Podcasts about ACT UP

This episode's guest is actor, writer, voiceover artist, and unapologetic improv nerd, Roxana Ortega.Roxana is one of those rare artists whose vulnerability, honesty, and humor hit you all at once – and leave a lasting impression. If her voice sounds familiar, it might be because she's voiced everything from the passionate Frida Casagrande on The Casagrandes to characters in Call of Duty, Final Fantasy, and Monsters at Work. She's narrated Pulitzer Prize-winning novels, voiced countless animated characters, and is a master of voice matching (yes, she's dubbed for Penelope Cruz and Salma Hayek).In our conversation, Roxana takes us through the unexpected path that led her to acting – from growing up in an academic household where creativity wasn't considered a “real” career, to having a life-changing epiphany while teaching English in Spain. We talk about the internal battle between playing it safe and going after what you truly want—and what it really means to decide to be an artist.We go deep into the power of improv as both a performance tool and a life philosophy, how failure can be a gift, and why community-building and representation matter now more than ever. Roxana shares how she uses her voice – literally and figuratively – to make space for underrepresented stories, and how she's continued to evolve as a writer, performer, and director.Whether you're someone who thrives on stage or someone working up the courage to take the leap, Roxana's journey will remind you that embracing risk, staying curious, and being fiercely yourself is always worth it.Episode Chapters 00:00 – Welcome + Introduction02:00 – Names, Language, and Laughter04:00 – Academic Roots & Artistic Restlessness07:55 – The Epiphany in Spain13:49 – “I Decided to Be an Actor”16:00 – Improv, Joy, and Redefining Failure21:45 – Performing, Directing, and Creating Her Own Work32:00 – Representation, Identity, and Making Space40:00 – The Tapestry of Humanity49:30 – Amazing Race Nerd Out50:50 – Blissful Spinster & Making Art on Your Own Terms54:35 – Final Words of Wisdom55:14 – What's Next for Roxana58:00 – Wrap-Up & Thank YouRoxana's Bio:Roxana Ortega is an American actor, writer, and voiceover artist who is known for voicing the ever-emotional Frida Casagrande on Nickelodeon's Emmy award-winning and Imagen award-winning cartoon The Casagrandes, a spinoff of the acclaimed series The Loud House.On-camera, she recently starred opposite Danny Trejo, Reno Wilson, and a cast of legends including Garrett Morris, Barry Bostwick, and James Hong in the Universal feature Grand-Daddy Day Care. Other film credits include The Flight Before Christmas opposite Mayim Bialik, Miss Congeniality 2 opposite Sandra Bullock, and Larry Crowne opposite Tom Hanks. Her TV guest-star credits include New Girl, Shonda Rhimes' For The People, The League, Rules of Engagement, NCIS, and the Peabody award-winning satire American Vandal.Behind the mic, she has voiced countless characters in TV, films, trailers, commercials, and some of the biggest video game franchises around, including Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, Final Fantasy, Halo, and Ghost Recon: Wildlands. A two-time AudioFile Earphones Award winner, she has narrated the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel A Visit from the Goon Squad, the National Book Award finalist Sabrina & Corina, and the New York Times's non-fiction best seller Random Family to name just a few. In addition, her mimicking skills have led her to voice-match the likes of Penelope Cruz, Salma Hayek, and Jennifer Tilly.Born in Los Angeles and raised in Fullerton, CA, Roxana is of mixed Peruvian and Mexican descent. She graduated from U.C. Berkeley Phi Beta Kappa with a degree in Interdisciplinary Studies, then spent a year teaching English in Madrid, Spain. It was there, while she was elaborately acting out English vocabulary to her students, that she realized she wanted to pursue a career in acting. She returned to the Bay Area and immersed herself in theatre and improvisation, then made her way to Los Angeles where she continued her improv and acting training and began writing and performing sketch comedy.Roxana is an alumna of the CBS Diversity Sketch Comedy Showcase, Upright Citizen's Brigade, and the Groundlings Sunday Company. She has written and produced her own shorts and performed storytelling all over Los Angeles, including at The Moth GrandSLAM.She is also the creator and co-host of the live storytelling show Minority Retorts, which spotlights stories from the under-represented, and The Risking Space, a podcast about art and risk. Connect with Roxana on: InstagramLearn more about Latina's Act Up on: InstagramCheck out The Groundlings on: Instagram Links & LoveIf your ears like what they're snacking on, follow, rate, and drop a review—it helps others find the show too.Want to support the show or get access to extra content—like behind-the-scenes journals, guest deep dives, and updates on getting Alone Girl made? Check out my Substack: The Blissful Spinster. Just $5/month supports this DIY labor of love and gets you a peek behind the scenes (when I find the time to write, lol). Find me and the pod on Instagram, Pinterest, and at blissfulspinster.com—where you can also find some pretty cool merch, if you're into that sort of thing. Thanks for being on this journey with me—and until next time, go find your happy.

Sarah Larson joins Tyler Foggatt to discuss the Tesla Takedown movement, protesting Elon Musk and Donald Trump, along with the political efficacy of targeting an electric-car company and why some protesters are borrowing tactics from the AIDS activist group ACT UP. This week's reading: “Fighting Elon Musk, One Tesla Dealership at a Time,” by Sarah Larson “The Fired Student-Debt Relievers,” by E. Tammy Kim “What Marine Le Pen's Conviction Means for French Democracy,” by Isaac Chotiner “How Donald Trump Throttled Big Law,” by Ruth Marcus “Why Benjamin Netanyahu Is Going Back to War,” by Bernard Avishai To discover more podcasts from The New Yorker, visit newyorker.com/podcasts. To send feedback on this episode, write to themail@newyorker.com. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

I made a D&D resource for GMs that lets you insert one of 26 fun rappers into your dungeon scenario thingy: Download it free here.Drink of the Week (2:36)Take a whiff of this Jack Daniel's Sinatra Select and the surprising depth of character on the shelves at Frontier Geeks in Trinidad, Colorado.Game of the Week (7:31)Got down and dirty on a space station with Escape the Dark Sector (review on the blog, also). I also loved Scout, an engaging card-shedding game that keeps landing on the table. Hear about both.Track of the Week (13:14)”Act Up” by Ill Breed, from the D&D Project's assemblage of vaunted NY underground heavyweights.

Les français sont généreux ! France générosité rapporte qu'en 2022 les français ont donné plus de 5 milliards d'euros aux associations. Mais peut-être que, comme certaines personnes, vous êtes réticents à l'idée de donner aux associations. C'est normal de s'interroger sur la façon dont nos dons sont utilisés.  Dans le budget d'une association il y a une partie qui sert à récolter d'autres dons et une partie qui sert au bon fonctionnement de la structure. Les associations font en général preuve de transparence pour assurer la confiance de leur donateur.  Comment savoir si une association gère bien son budget ? Les associations sont-elles contrôlées ? Qu'est-ce que le label Don en Confiance ? Écoutez la suite de cet épisode de Maintenant vous savez ! Un podcast Bababam Originals, écrit et réalisé par Hugo de l'Estrac. À écouter ensuite : Comment l'association Act Up a-t-elle changé le regard sur le SIDA ? Comment soutenir des projets solidaires partout dans le monde depuis chez soi ? Aide à mourir, euthanasie... Quels sont les mots pour comprendre le débat sur la fin de vie ? Retrouvez tous les épisodes de "Maintenant vous savez". Suivez Bababam sur Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When kids act out - whether it's stealing, shutting down, pushing boundaries, or having emotional outbursts - how can we respond in ways that guide them toward growth rather than shame?Today, we explore two powerful real-life situations:A young10-year old boy who stole money from his mentor:  What was driving his behavior, and how could adults respond in a way that fosters learning instead of punishment?A seven-year-old struggling with his parents' divorce: How can his mother support his overwhelming emotions without taking on his distress or trying to “fix” his sadness?Through these stories, we unpack the difference between control and connection, how to set limits without losing warmth, and why holding space for kids' emotions is the key to their long-term resilience.Tune in as we explore - 2:24 Opening thoughts3:21 I'm dealing with a child who stole money and could use some help with a conversation.7:29 I don't like how I showed up and I want to bring something new to the conversation22:13 How can I help my son cope with his new home?Please share with your family and friends! Use PODCAST50 to get $50 off tuition for my Spring Deep Dive, The Art of Repair Work: From Regret to Resilience. Group starts on March 31st for 8 weeks, so register early to save your space. For ongoing practice and deeper learning, join my monthly membership program. You will find a safe space for live discussions and a supportive community of like-minded, open-hearted humans. Subscribe & Follow:Stay updated on new episodes and resources by subscribing wherever you listen to podcasts or visiting yvetteerasmus.com.Thank you for listening! Here are more ways to connect with me: Become a member of my online learning community Join my Spring Deep Dive: The Art of Repair Work Join our calls live Set up a private session Follow me on TikTok @dr.yvetteerasmus

