Amnesty? No way. Though...

Last week I shared on Twitter (@infopinie) and on Facebook a blog article by moreelkompas.nl which discussed a column in The Atlantic. That column, an amnesty proposal for corona policymakers, caused a lot of controversy. The author, Emily Osters, is considered an expert herself and it gives a strange taste when such a person asks for "amnesty".

Emily Oster's data-driven approach had the same weight for many Americans as the mantras of the recognized health experts. It is estimated that her newsletter is read by 65,000 people and on Twitter she has more than 82,000 followers. Not even that much by American standards but she is a popular media personality when it comes to the pandemic and children.

This economist (Professor of Economics and International and Public Affairs at Brown University) advocated much of the pandemic for extraordinarily harmful policies such as locking up children, shielding schoolchildren from each other, and promoting vaccination mandates. She is described as "cheerleader of the clique that has applauded the most draconian policies in 2020 and 2021.”

So her "essay" could be read as a first plea for forgiveness for those who were and still are on the wrong side in the corona war. They are already hoping for "amnesty". You don't do that if you're convinced you haven't done anything wrong. In the aforementioned article on moreelkompas.nl the Eucalyptic Society explains why, in their opinion, there should be no amnesty: the offences weigh too heavily.

Sharing that article on social media led to exchanges of views and they sometimes sparked thought again. Below are some findings.

Meaning of "Amnesty"

Friend and foe agree that justice will first have to be done, after all: amnesty can only take place after a strong conviction. I write 'hefty' because no amnesty is granted for 60 hours of community service. Emily Oster probably confuses amnesty with immunity. In the case of amnesty, pardon, remission, or a general pardon, there is no question of immunity. It doesn't mean you don't have to go to court.

Amnestymeans the complete remission of a sentence, to certain individuals or to all those convicted of a particular offence.

Wikipedia (at the end of this article also a government link confirming this)

In addition, a range of offences have been committed that will be different for each individual. I don't know the exact legal terms, but lies and incitement, systematic obstruction of research in the interest of public health, stacking blunder upon blunder with despotic behavior, ignoring WOB requests, refusing democratic transparency, conflicts of interest, violating human rights, manipulation of data reports, ignoring court rulings – not everyone has been guilty of every offense, so that has to be investigated and weighed. Independent.

Suppose that the vaccines have indeed caused or are going to cause millions of deaths worldwide, then we would have to add multiple deaths by guilt to the list. After all, there were plenty of alternatives, scientific warnings and other red flags, mid 2021 al (and previously: vanden Bossche, Wolfgang Wodarg, McCullough, Marik, Kory, Malone, Kuldorff and the like).

If the vaccines are released, the excess mortality could be the result of the lockdowns. This intervention was strongly discouraged, also by the WHO, certainly for the longer term (more than a few days, maximum weeks). On Chinese advice, this insight was revised. Perhaps the Chinese thought that this virus had been cobbled together by the world's brightest virologists and justified all means to prevent half of humanity from being wiped off the face of the earth. However, we did not have that science, at least that is what the virologists maintain to this day. A calculation by Economic Affairs, which indicated that the number of years of life lost would be five times higher than what could be gained (for NL520,000 qaly) was pushed aside as an insignificant "internal note". That too could be judged by a judge as reprehensible.

With or without distinction of person

So many different offenses and so many individuals who at least knew about the consequences, that would require an individualized approach. But: we know how vaccinistas themselves think about this. Following their train of thought, they should all be behind bars, then we will automatically have the ones we need. That's how it works with vaccination, not of that stuffy, the certain for the uncertain. You sit for someone else. And if they lock up their children right away, you prevent them from fleeing. But that's very mean.

Forgive

Another topic was 'forgiveness'. Many are (still) too angry about what has been done to the population and especially children, but not everyone. Someone remarked that the drivers and medics should be severely punished but that he would forgive his friends. I don't recognize that. I have never blamed my friends, it is rather concern. A friend with whom Parkinson's suddenly and quickly plays up. A friend who could live well with thrombosis and now suddenly suffers a lot more, a fit partner of a colleague who is found dead at home – you are going to blame the vaccine for everything at some point. But more than concern towards my friends, that didn't work out. And of course I didn't ask for a moment if they had ever thought of the vaccines as the cause of the disaster, that just removes. It doesn't matter anymore: the harm had already been done.

So anger or hatred: no. Sometimes suppressed, but that worked. These docile people are pre-eminently the people a country needs to function: perhaps not always good at declaring air travel, but in general they still behave reasonably law-abiding and responsible. Well-behaved, decent, reliable. Everyone contributes to society in his/her own way. Well informed through quality media, respect for hierarchy and titles. Awe of politics ('they're there anyway') and the medical industry ('they really know what they're doing'). And that's OK, because a country full of Jan Bontes, that will of course be nothing. (Even though it was endearing to see how that Twitter executioner was publicly exposed. apologized to Rosanne Hertzberger.)

