Tag Archives: un

The Jew Menace


The big news this week is that the jews have very openly and collectively, as jews, called upon governments everywhere, but especially in Europe, to provide them special treatment, to protect and serve the jews specifically by suppressing and punishing any expression of whatever the jews decide to define as “anti-semitism”.

Effectively the jews and their worshippers are calling for a ban on blasphemy against the jews. They’re seeking to criminalize any expression of irreverence, disrespect, distaste, disagreement, or even mere disregard for the complaints and demands that jews are constantly making. Complaints and demands such as the ones they’re making this week – which we’re going to critique in some detail. This is precisely the sort of critique that the jews are demanding goverments illegalize. Everywhere.

Let’s start by noting that there are two very specific kinds of blasphemy that the jews are most keen to stop. The first they call “holocaust denial”, by which they mean any form of challenge to or rejection of their version of history, their narrative about the period of European history which used to be known as World War II. The second kind of blasphemy they want governments to stop is any and all forms of criticism of their ethnostate, Israel.

This is actually old news in that the jews have been making these same complaints and demands for decades – especially since the war ended. It is a difficult fact for White people to face – and even 70 years after that war most still will not think about it in such terms – but the White race, all European peoples whatever their nationality and wherever they may live today, lost that war. The jews won.

There is no clearer indication of this than the unrivalled position of power from which the jews have been able to dictate to Whites everywhere what can and can’t be said about jews or virtually anything jews feel impinges on their interests. Most especially having to do with that war. Thus it is less and less even referred to as World War II, and more and more “The Holocaust”, or “Shoah”. Because that is how the jews see it. And, as everyone can see now, if only because the jews’ media and political power compels it, that war was all about the jews.

The most elementary point I’d like to make here is that these three things – the jews, Israel, and their holocaust narrative – are connected. They come in a package. And it is this way because the jews themselves insist upon it. Yet they also insist that if anyone else makes this connection it is “anti-semitism”. As I mentioned the last time, when describing jew-worship and blasphemy, the double-standards jews promote seem surreal, almost magical in nature. But I think it’s really just a reflection of their dominance.

Speaking of dominance, and old news, I’m recording this the night before, but tomorrow is a special day for jews and jew-worshippers. When this special day was first declared by the UN in 2005, Robert Faurisson wrote a short article about it titled The UN Decides a Universal Ban on Revisionism:

On November 1st, unanimously and without a vote, the representatives of the 191 nations making up the UN adopted — or let be adopted — an Israeli-drafted resolution proclaiming January 27th “International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust”.

Moreover, the resolution “Rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part”.

Faurisson’s conclusion:

This extraordinary UN resolution also constitutes proof that historical revisionism is a reality that can no longer be bypassed, denied or played down. Its notoriety has become global. Still, let us take care to recognise that the revisionist researchers who remain active are now but a handful and, with each passing year, their future grows darker.

Faurisson was being optimistic. Here we are in that dark future. The jews are still at it. More aggressively pushing for more banning. More directly connecting it to themselves, their Holocaust narrative, and their ethnostate. Let’s take a closer look at three jewsmedia reports on the menace jews have been making of themselves this week.

Prosor calls on European leaders: Take a stand against anti-Semitism, quotes Israel’s Ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor:

“Let the message echo from the halls of the UN to the streets of Europe to the capital of every nation – stand for human rights and human dignity by taking a stand against anti-Semitism,” Prosor said.

This rhetorical fraud – jews cloaking their concern for their own particularist interests in disingenuous universalist language – can be found throughout their pronouncements this week. It’s a constant feature of what jews do and how they do it.

To see just how transparently brazen this statement is you simply have to substitute one word: Let the message echo from the halls of the UN to the streets of Europe to the capital of every nation – stand for human rights and human dignity by taking a stand against anti-Europeanism.

Is there even one European politician, in power, who would claim he himself is taking a stand against anti-Europeanism, much less lecture the rest of the world that they should do so?

Prosor asserted that “The struggle against anti-Semitism must be a priority for every nation because the hatred that begins with the Jews never ends with the Jews. History has shown us time and again that when a nation’s Jews are not safe, the entire society is at risk.”

The main struggle of the jews is to ensure that the harm the jews cause others is never attributed to the jews. To do this jews shift the blame elsewhere, in this case, as usual, to “anti-semitism”.

The argument Prosor is making here is that everybody else must make it their priority to stop somebody else from even complaining about what the jews do.

History has shown us time and again that jews are parasites who infiltrate, manipulate, and ruthlessly exploit other nations, that they have cared only for their own interests as they have undermined and ultimately brought to ruin and fled every other nation they have ever lived amongst.

History has shown us time and again that jews pose a special menace to hosts which attempt to look after their own safety and defend themselves against the depredations of the jews. Even those who succeed in reclaiming control over their nation as the national socialists did in Germany find that the jews never forgive and never forget. In Germany’s case, world jewry declared war in 1933, began agitating Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the United States to war, to teach them all the lesson Prosor alludes to: “when a nation’s Jews are not safe, the entire society is at risk”.

