← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Northern Bastion

Thread 9361

Thread ID: 9361 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2003-08-28

Wayback Archive

Northern Bastion [OP]

2003-08-28 17:50 | User Profile

Are the policies of the US Federal Government destroying the White populations of North America and or Europe? Is this Genocide?

:o

Mr.Wilson

2003-08-28 21:42 | User Profile

Raphael Lemkin,the inventor of the legal fiction called "genocide",did not consider the protection of majorities from what he defined as "genocide".The endless third-world invasion into America,abetted by the government,could not be defined as an act of "genocide" against the national majority.If the government or a political organization attempted to stop or reverse this invasion,that would be considered to be an act of "genocide" against the invading minority.Even an attempt to "assimilate" the invaders would be considered to be an act of "genocide".

Northern Bastion

2003-08-29 05:45 | User Profile

We are looking forward to the replys of the Top Ten Posters here to reply to this question. They are:

Faust il ragno
Sertorius
Texas Dissident
Okiereddust
AntiYuppie
PaleoconAvatar
mwdallas
Ed Toner
Centinel

Gentlemen, have no fear. You sit at the round table and you must speak your heart.

Thank you. The White Race

:sm:

........................................................................

"If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences ...reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." ----George Washington (1732-1799)

mwdallas

2003-08-29 06:16 | User Profile

Yes.

Faust

2003-08-29 06:37 | User Profile

Northern Bastion,

As mwdallas said: Yes!

Now Mr.Wilson does have a very good point, but unlike "Racism'(which is a "word" without any real meaning) The word "genocide" can be defined.

This article makes some good points , and I think the guy who wrote knows the idea of a Lawsuit is silly, but he uses it to make some very good points.

**From the now dead web site of the Committee of Correspondence for Southern Independence.

Is the U.S. Government commiting genocide against its own citizens of European descent with its open borders immigration policy? Read about legal researcher Joe Fallon's proposed lawsuit against the Feds.

U.S. Genocidal Immigration Policy: A Proposed Lawsuit for European-Americans

By Joseph E. Fallon

The effect of U.S. immigration policy since 1965, when for the first time in our nation’s history, Congress permitted massive non-European immigration, has been to perpetrate genocide against the nation’s European-American 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" Euro-Americans "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.

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." [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".] 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."

Euro-Americans Devastated by Third World Immigration

In a speech on immigration and its impact upon U.S. demographics, President Clinton in June 1998 noted that "In a little more than 50 years, there will be no majority race in the United States."

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, an eight-point increase that took more than 100 years. Yet the 1990 Census found the proportion of "whites" had been reduced to 75 percent of the nation’s population -- an astonishing 14-point drop in just 30 years. (Since the "non-Hispanic white" Census category includes non- European whites from North Africa, the Middle East including Israel, and the former Soviet Union -- who comprise a significant number of immigrants -- the true number of white Americans of European descent is likely far lower. Grassroots efforts to create a "European-American" category in the 2000 Census have been thwarted by federal officials.)

This sharp demographic decline of Euro-Americans 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 98 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.

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. In California, Euro-Americans will become a demographic minority in California by the year 2000, in Texas by 2015, and in Florida and New York shortly after 2016.

Despite grassroots efforts to stop present genocidal immigration policies, and strong support expressed in every poll of citizens to steeply reduce -- or halt-- immigration, the U.S. government actions are quickly reducing the Euro-American population.

The Strong Case For "Genocide"

Perhaps the only viable course is to charge the U.S. government with the crime of genocide, and seek reparations available under international and federal laws. The suit would charge that since 1965, the immigration policy imposed upon the European-American majority by the U.S. government has been both illegal and unconstitutional, for the following reasons:

1 This policy violates 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-Americans in fact meet at least two. Racially, they are white; ethnically they are European. Most are Christian; and as 89 percent of the U.S. population in 1960, they defined the nation and shared a common origin.

2 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 Uganda, the foreign country specified in this law as guilty of genocide, 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.

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, ethnic, 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. government and others for violating it, stipulating those who commit genocide "shall be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials, or private individuals."

6 It, thereby, violates 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 It violates 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 Congress publicly and repeatedly declared that the 1965 Immigration Reform Act would not reduce the proportional size of the European-American majority population. Senator Robert Kennedy insisted that "the distribution of limited quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States." He added this "should set to rest any fear that this bill will change the ethnic, political, or economic make-up of the United States." 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.

Two Separate -- Unequal & Unjust -- U.S. Immigration Policies

Since 1965, the U.S. Congress, President and executive branch and judiciary have actively imposed Third World immigration upon the U.S., where European-Americans have always been the majority population. In stark contrast, Congress has actively opposed immigration policies that would upset the racial/ethnic makeup of five U.S. territories -- American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and the "Free Associated States" of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau -- where non-European peoples form the majority populations, for the express purpose of preserving their respective ethnic majorities.

These distinct immigration policies -- one for the United States, another for five U.S. territories -- show Congress is well aware of the direct relationship between immigration and demography, and is destroying the nation’s European-American racial and ethnic demographic majority deliberately.

Lawsuit Charging Genocide

A lawsuit charging the U.S. government with inflicting genocide upon European-Americans since 1965 via its immigration policies must be brought before the Supreme Court of the United States and simultaneously before other recognized penal tribunals throughout the world.

This lawsuit must make clear that international law against genocide is jus cogens, that is, peremptory thereby nullifying any laws which violate its principles, including all current U.S. immigration laws and policies. The suit must seek "reparations" as defined by international law, specifically to restore the nation’s racial and ethnic mix when the law took effect in 1948.

The objectives of this lawsuit are to have the U.S. Supreme Court rule that:

European-Americans meet the legal requirements for standing required to file this lawsuit. They have (a) suffered some actual or threatened injury, (B) this injury can be traced to the challenged official conduct and © there is a substantial likelihood the alleged injuries can be redressed by a judicial decision in their favor.

Because the ongoing destruction of the European-American population is a serious legal, moral and cultural issue, and because the pace of that destruction is escalating, an immediate judicial stay on all related U.S. immigration laws must be sought from the court. This stay would halt all admissions into the U.S. of all non-European immigrants, refugees, asylees, parolees, foreign students, temporary workers, etc. until the Supreme Court can rule on the lawsuit.

European-Americans satisfy the legal requirements for obtaining a stay since (a) they can establish legal standing, (B) they are suffering severe injuries from ongoing U.S. immigration policies, and © they can show that the benefits to the European-American population of a court-ordered stay on all U.S. immigration laws, regulations, and policies outweigh any possible adverse impact such a stay could have on others.

U.S. Courts Rulings on International Law & Genocide

U.S. federal courts have already issued rulings based on 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.

Despite these legal decisions and the Supreme Court’s Paquete Habana decision in 1900, current Supreme Court Justices could refuse to hear -- or hear and reject -- a lawsuit charging the federal government’s immigration policy since 1965 has resulted in genocide against European-Americans.

To justify such a decision, however, the Justices would have to rule either that (1) international law is no longer binding on the U.S. government (a decision that would be condemned by environmentalists, and human rights, immigrants’ rights and animal rights activists worldwide), or (2) that European-Americans, alone, are not protected by those laws. In this unlikely circumstance, Euro-Americans could file the suit in a country that is a signatory to the U.N. Convention.

Regardless of how the U.S. Supreme Court rules, publicity generated nationally and internationally by pursuing such a lawsuit makes it a win-win proposition for European-Americans.

Reparations From Foundations, Public Officials & Individuals

If the Supreme Court or other recognized tribunal rules in favor of European-Americans’ charge of genocide, a follow-up lawsuit must be filed immediately charging foundations, individuals, institutions, and organizations directly and indirectly responsible -- through lobbying, legislation, and other activities -- for U.S. immigration policy since 1965 with violating international law against genocide.

Among these targets may be the Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Emma Lazarus Foundation/Open Society Institute, who have provided grants to MALDEF, La Raza, and various pro-immigration, open-borders advocacy and community groups; ZPG; numerous public officials; the Democrat and Republican National Committees; and members of Congress. Under both international and federal laws against genocide, the courts can order these entities to pay both financial compensation and punitive damages to European-Americans harmed by their activities. U.S. Public Law 100-606 also provides for imprisonment of those found guilty of the crime of genocide.

Joseph E. Fallon is a published author and researcher on the topics of immigration and American demography. He can be reached at jefallon@yahoo.com.

© 1998 Joseph E. Fallon

Permission is granted to those supporting this lawsuit to reproduce and distribute this article in total, without modification or editing of any sort. In all other uses of this, written permission to reproduce it in whole or in part must be granted by the author.

"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members 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." Rafael Lemkin, creator of the term "genocide"

Legal Citations

In 1980, in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala (630 F. 2nd 876), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a lawsuit brought by two Paraguayan citizens against a former Paraguayan police official for the wrongful death by torture in Paraguay of a member of the plaintiff’s family.

In 1985, in Von Dardel v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (623 F. Supp. 246), the District Court in the District of Columbia ruled in favor of a lawsuit brought by Swedish citizens against the then Soviet Union for the 1945 seizure of Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg in Hungary, his subsequent imprisonment, and possible death.

In 1988, in Forti v. Suarez-Mason (No. CD-87-2058-DLJ, slip op. At 7), upon reconsideration, the District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in favor of a lawsuit brought by Argentine citizens against an Argentine general for causing the "disappearance" in Argentina of a member of the plaintiff’s family.

On April 12, 1995, in Xuncax v. Gramajo (Civil Action No. 91-11564-DPW), the District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in favor of eight Guatemalan citizens in a lawsuit brought against Guatemalen General Hector Alejandro Gramajo for torturing them in Guatemala during the 1980s. The District Court ordered the General to pay the plaintiffs $42.5 million.

On October 13, 1995, in Kadic v. Kardzic (Docket Nos. 94-9035, -9069), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic was subject to trial in Federal District Court in Manhattan in a suit brought by Croat and Muslim Bosnian citizens for violating their human rights in Bosnia. On June 17, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, allowed that ruling to stand.

url: [url=http://web.archive.org/web/20001004154730/members.aol.com/GrayFox65/lawsuit.html]http://web.archive.org/web/20001004154730/...65/lawsuit.html[/url]

**

Faust

2003-08-31 05:49 | User Profile

Northern Bastion,

I did reply. Any thoughts?

solutrian

2003-08-31 14:34 | User Profile

The broad social policy effected by the mainstream political class if North America is clearly detrimental to the White inhabitants. Indeed, the law provides an edge to most minorities other than whites. While this is not acutely genecidal as the term is generally used, the long-term result would reflect that end.

Bardamu

2003-08-31 15:32 | User Profile

I would say, strictly speaking, genes have to be destroyed for it to be genocidal.

Inundating a white community with non-whites mixes whites out of existence. This isn't the same as murdering the genes off. It transforms the race out of existence, which is a bit of a contradiction.

War is murderous but it is not genocidal. Total war is genocidal. The difference being a soldier dies in the former, families die in the later. Genocidal wars in the West began with the concentration camps of the Boer War.

mwdallas

2003-08-31 15:55 | User Profile

I believe genocide refers not to the murder of genes but the murder of a genus, or type.

Bardamu

2003-08-31 16:38 | User Profile

correct. the family not the individual.