21 April 2009
Dr Essop Pahad
Editor: The Thinker
52 Lechwe Street
Cc: The Honourable Mr Thabo Mbeki;
All ‘Contributing analysts’;
Other interested parties;
And online at www.tig.org.za
Questions of Direction,
Questions of Intellectual and Political Integrity:
Essop Pahad, Ronald Suresh Roberts, Thabo Mbeki,
Kgalema Motlanthe, Robert Mugabe,
Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, HIV and AIDS
When we met at the first meeting of former President Mbeki’s Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel in Pretoria in May 2000, you said with a friendly smile and handshake that I needed no introduction, so let me plunge right in.
In your interview with Mbeki in the launch edition of The Thinker, he cautioned:
The nation as a whole faces the important challenge to ensure that it does not allow the entrenchment of a culture in our country’s public life of the practice of using untruths, of resort to dishonest means and deceit to achieve particular goals.
Alluding to his ‘so-called “recall”’ as a case in point, he highlighted the disastrous ‘consequences’ that can result from ‘the persistent propagation of outright falsehoods’, ‘deliberate falsehoods’, ‘entirely false claims’, ‘deliberate fabrications’, ‘complete fabrications’, and ‘lies’.
I mention Mbeki’s remarks about this recent tendency in our national life, because it’s apparent from the characteristically obsequious manner in which they were framed – deprecated by Mbeki in his reference in his final answer to ‘King Canute’ and ‘the waves’ – that Ronald Suresh Roberts wrote the interview questions for you. And none was more give-away than Roberts’s question, ‘Are you or have you ever been an HIV denialist?’
Considering Mark Gevisser’s revelations in Thabo Mbeki: The Dream Deferred concerning Mbeki’s late-night call to him in June 2007 regarding Castro Hlongwane, Caravans, Cats, Geese, Foot & Mouth and Statistics: HIV/AIDS and the Struggle for the Humanisation of the African, his confirmation that it reflects his thinking, and his delivery to him the next day of an updated, expanded hard copy of this radical attack on the scientific fallacies and ideological poison in the foundations of the HIV-AIDS construct, you couldn’t possibly have posed such an unbelievably stupid and dishonest question yourself.
Since admitting this in Parliament in November 2004 it’s been known for years that you’ve been paying Roberts to write for you – apparently because you share Christine Qunta’s opinion that he writes ‘in such an intelligent and systematic manner’ on account of his ‘phenomenal intellect’.
Now there’s nothing wrong in principle with having someone write for you, Essop. It’s an open secret that Mbeki wrote for Oliver Tambo.
But no one has accused Mbeki of being one of those people who ‘resort to dishonest means and deceit to achieve particular goals’, of ‘using untruths’, of ‘persistent propagation of outright falsehoods’, ‘deliberate falsehoods’, ‘entirely false claims’, ‘deliberate fabrications’, ‘complete fabrications’, and ‘lies’.
Roberts, on the other hand, is well known in our country as one of those people who ‘resort to dishonest means and deceit to achieve particular goals’ and who are given to ‘persistent propagation of outright falsehoods’, ‘using untruths’, ‘deliberate falsehoods’, ‘entirely false claims’, ‘deliberate fabrications’, ‘complete fabrications’, and ‘lies’.
I’m referring of course to Fit to Govern: The Native Intelligence of Thabo Mbeki – described by none other than the book’s own editor, the political historian Dr James Sanders, as ‘the most serious case of plagiarism and literary fraud in South African literary history’, an opinion he formed after reading my critical analysis of the book’s AIDS chapters, Lying and Thieving: The fraudulent scholarship of Ronald Suresh Roberts (free online at www.lyingandthieving.com, and stocked by Clarke’s Bookshop in Cape Town and many libraries). I’m referring also to Roberts’s many lies told in the media after my book came out (all recorded in the press archive on the book’s website).
Since Roberts’s fraud was so extensive my exposé is rather long, but it’s summed up in a letter I wrote to Harvard Law School Professor Allan Dershowitz in June last year concerning the lessons in crooked scholarship Roberts appears to have learned from him. I enclose a copy to fill you in.
