Last week I shared on Twitter (@infopinie) and on Facebook a blog article by moreelkompas.nl which discussed a column in The Atlantic. Die column, een amnestievoorstel voor coronabeleidsmakers, deed veel stof opwaaien. De auteur, Emily Osters, wordt zelf als expert beschouwd en het geeft een rare smaak als zo iemand vraagt om "amnestie".
Emily Oster's data-driven approach carried the same weight for many Americans as the mantras of recognized health experts. It is estimated that her newsletter is read by 65,000 people and she has more than 82,000 followers on Twitter. Not that much by American standards, but she is a popular media personality when it comes to the pandemic and children.
Deze econoom (Professor of Economics and International and Public Affairs aan de Brown University) pleitte een groot deel van de pandemie voor buitengewoon schadelijk beleid zoals het opsluiten van kinderen, het afschermen van schoolkinderen van elkaar en ze promootte vaccinatiemandaten. Ze wordt omschreven als "cheerleader of the clique that has applauded the most draconian policies in 2020 and 2021."
Haar "essay" kon je dus lezen als een eerste smeekbede om vergiffenis voor degenen die in de corona-oorlog aan de verkeerde kant stonden en nog steeds staan. Zij hopen nu al op "amnestie". Dat doe je niet als je ervan overtuigd bent niets verkeerds te hebben gedaan. In het eerdergenoemde 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.
Betekenis van "Amnestie"
Friend and enemy agree that justice must be done first, after all: amnesty can only be achieved after a serious conviction. I write 'heavy' because no amnesty is granted for 60 hours of community service. Emily Oster is probably confusing amnesty with immunity. In the case of amnesty, pardon, remission, or a general pardon, there is no 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 criminal offenses have been committed that will be different for each individual. I don't know the legal terms exactly, but lies and incitement, systematic obstruction of research in the interest of public health, piling blunder upon blunder with despotic behavior, ignoring FOIA requests, refusing democratic transparency, conflict of interest, violating human rights, manipulation of data reports, ignoring judicial decisions - 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).
Worden de vaccins vrijgepleit dan zou de oversterfte het gevolg van de lockdowns kunnen zijn. Die interventie werd sterk ontraden, ook door de WHO, zeker voor langere termijn (meer dan enkele dagen, maximaal weken). Op Chinees advies werd dit inzicht herzien. Misschien dachten de Chinezen dat dit virus in elkaar was geknutseld door de knapste virologen van de wereld en alle middelen gerechtvaardigd waren om te voorkomen dat de helft van de mensheid van de aardbodem zou worden weggevaagd. Wij hadden die wetenschap echter niet, althans dat houden de virologen tot de dag van vandaag vol. Een berekening van Economische Zaken, die aangaf dat het aantal verloren levensjaren vijf maal maal hoger zou zijn dan wat er te winnen viel ( voor NL520.000 qaly) werd als een onbelangrijke "interne notitie" aan de kant geschoven. Ook dat zou een rechter als laakbaar kunnen beoordelen.
With or without distinction of person
So many different criminal offenses and so many individuals who at least knew about the consequences would require an individualized approach. But: we know what vaccinistas themselves think about that. Following their train of thought, they should all be behind bars, then we will automatically get those we need. That's how it works with vaccination, not stuffy, err on the side of caution. You sit for someone else. And then immediately lock up their children to prevent them from fleeing. But that is very mean.
Forgive
Another topic was 'forgiveness'. Many are (still) too angry about what has been done to the population, especially children, but not everyone. Someone commented that the administrators and doctors should be severely punished, but that he would forgive his friends. Then again, I don't recognize that. I have never blamed my friends for anything, it was more of a concern. A friend for whom Parkinson's occurs suddenly and quickly. A friend who could live well with thrombosis and now suddenly has much more problems again, a fit partner of a colleague who is found dead at home - at some point you start to blame the vaccine for everything. But that didn't amount to anything more than concern for my friends. And of course I never once asked whether they had ever thought of the vaccines as the cause of the disaster, so just delete that. It doesn't matter anymore: the damage had already been done.
So anger or hatred: no. Sometimes oppressed, but it worked. These docile people are exactly the people a country needs to function: they may not always be good at declaring air travel, but in general they still behave in a reasonably law-abiding and responsible manner. Good, decent, reliable. Everyone contributes to society in his/her way. Well informed through quality media, respect for hierarchy and titles. Awe for politics ('they're just standing there') and the medical industry ('they really know what they're doing'). And that's OK, because a country full of Jan Bontes is of course not going to work either.
