Discover more from Rounding the Earth Newsletter
Stop Saying "Nuremberg 2.0" 2.0
The Nazi Wars, Part 2
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -George Orwell
I wanted to write a quick update to my last article about my irritation with the "Nuremberg 2.0" label for seeking justice. A lot of the arguments surrounding this are lazy and accepting of projective labels of historical narrative building. To me, that's watering the root, not pulling it out.
But Toby Rogers has a different perspective that is worth thinking through, which somewhat interacts with the discussion, but is also worth reading for its own sake.
I respect Toby's approach a great deal, where applicable. This gets into game theory such as, "Is it better to let a nasty dictator literally walk away to semi-wealthy retirement if they'll give up control immediately?" There is a body of literature that debates the question with reasonable arguments on both sides. Toby wants to find a balance between "too harsh" and "not harsh enough", which is laudable.
Is that what Nuremberg 1.0 was?
Personally, I don't think so, but to make the deep argument would take days of historical research and writing. I personally believe that Nuremberg 1.0 was a controlled sham from start to finish. In fact, I believe that World War 2 was a controlled sham from start to finish, and that none of the people who plotted it were indicted or put on trial, much less executed. In fact—they got exactly what they wanted, which was the dollar's ascension, buoying a massive investment in the military-banking complex surrounding it. It was the greatest crime in history, bar none, no other answers compete. The victors rode home with the rings or Mordor.
But perhaps we all see things differently, and some think that the Nuremberg label is great. But if there is even a doubt, why not relabel the push for justice?
Several people asked, "So, what should we call it?"
This question seems unimportant. A "Global Pandemic Crimes Tribunal" seems just fine to me. Or, if you don't want to lend credence to the idea that this was a real pandemic (as in "most of the deaths are due to maltreatment"), I hear you. So, just call it a "Global Health Crimes Against Humanity Tribunal".
But Toby challenges, "And if somebody wants to come up with a better plan than Nuremberg 2.0 I'm all ears."
Okay, here we go…
This is a Global Civil War
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor." -Robert A. Heinlein
Some crimes are too large to expect a settlement outside of violence. Even worse, I doubt that the global illness leap over the past three years was the primary crime.
The plandemonium (I riff off pandemonium because it's so much more than a pandemic) is not nearly over. In fact, given what we're seeing in Iran just now, I'd suggest we're far closer to the beginning than the end.
There was never going to be an opening for a tribunal for crimes related to withholding medicine, or otherwise duping the world over what exactly caused people to get sick (I still hold multiple hypotheses open, including coinfection models). This is almost surely why some players were willing to play such a dirty game. This is World War E, and the fate of the global banking system—the crown jewel of all criminal games—is up for grabs.
Understand that I'm not entirely certain how to describe the two players, or even who is on who's side (sure, some of that sorting can be made obvious, but far from all of it). I'm also not certain that there is a "good guy" as either result could turn into One World Government of one form or another.
Note: Tomorrow I'll be livestreaming with John Cullen about the model of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting as controlled chaos (and assassination attempt) during MBS's ascension and purge in Saudi Arabia. I believe that was part of the setup for World War E. This adds to my conversation with Mark Kulacz on Global-Civil Conflict.
One of the primary problems is that both sides of this global conflict inhabit the major Western powers, and likely most other large nations around the world. Saudi Arabia, China, Hungary, and numerous other nations have seen consolidations of power in at least an attempt to act with a unified free hand, but it's not entirely clear how successful that they can or will be in that regard. (Aramco is the world's largest corporation, aside from wealth pools, and the most profitable, so MBS may have success keeping Saudi moving as one unit.)
I don't mean to black pill anyone (and I do think there are appropriate targeted lawsuits going on that push back against vaccine mandates, passports, and other authoritarian measures), but I doubt that Rule of Law is large enough to encapsulate the root(s) of the problem we're facing. It is partially a matter of tyrannical rulers, some of whose names we may not even know. It is partially systemic—since the creation of the megalithic East India Companies, corporations have been the boats on what we might as well call "another global dimension". Do not be shocked if violence accelerates quickly from here.
If we were somehow able to halt the gears of war, we likely would not be holding the tyrants to account. We would be putting some fraction of the "Chief Mandarins" on trial, and then [probably clumsily] fitting a Harrison Burgeron punishment to the larger pool of the Mandarin Magisterium and their more shadowy mafia elements. The tyrants would then simply begin to restock their Mandarin pond with fresh elite university graduates, or something similar.
After that, a few generations down the road, our children's children's children's children will be forced to face it all again—perhaps in an ever more crippled and brainwashed state. Because we could not solve the problem of working together, and kicked the last can down the road.
How to Play the Game
Invisibly, if you can manage it. (I cringe that I gave up that attribute.)
Step up and manage a business in your community if you're not doing that already.
Take business from the monopolists and aggregators, then don't sell out.
Form your own "mafia", by which I mean that group of people whom you can break bread with and whom you're willing to get the dirty work done with—still as invisibly as possible—when it comes to protecting your people. Be prepared to cut one of their throats if they betray the circle.
Generate community health. Get together with people of spirit and energy to bond, plan, and execute productive plans.
But to the extent that you can, avoid participating in the war. Remain meek, but not weak. Prepare the sword, but keep it sheathed until you must use it to protect your family or community. The game will try to draw you into one of two large teams, but you won't be able to know who the kings are that you serve, and you're unlikely to share the spoils if one turns victorious.
For some games, not playing is the dominant strategy.
When the dust settles, if a new strong and decentralized network of people has emerged to build and run communities around the world without servitude to the weakened tyrants who survived, that will be the reward better than justice. Perhaps those we might seek justice against will have impaled themselves on their arrogant quests for immortality. Perhaps there is a time to round up the few tyrants who pulled the levers that opened the floodgates, and push them off the ice. But if you really want to see that, prepare yourself for the ultimate game of patience—and don't get caught up in a mob being directed to reify the illusions of this dark age.
And be careful not to trust a leader to rebuild the old system.