Noam Chomsky, to whom I also sent it, and whom you’ll agree is quite a ‘progressive’ sort of guy, thought it a ‘Fine letter, and very appropriate.’ Norman Finkelstein liked it too, and added: ‘A thumbs up from Chomsky is the best way to start the day.’ (It sure is.) I hope you also find my letter ‘very appropriate’, especially the ending.
A month after my letter to Roberts’s Harvard mentor in lying and thieving, the Press Ombudsman’s Panel concurred that he steals other people’s work and ideas as charged, dismissing his complaint against the Weekender for calling him the plagiarist he is in its front-page headline report on 17 November 2007 and on its street posters – a conclusion editor Peter Bruce stood by at the hearing: ‘The poster was true – he is a plagiarist.’ The Panel held Bruce’s ‘belief that Roberts was a plagiarist reasonable’ on the strength of the case made out in ‘Brink’s persuasive book’, and found that an independent audit of my plagiarism charges by way of numerous textual comparisons ‘did confirm [Bruce’s] belief that Roberts is a plagiarist’ – particularly since ‘Roberts does not confront the issues of cutting where Brink cut, using identical ellipses and making the same transcription errors’.
Although Roberts announced that he’d be appealing the ruling, he never did – for the obvious reason that he wanted to avoid the further ignominy of having Supreme Court of Appeal Judge Ralph Zulman and his Press Appeals Board upholding the ruling, and all the newspapers trumpeting this on their front pages the next day.
Also because he wanted to avoid having the Judge of Appeal confirm the Press Ombudsman Panel’s finding that he was an ‘unconvincing’ witness, after rejecting his transparently mendacious ploy at the hearing to weasel out of the plagiarism charges – which very same finding against his credibility Weinkove AJ made when dismissing his defamation action against the Sunday Times in the Cape High Court, namely that he’s an ‘unconvincing’ bloke.
This is to say that even after holding his hand in the air and taking an oath to speak the truth, Roberts lies freely – being one of those people who ‘resort to dishonest means and deceit to achieve particular goals’ and who are given to ‘persistent propagation of outright falsehoods’, ‘using untruths’, ‘deliberate falsehoods’, ‘entirely false claims’, ‘deliberate fabrications’, ‘complete fabrications’, and ‘lies’.
As your standing ghost-writer for many years, I assume Roberts will be writing the editorials and articles in The Thinker published in your name.
And since at 70 you’re getting on, and running a magazine, especially a new one, is a mentally and physically demanding undertaking requiring considerable energy, it seems certain that Roberts will be the de facto managing editor of the magazine too.
Obviously none of your ‘Contributing analysts’ would come within miles of a magazine openly run by someone as notoriously dishonest as Ronald Suresh Roberts. None would tolerate having their writing vetted and edited by such a low fellow. Consequently the need to disguise his central involvement in running The Thinker was quite understandable. And this is why his name appeared at the very bottom of the list of ‘Contributing analysts’ published at the foot of the first page of the magazine, almost as an afterthought. (On the original list he appeared third, and again at the end just to make sure).
And whereas you hardly need the new job, Roberts certainly does. Since being sacked from Molotov Cocktail magazine in early 2007 and then being exposed and discredited as a liar and a thief in Lying and Thieving later that year, with the result that no one will publish him anymore, he needs a new platform from which to tell his lies and slander his critics with even more – as he did in his ‘ThoughtLeader’ blog, in Empire, and in the Mail&Guardian (see my published replies enclosed).
He needs the cash too, because he owes the Sunday Times R1 million in taxed legal fees, the Receiver of Revenue a similar fabulous sum, a friend of mine another R35,000-00 or so, whom he’s been stringing along with false promises, even in writing, just like Carl Niehaus, and another former friend of his several thousand rands too. And who knows who else.
Much worse than the fact that the de facto editor of The Thinker is someone who steals other people’s original ideas and research work and passes them off as his own (steals their treasured books too), is that he’s wont to invent things out of nothing, twist what people said in the most dishonest way, and even present his own foolish notions as those of others.
As we all know, Mbeki was so appalled to read Roberts’s fabrication and falsification of the history of his intellectual and political engagement with the American AIDS construct, and his portrayal of him as a conventional believer in his own image, that he felt compelled to contact Gevisser immediately to correct the record.