Now I say "that's OK" – but that's true if you have a government that you can trust and that aims to serve the country's democracy. That's true if you have a medical state that doesn't abuse its reputation and puts public health above all else. If you have media and journalists who realize that they are the only ones who can direct docility or criticism among the population and thus make and break politics: after all, they are the senses of the masses. The masses cannot do anything with facts, they base their voting behaviour on interpretations. "I'll explain it to you," they love. But every interpretation is also a framing. And then you have the judges, who should have understood that they are not only there to protect citizens from each other but that protecting citizens from the government is a moral duty.

Unfortunately, all failed the stress test. And not a little bit. It is precisely the good citizens that they have deceived with manipulation, which are the real mental victims. We don't.

WWII

WWII was also discussed. In the run-up, say in 1938, the population must have been as polarized as it is now. With activist factions on both sides that could wish each other dead. Or did more than just wish.

The 'wrong' side of today could be compared to the NSB of the past. That political party grew enormously during the war (so when the Germans were de facto in charge). It is also striking that all those members resigned just as quickly once it became clear that the Germans were going to lose the war. It does show how principled the average Dutch person was in such matters. Those NSB members aspired to a large European empire, which in turn is at odds with contemporary relations – or not. But the political party that is now growing the fastest is precisely against this European unification. Recognizable themes, but the cards are shuffled very differently.

"How can these people still sleep at night? I wouldn't close an eye if I had that on my conscience," someone wondered. To continue the comparison with WWII: NSB members also saw a glorious future ahead of them. If Germany had won, they would have been the heroes and the grumbling people would have finally folded again. The terrible Holocaust may have been covered up. Impossible? Less than a month ago, when I mentioned the problem of global excess mortality in a conversation with a respected medical specialist, he looked at me to see if he saw water burning: "Excess mortality? No, if there was excess mortality, we would have known that." Die haben es wirklich nicht gewusst, I realized. Can you blame them?

"Then 'we' would have known that" – that 'we', I actually find that even worse. 'I' clearly does not belong to 'we'. 'We', those are the people who know, who have studied medicine. The dedain that speaks from that, can you say that a highly intelligent, hilariously witty ex-roommate with whom you've even been on holiday, who you've known since he was 17 – can you blame him? Can you judge people for error? On a deception, on mass formation?

But suppose it turns out that the government and the doctors seem to have done everything completely right: the vaccines and the lockdowns have saved millions of lives, all the misery is caused by obesity or something similar, including excess mortality. The intermediate host is still found so it was really a zoonosis etc etc. Even the PCR test usually turns out to have had it right. Then we, the proud wappies, are the wrong party. And we sleep well, don't we? We do this in the belief that we are right. Well, the other party also has that reassurance. But why talk about 'amnesty'... ?

System Protection

Our democracy is organized with separate powers: institutions and representations that have to keep each other in balance in order to achieve the optimal management of the population. All those forums are filled in with people and there too something can sometimes go wrong. Someone can let self-interest prevail over national interest, but fortunately there are guidelines, procedures and supervisors to keep an eye on such slips. For example, a complicated constellation of mutually guarding institutes has been set up, which in the past two years has shown that it does not work for a meter when it really comes to something. That is sad.

Regulators are entangled with those they should be whistling back, we certainly see that in the medical sector (FDA, EMA). They are often financially dependent on it. The government shows on the sidelines how they silence unwelcome people, so the legacy media also look forward to being too critical.

Large private companies and governments have worked together to impose scientifically irresponsible products and to enslave the population, that is for sure. Let us first try those responsible, then we will see if there can be a reduction or remission of sentence.

As far as inhumane policies are concerned, we can think, for example, of those who died in solitude. Children who have missed an important piece of development. We really only have to look at the communication strategy around the vaccines to see what is 'wrong' anyway. Below is a random impression of how the audience has been edited. Remember that it is all about spreading the virus, even when it was not yet certain whether vaccinated people could spread the virus or not.

Mind game: Imagine a population group protected by woke, or some other minority, it doesn't matter. Replace the word 'vaccinated' with that in all expressions. Agree or not: that's not how you treat people. "Yes, but this was a medical necessity". No, it wasn't and people knew that, according to WOB documents. This was suppression under the guise of a medical necessity.

Meanwhile, there are even studies that show that vaccinated people infect more others. The truth will be somewhere in the middle. But as wob documents also show: advancing scientific insight made no difference to the collective prick obsession anyway. In fact, it indicated what needed to be worked around.

Although: grace of the King

Then, after condemnation, there is always our King. He probably gives a pardon; he himself has also been kicked in with both feet and is still very happy that his daughters (!) also took a prick. He will also check on his wife.

But actually the King puts just his signature. The Minister for Legal Protection (“I want to give all the people in this country the confidence that they can always count on the democratic rule of law."), which has certainly not left its mark on the legal wrangling of the cabinet, takes the decision on the basis of advice from the O.M. and the judge. So just call Ferd, he will arrange that. Then the circle is complete again because those judges do not have to cooperate with their own conviction. Whether they want to put a heel on their convicted confrères is questionable. That grace pig can be washed quickly. So: Amnesty? Who knows!

Where does the forgiveness stop and the call for justice begin? It's a grey area. In any case, let us guard against vindictiveness.

(3 Dislikes were given when the post was still protected with a password)