Globalization = Nigger Standards Imposed By Mexishit Judges
Posted by alex in globalization at 1:39 am | 
Permanent Link
1-28-07
The International Trend
Mexican judge: “You have been brought before this international tribunal here in Timbuktu to answer for three horrible crimes: owning an evil handgun, criticizing an innocent, non-White person and referring to Africa as a ‘toilet.'”
White American: “But Africa is a toilet.”
Mexican judge: “Now you’ve just earned yourself another ten years in prison.”
White American: “But-but-but, I’m an American!”
Mexican judge: “What a coincidence: so am I! I got my green card last Tuesday. I’m buying a condo in Miami.”
We learned in Political Science class that all countries have natural and automatic sovereignty. So we wonder how an international court of law can exist in the Netherlands. How can it prosecute someone from another country for crimes that didn’t occur in the Netherlands? A treaty? Treaties don’t, or at least shouldn’t, trump the natural, sovereign rights of a country or, by extension, a citizen of that country. If someone commits a crime in his country, then it’s up to his country to prosecute him. If he isn’t prosecuted by his country, then the matter should end there. It’s only logical.
Of course, the idea of international government/semi-government/quasi-government isn’t exactly new. For example, back in the 1800s, a Jew named Karl Marx had a cute little international idea, which was called communism [a global movement which tried to convince gentiles that governments, not citizens, should control everything until the government finally vanishes. What amazing bullsh*t. Sadly, way too many gentiles bought the idea]. Then, another Jew, Leo Pasvolsky, had another international idea, called the United Nations, which wasn’t exactly communism per se, but was sort of similar to it in its global scope and leftist, egalitarian attitudes [1]. Furthermore, a handful of communists, such as Victor Perlo and Harry Dexter White, co-founded the UN. That’s significant – after all, why would communists want to champion such a thing?
After those Jews pioneered the idea, internationalism then caught on with non-Jews, and now too many things in this world are international instead of local.
Indeed, why have geographical borders and local laws if internationalism is a legitimate idea that can trump any country’s sovereignty?
Our point here is that internationalism is 1) an increasingly-popular idea which overrides natural sovereignty; and 2) was birthed largely by Jews and/or Marxists.
By the way, we should add that Hitler and his allies were nationalists, who are the exact opposite of internationalists. So we have to wonder how this world would have shaped up if the Axis powers, and not the internationalist “allies,” had won World War II:
[1] the UN/Pasvolsky: http://wsi.matriots.com/pasvolsky.html
16 February, 2007 at 8:57 pm
We learned in Political Science class that all countries have natural and automatic sovereignty. …And, being sheeple, we accepted everything that we were taught in class as axiomatic principles without questioning the artificial social constructs on which those principles are based.
There are two primary schools of thought in communist philosophy. The notion “that governments, not citizens, should control everything until the government finally vanishes.” is authoritarian communism; the communism of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin – of those, only Marx and Trotsky are kikes.
The other school of thought, anarcho-communism, is the brainchild of Peter Kropotkin. Many anarcho-communists refer to the authoritarian version as “state capitalism”, and would probably agree with Alex’s assertion that the notion is “amazing bullshit“.
By the way, National Socialist Germany (1933-1945) was also run by a Zionist occupational government.