Biological weapons of mass destruction
No one knows or is willing to identify those nations or people the biolabs in Ukraine, China, and other nations serve. We know, though, that many would be illegal in the United States, forcing their supporters to place them outside our borders. That many are illegal was because they were either morally evil or were a threat to the human race, by accident or design. Was it not best, then, for everyone to avoid such research altogether? Given that some segment of our elites both in and out of government have supported this work overseas, it is incumbent upon thoughtful people to ask why this is the case. What makes them so important?
In an information vacuum, we can only speculate as to why these biolabs exist. However, some people might call intelligent forms of speculation "deduction." Let's begin by saying that, when the government spends money, it does not happen by mistake. Somebody wants the product government is paying for.
Many people in America are uncomfortably aware that those who run our government are not their friends. That understanding is the reason Trump is so popular with some and, at the same time, so unpopular with others.
Trump policy, at its heart, says small government better suits the general population's needs. So opposition to Trump is really a self-protective act by those who depend upon the government for their salaries and pensions; for their comfort and influence; and, in short, for their power. This means the professional government is not responsive to the people's need for a smaller bureaucratic footprint in our lives. With the probable manipulation of elections, the winners in these contests also do not have to be responsive to the masses. Government "of the people" has turned into "government in opposition to the people."
Given this understanding of government hostility to the general population, we may now go farther in understanding the purposes behind these mysterious biolabs. The way in which the government manipulated people during the COVID-19 pandemic may also give us some insight into the reasons biolabs exist
The most telling event of the entire COVID crisis, in my humble opinion, was forbidding the off-label use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. The only proper conclusion from this rule is that government policy did not have as its goal preserving life and the quality of life. No other set of drugs has ever been banned from off-label use in this way.
Image: Laboratory by freepik.
So, what we had was, most probably, a designer organism that had been produced by a foreign country under the partial tutelage of the United States, that killed and maimed people, that resulted in a massive increase in the power of our government and governments in general.
What Victoria Nuland's testimony and other publicly available information show is that we have outside U.S. borders research facilities that are producing or "safeguarding" organisms that can destroy mankind, although they are described as being engaged in finding cures — that is, tools to upgrade our ability to respond to their threats.
However, the kicker here is that leaving the cures in the hands of a government that has already abused its citizenry by withholding useful drugs would seem to be the wrong strategy. Why exactly would that be a good idea? If our government restricted access to ivermectin, there is now no reason to presume it would not do the same for cures to another weaponized organism. Anyone who held the view that there are too many people in the world would be glad to participate in such a project.
Our government should be encouraged by whatever means necessary to completely divest itself of these bioweapons. It would be best for everyone if our government were not in control of both the weapons and the cures. In that way, we will all be in the same boat should some organism be released in the future. As matters now stand, whoever runs the government in the future will determine how these weapons and cures might be used but, of course, we cannot foresee who our leaders will be.
Nuclear arms, if deployed, would simultaneously affect all of mankind one way or the other, so all admit they are weapons of last resort. Bioweapons, though, will be far more selective because cures will be available to those who "deserve" them. Seen from this perspective, it is the cure that is the weapon. The job of identifying those who "deserve" cures will go to people who have no inherent right to decide anything except when they eat and go to the bathroom. They are neither gods nor kings, but they have already behaved as though they were. Lord, save us!