Here are some lefty nonsense-ideas that have been getting my goat lately.

The real 9/11 conspiracy was perpetuated by the people who produce sparkly crying eagle gifs

1. The idea that people abused through prostitution are “sex workers” who should be unionised.

Being abused is not a job. People being abused through prostitution should be given all of the help, access to help for addiction, safe affordable housing, and therapy for the multitude of abuses they have suffered before and during prostitution that they need. People who buy consent through paying for sex should be criminalised. The men who buy women and other men through prostitution are disgusting and oppressive and should be blasted off the face of the earth, or at least prosecuted to fuck. “Unionisation” = normalisation of abuse.

2. 9/11 “truthers”.

Do you want to know the truth about 9/11? Okay, the truth is that there’s this terrorist group called Al-Qaeda which used to be funded by the US so that they would do their bidding in the Middle East, but then they thought fuck that let’s put all this training to use and bomb our real ideological enemies, America! So they flew some planes into the World Trade Centre, killed a lot of people, and the US used it to its propaganda advantage by fooling a lot of stupid people into thinking that Afghanistan and Iraq had anything to do it, and started the War on Terror. TA DA! THERE’S YOUR TRUTH! No lizards, holograms, Jews, nanothermites or satanist symbols in banknotes required. So you can stop selling well meaning lefties your anti-semitic, anti-working class shit and go shave your back now.

3. Polyamory.

Really, this is just a heap of manipulative shit wrapped up in ‘alternative thinking’ and ‘free love’ terminology. Like, if we lived in the abstract, in theory there shouldn’t be a problem with several consenting adults freely choosing to take part in multiple relationships concurrently and totes not get jealous or emotional about it, if that’s what they’re into. The problem is that we don’t live in the abstract, we live in patriarchy. The fact that this is an actual concept that is encouraged in left wing political circles is what’s offensive, rather than the individual fact of specific couples agreeing to cheat on each other and not care. You shouldn’t be judged specifically if you really truly feel you have made the free choice to live that way. You should, however, be judged if you promote it to your partners who weren’t into it before you encouraged them to be, or to other lefties as some sort of alternative way to live your life, because it just encourages a culture in which it’s okay for charismatic lefty men to subtly manipulate their girlfriends into accepting bad behaviour as ‘polyamory’. Too many women have been manipulated into an ‘open relationship’ (i.e. her boyfriend wanting an excuse to shag around and mistreat her and get away with it) because they loved their boyfriend so much they didn’t want to lose him, and the truth is that he simply didn’t care as much as he said he did and wanted an easy way to get what he wanted all the time. That’s especially true of the all too prevalent charismatic sexy left wing man who later is revealed to be an arch abuser. Also, it promotes a total false consciousness of empowerment. Also, there’s nothing wrong with not wanting the person you’re in love with, who says they’re in love with you, to not be sticking it in other people. That is an okay way to think and feel, and it’s wrong that polyamory is promoted as a ‘left wing’ way of thinking when it’s not political at all, and as something that young women in left wing circles should get into. There’s nothing left wing about it, it’s left too many abused, manipulated and used women in its wake for that to be the case.

LET THE COMMENT RIOTS COMMENCE!

Who would have thought this man's party would ever have money problems?

UKIP, the acceptable face of far right politics in the UK, are possibly facing a financial disaster next month.

July is likely to see the judgement of the Supreme Court over the party’s refusal to forfeit over £350,000 of illegal donations. The Electoral Commission says it knows about at least 67 instances of the UKIP breaking the law on donations. Under electoral law, if a party is given over £200 it has to check if the donor is on the electoral register. UKIP failed to do this, despite loads of warnings from the commission.

The party got £367, 697 from these incidents. Most of the money came from a retired bookie and owner of a bathrobe company, Alan Brown, who was not on the register when he gave them several separate donations. In magistrates court, UKIP was ordered to pay back only part of the amount, but the electoral commission has escalated things to the Supreme Court in an attempt to get the full amount forfeited, in which case it would go to the treasury.

