The Hiroshima Myth

Every year during the first two weeks of August the mass news media and many politicians at the national level trot out the “ patriotic ” political myth that the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan in August of 1945 caused them to surrender , and thereby saved the lives of anywhere from five hundred thousand to 1 million American soldiers , who did not have to invade the islands .
Opinion polls over the last fifty years show that American citizens overwhelmingly ( between 80 and 90 percent ) believe this false history which , of course @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians ( mostly women and children ) and saving American lives to accomplish the ending of the war .
The best book , in my opinion , to explode this myth is The Decision to Use the Bomb by Gar Alperovitz , because it not only explains the real reasons the bombs were dropped , but also gives a detailed history of how and why the myth was created that this slaughter of innocent civilians was justified , and therefore morally acceptable .
The essential problem starts with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unconditional surrender , which was reluctantly adopted by Churchill and Stalin , and which President Truman decided to adopt when he succeeded Roosevelt in April of 1945 .
Hanson Baldwin was the principal writer for the New York Times who covered World War II and he wrote an important book immediately after the war entitled Great Mistakes of the War .
Baldwin concludes that the unconditional surrender policy A Century of War : Linc ... John V. Denson Best Price : $ 3.72 Buy New $ 8.50 The stark fact is that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including the emperor , were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war .
This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945 .
The Japanese monarchy was one of the oldest in all of history , dating back to 660 BC .
The Japanese religion added the belief that all the emperors were the direct descendants of the sun goddess , Amaterasu .
The reigning Emperor Hirohito was the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After the bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9 of 1945 , and their surrender soon thereafter , the Japanese were allowed to keep their emperor on the throne and he was not subjected to any war crimes trial .
The emperor , Hirohito , came on the throne in 1926 and continued in his position until his death in 1989 .
Since President Truman , in effect , accepted the conditional surrender offered by the Japanese as early as May of 1945 , the question is posed , “ Why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The author Alperovitz gives us the answer in great detail which can only be summarized here , but he states , The Decision to Use th ... Alperovitz , Gar Best Price : $ 1.66 Buy New $ 9.45 It is documented by Alperovitz that Stimson reported this directly to Truman .
Alperovitz further points out in detail the documentary proof that every top presidential civilian and military advisor , with the exception of James Byrnes , along with Prime Minister Churchill and his top British military leadership , urged Truman to revise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allow the Japanese to surrender and keep their emperor .
All this advice was given to Truman prior to the Potsdam Proclamation which occurred on July 26 , 1945 .
This proclamation made a final demand upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or suffer drastic consequences .
Another startling fact about the military connection to the dropping of the bomb is the lack of knowledge on the part of General MacArthur about the existence of the bomb and whether it was to be dropped .
Alperovitz states , Alperovitz makes it very clear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while he ignored all of this civilian and military advice was James Byrnes , the man who virtually controlled Truman at the beginning of his administration .
Byrnes was one of the most experienced political figures in Washington , having served for over thirty years in both the House and the Senate .
He had also served as a United States Supreme Court Justice , and at the request of President Roosevelt , he resigned that position and accepted the role in the Roosevelt administration of managing the domestic economy .
Byrnes went @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then was given the responsibility to get Congress and the American people to accept the agreements made at Yalta .
When Truman became a senator in 1935 , Byrnes immediately became his friend and mentor and remained close to Truman until Truman became president .
Truman never forgot this and immediately called on Byrnes to be his number-two man in the new administration .
Byrnes had expected to be named the vice presidential candidate [ to FDR ] to replace [ Henry A . ]
Wallace and had been disappointed when Truman had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remained very close .
Byrnes had also been very close to Roosevelt , while Truman was kept in the dark by Roosevelt most of the time he served as vice president .
Truman asked Byrnes immediately , in April , to become his secretary of state but they delayed the official appointment until July 3 , 1945 , so as not to offend the incumbent .
Byrnes had also accepted a position on the interim committee which had control over the policy regarding the atom bomb , and therefore , in April 1945 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisor , and especially the advisor on the use of the atomic bomb .
It was Byrnes who encouraged Truman to postpone the Potsdam Conference and his meeting with Stalin until they could know , at the conference , if the atomic bomb was successfully tested .
While at the Potsdam Conference the experiments proved successful and Truman advised Stalin that a new massively destructive weapon was now available to America , which Byrnes hoped would make Stalin back off from any excessive demands or activity in the postwar period .
Potsdam Proclamation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretly gave the orders on July 25 , 1945 , that the bombs would be dropped in August while he was to be en route back to America .
On July 26 , he issued the Potsdam Proclamation , or ultimatum , to Japan to surrender , leaving in place the unconditional surrender policy , thereby causing both Truman and Byrnes to believe that the terms would not be accepted by Japan .
The conclusion drawn unmistakably from the evidence presented is that Byrnes is the man who convinced Truman to keep the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s surrender so that the bombs could actually be dropped , thereby demonstrating to the Russians that America had a new forceful leader in place , a “ new sheriff in Dodge ” who , unlike Roosevelt , was going to be tough with the Russians on foreign policy and that the Russians needed to “ back off ” during what would become known as the “ Cold War.
” A secondary reason was that Congress would now be told about why they had made the secret appropriation to a Manhattan Project @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by showing that not only did the bombs work but that they would bring the war to an end , make the Russians back off , and enable America to become the most powerful military force in the world .
If the surrender by the Japanese had been accepted between May and the end of July of 1945 and the emperor had been left in place , as in fact he was after the bombing , this would have kept Russia out of the war .
Russia agreed at Yalta to come into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surrendered .
In fact , Germany surrendered on May 8 , 1945 , and Russia announced on August 8 , ( exactly three months thereafter ) that it was abandoning its neutrality policy with Japan and entering the war .
Russia ’ s entry into the war for six days allowed them to gain tremendous power and influence in China , Korea , and other key areas of Asia .
The Japanese were deathly afraid of communism and if the Potsdam Proclamation had indicated that America would accept the conditional surrender allowing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Japanese that Russia would enter the war if they did not surrender , then this would surely have assured a quick Japanese surrender .
The second question that Alperovitz answers in the last half of the book is how and why the Hiroshima myth was created .
The story of the myth begins with the person of James B. Conant , the president of Harvard University , who was a prominent scientist , having initially made his mark as a chemist working on poison gas during World War I .
During World @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Defense Research Committee from the summer of 1941 until the end of the war and he was one of the central figures overseeing the Manhattan Project .
Conant became concerned about his future academic career , as well as his positions in private industry , because various people began to speak out concerning why the bombs were dropped .
On September 9 , 1945 , Admiral William F. Halsey , commander of the Third Fleet , was publically quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to try it out.
” He further stated , “ The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment….It was a mistake to ever drop it.
” Albert Einstein , one of the world ’ s foremost scientists , who was also an important person connected with the development of the atomic bomb , responded and his words were headlined in the New York Times : “ Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb.
” The story reported that Einstein stated that “ A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s judgment , the dropping of the bomb was a political-diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision .
Hiroshima Diary : The J ... Hachiya Best Price : $ 7.99 Buy New $ 18.78 Probably the person closest to Truman , from the military standpoint , was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral William Leahy , and there was much talk that he also deplored the use of the bomb and had strongly advised Truman not to use it , but advised rather to revise the unconditional surrender policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep the emperor .
Leahy ’ s views were later reported by Hanson Baldwin in an interview that Leahy “ thought the business of recognizing the continuation of the Emperor was a detail which should have been solved easily.
” Leahy ’ s secretary , Dorothy Ringquist , reported that Leahy told her on the day the Hiroshima bomb was dropped , “ Dorothy , we will regret this day .
The United States will suffer , for war is not to be waged on women and children.
” Another important naval voice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US Fleet and chief of naval operations , Ernest J .
King , stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945 had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral .
Also , the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz , given in a press conference on September 22 , 1945 , was reported as : “ The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the war.
” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5 , 1945 , Admiral Nimitz stated , “ The Japanese had , in fact , already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.
” It was learned also that on or about July 20 , 1945 , General Eisenhower had urged Truman , in a personal visit , not to use the atomic bomb .
Eisenhower ’ s assessment was , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit them with that awful thing… .
[ T ] o use the atomic bomb , to kill and terrorize civilians , without even attempting [ negotiations ] , was a double crime.
” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn ’ t necessary for Truman to “ succumb ” to Byrnes .
James Conant came to the conclusion that some important person in the administration must go public to show that the dropping of the bombs was a military necessity , thereby saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ son , McGeorge Bundy .
It was agreed by them that the most important person to create this myth was Secretary of War Henry Stimson .
It was decided that Stimson would write a long article to be widely circulated in a prominent national magazine .
This article was revised repeatedly by McGeorge Bundy and Conant before it was published in Harper ’ s Magazine in February of 1947 .
The long article became the subject of a front-page article and editorial in the New York Times , and in the editorial it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no doubt that the president and Mr. Stimson are right when they mention that the bomb caused the Japanese to surrender.
” Later , in 1959 , President Truman specifically endorsed this conclusion , including the idea that it saved the lives of a million American soldiers .
This myth has been renewed annually by the news media and various political leaders ever since .
It is very pertinent that in the memoir of Henry Stimson entitled On Active Service in Peace and War , he states , “ Unfortunately , I have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is often not what actually happened but what is recorded as such.
” To bring this matter more into focus from the human tragedy standpoint , I recommend the reading of a book entitled Hiroshima Diary : The Journal of a Japanese Physician , August 6–September 30 , 1945 , by Michiko Hachiya .
He was a survivor of Hiroshima and kept a daily diary about the women , children , and old men that he treated on a daily basis in the hospital .
The doctor was badly injured himself but recovered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the personal tragedies of innocent civilians who were either badly burned or died as a result of the bombing puts the moral issue into a clear perspective for all of us to consider .
Now that we live in the nuclear age and there are enough nuclear weapons spread around the world to destroy civilization , we need to face the fact that America is the only country to have used this awful weapon and that it was unnecessary to have done so .
If Americans would come to recognize the truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might cause such a moral revolt that we would take the lead throughout the world in realizing that wars in the future may well become nuclear and therefore all wars must be avoided at almost any cost .
Hopefully , our knowledge of science has not outrun our ability to exercise prudent and humane moral and political judgment to the extent that we are destined for extermination .
The Best of John V. Denson

Every year during the first two weeks of August the mass news media and many politicians at the national level trot out the “patriotic” political myth that the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan in August of 1945 caused them to surrender, and thereby saved the lives of anywhere from five hundred thousand to 1 million American soldiers, who did not have to invade the islands. Opinion polls over the last fifty years show that American citizens overwhelmingly (between 80 and 90 percent) believe this false history which, of course, makes them feel better about killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians (mostly women and children) and saving American lives to accomplish the ending of the war.
The best book, in my opinion, to explode this myth is The Decision to Use the Bomb by Gar Alperovitz, because it not only explains the real reasons the bombs were dropped, but also gives a detailed history of how and why the myth was created that this slaughter of innocent civilians was justified, and therefore morally acceptable. The essential problem starts with President Franklin Roosevelt’s policy of unconditional surrender, which was reluctantly adopted by Churchill and Stalin, and which President Truman decided to adopt when he succeeded Roosevelt in April of 1945. Hanson Baldwin was the principal writer for the New York Times who covered World War II and he wrote an important book immediately after the war entitled Great Mistakes of the War. Baldwin concludes that the unconditional surrender policy A Century of War: Linc... John V. Denson Best Price: $3.72 Buy New $8.50 (as of 07:45 UTC - Details)
was perhaps the biggest political mistake of the war….Unconditional surrender was an open invitation to unconditional resistance; it discouraged opposition to Hitler, probably lengthened the war, cost us lives, and helped to lead to the present aborted peace.
The stark fact is that the Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945. The Japanese monarchy was one of the oldest in all of history, dating back to 660 BC. The Japanese religion added the belief that all the emperors were the direct descendants of the sun goddess, Amaterasu. The reigning Emperor Hirohito was the 124th in the direct line of descent. After the bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9 of 1945, and their surrender soon thereafter, the Japanese were allowed to keep their emperor on the throne and he was not subjected to any war crimes trial. The emperor, Hirohito, came on the throne in 1926 and continued in his position until his death in 1989. Since President Truman, in effect, accepted the conditional surrender offered by the Japanese as early as May of 1945, the question is posed, “Why then were the bombs dropped?”
The author Alperovitz gives us the answer in great detail which can only be summarized here, but he states,
We have noted a series of Japanese peace feelers in Switzerland which OSS Chief William Donovan reported to Truman in May and June [1945]. These suggested, even at this point, that the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender might well be the only serious obstacle to peace. At the center of the explorations, as we also saw, was Allen Dulles, chief of OSS [Office of Strategic Services] operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that “On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo — they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.”
The Decision to Use th... Alperovitz, Gar Best Price: $1.66 Buy New $9.45 (as of 03:10 UTC - Details) It is documented by Alperovitz that Stimson reported this directly to Truman. Alperovitz further points out in detail the documentary proof that every top presidential civilian and military advisor, with the exception of James Byrnes, along with Prime Minister Churchill and his top British military leadership, urged Truman to revise the unconditional surrender policy so as to allow the Japanese to surrender and keep their emperor. All this advice was given to Truman prior to the Potsdam Proclamation which occurred on July 26, 1945. This proclamation made a final demand upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or suffer drastic consequences.
Another startling fact about the military connection to the dropping of the bomb is the lack of knowledge on the part of General MacArthur about the existence of the bomb and whether it was to be dropped. Alperovitz states,
MacArthur knew nothing about advance planning for the atomic bomb’s use until almost the last minute. Nor was he personally in the chain of command in this connection; the order came straight from Washington. Indeed, the War Department waited until five days before the bombing of Hiroshima even to notify MacArthur — the commanding general of the U.S. Army Forces in the Pacific — of the existence of the atomic bomb.
Alperovitz makes it very clear that the main person Truman was listening to while he ignored all of this civilian and military advice was James Byrnes, the man who virtually controlled Truman at the beginning of his administration. Byrnes was one of the most experienced political figures in Washington, having served for over thirty years in both the House and the Senate. He had also served as a United States Supreme Court Justice, and at the request of President Roosevelt, he resigned that position and accepted the role in the Roosevelt administration of managing the domestic economy. Byrnes went to the Yalta Conference with Roosevelt and then was given the responsibility to get Congress and the American people to accept the agreements made at Yalta.
When Truman became a senator in 1935, Byrnes immediately became his friend and mentor and remained close to Truman until Truman became president. Truman never forgot this and immediately called on Byrnes to be his number-two man in the new administration. Byrnes had expected to be named the vice presidential candidate [to FDR] to replace [Henry A.] Wallace and had been disappointed when Truman had been named, yet he and Truman remained very close. Byrnes had also been very close to Roosevelt, while Truman was kept in the dark by Roosevelt most of the time he served as vice president. Truman asked Byrnes immediately, in April, to become his secretary of state but they delayed the official appointment until July 3, 1945, so as not to offend the incumbent. Byrnes had also accepted a position on the interim committee which had control over the policy regarding the atom bomb, and therefore, in April 1945 became Truman’s main foreign policy advisor, and especially the advisor on the use of the atomic bomb. It was Byrnes who encouraged Truman to postpone the Potsdam Conference and his meeting with Stalin until they could know, at the conference, if the atomic bomb was successfully tested. While at the Potsdam Conference the experiments proved successful and Truman advised Stalin that a new massively destructive weapon was now available to America, which Byrnes hoped would make Stalin back off from any excessive demands or activity in the postwar period. Potsdam Proclamation 1... Buy New $32.83 (as of 07:16 UTC - Details)
Truman secretly gave the orders on July 25, 1945, that the bombs would be dropped in August while he was to be en route back to America. On July 26, he issued the Potsdam Proclamation, or ultimatum, to Japan to surrender, leaving in place the unconditional surrender policy, thereby causing both Truman and Byrnes to believe that the terms would not be accepted by Japan.
The conclusion drawn unmistakably from the evidence presented is that Byrnes is the man who convinced Truman to keep the unconditional surrender policy and not accept Japan’s surrender so that the bombs could actually be dropped, thereby demonstrating to the Russians that America had a new forceful leader in place, a “new sheriff in Dodge” who, unlike Roosevelt, was going to be tough with the Russians on foreign policy and that the Russians needed to “back off” during what would become known as the “Cold War.” A secondary reason was that Congress would now be told about why they had made the secret appropriation to a Manhattan Project and the huge expenditure would be justified by showing that not only did the bombs work but that they would bring the war to an end, make the Russians back off, and enable America to become the most powerful military force in the world.