Nu zeg ik "dat is OK" - maar dat geldt als je een overheid hebt die je kunt vertrouwen en die tot doel heeft 's lands democratie te dienen. Dat geldt als je een medische stand hebt die geen misbruik maakt van zijn reputatie en die volksgezondheid boven al het andere stelt. Als je media en journalisten hebt die zich realiseren dat zij de enigen zijn die volgzaamheid of kritiek bij de bevolking richting kunnen geven en zo de politiek kunnen maken en breken: zij zijn immers de zintuigen van de massa. De massa kan niks met feiten, die baseert haar stemgedrag op duidingen. "Ik leg het even voor u uit", daar houden ze van. Maar elke duiding is ook een framing. En dan heb je de rechters, die hadden moeten begrijpen dat zij er niet alleen zijn om burgers tegen elkaar te beschermen maar dat het beschermen van burgers tegen de overheid een morele plicht is.
Unfortunately, they all failed the stress test. And not just a little bit. They have deceived the good citizens with manipulation, who 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.
You could compare the 'wrong' side of today with the NSB of the past. That political party grew enormously during the war (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 shows how principled the average Dutch person was in such matters. Those NSB members strove for a large European empire, which is at odds with contemporary relations - or not at all. But the political party that is now growing the fastest is precisely against European unification. Recognizable themes, but the cards are shuffled very differently.
"Hoe kunnen die mensen 's nachts nog slapen? Ik zou geen oog meer dicht doen als ik dat mogelijk op mijn geweten had" vroeg iemand zich af. Om de vergelijking met WOII nog even door te trekken: NSB'ers zagen ook een glorieuze toekomst voor zich. Als Duitsland gewonnen had waren zij de helden geweest en had het morrend volk zich uiteindelijk ook wel weer geplooid. De vreselijke holocaust was misschien wel in de doofpot verdwenen. Onmogelijk? Toen ik nog geen maand geleden in een gesprek met een gerespecteerd medisch specialist het probleem van de wereldwijde oversterfte noemde, keek hij mij aan of hij water zag branden: "Oversterfte? Nee, als er oversterfte zou zijn, hadden we dat wel geweten." Die haben es wirklich nicht gewusst, realiseerde ik mij. Kun je ze dat kwalijk nemen?
"Dan hadden 'we' dat wel geweten" - dat 'we', dat vind ik eigenlijk nog erger. 'Ik' hoor zelf dus duidelijk niet bij 'we'. 'We', dat zijn de mensen die het weten kunnen, die medicijnen hebben gestudeerd. Het dedain wat daaruit spreekt, kun je dat een hoog-intelligente, hilarisch geestige ex-huisgenoot met wie je zelfs wel eens op vakantie bent geweest, die je sinds zijn 17e kent - kun je hem dat kwalijk nemen? Kun je mensen veroordelen op een dwaling? Op een misleiding, op massavorming?
But suppose it turns out that the government and the doctors have done everything right: the vaccines and the lockdowns have saved millions of lives, all the misery is due to obesity or the like, for example, including excess mortality. The intermediate host is still found, so it really was a zoonosis, etc. etc. Even the PCR test usually turns out to be correct. Then we, the proud wappies, are the wrong party. And we sleep well too, 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'...?
How many parents had to watch their child with a psychiatric disorder being taken out of the house by the police, officially because they needed treatment, but never returned home after treatment because they were 'euthanized', or 'properly murdered'? It was the psychiatric patients in whom the gas chambers were the first to be 'tested' on a small scale.[1]
It was all for a higher purpose, the supposed interest of society over the individual, exactly the same argument that is now used by people like Roland Pierik, Marcel Verweij, Gert van Dijk, Brigit Toebes, Martin Buijsen, Pauline van Steijnen and many others who see themselves as intellectual, and consider themselves civilized and decent, and feel far superior to the mob. In part, these are 'legal philosophers' and ethicists, but above all people who believe that they are pursuing a higher goal and consider their opinion to be morally superior. It was the same people who embraced eugenics just as enthusiastically in the thirties. For the higher purpose.
Time moves on, the nature of man does not.
From The Poison Cup, Jan Bonte
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.
Regarding inhumane policies, we can think, for example, of those who died in loneliness. Children who have missed an important part of their development. We actually only have to look at the communication strategy surrounding 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 established whether or not vaccinated people could spread the virus.