Dr. Gary Null provides a commentary on "Universal  Healthcare"       Universal Healthcare is the Solution to a Broken Medical System Gary Null, PhD Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For over 50 years, there has been no concerted or successful effort to bring down medical costs in the American healthcare system. Nor are the federal health agencies making disease prevention a priority. Regardless whether the political left or right sponsors proposals for reform, such measures are repeatedly defeated by both parties in Congress. As a result, the nation's healthcare system remains one of the most expensive and least efficient in the developed world. For the past 30 years, medical bills contributing to personal debt regularly rank among the top three causes of personal bankruptcy. This is a reality that reflects not only the financial strain on ordinary Americans but the systemic failure of the healthcare system itself. The urgent question is: If President Trump and his administration are truly seeking to reduce the nation's $36 trillion deficit, why is there no serious effort to reform the most bloated and corrupt sector of the economy? A key obstacle is the widespread misinformation campaign that falsely claims universal health care would cost an additional $2 trillion annually and further balloon the national debt. However, a more honest assessment reveals the opposite. If the US adopted a universal single-payer system, the nation could actually save up to $20 trillion over the next 10 years rather than add to the deficit. Even with the most ambitious efforts by people like Elon Musk to rein in federal spending or optimize government efficiency, the estimated savings would only amount to $500 billion. This is only a fraction of what could be achieved through comprehensive healthcare reform alone. Healthcare is the largest single expenditure of the federal budget. A careful examination of where the $5 trillion spent annually on healthcare actually goes reveals massive systemic fraud and inefficiency. Aside from emergency medicine, which accounts for only 10-12 percent of total healthcare expenditures, the bulk of this spending does not deliver better health outcomes nor reduce trends in physical and mental illness. Applying Ockham's Razor, the principle that the simplest solution is often the best, the obvious conclusion is that America's astronomical healthcare costs are the direct result of price gouging on an unimaginable scale. For example, in most small businesses, profit margins range between 1.6 and 2.5 percent, such as in grocery retail. Yet the pharmaceutical industrial complex routinely operates on markup rates as high as 150,000 percent for many prescription drugs. The chart below highlights the astronomical gap between the retail price of some top-selling patented pharmaceutical medications and their generic equivalents. Drug Condition Patent Price (per unit) Generic Price Estimated Manufacture Cost Markup Source Insulin (Humalog) Diabetes $300 $30 $3 10,000% Rand (2021) EpiPen Allergic reactions $600 $30 $10 6,000% BMJ (2022) Daraprim Toxoplasmosis $750/pill $2 $0.50 150,000% JAMA (2019) Harvoni Hepatitis C $94,500 (12 weeks) $30,000 $200 47,000% WHO Report (2018) Lipitor Cholesterol $150 $10 $0.50 29,900% Health Affairs (2020) Xarelto Blood Thinner $450 $25 $1.50 30,000% NEJM (2020) Abilify Schizophrenia $800 (30 tablets) $15 $2 39,900% AJMC (2019) Revlimid Cancer $16,000/mo $450 $150 10,500% Kaiser Health News (2021) Humira Arthritis $2,984/dose $400 $50 5,868% Rand (2021) Sovaldi Hepatitis C $1,000/pill $10 $2 49,900% JAMA (2021) Xolair Asthma $2,400/dose $300 $50 4,800% NEJM (2020) Gleevec Leukemia $10,000/mo $350 $200 4,900% Harvard Public Health Review (2020) OxyContin Pain Relief $600 (30 tablets) $15 $0.50 119,900% BMJ (2022) Remdesivir Covid-19 $3,120 (5 doses) N/A $10 31,100% The Lancet (2020) The corruption extends far beyond price gouging. Many pharmaceutical companies convince federal health agencies to fund their basic research and drug development with taxpayer dollars. Yet when these companies bring successful products to market, the profits are kept entirely by the corporations or shared with the agencies or groups of government scientists. On the other hand, the public, who funded the research, receives no financial return. This amounts to a systemic betrayal of the public trust on a scale of hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Another significant contributor to rising healthcare costs is the widespread practice of defensive medicine that is driven by the constant threat of litigation. Over the past 40 years, defensive medicine has become a cottage industry. Physicians order excessive diagnostic tests and unnecessary treatments simply to protect themselves from lawsuits. Study after study has shown that these over-performed procedures not only inflate costs but lead to iatrogenesis or medical injury and death caused by the medical  system and practices itself. The solution is simple: adopting no-fault healthcare coverage for everyone where patients receive care without needing to sue and thereby freeing doctors from the burden of excessive malpractice insurance. A single-payer universal healthcare system could fundamentally transform the entire industry by capping profits at every level — from drug manufacturers to hospitals to medical equipment suppliers. The Department of Health and Human Services would have the authority to set profit margins for medical procedures. This would ensure that healthcare is determined by outcomes, not profits. Additionally, the growing influence of private equity firms and vulture capitalists buying up hospitals and medical clinics across America must be reined in. These equity firms prioritize profit extraction over improving the quality of care. They often slash staff, raise prices, and dictate medical procedures based on what will yield the highest returns. Another vital reform would be to provide free medical education for doctors and nurses in exchange for five years of service under the universal system. Medical professionals would earn a realistic salary cap to prevent them from being lured into equity partnerships or charging exorbitant rates. The biggest single expense in the current system, however, is the private health insurance industry, which consumes 33 percent of the $5 trillion healthcare budget. Health insurance CEOs consistently rank among the highest-paid executives in the country. Their companies, who are nothing more than bean counters, decide what procedures and drugs will be covered, partially covered, or denied altogether. This entire industry is designed to place profits above patients' lives. If the US dismantled its existing insurance-based system and replaced it with a fully reformed national healthcare model, the country could save $2.7 trillion annually while simultaneously improving health outcomes. Over the course of 10 years, those savings would amount to $27 trillion. This could wipe out nearly the entire national debt in a short time. This solution has been available for decades but has been systematically blocked by corporate lobbying and bipartisan corruption in Washington. The path forward is clear but only if American citizens demand a system where healthcare is valued as a public service and not a commodity. The national healthcare crisis is not just a fiscal issue. It is a crucial moral failure of the highest order. With the right reforms, the nation could simultaneously restore its financial health and deliver the kind of healthcare system its citizens have long deserved. American Healthcare: Corrupt, Broken and Lethal Richard Gale and Gary Null Progressive Radio Network, March 3, 2025 For a nation that prides itself on being the world's wealthiest, most innovative and technologically advanced, the US' healthcare system is nothing less than a disaster and disgrace. Not only are Americans the least healthy among the most developed nations, but the US' health system ranks dead last among high-income countries. Despite rising costs and our unshakeable faith in American medical exceptionalism, average life expectancy in the US has remained lower than other OECD nations for many years and continues to decline. The United Nations recognizes healthcare as a human right. In 2018, former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon denounced the American healthcare system as "politically and morally wrong." During the pandemic it is estimated that two to three years was lost on average life expectancy. On the other hand, before the Covid-19 pandemic, countries with universal healthcare coverage found their average life expectancy stable or slowly increasing. The fundamental problem in the U.S. is that politics have been far too beholden to the pharmaceutical, HMO and private insurance industries. Neither party has made any concerted effort to reign in the corruption of corporate campaign funding and do what is sensible, financially feasible and morally correct to improve Americans' quality of health and well-being.   The fact that our healthcare system is horribly broken is proof that moneyed interests have become so powerful to keep single-payer debate out of the media spotlight and censored. Poll after poll shows that the American public favors the expansion of public health coverage. Other incremental proposals, including Medicare and Medicaid buy-in plans, are also widely preferred to the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare mess we are currently stuck with.   It is not difficult to understand how the dismal state of American medicine is the result of a system that has been sold out to the free-market and the bottom line interests of drug makers and an inflated private insurance industry. How advanced and ethically sound can a healthcare system be if tens of millions of people have no access to medical care because it is financially out of their reach?  The figures speak for themselves. The U.S. is burdened with a $41 trillion Medicare liability. The number of uninsured has declined during the past several years but still lingers around 25 million. An additional 30-35 million are underinsured. There are currently 65 million Medicare enrollees and 89 million Medicaid recipients. This is an extremely unhealthy snapshot of the country's ability to provide affordable healthcare and it is certainly unsustainable. The system is a public economic failure, benefiting no one except the large and increasingly consolidated insurance and pharmaceutical firms at the top that supervise the racket.   Our political parties have wrestled with single-payer or universal healthcare for decades. Obama ran his first 2008 presidential campaign on a single-payer platform. Since 1985, his campaign health adviser, the late Dr. Quentin Young from the University of Illinois Medical School, was one of the nation's leading voices calling for universal health coverage.  During a private conversation with Dr. Young shortly before his passing in 2016, he conveyed his sense of betrayal at the hands of the Obama administration. Dr. Young was in his 80s when he joined the Obama campaign team to help lead the young Senator to victory on a promise that America would finally catch up with other nations. The doctor sounded defeated. He shared how he was manipulated, and that Obama held no sincere intention to make universal healthcare a part of his administration's agenda. During the closed-door negotiations, which spawned the weak and compromised Affordable Care Act, Dr. Young was neither consulted nor invited to participate. In fact, he told us that he never heard from Obama again after his White House victory.   Past efforts to even raise the issue have been viciously attacked. A huge army of private interests is determined to keep the public enslaved to private insurers and high medical costs. The failure of our healthcare is in no small measure due to it being a fully for-profit operation. Last year, private health insurance accounted for 65 percent of coverage. Consider that there are over 900 private insurance companies in the US. National Health Expenditures (NHE) grew to $4.5 trillion in 2022, which was 17.3 percent of GDP. Older corporate rank-and-file Democrats and Republicans argue that a single-payer or socialized medical program is unaffordable. However, not only is single-payer affordable, it will end bankruptcies due to unpayable medical debt. In addition, universal healthcare, structured on a preventative model, will reduce disease rates at the outset.    Corporate Democrats argue that Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a positive step inching the country towards complete public coverage. However, aside from providing coverage to the poorest of Americans, Obamacare turned into another financial anchor around the necks of millions more. According to the health policy research group KFF, the average annual health insurance premium for single coverage is $8,400 and almost $24,000 for a family. In addition, patient out-of-pocket costs continue to increase, a 6.6% increase to $471 billion in 2022. Rather than healthcare spending falling, it has exploded, and the Trump and Biden administrations made matters worse.    Clearly, a universal healthcare program will require flipping the script on the entire private insurance industry, which employed over half a million people last year.  Obviously, the most volatile debate concerning a national universal healthcare system concerns cost. Although there is already a socialized healthcare system in place -- every federal legislator, bureaucrat, government employee and veteran benefits from it -- fiscal Republican conservatives and groups such as the Koch Brothers network are single-mindedly dedicated to preventing the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid. A Koch-funded Mercatus analysis made the outrageous claim that a single-payer system would increase federal health spending by $32 trillion in ten years. However, analyses and reviews by the Congressional Budget Office in the early 1990s concluded that such a system would only increase spending at the start; enormous savings would quickly offset it as the years pass. In one analysis, "the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage."    Defenders of those advocating for funding a National Health Program argue this can primarily be accomplished by raising taxes to levels comparable to other developed nations. This was a platform Senator Bernie Sanders and some of the younger progressive Democrats in the House campaigned on. The strategy was to tax the highest multimillion-dollar earners 60-70 percent. Despite the outrage of its critics, including old rank-and-file multi-millionaire Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, this is still far less than in the past. During the Korean War, the top tax rate was 91 percent; it declined to 70 percent in the late 1960s. Throughout most of the 1970s, those in the lowest income bracket were taxed at 14 percent. We are not advocating for this strategy because it ignores where the funding is going, and the corruption in the system that is contributing to exorbitant waste.    But Democratic supporters of the ACA who oppose a universal healthcare plan ignore the additional taxes Obama levied to pay for the program. These included surtaxes on investment income, Medicare taxes from those earning over $200,000, taxes on tanning services, an excise tax on medical equipment, and a 40 percent tax on health coverage for costs over the designated cap that applied to flexible savings and health savings accounts. The entire ACA was reckless, sloppy and unnecessarily complicated from the start.    The fact that Obamacare further strengthened the distinctions between two parallel systems -- federal and private -- with entirely different economic structures created a labyrinth of red tape, rules, and wasteful bureaucracy. Since the ACA went into effect, over 150 new boards, agencies and programs have had to be established to monitor its 2,700 pages of gibberish. A federal single-payer system would easily eliminate this bureaucracy and waste.    A medical New Deal to establish universal healthcare coverage is a decisive step in the correct direction. But we must look at the crisis holistically and in a systematic way. Simply shuffling private insurance into a federal Medicare-for-all or buy-in program, funded by taxing the wealthiest of citizens, would only temporarily reduce costs. It will neither curtail nor slash escalating disease rates e. Any effective healthcare reform must also tackle the underlying reasons for Americans' poor state of health. We cannot shy away from examining the social illnesses infecting our entire free-market capitalist culture and its addiction to deregulation. A viable healthcare model would have to structurally transform how the medical economy operates. Finally, a successful medical New Deal must honestly evaluate the best and most reliable scientific evidence in order to effectively redirect public health spending.    For example, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a former Obama healthcare adviser, observed that AIDS-HIV measures consume the most public health spending, even though the disease "ranked 75th on the list of diseases by personal health expenditures." On the other hand, according to the American Medical Association, a large percentage of the nation's $3.4 trillion healthcare spending goes towards treating preventable diseases, notably diabetes, common forms of heart disease, and back and neck pain conditions. In 2016, these three conditions were the most costly and accounted for approximately $277 billion in spending. Last year, the CDC announced the autism rate is now 1 in 36 children compared to 1 in 44 two years ago. A retracted study by Mark Blaxill, an autism activist at the Holland Center and a friend of the authors, estimates that ASD costs will reach $589 billion annually by 2030. There are no signs that this alarming trend will reverse and decline; and yet, our entire federal health system has failed to conscientiously investigate the underlying causes of this epidemic. All explanations that might interfere with the pharmaceutical industry's unchecked growth, such as over-vaccination, are ignored and viciously discredited without any sound scientific evidence. Therefore, a proper medical New Deal will require a systemic overhaul and reform of our federal health agencies, especially the HHS, CDC and FDA. Only the Robert Kennedy Jr presidential campaign is even addressing the crisis and has an inexpensive and comprehensive plan to deal with it. For any medical revolution to succeed in advancing universal healthcare, the plan must prioritize spending in a manner that serves public health and not private interests. It will also require reshuffling private corporate interests and their lobbyists to the sidelines, away from any strategic planning, in order to break up the private interests' control over federal agencies and its revolving door policies. Aside from those who benefit from this medical corruption, the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree with this criticism. However, there is a complete lack of national trust that our legislators, including the so-called progressives, would be willing to undertake such actions.    In addition, America's healthcare system ignores the single most critical initiative to reduce costs - that is, preventative efforts and programs instead of deregulation and closing loopholes designed to protect the drug and insurance industries' bottom line. Prevention can begin with banning toxic chemicals that are proven health hazards associated with current disease epidemics, and it can begin by removing a 1,000-plus toxins already banned in Europe. This should be a no-brainer for any legislator who cares for public health. For example, Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, notes that "the policy approach in the US and Europe is dramatically different" when it comes to chemical allowances in cosmetic products. Whereas the EU has banned 1,328 toxic substances from the cosmetic industry alone, the US has banned only 11. The US continues to allow carcinogenic formaldehyde, petroleum, forever chemicals, many parabens (an estrogen mimicker and endocrine hormone destroyer), the highly allergenic p-phenylenediamine or PBD, triclosan, which has been associated with the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria, avobenzone, and many others to be used in cosmetics, sunscreens, shampoo and hair dyes.   Next, the food Americans consume can be reevaluated for its health benefits. There should be no hesitation to tax the unhealthiest foods, such as commercial junk food, sodas and candy relying on high fructose corn syrup, products that contain ingredients proven to be toxic, and meat products laden with dangerous chemicals including growth hormones and antibiotics. The scientific evidence that the average American diet is contributing to rising disease trends is indisputable. We could also implement additional taxes on the public advertising of these demonstrably unhealthy products. All such tax revenue would accrue to a national universal health program to offset medical expenditures associated with the very illnesses linked to these products. Although such tax measures would help pay for a new medical New Deal, it may be combined with programs to educate the public about healthy nutrition if it is to produce a reduction in the most common preventable diseases. In fact, comprehensive nutrition courses in medical schools should be mandatory because the average physician receives no education in this crucial subject.  In addition, preventative health education should be mandatory throughout public school systems.   Private insurers force hospitals, clinics and private physicians into financial corners, and this is contributing to prodigious waste in money and resources. Annually, healthcare spending towards medical liability insurance costs tens of billions of dollars. In particular, this economic burden has taxed small clinics and physicians. It is well past the time that physician liability insurance is replaced with no-fault options. Today's doctors are spending an inordinate amount of money to protect themselves. Legions of liability and trial lawyers seek big paydays for themselves stemming from physician error. This has created a culture of fear among doctors and hospitals, resulting in the overly cautious practice of defensive medicine, driving up costs and insurance premiums just to avoid lawsuits. Doctors are forced to order unnecessary tests and prescribe more medications and medical procedures just to cover their backsides. No-fault insurance is a common-sense plan that enables physicians to pursue their profession in a manner that will reduce iatrogenic injuries and costs. Individual cases requiring additional medical intervention and loss of income would still be compensated. This would generate huge savings.    No other nation suffers from the scourge of excessive drug price gouging like the US. After many years of haggling to lower prices and increase access to generic drugs, only a minute amount of progress has been made in recent years. A 60 Minutes feature about the Affordable Care Act reported an "orgy of lobbying and backroom deals in which just about everyone with a stake in the $3-trillion-a-year health industry came out ahead—except the taxpayers.” For example, Life Extension magazine reported that an antiviral cream (acyclovir), which had lost its patent protection, "was being sold to pharmacies for 7,500% over the active ingredient cost. The active ingredient (acyclovir) costs only 8 pennies, yet pharmacies are paying a generic maker $600 for this drug and selling it to consumers for around $700." Other examples include the antibiotic Doxycycline. The price per pill averages 7 cents to $3.36 but has a 5,300 percent markup when it reaches the consumer. The antidepressant Clomipramine is marked up 3,780 percent, and the anti-hypertensive drug Captopril's mark-up is 2,850 percent. And these are generic drugs!    Medication costs need to be dramatically cut to allow drug manufacturers a reasonable but not obscene profit margin. By capping profits approximately 100 percent above all costs, we would save our system hundreds of billions of dollars. Such a measure would also extirpate the growing corporate misdemeanors of pricing fraud, which forces patients to pay out-of-pocket in order to make up for the costs insurers are unwilling to pay.    Finally, we can acknowledge that our healthcare is fundamentally a despotic rationing system based upon high insurance costs vis-a-vis a toss of the dice to determine where a person sits on the economic ladder. For the past three decades it has contributed to inequality. The present insurance-based economic metrics cast millions of Americans out of coverage because private insurance costs are beyond their means. Uwe Reinhardt, a Princeton University political economist, has called our system "brutal" because it "rations [people] out of the system." He defined rationing as "withholding something from someone that is beneficial." Discriminatory healthcare rationing now affects upwards to 60 million people who have been either priced out of the system or under insured. They make too much to qualify for Medicare under Obamacare, yet earn far too little to afford private insurance costs and premiums. In the final analysis, the entire system is discriminatory and predatory.    However, we must be realistic. Almost every member of Congress has benefited from Big Pharma and private insurance lobbyists. The only way to begin to bring our healthcare program up to the level of a truly developed nation is to remove the drug industry's rampant and unnecessary profiteering from the equation.     How did Fauci memory-hole a cure for AIDS and get away with it?   By Helen Buyniski   Over 700,000 Americans have died of AIDS since 1981, with the disease claiming some 42.3 million victims worldwide. While an HIV diagnosis is no longer considered a certain death sentence, the disease looms large in the public imagination and in public health funding, with contemporary treatments running into thousands of dollars per patient annually.   But was there a cure for AIDS all this time - an affordable and safe treatment that was ruthlessly suppressed and attacked by the US public health bureaucracy and its agents? Could this have saved millions of lives and billions of dollars spent on AZT, ddI and failed HIV vaccine trials? What could possibly justify the decision to disappear a safe and effective approach down the memory hole?   The inventor of the cure, Gary Null, already had several decades of experience creating healing protocols for physicians to help patients not responding well to conventional treatments by the time AIDS was officially defined in 1981. Null, a registered dietitian and board-certified nutritionist with a PhD in human nutrition and public health science, was a senior research fellow and Director of Anti-Aging Medicine at the Institute of Applied Biology for 36 years and has published over 950 papers, conducting groundbreaking experiments in reversing biological aging as confirmed with DNA methylation testing. Additionally, Null is a multi-award-winning documentary filmmaker, bestselling author, and investigative journalist whose work exposing crimes against humanity over the last 50 years has highlighted abuses by Big Pharma, the military-industrial complex, the financial industry, and the permanent government stay-behind networks that have come to be known as the Deep State.   Null was contacted in 1974 by Dr. Stephen Caiazza, a physician working with a subculture of gay men in New York living the so-called “fast track” lifestyle, an extreme manifestation of the gay liberation movement that began with the Stonewall riots. Defined by rampant sexual promiscuity and copious use of illegal and prescription drugs, including heavy antibiotic use for a cornucopia of sexually-transmitted diseases, the fast-track never included more than about two percent of gay men, though these dominated many of the bathhouses and clubs that defined gay nightlife in the era. These patients had become seriously ill as a result of their indulgence, generally arriving at the clinic with multiple STDs including cytomegalovirus and several types of herpes and hepatitis, along with candida overgrowth, nutritional deficiencies, gut issues, and recurring pneumonia. Every week for the next 10 years, Null would counsel two or three of these men - a total of 800 patients - on how to detoxify their bodies and de-stress their lives, tracking their progress with Caiazza and the other providers at weekly feedback meetings that he credits with allowing the team to quickly evaluate which treatments were most effective. He observed that it only took about two years on the “fast track” for a healthy young person to begin seeing muscle loss and the recurrent, lingering opportunistic infections that would later come to be associated with AIDS - while those willing to commit to a healthier lifestyle could regain their health in about a year.    It was with this background that Null established the Tri-State Healing Center in Manhattan in 1980, staffing the facility with what would eventually run to 22 certified health professionals to offer safe, natural, and effective low- and no-cost treatments to thousands of patients with HIV and AIDS-defining conditions. Null and his staff used variations of the protocols he had perfected with Caiazza's patients, a multifactorial patient-tailored approach that included high-dose vitamin C drips, intravenous ozone therapy, juicing and nutritional improvements and supplementation, aspects of homeopathy and naturopathy with some Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurvedic practices. Additional services offered on-site included acupuncture and holistic dentistry, while peer support groups were also held at the facility so that patients could find community and a positive environment, healing their minds and spirits while they healed their bodies.   “Instead of trying to kill the virus with antiretroviral pharmaceuticals designed to stop viral replication before it kills patients, we focused on what benefits could be gained by building up the patients' natural immunity and restoring biochemical integrity so the body could fight for itself,” Null wrote in a 2014 article describing the philosophy behind the Center's approach, which was wholly at odds with the pharmaceutical model.1   Patients were comprehensively tested every week, with any “recovery” defined solely by the labs, which documented AIDS patient after patient - 1,200 of them - returning to good health and reversing their debilitating conditions. Null claims to have never lost an AIDS patient in the Center's care, even as the death toll for the disease - and its pharmaceutical standard of care AZT - reached an all-time high in the early 1990s. Eight patients who had opted for a more intensive course of treatment - visiting the Center six days a week rather than one - actually sero-deconverted, with repeated subsequent testing showing no trace of HIV in their bodies.   As an experienced clinical researcher himself, Null recognized that any claims made by the Center would be massively scrutinized, challenging as they did the prevailing scientific consensus that AIDS was an incurable, terminal illness. He freely gave his protocols to any medical practitioner who asked, understanding that his own work could be considered scientifically valid only if others could replicate it under the same conditions. After weeks of daily observational visits to the Center, Dr. Robert Cathcart took the protocols back to San Francisco, where he excitedly reported that patients were no longer dying in his care.    