IMAGE: STANDING STONES (detail) by Catherine Forsayeth

A former colleague gets in touch. He and his wife have been teaching at an international school in Kuala Lumpur for the last ten years or so. Now they have been told that if they will not comply with the school’s vaccination policy, they will be let go at the end of the year. No job means no work permit, which means no visa, so they will have to leave the country. 

That’s why they got in touch, to ask whether I knew if they could get into Thailand without vaccination. My friend is Canadian, and doesn’t want to return there in current circumstances, with Canada tilting as steeply into totalitarianism as the other British Commonwealth countries, with internment facilities springing up all over the country. His wife is Chinese but has been away too long to retain her citizenship. 

Of approximately three hundred faculty members, my friends are the only refuseniks apart from one other individual, as far as they’re aware. It’s not surprising, I suppose: the international school movement and its academic/ideological accrediting body, the International Baccalaureate, are the educational wing of globalism, and international schools have been quick to impose vaccination requirements on students and faculty. For international teachers, the choice is simple, since if they don’t comply their lifestyle is gone — the dream is quite simply over. My friends have two teenaged daughters who no doubt love their privileged ‘third culture’ life — and the prospect of leaving the country they’ve grown up in and losing all their friends must be very tough on them too. 

My friend seems to be facing this horrible situation with calm resolution, and I compliment him on his steadfastness. In response, he tells me that he has been drawn back to his Christian faith. He was quite devout as a younger man, he tells me, but his faith lapsed as adulthood wore on — until the birth of his first daughter, that is. Over the past two years — since the beginning of the pseudo-pandemic — he has experienced an even more powerful resurgence of his faith. It’s like a balancing force, he tells me, an equal and opposite reaction to… well…

To what?

To evil. The tide of evil that is engulfing the world. 

I’m in a not dissimilar position myself, as someone who was brought up Christian but was never confirmed and never experienced anything like religious faith until recently, the beginnings of the change dating from about five years ago. I’m something of a ‘scientific convert’, the other big influence being a year spent living close to nature; direct experience played a role, as did certain people who were around me at that time. In retrospect I’m very grateful for the timing of the change, which has enabled me to recognise, I think, the dimensions of this war. It has become a feature of the discussion on our side of the divide to describe the current bioterrorist onslaught and its ramifications as a spiritual battle, even ‘spiritual warfare’. Is it? And what does this paradoxical phrase even mean? 

First, let’s agree that this is war. Government and agency officials — not to mention their billionaire sponsors — have been telling us so, right from the beginning of the pseudo-pandemic; that our societies must be placed on a ‘war footing’ to ‘fight’ the virus — and that is exactly what has happened, with the suspension of democracy and fundamental civil and human rights, the utter devastation of economies in pursuit of ‘victory’ against the virus, and of course the mobilisation of the population to pay a blood price, even sacrificing their young to the cause. 

That may be as much as we can agree upon. The origins of the war, who or what the enemy is, and the nature of the weapons being used, are questions whose polarising effect creates bitter internecine resentments within the larger conflict — which are deliberately fanned to create an ‘out’ group on the fascist model, a collective scapegoat on whom the masses’ fear and hatred can be focused. The nescient simply believe what they’re told — that we are engaged in a bitter defensive ‘war’ against a besieging virus — and are wedded to this belief beyond the reach of reason, leading some commentators to compare the current social mainstream to a religious cult

“One of the hallmarks of totalitarianism,” writes CJ Hopkins, “is mass conformity to a psychotic official narrative.” 

The pandemic narrative, riddled as it is with absurd contradictions, is indeed psychotic, its crippled logic pathetically inadequate to justify the introduction of dystopian ‘vaccine passports’ — planned well before the onset of the pandemic — and the institution of a totalitarian Biosecurity State which utterly transforms the relationship between individual and government, enabling a digital panopticism and centralised control of the population far beyond anything achievable by previous totalitarian regimes. 

The stakes, then, are much, much higher than last time round. 

“This is the Third World War,” Catherine Austin Fitts has said. “This is what it looks like.” 

