Over the last few days a number of mainstream “news” publications in the United Kingdom have published articles discussing the implications of a recent study into sexually transmitted disease in the country, specifically HIV/AIDS. In predictable fashion, the adjoining commentary by the so-called journalists of these aforementioned publications has remained in the safe zone. That is, they’ve echoed the calls of influential HIV charity boss Ian Green for more funding, decrying the current provisions for HIV/AIDS patients in the United Kingdom as inadequate. They claim that while demand for the service (screening and treatment) has increased, central and local governments have either failed to bolster funding or have actively cut funding from the service to use elsewhere. In other words, HIV/AIDS is an inevitable fact of life, therefore it’s the government’s fault for failing to prioritise this particular area of healthcare.
These claims are a gross misrepresentation of reality. Whether those reporting on these findings are liars, politically correct pencil-necks or just intellectually deficient is a matter for debate, but what is an undeniable axiom is that funding is not the problem here. In truth, certain communities in the United Kingdom are vastly over-represented in cases of HIV/AIDS. The LGBT community is, as you may have guessed, one of these groups accounting for just under 50% of the 101,200 people infected with the disease in the UK. The other community in question is the black African community, with 66% of heterosexual HIV/AIDS patients in a given year being representative of that group.
The gay community has always been associated with the disease, which is a stigma that even in today’s climate of extreme political correctness they are struggling to rid themselves of. Although, “there is no smoke without fire” as the saying goes, which is of course true for this particular group. Stereotypes are not usually without some foundation in reality, and in this reality it is perfectly accurate to state that the LGBT community in the UK – and worldwide for that matter – has an AIDS problem. In London, where the “gay scene” is acutely degenerate and promiscuous, 1 in 7 homosexuals are infected with the disease. Nationally, this is slightly reduced to 1 in 25, but this still represents a serious problem in comparison with the 1 in 500 of the general population nationwide who suffer from the same disease.
In recent years, the homosexual community’s representation in AIDS cases has actually increased to the point of overtaking black African heterosexuals in the “new cases” statistics. In 2015, of the 6,095 people diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, 3,320 – or 54.4% – were gay, lesbian of bisexual. This is perhaps due to the increased promiscuity in the LGBT community, along with the growing culture of “flaunting it” in a display of defiance to the so called homophobic elements of society. This is a trend that is increasingly encouraged by both LGBT advocate groups, charities, the media and governments. However, their actions are incredibly reckless as the consistent rise in homosexual HIV/AIDS cases demonstrate.
The black African community have, to an extent, avoided the same stereotype although it befits them equally or even more so than it does the gay community. It has perhaps been whitewashed – or rather, black-washed – from the history books in today’s intellectually challenged academic environment, but the HIV virus actually originated in West Africa. 30,000 years’ ago, the Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) became established in Apes in the region. This was the precursor to HIV, which mutated and began infecting African men and women in first Belgian Congo between 1900-1940, with a separate strain (HIV-2) being found in Liberia and Ivory Coast. This is, unlike the discredited story of human evolution, an “out of Africa” theory that really deserves credence.
The statistics are truly shocking. The mass migration watchdog Migration Watch published a paper on the impact of African immigration in relation to infectious disease which found that 66% of new HIV cases diagnosed in the UK in one year were from African immigrants, which was a 330% increase since the Labour government embarked on a mass-immigration project in 1997. They also found that of the HIV cases contracted in the UK, the majority of these were transmitted from Africans. Perhaps a more startling figure is the over-representation of Africans in HIV being passed on at birth; 70% of such cases were found to be in London, and 77% of these cases were in African women. The think-tank estimates the cost of African HIV/AIDS cases for the NHS to be in the region of £5bn over a 5-year period, demonstrating that this is an economic burden for the British taxpayer, as well as the obviously associated health risks to the general public.
Some may argue that this is payback for the colonial era, but the undeniable truth is that before mass-migration and outrageous degeneracy infected our society, HIV/AIDS didn’t. The first death caused by the disease in the United Kingdom was in 1981, so the fact that there are now over 100,000 people infected with the disease in the country is an odious reflection of government policy that has allowed this to take hold. The route cause of this being transmission from Africa to the west, whilst the crisis is being perpetuated by certain elements of the LGBT community who partake in a particularly promiscuous sub-culture.
So to suggest that this is a funding problem is, as you can see, simply false. However, when one poses the difficult questions based upon the available evidence, it quickly becomes apparent that the solutions are unpalatable to a large proportion of society. But it cannot be denied that a drastic strategy is required to prevent this becoming an epidemic. Throwing more taxpayer’s money at this problem or directing more charity funds to medical research is futile at this point and grossly unfair on the healthy population who put up the majority of the funds for these topical treatments. As with any problem, tackling the route cause is infinitely more effective than attaching a seemingly virtuous assortment of sticking plasters to the symptoms.
A three-pronged approach is necessary to halt and reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS; firstly, there must be a cultural shift. The culture of promiscuity that is practised widely amongst the LGBT community must be eradicated, not least to return some sense of moral hygiene to society. Whether “putting gays back in the closet” is the answer is doubtful, but to encourage those of all sexual persuasions to practise decency and modesty can only be a force for good. Secondly, the immigration of people from high-risk regions such as Africa, must be halted and where possible, reversed. This would have a twofold benefit on both the national finances and the public health of those in the nation’s capital. Finally, legislation should be brought into being which puts stricter measures on infected persons. For instance, making it a crime with a lengthy custodial sentence to not disclose one’s infection to a prospective sexual partner may make diseased people think twice before recklessly infecting others.
It goes without saying that measures such as these are pure fantasy in the current political climate, but it is prudent to make some alternative suggestions to counter the myth that simply throwing more money at the symptom is the answer. This will perhaps fall on many deaf ears, but it is incumbent on those who see through the propaganda of the mainstream to offer an honest commentary to those seeking to remain properly informed in a world filled with deceit.