As well as this money itself, if UKIP loses the case then they would face millions in legal bills. It could effectively bankrupt the party.

Should we be happy about this? Absolutely we should, because UKIP are the hidden threat we face from the organised far right. Leftfield has reported before on UKIP as a potential seed from which an important party of the radical right could become a major force in British politics. The model for this would be far right racist, anti-Muslim Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who has just gained a big result in the Dutch general election.

Alan Brown hands over an illegal donation

Wilders is the darling of the English and Scottish Defence Leagues, who admire him for his stances such as banning the hijab from all public institutions, calling for the Koran to be banned whilst comparing it to ‘Mein Kampf’, and for the construction of prison camps for Muslims in the Netherlands.

Alan Lake, the shady businessman who bankrolled the rise of the EDL, has said publicly that he’s backing away from his street army of football casuals to focus on finding them a voice in the mainstream political process. He’s doing that by working with UKIP.

Read the rest of this entry »

He's a bastard, in't he?

By Calum Nelson, MPharm

In South Africa there’s a popular comedian called Matthias Rath. Here’s one of his jokes:

“Patient: Doctor Doctor, I’m worried about transmitting HIV to my unborn baby.

Doctor: Don’t worry, just have some potatoes. Whatever you do, don’t take any poisonous anti-viral medicine which will actually cause AIDS.”

It’s a screamer eh? Ok, I lied. Matthias Rath is actually a doctor from Germany, not a comedian, and some might also say he’s a serial killer. Not a serial killer in the Harold Shipman way, but his practices have almost certainly led to the deaths of thousands of South Africans.

South Africa is a nation with a massive HIV/AIDS crisis. It is currently estimated that 11% of South Africans are HIV-positive. This means that if you walk down a busy street in South Africa, chances are 1 in every 10 people you see has HIV. This changes by province; in KwaZulu-Natal the rate goes up to 26%. With a disease this widespread, anyone able to market a treatment might end up very rich very quickly and it appears that Matthias Rath also knew this.

Having studied medicine in his native Germany, Rath went into research in California. It was here that he started making claims about the use of high dose vitamins in treatment of cardiovascular disease. He began suggesting that conventional cancer treatments should not be used as they kill patients and that they should instead take Rath’s vitamin supplements. His books developed an impressive readership throughout Europe and he sold lots of interestingly priced vitamins. Despite being criticised and fined throughout Europe for claiming his pills could cure cancer, he developed an impressive following and an impressive bank balance, allowing him to try and break South Africa. Well he broke it alright.

With all guns blazing he filled newspaper pages with his claims. “Antivirals are a conspiracy by the pharmaceutical industry to poison you. Vitamins are the true solution to AIDS. Stop taking your antivirals right now…RIGHT NOW. STOP IT. STOP TAKING THEM. SPIT IT OUT. Now don’t let me catch you doing it again.” Ok, so those weren’t his exact words, but they might as well have been. Soon he was conducting trials, recruiting poor black township residents with promises of money or food. The patients were told to stop taking their antivirals and were instead given high doses of vitamins. Guess what happened. Guess. Everyone was actually fine and they all lived happily ever after. Sorry, typo, what I meant to say was that a considerable number of the study participants quickly deteriorated and died. The South African High Court eventually found that Rath’s trial was illegal. This could have ended up being an unfortunate isolated incident in which a doctor with crazy ideas performed an unethical trial. Thousands of lives may have been saved if one of Rath’s supporters didn’t just happen to be the President of the Republic of South Africa.

