Recently the ‘Baltimore Jewish Times’ ran a guest column by the major jewish libertarian economist and theorist Walter Block titled ‘Iran, the Nuremberg Trials and ‘Ex Post Facto’ Law’. (1)
Given that the column is a barely concealed defence of Israel and the Nuremberg trials I thought it be interesting to address Block’s arguments and to expose him as the Semitic shyster that he has long been.
Block begins honestly enough by writing:
‘Ex-post facto law has a bad press.
What is it? It is the declaration of criminality after the fact.
Something is perfectly legal and time t1. Then, at time t2, it is declared illegal. But not only for the future, but for the past as well. Right now, it is fully within the law to wear blue shoes. Then, this act is proscribed by new legislation. All those who have engaged in this now-illicit act in the past either pay a fine or go to jail. It’s difficult to think of anything more unjust or outrageous.’ (2)
This is quite correct as this is basic (Western) law. You cannot outlaw something and then criminalise people who did something before hand when it was not illegal because it has been made illegal now.
This is the foundation stone of Western legal systems and is an obvious break to prevent governments say outlawing fishing and then prosecuting anyone who has ever fished. However, this foundational legal principle was broken in 1945 with the Nuremberg Trials and has been repeatedly broken since by Western states deliberately persecuting nationalists – for example members of ‘National Action’ in UK were prosecuted for membership in the organization before it was proscribed as ‘terrorist group’ – (3) using the lazy excuse of ‘terrorism’.
Block continues by writing:
‘And yet, this was precisely the principle upon which the Nuremberg trials were predicated. During this court hearing, the Nazis claimed that what they did was fully congruent with German law at the time. If they did not murder Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, non-Aryans and blacks, then they themselves would have been considered criminals. They protested against the unfairness of having ex-post facto law imposed upon them.’ (4)
What Block has identified here is the classic ‘Catch 22’ situation of the Nuremberg Trials in that the German defendants hadn’t actually broken any German laws – and where they had they had already been punished usually by the Germans themselves such as the former commandant of Buchenwald Karl-Otto Koch who the SS had shot for three counts of murder and embezzlement on 5th April 1945 – nor the Geneva Convention in any meaningful way and what they had broken then the Western Allies and particularly the Comintern had done similar if not worse things during the war.
So, the Western powers and the Soviet Union had to create new ‘laws’ that the Germans were then alleged to have broken long after the Third Reich had ceased to be and then tried the German defendants at Nuremberg and after in accordance with those laws.
Clearly this is not – and never could have been – justice nor a fair trial in any meaningful way or form as is reinforced by the appalling counter to reality (and sometimes counter to the laws of physics) claims that were the evidential basis of Nuremberg.
The real ‘Catch 22’ problem in the modern sense that Block is talking about comes from the position of the Nuremberg Trials occupy in both modern politics and modern morality in that they are the foundation of the post-war society that rejected the Devil is the arch-enemy and representation of pure evil and replaced him with Adolf Hitler (with Hell being replaced by the Third Reich and demons being replaced by ‘Nazis’ and/or the SS).
In other words: the foundation of modern politics and modern morality is the Nuremberg Trials, and the Nuremberg Trials are a de facto example of injustice and illegality masquerading as justice.
Ergo the foundation of modern politics and modern morality is completely intellectually and legally unsound.
Block however has to try and get around this because to do anything else would be to concede that not only did ‘the Nazis’ have a point but – horror of horrors – they might have even been right and Block being a jew simply cannot allow such a thought to enter his mind.
So, he simply resorts to an absurd declaration that ‘it doesn’t matter’ because… well… ‘muh morality’ writing that:
‘The court overruled them — and very properly so. There are indeed exceptions to our otherwise justified opposition to ex post facto law. These judges found that some acts are so despicable, so nefarious, so intrinsically criminal, even though extant law allowed them — nay, even proscribed them. Still, it was entirely proper to declare them null and void, and to consider as criminals those who obeyed these illicit laws and acted on the basis of them. This court ruled that this certainly applied to the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis, even though legal at the time.’ (5)
Basically, Block’s argument here is the ‘force of morality’ but then wonders… for example… why Block likely would be opposed to say outlawing Judaism with the sentence being a mandatory death penalty then retroactively applying it to all people who have ever practised Judaism who are still living.
That is the same ‘force of morality’ argument and gives you the sense that Block is simply trying to invent a rationale for selectively applying nullifying the idea that you can’t prosecuted using ex post facto legislation which brings me on to the point here in that the use of this logic in law by jews opens up the opportunity for nationalists – once they come to power across the world – to do exactly the same to jews.
To try them ex post facto using new legislation and see how they like their own Nuremberg Trials.
And that’s exactly what we should do my friends.
References
(1) https://www.jewishtimes.com/iran-the-nuremberg-trials-and-ex-post-facto-law/
(2) Idem.
(3) https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2018/11/12/national-action-cases-statement-and-factsheet/
(4) https://www.jewishtimes.com/iran-the-nuremberg-trials-and-ex-post-facto-law/
(5) Idem.
Karl’s SubstackRead More
T1
