|
|---|
Friday, 1 July 2011
Feds sue New Berlin for racism, Beloit Daily News, 24 June 2011:MILWAUKEE (AP) — The U.S. government has filed a lawsuit alleging New Berlin city officials caved to pressure from their largely white community by deciding not to build low-income housing that could attract more black families.
The government is deliberately attempting to inflict conditions that will bring about the physical destruction of a White community in Wisconsin.
The very first reader comment on the story offers forthright support for that community:Kevin wrote on Jun 25, 2011 9:27 AM:
The very next reader comment is a weasel-worded anti-White response:
" Its Their lives, their town, their 'pursuit of happiness'. The government has not right to tell these people who they should think, how they should live. I hope they stand up and resist this invasion. "Red Rock wrote on Jun 27, 2011 1:24 AM:
Red Rock thinks it's OK to destroy a White community in Wisconsin today because, when you get down to what's really important, they remind him how much he hates blond-haired blue-eyed people no matter when or where they are.
" That's right Kevin! You go! For example, if the town has designs on only blue-eyed and blond haired residents that are Protestants, then that is their riight! Oh, wait. Wasn't that tried in the 1940's in Germany? Nevermind. On second thought Kevin, you're all wrong on this one. "
For more details and another anti-White view see Racism's Ugly Face in Wisconsin, Courthouse News Service, by Lisa Buchmeier, 23 June 2011:MILWAUKEE (CN) - Housing developers say the mayor of New Berlin buckled to racist pressure and shut down an affordable housing project. To "save his political career," the builders say, the mayor, who is not racist himself, truckled to community fears that affordable housing would draw minorities to the city, which is 93.3 percent white.
At one meeting, a member of the public commented, "If being against low-income housing makes me a racist and a bigot, then I guess I am a racist and a bigot," according to the complaint.
Four days later Buchmeier followed up with Feds Take on Racism in Wisconsin:
The developers say the bigotry stems from "the perceived lower socio-economic status of many minority group members and because of the demographic disparity between Waukesha County ... and neighboring Milwaukee County."After changing his vote, Chiovatero wrote an open letter to all residents: "In 2010, when the Section 42 Workforce housing came to public attention, it was clear that the nearby residents did not want this project to go forward. In support of the residents, I have since researched a means to halt the project. I am committed to focusing on what suitable options are available. The City Staff and I have found justification for discontinuing the project and will now be focusing on alternatives."
The clear intent and effect of the government subsidizing and ultimately imposing the construction of "affordable housing" - a dishonest code-word everyone knows means disproportionately non-White housing - in a majority White community is to inflict conditions that will bring about the physical destruction of that community, in whole or in part. This destruction is being imposed over the explicit, earnest objections of community members who have expressed legitimate, reasonable fears. The government is aided and abetted by media reports blithely pathologizing and demonizing those who oppose this destruction.
But the plaintiff United States of America says that New Berlin's "application of its zoning and land use laws have the intent and effect of discriminating against prospective black tenants and residents of New Berlin."
Here's another report. U.S. accuses New Berlin of racial bias in housing decision, Journal Sentinel, 23 June 2011: From the start, some objectors expressed concern that prospective tenants would be African-Americans or other minorities and used racially derogatory terms to refer to them, or implied racial bias as the reason for objecting to the development, according to the complaint.
Finally, here's an article that sheds some light on the government's history of imposing non-White housing in White neighborhoods in the Milwaukee area. South Milwaukee, developer settle apartment bias issue, Journal Sentinel, 27 June 2011:
The complaint cites correspondence that mentioned "white flight," crime, drugs, slums, gangs, families with 10 or 15 kids, needing "to get a gun," not wanting New Berlin to turn into Milwaukee, moving to New Berlin "to get away from the poor people," not wanting to provide housing to people "who work but do not live here." Some writers also used racially derogatory terms for African-Americans.
New Berlin, a city of about 39,000, is 95% white, according to the lawsuit.In 1992, developers bought land at what is now 3344 Marina Road with the intent of building the apartments, some of which would serve lower income and disabled residents.
Earlier in the same article we find the sad precendent and likely outcome for New Berlin:
The following year, after citizen opposition mounted, the city imposed a moratorium on building permits for Lake Bluff and then rezoned the land from multifamily to single-family housing.
In 1994, a Milwaukee County circuit judge ordered the city to issue building permits for Lake Bluff. By 1995, construction was complete and residents had moved in.
But in November 1995, the state Supreme Court ruled in the city's favor, saying the judge's order on the building permits should not have been issued.
Nearly five years later, in June 2000, the city won another court ruling, ordering the developer to tear down the two Lake Bluff buildings.The long-running South Milwaukee dispute once saw the city attempting to raze the Lake Bluff Apartments complex, which includes affordable housing. About one-third of the complex's residents have been minorities. The city's population was 1% black by the 2000 census.
In the predominant narrative of the anti-White regime non-Whites are presented as innocent victims who are just looking for a better life for themselves. Whites who could just as easily be seen in such a positive light are instead regularly depicted as greedy, selfish, ignorant and evil. De facto segregation is presented as a problem, with compulsory government-imposed integration as the solution. The anti-White nature of the regime is confirmed by the casual sinister, cynical regard aimed specifically at Whites and which is dominant among the perpetrators and apologists in positions of power and authority in government, law and media.
In July 2009, a federal jury found that razing the property would have a disproportionate effect on minority and disabled residents and would be in violation of the federal Fair Housing Act.
South Milwaukee officials had said they sought to raze the buildings because it violated the city's zoning, and not with the purpose of discriminating. The parties have been negotiating for more than a year, with U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman mediating.
Provisions of the settlement, according to lawyers, include:
The two buildings of Lake Bluff, at 3344 Marina Road, will not be torn down, and the complex will continue its mix of 25 affordable-housing units and 31 market-rate units until 2025.
Keep this in mind the next time you hear someone who hates Whites moralizing about White "bigotry" and "racism": no matter how many people oppose it, segregation isn't genocide, and no matter how many people support it, compulsory integration is.
(The image is taken from New Berlin City Council meets for first since federal gov. filed lawsuit, Gamut News, 29 June 2011. Embedded on that page is a video of local Fox News affliate coverage.)
