MESSIAH OF THE KISS: TOWARDS A THEORY OF 'COVID-19'

Ivermectin and the Magic Flute: notes on spiritual osculology and extincto-pharmacology.

1.

What is it about an oral medicine (ivermectin) that means it can’t compete with Western Big Pharma (injections)? It seems related to orality (kisses) in general. ‘It’s a pity I can’t kiss myself’, says Freud.¹ But that’s not true, one can always self-kiss.²

Freud believed the origin of the kiss was in the erotic satisfactions of the pre-verbal infant, that is, the earliness of the kiss was too preteen, too non-adult, too pure.

But there again, Freud perhaps had an overly contaminative view of the extent to which the pre-verbal could (not) be sustained. Informally speaking, that’s now written all over the refusal of ivermectin. Anything other than Western BP medicine is no good. Something that comes via the mouth (like Mathilde’s mystic word in Novalis) is simply unbelievable.

(This is why I don’t make the case for ‘ivermectin’ here or provide links. Instead I study the word, and leave that word itself to you. A magic word for a ‘wonder drug’ that is being more than repressed. The scene, after all, of a new degree of pharmacological crime.)

2.

In his essay on Proust Benjamin spoke of how ‘the idea that happiness could have a share in beauty would be too much of a good thing, something that their ressentiment would never get over’.

The same applies to ivermectin—its structural orality as opposed to the other big pharma ‘jabs’—and how it therefore represents the impossibility of a self-kiss . . . all of this is more resistant to us because it doesn’t resist at all. It slips down. It isn’t known.

It would be too much of a good thing for the West and too much for the current COVID industrial complex to get over if ivermectin actually existed and was exactly what its proponents have been saying it is for more than a year: a Noble Prize winning drug with no patent control that works better, on more levels, and at more treatment phases, than all the others being used.

The fact that none of the official COVID drugs are orally administered is far from insignificant, simply because the psychology of ‘injections’ is masochistic all the way through, and masochism still sells better than its opposites (this is partly what Freud meant when he said that a self-kiss is impossible).

Surely this now allows us to understand what Ronell said in 1993 about ‘ressentimental medicine’:

Dr. [Michel] Bounan has written a treatise deploring life-despising medicine; or, in other equally Nietzschean terms (though he does not himself articulate these terms), his scientific invective against the current state of AIDS research discloses the medicalization of ressentiment in our time. Indeed, it would be necessary to see the extent to which resentful medicine (for example, those branches of modern medicine that are servile to the dictatorship of pharmaceutical companies) is CO-responsible, together with those effects of capital and technology to which we owe the degradation of the environment, for the increase in infectious and tumoral disease.

The launching of the COVID industrial complex over the last year or so seems to have fooled almost everyone, even those who think they aren’t fooled. Perhaps it is the best or at least most recent example of what this newsletter has been calling ublilapse, and what really mobilizes itself here via vaccine-signalling and vaccine-silence is a sort of massive collapse of individuated decision making that can now only go one way.

(This bears as well on a further sickness: the complete vanishing of the idea of self-sacrifice.)

3.

Freud counted the kiss as ‘erotic’ in the specific sense of a pleasure beyond the necessities of oxygen, water, food and shelter. He argued that the kiss was non-survival-related (and hence non-rational), and in addition that pleasures like kissing are enjoyed to the extent that they mimic or refer back to our earliest, most primitive physical needs. Purity, immersion, absolute iteration: these all belong to the kiss. (These qualities are all, right now, in some ways censored not only by the WHO and Fauci but by anyone who signals by taking about or referring to one of the mainstream drugs.)

The orality of a drug is therefore soft (not hardwired to life) whereas an injection is hard (it wants to get somewhere (‘get jabs in arms’), as Western medicine now does in Africa and India and elsewhere). But what does it mean that the orality of ivermectin leaves it(self) open to being a weak signal, currently shadowbanned on Western social media and tuned out in American Senate hearings? Does that mean there is no space left over for what is non-survival related, and all that implies in wilder reason?

Another way of putting this is that all the debates around vaccines in Western media tend to leave out the option of simply doing nothing and thinking nothing. In fact, side by side with ‘experimental vaccines’ such as those now being taken as if out of convenience (people just want to get back to normal) we might place Mitchell Heisman’s idea of ‘Experimental Elimination of Self-Preservation’. Why is the linkage between speculative projects and survival still assumed? Couldn’t that be imagined as a main cause? Isn’t ‘COVID’ the name given to the worldwide assumption of an assumption?

There’s another more brusque way of putting this: in taking the vaccine, or in assuming that you must, people assume the future of life is about them. Heisman is an exceptional figure in the imaginary of the last decades because, exactly unlike Mark Fisher, he was able to actively experiment on the loss of his own life so as to impart to us with a rare degree of anonymity a theory of suicide. Fisher did the opposite, which should make us wonder about his intelligence in the purest, most unguarded sense.

There’s no doubt that if Heisman were alive today he would have simply refused to take the vaccine, and first of all as a gesture: here is my life, and it is not as important as life. Here is my life, it is not life itself. I entrust my life to the survivance of the immunological whole (its innocence, its purity) and not to the corruption of the Gestell of injection.