Null's own colleague at the Institute of Applied Biology, senior research fellow Elana Avram, set up IV drip rooms at the Institute and used his intensive protocols to sero-deconvert 10 patients over a two-year period. While the experiment had been conducted in secret, as the Institute had been funded by Big Pharma since its inception half a century earlier, Avram had hoped she would be able to publish a journal article to further publicize Null's protocols and potentially help AIDS patients, who were still dying at incredibly high rates thanks to Burroughs Wellcome's noxious but profitable AZT. But as she would later explain in a 2019 letter to Null, their groundbreaking research never made it into print - despite meticulous documentation of their successes - because the Institute's director and board feared their pharmaceutical benefactors would withdraw the funding on which they depended, given that Null's protocols did not involve any patentable or otherwise profitable drugs. When Avram approached them about publication, the board vetoed the idea, arguing that it would “draw negative attention because [the work] was contrary to standard drug treatments.” With no real point in continuing experiments along those lines without institutional support and no hope of obtaining funding from elsewhere, the department she had created specifically for these experiments shut down after a two-year followup with her test subjects - all of whom remained alive and healthy - was completed.2   While the Center was receiving regular visits by this time from medical professionals and, increasingly, black celebrities like Stokely Carmichael and Isaac Hayes, who would occasionally perform for the patients, the news was spreading by word of mouth alone - not a single media outlet had dared to document the clinic that was curing AIDS patients for free. Instead, they gave airtime to Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, who had for years been spreading baseless, hysteria-fueling claims about HIV and AIDS to any news outlet that would put him on. His claim that children could contract the virus from “ordinary household conduct” with an infected relative proved so outrageous he had to walk it back,3 and he never really stopped insisting the deadly plague associated with gays and drug users was about to explode like a nuclear bomb among the law-abiding heterosexual population. Fauci by this time controlled all government science funding through NIAID, and his zero-tolerance approach to dissent on the HIV/AIDS front had already seen prominent scientists like virologist Peter Duesberg stripped of the resources they needed for their work because they had dared to question his commandment: There is no cause of AIDS but HIV, and AZT is its treatment. Even the AIDS activist groups, which by then had been coopted by Big Pharma and essentially reduced to astroturfing for the toxic failed chemotherapy drug AZT backed by the institutional might of Fauci's NIAID,4 didn't seem to want to hear that there was a cure. Unconcerned with the irrationality of denouncing the man touting his free AIDS cure as an  “AIDS denier,” they warned journalists that platforming Null or anyone else rejecting the mainstream medical line would be met with organized demands for their firing.    Determined to breach the institutional iron curtain and get his message to the masses, Null and his team staged a press conference in New York, inviting scientists and doctors from around the world to share their research on alternative approaches to HIV and AIDS in 1993. To emphasize the sound scientific basis of the Center's protocols and encourage guests to adopt them into their own practices, Null printed out thousands of abstracts in support of each nutrient and treatment being used. However, despite over 7,000 invitations sent three times to major media, government figures, scientists, and activists, almost none of the intended audience members showed up. Over 100 AIDS patients and their doctors, whose charts exhaustively documented their improvements using natural and nontoxic modalities over the preceding 12 months, gave filmed testimonials, declaring that the feared disease was no longer a death sentence, but the conference had effectively been silenced. Bill Tatum, publisher of the Amsterdam News, suggested Null and his patients would find a more welcoming audience in his home neighborhood of Harlem - specifically, its iconic Apollo Theatre. For three nights, the theater was packed to capacity. Hit especially hard by the epidemic and distrustful of a medical system that had only recently stopped being openly racist (the Tuskegee syphilis experiment only ended in 1972), black Americans, at least, did not seem to care what Anthony Fauci would do if he found out they were investigating alternatives to AZT and death.    PBS journalist Tony Brown, having obtained a copy of the video of patient testimonials from the failed press conference, was among a handful of black journalists who began visiting the Center to investigate the legitimacy of Null's claims. Satisfied they had something significant to offer his audience, Brown invited eight patients - along with Null himself - onto his program over the course of several episodes to discuss the work. It was the first time these protocols had received any attention in the media, despite Null having released nearly two dozen articles and multiple documentaries on the subject by that time. A typical patient on one program, Al, a recovered IV drug user who was diagnosed with AIDS at age 32, described how he “panicked,” saw a doctor and started taking AZT despite his misgivings - only to be forced to discontinue the drug after just a few weeks due to his condition deteriorating rapidly. Researching alternatives brought him to Null, and after six months of “detoxing [his] lifestyle,” he observed his initial symptoms - swollen lymph nodes and weight loss - begin to reverse, culminating with sero-deconversion. On Bill McCreary's Channel 5 program, a married couple diagnosed with HIV described how they watched their T-cell counts increase as they cut out sugar, caffeine, smoking, and drinking and began eating a healthy diet. They also saw the virus leave their bodies.   For HIV-positive viewers surrounded by fear and negativity, watching healthy-looking, cheerful “AIDS patients” detail their recovery while Null backed up their claims with charts must have been balm for the soul. But the TV programs were also a form of outreach to the medical community, with patients' charts always on hand to convince skeptics the cure was scientifically valid. Null brought patients' charts to every program, urging them to keep an open mind: “Other physicians and public health officials should know that there's good science in the alternative perspective. It may not be a therapy that they're familiar with, because they're just not trained in it, but if the results are positive, and you can document them…” He challenged doubters to send in charts from their own sero-deconverted patients on AZT, and volunteered to debate proponents of the orthodox treatment paradigm - though the NIH and WHO both refused to participate in such a debate on Tony Brown's Journal, following Fauci's directive prohibiting engagement with forbidden ideas.    Aside from those few TV programs and Null's own films, suppression of Null's AIDS cure beyond word of mouth was total. The 2021 documentary The Cost of Denial, produced by the Society for Independent Journalists, tells the story of the Tri-State Healing Center and the medical paradigm that sought to destroy it, lamenting the loss of the lives that might have been saved in a more enlightened society. Nurse practitioner Luanne Pennesi, who treated many of the AIDS patients at the Center, speculated in the film that the refusal by the scientific establishment and AIDS activists to accept their successes was financially motivated. “It was as if they didn't want this information to get out. Understand that our healthcare system as we know it is a corporation, it's a corporate model, and it's about generating revenue. My concern was that maybe they couldn't generate enough revenue from these natural approaches.”5   Funding was certainly the main disciplinary tool Fauci's NIAID used to keep the scientific community in line. Despite the massive community interest in the work being done at the Center, no foundation or institution would defy Fauci and risk getting itself blacklisted, leaving Null to continue funding the operation out of his pocket with the profits from book sales. After 15 years, he left the Center in 1995, convinced the mainstream model had so thoroughly been institutionalized that there was no chance of overthrowing it. He has continued to counsel patients and advocate for a reappraisal of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis and its pharmaceutical treatments, highlighting the deeply flawed science underpinning the model of the disease espoused by the scientific establishment in 39 articles, six documentaries and a 700-page textbook on AIDS, but the Center's achievements have been effectively memory-holed by Fauci's multi-billion-dollar propaganda apparatus.     FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE   To understand just how much of a threat Null's work was to the HIV/AIDS establishment, it is instructive to revisit the 1984 paper, published by Dr. Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, that established HIV as the sole cause of AIDS. The CDC's official recognition of AIDS in 1981 had done little to quell the mounting public panic over the mysterious illness afflicting gay men in the US, as the agency had effectively admitted it had no idea what was causing them to sicken and die. As years passed with no progress determining the causative agent of the plague, activist groups like Gay Men's Health Crisis disrupted public events and threatened further mass civil disobedience as they excoriated the NIH for its sluggish allocation of government science funding to uncovering the cause of the “gay cancer.”6 When Gallo published his paper declaring that the retrovirus we now know as HIV was the sole “probable” cause of AIDS, its simple, single-factor hypothesis was the answer to the scientific establishment's prayers. This was particularly true for Fauci, as the NIAID chief was able to claim the hot new disease as his agency's own domain in what has been described as a “dramatic confrontation” with his rival Sam Broder at the National Cancer Institute. After all, Fauci pointed out, Gallo's findings - presented by Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler as if they were gospel truth before any other scientists had had a chance to inspect them, never mind conduct a full peer review - clearly classified AIDS as an infectious disease, and not a cancer like the Kaposi's sarcoma which was at the time its most visible manifestation. Money and media attention began pouring in, even as funding for the investigation of other potential causes of AIDS dried up. Having already patented a diagnostic test for “his” retrovirus before introducing it to the world, Gallo was poised for a financial windfall, while Fauci was busily leveraging the discovery into full bureaucratic empire of the US scientific apparatus.   While it would serve as the sole basis for all US government-backed AIDS research to follow - quickly turning Gallo into the most-cited scientist in the world during the 1980s,7 Gallo's “discovery” of HIV was deeply problematic. The sample that yielded the momentous discovery actually belonged to Prof. Luc Montagnier of the French Institut Pasteur, a fact Gallo finally admitted in 1991, four years after a lawsuit from the French government challenged his patent on the HIV antibody test, forcing the US government to negotiate a hasty profit-sharing agreement between Gallo's and Montagnier's labs. That lawsuit triggered a cascade of official investigations into scientific misconduct by Gallo, and evidence submitted during one of these probes, unearthed in 2008 by journalist Janine Roberts, revealed a much deeper problem with the seminal “discovery.” While Gallo's co-author, Mikulas Popovic, had concluded after numerous experiments with the French samples that the virus they contained was not the cause of AIDS, Gallo had drastically altered the paper's conclusion, scribbling his notes in the margins, and submitted it for publication to the journal Science without informing his co-author.   After Roberts shared her discovery with contacts in the scientific community, 37 scientific experts wrote to the journal demanding that Gallo's career-defining HIV paper be retracted from Science for lacking scientific integrity.8 Their call, backed by an endorsement from the 2,600-member scientific organization Rethinking AIDS, was ignored by the publication and by the rest of mainstream science despite - or perhaps because of - its profound implications.   That 2008 letter, addressed to Science editor-in-chief Bruce Alberts and copied to American Association for the Advancement of Science CEO Alan Leshner, is worth reproducing here in its entirety, as it utterly dismantles Gallo's hypothesis - and with them the entire HIV is the sole cause of AIDS dogma upon which the contemporary medical model of the disease rests:   On May 4, 1984 your journal published four papers by a group led by Dr. Robert Gallo. We are writing to express our serious concerns with regard to the integrity and veracity of the lead paper among these four of which Dr. Mikulas Popovic is the lead author.[1] The other three are also of concern because they rely upon the conclusions of the lead paper .[2][3][4]  In the early 1990s, several highly critical reports on the research underlying these papers were produced as a result of governmental inquiries working under the supervision of scientists nominated by the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. The Office of Research Integrity of the US Department of Health and Human Services concluded that the lead paper was “fraught with false and erroneous statements,” and that the “ORI believes that the careless and unacceptable keeping of research records...reflects irresponsible laboratory management that has permanently impaired the ability to retrace the important steps taken.”[5] Further, a Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations led by US Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan produced a staff report on the papers which contains scathing criticisms of their integrity.[6]  Despite the publically available record of challenges to their veracity, these papers have remained uncorrected and continue to be part of the scientific record.  What prompts our communication today is the recent revelation of an astonishing number of previously unreported deletions and unjustified alterations made by Gallo to the lead paper. There are several documents originating from Gallo's laboratory that, while available for some time, have only recently been fully analyzed. These include a draft of the lead paper typewritten by Popovic which contains handwritten changes made to it by Gallo.[7] This draft was the key evidence used in the above described inquiries to establish that Gallo had concealed his laboratory's use of a cell culture sample (known as LAV) which it received from the Institut Pasteur.  These earlier inquiries verified that the typed manuscript draft was produced by Popovic who had carried out the recorded experiment while his laboratory chief, Gallo, was in Europe and that, upon his return, Gallo changed the document by hand a few days before it was submitted to Science on March 30, 1984. According to the ORI investigation, “Dr. Gallo systematically rewrote the manuscript for what would become a renowned LTCB [Gallo's laboratory at the National Cancer Institute] paper.”[5]  This document provided the important evidence that established the basis for awarding Dr. Luc Montagnier and Dr. Francoise Barré-Sinoussi the 2008 Nobel Prize in Medicine for the discovery of the AIDS virus by proving it was their samples of LAV that Popovic used in his key experiment. The draft reveals that Popovic had forthrightly admitted using the French samples of LAV renamed as Gallo's virus, HTLV-III, and that Gallo had deleted this admission, concealing their use of LAV.  However, it has not been previously reported that on page three of this same document Gallo had also deleted Popovic's unambiguous statement that, "Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified,” replacing it in the published paper with a statement that said practically the opposite, namely, “That a retrovirus of the HTLV family might be an etiologic agent of AIDS was suggested by the findings.”  It is clear that the rest of Popovic's typed paper is entirely consistent with his statement that the cause of AIDS had not been found, despite his use of the French LAV. Popovic's final conclusion was that the culture he produced “provides the possibility” for detailed studies. He claimed to have achieved nothing more. At no point in his paper did Popovic attempt to prove that any virus caused AIDS, and it is evident that Gallo concealed these key elements in Popovic's experimental findings.  It is astonishing now to discover these unreported changes to such a seminal document. We can only assume that Gallo's alterations of Popovic's conclusions were not highlighted by earlier inquiries because the focus at the time was on establishing that the sample used by Gallo's lab came from Montagnier and was not independently collected by Gallo. In fact, the only attention paid to the deletions made by Gallo pertains to his effort to hide the identity of the sample. The questions of whether Gallo and Popovic's research proved that LAV or any other virus was the cause of AIDS were clearly not considered.  Related to these questions are other long overlooked documents that merit your attention. One of these is a letter from Dr. Matthew A. Gonda, then Head of the Electron Microscopy Laboratory at the National Cancer Institute, which is addressed to Popovic, copied to Gallo and dated just four days prior to Gallo's submission to Science.[8] In this letter, Gonda remarks on samples he had been sent for imaging because “Dr Gallo wanted these micrographs for publication because they contain HTLV.” He states, “I do not believe any of the particles photographed are of HTLV-I, II or III.” According to Gonda, one sample contained cellular debris, while another had no particles near the size of a retrovirus. Despite Gonda's clearly worded statement, Science published on May 4, 1984 papers attributed to Gallo et al with micrographs attributed to Gonda and described unequivocally as HTLV-III.  In another letter by Gallo, dated one day before he submitted his papers to Science, Gallo states, “It's extremely rare to find fresh cells [from AIDS patients] expressing the virus... cell culture seems to be necessary to induce virus,” a statement which raises the possibility he was working with a laboratory artifact. [9]  Included here are copies of these documents and links to the same. The very serious flaws they reveal in the preparation of the lead paper published in your journal in 1984 prompts our request that this paper be withdrawn. It appears that key experimental findings have been concealed. We further request that the three associated papers published on the same date also be withdrawn as they depend on the accuracy of this paper.  For the scientific record to be reliable, it is vital that papers shown to be flawed, or falsified be retracted. Because a very public record now exists showing that the Gallo papers drew unjustified conclusions, their withdrawal from Science is all the more important to maintain integrity. Future researchers must also understand they cannot rely on the 1984 Gallo papers for statements about HIV and AIDS, and all authors of papers that previously relied on this set of four papers should have the opportunity to consider whether their own conclusions are weakened by these revelations.      Gallo's handwritten revision, submitted without his colleague's knowledge despite multiple experiments that failed to support the new conclusion, was the sole foundation for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Had Science published the manuscript the way Popovic had typed it, there would be no AIDS “pandemic” - merely small clusters of people with AIDS. Without a viral hypothesis backing the development of expensive and deadly pharmaceuticals, would Fauci have allowed these patients to learn about the cure that existed all along?   Faced with a potential rebellion, Fauci marshaled the full resources under his control to squelch the publication of the investigations into Gallo and restrict any discussion of competing hypotheses in the scientific and mainstream press, which had been running virus-scare stories full-time since 1984. The effect was total, according to biochemist Dr. Kary Mullis, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) procedure. In a 2009 interview, Mullis recalled his own shock when he attempted to unearth the experimental basis for the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Despite his extensive inquiry into the literature, “there wasn't a scientific reference…[that] said ‘here's how come we know that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.' There was nothing out there like that.”9 This yawning void at the core of HIV/AIDS “science" turned him into a strident critic of AIDS dogma - and those views made him persona non grata where the scientific press was concerned, suddenly unable to publish a single paper despite having won the Nobel Prize for his invention of the PCR test just weeks before.  10   DISSENT BECOMES “DENIAL”   While many of those who dissent from the orthodox HIV=AIDS view believe HIV plays a role in the development of AIDS, they point to lifestyle and other co-factors as being equally if not more important. Individuals who test positive for HIV can live for decades in perfect health - so long as they don't take AZT or the other toxic antivirals fast-tracked by Fauci's NIAID - but those who developed full-blown AIDS generally engaged in highly risky behaviors like extreme promiscuity and prodigious drug abuse, contracting STDs they took large quantities of antibiotics to treat, further running down their immune systems. While AIDS was largely portrayed as a “gay disease,” it was only the “fast track” gays, hooking up with dozens of partners nightly in sex marathons fueled by “poppers” (nitrate inhalants notorious for their own devastating effects on the immune system), who became sick. Kaposi's sarcoma, one of the original AIDS-defining conditions, was widespread among poppers-using gay men, but never appeared among IV drug users or hemophiliacs, the other two main risk groups during the early years of the epidemic. Even Robert Gallo himself, at a 1994 conference on poppers held by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, would admit that the previously-rare form of skin cancer surging among gay men was not primarily caused by HIV - and that it was immune stimulation, rather than suppression, that was likely responsible.11 Similarly, IV drug users are often riddled with opportunistic infections as their habit depresses the immune system and their focus on maintaining their addiction means that healthier habits - like good nutrition and even basic hygiene - fall by the wayside.    Supporting the call for revising the HIV=AIDS hypothesis to include co-factors is the fact that the mass heterosexual outbreaks long predicted by Fauci and his ilk in seemingly every country on Earth have failed to materialize, except - supposedly - in Africa, where the diagnostic standard for AIDS differs dramatically from those of the West. Given the prohibitively high cost of HIV testing for poor African nations, the WHO in 1985 crafted a diagnostic loophole that became known as the “Bangui definition,” allowing medical professionals to diagnose AIDS in the absence of a test using just clinical symptoms: high fever, persistent cough, at least 30 days of diarrhea, and the loss of 10% of one's body weight within two months. Often suffering from malnutrition and without access to clean drinking water, many of the inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa fit the bill, especially when the WHO added tuberculosis to the list of AIDS-defining illnesses in 1993 - a move which may be responsible for as many as one half of African “AIDS” cases, according to journalist Christine Johnson. The WHO's former Chief of Global HIV Surveillance, James Chin, acknowledged their manipulation of statistics, but stressed that it was the entire AIDS industry - not just his organization - perpetrating the fraud. “There's the saying that, if you knew what sausages are made of, most people would hesitate to sort of eat them, because they wouldn't like what's in it. And if you knew how HIV/AIDS numbers are cooked, or made up, you would use them with extreme caution,” Chin told an interviewer in 2009.12   With infected numbers stubbornly remaining constant in the US despite Fauci's fearmongering projections of the looming heterosexually-transmitted plague, the CDC in 1993 broadened its definition of AIDS to include asymptomatic (that is, healthy) HIV-positive people with low T-cell counts - an absurd criteria given that an individual's T-cell count can fluctuate by hundreds within a single day. As a result, the number of “AIDS cases” in the US immediately doubled. Supervised by Fauci, the NIAID had been quietly piling on diseases into the “AIDS-related” category for years, bloating the list from just two conditions - pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's sarcoma - to 30 so fast it raised eyebrows among some of science's leading lights. Deeming the entire process “bizarre” and unprecedented, Kary Mullis wondered aloud why no one had called the AIDS establishment out: “There's something wrong here. And it's got to be financial.”13   Indeed, an early CDC public relations campaign was exposed by the Wall Street Journal in 1987 as having deliberately mischaracterized AIDS as a threat to the entire population so as to garner increased public and private funding for what was very much a niche issue, with the risk to average heterosexuals from a single act of sex “smaller than the risk of ever getting hit by lightning.” Ironically, the ads, which sought to humanize AIDS patients in an era when few Americans knew anyone with the disease and more than half the adult population thought infected people should be forced to carry cards warning of their status, could be seen as a reaction to the fear tactics deployed by Fauci early on.14   It's hard to tell where fraud ends and incompetence begins with Gallo's HIV antibody test. Much like Covid-19 would become a “pandemic of testing,” with murder victims and motorcycle crashes lumped into “Covid deaths” thanks to over-sensitized PCR tests that yielded as many as 90% false positives,15 HIV testing is fraught with false positives - and unlike with Covid-19, most people who hear they are HIV-positive still believe they are receiving a death sentence. Due to the difficulty of isolating HIV itself from human samples, the most common diagnostic tests, ELISA and the Western Blot, are designed to detect not the virus but antibodies to it, upending the traditional medical understanding that the presence of antibodies indicates only exposure - and often that the body has actually vanquished the pathogen. Patients are known to test positive for HIV antibodies in the absence of the virus due to at least 70 other conditions, including hepatitis, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, syphilis, recent vaccination or even pregnancy. (https://www.chcfl.org/diseases-that-can-cause-a-false-positive-hiv-test/) Positive results are often followed up with a PCR “viral load” test, even though the inventor of the PCR technique Kary Mullis famously condemned its misuse as a tool for diagnosing infection. Packaging inserts for all three tests warn the user that they cannot be reliably used to diagnose HIV.16 The ELISA HIV antibody test explicitly states: “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence and absence of HIV antibody in human blood.”17   That the public remains largely unaware of these and other massive holes in the supposedly airtight HIV=AIDS=DEATH paradigm is a testament to Fauci's multi-layered control of the press. Like the writers of the Great Barrington Declaration and other Covid-19 dissidents, scientists who question HIV/AIDS dogma have been brutally punished for their heresy, no matter how prestigious their prior standing in the field and no matter how much evidence they have for their own claims. In 1987, the year the FDA's approval of AZT made AIDS the most profitable epidemic yet (a dubious designation Covid-19 has since surpassed), Fauci made it clearer than ever that scientific inquiry and debate - the basis of the scientific method - would no longer be welcome in the American public health sector, eliminating retrovirologist Peter Duesberg, then one of the most prominent opponents of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis, from the scientific conversation with a professional disemboweling that would make a cartel hitman blush. Duesberg had just eviscerated Gallo's 1984 HIV paper with an article of his own in the journal Cancer Research, pointing out that retroviruses had never before been found to cause a single disease in humans - let alone 30 AIDS-defining diseases. Rather than allow Gallo or any of the other scientists in his camp to respond to the challenge, Fauci waged a scorched-earth campaign against Duesberg, who had until then been one of the most highly regarded researchers in his field. Every research grant he requested was denied; every media appearance was canceled or preempted. The University of California at Berkeley, unable to fully fire him due to tenure, took away his lab, his graduate students, and the rest of his funding. The few colleagues who dared speak up for him in public were also attacked, while enemies and opportunists were encouraged to slander Duesberg at the conferences he was barred from attending and in the journals that would no longer publish his replies. When Duesberg was summoned to the White House later that year by then-President Ronald Reagan to debate Fauci on the origins of AIDS, Fauci convinced the president to cancel, allegedly pulling rank on the Commander-in-Chief with an accusation that the “White House was interfering in scientific matters that belonged to the NIH and the Office of Science and Technology Assessment.” After seven years of this treatment, Duesberg was contacted by NIH official Stephen O'Brien and offered an escape from professional purgatory. He could have “everything back,” he was told, and shown a manuscript of a scientific paper - apparently commissioned by the editor of the journal Nature - “HIV Causes AIDS: Koch's Postulates Fulfilled” with his own name listed alongside O'Brien's as an author.18 His refusal to take the bribe effectively guaranteed the epithet “AIDS denier” will appear on his tombstone. The character assassination of Duesberg became a template that would be deployed to great effectiveness wherever Fauci encountered dissent - never debate, only demonize, deplatform and destroy.    Even Luc Montagnier, the real discoverer of HIV, soon found himself on the wrong side of the Fauci machine. With his 1990 declaration that “the HIV virus [by itself] is harmless and passive, a benign virus,” Montagnier began distancing himself from Gallo's fraud, effectively placing a target on his own back. In a 1995 interview, he elaborated: “four factors that have come together to account for the sudden epidemic [of AIDS]: HIV presence, immune hyper-activation, increased sexually transmitted disease incidence, sexual behavior changes and other behavioral changes” such as drug use, poor nutrition and stress - all of which he said had to occur “essentially simultaneously” for HIV to be transmitted, creating the modern epidemic. Like the professionals at the Tri-State Healing Center, Montagnier advocated for the use of antioxidants like vitamin C and N-acetyl cysteine, naming oxidative stress as a critical factor in the progression from HIV to AIDS.19 When Montagnier died in 2022, Fauci's media mouthpieces sneered that the scientist (who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2008 for his discovery of HIV, despite his flagging faith in that discovery's significance) “started espousing views devoid of a scientific basis” in the late 2000s, leading him to be “shunned by the scientific community.”20 In a particularly egregious jab, the Washington Post's obit sings the praises of Robert Gallo, implying it was the American scientist who really should have won the Nobel for HIV, while dismissing as “

