Polish Government Set To Force Out Post-Communist Supreme Court Judges

The EU and its propaganda mouthpieces in the legacy media conglomerates around the world are in a state of panic at the prospect of Polands post-communist Supreme Court judges being forced into retirement by a bill granting the nations Law and Justice party, known as the PiS, the power to replace them with judges whose loyalty is to the Polish nation, rather than the EU(SSR).

Predictably CNN is one of those loudly decrying the threat to judicial independence in Poland:

President Andrzej Duda appears likely to sign the controversial bill into law. He has 21 days to sign or veto the legislation, which would also give the justice minister the power to pick the judges’ replacements.

A poll conducted by CNN affiliate TVN found that 55% of Poles said Duda should veto the court laws; 29% said he should not.

Judging by the lack of accuracy and impartiality of CNN polls, we can safely assume that it’s only 29% who think he should veto, while 55% agree with the bill – and that’s being conservative.

The bill’s passage could mark a turning point for the Eastern European country — one of the first former communist nations to join the European Union.
The move by the ruling right-wing Law and Justice party, known as the PiS, to control one of the last remaining independent government institutions has prompted concern in Washington and triggered warnings from the European Union that it is putting judicial independence at risk.

Yes, Poland was the first former communist nation to join the EU, and as a result is well aware of what the EU is turning into, and who the driving force behind it is. Jaroslaw Kaczynski, PiS’s leader, accused Poland’s courts of being “subordinated to foreign forces” and a “stronghold of post-communists”, because of the secret ties between Polish liberals and the former communist regime.

In a sign of the growing concern, a top EU official on Wednesday threatened the use of Article 7 — a mechanism that would allow for sanctions against Poland and possible suspension of its voting rights in the bloc. The measure has never been used before.
European Council President Donald Tusk, a former Polish Prime Minister from the opposition Civic Platform party, warned Thursday of “dangerous consequences” for Poland’s standing on the world stage and said he had asked Duda for an urgent meeting.

Under normal circumstances this type of interference by a democratic government on its judicial branch would be a worrying turn of events, but considering that the EU is itself an undemocratic bureaucracy hellbent on destroying individual European nations – via the importation of millions of non-Europeans under the guise of humanitarianism and offsetting declining birthrates – this is a necessary step to prevent the destruction of Polish society by globalist EU sympathisers.

Poland does have an EU ally — Hungary — and its support could derail attempts to pressure the country in corral the judiciary measures.
“Because of our own national interest, because of Europe’s and Poland’s interest, we must make clear that the inquisition offensive against Poland can never succeed because Hungary will use all legal options” in the European Union to show solidarity with the Poles, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said Saturday.

And hopefully others will follow suit. Nationalist governments throughout Europe need to retake control of their nations through determined action such as this. Unfortunately that action will not be spearheaded by Western European nations such as France or Germany, so the responsibility rests with the East. Their example will be an inspiration, much like the election of Donald Trump was an inspiration to nationalists throughout the West.

Another European model is possible. A united Europe which respects its individual member nations – and everything which a nation comprises – recognising and assuming its leading position in the world, while protecting its citizens from predatory globalism and its migrant armies of conquest.


African Overpopulation And Global Elites

The co-founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently warned in an interview with the German Welt am Sonntag newspaper that “Africa’s population explosion will overwhelm Europe unless the continent makes it more difficult for migrants to reach its shores.”

Of course Europeans – especially Italians who are currently inundated by the interminable arrival of migrant boats packed with Africans due to their proximity to lawless Libya and the tireless efforts of treasonous NGO’s – need no reminding of the problems faced by African overpopulation and the demographic pressures it creates, but the fact that a committed globalist like Bill Gates come out and said it is interesting.

The article continues with the following:

But Gates also spoke of a dilemma caused by ‘the German attitude to refugees’, referring to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to open Europe’s borders to illegal migrants arriving from the third world.

“On the one hand you want to demonstrate generosity and take in refugees, but the more generous you are, the more word gets around about this  — which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa,” Gates told the Sunday newspaper.

“Germany cannot possibly take in the huge, massive number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe.”

Because of this, Gates stressed that “Europe must make it more difficult for Africans to reach the continent via the current transit routes”.

All of this makes perfect sense, and one wonders why he and others in positions of real power haven’t come out and said it before – it’s not as if African migrant ships landing on Europe’s southern shores is a new phenomenon, albeit never as intense as this. In short, this could have been easily predicted and subsequently avoided.

In truth it was certainly predicted, but not only was there no will to deal with it in a timely manner, but the decision was undoubtably made to allow it to happen as a means of destroying European nationalism – in this sense nationalism used as a broad term to describe ethnic and political identification with a nation, and the cultural traditions of that ethnic people – and allowing the creation of a global government partly to deal with the crisis.

So following this unusual warning from Bill Gates, Reuters is reporting that his fellow billionaire and close friend Warren Buffett is donating $2.42 B to the Gates Foundation – now if that isn’t an endorsement of Gates’ latest comments then Buffett should be more careful with his billions.

If that wasn’t coincidental enough then French President Emmanuel Macron, AKA Jupiter, said that Africa was being “held back by ‘civilisational’ problems and women having ‘seven or eight children,'” while speaking at the G20 summit.

That’s two committed globalists – Macron is a fervent believer in the EU (not to be confused with Europe) which is a globalist project – coming out within a week of each other talking about African overpopulation. Does this mean they had a joint epiphany and suddenly decided to forsake their globalist ideology and join the alt-right? Certainly not. So what’s going on then?

Europe, and by extension the West, is a golden calf that the elites have used for their own enrichment and fulfilment of their long term plans for global government. But if Europe becomes a failed extension of Africa then their plan will fail. Consequently the objective has always been to find the right balance between the destruction of European nationalism via multiculturalism and ethnic dissolution, and the use of the old continent as a motor for globalist government.

China cannot be trusted to follow the globalist plan through as it’s clear they have their own agenda which does not lead to their own cultural destruction through mass immigration – the majority Han Chinese have always been and still are, even under a communist government, an ethnocentric people, and the thought of submitting to “barbarian” hegemony again is anathema to them.

Based on the statements by Gates and Macron we should expect more action to be taken to limit the flow of migrant ships to Europe. The damage is done in terms of European nationalism – the future is multicultural, at least in Western Europe, whether we like it or not. The number of non-ethnic Europeans is simply too large to even contemplate repatriation, even if nationalist parties like the Front Nacional in France were to miraculously win power in their respective national elections.

As much as it pains to admit it, Western Europe is lost as we know it, but European civilisation will continue to survive in pockets of resistance, and most likely a new beginning for many will have to be made in Central and Eastern Europe, where the madness of unrestrained immigration and wilful self-destruction has not infected the collective minds of those nations yet – strange to think that the future of the old continent  is in the former haunt of communism.








The Hubris Of Carl Bernstein And His Ilk

In truth much could be written about the following 48 second clip, but the most important and ominous part is during the first 17 seconds:

Carl Bernstein – known for his investigative reporting on the Watergate scandal leading to President Richard Nixon’s resignation – begins by claiming that the US is in the midst of a “malignant presidency.”

His choice of words is interesting, because the implication is that Donald Trump’s presidency is a malignant tumour that needs to be removed. He follows by claiming that this malignancy is known to the “military leaders of the country, Republican leadership in congress who recognise it, and intelligence community.”

There’s no doubt that the President has enemies in all three of these groups, but he has many friends and supporters also, if not he would not have survived – politically and physically – this long in the face of so much unwarranted hostility.

Without a doubt Bernstein has sources that have voiced their unjustified complaints to him, and may have even used the adjective “malignant” to describe their twisted view of the Presidents office, and if so this is a veiled threat which he has then decided to voice on CNN.

The fact that CNN employees have been caught admitting on camera by Project Veritas that their coverage of the Trump-Russia story is baseless is serious enough, but to then give airtime to a guest who utters these veiled threats against a President who has tenaciously defended himself against their fake news, is another ominous development.

If the left thinks that President Trump will be removed by a military coup, senile RINO’s like John McCain, or those in the intelligence community who have secretly sworn their allegiance to someone or something other than the American Constitution, then they’re gravely mistaken.

That’s not to say that President Trump is invincible – he’s clearly in danger, but it’s a danger he’s prepared and willing to face, and he does not stand alone. For self preservation, his enemies, and the enemies of the American Republic would do well to take heed of warnings like this one from Alex Jones:

“Be selfish for your own personal lives and back off.” The truth is that the “elites” mentioned in the above video are the real malignancy in America, and throughout the world, and the light of truth needs to be shined on them and their wicked ways.