And of course it doesn’t look anything like the war on which my grandfathers staked their lives, which in turned looked nothing like the one before that, because each of these conflicts reflect a further evolution of warfare. The Third World War — which I would say was declared in 1991 — has manifested thus far as fifth generational hybrid warfare, which is why the naive have no idea it is happening. It is difficult for them to recognise the true nature of the threats they face, because in this style of warfare conventional or even recognisable weapons play little part — and because the battle-lines are drawn not between nations but classes. Fifth generation warfare (5GW) is conducted primarily through non-kinetic military action, such as social engineering, disinformation, cyberattacks, and the use of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and fully autonomous systems. It is ideological, psychological, biological warfare; at some point it may feature ‘hot’ or even nuclear war. It is all these things; but is it meaningful to characterise it as ‘spiritual’ warfare?

I met a soldier-turned-mystic once, who told me: “War is everywhere, it’s all the time, on every level, even in the cells of your body. And it doesn’t stop when you die.” That was 2017, and how prophetic it seems now — like Michel Foucault’s queasily prescient phrase in Discipline and Punish (Surveiller et Punir) when he characterises modern panopticism as “the capillary functioning of power.” Even if you believe that these ‘vaccines’ are self-evidently designed to kill, that might not be the most sinister thing about them. Independent microscopy studies first undertaken by a group of Spanish scientists calling themselves La Quinta Columna, and since replicated by other competent individuals, notably Dr R O Young and Dr Andreas Noack (deceased in a hit-and-run ‘accident’), have identified the presence of graphene oxide and/or hydroxide in vaccine samples. Apart from being extremely toxic, graphene is a superconductor used in brain-machine interface technology. Micrographs also show anomalous objects consistent with nano-scale sensors and transmitters. Even a passing acquaintance with the state of the art in wireless nanotechnology is enough to reveal the possibilities. It is completely within the realm of possibility that these injections represent the final incarnation of Foucault’s ‘disciplinary society’ and the ultimate realisation of Bentham’s transparent prison, the Panopticon, its line-of-sight architecture built not of steel and glass but neural nets and nanobots within the human body. The process or tendency does not come out of left field, and can be traced back a number of centuries in Western society. But the aim now appears to be the imposition of a radical collectivism of unprecedented depth — a collectivism of mind. We were always told — by NATO think tanks, for instance — that in the Third World War the battlefield would be the human brain. Catherine Fitts called it, in April 2020 in her article The Injection Fraud; this article has aged extremely well. In co-ordination with the saturation of the earth’s surface with low latency unlimited bandwidth, the project of universal connectivity aims at nothing less than the absorption of (what remains of) humanity into the machine. In interviews Fitts memorably articulates the (spiritual) implications in language which is accessible to all:

“For 400 years we’ve had a model of the human, a model of the economy, a model of the planet that is a machine model, and it’s fostered great productivity in some ways, but the model fails because it doesn’t reflect how life really works. And to me what we’re watching is the ultimate gasp of a failing model: it’s produced a culture of people who are hyper-materialistic, and they literally don’t understand life and they don’t understand reality.

“If you’re going to maintain control of people on a machine model, you need to stop them resonating with divine intelligence and resonating with living things and resonating with each other, and get everybody hooked into the machine. And that’s what this is really about. Are we going to be governed by God, or are we going to be governed by central powers who are controlling us through the machine?” 

And so we find ourselves plunged into the middle of a literal war for the human mind, for free will, even consciousness itself. Not that it should come as any surprise — what we are witnessing has been anticipated for a long time, the bow-waves of the ‘Technological Singularity’ — the point at which machines can do everything which human beings can do; which must, as Professor Hamamoto has pointed out, inevitably entail a political and economic singularity — to which I think we can now add, with a certain shudder, a biological singularity as well. Klaus Schwab, Executive Founder of the World Economic Forum, has enthusiastically promoted what he calls the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which he states will mean the ‘fusion of our physical, digital and biological identities’. The pseudo-pandemic, he argues in Covid 19:The Great Reset (2020) ‘turbocharges’ the revolution and the ‘re-imagining of what it means to be human’. In the first two books in the trilogy, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016) and Shaping The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2018), Schwab celebrates the advent of injectable technologies including ‘self-assembling computer arrays’ within the human body. ‘Bio-digital convergence’, ‘the digital transition’, is an explicit programme adopted by national governments and federal regimes such as the EU. 

