Final Thoughts On the Absurd Call for Pandemic Amnesty
The last thing in the world they want is amnesty. That would bring us together. No, this article was just another divide and conquer tactic. A final look at "Let's Declare A Pandemic Amnesty".
By Scott Armstrong
Last week, the internet erupted with all kinds of responses to an article published in The Atlantic entitled Let’s Declare A Pandemic Amnesty. I’m sure you’re all tired of hearing about it, but let’s take one final look at it and then move on. After fleshing out some of the details in the article over the weekend, we came to some conclusions that may help us stay vigilant when confronted with similar articles in the future.
It’s very clear that this article was just another “divide and conquer” strategy. This is perfectly characterized by responses from oppositional voices in the alternative and mainstream media alike, such as Fox News: Professor blasted after calling for 'amnesty' to forgive coronavirus lockdown supporters: 'Hell no'. Needless to say, people were not happy:
People’s social media feeds were overrun with memes (I made some myself), and popular voices in the Health Freedom movement, such as Del Bigtree from The Highwire, used their platforms to blast back.
So what was this request for amnesty all about? It seems, on its face, that the article is petitioning the public for forgiveness. Okay. You want forgiveness? Let’s talk. I am open to that. That being said, there has to be an extreme and unprecedented level of accountability. Before we are even willing to broach the topic of forgiveness, we have to have truth and reconciliation. We have to have justice.
However, this article doesn’t come anywhere near truth or accountability, let alone justice. Turns out, that was the whole point. The language used in the title of the article was meant to draw people in from the Health Freedom side to see whether or not the tide had completely turned, only to be disappointed. Did establishment mouthpieces like The Atlantic finally decide to lay down their arms and get honest? I have to admit, before clicking on the article, there was a small piece of me that was hoping they would own up to their deliberate and willful misconduct. However, I knew it was going to be a trap.
Sure enough, it was a very cunning and manipulative trap.
We are living in a time where people are waking up to the lies at an unprecedented rate. People who once wholeheartedly bought into the narrative are now realizing the deception. People are starting to come together to get answers. This article was perfectly timed and did a great job of reasserting the divide between the status quo and those of us who Question Everything.
Think about it, the last thing in the world the people driving the narrative want is for the public to unite in opposition to the agenda itself. If outlets like The Atlantic were to all of a sudden come out and align themselves with us in the Vaccine Risk Awareness movement, or join in the call to abolish censorship, the agendas would crumble.
There is no way that the establishment wants to be granted amnesty. That would unite the tribes, it would bring all sides together. They have worked so hard to pit everyone against one another and have spent trillions of dollars to that end. What purpose would it serve to bring us together?
They don’t have a reason to bring us together. This article was just another inverted spell that they attempted to cast over us. In giving the impression that they were trying to bring people together, they were actually working to divide us once again. They were simply doing what they do best: exploiting us, and the situation, for their own benefit.
One thing we know is that they are cunning. They know what triggers us. They know how to poke and prod us. They know what would incite the type of response that would further the divide. And they got it. How did they do it? Lets look at some excerpts form the article:
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.
Here we see the author laying all the blame for the failed pharmaceutical, injection-based response to the “pandemic” at the doorstep of Johnson & Johnson. Yeah, it was the old-fashioned viral vector vaccine that was the problem, but luckily the amazing gift from God known as mRNA was available to save the day! *sarcasm*
See, if I was the author of the article and I was tasked with writing it in such a way as to genuinely seek forgiveness, that last paragraph might have read something like this:
“Another example: When the vaccines came out, we lacked definitive data on the relative safety and effectiveness of all of the shots on the market. We soon realized that all of these shots were extremely dangerous and often deadly. Despite this, we continued to push these products on the public because we were being paid large sums of money from Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson. There was no uncertainty in our actions; we were deliberately being nefarious and did not care how many people died as long as we were making money. We will go ahead and lock ourselves in a jail cell now. Thanks!”
The Atlantic article goes on to say the following:
These discussions are heated, unpleasant and, ultimately, unproductive. In the face of so much uncertainty, getting something right had a hefty element of luck. And, similarly, getting something wrong wasn’t a moral failing.
