Masked: The New Normal

By Ty Bell

Picture a group of masked humans. Make it double-masked for good measure. What do you see? A group of responsible people cooperating, aligning with science, and unifying to demonstrate compassion for the vulnerable? Or, a group of pitiful souls falling prey to dehumanization, disconnection, and technocratic tyranny while being manipulated to serve the interests of sociopathic elites?

To say that masks have become the most divisive symbol of our times would be an understatement.

Let’s put the fact claims from both camps aside here, and simply explore the psychological and philosophical implications of mask normalization. When we do this, it becomes clear that we are not going ‘back to normal’ (in my view) with regards to masks. Without another paradigm-altering event to set us on a new course, masks are here to stay.

Let’s follow the logic and look at the underlying principles that shape the mask enthusiast’s worldview. Masks save lives and in particular, protect the vulnerable. Thus, masks are a rational response to the threat of contagious illness that could lead to fatality or at least serious illness for some people. Right now, they add the qualifier ‘while in a pandemic.’ Which seems important to qualify because saying outright that we are doing this forever would dampen the enthusiasm and make the whole proposition seem absurd, right? But when we think this through, that bubble bursts. There is no end in sight to the ‘pandemic’ status, as it is being defined. Like the threat of terrorism, the threat of the virus will persist. If masks are a rational response now, they will continue to be a rational response indefinitely no matter what the numbers say in the near or distant future.

What defines “post pandemic” status? Notice how the mask-enthusiast experts have not clearly identified this goal post. Even if herd immunity is achieved on this or that particular virus, there will still be risks of new outbreaks, new strains, etc.

According to the logic of germ theory, there has always been and always will be a risk of infecting other people with viruses, and there has always been immune-compromised (i.e. vulnerable) people who are suffer ring from other conditions that make viruses likely to trigger serious illness or death. We may ‘win a war’ against one particular virus, but the war that’s being waged now is broader: it’s not just one virus, it’s the threat of all future viruses as well.

There is no end to the Virus Enemy just like there is no end to the Terrorist Enemy. This is not fundamentally because of any nefarious plots – any plots that do exist are exploiting the basic facts and psychological framework that are fundamentally in play. The threat of either one of these identified enemies causing harm will always exist. There’s always going to be some people who resist distancing and mask guidelines and there’s always going to be people who will remain unvaccinated. The logical solution, with the framework in place: continue masks and social distancing ad infinitum “just to be on the safe side.”

From a business standpoint, it’s now just the pragmatic thing to do, especially in progressive parts of the country. No business owner wants to be shut down or investigated by the health department, or be responsible for any transmission. In some right-leaning parts of the country, sure, some business owners would lift the restrictions if this appeals to the majority of their patrons and they knew they had no chance of ending up legally in hot water. Where I am in Eugene, Oregon, I think we’re past the point of what the governor is or isn’t mandating now. Masks have become a cultural symbol for progressivism (and the binary to Trumpism and with it, bigotry, selfishness and ignorance). A business in any progressive-leaning area risks upsetting their patronage by removing mask guidelines, so from a purely business standpoint, I just don’t see it happening.

COVID is a reality-altering event, very much like 9/11. Can any policy ever give 100% assurance that there is no more risk of terrorism? Of course not. Nothing ever gives 100% assurance of anything. So, the enhanced security and surveillance methods put in place after 9/11 were permanent, because the event awakened a fear, and our rational control-based ‘attack the enemy’ paradigm responded rationally within its default framework of control and risk mitigation to this newly perceived threat.

Remember, we didn’t tell ourselves they were permanent at the time. 20 years later, we’re still being spied on by the NSA, the federal government still has the power to convict and imprison us without trial if we are ‘suspected terrorists’, we still have the same airline security protocols, and we still have U.S. troops in the Middle East! Had this been proposed in this context: hey, for the next 20+ years, this is what we’re gonna do. Would we have been on board? Of course not.

This very same rhetoric can and will be used to keep masks and distancing going, indefinitely.

Is this the world we want to live in? Would it be worth it, to stay masked in public forever, if it saved a hundred lives per year? A thousand lives? A million lives?