The implications of the Technological Singularity are epochal, even apocalyptic. It enables ‘the ultimate revolution’, in Aldous Huxley’s phrase — that is, a revolution that can never be reversed, made permanent by an enforced evolution or devolution of the human organism itself. In the letter he wrote to George Orwell in 1949, where he uses this phrase, Huxley drops a telling reference which suggests, in ways his novel Brave New World never really does, the darkness that lies behind the vision of a technocratic New World Order.

‘The first hints of a philosophy of the ultimate revolution — the revolution which lies beyond politics and economics, and which aims at total subversion of the individual’s psychology and physiology — are to be found in the Marquis de Sade, who regarded himself as the continuator, the consummator, of Robespierre and Babeuf.’ 

(Aldous Huxley, letter to George Orwell, 21 October 1949)

Presumptuous as it was of Huxley to lecture the author of Nineteen Eighty-Four on the subject of political Sadism, it seems that both men would agree that the root of totalitarianism is a power instinct so consuming that  it can be content with nothing less than the permanent crushing of the human spirit. De Sade was an ineffectual psychopath, a minor aristocrat and, truth be told, a minor Sadist in comparison with those he admired, whose power secured their immunity. His value to us lies precisely in his failure as a Sadist and the twenty-seven years he spent in prisons and mental institutions, scribbling pornography on toilet paper; he gives us a window onto the sick ‘haute bohème’ of the European aristocracies, but was equally admired, apparently, by the revolutionary Danton. At various points he gives us intense visualisations of the dystopia his diseased spirit would visit on the world if it could: the following speech he puts in the mouth of a powerful Swedish nobleman and adept of a certain secret society; exactly the kind of man he admired: 

‘Once upon the throne of kings, there shall never have been a tyranny to equal ours, no despot shall ever have put a thicker blindfold over the eyes of the people; plunged into essential ignorance, it shall be at our mercy, blood will flow in rivers, our Masonic brethren themselves shall become the mere valets of our cruelties, and in us alone shall the supreme power be concentrated; all freedom shall go by the board, that of the press, that of worship, that simply of thought shall be severely forbidden and ruthlessly repressed; one must beware of enlightening the people or of lifting away its irons when your aim is to rule it.’

(Juliette, de Sade, 1797-1801)

By invoking de Sade as the presiding spirit of his ‘ultimate revolution’, Huxley is arguably opening up not just a psychological but a spiritual dimension by identifying it with a figure of such self-conscious malevolence, though this would be denied by those on the Left who have rehabilitated de Sade as a ‘progressive’. The same shading of psychological into quasi-spiritual explanations can be found in the disingenuous warnings of Elon Musk about the advent of artificial intelligence. He said something interesting and disturbing in an interview with Joe Rogan. Characterising the limbic system — the paleomammalian cortex — as the emotional centre of the brain, he added:

“But the AI isn’t formed, strangely, by the human limbic system. It is in large part our id writ large.” 

Elsewhere he has warned that “with AI we are summoning the demon” — and that humanity’s best hope of survival lies in merging with it, becoming symbiotes of the machine — of the demon, then. But of course Elon doesn’t believe in demons. You could say that the use of supernatural language here is simply a form of hyperbole, but it does seem that the only kind of language which can encompass the dimensions of what is unfolding around us is at least inspired by scripture and supernatural lore. Babylon system is da vampire, sang Bob Marley. How else can you say it?

So many on the Vaguely Left seem to have a problem with the word ‘evil’ — Charles Eisenstein’s flat ‘evil is misdiagnosis‘ dogma is a case in point. I’m not so sure. I think it’s a word you might want to reach for one day. How else to evoke the cruel, creeping fog of authoritarian absurdity being inflicted on the peoples of the world by their governments and the multilateral agencies they’re signed up to? How else to describe the kind of filth they’re trying to inject us with? How else to voice the deep ‘NO’ that resonates from somewhere deeper than the heart?

And it’s not just me. I’m noticing an extraordinary concurrence of language around the nature of this war; the phrase ‘spiritual warfare’ is on so many lips. ‘This demonic world…’ writes Naomi Wolf, not someone known for theological pronouncements, ‘this edifice of evil is too massive, too quickly erected, too complex and really, too elegant, to assign to just human awfulness and human inventiveness.’ 