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Date: September 3, 2010 SENT VIA REGISTERED MAIL: Sept. 3, 2010 TO: Ms. Navanethem (Navi) Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights OHCHR address: Mailing address: Email: InfoDesk@ohchr.org Website: www.ohchr.org FROM: Terry Graham on behalf of European-American Christians RE: Formal Complaint Charging the U.S. Federal Government with the Crime of Genocide of European-American Christians. “There is no greater sorrow on earth than the loss of one’s native land.” Euripides, 431 BC, posted on the United Nations Human Rights website: www.unhch.ch Dear Ms. Pillay: I hereby file a formal complaint with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, charging the United States’ Federal government with violating human rights laws by intentionally committing GENOCIDE against myself and other European-American Christians through its immigration laws, policies and procedures, including failures to enforce existing laws. I further charge that U.S. Federal immigration laws, policies and procedures – and actions and lawsuits filed by the Federal government against individuals and States including, but not limited to, Arizona with the result of continuing the intentional GENOCIDE of European-America Christians -- violate the U.N. Genocide Convention of 1948, international customary law, international treaty law, and U.S. law. Because the ongoing destruction of the European-American Christian population is a serious legal, moral, cultural, social, religious, political and economic issue, and a matter of the survival of my people, and because the pace of that destruction is escalating, I petition the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to promptly investigate this charge of GENOCIDE, and to make an immediate formal request of the United States federal government to place a judicial stay on all immigration laws, policies, procedures, lawsuits and legal actions that advance this GENOCIDE. This stay must halt all admissions into the U.S. of all non-European/Christian immigrants, refugees, asylees, parolees, foreign students, temporary workers, etc. until the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights can complete a thorough investigation of this claim, and take immediate, appropriate steps to remedy this egregious situation. In 1960, European-American Christians constituted nearly 90 percent of the U.S. population. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by as early as 2050, well within the lifespan of today’s children, European-Americans will be reduced to less than 50 percent of the U.S. population. Rafael Lemkin, creator of the term “GENOCIDE” defined it as follows: “Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean destruction of a nation… It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups. Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and the actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity but as members of a national group.” The U.N. Genocide Convention, Article II, Section C defines GENOCIDE in part as, “Deliberately inflicting on the group (national, ethnic, racial, or religious) conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. (Citations on relevant international customary and treaty law, as well as U.S. federal law and legal decisions, are provided below.) Legal remedies for the crime of GENOCIDE include “reparations” as defined by international law that “…must wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed.” Therefore, I further petition the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to immediately demand that the Federal government of the United States take immediate steps to re-establish the European-American Christian population relative to the current U.S. population to its demographic size -- 90 percent – on December 9, 1948, the day on which international customary law against GENOCIDE took effect. If the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights refuses to investigate and act upon my complaint of GENOCIDE, I must conclude that: (1) international law and human rights law are no longer binding on the United States of America federal government, or (2) European-American Christians, alone, are not protected by these laws. Please respond in writing to my complaint without delay, no later than September 30, 2010. Θ Euro-American Christians Devastated by Non-European/Non-Christian Immigration Background of Complaint Charging U.S. Federal Immigration Laws, Policies, and Procedures Result in GENOCIDE of European-American Christians: The effect of U.S. immigration policy since 1965, when -- for the first time in our nation’s history – the U.S. Congress permitted massive non-European immigration, has been to perpetrate GENOCIDE against the nation’s European-American Christian majority. The term “GENOCIDE” is defined here by: (1) International customary law, (2) International treaty law, and (3) U.S. federal law. Today, Federal immigration policy is “deliberately inflicting on” European-American Christians, “…conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction in whole or in part,” one of the definitions of GENOCIDE set forth in the U.N. Genocide Convention of 1948. [Article II also defines GENOCIDE as: “(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” and (d) “Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”, which would include taxation policies that penalize and impose undue financial hardships upon European-American Christians, while providing tax-subsidized services for non-European, non-Christian illegal aliens and immigrants.] Under international law, the following acts are punishable offenses: “conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide, attempt to commit genocide, or complicity in genocide.” To reiterate: Legal remedies for the crime of GENOCIDE include “reparations” as defined by international law that “must wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act and to re-establish the situation which would, in all probability, have existed if that act had not been committed.” Θ European-American Christians Devastated by Non-European/Non-Christian Immigration In a speech on immigration and its impact upon U.S. demographics, President Bill Clinton in June 1998 said that, “In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States.” President Clinton’s public acknowledgement that the ongoing, intentional destruction of the nation’s European-American Christian majority was underway revealed that this destruction would continue until this majority (90 percent) national group was reduced to a minority. That is, Pres. Bill Clinton acknowledged the crime of GENOCIDE and did nothing to stop it; all Presidents since Clinton – in fact since Lyndon Johnson – have acted to expedite this GENOCIDE. This unprecedented devastation of our nation’s majority population during peace time is confirmed by our national Census. In 1960, the Census found European-Americans were 89 percent of the nation’s population, compared with 81 percent in the 1790 Census, and eight-point increase that took more than 100 years. Yet the 1990 Census found the proportion of “white” had been reduced to 75 percent of the nation’s population – an astonishing 14-point drop in just 30 years. (Note: Since the “white” Census category includes non-European, non-Christian whites from North Africa, the Middle East including Israel, and the former Soviet Union, and non-European Mexicans, South Americans – who comprise a significant number of immigrants – the true number of white Americans of European and Christian descent is likely far lower. (See, for example, the U.S. Department of Justice’s racial and ethnic categories and definition of “White”.) Citizens’ efforts to create a “European-American” category in the 2000 and 2010 Censuses were thwarted by federal officials. These and other Federal policies make it impossible to evaluate the true scale of GENOCIDE against European-American Christians. The 2010 Census failed to capture population figures for European-American Christians, demonstrating a double-standard because the Census questionnaires include many identifiers for the diverse racial, ethnic, and national origin of respondents who are not of European descent. The sharp demographic decline – GENOCIDE -- of European-American Christians is the direct result of immigration policies pursued by the U.S. government since 1965, resulting in 80 to 90 percent of all current legal immigrants coming from Third World sites such as Mexico and other parts of Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. More than 90 percent of all illegal aliens amnestied – that is, granted legal status – by the U.S. government also come from the Third World. And nearly all of the estimated 300,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens who settle each year in the U.S. are from the Third World. The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by as early as 2050, well within the lifespan of today’s children, European-American Christians will be reduced to less than 50 percent of the U.S. population. In California, European-Americans became a demographic minority by the year 1999, and will soon become a minority in Texas, Florida and New York. Despite grassroots efforts to stop present GENOCIDAL immigration policies and strong support expressed in every poll of citizens to steeply reduce – or halt – immigration and stop granting citizenship status to offspring of illegal aliens born in the U.S., Federal government actions are quickly reducing the European-American Christian population in this nation. Since 1965, the Federal immigration policies -- including recent legal actions and lawsuits filed against the State of Arizona and various individuals -- imposed upon the European-American Christian majority by the U.S. Government have been both illegal and unconstitutional, for the following reasons: #1 These policies violate international customary law against GENOCIDE, binding on the U.S. government since its adoption by the U.N. General Assembly on December 9, 1948. The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Volume 2, Section 702, d, [c] which recognizes international customary law against GENOCIDE, prohibits “Deliberately inflicting on the group (national, ethnical, racial, or religious) conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. While just one of the legal definitions of “group” must be met under this law, European-American Christians in fact meet at least two. Racially, we are white or Caucasian; ethnically we are European, 90 percent are Christians or ethnic Christians; and