TNO, “Brexit Contagion: Germany Fears 5 More ‘Leaves”, 25 June 2016:

The German government has admitted in a secret briefing paper leaked to Die Welt newspaper that another five countries—France, Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, and Hungary—might follow Britain’s example and leave the European Union.

The document warns that a prolonged and messy British exit process can have a “crucial” impact in boosting the Eurosceptic movements in all five nations.

       

The document, titled “Task Force: Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union” was developed by the German Finance Ministry for what it describes as “difficult divorce proceedings.”

The document says it was to offer the UK “constructive outlet negotiations” which will end up in Britain becoming an “associate partner country” of the EU.

The exit process—governed by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty—allows for a two-year withdrawal process. “This creates time and the basis for negotiations,” the document says, adding that if necessary, this time period could be extended.

Turkey will gain visa-free access to the EU upon joining - 79 million mostly Muslim people already of mostly mixed Middle Eastern heritage.

Zero Hedge, “EU Will Resume Turkey EU Membership Talks Just Days After Brexit Referendum”, 22 June 2016:

It appears that David Cameron may have fibbed a bit when he said that one of the most contentious issues behind the Brexit campaign, namely the treatment of Turkish EU membership, won’t be a topic for “decades” and that Turkey won’t join the EU until the year 3000. As AFP reports, “The EU will open new membership talks with Turkey as planned in a few days, EU diplomatic sources said Wednesday, just as Ankara’s accession becomes a hot-button issue in Britain’s vote on its future in the bloc.” Citing a source, who asked not to be named, AFP said that EU member states will meet June 30 to agree to open a new negotiating chapter with Turkey.

This means that just days after the Leave campaign may end up winning the Brexit referendum based on the PM’s promise that a Turkish admission into the EU is off the table, the topic of Turkish ascension will once again be front and center, and as we explain below, Turkey will likely end up getting what it wants.

We must seize this golden opportunity to Leave the European Union and take back control of our borders.

We cannot afford to risk staying in a political organization that is ready to admit Turkey and planning deeper integration.

We have no border controls inside EU. If you want the UK to be able to control migration then vote to Leave EU.

Why we must vote LEAVE in the EU referendum…

READ MORE...

A dire assessment under the fold..

READ MORE...

TNO, “Furious Nonwhites Riot at Calais,” 22 June 2016:

Thousands of nonwhite invaders have once again gone on the rampage outside the French port of Calais, desperately trying to force their way into Britain prior to the European Union referendum on Thursday.

Chanting slogans such as “F**k UK”—even though they are seeking entry to that country—the nonwhites shut roads, hurled rocks, and placed obstacles in the roads leading to the ferries and the Channel Tunnel.

French police were called out for the third day in a row after nonwhite hordes—all living illegally in the French town’s outskirts after being allowed to invade Europe—targeted cars, buses, and trucks in an attempt to hijack their way into Britain.

     

     

The Polish case for exiting the European Union

Breitbart, “Polexit: Meet The Polish Eurosceptics Championing The Case Against The European Union”, 22 May 2016:

In a further boost to the European Union (EU) referendum ‘Leave’ campaign, Great Britain’s key European ally, Poland, has not only been turning decisively Eurosceptic but has also found legal grounds to ban the EU flag.

There have of course been the widely reported and exaggerated developments – such as Poland sending shockwaves through the Europhile parts of the EU by removing the Union’s flags from the Polish Prime Minister’s conference room last November.

That move may have been merely symbolic, but it served as a gentle reminder to Europe of a change of guard in Warsaw by Andrzej Duda, the Euro-realist Polish President since May 2015. His appointment was soon followed by his Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS) party forming Polish government last October with a decisive victory.

In March 2016 Poland at last introduced a scientific element to its EU debate. The formal cross-party Parliamentary Euro-realist Group (Parlamentarny Zespół Eurorealistyczny) was mandated to evaluate the Polish-EU relationship via actual cost-benefit analysis, as well as investigating the political and legal implications of Poland’s relationship with the EU.

Jacek Wilk

Congress of the New Right (Kongres Nowej Prawicy) – whose four MEPs entered the European Parliament in 2014 with a programme of reduction of EU prerogatives – has an MP in the Polish Parliament in Jacek Wilk, party chairman, who now channels these proposals via the Euro-realist Group.

He mentions that Lisbon Treaty allows for EU members’ exit, whilst guaranteeing a right to free trade, and references EEA and EFTA as the preferred options. Mr. Wilk points out that the current cross-continent standardisation drive, coupled with increasing socialism, are intentional moves that suit the strategy of EU’s undisputed leader, Germany. He considers the hopes of fixing the sclerotic EU bloc futile. 

