Masks, Obedience and Poker Strategy

On developing Disagreeableness

I haven’t written much about masks to date. What to say about them that hasn’t already been said? They don’t work to protect you or others, and we have known all along that they don’t work. That’s about it really, isn’t it?

I came across this recently:

Are Face Masks Effective? The Evidence. – Swiss Policy Research (swprs.org)

It’s a wonderful single and updated collection of all things Mask, and it includes my favourite piece of mask “evidence” which is Dr. Theodore Noel’s video at point 7.

I don’t know how you can watch the video and still conclude that masks work.

More to the point, if you need peer reviewed studies to “prove” to you that they don’t work, well how about 10 of them from the World Health Organisation? This again from the Swiss Policy Research page (swprs.org):

A WHO review of ten randomized controlled trials of face masks against influenza-like illness, published in September 2019, found no statistically significant benefit. (Source)

Our best and highest quality scientific knowledge collected over decades before The Science™ came along, already knew that they made no difference, they did nothing. NO BENEFIT.

One year into this clown show, we had to confirm again that they do nothing:

A July 2020 review by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine found that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of face masks against virus infection or transmission. (Source)

And

A November 2020 Cochrane review found that face masks did not reduce influenza-like illness (ILI) cases, neither in the general population nor in health care workers. (Source)

But what about COST?

Where do you start with cost? Nobody seems to care about the costs of masks in all their forms. It seems like such a trivial and harmless thing, what’s the big deal? How can there be a laundry list of costs?

A 2015 study in the British Medical Journal BMJ Open found that cloth masks were penetrated by 97% of particles and may increase infection risk by retaining moisture or repeated use. (Source)

Yep, so increased infections, there’s a cost. We could just stop there I think, something has no benefit and a cost. Wouldn’t that just be the end of it?

You might have noticed that the “narrative” has started to change. More and more “credible” sources are now saying that “cloth” masks don’t do much. I am noticing more and more people in Sydney walking around in N95s, as they are following “the latest science”. So it seems the cloth mask gravy train is winding down but the N95 gravy train is going to pick up steam.

So, do N95s work then?

Effectiveness of N95/FFP2 mask mandates

In January 2021, the German state of Bavaria was one of the first places in the world to mandate N95/FFP2 masks in most public settings. A comparison with other German states, which required cloth or medical masks, indicates that even N95/FFP2 masks have made no difference.

Covid cases in the German state of Bavaria (FFP2/N95 mandate since 01/21) vs. Germany overall (RKI/ISC)

The simple answer is NO. The more technical answer is also NO. The meta-analysis of peer reviewed answers is, you guessed it, NO.

I can hear you thinking: Hold on, what about all those masks in hospitals?

Contrary to common belief, studies in hospitals found that the wearing of a medical mask by surgeons during operations didn’t reduce post-operative bacterial wound infections in patients.

But hold on, I’m sure I’ve read somewhere in The Guardian or was it The BBC that there we studies proving that masks worked. Do you mean studies like this?

A meta-study in the journal Lancet, commissioned by the WHO, claimed that masks could reduce the risk of infection by 80%, but the studies considered mainly N95 respirators in a hospital setting, not cloth masks in a community setting, the strength of the evidence was reported as “low”, and experts found numerous flaws in the study. Professor Peter Jueni, epidemiologist at the University of Toronto, called the WHO study “essentially useless”.

Or were you referring to this study?

A study in the journal PNAS claimed that masks had led to a decrease in infections in three global hotspots (including New York City), but the study did not take into account the natural decrease in infections and other simultaneous measures. The study was so flawed that over 40 scientists recommended that the study be withdrawn.

This is a great list of all the different types of mis-dis information regarding masks.

The Face Mask Folly in Retrospect – Swiss Policy Research (swprs.org)

Let’s go back to cost. I am pretty sure that the Venn diagram of mask lovers and environment lovers would be close to a perfect match. How do you square that with this?

If you love the planet, how can you also love masks?

I wrote this a long time ago:

Hamilton and Masks: Graphene, Lead, Antimony and Copper

Nanoplastics and other harmful pollutants found within disposable face masks - Swansea University

The research reveals high levels of pollutants, including lead, antimony, and copper, within the silicon-based and plastic fibres of common disposable face masks.