‘These gene-based vaccines,’ says Professor Bhakdi, the most cited microbiologist in German academic history, in his message to his Thai brothers and sisters — ‘are the devil. What happens when you put the devil in your body?’

It seems that only a spiritual lexicon can express the true nature of this conflict. 

‘These vaccines have killed so many children in Germany, in Europe, in America. Don’t you start killing the Thai children, because then you will be sent to hell. You have to pay for your sins. No one can save you. You will never, ever escape from your karma.’

In 1998 the software developer Bill Joy simultaneously encountered the work of the Unabomber and the transhumanist Ray Kurzweil. The spiral of reassessment he entered, concerning the implications of twenty-first century technologies, led him to a disturbing conclusion. At the turn of the century he wrote, in a seminal article published in Wired Magazine: 

“I think it is no exaggeration to say we are on the cusp of the further perfection of extreme evil, an evil whose possibility spreads well beyond that which weapons of mass destruction bequeathed to the nation-states, on to a surprising and terrible empowerment of extreme individuals.” 
Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us, Wired Magazine, April 2000

These are some of the contexts which make me view the present moment not just with suspicion but a deep nausea which is hard to express in secular language. It’s a sense of something being very, very wrong, with the full range of connotations of that word, including, yes, a sense of evil, of creeping, smothering negation of everything human. Here you either come up against, or you don’t, your own convictions about what it means to be human, to use one of Klaus Schab’s favourite phrases, always in the context of any such unspecified meaning being ephemeral and subject to redesign and re-engineering. The argument — the war itself — all comes down to this phrase, and the question of whether you feel being human means something or not. If you do, whether you find that meaning in ancient human archetypes, Die Urzeitcode, the golden ratios of Vetruvian Man; whether you feel it surging up through the soles of your feet like Lorca’s duende or running through your body like the creative fire of Heraclitus or the Holy Spirit of God, you must carry within you some kind of durable notion of what a human being is meant to be. If not, then you are probably open to transhumanism yourself, or vulnerable, at least, to its promises.

I am not. For me, the transhumanist path is the darkest of all possible paths; a steep tragic arc. Why? Because it represents a final denial of the transcendent, unknown reality — the noumenon — which underlies the human phenomenon as all others; it is the reduction, finally, of the human being to a machine. It is also the ultimate elitism — transhumanism for the elite will be subhumanism for the mass of humanity, or what is left of it. A final divorce from reality, the Baudrillardian precession of simulacra, the substitution of an ersatz spirituality for resonance with anything beyond the artificial, the worship of benign AI… the nausea I feel is beyond physical. Something essential is at stake, the essence of the human being, the human noumenon itself. What we are. What we really are. 

My anatheism is an unexpected product of the lethal texts I allowed into my mind. The red pill is followed by the black, but under the lethal texts, much to my surprise, I found hidden the vital codes, or hints of them at least. It’s a direction that won’t be reversed in me now. Whether it will carry me all the way back to the religion of my fathers, I don’t yet know. I can only follow my own conceptions; I have my idea of God, my idea of the Holy Spirit. The third aspect of the Godhead remains obscure to me; but I have used His name, just once, in extremis, and felt its mysterious power. I’m more likely to continue my current syncretist path; but paradigms have been crumbling around me for years, so I don’t rule anything out. And I do think it’s only with some kind of protection that one can even look squarely at the evil that is unfolding around us.

In Kitsch World, the notion of deliberate, conscious, systematic evil applies only to fictitious characters. The concept of evil is taken to be a way of excusing human atrocity by projecting it onto something outside human nature. But this ignores the one thing we all know about evil — that it is a choice; the vampire has to be invited in. It’s a deal people make, even under duress. My heart breaks as I see them queuing up at the jabbatoir to undergo their perilous initiation into the New Normal. The word sin, I have read, is mistranslated in the Bible, or rather we have forgotten its meaning, which is error. The seductive error is always to go with the crowd; to be bribed or coerced or tricked into consenting. Governments cannot legally compel people to take experimental medical procedures without ripping up the Nuremberg Code and the European Declaration of Human Rights, like the Nazis they are — which most are reluctant to appear, although even these inhibitions are rapidly disappearing. I don’t expect theoretical legal protections to stand much longer, as governments run out of volunteers for euthanasia. But short of being forcibly restrained and injected in a literal medical rape, everything else is a choice, regardless of consequences; unemployment, fines, jail sentences, social exclusion, starvation and isolation/concentration camps notwithstanding. The system doesn’t want to have to force you; it wants you to consent. In any of these circumstances, faced with any of these penalties, if you consent then the karmic liability lies with you, and the spiritual price to be paid. That’s the theory I’m going to be operating on, at any rate.

