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!
Ha - yes, I take the point about the net recipients.
On international law - well, 'it's complicated'. It's not accurate to say that international law is a creature of the Second World War. It has existed for centuries (some would say milennia). This is a very old and much discussed issue among international legal scholars and huge amounts of ink have been spilled to little effect. It gets to the heart of what 'law' means, and that's a very big topic.
Does the failure to think about immigration and the consequences of too much of it go back to our importation of American racial politics? The lens of race disfigures most subjects and even a reasoned attempt to discuss immigration from a conservative slant draws opprobrium. Just asking a question gets you called a bigot like Gillian Duffy famously by Gordon Brown! Our inability to properly discuss immigration has lead to numerous problems like the industrial scale rape of young and predominantly white girls by Asian immigrants. How could we allow the fear of being called a racist paralyse the authorities, who should have intervened to prevent thousands of young female lives from being destroyed? The same is sadly happening with knife crime. Moreover, the cure for racism appears to be more racism and that’s leading to the denigration and erasure of our history lead by academics. The criticism of our former empire and colonialism is slanted according to Prof Biggar, and we now find ourselves being asked for 7 times our nation’s GDP for reparations for slavery occurring generations ago! Controlled immigration would be fairer to the occupants of our nation as well as those wishing to come here. Academics should engage more with real people to better understand the consequences of their conclusions rather than dismiss criticism as deplorable.
Another excellent post. Thank you.
Thanks, John.
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!
Ha - yes, I take the point about the net recipients.
On international law - well, 'it's complicated'. It's not accurate to say that international law is a creature of the Second World War. It has existed for centuries (some would say milennia). This is a very old and much discussed issue among international legal scholars and huge amounts of ink have been spilled to little effect. It gets to the heart of what 'law' means, and that's a very big topic.
Does the failure to think about immigration and the consequences of too much of it go back to our importation of American racial politics? The lens of race disfigures most subjects and even a reasoned attempt to discuss immigration from a conservative slant draws opprobrium. Just asking a question gets you called a bigot like Gillian Duffy famously by Gordon Brown! Our inability to properly discuss immigration has lead to numerous problems like the industrial scale rape of young and predominantly white girls by Asian immigrants. How could we allow the fear of being called a racist paralyse the authorities, who should have intervened to prevent thousands of young female lives from being destroyed? The same is sadly happening with knife crime. Moreover, the cure for racism appears to be more racism and that’s leading to the denigration and erasure of our history lead by academics. The criticism of our former empire and colonialism is slanted according to Prof Biggar, and we now find ourselves being asked for 7 times our nation’s GDP for reparations for slavery occurring generations ago! Controlled immigration would be fairer to the occupants of our nation as well as those wishing to come here. Academics should engage more with real people to better understand the consequences of their conclusions rather than dismiss criticism as deplorable.