Article Image
IPFS News Link • Revolutions, Rebellions & Uprisings

Diaper Report 9/3/20

• Eric Peters Autos

Many people are in a life and death struggle with Sickness Psychosis. Or at least, an economic struggle with it. They face the choice of effacing their face – by placing a Diaper over their faces at work – or losing their jobs.

Many employers have become dispensers of medical advice you cannot refuse. Soon, probably, they'll be requiring flea collars for all and codpieces for men, too.

Why not?

It's just as sick as requiring healthy employees to play-pretend they are sick (and make them more likely to get sick) via the forced wearing of an item meant to cover the faces of sick people, generally in a hospital setting.

Well, so it was, once upon a time (six months ago) before Sickness Psychosis infected the country).

At any rate, some people are asserting their healthiness – mentally as well as physically – by refusing to pretend they are sick and refusing to be part of spreading mental sickness by refusing to wear a Face Diaper just because their employer has ordered it.

On more or less the same moral basis that they'd refuse to wear an armband, say.

But refusing to join the party is a firing offense in sickness-afflicted America.

So be it.

A woman I know refused to degrade herself – and others – by pretending she is sick and that sickness is everywhere, by playing her part in the visual maintenance of terror necessary to the perpetuation of Sickness Psychosis.

She refused the order to wear a (not her) Diaper.

This order is probably illegal – if the law mattered. The law is that an employer cannot force an employee to wear a Face Diaper anymore than it can force an employee to wear an armband. But Gesundheitsfuhrers have trumped the law by claiming an "emergency" in perpetuity and by claiming (without establishing) it is a threat to public health for healthy people to not wear a Face Diaper.

Another Diaper Dissenter received the following from the office of the attorney general of the state of Pennsylvania:

"The novel coronavirus poses a grave public health threat, requiring all of us to do our part to slow and ultimately stop its spread. Importantly, this includes persons who do not believe that they have the virus, given that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has concluded that "we now know from recent studies that a significant portion of individuals with coronavirus lack symptoms ("asymptomatic") and that even those who eventually develop symptoms ("pre-symptomatic") can transmit the virus to others before showing symptoms."

Note the incoherence – as well as the sick assertions – italicized to emphasis the pathology. "Requiring all of us to do our part"? According to what law? Did the legislature of Pennsylvania pass a Requiring All Of Us To Do Our Part law? Where in this law is the subsection defining – as laws generally do – exactly what "our part" is?

Perhaps it is like our "fair share" of taxes?

Then there is the topsy-turvy business about "persons who do not believe they have the virus." As opposed to Gesundheitsfuhrers who believe they do – absent any evidence for said belief. Laws generally require the adducing of evidence to establish guilt before consequence ensue.

The Gesundheitsfuhrer's orders efface that standard and replace it with a new one – that of belief.