We Want Justice

Accountability for genocide is not an unreasonable demand

I got into a heated debate this morning about the infamous amnesty proposal by Emily Oster. The family member across the table from me agreed that lockdowns, jab mandates, quarantine camps, contact tracing, and all the other authoritarian Covid policies were (and are) terrible, and have caused (and continue to cause) untold harm. No argument there. Her question to me was simply this: you want apologies and accountability, but from whom?

The short answer is “everyone,” but of course that isn’t really an answer (hence the debate). There are the obvious culprits - Fauci, Birx, Schwab, et al. - but who else should be dragged before the tribunal?

• Governors who mandated lockdowns and school closures?

• Celebrities and media flacks (like Emily Oster) who relentlessly shilled for biomedical dictatorship?

• Hospital directors whose policies virtually ensured that Covid patients (and, in all likelihood, countless people with seasonal flu) would die instead of recover?

• Doctors who refused to look at the VAERS data?

• Nurses who stayed quiet to keep their jobs?

• School superintendents who kept schools closed while children suffered, and then mandated that children wear face masks for 10 hours a day?

• Clergy who urged (or required) their congregations to take “the miracle vaccine” because it was their duty as believers in God?

• People who told Rasmussen pollsters that they favored indefinite house arrest and/or electronic tracking of people who refused the jab?

How far down the chain of responsibility do we have to go before justice is served?

The answer, in my opinion, lies in that key word: justice.

Justice is what’s missing from Emily Oster’s amnesty argument. It’s missing from all the political back-walking, jersey-switching, and maneuvering that is trying to memory-hole the atrocities of the last three years, and it ignores the fact that many individuals in the categories above continue to do those same things to this day.

In my humble opinion, the absence of acknowledgment of a need for justice is why so many of us are so angry.

The Concept of Justice

If you try to look up “justice definition” on the internet, you get a bunch of weasely definitions that boil down to “fairness,” and “following the law.” This, of course, ignores the fact that the law is often unfair, and that the entities entrusted with lawmaking are, historically, the ones who cause the most harm.

Interestingly, one of the top results, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, notes that its definition had a “substantive revision” in 2021. Since the definitions of “vaccine” and “racism” were also amended in 2021, I suppose justice is in good company.

Seemingly, justice is like love: an idea everyone understands even if they can’t put it into words. When we say “justice was served,” we are alluding to the concepts of fairness, judgment, accountability, responsibility, punishment, and deterrence, and yet justice is gestalt - a unified whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

In the face of the most widespread crimes against humanity in history, justice is the only concept big enough to use, and yet it still seems too small. When virtually everyone we were supposed to trust betrayed us, to whom can we turn for justice, and what would a successful outcome even look like?

The good news and the bad news is that we’ve been here before. Although the global response to Covid is unique in that there were no governments that could be considered “good guys,” we can still use the trials of Nazi war criminals as a model of how to pursue justice for genocide.

We’ve Been Here Before

“Nuremberg 2.0” has been trending on social media, so let’s start with the charter of the Nuremberg trial. Named for the German city where the first trial was held, the document established a court with four justices: one each from the USA, UK, France, and USSR (plus an alternate for each one). This tribunal was legally granted “the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.”

The “following crimes” were categorized as crimes against peace (waging war), war crimes (murder of POWs, slave labor, etc.), and crimes against humanity, defined thusly:

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Interestingly, the charter noted: “Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.”

Furthermore, it added, “The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.”

In other words, the ringleaders were to be held responsible for everything that was done at their behest, but the people who did the dirty work were accountable as well.

Ultimately, a total of 13 Nuremberg trials were held: one just for doctors, one just for judges and lawyers, one just for bureacrats, and the rest for industrialists, propagandists, and government agents who were complicit in the atrocity of the Third Reich. If that sounds like a familiar cast of characters, it’s because those are the same categories of people who perpetrated crimes in the name of Covid.

The System Is In Place, But Can We Trust It?

Although the Nuremberg trials were specific to the post-WWII era, its charter formed the foundation for the International Criminal Court located in the Hague. The ICC’s jurisdiction was established by the Rome Statute, which states:

“Mindful that during this century millions of children, women and men have been victims of unimaginable atrocities that deeply shock the conscience of humanity …

Affirming that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished and …

Determined to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes …

An International Criminal Court is hereby established. It shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern.”

This is, without a doubt, the appropriate legal entity for the investigation and trial of those responsible for bringing death and harm to millions.

