Can You Handle The Truth Remainers/Rejoiners? Well Can You Punks’

The Brexit Party’s MEPs have been compared to Nazis because they turned their backs on the European Union’s ‘national anthem’ at the opening of the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

First, the European Union is a corrupt, anti-democratic, and increasingly authoritarian institution whose policies on everything from open borders (pro) to free speech (against) have inflicted enormous misery on people across the European continent. So, publicly to display your disdain for such an abhorrent polity, as those Brexit MEPs did, is hardly what you’d call Nazi behaviour. If anything, it’s the exact opposite.

Second, let’s not forget that the Nazis were actually very fond of the European Union’s ‘national anthem’, “Ode to Joy” from Beethoven’s 9th Symphony. Hitler the ultimate monster of the Master race was besotted by it.

They were that fond of it that they ordered the Jewish musicians in the death camps to play it as their fellow Jews many of them who would have been family and friends walked past them going to the gas chambers where the Nazis they slaughtered them. There are even reports that they were made to play this Ode to Joy right outside these chambers to drown out the screams as the Jews who suddenly became aware of what was happening to them. I can think of many musical overtures that they could have chosen for their Anthem Ode to Joy is certainly not one of them.

Third, there’s that awkward question of why the European Union which is not a nation yet has managed to acquire for itself a ‘national anthem’ that the Nazis enjoyed so much for which it appears to require MEPs to stand respectfully. But then you begin to realize if you are bright enough to do a little detective work and look at who first thought of this corrupt monster organization you realize that it was first muted by none other than the Nazis themselves.

So its only fitting that they should choose a piece of music that the ultimate nazi loved. Its as if they are actually paying tribute to a monster long dead

Yes, my friends, It was a Nazi Walther Funk who first muted the idea of the EU. Along with his Master Adolf Hitler

A little background is in order.

The roots of the “Brussels EU”

Newly discovered documents reveal that the undemocratic structure of the “Brussels EU” has its roots in the post-WWII plans of the IG Farben/Nazi-coalition in a conquered Europe.

Following are a few of the most important documents, to be used by teachers, politicians and anyone who is interested in preventing the “Brussels EU” from establishing a dictatorship of corporate interests in Europe.

Walther Funk (1890–1960) was Minister of Economics and President of the Reichsbank(national bank) in Germany. Funk participated in efforts to drive German Jews from the economy and played a major role in recycling confiscated property, valuables, and financial assets of Holocaust victims into the German war economy.

Found guilty on counts two, three, and four (crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity), Funk was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was released in 1957 due to poor health.

Walter Funk envisioned a European Union even if that would be led by Germany while the one built later was led by the U.S.A. an extra-Europen Power.

Then we have Joachim von Ribbentrop who said this in 1943

The IG Farben/Nazi coalition plans for a “New Europe” Related Documents

Joachim von Ribbentrop:
European confederation

March 21, 1943

The document here reproduced represents the culmination of the Foreign Ministry’s efforts in regard to the ‘new Europe’. It reflects the considerations set . The draft bears Ribbentrop’s amendments and initials.

Subject: European Confederation

I am of the opinion that, as already proposed to the Führer in my previous minutes, we should at the earliest possible date, as soon as we have scored a significant military success, proclaim the European Confederation in quite a specific form.

As a foundation ceremony I would envisage inviting all the Heads of State concerned, together with their Governments, to a safe meeting-place such as Salzburg or Vienna, where they would solemnly sign the instrument bringing the Confederation into being.

The States immediately concerned would be Germany, Italy, France, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece and Spain (?). If the Führer should intend to create independent states in the parts of Europe occupied by us, these would be added to the list.

In my opinion, only a specific measure of this kind would produce the success we are aiming at.

The establishment of a European confederation would have the following political advantages:

1. It would dispel the fear of our friends and allies that they might all be placed under German Gauleiters as soon as peace is concluded.
2. Neutrals would be reassured that they would not be incorporated into Germany at the end of the war.
3. Italy would be relieved of their fear that powerful Germany might wish to drive her into a corner.
4. If the Führer decides to set up a number of more or less independent states in certain occupied territories, which of course would remain completely in our power, it would come as a considerable reassurance to those territories and induce them to muster their forces to help us in the war.
5. It would give the Russians the impression that all Europe was against them, and thus weaken their fighting spirit.
6. It would tend to disarm the fighting spirit of the British and Americans if they found that they were not liberating European states but attacking a Europe which stood solidly against them.
7. It would have a weakening effect internally in both Britain and America. As regards America it would be a severe blow to Roosevelt. In both countries, especially America, it would destroy the best arguments of anti-German propaganda. Opposition groups would, for instance, be able to say: ‘We cannot forbid Europe to do what America herself did, namely to form a union of states.’
8. In France and the occupied territories, in general, it would make all the difference to these countries’ war effort in the personal and material spheres. This would especially be so in the case of French labor and the armaments industry.
9. As regards France I have particularly in mind and have discussed this with Himmler, that with the clear watchword of Europe to help us we might recruit from the Germanic part of the population one of two first-class SS divisions which could be thrown into the battle on our side. All the details of this have been thought out and I shall in the next few days be again discussing them thoroughly with Himmler. Without the European watchword this recruiting would have no success.
10. Several neutrals such as Sweden, Turkey, Portugal, etc. would be deterred from too close relations with Britain and America. Turkey’s efforts to create a Balkan Pact, with England behind it, of course, would not (sic) be foiled by the creation of a European Confederation.
11. I shall submit to the Führer a first outline draft of the Act of Confederation. I believe that the establishment of the Confederation at the right moment will have such profound effects that our enemies will to all intents and purposes be robbed of their principal war aim for propaganda purpose in future. I also believe that given the great divergences which are already visible between England, America, and Russia, and which will one day assume huge proportions, the enemy coalition will simply dissolve when it is brought up against a united Europe of this kind.
12. The effort on the fighting in Tunis is also especially important, as I am convinced that when this Confederation is founded with Marshal Pétain as a signatory, General Giraud will find it hard to go on mobilizing Frenchmen to fight against us.

Oh dear my friends, at last, we are seeing what Germany envisaged for us all in Europe

Because he goes on to say

The Governments of the German Reich, Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Croatia, and Spain have resolved to form a European Confederation.

For this purpose, the Heads of State of …..and the Heads of Government of ….. have met at ….. on …..The instrument establishing the European Confederation, which was signed by the plenipotentiaries of the above-mentioned European Governments, includes the following provisions.

1. In order to give tangible expression to the common destiny of European peoples and to ensure that wars never again break out among them, the States here represented have for all time established a European Confederation.
2. The members of the Confederation are sovereign states and guarantee one another’s freedom and political independence. The organization of their internal affairs is a matter for the sovereign decision of each of them.
3. The member nations of the Confederation will jointly defend the interests of Europe in every direction and protect the European continent against external enemies.
4. The States of the Confederation will conclude an alliance for the defense of Europe, the plans for which will be drawn up in due course.
5. The European economy will be organized by the member States on the basis of a uniform plan arrived at by mutual agreement. Customs barriers among them will be progressively abolished.
6. While preserving their national character, the States united in the Confederation will conduct intensive cultural exchanges with one another.
7. The European States which are not founder members of the Confederation are solemnly invited to join it.
8. All details of the organization of the European Confederation shall be laid down in a Confederal Act, which will form the subject of consultation after the war by all the Governments concerned.

It's all there the foundation of what we are now seeing

I draw your attention to this

Joseph Goebbels:
The Europe of the future

September 11, 1940

In a ‚speech to Czech intellectual workers and journalists’ the Reich Propaganda Minister outlined his vision of ‘the Europe of the future’.

(…) At the moment when British power is collapsing, we have the opportunity to reorganize Europe on principles corresponding to the social, economic and technical possibilities of the twentieth century.

About a hundred years ago our German Reich went through a similar process. At that time it was fragmented into just as many larger and smaller parts as Europe is today. This medley of small states was endurable so long as technical facilities, especially those of communications, were not yet so developed that is took too short a time to travel from one small country to another. But the invention of steam power made the old conditions intolerable (…)

In those days too there were elements in the Reich which sought to remedy this state of affairs by negotiation. Those elements were refuted by historical developments, in a way that is not uncommon. History generally operates with harsher laws than those that prevail around the conference table. You may remember the words Bismarck used at that time that German unity would not be brought about by speeches and resolutions but that it must be forged by blood and iron. This statement was much contested then, but history justified it in due course: the unity of the Reich was in fact forged on the battlefield. In the process, a whole lot of peculiarities of individual states, prejudices, limitations and parochial ideas were done away with. They had to be overcome, for otherwise the Reich would not have been in a position to achieve unity and enter into the great conflict of European powers. We were only able to achieve political unity because at that time we broke down the barriers that were constricting us (…)