If the surrender by the Japanese had been accepted between May and the end of July of 1945 and the emperor had been left in place, as in fact he was after the bombing, this would have kept Russia out of the war. Russia agreed at Yalta to come into the Japanese war three months after Germany surrendered. In fact, Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945, and Russia announced on August 8, (exactly three months thereafter) that it was abandoning its neutrality policy with Japan and entering the war. Russia’s entry into the war for six days allowed them to gain tremendous power and influence in China, Korea, and other key areas of Asia. The Japanese were deathly afraid of communism and if the Potsdam Proclamation had indicated that America would accept the conditional surrender allowing the emperor to remain in place and informed the Japanese that Russia would enter the war if they did not surrender, then this would surely have assured a quick Japanese surrender.
The second question that Alperovitz answers in the last half of the book is how and why the Hiroshima myth was created. The story of the myth begins with the person of James B. Conant, the president of Harvard University, who was a prominent scientist, having initially made his mark as a chemist working on poison gas during World War I. During World War II, he was chairman of the National Defense Research Committee from the summer of 1941 until the end of the war and he was one of the central figures overseeing the Manhattan Project. Conant became concerned about his future academic career, as well as his positions in private industry, because various people began to speak out concerning why the bombs were dropped. On September 9, 1945, Admiral William F. Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet, was publically quoted extensively as stating that the atomic bomb was used because the scientists had a “toy and they wanted to try it out.” He further stated, “The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment….It was a mistake to ever drop it.” Albert Einstein, one of the world’s foremost scientists, who was also an important person connected with the development of the atomic bomb, responded and his words were headlined in the New York Times: “Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb.” The story reported that Einstein stated that “A great majority of scientists were opposed to the sudden employment of the atom bomb.” In Einstein’s judgment, the dropping of the bomb was a political-diplomatic decision rather than a military or scientific decision. Hiroshima Diary: The J... Hachiya Best Price: $7.99 Buy New $18.78 (as of 10:54 UTC - Details)
Probably the person closest to Truman, from the military standpoint, was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral William Leahy, and there was much talk that he also deplored the use of the bomb and had strongly advised Truman not to use it, but advised rather to revise the unconditional surrender policy so that the Japanese could surrender and keep the emperor. Leahy’s views were later reported by Hanson Baldwin in an interview that Leahy “thought the business of recognizing the continuation of the Emperor was a detail which should have been solved easily.” Leahy’s secretary, Dorothy Ringquist, reported that Leahy told her on the day the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, “Dorothy, we will regret this day. The United States will suffer, for war is not to be waged on women and children.” Another important naval voice, the commander in chief of the US Fleet and chief of naval operations, Ernest J. King, stated that the naval blockade and prior bombing of Japan in March of 1945 had rendered the Japanese helpless and that the use of the atomic bomb was both unnecessary and immoral. Also, the opinion of Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, given in a press conference on September 22, 1945, was reported as: “The Admiral took the opportunity of adding his voice to those insisting that Japan had been defeated before the atomic bombing and Russia’s entry into the war.” In a subsequent speech at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945, Admiral Nimitz stated, “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war.” It was learned also that on or about July 20, 1945, General Eisenhower had urged Truman, in a personal visit, not to use the atomic bomb. Eisenhower’s assessment was, “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing….[T]o use the atomic bomb, to kill and terrorize civilians, without even attempting [negotiations], was a double crime.” Eisenhower also stated that it wasn’t necessary for Truman to “succumb” to Byrnes.
James Conant came to the conclusion that some important person in the administration must go public to show that the dropping of the bombs was a military necessity, thereby saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, so he approached Harvey Bundy and his son, McGeorge Bundy. It was agreed by them that the most important person to create this myth was Secretary of War Henry Stimson. It was decided that Stimson would write a long article to be widely circulated in a prominent national magazine. This article was revised repeatedly by McGeorge Bundy and Conant before it was published in Harper’s Magazine in February of 1947. The long article became the subject of a front-page article and editorial in the New York Times, and in the editorial it was stated, “There can be no doubt that the president and Mr. Stimson are right when they mention that the bomb caused the Japanese to surrender.” Later, in 1959, President Truman specifically endorsed this conclusion, including the idea that it saved the lives of a million American soldiers. This myth has been renewed annually by the news media and various political leaders ever since.
It is very pertinent that in the memoir of Henry Stimson entitled On Active Service in Peace and War, he states, “Unfortunately, I have lived long enough to know that history is often not what actually happened but what is recorded as such.”
To bring this matter more into focus from the human tragedy standpoint, I recommend the reading of a book entitled Hiroshima Diary: The Journal of a Japanese Physician, August 6–September 30, 1945, by Michiko Hachiya. He was a survivor of Hiroshima and kept a daily diary about the women, children, and old men that he treated on a daily basis in the hospital. The doctor was badly injured himself but recovered enough to help others and his account of the personal tragedies of innocent civilians who were either badly burned or died as a result of the bombing puts the moral issue into a clear perspective for all of us to consider.
Now that we live in the nuclear age and there are enough nuclear weapons spread around the world to destroy civilization, we need to face the fact that America is the only country to have used this awful weapon and that it was unnecessary to have done so. If Americans would come to recognize the truth, rather than the myth, it might cause such a moral revolt that we would take the lead throughout the world in realizing that wars in the future may well become nuclear and therefore all wars must be avoided at almost any cost. Hopefully, our knowledge of science has not outrun our ability to exercise prudent and humane moral and political judgment to the extent that we are destined for extermination.
The Best of John V. Denson


lewrockwell--2020-08-12--You’re Still Exempt. Just Say ‘I Am Unable To Wear a Face Mask Safely.’ Nothing More.

Many millions can not safely wear a face mask .
With the one-size-fits-all face mask approaches , this presents a problem .
Those who can ’ t safely wear a face mask are pressured into wearing one , to their own detriment , or they are alternately , discouraged from using vital services due to the heavy-handed enforcement measures that place personal safety secondary at best .
The reasons for not being able to safely wear a face mask are many : from obvious issues such as chronic lung ailments and terminal heart conditions , to less obvious issues like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breath ) , angina ( chest pains ) , cephalalgia ( headaches ) , migraines , internal physical deformations from injuries , or genetic abnormalities .
Since my previous writing on the topic , in addition to my own experience , I have received many correspondences from people crossing face mask compliance checkpoints and sharing what works and doesn ’ t work for them .
There are some behaviors that work repeatedly across the board and there are some behaviors that don ’ t work .
Using some of these principles , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even one time .
One sentence is supremely helpful .
You almost never need anything else , even in the most locked down environments : “ I am unable to wear a face mask safely.
” How to Win America for ... Stevo , Allan J Best Price : $ 23.33 Buy New $ 17.95 I ’ m going to elaborate more on why that is such an effective sentence , and the only sentence you need at a compliance checkpoint .
The Risk Of Putting A Person In A Situation Where They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is That They Say “ No ” While those millions who can not safely wear a face mask also have legitimate sovereignty concerns , constitutional concerns , natural rights concerns , legal concerns , and perhaps many other concerns , there are very few Americans policing face mask policy who will effectively quit their job for the benefit of another by saying “ I totally agree with you , no one should have to wear a face mask , I ’ m going to look the other way knowing that I may be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Americans ten minutes from now by honoring your personal sovereignty.
” That would be purely irresponsible of that person checking for compliance , and you would be expecting far too much of them .
You ’ d probably be expecting more from them than you might expect from yourself , which isn ’ t fair .
That ’ s hypocrisy , in fact .
You can , perhaps , imagine how ineffective it therefore is , to make such an argument at a compliance checkpoint .
It ’ s simply not the right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been trained to involve a supervisor anytime anyone makes such a natural rights claim and to have you added to a blacklist .
To violate that instruction could again come at the cost of them losing their job .
Great effort , after all , is made by management consultants and behavioral psychologists to create policies that remove the humanity from a human and to make him more like a machine while on the job .
Going the natural rights route is particularly dangerous because it is an axiomatic battle .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same hard-won axioms as you .
If they believe in anything , they are far more likely to accept the commonplace “ for the greater good , ” combined with the anti-sciencey rhetoric of mask enforcement and fear that floods the airwaves .
The places where you are most likely to find strict face mask enforcement are the places where you are least likely to happen upon someone who share those axioms : coastal locations , big cities , airports , and a host of other hubs .
