I'm with you on not forgiving those who abused their positions of power, and have not made the slightest attempt to apologise. As I understand it, the current chatter around 'COVID amnesty' was prompted by a stunningly tone-deaf article in The Atlantic by Emily Oster, who abused her bully pulpit as a 'celebrity economist' (who knew that would ever become a thing) to call for discrimination against people who weren't going along with the narrative, while deliberately burying her own data that showed that masking children did nothing to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Oster doth protest too much, that "we didn't know" all sorts of things about COVID when in fact it WAS known that masks don't prevent viral transmission, keeping kids out of school is bad for them, shutting down the economy does more harm than good, etc etc etc. Oster and ilk deserve no forgiveness because they're not humbly asking for it.
The question of how to think about friends, family members, colleagues and community members who behaved abominably throughout the scamdemic is, as you rightly point out, far more complex. On the one hand, if there are no consequences for bad behaviour, there's no disincentive to repeat it. On the other hand, they were victims of a highly sophisticated, 360 degree propaganda campaign crafted by individuals and institutions that have been perfecting this dark art for, quite literally, generations. Their inferior status in the power hierarchy does need to be taken into account when we're contemplating how we will think about them and behave toward them. Aside from anything else, we need them on our side to push back against the REAL villains in this iatrogenocide.
Recently, a friend told me that he had received a genuine, heartfelt and humble apology from someone who had cut him off because of his views on the COVID jabs, but had suffered serious damage from said jabs. My friend unhesitatingly forgave her and offered his assistance in overcoming her jab injury. This anecdote really heartened me. Reconciliation is possible, but it will come one person at a time, not en masse - just like people "go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
The detached part of me is still interested in this crazy experiment and it's implications. Some questions prompting this piece were: Do we really need 'them' on our side? If so, why aren't tens of millions of protesters and activists enough? Why are the protests so ineffective? Is it because the message is diluted by so many problems being interrelated? If we were willing to compromise on things to get our hands on the real villains, what would those things be?
We need them on our side to prevent atrocities from taking place. If ordinary German citizens had stood up for their Jewish neighbours, the Nazis couldn't have dragged them away.
As much as I support the spirit behind the protests (and it's really uplifting to be part of a huge crowd marching through the streets and singing in solidarity), they don't move the needle. Mass non-compliance with unjust laws, and mass opting-out from the control grid, are the only things that can work, IMHO. For it to be "mass", we need to bring the fence-sitters over to our side. How to do that?????? I wish I knew. I don't think there's a grand strategy that works for everyone. The event or issue that wakes one individual up won't even touch the sides with the next one. That's the danger of paring the current messy messaging down to one talking-point. On the other hand, the messy messaging is off-putting to people who like simple answers to problems!
I’d like to think that the mass protests did move the needle. Maybe an inch. But they were also uplifting. And I’ve heard anecdotally from some in Vic that some of the uniforms were shitting themselves.
I'm with you on not forgiving those who abused their positions of power, and have not made the slightest attempt to apologise. As I understand it, the current chatter around 'COVID amnesty' was prompted by a stunningly tone-deaf article in The Atlantic by Emily Oster, who abused her bully pulpit as a 'celebrity economist' (who knew that would ever become a thing) to call for discrimination against people who weren't going along with the narrative, while deliberately burying her own data that showed that masking children did nothing to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Oster doth protest too much, that "we didn't know" all sorts of things about COVID when in fact it WAS known that masks don't prevent viral transmission, keeping kids out of school is bad for them, shutting down the economy does more harm than good, etc etc etc. Oster and ilk deserve no forgiveness because they're not humbly asking for it.
The question of how to think about friends, family members, colleagues and community members who behaved abominably throughout the scamdemic is, as you rightly point out, far more complex. On the one hand, if there are no consequences for bad behaviour, there's no disincentive to repeat it. On the other hand, they were victims of a highly sophisticated, 360 degree propaganda campaign crafted by individuals and institutions that have been perfecting this dark art for, quite literally, generations. Their inferior status in the power hierarchy does need to be taken into account when we're contemplating how we will think about them and behave toward them. Aside from anything else, we need them on our side to push back against the REAL villains in this iatrogenocide.
Recently, a friend told me that he had received a genuine, heartfelt and humble apology from someone who had cut him off because of his views on the COVID jabs, but had suffered serious damage from said jabs. My friend unhesitatingly forgave her and offered his assistance in overcoming her jab injury. This anecdote really heartened me. Reconciliation is possible, but it will come one person at a time, not en masse - just like people "go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
I like this piece on 'Osterism' (https://brownstone.org/articles/osterism-wont-prevent-the-next-lockdown/) which contains the following prescription for obtaining forgiveness:
Those who promulgated the mass delusion need to follow a process along these lines:
1. Admit the wrong you did — accurately, specifically, and without excuse-making.
2. Explicitly acknowledge that what you did was wrong, in effect if not intent, and damaging.
3. Apologize.
4. Humbly ask for forgiveness.
5. Receive forgiveness from those willing to extend it.
6. Accept consequences.
7. Make restitution (if possible).
8. Put guardrails in place that prevent yourself (and others) from doing it again.
The detached part of me is still interested in this crazy experiment and it's implications. Some questions prompting this piece were: Do we really need 'them' on our side? If so, why aren't tens of millions of protesters and activists enough? Why are the protests so ineffective? Is it because the message is diluted by so many problems being interrelated? If we were willing to compromise on things to get our hands on the real villains, what would those things be?
The Brownstone Institute has really risen to the occasion during covid. At one stage I really tried to read all of their hundreds of studies and journals compiled on mask use. I liked all the similar pieces on this Oster lady - A midwestern doctor, Mat Crawford, Eugyppius, Richard Kelly (https://richardkelly.substack.com/p/it-was-a-short-time-ago-and-it-never?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1143357&post_id=81672687&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email)
I like your 8 points, however the level of self awareness and honesty required to even start that process seems .... rare.
We need them on our side to prevent atrocities from taking place. If ordinary German citizens had stood up for their Jewish neighbours, the Nazis couldn't have dragged them away.
As much as I support the spirit behind the protests (and it's really uplifting to be part of a huge crowd marching through the streets and singing in solidarity), they don't move the needle. Mass non-compliance with unjust laws, and mass opting-out from the control grid, are the only things that can work, IMHO. For it to be "mass", we need to bring the fence-sitters over to our side. How to do that?????? I wish I knew. I don't think there's a grand strategy that works for everyone. The event or issue that wakes one individual up won't even touch the sides with the next one. That's the danger of paring the current messy messaging down to one talking-point. On the other hand, the messy messaging is off-putting to people who like simple answers to problems!
I’d like to think that the mass protests did move the needle. Maybe an inch. But they were also uplifting. And I’ve heard anecdotally from some in Vic that some of the uniforms were shitting themselves.
Although the cops being afraid is heartening, that is still Us vs Us.
Until both cops and protestors have put many Dan Andrews types in prison, it will be a movement of the wrong needle.
“ Our numbers and resources are few, and our values are diverse - resulting in considerable disunity in the ‘resistance’ movement.” Nailed it.