What is it with the masks noise, Power?

by Robert John

In the first few months of the lockdown because of the Coronavirus there was a sober reflection on our society, with many articles, broadcasts and voices calling for radical change or progress on a variety of concerns.

There were compelling, sensible, rational, sound and well-reasoned arguments calling for changes to our relationships with nature and the environment, our relationships with work, consumerism, the economy, family, within society and our communities. There were calls to confront various destructive attitudes, behaviours or forces governing human activity and our dysfunctional societal and political institutions. Many intellectuals, academics, experts and commentators were calling for significant changes, different approaches and a redesign of manifold facets of the pre Covid world.

This was for many a very hopeful aspect of the unfolding tragedy and misery caused by the virus, a time with less pollution in the air and traffic everywhere, where people were reassessing what is truly valuable. There was a growing tide of opinion against what many people view as corrosive and damaging practices in society and the economy, which, needed to be confronted, then reformed or prevented from continuing.

This felt like for a while, a moment where real changes could be properly considered, then implemented. There was a genuine palpable feeling of things cannot carry on as they were.

Then along came lots of loud arguments about masks, the restrictions, conspiracy theories and other bizarre stuff, this polluted and overwhelmed this hopeful public debate.     

One of the best examples of this distracting noise is the masks debate. It has been puzzling to see so many very public and famous commentators, politicians too, who are incensed by citizens having to wear masks when shopping or on public transport, arguing it is an attack on freedom. Millions would consider this measure to wear a mask a reasonable request, on the grounds of safety from a deadly virus. That, however, has not prevented the emergence of a whole loud anti-mask movement, who view this measure as an attack on their liberty and a totalitarian governmental oppression.  

The masks are often referred to as a muzzle, that somehow the mask is going to stop you from being able to talk. If this is the case, surgeons must have a hell of a time communicating that they want the scalpel mid operation through using sign language, a certain look with their eyes, blinking or mime.

It has even been argued that the masks to cover your mouth and nose are dangerous for your health, preventing you from being able to breathe. Although, how come before the virus there were no news reports of surgeons and operation theatre teams dying or being incapacitated in their thousands, because of respiratory problems with surgical masks?

I seem to remember as a kid Hawkeye, the military surgeon character, cracking wise during operations in the hit TV show M.A.S.H. Or, maybe I am mistaken, and M.A.S.H was some sort of deep state conspiracy fake TV show, which was designed to have people wrongly believe that you can breathe, talk and tell jokes when you are wearing a face mask, whilst simultaneously completing complex lifesaving surgery, requiring very delicate hand movements and intense levels of concentration.

It is easy to slip into sarcasm or facetiousness when being presented with these arguments that the masks are an attack on freedom, but this incessant wailing from certain figures about the masks or other Covid restrictions being an attack on liberty or the other conspiracy theories flooding the public debate and discourse. They are disguising something far more sinister, serious and manipulative in their rhetoric.

Why go on about the masks and the restrictions, as an attack on freedom so much? That this is the state being oppressive or taking over the lives of the citizens? Why all of this incessant noise about denials of liberty?

This is happening deliberately for the purposes of power. Who defines what freedom is and what can be described as freedom, but more importantly, what cannot enter the public debate about what freedom is or crucially could be, what is acceptable for discussion, and what is not.

What is important to those public voices pushing this endless noisy stuff about the masks, other nonsense or conspiracy theories, is that those who sponsor these voices or whose interests they represent or serve: namely elite, established or reactionary power. Is that evidence based, rational, community minded, scientific measures which promote safety, security, sustainability, acting with a duty of care, health and well being for all citizens, that these ideas do not become too powerful.

It is to ensure these worthy principles are not widely approved of, are popular, are considered successful, important or are to be valued by the population. This is after all the thin end of the wedge, if measures of this kind are going to work, have wide public consent, support and be welcomed, then where else might these kinds of approaches, thinking or measures be applied?

Man-made climate change, pollution caused by problematic consumption or economic activity, to inequities in the communities in our societies, changes in the work and life balance, environmental measures? This kind of thinking or talk of evaluating the real worth or value of things, which has become more pronounced recently, it is very dangerous, well it is to those who benefit the most from things being arranged in their favour. These other ideas, noises and rhetoric of change have suddenly, unexpectedly and increasingly become more powerful in appeal and to more people.

This is unacceptable.

There just has to be irrationality, resentment, emotion, hate or anger which can be directed at particular things, groups or people: in order for the public debate to be managed or manipulated in a way that serves certain interests. That is if society is to be maintained in the structure desired, by those who benefit from it the most, established power.

These targets of resentment and scapegoats are important, as they allow events, attitudes, institutions and policies to be manipulated in certain directions, distracted away from certain things, ideas or people, into a debate that is more emotive than rational. It allows the power of ideas that have become more profound and a threat recently, to be diminished or removed. This serves the interests of arbitrary, unaccountable, reactionary private elite power by keeping certain things convenient to them strong as ideas or ideas that are a threat to them weak, with their power cemented as a consequence.

