The Malice of Mandatory Masking

Updated: Jun 14

Randomly rip away a man’s freedom to be with his wife and children, or tear him from basic rights without cause, and there’d be chaos. But before administering the injection of tyranny, numb the mind with a novocaine of “it’s for the safety of your neighbour and society,” and the individual will feel little more than mild irritation, maybe even a bit of pride, as he receives the lobotomy of a new world order. The more gradual our loss of freedom, the more comfortable our descent into government control, the easier it is to accept the conditions of this “new normal.” A slow and steady decline of liberty sloths the mind and convinces the conscience of a ruler’s benevolent intent. We eventually get so used to the abuse of rights and suppression of expression we forget we ever had any at all.


The problem is amplified because we are short-sighted creatures who rarely look back to the past or forward to the future. It's easy to capture our attention but difficult to maintain. We are prone to think only about the next 5 minutes and not a second longer. The reward for engaging in some action always seems to outweigh any potential consequences. Even though that often isn’t true, we have a convenient habit of forgetting the lesson and start the cycle again. Although we’re aware of the tyrannies of old and presently see the exact conditions necessary for their inception, many think our society so progressive and enlightened that ancient horrors wouldn’t dare manifest today. But we know better. That’s why we have stern contention with mandatory masking. It is enforced and championed in nearly every corner of our nation, but does that make it right?


A Modern Marxism

The rulers of state must maintain majority support among the people. A majority can be attained due to adoration and free election, or terror and fear, but it's is required all the same. Simultaneously, government officials must keep minority movements in check. For a minority is like a small splash of water in the middle of the ocean that slowly gains momentum, then size and strength, and becomes unstoppable as it turns into a tsunami of revolution.


One of government’s favourite weapons to conquer and perpetually control this majority is the intellectual. People generally prefer to abstain from strenuous thought, so when someone like an expert is willing to do the“grunt work” of research and then presents his information in a digestible manner to the public, people usually believe it. And if the majority unquestionably follow the expert, they typically bow to the government he supports.


Part of the propaganda shovelled into our homes by government, experts, and media is that the mask is a vital appendage in the grand design of a safe society. They order we must wear a mask to significantly reduce the opportunity for infection to be released into our vicinity. In essence, the mask has become part of the cure for Covid.


The implementation of mandatory masking introduces a fail-proof method for segregating “safe” citizens who yield to experts (and therefore to government) and “dangerous” ones who don’t. Certain doctors (experts) have force-fed us the narrative that we must wear a mask. Our government, capitalizing on the opportunity to gain valuable information and power, “capitulates” to the experts and legislates a mandatory mask policy for the “good of the nation.”


In an instant, two groups are created and clearly distinguished from one another. The modern bourgeoise is not clothed with riches, but naked with no mask. The new proletariat, the majority subject to the oppression of those “who don’t care for their safety,” wear facial coverings.* The mask becomes a signal identifying the two classes; guessing which one a man belongs is no longer necessary.


It’s a brilliant strategy because it instantly exposes members of peaceful freedom guerrillas. The political elite uncover potential threats, publicly ridicule them as dangers to the government (and therefore to the democratic people who all “have a share” in the government), and legislate their methodical elimination to ensure security. These champions of freedom are the minority the government needs to silence. One or two men standing steady against unjust authority pose a deadly danger to the ruler—though they are a minority now, they might be a majority tomorrow.


So then, those of us who refuse to wear a mask, if reported and caught, are subject to fines. Not wearing a mask has become punishable by law. Though refusing to wear a mask is not (yet) an imprisonable offence, the damage has already been done. The precedent is set. “Cure” has become synonymous with “justice.”


The problem with equivocating justice and cure is that the Lord Jesus never commanded it. In fact, assuming the two are interchangeable potentially violates His law. Instead, a foundation of justice, allowing us to declare with confidence whether something is right or wrong, is that it gives the individual what he deserves. The thief must make reparations, the abuser needs to be locked away, and the sinner is sentenced to Hell. The requirement for justice to be fulfilled is so overpowering that in order for man to be saved, God sent His Son, Christ Jesus, to be an atoning sacrifice for the sins of humanity. What we deserved as a consequence of our sin, death, was transferred to Christ at the cross so that our punishment might be paid and divine justice satisfied (Romans 5:1-9).


But with precedent like masking, law no longer necessarily pertains to what is morally right, but to what is safe. That is when we realize that “mask” is merely semantics. Keep the “mandatory,” but replace “mask” with any word you choose: vaccinations, speech, religion; all of these can be justified by experts and legislated by government in the name of safety. The outcome is the same; suppressing our individuality until every man, woman, and child is made in the image of no one.





*Of course, this is not to say that all who wear masks agree with them, only that those who don't wear masks are near guaranteed to hold contention with these laws.

0 comments