The Atlantic Suggests ‘Amnesty’ For Pandemic Rights Abusers and Genocidal Authoritarians • No; they must pay for crimes against humanity • “Just Following Orders” Is Not A Valid Defence

The Atlantic Suggests ‘Amnesty’ For Pandemic Rights Abusers and Genocidal Authoritarians • No; they must pay for crimes against humanity • “Just Following Orders” Is Not A Valid Defence

“You Murderous Hypocrites”: Outrage Ensues After The Atlantic Suggests ‘Amnesty’ For Pandemic Authoritarians


“We’re not just going to forget what happened when our lives were turned upside down…”

The Atlantic has come under fire for suggesting that all the terrible pandemic-era decisions over lockdowns, school closures, masking, and punishing an entire class of people who questioned the efficacy and wisdom of taking a rushed, experimental vaccine – for a virus with a 99% survival rate in most, should all be water under the bridge.

Source: “You Murderous Hypocrites”: Outrage Ensues After The Atlantic Suggests ‘Amnesty’ For Pandemic Authoritarians | ZeroHedge

We need to forgive one another for what we did and said when we were in the dark about COVID,” writes Brown Professor Emily Oster – a huge lockdown proponent, who now pleads from mercy from the once-shunned.

“Let’s acknowledge that we made complicated choices in the face of deep uncertainty, and then try to work together to build back and move forward,” she continues.

Except, they weren’t “in the dark” about Covid.  There were numerous sources pointing out the actual science that ran contrary to the mandate claims, and they were deliberately silenced by a vast media campaign.  Evidence suggests that media platforms worked in tandem with Big Tech, the CDC and the Biden Administration.  It was not a simple matter of overreaction, there was collusion to remove all counter-information.

Nice try, Emily.

As the Daily Sceptic‘s Michael P. Senger puts it: “There’s a lot wrong here. First, no, you don’t get to advocate policies that do extraordinary harm to others, against their wishes, then say, “We didn’t know any better at the time!” Ignorance doesn’t work as an excuse when the policies involved abrogating your fellow citizens’ rights under an indefinite state of emergency, while censoring and cancelling those who weren’t as ignorant. The inevitable result would be a society in which ignorance and obedience to the opinion of the mob would be the only safe position.”

And look at that ratio:

In one epic Twitter thread, Claremont Institute Senior Fellow Matthew J. Peterson (@docMJP) excoriates Oster’s entire premise;

Hey—sorry you lost your job b/c of the vax that doesn’t work and your grandmother died alone and you couldn’t have a funeral and your brother’s business was needlessly destroyed and your kids have weird heart problems—but let’s just admit we were all wrong and call a truce, eh?

It’s too bad we shut the entire economy down & took on tyrannical powers that have never been used before in this country—looking back, you should have been able to go to church and use public parks while we let people riot in the streets—but it was a confusing time for everyone.

Hey I’m sorry we scared the hell out of you & lied for years & persecuted & censored anyone who disagreed but there was an election going on & we really wanted to beat Donald Trump so it was important to radically politicize the science even if it destroyed your children’s lives.

OK, yes we said unvaccinated people should die & not get healthcare while never questioning Big Pharma once but we are compassionate people which is why even though we shut down the entire economy we also bankrupted the nation & caused inflation. You’re welcome! Let’s be friends.

As QTR’s Fringe Finance notes, Oster’s plea for the decency that her ilk failed to offer up to most Americans during the throws of the pandemic comes at a point where the Covid narrative has been all but lost by the Democrats and the mainstream media.

There have been several recent large wins for the unvaccinated who had the constitution and backbone to stand up for themselves throughout a year of being constantly berated and ferociously scorned as second class citizens.

A majority of the media and Democrats had demanded that these people be removed from society and generally subject to scorn and ridicule. Now, in a moment that many of us knew would eventually be coming, apologies are being made around the world for how the unvaccinated were treated.

As Fox News wrote last week:

“The premier of Alberta, Canada, said she is working on a plan to pardon residents who were fined or arrested over breaking coronavirus protocols, and apologized to unvaccinated Canadians who faced ‘discrimination.’“

In New York, a Supreme Court judge recently reinstated all employees who were fired from their jobs for being unvaccinated:

The court found Monday that “being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting COVID-19.” New York City Mayor Eric Adams claimed earlier this year that his administration would not rehire employees who had been fired over their vaccination status.

