These frauds will be the laughing stock of history once the Westphalian system is restored, and "genocide" expunged from the dictionaries.
Gaydolf Shitler was a British agentStalin saved Europe
>>18493331>and "genocide" expunged from the dictionariesWhy though? Victim mentality is practically the only good way to turn Europeans against them. We need to accentuate the genocide these guys did to *us*, not the other way around. NEETsocs need to learn that whining works perfectly as a political strategy, it's practically the only reason muh noootcining even got big among zoomers. Just how humans are wired. Yes, that includes your based Aryan-ubermensch-whatever.
>>18493334>>18493338You misunderstand, I am not against the "tyranny" of the sovereign but the tyranny of global Imperialism. Genocide is a tool of Western Imperialists to overrule the sovereignty of an y who oppose them.
>>18493331"Westphalian system" has been an obselete term for the past 200 years after feudalism and the papacy was abolished. Stop trying to sound like an autistic neet.
>>18493423It's a modern historiographic device, so this statement of yours is illogical.
>>18493432The term only exists as a historical anecodote. It's like saying international relations is the "congress of Vienna system". No one would use that term because it's just autistic. The modern standard for international cooperation as it exists today started with the congress of Vienna likewise sovreignty of the state started with the peace of Westphalia but both of them are obselete to the modern concept of the state. They were blueprints and nothing more.Stop being an autistic retard.
>>18493457The sovereignty of the state above all else, as established at the peace of Westphalia, and abolished by the tyrants of United Nations, will be restored, hence not "obsolete".
>>18493478United Nations does not challenge the sovreignty of the state. Barely anything in the UN has any legal binding. Not even the UN charter is legally binding.Also the fact that members can enter agreements through the UN is the epitome of a sovreign state.The only thing in the UN that is legally binding is whatever the Security Council says, and in all honesty the Security Council is mostly just a peacock assembly for the current hegemony. Their power status in this world would have been a reality even without the UN, and this was the case long before the UN was formed. There will always be a top dog that calls the shots.
>>18493498>Their power status in this world would have been a reality even without the UN,Their power status relies on the illusion of the UN, without it their intentions are naked.
>>18493498>>18493502And it's like I said, the United Nations and "human rights" are an attempt by the West to subjugate their enemies under the illusion of benevolence.
>>18493502>Their power status relies on the illusion of the UN, without it their intentions are naked.No it doesnt lmaoTheir power status would have been a reality even without the UN.Their power comes from the actual power-projection capabilities of their state: Their military capability, their geopolitical influence, their economic wealth. This would not have changed if the UN was abolished tomorrow. Their power would have remained. They would have been top dogs without the UN and they would have enforced their position as top dogs without the UN.The Security Council is mostly a forum to stop them from fighting each others since they have the cability to turn a war into a world war if they ever fought each others.Even the Security Council is something of a meme because they can veto each others at any time so there are extremely few cases when the Security Council has ever done something very significant. Barely anything is resolved in the UN in general, it's a completely paralyzed organization. Most of the Security Council members completely ignore all the rules if they feel like they really want to make a decision based on their own self-interest. Their authority is guaranteed by the power of their state, not the seat in the UN.And again, this has been the case long before the UN existed as a concept. It was the political reality since ancient Greece. There will always be a hegemony who calls the shots. The only difference is that we as a species has become more sophisticated in communicating with each others. We've developed international forums for mediation for hundreds of years, from the Papacy to the Congress of Vienna to the Concert of Europe to the League of Nations to the United Nations. It's been process of centuries since the middle ages that has brought us the UN. We know that we need an international body to mediate between states otherwise every single experience has taught us that war will be inevitable.
>>18493522There has never been a hegemony, there is only an illusion of such. You say the UN is pointless, but then what is its purpose, you reveal it yourself and confirm what I already said, it exists to strengthen the "superior" powers and justify their actions, it would be a lot messier for them and a whole lot more honest for everyone else if they could not hide behind human rights.
>>18493529>You say the UN is pointlessI never said the UN was pointlessI just pointed out that from a naked eye the UN doesnt hold much weight over the powerful states of this world to do as they please if they actually wanted to. The UN is a forum and nothing more, the rest is just a guideline to give the appearance that we follow rules.The UN never strengthen someones power, it merely shows what is consensus and what isnt. The war on Gaza is the perfect example of this. We all know what the consensus of the world is by looking at how the General Assembly voted on the issue, but we also know that it ultimately doesnt matter because the strongest will do as they please with or without the UN.So again the UN doesnt 'empower' anything.
>>18493548The consensus exists to empower western interests. A healthy state should only be concerned with its own standing against the rest not how another state treats its own subjects, this delusion allows the "hegemony" to control them against their enemies during the time to strike. This will be abolished when we recognize sovereigns have full rights to do with their subjects as they please, and that NO state has any right to intervene.
