Introductory article about exposing technologies, tactics and strategies that can be used by bioterrorists

Have so far on (DSI) been quiet about many details regarding bioterrorism, because I don’t want to give terrorists any ideas, but the recklessness of scientists, corporate journalists and Western governments that has newly been revealed by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and the Washington Post implies that it’s now better to fully inform common people about the real risk of bioterrorism, especially since liberal academics have been relatively irresponsible when using the Internet to openly publish a lot of hazardous info about dual-use biotech.

The information in some of my articles is scary and grim, but any hackers or regulators supporting shadow banning should remember that it’s pointless to shut down DSI, because I have sent a copy of my report on bioterrorism to over hundred academics, government institutions, journalists and corporations. Have also sent it to three rational empires who have an interest in stopping bioterrorism: America, Russia and China. So the information is already out there, since early 2020.

I thought back then, in Jan 2020, that hopefully our scientists, corporate CEOs and politicians are sufficiently competent and responsible in this particular case, if they only get more info about the risk of bioterrorism. But they don’t know what they are doing. Firstly, they botched the handling of SARS-CoV-2. Secondly, they know that 4IR tech (fourth industrial revolution inventions) can have a 16.6% to 50% chance of wiping out humanity, but they nevertheless continue this high-tech development, without having had any informed democratic referendum (public vote) about it prior to the rise of Big Tech in the late 1990s. Entire humanity is at stake when these “experts” are playing Russian roulette with 4IR technologies. The public therefore deserves to be fully informed about the risks involved.

Bill Gates have recently said that bioterrorism and climate changes are the next two disasters he fears in the future. But he didn’t mention why anybody might be motivated to become bioterrorists. In other words, he omitted the arguably most important part: the intentions of bioterrorists. Motives are crucial, because they determine whether dual-use tech will be applied in a constructive or destructive way. You cannot know the real risk of bioterrorism without accurately understanding the psychology of bioterrorism.

Rob Reid has in a talk with Sam Harris mentioned three types of people that may have an interest in using bioweapons: suicidal individuals, environmentalists and anti-natalists. Here one can also add leftwing anti-surveillance activists. But suicidal people lack the skills and discipline to create a bioweapon today. Safety measures will be put in place to prevent them from abusing “plug and play” biotech in the future. Environmentalists, anti-natalists and leftwing anti-surveillance activists are all motivated by universal ethics, so they will naturally have a moral barrier against using a monstrous bioweapon. If some of them wanted to release a deadly pathogen they would probably have done it by now.

Instead my educated guess is that the three most likely groups of people willing to design and release a lethal virus are:

1) drug cartels fighting Big Tech in order to prevent that all crime will be eradicated forever in a cashless society controlled by Fusion AI surveillance,

2) non-nuclear authoritarian states or factions within them releasing a virus to prevent that American coastal states rule the world if the US achieves AI supremacy first,

3) militant cultural conservatives opposed to ultra-“liberal” Fusion AI surveillance that will forever secure the power of a libertine and woke (global) system that is viscerally disgusting from the viewpoint of religious zealots and radical nationalists.

We’ll never have enough data to calculate which of the three last groups are most likely to become “successful” bioterrorists, so let’s just say in a simplistic way that each group has a 33.3% chance of being the first one to deploy a very deadly bioweapon, killing over ten thousand people.

Western corporate states today can do little or nothing to stop (a faction within) an authoritarian intelligence agency that wants to use a deadly virus against Big Tech on the West Coast of America.

The egotistical and shortsighted bosses of drug cartels can be bribed by Big Tech, so that criminals don’t release a deadly virus in Silicon Valley, Los Angeles or Seattle/Bellevue. These criminals may also be too strategically stupid to realize that the surveillance power of Big Tech is now an existential threat to all criminals. But authoritarian intelligence agencies will perhaps remind them of this danger and pay them more than the bribes offered by Big Tech in the West.

The easiest and least expensive way to reduce the risk of bioterrorism by very roughly 33% is to create a high-tech Western mainstream culture that both moderate liberals and moderate cultural conservatives support. The American entertainment industry should drop libertinism and wokeness in mainstream entertainment, as explained here.

But I assume and almost take it for granted that the ultra-liberal American entertainment industry will dogmatically continue to spread libertinism and LGBT on a global level. Personally I’ve learned to reluctantly accept that. Have put my cultural conservatism on ice, because it can’t survive in a Starlink world anyway. But common people deserve to know what risks are involved, in regards to the bioterrorism threat, when Big Tech and the American entertainment industry continue to provoke and enrage cultural conservatives all over the world. I will therefore in a series of articles present the details of technologies, tactics and strategies that can be used by bioterrorists (in the future). Maybe people will then start to wake up.

Critics will perhaps argue that such a detailed presentation is dangerous, but if that is the case, why has Big Tech created a global online infrastructure that makes it easy to distribute such info (on the dark web)? Why are Western corporations and governments implementing cultural policies that increase the risk of (ultra-conservative) bioterrorism? Why are they doing nothing to weaken the motivation of potential bioterrorists? They are so cavalier and careless about it that one might suspect that the risk is exaggerated in order to justify surveillance and increase the budgets of Western intelligence agencies. I assume that the risk is real however, but you can assess the risk yourself after reading articles which present a more detailed picture of the bioterrorism threat. This picture can never be complete, because much is secret and it’s impossible for one researcher without any insider connections to locate all relevant information that can be found on the astronomically large Internet. So I’m always open to updating my temporary conclusions when learning new things.

If you fear bioterrorism, it’s relatively easy to prevent it: 1) stop creating ultra-liberal crusading globalist surveillance states in the West, and 2) return to the moderate liberality and moderate cultural conservatism which have always been the two main pillars of Western constitutional democracies prior to the rise of libertine woke Big Tech.

1) and 2) will significantly reduce or totally eliminate any motive that can drive militant activists to becoming bioterrorists. Neutralizing dark intentions are the cheapest and safest way to avoid bioterrorism.

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