"and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”"
This is always the answer to the question. Forgiveness is our gift from God, our gift to each other, and, ultimately our gift to ourselves. In forgiveness we set aside the anger and the hate arising from being wronged.
We forgive because we are ourselves forgiven. "Earned" has nothing to do with it.
We forgive because until we forgive we cannot apply reason, facts, and evidence, on top of the extant law, to dispense what we notionally call justice.
As has already been observed in the comments here, "amnesty" is actually distinct, both semantically and conceptually, from forgiveness. Amnesty is more akin to forgetting--we agree to pretend that the wrong did not happen. However, that is not forgiveness. Forgiveness is a conscious and deliberate choice made in the full cognizance that the wrong DID happen.
Are there some Faucists who might warrant amnesty? Perhaps.
Are there some Faucists who, even if they make a complete confession of all their bad acts, still warrant criminal charges, trials, and sanctions? Absolutely--Anthony Fauci being at the very top of that list.
What Charles Eisenstein is talking about conceptually is the same goal that was sought by the Truth and Reconciliation efforts in South Africa after apartheid. Let the transgressors come forward, make a full recounting of their trangressions, and let the nation move towards healing. For a time it might even have worked.
But the thing that must always be understood about forgiveness is that, while we can and should offer it freely, just as God offers it freely to us, for anyone to accept forgiveness they must acknowledge that they need to be forgiven. Until one acknowledges his sin, acknowledges the harms done by his sin, and acknowledges his need to be forgiven of his sin, he can never accept that forgiveness, whether offered by God or offered by man.
When I read Emily Oster's piece, I did not see anywhere where she made any of those acknowledgements. Until she makes them, she will remain eternally unforgiven, by her own choice.
The reality of forgiveness is that, to accept forgiveness, one must first acknowledge the need to be forgiven. That means one must both acknowledge sin and repent of sin.
Failure to do either amounts to a rejection of forgiveness, and thus one remains unforgiven.
There WAS considerable data even early on. Not only was there far more data on SARS-CoV-2 than the narrative acknowledges, but there is the entire history of infectious respiratory pathogens, of which SARS-CoV-2 is one.
To justify their pharmaceutical authoritarianism they turned their backs on most of the extant data.
And now Emily Oster wants us to believe that they couldn't have known any better because there was no data--which is simply not true, and my articles from 2020 document that in abundance.
Very well presented - although likely a bit overly triggering for some to actually land, but there will surely be others written using this as a stepping stone which may land with those better.
My only real difficulty is in this line: "When the Faucists step forward and confess their evils, admit their lies, and acknowledge their conscious efforts to gaslight, mislead, misinform, and do outright harm to others, then, and only then, can thoughts turn to forgiveness."
I suppose it turns on the definition of "Faucist" and cognitive dissonance and belief systems. I find it hard to believe that those at the level of Fauci and Daszak, especially given the redacted email trail that leads to a clear conclusion of complicity, weren't acting with full knowledge of what they were doing.
I wonder how many that we all would assume - and would hope - given their positions and authority - actually believe they were doing the right thing and just can't see it because their minds won't let them. They aren't or msg not be ignorant but they aren't fully willful either.
Faucism is the modern incarnation of the phenomenon previously labeled Lysenkoism, after Soviet agricultural scientist and Communist ideologue Trofim Lysenko.
The reality of science is that it requires the objective and non-ideological analysis of facts, evidence, and data. The essence of the scientific method has long been understood to be that when an hypothesis is not supported by the evidence, the hypothesis must change.
If one engages in psychological contortions and mental gymnastics to preserve an hypothesis at the expense of the data, one has stopped doing science. In that moment, one becomes a Faucist.
If one fails to look critically at the data, and instead blindly follows authority because they are the "authority", in that moment one becomes a Faucist. Case in point: LA Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer's reinstating a mask mandate because "the CDC said so".
You don't need a degree in virology or medicine to see that the data failed to reconcile to the Pandemic Panic Narrative. There were numerous videos which circulated on social media highlighting how emergency rooms and emergency departments were more or less empty, despite media accounts claiming hospitals were overrun with sick patients.
The thrust of the Pandemic Panic Narrative is best summed up by John Wayne's classic line to Maureen O'Hara from "McLintock!" (delivered with a very appealing Yvonne De Carlo laying on his lap): "Are you going to believe what you see? Or what I tell you?"
Yes, consequences - outcomes are all that matter. Personal outcomes it seems, short term.