Out of nowhere, a lot of different rhetoric, suggestions or proposals have emerged into the public discourse about what freedom or society could be because of the virus. This is potentially very damaging for powerful figures, who wish to manage the debate away from these things and to silence these voices. Lots of noise is needed to distract away from these powerful ideas as important, to places where attitudes are more readily manipulated: where masses of people can be moved to be angry about something or someone else. To avoid the danger of the genuine causes of problems to do with freedom in society being identified fully, mostly them.

This then prevents a proper debate on a more authentic freedom occurring, whilst making sure that anger, frustration or resentment or calls for radical change are not directed at elite power itself, but instead at the scapegoats or somewhere else.

This powerful new talk or rhetoric of what freedom is or could be: what the economy, politics or society is for. This has to be controlled with rhetoric or a narrative about what is acceptable as freedom or not. That is why there is a lot of noise about the debate about masks and lots of other distracting stuff, they are loud denials of anything else, other than an approved economic, societal or political model from gaining traction or establishing itself more permanently in the realm of the public consciousness or debate.    

The freedom that is described by these wailing voices about the masks, who are mostly mouthpieces for the elite, conservative, established and reactionary power, is the ability of citizens to consume and work: work and consumption! That is what has been identified as the pinnacle of freedom for society. Plenty of people disagree with that, consider it absurd and have been making it known with alternative suggestions in the lockdown period. These other proposals or voices have to be dealt with, silenced and banished, as they are seen as a threat.

Any other powerful suggestions or proposals have to be drowned out with angry talk about ‘freedom’ being denied with masks or restrictions, something or someone else which is at times in reality either not denying freedom, is not the real reason, might even be actually establishing, defending or protecting freedoms but is blamed all the same.

Loud noises about fake conspiracies, distractions to direct anger at certain people or things are required, to prevent this new appealing rhetoric of change gaining ground or anyone who looks to question the narrow definitions of the approved kind of freedom from having a voice, which might be properly heard or considered. Especially, with proposals which may start to serve citizens more over the established order and reactionary elite figures who seek to dominate and have societal institutions serve them.

These proposals have to be pushed out and denied a fair hearing. Work and consumption are the approved freedom, the masks are preventing this approved freedom, there are no alternatives.Markets and work are important and very much necessary but is there value overrated, should it be paramount to everything else in life, are there not things of more value? Does all work have to be on someone else’s terms so much?

Many millions would not describe the pre Covid world of work, debt and consumption as being the zenith of freedom. The crisis has exposed how people are more often viewed as servants to economic power first, citizens second, when it should be the other way around. In fact many would see the pre Covid society or at least some of the elements of it as tyrannical, irrational and very unhealthy, more than free.

Many people would see it as full of impositions and often being dragooned into enterprises and ventures against their will, in an economy or society with very unclear objectives of just what all of this activity is trying to achieve, trapped in an unthinkingness. Where what is trying to be built as a human society is shrouded in uncertainty, that the pre virus society was built with a focus exclusively on freedom is a very questionable notion, laughable in many ways

This relentless unthinkingness, people have had time to reflect on this and they are questioning our society, our relationships with all sorts of things, but quickly the rhetoric and arguments has to be distracted away from these considerations and instead towards a debate of the denial of freedom being with of all things, face masks.

People have to be told what is acceptable as freedom and what is not. A proper debate emerging where people ponder alternatives to the very much provably reckless and destructive trajectory of our economic and societal activities, this has to be prevented, as it does not serve particular interests.   

When for millions the so called ‘freedom’ these false sirens lament, it is more like subjugation, tyranny or exploitation. Where the majority of your time, efforts, conscious self, your human resources and whole human being were being employed for the benefit of others you sometimes do not even know or particularly like, but are powerless against having to serve. On terms that for many, most, were not as agreeable as they would like them to be and where freedom would not be the first word to spring to mind to describe their life, and, to what higher purposes or ends did all of this serve? What is the direction and what are the goals?

In the lockdown there was a period when real change became a serious possibility, these alternative voices need to be quietened down, so kick up a large row about masks even it is risky and dangerous. If these voices truly cared about the lives of people they would be calling for people to wear a mask among many other measures to protect citizens, which, demonstrates something about the attitudes to other people and the planet those voices have, it is instructive and informative of the minds of the powerful interests they represent or serve as well.       

As wearing a mask, this is imbued with things like responsibility, care, co-dependency, safety, health, altruism, principled rules, rationality, virtue and a governance of serving citizens as a priority. Elite established power does not want the institutions of society to have a focus with or power resting with these ideas or the citizens, it has to be with or serve them above all other considerations. They desire power to remain elsewhere, in a more private realm, where it is arbitrary, beyond democratic, public or governmental influence or with a government which does not primarily serve them.