You might end up with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ places you aren ’ t likely to get yourself through the door unmasked with that kind of approach .
While I have no cross-sectional data , I would also presume that those who self-select for jobs at compliance checkpoints are less likely to be sympathetic to natural rights .
The odds are against you with this argument in this venue .
Honor Your Own Privacy By Not Talking Specifics About Your Own Health & Well-Being With Strangers Other people who can not safely wear a face mask , may have a face mask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are exceedingly comfortable talking with strangers about .
A problem in that situation is that a stranger may not agree with you about the severity of your medical problem and its impact on you wearing a face mask .
This is not a discussion to have with a stranger .
You open the door to questions like “ Well , how bad is it really ?
” or statements like “ It would mean a lot to the other customers if you would wear a face mask for the first ten minutes you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start to feel discomfort.
” Do not open a door to this line of conversation .
At a compliance checkpoint , some people who desire to pass by unmasked , will talk brashly about the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA ) protecting them from having to disclose personal details .
Others will talk about the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ( HIPAA ) .
I just choose to rely on standards of common decency and personal privacy .
Although aspects of those laws are based on exactly that sense of decency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal law .
Medical advantages and disadvantages over others are a personal affair .
Psychological advantages and disadvantages over others are a personal affair .
Abilities and disabilities are a personal affair .
I recognize this sounds quaint in a place and time when people fly flags from their homes , tattoo their bodies , and wear handkerchiefs to publicly proclaim private matters such as their sexual proclivities or other exceedingly private topics .
Momentary , aberrative behavior does not change good sense .
The wise man doesn ’ t talk about his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The personal is personal , and the public is public .
No stranger is entitled an entry into your personal affairs .
No matter how much this era wants to make everything public ( except for the mischief of government , which must always be as secret as possible for the well-being of all ) , it is the wise who maintain a solid division between personal and public .
The Bitcoin Manifesto Allan J Stevo Best Price : $ 7.54 Buy New $ 12.73 The specifics of why you can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s business .
Choosing to violate that basic concept of decency , puts you at a disadvantage at a compliance checkpoint .
Since pervasive laws can be detrimentally stumbled upon , a summary of applicable laws are part of the on-boarding for any well-trained employee these days .
It ’ s useful to know the federal laws and how they are likely to impact an employee ’ s training .
As one example , an employee isn ’ t going to want to ask about your specific concerns that cause you to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because it opens them and their employer up to additional liability in the conversation .
Knowing that basic detail of training , makes it easier for you to simply say “ I am unable to wear a face mask safely , ” and to know that in many situations your privacy is going to be honored by the properly trained person checking for compliance .
The path of least resistance is the path many employees will take .
Some employees shut down when they hear laws .
Some employees call their supervisor .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ away and report you directly to their legal department .
Many employees will totally disregard whatever was said at a mandatory training session at 8:30 a.m. , four months ago , before they had their second coffee that morning .
The more you press them with heady matters like laws or philosophy , the more your effort is likely to backfire .
Waving laws around can backfire , especially when it adds tension to a conversation .
That would be another way that people with legitimate exemptions put themselves at a disadvantage at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve sized a person up and know what you ’ re in for , don ’ t try to go toe-to-toe with anyone manning a compliance checkpoint that you need to get to the other side of .
The odds are against you .
You won ’ t have been the first to have gone toe-to-toe with them and lost .
People enforcing face mask rules , face resistance all day in adversarial settings and win .
They ’ ve done it so much these past months , that some of them have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t like going toe-to-toe with a customer and back down .
There ’ s little way to know who will be who .
Additionally , by this point in the process , there are many redundancies built in and at almost every checkpoint .
You will eventually lose if you go toe-to-toe and escalate tension .
Insurance companies have skilled actuaries that know how to use statistics in the favor of the insurer .
Insurance companies are consequently excellent at identifying cost-saving loopholes quickly after they appear .
Insured businesses have heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Covid lawsuits by their insurers if they are lax in their enforcement of what is widely considered established science .
Perhaps after three years of costly legal battles with an insurance company , a business owner may be able to finally establish that there is little science behind a face mask mandate , but how many businesses owners and managers want to make that legal battle the next three years of their lives , especially against an insurance company with seemingly unlimited resources ?
Push the employee to do something that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are putting yourself at a disadvantage at a compliance checkpoint .
Business Owners Have Bigger Battles To Fight , Like Staying Open As private enterprise contracts , many business owners are concerning themselves with merely keeping the doors open .
To do otherwise is to disregard their shareholders .
Unless the shareholders themselves are pushing against the face mask orders , it ’ s unlikely the business will take a firm stand against mandatory face masks , whether it be mom and pop or a mega entity .
In that environment , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So many people are just thinking about preserving their jobs and preserving their businesses , that even those who might have agreed in more prosperous times and would have stuck their necks out , are unlikely to do so .
By all means , if you have outsized influence with such businesses , or special relationships that could sway the discussion , voice your concerns .
These concerns are best voiced in calm settings , which is not likely to be at a checkpoint , but on the phone or by email @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in my last piece on this topic .
What All People Manning A Checkpoint Have In Common… What they all have in common is their humanity .
If you keep things nice and calm and you behave in a friendly way , virtually all people are going to respond favorably to you .
If you keep the issue of your exemption nice and focussed , by saying “ I am unable to wear a face mask safely , ” almost all people will make exception for you .
They won ’ t ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you a hard time .
They won ’ t ask much else .
There ’ s a little bit of humanity left in many face mask policies .
The humanity is in the exemptions around someone making the statement “ I am unable to wear a face mask safely.
” Some working a checkpoint might say “ So what ?
” or the equivalent , especially if you look healthy .
Stick with it and add a small clause , if you want : “ I am exempt from your face mask policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a face mask safely.
” If they push further , you should feel comfortable saying “ I am not comfortable talking about this private matter with others .
I am unable to wear a face mask safely.
” If that doesn ’ t work , simply say “ May I speak to someone else ?
” I strongly recommend no other conversation at a compliance checkpoint .
Almost all other conversations are losing conversations .
If you are yelling , you are probably doing it wrong .
If a bystander is recording you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viral , you are probably doing it wrong .
Some compliance checkers might want to debate your condition .
Some compliance checkers might want to see your doctor ’ s note : the answer to that could be “ Yes , of course I have a doctor ’ s note.
” 75 % of those who ask will stop there .
If they press to see your doctor ’ s note , you can say you don ’ t want to show the note because it mentions a personal condition of yours that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Very seldom ( perhaps 1 in 10,000 ) will the conversation go there if you treat the other person as kindly as possible and stick with “ I am unable to wear a face mask safely.
” If you are treated unfairly , you can pretty easily make an employee ’ s life a nightmare in this era .
Make a few phone calls to supervisors .
If that doesn ’ t work , then work your way to the top of the company .
This is so incredibly important .
Call @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , preferably daily .
That ’ s the way to get things done .
Seldom is follow-up necessary .
So often , a single three-minute phone call is enough .
If that doesn ’ t work , go to the media , or use social media .
Media and social media are not effective places to begin .
Unwilling to do the effective work of picking up the phone , so many people start with social media and end with social media .
Social media and media are easy-to-ignore , ineffective , insulated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To A Supervisor Is The Opposite Of Cancel Culture Don ’ t feel bad about going to a superior .
This is the opposite of cancel culture .
This is meritocracy .
Cancel culture ’ s adherents take your personal behavior , not committed in the commission of your job , and instead of walking away from you or engaging you on intellectual repartee , seek to report you to higher authority by getting you cancelled from your job , cancelled from your banking , or cancelled from some other area of life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cancel culture is an ethical and moral violation and harmful to free individuals in a free society .
In clear contrast , the world is benefitted when an employee who does wrong to you in the commission of his job is reported for doing wrong .
It helps improve his training , or perhaps moves him out of that job and into another job to which he is better suited .
It may help an entire company improve policy or may help to improve policy for the person who walks through that door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about “ first world problems ” is unlikely to benefit you as much as it is likely to shift policy to the benefit of others .
It is a charitable and honorable thing to do , and many companies recognize that such feedback is hard to solicit and valuable to receive .
You are right for reporting an employee who made your day a little worse with a face mask crackdown .
Please do the world a favor and send that mini-tyrant home with an earful from his boss to mull over .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ This Exchange The main problem that causes people to unsuccessfully cross face mask compliance checkpoints is that they have not decided on a clear outcome that they are working toward .
If you want to yell at someone at the top of your lungs in a public place about John Locke , and to be the ridiculed subject of a Young Turks video that makes the rounds on Twitter , with clips that perhaps the local Fox affiliate also picks up , then these suggestions probably aren ’ t for you .
There @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world right now .
Vast portions of the globe are effectively living in a state of communism , without it being called such .
I completely understand the need to blow off steam .
If you have a standard of well-being for yourself that specifically excludes the use of a face mask , and insists for yourself that you be allowed to go through your daily life without a face mask , then you are the audience for this piece .
“ I am unable to wear a face mask safely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tool you can have at your disposal .
Many honorable people have made an unsuccessful ruckus at a checkpoint , but it seems that some of them really just wanted to go through the day without wearing a mask .
That is sad .
This article is for them .
The act of making a ruckus and the act of successfully crossing a checkpoint unmasked are not always mutually exclusive , but are almost always mutually exclusive .
Seeing if you fit into one of the checkboxes , on a flowchart , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , will make it easier for you to pass .
You make it easier for them to show you compassion .
You may be one of the many millions who can simply say “ I am unable to wear a face mask safely , ” and will be left alone to cross the compliance checkpoint unmasked .
This lets you pass , and it lets them keep their job .
It may not be perfect , but it provides for the primary want of each party to the interaction .
People have pulled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fought over face masks , and I know of at least one shopper who has died over a face mask , leaving a great absence in the world around the life of the deceased .
It also leaves a great absence in the family and community of the father who pulled the trigger .
Many lives will forever be altered for the worse by the horrible way that conflict was resolved .
I imagine a world where this can be handled far differently .
The maskholes demanding everyone mask up are insisting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which never goes well .
The level of force , intimidation , and ultimatum around this topic is very bad for society .
Widespread inability to use words to settle a dispute is evidence of a devolution of culture .
The face mask issue is the proving ground for greater areas of compliance to come .
Unless good people cause the slippery slope to end here , masking up , deplatforming , and cancelling is not where this ends .
Less than 80 years ago , the United States government put Japanese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ en masse .
Today , mainstream politicians and media in the United States are advocating for a political system that killed more than 100 million civilians over the last century .
Since Roe v. Wade , a number of babies equivalent to more than half of the current black population have been aborted by the eugenicists who run and fund abortion clinics .
A black baby in New York City is more likely to be aborted than to make it out of the womb alive .
The United States has almost constantly been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this barely begins to tell the story .
The United States government is awful .
So many with their hands on the levers of power are awful .
There is no moral backstop within the government .
It doesn ’ t come to an end with them .
No one in DC is the deus ex machina .
You are deceiving yourself if you don ’ t think this can get so much worse .
If you are one of the many millions affected by a mask , rather than wearing a harmful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take a stand .
It doesn ’ t stop everywhere until a mass of people insists it stops , but it can stop in your own life when you make it stop .
You still have control over that in your own life .
I personally don ’ t intend to make this my last stand , but for my own well-being I have not once complied with a face mask order , and I have no intention of ever complying with a face mask order .
I hope you will join me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me your stories from the checkpoint and help me put an end to this tyranny .
The Best of Allan Stevo

Many millions cannot safely wear a face mask. With the one-size-fits-all face mask approaches, this presents a problem.
Those who can’t safely wear a face mask are pressured into wearing one, to their own detriment, or they are alternately, discouraged from using vital services due to the heavy-handed enforcement measures that place personal safety secondary at best.
The reasons for not being able to safely wear a face mask are many: from obvious issues such as chronic lung ailments and terminal heart conditions, to less obvious issues like panic attacks, dyspnea (shortness of breath), angina (chest pains), cephalalgia (headaches), migraines, internal physical deformations from injuries, or genetic abnormalities.
Since my previous writing on the topic, in addition to my own experience, I have received many correspondences from people crossing face mask compliance checkpoints and sharing what works and doesn’t work for them. There are some behaviors that work repeatedly across the board and there are some behaviors that don’t work. Using some of these principles, I have yet to wear a face mask even one time.
One sentence is supremely helpful. You almost never need anything else, even in the most locked down environments: “I am unable to wear a face mask safely.” How to Win America for... Stevo, Allan J Best Price: $14.36 Buy New $17.95 (as of 04:37 UTC - Details)
I’m going to elaborate more on why that is such an effective sentence, and the only sentence you need at a compliance checkpoint.
The Risk Of Putting A Person In A Situation Where They Practically Have To Say “No” Is That They Say “No”
While those millions who cannot safely wear a face mask also have legitimate sovereignty concerns, constitutional concerns, natural rights concerns, legal concerns, and perhaps many other concerns, there are very few Americans policing face mask policy who will effectively quit their job for the benefit of another by saying “I totally agree with you, no one should have to wear a face mask, I’m going to look the other way knowing that I may be one of the unemployed 30% of Americans ten minutes from now by honoring your personal sovereignty.”
That would be purely irresponsible of that person checking for compliance, and you would be expecting far too much of them. You’d probably be expecting more from them than you might expect from yourself, which isn’t fair. That’s hypocrisy, in fact. You can, perhaps, imagine how ineffective it therefore is, to make such an argument at a compliance checkpoint. It’s simply not the right venue.
The compliance checker may even have been trained to involve a supervisor anytime anyone makes such a natural rights claim and to have you added to a blacklist. To violate that instruction could again come at the cost of them losing their job. Great effort, after all, is made by management consultants and behavioral psychologists to create policies that remove the humanity from a human and to make him more like a machine while on the job.
Going the natural rights route is particularly dangerous because it is an axiomatic battle. It requires the compliance checker to believe the same hard-won axioms as you. If they believe in anything, they are far more likely to accept the commonplace “for the greater good,” combined with the anti-sciencey rhetoric of mask enforcement and fear that floods the airwaves.
The places where you are most likely to find strict face mask enforcement are the places where you are least likely to happen upon someone who share those axioms: coastal locations, big cities, airports, and a host of other hubs. You might end up with a memorable conversation, but in those places you aren’t likely to get yourself through the door unmasked with that kind of approach.
While I have no cross-sectional data, I would also presume that those who self-select for jobs at compliance checkpoints are less likely to be sympathetic to natural rights.
The odds are against you with this argument in this venue.
Honor Your Own Privacy By Not Talking Specifics About Your Own Health & Well-Being With Strangers
Other people who cannot safely wear a face mask, may have a face mask exemption for a medical reason that they are exceedingly comfortable talking with strangers about. A problem in that situation is that a stranger may not agree with you about the severity of your medical problem and its impact on you wearing a face mask. This is not a discussion to have with a stranger.
You open the door to questions like “Well, how bad is it really?” or statements like “It would mean a lot to the other customers if you would wear a face mask for the first ten minutes you are in the store, until you start to feel discomfort.” Do not open a door to this line of conversation.
At a compliance checkpoint, some people who desire to pass by unmasked, will talk brashly about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protecting them from having to disclose personal details. Others will talk about the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). I just choose to rely on standards of common decency and personal privacy. Although aspects of those laws are based on exactly that sense of decency, there is no need to invoke federal law. Medical advantages and disadvantages over others are a personal affair. Psychological advantages and disadvantages over others are a personal affair. Abilities and disabilities are a personal affair.
I recognize this sounds quaint in a place and time when people fly flags from their homes, tattoo their bodies, and wear handkerchiefs to publicly proclaim private matters such as their sexual proclivities or other exceedingly private topics.
Momentary, aberrative behavior does not change good sense. The wise man doesn’t talk about his personal affairs with everyone he meets.
The personal is personal, and the public is public. No stranger is entitled an entry into your personal affairs. No matter how much this era wants to make everything public (except for the mischief of government, which must always be as secret as possible for the well-being of all), it is the wise who maintain a solid division between personal and public. The Bitcoin Manifesto Allan J Stevo Best Price: $7.54 Buy New $12.73 (as of 05:50 UTC - Details)
The specifics of why you can’t wear a face mask are nobody’s business. Choosing to violate that basic concept of decency, puts you at a disadvantage at a compliance checkpoint.
Waving Laws Around Can Backfire Easily
Since pervasive laws can be detrimentally stumbled upon, a summary of applicable laws are part of the on-boarding for any well-trained employee these days. It’s useful to know the federal laws and how they are likely to impact an employee’s training. As one example, an employee isn’t going to want to ask about your specific concerns that cause you to be exempt from wearing a face mask, because it opens them and their employer up to additional liability in the conversation.
