How to Defeat
Requirements to Mask-upConfrontational methods are not to this writer's taste, but are perfectly valid, morally; nobody has any right to dictate what you shall wear or not wear. There is a near-universal de-facto standard of decency that favors the wearing of some clothing, but what it shall be, is mostly up to the wearer.
So on entering a store whose owner "requires" the use of face diapers, one might simply say "no". That may quite possibly lead to the arrival of bouncers, to exclude the customer from the premises, or in extremis to that of the police.
Here's a video of how Canadian police treated a Montreal man who refused to wear a mask.
Inevitably he lost, after putting up a valiant struggle against 2:1 odds. He was a bit lucky; cops are prone to shoot dead those who resist arrest or even run away. Confrontation is that dangerous.
Additionally, it's a bit unfair on the retailer's staff - who must obey their manager's order to "require" customers to wear them, yet who personally don't agree; there are plently of those. No need to antagonize them. But those whose principles are firm and are willing to place life itself at risk, flat refusal is an option. One big benefit: videos like that one circulate fast, and demonstrate very clearly to everyone that police, as government agents, are not our friends.
Many non-confrontational ways exist, and more will be discovered. The first I saw was from Econ. Prof. Tom DiLorenzo; he said he sported a "Black Lives Matter" placard on his person as he entered the store. He was ready to ask, if challenged about his absent mask, whether the store was white-supremacist. (The point is that recently there have been several BLM protest demonstrations in which few wore face-masks; yet the cops did nothing.) I think so poorly of BLM that I wouldn't do that, but it's creative.
Stores publish their mask policies, and typically they provide "exceptions." Here are videos about how Walmart customers used those exceptions to their advantage in a Missouri store.
The "exceptions" relate to "medical conditions." So if you have a "medical condition" and are challenged at entry for not wearing the mandated diaper, you can say "I have a medical condition, so am exempt." What's a "medical condition"?
The fun bit, I think, is that they almost certainly are not allowed to ask; or that you're not obliged to answer, if they do; medical records are private, period. In the law this does apply to employers regarding employees, very clearly; it may be a little foggier outside that context but the bottom line is that they could get into legal trouble if they try to break that confidence. If they want to persist, suggest they take legal advice first!
So, do you have a "medical condition"? Many people do. If you take any regular medication, you do. If anyone calls you "crazy" for beleving that government is a bad idea (for example) then you might be mentally ill; that's a "medical condition." Very many in the USSR were sent to psychiatric hospitals just for saying that Communism is irrational, including Solzhenitsyn; so social media critics who describe you that way could well be right; then you'd be exempt from any wear-a-mask rule.
Even if you think yourself very healthy, I bet you do suffer from one malady: agoraphilia. That's the converse of "agoraphobia" - a fear of open spaces - and equates to "yearning to breathe free", a very American sentiment. In plainer English, you like fresh air. So do I.
Out of interest, one can take this further. Since we know (from the other pages on this site) that there is no actual C-19 crisis except the one government generated, those who do wear face masks could reasonably be called irrational; that is, mentally ill. Therefore, even those who submit to the rules are exempt from them. It follows that the only people actually required to wear them are those who are superfically healthy, while those who are ill are free to do without. This is obviously absurd, and therefore those who drafted the wear-a-mask rule are themselves irrational (mentally ill) and therefore exempt from their own regulation. Who, then, is left to be required to wear a face diaper? - nobody!
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
Religious people will be interested that another reader calls attention to this page of references in the Bible and elsewhere to the sinister and occult attributes of mask-wearing. They might consider responding to "requirements" to wear them with such as "sorry, but my religion prohibits the wearing of a face mask."
Would the owner then throw you out of his store because of your religious convictions? Not probable. Since he's not allowed to exclude Muslims, say, because they want to cover their faces, how will he dare risk excluding others who have the opposite belief?
Allan Stevo has written several fine articles on this subject, and this recent one suggests that when stopped at a masking checkpoint, use the words "I am unable to wear a face mask safely" and don't elaborate - for reasons he explains. He says it has worked for him every time. This is comparable to the above idea of claiming a medical exception.
Becky Akers has likewise been writing about this a great deal and her latest gives several "dispatches from the trenches regarding victories over and strategies for defeating the Masked Morons." She calls this conflict "World War III." You're in the front line, and are by no means alone.
An alternative is to customize a regular mask. Here's one way to do it.
Wearing a message mask is another method, though strictly it's not going bare-face; and that may be the best option in the case that the owner of a property makes mask-wearing a condition of entry (however foolishly.) He has the right to do that, and to enter while flouting his rule would violate his right. One reader contributed the idea of donning a V-Mask, as in the 2005 movie "V for Vendetta." The hero is a victim of government torture who survives and wreaks vengeance on his torturers, part of which is to foster a popular revolution that brings down the government; the mask portrays Guy Fawkes, who tried in 1605 to blow up the Houses of Parliament in London so as to replace the Protestant rulers with Roman Catholic ones. To my mind that message is mixed; I see no virtue either in replacing one government with another, or in taking vengeance. But the V-mask did (fictionally) strike well-deserved terror into the heart of every politician; it's a powerful piece of popular feedback. Hey, whatever floats your boat.
Examples:
- First, compose your message. It must fit within a 6" x 4" area and be legible from 6 feet
- Using WordPad, choose large font(s); print, then cut the sheet to about 6" x 6", including a 1.5" margin at the top.
- Fold that top margin over the top of the mask, then fix it in place using a couple of paper clips.
BULLIED
by BIDEN
USA, not
the USSR
"1984" was not
a blueprint
MUZZLED by
[Name of Store]
TinyURL.com/
BogusPlague
I look much
better with a
NAKED FACE
This is a
DEMOCRAT
PLAGUE
MUZZLED by
Governor
[Gov. name][(R/D)]
TinyURL.com/
WearNoMask
Government
LIES
KISSING
VERBOTEN
MUGGED by the
MASKING
MARAUDERS
Last year, I was
allowed to speak
GOVERNMENT
is the
REAL DISEASE
The "Pandemic"
is FICTIONGiven a PC printer and a pair of scissors, this is all a cost-free way of spreading dissent and ridiculing the masking tyrants. The mask itself can often be obtained free, so why not pick up a few and print your choice of several messages. Keep them in pocket or purse and change them often; keep 'em on the hop!