And appreciate the further discussion of "Faucism" and to further a previous comment -
For example one's own google searches and seeing the information displayed while being told no censorship is occurring, and then running the same search on other platforms says a lot.
I suppose my disbelief is around those who facilitate spreading these lies and actively damaging reputations and in the end, killing people through maligning and mocking others and their experience based ideas and furthering actions which may inflict more harm than they reduce, are acting with malice, or just a malformed view of what doing good means.
Boils down to "do they believe themselves to be bringing more good and safety into the world or are they just seeking control."
I appreciate how those who believe their livelihood or wellbeing necessitates NOT seeing something in plain site laid before them, so they don't see it. I get that. I would say putting as many as possible into this situation seems to be a feature, not a bug, of our current system.
But this can only be described as a character fault. At some point hiding the data which shows uncomfortable or disagreeable outcomes can't be done blindly.
Perhaps my anger lies more in those who actually do, or should be in a position, to see the entire picture, or at least question themselves, yet don't. I suppose that requires courage and integrity, which is apparently in short supply.
Nicely written, I also think there should be first clarification, and then they can ask for amnesty if people will be willing to let them go without any punishment.
Amnesty is not about forgiveness it’s about forgetfulness. “Hey, I did you wrong but let’s agree to just forget about it.” Their is no concept of admission, apology etc.
Wiki:
Amnesty (from the Ancient Greek ἀμνηστία, amnestia, "forgetfulness, passing over") is defined as "A pardon extended by the government to a group or class of people, usually for a political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of people who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted."
I’ve also noticed Google has dropped the definition down the search results (at least it has for me). The wiki definition has now moved from the top of the results to the second page since yesterday. Co-incidence? 🧐
yes, forgiveness given or earned?
Charles Eisenstein writes a nice piece on this also: https://open.substack.com/pub/charleseisenstein/p/amnesty-yesand-here-is-the-price
From Matthew 9:2:
"and when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”"
This is always the answer to the question. Forgiveness is our gift from God, our gift to each other, and, ultimately our gift to ourselves. In forgiveness we set aside the anger and the hate arising from being wronged.
We forgive because we are ourselves forgiven. "Earned" has nothing to do with it.
We forgive because until we forgive we cannot apply reason, facts, and evidence, on top of the extant law, to dispense what we notionally call justice.
https://blog.petersproverbs.us/2021/05/forgiveness-justice-for-sake-of-us-all.html
As has already been observed in the comments here, "amnesty" is actually distinct, both semantically and conceptually, from forgiveness. Amnesty is more akin to forgetting--we agree to pretend that the wrong did not happen. However, that is not forgiveness. Forgiveness is a conscious and deliberate choice made in the full cognizance that the wrong DID happen.
Are there some Faucists who might warrant amnesty? Perhaps.
Are there some Faucists who, even if they make a complete confession of all their bad acts, still warrant criminal charges, trials, and sanctions? Absolutely--Anthony Fauci being at the very top of that list.
What Charles Eisenstein is talking about conceptually is the same goal that was sought by the Truth and Reconciliation efforts in South Africa after apartheid. Let the transgressors come forward, make a full recounting of their trangressions, and let the nation move towards healing. For a time it might even have worked.
But the thing that must always be understood about forgiveness is that, while we can and should offer it freely, just as God offers it freely to us, for anyone to accept forgiveness they must acknowledge that they need to be forgiven. Until one acknowledges his sin, acknowledges the harms done by his sin, and acknowledges his need to be forgiven of his sin, he can never accept that forgiveness, whether offered by God or offered by man.
When I read Emily Oster's piece, I did not see anywhere where she made any of those acknowledgements. Until she makes them, she will remain eternally unforgiven, by her own choice.
Oster doesn't regret what she did, just how things have turned out, or might later turn out for her.
It's a good sign that she is scared of repercussions. Things are changing.
The reality of forgiveness is that, to accept forgiveness, one must first acknowledge the need to be forgiven. That means one must both acknowledge sin and repent of sin.
Failure to do either amounts to a rejection of forgiveness, and thus one remains unforgiven.
Thanks, great post. Yeah, really puzzling... there wasn't much of the factual data out there and yet they went on millitan/combatant crusade....
There WAS considerable data even early on. Not only was there far more data on SARS-CoV-2 than the narrative acknowledges, but there is the entire history of infectious respiratory pathogens, of which SARS-CoV-2 is one.
To justify their pharmaceutical authoritarianism they turned their backs on most of the extant data.
And now Emily Oster wants us to believe that they couldn't have known any better because there was no data--which is simply not true, and my articles from 2020 document that in abundance.
