We were won: how to take back our freedom?
This is an excerpt from a conversation in a chat regarding the topic of how to free ourselves from the gang of bankers who have already made us servants for years.
…… We can not simply win back our own territory with weapons, because as well as being bankrupt it is also impossible on a legal level. Infatti il diritto di conquista di uno stato non vale più dal 1840 (why you made false annexation plebiscites were pre-unification of the Savoy family), so for free we must refer back to the pre-unification situation between 1840 and the 1861 (for Italy) E 1866 only for the Lombard-Venetian. From this point of view the “peoples” (for legal purposes) are not those identified by language and culture (as stated in the principle of self-determination), but they must be taken as Home residents of states that existed (as he wanted the principle of self-government). If then today within each state there are additional claims (see Sicily) è un problema interno che si può prevedere nella costituzione del nuovo governo provvisorio nel momento in cui si decide di rivendicare la nostra libertà invasa. The peoples will be consulted, but certainly not at this stage of employment and plagiarism in which they are indolent and distracted, essentially, if anything, cheering for the enemy that enslaves them. Aspettarsi dal popolo la coscienza degli statisti non è realistico. The peoples must be consulted, but only once rightly restored the legitimate government with so much of its territory control. Ma tutto deve essere fatto alla luce del sole e pacificamente nel nome del diritto di sovranità invasa, state invaded. It takes so first of all a ruling class that you take the trouble, claiming a right, to replace the current, first legally and peacefully, but before or after the fact. E’ Another true that international law, for example that of self-determination, enters the Italian constitution through Article 10, but in fact the Italian government does not respect the Constitution. Per cui è inutile appellarsi al diritto di autodeterminazione tanto più se manca il riconoscimento legale dell’esistenza del popolo. For this it is necessary to refer to the pre-unification jurisdictions, It has been invaded illegally. Ma se si parte dalla legittimità dell’Italia, like the pseudo-independence parties that are candidates, non c’è speranza di cambiamento legale, perché il sistema legalmente lo impedisce. Solo dimostrando la illegalità dell’attuale sistema si può pensare e sperare di uscirne. Only declaring invader, quale è, c’è speranza di tornare alla libertà rubata. Si può fare anche un discorso antropologico, as do politicians, ma non si va oltre il bla bla politicante che non può portare a nulla di fatto, perché il sistema attuale, based on media control by the bankers, It puts the policy to do anything specifically, in a theater built at a table. The parties make their way and are visible only when the system controls them. Except for a few sporadic appearances of the uncontrolled just to give the impression of being free. However anthropologically there is no Italian people but many different peoples in geographic Italy, a series of nations, that may coexist in a confederal system as is the case for example in Belgium. As with other was foreseen by the Treaty of Zurich 1859 violated by Piedmont. Surely the nations are Venetian and Sardinian, for millennia, and the Venetians in particular have never been invaded up to 1797. The other people I do not push myself to define them, each define them as believed by its sociological or political point of view. Rather, I propose not to even enter in a speech that the face of anthropology the basis of political discourse, you end up with talk of DNA, si finisce per escludere dall’identità nazionale coloro che non sono della religione storica, e questo non solo non è il caso, ma è pure vietato dalla convenzioni internazionali.
La questione di come riprendersi la libertà è molto più semplice : you want your freedom? Ti è stata fregata illegalmente nel 1861 The 1866 : allora perché non la richiedi indietro?
The way there, non è facendo un partito. la via è legale e pacifica, è un tuo diritto che però devi esercitare insieme agli altri, è nostro diritto umani, and organizing we can free us at a stroke of bankers and thieves rulers, although they will continually recur in history as soon as we give them the chance.
totally reserved Reproduction
Marco
3 July 2016 @ 17:29
Dear Loris Palmerini,
could you please explain how could an international court, composed of judges who belong to states with which Italy itself is allied e, Consequently, with interests totally opposed to cause it harm in a ruling of this kind, condemn Italy to leave the territory of a pre-unification state with a lot of compensation for damage from occupation? lei, then, It is aware that in Europe there have been several plebiscites annexation, and therefore, with a judgment of this kind, European states should go against their own interests through its judges at the International Tribunal, since then all the annexes were with this system would claim the same thing? She argues that the right of conquest is not worth the 1840, but my understanding is that the two world wars and in the years to come there were significant territorial changes that occurred as a result of armed conflicts.
loris
4 July 2016 @ 11:50
Marco,
question azzeccattissima!
