Denmark can come into a lot of money, if they sell it to us or we can just take it and not give them anything. You would think they would wise up and take the money. The actual residents of Greenland would benefit greatly.
Exactly! They’re going to lose it one way or the other. It appears that the Greenlanders hate the way Denmark has treated them. I can understand their hesitation about going with the US, however, once they see everything we offer, they should realize how great it is to be an American. Look how many illegals want to stay here! If we take Greenland, they will be Americans and would get all the benefits we offer!
No, it is not about ABILITY, but about two things:
De Jure
De Facto
The issue at play here is that organizations, be they state are made juridical persons on a higher footing than people.
What was agreed upon in 1648 was that within certain borders, external parties would not interfere in issues within borders foreign to them: this means internal sovereignty bestowed upon states a matter of course.
No one voted for it, except for two countries: The Republic of the 7 provinces, to a minor degree the Union of Utrecht (17 provinces) and of course, The united States of America.
The other parties to the Westphalian peace treaty were Monarchs, Princes, an other potentates. and despite the treaty, they were still at war ....
However, we now recognize that sovereignty for a state flows from its sovereign people. What happens when a people is subverted by mass immigration? Such a people is being erased from the face of the earth.
All a state is left with is the potential to find humans who are willing to act violently in furtherance of the ideas of a small group or one person's ideals. That is what many states in the EU have become.
So, Denmark hold DE FACTO control, but not De Jure, as their control is not flowing from the People of Greenland's will.
But their control is brittle if not nominally, as the US presence there surpasses that of the Danes. So, in essence, their control is neither de jure, nor de facto.
The problem here always is, the Pluche sticking potentates always put the world upside down, and start by their own desires instead of the people they are meant to serve.
Thanks for posting that. International law is not well understood by very many people (me included on the not side). I do think it would help if the people of Greenland chose independence of their own accord.
International law is a mess. Trump is right in saying: I do not need it. All I need is my own conscience.
In essence: what is called international law currently = international rules based order.
Think of it. The world consists of countries recognized as "sovereign", but they have to submit (crazy stuff) to the UN, WHO, UPU, ITU, etc. In order words, at best, "countries are not even suzerein, but totally beholden to a system, none of their citizens in a referendum have chosen for.
Choice
In the 50-ties, a question was put forward to the population of two cities in the Netherlands: Leiden (Holland) and Bolsward (Friesland), and the question was: would you like to see more international cooperation within Europe?
Right after the war, people responded positive. Effect? Establishment of the EU with all that comes with it. It is totally divorced from any sense of the meaning of people.
And this is what these assclowns always pull. When reading the basis for international law, it is what countries bilaterally or multilatery agree about for the time being.
It is interesting to note, that once a choice is made, going back on it is a drag. See Brexit. So, even though a contract may contain language that allows for reversal, in practice it is hardly doable. And this is done on purpose.
acknowledgement of Sovereingity
When you read about the Second world war, 1940, you see a lot of governments in exile converging upon London. See also Allied Powers Act. So, in terms of application, international law is merely practical, working with the current political reality. How to read it? The book over at loc.gov: Control Authority contains a very interesting declaration regarding Germany June 1945: the persecution of will and the power to resist it.
That is international law.
In this world there are many people declaring sovereignty according to the Treaty of Montevideo 1930, which is delcarative, but post world war II this amounts to:
Being invited to be a member of the UPU
A slow ballotage into the UN
Arrangements of older debts.
And in case of 3, issuing a statement of odiousness will incur the wrath of the EMPIRE OF DEBT SLAVERY.
In other words: although with the lips individual sovereignty is recognized, that in the aggregate by free and fair elections among a people (NATION) , a state gains sovereignty, in practice (power & debt) negates this, and effects subordination to the international rules based consensus order. If a people refuses, their sovereignty is not recognized by the signatories of the Montevideo Treaty of 1930.
final note
Hence, it all depends on practical circumstances and the grander geopolitical interest, despite the lofty ideas.
The nucleus of the problem is that a body, like a state, or a corporation for that matter, cannot do anything without the life and breath given to it by people.
It is interesting to contemplate the Revelation wording: an image was made of the wild beast. If those itmes are replaced by state or corporation, it becomes comprehensible how people worship it, mislead by propaganda, or even giving it life and breath.
Why? Without people it does not exist. Not even with AI it can. It all depends on people's choice to comply.
And what happens when people refuse compliance? See Iran.
Interesting. For myself, I see most legal systems converging towards laws that make criminals out of people for merely existing, and causing angst, worry, strife, and distraction, with the end goal of that one world government that's going to solve all the problems (and get rid of anyone opposing it). Meanwhile, the banking systems run the show from the shadows.
Yep: UNIDROIT another one of those globalist cocksucking entities and USA juduciary has been introducing alien concepts, like rights given by God and protected by the Constitution are relative at best and subject to the rights of a strong executive & judiciary.
There are a lot of countries with smaller militaries than ours. What are the we waiting for? If we get to work, I bet we could conquer half of them by the end of the year.