The very idea of quantifying it with a number is absurd, because now that our attention is focused so strongly on virus-related deaths, no deaths seem acceptable. It’s like saying, hey, we’ll go back to normal once there is only 100 people or less that die of terrorist attacks each year. Reason and compassion say no, that would be callous toward those 100 lives. Even if we only save 100 lives, we need to keep the measures in place.

Is the reduction of deaths triggered by contagious illnesses the most important thing for determining the well-being of society? Is this the metric that we’re going to put at the top of our hierarchy for how well we are doing? Is it possible to care deeply about the collective welfare of humanity, while opposing masks and more broadly, the whole control-based response to viral outbreaks? Of course. But doing this requires that we step outside of the orthodoxy of germ theory and be willing to view viruses through other lenses, and that we consider other aspects of our collective well-being that are harder or maybe even impossible to quantify.

If you think that a critique of germ theory is equivalent to a refutation of it, allow me to help broaden your imagination: I believe that germ theory points to an accurate set of facts about how how viruses spread, and I believe that this view of viruses is potentially damaging because of what it excludes. It’s not about germ theory being incorrect, so much as it is incomplete.

Terrain theory offers an entirely different lens – one that is so incompatible with the present establishment (not just of medicine but our whole way of thinking), that it’s reflexively censored as ‘misinformation.’ That’s right – according to the present level of discourse on the big media platforms, doctors like Zach Bush and Thomas Cowen are no different than Russian bots or Qanon cult members. They have been cast out into the same proverbial dust bin. Which is enough to make any critical thinker who’s actually read their work go “huh?”

This is a major clue to look for in any discourse which alerts us to the fact that the discourse itself lacks intelligence or sincerity (or both). When the defenders of a narrative work not to respond to criticism, but to silence, dismiss and mischaracterize it, that’s a dead giveaway that the narrative can’t stand on its own without props.

Here’s the basic formula, in no particular order, for smearing and dismissing the mask skeptics:

Use an incredulous tone so it’s implied that critics of masks are insensitive to vulnerable people. Use smug catch phrases like “I trust the science” to convey a binary and a dismissal of those who “don’t believe in science.” Setup a straw man, like “Qanon right-wing conspiracy theorist” to dismiss any criticism on both intellectual and moral grounds so it’s implied that critics are ignorant, callous, and complicit in harmful rhetoric. Use the fact that there are bonafide disinformation campaigns to dismiss any and all criticism as having stemming from one of these sources. Share personal stories of how the virus has affected you or people you know and/or name drop people you know who work in the medical profession to dismiss the critics as morally insensitive and intellectually inferior. Repeat the phrase “conspiracy theorist” over and over to dismiss any information or perspectives that don’t fit with the narrative and dehumanize the critics.

The other side has it’s straw-man tendencies too, no doubt. They like to pretend like everyone who’s pro-mask is acting out of fear and is pro totalitarian government takeover. The hyperbolic reaction on this side is “oh, so you’re pro mask? I guess that means you don’t care about freedom, you’re for the Big Pharma nanny state, and you don’t believe in courage?” That and the whole smug deal of “yeah, well I don’t wear a mask because I’m not afraid and not brainwashed” which of course is meant to dismiss anyone who wears a mask as doing so out of fear or blind obedience. The straw man arguments coming from the anti-mask community are just as hyperbolic and disingenuous as those from the pro-mask side.

Conversations with straw men get us nowhere. They simply perpetuate division and misunderstanding. I don’t know what it looks like or how we get there, but I have the sense that healing and transformation are possible here in the integration of these two polar archetypes. It’s not about one dominating the other out of existence. It’s an integration.

The first image is one of masked humans all cooperating with deep care for one another. Heart chakras open and radiating love and compassion. Putting self-interest aside for the well-being of the whole. Now, picture a seemingly opposite image: An individual awakening and reclaiming their personal power and sovereignty. Ripping off the mask in an act of righteous civil disobedience, saying ‘no’ to the old reductionist control-based paradigm (i.e. the patriarchy, broadly speaking) and saying ‘yes’ to a more holistic understanding of health and human cooperation. I believe the Age of Aquarius is an invitation to integrate these polar archetypes, as both of them convey something that’s critical for us in this time. Can we recognize the beauty and the necessity conveyed by both images, and integrate them? If we stay stuck in the binary, consider, who and what does that serve? And at what cost to our own health and happiness?