Roberts is no AIDS dissident himself: good lord no. When the DA published its blacklist of the country’s top twelve AIDS dissidents in November 2004 (with me at the top of the heap, Mbeki third), calling for us to be silenced, Roberts was bitterly unhappy about being included in Mbeki’s company, and insisted on the retraction of a report about it in Business Day and the removal of other newspaper reports from their online archives. And when three years later the Sunday Times was reporting his plagiarism of my work, the thing Roberts objected to most was being misdescribed as an AIDS dissident again, and he compelled the paper to retract this terrible charge the following week.
The original March 2002 version of Castro Hlongwane is linked at www.lyingandthieving.com, and it plainly refutes Roberts’s brazen lie in his book that ‘Thabo Mbeki is not now, nor has he ever been an AIDS dissident.’ Reading it you’ll appreciate that in truth Mbeki rejects the entire HIV-AIDS construct as racist junk science.
Unfortunately, Roberts isn’t only a flagrant liar, he’s a shamelessly incorrigible one too.
Contemptuous of Mbeki’s wish to set the record straight, the record of his thoughts and deeds on AIDS that Roberts fouled in his book, Roberts has persisted in his lying version of Mbeki’s thinking and doing on the subject; has attacked Gevisser as an incompetent who misreported Mbeki’s position on AIDS in his biography; and has continued to maintain that on AIDS Mbeki is with him and the white liberals, including the white medical authorities, in believing that Africans (not whites, coloured and Indians) are riddled with a deadly new sex disease in South Africa, more than anywhere else in the world, and that they need to swallow expensive patented ARV drugs every day or they’ll die. (Whereas Mbeki noted in his letter to Tony Leon on 1 July 2000 that
AZT is immuno-suppressive. Contrary to the claims you make in promotion of AZT, all responsible medical authorities repeatedly issue serious warnings about the toxicity of antiretroviral drugs, including AZT
and cited stacks of supporting data in Castro Hlongwane, Roberts thinks these ‘immuno-suppressive … antiretroviral drugs, including AZT’ are ‘sensible’ drugs for doctors to give to immuno-suppressed Africans.)
Roberts’s ‘persistent propagation of outright falsehoods’, ‘using untruths’, ‘deliberate falsehoods’, ‘entirely false claims’, ‘deliberate fabrications’, ‘complete fabrications’, and ‘lies’ to misrepresent Mbeki’s views on the nature, principal causes and best treatment of the age-old diseases of poverty nowadays called AIDS in South Africa, in defiance of Mbeki’s attempt to correct the historical record, is described in my letters to Dershowitz, Empire and the Mail&Guardian.
Like a child caught out telling lies by his frowning mother, Roberts apparently finds it psychologically easier to stick to and repeat his colossal lie that Mbeki is with the believers on AIDS than to eat crow and admit that he fucked up monumentally on this major policy issue of Mbeki’s presidency, the issue he covered in two central chapters of his book – which everyone bought to read expecting at last an honest, revealing account of precisely what Mbeki really thinks of the HIV-AIDS model, especially after reading Roberts’s boasts on the back cover of his book that he ‘had unprecedented access to the President himself’, and so ‘is uniquely placed to write with authority about the President’ and ‘the intellectual traditions that inform the President’s actions’, all of which claims are typical blatant lies of his, because unlike Allister Sparks researching Beyond the Miracle: Inside the New South Africa, and Gevisser doing the same for Thabo Mbeki: The Dream Deferred, Roberts never interviewed Mbeki on AIDS; in fact he never interviewed him at all.
And I’m sorry to have to say this, Essop, but since you were controlling the content of Roberts’s book so closely, you were complicit in the fraud Roberts perpetrated on the reading public concerning Mbeki’s views on AIDS (Lying and Thieving has a chapter, ‘How Roberts wrote “Fit to Govern” to order, chopping and changing his manuscript on Essop Pahad’s secret instructions, and prostituting his “intellectual independence” to mining capital’).
You even went so far as to pressurise STE Publishers to reprint the book in February 2008, after it cancelled this in November 2007 on reading my revelations about Roberts’s lying and thieving in Lying and Thieving. I assume this because STE’s director Reedwan Vally said in Die Burger at the time that (I translate)
the reprint of the book, of which all 8 500 copies have been sold, has been temporarily halted until finality over the allegations has been reached … Vally said Brink’s allegations in the 370-page publication will now be thoroughly investigated … He said STE Publishers considers allegations of plagiarism in a very serious light, and if they are true he will feel terribly betrayed by Roberts.
