Mask Manipulation

A friend received this email, and asked me to consider posting it to the blog. It is somewhat of a strange topic to log back into blogger about after all this time. The last thing I posted was a timeline on Luther the Heritic. Back when I wrote that, I would not have believed such a topic would even be worth a discussion. I also see humor in being asked to post about it since my original online avatar used to be the mask pictured in this post. Admittedly, this subject has been on my mind and in my prayers. The subject also coincides somewhat with a recent sermon I have listened to on the subject of "Dialectics".

This email is posted with some redaction, and with full permission from the original sender. Emphasis and links are mine:

+JMJ+

Gentlemen,

I have had conversations with most of you on the subject topic. Most of you know my thoughts on the virus, and that I have never worn a face mask in response. Generally speaking the push to wear masks, and the information behind it seems to be driven as part of a propaganda effort. Use of social media, participation in echo chambers, and reliance on a daily dose of other forms of media seem to drive this propaganda. People willingly participate in the media they consume and are impacted by it.

It should go without saying, but to make sure it is clear... I do not fear the virus. I am not worried about how my personal consumeristic urges might be impacted. I have been willing to suffer the consequences of my actions for a while now.

People can come to similar conclusions, and perform similar actions for very different reasons. This is relevant because I have heard reasons for NOT wearing a mask that are unsound. I have also heard repetition of "pre-recorded sophistry" (internet memes and quick one liners) that leads me to wonder if NOT wearing masks has also become a propaganda effort.

It is not a surprise that opposing propaganda efforts would exist over a subject. I am worried however that if I am right, that the result will lead to division for the wrong reasons. Division over good reason is bound to happen, but division over wrong reasons is just wrong.

I also know that covering one's face with a mask is not objectively wrong. Chances are there are circumstances where most of us have performed this action at some point in our lives. Reasons for wearing a mask certainly exist that could make the act wrong, or at the very least undesirable.

I am sharing my thoughts to caution you all from getting sucked into false dichotomies, or getting sucked into divisive attitudes that are not likely required. At the very least I would be cautious of letting the subject take up to much mental thought. There is certainly a battle here taking place, but maybe this is the wrong "front" to spend all the energy on with those around us and those we interact with.

I welcome any of your thoughts, but please remember, this is not social media. I do not need to be convinced of the ridiculous circumstance we are in. Chances are high that I have read "the science", "statistics", and "politics" and seen all of the same things you all have seen. This is not about convincing anyone to wear/not wear a mask. I am keeping a more concerned eye on the strange divisiveness of this specific topic, and urge you to do the same.

Mary keep you,

CIA: The Rockefellers

RCTV brings us a new CIA program on the Rockefeller Foundation.

The Rockefeller Foundation is actively undermining the Catholic Church and in the process attempting to erase man’s natural orientation to the eternal.

Topics discussed span from Eugenics, Birth Control, Immigration, Climate Change, and Infiltration into Catholic universities in America.

Please watch this half hour video titled: "CIA: The Rockefeller Foundation." The script for the video is also availible [PDF].

I'm just saying...

Thanks to a couple inches of winter weather, my commute was almost tripled this morning (honestly people -- it's just snow!), which gave me more than enough time to develop nausea listen to the propagandists at NPR paint their picture of “the facts” surrounding the shooting this past weekend in Tucson:

• The shooter was a “lone wolf” and acted alone
• That right-wing talk radio could possibly have played a roll in inciting violence
• That the Congress woman narrowly defeated a tea party candidate to win election
• That Arizona’s gun laws are perhaps too liberal
• That the shooter had attended “meet and greet” events with the Congress woman in the past and received thank you notes from her (or was it her office?)
• That the shooter had notes in his house about planning ahead (though what those plans are is unclear)
• That “some other people” were also injured by the shooter

When I got to work I did some quick internet searching and learned a few things that NPR didn’t bother mentioning:

• The shooter is a left-wing, pott-smoking liberal who has an affinity for reading Marx
• While the Congress woman was injured, a Catholic Federal Judge was killed
• The shooter had been rejected for elistment in the US Army
• The shooter has been linked with white supremacy extremists

So the Catholic judge was invited to the event at the last minute and a drug-abusing liberal guns him down along with several others. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence; or perhaps the judge was the real target and shooting the Congress woman provides sufficient obfuscation to the event to conceal this motivation?