Foucault's crooked smile
Is postmodernism itself a form of vaccine injury?
Forrest Maready is one of my favorite writers and thinkers. I’m a huge fan of his book, Crooked: Man-Made Disease Explained: The incredible story of metal, microbes, and medicine — hidden within our faces. The premise of the book is that crooked smiles, strabismus, and many other disorders are often the result of cranial nerve injury from exposures to toxic metals, usually from vaccines.
It starts out as an audacious hypothesis and then as he methodically works through the evidence over the course of 383 pages it becomes a red pill and then common sense. The book is an extraordinary example of independent self-directed scholarship that may end up reducing lots of unnecessary suffering in the world.
So imagine my surprise the other day when I stumbled upon a video of Michel Foucault debating Noam Chomsky and I noticed that Foucault has a habit of talking out of the right side of his mouth.
It’s subtle, but at times it’s like Foucault is chomping on an imaginary cigar. At first I thought it was just because he was French and he appears to have some dark metal crowns on that side of his mouth. Yet even iconic images of Foucault show a difference between the right and left side of his mouth:
So that got me wondering whether Foucault suffered from a mild cranial nerve injury (from a vaccine or all of that metal dental work)? But then an even more provocative hypothesis popped into my head — Foucault is one of the leading architects of postmodern/poststructural theory — is it possible that postmodernism itself is a form of vaccine injury?
There is a bit of a temporal association — while vaccines have existed for a couple centuries, the first nationwide vaccination campaigns began in the 1950s (polio) and 1960s (measles). Postmodernism (in the U.S.) took off in the 1970s and 1980s and continues to be the dominant mode of thought on the political left today.
But it’s more than that. One of the massive concerns about vaccines is that mercury (back in the day) and aluminum (the main adjuvant used today) are neurotoxins and we know that mercury kills the dendrites in the brain necessary to process empathy (and Professor Chris Exley shows excess aluminum deposits in the brains of people with autism and Alzheimer’s). You absolutely have to watch this video about what mercury does to neurons.
What’s intriguing to me is that postmodernism posits that ‘one cannot possibly understand another person’s viewpoint. There can be no universals. The best that we can hope for it to respect difference.’ Well, if one’s capacity for intersubjective understanding was chemically impaired by neurotoxic injury, that’s about where one might end up (‘you do your thing, I’ll do mine, and relative perspective is the only truth’).
Said differently, if vaccines (or any other toxic insult) kill mirror neurons or any other neurological structure necessary for processing an understanding of the other, then of course a political theory would come along and become popular that argues that intersubjective understanding is impossible. It is also no secret that today the Democratic Party champions postmodernism (after 40 years of training in academia and far too many shots as a condition of membership in the bourgeoisie) and also is the point of the spear pushing for ever more vaccines (thus possibly reproducing the very conditions that contributed to this mindset in the first place).
So that’s where I’ll leave it for now, an audacious hypothesis. But there’s clearly something going on at the physical level — the left’s sudden abandonment of intersubjectivity as the basis of policy combined with their rapturous embrace of both postmodernism and vaccines (even as overvaccination destroys every political goal that the left ever had) cannot be explained as just a bunch of people simultaneously all having the same completely counterproductive idea. The introduction of new and additional neurotoxins into our bodies and those neurotoxins reshaping (constraining, warping) thoughts, theories, and values seems like a better fit for the observable data.
If you have not already read it, Forrest Maready’s Crooked would make a wonderful holiday gift for yourself or a loved one.
Another hugely thought provoking post.
I've been bothered for a long time by the idea that much of what we take for granted in our lives actually makes us ill. The effects aren't recognised because the harms are often delayed by years and manifest in chronic rather than acute diseases, or even subtle behavioural changes. Before the vaccine age, autism was rare, in the range of 1 in 30000. Now it is less than 1 in 30.
Then there are the massive range of novel chemicals for which nobody knows the long term harmful effects.
Maybe coincidence, but I watched the film Dark Waters again last night: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk. An amazing story about DuPont and their product Teflon, which was so useful and marketed so well that nobody wanted to think about harmful effects: until animals and people started dying. A crusading lawyer saved the day, yet the legacy of the product is that nearly everyone in the world has trace amounts in their bodies.
Just checked out http://forrestmaready.com/ and he looks really interesting - very interesting bio as well - love these guys who come from a creative, diverse background who apply themselves to research like this. Awesome.