Knowing that basic detail of training, makes it easier for you to simply say “I am unable to wear a face mask safely,” and to know that in many situations your privacy is going to be honored by the properly trained person checking for compliance. The path of least resistance is the path many employees will take.
Some employees shut down when they hear laws. Some employees call their supervisor. Some employees are trained to turn you away and report you directly to their legal department. Many employees will totally disregard whatever was said at a mandatory training session at 8:30 a.m., four months ago, before they had their second coffee that morning. The more you press them with heady matters like laws or philosophy, the more your effort is likely to backfire. Waving laws around can backfire, especially when it adds tension to a conversation.
That would be another way that people with legitimate exemptions put themselves at a disadvantage at a compliance checkpoint.
Escalation Can Backfire
Unless you’ve sized a person up and know what you’re in for, don’t try to go toe-to-toe with anyone manning a compliance checkpoint that you need to get to the other side of. The odds are against you. You won’t have been the first to have gone toe-to-toe with them and lost.
People enforcing face mask rules, face resistance all day in adversarial settings and win. They’ve done it so much these past months, that some of them have become expert at it. Others don’t like going toe-to-toe with a customer and back down. There’s little way to know who will be who.
Additionally, by this point in the process, there are many redundancies built in and at almost every checkpoint. You will eventually lose if you go toe-to-toe and escalate tension.
Insurance Companies Have Understandably Played A Role
Insurance companies have skilled actuaries that know how to use statistics in the favor of the insurer. Insurance companies are consequently excellent at identifying cost-saving loopholes quickly after they appear.
Insured businesses have heard clearly that they will not be protected from Covid lawsuits by their insurers if they are lax in their enforcement of what is widely considered established science.
Perhaps after three years of costly legal battles with an insurance company, a business owner may be able to finally establish that there is little science behind a face mask mandate, but how many businesses owners and managers want to make that legal battle the next three years of their lives, especially against an insurance company with seemingly unlimited resources?
Push the employee to do something that will invalidate their insurance coverage, and you are putting yourself at a disadvantage at a compliance checkpoint.
Business Owners Have Bigger Battles To Fight, Like Staying Open
As private enterprise contracts, many business owners are concerning themselves with merely keeping the doors open. To do otherwise is to disregard their shareholders. Unless the shareholders themselves are pushing against the face mask orders, it’s unlikely the business will take a firm stand against mandatory face masks, whether it be mom and pop or a mega entity.
In that environment, it’s quite hard to win toe-to-toe. So many people are just thinking about preserving their jobs and preserving their businesses, that even those who might have agreed in more prosperous times and would have stuck their necks out, are unlikely to do so.
By all means, if you have outsized influence with such businesses, or special relationships that could sway the discussion, voice your concerns. These concerns are best voiced in calm settings, which is not likely to be at a checkpoint, but on the phone or by email ahead of time, as I covered in my last piece on this topic.
What All People Manning A Checkpoint Have In Common…
What they all have in common is their humanity. If you keep things nice and calm and you behave in a friendly way, virtually all people are going to respond favorably to you. If you keep the issue of your exemption nice and focussed, by saying “I am unable to wear a face mask safely,” almost all people will make exception for you. They won’t ask questions. They won’t give you a hard time. They won’t ask much else.
There’s a little bit of humanity left in many face mask policies. The humanity is in the exemptions around someone making the statement “I am unable to wear a face mask safely.”
Some working a checkpoint might say “So what?” or the equivalent, especially if you look healthy.
Stick with it and add a small clause, if you want: “I am exempt from your face mask policy, because I am unable to wear a face mask safely.” If they push further, you should feel comfortable saying “I am not comfortable talking about this private matter with others. I am unable to wear a face mask safely.”
If that doesn’t work, simply say “May I speak to someone else?”
I strongly recommend no other conversation at a compliance checkpoint. Almost all other conversations are losing conversations. If you are yelling, you are probably doing it wrong. If a bystander is recording you in hopes that your outburst will go viral, you are probably doing it wrong.
Some compliance checkers might want to debate your condition. Some compliance checkers might want to see your doctor’s note: the answer to that could be “Yes, of course I have a doctor’s note.” 75% of those who ask will stop there. If they press to see your doctor’s note, you can say you don’t want to show the note because it mentions a personal condition of yours that you wish not to share with strangers.
Very seldom (perhaps 1 in 10,000) will the conversation go there if you treat the other person as kindly as possible and stick with “I am unable to wear a face mask safely.”
Please Raise Cain, But Preferably Offsite
If you are treated unfairly, you can pretty easily make an employee’s life a nightmare in this era. Make a few phone calls to supervisors. If that doesn’t work, then work your way to the top of the company. This is so incredibly important. Call their superiors and then annoyingly follow up, preferably daily. That’s the way to get things done. Seldom is follow-up necessary. So often, a single three-minute phone call is enough.
If that doesn’t work, go to the media, or use social media. Media and social media are not effective places to begin. Unwilling to do the effective work of picking up the phone, so many people start with social media and end with social media. Social media and media are easy-to-ignore, ineffective, insulated ways to be easily muted.
Speaking To A Supervisor Is The Opposite Of Cancel Culture
Don’t feel bad about going to a superior. This is the opposite of cancel culture. This is meritocracy. Cancel culture’s adherents take your personal behavior, not committed in the commission of your job, and instead of walking away from you or engaging you on intellectual repartee, seek to report you to higher authority by getting you cancelled from your job, cancelled from your banking, or cancelled from some other area of life, such as a communication platform. Cancel culture is an ethical and moral violation and harmful to free individuals in a free society.
In clear contrast, the world is benefitted when an employee who does wrong to you in the commission of his job is reported for doing wrong. It helps improve his training, or perhaps moves him out of that job and into another job to which he is better suited. It may help an entire company improve policy or may help to improve policy for the person who walks through that door tomorrow without a face mask. Complaining about “first world problems” is unlikely to benefit you as much as it is likely to shift policy to the benefit of others. It is a charitable and honorable thing to do, and many companies recognize that such feedback is hard to solicit and valuable to receive.
You are right for reporting an employee who made your day a little worse with a face mask crackdown. Please do the world a favor and send that mini-tyrant home with an earful from his boss to mull over.
Figure Out What You Want Out Of This Exchange
The main problem that causes people to unsuccessfully cross face mask compliance checkpoints is that they have not decided on a clear outcome that they are working toward.
If you want to yell at someone at the top of your lungs in a public place about John Locke, and to be the ridiculed subject of a Young Turks video that makes the rounds on Twitter, with clips that perhaps the local Fox affiliate also picks up, then these suggestions probably aren’t for you. There’s a lot of stress in the world right now. Vast portions of the globe are effectively living in a state of communism, without it being called such. I completely understand the need to blow off steam.
If you have a standard of well-being for yourself that specifically excludes the use of a face mask, and insists for yourself that you be allowed to go through your daily life without a face mask, then you are the audience for this piece. “I am unable to wear a face mask safely,” is the easiest and most effective tool you can have at your disposal.
Many honorable people have made an unsuccessful ruckus at a checkpoint, but it seems that some of them really just wanted to go through the day without wearing a mask. That is sad. This article is for them.
The act of making a ruckus and the act of successfully crossing a checkpoint unmasked are not always mutually exclusive, but are almost always mutually exclusive.
Seeing if you fit into one of the checkboxes, on a flowchart, that a corporate functionary needs to check off, will make it easier for you to pass. You make it easier for them to show you compassion. You may be one of the many millions who can simply say “I am unable to wear a face mask safely,” and will be left alone to cross the compliance checkpoint unmasked.
This lets you pass, and it lets them keep their job. It may not be perfect, but it provides for the primary want of each party to the interaction.
Do You
People have pulled guns over face masks, people have fought over face masks, and I know of at least one shopper who has died over a face mask, leaving a great absence in the world around the life of the deceased. It also leaves a great absence in the family and community of the father who pulled the trigger. Many lives will forever be altered for the worse by the horrible way that conflict was resolved.
I imagine a world where this can be handled far differently. The maskholes demanding everyone mask up are insisting a personal medical issue be handled by fiat, which never goes well.
The level of force, intimidation, and ultimatum around this topic is very bad for society. Widespread inability to use words to settle a dispute is evidence of a devolution of culture. The face mask issue is the proving ground for greater areas of compliance to come. Unless good people cause the slippery slope to end here, masking up, deplatforming, and cancelling is not where this ends.
