Relatively hazardous academic info about bioterrorism is already widespread on the Internet but probably not a serious threat (in the long run)

This article here is a continuation of this one: The psychology of bioterrorism. As usual the article is long, a wall of text, because it’s only intended to be read by patient individuals with impulse control.

When I first started to informally red team chem/bio terrorism in 2019 it was shocking to see how much online information about these weapons had been published by “responsible” liberal academics. Since I had told NSA about the red teaming project I took the liberty to gather all the online information I could find. When I later published an informal non-public report about it, in the beginning of 2020, it contained complaints about this irresponsibility when liberal academics used the Internet to frivolously distribute info that can (indirectly) be valuable if you want to create a chem/bio weapon. But the main danger associated with this online hazardous info is that it gives terrorists the idea that such weapons can be created relatively “easily” if you have the necessary skills, equipment and ingredients. It gives them a direction that makes it easier to avoid mistakes done by others. You can learn quite a bit anonymously if you first buy Mitnick’s ebook about online invisibility, and then use bitcoin to pay a hacker to steal another person’s Paypal or bank account to safely buy academic ebooks about chem/bio weapons. But anybody who does online searches for chem/bio terrorism, without following the op sec recommended by Mitnick, will be flagged by NSA. Just buying Mitnick’s book or clicking on will get you automatically registered by NSA. Guess that’s why so few people visit my (shadow banned?) website.

Digression: you may wonder if I have the qualifications to red team chem/bio terrorism. A person like me doing red teaming is much more realistic than paying Establishment academics to do it. In one way, you can measure the realism of a red teaming project by seeing how nervous the intelligence community is about the consequences that may follow from it.

If operating alone you need a master’s degree in virology to design (or find) a very lethal virus that can trigger a major outbreak or a pandemic in a worst case scenario. Genuine DIY chem/bio WMDs are unrealistic, unless an evil hobby microbiologist is extremely “lucky”. This significantly reduces the risk that militant activists outside universities will be able to create a lethal virus after reading hazardous info published on the Internet.

Covid-19, however, has now proven to everybody who is disgusted by ultra-liberality that a lethal virus can be used to decimate a libertine state like California. The proverbial cat is therefore out of the bag. Somewhere on this planet a rightwing lone wolf has maybe already become a microbiology student. Large terrorist organizations, such as ISIS or Hezbollah, are more like proxy or private armies (compared to the powerlessness of “ordinary” terrorist groups) so they have more recruits and economic resources that can be used to create a weapon suitable for biowarfare. These guys already know enough about chem/bio weapons to not search for online info. They will simply send a recruit to a university in a developing country where he can learn virology and biotech. Probably by first learning all prerequisite skills that are not directly related to dual-use vaccine developments, in order to build trust, trick naive university professors and not get flagged by the intelligence community.

I now think it’s necessary to better inform the public about the risk of professional chem/bio terrorism. Because ultra-liberal politicians, CEOs and intelligence agencies in the West are deliberately provoking both moderate conservatives and rightwing activists by 1) creating Fusion AI surveillance states, and 2) spreading libertinism and wokeness on a global level, through entertainment, games and other types of propaganda, thereby significantly increasing the risk of an university-educated rightwing chem/bio terrorist attacking woke and libertine surveillance regimes in the West.

I got narcolepsy unfortunately, so no longer have the energy to participate in public debates. I’m therefore not the right person to raise awareness about this issue. Discovered yesterday however that a person called Rob Reid has also done research on the risk of bioweapons and recently did a long podcast together with Sam Harris:

Special Episode: Engineering the Apocalypse by Rob Reid and Sam Harris

How synthetic biology could wipe out humanity — and how we can stop it | Rob Reid

If you got the impression that Rob Reid said in the TED video that only a genius can start an epidemic or pandemic, then it should be mentioned that the level of expertise depends on how advanced synbio we are talking about. There are easier and older technological ways of starting an outbreak without involving (advanced) synbio. From a terrorist viewpoint the advantage of making a very lethal but not highly virulent pathogen is that it can be released in Seattle/Bellevue for example and be contained on the West Coast (and East Coast). This increases the likelihood that someone in the Middle East for example will use it as a weapon since it will be contained before reaching the home country of the terrorist.