Buy Now: The Shopping Conspiracy is arguably the most widely-distributed piece of criticism of the marketing industry in recent times. We sit down with the doc's producer Flora Bagenal and one of its star interviewees, former Adidas brand chief Eric Liedtke. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

FROM THE VAULT: In the 1980s and '90s, the AIDS epidemic devastated communities around the world—yet governments, media, and society largely turned a blind eye. In this episode, we uncover the early days of the crisis, the devastating loss of life, and the fearless activism that forced the world to pay attention. From the rise of organizations like ACT UP to the scientific breakthroughs that changed the course of the epidemic, we explore the human stories behind one of the most tragic and transformative public health crises in history.

Jonny welcomes Heather back with a brief discussion of the Superb Owl, which neither of them watched. They then turn to a brief chronicle of the anti-LGBTQ moves and rhetoric in the government and beyond this past week. In the back half of the show, they share two examples of the consequenses of this political climate before moving on to recommendations for acting up and pushing back, some of them literally from ACT UP.

Rasheed Newson, television writer and producer and author of My Government Means to Kill Me, discusses the fallout from the HIV/AIDS crisis. In conversation with host Cody Sisco, Rasheed talks about the ascendance of sex positivity thanks to PrEP, how his novel imagines a young gay Black man in 1980s New York encountering ACT UP, and the legacy of the Gay Liberation and Civil Rights movements.

Peter Hujar, Gregg Bordowitz and Rotimi Fani-Kayode are three artists whose work reflects in different ways on the Aids crisis that has devastated communities across the world since the 1980s. Hujar, who died from Aids-related pneumonia in 1987, is the subject of a new show at Raven Row in London, the largest to date at a UK gallery. Host Ben Luke takes a tour of the show with its curators, the writer John Douglas Millar, and the artist, master printer and model for some of Hujar's photographs, Gary Schneider. The artist Gregg Bordowitz was a member of The Aids Coalition to Unleash Power, or ACT UP, founded in New York in the 1980s. Bordowitz has lived with HIV since the late 1980s, and it has fuelled his art and activism ever since, as a new show at Camden Art Centre in London demonstrates. We spoke to him about his life and work. And this episode's Work of the Week is Rotimi Fani-Kayode's Abiku (Born to Die) (1988), a photograph in The 80s: Photographing Britain, a show at Tate Britain in London. Fani-Kayode was a key figure in the UK's burgeoning avant-garde photography scene in the late 1980s, but died in his early 30s in 1989 from complications relating to Aids. We talk to Jasmine Kaur Chohan, co-curator of the Tate Britain show, about the work.Peter Hujar—Eyes Open in the Dark, Raven Row, London, 30 January-6 AprilGregg Bordowitz—There: a Feeling, Camden Art Centre, London, until 23 MarchThe 80s: Photographing Britain, Tate Britain, until 5 MayThe Art Newspaper's book The Year Ahead 2025, an authoritative guide to the year's unmissable art exhibitions, museum openings and significant art events, is still available to buy at theartnewspaper.com for £14.99 or the equivalent in your currency. Buy it here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

durée : 00:28:21 - Les Pieds sur terre - par : Sonia Kronlund, Stéphanie Thomas - Christophe Martet est séropositif depuis 1985. Indigné par les injustices sociales qui touchent les malades du Sida, il milite à Act Up et venge à sa manière les morts du Sida. Solène, elle, s'est jugée humiliée et bafouée par son compagnon. Lorsqu'il l'a quittée, elle a décidé de se venger. - réalisation : François Caunac, Marie Plaçais

In this very special episode, Ell and Mary talk to veteran professor and HIV/AIDS activist Dr Monica Pearl about her experiences with Act Up and the unique and under-studied intricacies of queer friendship. A perfect antidote and/or accompaniment to the festive season when the emphasis is on “family time”. We met Monica at the Sexuality Summer School, a week of workshops, performances and roundtables held each year at the University of Manchester.Enjoying Life of Bi? Support us at: https://www.patreon.com/lifeofbiFind out more about our work: https://www.lifeofbi.co.uk/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Si Act-Up n'est pas la seule association à lutter contre le VIH, ses membres pionniers ont su créer l'évènement dans les années 90, en imaginant des actions spectaculaires pour briser le tabou du SIDA.   40 ans après la découverte du virus VIH par l'Institut Pasteur, et alors que la maladie a fait plus de 36 millions de morts dans le monde, nous revenons sur les enjeux mémoriels autour de l'épidémie du VIH-SIDA, les traces laissées dans l'espace public et sur la transmission d'une histoire encore marginalisée.SIDA, des vies pour mémoire, un documentaire de Maxime Grember, réalisé par Sophie Janin, produit par Valérie Nivelon. (Rediffusion) Avec les témoignages de :-  Christian de Leusse, fondateur de l'association marseillaise « Mémoires des sexualités »-  Gérard Bénéteau, prêtre au sein de l'Église Saint-Eustache entre 1984 et 2000-  Anne Rousseau Rambach, militante au sein d'Act Up-Paris entre 1991 et 1996, éditrice, romancière et scénariste-  Christophe Broqua, anthropologue, chercheur au CNRS, auteur de la thèse en sociologie « Engagements homosexuels et lutte contre le sida au sein de l'association Act Up-Paris »-  Fred Navarro, président d'Act Up-Paris entre 2012 et 2013. En 2017, le film de Robin Campillo 120 battements par minute marque un tournant dans la manière de représenter l'histoire du SIDA en France, et plus précisément celle d'Act Up-Paris, en apportant une visibilité nouvelle à la lutte qu'ont menée les premiers activistes du SIDA.Dernièrement, de grandes expositions comme celle du Mucem à Marseille en 2022, ou plus récemment celles du Musée d'Art moderne et contemporain de Strasbourg ont montré qu'il y avait un besoin d'histoire, une nécessité à y revenir, à raconter ce qu'avait été l'épidémie du VIH-SIDA dans ses années les plus sombres.Mais malgré cette forme de patrimonialisation nouvelle, cette histoire reste encore méconnue du grand public, et finalement assez peu enseignée auprès des nouvelles générations chez qui le virus circule principalement aujourd'hui.Avec le temps, l'enjeu mémoriel autour du VIH-SIDA est devenu un enjeu politique. Que ce soit avec la pose de plaques de rues, la commande de fresques artistiques, ou encore la création du centre d'archives LGBTQI+ à Paris.Pour l'heure, un centre sans soutien réel des pouvoirs publics, ce qui amène bon nombre d'associations de lutte contre le SIDA à déposer de façon morcelée leurs archives sur l'ensemble du territoire français.Plus de 40 ans après les premiers morts du SIDA, les archives sont donc dispersées, les lieux de mémoire invisibilisés et les noms des disparus méconnus. Alors comment raconter cette histoire dont la liste des victimes s'allonge, bien que depuis 1996, les premiers traitements soient apparus et que la séropositivité n'est plus synonyme de condamnation à mort ? Archives :-  « ZAP du 1er novembre 1991 devant la cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris ». © Act Up-Paris. Vidéo déposée aux Archives Nationales-  Interview de Christophe Martet, dans « Manifestations de Act Up », FR3 1992. © INA-  Interview de Cleews Vellay, dans « Parlez-moi d'argent », France Inter 1993. © INA. Bibliographie :- « Act Up, Une histoire », de Didier Lestrade (La Découverte, 2022)- « Agir pour ne pas mourir ! Act Up, les homosexuels et le sida », de Christophe Broqua (Presses de Sciences Po, 2005) - « VIH/SIDA, L'épidémie n'est pas finie », catalogue de l'exposition du Mucem, ouvrage collectif. (Anamosa, 2021). Musiques :- Orgue de Saint-Eustache- « It's a sin » des Pet Shop Boys- « Live to Tell » de Madonna- « Toxic » de Britney Spears- « Hideous » d'Oliver Sim. Films :- « 120 battements par minute », (Robin Campillo, 2017)- « Portrait d'une présidente », (Brigitte Tijou, 1995)- « Act Up, Sida Guerilla », (Agence Capa, 1993). Ressources :- The Aids Memorial - Le collectif Archives LGBTQI+ de Paris. Remerciements :- L'association Act Up-Paris : Julien Bruneau- Les Archives Nationales : Lucile Douchin, Vanessa Szollosi et Sandrine Gill- L'École des Beaux-Arts de Paris : Sarah Pépin et Philippe Pucyclo- Gérard Beneteau, Anne Rousseau Rambach, Christophe Broqua, Fred Navarro, Christian de Leusse, Didier Lestrade, Lalla Kowska Régnier, Jean-Luc Armani, Mikael Zenouda, Michel Bourrelly, Clem Hue, Renaud Chantraine, Nicolas Hardy, Pauline Gallinari et Ania Szczepanska. Diaporama

Every year, 1st December is World AIDS day. To mark the occasion, let's look back at the story of the Act Up group. Act Up started causing a buzz in New York in 1987, four years after the AIDS virus had been discovered. The highly organised group met several times a week to discuss their action plan. They demanded more prevention and communication campaigns from the state, better access to care, transparency from pharmaceutical labs and an end to the deportation of undocumented migrants. They used shock tactics to attract the attention of the media. When was this group formed? What kind of campaigns did they use? What are some examples of concessions secured by Act Up? In under 3 minutes, we answer your questions! To listen to the latest episodes, click here: Why is 'permacrisis' the new dictionary word of the year? Is it dangerous if I get heart palpitations? Why do we get great ideas in the shower? A Bababam Originals podcast, written and produced by Joseph Chance. First broadcast: 7/12/2022. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Radical Acts: HIV/AIDS Activism in Late Twentieth-Century England (Bloomsbury Academic, 2024), Dr George Severs draws on activist campaign literature and materials, broadcast media, and new oral history interviews to reconstruct the overlooked world of radical AIDS activism in England. This book provides one of the first detailed histories of the radical HIV/AIDS movement in England, following ACT UP's travels from New York to London via prominent queer intellectuals, and reconstructing the vibrant theatrical campaigns staged by ACT UP groups across England.  But Radical Acts also highlights expressions of activism that were far more common than demonstrations and marches. Manifestations of a political commitment to ameliorating the injustices facing people living with HIV permeated most aspects of everyday life. These forms of 'everyday activism' played out in workplaces, universities and church halls across England, as well as through networks that stretched across Europe and North America. This book breaks new ground by studying the radical alongside the everyday, presenting a diverse constellation of activist responses to the epidemic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

In Radical Acts: HIV/AIDS Activism in Late Twentieth-Century England (Bloomsbury Academic, 2024), Dr George Severs draws on activist campaign literature and materials, broadcast media, and new oral history interviews to reconstruct the overlooked world of radical AIDS activism in England. This book provides one of the first detailed histories of the radical HIV/AIDS movement in England, following ACT UP's travels from New York to London via prominent queer intellectuals, and reconstructing the vibrant theatrical campaigns staged by ACT UP groups across England.  But Radical Acts also highlights expressions of activism that were far more common than demonstrations and marches. Manifestations of a political commitment to ameliorating the injustices facing people living with HIV permeated most aspects of everyday life. These forms of 'everyday activism' played out in workplaces, universities and church halls across England, as well as through networks that stretched across Europe and North America. This book breaks new ground by studying the radical alongside the everyday, presenting a diverse constellation of activist responses to the epidemic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