Today the railway is no longer the most modern means of communication: it has been superseded by the airplane. A distance that it once took twelve hours to cover by rail can be traversed by a modern aircraft in one or one and a half hours. Technology has brought not only tribes but whole peoples closer together than was once imaginable. Whereas formerly it took 24 hours to talk from Berlin to Prague indirectly via the press, today it does not take me an extra second. When I speak at this microphone I can be heard at the same moment in Prague, Slovakia, Warsaw, Brussels, and The Hague. Whereas it once took twelve hours to travel to Prague by rail, today I can fly there in an hour. In other words, in the course of a century technology has brought peoples closer still to one another. It is certainly no accident that these technical aids have come into being at this particular moment. For there are more people in Europe than there used to be, and their numbers have created quite new problems for European society — problems of food supplies and economic policy as well as those of finance and defense. As these technical achievements are put to use, so the continents are inevitably brought closer together. Meanwhile, European peoples are realizing more and more clearly that many of the issues between us are mere family quarrels compared to the great problems that today require to be solved as between continents.

I am firmly convinced that just as today we smile when we look back at the parochial quarrels that divided the German peoples in the 40s and 50s of the last century, so in fifty years’ time future generations will be no less amused at the political disputes that are now going now on in Europe. The ‘dramatic national conflicts’ of many small European states will seem to them no more than family quarrels. I am convinced that in fifty years people will no longer think in terms of countries — may of today’s problems will have faded into obscurity, and there will be little left of them. In those days people will think in terms of continents, and European minds will be filled and swayed by quite different, perhaps much greater problems.

You must on no account think that when we Germans bring about a certain order in Europe we do so for the purpose of stifling individual peoples. In my view, a nation’s conception of its own freedom must be harmonized with present-day facts and simple questions of efficiency and purpose. Just as no member of a family has the right to disturb its peace for selfish purposes, in the same way, no single European nation can, in the long run, be allowed to stand in the way of the general process of organization.

It has never been our intention that this new order or reorganization of Europe should be brought about by force. If we with our Greater German outlook have no interest in infringing the economic, cultural or social peculiarities of, say the Bavarians or the Saxons, so it is equally not in out interest to infringe the economic, social or cultural individuality of, say the Czech people. But a clear basis of mutual understanding must be created between the two nations. We must approach each other either as friends or as enemies. And I think you know ell enough from the past experience that the Germans can be terrible enemies, but also very good friends. We reach out our hand to a friend and cooperate with him in a truly loyal spirit, but we can also fight an enemy until he is destroyed.

The people who have adapted or will adapt to this reorganization must ask themselves whether they are doing so with genuine good will and sincerity or whether they are inwardly resisting it. Whichever they do will make no difference to the facts. They may take it as certain that once England is overthrown the Axis powers will not permit any change in the power-political situation of a Europe reorganized in accordance with great political, economic and social ideas. If Britain can do nothing to prevent this, certainly the Czech people cannot. If you have learnt anything from recent history you will know that nothing can or will be changed in the power-political situation as it exists today.

And so, gentlemen — and I am speaking now quite realistically, without any appeal to sentiment — it makes no difference at all whether you approve this state of things or not. Whether or not you welcome it from your hearts, you cannot do anything to alter the facts. Now it is my opinion that when you can do nothing to alter a state of affairs and have to put up with the disadvantages it may no doubt present, it would be foolish not to profit by its advantages as well. Since you have become part of the Reich anyway, I do not see why the Czech people should adopt an attitude of inward opposition to the Reich instead of claiming the advantages it offers (…)

You gentlemen have now seen something of the Reich, and I made a point of allowing you to make this journey before I addressed you. You have seen the Reich in Wartime, and you will have formed some idea of what it can be in peace. Out great nation with its large population, together with Italy, will in practice take over the leadership of Europe. There are no two ways about that. What it means for you is that you are already members of a great Reich which is preparing to reorganize Europe, tearing down the barriers that still separate the European peoples and making it easier for them to come together. Germany intends to put an end to a situation which quite clearly cannot satisfy mankind for long. We are performing here a work of reform which I am convinced will one day be recorded in large letters in the book of European history. Can you imagine what the Reich will actually be like after the war?

