Natural Sovereignty vs. Global Government: Which One Will Win?
Posted by Socrates in China, EU, global citizenship/world citizenship, global government, global vs. local/regional, jewed politics, Leo Pasvolsky, NATO, natural law/natural justice, Socrates, sovereignty, UN, UN Charter, UN founders at 11:23 am | 
Permanent Link
In the old days, all countries had natural, unquestioned sovereignty. They could make their own decisions without interference from other countries or other outsiders. But today, globalist entities are trying to tell countries what they can, and can’t, do [1]. First of all, that’s just morally wrong. International government violates sovereignty and is therefore illegal. Yes, certain treaties exist, but treaties can’t overrule natural sovereignty [2].
[1] globalist entities include the UN, the EU, NATO and, yes, very often America. The idea of global government is largely Jewish, e.g., the UN was founded by Jews, and NATO sprang from the UN Charter. That isn’t surprising, since Jews were the first “international, cosmopolitan people”
[2] China, in my opinion, does not have sovereignty because The People’s Republic of China is a communist country that was created by violence and subversion in 1949. The PRC is therefore not a legitimate entity. Legitimate leaders are usually legally elected or legally appointed, as Adolf Hitler was.
8 August, 2019 at 2:08 pm
This may sound a bit crazy, but I would say that somewhat amorphous grouping called ‘Christianity Inc.’ is also an up and coming globalist entity. It’s not quite there yet at the top table but these greasy reverends and bishops are busy brown-nosing big jew.