Refugees Who Become Welfare Migrants

When the “refugee crisis” began in 2015 – or rather was provoked by those intent on destroying European nationalism and culture through “multiculturalism” – the propaganda churned out by the legacy media attempted to fool concerned Europeans into believing that the hordes of military aged men invading the old continent via the eastern Mediterranean and Balkans were fleeing war, mainly from Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

However it was clear to anyone with a little common sense that these “refugees” were not fleeing war, but rather migrating to rich European countries because of their generous welfare systems, and in the case of Germany, the encouragement of a Chancellor who under normal circumstances would be accused of treason rather than praised as a humanitarian.

Now Europeans are being conditioned to accept that these refugees supposedly fleeing war, are now migrants here to stay, despite the crime and mayhem they’ve brought with them. According to AFP via Yahoo News:

The peak of the migrant crisis in Europe has passed but many of those who came are here to stay and governments must focus on helping them integrate, the OECD said Thursday.

But many of those who came, fleeing war or persecution, “are likely to stay for some time, at least until their home countries are safe again”, said Stefano Scarpetta, OECD Director for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, in the report.

The peak may have passed but the damage is done, and it will not end until European politicians are forced by European citizens to put an end to this madness of cultural dissolution. In the case of Italy it seems that the boats filled with thousands of African migrants landing on its shores – in many cases with the aid of NGO’s – has finally forced its government to threaten the EU with closing its ports.

It goes without question that these refugees turned migrants are likely to stay considering the financial aid they receive in countries like Germany and Sweden, and regardless of whether their home countries become safe again, it’s unlikely they’ll be compelled to return to the deserts or war torn cities that they came from. Needless to say that Stefano Scarpetta is perfectly happy about this, probably because he thinks that cheap labour is good for business, and is no doubt rich enough to preach from his ivory tower.

OECD countries registered more than 1.6 million asylum requests, with at least two-thirds in European states, and 1.5 million were granted.

Presenting the report, OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria said international efforts were needed to address “negative perceptions” about migration, “which are often rooted in a misconception of the benefit that migrants can bring to recipient countries.”

The report said some countries had stepped up their integration efforts, praising the examples of the fast-track integration programme introduced in Sweden and the adoption of the first-ever law on integration in Germany.

But it said integration policies were falling short in other countries.

Perhaps if Angel Gurria could list some of the benefits that he’s referring to it would help address the negative perceptions that undoubtably exist, thanks in no small part to the terrorist attacks perpetrated by muslims, and the increase in violent crimes – including rape and murder – which have led to a backlash in Germany, and a government free-speech clampdown on people posting on Facebook and other social media sites.

It’s interesting to note that Gurria is a Mexican, preaching to European countries about “falling short” on integration policies. He’s also a man that was given the “Globalist of the Year” award from the Canadian International Council for his contribution to innovation in global governance and international affairs.

Undoubtably globalists like Gurria, intent on destroying nationalism as a prerequisite to world government, are frustrated by the opposition that central European countries like Poland are showing to their destructive agenda, as reported by Reuters:

Poland has a moral right to say ‘no’ to refugees, the country’s most powerful politician said on Saturday.

Jaroslaw Kaczynski, head of the ruling party Law and Justice (PiS), gave his views on immigration at a party convention in Przysucha, 100 km (60 miles) south of Warsaw.

“We have not exploited the countries from which these refugees are coming to Europe these days, we have not used their labor force and finally we have not invited them to Europe. We have a full moral right to say ‘no’,” Kaczynski said in a speech broadcast on television.

If western Europe is to survive our governments need to say “no” also, and if they’re not able to represent the will of the people they need to be replaced with leaders that are willing and able. Europe needs it equivalent of a wall with Mexico, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and a leader who is ready to Make Europe Great Again.

How Immigration Is Destroying The Swedish Welfare State

Leftists in the United States have long pointed at the “Nordic Model” welfare state epitomised by Sweden as the type of system they would like to implement in the US.

They think that by raising taxes and enabling collective bargaining between employers and trade unions they will obtain the same results in a country with a historical aversion to socialism, and one still divided in many areas along racial lines.

The second point matters, because although socialism of the type in Sweden worked well while it was still a racially and culturally homogenous country – beginning after WW2 – society began to gradually fragment with the influx of immigrants beginning in the 1970’s, resulting in government mistrust and in-group strategies, which have left the weight of propping up the failing system on a dwindling core of mostly white Swedes.