Well YES we can because we are seeing unfold before our very eyes and have bee seeing it for the last 50 years without realizing what was going on

You all thought the Nazis were a thing of the past, well think again because they are all sitting right before your very eyes in Brussels.

However, let us look a little bit further ito this.

This is a memorandum written in 1940

Reich Chancery memorandum:
“Organization of the German Economy”

July 9, 1940

On 22 June 1940 Göring as Plenipotentiary for the Four-Year Plan issued an order on ‘the organization of the German economy after the conclusion of the military conflict’.

As a result, the Reich Chancery produced the following memorandum for Reich Minister Hans Heinrich Lammers, which was used on 22 July 1940 as the basis for a conference of departmental heads chaired by Funk, Reich Minister of Economics.

The large-scale economic unification of Europe can be achieved in various ways. States which economically complement Germany or resemble it in economic structure can largely be unified with it. This is especially true of the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxemburg. With other states, the ties will be less close.

Such a central European economic community under German leadership will require a solution of the following problems among others:

1. The central European currencies must be placed on a uniform basis by establishing a fixed rate of exchange between those of the other countries and the Reichsmark.
2. Customs barriers in central Europe must be abolished. Damage to individual industries can be avoided by the conclusion of quota, price and sales agreements among economic groups in the respective countries. In the same way, agriculture could be protected by measures to be adopted by Reich agencies and their counterparts in the other countries concerned.

The following are the principal general advantages of an economic community:

1. The possibility of rational production and of concentrating the most efficient concerns in the most favorable sites, eliminating inefficient plant and doing away with the uneconomic movement of goods.
2. Removing payments difficulties.
3. Enlarging the customs-free marketing area.
4. Increased leverage in trade negotiations and relations with other countries.

Such a central European union would give a powerful impetus to the European economy. Admittedly it would not confer autarky upon Europe: there would still be a need for various raw materials, e.g. rubber, important non-ferrous metals, hides and skins, textile raw materials, foodstuffs, and fodder. The deficiencies could be made good either from colonies or by trading with other large economic areas.

As far as numbers are concerned, a central European economic bloc including those of Germany’s neighbors that are envisaged for the purpose would comprise a much larger population than the United States‘ 130 million.

Then we find this again in 1940

Meeting at Reich Economic Ministry:
Reorganization of the European economy

July 22, 1940

This is a Record of the meeting held at Reich Economic Ministry under the chairmanship of Minister Walther Funk to discuss Göring’s order of 22 June 1940. Ribbentrop informed Funk on 25 July that he had instructed Carl Clodius, Deputy Director of the Economic Policy Dept. of the Foreign Ministry, to study ‘questions connected with the organization of a Greater European economic area under German leadership’.

The minister began by referring to the order addressed to him by Reichsmarschall Göring on 22 June. The preparatory work to be undertaken under the Minister’s overall direction was to include the following:

1. Coordination of the incorporated and occupied territories within the Great German economy.
2. The economic settlement with the enemy states.
3. Reorganization of the continental economy directed by Germany, and its relations with the world economy.

Currency questions

The currency was not a primary factor, but depended on events and economic necessities: Yet theoreticians were always putting forward ideas on a currency that had nothing to do with reality. In particular, it could only do harm to create a new special currency for Europe. It was unprofitable for currency matters to be discussed in the abstract, especially by unauthorized persons: this could lead nowhere.

Before deciding the question of currency we must be clear as to the methods whereby the economy was to be organized after the war. It was wrong to suppose that the free play of market forces would again be allowed, for with an undirected economy there was too much attrition of national economic assets. Instead, the system of price and other controls evolved by Germany in recent years would be to be continued for the time being.

It was a fantasy to talk at this stage of a unified economy on a European scale, and in the same way, it was harmful to use slogans like ‘currency and customs union’ and expect them to solve all difficulties. A currency or customs union could only be envisaged with a country having a similar standard of life to our own.

This was not the case in south-eastern Europe, for instance, and it was not at all in our interest to confer on that area a similar standard of life to ours. This could only impair the efficiency of the local economy. In discussing post-war organization we must always be clear what immediate measures were necessary and what might be called for in the long run.

