Discussion about this post

User's avatar
JOHN McCarthy's avatar

Another excellent post. Thank you.

Expand full comment
Adam Collyer's avatar

Of course you are right about all this.

But look: you started the article with a reference to "international law". And the symposium you talked about was about "international law".

"International law" is an oxymoron. Strictly, it does not exist because there is no international State. To have laws, you must have a State.

We see then that in conceding the existence of "international law", you are conceding a central tenet of the globalist project.

The globalists pretend there is such a thing as "international law" to further their project, when what they call "international law" is actually a set of Treaties between sovereign nation States.

The irony here is that "international law" was created, as you say, in the aftermath of World War II, and was created by people who took it for granted that said international law would be created by themselves - the citizens of rich, white nations. It is, if you like, the globalists who are fighting for white supremacy, and who are themselves the racists.

It is unsurprising that the globalists are not interested in democratic objections to border control. After all, democracy is a feature of nation States. Globalism is itself an attack on democracy. Why? Because, as Enoch Powell said, you cannot have democracy without a demos. In other words, democracy itself can only exist at the nation State level.

Those of us who care about democracy should notice that globalism is an existential threat to it, and we should therefore opposed globalism with every fibre of our being. And that means opposing the globalist concept of "international law".

Incidentally, in passing, the fact that most people are net recipients from the State according to the ONS, is only because they include what they call "benefits in kind" (the Health Service, free education etc) in their calculation. And the "value" of these benefits in kind they define as the cost of providing them. In effect, in saying that most people are net beneficiaries, they are simply pointing out that the State doles out more than it receives in taxes, ie is running a deficit!

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts