Alex Jones is based (and entertaining) but historically illiterate. The West (above all the UK and the US) assisted the Arab League in weaponizing the Palestinian refugee issue from 1948 onwards. The US played a central role in establishing UNRWA (the UN agency that services the refugees) and at the time the US expected the Arabs to win …
Alex Jones is based (and entertaining) but historically illiterate. The West (above all the UK and the US) assisted the Arab League in weaponizing the Palestinian refugee issue from 1948 onwards. The US played a central role in establishing UNRWA (the UN agency that services the refugees) and at the time the US expected the Arabs to win the conflict. The US and its allies also agreed to create a special definition of refugee for the benefit of the Palestinians alone. Plenty of work for Nemesis.
The urgent priority for the West IMHO should be repudiating the international convention on refugees. This confers an automatic right for refugees to cross borders and is the legal foundation for Europe's permanent refugee crisis. So long as the treaty stands there is no way to protect Western peoples from being swamped. Blow-hards like Alex Jones never discuss this.
Yep. I've heard that treaty cited quite often by the globalist scum and their useful idiot fellow travelers. They love nothing more than doing an end run around the national interest under color of law.
International law is an astonishing force multiplier because domestic governance has to be fully compliant with official commitments. It lends unjustified respectability to every conceivable mischief. Normies give the system the benefit of the doubt because politicians never explain that international agreements are designed to take issues out of the hands of electorates. Turning the rule of law into a skinsuit for the Longhouse is a civilization-ending event.
On the other hand, international treaties such as the UNRWA are essentially gentleman's agreements within the elite club of the transnational class. They lack direct enforcement arms outside of occasional trade sanctions, and rely instead largely on the elite of a given country wanting to be part of the club. The entire system is very fragile.
International law is legally phony though. Saying it overrides the Constitution and national law is just a bluff. Treaties are by definition voluntary opt-in agreements by signatory nations and cannot override their laws. Very explicitly so in US law, and every other country if you just think it through.... at least if anyone was actually following laws and Constitutions. As we know, they are going to do what they want now anyway, because they have enough power to get away with it, so international law and treaty talk is really just an excuse for elites/leaders to minimize pushback when they disregard law, not about following higher laws.
Main point is, repudiating any treaty or international law would not make the problem go away. However, if you put enough pressure on gov't to do it, the fact that you rallied that much political pressure itself would be the important part. With the gov't on the right side of the issue, the treaty could just be ignored or overriden by domestic law.
Correct. There is actually no such thing as "international law", just a series of treaties the provisions of which are open to endless interpretation. Even more spurious is the oft-quoted "international humanitarian law" which REALLY doesn't exist but is wielded like a cudgel whenever white people have to defend themselves. It's a make-it-up-as-we-go-along law.
Next time you encounter someone wielding "international humanitarian law", simply ask them to cite their legal authority and which precise law is being broken. Stand back and watch them mentally flatline.
Asking for a citation is a great one. I love doing that with people who refer to the Geneva Convention. In the old days people got their view of international law from the movies, now it is Tik Tok.
Our occupation government has been laying the groundwork for this for a long time, coordinating things at the international level to subvert local autonomy.
Alex Jones is based (and entertaining) but historically illiterate. The West (above all the UK and the US) assisted the Arab League in weaponizing the Palestinian refugee issue from 1948 onwards. The US played a central role in establishing UNRWA (the UN agency that services the refugees) and at the time the US expected the Arabs to win the conflict. The US and its allies also agreed to create a special definition of refugee for the benefit of the Palestinians alone. Plenty of work for Nemesis.
The urgent priority for the West IMHO should be repudiating the international convention on refugees. This confers an automatic right for refugees to cross borders and is the legal foundation for Europe's permanent refugee crisis. So long as the treaty stands there is no way to protect Western peoples from being swamped. Blow-hards like Alex Jones never discuss this.
Yep. I've heard that treaty cited quite often by the globalist scum and their useful idiot fellow travelers. They love nothing more than doing an end run around the national interest under color of law.
International law is an astonishing force multiplier because domestic governance has to be fully compliant with official commitments. It lends unjustified respectability to every conceivable mischief. Normies give the system the benefit of the doubt because politicians never explain that international agreements are designed to take issues out of the hands of electorates. Turning the rule of law into a skinsuit for the Longhouse is a civilization-ending event.
On the other hand, international treaties such as the UNRWA are essentially gentleman's agreements within the elite club of the transnational class. They lack direct enforcement arms outside of occasional trade sanctions, and rely instead largely on the elite of a given country wanting to be part of the club. The entire system is very fragile.
International law is legally phony though. Saying it overrides the Constitution and national law is just a bluff. Treaties are by definition voluntary opt-in agreements by signatory nations and cannot override their laws. Very explicitly so in US law, and every other country if you just think it through.... at least if anyone was actually following laws and Constitutions. As we know, they are going to do what they want now anyway, because they have enough power to get away with it, so international law and treaty talk is really just an excuse for elites/leaders to minimize pushback when they disregard law, not about following higher laws.
Main point is, repudiating any treaty or international law would not make the problem go away. However, if you put enough pressure on gov't to do it, the fact that you rallied that much political pressure itself would be the important part. With the gov't on the right side of the issue, the treaty could just be ignored or overriden by domestic law.
Correct. There is actually no such thing as "international law", just a series of treaties the provisions of which are open to endless interpretation. Even more spurious is the oft-quoted "international humanitarian law" which REALLY doesn't exist but is wielded like a cudgel whenever white people have to defend themselves. It's a make-it-up-as-we-go-along law.
Next time you encounter someone wielding "international humanitarian law", simply ask them to cite their legal authority and which precise law is being broken. Stand back and watch them mentally flatline.
International humanitarian "law" is the color of law being invented to flood white countries with colored people.
Asking for a citation is a great one. I love doing that with people who refer to the Geneva Convention. In the old days people got their view of international law from the movies, now it is Tik Tok.
Our occupation government has been laying the groundwork for this for a long time, coordinating things at the international level to subvert local autonomy.