One difficulty of planning lay in the fact that the Führer’s aims and decisions were not yet known and the military measures against Britain were not yet concluded. We therefore did not know whether the British Empire and its economic influence would remain to any extent or not. Those responsible for preliminary planning should assume that the British economy would continue to exist in some form and would affect the situation at any rate outside Europe. If this assumption should be altered, other proposals would have to be worked out.

2.

A second main problem was the priority of needs. At the end of the war, we should not be able at once to satisfy all the needs of the European peoples. There would be a bottleneck in raw materials, foodstuff, and fodder. Urgent measures would be necessary to overcome these shortages. If they were successful in a short time, the existing rations system could be brought to an end and the regulations made less severe. The main object of planning was to determine the priority between economic needs on the home front. If this was not decided and if economic demands were allowed to compete freely, there were bound to be tensions of the same kind as those that had made themselves felt in 1938 and the first half of 1939. It was wrong to suppose that the armaments industry would have nothing to do after the war. On the contrary, Germany would have to keep its armed forces at an appropriate level, and they would thus continue to make considerable demands on the arms industry. In the first years of peace, there would probably only be a falling-off in actual war expenses; any further easing in the armaments sector was not to be expected for the time being.

Germany now had the political power to reorganize the European economy in accordance with her own needs. Three was also the political intention to use that power so that other countries would have to adapt themselves and their economies to our plans and needs. But all our needs could not be met in Europe. The needs of Europe (apart from Russia and Italy) for raw materials were such that, even counting parts of Africa and Asia as colonies, there would still be a considerable import requirement. This requirement must be decreased by intensifying European production: only thus could regain our economic freedom. But we wanted more than this, as it was the Führer’s special aim to improve the living standards of German workers. In order to satisfy needs that went beyond the bare minimum, we would have to trade with overseas countries. This was especially clear in the case of mineral oil. By synthetic production, we could manufacture enough to cover our peacetime needs, but he was not really necessary. It was sufficient if Germany and the European territories within our reach could manufacture or extract enough for wartime; the additional amount required in time of peace could then be procured by foreign trade.

3. Autarky — yes or no?

It was wrong to put the question of whether the new Europe should be based on autarkic principles or not. The answer was rather that independence of foreign markets must be achieved to the extent necessary to safeguard the freedom of Greater Germany. We must, therefore, be autarkic from the war point of view. Apart from that, there should be freedom of overseas trade in order to meet needs additional to those of war economy. Thus it was not a question of ‘autarky or exports’, but of ‘autarky and exports’.

4. Foreign trade

German foreign trade was based on bilateral arrangements. This had worked well enough so far, but it had the disadvantage that one was tied to a particular partner and could not start importing at will from some other country that might for a time have more of the commodity in question. Hence the bilateral system must be enlarged into a multilateral one. By manipulating prices vis-á-vis the offset-account countries it was possible at the same time to manipulate the currency. This applied to offset transactions in Europe. In international overseas trade, however, a free currency was necessary.

(…)

6. Questions of organization

To enable the other countries in our sphere of interest to take similar measures, which must be agreed with us as a matter of principle, their respective economies must be reorganized. The Reich organization for agriculture could set up corresponding bodies in their other countries, to supervise the whole economic process including production, processing, and distribution to consumers. Similar cooperation is to be envisaged in industry and trade.

7. Two groups of countries

The European countries within the German sphere of interest fall into two groups. The first comprises countries with a similar price, wage, and salary, tax and income level to ours: e.g. Denmark, Holland and Switzerland. The south-eastern countries form the second group. While the first are to be organized similarly to ourselves and treated more generously in the matter of payments, the others are too different from us for payments and currency union to be considered. Certainly, we must try to have close economic links with France after the war. Russia’s position in relation to the territories under our authority is still uncertain.

8. Summary

Germany’s general post-war objective in Europe is to achieve a large measure of economic liberty while raising the standard of living by means of increased supplies. Thanks to large-scale planning the economy will be free from cyclic variations, and this will have a stimulating effect on all branches of commerce and finance. Thanks to state control of prices, salaries and supplies in the European area the needs of a war economy will be met, while additional peace-time needs will be met with the aid of extensive exports.

(…)

The departmental heads agreed in principle with the Minister’s exposition and stated that his well-thought-out remarks were in general correct and convincing and would serve as a basis for planning in their respective departments.