This is a false statement. There was no luck on the part of those who were standing on the rooftops screaming counter-arguments from the very beginning based on actual science, such as The Last American Vagabond. These alternative voices were shouted down, de-platformed, de-banked, ridiculed and censored. These actions alone constitute a moral failing. It doesn’t even begin to address the malfeasance and criminality of shutting down one side of the argument to proliferate the dishonest “approved” narratives of the mainstream that served one singular purpose: to get shots in people’s arms at any cost.
Not only does this article fail to make any sort of attempt at reconciling the lies of the mainstream media, but it brings it all back to the two-party illusion and, you guessed it, tries to shift all of the deliberate dishonesty onto Donald Trump! From the article:
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.
How hilarious is that. Another way this paragraph could have been written:
“Obviously there was only one person in the entire COVID operation who was INTENTIONALLY dishonest. That man is Donald Trump. He was the ONLY person, acting alone, who intentionally lied to you. The rest of us? Well, we were just a little off the mark when it comes to cloth masks and school closures. That is it. We love you and we would never intentionally hurt you. Trust us.”
(Note: I think Trump should be held accountable for his role that he continues to play in all of this as well.)
Finally, Lets take a look at the last paragraph of the article where they make their big plea:
We have to put these fights aside and declare a pandemic amnesty. We can leave out the willful purveyors of actual misinformation while forgiving the hard calls that people had no choice but to make with imperfect knowledge.
This I can agree with. Let us leave out the “willful purveyors of actual misinformation”, such as The Atlantic, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, The Daily Wire and so many more. They are making themselves more and more irrelevant with each passing day. Sometime in the near future, I wouldn’t be surprised to see similar pleas from the likes of Stephen Colbert, Rachel Maddow, Jimmy Kimmel and the rest.
The article served its purpose. In a time where truth appears to be winning, where there is some hope of justice on the horizon, the best strategy to protect the agenda would be to drive a wedge into the public once again.
I wanted to write this piece to point out the fact that this article from The Atlantic is just more senseless propaganda from the establishment and that we need to stay vigilant for similar attempts in the future. They will never capitulate or admit fault. It is unrealistic of us to expect, or feel the need to seek any form of voluntary mea culpa from them. We don’t need it to fulfill our mission. Let them continue to be the dumpster-fire that they are while we build something much better.
I have had a lot of people in my personal life come forward and express sorrow for the fact that they fell under the spell, as I’m sure we all have. We constantly hear stories about people who finally realized that they were being deceived and then chose to look into these matters for themselves, bringing them to a new understanding. These are the people who we should work towards forgiveness with. Don’t waste an ounce of energy trying to mend bridges with psychopaths and tyrants. Just like an abusive partner, any attempt they make to apologize is just a manipulation tactic.
As we continue to build our community of objective truth-seekers, activists and critical thinkers, we can eliminate any power that these low-information propagandists have on us. We must continue to strive towards liberty and truth in our own lives and for our communities. Although it can be fun to make memes pointing out their absurdities, we must do so with detachment and never lose sight of the fact that we are building something much greater.
_______________
Note to the Reader:
Thank you for your ongoing support of The Last American Vagabond. TLAV is a Value-For-Value experience. We want to invite you to subscribe to our Substack for as little as $5/month to join the discussion, comment on posts, join the monthly TLAV Roundtable Discussion and feel good about supporting alternative media that you value. Upgrade to the Founding Member Level for the opportunity to have a monthly Q&A with Ryan as well. Thank you to all of you who already support TLAV in all the various ways that you do with your time, talent and treasure.
What did I feel when I first read that article? Anger.
What did I think when I first read that article? They want me to be angry.
This was not written for the masked and vaxxed, it was written as a stone, to throw at a nest of those who have a compounded interest on truth, those that hold the simple Rosetta Stone that transforms BS into valid reality.
I was once dismayed by all those that I know that got the shot and the ones after it. But many are not getting any more. The twig shifts in the current.