And after my ‘allegations of plagiarism’ had indeed been ‘thoroughly investigated’ and confirmed by his attorneys – and also by James Myburgh (no friend of mine in politics), whose guilty verdict, along with the evidence, including new evidence he’d discovered which I’d originally missed, Myburgh posted on his Politicsweb site for all to see – Vally felt so ‘terribly betrayed by Roberts’ in view of the ‘very serious light’ that ‘STE Publishers considers ... plagiarism’ that he would never have reprinted the book without a phone call reminding him of his government printing contracts. All the more since Mbeki had repudiated the book’s core false claims concerning his thinking on AIDS.
From the declamation in the editorial, ‘We are convinced that Africa must realize her Renaissance’ – a restatement of Mbeki’s vision – one is led to expect that The Thinker’s editorials and articles will be articulating some of the revolutionary ideas and insights of Africa’s leading post-colonial thinker, and realizing his hopes expressed in the interview that the magazine can
convince its readers and society at large that it is committed both honestly to comprehend human practice, and to help change it in a progressive direction.
With Roberts at the helm of The Thinker there’s small prospect of this.
Although the editorial claims that the magazine ‘seeks to open up the space for public discourse, the clash of ideas, stimulating intellectual debate and scientific analysis’, and foment ‘the further deepening of intellectual thought, political debate, public discourse, and the exchange and clash of ideas’, we can be sure that concerning the dominant, burning policy controversies of Mbeki’s presidency, AIDS and Zimbabwe, The Thinker will read no differently from the Cape Times, the Mail&Guardian, Amandla! and other publications selling the white South African liberal Weltanschauung.
Concerning Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, duly cited by Mbeki in his letter to Jacob Zuma as one of the ‘titans of our struggle’, Roberts has already defamed him in his book as a ‘charlatan’ and a ‘murderous’ war criminal, just as the liberal newspapers do all the time, as if Mbeki thinks this too; and since he never admits a mistake, especially a big one, Roberts can be expected to carry on doing so, just as the liberal newspapers do.
It follows that there’ll be no discussion of the central land question in that country from the point of view of ZANU-PF that Mugabe leads, which is to say the point of view of the masses of the people fenced into arid reserves; nor of the concerted regime change operation on the go there being conducted by the US National Endowment for Democracy (CIA) and the UK Westminster Foundation (MI6); nor Western machinations to strangle the Zimbabwean economy by withholding aid, loans and balance of payments support, and other sanctions, and thereby topple from power the democratically elected revolutionary party and substitute it with a compliant puppet regime funded by and serving Western interests.
Nor is The Thinker likely to feature any ‘stimulating intellectual debate and scientific analysis’ of the scientific and ideological premises founding Western HIV-AIDS orthodoxy interrogated by Mbeki in Castro Hlongwane.
Instead, Roberts will most certainly be abusing The Thinker to persist with his fantastic lie, as he’s consistently done in other publications, that ‘Thabo Mbeki is not now, nor has he ever been, an AIDS dissident’, and that on AIDS Mbeki thinks just like him, Tony Leon, Steven Friedman, James Myburgh, Mark Gevisser, RW Johnson, and all other right-thinking whites, namely that Africans (but not whites, coloureds and Indians) are plagued by incurably lethal invisible sex germs, for which they need good, strong ARV medicines from overseas so they can maybe live a couple of years longer.
We know this because in asking Mbeki, ‘Are you or have you ever been an HIV denialist?’, Roberts was hoping to elicit a direct negative answer from him to vindicate his lying claim in his book that ‘Thabo Mbeki is not now, nor has he ever been an AIDS dissident.’
As a rhetorical garrotte, the phrase ‘HIV denialist’ is a favourite epithet of Mbeki’s more venomous detractors (with whom on AIDS Roberts basically agrees); and the question reveals Roberts’s own standard white liberal view that anyone who finds fault with the HIV theory of AIDS, and the belief that Africans (not whites, coloured and Indians) are rife with it, is a moral reprobate of the neo-Nazi sort.
