Stop Saying "Nuremberg 2.0"
Discover more from Rounding the Earth Newsletter
Stop Saying "Nuremberg 2.0"
The Nazi Wars, Part 1
"If you admit to having believed in a man, it is uncomfortable to accept him as a criminal." -Ann Tusa, The Nuremberg Trial
I can't stand it anymore. I never want to hear "Nuremberg 2.0" ever again. Nuremberg was not some great success in holding monsters accountable. It was the exact opposite—the single greatest example in history of monsters escaping accountability while the global public was distracted by a pompous ceremony punctuated by empty statements by governments to never again treat human beings like lab rats. This is certainly no laughing matter—not something to take lightly.
The Simple Reality of the Nuremberg Trials
In 1945, shortly following World War II, less than two months after Hitler's presumed suicide, indictments of German leadership were rapidly discussed by various international delegations. On November 20, 1945 an International Military Tribunal convened in the Bavarian city of Nuremberg. Out of the thousands of Nazi leaders—government officials, propagandists, military leaders, business leaders, scientists, and others—who deserved to be tried as active and willing participants in a long list of grotesque, tortuous, and deadly events, fewer than 200 were tried during the series of 13 tribunals. Some were not convicted. Some were convicted, but walked when money talked.
For each Nazi leader punished, perhaps twenty or more were whisked away by either the Soviet Union and the U.S. (Operation Paperclip) to be employed primarily in the war machines of the large international rivals.
During the tribunal that served as the main event for newspaper subscribers of the time, a mere 21 Nazi leaders were tried by Allied forces in Nuremberg. A dozen of them were sentenced to execution, a few were imprisoned, and three were let go.
Does this sound like a "justice served" ending? Some people argue that some of the executed were in fact body doubles, which I might dismiss out of hand if the rest of the event looked just a little less like a massive charade, and also if I were inclined to ignore all the many problems with the story about how Hitler died at the Führerbunker.
Is This a Psyop, Clumsy Marketing, or Something Else?
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." -Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
It's hard to say 100% for certain what "Nuremberg 2.0" is about (I lean heavily in my opinion, but I'll play neutral as well as I can), but it might help us to examine who uses the Nuremberg 2.0 meme. Are these trustworthy people, or the sorts of people who might be playing a role in a massive propaganda operation?
Stew Peters, whom I've…written a little about…refers to Nuremberg 2.0 often.
This does not surprise me as I do not imagine him as the sort to read a history book prior to going on the radio or internet to talk about the contents.
Former AFLDs attorney Joey Gilbert tweets "Nuremberg 2.0" as well.
Perhaps some credulous sorts who can't stop to even ask, "Is this Reality TV politics?"
Also plenty of Twitter accounts that look like shit posters, bots, and propaganda stations.
In the end, I lean toward Nuremberg 2.0 being a Psyop intentionally thrust on us as a form of cognitive warfare. I'm not alone. Journalist Jon Rappoport seems to agree. In Rappoport's words,
A small corner of truth is thrust into the foreground to pacify and satisfy the public AND the “alt. Community.”
Meanwhile, the biggest crimes are downgraded and minimized—meaning we’re still vulnerable. And nothing is really learned.
Not only that, major predators are still free to roam the world and enact their vicious and destructive operations, including mass medical murder.
I take a hard look, in depth, at how the “spear of the resistance” against tyranny is being pointed in the wrong direction.
Where Did "Nuremberg 1.0" Begin"?
While I've hated the phrase since the moment I heard it, I hadn't actually been certain where it began. I knew it was associated with Reiner Fuellmich.
Is Fuellmich for real, or a man sent to mislead us into thinking that there is an apparatus on "our side", taking action against authoritarians and tyranny? Is this just bait for medical libertarians to take, perhaps even justifying their mockery at the hands of the authoritarian Mandarins? That's certainly one way to keep a population from uniting against a destruction of their rights.
While I have enjoyed some of what I saw in Fuellmich's interviews, I found myself particularly frustrated when I saw him interview Todd Callender as Todd parroted a clearly invalid version of the DMED data. That was one of the moments when I felt a level deeper in understanding how the popular talking heads in the Medical Freedom Movement (MFM) were betraying me—burying my work while the wrong story was promoted through outlets to as many as millions of viewers at a time. At this point, I have to wonder if Fuellmich is mixing true and false information intentionally or unintentionally into the Nuremberg 2.0 pot. That won't end well.
There is much that I still don't know about what is going on during the plandemonium. But if I may venture a guess about what's yet to come, it's that there will be something like a Nuremberg 2.0, and that it will be sponsored by Pfizer and Moderna—or at least the same massive wealth pools that built them and their subsidiaries.
And what would it matter of Pfizer were buried? It's not really a drug developer, anymore. Pfizer is primarily a corporate specialist in legal access and supply/distribution chains. In bankruptcy, that playbook can be bought on the cheap, and might be sold at a small auction to the same people who own its stock, anyhow. Actually ending these corporate behemoths would require structural change in government itself.
Do you get the feeling that Göring's laughing?
In case it needs saying: I'm not telling you that there isn't hope. I'm just telling you that it won't be served by official decree.
Stop Saying "Nuremberg 2.0"
I'm one of the people promoting Nuremberg 2.0. It's not a psyop. It's just something we can organize around to give us a bit of hope, energy, momentum.
There's an entire field of academic study called, "transitional justice" -- what do you do (with the old societal gatekeepers) when a revolution succeeds. I took a class in transitional justice at Berkeley law in 2011 -- and it turns out that the process is always fraught. If you push too far bad things happen (the Soviet Union). If you don't push far enough bad things happen (South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission). It's hard to find the right spot in the middle. Nuremberg is actually held up as the just right in the middle approach.
Someone on Quora asked "How many German war-criminals were executed after the war?"
One of the more fascinating answers was:
"At least 500:
Ten executions at Nuremberg, two suicides to escape execution;
About 280 executions at Landsberg am Lech, the American prison, 250 hangings, 29 by firing-squad. The prisoners were nearly all SS, SD, and Einsatzgruppen personnel.
About 200 executions at Hameln, the British prison. The British held mostly Concentration Camp personnel.
Trials in Occupied Countries: Norway, the Netherlands, France—and the biggest at Krakow, Poland, and Riga, Latvia. Perhaps 50 executions altogether."
If we could hit those sorts of numbers if/when Pharma falls we would be doing great.
All of the points you raise are spot on. We learned the wrong lessons from World War II. Nuremberg did not pursue enough people. Operation Paperclip was abhorrent. In many ways, the Nazis were never defeated, just absorbed into our culture.
But then the task becomes, okay what's better than Nuremberg and how do we get there? It's a really heavy lift. And what often happens is that people slip into nihilism (Pharma's too big, it'll never happen, stop dreaming), and under the circumstances that's not acceptable either.
I'm just saying that the emotional impulse to reach for some sort of justice is understandable. And if someone wants to come up with a better plan than Nuremberg 2.0 I'm all ears.
Thanks Mathew. There is a good documentary coming out on January 30th on CHD.TV about all the criminals who were not tried at Nuremburg. A lot ended up in the USA and the UK, as well as south America. Vera Sherav, a holocaust survivor, is the director. If I recall correctly, Fullmich told viewers that his interviews were not in any way focussed on another Nuremburg - that it could never take place. Vera Sherav stated that today, there would not be any allies coming to rescue the prisoners in the death camps. I agree. Thanks again.