Tomasz Rzymkowski

Tomasz Rzymkowski, chairman of the Euro-realist Group and a Kukiz’15 / Ruch Narodowy (National Movement) parliamentarian stresses that opening up a debate is a must, given that until recently Poles have been subjected to one of the most intense Europhile propagandas on the continent via the largely German-owned media. He believes that by joining the EU, and hence allowing the more advanced Western economies to freely compete with Poland, the country may have forsaken its chances of development and instead solidified the position of a European low-cost periphery.

The group also aims to investigate the distortions to the Polish economy created by “EU grants” (i.e. largely Polish money circulated back to Poland via Brussels), as well as the indebtedness of local governments resulting from EU-facilitated financing of white elephant projects, such as underused airports.

Like many other euro-sceptics, euro-realists or increasingly even those concerned with preserving the EU, Tomasz Rzymkowski admits that the Union should be scaled back to its European Economic Area (EEA) foundations, where it purely acts a guarantor and facilitator of the four freedoms of movement (i.e. people, goods, services, and capital). Completely understanding of the members’ wish to exit and given the United Kingdom is recognised as Poland’s key ally, he confirms a serious commitment to cooperation in the event of a Brexit.

Robert Winnicki

Robert Winnicki, a National Movement parliamentarian and party chairman, is another prominent member of the Parliamentary Euro-realist Group. As much as he has some hope for reforming the EU, he believes that in its current shape, and in case of insufficient decentralising reforms, it would be in Poland’s interest to leave.

The recently resurgent Visegrad Group alliance of Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary with a possible addition of Belarus could provide a future international cooperation option if the right economic, political and defence-related bilateral agreements were secured. The idea is reminiscent of Piłsudski’s Intermarium (Międzymorze), albeit in a more realistic and minimalist form.

The Euro-realist Group is further tasked with assessing the compatibility of Poland’s EU accession treaty with the Polish constitution and investigating all the subsequent legislative additions the European Union has rolled out that impact on the Union’s relationship with Poland and the Polish law, inclusive of the Lisbon Treaty in particular.

Prof Krystyna Pawłowicz

Needless to say, the group consists of some foremost legal experts such as Professor Krystyna Pawłowicz, a PiS parliamentarian and one of the more prominent voices of opposition to the EU within her party, who as a former Constitutional Tribunal judge argues that Poland’s participation in the European Union in the present situation, whereby the EU law supersedes Polish law, directly contravenes Polish constitution.

Prof. Pawłowicz points out that the presence of the EU flag in Poland is illegal and that the EU tends towards a complete centralisation, which is at odds with the national interests of member states, including those of Poland. Her clear Euroscepticism sounds very natural to our British readers, especially with Euro-sceptics going officially mainstream last summer with the announcement of the Brexit referendum and Tory politicians coming out in their droves in support, but as the Eastern EU major parties are concerned that Pawłowicz is just one of the few voices fully critical of the failed EU concept. 

Her clear Euroscepticism sounds very natural to British readers, especially with Euro-sceptics going officially mainstream last summer with the announcement of the Brexit referendum. But as the Eastern EU major parties are concerned Prof. Pawłowicz’s is just one of the few voices fully critical of the failed EU concept. 

For the generations of Poles resident in the United Kingdom, Euroscepticism comes quite naturally. Just recently there used to be a Friends of Poland in UKIP club affiliated with the Eurosceptic party; the Polish Conservatives outfit also boasts a considerable Eurosceptic representation and there now is a Poles for Britain campaign.

It is therefore a very welcome development that Poles in Poland have come of EU age and we now observe some clear opposition to the European Union.

As such, although a Polexit referendum seems to be some way off, the debate around the real merits of the EU has at last been kicked off and participation of PiS parliamentarians ensures no empty accusations of furthering Russia’s interests can be thrown about by the Eurocentric camp.

       
        “Piekło” means hell.

So long as it is necessary to endure eccentric pressures and at times draconian leanings from Poland’s PiS party, we may as well allow them to work in our interests where they will - against EU imposition, markedly with regard to immigration.

       
        Simpson & Brown’s daughter at age 30 - YKW recombination

       
        Nicole Brown, at age 35, an equally gruesome outcome

        O.J. Simpson, typical black behavior and typical Jewish facilitation -
       
          NPR, “The Perfect Perversity of the O.J. Simpson Case”, 14 June 2016:

          NPR series: there is no doubt that OJ Simpson committed the murders.

There were signs from the very first date he had with the 18 year old Nicole Brown that OJ Simpson was violent.

        Brown’s friend had noticed signs that Simpson had forced himself upon her in the first date..he had ripped open her pants…

...

The series reveals many other facts not previously well known about the case:

Another 9-11 call from Nicole has a policeman arrive. Brown tells the policeman emphatically that Simpson is going to kill her. Brown has a bruise on her face and Simpson tells the policeman that he doesn’t care, he doesn’t want her in his bed, he has two other women.

The policeman tells Simpson that he is under arrest for domestic violence. Simpson goes into his house, ostensibly to get dressed, but races away in his car via a rear exit. The police pursue, but don’t catch him and don’t pursue him afterward.

This is one of the surprising elements of the series: The L.A. Police Department was not eager to prosecute Simpson. They treated him with kid gloves.

The detective who interviewed Simpson after the murder did not ask him to provide a time line of his day - which would have caught him in several lies - basically, because the detective was following The L.A. P.D.‘s tendency to treat Simpson and his celebrity with deference.

       
In fact, in being racial, Fuhrman was an outlier to this culture. He actually had sued the L.A. Police Department for early retirement, claiming psychological disability because he could not stand having to deal with blacks.

The L.A. P.D. won the case, was not compelled to accept Fuhrman’s claim, and told him to get back to work.

Unfortunately for the case against Simpson, Fuhrman was the one who collected Simpson’s glove left at the scene of the murder.

Simpson was advised to stop taking his arthritis medicine so that his hands would swell up. When the glove didn’t fit Simpson’s hand in a demonstration before the jury, it added to the suggestion that Fuhrman’s racism might motivate him to set-up Simpson - a Negro man in an interracial relationship which Fuhrman was known to not like - prosecuting him unjustly by planting the glove as fake evidence.

         
Allowing Simpson to try-on the glove was black prosecuting attorney Christopher Darden’s blunder. Darden was said to have had an affair with Marcia Clarke during the trial.

“If it doesn’t fit you must acquit” was Simpson’s black defense attorney, Johnny Cochran’s famous line, but what was most important in the acquittal was the way he successfully pandered to a majority black jury, Jewish legal system and zeitgeist, by diverting them from the obvious evidence against O.J. Simpson, into “juicestice” instead, presenting the case as an indictment of Furhman and the L.A. Police Department’s early stage ‘Hitleresque’ will to genocide, racism and cover-up of its racism - a particularly effective argument in L.A. following the Rodney King incident.

Key excerpts from Corchran’s closing argument:

Stop this cover-up. Stop this cover-up. If you don’t stop it, then who? Do you think the police department is going to stop it? Do you think the D.A.‘s office is going to stop it? Do you think we can stop it by ourselves? It has to be stopped by you. And you know, they talked about Fuhrman, they talked about him in derisive tones now, and that is very fashionable now, isn’t it? Everybody wants to beat up on Fuhrman, the favored whipping boy in America. I told you I don’t take any delight in that because you know before this trial started, if you grow up in this country, you know there are Fuhrmans out there. You learn early on in your life that you are not going to be naive, that you love your country, but you know it is not perfect, so you understand that, so it is no surprise to me, but I don’t take any pride in it. But for some of you, you are finding out the other side of life. You are finding out—that is why this case is so instructive. You are finding out about the other side of life, but things aren’t always as they seem. It is not just rhetoric, it is the actions of people, it is the lack of courage and it is a lack of integrity at high places. That is what we are talking about here.

                               
Fuhrman sued LAPD years before, seeking early retirement because he couldn’t stand having to deal with blacks and interracial couples.

[Ibid. Johnny Corchran’s closing argument] I don’t know how this subject was raised but officer Fuhrman says that when he sees a Nigger, as he called it, driving with a white woman, he would pull them over. I asked what if he didn’t have a reason and he said that he would find one. I looked at the two marines to see if they knew he was joking, but it became obvious to me that he was very serious.” Now, let me just stop at this point. Let’s back it up a minute, Mr. Harris. Pull it back down, please. If he sees an African American with a white woman he would stop them. If he didn’t have a reason, he would find one or make up one. This man will lie to set you up. That is what he is saying there. He would do anything to set you up because of the hatred he has in his heart. A racist is somebody who has power over you, who can do something to you. People could have views but keep them to themselves, but when they have power over you, that is when racism becomes insidious. That is what we are talking about here. He has power. A police officer in the street, a patrol officer, is the single most powerful figure in the criminal justice system. He can take your life. Unlike the supreme court, you don’t have to go through all these appeals. He can do it right there and justify it. And that is why, that is why this has to be routed out in the LAPD and every place. Make up a reason because he made a judgment. That is what happened in this case. They made a judgment. Everything else after that is going to point toward O.J. Simpson. They didn’t want to look at anybody else. Mr. Darden asked who did this crime? That is their job as the police. We have been hampered. They turned down our offers for help. But that is the prosecution’s job. The judge says we don’t have that job. The law says that. We would love to help do that. Who do you think wants to find these murderers more than Mr. Simpson? But that is not our job; it is their job. And when they don’t talk to anybody else, when they rush to judgment in their obsession to win, that is why this became a problem. This man had the power to carry out his racist views and that is what is so troubling. Let’s move on. Making up a reason. That is troubling. That is frightening. That is chilling. But if that wasn’t enough, if that wasn’t enough, the thing that really gets you is she goes on to say: “Officer Fuhrman went on to say that he would like nothing more than to see all niggers gathered together and killed. He said something about burning them or bombing them. I was too shaken to remember the exact words he used. However, I do remember that what he said was probably the most horrible thing I had ever heard someone say. What frightened me even more was that he was a police officer sworn to uphold the law.” And now we have it. There was another man, not too long ago in the world, who had those same views who wanted to burn people, who had racist views and ultimately had power over people in this country.