An article in The Economist has the following to say regarding this:

TENSIONS were running high when your correspondent visited Sweden at the height of Europe’s migrant crisis, in late 2015. Although most Swedes happily accepted the 163,000 asylum-seekers who arrived in their country that year, others were far less welcoming. In Malmo, a heavily immigrant city in the south, one cashier in a local shop was particularly angry. “They are just here for welfare and benefits,” he said, before telling your correspondent to “get out”. Such language was once the preserve of politicians from the far-right Sweden Democrats party, which has capitalised on the crisis to boost its support. Since then the government has been trying to adapt the Swedish welfare state to suit the times: both to accommodate hundreds of thousands of refugees and to try to diminish such right-wing sentiment. What is changing?

The first response by the centre-left coalition government to the overwhelming influx of refugees in 2015 was to close the border with Denmark. This was seen as an extreme measure: the deputy prime minister, Asa Romson, cried when announcing the move at a press conference. Since then it has also tried to tweak welfare spending. Previously, failed asylum-seekers received a monthly cash benefit of around 1,200 SEK ($140) and housing; this was scrapped last year. On May 31st the government voted to limit paid parental leave for immigrants: previously, refugees could claim the full amount of paid leave (480 days per child under the age of eight). Now they can only do so if the child is under one year old. For big families the benefits will be limited further.

At first the thought of the deputy prime minister crying about closing the border with Denmark to stop the influx of refugees seemed like a joke, but alas not.

It’s no wonder that “refugees” were uninterested in settling in Eastern European nations if they could make their way to Sweden – and likely Germany also – and get cash and housing even if their bid for asylum failed.

Those Swedes worried about becoming a minority in their own country can draw some encouragement from the government decision to limit paid parental leave for immigrants – one imagines a recently settled “refugee” using his free government provided iPhone 7 to call his three wives in Afghanistan telling them to pack the bags for themselves and their 17 children under eight – however the fact that it’s still applicable for children under one will only encourage them to find the first Swedish girl they can get their hands on and try their luck.

In truth the only solution to this is a complete collapse and reboot of the system, something which doesn’t seem too far off judging by the talk of civil war from the Swedish National Police Chief. It remains to be seen if Swedish men still have the fighting spirit of their viking ancestors lying dormant somewhere inside them, which will save their women and their country, but not their once idealised welfare state.



Starbucks Hiring Invaders To Serve Coffee In Europe

Remember when Howard Shultz – the former CEO of Starbucks, and its current executive chairman – told a shareholder in 2013 that he could “sell your shares” if he didn’t agree with the company’s stance on gay marriage?

Well that should have left things quite clear to anyone who was unsure about the company’s position on the political spectrum, and its evident disdain for anyone right of Barrack Obama, even at the risk of losing their business.

Now they’ve decided to go a step further by effectively telling jobseekers and customers in eight European countries, who are senseless enough to give money to this corporate giant rather than support their local coffee shops, that if they’re not happy with the EU’s and mama Merkel’s migrant policy they can drink their coffee elsewhere. As reported by the Independent:

Starbucks will hire 2,500 refugees across Europe by 2022 as part of a wider plan that sparked a social media backlash when it was announced in January.

The world’s largest coffee chain said on Tuesday that it had already started the hiring the refugees, which it said would represent around 8 per cent of its current European workforce of 30,000.

Starbucks‘ commitment was made to coincide with World Refugee Day and proves “that businesses like ours can use its scale to make a positive impact in people’s lives,” said Martin Brok, president of Starbucks for Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

The company will roll out the initiative in Britain, France, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Germany and the Netherlands.

So basically 2,500 jobs that could go to unemployed Europeans – in this case unskilled workers who may already be in a delicate economic situation themselves – will be given to “refugees.” Let’s see how well that works out for them. At this rate by 2022, 2,500 workers may make up 100% of Starbucks workforce after the company is forced to put a hijab on their mermaid logo and a crescent above her head. Somehow the name Crescentbucks doesn’t have the same ring to it, but hell, we need to move with the times, right Howard?

The company faced fierce criticism from some people using the #BoycottStarbucks hashtag on social media. So far, only a handful of people on Twitter appear to have expressed disapproval of the latest announcement regarding European hires.

