are incorporated into AIDS Inc., I have to say come on, when are you going to grow up and look at the “rich content” of dissident history/wars starting with RA 2009 Conference. PG have every right to be angry over being left high and dry by journal editors’ blacklist and RA jumping on the same bandwagon. “We think they’re crackpots too”, the RA board sings in chorus. “And to add insult to injury we’re going to bastardize their critique of HIV isolation and pretend we came up with it first”.

    At this stage of the endless debate, I’m mostly convinced that David Crowe is a politician on the make. He really does want to become one with the greater whole – the Science Oligarchy.

    This is the opening gambit of Feyerabend’s’ “Against Method”:

    “Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives.”

    It follows that progress in science is obviously not a “dinner party” – it’s gonna get messy folks.

    What’s the first step to a more humanitarian scientific enterprise?

    Or better, what are obstacles in the way?

    Mainstream media conveniently provides the excuse to stay uninvolved, representing OWS and HIV dissent as Claus outlined in order to discourage people from taking that first step.

    TV pundits act like there was never a derivatives fraud that led to economic collapse in 2008. Then TV reporters omit those at OWS who have an articulate response to their question: why are you here?

    “Break up the Six Mega Zombie Banks, it’s an unacceptable concentration of power. And ban toxic derivatives because they infect and destroy real investment.”

    This might be a typical response but it wouldn’t be broadcast. So I think of RA’s “strategy” and how it follows the TV journalistic model.

    I believe one should define the enemy based on investigations: the easily discoverable criminal fraud => no punishment of those responsible => perpetrators not only get away with it => they increase their concentration of political power.

    For example, the activities of the past three decades of Wall Street Oligarchs and Science Oligarchs.

    AIDS Inc is a subsidiary of Science Oligarchy Inc., meaning an unacceptable concentration of political power based on peer-reviewed frauds.

    Thus one cannot be neutral on what PG has accomplished. They’ve courageously blazed the trail on the HIV fraud and facts are facts.

    Were certain derivative financial instruments fraudulently represented as insurance or free of default risk? There’s no ‘neutral position’ here: either more regulation and de-concentration is necessary to prevent “too big to fail” OR NOT.

    Is HIV a fraud or is it not?

    So the record shows PG were undermined, if not betrayed, by the “passenger virus” waffle and all those who simply threw up their hands and refused to do their own investigation. It’s about not reacting emotionally to the technical difficulty and doing the hard work to wrap one’s mind around the issue. (E.g. Christine Johnson)

    I say reject “conciliation” as not appropriate to the moment and move the discussion forward. I for one would prefer not to be passing judgement on those symptomatic of an infantile disorder.

    Political stooges of the Wall Street Oligarchs are responding as Claus mentions above to inhibit those who might want to exercise their First Amendment rights beyond “conciliation”. It’s a cognitive psychological approach (google Cass Sunstein + cognitive infiltration) – a strategy that includes terror as a tactic.

    Find your own way to resist the imbedded memes put up at blogs by the minions who belong to the Science Oligarchs AND the Wall Street Oligarchs. Look at Republican tactics: avoid substance, sprinkle insults and dismissive comments = fear to ever take a further step. Occupy Wall Street is the perfect model of a response and has become the ultimate war of nerves.

    Who’s going to blink first?

    Same with deployment of psyop, inducing fear to make one think twice about posting a technical comment challenging RA and/or AIDS Inc.

Leave a Reply

*