as 89 percent of the U.S. population in 1960, we defined the nation and shared a common origin. #2 U.S. Congress has recognized international customary law against GENOCIDE in U.S. Public Law 95-435. Enacted in 1978, Section 5 (b) states: “It is the sense of the Congress that the Government of the United States should take steps to disassociate itself from any foreign government which engages in the crime of genocide.” Since the Senate did not ratify the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention until 1988, and the foreign country specified in this law as guilty of genocide – Uganda -- also was not yet a signatory to the Convention, U.S. Public Law 95-435 can refer only to international customary law against GENOCIDE. By enacting this Public Law, Congress has recognized both the validity of international customary law against GENOCIDE and its applicability to acts of the Federal government. Federal, State and local governmental employees take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution and laws, which they are violating with intent. #3 The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 both recognizes international customary law and confers on Congress the power “to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.” #4 The U.S. Supreme Court has held international customary law binding on the U.S. government since Paquete Habana in 1900 (175 U.S. at 708). In that opinion, Justice Gray wrote, “…international law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination.” #5 In 1988, the U.S. Senate ratified the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention. Article II, Section C defines genocide in part as “Deliberately inflicting on the group (national, ethnical, racial, or religious) conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”. Article IV of the Convention guarantees the right to take legal action against the U.S. federal government and others for violating this law, stipulating that those who commit GENOCIDE, “…shall be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals.” #6 U.S. Federal immigration policies violate Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which states that “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.” #7 U.S. Federal immigration policies violate U.S. Public Law 100-606 which, in accordance with Article V of the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention, made the provisions of that Convention federal law. This statute amended Part 1 of Title 18 of the United States Code by inserting “Chapter 50A – Genocide”. Section 1091 (a) (4), defines GENOCIDE to include act(s) which “subjects the group (national, ethnical, racial, or religious) to conditions of life that are intended to cause the physical destruction of the group in whole or in part” in time of peace or war. #8 The U.S. Congress publicly and repeatedly declared that the 1965 Immigration Reform Act would not reduce the proportional size of the European-American majority population. U.S. Senator Robert Kennedy insisted that, “The distribution of limited quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States.” Sen. Kennedy added that, “… [This] should set to rest any fear that this bill will change the ethnic, political, or economic make-up of the United States.” U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy, floor manager of the 1965 immigration bill, stated at the onset of Senate hearings that, “The ethnic mix of this country will not be upset” by this legislation. In other words, Americans were assured repeated that 1965 changes in Federal immigration laws would not perpetrate GENOCIDE against the majority population at that time, i.e., European-American Christians. These assurances were misrepresentations – lies -- designed to obfuscate and confuse Americans on the planned GENOCIDE of European-American Christians which Pres. Clinton and others now freely acknowledge and advance with impunity. #9 U.S. immigration law, policies, and procedures violate human rights law and the rights of European-American Christians specifically. European-American Christians Devastated by Non-European/Non-Christian Immigration: Two Separate – Unequal & Unjust – U.S. Immigration Policies Since at least 1965, the U.S. Congress, the President and Executive Branch, and the judiciary have actively imposed massive Third World immigration upon the U.S., where European-American Christians have always been the majority population. In stark contrast to its domestic policies, the U.S. Congress, has actively opposed immigration policies that would upset the racial/ethnic makeup of five U.S. territories where non-European peoples form the majority populations – American Samoa, the Northern Marians, and the “Free Associated States” of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau – for the express purpose of preserving their respective ethnic majorities. These distinct, conflicting immigration policies – one for the United States, another for five U.S. territories – show that the U.S. Congress is well aware of the direct relationship between immigration and racial, ethnic and religious demographic shifts that can constitute GENOCIDE, and is destroying the nation’s European-American Christians, its racial-ethnic-religious demographic majority, deliberately with assistance from the Executive and Judicial branches of government. International law against GENOCIDE is jus cogens, that is it preempts, supersedes and nullifies any laws which violate its principles, including all current U.S. Federal immigration law, policies and procedures, legal actions and lawsuits that advance GENOCIDE. I hereby demand “reparations” as defined by international law, specifically: to restore the United States’ nation’s racial and ethnic mix in 1948, when the law against GENOCIDE took effect. Θ Overview of This Complaint and Remedies Sought: * U.S. immigration laws, policies and procedures violate human rights law against GENOCIDE * U.S. immigration laws, policies and procedures violate international and United Nations’ laws against GENOCIDE * U.S. immigration laws, policies and procedures violate U.S. laws against GENOCIDE * U.S. immigration law, policies, and procedures that are advancing GENOCIDE against European-American Christians are therefore null and void * The U.S. government must re-establish the European-American Christian population to its demographic size -- 90 percent relative to the current population -- as of December 9, 1948, the day on which international customary law against GENOCIDE took effect. * The U.S. government must immediately adopt and enforce an immigration policy which admits only ethnic Europeans until such time as the European-American population again constitutes 90 percent of the total U.S. population. The U.S. Federal government, with the full cooperation of State and local governments must also actively repatriate non-citizen immigrants to expedite that outcome. Θ European-American Christians Meet Legal Requirements for Standing European-American Christians meet the legal requirements for standing required to file this complaint: I and other European-American Christians have (a) suffered some actual or threatened injury, (b) this injury can be traced to the challenged official conduct of the U.S. Federal government and (c) there is a substantial likelihood the alleged injuries can be redressed by a judicial decision in their favor. Those injuries include, but are not limited to, 3000 murders by immigrants on September 11, 2001. European-American Christians satisfy the legal requirements for obtaining a stay since: (1) We can establish legal standing (2) We are suffering severe injuries from ongoing U.S. immigration policies, and (3) We can show that the benefits to the European-American Christian population of a stay on all offending U.S. immigration laws, regulations, and policies outweigh any possible adverse impact that such a stay could have on others. Θ U.S. Courts' Rulings on International Law U.S. Federal courts have a history of rulings based upon international customary law and international treaty law. In these cases, described below, neither the plaintiffs nor defendants were U.S. citizens or legal U.S. residents, nor did the alleged crimes occur in the United States or within its jurisdiction. Some Relevant Legal Citations: Filartiga v. Pena-Irala (1980) Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (623 F. Supp. 246) (1985) Forti v. Suarez-Mason (No. CD-87-2058-DLJ) (1988) Xuncax v. Gramajo (Civil Action No. 91-11564-DPW) (1995) Kadic v. Karadzic (Docket Nos. 94-9035, -9069) (1995) In summary, I ask that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights immediately act on my complaint, made on behalf of myself and other European-American Christians, investigating and acting upon my charge of GENOCIDE against the U.S. Federal government. As I stated earlier, if the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights refuses or fails to investigate and rule on my complaint that the U.S. Federal government’s laws, policies, procedures and other actions are an act of GENOCIDE against U.S. European-American Christians, we must conclude that: (1) Human rights and international law are no longer binding on the U.S. government and/or (2) European-American Christians, alone, are not protected by those laws. Thank you in advance for your immediate attention to this very serious matter, Respectfully, Terry Graham XXXXXXX EuroAmRights@hotmail.com California, US PS. This is the THIRD Complaint I have filed with your office, charging the United States of America’s Federal government with intentionally committing GENOCIDE against European-American Christians. I first filed a complaint 11 years ago during the Clinton administration on September 3, 1999 (sent via U.S. Post, Registered Mail #R732364784, received by your Geneva office on September 13, 1999). My second filing was made via email in 2007. Neither of your predecessors even acknowledged my earlier filings, which were similar to this. Given U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent filing with your office regarding international human rights law and the State of Arizona’s new immigration law, and U.S. President Obama and his administration in concert with the U.S. Department of Justice’s recent filing of lawsuits against the State of Arizona and Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arapaio – all of which actions may advance the illegal act of GENOCIDE outlined above -- I ask for your immediate and equally serious attention to this my complaint as that you give to Ms. Clinton’s filings.
To: euroamrights@hotmail.com
Subject: genocide complaint
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:52:26
I'm writing to verify that you are Terry Graham, and that you did indeed write the letter and press release referred to at the following links:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t741333/
http://www.whitenewsnow.com/forums/bob-whitakers-bbq/9328-genocide-complaint-filed-un.html
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2010/09/15/immigration-moving-the-goalposts/comment-page-1/#comment-80318
I'd like to ask a few questions with the intent to publish your answers, as well as your press release, on my blog - http://age-of-treason.blogspot.com/
Is there a public website or forum where the definitive version of your complaint is available, where you post status updates, or answer questions?
Why did you specifically identify "European-American Christians" as the target of genocide, rather than "European-Americans" in general?
Have you received any response from the UN? The US government? Representatives of news or media organizations?
What kind of response have you received from other groups or individuals? Questions? Opposition? Support?
TanstaaflFrom: T Graham (euroamrights@hotmail.com)
Attached to Terry's email was the following (in docx format, which I converted to html using OpenOffice):
Sent: Fri 9/17/10 12:01 PM
Subject: RE: genocide complaint
Yes, I did the filing and this email box was almost immediately shut down until this morning. It may be shut down again, so I will try to send this out.
I included "Christian" because that is what I am, and religious "groups" can be the target of genocide. You know of others who have made claims based on religious persecution/targeting.
I have no website to post the complaint, but you are welcome to do so. All anyone has to do is file the SAME filing, but putting their name and contact info at the end of the complaint. I hope others MAIL it to Geneva (REGISTERED to prove delivery).
The best we can do is wait and see. This is the THIRD time I have filed this complaint with the UN. (1999, 2007) and have never even received a response, though I have the receipt of delivery from 2007.
Hope this answers your questions. Please let others know that my EMAIL was BLOCKED for days, and I have not been able to even see who emailed me until this morning.
Terry Graham
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Palais Wilson
52 Rue des Pâquis
CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
I don't think Whites, Christian or not, have any cause to hope that the UN will speak in our favor. I commend and support Terry Graham's effort if only because it highlights for our own people the double standards for genocide.
While U.S. government policy has become genocidal toward Whites, and especially White Christians, its policy is to defend jews worldwide:The Office of the Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism (SEAS) advocates U.S. policy on anti-Semitism both in the U.S. and internationally. Anti-Semitism is discrimination against or hatred toward Jews. SEAS develops and implements policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism.
Why is that?
SEAS was established by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, and is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). DRL produces the State Department's annual reports on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom, and SEAS provides input on anti-Semitism for these reports.
Led by the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, DRL/SEAS welcomes information on anti-Semitic incidents, including personal and property attacks; government policies, including judicial/prosecutorial decisions and educational programs on the issue; and press and mass media reports.
Wednesday, 26 May 2010
At Gates of Vienna, Fjordman tells us Why I Write About History:I have published perhaps a million words on the Internet, yet the only book to appear in print so far based on my material is Defeating Eurabia, part of which is available online in German. For Scandinavian readers, I have contributed a long chapter in Norwegian to the book Selvmordsparadigmet (“The Suicide Paradigm”), published in May 2010 by the writer Ole J. Anfindsen who runs the website Honest Thinking.
The ruling ideology after the Second World War, especially from the 1960s on, is increasingly genocidally anti-White. The ideology demands self-abnegation from Whites for the purpose of protecting jews and other non-Whites. Under this regime Whites are pathologized and attacked for any attempt to organize or pursue our interests. Meanwhile non-White groups, both independently and collectively as "people of color", are encouraged to organize and pursue their interests.
Anfindsen believes that the Western world is in the process of committing suicide and that the ruling ideology after the Second World War, especially from the 1960s on, has been suicidal. I agree with him. The main emphasis of his book is not on Islam, but on Politically Correct censorship and the Multiculturalism of the Western oligarchs. The same goes for my contribution to it. No, I haven’t lost my focus, but I admit that I have changed it somewhat.
The ruling ideology is fundamentally dishonest. It was sold initially as a righteous step toward "non-discrimination" and "anti-racism" and has only gradually revealed itself as overtly discriminatory and anti-White.
I'm glad for Fjordman's shift. Something is wrong, but it isn't suicide. I left the following comment at GoV.suicide:
To call what's happening "suicide" flies in the face of the reality that many Whites are either ignorant of what's happening or continue to labor under the "non-discrimination" deception, and that others are subjected to punishment for speaking out in opposition. When a group of people is deliberately guided toward extinction by deception and coercion that's genocide, not suicide.
the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind
I have not decided to take my own life, not voluntarily, and not intentionally. Likewise for the vast majority of Whites, most of whom are afraid to have more than the vaguest thoughts about what has gone wrong. This situation is imposed - it is not voluntary.
We are betrayed by leaders who lie to us about what is happening and why. They are in a position to know the truth, and they have a duty to tell it, but they do not. Instead they tell us nothing is wrong, or that the symptoms of our "suicide" - genocidal levels of immigration and anti-White discrimination - are "strengths" to be "celebrated"! Only irrational, psychopathic "racists" think something is wrong.
If you're going to talk about this honestly instead of denying or lying about it like they do, then call it genocide. Don't add insult to our injury by slandering us as suicidal.
Friday, 19 March 2010
2010 U.S. Census Sample Form:8. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?
* No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
* Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
* Yes, Puerto Rican
* Yes, Cuban
* Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin — Print origin, for example, Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard, and so on.9. What is Person 1’s race? Mark one or more boxes.
Explanations provided by census.gov:
* White
* Black, African Am., or Negro
* American Indian or Alaska Native — Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.
* Asian Indian
* Chinese
* Filipino
* Japanese
* Korean
* Vietnamese
* Native Hawaiian
* Guamanian or Chamorro
* Samoan
* Other Pacific Islander - Print race, for example, Fijian, Tongan, and so on.
* Other Asian - Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on.
* Some other race - Print race.Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?
Celebratory media reporting on the predicted demise of the White majority - Minority births on track to outnumber white births | ajc.com:
Asked since 1970. The data collected in this question are needed by federal agencies to monitor compliance with anti-discrimination provisions, such as under the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State and local governments may use the data to help plan and administer bilingual programs for people of Hispanic origin.
What is Person 1's race?
Asked since 1790. Race is key to implementing many federal laws and is needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State governments use the data to determine congressional, state and local voting districts. Race data are also used to assess fairness of employment practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education and to plan and obtain funds for public services.Minorities make up nearly half the children born in the U.S., part of a historic trend in which minorities are expected to become the U.S. majority over the next 40 years.
In fact, demographers say this year could be the "tipping point" when the number of babies born to minorities outnumbers that of babies born to whites.
The numbers are growing because immigration to the U.S. has boosted the number of Hispanic women in their prime childbearing years. Minorities made up 48 percent of U.S. children born in 2008, the latest census estimates available, compared to 37 percent in 1990.Right now, roughly 1 in 10 of the nation's 3,142 counties already have minority populations greater than 50 percent. But 1 in 4 communities have more minority children than white children or are nearing that point, according to the study, which Johnson co-published.
Multiracial no longer boxed in by the Census - USATODAY.com:
That is because Hispanic women on average have three children, while other women on average have two. The numbers are 2.99 children for Hispanics, 1.87 for whites, 2.13 for blacks and 2.04 for Asians in the U.S. And the number of white women of prime childbearing age is on the decline, dropping 19 percent from 1990.When Barack Obama was elected the nation's first black president in 2008, some academics and political analysts suggested the watershed event could represent the dawning of a post-racial era in a land that has struggled over race relations for four centuries.
The image above comes from Rise in Minorities Is Led by Children, Census Finds - New York Times.
At the same time, growing ethnic and racial diversity fueled by record immigration and rates of interracial marriages have made the USA's demographics far more complex. By 2050, there will be no racial or ethnic majority as the share of non-Hispanic whites slips below 50%, according to Census projections.
"It's showing that tomorrow's children and their children will in fact be multiracial, leading to a potential post-racial society," says William Frey, demographer at the Brookings Institution.
"The issue isn't just multirace," says Census historian Margo Anderson, professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. "It's the blurring of the very traditional black vs. white. Categories that held until about 1980 are shifting in large numbers. … The clarity is breaking down."
Disparate Impact provides the legal justification to "monitor compliance", "assess fairness", and "monitor racial disparities", discriminating in favor of "protected classes":Under Title VII of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, plaintiffs may sue employers who discriminate on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, or national origin. Employers who intentionally discriminate are obvious candidates for a lawsuit, but the courts also allow plaintiffs to prove liability if the employer has treated classes of people differently using apparently neutral employment policies. The disparate impact theory of liability will succeed if the plaintiff can prove that these employment policies had the effect of excluding persons who are members of Title VII's protected classes. Once disparate impact is established, the employer must justify the continued use of the procedure or procedures causing the adverse impact as a "business necessity."
This legal theory has the effect of excluding Whites.
The Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide:What is genocide?
The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) defines genocide (article 2) as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group…” including:
1. (a) Killing members of the group;
2. (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
All such acts are violations of human rights, and may also be crimes against humanity or war crimes, depending on the context in which they were committed. The Convention confirms that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or war, is a crime under international law which parties to the Convention undertake “to prevent and to punish” (article 1). Because it is a part of international customary law the Convention is considered applicable in all countries, irrespective of whether they have signed or ratified it.The Convention further states the following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d ) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. Article 4 Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.
Mass immigration and anti-White legal theories of "protected classes" are genocidal. Whether the intent was initially anti-discrimination or not is irrelevant. The result, made plain by census monitoring, is the physical destruction of the native White population.
Saturday, 13 March 2010
Gates of Vienna: Ethnically Cleansing the English, by Paul Weston:To become an ethnic minority in your own country over just a few decades suggests that government policy, as has recently been revealed, was indeed to ethnically cleanse the English from their homeland, although the multiculturalists who committed this wicked act of treason and betrayal never couched it in quite such plain language, preferring instead to frame mass immigration as a means of achieving social objectives.
These figures are not hysterical, nor are they the obtained from the research of paranoid periodicals. In 2007 The Guardian reported that Britain was heading toward a population of 70 million by 2031, but did not mention that the addition of an extra 10 million people whilst the indigenous population was simultaneously declining and emigrating required the importation of an awful lot more than just an extra 10 million immigrants.
Indeed, the liberals and the leftists are only too aware the indigenous population is being ethnically cleansed. In 2000 The Guardian predicted a white minority Britain by 2100, therefore tacitly admitting acceptance of population replacement, but erring only on the time frame necessary to achieve racial cleanliness.Fjordman said...
Terms such as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" should not be used lightly, but Paul Weston is unfortunately entirely correct here: What is happening with the native white population throughout Western Europe is a purposeful, state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing. The only thing that's unique about Britain is that key members of the ruling party openly admit this, in writing. What Andrew Neather probably didn't realize when he said this was that he inadvertently laid the basis for a new Nuremberg process where Multiculturalism is listed as an ideology with the stated intention of the physical destruction of whites everywhere. As such it constitutes an organized crime against humanity.
NATO, led by the USA, bombed the Serbs for "ethnic cleansing," thereby facilitating the Islamic ethnic cleaning of Christians in the Balkans. So, if the Western Multicultural oligarchs are against ethnic cleansing, I guess they must now bomb Britain, where the authorities have publicly admitted that they are deliberately destroying the native population of their country. So why isn't that happening? Could it be because similar anti-white policies are followed in all white majority Western nations without exception?
It's time we realize that the humiliation, dispossession and gradual destruction of whites, from Canada to Sweden, is not the accidental result of a failed policy but the deliberate result of an evil policy, the largest campaign of ethnic cleansing in recorded world history. An this is happening in the "free and democratic West." If "democracy" means the genocide of your people then what the hell is it good for?Fuchur said...
Terms such as "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" should not be used lightly, but Paul Weston is unfortunately entirely correct here
I cannot take someone serious who uses the words "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" in that context. Just look at the word "genocide": "Killing" is part of the word. Now when, say, a black woman immigrates to GB and then gives birth to a child there - how is that in ANY way related to KILLING somebody??? I can only shake my head in disbelief at the vile twisted minds that could come up with such a warped comparison. Even Orwell would be baffled at that crazy attempt at Doublespeak: giving birth = killing. Ingenious.
This is racism, in it's purest and simplest form. Period. Now, you could maybe try and make the point that racism isn't all that bad and so on... but please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that this isn't racisim. Really. It's just too ridiculous...Paul Weston said...
The genocidal regime in Britain, and indeed in all White countries, agrees with Fuchur.
@Fuchur
Curious name, curious morals.
You read an article pointing out the territorial and cultural displacement of a race of people, and your response is to make the accusation of racism.
You must hate the white race with a passion!
The UN definition of genocide quoted does not include the word “killing” and nor do I make such an association in my article.
I imagine you have an extremely short attention span, so will repeat the UN definition of genocide for you, and the UN rights of indigenous peoples.
“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…”
“Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.”
“Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;”
You see, no mention of the word killing...
Perhaps a simple yes or no question might be in order.
Do you think the UN declarations above should be applied to the indigenous English?
Yes or no.
Failure to respond might well lead people to think you a rather silly fuchur.
BNP 'whites-only' membership rules outlawed | Politics | guardian.co.uk:Judge agrees with human rights watchdog that British National party's rewritten criteria for joining are still racist
In a landmark injunction at the Central London county court, a judge found that the BNP's membership policy remained discriminatory, even after a direct whites-only clause was removed last month.
The judge, Paul Collins, ordered the BNP to remove two clauses from its constitution as they were indirectly racist towards non-white would-be members.While one offending clause is largely an administrative matter – a requirement that all new members agree to a vetting visit from BNP officials, something the judge found could intimidate non-white applicants – the other spells out core beliefs.
Our enemies see concern for the interests of indigenous Whites as "racist", and not being "racist" against alien interlopers takes precedence over the desire of native Whites to ensure our very existence. That they have the power to legalize their crimes does not absolve them of responsibility.
This is a requirement for members to believe in the "continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence" of an indigenous British race and action towards "stemming and reversing" migration.
Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Illegal immigrant population in Georgia doubles, confirms changing migration trends - latimes.com:In the years since [the Olympic Games came to Atlanta in 1996], the number of illegal immigrants living in Georgia has skyrocketed, more than doubling to 480,000 from January 2000 to January 2009, according to a new federal report. That gave Georgia the greatest percentage increase among the 10 states with the biggest illegal immigrant populations during those years.
The article concerns a new federal report, but it does not link it, provide a title, or reveal which government agency produced it. I checked google news and the top immigration websites I know and couldn't find any other mention of it. The main purpose of this AP article is put a positive spin on immigration.
The main point of the article is that immigration is good for "the economy". This claim was dubious even before the housing/securitization pyramid scheme collapsed. It is beyond mendacious now."In a way it could be a sort of badge of success to have a higher undocumented immigrant population" because it means the economy is strong, [Demographer William] Frey [of the Brookings Institution] said.
Hospitals closing, prisons overflowing, schools failing, higher taxes, more graffiti, White flight, all brought by an alien underclass that resents the formerly safe communities to which they have immigrated. None of this would be different if their immigration were legal. Obviously aliens think immigrating is good for them, otherwise they wouldn't do it and they wouldn't stay. The problem is that what is good for them or "the economy" isn't good for the rest of us.
The article concludes with this gem:"The only way you're going to get the illegal immigrant population in Georgia to go down is to legalize them or get rid of the jobs," said Dowell Myers, a specialist in demographic trends at the University of Southern California.
The jobs, and that excuse for immigration, are gone. But hey, we can still use this brilliant specialist's logic to solve all our other problems. Let's start by reducing the murder, rape, and robbery rates by legalizing murder, rape and robbery or getting rid of the victims.
The people propagandizing in favor of immigrants and "the economy" are aiding and abetting our displacement and dispossession. It's genocide. That they do it for profit or prestige and have the intelligence and power to define it as legal does not excuse this, it makes it worse.
Saturday, 10 October 2009
It honors the memory of a jewish mega-donor's grandparents.
This is an old story that isn't as widely known as it deserves to be. Brenda Walker touched on it recently in The Van Jones Fiasco—How Low Can Lefty Greens Go?
The Man Behind The Land:David Gelbaum has shunned publicity while giving millions to preserve California wilderness and teach youths about nature.
I used to live in California. It was nice, until it started turning into Mexico.
By Kenneth R. Weiss
Times Staff Writer
October 27, 2004
He has given more money to conservation causes in California than anyone else. His gifts have helped protect 1,179 square miles of mountain and desert landscapes, an area the size of Yosemite National Park.
His donations to wilderness education programs have made it possible for 437,000 inner-city schoolchildren to visit the mountains, the desert or the beach often for the first time.
Over a decade of steadily growing contributions including more than $100 million to the Sierra Club this mathematician turned financial angel has taken great pains to remain anonymous."I did tell [Sierra Club Executive Director] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me."
My entire extended family and most everyone I knew voted for Prop 187. It was one of the few times in my life that the government showed any interest in the citizenry's opinion about immigration. I didn't realize until more than 10 years later that our democracy is actually a cryptic form of plutocracy, and the plutocrats want genocidal levels of immigration.
Gelbaum said he was a substantial donor at the time but not yet the club's largest benefactor. Immigration arose as an issue in 1994 because Proposition 187, which threatened to deny public education and health care to illegal immigrants, was on the state's ballot.
He said he was so upset by the idea of "pulling kids out of school" that he donated more than $180,000 to the campaign to oppose Proposition 187. After the measure passed, he said, he donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to civil rights lawyers who ultimately got the measure struck down in court.
Gelbaum, who reads the Spanish-language newspaper La Opinión and is married to a Mexican American, said his views on immigration were shaped long ago by his grandfather, Abraham, a watchmaker who had come to America to escape persecution of Jews in Ukraine before World War I.
"I asked, 'Abe, what do you think about all of these Mexicans coming here?' " Gelbaum said. "Abe didn't speak English that well. He said, 'I came here. How can I tell them not to come?'
"I cannot support an organization that is anti-immigration. It would dishonor the memory of my grandparents."
Prop 187 passed and the voters went about their business, thinking the matter resolved. Then a judge killed it, though most of us didn't hear about that, because the media supports genocidal immigration too.
Paul Craig Roberts wrote about it in Throw out-of-control Judge Pfaelzer off the bench, Apr 24, 1998:Judges are so out of control today that a single federal judge thinks nothing about casting aside popular referendums passed by the votes of millions of citizens and imposing outcomes that are the opposite of what was voted.
Fast forward a decade or so and California has been bankrupted by immigration, its White population deliberately displaced and dispossessed by "diversity". So what's on the Sierra Club's agenda now?
The latest example is U.S. district judge Mariana Pfaelzer, who declared on March 13 that California citizens must tax themselves to meet the needs of illegal aliens. Pfaelzer, it seems, is under the influence of University of Chicago professor Martha Nussbaum, who teaches that the concept of national citizenship is too exclusive and "morally dangerous." Justice and equality, she claims, require "allegiance to the worldwide community of human beings."
Californians think not, but who are they to matter? Pfaelzer has thrown out California's Proposition 187, which restricted illegal aliens from living off taxpayers.
Sierra Club Insider: Yep, We're Too White, July 28, 2009:"We are proud that Sierra Club has successful diversity programs already established," said the Sierra Club President Allison Chin. "Now, with the leadership of a diversity council and my election as our first Asian-American president, the Sierra Club is committed to becoming an even more welcoming and inclusive organization."
Judging by their reaction, White members did not feel either welcomed or included. Unfortunately for them, the Sierra Club has more than 100 million reasons not to care.
Two reactions where the sense of betrayal comes through crystal clear:Immigrants typically come to the US with 3rd world birthrates and 1st world appetites -- the WORST POSSIBLE COMBINATION from an ecological standpoint.
I'm white and I got a vasectomy and had no kids, because long ago I realized the Earth didn't need more humans. This was a good-faith decision on my part.
How do open borders advocates respond when I tell them that? Almost inevitably I am mocked, often times with semi-literate obscenities and mindless machismo bluster. It doesn't make me feel like grovelling for their approval, I'll tell you that.
Posted by: Pat Kittle | August 21, 2009 at 06:23 PMYes, I remember during the 60s/70s, there was that jerk, Paul Ehrlich who talked about having "0 Population growth." Our generation even had propaganda movies like: Soylent Green, Roller Ball, Logan's Run and a couple of Star Trek episodes to drive the point home.
What's happening to California, with the rest of the US not far behind, is not an accident. It's the result of a deliberate drive to "diversify" White Americans into minority status. Then non-existence. It's genocide.
Since I was a kid at the time being indoctrinated with this BS, I didn't realize that Kennedy passed the 1965 Immigration Bill NOR did I know about La Raza, MEChA and other groups that were teaching about AZTLAN/ANAHUAC and they planned to outbreed us to reclaim lost Mexican Territory the AZTLAN plan or in the ANAHUAC case to reclaim the entire Americas and boot everyone else out.
Now, our grand reward for watching our birth rates for Mother Earth because of Ehrlich's (Population Bomb) is to be made fun of for "not making babies."
And the Sierra Club, the Rockefellers (Club of Rome)and other bogus "green" groups continue to look completely the other way when we're being flooded with immigration (both legal and illegal) to drive down wages, displace our own legal citizens' jobs and Balkanize our nation.
By the way, immigrants (legal and illegal) also use water and other resources. We can cut back and conserve but that will be entirely negated with continued uncontrolled growth.
Thanks a lot.
Posted by: Roxan | August 12, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
I wrote about Ted Kennedy's Legacy when his brain cancer was first announced in May of 2008. My opinion has only soured since. Please indulge me as I summarize his shameful legacy one more time, especially as our enemies at this moment are producing geysers of grief and love for their fallen hero.
From Wikipedia's Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (AKA Hart-Celler Act):During debate on the Senate floor, Kennedy, speaking of the effects of the act, said, "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."[2] The act's supporters not only claimed the law would not change America's ethnic makeup, but that such a change was not desirable.[1]
From George Borjas' The Bush-Kennedy-McCain Sham(nesty):
By equalizing immigration policies, the Act resulted in a flood of new immigration from non-European nations that changed the ethnic make-up of the United States.[3] Immigration doubled between 1965 and 1970 and doubled again between 1970 and 1990.[1]Regarding the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act (the first amnesty of illegal immigrants), Senator Kennedy predicted: "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this." The 1986 legislation, by the way, ended up granting amnesty to around 3 million illegal immigrants.
What follows now are amongst Kennedy's final, and in my opinion most significant, words on the subject of immigration, offered just over two years ago in the wake of the failure of the comprehensive amnesty bill he had worked hard to enact. This intemperate and deeply cynical outburst has been all but memory-holed by the press. From BizzyBlog's Bias in Coverage of Immigration-Bill Failure Extends to Protecting Ted ‘Gestapo’ Kennedy:We know what they’re against, we don’t know what they’re for. Time and time again they tell us “We don’t like this provision, we don’t like that provision, we don’t want that part. Well they ought to be able to explain to the American people what they are for.
HotAir provides video.
What are they going to do with the twelve and a half million who are undocumented here? Send them back? Send them back to countries around the world? More than $250 billion dollars, buses that would go from Los Angeles to New York and back again. Try and find them, develop a type of Gestapo here to seek out these people that are in the shadows. That’s their alternative?
During the long arc of Kennedy's career as a rich, famous and increasingly powerful senator-for-life he dedicated a sizable portion of his fame and power to advocating nation-wrecking levels of legal immigration, though his good will extended even to tens of millions of illegal aliens who violated the liberal immigration laws he sponsored. A notable and consistent feature of his support for immigration was mendacity. It began with a denial of the negative impact immigration would likely have on us, the citizenry whose interests he was sworn to defend. His triumphant words in 1965 were in hindsight more prophesy than denial, for the future did unfold just as he promised it would not. The mendacity continued in 1986, two decades on, when he downplayed the horrible impact even though it was by then clear for all to see. It was in fact under the pretense of addressing this impact that he again made assertions later proven false. He again mouthed promises he made no effort to keep. The mendacity continued in 2007, another two decades on, the consequences of his handiwork now an order of magnitude larger than what he had promised would never happen again. His lies now concerned the impossibility of remedy and the negative impact any such remedy would have on the aliens. The interests of the citizenry no longer even rated lip service. He openly opposed us and cast aspersions on us.
For leaving a young woman to drown Kennedy appeared on nationwide television and apologized. For sinking our once orderly and prosperous nation, trapping 200 million Whites (and slipping) with 100 million non-Whites (and exploding), he never apologized. He went to the grave hating us.