It’s hardly surprising they received fierce criticism from “some” people on social media, but why even mention that if they then seem to contradict themselves after by claiming that only a “handful” of people expressed disapproval. It’s also quite surprising that they didn’t qualify the statement by writing instead that “only a handful of racist white supremacists on Twitter appear to have expressed disapproval…”

Europe’s refugee crisis shows no signs of abating. Around 360,000 refugees and migrants arrived on the Europe’s shores last year, many from war-torn Syria and Iraq as well as African countries including Guinea and Mali, according to the UN refugee agency.

Yes, nothing quite like getting your coffee served by someone with PTSD from a war-torn third world hell hole where customer service is as rare as a functioning Starbucks, and you’re likely to get scalded with boiling water for demanding the correct change.

Last week, the European Commission launched legal proceedings against three European Union member states who have refused to take in refugees.

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic are accused of not fulfilling their obligations outlined in a 2015 plan to relocate migrants from Italy and Greece, to help share the burden. The three Eastern European countries have taken in a total of just 12 people since the agreement started.

Perhaps those 12 people could be hired in their respective Starbucks as a pilot project, and if successful the EU would have a perfect example of the unique benefits that refugees can bring to their local economies? Or even better, why not persuade Starbucks to hire refugees as 100% of their workforce and eventually rid themselves of this subversive company by putting them out of business after enough customers have taken their business elsewhere. Now that would be poetic justice.





Heineken’s Open World Agitprop Campaign

On the 20 April, the Dutch brewing company Heineken decided to deprioritize selling beer, and alienate its traditional consumers by going into the business of progressive political ads, perhaps as an end rather than a means to an end, strange as that may seem.

The political ad in question is called “Worlds Apart”, and you can watch it here if you have the stomach to endure 4 minutes and 25 seconds of modern-day agitprop – very telling considering that Heineken’s logo is a red star – which is as fake as CNN or MSNBC.

A bit of research into this political ad reveals that the agency behind it was Publicis London, which is part of the Publicis Group, a French multinational advertising and public relations company founded by Marcel Bleustein-Blanchet in 1926, and currently one of the largest marketing and communications companies in the world, by revenue.

There are two relevant pieces of information worth pointing out about this company before going back to Heineken’s agitprop campaign.

The first is that a US subsidiary of the Publicis Groupe, Qorvis MSLGroup, was caught helping Saudi Arabia “whitewash” its human rights record, according to the Independent.

The second piece of information is that the company’s CEO since 1987, Maurice Lévy, was – according to Wikipedia – in January 2008:

“…bestowed the International Leadership Award 2008 from the Anti-Defamation League in recognition of his stance towards tolerance and diversity.[4] He also financed the 2008 concert at the Trocadéro to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel.”

This is relevant to the Heineken’s “Worlds Apart” and “Open Your World” campaign because they’ve gone ahead and added the following to the back of their UK bottles: “To a world without borders or barriers. To the belief that there’s more that unites us than divides us. To finding common ground. So raise a bottle with the person next to you. Because a stranger is just a friend you haven’t had a cold Heineken with yet.”

If Maurice Lévy seems keen to promote tolerance, diversity, and a world without borders or barriers in the UK, one can only assume the same is not true of Israel, where it’s likely he’d get the bottle of Heineken smashed around his head if he did the same, due to their clear understanding of the dangerous consequences of insecure borders.

And what to say about the “whitewash” of Saudi Arabia’s human rights record? It certainly doesn’t seem to align with the “Open Your World” campaign they created – lets not forget that women have been referred to “terror” courts for driving in Saudi Arabia. Enough said.

So what on earth is Heineken playing at? Is there really money in promoting this kind of progressive propaganda? Do they seriously think that the migrants squatting in Calais waiting to get into Britain will spend the little money they have boozing on their beer?

It will remain to be seen what happens to their sales in the UK – hopefully consumers will vote with their Pounds – but there is the sneaking suspicion that this could be an EU attempt to influence Brexit Britains snap election on 8 June, announced by Theresa May on the 18 April, two days before the ad was launched.

Whether they’ll have any success is unlikely, but in any case this is another manifestation of the progressive madness making companies put politics before profits. The left often uses the threat of boycott to bully companies into acquiescing to their progressive demands, and now it’s time the right fights fire with fire in this culture war for the West.