Reid and Harris – and many bioterrorist researchers – assume that the goal of chem/bio terrorists is to create a doomsday virus. But Covid-19 is the perfect model for a bioweapon against Big Tech in America. If somebody continually tweaks it or creates 1-3 new similar coronaviruses, the economy in America will go down the drain and eventually take Big Tech with it. For example, one advantage of a disease like Covid-19 is that many will not take vaccines against it.

What Reid says about the difficulty of creating a more virulent version of H5NI should be seen in context of what Brian Hanley is writing in the comments field here in 2012:

N.Y. Times: H5N1 ferret research should not have been done

“H5N1 occurs in Central Asia, Africa, all over the world.  A group in Quetta could apply the passage method just fine. It could be done in caves. They could use human prisoners, volunteers, etc. So it’s reasonable to be concerned about. But nothing withheld on this study would hold them back from doing it. Those guys care about results, and that’s it.”

“It’s easy and virtually cost-free to passage a disease if you don’t care about regulations. And those who have declared their intention to acquire bioweapons do not care about regulations – to put it mildly.  These are the kind of people who used the method of beheading journalists on camera to control the PR coming out of Iraq. They are not worried about regulations or facility inspections.”

“That said, you are quite right. Anthrax is common in Central Asia and the Middle East. It’s easy to get. A short trip to Africa could net Ebola. Prisoners could be infected, and even Ebola could be subjected to passage to improve its virulence. Simple methods for population inoculation would work.”

Keep in mind that when a person with a PhD in microbiology says that something is “easy” it does not mean that an average teenage hobby virologist can do it. On the other hand, it didn’t take many months of study for me to read and understand the published paper about the H5N1 gain-of-function experiment. Still lack the tacit knowledge to create it however.

Hanley writes this in a comment to another person’s message in the comments field:

““… I actually am in support of the research needed to understand what mutations would be required, however that information should be controlled until a suitable countermeasure is developed…””

“–  We do have countermeasures. Antivirals. The terrorists interested in bioweapons don’t need that sequence info to be successful. If they had the capability for that kind of sophisticated synthesis we would already be in very serious trouble. There is a lot that could be synthesized.”

Viruses can be less radioresistant than bacteria. However, they can be evolved to become more UV resistant. But the dark “irony” of introducing better biodefense measures is that it makes it possible to use a lethal virus as a tactical bioweapon to decimate a city, since the perpetrator knows it will be contained before the outbreak spreads globally.

Reid and Harris discus in the podcast how 3D printers in the future can transmit the information needed to make vaccines in your own home. In the future you can also print a bioweapon. The danger today is that VR/AR haptic smart gloves can teach a microbiologist the know-how (tacit knowledge) needed to create a (new) specific gain-of-function virus.

It’s partly a mistake when Reid focuses on suicidal and depressive bioterrorists. Synbio must become very democratized and privatized if such deranged amateurs are ever going to create a DIY bioweapon.

If operating alone, without the external help of a foreign intelligence agency, you must study at a university (on a very advanced level) to learn the dark “art” of either designing a pathogen (from scratch) or increase the lethality and transmission of a naturally existing lethal virus. But don’t be too relieved that bioweapon engineering is relatively difficult. The scary part is that virology is actually fun. If you are a nerd, then biotech is just as fun as playing a computer game. That is one reason why the psychology of becoming a “successful” bioterrorist is different from the psychology of “ordinary” terrorism.

Digression: believe it or not but I started red teaming bioterrorism because I was bored after my favorite computer game became woke and included in-game items you could only earn by visiting an online service owned by Amazon. No escapism when having reminders of Amazon in the game. When sleazy libertine corporations are in the game one might as well half-way return from retirement and partly enter the “Great Game” of extremely dangerous international politics.

The suffering caused by a tactical bioweapon deployed in Seattle/Bellevue for example is so horrifying that one may assume that only a real psychopath will release a deadly virus. But here we are talking about a special kind of “psychopathy”. It’s a bit similar to when you are eating dinner and seldom think about animals suffering in the meat industry. Opening a vial containing a lethal virus in a public space is less noisy than opening a can of soft drink. Releasing a pathogen (remotely) is not loud, not like firing a gun or detonating an explosive. The amygdalae don’t react to it. The result of a bio-attack can be seen only several days or weeks after opening a vial in a public space. If an evil microbiologist decides not to follow the news it’s relatively easy for the brain to forget that it caused the horror experienced by people in a distant Big Tech city. After a pathogen is developed and stored in the freezer, an absent-minded or drunk microbiologist can impulsively start a pandemic and say like Britney Spears: Oops…

The education needed for creating both vaccines and pathogens is the same. An evil microbiology student can therefore compartmentalize his violent intentions and store them in the basement of the mind when focusing on learning the art of making vaccines, thereby reducing anxiety that might be detected by professors (or unscientific AI emotion detectors).