But spotting Roberts’s dishonest trick, Mbeki declined to answer him head on; repeatedly pointed up the need to approach the subject ‘honestly’; addressed Roberts’s dishonest misstatement in Fit to Govern of the object of his Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel that he convened in 2000; and defiantly continued to refer to the HIV theory of AIDS as a mere ‘thesis’:
The time will surely come when it will be possible rationally to discuss … the issues you raise. To assist people who honestly, and I mean honestly, want to understand what I sought to do with regard to the issue of HIV and AIDS, I would recommend that they should read the 2001 ‘Presidential AIDS Advisory Panel Report’ which is carried on the www.info.gov.za website. They should also read the remarks I made at the very first meeting of the Panel, which also appear on the same website. The issues we raised never impacted on the implementation of the Government programme which, then as now, was based in part on the thesis that HIV causes AIDS. Anybody who is honestly interested to understand the challenges relating to the issue of AIDS will know that the issues discussed by the Advisory Panel so many years ago are matters with which scientists continue to grapple to this day. Among these are the search by scientists for an answer to the question why world medical science has so far failed to develop an HIV vaccine, despite the brain power and the billions of dollars that have been focused on this project for some decades.
Since it’s all but impossible in this ‘time’ of plague hysteria among the chattering classes in South Africa, mostly white, but also Indian, ‘rationally to discuss … the issues you raise’, Mbeki didn’t mention the most fundamental of ‘the issues discussed by the Advisory Panel so many years ago … with which scientists continue to grapple to this day’, namely that, as he put it in Castro Hlongwane,
the work of isolating our unique HI Virus has not been done … nobody has seen it … Nobody knows what it looks like. Nobody knows how it behaves.
As President Kgalema Motlanthe, then Secretary General of the ANC, explained in similar terms to Padraig O’Malley on 22 August 2000, scientists are
still trying to isolate the virus… this virus still has to be scientifically isolated. … the virus must still be isolated. There is no evidence anywhere that there has been any isolation of it.
Again a couple of weeks later on 15 September he affirmed that
our position is that from all accounts this virus has not been isolated and photographed and studied under controlled conditions as to what it’s behaviour is. … there is ongoing research work by scientists to try and isolate this virus. … you ask any of the experts whether they have seen evidence, any piece of document that says scientist so-and-so in such a country has isolated this HIV virus and photographed it and studied its modus vivendi under controlled conditions, they will swear at you. They will tell you that question was answered twenty years ago, they will tell you you are giving audience to dissidents. They will not tell you because it’s not there. That’s why they become vicious because it is simply not there. They take it on authority and then it gets passed on like that but there’s no authority, it’s a lie repeated by those who are supposed to know better. The truth of the matter is that if they were to admit that indeed no such thing has happened, I mean it would cause serious reverberations across the scientific world. … It would be like when Galileo [challenged the geocentric theory of the universe] it caused serious reverberations. That’s what will happen with this thing.
That this was very much on Mbeki’s mind was evident in his final answer in the interview. Alluding unambiguously to the controversy around his rejection of the HIV-AIDS paradigm that is so dehumanizing of African people, he noted that
all studies of the development of knowledge, and therefore the cumulatively more accurate and truthful understanding of all motion, human and other, demonstrate that new knowledge, and therefore new truth, always presents itself as a heretical repudiation of established truths.
Accordingly, by definition, the heretics will always be in the minority and must expect that those who represent ‘old and established truths’ will combine in a powerful united offensive to defend these old truths, presenting them as everlasting, incontrovertible and proven truths.
Confronted by such an offensive, conveyed and magnified by a powerful mass media, only the immensely brave and principled would have the courage to repeat after Galileo Galilei, when he defended his correct and then highly original observation that the Earth revolves around the Sun, rather than the reverse, saying – and yet it moves!
In many instances, therefore, ‘The Thinker’ will need to demonstrate the courage of a Galileo to convince its readers and society at large that it is committed both honestly to comprehend human practice, and to help change it in a progressive direction.
Without doubt, there is virtually limitless space for such a journal. Many of us will, for now, suspend judgement about whether ‘The Thinker’ will be the kind of journal I have sought to define.