In Radical Acts: HIV/AIDS Activism in Late Twentieth-Century England (Bloomsbury Academic, 2024), Dr George Severs draws on activist campaign literature and materials, broadcast media, and new oral history interviews to reconstruct the overlooked world of radical AIDS activism in England. This book provides one of the first detailed histories of the radical HIV/AIDS movement in England, following ACT UP's travels from New York to London via prominent queer intellectuals, and reconstructing the vibrant theatrical campaigns staged by ACT UP groups across England.  But Radical Acts also highlights expressions of activism that were far more common than demonstrations and marches. Manifestations of a political commitment to ameliorating the injustices facing people living with HIV permeated most aspects of everyday life. These forms of 'everyday activism' played out in workplaces, universities and church halls across England, as well as through networks that stretched across Europe and North America. This book breaks new ground by studying the radical alongside the everyday, presenting a diverse constellation of activist responses to the epidemic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

In Radical Acts: HIV/AIDS Activism in Late Twentieth-Century England (Bloomsbury Academic, 2024), Dr George Severs draws on activist campaign literature and materials, broadcast media, and new oral history interviews to reconstruct the overlooked world of radical AIDS activism in England. This book provides one of the first detailed histories of the radical HIV/AIDS movement in England, following ACT UP's travels from New York to London via prominent queer intellectuals, and reconstructing the vibrant theatrical campaigns staged by ACT UP groups across England.  But Radical Acts also highlights expressions of activism that were far more common than demonstrations and marches. Manifestations of a political commitment to ameliorating the injustices facing people living with HIV permeated most aspects of everyday life. These forms of 'everyday activism' played out in workplaces, universities and church halls across England, as well as through networks that stretched across Europe and North America. This book breaks new ground by studying the radical alongside the everyday, presenting a diverse constellation of activist responses to the epidemic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

In Radical Acts: HIV/AIDS Activism in Late Twentieth-Century England (Bloomsbury Academic, 2024), Dr George Severs draws on activist campaign literature and materials, broadcast media, and new oral history interviews to reconstruct the overlooked world of radical AIDS activism in England. This book provides one of the first detailed histories of the radical HIV/AIDS movement in England, following ACT UP's travels from New York to London via prominent queer intellectuals, and reconstructing the vibrant theatrical campaigns staged by ACT UP groups across England.  But Radical Acts also highlights expressions of activism that were far more common than demonstrations and marches. Manifestations of a political commitment to ameliorating the injustices facing people living with HIV permeated most aspects of everyday life. These forms of 'everyday activism' played out in workplaces, universities and church halls across England, as well as through networks that stretched across Europe and North America. This book breaks new ground by studying the radical alongside the everyday, presenting a diverse constellation of activist responses to the epidemic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/lgbtq-studies

In Radical Acts: HIV/AIDS Activism in Late Twentieth-Century England (Bloomsbury Academic, 2024), Dr George Severs draws on activist campaign literature and materials, broadcast media, and new oral history interviews to reconstruct the overlooked world of radical AIDS activism in England. This book provides one of the first detailed histories of the radical HIV/AIDS movement in England, following ACT UP's travels from New York to London via prominent queer intellectuals, and reconstructing the vibrant theatrical campaigns staged by ACT UP groups across England.  But Radical Acts also highlights expressions of activism that were far more common than demonstrations and marches. Manifestations of a political commitment to ameliorating the injustices facing people living with HIV permeated most aspects of everyday life. These forms of 'everyday activism' played out in workplaces, universities and church halls across England, as well as through networks that stretched across Europe and North America. This book breaks new ground by studying the radical alongside the everyday, presenting a diverse constellation of activist responses to the epidemic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

In Radical Acts: HIV/AIDS Activism in Late Twentieth-Century England (Bloomsbury Academic, 2024), Dr George Severs draws on activist campaign literature and materials, broadcast media, and new oral history interviews to reconstruct the overlooked world of radical AIDS activism in England. This book provides one of the first detailed histories of the radical HIV/AIDS movement in England, following ACT UP's travels from New York to London via prominent queer intellectuals, and reconstructing the vibrant theatrical campaigns staged by ACT UP groups across England.  But Radical Acts also highlights expressions of activism that were far more common than demonstrations and marches. Manifestations of a political commitment to ameliorating the injustices facing people living with HIV permeated most aspects of everyday life. These forms of 'everyday activism' played out in workplaces, universities and church halls across England, as well as through networks that stretched across Europe and North America. This book breaks new ground by studying the radical alongside the everyday, presenting a diverse constellation of activist responses to the epidemic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Radical Acts: HIV/AIDS Activism in Late Twentieth-Century England (Bloomsbury Academic, 2024), Dr George Severs draws on activist campaign literature and materials, broadcast media, and new oral history interviews to reconstruct the overlooked world of radical AIDS activism in England. This book provides one of the first detailed histories of the radical HIV/AIDS movement in England, following ACT UP's travels from New York to London via prominent queer intellectuals, and reconstructing the vibrant theatrical campaigns staged by ACT UP groups across England.  But Radical Acts also highlights expressions of activism that were far more common than demonstrations and marches. Manifestations of a political commitment to ameliorating the injustices facing people living with HIV permeated most aspects of everyday life. These forms of 'everyday activism' played out in workplaces, universities and church halls across England, as well as through networks that stretched across Europe and North America. This book breaks new ground by studying the radical alongside the everyday, presenting a diverse constellation of activist responses to the epidemic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In Radical Acts: HIV/AIDS Activism in Late Twentieth-Century England (Bloomsbury Academic, 2024), Dr George Severs draws on activist campaign literature and materials, broadcast media, and new oral history interviews to reconstruct the overlooked world of radical AIDS activism in England. This book provides one of the first detailed histories of the radical HIV/AIDS movement in England, following ACT UP's travels from New York to London via prominent queer intellectuals, and reconstructing the vibrant theatrical campaigns staged by ACT UP groups across England.  But Radical Acts also highlights expressions of activism that were far more common than demonstrations and marches. Manifestations of a political commitment to ameliorating the injustices facing people living with HIV permeated most aspects of everyday life. These forms of 'everyday activism' played out in workplaces, universities and church halls across England, as well as through networks that stretched across Europe and North America. This book breaks new ground by studying the radical alongside the everyday, presenting a diverse constellation of activist responses to the epidemic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/british-studies

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comAnderson doesn't need an introduction, but he's a broadcast journalist who has anchored Anderson Cooper 360° for more than two decades. He's also a correspondent for 60 Minutes and the host of a podcast centered on grief, “All There Is.” He invited me on the pod after the death of my mother this summer, and this Dishcast episode is the extended version of our conversation, which covers my experience of the AIDS crisis and the deaths of my parents and my beagle, Bowie. I was not expecting to talk about my AIDS memories, so forgive me for some choking up.For three clips of our convo — on Anderson losing his brother to suicide, how he coped by seeking out warzones, and coming out of the closet on the Dish — head over to our YouTube page.Other topics: the two of us meeting at the downtown DC YMCA three decades ago; Anderson reading passages from my 1990 piece “Gay Life, Gay Death”'; my best friend Patrick who died of AIDS; my HIV diagnosis in 1993 that derailed my Green Card; my constant fear of deportation; the medieval tortures of AIDS; my photographer friend going blind; the program that paired gay men with patients; the men outed to their parents by AIDS; the deeper closet that black men faced; patients being pariahs among other gays; the partners excluded from hospitals and funerals; the clinical depression I fell into after HIV meds saved my life; my brief thought that God might be evil; how my faith sustained me; survivor's guilt; the survivors who escaped into meth; the happy-sad music of Pet Shop Boys; the AIDS quilt and Roy Cohn; the gallows humor of Diseased Pariah News; the amnesia around the plague; Virtually Normal; throwing myself into the marriage fight; the queer activists who opposed that fight; speaking at churches; ACT-UP's rage; the suffering of Christ; Obergefell; the ordeal of my 10-day silent meditation; Anderson losing his father at age 10 and closing down; his mother's struggle with alcohol; the last time he saw his brother alive; the taboo of talking about death; putting seniors in nursing homes; the decline of religion; Camus; my mom's mental illness; my parents' contentious marriage; their divorce after 49.5 years; losing my dad to a ghastly accident in early Covid; my mom's dementia; her prolonged and agonizing death; the mixed blessing of being so close to her; the heroic sacrifices of my sister; the death of Bowie; the power of venting grief; the powerful act of simply being present with mourners; Anderson's worries about his gay status reporting in dangerous places; a gay photographer killed by a mob in Somalia; and helping Tim Cook out of the closet.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Reihan Salam on the evolution of the GOP, John Gray on the state of liberal democracy, David Greenberg on his new bio of John Lewis, Christine Rosen on humanness in a digital world, and Mary Matalin on anything but politics. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Peter Staley was one of the most prominent members of the AIDS activism group ACT-UP. He is largely credited as one of the pioneers responsible for the creation of life-saving AIDS drugs. He recounts the most harrowing times of the AIDS crisis — and how he persevered.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us a textMeg mourns the suicide of New York Ballet City principal dancer Joseph Duell. Jessica returns to the election of 1980 to try to understand how we got here.Please check out our website, follow us on Instagram, on Facebook, and...WRITE US A REVIEW HEREWe'd LOVE to hear from you! Let us know if you have any ideas for stories HEREThank you for listening!Love,Meg and Jessica

Our special guest, writer and activist Sarah Schulman, joins us to discuss the practical realities of building community from her perspective as an activist, community organizer, and artistic mentor! This season, we have explored the ways we can forge friendship and chosen family. One angle we haven't yet examined is the the power of rallying around a shared cause. This, too, is a form of community, and of family. We were honored to speak with Sarah about so many things -- her writing, her time in Act Up, her opinions on group unity and successful advocacy, and her thoughts on today's political climate. We also discuss her artistic achievements: building spaces for queer experimental filmmakers; being a generalist; and the legacy of mentoring younger generations of writers. ----- Follow Amrita & Andrew at emergencycontacts.substack.com ----- The books by Sarah Schulman that we mention in this episode include: Let The Record Show: A Political History of Act Up Conflict is Not Abuse After Delores

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comMichelle is an opinion columnist at the New York Times, and before that she was a columnist for Slate. She has written three books: Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, The Means of Reproduction, and The Goddess Pose. She's also an on-air contributor at MSNBC.For two clips of our convo — debating who the real Kamala is, and how much BLM is responsible for lost black lives — pop over to our YouTube page. Other topics: growing up in Buffalo with conservative parents; her dad a journalist and mom a math teacher; Michelle a teen activist in the “Buffalo abortion wars”; the legality but ugliness of clinic protests; a pro-life man knocking the wind out of her; ACT UP; going to J-school; reporting at mega-churches in Ohio in the 2004 election; Harris' moderate Smart on Crime book in 2009; her “triangulating” in 2019 (e.g. fracking); her busing moment with Biden; supporting a bail fund in summer 2020; Biden's bait-and-switch as a centrist; bipartisan support for Israel; Merrick Garland's effort to appear apolitical; lawfare; from Bush's “f**k yeah” patriotism to Trump's dark view of America; the Iraq War and 2008 bailout causing mistrust toward institutions; crumbling infrastructure; Trump never being a majority candidate; the cultural grievance fueling him; Michelle going to Trump rallies; the 1619 Project; debating the US as a “white supremacy”; the left radicalizing after Trump replaced a two-term black president; Covid mania; the distortion of Twitter; the Electoral College and its roots; the violent crime spike in 2020 and after; how the disadvantaged always bear the brunt of disorder; the greed of BLM Inc; the press distortion of unarmed black men killed by police; Michelle's 2014 piece “What Is a Woman?”; Rachel Levine; puberty blockers; the Dutch protocol; the Cass Review; bathroom bills; and the GLAAD protest against the NYT.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: David Frum on Trump, Musa al-Gharbi on wokeness, Walter Kirn on Republican voters, Bill Wasik and Monica Murphy on animal welfare, Mary Matalin on life, Anderson Cooper on grief, John Gray on, well, everything, and Sam Harris for our quadrennial chat before Election Day. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

09/02/24: InForum columnist, Jim Shaw, is filling in for Joel Heitkamp on KFGO, and is joined in the studio by two performers from an upcoming Act Up Theatre show. Craig Ellingson and Angie Schulz talk about the upcoming musical, “Falsettos.”  It's a provocative show dealing with life in the LGBTQ community, being Jewish, and the start of the AIDS epidemic. Get your tickets and learn more about Act Up Theatre here!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dans une scène marquante du film “120 battements par minutes” de Robin Campillo, des militants aspergent de faux sang les bureaux d'un laboratoire de recherche scientifique, avant d'être emmenés par la police. Cette action, comme d'autres représentées dans le film lauréat du Grand Prix à Cannes en 2017, a véritablement été menée par l'association Act Up. 'Maintenant vous savez' revient sur l'histoire des militants qui ont changé le regard du monde sur le VIH. Act Up commence à faire du bruit à New York en 1987 - 4 ans après la découverte du virus du SIDA. Elle est apparue quand, cette association ? Et quelles étaient ses actions ? Quelles ont été les victoires de l'association ? Écoutez la suite de cet épisode de "Maintenant vous savez". Un podcast Bababam Originals, écrit et réalisé par Antonella Francini. Première diffusion : 1 décembre 2022 À écouter aussi : Qu'est-ce que le chronoworking, qui vous rendrait plus efficace au travail ? Quelles sont les 3 techniques de manipulation les plus connues ? A quelle fréquence faut-il se laver les cheveux ? Retrouvez tous les épisodes de "Maintenant vous savez". Suivez Bababam sur Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week we're excited to present a conversation with Red Island director Robin Campillo from the 2024 edition of Rendez-Vous with French Cinema. Rendez-Vous and NYFF veteran Robin Campillo, whose 2017 period drama BPM: Beats Per Minute reconstructed and celebrated ACT UP's legacy of AIDS activism in France during the 1990s, once again draws on personal history with his latest film, reaching back further to evoke a sumptuously visualized 1970s childhood spent with his military family on Madagascar. Growing up on one of the last remaining French colonial bases on the island, young Thomas (Charlie Vauselle) keeps a curious and observant eye on the adults around him, not least his parents (Nadia Tereszkiewicz and Quim Guterriez). Bonding with young Suzanne (Cathy Pham) over the Fantômette comic books, Thomas's imagination and observational powers grow even as the world around him is about to die. Making striking use of a child's perspective, Campillo's carefully observed drama of a lost world is lyrical and clear-eyed in equal measure. This conversation was moderated by FLC Vice President of Programming Florence Almozini.

Get my training and advanced episodes: https://www.patreon.com/listeningtime US Conversations: https://www.patreon.com/USConversations Transcript: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OXfjQXPdUrpese46ttPYm46LjVHLvTVS/view?usp=sharing Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Helen Eisenbach is a novelist, satirist, playwright, theatre director, screenwriter, journalist and editor. Her books include the novel Loonglow and the how-to/cry for help Lesbianism Made Easy, both published shamelessly ahead of their time and now available as ebooks with Open Road Media. Her plays have been produced in NYC, San Francisco, Chicago, and Edinburgh Festival Fringe. As a book editor, she founded the Plume line of LGBTQ fiction and nonfiction, where she published the subject of today's podcast, Larry Kramer, among others (mostly now dead!); she was also Editorial Director at Arbor House, where she founded a line of trade paperbacks, and Editor in Chief of Alyson Publications on its transition to a mainstream publisher under the Advocate magazine's rule. She was Executive Editor of the late beloved queer weekly magazine QW (where she published Rosanne's first ever queer interview); literary editor of the L.A. magazine Dot 429; an editor at the copy desk of Entertainment Weekly and Time Magazine. In theatre, she assisted writer/director Dick Scanlan, director Michael Mayer and Sherie Rene Scott on the play Whorl Inside a Loop as script editorial supervisor, seeing it from workshop to Off Broadway production for 2ND Stage Theatre; she was also researcher for Scanlan and composer Carmel Dean on their Edna St. Vincent Millay musical Renascence. Helen's reviews, profiles and interviews have appeared in New York magazine, LitHub, the Village Voice, Time Out NY, Newsday, Writer's Digest, The New York Times, Interview, the Daily News, HuffPost, Salon and other tasteful publications. Larry Kramer was a playwright, author, film producer, public health advocate, and gay rights activist. In 1978, Kramer introduced a controversial and confrontational style in his novel FAGGOTS, which earned mixed reviews and emphatic denunciations from elements within the gay community for Kramer's portrayal of what he characterized as shallow, promiscuous gay relationships in the 1970s. Kramer witnessed the spread of the disease known as  Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) among his friends in 1980. He co-founded the Gay Men's Health Crisis  (GMHC), which has become the world's largest private organization assisting people living with AIDS. His political activism continued with the founding of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power   (ACT UP) in 1987, an influential direct action protest organization with the aim of gaining more public action to fight the AIDS crisis. ACT UP has been widely credited with changing public health policy and the perception of people living with AIDS , and with raising awareness of HIV and AIDS-related diseases.His play The Normal Heart was produced by Joseph Papp at The Public Theater in New York City in 1985. He died from pneumonia on May 27,2020  