Many may think they are not taken in by the rhetoric about the masks, conspiracies or other deliberate noise and think it is absurd but that does not mean you will not be a victim of it, in more ways than catching the virus. Or, a victim or embroiled in other manipulative narratives of fake freedom, blame or hate figures, which are regularly presented in the public debate, which more than anything keep sustained focus or public debate away from proposals that could make a real difference to society. This tactic does not have to work on everyone in order for it to be successful.   

As what all of this is really, more subtly about, is power. What ideas are powerful and which ones are not, which ideas can remain in the public debate and which ones are to be exiled, as they do not serve powerful interests who want them gone, so create a noisy distraction.

This is a management of the debate, so that a mass of voices or opinions can be used as a tool against ideas which have become too powerful, which need to be put back in their place, before people get different notions about what freedom is. A kind of ochlocracy weapon or bludgeon, where a mass of people loudly proclaim what freedom is. Then this very narrow definition of freedom, which is arguably not freedom at all,  is then used to beat the alternatives into submission: as they are fledgling, still fragile or require a sustained exposition to flower. This is an obscuring white noise, used against inconvenient powerful ideas or alternative proposals, which may cause real change and damage powerful interests.

This to the point where so called respectable publications are now publishing articles about the masks row or other nonsense, whilst all of the other more hopeful ideas or proposals of change, they are very much now pushed into the background. Nonsense about the masks or other things now has the limelight. It is a fair argument to make that this is a deliberate management of the public debate, that is what the masks noise, the conspiracy theories, all the other noises about the restrictions and distracting stuff are about, do not think you will not end up a victim of this.

So, people better come up with some more defined ideas about what freedoms are and not give up too easily on that period of hopeful alternatives. All of those powerful and righteous ideas for change which emerged in the first lockdown period need to be supported, sustained and maintained in the public debate, before we return to being relentlessly told what is acceptable as freedom and what is not, by people who benefit from particular definitions of freedom.

Maybe freedom is too grand a word, idea or concept: improvements, authentic beneficial developments or real progress, change that will make an actual appreciable difference and on concerns which need to be addressed or are irresponsibly ignored.

Still, how can societies with so many people in it who see the height of freedom as not wearing a face mask in a supermarket for half an hour or so every week, for a year or two, how can that society ever consider itself to be truly free? Although, more crucially, how can a society be free with so many people in it who so meekly and easily are constantly embroiled with pathetic distracting debates about fake freedoms, blame figures, scapegoats or nonsense about masks, conspiracy theories, other useless or corrosive things? Why allow those distractions to become preeminent so often, above what are more authentic proposals?

Or, a society who so easily abandons worthy proposals which could make a genuine difference for a legitimate, responsible, sustainable, secure, healthy and free society: how can that society ever consider itself genuinely free?

So, the thing with the masks is something we all need to reflect on, as the distracting arguments are obscuring our chances of real societal reform and change. A world with genuine, authentic and responsible freedoms: where you putting your health and those of others at risk by not wearing a mask from time to time, that this is not presented as the height of liberty and it is taken completely seriously by huge swathes of the population. Whilst everyone else is suckered into a debate about that, instead of remaining resolute on the demands and arguments for genuine progress and reform, which were made so lucidly in the lockdown period.

Many of which were challenging the corrosive, irresponsible, short term, antinomian directionless unthinking and attitudes, which are driving so much human activity and behaviour towards self-destructive ends.     

—

I am going to do the thing of asking for money, there is a link on my WordPress page. I would encourage you to consider that money is power, if you give money to those agencies or forces you agree with in society, then you are giving them power and when it comes to writing and journalism, you are supporting freedom and giving those voices power against the powerful.

I would ask you to consider that all money is power and you give a lot of your power to institutions, which you accumulate through your endeavours. I ask you to question those institutions and question that power relationship, surely we should all have more say on what happens with our accumulated power and those institutions, actors or agencies should be compelled to act responsibly in the society and world we all live in. Where true values not price are paramount, as after all, we are all moral actors in this society and virtue and just principles have to have the upper hand over vice, otherwise we are on a very destructive trajectory.  

We all need to act with the health of society and the world in mind. It is unacceptable for agencies in our society to hoard our power then gives us little to no say over what happens with it, whilst acting in damaging, corrosive and irresponsible ways. A society with powerful undemocratic forces that takes your power and uses it for these purposes: where there are no proper principled or just guidelines, moralities or laws is tyrannical and totalitarian. Especially, when in reality there are few to no choices as to who we give that power to and the sheer amounts of power we have to forfeit.

A so called freedom or freedoms which destroys and removes the liberty of others especially the posterity, that is not freedom at all. It is tyranny, no matter how sugar-coated and immediately gratifying it might be in the present day, it is an arbitrary use of power. A power placed beyond the rule of law, accountability, democracy, morality and sound principled governance.