So Again, Why Is The US Deep State Funding Chinese Development Of Superbugs?

Kurt Vonnegut's 1968 short story "Welcome to the Monkey House" depicts a dystopian future in which the world government runs ethical suicide parlors to control overpopulation. The idea of mass euthanasia as social policy began around the turn of the 20th century in the eugenics movement. It had a thorough beta test under the German National Socialist regime, with results many felt were a failure, but it has never quite fully disappeared from the overall conversation.

Nor have neo-Nazi wackos been its chief proponents. The idea of population reduction -- and we're talking reduction, not just stabilization -- has been present in the environmental movement from the start. The problem is that when environmentalists start seriously projecting what's needed to achieve things like carbon goals, they begin to realize that electric cars and synthetic beef just aren't going to be enough to do the necessary job. Even if you get rid of all the cars and all the farting cattle, human beings alone, in the numbers in which they now exist, emit too much CO2 just by breathing. For instance,

The largest single threat to the ecology and biodiversity of the planet in the decades to come will be global climate disruption due to the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. People around the world are beginning to address the problem by reducing their carbon footprint through less consumption and better technology. But unsustainable human population growth can overwhelm those efforts, leading us to conclude that we not only need smaller footprints, but fewer feet.

Portland, Oregon, for example, decreased its combined per-capita residential energy and car driving carbon footprint by 5 percent between 2000 and 2005. During this same period, however, its population grew by 8 percent.

Or, from an environmental group called Population Matters,

The effects of global warming are already bringing harm to human communities and the natural world. Further temperature rises will have a devastating impact and more action on greenhouse gas emissions is urgently required. Population and climate change are inextricably linked. Every additional person increases carbon emissions — the rich far more than the poor — and increases the number of climate change victims – the poor far more than the rich.

. . . We are currently adding more than 80 million people a year to our global population. The UN projects that without further action to address population growth, there will be two billion more people by 2050, and three-and-a-half billion more by 2100.

The piece then quotes from something called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018:

"All options need to be exercised... We can make choices about how much of each option we use... but the idea you can leave anything out is impossible."

So, just what option are we "leaving out"? They never quite say. But so far, neither Planned Parenthood nor even the Chinese one-child policy has had the effect these folks have in mind. This body of opinion has been recognized for what it is:

There is a single ideological current running through a seemingly disparate collection of noxious modern political and scientific movements, ranging from militarism, imperialism, racism, xenophobia, and radical environmentalism, to socialism, Nazism, and totalitarian communism. This is the ideology of antihumanism: the belief that the human race is a horde of vermin whose unconstrained aspirations and appetites endanger the natural order, and that tyrannical measures are necessary to constrain humanity.

We can't say with any certainty who among the environmental or public health establishments ascribes to these views, but on one hand, they aren't limited to redneck Nazi cells, and this sort of thing has also, since the start of the eugenics movement, been part of the elitist mindset. Do Fauci, Collins, and other deep-staters who've laundered hundreds of millions through EcoHealth Alliance to Chinese virus labs want population reduction? We don't know. We really ought to try to find out.

It seems to me that if population reduction advocates are serious -- and they certainly sound that way -- they're in fact aware that the existing respectable measures for population control have proven ineffective. They must certainly be at least spitballing other options. Unfortunately, these pretty much all involve some way of getting many millions, or even billions, of people off the planet. Zyklon B was tried in the 1940s beta, but even 6-12 million bodies proved too great a relocation and disposal problem, not to mention the public relations issues, and even that number would not address current population optimization needs.

Nor, we can be pretty certain, would ethical suicide parlors. People aren't going to line up to get the problem solved themselves.

So, what about a really good killer virus? If you do it right, the people who get the program going won't be identified, and it'll just be written off as an unfortunate natural disaster like the Black Death. And also, if you do it right, the people who get to survive will have the vaccine before the virus is unleashed. I'm not saying this is the only explanation, but it is in fact one that fits. And even Vanity Fair is implying that hinky stuff is about to come out in the Gates divorce:

Gates has embarked on a 20-year public relations effort to frame himself as a good-guy geek deeply excited by new technologies and leading the effort to fix the ills of the world. He’s given away billions to fight malaria, climate change, world hunger. He led the effort to warn of a potential global pandemic (back in 2015, Gates famously said a pandemic was imminent and could lead to the deaths of more than 30 million people), and then, when his vision became reality and COVID-19 obliterated the global economy and killed millions, there he was at the forefront of vaccine research efforts.

Right. How come nobody trusts the guy? He's willing to go public with saying we need to get used to the taste of synthetic beef (though nobody thinks he'll ever eat a bit of it) -- what is he not willing to say in public? For that matter, we learn from Fauci's e-mails that he and Mark Zuckerberg are on a first-name basis, but what they talk about has to be redacted. Why?

I'm not sure we have a whole lot to fear even if deep-staters are colluding with megabillionaires to save the world by killing most of the human race, even though I think there's a good chance that some of these guys actually believe this. The level of incompetence displayed by the credentialed elites in the COVID episode, top to bottom, start to finish, suggests that at least what these people envision can't come to pass.

But they still have the potential to do lots of damage, and we really need to find out what's been going on behind the scenes, because something certainly has.