We see in this the Nazis talking about one currency, we see Germany talking how they now had the political power to reorganize the European economy in accordance with her own needs.

However, there is more Remember these people are out and out Nazis

Karl Megerle: “European themes”

prob. Autumn 1941

Megerle, the official on the Foreign Minister’s staff in charge of information matters, developed a number of guidelines on ‘Europe’ in a memorandum, probably for Renthe-Fink.

1. The unification of Europe, which was already showing itself to be an inevitable development in accordance with the iron laws of history, has been strengthened and accelerated as a result of their war imposed on Germany and Italy by the continent’s old enemy, England.
2. The new Europe has received its baptism of fire on the Eastern battlefield: the new order has been consecrated by the testing of almost all European nations on the Eastern front against the common enemy of the West.
3. Germany and Italy, as the leading continental powers, regard it as a solemn duty to protect the other European nations in future against any attempt to disturb their peace.
4. The new order in Europe will largely remove the causes that have led to internal European wars in the past. The nations of Europe will no longer be one another’s enemies. The age of European particularism will be gone forever.
5. In a peaceful Europe organized as a higher unity all European nations will find a rightful and worthy place.
6. Thanks to planned economic cooperation all the resources of Europe and its complementary African territory will be used to the full to satisfy the continent’s vital needs. In a joint effort, backward economies will be developed so as to raise the living standards of the broad masses.
7. The new Europe will be tolerant in matters of religion and personal philosophy. It will permit each and every one. (sic)
8. The alien invasion of Europe and the adulteration of its culture by aggressive Americanism will no longer be tolerated. Europe will belong to the Europeans alone, and its crowning glory will be to preserve and revive Western civilization.
9. The idea of leadership, which will be the dominant conception of the new international life of Europe, is the negation of the imperialist methods of a bygone age: it signifies recognition of the confident cooperation of the independent smaller states in tackling the new communal tasks.

We are seeing how Nazi Germany sees the future of everyone in Europe

Lets now look at who is who below in photo below From the beginning, one of the main financiers of the “Brussels EU” was the West German Government. On April 24, 1964, the key architects of the “Brussels EU” — all of them active members of the IG Farben/Nazi coalition during WWII — met at the “Brussels EU” headquarters to stake their claims on the future of the European continent. Apparently, they were so sure about their success to take control over Europe in their 3rd attempt, via the “Brussels EU”, that they posed proudly for this picture. The men shown in this picture are:

1. EU Commission President Walter Hallstein — the boss of the “Brussels EU”
2. German Chancellor Ludwig Erhard
3. Ludger Westrick, Head of the German Chancellery
4. Karl Carstens, German Secretary of State for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
5. Karl-Günther von Hase, Head of the Press and Information Service of the German government.

Please Remember that all of them were Nazis

Following is a more complete description of the men in this picture, who met in April 1964 at the EU Commission in Brussels. It reads like a “who is who” of characters from the Nazi/IG Farben-coalition:

1. Walter Hallstein, a German lawyer, had been appointed the founding president of the so-called EU Commission, the highest body within the “Brussels EU.” In 1964, the time above meeting took place, he had already been the chief architect of the “Brussels EU” construct for seven years. Hallstein, not legitimized by any democratic vote anywhere in Europe, ruled like a “tsar” — imposed by the successors of the IG Farben oil and drug cartel — over an army of 3,000 administrative servants in Brussels and a budget of billions of Euros (in today’s currency).
   