Denmark can come into a lot of money, if they sell it to us or we can just take it and not give them anything. You would think they would wise up and take the money. The actual residents of Greenland would benefit greatly.
True! Denmark is bankrupt, they should sell Greenland to the USA and pay their national debt.
Exactly! They’re going to lose it one way or the other. It appears that the Greenlanders hate the way Denmark has treated them. I can understand their hesitation about going with the US, however, once they see everything we offer, they should realize how great it is to be an American. Look how many illegals want to stay here! If we take Greenland, they will be Americans and would get all the benefits we offer!
No, it is not about ABILITY, but about two things:
The issue at play here is that organizations, be they state are made juridical persons on a higher footing than people.
What was agreed upon in 1648 was that within certain borders, external parties would not interfere in issues within borders foreign to them: this means internal sovereignty bestowed upon states a matter of course.
No one voted for it, except for two countries: The Republic of the 7 provinces, to a minor degree the Union of Utrecht (17 provinces) and of course, The united States of America.
The other parties to the Westphalian peace treaty were Monarchs, Princes, an other potentates. and despite the treaty, they were still at war ....
However, we now recognize that sovereignty for a state flows from its sovereign people. What happens when a people is subverted by mass immigration? Such a people is being erased from the face of the earth.
All a state is left with is the potential to find humans who are willing to act violently in furtherance of the ideas of a small group or one person's ideals. That is what many states in the EU have become.
So, Denmark hold DE FACTO control, but not De Jure, as their control is not flowing from the People of Greenland's will.
But their control is brittle if not nominally, as the US presence there surpasses that of the Danes. So, in essence, their control is neither de jure, nor de facto.
The problem here always is, the Pluche sticking potentates always put the world upside down, and start by their own desires instead of the people they are meant to serve.
Thanks for posting that. International law is not well understood by very many people (me included on the not side). I do think it would help if the people of Greenland chose independence of their own accord.
International law is a mess. Trump is right in saying: I do not need it. All I need is my own conscience.
In essence: what is called international law currently = international rules based order.
Think of it. The world consists of countries recognized as "sovereign", but they have to submit (crazy stuff) to the UN, WHO, UPU, ITU, etc. In order words, at best, "countries are not even suzerein, but totally beholden to a system, none of their citizens in a referendum have chosen for.
Choice
In the 50-ties, a question was put forward to the population of two cities in the Netherlands: Leiden (Holland) and Bolsward (Friesland), and the question was: would you like to see more international cooperation within Europe?
Right after the war, people responded positive. Effect? Establishment of the EU with all that comes with it. It is totally divorced from any sense of the meaning of people.
And this is what these assclowns always pull. When reading the basis for international law, it is what countries bilaterally or multilatery agree about for the time being.
It is interesting to note, that once a choice is made, going back on it is a drag. See Brexit. So, even though a contract may contain language that allows for reversal, in practice it is hardly doable. And this is done on purpose.
acknowledgement of Sovereingity
When you read about the Second world war, 1940, you see a lot of governments in exile converging upon London. See also Allied Powers Act. So, in terms of application, international law is merely practical, working with the current political reality. How to read it? The book over at loc.gov: Control Authority contains a very interesting declaration regarding Germany June 1945: the persecution of will and the power to resist it.
That is international law.
In this world there are many people declaring sovereignty according to the Treaty of Montevideo 1930, which is delcarative, but post world war II this amounts to:
And in case of 3, issuing a statement of odiousness will incur the wrath of the EMPIRE OF DEBT SLAVERY.
In other words: although with the lips individual sovereignty is recognized, that in the aggregate by free and fair elections among a people (NATION) , a state gains sovereignty, in practice (power & debt) negates this, and effects subordination to the international rules based consensus order. If a people refuses, their sovereignty is not recognized by the signatories of the Montevideo Treaty of 1930.
final note
Hence, it all depends on practical circumstances and the grander geopolitical interest, despite the lofty ideas.
The nucleus of the problem is that a body, like a state, or a corporation for that matter, cannot do anything without the life and breath given to it by people.
It is interesting to contemplate the Revelation wording: an image was made of the wild beast. If those itmes are replaced by state or corporation, it becomes comprehensible how people worship it, mislead by propaganda, or even giving it life and breath.
Why? Without people it does not exist. Not even with AI it can. It all depends on people's choice to comply.
And what happens when people refuse compliance? See Iran.
Interesting. For myself, I see most legal systems converging towards laws that make criminals out of people for merely existing, and causing angst, worry, strife, and distraction, with the end goal of that one world government that's going to solve all the problems (and get rid of anyone opposing it). Meanwhile, the banking systems run the show from the shadows.
Yep: UNIDROIT another one of those globalist cocksucking entities and USA juduciary has been introducing alien concepts, like rights given by God and protected by the Constitution are relative at best and subject to the rights of a strong executive & judiciary.
There are a lot of countries with smaller militaries than ours. What are the we waiting for? If we get to work, I bet we could conquer half of them by the end of the year.
We can’t even control our own blue cities