Project for a New American Century - Rebuilding America’s Defenses, Sept. 2000.
One of the blueprints for the moral disarmament of America, and some thoughts about moral rearmament.
Spartacus has an amazing essay out today. Please read it or listen to the audio version.
The last couple of days I’ve been involved in an email discussion about dual-use research of concern (DURC) on chemical and biological weapons and how to approach the issue through evidence compilations (including evidence of the perpetrators’ intent), plaintiff/victim support and litigation.
Dual-use is another word for Gain of Function (GoF) research.
World Health Organization defines it as “research that is intended to provide a clear benefit, but which could easily be misapplied to do harm. It usually refers to work in the life sciences, but the principles are also applicable to other fields including engineering and information technology. It encompasses everything from information to specific products that have the potential to create negative consequences for health and safety, agriculture, the environment or national security.”
National Institutes of Health defines it as “life sciences research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with broad potential consequences to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, materiel, or national security.”
International law expert Francis A. Boyle wrote the Biological Weapons Antiterrorism Act, passed by Congress in 1990 to implement the 1975 UN convention prohibiting biological weapons and toxins.
In the wake of the anthrax attacks on Congress in October 2001, Boyle issue a Call for a Ban on the Genetic Alteration of Pathogens for Destructive Purposes.
He argued that “the line between offense and defense” in the context of genetic modification of biological agents for military purposes is “thin to non-existent,” and that “there should be no loopholes for ‘defense.’” (Biowarfare and Terrorism, Sept. 2005)
Notwithstanding the moratorium and policy guidance, US-funded dual-use research is what EcoHealth Alliance and NIAID, DARPA and BARDA, BMGF and CEPI, and many other public and private organizations, have been up to at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and other research sites around the world, for many decades.
In the wake of Covid-19, Professor Boyle has called for closure of every Biosafety Level 3 and Biosafety Level 4 laboratory in the world. (World Politics, Human Rights and International Law, Feb. 2021)
One piece of the email discussion is about how to organize information about dual-use research to mobilize federal prosecutors to investigate Covid-19 programs and criminally charge people who have engaged in prohibited, offensive research, manufacture and use of genetically-modified and genetically-modifying pathogens and toxins, while leaving room for research activities, products and uses classified as defensive or prophylactic.
In line with Dr. Boyle’s reasoning, and Spartacus too, I think it’s better to make the argument that there’s no such thing as dual-use or defensive chemical and biological weapons.
All bioweapons are intrinsically and inescapably offensive and blowback-prone, because they transmit from one living organism to another.
In fact, the increase of transmissibility — the furin cleavage site in the spike protein and other features of SARS-CoV-2 — is one of the primary goals of bio-weapon development. The existence of the furin cleavage site is one of the key markers supporting the conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 didn’t enter the human experience by accident.
I want to help move forward civil litigation and criminal prosecutions to hold the perpetrators legally accountable for the acts of chemical and biological terrorism they have already committed (Fauci, Baric, Daszak, Shi, Azar, Becerra, Gruber, Austin, etc.) or authorized and funded (US Congress members and presidents).
And I want to support political efforts to shut down the US-led global biochemical weapons laboratories, destroy the stockpiles, free Congress and the federal courts from the globalist hostage-takers, and repeal the enabling statutes and regulations.
That’s why I’m trying to piece together the legislative and regulatory history from the original 1969 Armed Forces Appropriations Act, whose Section 409 set in motion the Big Dual-Use Lie and created the legal Petri dish in which it’s metastized, to the Global Health Security Act in the pending 2023 National Defense Authorization Act.
This approach rests on the conviction that unilateral disarmament by the US government — including complete withdrawal of funding for so-called civilian bio-defense programs housed at universities and non-governmental organizations around the world — is the right thing to do.
Unilateral physical disarmament and funding withdrawals would push back against the moral disarmament we’ve endured for so many generations now.
It allows us to take and hold the moral high-ground position that weapons of mass destruction, surveillance and control are inherently wrong.
They are irredeemably offensive.
They are irreconcilably at odds with just-war principles of self-defense.
Unilateral disarmament as official American geopolitical strategy would challenge the long-ascendant strategic posture advocated by Jacob Rothschild, George Soros, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Samantha Power and the other poster-boys and poster-girls of the Project for the New American Century.
They’ve articulated it many times, including through a report called Rebuilding America’s Defenses, published in 2000, which should more accurately be titled Doubling Down on the American Government’s Offenses.