Here is another good read

The Dangers of Masks – AIER

“Graphene is a strong, very thin material that is used in fabrication, but it can be harmful to lungs when inhaled and can cause long-term health problems.”

“Health Canada has issued a warning about blue and gray disposable face masks, which contain an asbestos-like substance associated with “early pulmonary toxicity.”

We close by reiterating the warning in the JAMA publication that “Face masks should not be worn by healthy individuals to protect themselves from acquiring respiratory infection because there is no evidence to suggest that face masks worn by healthy individuals are effective in preventing people from becoming ill.” We raise this issue of potential harm due to synthetic fibres, chlorine, and chemicals from Covid masks as a public health warning.

There really is a laundry list of costs that I am not aiming to list, there simply are too many, here is just one more for example that I came across.

Daniel Horowitz @RMConservative

My sister who is a speech therapist in MD just texted me: “The speech issues I see with three and four year olds that have been masked I’ve never seen before in 22 years. So much low muscle tone, drooling, unusual articulation errors on early developing sounds…”

Those that keep pushing masks “for the greater good” are the same men and women running the council of the small English town of Sandford in the great movie Hot Fuzz (my son put me onto this movie recently). All their evil was for “the greater good”.

Interestingly, having recently watched Hot Fuzz, I noticed our great Australian writer Alexandra Marshall mention it in this amazing piece.

The greater good – or a grander evil? | The Spectator Australia

Here are two amazing paragraphs:

When civilisation gives up on moral principle and decides to try out ‘moral outcomes’ it leads the government to view individuals as subservient to the collective. Their rights and safety can be ignored so long as the ‘greater good’ is being served. Once the individual is no longer sovereign, any group desire can justify the abuse of rights until citizens become nothing more than depersoned identities. This is the idea that sits at the heart of every collectivist regime and we have seen it quietly gaining popularity within a range of activist movements.

Want to starve a few hundred million people to death? That’s fine, because the regime will survive through their ‘sacrifice’. Want to annihilate an entire race? It has to be done to protect the purity of the collective. Want to reduce an entire nation to slaves? All good. Their misery means that the collective has achieved its promised ‘equality’.

You can read more about the dangers and costs of masks here:

The Dangers of Masks | AIER

Masking Children: Tragic, Unscientific, and Damaging | AIER

Here is a great thread on the harms to kids.

Betty @bettybetty700

1/ Let’s talk about masks 🧵 I cant in good conscience listen to leaders tell us mask mandates will remain to ensure parents have confidence. I’m done playing nice. Being an educator comes with great responsibility: Being a voice. Hear me when I say: Masks are harming kids

And finally, Here is a great clip capturing some of the madness.

Prof. Freedom @prof_freedom

Dear Followers, I started a Covid madness thread in August 2020. Here is my best-of video "The Covid Religion". Music, sports, kids, everyday life - a motley mix. I'm not so sure how we're going to get out of this mess. If you like my video, please retweet. Thank you 🙏

I emailed this to my wife on 29 Jan 21:

The Question of Masks | AIER

Yes, indeed, one of the early origin stories that helped bring in mask mania and mandates was this hairdresser anecdote. This is what The Science™ looks like.

I could go on an on, but you get the picture. No benefit, all cost, all madness.

So, we are left with two questions:

1.    If the government knows this, why are they forcing me to wear it?

2.    If you know this, why are you still wearing it?

Let’s tackle each.

If the government knows this, why are they forcing me to wear it?

Masks have turned out to be the most effective psychological obedience and compliance tool.

The government wants only one thing from you: your compliance. Your compliance with whatever they tell you to do, and there are many things they want you to do culminating with regular injections. If they could put you on a drip, they would.

(this is a fake parody headline)

The place to start with your compliance is with a “simple” and “harmless” mask under the threat of a fine, and it’s for your own good anyway, and don’t forget “the good of others”.

And so, we put the mask on and go outside, which is where it’s next benefit kicks in.

It signals your compliance to others while the others signal their compliance to you. You can immediately see who isn’t part of the “in group”. Masks are the primary mechanism that permits the group to “police itself”. Your wearing of the mask makes you part of the “self-policing system”. Far less work for the State if the population simply policies itself.