Wanna chat about the episode? Or just hang out? Come join us on discord!   --- Time isn't the only thing the FDA is killing. - ACT UP slogan   Chris & Kayla grapple with the intense nuance presented by the Church of Perpetual Life and the Life Extension Foundation. --- *Search Categories* Anthropological; Science / Pseudoscience; Common interest / Fandom   --- *Topic Spoiler* Bill Faloon, The Church of Perpetual Life, and the FDA   --- Further Reading https://www.churchofperpetuallife.org/ https://www.youtube.com/@COPL18/featured https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Faloon https://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/1999/1/fda-standing-in-the-way-of-progress https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/theyre-gonna-live-forever-6363863 https://www.actuporalhistory.org/actions/seize-control-of-the-fda https://www.archivebuttons.com/articles?article=https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/12/before-occupy-how-aids-activists-seized-control-of-the-fda-in-1988/249302/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_UP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_freedom_movement --- *Patreon Credits* Michaela Evans, Heather Aunspach, Alyssa Ottum, David Whiteside, Jade A, amy sarah marshall, Martina Dobson, Eillie Anzilotti, Lewis Brown, Kelly Smith Upton, Wild Hunt Alex, Niklas Brock, Jim Fingal Jenny Lamb, Matthew Walden, Rebecca Kirsch, Pam Westergard, Ryan Quinn, Paul Sweeney, Erin Bratu, Liz T, Lianne Cole, Samantha Bayliff, Katie Larimer, Fio H, Jessica Senk, Proper Gander, Nancy Carlson, Carly Westergard-Dobson, banana, Megan Blackburn, Instantly Joy, Athena of CaveSystem, John Grelish, Rose Kerchinske, Annika Ramen, Alicia Smith, Kevin, Velm, Dan Malmud, tiny, Dom, Tribe Label - Panda - Austin, Noelle Hoover, Tesa Hamilton, Nicole Carter, Paige, Brian Lancaster, tiny, GD, Elloe

Join Joe Stearns as he talks to State Senator Dayna Polehanki about this important issue and how you can support it.About Productions Plus:Productions Plus has been providing excellence in brand representation since 1981. We are the largest SAG-franchised, full-service talent management agency and our niche has been representing Product Specialists for numerous global automotive brands. We represent thousands of actors for TV/Film, print, commercials, product demonstrations, trade shows and auto shows. We are excited to launch our new podcast which will feature several of our employees, talent and brand partners chatting about what we do best- connecting people and brands! Follow us @productionsplus on Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and LinkedinApply to work with us by downloading the Productions Plus App and registering to be a TalentAbout Productions Plus:Productions Plus has been providing excellence in brand representation since 1981. We are the largest SAG-franchised, full-service talent management agency and our niche has been representing Product Specialists for numerous global automotive brands. We represent thousands of actors for TV/Film, print, commercials, product demonstrations, trade shows and auto shows. We are excited to launch our new podcast which will feature several of our employees, talent and brand partners chatting about what we do best- connecting people and brands! Follow us @productionsplus on Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and LinkedinApply to work with us by downloading the Productions Plus App and registering to be a Talent

To close out The TrustMakers' series on the ground at the 2024 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, Scott Galloway, professor of marketing at NYU Stern School of Business and podcast host, sits down for a conversation with Edelman CEO Richard Edelman. Richard gets Scott's reactions to the new 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report: … Continue reading "Professor Scott Galloway: Brands Must ‘Act Up, Not Speak Up'"

Margaret finishes talking with Francesca Fiorentini about the AIDS activists who changed the world.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Margaret talks with Francesca Fiorentini about the AIDS activists who changed the world.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This time on Code WACK! In honor of PRIDE Month, we're revisiting a popular episode about the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s and 1990s. What were the health policy failures that spurred so many Americans to militant activism? How did the LGBTQ+ community win the struggle to get government funding to address the deadly virus? Fortunately today, with appropriate medical intervention, more and more people are living, instead of dying, with HIV/AIDS. But the U.S. still trails many developed countries in life expectancy, a result of health policy failures that continue to cause unnecessary death and suffering.  What can today's Medicare-for-All movement learn from AIDS activists?  To find out, we spoke with Michael Lighty, president of the Healthy California Now Coalition, and former constituency director for Bernie 2020. Check out the Show Notes and Transcript for more!

As Pride month begins, trans and queer people around the world are searching for ways to fight back against escalating attacks on their basic rights. In 2024 alone, 580 anti-trans bills have been proposed in state legislatures around the United States. This number is already set to surpass the appalling record set in 2023, when right-wing legislatures passed dozens of draconian anti-trans bills attacking everything from pronoun use in schools to gender-affirming care. How do we stop these anti-trans attacks, and win bold positive demands, like free universal healthcare which includes gender-affirming care? Young and queer people should look to the lessons from the history of the fight for queer rights, including Stonewall and ACT UP. We urgently need to get organized with other working people and build our own, independent organizations like Workers Strike Back to win the change we need. The fight for trans rights is also firmly bound up with the fight against other forms of oppression, including the growing movement to stop Israel's murderous campaign against the people of Gaza. We need to get organized to stop these attacks and end oppression in all its forms. On Strike is joined this week by trans socialist activists Sophie Scholl and Margot Stewart to discuss the militant roots of Pride, and the way forward for trans and queer liberation, including the fight for gender-affirming care and the role of the LGBTQ movement in the fight to end Israel's genocidal war on Gaza. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/onstrikeshow/support

Underdogs often respond to systemic oppression through collective care – acts of mutual aid and cooperation with the goal of meeting people's basic survival needs when the state fails to do so. Some people feel collective care is just what we should do as decent human beings, but that it isn't a strategy for systemic social change. Others are more critical, noting that collective care can turn people away from strategies to change systems through organizing and political action. But when we (Stephanie and Deepak) taught our graduate class on Power & Strategy, one of our students, Walter Barrientos, an experienced organizer in the immigrant rights movement, argued that collective care is a strategy that movements have used effectively for centuries around the world. The more we read and discussed the topic, the more we became convinced, and we included collective care as the 7th of our “Seven Strategies to Change the World” in our book, Practical Radicals. In this episode, we look at collective care through the lens of the AIDS crisis and the remarkable work of the Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC). Our guest, Tim Sweeney joined and later ran that essential, underappreciated organization during some of the worst years when AIDS ravaged the LGBTQ+ community. After queer communities gained unprecedented visibility in the 1970s and early '80s, AIDS brought despair and decimation. (By 1995, one gay man in nine between the ages of twenty-five and forty-four in the United States had been diagnosed with AIDS, and nearly 7 percent had died. By comparison, COVID-19 has killed 0.3 percent of the U.S. population.) GMHC encouraged gay men and their allies to turn their grief and anger into action to help the sick and dying (with their buddy program), fight bigotry and misinformation (with their hotline and safer sex education projects), and advocate for better policies at every level of government. Although the better-known ACT UP is sometimes seen as a more radical alternative to GMHC, Tim explains that the two organizations actually complemented each other — with the care and community building of GMHC providing a ladder of engagement that helped foster self-confidence and led many to take part in ACT UP's headline-grabbing direct actions. In fact, as we discuss in the book, the first ACT UP meetings were co-facilitated by Tim Sweeney, and GMHC provided financial support to ACT UP at key points. We conclude that collective care done well is a strategy that can make all other strategies, such as base-building and disruption, more effective. When opportunities for systemic change seem to be foreclosed, collective care provides a path for people to achieve tangible change – and often discover new ways to achieve social transformation. Episode 10 transcript 