And so it came to pass that thanks to Matthias Rath, a country with one of the highest HIV rates in the world was telling people to take African potatoes and garlic instead of antivirals. The country refused to roll out antiviral treatment programmes; they turned down grant money intended for the purchase of HIV medication and even turned down donations of drugs. Presidential advisors recommended banning HIV tests and denied any knowledge of an AIDS epidemic in Africa. President Thabo Mbeki himself repeatedly denied that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS and his health minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang repeatedly praised Rath’s work and publicly decried antiviral therapy as being dangerous and counterproductive. Overall it’s estimated that around 330,000 people died unnecessarily in the space of 5 years thanks to the government’s policy on antivirals.

Naturally these policies encountered opposition; the Western Cape province ignored governmental advice and continued to supply antiretrovirals. Groups such as Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) did their utmost to get HIV medication to those in need. This resulted in Anthony Brink, a colleague of Rath, taking TAC to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, accusing them of genocide. In his indictment Brink set out what he believed to be an appropriate punishment for Zachie Achmat, the founder of TAC:

“APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL SANCTION

In view of the scale and gravity of Achmat’s crime and his direct personal criminal culpability for ‘the deaths of thousands of people’, to quote his own words, it is respectfully submitted that the International Criminal Court ought to impose on him the highest sentence provided by Article 77.1(b) of the Rome Statute, namely to permanent confinement in a small white steel and concrete cage, bright fluorescent light on all the time to keep an eye on him, his warders putting him out only to work every day in the prison garden to cultivate nutrient-rich vegetables, including when it’s raining. In order for him to repay his debt to society, with the ARVs he claims to take administered daily under close medical watch at the full prescribed dose, morning noon and night, without interruption, to prevent him faking that he’s being treatment compliant, pushed if necessary down his forced-open gullet with a finger, or, if he bites, kicks and screams too much, dripped into his arm after he’s been restrained on a gurney with cable ties around his ankles, wrists and neck, until he gives up the ghost on them, so as to eradicate this foulest, most loathsome, unscrupulous and malevolent blight on the human race, who has plagued and poisoned the people of South Africa, mostly black, mostly poor, for nearly a decade now, since the day he and his TAC first hit the scene.

Signed at Cape Town, South Africa, on 1 January 2007

Anthony Brink”

Fortunately Rath’s heyday is over in South Africa. Manto Tshabalala-Msimang was replaced as health minister and Mbeki was replaced as president by Kgalema Motlanthe, who stated that “the era of AIDS denialism in South Africa is over.” Despite this, a massive amount of damage was done by Rath and the other AIDS dissidents in South Africa. The lack of HIV medication is estimated to have caused 35,000 babies to have been unnecessarily born with HIV and 171,000 preventable HIV infections. Antiviral medication is difficult enough for the poorest to afford at the best of times thanks to prohibitive pricing by the pharmaceutical industry and so extra restrictions are likely to have a devastating effect. Purely for the sake of money and advancing his own career, Rath destroyed thousands of lives and thousands of families across South Africa. In a similar fashion to our own MMR scare, irresponsible claims made with a lack of evidence proved dangerous and the importance of examining evidence is once again demonstrated.

If you’re the kind of person who knows there’s a lot of problems in our society, and you’re looking for solutions for what to do about it, there’s a good chance you’ve found yourself here on our blog.

There’s also a good chance you might have come across something called the Zeitgeist Movement. If you have, and you’re attracted to the ideas they put forward, this article is our attempt to argue that Zeitgeist offers no real solutions to the economic and ecological crises that human civilisation is facing. In fact, quite the opposite: instead of explaining to people how we can change our society for the better, many of the ideas put forward in the Zeitgeist films have their origins in the far right and racist groups, and they’re ideas which are both crazy and useless.

The reason we’re doing this is because we know that Zeitgeist has been really influential on thousands of people who’ve seen it online, and because we think that is potentially really damaging to the attempts (which we’re part of) to build a mass movement capable of bringing fundamental change to the world. It deliberately tries to pitch itself as an appeal to people who have a basically left wing outlook, but the ideas it puts forward about our world as it is just now are not left wing at all.

Read the rest of this entry »