* * *

The problem was not people’s ignorance of the facts, it was the organized antagonism and censorship against anyone presenting data that was contradictory to the mandate agenda. This is setting aside proclamations like those from the LA Times, which argued that mocking the deaths of “anti-vaxxers” might be necessary and justified.  After two years of this type of arrogant nonsense it’s hard to imagine people will be willing to pretend as if all is well.

The active effort to shut down any opposing data is the root crime, though, and no, it can never be forgotten or forgiven.

People are livid

This video is in response to the @TheAtlantic article about “pandemic amnesty” and it’s a much watch. This man is so right on.

— Just Mindy

(@just_mindy) October 31, 2022

Arizona Gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake (R) wants investigations.

.@KariLake: "I want to have a commission to investigate Covid and how it was handled in this state. And hand up any civil, or criminal charges that need to be made. Because we're not just got to forget what happened when our lives were turned upside down."

— Kari Lake (@KariLake) October 31, 2022
This is where I spent the last 7 months with my mother before she died alone on December 3rd, 2020. You murderous hypocrites have nothing but my undying contempt. Rot in Hell.

— Rollo Tomassi (@RationalMale) October 31, 2022
Resharing this. Because "let's forgive", right?

— Dr. Sydney Watson (@SydneyLWatson) October 31, 2022

As QTR further notes, many Americans whipped themselves up into such a terrified hypnotic frenzy that they found themselves clinging to big government to impose their will, advocating for the same draconian and fascist-sounding policies they always claim to be fighting against.

For example, Ramussen reported in January 2022 that Democratic voters supported the following Covid policy ideas (my annotations in bold, Rasmussen in normal text):

  • Fines for the unvaccinated: Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters would oppose a proposal for federal or state governments to fine Americans who choose not to get a COVID-19 vaccine.
  • House arrest: Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine.
  • Imprisonment for questioning the vaccine: Nearly half (48%) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications.
  • Forced quarantine: Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine.
  • Stripping people of their children: Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Democratic voters would support temporarily removing parents’ custody of their children if parents refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine. That’s much more than twice the level of support in the rest of the electorate – seven percent (7%) of Republicans and 11% of unaffiliated voters – for such a policy.
Emily Oster: let's just forget this happened.

— John Haar (@john_at_swan) October 31, 2022

Unsurprisingly, American Federation of Teachers chief Randi Weingarten, who ‘flunked the pandemic‘ by pushing for school shutdowns as long as she possibly could before parents revolted, is a big fan of amnesty.

"I've decided that I should be on the pardon list, if that is still in the works"

— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) October 31, 2022

One cannot help but notice that the timing of the Atlantic’s appeal for passive forgetfulness coincides with the swiftly approaching midterm elections, in which polls suggest a much greater chance of a conservative upset than Democrats previously expected.  Though the Atlantic doesn’t admit it, there is a growing political backlash to the last two years of meaningless lockdowns and mandates, and Democrats were instrumental in the implementation of both.  A large swath of the population sees one party as the cause of much of their covid era strife.

Perhaps the mainstream media is suddenly realizing that they may have to face some payback for their covid zealotry?  “We didn’t know! We were just following orders!”  It all sounds rather familiar.

Original Article:

The Atlantic Is Asking for ‘Pandemic Amnesty’ and Forgiveness

Wow. The Atlantic has a front-page article (archive link) by Prof. Emily Oster, asking for “Pandemic Amnesty”.

How interesting. The Atlantic is one of the most forward-looking and yet curated publications and they do not publish rubbish and random musings. And now they have a prominent author asking for “amnesty” and forgiveness.

Nobody is asking for amnesty for good deeds, right?

The article rambles and weaves to avoid mentioning anything specific as to who and what the amnesty would be FOR. What are the specific misdeeds that The Atlantic wants to be forgiven? Emily’s article is NOT clear.

It talks, strangely, about people voluntarily wearing masks in foreign preserves:

In April 2020, with nothing else to do, my family took an enormous number of hikes. We all wore cloth masks that I had made myself. We had a family hand signal, which the person in the front would use if someone was approaching on the trail and we needed to put on our masks.  Once, when another child got too close to my then-4-year-old son on a bridge, he yelled at her “SOCIAL DISTANCING!”