It certainly seems to me that any Christian must be given some pause by the extraordinary foreshadowing of something very much like a vaccine passport in the Revelation of Jesus Christ to St John. (13: 11-18)

13 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.  14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore and six.

The ‘Mark’ is a strangely specific detail in the context, and for years there have been those Christians who have understood it with a plausible futuristic twist as the RFID microchipping of the population, long an ambition of the financial elite. The advent of injectable technologies makes the prophecy even more relevant — the vaccine can only be the Mark, signifying loyalty to a Beast System which arises after the fall of Babylon. John is shown dire spiritual consequences for those who take the Mark:

9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, 10 If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 11 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 12 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. (Revelation 14:9-12)

This does make some sense in the context of a radical denaturing of human consciousness, since the end of free thought and free will must be the abolition of any possibility of consciousness of the divine — mustn’t it? Any person of the Book must surely reject the Mark. Meanwhile in England they turn Salisbury Cathedral into a vaccination centre. The bathos of that!

The assault on us, as my friend said, is everywhere and all the time, on every level, even in the cells of your body. The revolt then must be just as deep, an echoing NO chorused from every level of our being, leaving no room for compromise. We may be doomed to extinction, but that’s not for us to say, and irrelevant in any case. I will be what I am until I am not anything, and in the meantime the only language I’m beginning to find remotely adequate to express what is happening is scriptural, archetypal… I have no problem, for example, in describing the future envisioned by Schwab, Gates, Musk, et al as Satanic.

A powerful dissident voice has emerged with the Catholic Church, a man who knows how to wield that language. I can’t put it any better than this:

The pandemic is just a pretext – the profasis – through which is introduced the seeming inevitability of the violation of fundamental rights and the consequent establishment of the totalitarian regime of the New Order. In this New Order the pandemic superstition reigns supreme, with its magicians, its vaccine temples, its irrational rituals and its excommunications of sinners vitandi (“to be avoided” or “to be shunned”) — those who do not agree to give up their reason even before apostatising from their Faith in order to embrace this insane ideological madness…

Transhumanism is a hellish project, in which the Devil mocks the creation of God by perverting and corrupting it. Obedience to the ‘easy yoke’ of the Law of God is replaced by the enslavement and submission to Satan’s tyranny, in which there is no tolerance for good and everyone is forced to commit evil, accept evil, and legitimize evil. And despite the fact that only God can read our consciences, Satan tries to violate the sanctuary of our inner spiritual part in order to control it and induce us to commit evil even against our own will. […]

It is a delirium that only Lucifer can conceive, and it is destined to complete failure because of it Antichristic matrix, its defying of the divine Kingship of Jesus Christ. It is a delirium where the creature, rebelling against the divine laws, pretends to reach the place of the Highest and repeats, with the same disgraceful determination, the ‘Non serviam’ (‘I will not serve’) of Lucifer.”

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

Which must be met by an equal and opposite resolution:

Non serviam. 

I will not serve.

Not you.



  1. The Transhumanists will fail in their attempts because they repeated their materialist bullshit so much that even they themselves now believe it.

    Machines can never become self-aware. AI is better understood as expert systems, they can never achieve consciousness.

    Just as the origin of consciousness isn’t in the brain, neither can it be in the CPU. It comes from without. The brain is a sending and receiving mechanism.

    They may be trying to create some sort of remote-control mechanism via strange nanoparticles in the brain to create an army of human automatons, but that will fail as well, if only because it results in the collapse of the complex systems needed to maintain such a mechanism.

    Check out Clif High on Bitchute, he lays out what’s most likely to happen. He’s been more right than wrong thus far.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *