The International Criminal Court has only been around since 2002. However, the concept is older. Ostensibly, it’s about adjudicating war crimes and genocide, but the idea goes back to the tribunals at Nuremberg. This was mostly a Jewish operation. Although it’s famed now through their dishonest promotion, it was criticized by prominent Americans at the time as being a flagrant violation of justice.

For one thing, under a fair legal code, a crime must violate a law that existed prior to the commission of the crime. Not so with Nuremberg. Moreover, a confession obtained under threats and torture doesn’t constitute sufficient proof of guilt. It actually amounts to a reasonable doubt the accused isn’t guilty.

Third, why is something that transpires in a war criminal conduct if you lose but not if you win? One could easily make a case that any single crime corroborated by a German confession was no worse than the firebombing of Dresden, which became a signature tactic of the winning side holding the tribunals.

Starvation in concentration camps occurred under German custody, but that was in conjunction with German starvation due to blockade and bombing. Not so with the side holding the tribunals, which deliberately killed millions of Germans after the war.

If the goal is cost-effective extermination, simply put the victims in an open field and deny them sustenance. Quickly, they will lose the strength to resist and perish. The Allies proved this obvious concept using German POWs in camps on the Rhine after the war was over. There’s no need to gas anyone or build an elaborate industrial complex the size of a city.

Israel expects the leaders of the free world to stand firmly against the ICC outrageous assault on Israel’s inherent right of self-defense. We expect them to use all the means at their disposal to stop this dangerous move. pic.twitter.com/mZB85XbnSd

— Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו (@netanyahu) May 1, 2024

“they were set up to prevent such horrors, to prevent future genocides” – What he means these courts are there to punish those standing up to Jews, not to prevent Jews from conducting a genocide. He’s correct that this is outrageous to Jews.The whole point of these legal mechanisms is for Jews to use them against their victims, not prosecuting cannibals from Africa. That’s what provokes such blind rage out of Jews. These are their weapons of their contrivance, not what their enemies get to use against them. These standards set out by Jews were never meant to be applied objectively to Jews.

Also, the notion that Jews can be held accountable for their actions elicits hysteria all on its own. This is a key part of their psychology and also their Satanic religion. If you listen to the video above, such dynamics are at play behind the sheer hypocrisy and unreality of his arguments.

If you get angry and start yelling at someone, what’s your dog going to do in response? Just sit there and wag his tail or start barking and growling at the guy? There are campaign donations, the Scofield Bible, etc. On a basic level though, this is what’s going on with our Republican officials and the ICC.

It’s best to interpret the threat letter they sent to the ICC from this angle. I’m quite skeptical they possess a grasp of history and the Jews any firmer than your dog’s grasp of what’s going on with you.

"You have been warned…"

12 Republican senators sent a letter threatening Karim Khan and others at the International Criminal Court not to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and other key Israeli figures over their genocidal campaign in Gaza. pic.twitter.com/8q7Q8NH0Dc

— MintPress News (@MintPressNews) May 7, 2024

Netanyahu has been going on and on about the Holocaust and how the ICC will prosecute Israel. However, the ICC hasn’t announced it’d be doing anything of the sort. In other words, Republican snarling is entirely at the behest of their masters. It’s not about the merits of a particular legal case. Apparently, this threat letter against the court was from April but the public is finding out about it now.

Important to note as well is the universal legal principle that threatening the personnel of a court and their families isn’t how a case should be contested unless you’re Pablo Escobar. Collective punishment is against international law so threatening someone’s family for any reason would be a violation.

Statement of the #ICC Office of the Prosecutor pic.twitter.com/Cw331pMcDm

— Int'l Criminal Court (@IntlCrimCourt) May 3, 2024

When Jews claim there’s no moral equivalence between what Jews are doing and what anyone else has done in the past, bear in mind this has a dual meaning beyond the obvious inference that Jews should be above criticism. What they’re referring to is “moral equivalence.” You might’ve noticed they invoke this phrase quite a bit.

As Jews believe themselves alone to have souls and the rest of us to be merely disposable cattle, anything done to Jews is immeasurably worse than anything else which has ever been done to anyone else or that Jews could ever possibly do to anyone else. Whether the offense against Jews was made up by Jews isn’t the salient issue. Jewish hypocrisy can’t exist according to their understanding of reality.

Following this Satanic line of reasoning, none of the rest of us have any legitimate interests of our own. Thus, nothing a Jew could do to us would constitute a legitimate transgression. That’s how we get the bizarre sophistry entailed in the “working definition of antisemitism” from the IHRA which has overwhelming bipartisan support to become law in America:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

This could mean anything and thus absolutely includes every single Jewish value, action, or aspect of their influence. This is quite simple to understand, but they provide elaboration to make it seem like some other principle is at work. Here’s an example:

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

So, you can criticize Israel if you’re not:

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

What this means is that since no other democratic nation has pushed 2 million people off their land and confined them in an open-air prison zone, which it’s now methodically leveling without regard to human life using American aerial bombs and demolition operations by soldiers, Israel can’t be accused of this because that would constitute antisemitism.

So, in order to not be antisemitic one would have to accuse another democratic nation of the aforementioned set of transgressions, and next criticize Israel for also committing these transgressions that the other democratic nation isn’t committing. In other words, you must negate your entire original point and present yourself as a schizophrenic.

There’s no way to reconcile Jewish power and behavior to reality. No sophistry renders this possible. The problem is compounded by their escalating misdeeds at this stage of the current iteration and the consequences for everyone else, most of whom eventually can’t help but notice. Jews are running out of time.

The post Moral Equivalence appeared first on Identity Dixie.