Even if you are not in fear of the bug, your wearing of the mask contributes to the heightened state of fear within the group. This fear is functional to the State. I assume you are not naïve enough, now in Feb 2022, to think that societal fear is not an explicit objective of the State.

Do you Australians remember this wonderful piece of government “health messaging”?

A young woman who cannot breathe, to describe an illness where the average age of death is 85 in Australia and 50% of those deaths are in people whose lungs were damaged from years of smoking.

Yes, systemic fear is a clear objective of the State, and by any means.

I came across this really good article by Zoe Clews, a UK hypnotherapist who is clearly awake to what the State is up to. She has added an interesting dimension to the Mass Psychosis conversation.

How To Hypnotise A Nation - Zoë Clews (zoeclews-hypnotherapy.co.uk)

Hypnosis requires the subconscious mind to be activated and made dominant through high emotion, confusion or imagination. Therefore, I would argue, trauma is itself a very powerful form of hypnosis.

Once the subconscious mind is activated it becomes a fertile ground in which to seed belief and action through subliminal messaging and commands, because these are much more likely to elicit a specific (or required) response from someone who is living in their subconscious rather than conscious mind.

Fear activates the subconscious mind and hypnosis requires the subconscious mind to be activated. Fear opens the door to hypnosis.

Masks signal fear in all directions and they signal it directly into the subconscious.

Which leaves us with the second question.

If you know this, why are you still wearing it?

The most likely answer is that “you don’t want any trouble, it’s just not worth it”.

I have said that myself, I know the feeling. It lends itself to a cost benefit equation that easily settles on, just wear the mask, go, and buy whatever from the store and get back to the car. What’s the point of risking an argument that is avoidable?

The problem is twofold.

If this is a war, and it is, we need to develop the disagreeable part of our nature. It doesn’t mean we need to set out to argue with everybody, but it means we need to practice and develop being comfortable sitting with the psychological tension of “possibly” having an argument. That’s what it means to develop the disagreeable part of our personality. Many people lean towards being naturally agreeable and conflict avoiding, that’s fair enough, but the world has changed and, as I have written before, the border and the territory between you and the State is being reset, and if you are to have any chance of defending some of that personal territory, you need to start training the disagreeable part of you to be comfortable with “the possibility” of some confrontation.

Which brings us to poker.

Many years ago, I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out how to play the game. For those that know me, I tend to “study” subjects and go deeply into them once I set my sights on it. I did that with poker, and it was a great experience where I learned far more from the game than I ever thought possible. It’s the game that maps over real life better than anything else. It deals with low or no information where you constantly have to make probabilistic decisions against opponents who are also making probabilistic decisions, all the while trying to deal with an emotional and psychological roller coaster. Sounds a lot like life to me. You win in the long run if your probabilistic thinking, decisions, and emotion management are better than your opponents.

Let’s apply this type of probabilistic thinking to masks.

The system is rigged against us, it is unscientific (meaning it’s based on layers of lies), it’s certainly immoral and arguably even constitutionally illegal. These public health orders have been brought in under the disguise of “an emergency” and by the single signature of a minster. It’s our duty to oppose immoral laws at every opportunity.

First let’s look at the Public Health Order in NSW (Australia) and specifically at who DOESN’T need to wear a mask.

Public Health (COVID-19 General) Order (No 2) 2021 (nsw.gov.au)

Exceptions for certain persons

(1) A person is not required to wear a fitted face covering if the person

(a) has a physical or mental health illness or condition, or disability, that makes wearing a fitted face covering unsuitable, and

(b) carries evidence showing

(i) that the person has the illness, condition or disability, and

(ii) the illness, condition or disability makes wearing a fitted face covering unsuitable, and

(iii) the person’s name and place of residence, and

(c) produces the evidence for inspection if requested to do so by a police officer.

(2) Evidence for the purposes of subclause (1)(b)(i) and (ii) must be in the form of—

(a) a medical certificate or other written evidence signed by a registered health practitioner or a registered NDIS provider within the meaning of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 of the Commonwealth, or

(b) a statutory declaration by the person.

So, what this says is that you have to wear a mask…except when you don’t.

