The Crimes of Nuremberg

The truth about the first installment negates calling for a sequel.

A philosophy major, communications major, and history major walk into a campus bar. The philosophy major orders three bourbons, and asks the communications major why he chose communications. “I want to be able to communicate effectively with others. I believe effective communication limits conflict and…” The philosophy major cuts him off by asking the history major the same question. “I believe nothing is more important than history, because if we don’t learn our history, then we’re doomed to…” Before he can finish, the philosophy major turns to the bartender and says, “Make it three doubles.” The bartender reaches for the bottle to top up their drinks and asks, “What’s your major then?” The philosophy major looks at the other three and says, “Psychology.”

You wouldn’t get it.

— Arthur Fleck

Rekneading Grey Matter

Calling for a Nuremberg 2 has been all the rage for the past few years. The term is often trending on social media for days. Unfortunately, the calls for a second installment have been made by a thoroughly programmed, historically brainwashed Western populace, running public schooling software infected with Hollywood-scripted malware.

Your humble fluffy Ram scribe (brain still running Commodore software) called for a second Nuremberg in early 2022, before a dedicated debugging operation that required digging into history books published before the 1990s. The lies of the past twenty years, particularly the past five, prompted a curiosity tour that begged the question, “Did they just start lying about everything twenty years ago?” The quest invariably resulted in some version of, “Not twenty years ago, but more likely two thousand years ago.”

But let’s leave classical and early civilizational history for another time and stick to the past century, particularly the most significant historical event—the war that still leads to heated debates around the actions of “our side” and the moral and ethical inconsistencies used to justify horrific acts against civilian populations and unarmed combatants in the post-war years, transgressing the Geneva Conventions while making a mockery of any judicial process at Nuremberg.

I am not taking up the defense of Germany. I am taking up the defense of the truth. I do not know if the truth exists, and many people have made arguments to prove to me that it does not. But I know that lies exist. I know that systematic deformation of facts exists. We have lived for three years with a falsification of history. This falsification is skillful. It involves fantasies based on a conspiracy of imagined fantasies. …me, I believe stupidly in the truth. I even believe that it ends up triumphing over all.

— Maurice Bardèche
1948

“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten.”

The 1990s was a transformative period for the information and communications industries. The U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996 monopolized the radio, and television airwaves, leaving just five corporate conglomerates controlling all information by the end of the century.

Around this time the English language publishing monopolies of New York and London began blacklisting any manuscripts or authors (think David Irving) that exposed the prevailing propaganda and criminal cover-up of Allied behavior during the second world war while revealing that certain atrocities had been astronomically inflated—a fact later disclosed with some courageous inquiry by brave individuals after the fall of the Soviet Union. Even before this time many authors, historians, academics, and public figures had been imprisoned across Europe for daring to ask any questions about the official narrative of events.

Revisiting the timeline of historical revisionism around World War 2 atrocities is an exhausting undertaking, and worthy of a dedicated lengthy post. (See The Unz Review’s American Pravda series in the meantime) One could argue the revisionism began right away against the truth, and the “conspiracy” revisionists are seeking the truth that was buried by the real revisionists.

For those who believe national loyalties and ideology are irrelevant in service of truth, it’s an essential undertaking to revisit the revised revisionism. It generally requires one to dig into the most honest and accurate accounts of events. These are most often produced when memories are still fresh, first-hand witnesses are still living, and state or tribal propaganda, myths, and fabricated atrocities have yet to flourish and take root in the public consciousness. The books that represent these ideal conditions for truth were published in the first decades after the war. This is also when the first blacklistings and book bannings began.

One French author, in particular, dared expose the crimes of post-war Allied occupation of Europe in 1948 in the book Nuremberg or The Promised Land, before lies were cemented as truths. He was the first ‘truther’ (his own words to describe what he cared about most) to expose the sham trials at Nuremberg, the crimes of the Allies including France, and the atrocity propaganda around “Jewish extermination” attributed to the Nazis which is still a crime to question in 19 European countries to this day.

Maurice Bardèche’s Wikipravda page reads as you’d expect of someone who worked as a Professor under the German occupation and was a supporter of Francisco Franco, co-authoring a book on the Spanish Civil War and founding the “revisionist school” in the post-war years.

One of the absurd charges made by France at Nuremberg and other trials was that the Germans had tried to exterminate the French, or had “a will to exterminate the French.” Bardèche exposes this absurdity using logic, reason, and facts. His anger in this assertion and other lies produced by the French government rests with the fact that it would allow a future German historian to show that France lied, thereby tainting his nation and all Frenchmen.

Photo of Paris during the occupation when Germans “tried to exterminate the French”:

Photo of Paris today where hundreds of thousands of male occupiers camp in its plazas and at city hall. Officials are trying to “incentivize them to leave” before the Olympics in August so Paris appears respectable to the world:

Bardèche writes:

One is propsing a future to us, one does so by condeming the past. It is into this future also that we want to see clearly. It is these principles that we would like to look at directly. For we already forsee that these new ethics refer to strange universe, a universe with something sick about it, an elastic universe where our eyes no longer recongize things.

Bardèche foresaw a future ruled by an international economic elite, that undermines nations, demonizes nationalism and civilian pride in nationality with no guarantees or respect for rights, and the political enforcement of laws against offenders who do not agree with this system, or even dare oppose it. Here he appears to be predicting our liberal democratic and neoliberal “rules-based order” with the rise of the European Union and its fashionable orthodoxies rooted in globalism, cosmopolitanism, and “democratic socialism” that labels nationalists as “far-right” heretics and “fascists.” Canada, Australia, and the United States are also firmly entrenched aboard this sinking ship that Bardèche predicted.