Less than 80 years ago, the United States government put Japanese Americans convicted of no crime into prison en masse. Today, mainstream politicians and media in the United States are advocating for a political system that killed more than 100 million civilians over the last century. Since Roe v. Wade, a number of babies equivalent to more than half of the current black population have been aborted by the eugenicists who run and fund abortion clinics. A black baby in New York City is more likely to be aborted than to make it out of the womb alive. The United States has almost constantly been at war since its founding. All this barely begins to tell the story.
The United States government is awful. So many with their hands on the levers of power are awful. There is no moral backstop within the government. It doesn’t come to an end with them. No one in DC is the deus ex machina.
You are deceiving yourself if you don’t think this can get so much worse.
If you are one of the many millions affected by a mask, rather than wearing a harmful mask, now is the time to take a stand.
It doesn’t stop everywhere until a mass of people insists it stops, but it can stop in your own life when you make it stop. You still have control over that in your own life.
I personally don’t intend to make this my last stand, but for my own well-being I have not once complied with a face mask order, and I have no intention of ever complying with a face mask order.
I hope you will join me.
Are you with me?
Send me your stories from the checkpoint and help me put an end to this tyranny.
The Best of Allan Stevo


Does HIV Exist?

Before we get to Christine Johnson ’ s interview , a bit of background .
My first book , AIDS INC. , was published in 1988 .
The research I engaged in then formed a foundation for my recent work in exposing the vast fraud called COVID-19 .
In 1987-88 , my main question eventually became : does HIV cause AIDS ?
For months , I had blithely assumed the obvious answer was yes .
This created havoc in my investigation , because I was facing contradictions I couldn ’ t solve .
For example , in parts of Africa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dying obviously needed no push from a new virus .
All their “ AIDS ” conditions and symptoms could be explained by their environment : contaminated water supplies ; sewage pumped directly into the drinking water ; protein-calorie malnutrition ; hunger , starvation ; medical treatment with immunosuppressive vaccines and drugs ; toxic pesticides ; fertile farm land stolen by corporations and governments ; wars ; extreme poverty .
The virus cover story actually obscured all these ongoing crimes .
AIDS Inc. Rappoport , Jon Best Price : $ 33.29 Buy New $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1987 , I found several researchers who were rejecting the notion that HIV caused AIDS .
Their reports were persuasive .
I ’ m shortcutting a great deal of my 1987-8 investigation here , but once HIV was out of the picture for me , many pieces fell into place .
I discovered that , in EVERY group supposedly at “ high-risk ” for AIDS , their conditions and symptoms could be entirely explained by factors that had nothing to do with a new virus .
AIDS was not one condition .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re-package a number of immunosuppressive conditions and create the illusion of a new and unique and single “ pandemic.
” Several years after the publication of AIDS INC. , I became aware of a quite different emerging debate going on under the surface of research : DOES HIV EXIST ?
Was the purported virus ever truly discovered ?
And THAT question led to : what is the correct procedure for discovering a new virus ?
The following 1997 interview , conducted by brilliant freelance journalist , Christine Johnson , delves into these questions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particular virus exists ?
How should they isolate it ?
What are the correct steps ?
These questions , and their answers , reside at the heart of most disease research—and yet , overwhelmingly , doctors never explore them or even consider them .
Fauci : The Bernie Mado ... Ortleb , Charles Buy New $ 5.99 Johnson interviews Dr. Eleni Papadopulos , “ a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia .
Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here I ’ m publishing and highlighting excerpts from the interview .
Technical issues are discussed .
Grasping them is not the easiest exercise you ’ ve ever done , but I believe the serious reader can comprehend the vital essentials .
EP : There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS .
EP : For many reasons , but most importantly , because there is no proof that HIV exists .
… CJ : Didn ’ t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [ purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV ] isolate HIV back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ No .
In the papers published in Science by those two research groups , there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients .
[ HIV is said to be a retrovirus . ]
CJ : They say they did isolate a virus .
A VOYAGE IN IMAGINATIO ... Holmes , Dr Joel S Buy New $ 9.95 EP : Our interpretation of the data differs .
To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things .
First , culture cells and find a particle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obviously , at the very least , that particle should look like a virus .
Second , you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up .
Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself .
In other words , that it can replicate .
CJ : Can ’ t you just look down a microscope and say there ’ s a virus in the cultures ?
EP : No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all particles that look like viruses are viruses .
… CJ : My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density , a so-called “ density-purified sample.
” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus , in terms of size , shape , and so forth .
If all this is true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate .
( 1 ) You have an isolate , and the isolate consists of objects with the same ( 2 ) density and ( 3 ) appearance of a retrovirus .
Then you have to examine this isolate further , to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [ an enzyme ] and will replicate when placed in new cultures .
Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate .
EP : Exactly .
It was discovered that retroviral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to be separated from other material in cell cultures .
That property is their buoyancy , or density , and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation .
The technology is complicated , but the concept is extremely simple .
You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose , ordinary table sugar , made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier , or more dense , towards the bottom .
Meanwhile , you grow whatever cells you think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re right , retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids .
When you think everything is ready , you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution .
Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds .
This generates tremendous forces , and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further .
In other words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution .
When they get there they stop , all together .
To use virological jargon , that ’ s where they band .
Retroviruses band at a characteristic point .
In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml .
Plague of Corruption : ... Mikovits , Judy Buy New $ 16.51 That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope .
The picture is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen , and to be characterized by their appearance .
CJ : So , examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you ’ ve caught ?
EP : Not only that .
It ’ s the only way to know if you ’ ve caught a fish .
Or anything at all .
CJ : Did Montagnier and Gallo do this ?
EP : This is one of the many problems .
Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they did not publish any Ems [ photos ] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists , some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts .
At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed , and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential .
CJ : But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles .
EP : No .
Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or even separated from the culture cells , for that matter .
These EMs contained , in addition to many other things , including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses , a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses , and which all belonged to the same retroviral species , now called HIV .
But photographs of unpurified particles don ’ t prove that those particles are viruses .
The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
CJ : And what was that method ?
EP : All the steps I have just told you .
The only scientific method that exists .
Culture cells , find a particle , isolate the particle , take it to pieces , find out what ’ s inside , and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they ’ re added to a culture of uninfected cells .
CJ : So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method ?
EP : They used some of the techniques , but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles , if any , are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient , the density that defines retroviral particles .
CJ : But what about their pictures ?
EP : Montagnier ’ s and Gallo ’ s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures , or of unpurified fluids from cultures… ” If you grasp the essentials of this discussion , you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt the existence of HIV , because the methods for proving its existence were not followed .
And so…as I ’ ve reported these past few months , there is every reason to doubt and reject the existence of the COVID virus , since correct large-scale electron microscope studies have never been done .
I kept the Christine Johnson interview , and other similar information , in mind when , for example , I explored the dud epidemics called SARS and 2009 Swine Flu .
How many viruses have been named as causes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viruses have never been isolated or proved to exist ?
Of course , conventional-consensus researchers and doctors will scoff at any attempt to raise these issues .
For them , “ the science is settled.
” Meaning : they don ’ t want to think .
They don ’ t want to stir the waters .
A few years ago , chemist David Rasnick sent a request to the CDC , asking for evidence demonstrating that the Ebola virus had ever been isolated from a human .
The answers he received did not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After 30 years working as a reporter in the area of deep medical-research fraud , I ’ ve seen that false science occurs in levels .
The deeper you go , the stranger it gets .
To put it another way : the deeper you go , the worse it gets .
The Best of Jon Rappoport

Before we get to Christine Johnson’s interview, a bit of background.
My first book, AIDS INC., was published in 1988. The research I engaged in then formed a foundation for my recent work in exposing the vast fraud called COVID-19.
In 1987-88, my main question eventually became: does HIV cause AIDS? For months, I had blithely assumed the obvious answer was yes. This created havoc in my investigation, because I was facing contradictions I couldn’t solve.
For example, in parts of Africa, people who were chronically ill and dying obviously needed no push from a new virus. All their “AIDS” conditions and symptoms could be explained by their environment: contaminated water supplies; sewage pumped directly into the drinking water; protein-calorie malnutrition; hunger, starvation; medical treatment with immunosuppressive vaccines and drugs; toxic pesticides; fertile farm land stolen by corporations and governments; wars; extreme poverty. The virus cover story actually obscured all these ongoing crimes. AIDS Inc. Rappoport, Jon Best Price: $33.29 Buy New $18.89 (as of 03:34 UTC - Details)
Finally, in the summer of 1987, I found several researchers who were rejecting the notion that HIV caused AIDS. Their reports were persuasive.