>>18493554>The consensus exists to empower western interests.Except the majority of members in the General Assembly are non-western members.Except 2 out of 5 of the Secuirty Council members are non-western with the capability to overrule any decisions made.So how exactly is the UN a "western" instrument when western members are outnumbered and lack any superior instiutional capability against the non-western? If China says No then everyone must also say No.>A healthy state should only be concerned with its own standing against the rest not how another state treats its own subjects,Except this would not have been the case even without the UN because there will always be a hegemony that will impose its interests on other states. This has been the case for most of human civilization history.>this delusion allows the "hegemony" to control them against their enemies during the time to strike.A hegemony would have done so without the UN. How do I know this? Because that happened long before the UN was ever a thing, and has continued to be so even with the UN since I can list multiple events when a superpower has completely ignored the will of the UN and done as they pleased.>that NO state has any right to interveneIntervention is not a right, it's a decision.
>>18493567Why does the "hegemony" allow the UN to exist if it does not serve their interests? >Except this would not have been the case even without the UN because there will always be a hegemony that will impose its interests on other states. This has been the case for most of human civilization history.Except of course after the Peace of Westphalia, when it was understood that no state has the right to intervene in another's religious policy. >A hegemony would have done so without the UN. How do I know this? Because that happened long before the UN was ever a thing, and has continued to be so even with the UN since I can list multiple events when a superpower has completely ignored the will of the UN and done as they pleased.Except of course if it was understood that no state has the right to intervene in another's policy. >Intervention is not a right, it's a decision.It is a decision in violation of the rights of the sovereign. Your "hegemons" are just world-tyrants that rely upon the apathy and ignorance of said world. Do you would think it be so easy if they were to unite against them?
>>18493331No, it is necessary to remember genocide victims like the Greek Genocide, Armenian Genocide, Holodomor, and the victims of the Holocaust of Palestine.
>>18493567The UN was explicitly made as a "Victors of WW2 club". China got pencilled in later because it was too powerful to ignore.In the UN constitution, Germany and Japan are, TO THIS DAY, listed as states which are enemies of the UN and any country can declare war on them.
>>18493331They are the trio of White Genocide. They ruined the world.
>>18493608>In the UN constitutionKek no.There is nothing in the "UN constitution" that even mentions Germany or Japan. Also wtf is a UN "consitution" you american fag?
>>18493589>Why does the "hegemony" allow the UN to exist if it does not serve their interests?Because the UN is mostly just a forum for mediation. Why is this so hard to understand? Nothing you said in your previous post made sense because you yourself struggle to rationalize it.>It is a decision in violation of the rights of the sovereign.That's not really what sovreign means.Sovreign means there are borders and within these borders exists an independent government. That was the whole point of Westphalia, that states of the HRE were not unconditionally under his will. It was an important step towards what we today define a state, a concept which was still somewhat alien at the time since feudalism and clergy never paid much attention to the concept of borders.>Do you would think it be so easy if they were to unite against them?lol wtf.Ye ok so the entire world "unites" against the top 3 most powerful states on the opposite end of this planet.And then what?You'd eventually just have another hegemony.Unless of course you choose the marxist route of creating a stateless world.
>>18493633>that states of the HRE were not unconditionally under his will.**Under the will of the Habsburg**
>>18493633You appeal to ad-hominin instead explaining your case.>Sovreign means there are borders and within these borders exists an independent government. That was the whole point of Westphalia, that states of the HRE were not unconditionally under his will. It was an important step towards what we today define a state, a concept which was still somewhat alien at the time since feudalism and clergy never paid much attention to the concept of borders.No it explicitly means non-intervention.
>>18493833>No it explicitly means non-intervention.There is not a single definition on this planet that says a sovreign state is immune from other states. That's literally not what it means. Are you 3 years old? A sovreign state is defined by the fact that there is a border and within this border exists an independent government. That's it.Not even the UN dictates international immunity because no one would pretend that we live in a childs teletubbies rainbow world of Kumbaya my lord.The UN sets a few certain rules for war but that's about it. Not that it matters since states rarely pay attention to these rules and rarely gets punished for them (and if they are punished, it's not by the UN).
>>18493347>Genocide is a tool of Western Imperialists to overrule the sovereignty of an y who oppose themGenocide is a very effective way to bring about peace in a region after generations of conflict, for example Vietnam wasn't truly united and free of mountain banditry until the Montagnards were ethnically cleansed, Spain avoided France's wars of religion by kicking out or murdering everyone who wasn't a born and bree Catholic, China only stopped millennia of Northern nomadic raids by murdering each Dzungar man and child, the development of Tasmania and Florida only became possible after doing away with the abos and Seminole, and Turkey only became a nation-state once they dealt with the Armenian and Greek questions, although they only half-finished the Kurd question, which is a problem to the present day. Genocide is very much a real thing and also the ultimate pacifier.
>>18493331There is no world where the Tranny National Socialist wins over the Pan-Slavic Communist.The Germs got mercy in the previous race war, it won't happen again.