The PNAC position is often attributed to neo-conservative Republicans but has been pursued and implemented just as forcefully by neo-liberal Democrats in Congress, the Presidency and the federal courts.
Its proponents have successfully cornered the United States government into governing as if America can and should amass more armaments and commit preemptive, first-strike aggression against other countries — exemplified by the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 — because other agents will develop and use such weapons and first-strike principles whether the US does or not.
It’s mutually-assured destruction taken to the next logical steps.
Excerpt from Rebuilding America’s Defenses:
…Although it may take several decades for the process of transformation to unfold, in time, the art of warfare on air, land, and sea will be vastly different than it is today, and “combat” likely will take place in new dimensions: in space, “cyber-space,” and perhaps the world of microbes.
Air warfare may no longer be fought by pilots manning tactical fighter aircraft sweeping the skies of opposing fighters, but a regime dominated by long-range, stealthy unmanned craft. On land, the clash of massive, combined-arms armored forces may be replaced by the dashes of much lighter, stealthier and information-intensive forces, augmented by fleets of robots, some small enough to fit in soldiers’ pockets. Control of the sea could be largely determined not by fleets of surface combatants and aircraft carriers, but from land- and space-based systems, forcing navies to maneuver and fight underwater. Space itself will become a theater of war, as nations gain access to space capabilities and come to rely on them; further, the distinction between military and commercial space systems – combatants and noncombatants – will become blurred.
Information systems will become an important focus of attack, particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated American forces.
And advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.
It’s such a tidy elision, and illuminates so brightly the dual-use dilemma for state sponsors.
Biological warfare as terrorism: “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life…intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping…”
Biological warfare as “a politically useful tool.”
The transformation of the former into the latter, through the merger of the global police surveillance state with the global pandemic population control levers.
It’s true enough that the world is chock full of bad actors. America doesn’t have a monopoly on evil leadership, although our country has in recent centuries had a bigger war-chest of money to spend on setting evil programs in motion.
Unilateral American disarmament is likely to come across to most people as naive, stupid and humiliating.
It’s the direction I’ll advocate anyway, because we now understand — thanks to Covid-era revelations — much more than we ever did before about globalist means, motives and opportunities.
We now know that our enemies are targeting not just human bodies and geographic territory but human souls and our ability to freely consent, with intellect and will, to participate in God’s grace.
We’re losing the war to the extent we each endorse the American government’s Evil-First-Evil-Hardest policies, as exposed by Covid-19.
We’re winning the war to the extent we each denounce evil and lies every time and every place they’re proffered to us.
Physical vulnerability merged with moral strength: the dual use weapon of mass creation God gave humanity.
Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis, 1942
Demon Uncle Screwtape, writing to his nephew Wormwood, about how best to manipulate Wormwood’s human ‘patient’ to willfully move his soul away from the Enemy — Screwtape’s term for God — and toward eternal damnation.
…Cowardice, alone of all the vices, is purely painful - horrible to anticipate, horrible to feel, horrible to remember; Hatred has its pleasures. It is therefore often the compensation by which a frightened man reimburses himself for the miseries of Fear. The more he fears, the more he will hate. And Hatred is also a great anodyne for shame. To make a deep wound in his charity, you should therefore first defeat his courage.
Now this is a ticklish business. We have made men proud of most vices, but not of cowardice. Whenever we have almost succeeded in doing so, the Enemy permits a war or an earthquake or some other calamity, and at once courage becomes so obviously lovely and important even in human eyes that all our work is undone, and there is still at least one vice of which they feel genuine shame. The danger of inducing cowardice in our patients, therefore, is lest we produce real self-knowledge and self-loathing with consequent repentance and humility.
And in fact, in the last war, thousands of humans, by discovering their own cowardice, discovered the whole moral world for the first time. In peace we can make many of them ignore good and evil entirely; in danger, the issue is forced upon them in a guise to which even we cannot blind them. There is here a cruel dilemma before us. If we promoted justice and charity among men, we should be playing directly into the Enemy's hands; but if we guide them to the opposite behaviour, this sooner or later produces (for He permits it to produce) a war or a revolution, and the undisguisable issue of cowardice or courage awakes thousands of men from moral stupor.
This, indeed, is probably one of the Enemy's motives for creating a dangerous world — a world in which moral issues really come to the point. He sees as well as you do that courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means, at the point of highest reality. A chastity or honesty, or mercy, which yields to danger will be chaste or honest or merciful only on conditions.
Pilate was merciful till it became risky…