Orality (kissing) does this too. Heisman kisses us this: he intentionally wrote against the self-preservation mechanism that seems to underpin most calculations about vaccination, about dose, about injection, about the furtherance of life—as if the question becomes: isn’t injection always lethal in some sense, whether it appears to us as that or not?

It’s interesting that many people who have taken a (Western) vaccine admit that they did so at the point when they stopped thinking. The decision came not as a decision at all in fact, but at the moment they gave up, in effect, on self-knowledge, unified epistemology, real science. This implies a kind of self-blinding. Not only would I rather not know but I want my blinding to be contagious, exactly like a virus in fact. (I want you to know I took the decision . . . to have my decision taken from me. (The blinding will be binding.))

But a true rationalist—and maybe Heisman is the only one who can lay claim to that—would effectively will death at the point they actually think through what the Western extinction cult called ‘vaccines’ is really doing (read up for yourself in the long-term, don’t believe me—reading still might be our own). As he puts it, ‘The attempt to be thoroughly objective by subtracting all biasing life factors, taken to its extreme, may be equivalent to willing death.’ Rather than ‘anti-vaxxing’ or ‘vaccine hesitancy’ we would then have ‘Experimental Elimination of Self-Preservation’.

4.

I can say that I share what I project as Heisman’s extreme opposition to (Western) vaccines. To accept the Covid industrial complex and all its consequences without question is not a pro-life decision at all in the long run.

Perhaps, more cryptically, what seems related to ivermectin (a kiss) is the way Novalis’ translator would not accept that the secret word in Heinrich von Ofterdingen was imparted by a kiss in the mouth: in brief, we cannot accept that an oscular gift like ivermectin exists and that we could have spent a whole year denying it to each other.

(The implied shame would be toxico-seismic.)

In other words, according to the translator of Heinrich von Ofterdingen, it had to be said (injected) not kissed (orally administered). Mathilde kissed the mystic word into Heinrich’s mouth and the English translator effaced it, just as fact checkers efface the existence of ivermectin.

In Ronell’s essay she eventually turns to Mozart and his flute, a maternal phallus (Zauberflöte is German slang for penis) that might stand in for the syringe and its deep ambiguousness:

The example of Mozart read by Nietzsche that I used several years ago was meant to show how the Magic Flute, Mozart’s final opera, attended by the young composer on his death bed, unconsciously projected the drama of immunodeficiency (Tamino was transmuted into ‘Contamino’, to whom the Queen of the Night had relinquished the immunocompetent object, the flute-phallus, and so forth).

In our weak-at-the-knees-ness for BIG PHA(RMA), an immunico-pharmaco-phallocentric shot is constantly administered and assumed. The whole thing is certainly averse to the kiss of a drug and all it grazes. Novalis was right: the real word to be told us is kissed in and kissed deep into us through the mouth and, well, that’s something they will keep telling you we just need to get into arms.

5.

The flute is obviously a primal metaphor for the primal figure of injection (metaphysics, Gestell, ‘COVID’) as opposed to orality (the kiss, ivermectin, India). Sei sagte ihm ein wunderbares geheimes wort in den mund: the COVID industrial complex understands that the ‘all’ is increasingly masochistic, and that people will take only what seems to work for them (frustration). Addicts talk about injecting with the ‘empty syringe’ in the latter stages of addiction. To be kissed, on the other hand, is just too much for our addictogenic resentment to process.

They hate ivermectin because it’s a kiss, and they were able to sell their vaccines to us because they are not. People fear orality as release more than they are attached to masochism. The market engineers of Big-P and their Ivy League conceptual psychology interns will have known this for decades.

Knowledge is hatred according to the matrix, and ressentimental medicine is so addictive for us that most people prefer to vaccine-signal rather than save the purity of the immunological system that is innocence itself, or at least to ask questions at the opening. We would rather die than hesitate and take the chance of preventing the all from dying in the long run, isn’t that what the magic syringe means?

An apocalyptic objectivity breaks through in Heisman that remains, by definition, unread. Simone Weil might have shared it too, in god-affliction (malheur), she who let herself die beyond the point of it in Kent (the home of a ‘variant’). A few other names might be placed here.³

Let’s say we can briefly imagine something else, something like the messiah of the immunological kiss. This messiah would be one who can say: Kiss me as I kiss myself; and one who proclaims: Kiss me all before we all go; asking others to lick rather than feed and to love rather than introject and consume.

1. ‘It’s a pity that I can’t kiss myself / Schade, daß ich mich nicht küssen kann’ (Freud 1953, 182; 1991, 84). See ‘The Taste to Come: The Lick of Faith and the Other—Mouths of Messianism’, Virgil W. Brower, Postscripts 3.2–3 (2007) 238–262: ‘The messianic is the call to taste the flesh — kosten das fleisch — and a messiah is that one who can say: Kiss me as I kiss myself . . . ’ (259–60).

2. Which is to say, a kiss always involves a degree of self-touching of lips (the self-kiss), and from there we can develop other thoughts and feelings of the kiss.

3. Certainly Hannah Emmerson’s great great great kissing would be touched on, to which I here send a treble kiss.