The jews blame their hosts for resisting them. That they bribe and lobby and propagandize and even succeed in taking control of the host’s leaders and crucial organs and makes them more culpable and harm they cause more insidious, not less.

“Europe is being tested,” he said. “We don’t need any more monuments commemorating the Jews who were murdered in Europe, we need a strong and enduring commitment to the living Jews in Europe. If the governments of Europe succeed in defending their Jewish communities, then they will succeed in defending liberty and democracy.”

Prosor cites the jewish victim narrative even as he denies it.

Jews actually want, and get, both – worship and defense. They get monuments and holidays commemorating them, and special security. It is sponsored by governments, funded by taxing others.

It is jews telling Europeans what to think and what to do – in this case Prosor literally defines “liberty” and “democracy” and even success as the defense of jews.

And vowed that “The days when Jews were the world’s victims are over. We will never again be helpless and we will never again remain silent. Today we have the State of Israel standing guard.

Victimhood again, this time couched in menace: “We don’t need to incite others to war against you, we have weapons of our own now”.

The article explicitly mentions the attack on the “kosher supermarket” in Paris a few weeks ago, giving the impression that this is what triggered the jews to action this week. It isn’t. The bombing of Gaza this summer was not explicitly mentioned, though that was the actual impetus for the UN meeting. It is hinted at indirectly in this paragraph toward the end:

The meeting was requested by 37 countries who sent a letter to assembly President Sam Kutesa on October 1 calling for a meeting in response to “an alarming outbreak of anti-Semitism worldwide.” They said they wanted a meeting because “a clear message from the General Assembly is a critical component of combatting the sudden rise of violence and hatred directed at Jews.”

This simple statement, in both what it says and doesn’t say, reflects the incredible power and influence jews have over dozens of other governments outside the single government they officially control. Jews have enough control over the govts of 37 countries (most crucially the US) to manipulate them in this fashion.

That they could orchestrate such a show of force in response to the murder of four jews in Paris would be amazing enough. But in fact it was actually orchestrated in defense of Israelis who murdered thousands of non-jews in Gaza. The Israeli military bombs Gaza and then jews worldwide join with Israels to organize a UN meeting to literally shift the blame to “anti-semitism worldwide”.

UN meeting challenges world to stand up to anti-Semitism, describes the result:

But 40 mainly Western countries issued a joint statement afterward urging all nations to “declare their categorical rejection of anti-Semitism,” strengthen laws to combat discrimination, and prosecute those responsible for anti-Semitic crimes.

“The determination to eradicate the conditions that gave rise to the Holocaust was a guiding principle among the founders of this organization over six decades ago,” their statement said. “Let us rededicate ourselves to that principle and endeavor to eliminate anti-Semitism in all forms.”

I could find no UN source for this UN declaration. All the pages containing “declare their categorical rejection of anti-Semitism” are variations on this AP story.

Note the unequivocal, uncompromising language used to compel others to serve jews.

In the keynote speech, French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy said blaming Jews “is once again becoming the rallying cry of a new order of assassins.”

Levy, who is Jewish, called for new arguments to counter anti-Semites who say “Jews are detestable.”

These anti-Semites call Israel an “illegitimate state,” deny the Holocaust, and believe Jews give far too much attention to Holocaust victims and stifle other people’s martyrs, including the Palestinians, he said.

Dozens of speakers echoed his call to address the root causes of anti-Semitism as well as wider religious intolerance, hatred and extremism.

The jews try to dictate what others are permitted to find detestable. That’s detestable.

Levy offers no arguments, and his call for arguments is disingenuous anyway. The whole point of the UN meeting was for jews to make public their demands, which amount to telling everyone else they must “reject” and “prosecute” and “eliminate” blasphemy against the jews.

Levy is one of the many jews who unambiguously connects jews to Israel and to their holocaust narrative.

France’s minister of state for Europe Harlem Desire urged the world to act “with the utmost firmness, wherever anti-Semitism rears its head in the world.”

“Without the Jews of Europe, Europe would no longer be Europe,” he warned.

Harlem Desire, which is his real name, is a semitic-looking mulatto.

The premise of Desire’s argument is that “the world”, and especially European govts, should be more worried about what’s best for the jews than what’s best for Europeans; that “the world”, and especially European govts, should see a Europe without jews as unthinkable, and literally not think at all about what Europe will be like without Europeans.

A host can survive without a parasite. A parasite cannot survive without a host. Thus the jews equate expulsion to extermination. Jews, without the wealth and security wheedled out of Europeans, would cease to exist. Europe, without the parasitic load of the jews, would thrive – as Spain did after expelling its jews in 1492, and as Germany did as well in 1933.

Roth and Desire called for a new legal framework at the European Union and internationally to address the diffusion of racist and anti-Semitic speeches and material.

This is needed today, Desire said, “to put the responsibility on those passing the message” such as Google and Twitter.

This the closest thing to a “new argument”, though it’s just the old methods applied to new technology, new forms of communication. The tactic suggested here is to leverage the influence and power jews already have over some governments in some places and couple it with the influence they have over certain internet corporations in order to impose the priorities and interests of jews over and above everyone else, everywhere else, all at once.

Jewish leaders call for Europe-wide legislation outlawing antisemitism, describes a separate but related push:

European Jewish leaders, backed by a host of former EU heads of state and government, are to call for pan-European legislation outlawing antisemitism amid a sense of siege and emergency feeding talk of a mass exodus of Europe’s oldest ethnic minority.

Let’s decode “Europe’s oldest ethnic minority”.

“Ethnic” is a euphemism for race – an ethnic group is a genetically and culturally (in other words racially) distinctive group.

The oldest ethnic groups in Europe are the Europeans, not the jews.

Jewish roots, genetically and culturally, are in the Levant, not Europe. Jews have quite consciously preserved their distinctiveness from Europeans for more than two millenia while living amongst Europeans.

The words “minority” and “exodus” allude to the jews’ victim narrative, and a reminder that it stretches back to Egypt, far more than 70 years ago and outside Europe.

The fact is that the jews, whomever the host among whom they live happens to be at any point in time, see themselves, organize and operate as a collective. This international lobbying, using their influence over some governments to influence other governments to “combat anti-semitism” is a perfect example.

The fact is that the jews have collectively imposed themselves upon virtually every European nation at one time or another. They have infiltrated, manipulated and exploited Europeans, moving and concentrating physically in each and every place Europeans have ever been or have ever gone. Today they manipulate Europeans collectively, via the EU.

“Europe’s oldest ethnic minority”? No. The jews are the oldest and most hostile alien interlopers in Europe. The jews have parasitized Europeans, who have for millenia served as their primary hosts.

A panel of four prestigious international experts on constitutional law backed by the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) have spent three years consulting widely and drafting a 12-page document on “tolerance”. They are lobbying to have it converted into law in the 28 countries of the EU.

The proposal would outlaw antisemitism as well as criminalising a host of other activities deemed to be violating fundamental rights on specious religious, cultural, ethnic and gender grounds.

This is essentially an echo of the demands the jews put forth at the UN, but aimed more specifically at the EU. It is also more fleshed out with ready-made answers to those demands – an indication of the long-term, premeditated nature of the effort.

These would include banning the burqa, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, polygamy, denial of the Holocaust and genocide generally, criminalising xenophobia, and creating a new crime of “group libel” – public defamation of ethnic, cultural or religious groups. Women’s and gay rights would also be covered.

This is the traditional approach jews have taken, disguising their concern for their interests by wrapping them up and conflating them with others. It’s not clear whether they want to ban burqas, or ban the banning of burqas. It hardly matters because whatever it is it’s subject to change depending on what the jews running the show demand tomorrow.

The proposed legislation would also curb, in the wake of the Paris attacks, freedom of expression on grounds of tolerance and in the interests of security.

“Tolerance is a two-way street. Members of a group who wish to benefit from tolerance must show it to society at large, as well as to members of other groups and to dissidents or other members of their own group,” says the document.

“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned: that freedom must not be abused to defame other groups.”

“Tolerance” and “freedom of expression” as defined by the jews, in the interests of security of the jews.

Amid acute European angst over multiculturalism, fundamentalist violence perpetrated on alleged religious grounds and the response of the state, the call for uniform rules across Europe is to be initiated this week in Prague at events commemorating the Holocaust and the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Yet another reminder, amidst all the disposable universalist platitudes, that it is the holocaust narrative, the jews-as-victims-of-Europeans narrative, that the jews themselves provide as justification for the contempt and hostility they so constantly and freely express toward Europeans.

Terry Graham’s Genocide Complaint to the UN

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:


I’d like to ask a few questions with the intent to publish your answers, as well as your press release, on my blog – https://age-of-treason.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?


From: T Graham (euroamrights@hotmail.com)
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

Attached to Terry’s email was the following (in docx format, which I converted to html using OpenOffice):

Date: September 3, 2010 SENT VIA REGISTERED MAIL: Sept. 3, 2010

TO: Ms. Navanethem (Navi) Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

OHCHR address: 
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Palais Wilson
52 Rue des Pâquis
CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland

Mailing address: 
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

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,


Terry Graham



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.

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.

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.

Why is that?

The UNo

UN wants new global currency to replace dollar – Telegraph:

In a radical report, the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has said the system of currencies and capital rules which binds the world economy is not working properly, and was largely responsible for the financial and economic crises.

It added that the present system, under which the dollar acts as the world’s reserve currency , should be subject to a wholesale reconsideration.

Although a number of countries, including China and Russia, have suggested replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, the UNCTAD report is the first time a major multinational institution has posited such a suggestion.

In essence, the report calls for a new Bretton Woods-style system of managed international exchange rates, meaning central banks would be forced to intervene and either support or push down their currencies depending on how the rest of the world economy is behaving.

So much for that old amero “conspiracy theory”. Globalists, demonstrating how to not waste a crisis, are now openly proposing a global currency. And even if this radical proposal goes nowhere it helps make the relatively less radical amero (which will remain a “conspiracy theory” right up until it or the UNo becomes reality) that much more likely.