People didn’t care. People said he was just crazy, he is just a half-baked painter. They didn’t do anything about it. This man, this scourge, became one of the worse people in the history of this world, Adolph Hitler, because people didn’t care or didn’t try to stop him. He had the power over his racism and his anti-religion. Nobody wanted to stop him, and it ended up in world war ii, the conduct of this man. And so Fuhrman, Fuhrman wants to take all black people now and burn them or bomb them. That is genocidal racism. Is that ethnic purity? What is that? What is that? We are paying this man’s salary to espouse these views? Do you think he only told Kathleen Bell whom he just had met? Do you think he talked to his partners about it? Do you think commanders knew about it? Do you think everybody knew about it and turned their heads? Nobody did anything about it.

                           
Reaction to the “innocent verdict”: O.J. Simpson, typical black behavior (dindu) and typical Jewish enabling. The glove trick was the idea of Shapiro (in background). F. Lee Baily, O.J. Simpson and Johnny Corchran, react in foreground.

In what is supposed to be prosecuting attorney Marcia Clark’s “closing argument” against the eminently guilty O.J. Simpson (who is merely one expression of pervasive black hyper-assertion, social irresponsibility and violence that needs to be defended against), Clark instead makes it a key point to condemn and condemn ultimately, Mark Fuhrman, a dedicated, competent and fair, career police detective:

Let me come back to Mark Fuhrman for a minute. Did he lie when he testified here in this courtroom saying that he did not use racial epithets in the last ten years? Yes. Is he a racist? Yes. Is he the worst L.A. P.D. has to offer? Yes. Do we wish that this person was never hired by the L.A. P.D.? Yes. Should L.A. P.D. have ever hired him? No. Should such a person be a police officer? No. In fact, do we wish there was no such person on the planet? Yes.

This “closing argument” by Marcia Clark is unbelievably perverted - she devoted 41 seconds (1/4th) of her 2:44 second long closing argument to condemning, and condemning ultimately, Mark Furhman, for the innate and necessary capacity that all species have to discriminate on behalf of their own survival - she even explicitly denounces Furhrman’s very existence.

Marcia Clark’s lawyering efforts were thoroughly co-opted by Jewish, anti-White purposes of destroying Whites.

Anti-racism is a Jewish construct that capitalizes on Cartesianism’s rational blindness to prejudices, to the fact that its way of viewing the world is not innocent, that it is hurting and it is killing people - it targets Whites, especially.

       
29 April 1992, during black riots: Blacks pulled Reginald Denny from his truck passing through the riot areas, and then celebrate after having thrown a brick full force, point blank into his head. This was far worse than the incident which sparked the riots, a baton beating that police administered to physically resistant Rodney King, who had been apprehended after a dangerous, high-speed car chase.

       
        Border fence between Israel and Syria (Photo: AFP)

TNO, “Israel to Build “Super Wall”, 17 June 2016:

Israel is to build a “super concrete wall” around the Gaza Strip which will extend dozens of feet over and underground, the Jewish state has announced.

At the same time, all major US Jewish organizations—which fanatically support Israel—have opposed Donald Trump’s plans to build a wall on the US-Mexican border.

       

According to a report in Israel’s Ynet News, Israel’s defense establishment plans to build a concrete wall “tens of meters underground as well as aboveground along the Gaza Strip border.”

It has previously been estimated that such a project would cost tens of billions of shekels. However, under the new plan the construction costs are estimated to reach NIS 2.2 billion, Ynet News said.

Doubtless this will come from the US$11 million per day that the American government gives in “aid” to the Jewish state.

The wall will stretch along the 60 miles of the southern border around the Gaza Strip, and will in fact be the third defense system of its kind that Israel has built along the border.

READ MORE...