I’m shortcutting a great deal of my 1987-8 investigation here, but once HIV was out of the picture for me, many pieces fell into place. I discovered that, in EVERY group supposedly at “high-risk” for AIDS, their conditions and symptoms could be entirely explained by factors that had nothing to do with a new virus.
AIDS was not one condition. It was an umbrella label, used to re-package a number of immunosuppressive conditions and create the illusion of a new and unique and single “pandemic.”
Several years after the publication of AIDS INC., I became aware of a quite different emerging debate going on under the surface of research: DOES HIV EXIST?
Was the purported virus ever truly discovered?
And THAT question led to: what is the correct procedure for discovering a new virus?
The following 1997 interview, conducted by brilliant freelance journalist, Christine Johnson, delves into these questions:
How should researchers prove that a particular virus exists? How should they isolate it? What are the correct steps?
These questions, and their answers, reside at the heart of most disease research—and yet, overwhelmingly, doctors never explore them or even consider them. Fauci: The Bernie Mado... Ortleb, Charles Buy New $5.99 (as of 02:55 UTC - Details)
Johnson interviews Dr. Eleni Papadopulos, “a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth in Western Australia. Over the past decade and more she and her colleagues have published many scientific papers questioning the HIV/AIDS hypothesis…”
Here I’m publishing and highlighting excerpts from the interview. Technical issues are discussed. Grasping them is not the easiest exercise you’ve ever done, but I believe the serious reader can comprehend the vital essentials.
CJ: Does HIV cause AIDS?
EP: There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.
CJ: Why not?
EP: For many reasons, but most importantly, because there is no proof that HIV exists.
… CJ: Didn’t Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo [purportedly the co-discoverers of HIV] isolate HIV back in the early eighties?
EP: No. In the papers published in Science by those two research groups, there is no proof of the isolation of a retrovirus from AIDS patients. [HIV is said to be a retrovirus.]
CJ: They say they did isolate a virus. A VOYAGE IN IMAGINATIO... Holmes, Dr Joel S Buy New $9.95 (as of 04:21 UTC - Details)
EP: Our interpretation of the data differs. To prove the existence of a virus you need to do three things. First, culture cells and find a particle you think might be a virus. Obviously, at the very least, that particle should look like a virus. Second, you have to devise a method to get that particle on its own so you can take it to pieces and analyze precisely what makes it up. Then you need to prove the particle can make faithful copies of itself. In other words, that it can replicate.
CJ: Can’t you just look down a microscope and say there’s a virus in the cultures?
EP: No, you can’t. Not all particles that look like viruses are viruses.
… CJ: My understanding is that high-speed centrifugation is used to produce samples consisting exclusively of objects having the same density, a so-called “density-purified sample.” Electron microscopy is used to see if these density-purified samples consist of objects which all have the same appearance — in which case the sample is an isolate — and if this appearance matches that of a retrovirus, in terms of size, shape, and so forth. If all this is true, then you are three steps into the procedure for obtaining a retroviral isolate. (1) You have an isolate, and the isolate consists of objects with the same (2) density and (3) appearance of a retrovirus. Then you have to examine this isolate further, to see if the objects in it contain reverse transcriptase [an enzyme] and will replicate when placed in new cultures. Only then can you rightfully declare that you have obtained a retroviral isolate.
EP: Exactly. It was discovered that retroviral particles have a physical property which enables them to be separated from other material in cell cultures. That property is their buoyancy, or density, and this was utilized to purify the particles by a process called density gradient centrifugation.
The technology is complicated, but the concept is extremely simple. You prepare a test tube containing a solution of sucrose, ordinary table sugar, made so the solution is light at the top but gradually becomes heavier, or more dense, towards the bottom. Meanwhile, you grow whatever cells you think may contain your retrovirus. If you’re right, retroviral particles will be released from the cells and pass into the culture fluids. When you think everything is ready, you decant a specimen of culture fluids and gently place a drop on top of the sugar solution. Then you spin the test tube at extremely high speeds. This generates tremendous forces, and particles present in that drop of fluid are forced through the sugar solution until they reach a point where their buoyancy prevents them from penetrating any further. In other words, they drift down the density gradient until they reach a spot where their own density is the same as that region of the sugar solution. When they get there they stop, all together. To use virological jargon, that’s where they band. Retroviruses band at a characteristic point. In sucrose solutions they band at a point where the density is 1.16 gm/ml. Plague of Corruption: ... Mikovits, Judy Buy New $16.51 (as of 02:59 UTC - Details)
That band can then be selectively extracted and photographed with an electron microscope. The picture is called an electron micrograph, or EM. The electron microscope enables particles the size of retroviruses to be seen, and to be characterized by their appearance.
CJ: So, examination with the electron microscope tells you what fish you’ve caught?
EP: Not only that. It’s the only way to know if you’ve caught a fish. Or anything at all.
CJ: Did Montagnier and Gallo do this?
EP: This is one of the many problems. Montagnier and Gallo did use density gradient banding, but for some unknown reason they did not publish any Ems [photos] of the material at 1.16 gm/ml…this is quite puzzling because in 1973 the Pasteur Institute hosted a meeting attended by scientists, some of whom are now amongst the leading HIV experts. At that meeting the method of retroviral isolation was thoroughly discussed, and photographing the 1.16 band of the density gradient was considered absolutely essential.
CJ: But Montagnier and Gallo did publish photographs of virus particles.
EP: No. Montagnier and Gallo published electron micrographs of culture fluids that had not been centrifuged, or even separated from the culture cells, for that matter. These EMs contained, in addition to many other things, including the culture cells and other things that clearly are not retroviruses, a few particles which Montagnier and Gallo claimed are retroviruses, and which all belonged to the same retroviral species, now called HIV. But photographs of unpurified particles don’t prove that those particles are viruses. The existence of HIV was not established by Montagnier and Gallo — or anyone since — using the method presented at the 1973 meeting.
CJ: And what was that method?
EP: All the steps I have just told you. The only scientific method that exists. Culture cells, find a particle, isolate the particle, take it to pieces, find out what’s inside, and then prove those particles are able to make more of the same with the same constituents when they’re added to a culture of uninfected cells.
CJ: So before AIDS came along there was a well-tried method for proving the existence of a retrovirus, but Montagnier and Gallo did not follow this method?
EP: They used some of the techniques, but they did not undertake every step including proving what particles, if any, are in the 1.16 gm/ml band of the density gradient, the density that defines retroviral particles.
CJ: But what about their pictures?
EP: Montagnier’s and Gallo’s electron micrographs…are of entire cell cultures, or of unpurified fluids from cultures…”
—end of interview excerpt—
If you grasp the essentials of this discussion, you’ll see there is every reason to doubt the existence of HIV, because the methods for proving its existence were not followed.
And so…as I’ve reported these past few months, there is every reason to doubt and reject the existence of the COVID virus, since correct large-scale electron microscope studies have never been done.
I kept the Christine Johnson interview, and other similar information, in mind when, for example, I explored the dud epidemics called SARS and 2009 Swine Flu.
How many viruses have been named as causes of disease, when in fact those viruses have never been isolated or proved to exist?
Of course, conventional-consensus researchers and doctors will scoff at any attempt to raise these issues. For them, “the science is settled.” Meaning: they don’t want to think. They don’t want to stir the waters.
A few years ago, chemist David Rasnick sent a request to the CDC, asking for evidence demonstrating that the Ebola virus had ever been isolated from a human. The answers he received did not begin to approach a level of certainty.
After 30 years working as a reporter in the area of deep medical-research fraud, I’ve seen that false science occurs in levels.
The deeper you go, the stranger it gets. To put it another way: the deeper you go, the worse it gets.
SOURCES:
immunity.org.uk/articles/christine-johnson/
virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/cjinterviewep.htm
blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/08/10/covid-is-the-virus-real/
blog.nomorefakenews.com/2014/11/03/bombshell-scientist-finds-no-reliable-evidence-ebola-virus-ever-isolated-from-a-human-being/
Reprinted with permission from Jon Rappoport’s blog.
The Best of Jon Rappoport