These precautions were totally misguided. In April 2020, no one got the coronavirus from passing someone else hiking. Outdoor transmission was vanishingly rare. Our cloth masks made out of old bandanas wouldn’t have done anything, anyway. But the thing is: We didn’t know.

Then it puzzlingly mentions “not knowing relative efficacies of Johnson and Johnson vs mRNA shots”, as if someone needs an amnesty for not knowing such relative efficacies.

Another example: When the vaccines came out, we lacked definitive data on the relative efficacies of the Johnson & Johnson shot versus the mRNA options from Pfizer and Moderna. The mRNA vaccines have won out. But at the time, many people in public health were either neutral or expressed a J&J preference. This misstep wasn’t nefarious. It was the result of uncertainty.

The article gets weirder, seriously talking about suggestions to “inject bleach” as if anyone actually contemplated that:

Obviously some people intended to mislead and made wildly irresponsible claims. Remember when the public-health community had to spend a lot of time and resources urging Americans not to inject themselves with bleach? That was bad. Misinformation was, and remains, a huge problem. But most errors were made by people who were working in earnest for the good of society.

Prof. Oster is a very intelligent person and, no doubt understands that suggestions to inject bleach were fake and a part of “inoculations against misinformation”, a psyop campaign intended to make Covid skeptics look stupid.

The author surely did not publish this Atlantic article out of honest-to-goodness concern for the nebulous advocates of “bleach injections”. She wants some other acts — and some other players — to be forgiven instead. Prof. Oster is coy about who those people are. I am sure that she is asking for amnesty for our “Covid response leaders”.

She published her article, before the midterms, because she is concerned about disappointed people starting to ask questions. Questions, such as

  • Why is my vaccine not working for me?
  • Why was I/my friend/my coworker injured by the vaccine and ignored by the medical community?
  • Why am I sicker than before?
  • Why am I having multiple Covid infections after being vaccinated?
  • I was told that my vaccines “stop transmission”, whereas the authorities knew they don’t
  • Why did unaccountable private interests take over the entirety of public response?
  • Why did the above private interests make billions of dollars, while my business went bankrupt?
  • Why was I lied to by the TV and media, while the truth was suppressed by Internet giants profiting from the pandemic?

Emily surely does not address such questions, but she is no doubt aware that they are being asked publicly and even brought up during the elections.

She is probably worried because she understands that these questions if asked and investigated, may lead to serious consequences. Hence, her call for amnesty.

Can We Have an “Amnesty” if we do not know the Crime?

Suggestions to provide an “amnesty” to wrongdoers without identifying them and their misdeeds are like putting a cart before the horse.

Amnesty for which wrongdoers? Amnesty for what? Prof. Oster is not clear on this and even I, someone interested in the Covid pandemic, am not yet certain as to the exact list of Covid wrongdoers. All I know is that they need to be investigated — and only then we can decide if amnesty is appropriate.

It Should Never Happen Again

We intuitively know that something went very wrong.

I hope that you, my reader, will agree that such things should never happen again. If so, then our “Covid response” needs to be fully and publicly investigated by impartial tribunals.

We need to make sure this never happens again to the subsequent generations. Somehow, we need to create a deterrent against future schemers. We cannot achieve that deterrence by giving everyone an “amnesty” without even knowing who did what.

Is it possible that everyone acted in our best interests and that the mistakes were unintentional? Are the people asking for amnesty confused well-wishers, or are they Covid Criminals who poisoned millions through malice, greed, and reckless disregard for safety? We’d need to know what happened, first, to have the answer!

Only after an investigation that uncovers what transpired, will we be able to judge whether an “amnesty” is appropriate and if so, for whom. Not before.

If such an investigation uncovers crimes, such as violation of national laws or crimes against humanity, then I hope that legally convened courts will be able to assess legally appropriate sanctions against individuals involved.

Should some of those people be amnestied? It is a legitimate question that needs to be addressed — but only after we know what happened.

Twitter avatar for @DarnelSugarfoo

Rosie's Naked Hammer Fight @DarnelSugarfooYou want "pandemic amnesty?" Watch this video, and guess whether or not you'll get it.

What do you think? Why this call for amnesty now, from The Atlantic, no less?

Original Article: