Restorative Justice: The Nuremberg Option

Once we are victorious, justice will need to be enacted, both for the sake of justice itself, and to placate the baying mobs.

But victor’s justice can be damaging to the victor. Spilling too much blood, disorderly or mob justice, or simply enacting justice too strenuously or thoroughly can easily backfire and damage a society, particularly one undergoing a newborn restoration. Justice must be measured. Justice will be needed, I doubt restoration will be doable without the justified execution of thousands, but we can ensure that it doesn’t become unjustified execution or go beyond the thousands.

So, I will lay some groundwork for the implementation, based on the Nuremberg trials. Nuremberg was a clear example of victor’s justice, but it was measured and didn’t cause blowback, thus it provides a good basis for victor’s justice. Beyond the principles of international law it established (I will note here, international law is a farce as the international community is not sovereign), the trials worked based on two interrelated assertions:

  1. That some crimes are so great that they can be prosecuted retroactively even if they do not violate the existent law at the time of the offence.
  2. In such cases, only the offenders and major offenders were subjected to trials and potential jail or execution, while lesser offenders and followers were merely probated or restricted.

The first assertion is a secularized version of aspects of divine/natural law; God’s law is higher than man’s law, takes precedence, and is always applicable even if man’s law disagrees. Because of this, we can easily adopt the original version within our own ideologies. Part of the second assertion has already been raised by Moldbug; we retire and bar the whole of the present regime from public service, and furthered by me, where we execute some of the most criminal. It strikes a good balance between the practical and humane and the need for justice to be done.

These assertions are already fairly well accepted as legitimate, and so will be relatively easy to sell to all sides of the reactionary bargain. They also solve two legal problems we will face during the restoration: Most of the major crimes being committed (abortion, cultural genocide, the destruction of communities and the family, usury, inflation, etc…) are legal and most people are involved in them to some degree. By adopting the necessity of the application of divine law but restricting it to only the major offenders we can ensure justice is done, without going beyond justice.

A few practical examples: it would be impractical to bring justice to every women who had an abortion and every pro-abortion individual, so we can offer them a general amnesty (making abortion and the promotion of it illegal and punishable going into the future), while we can execute abortionists and the most vile proponents, apologists, and promoters of this evil. Jailing every banker would be a miscarriage of justice and politically untenable, but we could execute the main leaders of the federal reserve and jail the more predatory bank and credit card company executives. It’d be untenable to bring justice to every family court lawyer and judge, but an example could be made of the more despicable ones. And so on and so forth.

So, when the restoration occurs and the time for justice is at hand, the leader should establish, quickly and firmly, an orderly plan for justice based on these principles. These principles are, obviously, very broad and more work would definitely have to be done on the practicalities of implementing justice come the time, but I think it wise to have some basic principles of restoration justice established and propagated throughout reaction while we have the luxury of time and cool heads, so the restoration doesn’t get caught up in the moment and commit acts it will regret.


  1. We have many laws, but it is extremely easy for people to manage the law, yet have bad faith. Excessive law is a side effect of bureaucracy.
    One of the things I realized as I was thinking about Lew Rockwell style anarchy- his assumptions are wrong, although his heart is in the right place. He says we’d still have rules, but no rulers.
    But we have rules now. And if you look at rulers as owners, in a private property sense -which one can make a very good argument that they were, then we have no rulers. Just rule-makers, who pretend they have a right to make rules based on government rather than property rights.

    There is something very important about this because we’ve got to find some way back to something more noble, more organic- a society that is eugenic, like Europe was before the 1800s, rather than the insanity we have now.

  2. Its good to see people on the right track “If we take back our nations, how to we govern them? is long overdo thinking

    Still in the long term the public humiliation of Nuremberg might have led to the mess in Germany today , Simple public execution after trial might be better

    Also such a plan while moral assumes a general consensus that the people doing it have at least some legitimacy. I’m not sure that makes sense in societies with no real cultural, ethnic or religious foundation

    1946 USA was 90% White and 95% Christian . The modern USA is far more divided, same for other nations

  3. All that you describe would be pointless if the shadowy figures that play both sides all of the time are not dealt with.
    I’m sure you know what I mean.

  4. “but the basic gist is: if given a choice between saving a thousand frozen embryos or a 5-year-old from afire, every pro-lifer will either equivocate or choose to save the 5-year-old.”

    Every? Um, no.

Leave a Reply