Digression: in this article here I’m more detailed in my description of bioterrorism psychology, compared to earlier articles, because the podcast by Reid and Harris discusses some of it in detail, enough to give people an idea of how psychologically “easy” it can be to release a virus (once you get into the habit of thinking about tactical bioweapons as a way to stop superior AI powers such as libertine Big Tech in American coastal states).

If you are a militant nationalist or religious fanatic disgusted by the sleazy cultural imperialism of American coastal cities, why risk your life in a large riot or war zone (in Syria or Iraq for example) when you instead can spend five comfortable years in a university lab studying virology and biotech?

Disgust is key here. It’s not hate but disgust which is the main fuel of bureaucratic genocide. Developing a bioweapon in a lab has relatively much in common with the bureaucratic attitude needed to manage a genocide on an industrial scale, cf Zygmunt Bauman: Modernity and the Holocaust. It’s therefore not smart to trigger disgust in a rightwing microbiologist. It does not increase the safety of anybody when the entertainment industry in the West today distribute LGBT propaganda all over the planet where it inevitably reaches violent traditionalists who have read what God in the Old Testament did to LGBT communities.

Naive critics will perhaps argue that professors will detect a student whose goal is to become a bioterrorist. In some cases, yes. But don’t count on it. High-functioning psychopaths, for example, are not nervous when infiltrating a university lab monitored by the intelligence community. Even a highly focused empath like myself can do it. If anybody doubts it, let me enroll as a student in microbiology.

However, as I have written earlier my main worry is not a lone wolf professional microbiologist. The latter can maybe kill over twenty thousand in Silicon Valley, for instance, but it will not be an existential threat to Big Tech. If such an evil person reads my articles here on he will maybe recognize the pointlessness of solo bioterrorism. What I fear is biowarfare initiated by (a rogue faction within) a non-nuclear authoritarian state or maybe started by a (proxy or private) army such as Hezbollah. If an actor on this level decides to use the dark web to disseminate bioweapon know-how (tacit knowledge) to domestic militant activists in the West, it’s possible that it will reach a solo microbiologist who will then use relatively new communication technologies to improve his practical skills in advanced bioweapon design.

Reid and Harris don’t mention that getting a real global agreement about detecting pathogens and developing vaccines against all viruses on the planet is probably impossible when authoritarian regimes have from their point of view a very good reason to rely on bioweapons to weaken ultra-liberal Western states that have superior AI weapons. If I had been a dictator I would have publicly signed a new and better global treaty against bioweapons, if I had been forced to sign it, but then secretly sabotaged it and exploited every judicial loophole. Getting states to really surrender bioweapons in the age of AI killer bots is more difficult than convincing nuclear powers to give away all their atomic weapons. Many in Ukraine today probably regret the decision to surrender their nukes in the 1990s and not build their own nuclear program. South China Morning Post:

China pins its hopes on beating US in bio-intelligence race

American coastal states can beat authoritarian regimes in the AI race. IBM in New York has just made the first semiconductor defined as 2 nm. Authoritarian regimes can be monstrous enough to attempt winning the biowar race by not following any ethical regulations when experimenting on human beings. Despite being a very psychopathic policy it’s instrumentally rational from an authoritarian point of view to not regulate bioweapons in Cold War 2. Helping “lone wolf” domestic bioterrorists in the West can be rational too, since any significant weakening of Big Tech creativity in the US/EU and reduced economic power in America and Europe can be valuable, relatively speaking. (An outbreak in Albany, New York, will disrupt IBM’s creativity when tech engineers can’t meet face to face.) Risking democide, including decimation of your own population, is one way for a dictator to solve the problem of overpopulation. Global lockdowns can reduce global warming, which is good if you are a tyrant or warlord in Africa for example. Supporting a “lone wolf” microbiologist is risky, but it’s not suicidal compared to risks in a war:


“During the whole war, 51% of aircrew were killed on operations, 12% were killed or wounded in non-operational accidents and 13% became prisoners of war or evaders. Only 24% survived the war unscathed.”

