Intelligent Design

What is Unthinkable for Some, is very Thinkable for Others

Spread the love

There is an Internet meme going around concerning a statement attributed to Trey Gowdy. In the statement the following question is asked: Is it a mere coincidence that China unleashed the corona virus on the world just before the U.S. presidential election, especially in light of the fact that we are in a global trade war with China brought on by Trump?

The obvious rejoinder to that question is the Chinese people have suffered as much, if not more, than anyone else. How could a government intentionally unleash a virus that was sure to wreak such havoc on its own people?

In answering that question, take this into account: Xi stands in direct linear succession to Mao. Mao once said this:

We shouldn’t be afraid of atomic missiles. No matter what kind of war breaks out, conventional or nuclear, we will win… If the imperialists unleash war on us, we may lose more than 300 million people. So what? War is war. The years will pass and we will get to work making more babies than ever before.

If Mao was willing to shrug off the deaths of 300 million of his own people to pursue his goals, how much more would Xi be willing to shrug off the deaths of a few tens of thousands?

Machiavellian calculations of a scope this breathtaking are unthinkable to a people infused with the Judeo-Christian ethic that teaches that each human life has incalculable dignity, worth and value. History attests, however, that this is just not so for an atheist/materialist communist dictator.

Am I asserting as fact that China would unleash this virus on its own people? No. I am just saying that for leaders like Mao and Xi, doing so is not unthinkable.

16 Replies to “What is Unthinkable for Some, is very Thinkable for Others

  1. 1
    asauber says:

    Also, don’t underestimate the ability of your own country’s political leadership to lie, cheat and steal and worse.

    Most of them are disconnected from reality, pursuing some kind of self-delusional power trip.

    Andrew

  2. 2
    MikeW says:

    Maybe it’s time to sound the alarm. As bad as it is, the current COVID-19 pandemic is only a warning shot from Mother Nature. There are potentially deadlier pandemic threats on the horizon.

    There is growing evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic was caused by the accidental release of a human-optimized SARS-CoV-2 virus from the Wuhan biological laboratory:
    https://project-evidence.github.io

    Whether or not the lab genetically engineered the virus is irrelevant. It’s clear that the lab’s research mission is to find and extract coronaviruses and other viruses from the wild, and then to culture and select viruses for optimal human virulence, as potential viral vectors for HIV vaccines:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29550516
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17162377
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5020417/

    Whether or not the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself contains HIV genetic material is also irrelevant. As stated in the NIH articles, the ultimate goal of the HIV viral-vector vaccine research is to “insert HIV genes into recombinant viral vectors and shuttle these genes into the Class I antigen-presenting pathway”.

    They are creating monsters. Even if we were to foolishly believe that mistakes like the Wuhan release (or worse) could never occur again, we must realize that if HIV viral-vector technology becomes routine and widely available, then it will be straightforward for terrorist states and organizations to learn to use that technology to insert fully active HIV genes into highly virulent viral vectors, and then release them on selected populations. That would be a dream come true for them, since an HIV virus that spreads like the common cold could devastate or destroy entire societies.

    Research into HIV viral-vector vaccines must be halted and banned worldwide as a potential Weapon of Mass Destruction. If we don’t do this quickly, the next pandemic may be our last.

  3. 3
    Truthfreedom says:

    Well, Mao found his ‘life’s purpose’ in a ‘purposeless Universe’ with ‘illusory morals’.
    Atheists teach nice doctrines and reap nice outcomes.

  4. 4
    Barry Arrington says:

    Asauber

    don’t underestimate the ability of your own country’s political leadership to lie, cheat and steal and worse.

    I disagree with the implication of your comment. Yes, our leaders can be feckless and dishonest. But it is a mistake to mention their faults in the same breath as those of Xi and Mao. Xi’s and Mao’s crimes are of such monstrous magnitude as to constitute a difference in kind, not degree.

  5. 5
    polistra says:

    This is really the wrong question. It doesn’t matter where the virus came from. It’s just a virus. Our bodies know how to fight a virus, and our technology knows how to help our bodies with sanitation and vaccines. Nothing new was needed.

    It’s more important to ask where the brand-new LOCKDOWNS came from, and the answer to that question is certainly China.

    The next question is who decided to import a Chinese method that was NEVER used before in public health, a method that was ALWAYS used in war. A state of siege is a classic war tactic.

    China seems to have been aiming the lockdowns mainly at Christians, and the early adopters here seem to have the same purpose.