Jean Carlomusto is an Emmy-nominated documentarian. But in the 1980s, she was a scrappy filmmaker documenting the AIDS crisis for ACT UP. She reflects on the impact that lesbians like her had in responding to the deadly epidemic that was mostly affecting gay men. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Summary This week on Live Like the World is Dying, Margaret and Dean talk about the ways that mutual aid helps communities prepare for disasters that are already here and disasters that have yet to come. Guest Info Dean Spade is an American lawyer, writer, trans activist, and associate professor of law at Seattle University School of Law. You can find Dean's work at Deanspade.net, and you can read the article that Margaret and Dean talk about, "Climate Disaster is Here--And the State Will Never Save Us" on inthesetimes.com. You can also find Dean on Twitter @deanspade or on IG @spade.dean. Host Info Margaret (she/they) can be found on twitter @magpiekilljoy or instagram at @margaretkilljoy. Publisher Info This show is published by Strangers in A Tangled Wilderness. We can be found at www.tangledwilderness.org, or on Twitter @TangledWild and Instagram @Tangled_Wilderness. You can support the show on Patreon at www.patreon.com/strangersinatangledwilderness. Transcript Live Like the World is Dying: Dean Spade on Mutual Aid as Preparedness **Margaret ** 00:24 Hello and welcome to Live Live the World is Dying, your podcast for what feels like the end times. I'm your host today Margaret Killjoy. And today, I'm gonna be talking to Dean Spade, and we're gonna talk about so much stuff. We're gonna talk about so much stuff that this is going to be a two parter. So you can hear me talk with Dean this week and you can hear me talk with Dean next week. Or, if you're listening to this in some far-flung future, you can listen to it both at once in between dodging laser guns from mutants that have come out of the scrap yards, riding dinosaurs. I hope that's the future, or at least it wouldn't be boring. This podcast is a proud member of the Channel Zero Network of anarchist podcasts, and here's a jingle from another show on the network. **Margaret ** 01:53 Okay, we're back. So if you could introduce yourself with I guess your name, your pronouns, and then maybe a little bit about how you ended up doing the kind of work that led you to be on this show talking about mutual aid and collapse and preparedness? **Dean ** 02:10 Totally. Yeah, I'm Dean, I use he/him. And we could start anywhere. I became politicized primarily, like in the late 90s, living in New York City. You know, Rudy Giuliani was mayor/ There was a really vibrant, like very multi-issue, cross-class, multiracial kind of resistance happening to his range of anti-poor pro-police politics happening in the city; people, you know, in the fight around immigrant rights, in the fight around labor, sex workers being zoned out of Time Square. You know, there was just. . .it was a real moment. And I was part of queer nightlife. And people were experiencing a lot of intense policing. And a lot of us were part of work related to, you know, things that had spun off of Act Up, like a lot of direct support to people who were living with HIV and AIDS and trying to get through the New York City welfare processes, and dealing with housing. So a lot of mutual aid in that work from the get, and a lot of work related to that overlap between criminalization and poverty, from a queer, trans, feminist perspective. And that work was also tied into like, very, you know. . . a broader perspective. Like a lot of people were tied to the liberation of Puerto Rico, and the fight against the US Navy bombing Vieques, people were tied into the fight around Palestine. So it was very local--hyperlocal--New York City work, but it was very international because New York City is a very international place, and those politics were very international. So that really shaped me in a lot of ways. And I went from there to becoming a poverty lawyer and focusing on doing Poverty Law for trans people, you know, really focused on people in jails and prisons and welfare systems and immigration proceedings and foster care and stuff like that; homeless shelters. I did that for a number of years, and then increasingly felt like I. . . I just felt the real limits of doing that work as a lawyer and really prefer unpaid organizing and not being do not doing that to kind of the nonprofit and sort of like social services, legal services frame. And so my job, for now 15 years, has been that I'm a law professor. It's like a really great job that's not like. . . you know, it's not a nine to five, and that's wonderful. You don't have a boss really, and things like that. And so I teach to kind of pay my bills and what my life is really about is, you know, a lot of. . . it's been a lot of local abolitionist stuff. Like, you know, site fights around different jails and other facilities or police stations or whatever and mutual aid work and, you know, tied in for years with various aspects of like Palestine movement, especially around trying to push back against pinkwashing. And like writing stuff and making media and collaborating with artists and and, yeah. So, that's like that's that same. . .I've always think I've stayed the same, but also, I think my ideas have changed a lot over time. I've gravitated more towards anarchist or anti-state thought. And thinking a lot more in recent years about the ecological crisis and collapse and just kind of like what that means for the tactics and strategies we're all engaged in kind of all these different movements spaces. **Margaret ** 05:41 I think that that's probably--that last point--is kind of the core of what I want to ask you about and talk to you about, because while you were talking, I was thinking about how like, you know, all of these things that you're talking about--the activism you're doing in New York, for example==I mean, it's all preparedness, right? Like us, helping each other out is being. . . like, aware of actual threats and working to mitigate them? And that's what preparedness is for me, right? And, I actually think activism is a very good, solid place to come from for preparedness, right? I'd rather have a bunch of activists and organizers around me than specifically people who like, know how to skin squirrels. I like people who can do both to be honest, but you know, as compared to the traditional assumption of what a prepper or someone who's involved in preparedness, what their background would be. But I also. . .okay, so it's like I want one, I kind of wanna talk about the activist-preparedness pipeline. But the thing that I'm really excited to talk to you about is kind of the opposite, is the thing that you just brought up. What does awareness of ecological crisis do to our activism? What does it do to how we make decisions around what to prioritize? How to live? Like, for me, the thing that started this show was that I was like, "I'm very aware of this coming ecological crisis. I feel a little bit distant from other people because I feel a little bit like I'm running around screaming, 'the sky is falling.' Because I could see it and I don't understand why no one else can see it," you know? And it was basically like, how does this inform the decisions we make? Right? Which is where the title sort of literally comes from. But I think you've done a lot of work around this, around how awareness of ecological crisis impacts how we choose to be activists. And I'm wondering if you could talk about how it's impacted you or how you've learned to help communicate this to people. Right, because that's one of the biggest scary things is how do we not Chicken Little while needing to Chicken Little? You know, we need a little bit of Chicken Little--a little. Yeah, okay. I'm done. **Dean ** 08:05 I want to come back to the pipeline later. Let's remember to do that. But one thing that your question brings up for me also is just, I just want to talk--and I'm curious about your experiences of this--I want to be real about how much denial there is like. And I think this is really interesting. Like, I find an extreme amount of denial about the level of the crisis, even amongst people I know who are incredibly radical and spent their lives trying to end denial around other things they care about. Like we spent our lives trying to be like, "Look what's happening in prisons and jails in our society," or "Look at what poverty is," or "Look at what the war machine is." But then when it comes to like, "Hey, y'all, I think that, like, collapse is nigh, and that might affect our strategies." People are like, "I don't want to hear about that." Literally, "Don't talk to me about that," because it's so scary, and there's so much stress. And then I get like a certain set of like really common denial reactions like, "Well, the world has ended before." And it's like, yes, every time colonialism is happening a world, a way of life, a way people have been together is ending. Absolutely. And there is something unique and specific about this particular mass extinction event. And it's okay to say. . . it doesn't mean that those things didn't happen or aren't happening. But they're. . .but that feels to me like sometimes a phrase people use that's just like, "I don't want to think about this anymore." I'm like, let's think about that and this because actually, they're all happening together. Right? Like, obviously, colonization is ongoing and it determines who is feeling the heat fastest, you know? That, I get that one a lot or I get like, "Well, humans are bad and maybe the world should just end," kind of thing. Like, let's hasten it, or like, you know, maybe not, "Let's hasten it," but like, you know, that feels really messed up to me. That feels like skipping over and denying how much meaningful suffering we want to acknowledge and recognize and also try to prevent, and it ignores the fact that not all humans have made this happen. Actually, most humans who ever existed have fought against extraction and states and wars, and it's like just elites running state formations that have made this happen. Like that feels really not right and unjust, that kind of frame. I just get a lot of autopilot denial statements from people when I try to talk about this, that are from people like who I love and who really share my other values. And I'm just like, what's going on? How can I get people to talk with me about this in a way that's not--I'm not trying to just kick up fear and terror. And also, it's probably reasonable to feel fear and try to hold that with each other, because that's a reasonable response to the fact that I'm. . .I feel very certain that my life will end earlier than it likely would have ended because of the collapse of systems that I rely on--all of which are like terrible systems of extraction that I wish I didn't rely on to live, but I do. Like, I want to talk about that with people I love. And, you know, I think it makes such a big difference in our political movements because we're so often in conversations that are about unrealistic timelines of change by trying to persuade people, trying to. . . you know, let's persuade Congress, let's persuade. . . like, I don't know, these are kind of moral persuasion, long-term frameworks for transformative change that are dubious on many levels but also are just really unrealistic with what we're staring down the barrel of. So to me, potentially, awareness of the level of crisis that's happening, would allow us to be very humble and pragmatic about immediate needs and preparation, as opposed to being invested in.... One other thing I'll say about denial is I think one of the things that produces so much of this denial is there's so much fake good news about climate. It's like "This person is developing this cool thing to put in the ocean," or it's all tech-based and it's like tech is gonna save us somehow. And it's those kinds of, "I feel good because I read one good thing about how one species is on the rebound." That is a whole news machine telling us not to be worried and also that experts have an under control, and someone else is going to fix it. And don't look around at the actual overwhelming evidence of, again, living through another hottest year on record, you know? And so I guess I'm just--I'm sorry I'm all over the place--but I just, I really feel strongly about what would it take for the people in our communities who are so. . .who dedicate our lives to reducing suffering of all living beings, to let ourselves know more about what's happening, and see how that would restructure some of our approaches to what we want to do with this next five years, you know? **Margaret ** 12:50 I think that that's such a. . .it's such a good point because one of the things that we. . .one of the mainstream narratives around climate change--you know, I mean, obviously, the right-wing narrative is  that it's not happening--and then the liberal narrative--and it's the narrative that we easily fall into, even as radicals and progressives and anarchists an ect--Is that, "Hey, did you know that we're in trouble by 2050?" You know, and we're like, "We better get our shit together in the next 30 years." And I'm like, "I'm gonna be dead 30 years from now and not of old age." You know? And, I, maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. I'm often wrong about this kind of thing, right? But I need to take into consideration the very likely possibility that that is going to happen. And I need to--and there's certain things that I can do to like mitigate the dangers that I'm facing--but overall, it's the same thing that you do by being born, where you're like, "Well, I'm going to die," right? And so you're like, I need to make decisions based on the fact that I'm gonna die one day. And so I need to choose what's important to me and, like, do my YOLO shit. I don't think anyone says YOLO anymore. But, you know, I need to, act like I know that I might die at any moment and make my decisions based on that. And people are like, "Yeah, by 2045 It's gonna be so much trouble." And I'm like, "2030." You know, this year, last year, two years ago, COVID," you know? And we just need to take it into consideration. All of these things that you're bringing up is a really interesting me. I took a bunch of different notes. I'm going to talk--I'm going to also kind of scattershot it. And one of the things that came up recently, we do a This Month in the Apocalypse and we do a This Year in the Apocalypse or "last year in the apocalypse," and the last year we did Last Year of the Apocalypse-- whatever the episode we did recently about last year--you know, we got some feedback where people were like, "Y'all were a little bit more cynical and doom and gloom than you usually manage," and it's true. And I try actually fairly hard with the show, because if you're completely doom and gloom all of the time, it's pretty natural to just shut down and eat cookies and wait for the end or whatever, right? And that's like, not what I want to promote. But on some level, I'm reaching the point where I'm like, "Yeah, no, this is. . . it's bad. The asteroid's right there. We can see it. It's coming. We need to act like that's happening, you know? And there's only so many times and ways you can say that. But the thing I.... Okay, one of the things I really like about what you brought up, is what that timeline does. In some ways it disrupts--including radical projects, right--like, one of my projects is social change and cultural change and one of my projects is to help people--and especially next generations of people--operate in a more egalitarian way, you know, in my mind a more anarchic way but whatever. I honestly don't give all that much of a shit about labels with this, you know? And that's like, a lot of my work, right? And then I'm like, I wonder how much that matters? You know, right now. And I wonder how much--and I think it does in kind of an.... I think this comes from the Quran, "If the world were ending tomorrow, I would plant a tree today." You know? I always saw it as like the cool activist slogan. And then eventually, it was like, "Oh, that, I think that's a Quranic slogan." And that's cool. And so as an anarchist that influences my thinking, right? About like,, okay, this slow cultural work has a point but isn't necessarily what we're going to do to save us--as much as "saving" happens. But it also really disrupts--and I think this is what you kind of mentioned--it's really interesting how much it disrupts the liberal perspective of this. And I remember having this conversation--I don't want to out this person as a liberal, [a person] that I love dearly [and is] an important part of my life, is very much a liberal--and when we're talking about, "Oh, I wish we would have a green New Deal, but it just, it won't happen. There's no way it'll get through Congress." And so at that, this person throws up their hands, they're like, "Well, what would save us is a green New Deal and it's not going to happen. So okay." And it's just, to me, it's like, well then what? You know? And you get into this place. And I think overall, I think anarchists and some other folks have been kind of aware of this for a while, where revolution is actually less of a long shot than electoral change on something that has a timeline, like mitigating the worst effects of climate change. And revolution is a shit fucking record, just an absolute garbage record. But it happens faster--but electoral change also as a garbage record and is slow as shit. **Dean ** 18:04 Yeah, and also, if everything's falling apart.... So like, I think that the systems that we live under, like the food system and the energy system in particular, are, you know, I think we saw this with COVID, the supply chains breaking down really quickly. Like the whole global supply chain is already like a shoe-strung, ramshackle, broken, messy, really violent thing and it falls apart--it's barely patched together--and it falls apart quickly when it's disrupted. And there's no reason to think we wouldn't have more pandemics soon. And there's no reason to think we won't have other major disasters, both resulting from political stuff and from ecological stuff and from economic access. So, if we know that the things we live under are falling apart, it's not like. . . It's like it's not even like a revolution like some people topple something. It's like things are just cracking, toppling unevenly across space and time across regions. And how do we want to be thinking about our lives? I like that you brought up that "YOLO," sharpens your own priorities, like who do I want to be near? What do I want? Who do I want to be with? How do I? What kind of person...skills would I like to have when that comes up? This relates to the kind of activist-prepper pipeline thing. Like, learning how to facilitate a meeting with a lot of people who are different from each other is really useful. Like my beloved, beloved, dear friend lived through Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. She lived in a really big apartment building that's part of a complex of two really big apartment buildings. And she was like, "The thing I really wish I'd known how to do would be to facilitate a great meeting for that many people--even if everyone didn't come." People were already supporting elders in the building, trying to help each other in every way possible, but she wished there had been big meetings to help facilitate that more. So those kinds of skills, knowing how to help people share stuff, knowing how to help deescalate conflict, knowing how to...what to do when intense men are trying to take things over, you know, and knowing how to organize around that. These are things that a lot of activists who are in any number of movements know how to do. So like knowing those skills and then also knowing it's going to actually be really...like it's going to be really local. There's going to be a level of just like, "Do people have stored water on my block? How much? What stored water do we have to share? If I get more people on my block to store more water now, then when the water stops flowing we'll have more water on the block." I think a lot about something you said in one of your episodes about how it's more important to have a tourniquet than a gun. Like just things that you can share. Partly, it's like, if more people are carrying tourniquets or Narcan or any of the things we know are about how I'm then a person who doesn't need that and I'm a person who could share it. So just that aspect of preparation, that's already what works. You know, we already live in a bunch of crises. Like, lots of our community members are in prison, people are living outside. Like, we live with so much crisis. We already kind of--if you're working on those things, you know a bit about what that's like, what you want to have in your bag, what kind of things would prepare you for the fight that's likely to break out or emotional crisis people are likely to be about to fall into or whatever. So I feel like that kind of thinking, it's like when we get to this level of awareness about the crises we live in and we're like, "It's not 2050. It's already happening/it's the next pandemic, which could be much a worse pandemic and start any day now. Or it's the next storm coming to where I live or fire or smoke," or whatever. Like when we accept that more, which is like this whole difficult process about accepting our own mortality, accepting that things change, accepting. . . ridding ourselves of like, nationalism that tells us the United States is forever and will always be like this, you know, all these illusions are like so deep in us, like when we do that, it just clarifies what this short, precious life is about. You know what I mean? It gives us a chance--and there's a lot of heartbreak. It's like, wow, I won't be with all the people I love who live all over the country or all over the world when this happens. I don't know when this is happening. I don't know how it's gonna unfold. There's so much powerlessness. And, what are the immediate things I want to do about appreciating my life right now and setting things up as to the extent that I can--I mean I can't prepare to prevent it--but I can be like, "Yeah, I'm gonna store some water," or "Yeah, I would rather live closer to this person," or whatever it is, you know? I feel like people deserve a chance to ask those questions of ourselves and then, politically, to stop doing tactics that are based on a lie, that things are going to stay this way forever or even for a while. Because that feels like. . . I'm like, I want to stop wasting our beloved, precious time, you know, on shit that's too. . . It's on a timeline that's not real. You know? **Margaret ** 22:45 I wonder if it's like. . .To me--I don't talk much about my romantic life on the podcast, but I'm polyamorous--and one of the things that distinguishes a partner versus a sweetie is that I make my life plans incorporating partners, you know? Not necessarily like, oh, we're gonna live together or whatever. But they're like, these are the people that I like, from a romantic point of view, and being like, I am going to make my decisions absolutely, including these people. It's like we need to date the apocalypse. We need to just accept that the apocalypse is our partner. Like, we need to make our decisions incorporating the uncertainty and. . . the uncertainty about what's to happen, and the likelihood that what is coming is very different than what is currently--or certainly than what was 10 years ago. I mean, even like. . . I don't know, talking to my friends who I've been friends with for 10-20 years, I'm like, we'll talk about 10 years ago and we'll be like, "That was a different world politically," right? It was just a completely fundamentally different world. And, you know, the future is going to be really different. And that is, you know.... For me, the biggest decision I made was around preparedness--and everyone has a different relationship with their families--I moved a lot closer to my family. I moved within one tank of gas to my family and back. And, you know, that is the single biggest step that I took in terms of my preparedness, and you know, that's far more important to me than the, probably, about nine months' worth of food, my basement. But, you know, I live in the mountains and have a lot of storage. **Dean ** 24:41 Yeah, I think there's a piece of this about getting to divest. Like, I mean, so much of what liberalism is and what nationalism is, is it tells us that if you're mad about what's happening, where you live, you should appeal to the people who govern you and you should further invest in their system and show up and participate in it. And maybe you should even run for office. It's all about going towards, because that thing is going to deliver you what you want or not depending on how well you appeal to it. And when we're like "That thing," you know, "first of all is rotten and is never going to deliver us anything but war and destruction and that's what it was made for. That's what it does." But also, like, even those of us who know that, even though those were like, "Yeah, I hate the United States. I'm not trying to improve it or fix it or make it into a wonderful.... Even those, we still, you know, we're still very invested. Like, you know, I have a really mainstream job or there's people I know, who want to own a home, all these things that we've been told will make us safe, it turns out they won't? It turns out already they didn't and haven't for lots of people for lots of reasons for lots of times, you know? See 2008 crash, see, you know, hurricanes did taking out all-Black property and displace Black people. All the things. All the uneven, horrible, terrible violences of Capitalism and crisis. But it's really a dead end. You know, when people ask me all the time about going to grad school and I'm like, "I don't know, do you want to spend the last--possibly the last-- few years of your life doing that? Will you enjoy it? Like will it let you do art and activism and whatever else you want or will it be a slog that you're just putting in this time because you think in 10 years, you'll have the job you want? In which case, no. Like for me that kind of invitation to divest from things that I don't really want or believe in any way or to really be like, ?Why am I saying yes to this? Why am I saying no to that?" is one of the liberating aspects of accepting how dire things are that I want people to get to have. Because it's about letting go of stuff that doesn't work and that was never going to work, but like really, really, really. . . Like the Green New Deal. Like if I dedicate my life to passing and Green New Deal and Medicare for all in this political climate with this time, like, it's not gonna happen, you know? And even I think many people who are liberals know that, but it's like, what would happen? Like, do I really? Do I want to produce my own abortion drugs and hormones for my community out of my basement? Do I want to. . . Like, what do I want to do that is immediate support to people I love and care about instead of deferred, you know, wellness, "hopefully,"--if we can convince elites? **Margaret ** 27:19 I like that idea. And I'm going to think about that more. I really liked the perspective of just specifically divesting, and I even. . . It's one of the things I sometimes try to convince the liberals in my life is that the way that incremental change happens isn't from people asking for incremental change, it happens when you're like, "Oh, we don't need you anymore. We've created our own thing," then the State is like, "Shit, shit, shit. No, we can do it too. We promise!" You know? And make them rush to catch up with us. And to compare it to something with my own life, when I when people ask for professional advice in a creative field, one of the reasons I like pushing DIY as a good intro--and even as someone who, you know, I do the show, which isn't quite DIY, it's collectively produced, but I'm one of the collective members, but started off DIY--and then I also have a corporate podcast, right, where, I get my salary from doing a podcast. And the way that you do things is you do things so well that the people who gatekeep look for you to invite you in, rather than going to them and begging for access. You declare that you're too cool to go to the club, and then the club asks you to come in, you know? And in order to do that, you have to genuinely be too cool for the club. But then sometimes when people give you salaries, it's fine and you can use it to fill your basement with food and give it to people and shit. And I think about that even with the Green New Deal stuff, it's like, well, that's not going to happen--probably at all--but it would need to be them co-opting a successfully organized wide-scale, decentralized movement, you know? **Dean ** 29:11 And the Green New Deal is like the prior New Deal, it's a deal to try to save Capitalism and extraction. It's very drastically inadequate for anything that would. . . I mean, so much of what's happened environmentally is not preventable at this point anyway, you know--in terms of what's already been set in motion--much less the idea that something. . . I mean, it's all based on the idea of maintaining a Capitalist job framework. I mean, it's just, it's really, really, really, really, really, really inadequate. And the United States is the world's biggest polluter ever and has. . . The US military is the most polluting thing ever for reasons. It's not just gonna be like, "Oh, you know what, those people those hippies were right, let's stop." You know what I mean? Like, the idea that our opponents are gonna just change their minds because we tell them enough. You know? It's just so. . . It's like, we've been told. . . And it's so like. . . We've just we've been given that message so relentlessly that if we're just loud enough, if there's just enough of us in the streets. And I think a lot of people saw Occupy and saw 2020 and see like, "Wow, this is so. . ." you know, Standing Rock, see these moments where people really, really show up and put everything on the line and are incredibly disruptive. And our opponents just right the ship and suggests that we don't live in a democracy--and we never have. They're not persuadable. Like, it's not going to happen through those kinds of frameworks. And yet, I think that the kind of like brainwashing or the fiction version of the Civil Rights Movement that we've been given is so powerful. Like people really are like, "If I go to a march then. . ." I guess one of my questions at this point in life, too, is how can we bring new people into our movement, because more more people are like unsatisfied, miserable, terrified for good reasons, wonderful mobilizable. How do we bring people in and have ways that we engage in action together that help people move towards a perspective that isn't liberal? So help people move away from love, just thinking they need to get their voice heard to like, "Oh, no, we actually have to materially create the things we want for each other." We have to directly attack our opponents' infrastructure. And we have to have solidarity with everybody else who's doing that instead of getting divided into good protesters and bad protestors, and all that stuff that you see happening, you know, every day. That to me, that question, like, what's the pedagogy. . . What's a pedagogical way of organizing that helps people move out of those assumptions, which are so powerful and are really in all of our heads. It's just a matter of degree. Like, I feel like it's a lifelong process of like trying to strip liberalism out of our hearts and minds, so to say. As they say. As liberals say.  **Margaret ** 31:55 I really liked that way of framing it. I think about how one of my friends always talks about the way to judge the success of actions--and I don't think that this is the only way. I think that sometimes, like "Did you accomplish your goals?" is a very good way. But I think that one of them is, "Does this tend to give the participants agency? Because I think that agency is--I mean, it's addictive--but it's in the same way that air and water are addictive, you know? The more you experience agency--and especially collectively produced agency--the more I think that people will tend to stay in the movement, even as their ability to express that agency, like even when the movement ebbs, right, people who learned. . . You know, there's this thing that I think about with 2020, and 2020 has been memory hold completely, but on some level, everyone in 2020 who had never before seen a cop car on fire or never before seen the police retreat, I remember really clearly the first time in my life I saw the police retreat, because it never seemed like it was a thing that could happen. I've been doing direct action protesting for like eight years before I saw that police retreat, because the way that US tactics tended to work in protest didn't tend to do things that made the police retreat. And that protest where I saw the police retreat, we did not win our strategic goals, right? But it's part of why I am still in this movement is because I can't forget that feeling. And so, yeah, I think that for we people are systematically stripped of agency, learning to invite people into space to collectively create agency is really important. But that said, I do think that actually--especially sort of anti-State leftism, which tends to be less structured, which I actually don't think is inherently a positive or negative thing about it--is that I think one of our biggest stumbling blocks is we're bad at bringing people in. **Dean ** 34:13 Yeah, the insularity of some of the more insurrectionary work is, I think that is exactly it. It's like yes, you can have your little cell that's going to go into an amazing sabotage action or an incredible, you know, deface something or, you know, make something about the more machinery of the prison system or something harder, but how do people join? How are people? And also how to take those steps from like, "Wait, I'm really mad at what's happening in Gaza," or  "I'm really pissed about what's happening with the environment," or "I'm really scared about how the police are," or whatever, to finding what's most available to find, which will often be organizations or groups that are doing a good job recruiting new people but maybe using not very bold tactics. How do we have those groups also be in better. . . You know, I was just reading Klee Benally's book and one of the things Klee talked about is de-siloing the above ground from the underground, like having there be more solidarity is something I've been very concerned about, especially since the recent indictment of the forest defenders and in Atlanta. How do we not have people be like, "Well, the ones who were just flyering are just good protesters, and the ones who, you know, did sabotage and lived in the forest are bad." How do we build such a strong solidarity muscle--which means we have to break ties with like the pacifism narrative--how to build the strong solidarity muscle so that people can get recruited into our movements wherever they get recruited, whatever interests them, whatever tactic they first stumble upon, and then can take bolder action and take more autonomous action, cause there's also kind of passivity in our culture. Like, wait for the experts to tell you. Wait for the people at the nonprofit to tell you. Wait for the group that organizes protests to tell you when to go home, instead of like, "What do me and my friends want to do? What do I want to do? Where it's my idea to go, go off and do something else that's potentially very disruptive to our opponents?" So how to have people get what you're calling agency, or what I might call a feeling of autonomous power and inventiveness and creativity and initiative that isn't just "I'm waiting to be called to come to the march once a year," or once a month, or whatever. But instead, like, "Yeah, I might go to that, and I also then met some people there, and they're going to do this wild thing, and I'm gonna do that," and then how good it feels the first few times you break the law with other people and don't get caught. Like having those joyful feelings--people talk about the joy of looting a lot and after 2020 there were a lot of great references to that--you know, those feelings of like, "Oh, my God, this entire system is fake. I can break the rules in here with others, and we can keep each other safe, maybe. And we can see that we don't have to abide by this rigid place we've been fixed," you know? All of that, I think does--like you were saying--it keeps people in the movement or it feeds us. Given how difficult. . . I mean, you know, it's not like anybody's doing something where they're like, "Yeah, this is totally working." So you need a lot of. . . You gotta get your morale from some kind of collaborative moments of pleasure and of disobedience that can like. . . You know, including hating our opponents and hating what they're doing to all life, you know? **Margaret ** 37:22 I really like the way that you talk about these things. I'm really. . . There's like, so much more I'm gonna like to keep thinking about as I go through this, but one of the things that makes me think of is, you know, what does it take to take ourselves seriously, right, as a political force? I think that there's this. . . Either, some people take themselves too seriously, but are not actually providing any real threat. Right? I would say that the sort of--don't get me wrong, I've worked for nonprofits before and I don't think nonprofits are actually inherently bad--but like the nonprofit, activisty, professional activism world, right, will often take themselves very seriously, but not present any fundamental threat or accomplish systemic change. And some of the people who actually do present a real threat, don't take themselves seriously. They're like, "Oh, we're just kids acting out," kind of attitude. You know, I mean, like, well you're 30, what are you doing? You know and they're like, "We're kids acting out," and like I'm like, okay, whatever you can, you can call yourself kids as long as you want. I remember one time I was hitchhiking when I was 26 and I was like, "Oh, yeah, we use the word 'kids' instead of like, the word 'punks.'" You know? It's like, "I'm gonna meet up with these other kids." And the woman who gave me a ride hitchhiking was like, "You're an adult." And I was really offended. I was like...I'm an adult, that's true. **Dean ** 38:36 I'm not a square. I'm not a square.  **Margaret ** 38:38 Exactly. And one of the things that I think about, I remember. . . Okay, there's two stories about it. One was I was I was in Greece 10 years ago or 12 years ago, shortly after a lot of the uprisings that were happening in Greece, and after that kid, Alex, I believe his name was was. . . a like 16 year old anarchists kid was killed by the police, and then half the nation, you know, rioted around it. And I remember talking to this older anarchist about it, and he was saying that there were people who did studies and they were saying that the average person in Greece basically believed that the police and the anarchists were equally legitimate social forces. Like not like each. . . I think some people were not even like they're both. . .they're all the same. We hate them both. But instead, people being like, "Oh, well, the anarchists, that's a perfectly legitimate thing that these people are trying to do, right, as a legitimate social force. And usually when people use the word "legitimacy" they mean squareness and operating within the system, and I'm not trying to use it that way. I haven't come up with a better word for this. But I think about that a lot. And then because of the history research I do, I, you know, spent a lot of time reading about the Easter Rising in the early Irish Revolutionary Movement. And, you know, I haven't gotten to read Klee Benally's book yet. I got to start it. Someone had a copy of it. But it was sold out for obvious reasons. Although, by the time you all are listening to this Klee Benally's book, which is--what's it called? Sorry.  **Dean ** 40:16 "No Spiritual Surrender"  **Margaret ** 40:17 "No Spiritual Surrender" should be back in print from Detritus books. And anyone who's listening, we talked about it before, but Klee Benally was a indigenous anarchist who recently died and had been doing movement work for a very long time. Might have actually hated the word "movement work," I'm not entirely certain. But, you know, the de-siloing of the above ground and the underground, I think that the more successful movements do that. And I think that, you know, the Easter Rising, one of the things that was really interesting about this thing in 1916, or whatever--you can listen to me talk about for literally, four hours if you want because it's a four part episode--but one of the things that happened with it, that I didn't realize, it gets presented most of the time in history as like, "Oh, well, there was a big. . . Everyone agreed that we should have this revolution." That is absolutely not the case. Absolutely the--I think it was called Redmond-ism, or something. There was like a guy and he was basically the liberal-centrist and vaguely wanted some a little bit of more freedom from England. And that was absolutely the political position of the average person in Ireland at that time. And then these crazy radicals, some of them nationalists and some of them socialists and some of them complicated other things, threw an uprising. And they threw that uprising, and it just fundamentally changed. . . That political position, that centrist position ceased to exist almost overnight. And I'm not suggesting that that is the way it will always work. But there is a way in which you say, "We are not embarrassed. . ." like sometimes you have to do things underground because you don't want to get caught, right? But instead of being like, "Oh, well, I know this is unpopular," instead being like "I'm doing this, and it should be popular, because that makes so much sense." You know, and I actually think that the Atlanta folks in the US are some of the people who have been doing the most work about doing above ground and underground work in a movement that is like. . . These are all the same movements. Sorry, that was a long rant. **Dean ** 42:24 I thought it was great. It made me think about how--and I really will listen to those episodes. I love that you're doing history. It made me think about how sometimes I feel tension--I'm going to be overly simplistic right now--but between the parts of. . . In all the movements I'm in, there's a part that's more nonprofitized, and where people, I think, don't know whether they're interested in taking over the State or not, but because they are not sure and I'm not thought about anti-State politics there, they tend to actually accidentally be statist or some of them are more explicitly really trying take over the State or believe in that fantasy. And so that set of people, when you when you have a belief like that shaping what you're going to do and you imagine yourself and you're like "We're going to run the FDA, or we're going to run. . ." you know, when you imagine the scale of the nation and then you think about your people trying to get it, even though you know your people have never had it and aren't anywhere near getting it, and maybe want to get rid of some parts of it altogether. Like maybe you want to get rid of the Border, get rid of the cops or something, that is not a non-humble framing. And it often includes a distrust of ordinary people and a sense that they still need to be managed. And those I think are like subtextual beliefs inside the work that is often happening at the more legitimized nonprofit side of our movements. And then more scrappy, you know, sometimes anarchist or less institutionalized parts of our movements are often much more humble. Like, could we stop one of these sweeps? Could we feed a hundred people in the park tonight? Could we. . . They're very like, it has less of a like, "We're going to take over and make a utopia out of this whole joint," which I think is a very unrealistic and also dangerous framework for a number of reasons, including to look at who else has tried that, you know? I think the idea of running other people in that massive way is just very dangerous and leads to different kinds of authoritarianism, honestly. But also, I think, for me, what happens when I really take into account the crises we're living in and that are mounting and the unknown intense kinds of collapse that are coming soon, it really points me to that kind of humility. Like what's doable here and now with what's going on now? And what would I do if that were my focus? And it really leads to things like direct attacks, like sabotaging, like direct attacks on our opponents, like making their jobs harder. It leads to immediate mutual aid efforts to support people's well being and preparation for things we know are about to happen. Like, what would make this less dangerous when this thing is about to happen? Like, that's the stuff. Yes, it makes sense to just have masks now because more pandemics are coming, and the current one is so bad. You know, it makes sense to have certain things around or it makes sense to build certain skills and not to be overwhelmed. I think some people get really overwhelmed by the idea of, "Oh my God, I'm such a turn my whole life around, become a hunter, become someone who can farm tons of food," I know that's not gonna happen for me. I'm not going to become an expert farmer and hunter. I'm not going to have the skills of somebody from the 1800s in the next few years. It's not what I built my life to do. My body wouldn't be good at it. But what is within reach that's. . . How does it reorient me towards these very humble things that are both humble and that have a little more faith in other people? Like a little more faith that if we stored more water on my block--I don't need everyone on my block to become interested in this--but if a few more people in my neighborhood were interested in this, we could store some more water. And if it feels. . . I just need to find some people who are interested. I don't need to have every single person be interested. And I don't need to convince everyone this is happening. But I also shouldn't just do it by myself. Like somewhere in the middle. And this relates also to the pipeline question, like why are people who've been involved in organizing and activism often good at prep? One of the things is like--as I think your podcast does a great job showing--prep should be collective and not individualist. It shouldn't be about "How can I have the biggest gun to protect my horde?" And instead, it's like, how do I care about people even if I don't like them. And that is something that our movements are about. It's like, how do I care about people, even if they're annoying, even if they don't speak all the same kinds of terms, even if they don't have my exact identities? How do I care about people because they're around me and they're thirsty? And that skill, that's also going to be about "Who do I want to be in the end times?" Like, I'm living through a very, very hard time in human history, what kind of person do I want to be? I hope I'm generous. I hope I'm thoughtful. I hope I am oriented towards attacking things that hurt life and caring for life. And it's not easy to do those things in this society. And so what would I want to change about what I've learned and what I know how to do to get a little closer to that. I'm going to die either way. Like we're all gonna die even if we're totally wrong and there's no collapse and everything's great. We're all going to. So these questions aren't bad to ask even if things turn out totally fine.  **Margaret ** 47:28 No, I, I really liked this, this way of framing it. And it is. . . One of the things I've been thinking about a lot lately is I've been thinking about my own cynicism. And I don't feel like. . . I feel like misanthropy is not the right word, because everyone I know who's like a misanthrope is kind of an asshole about it. You know? But it's like, once you realize that everyone is disappointing, you no longer have to judge the disappointing people as much, because then you realize that you're disappointing, right? You know? And I'm like, "Oh, everyone kind of sucks." And then you're like, "That includes me. I'm not better than everyone else. So now I should look after these people who kind of suck." And like, all of a sudden, I no longer have this thing where I'm like, oh, queers or anarchists or queer anarchists are the enlightened people and all the cis people are terrible and all the straight people are terrible. And I'm like, look, there are systems that privilege people of certain identities over certain other identities, right? But there's nothing about being a lady who likes other ladies that makes me a better person than someone else, you know? And like, and so then I'm like, okay, well now I care about everyone because I dislike everybody. This is not what I actually advocate for other people to do. But this is kind of where I'm at a little bit personally. I really like this idea of pointing out how we care about people that we don't necessarily like? And this is the thing that's always felt strongly about communities. Community is the people who you're doing a thing with or like to live near or, you know, whatever, rather than the people where you all agree about the current way to define the following word. And that said, I mean, there's people who are like, "Well I might live near them, but they're a racist who wants to hurt my friends." You know? But then again, I've also seen people--I know it's controversial--but I've seen the people do the work of be like, "Hey, white person to white person, don't be such a fucking racist. What the fuck is wrong with you?" And I've seen that work. Or, I've been part of a queer land project in a rural area where the neighbor starts off a little bit like, "What? What's a pronoun?" you know? And then it's like, "I don't really get it, but you can use my tractor."  And I'm like, "Great!" Now we're on the same side in terms of certain important decisions, like should we all starve to death when the food system collapses.  **Dean ** 50:00 And safety can include--I think we see this a lot with people who've been working around domestic violence and intimate violence in our communities--where you're like, "Yeah, there's a guy who lives down the block and he has a lot of guns and he's really, really reactive and he's someone we all need to be aware of." It's like not everyone is gonna move towards us. And so preparedness can also be about how we are currently supporting anybody who's living with him? And how are we preparing to support us all in regard to him if that need be? Like that kind of just frankness, you know? Like just being clear with ourselves about. . . But that's different. I do think that one of the downsides of social media has been--for me--like doing activism for many years before it started and then how it exists now, because it gives us a feeling that we could reach anyone--which of course, isn't true. Most of us just reach people that are in our own little silos or a lot of nobody looks at it at all. It's like there's a fantasy that I could find my real people and I could have a real set of people who really understand me as opposed to just these jokers I've been stuck with on this block or in this school or in this job or whatever and actually who we are stuck with. That fantasy that we have. . . It's true that it's beautiful when we find people to share ideas with and that some of that happens over the internet, and I love all that. But ultimately, nobody gets to live in a little world of people who perfectly understand them. And when you think you've found those people and then you actually hang out with them, it always ends up that there's actually tons of still intragroup differences and struggles and patterns. And so moving away from hoping to find the right people or climb to the right space where people will be truly radical--not that we don't stop looking for our people everywhere--but also just be like, "Well, who's here now? And what would it be like to learn how to care for those people? And also protect myself from them--to the extent that I need to.  And also try to make them more into what I want by showing them the cool ideas and hoping they come along?" You know, all of that, but not being in a fantasy that if I could just get these other people, then I would be happy. Like, that's Capitalism just telling us to claim everything, you know? **Margaret ** 52:00 I like that sometimes you'll say the thing and I'm like, "No, I just agree with you. That makes a lot of sense. And I got to think about that." And like, I like it. Okay, I've got kind of a final question, I think. . .  **Bursts ** 52:15 [Interrupting] But oh dear listeners, it was far from her last question. Stay tuned for the hair-raising conclusion of Mutual Aid with Dean Spade next week, on Live Like the World is Dying. **Margaret ** 52:40 Thank you so much for listening. If you enjoyed this episode, you should tell people about it. And all of the things that I always tell you to do, like hack the algorithms by leaving me. . . I hate anything that I say that involves me making that voice. I'm terribly sorry. I will never do it again. However, leaving reviews does tell machines to tell other people's machines to listen to this. And that has some positive impact on the world that is falling apart. And I need to tell you that that's what I do all day, is I tell you about the world falling apart. But you can support us as we try to alleviate it. We are saving the world, and if you don't support us, it is your fault when people will die. That's what I'm trying to say. That's "not" what I'm trying to say. Put your money towards whatever you think is best. If what you think is best is putting it towards Strangers in a Tangled Wilderness so we can continue to produce this podcast, pay for our audio editor, pay a transcriptionist, and one day pay the hosts, then you can support us on Patreon at patreon.com/strangersinatangledwilderness. That supports all of our shows and all of our different projects. And in particular, we want to thank Amber, Ephemeral, Appalachian Liberation Library, Portland's Hedron Hackerspace, Boldfield, E, Patolli, Eric, Buck, Julia, Catgut Marm, Carson, Lord Harken, Trixter, Princess Miranda, Ben Ben, anonymous, Funder, Janice & Odell, Aly, paparouna, Milica, Boise Mutual Aid, theo Hunter, SJ, Paige, Nicole, David. Dana, Chelsea, Staro, Jenipher, Kirk, Chris, Mic Aiah, and Hoss the Dog. Alright. That's it. I'm done recording. I'm gonna go play with my dog and I hope that you can do whatever makes you happy between now and the end of all things which might be a long time from now. Maybe. Talk to you soon. Find out more at https://live-like-the-world-is-dying.pinecast.co