If Kennedy had pursued medicine instead of politics we can imagine what might have happened. He might have shot his neighbor right after saying it was crazy for them to imagine he would do so. Then he might berate them for complaining about their pain while being wheeled into surgery, telling them not to worry, he'll fix it. Finally he might let them die on the operating table because, in his expert estimation, to remove the bullet would simply cause too much harm. No sorries and no worries. The next of kin will get the bill.
Then he'd go out and find another neighbor to "help". And another. And another. It would have been much better for most of us if Kennedy had gone this route. After only a few neighbors some cop or reporter would have started asking questions and his crime wave would have been stopped. What we got instead is far worse.
The next time you read about a crime committed by an alien, or the anchor baby of an alien, think about that. Remember Ted Kennedy. It's on his head. He did his best to open the door for them and keep them here.
Ted's brother Jack once called on America to put men on the moon, a quarter million miles away. Just because. And lo, with plenty of money and brainstorming and elbow grease men were there, less than a decade later. Playing golf. Ted in his turn, given an opportunity to right a wrong he helped create, argued instead that Americans should simply surrender and accept colonization by hostile, impoverished, uneducated aliens, because, we're to believe, he couldn't stomach the effort required to stop it.
In comparison to the trillions our corrupt politicians have since rushed to transfer from taxpayers to international financiers, Ted's scary $250B for deportation seems positively puny. Beside that, it would be spread broadly and domestically in pursuit of a goal the citizenry has actually expressed an interest in. It would be an investment which would pay large dividends in the form of savings on unemployment, healthcare, law enforcement, education, utilities and infrastructure, and much more. In contrast, the trillions dropped in financier laps have simply vanished. The credit that absolutely positively had to loosen? It didn't. Beyond preserving some undeserved bonuses it seems those trillions just got sucked right into the vacuum created by a decade or more of financial fraud and false profits. Plan B seems to be to give the country, and all of us, to China.
To hell with the money. It pales next to the genocide. Given the choice I would gladly put myself and my children on the hook for any amount to stop the immigration invasion, to send the ones already here home. As it happens I'm sure doing so would actually save money, which only makes the pain inflicted on us - the crowding, the crime, the violence, the political correctness - all the more senseless. Except it's not. It's genocide. We have what others want. We're in their way. That's the dynamic. You can see it in their furtive glare. At some point, as our numbers dwindle, order will break down. Look to Zimbabwe or South Africa to see where we're heading.
You may not think of immigration as genocide. I never used to. Even now I don't think it always was, or that it has to be. But recently I decided that the senseless flood being forced down our throats definitely is genocidal. It's obliterating who and what we are. Fast and forever.
Allow me to offer a few of the stepping stones that brought me to this conclusion.
"Whether you declare war or not, we are in a societal conflict" excerpts a report, published in December of 2007, less than six months after Kennedy's "gestapo" meltdown, on the hundreds of thousands of violent, criminal gangbangers fanning out across the US. Ted Kennedy was on their side. He wanted to make them citizens.
Pew Something Stinks describes how immigration has transformed the ethnic mix of this country. Anyone who knows anything about immigration knows this. Our corrupt politicians know we know it. In 1965 altering the mix was acknowledged, even by Kennedy, to be a bad idea. Today we're supposed to pretend it's a good thing, that we always wanted it to happen, otherwise we're evil "racists".
Genocidal Immigrationists is my first use of the phrase, prompted by the increasingly blatant sickening enthusiasm for nation-wrecking immigration in media and self-righteous jewish organizations, lobbying more zealously than ever for their immigrant friends. What seems insane is in truth only anti-White. It's time to wake up. Smell the genocide.
- - -
On Tuesday, 25 August 2009, Senator Edward Kennedy died, escaping the justice he so richly deserved. It is Kennedy's advocacy for genocidal immigration, especially after its ghastly impact was obvious, for which he should always be remembered. In ignominy. In infamy. Good riddance.
Sunday, 2 August 2009
In The Culture of Deceit Edmund Connelly connects the dots, or more accurately, discusses the pointillist pattern arising from an abundance of dots: the syrian jewish rabbi-criminals, Goldman Sachs, Bernie Madoff, Simon Wiesenthal, Marc Rich, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken, the Union Générale scandal in 1882, the Comptoire d’Escompte scandal in 1889, the Panama Canal scandal - "an immense labyrinth of financial manipulation and fraud, with [Jewish] Baron Jacques de Reinach right at the middle of it.", Hirsch Strousberg, and on and on, all the way back to Esther and Abraham.
Connelly writes:In any case, my aim is to buttress my argument that deceit is a common aspect of Jewish behavior, and we should be mature enough to accept this, even without passing moral judgment.
He concludes:
To the extent there is a problem, it ultimately rests with us. After all, why do we again and again accept fraudulent Jewish behavior or stories that are obviously ludicrous? Consider those junk bonds scandals of twenty years ago, where Lindemann noted “an overwhelming preponderance of Jews — at least ninety percent was a widely accepted figure . . .” I now complete his quote by noting that the “clear correlation [between Jews and financial scandal] seemed to interest the broad American public scarcely at all, or at least it elicited few public expressions of anti-Semitic indignation, and overwhelmingly non-Jewish journalists and politicians skirted the issue.” Why? Fear of the Jews alone? My experience is that American non-Jews mostly willed themselves not to think about it.I think the point is clear: Western man has been facing this kind of deception and manipulation for hundreds of years now. Yet today, unlike so often in the past, most Whites freeze like deer in the headlights of a car when confronted with evidence.
Connelly's indictment is thorough and well-founded. I find fault only in his willingness to blame the victim. The breadth and depth of jewish involvement in the scandals he mentions most certainly would constitute revelation to the vast majority of Whites - were we to ever hear the naked totality. Instead, as Connelley himself acknowledges, those confronted with evidence often freeze with fear. They never hear the totality. Why they react this way is no mystery - the consequences for "anti-semites" are well understood, even if only unconsciously. Nor is it their fault - the blame goes to our traitors and repressors.
My accounts of Jewish perfidy do not constitute revelation; this information has been available since Biblical times and can be found now with no effort at all. Never before, however, did it seem to represent such a genocidal threat to Western man. Perhaps the only good news, as a blogger notes, is that “There is a tiny percentage of white people who have not inherited, and therefore do not possess, this maladaptive trait. The survival of the white race is now entirely dependent upon these few righteous Gentiles."
Whites today face enemies as ruthless as they are powerful as they are numerous. Indeed we face a genocidal reality, not merely a threat. My guess is that more than a tiny percentage of Whites have inherited the "resist your own genocide" gene. What we lack isn't genetic, it's widespread exposure and recognition of our genocide.
