Don’t expect any apologies anytime soon:
Little did I or anyone else know three years ago that the world would soon come to a standstill. Little did I or anyone else know three years ago that such a thing as Covid even existed. And little did I or anyone else know three years ago that I would end up writing 250 articles on this issue over the past 30 months.
But that is exactly what I have done: this is indeed my 250th article on the subject, and my concerns throughout have remained quite consistent. My very first piece on this was written back on February 2, 2020, and the topic was covered only in passing. And back then they were still using the word ‘Coronavirus’.
My second piece was penned on March 10, and was theological in nature, asking about how some Bible passages might relate to plagues, disease and the like.
But it was my third piece of March 12 that started a trend that has continued to this day: it offered a warning about how the state can use a crisis to take more power onto itself while taking away basic liberties from the people. In it I said this:
My thesis is simple: In times of crisis, the power of the state can expand rapidly while the freedoms of the individual can shrink dramatically. Of course in times of genuine crisis and emergency there is a place for the state to step in and act in a responsible and appropriate manner. But the trick is to discern what is a real and major crisis, what is a mild crisis, and what is just a manmade or fake crisis.
And by March 24, I was writing articles with titles like this: “If You Like the Corona Crisis, You’ll Love Communism”. I concluded that piece with these words:
Of course to say all this is not to argue against some temporary and stringent government intervention in times of a major national crisis. But what it is to argue is this: all of those who hate the free market while singing the praises of socialism are now experiencing first-hand just what socialist life is like. I for one think it stinks.
On March 30, I asked, “Corona and Statism: Which is Worse?” And by April 9 I was writing about “The Expansive Corona Police State”. Or consider my May 10 article: “Fear, Fascism and Fealty”. I even contributed a chapter on all this to a book that appeared late in 2020 that was edited by my friend Augusto Zimmermann: Fundamental Rights in the Age of COVID-19.
You get the drift. But for daring to ask some urgent hard questions, all hell broke loose. The number of people and even ‘friends’ who turned on me and treated me like I was the devil incarnate was quite shocking and so very hard to take.
For daring to question the narrative, and to even dare to critically discuss the rushed vaccines, I and so many others were treated like lepers and second-class citizens. I and so many others were treated like absolute dirt, and missing out on family Christmases and the like was just a part of this. I never want to go through the hell of hyper-lockdowns and the hatred and bigotry poured out on me from so many Covid true believers again.
Well, a whole lot has happened since early 2020. And most of the warnings that I and others had been making have now been fully vindicated. With so many of our so-called medical experts, politicians and elites backtracking almost on a daily basis about most of the things that we warned about and were called conspiracy theorists over, it is now time to ask about the ‘A’ word.
Will we ever hear any apologies from folks like Fauci, Gates, Dan Andrews, so many chief health officers, the WHO, and Big Pharma? I am pretty sure that this is just wishful thinking. But others are asking the same sorts of questions. We are owed not just plenty of apologies, but one can almost now talk about Covid reparations.
Dominick Sansone for example has just discussed this in his new piece, “The Unvaccinated Deserve Reparations”. He begins this way:
I am being somewhat ironic. But really, not that ironic. How many people in the “land of the free” lost their ability to care for their families for refusing to go along with the COVID-19 jab mandates? For saying no to injecting themselves with an experimental gene therapy “vaccine,” even though most of them weren’t at severe risk from the virus?
When Pfizer executive Janine Small admitted to the European Parliament on Oct. 10 that the vaccine had never been tested to stop the virus’s transmission, many may have subsequently felt vindicated. Rob Roos, a conservative member of the European Parliament for the Netherlands, asked Small point-blank whether the claim that we were all fed from day one of the vaccine’s release had any grounding in fact.
Those who refused the shot on principle endured the vitriolic attack by their government and peers. They were labeled as antisocial and denied access to society in many cases. Roos may have made his statement in Brussels, but it also resonated with those of us in the United States and Canada. The latter endured particularly draconian lockdown orders and vaccination requirements.
When Dr. Anthony Fauci told us that the vaccine turns you into a “dead end for the virus,” we were told to trust the science. Now, Small tells us that “the speed of science” was moving too fast to be able to test that claim. In other words, she reaffirmed what many of us already knew—much of the COVID fiasco has been unrelated to any actual “science” but rather it was a pretext for the government to increase its power.
“Conform, or else become an untouchable.” That was their goal all along. Divide and conquer. Remember when nearly 50 percent of Democratic voters said they would potentially be OK with forcibly interning the unvaccinated in isolated locations—you know, as in camps? Forty-eight percent wanted the government to fine or imprison anyone who merely questioned the efficacy of vaccines.
It isn’t just livelihoods. How many families were torn apart by the government’s nonsensical tyranny? Many of us had holidays canceled, gatherings unattended, and relatives who just outright stopped talking to us because we weren’t vaccinated. They bought into the narrative that was pushed on us from every direction: “No vaccine, no life.”
What about going to nursing homes or hospitals to see our loved ones in their most vulnerable moments when they most needed the warmth and comfort of friends and family gathered around? Even when we said, “Fine, I’ll get tested if I need to.” Nope. Not good enough.
The COVID response is a social trauma that will likely take at least a generation to recover from. As we learn more—not only about the vaccine’s ineffectiveness in stopping the virus, but the potentially harmful side effects accompanying it—the wound will only grow deeper.
This all says nothing of the largely pointless lockdowns, the repercussions of which have yet to be fully understood. Skyrocketing drug use and overdose, stunted mental development for children and impaired learning, increased depression, and missed doctor appointments. All of these considerations were buried under the government demand to “trust the science.”
Still, many of these considerations were out of our control. Whether or not we got the vaccine was one of the few areas where we had an actual choice. In the United States, at least, they still did everything they could to make that choice as difficult as possible.
“Sure, you’re free not to get the vaccine—but you’re a bad person, and we will do everything in our power to ostracize you from society.” So hearing Small (the Pfizer executive) plainly state that they had no scientifically tested basis for claiming that the virus stopped transmission might seem like a victory. But it’s only a moral victory.
I’m not kidding when I say that I believe reparations are justified. Maybe not in a cash handout, but an easy place to start would be the various businesses that were forced to fire employees offering to hire back the unvaccinated with back pay for the income lost. The government should support this. Then again, those employees might not want to be rehired by the employers who betrayed them. The government should still pay the difference in lost income for those who lost their jobs.
And what about Washington helping out? Sansone concludes:
That’s likely too much to expect, at least from this administration. We all know that. Most of the individuals who refused the jab on principle probably don’t want Washington’s money anyway. That’s fine. But there’s one other thing that the people of this country undoubtedly deserve—even more than reparations. It’s something that they will almost definitely never get. How about an apology?
Yeah, how about it? But I sure won’t be holding my breath.