From the very earliest days of the epidemic, women got infected with HIV and died from AIDS — just like men. But from the earliest days, this undeniable fact was largely ignored — by the public, the government and even the medical establishment. The consequences of this blindspot were profound. Many women didn't know they could get HIV. But in the late 1980s, something remarkable happened. At a maximum security prison in upstate New York, a group of women came together to fight the terror and stigma that was swirling in the prison as more and more women got sick with HIV and AIDS. Katrina Haslip was one of them. An observant Muslim and former sex worker, she helped found and create AIDS Counseling and Education (ACE), one of the country's first HIV and AIDS organizations for women. And when she got out of prison, she kept up the work: she joined forces with women activists on the outside to be seen, heard and treated with dignity. This is her story — and the story of scores of women like her who fought to change the very definition of AIDS. This episode title comes from a Gran Fury poster. Gran Fury was an artist collective that worked in collaboration with ACT UP and created public art in response to the HIV and AIDS epidemic. Resources: "The Invisible Epidemic: The Story of Women And AIDS" by Gena Corea. Listen to more episodes and subscribe to Blindspot here. Do you have a relationship with this history? Share it with Kai at 844-745-8255. Then, on February 25th from 6-8pm EST, join Kai for a two-hour special on the early days of the AIDS epidemic on Notes From America – we'll share some of your stories and take calls live. Listen on your local public radio station or stream the show at www.wnyc.org. Blindspot is a co-production of The HISTORY® Channel and WNYC Studios, in collaboration with The Nation Magazine. Tell us what you think. Email us at notes@wnyc.org. Send us a voice message by recording yourself on your phone and emailing us, or record one here. We're also on Instagram and X (Twitter) @noteswithkai.

From the very earliest days of the epidemic, women got infected with HIV and died from AIDS — just like men. But from the earliest days, this undeniable fact was largely ignored — by the public, the government and even the medical establishment. The consequences of this blindspot were profound. Many women didn't know they could get HIV.But in the late 1980s, something remarkable happened. At a maximum security prison in upstate New York, a group of women came together to fight the terror and stigma that was swirling in the prison as more and more women got sick with HIV and AIDS. Katrina Haslip was one of them. An observant Muslim and former sex worker, she helped found and create AIDS Counseling and Education (ACE), one of the country's first HIV and AIDS organizations for women. And when she got out of prison, she kept up the work: she joined forces with women activists on the outside to be seen, heard and treated with dignity. This is her story — and the story of scores of women like her who fought to change the very definition of AIDS.Voices in this episode include:• Katrina Haslip was an AIDS activist who was born in Niagara Falls, New York. She spent five years at the Bedford Hills Correctional Center, during which time she served as a prison law librarian and helped found the organization AIDS Counseling and Education (ACE). After her release in 1990, she continued her advocacy through ACE-Out, an organization she formed to support women leaving prison, as well as ACT UP and other organizations.• Judith Clark spent 37 years in prison for her role in the October 1981 Brink's robbery. In prison, she helped found AIDS Counseling and Education (ACE), along with other programs to support and counsel women. Since her release in 2019, she has continued to work on behalf of incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women.• Maxine Wolfe was a member of the women's committee of ACT UP. Wolfe is an American author, scholar and activist for AIDS, civil rights, lesbian rights and reproductive rights. She is a co-founder of the Lesbian Avengers, a coordinator at the Lesbian Herstory Archives, and a member of Queer Nation. Wolfe is currently professor emerita of women's and gender studies at the Graduate Center, CUNY.• Terry McGovern is a lawyer and senior associate dean for academic and student affairs in the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy. In 1989, McGovern founded the HIV Law Project and served as the executive director until 1999. Her successful lawsuit against the Social Security Administration enabled scores of women with AIDS to receive government benefits.• Dr. Kathy Anastos is a professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Anastos's work advances HIV and AIDS research and treatment, both globally and in the Bronx. She has been the principal investigator of the New York City/Bronx Consortium of the Women's Interagency HIV Study (WIHS) since it was launched in 1993.This episode title comes from a Gran Fury poster. Gran Fury was an artist collective that worked in collaboration with ACT UP and created public art in response to the HIV and AIDS epidemic.Resources: "The Invisible Epidemic: The Story of Women And AIDS" by Gena Corea.Blindspot is a co-production of The HISTORY® Channel and WNYC Studios, in collaboration with The Nation Magazine.A companion photography exhibit by Kia LaBeija featuring portraits from the series is on view through March 11 at The Greene Space at WNYC. The photography for Blindspot was supported by a grant from the Economic Hardship Reporting Project, a nonprofit organization that promotes coverage of social inequality and economic justice.