Unlike The Brexit Party, The Nazis Loved The European Union’s ‘National Anthem’

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.

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.

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.

Joachim von Ribbentrop:
European confederation

March 21, 1943

  1. Neutrals would be reassured that they would not be incorporated into Germany at the end of the war.
  2. Italy would be relieved of their fear that powerful Germany might wish to drive her into a corner.
  3. 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.
  4. It would give the Russians the impression that all Europe was against them, and thus weaken their fighting spirit.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.’
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  1. 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.
  2. The member nations of the Confederation will jointly defend the interests of Europe in every direction and protect the European continent against external enemies.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. While preserving their national character, the States united in the Confederation will conduct intensive cultural exchanges with one another.
  6. The European States which are not founder members of the Confederation are solemnly invited to join it.
  7. 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.

I draw your attention to this

Joseph Goebbels:
The Europe of the future

September 11, 1940

Reich Chancery memorandum:
“Organization of the German Economy”

July 9, 1940

  1. 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.
  1. Removing payments difficulties.
  2. Enlarging the customs-free marketing area.
  3. Increased leverage in trade negotiations and relations with other countries.

Meeting at Reich Economic Ministry:
Reorganization of the European economy

July 22, 1940

  1. The economic settlement with the enemy states.
  2. Reorganization of the continental economy directed by Germany, and its relations with the world economy.

Karl Megerle: “European themes”

prob. Autumn 1941

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. In a peaceful Europe organized as a higher unity all European nations will find a rightful and worthy place.
  5. 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.
  6. The new Europe will be tolerant in matters of religion and personal philosophy. It will permit each and every one. (sic)
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  1. German Chancellor Ludwig Erhard
  2. Ludger Westrick, Head of the German Chancellery
  3. Karl Carstens, German Secretary of State for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
  4. Karl-Günther von Hase, Head of the Press and Information Service of the German government.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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).
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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!
  10. Concurrently, he advanced to the position of Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs with the defined field of responsibility: “European Questions.”
  11. In 1958 he advanced the Head of the Division “Europe West” within the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.

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:

What is life without a little controversy in it? Quite boring and sterile would be my answer.

What is life without a little controversy in it? Quite boring and sterile would be my answer.