The trouble I see coming, Essop, is that if Roberts is allowed to carry on running the show The Thinker will never ‘be the kind of journal [Mbeki] sought to define’, which is to say one ‘committed both honestly to comprehend human practice, and to help change it in a progressive direction’, because Roberts is adamantly convinced that Africans in our country (unlike whites, coloured and Indians) are infected with a deadly sex plague that they’ve brought on themselves by having too much of a good time since national liberation in 1994, and he’ll never countenance the publication of any writing in The Thinker antithetical to this fervent belief of his and in line with Mbeki’s deconstruction of this neo-racist myth expressed in Castro Hlongwane.
Knowing Roberts very well, very well indeed, I can assure you he’s certainly not ‘brave’, let alone ‘immensely’ so – somebody having ‘the courage of a Galileo’. (Even less is he a ‘principled’ person, and capable of any ‘highly original’ insight.) On the contrary, being simultaneously a vicious bully and a cringing coward in the usual combination – I’ve seen it so often – Roberts would never take a position or even explore a line that might attract the terrifying charge ‘AIDS denialist’ from the ‘powerful mass media’ in their ruthless ‘offensive’ against AIDS ‘heretics’ like Mbeki, Motlanthe and me.
Such as by exploring the possibility, a decade on, that Mbeki was perfectly right in bringing the dangerous toxicity of AZT to public attention in the National Council of Provinces on 28 October 1999 (see my enclosed leaflet, ‘Why do President Mbeki and Dr Tshabalala-Msimang warn against the use of ARV drugs like AZT?’, and my essay published last month, ‘Martin Weinel, Thabo Mbeki and AZT’).
Such as by examining why the ‘Left’ in South Africa and abroad is so astute at seeing through the self-serving lying propaganda of the immensely lucrative, enormously powerful military industrial complex, yet so gullible in swallowing whole the self-serving lying propaganda of the immensely lucrative, enormously powerful medical industrial complex.
Such as by examining the nature of what Mbeki calls the ‘intellectual violence’ done to Africans by the propagation of the timeless Western notion that Africans are ‘promiscuous carriers of germs, unique in the world … doomed to an inevitable mortal end because of our unconquerable devotion to the sin of lust’.
Such as by examining whether the miniature bogey that the experts in our country, mostly white and Indian, claim African loins are infested with even exists.
Perhaps it’s time, Essop, to make plain whether as a person of Asiatic extraction, like half of Roberts is, you also think it’s ‘progressive’ to ‘define’ Africans as beset by the ‘scourge’ of HIV-AIDS (that thrilling word you like so much), as your local kinsmen Jerry Coovadia and Zackie Achmat also do, and nearly all whites do too, namely that since the end of apartheid the broken health of the African poor is no longer due to insufficient nutrition resulting from their continuing desperate poverty, as it’s historically been since the loss of their lands, these days it’s because they have so much more sex than we do.
Why, it’s the ‘unbridled sexuality … of newly independent people ... especially the promiscuity of men’ that has led to ‘AIDS … ripping through millions of our people’, says our country’s top AIDS expert Professor Coovadia, referring of course to the servants. Just as Achmat complained, ‘The President doesn’t want to believe that people in Africa have a lot of sex.’ And it’s those Africans who don’t get enough to eat who rock and roll the most, writes Roberts in Fit to Govern:
Poorer Africans, the majority of the population, had made fewer changes because few could expect to reach old age, whether or not they contracted HIV.
Offering a different explanation for the same claim, the unabashed racist RW Johnson put it much the same way in his book South Africa: The First Man, the Last Nation:
the weak position of women in society resulting from these rates of unemployment, makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to insist on changes in male sexual behaviour.
And the result, he claims:
Aids, of course, is the other key dimension of the social catastrophe suffered by South African blacks since liberation in 1994. By mid 2003 the Aids pandemic had secured its millionth victim and the death rate of 1,000 a day was rising fast. Another 5.3 million South Africans were HIV positive.
According to Roberts, who seriously believes this stuff, those malnourished ‘Poorer Africans’ who’ve ‘made fewer changes’ to their fantastically rich and varied sex lives have gone around spreading their sex plague all over the country:
The rapid circulation of African populations, a side effect of economic modernisation, the migrant labour system and urbanization meant that an undetected epidemic spread powerfully and was set to flood into South Africa long before the levers of public policy passed into democratic hands.