Mind game: Bedenk een bevolkingsgroep die door woke in bescherming wordt genomen, of een andere minderheid, dat maakt niet uit. Vervang daar het woord 'gevaccineerden' eens mee in alle uitingen. Eens of niet: zo ga je niet met mensen om. "Ja maar dit was een medische noodzaak". Nee dat was het dus niet en men wist dat, blijkt uit WOB-documenten. Dit was suppressie onder het mom van een medische noodzaak.
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.
Maxima herself will seek advice from her talk club WEF, where she previously emphasized how important the International Vaccine Alliance is, that we should not rely on our sovereignty but on uniform, centralistic policy, and that the Digital ID and the CBDC (centrally trackable credit) are a huge step forward in all of this. So he thinks it's good. But do call Dad Zorregueta because such a general pardon, you have to specify it broadly otherwise you might just miss out.
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."), die bepaald geen stempel heeft gedrukt op het juridisch gerotzooi van het kabinet, neemt het besluit op basis van adviezen van het O.M. en de rechter. Wel even Ferd bellen dus, die regelt dat wel. Dan is het cirkeltje weer rond want die rechters hoeven niet mee te werken aan hun eigen veroordeling. Of ze hun veroordeelde confrères een hak willen zetten is maar de vraag. Dat gratie-varkentje kan gauw gewassen zijn. Dus: 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)
Eisenstein has written a beautiful essay on this subject.
https://charleseisenstein.substack.com/p/amnesty-yesand-here-is-the-price
A few nice paragraphs. But I disagree with the lock. If a murderer explains where the motive came from, how he planned and carried out the murder, then that is no reason for me to grant him amnesty.
And then it all happens again because you never removed the wrongdoing.
Amnesty can only take place after acknowledging that you were wrong and after you can tell what you are going to do about it so that it does not happen again.
It's that simple, but for most so hard, it is.
Ego is a bitch.
'... in order to achieve the optimal management of the population.'
More accurate would be: ' ... in order to achieve the optimal management of society for the benefit of the population.'
Small but, in my opinion, an important difference. 🙂
I get your point, could certainly be, but because the emphasis here is on manipulating the individual citizen with colored information, I'll leave it at that. Thanks for the suggestion in any case.
Ah, in that case you have formulated it correctly. 😆👍 Thank you for your explanation.
Nice column again. As a critical thinker from the first hour, it strikes me how many of the sharp edges I had almost forgotten myself. So that's pretty fast. But when I saw the video, that ugly, totalitarian oppression of the unvaccinated came back to my memory. Which filled me with the same horror, fear and hatred that I have felt many times in recent years. Things are now a lot better. But is it because people have repented? Or is it because of the mildness of Omikron, which no longer allows medical dystopia? I suspect the latter. If 'the numbers' had risen again this autumn, we might have just seen a repeat of moves. That is why talking about amnesty cannot be discussed at this stage. With a big flu wave this winter, I still have to see what happens. Most of the population still does not realize that there is an attack going on our freedom. In a broader sense. The negative consequences of the policy of recent years are also far from fully visible, let alone that people can be held accountable for them.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission? Like in South Africa after Apartheid. Seems to me the least and also sufficient for followers who have only been nasty by showing their true colors.
For those responsible for large-scale death by guilt, it seems to me that prosecution with punishments that match the seriousness of the offenses is the only possible way to achieve social closure.
I personally try to forgive in my own circle of friends – although, there is no remorse at all! In my circle of acquaintances, people who earn good incomes at Pfizer are Jansen and so on. They continue to live/drive nicely and, if the boss asked, would do exactly the same thing again.
Haben Sie es nicht gewusst? Who Mengele? Too bad then. Let the judge speak.
Let the judge speak? Sorry, but also the trust in the judiciary is gone, completely gone. Judges only protect the incumbent. Certainly at the Council of State that under Thom de Graaf (D66) is completely politicized.
Do you remember the judge who dared to rule that the curfew was unlawful? Within 24 hours (!!!) he was overruled by an appeal ruling.
@Theo Unfortunately, you're absolutely right.
Forgiveness can only be given AFTER confession and the promise to improve your life. Those who are aware of their guilt also accept the possible consequences (e.g. resignation, imprisonment, fine,...). Those who do not prepare are possibly. to accept consequences shows that he has no remorse, has learned nothing and has no intention of improving his/her life.
Good article by the way.