In summary, you don’t need to wear a mask if you have a physical condition (makes breathing difficult etc) that makes wearing it unsuitable. You need evidence (papers) to prove this, which is a self-declaration.

So, let’s look at this again; You have to wear a mask unless you declare that you cannot wear a mask. Get it?

One of the morals of this story is to simply READ the rules of the game in your jurisdiction. Don’t just rely on a health department to tell you what the rules are and summarise them for you (they lie by omission ALL THE TIME).

Once you know the rules then you can devise a strategy to combat the system and play to win.

In this case, winning means NOT WEARING A MASK. This is your first step towards non-compliance.

So, let’s look at strategy.

If a mask makes it difficult for you to breath as it does for me, then get yourself a free copy of a Statutory Declaration. Here is the NSW link.

NSW Statutory Declaration Forms

Assuming it’s true (obviously), here is an example of some language for your Stat Dec:

I confirm that I suffer from a health condition that makes the wearing of a fitted face mask covering unsuitable.

Now, sign the Stat Dec, and put it in your pocket, you are unlikely to ever need to use it.

Next, arm yourself with some simple and scripted, language for when you bump into someone that says, “could you please put a mask on”.

“I would love to, but I can’t, I have a legal exemption.”

This alone will get you through the system almost all the time, with minimal friction. You could add to this sentence the visual impact of pulling out an inhaler from your pocket and waiving it at the questioner. Not entirely necessary but does help with the odds.

So, let’s look at a scenario I had the other day, where I needed to go to a doctor at a medical centre to get a prescription for some eye drops. I have been actively avoiding doctors for 2 years, but I couldn’t avoid this.

I turn up at the medical centre, obviously I ignore the QR code check-in, everyone sitting in reception has a mask, I get the occasional look, but nobody says anything. I walk up to the two receptionists, both masked, neither say anything, I tell them I am here to see Dr so-and-so, and they tell me politely to have a seat.

If you think of this first interaction through a poker lens, let’s say that there was a 50% chance they would ask me for a mask, well they didn’t, and I won on this 50/50.

The Dr came out, in his tightly fitted N95, and called my name, I stood up and followed him down a long corridor to his room, as we walked into his room, he, not being able to help himself said “so, I see you don’t like wearing masks” at which point I pulled out my well-rehearsed sentence, while looking at him straight:

“I would love to, but I can’t, I have a legal exemption.”

At which point he said, “oh, ok…how can I help you”.

Let’s say again that this was a 50/50, well this time I didn’t win initially because he tried to “raise” me, but I “re-raised” him, and he folded.

I have many of these stories, and they all end the same, they fold.

Now, let’s assume the Dr didn’t fold and he chose to ask “what’s your exemption?”.

First of all, he is not allowed to ask that question, and he knows it, so almost nobody will ask that. But if he did, I then have a choice, either I play rough or I play nice.

Rough would be to remind him that he isn’t allowed to ask that question and I don’t need to answer and say no more. He would likely fold but the atmosphere would be tense.

Nice would be to politely remind him that he isn’t allowed to ask, but I would be happy to show him anyway, as I proceed to pull out my wallet and show him the Stat Dec. But in all my time so far, I haven’t arrived at this point.

This would be the same discussion I would have even if it was a police officer, who also is not allowed to ask you about your condition but may ask to “see your papers” at which point I am ready. But again, that hasn’t happened either.

Let’s say that you have a scenario where the business owner decides to go all the way, doesn’t care about your exemption, doesn’t care about your papers, simply wants your compliance otherwise they will kick you out. Well, here you have a choice, you can either put a mask on or you can walk out. It becomes your choice deep into the “poker hand”. The question I am putting to you is that why would you pre-emptively fold all the time?

This whole game is one of differing odds during differing interactions and you can ready yourself to play the game. It is worth doing and it as great practice for the “disagreeable muscle”.

Here is a good page on your rights in Australia.

Your Rights | Informed Choice (informedchoiceaustralia.com)

And lastly I leave you with this discussion between the wonderful Tom Woods and the one and only Ian Miller author of Unmasked.

Ep. 2051 The Definitive Masks-Don't-Work Episode | Tom Woods

Till next time…