  6. 6
    Seversky says:

    I wonder what a pandemic of conspiracy theories would be called? A conspirademic?

  7. 7
    BobRyan says:

    polistra@5

    The important question to ask is how any state was able to shut down business. The US Constitution makes it clear interstate commerce falls under the jurisdiction of Congress. There are no exceptions for the Commerce Clause or Supremacy Clause. Without an act of Congress, every state shutting down businesses are putting an undue burden on interstate commerce. This should be viewed as an act of economic rebellion.

  8. 8
    JVL says:

    BobRyan‘s reasoning is NOT featured in the arguments presented in this news story but it is clear that there is are real attempts to test the constitutionality of a lockdown/quarantine at the federal and state level.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/us-politicians-label-lockdowns-anti-constitutional-70133586

    I could not find anyone making BobRyan‘s particular point but that’s not saying it doesn’t have merit. I am very intrigued to see how this aspect of the situation plays out. We live in interesting times.

  9. 9
    BobRyan says:

    Darwinists do not believe humans are any different than animals. To them, there is no difference between slaughtering humans and slaughtering animals. They have no compassion for the suffering their ideology has brought about. They celebrate mass murderers like Che, while demonizing anyone who speaks out against them. There is no extreme evolutionists will not go to, nothing unthinkable.

  10. 10
    BobRyan says:

    JVL@8
    The lack of anyone questioning the violation of the Commerce Clause shows just how far removed we are from believing the Constitution as a whole has value. The courts have used a ruling in regards to quarantine by the states given by the Supreme Court in 1824. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “form a portion of that immense mass of legislation which embraces everything within the territory of a State not surrendered to the General Government.” This was a direct reference to the Supremacy Clause and no quarantine order given by any state can violate any part of the Constitution.

    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitutional-powers-and-issues-during-a-quarantine-situation

  11. 11
    JVL says:

    BobRyan: Darwinists do not believe humans are any different than animals.

    What? Saying they should all be protected is NOT saying humans aren’t different.

    To them, there is no difference between slaughtering humans and slaughtering animals.

    This is just so insulting. Except for a very few weirdos, and I do mean weirdos, NO ONE thinks that. NO ONE.

    They have no compassion for the suffering their ideology has brought about.

    I have a lot of compassion for people who suffered under hellish regimes who treated people like numbers. But it’s the fault of the power hungry dictators who looked for any justification they could find for their hideous policies.

    They celebrate mass murderers like Che, while demonizing anyone who speaks out against them.

    I can see there will be no point in ever trying to have a civilised conversation with you in the future.

    There is no extreme evolutionists will not go to, nothing unthinkable.

    Let’s check: how many of the other commentators here agree with BobRyan on this?

  12. 12
    Ed George says:

    BR

    Darwinists do not believe humans are any different than animals.

    Sure we do. Humans have a higher level of reasoning than other animals. We are physically weaker, on a pound per pound basis, than most animals.

    To them, there is no difference between slaughtering humans and slaughtering animals.

    From a purely functional perspective, that is true. But given that most of us want to have the benefits of living in society, I think that slaughtering humans is counterproductive to this goal.

    They have no compassion for the suffering their ideology has brought about.

    I wasn’t aware that my ideology was a desire to be a power-hungry megalomaniac.

    They celebrate mass murderers like Che, while demonizing anyone who speaks out against them.

    Just as christians celebrate anti-semetism, cultural genocide and Bingo.

    There is no extreme evolutionists will not go to, nothing unthinkable.

    Well, it would be unthinkable for me to ask people to assemble in close proximity during a pandemic just so I could spread the word of my “religion” and fill the collection plate.

  13. 13
    Seversky says:

    Stop feeding the trolls.

  14. 14
    ET says:

    If Darwinism is true then there isn’t any difference between killing other animals and killing humans. That is a fact that follows from the premise.

    And now seversky wants us to stop responding to its comments. Not only that we are to stop responding to JVL and Ed George, also.

  15. 15
    Truthfreedom says:

    @Ed George

    I think that slaughtering humans is counterproductive to this goal.

    How repulsive. Slaughtering humans is not morally atrocious, it is ‘counterproductive’.
    What ‘most people want’ means that might is right.

  16. 16
    Truthfreedom says:

    @14 ET

    If Darwinism is true then there isn’t any difference between killing other animals and killing humans. That is a fact that follows from the premise.

    Darwinists want to have their cake and eat it too.

Leave a Reply