The fact is that the international peace (and war) Today they hold on just a few principles:
1) territorial integrity : Each state has the right to remain intact, except when the central government is illegal or dictatorial or makes the violation of human rights
2) Human rights: a government that does not respect human rights, (it should) be replaced with intervention from the international community, provided there is international consensus (then a resolution of the UN Security Council – but where there are vetoes)
3) law: the case decided in a way that is erga omnes, that also applies to all other
In short words, if the International Court dared to certify that the invasion of a sovereign state can become legitimate, moreover subjecting the occupied people to a system of destruction of its culture and its languages, jump the first and second law because the judgment would become valid for all. Then nothing would hold up peace, the great powers would begin now to go shopping states, invasions, and soon it would lead to confrontation between them, ie total war. For example, the US would invade Canada and Mexico and throughout the Americas, Russia, Europe and half Asia, China would invade India, Japan and Australia, Africa would become an Islamic protectorate with the Middle East…… do you think this richierebbero ?
In addition to remember, Marco expensive, that human rights prevail (in laws) on the interests of the states and the constitutions, and what is wrong to decay.
However, there is a fact: THERE IS NO LEGAL annexation THE LOMBARDO-VENETO, Italy itself has canceled it (of our international pressure) in December 2010, with law enforcement from 2013, and can no longer be rivalidata. So how could they give us wrong?
Moreover, each territory has its history, its specificities . for example, while it is always possible for an ex-state to hold a referendum to return sovereign, such as did Scotland and can do the Lombardo-Veneto, so it is not for “regions” Italian, that are fictitious administrative entities without international political power or have only one delegated and therefore not sovereign.
I answered?
Marco
4 July 2016 @ 17:24
Not entirely!
She claims that as of 1840 It is in force the right to speak of the people on the fate of their states. However, I could not find anything on the net that I confirm the existence of this law (or at least, I assume is an international law on how she talks about it). Could you give me directions on where to find this information? The right to territorial integrity, to my knowledge, was sanctioned for the first time only after the First World War.
As for human rights, their recognition is not equally considered and consequently realized by all states, but yet, although there is full knowledge and awareness of a thing of this kind, no state and no international organization intervenes to solve such situations, because each population, according to their beliefs and values, It has its own conception of what the human rights deserving of protection.
Returning to the annexation of Lombardy and Veneto, I find it very hard for an international court to sentence an illegitimacy of Italian sovereignty over its territory, the fact that the Second World War have been decided and redrawn the boundaries of states and, less than a third world war, these borders will remain as they are to those existing now.
She claims that the Lombardo-Veneto can legally, and then validly in the current state, hold a referendum as a former state, but this statement does not seem incorrect? They are existing states to be able to hold consultations, as in the case of Scotland, which it is a state that still exists, not the former states, otherwise any government that constitute the historical continuation of a state existed in earlier times could claim a right of this kind and we would constantly territorial changes.
It must also be taken into account that the UN itself has not been able to resolve rather serious situations from the humanitarian point of view and the stability of the territories., as in the case of Kosovo, with a resolution that confirms it as an integral part of Serbia despite the recognition of almost the entire world of its independence and sovereignty , with the European Union wants even associarselo, or in the case of Crimean, recognized as an integral part of Ukraine, yet it annexed by Russia and now an integral part of the latter in effect. It 's really sure geopolitics you remain out of a possible cause for the restoration of the Lombardo-Veneto? Historically, for geopolitical interests we have also arrived to flout international treaties, So it is conceivable that an outcome of a lawsuit of this type?
I have never had any doubts about the absolute groundlessness and consequent illegality of the referendum process in the Veneto region.