Pharma seeks to obliterate humanity and love itself

A meditation on intersubjectivity in the midst of a mass poisoning event

When I went to the University of Sydney to do my Ph.D. in 2014, my plan was to study intersubjectivity. This compound word is deceptively simple: between subjects. Already that’s interesting because a relationship between two or more subjects (read: people with agency) is different than a relationship between a subject and an object. Mutuality, respect, and finding the spark of the divine in the other are all possibilities that emanate from this one powerful word.

I like to describe intersubjectivity as what happens in the space between people. At first glance this would appear to be a study of nothing or nothingness (like some sort of Seinfeld episode). But then once you pause to really think about it for a minute you realize that most of the best stuff in life — empathy, understanding, meaning, connection, love… happens in this intersubjective space between people.

As someone studying political economy I was curious to figure out whether there are ways to set up the rules of society to increase intersubjectivity — to create the conditions for love, understanding, meaning, connection, and empathy to flourish. So for example, leisure time, access to parks, libraries, good schools, and a decent standard of living are all types of things that might foster intersubjectivity. (Looking back on it now, I imagine all of those things are helpful but insufficient on their own.)

The question was how to operationalize this research. What case study or example could I find that would allow me to explore intersubjectivity and ways for it to flourish?

I should add that my original academic supervisor (a rising star in the left political economy world) was skeptical of this thesis. He said, you may want more healthy intersubjectivity in this world, but lots of people don’t. Lots of people seem to want subject/object relationships — relationships of domination as opposed to relationship of mutuality. And it’s not just the subjects who want this but a lot of objects seem to want this as well.

I took note of that, I feared that he was making a good point, but I had the zeal of the naïve so I was undeterred.

At first I thought I might do a case study in Cambodia. It was a culture characterized by extreme subject/object relationships during the Khmer Rouge regime (1975 - 1979) that was undergoing a transformation after the end of the civil war (1999). I taught in Cambodia in 2012 and was intrigued by the ways that relationships between people were changing. But then a filmmaker in Siem Reap making a documentary about the transition of former Khmer Rouge soldiers back into civil society was murdered. Apparently some people were not yet ready to give up relationships based on domination and that case study seemed more dangerous than I wanted to take on.

My supervisor suggested I study “The Adam Smith Problem” that economists have wrestled with for 250 years. The “problem” stems from the fact that Adam Smith’s first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, is highly intersubjective (it anticipates much later discoveries in psychology about mirror neurons and empathy) and his second book, The Wealth of Nations, is almost the opposite of that. So the question is what happened between the two books or how should we understand the tension between these two books? I worked on The Adam Smith Problem for a year (and I believe I solved it, more on that in a later post)… and then my girlfriend’s son was diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum.

What initially attracted me to studying autism (in addition to the obvious utility of trying to figure out how to be helpful to this wonderful child) was this question of intersubjectivity. The perception at the time was that people on the autism spectrum lacked empathy. This turned out to be wrong. Rather, people on the spectrum seem to have various senses (touch, taste, smell, hearing, sight) turned way up or way down. Indeed many facets of the personality are turned way up or way down. Yes, some people on the spectrum might lack empathy (hypo-empathetic) but others might be hyper-empathetic — empathy turned up so high that just functioning in society becomes difficult because one feels everything.

The toxicological component of autism then becomes even more troubling — is it possible that some chemicals, EMF, pharmaceutical products, etc. are interfering with our senses, interfering with how we relate to one another, literally making it more difficult for people to get along with each other? For me, the political economy of autism became an extraordinary case study in intersubjectivity and that’s what I studied for the next four years.

Here’s what especially interests me now, 8 years after I began to explore this topic.

We have proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Pharma and its enablers in government and the media are engaged in a mass poisoning of society that interferes with the regions of the brain that are necessary to process empathy, connection, meaning, understanding, and love.

I’ve posted this video before and it’s just one ingredient (used somewhat less now) but it illustrates the point. Mercury kills the dendrites in the brain necessary to process subtle social cues between people. I imagine one could make similar videos for other vaccine ingredients such as aluminum — at which point one would instantly lose all of one’s research funding and get fired.