Essop, to think that you and Christine consider this ‘such an intelligent and systematic’ analysis of the poor health of the poverty-stricken African majority, and evidence of Roberts’s ‘phenomenal intellect’!
Anyway, to get to the point, the ultimate point, and here I’m talking about the alleged germ itself that Roberts says ‘Poorer Africans’ (not whites, coloureds and Indians) spread everywhere with their septic genitals, but which ‘virus’, like the Devil, Mbeki and Motlanthe correctly tell us, seemingly incredibly, has never been ‘isolated’, ‘seen’ and ‘photographed’, you’ll have no difficulty as a doctor of philosophy understanding the ‘correct … highly original observation’ made in this regard by the Galileo of our time, a nuclear physicist of my close acquaintance working, like Einstein tucked away in his patent office, in the Department of Medical Engineering & Physics at Royal Perth Hospital in Western Australia: Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos.
To save you reading all her long scientific papers on the subject, the papers that both Mbeki and Motlanthe have taken the trouble to read, she’s pared down her case against ‘HIV’ to the bare essentials in two crisp articles I enclose: ‘Proving the Existence of HIV’ and ‘A Shortened Commentary on Montagnier’s 1983 Science Paper’ – the one this French buffoon got the Nobel Prize for last year, claiming to have discovered a new virus in the world.
For more about this ‘virus’ that Mbeki and Motlanthe once so ardently believed in (me too), you can read a paper Papadopulos-Eleopulos wrote for me, which I delivered in May last year at an international, multilingual AIDS conference in Ekaterinburg, Russia, along with a supporting slideshow of electron micrographs. The paper and slides are posted on the Russian page of www.tig.org.za.
As Mbeki put it, ‘Many of us will, for now, suspend judgement about whether “The Thinker” will be the kind of journal I have sought to define’, which is to say one ‘committed both honestly to comprehend human practice, and to help change it in a progressive direction’, or ‘whether “The Thinker” will be the kind of journal’ run by bootlicking ‘cats and geese in our midst’, witlessly promoting Western imperial ideologies and Western interests cloaked, as ever, in the language of humanitarian concern.
Given the atrocious practical consequences for the African poor of the uncritical acceptance of the HIV-AIDS myth by middle class journalists in our country who shape and make public opinion, there can hardly be a more pressing subject for The Thinker to examine.
You’ll understand what I mean reading my enclosed October 2007 press release and leaflet, ‘Why do Zackie Achmat, Nathan Geffen and Mark Heywood want AZT given to pregnant African women and their babies? What AZT does to unborn and newly born children’. And why, as Gevisser told BBC News online on 7 November 2007,
Mr Mbeki thinks he has ‘failed on the issue of Aids’ and regrets dropping the debate. ... ‘He feels even more strongly about the efficacy of anti-retroviral (ARV) medication. He believes that ARV medication is toxic and that it is a project that’s been imposed upon particularly vulnerable Africans by the pharmaceutical companies,’ Mr Gevisser said.
Likewise telling the Sunday Times a few days later on the 18th, ‘I think that he believes that the damage caused by ARVs is greater than the damage caused by Aids.’ And quoting Mbeki’s ‘close comrades’ in his biography reporting that the
decision to withdraw was one of the most difficult of his long political career … Mbeki saw himself having to make one of those terrible calculations of power: to sacrifice the lives of those who, he believed, would die from taking antiretrovirals in order to safeguard his government, his country, the ANC’s project of transformation and – some of his advisors believed – his own life too.
But Gevisser also recorded Mbeki’s confidence that his position on AIDS and ARVs will ultimately be vindicated and that ‘in the long run – he believes, with absolute conviction – he will be proven correct’.
We know what Mbeki was referring to when he said:
‘The Thinker’ will need to demonstrate the courage of a Galileo to convince its readers and society at large that it is committed both honestly to comprehend human practice, and to help change it in a progressive direction.
Will you take him up on it? The editorial in the launch edition of your magazine did say it would
strive to give all its contributors the freedom to express what they think, understanding that openness in the context of ideas, theoretical divergences and multi-dimensional practice is a necessary condition for fundamental social transformation. We are committed to opening up the space for honestly-expressed views, mindful that the ideas, analyses and commentaries that we will publish may be uncomfortable for some and anathema for others.