Very well presented - although likely a bit overly triggering for some to actually land, but there will surely be others written using this as a stepping stone which may land with those better.
My only real difficulty is in this line: "When the Faucists step forward and confess their evils, admit their lies, and acknowledge their conscious efforts to gaslight, mislead, misinform, and do outright harm to others, then, and only then, can thoughts turn to forgiveness."
I suppose it turns on the definition of "Faucist" and cognitive dissonance and belief systems. I find it hard to believe that those at the level of Fauci and Daszak, especially given the redacted email trail that leads to a clear conclusion of complicity, weren't acting with full knowledge of what they were doing.
I wonder how many that we all would assume - and would hope - given their positions and authority - actually believe they were doing the right thing and just can't see it because their minds won't let them. They aren't or msg not be ignorant but they aren't fully willful either.
Or are people truly so evil?
Perhaps my blinders are on as well.
Faucism is the modern incarnation of the phenomenon previously labeled Lysenkoism, after Soviet agricultural scientist and Communist ideologue Trofim Lysenko.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/before-faucism-science-endured-lysenkoism
The reality of science is that it requires the objective and non-ideological analysis of facts, evidence, and data. The essence of the scientific method has long been understood to be that when an hypothesis is not supported by the evidence, the hypothesis must change.
If one engages in psychological contortions and mental gymnastics to preserve an hypothesis at the expense of the data, one has stopped doing science. In that moment, one becomes a Faucist.
If one fails to look critically at the data, and instead blindly follows authority because they are the "authority", in that moment one becomes a Faucist. Case in point: LA Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer's reinstating a mask mandate because "the CDC said so".
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/los-angeles-the-mask-mandate-lives
You don't need a degree in virology or medicine to see that the data failed to reconcile to the Pandemic Panic Narrative. There were numerous videos which circulated on social media highlighting how emergency rooms and emergency departments were more or less empty, despite media accounts claiming hospitals were overrun with sick patients.
The thrust of the Pandemic Panic Narrative is best summed up by John Wayne's classic line to Maureen O'Hara from "McLintock!" (delivered with a very appealing Yvonne De Carlo laying on his lap): "Are you going to believe what you see? Or what I tell you?"
Yes they are. And they don't care about our "forgiveness they care about possible serious consequences.
Yes, consequences - outcomes are all that matter. Personal outcomes it seems, short term.
And appreciate the further discussion of "Faucism" and to further a previous comment -
For example one's own google searches and seeing the information displayed while being told no censorship is occurring, and then running the same search on other platforms says a lot.
I suppose my disbelief is around those who facilitate spreading these lies and actively damaging reputations and in the end, killing people through maligning and mocking others and their experience based ideas and furthering actions which may inflict more harm than they reduce, are acting with malice, or just a malformed view of what doing good means.
Boils down to "do they believe themselves to be bringing more good and safety into the world or are they just seeking control."
I appreciate how those who believe their livelihood or wellbeing necessitates NOT seeing something in plain site laid before them, so they don't see it. I get that. I would say putting as many as possible into this situation seems to be a feature, not a bug, of our current system.
But this can only be described as a character fault. At some point hiding the data which shows uncomfortable or disagreeable outcomes can't be done blindly.
Perhaps my anger lies more in those who actually do, or should be in a position, to see the entire picture, or at least question themselves, yet don't. I suppose that requires courage and integrity, which is apparently in short supply.
Nicely written, I also think there should be first clarification, and then they can ask for amnesty if people will be willing to let them go without any punishment.
PNK, I have been so waiting for you to write this article.
Like Megan says below (above), "way too late!"
I have been waiting for the moment when this article could be written.
And Emily Oster delivered!
These people are asking for forgiveness way too late.
They knew.
Amnesty is not about forgiveness it’s about forgetfulness. “Hey, I did you wrong but let’s agree to just forget about it.” Their is no concept of admission, apology etc.
Wiki:
Amnesty (from the Ancient Greek ἀμνηστία, amnestia, "forgetfulness, passing over") is defined as "A pardon extended by the government to a group or class of people, usually for a political offense; the act of a sovereign power officially forgiving certain classes of people who are subject to trial but have not yet been convicted."
I’ve also noticed Google has dropped the definition down the search results (at least it has for me). The wiki definition has now moved from the top of the results to the second page since yesterday. Co-incidence? 🧐
Absolutely, sheer coincident 🤪
It's not our forgiveness that Oster seeks but legal non-liability.
Bingo!