China isn’t transparent about what happened in Wuhan. And all other countries have classified certain aspects of how they are handling the pandemic, for national security reasons. In the anarchy of international politics it’s unrealistic to believe that ultra-liberal states and authoritarian regimes will genuinely cooperate to stop all bioweapons during Cold War 2.

Dispersed “lone wolf” professional microbiologists (in developing countries) can be proxy one-man armies for authoritarian regimes in Cold War 2. A rogue non-nuclear state can give these “solo” terrorists (sleeper cells) both the “recipe” and know-how instructions needed to create a “zero-day” synbio virus that the West can’t stop. Old unregulated biotech equipment (in developing countries) can be very useful when tinkering with lethal viruses. The result of an outbreak can be horrifying in a Big Tech city if a solo terrorist relies on the synergy effect of several 4IR technologies that are popular now. When I yesterday listened to the podcast by Reid and Harris for the first time, I learned a few new things about bio-defenses and quickly figured out ways to bypass some of them. But in the long run, after 2025 or 2030, it will probably be impossible for a solo bioterrorist to cause any significant damage if operating completely alone.

It’s kind of “funny” to read that Joe Biden, the author of the Patriot Act prior to 9/11, is (maybe) using the fear of domestic terrorism as an excuse for even more privatization and outsourcing of (mass) surveillance. Roll your eyes and do a facepalm, because only incompetent militant activists use publicly available chat rooms on the Internet. (There is a way for a solo bioterrorist to communicate safely with a non-liberal intelligence agency on the dark web, but I will not mention it here, for obvious safety reasons.) Sure, an online militant idiot in a chat room on Telegram can make a car bomb, like Timothy McVeigh did in 1995, but over 30 000 Americans die in car accidents every year, so this type of “ordinary” but still very rare terrorism can’t justify our new surveillance states. Competent WMD terrorists are not online however, so that makes Biden’s proposed “open source” anti-terrorist army of privatized intelligence a rather unnecessary threat to civil rights. If ultra-liberal governments want to monitor the development of ideologies that can motivate high-functioning sociopaths to become engaged in (WMD) terrorism, it will be sufficient to monitor the spread of academic books like The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff in addition to monitoring every rightwing person who reads mainstream news about how Joe Biden, Hollywood and Western intelligence agencies are supporting the spread of libertinism and wokeness.

If you worry about me possessing too much hazardous info about chem/bio weapons remember that I tied myself to the mast when telling NSA about my informal red teaming project. It’s therefore no chance that I will ever get close to any biolab. Secondly, I have put my support for cultural conservatism on ice, indefinitely, because it’s a lost cause as long as rightwing people are just marginalized talkers (on Gab), so I’m currently not emotionally motivated to fight libertine woke Big Tech. Today my attitude is to enjoy superficial entertainment provided by Big Tech just to keep me a bit more “awake” when almost falling asleep because of narcolepsy. Unfortunately, this entertainment is usually so politicized and vulgar that I never watch movies and tv series from America. (Combining cinematic “art” with propaganda or vulgarity is not my cup of tea.) But other non-Romanticist online content can be entertaining enough, like clinical series such as House, Grey’s Anatomy or the podcast by Rob Reid and Sam Harris. But, again, me quitting and retreating to being just a passive observer and chronicler of events does obviously not mean that the risk of chem/bio terrorism has been reduced. Will not be surprised if we have a new pandemic the next 1 – 10 years, or maybe new tweaked synbio versions of Covid-19 that will cause suffering until 2025 perhaps. But, hey, at least we got wokeness in the West and libertinism to entertain us. But is it worth it? Is it worth the risk of millions of deaths? Yes, according to our politicians, CEOs and intelligence agencies. Moderate liberality is not good enough for them. The ultra-liberal high-tech show must go on, no matter how dangerous it is.

What’s truly tragicomical is that common people, including rightwing people on Gab, are either indifferent or so scared of the big bad wolf (NSA) that many don’t (dare) visit websites that have info about bioterrorism. Rob Reid’s Ted Talk about bioterrorism, published in July 2019, has at the moment of writing only 154,534 views. His talk with Sam Harris about bioweapons (April 24, 2021) has been more popular: 101K views, so far. But that is nothing compared to ca one billion people living in the West. Most of them live in ignorance even after Covid-19, with no knowledge about how libertine woke governments increase the risk of ultra-conservative bioterrorism or biowarfare when they contribute to hyper-polarization in the culture war. At the moment, even China and Russia are relatively silent about it, not loudly criticizing ultra-liberal governments in this particular case. Like in 1914 we might therefore sleepwalk into a new global catastrophe.

Since common people are indifferent or afraid of accessing websites about biological threats, I’m considering – for just idealistic and unselfish reasons of course – a new way of drawing the attention of common people, by creating a website called Porn and Biodefence Review: Satisfy Your Body, Protect Your Body. It’s just a thought however, since these reviews will be very monotonous and utterly boring in the long run, except the reviews of new biodefense devices created in America and Europe. On the other hand, it will signal that I’ve definitely put all cultural conservatism on ice. If you can’t beat sleazy Californian scumbags, why not join them in a joint venture to educate people about chem/bio threats? An initiative like that may actually draw the attention of libertine Californians and teach them something new.

Rightwing radicals often follow the news and other political developments, so it’s likely that some of them have noticed the talks by Rob Reid or maybe discovered one of Richard Preston’s best-selling books about bioterrorism. They can then rely on common sense operational security to avoid detection. NSA’s surveillance presupposes that all militant activists are dummies without common sense. Many such dummies exist, but they are also too stupid to ever create a bioweapon. An intelligent bioterrorist with common sense op sec will not visit a website like And if he did, he will probably feel contempt when encountering my discussions about the NZI paradigm and my claim that one might as well embrace ultra-liberality in a Starlink world. I’m happy with that. I don’t want to be a role model for evil idealistic zealots. Nothing is better than if I can have the most worse reputation and no credibility from their point of view.

A real hyper-individualist will always destroy his/her own reputation so that nobody will follow him or her. Better that people look down upon you than up to you. And that is particularly important when commenting upon the most hazardous of topics. In those cases I don’t want that anybody refers to me as an authority. Being an “authority” on pure horror is not cool.

Both parties are evil in the conflict between Fusion AI surveillance and ultra-conservative bioterrorism. It’s a conflict that will eventually and probably lead to either 1) totalitarian surveillance in a Western Brave New World or 2) the dirty hell of a cataclysmic pandemic. Almost nobody reads, perhaps because it’s partly shadow banned maybe, but if an evil microbiologist accidentally discovers it, then I prefer not to go down in history as the “Fjordman” who inspired a bioterrorist. Will therefore distance myself from both parties in this conflict where Skynet meets Outbreak, by sowing confusion about my personal identity. For example, to exclude the possibility of ending up as the ideological inspirer of rightwing bioterrorists I will from now on self-identify as an agnostic on a philosophical level and a libertine constitutional democrat on a political level. Better to be seen as a flip-flopping and unreliable traitor betraying the lost cause of cultural conservatism than be an author inspiring monsters. Will continue however to write about the “epic” folly of the current tech-bio culture war, but from a healthy distance.

The scientists of 4IR (fourth industrial revolution) are the people you should be angry at. They knew that terrorists can abuse dual-use tech, and that 4IR tech has a 20 to 50 percent chance of (indirectly) annihilating humanity, but they nevertheless continued to develop this new technology, because they want to play God. They are driven by a Messiah complex to cure all diseases. If they succeed, it’s only because of luck, since they have also indirectly facilitated bioterrorism: made it much easier for terrorists to start a pandemic. If respectable and celebrated scientists had not done that, you would not have read this article here. Remember that bioterrorism was not a major threat to humanity prior to 4IR. If you know that evil people can become motivated to use new technology to cause a cataclysmic (extinction) event, then don’t create it. At least not create a new culture which motivates them to destroy it by any means.

As Sam Harris noted in the above podcast: after Covid-19 is over it may happen one or two years later, in 2024 perhaps, that profit-driven businesses and election-focused politicians start to become complacent about natural pandemics that hit humanity only once in a century or manmade pandemics that have never occurred. Mercurian wildcards can be online grey unpredictable canaries forcing at least intelligence agencies to stay focused on the real threat of chem/bio attacks. Here I’m talking about genuine threats, not the scaremongering theater which politicians and the IC use to strengthen national unity and increase security budgets.

The advantage of keeping the IC on high alert is that the latter will then often tell politicians and CEOs about the looming danger of bioterrorism directed against Big Tech. This will motivate corporations such as Amazon to spend resources on quickly developing biodefenses that may eradicate the flu completely and totally stop all other viral diseases, perhaps within 2025 or 2030. So if you are 60 or 70 years old in 2030, you may never get killed by any naturally occurring virus (if new promising anti-virus measures are not mostly tech hype).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s