Accordingly, in December, 2021, a British attorney named Hanna Rose filed a request with the ICC that they hear a case regarding “numerous violations of the Nuremberg Code, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression in the United Kingdom, but not limited to individuals in these countries.” The defendants named by Ms. Rose were:

• Anthony Fauci

• Peter Daszak

• Melinda Gates

• William Gates III

• Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer

• Stephane Bancel, CEO of Moderna

• Pascal Soriot, CEO of Astra Zeneca

• Alex Gorsky, CEO of Johnson and Johnson 

• Tedros Adhanhom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO

• Boris Johnson, UK Prime Minister

• Christopher Whitty, UK Chief Medical Adviser 

• Matthew Hancock, former UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

• Sajid Javid, current UK Secretary of State for Health and Social Care 

• June Raine, UK Chief Executive of Medicines and Healthcare products 

• Dr. Rajiv Shah, President of the Rockefeller Foundation

• Klaus Schwab, President of the World Economic Forum

If you never heard about this, it’s because the case went nowhere.

But Ms. Rose wasn’t the only lawyer barking up this tree. Back in 2020, a German lawyer named Reiner Fuellmich (who successfully litigated against Volkswagen and Deutsche Bank) began assembling a team of lawyers (now over 1,000) and medical professionals (now over 10,000) with the intention of bringing criminal charges against the architects of the Covid.

The Corona Investigative Committee co-founded by Fuellmich has now networked over 1,000 lawyers and over 10,000 medical professionals. It has published over 180 hours of video proceedings and collected over 55,000 reports. It has extensively researched and compiled facts about what happened, who was responsible, and what impact it had. By pulling on the thread of Covid, the investigators have uncovered links to international corruption, election fraud, influence-peddling, and a dizzying array of other crimes.

In fact, the depth of criminal activity is so extreme that Fuellmich has concluded that no existing institution - including the ICC - could be trusted to prosecute it. Indeed, his own Corona Investigative Committee was compromised by his co-founder, leading Fuellmich to announce the development of a new organization: International Crimes Investigative Committee.

What Do We Want? Justice!

In June of 2022, after concluding that no court on the planet could be trusted to prosecute Covid crimes (an opinion supported by their decision to completely ignore Hannah Rose’s proprio muto request), Fuellmich and his colleagues presented their case in “The Grand Jury of Public Opinion,” which you can watch online. While the arguments make a persuasive case, it is a bit dispiriting to see a prominent international lawyer who has spent the last three years building an airtight case reduced to posting Zoom videos online.

Nonetheless, returning to the original question - from whom should we demand apologies and accountability? - Rose’s and Fuellmich’s extensive work provide some guidance. Just as the Nuremberg trials began with the ringleaders, and then worked their way down through the key conspirators, Fuellmich’s team seeks indictments against the following.

1. Leaders of the CDC, World Health Organization, and World Economic Forum.

2. Leaders of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

3. Leaders of the biomedical corporations and organizations that collaborated in the development and promotion of the narrative that extreme measures were necessary for the mitigation of Covid-19 (as shown in the chart below).

   

   These defendants would likely be on the stand for the modern equivalent of the first Nuremberg trial. Following that, we can use the same logic used for the subsequent Nuremberg trials:

4. Physicians and medical professionals who advocated for the suspension of informed consent, refused to acknowledge evidence of harm, and failed to end the “vaccine” experiments when it became clear that they were causing injury. Incidentally these particular crimes are addressed by the Nuremberg Code, which was specifically written to prohibit dangerous experiments on human subjects.

5. Hospital and nursing home administrators who established and enforced harmful and inhumane policies regarding the placement or treatment of individuals diagnosed (or misdiagnosed) with Covid, as well as illegally preventing family members from visiting with or advocating for patients.

6. Governors and local officials who supported illegal, discriminatory, and harmful policies such as jab mandates, quarantine camps, and mask requirements (particularly for children).

7. Public officials and employees who enforced these illegal and harmful policies.

8. Leaders of the US Armed Forces who made acceptance of the Covid jabs mandatory, illegally dismissed waiver requests, and suppressed and/or manipulated the military DMED database to conceal the harm these injections were causing to service members and the military readiness of the United States.

9. Media personalities and journalists who, like Hans Fritzche in Nazi Germany, used their influence to promote and normalize illegal, discriminatory, and harmful policies.

10. Leaders in the technology industry who participated in censorship of dissenting views and the promotion of propaganda supporting illegal, discriminatory, and harmful policies.

11. Business leaders who supported these illegal activities through the imposition of discriminatory employment mandates.

While this may not be an exhaustive list, I think it would make a pretty good start.

When Do We Want It? NOW!

According to Fuellmich, the only way that justice will be served is if we cook it ourselves. Not through vigilante activity (although there may be some who advocate for that), but through the establishment of a new, independent system of tribunals.

Will this ever happen, and if so, what will it look like? That’s anybody’s guess. But one thing is certain: there needs to be a whole lot of accountability and punishment before we start talking about amnesty.