So Pharma and its enablers are not just killing people (although they are doing that at a prodigious rate) but they are engaged in a war against empathy, connection, meaning, understanding, and love itself. Now that we are in the midst of this mass poisoning event all intersubjective relationships — friends, family, lovers, colleagues — are affected. Pharma, via the mass injections of poisons, is warping, on the cellular level, how we relate to each other.

If one wants to increase healthy intersubjectivity in society, one must stop the mass poisoning of the populace and heal bodies and brains that have been poisoned.

---

But I’m haunted by my original supervisor’s admonition — you may want more healthy intersubjectivity in this world, but lots of people don’t. Lots of people seem to want subject/object relationships — relationships of domination as opposed to relationships of mutuality. And it’s not just the subjects who want this but a lot of objects seem to want this as well.

I want to say a few things about that:

The people we are up against in the battle to stop the iatrogenocide — Pharma, the philanthropaths, the failed government regulators, the geneticists hoovering up all the research money, the psychiatrists and psychologists, etc. — do not want healthy intersubjectivity in society. They are furious that warrior mamas figured out autism mostly through common sense and they are humiliated that they are now implicated in one of the most egregious crimes in human history. The iatrogenocists want a world of subjects (them) and objects (the rest of us), rulers and the ruled over, domination and submission, “experts” and know-nothing commoners. The Covid pandemic was a dream scenario for them because it gave them political cover to recreate society in their image.

But they are miserable of course because this is a lousy way to live. As just one example, doctors commit suicide at 4x the rate of the general public. In their desire for control they forgo all of the good stuff that comes from healthy intersubjectivity (empathy, understanding, meaning, connection, and love).

The thing people fear the most in this world is not sharks, snakes, pain, or death — it’s love. Once love is given it can also be taken away and THAT is the most terrifying thing on the planet. Through their actions the people we are up against in this fight make it clear that they want to obliterate love from the face of this Earth. But maybe that’s because they fear it more than anything else? They are addicted to the drug of control and so they always want more, more, more. But control can never fill the receptors in our soul that are seeking love.

And it’s not just the subjects who want this but a lot of objects seem to want this as well.

That’s the hardest part of this fight. We keep trying to save people and they keep insisting that it’s a really good idea to jump into an active volcano. It’s not just Bill Gates who wants to obliterate love from the face of the Earth but lots of his victims seem fine with that as well. I get that there are hundreds of billions of dollars of propaganda being spent to promote the iatrogenocide and we are in the midst of the largest psyop in human history. But the lack of personal responsibility and the disappearance of the self-preservation instinct suggest (in addition to Stockholm Syndrome) perhaps a self-interested willingness to participate in the destruction of healthy intersubjectivity in society?

There’s one additional beat to this story that I’m not sure how to describe. The smartest and most intersubjective person I knew in my whole Ph.D. program — the person who could read the room and every individual in it better than the best poker player, dropped out to live with an abusive rich guy in Abu Dhabi who treated her like property. She described this surrender to capital and patriarchy as liberation, when it appeared to me as the opposite. If even those best-equipped to experience the joys of intersubjectivity still want to escape it, what does that tell us about the prospects for healthy intersubjectivity across an entire society?

Toby, you may want more healthy intersubjectivity in this world, but lots of people do not.

So what we are up against then, is a battle for love itself, for the sanctity of meaning, connection, empathy, and understanding — in a world where those things are feared, shunned, and now poisoned out of existence.

It seems to me that the reason the Biblical narrative is so relevant now is because THAT is the Jesus story, the central paradox at the heart of his life and teaching on this planet. Indeed it’s the central paradox at the heart of the human condition — we claim to want love, and thus it should be available in abundance (accepting it should be easier than not) and yet we do everything we can to obliterate it and those who teach/share it.

Our battle to stop the iatrogenocide now includes trying to shape the upcoming presidential election. Dismantling the Pharma state is essential for the survival of humanity. But the path to dismantling the Pharma state necessarily includes restoring love, reintroducing it into society, creating space for it and protecting it from all who would do it harm, and removing the incentives for its destruction. That’s the perennial battle throughout human history I imagine, but the stakes have never been higher and it’s a spiritual battle that we must win.

---

Blessings to the warriors. 🙌

Prayers for everyone fighting to stop the iatrogenocide. 🙏

Huzzah for everyone building the parallel economy our hearts know is possible. ✊

In the comments, please let me know your thoughts.

As always, I welcome any corrections.

---