   Before and during WWII Hallstein had served the Nazi regime as a fervent advocate of Nazi law, including at the University of Rostock, Germany. In January 23, 1939, three years after his Nazi law colleagues had issued the Nuremberg racial laws — and only months before the Nazi/IG Farben coalition launched WWII by attacking Poland Europe — Hallstein talked about future European law under German leadership (“Rechtseinheit Großdeutschlands”). He left no doubt to whom his loyalty belonged, saying that: “One of the most important laws (in Nazi-occupied European countries) is the protection Law for German blood and honour.”
2. Ludwig Erhard had been an economic consultant to the Nazi/IG Farben-coalition. He was founder and head of the Nazi-financed “Institut für Industrieforschung” (“Institute for Industry Research”) from 1942. He was married to the sister of Dr. Guth, the head of the infamous “Reichsguppe Industrie” — the Nazi’s official association of the German Reich’s industrialists. In 1944, Erhard wrote, “War Finances and Debt Consolidation” (“Kriegsfinanzierung und Schuldenkonsolidierung”), a study about the reconstruction of the economy in a post-war Germany.
3. After World War II, Erhard became an economic consultant to the Allied forces and later Minister of Economic Affairs and Chancellor in post-war Germany. He was then a member of the Christian Democratic Party (CDU). In his functions, he was responsible for the reintegration of the IG Farben managers sentenced in Nuremberg for crimes against humanity into leading corporate positions in post-war Germany.
4. One of those to be “reintegrated” was BAYER’s WWII director Fritz Ter Mer. This executive of the world’s largest pharmaceutical (!) company was convicted in the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal No. VI for genocide in connection with the deadly human experiments with patented Bayer drugs in the KZ Auschwitz (www.profit-over-life.org). With the help of Erhard — then Germany’s Minister of Economic Affairs — Ter Mer was released from prison and reinstated as the chairman of the board of BAYER by 1956.
5. Erhard publicly defended such an unspeakable act by stating that the selection of Germany’s post-war industry captains was necessary because of their “expertise in the field of economics and chemical technology.” Obviously, it did not bother Erhard that Ter Mer and the other pharmaceutical drug lords had been tried in Nuremberg for war crimes. As part of the “give and take”, Erhard was rewarded with the appointment of vice-chancellor of Germany only one year later.
6. Ludger Westrick was chairman of the board, president, and later a central trustee of the state-owned “Vereinigte Industrie-Unternehmen AG” (VIAG) during the Nazi era. In post-war Germany, Westrick joined the Christian Democratic Party (CDU).
7. By 1964 — at the time of the above meeting — he had been appointed head of the German Chancellery, one of the most powerful positions in the German political system. In that function, he controlled all key decisions of German politics, including economics, foreign policy, secret service, political funds, public relations and propaganda of the post-WWII German government.
8. Westrick’s predecessor as head of the German Chancellery — and the man who had coordinated the political and financial support for Hallstein and the construction of the “Brussels EU” from the German Chancellery for the first 6 years of the new European politburo of the cartel in Brussels — was Hans Globke. Globke was a key figure in Hitler’s Ministry of Internal Affairs. He was the lawyer who was responsible for implementing the Nazi laws and regulations, subjecting the occupied countries in Europe under the rule of the IG Farben/Nazi coalition. Moreover, Globke was the co-author of the legal codex that made the Nuremberg racial laws binding law in Nazi Germany. This codex formed the legal basis for the annihilation of Jewish, Slavic and other people in Nazi-occupied Europe. The second author of this codex, Wilhelm Stuckart was a State Secretary in the German Interior Ministry and was one of the selected few participants of the infamous “Wannsee Conference” that decided the extermination of more than 10 million Jewish people.
   
   Westrick, the man on the above picture, was the immediate successor of Globke and had been introduced into his office by this man.
9. Karl Carstens was an enthusiastic Nazi follower, joining the SA in 1934. He was a registered member of the Nazi party, the NSDAP from 1940 on. In 1955 he became member of the German Christian Democratic Union.
10. In 1954 Carstens joined the German Foreign Service and from 1955 he was the official standing representative of the German Federal Republic at the European Council in Strasbourg!
11. Concurrently, he advanced to the position of Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs with the defined field of responsibility: “European Questions.”
12. In 1958 he advanced the Head of the Division “Europe West” within the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
13. Karl-Günther von Hase joined the Wehrmacht, the German army in 1936. He participated in the Nazi-German Invasion of Poland in 1939, the Battle of France in 1940 and the Invasion of Russia from 1941 to 1945 and married the daughter of a Nazi-General.
14. After the war, von Hase joined a diplomatic school in the Federal Republic of Germany and started a blitz-career in German politics. From 1962 to 1967 — including the time of the above meeting in Brussels — von Hase was head of the press office of the German government and responsible for its public relations and propaganda.

Only 19 years after the IG Farben/Nazi-coalition had caused the death of 60 million people and destroyed half of Europe during WWII, they were already at it again. Their third attempt to conquer Europe would not take place in military uniforms but in the grey suits of corporate and political stakeholders of the cartel.

Everyone who looks at the background of Hallstein and the cast of characters posing here as key architects of the “Brussels EU” asks:

1. How was it possible that Hallstein, a promoter of the Nuremberg racial laws, could become the “founding father” of the “Brussels EU”?

