Communism Is Not Dead: Marxism-with-a-Briefcase (Global Government in France) Tries to Re-Make Law in Russia
Posted by Socrates in 'human rights', communism, Cultural Marxism, democracy, democracy-vs-fascism, democrazy, egalitarianism, global citizens, global government, global vs. local/regional, globalization, Hobbes, homosexual themes, homosexuals, human blights, human equality, international socialism, internationalism, Marxism, NATO, New World Order, NWO, rules and mandates, Russia, Socrates, sovereignty, treaties, UN, UN Charter, UN founders at 2:11 pm | 
Permanent Link
“The ECHR’s (the human blights court) rulings are in theory binding. However, Russia’s contentious relationship with the court has seen it pass a law allowing its constitution to supersede the European Court.” Good, but why did the Russians need to pass a law to claim their natural sovereignty, which has always existed? [1]. Nevertheless, what’s the difference between a communist and a globalist? The globalist wears a tie and rides in a limousine. Same “One World, One Government, One People” mentality, though. Anyway, the bottom line here is that international, Marxist “human rights” courts in France have no jurisdiction in local or state matters whether they be in Russia or Australia [2], so pound sand, you “human rights” commies.
[1] the great philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) said that the sovereign (the state authority or ruler) has absolute power within his own territory (in this case, all of Russia), meaning that the UN, NATO, the EU and other global outfits are illegitimate by default; indeed, global government is an anti-White scam of epic proportions that will create endless misery and endless wars; Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty is undemocratic, it should be noted
[2] granted, I’m not a lawyer, but, the only thing that could, in theory, legally violate natural sovereignty is a signed and ratified treaty, but even that idea is very questionable because treaties, by their nature, are political (for example, consider Obama’s attempted climate-change treaty and Trump’s cancelling America’s participation in it) while sovereignty is not political per se, i.e., a state has sovereignty regardless of who is president. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution says that the President has the “Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” But, for example, what if the U.S. Senate was full of far-leftists and the President was also a far-leftist, and they created a really horrible treaty that blatantly violated U.S. sovereignty? Then you’d have an overly political/partisan treaty violating our natural sovereignty. So, maybe have the White citizens vote on all treaties from now on
21 June, 2017 at 6:29 am
mic check…