“The unregulated advancement of biotech is creating a new arms race and threatening our personal autonomy.” – Spartacus
A document posted online under the name “Spartacus” went viral in 2021. The ‘Covid letter’ summed up the state of the ‘pandemic’ at the time, calling out the so-called ‘science’ attributed to Covid-19 and the vaccines. Since then, Spartacus has written several documents including ‘Covid-19: A Web of Corruption’ and a four-part series ‘Covid-19: Deep Dive’.
Below is the latest article published by Spartacus, ‘The Weaponization of Biotech’:
“After our previous article on this topic, I was asked by someone off-site to cite specific examples of biotechnology that could be misused for nefarious purposes, or could have utility as clandestine military or intelligence tools. It was a fair criticism. I listed off a number of technologies that could have such uses, but did not cite any specific articles to make my case. This article will address that deficiency.”
We are publishing Spartacus’ this document in sections for those who struggle to find the time to read the paper in full in one sitting. This is the seventh and final in our series.
A Regulatory Blind Spot
People are accustomed to thinking of life as a special category of being, with spiritual significance above and beyond that of other forms of animate matter.
From the perspective of synthetic biology, bionanotechnology, and other forms of advanced biotech, this is not the case; humans and other life forms are basically a type of very complicated, self-replicating soft robot made out of lipids, proteins, DNA, and so forth. From that perspective, if you can take control of the programming language of life – genes and their resultant proteins – as well as manipulating the behavior of organic cells at the nano-scale, then you can “hack” living organisms and alter their behavior and functionality to be more desirable to you.
A genetically and bionanotechnologically manipulated human would behave something like an engineered product, incapable of free will or rebellion against an unjust system. Does that sound farfetched? Imagine if you genetically engineered a human embryo such that, once they matured, all the relevant cell lines in their body already expressed various different types of DREADDs, as well as giving them intrinsic genetic tolerance of RF-receiving nanoparticles in the cytoplasm of their cells without undue inflammatory or oxidative reactions.
Such a being would be incapable of doing anything other than accepting the terms of its own enslavement; its creators would have complete control over its thoughts, emotions, and behavioral tendencies. Its biology would be an open book to them.
If large swaths of humanity were modified in such a way, then there would be no impetus to resist the system at all; no one would even realize that there was anything wrong. Unmodified people expressing views contrary to the system’s dictates would appear insane. It is the ultimate form of regulatory capture, based on the captivity of an entire intelligent species.
To sum up, there are laws and treaties that forbid killing someone with a biological or chemical weapon. Governments flaunt those laws and treaties all the time.
There are no laws that specifically forbid mind control, or stripping humans of agency on a biological level. It is a Wild West. A regulatory blind spot. A gap in the law.
New human rights to protect against ‘mind hacking’ and brain data theft proposed
“The question we asked was whether our current human rights framework was well equipped to face this new trend in neurotechnology,” Ienca told the Guardian. Having reviewed the rights in place today, the pair concluded that more must be done to protect people.
“The information in our brains should be entitled to special protections in this era of ever-evolving technology,” Ienca said. “When that goes, everything goes.”
Why is this the case? One can only speculate. It may be that most people find the idea of such technology to be laughable or technically infeasible (it is neither), thus causing them to let down their guard. Or, it may be that governments are already planning on using this technology for social control, and do not want to hamstring themselves. Many of these technologies actually do have very beneficial therapeutic uses in the right hands, but due to their power to influence living organisms on a fundamental, molecular level, the consequences of such power falling into the wrong hands would be disastrous.
There needs to be a movement for the preservation of personal autonomy and human dignity in the face of rapid biotechnological advancements.
If there isn’t, then we will lose ourselves.