2. Why did the politicians of Europe then not inform their people about those relics from the Nazi past? Why did they not boycott the “Brussels EU” then?

3. How much money did the successors of IG Farben have to channel through the bank accounts of the “Brussels EU” to buy the silence of the rest of Europe for more than half a century?

4. And, how can the politicians of Europe today try to sell it

The Lisbon treaty.

When enacted, the Lisbon Treaty would legitimize the construct of the “Brussels EU” and form the basis of a future Europe that is fundamentally undemocratic. In Europe subjected to the Lisbon Treaty, there would be:

1. No separation of constitutional powers, the hallmark of any democracy.

2. No possibility for the people to democratically elect their president.

3. No possibility for the people to elect the “European Commission” — the executive level or cabinet of the European government which will be “appointed” under the influence of special interests.

4. No possibility for the European Parliament to effectively control this future “government of Europe”.

5. No possibility for the people to replace an executive level of government that has abused and reduced their human rights.

Here are just some of the sobering facts:

1. The architects of the “Brussels EU” included Ribbentrop (Nazi Minister of Foreign Affairs), Goebbels and even Hitler himself. Their masterplan was to run Europe through a ‘central cartel organization’ outside of any parliamentary and democratic control.

2. This European Cartel Organization would subject post-WWII Europe to the rule of the Nazi/IG Farben Coalition, the infamous cartel of chemical, pharmaceutical and oil interests that were prosecuted in Nuremberg for Crimes Against Humanity.

3. A master plan published by the Nazi’s research institute for the postwar structure of Europe in 1941 already specifies all key organs of the current EU, including:

4. The Nazi/IG Farben’s “European Greater Sphere Economy” — would only 16 years later, in 1957, become the “European Economic Community” and later the “European Union,” what is known today as “Brussels EU,”

5. The “Central Cartel Office” of 1941 became today’s “EU-Commission” operating with almost unlimited powers above the EU-Parliament and beyond any democratic control.

6. The “Cartel Decrees” of the Nazi/IG Farben plan became the “EU-Directives”, by which the EU-Commission attempts to regulate the lives of 500 million Europeans beyond any democratic control by parliaments.

7. The “Master Agreement” by which the Nazi/Cartel coalition would cement their rule over Europe in a “Thousand Year Reich” became today’s “Lisbon Treaty”, an enabling act subjugating Europe under the rule of corporate interests for generations to come.

1. The chief architect of the “Brussels EU” — and, for the first ten years, its president — was Walter Hallstein. He was a powerful lawyer during the Nazi era and advocated the Nazi’s “blood and honour” policy in the occupied countries. During his ten-year presidency, he systematically implemented the Nazi’s postwar plans as the operative basis for the “Brussels EU”.

2. During the 1950s and 1960s — the decisive years when the “Brussels EU” was planned and constructed, the German government was its key financier. It is a historical fact that during those decades the German government and its diplomatic corps was pervaded by politicians who had held similar positions under the Nazi regime.

While the Nazis have largely died out, the corporate interests they represented — namely the European chemical, pharmaceutical, and oil cartel — have survived.

Following the exposure of these facts, no politician who continues to support this treaty can have any moral or democratic credibility. This must include the British Conservative party, The British Labour party, the British Lib Dems, The British Green party, the Scottish SNP.

The British Lib Dems are the only Political party in the England and Wales to fully endorse this Nazi plan for Europe. While all the rest of the political parties have Leavers among their members who are doing their best to make sure the UK leave the EU the Lib Dems are all fully committed to staying in it. They even turned up at the EP with shirts with the words Bollox to Brexit printed on them. They then brazenly condemned the one true British political party fully committed to leaving the EU for turning their backs to the EU Anthem. Unfortunately for them as this article now describes the EU, we see them for truly being what they are NONE OTHER THAN supporters of the Nazi dream which makes them NAZIS themselves How despicable that we have a British political party that fully endorses the Nazis in 2019.

Always remember this, Nazis come in all shape and size what seems a benign political party can hide their true intentions right insight of everyone

The Brexit party quite rightly turned their backs when the EU anthem was being played. Its what all decent people would do. Only people indoctrinated by Nazi ideology would turn up in yellow shirts which insults every one of the 17.4 million people who voted to come out of the EU in 2016.