Mouth masks – an exercise in obedience
Mouth masks obligation is a sociological experiment to make the population obey without accepted necessity to make them obey.
Despite openly admitting that wearing mouth masks not protect against viral infections, Dutch municipalities were allowed to “experiment” with mouth masks obligation. It was called “an experiment to influence human behavior. So a sociological experiment, without any medical or virological grounds.
The purpose of an experiment is to gain insight into phenomena or patterns. In this case, sociological phenomena and patterns. In order to keep these insights pure, it was therefore a requirement that the mouth mask campaign be stripped of medical arguments. Handy in this regard was the fact that not a single scientific study demonstrated the effectiveness of those masks, which was also loudly communicated by both government leaders and the Dutch health office RIVM. What was tactically concealed was the fact that several studies were available that actually proved the harmfulness of wearing such a mask. By keeping this out of the picture the “it won’t do any good” principle could be enforced. The experiment was conducted in Amsterdam and Rotterdam and lasted about a month.
After the compulsory campaign was launched, they could observe what the outcome of the experiment was. It has become clear that people in large numbers turned out to be willing to conform to (openly) ineffective rules. That all these people themselves also realized that it concerned a (medically speaking) senseless obligation is shown by the fact that almost everyone took off the mouth mask again as soon as the obligation ended. It has therefore been established that people can easily be induced to follow pointless orders, even if they themselves know that they are pointless.
It is therefore remarkable that, according to the mainstream media, there is now a call from the population for the reintroduction of such a compulsory mouth mask, this time on a much larger and more drastic scale than during the initial experiment. That these muzzles offer no protection whatsoever is by now a generally accepted notion. Even now, policymakers and their prominent advisors are not being secretive about this at all. It is true that there is a small section that still believes in the effectiveness of masks despite all the information, but these are people who were already wearing them – a significantly small group. The experiment thus seems to have changed from an imposed measure (as was initially the case), to a measure demanded by (part of) the population. In both cases without any medical motivation.
From the fact that by far the most people do not wear a mouth mask as long as the obligation has not taken effect, it can be concluded that these same people still do not see the necessity or usefulness of it. Otherwise they would put it on by themselves. Nevertheless, a majority would be in favor of the impending obligation. This can mean two things: either the majority portrayed by the media does not really exist, or it does, and then that calling majority has completely different motives than health.
If the health aspect does not play a real role, then the obligation aspect is all that remains. It could mean nothing more than that many people mainly want the government to make things compulsory. Even if those things are useless. Apparently they value the obligation itself more than the medical effectiveness of that obligation. Apparently they long for a strong regulating government. A government that is so dominant that it can enforce any behavior. No matter how senseless. Behavior of which the absurdity is fully admitted by the government as well as realized by the population (according to its behavior).
On the contrary, part of the population longs for an authoritarian government
The sociological insight that can be gained from the experiment, therefore, goes far beyond simply establishing that the population is willing to obey clumsily without any accepted necessity. It shows that part of the population actually desires authoritarian government. It shows that part of the population fears freedom more than disease. And therefore longs for an authoritarian regime that severely restricts that freedom. It shows that a part of the population does not value logical and reasoned arguments for policy. It shows that it is superfluous to keep pointing out to this section that the measures are senseless. After all, to them they do make sense. Not for their health (they themselves know this by now) but for the installation of the authoritarian society they desire, governed by ‘powerful leaders’.
And that aspect is nothing new. As soon as administrators suddenly seize much more power (as they are doing now), there has always been a group that wants to be part of it, convinced that it is aligned with the strongest party and that it derives a degree of power or security from that. These are the authority thinkers who, even before this, were calling for harsher punishments, for banning anything that could be banned, and for a much more powerful government. Now that we are rapidly moving toward a totalitarian regime, they see their desire being realized. Moreover, almost every dictatorship uses visible symbols on, for example, clothing, by which people express their devotion or obedience to the regime. The highly visible mouthpiece lends itself perfectly to this.
Without this support, the installation of a dictatorship is impossible. It has thus underpinned every dictatorship known to history, and it will do so this time, too. At least, if that support base gives it sufficient foundation again this time. The division in society that has become extremely visible under the influence of current conditions is therefore a manifestation of this. It is the result of a division between conflicting and incompatible mentalities, in which one group is characterized by the desire for freedom, the assumption of the accompanying responsibility and a critical attitude towards powers that want to limit this, and the other by the desire for powerful leaders to whom one wishes to delegate this responsibility. A middle ground seems almost nonexistent.
It becomes really worrisome when also the part of the population that sees through the manipulation and deception and realizes what is really going on, nevertheless obeys. For them, of course, the medical narrative is not a motive either. This means that there is another motive behind that obedience. For example, the strange conviction that a government always has the last word, and that ultimately there is no choice but to obey it (under protest, if necessary).
The government now has every confidence that the population, including the part that objects, will follow the rules they have imposed. Rules for which hardly any effort is made to substantiate them even slightly logically. After all, for an authoritarian regime it is a requirement that citizens obey. Even (or rather, especially) if the orders are unreasonable and illogical.
So the virus story is no longer a real main motive for either side. It is not believed by the opponents of the emerging regime, of course, but it is no longer the main motive for its supporters either. It is only brought up as a strategic tool to divide both currents further and deeper. As a weapon in the struggle between them. The supporters of the authoritarian society will logically obey with eagerness. But if the objectors also give in, there will be no more obstacles to the installation of the totalitarian society. After all, every dictatorship exists by the grace of collective obedience.
Regardless of the reason why.
Source: Pieter Stuurman in Gezondverstand