Kitabı oku: «Lies of a Century», sayfa 2
BONN’S BETRAYAL OF THE DEUTSCHE MARK
„There were only very few informers, but their numbers were sufficient to bring indescribable joy to all people.”
Fritz Wöss (1920 - 2004)
What has long been known as a well-kept secret, Germany, as a prize for the reunification had to abolish its Deutsche Mark currency. This has now been revealed by the mainstream media to the unsuspecting part of the population as news. The German weekly magazine Der Spiegel reported in 2010, after the Euro had become, against the will of the people, a firmly-anchored means of payment, that France had made the abolition of the Deutsche Mark a precondition as a prize for reunification.[22] It is interesting to note that these claims were made for years by those same media representatives and politicians who had denounced the introduction of the Euro as a conspiracy theory. The magazine CODE[23], for example, was censored, although it had on already on its frontpage for February 1992: The loser is once again called Germany – Bonn’s betrayal of the Deutsche Mark. At this point all details on this topic had been published.
What the official media continued to keep secret was the fact that the French president François Mitterand blackmailed Helmut Kohl. His supposed buddy and self-proclaimed builder of the House of Europe made the reunification dependent upon the abolition of the Deutsche Mark and the fact that an appointment was made to agree on a new single currency.[24]
According to hitherto secret documents from the archive of the German Department for Foreign Affairs, Mitterand warned bluntly: “Germany may soon stand as isolated as back in 1913”. Furthermore, he is supposed to have declared to the Spanish PM Felipe Gonzalez as early as 1987: “The power of the Germans is reflected in the Deutsche Mark. It is a very strong driving force, much stronger than the reflexes of the banker and even that of politics.”[25]
In 1988 he explained to the Council of Ministers: “The Germans are a great people who lack certain attributes of sovereignty and enjoy a reduced diplomatic status.
Germany compensates for its weakness through economic strength. In some sense, the Deutsche Mark is its nuclear power.“[26]
In this context it is worth mentioning the assassination of the chairman of Deutsche Bank, Alfred Herrhausen, on November 30th 1989. He was one of the closest councilors of Helmut Kohl and contributed significantly to his ten point program. In high political circles, the assassination, which was allegedly committed by the RAF (Red Army Fraction), was perceived to be a clear message to Chancellor Kohl. He should not get the idea that Germany would regain its sovereignty through the reunification.
On December 9th 1989, a mere few days after the fall of the wall at the summit in Strasbourg, Helmut Kohl succumbed to the pressure and joined the French in their efforts. He voted in favor of using the government conference for the creation of the fiscal union. The result of the summit he called: “All-in-all a success”. What he really thought about it, he reported in the early summer of 1997 to a small round of people: Back then “I had gone through the darkest hours of my life”. He is also reported to have said in this conversation that the unification in two years would be an economic adventure.[27]
The demise of the Deutsche Mark was sealed.
Many economists, among them Professor Dr. Wilhelm Hankel and Professor Dr. iur. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider, at the time, spoke of payments to foreign countries increasing in times to come and that a European currency with a common monetary and interest policy would be impossible. Should they be forced through, despite these difficulties, it would cause additional transfer payments to the other EU countries.[28]
Similar to then, in July 2012 another set of 160 economists stood up around Hans-Werner Sinn auf, to criticize in an open letter the entry into a banking union which would mean a common responsibility for the debt of the banks in the Euro Zone.[29] Among the minions of the banking system, most of the party representatives in the German Bundestag parliament, these warnings hit on deaf ears once again. The suicide mission, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy, and later François Hollande, attempted to pretend that they had the crisis tightly under control.
Some of these economics professors then, in 1998, not without good reason spoke of “a Versailles without a war”.[30] As a result, many people came to the conclusion that the Maastricht treaty would come to be judged as the third capitulation of Germany to France in less than a century.
Anatole Kaletsky, finance journalist at the Times, on November 19th, 1996 described it as a natural successor to the treaty of Versailles and Potsdam.[31]
In reality, it was the secret government of the EU, the ERT (European Round Table of Industrialists) behind the decisions that eventually led to the abolition of the Deutsche Mark[32]. Only few are aware of this organization having published a roadmap to a monetary union in the spring of 1991, that had a striking resemblance to the treaty reached in Maastricht in December of 1991.
As so often we heard nothing about this in the official media. Once the Euro had been decided on, Der Spiegel magazine dared to report in 1998 that Helmut Kohl had, according to the minutes, admitted in a confidential meeting to US Foreign Secretary James Baker on December 12th, 1989 that he took this decision “against German interests”.[33]
THE EURO – CONSPIRACY AGAINST DEMOCRACY
“We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens.
If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.” [34]
(Jean-Claude Juncker)
With these words the Luxembourgian head of government Jean-Claude Juncker explained the ideal procedure in EU politics during an interview with Der Spiegel.[35]
This is the pattern that EU bureaucrats follow in almost all of their decisions; the same goes for the decision to introduce the Euro in 1991. It is the most important project of the Eurocrats to destroy the nationalities, with catastrophic consequences for the people of Europe. Juncker should know how to deal with a “herd”: From the beginning he was presiding over the “Euro Group”, a panel of all countries with the Euro currency.
In reality however, the Euro has already failed because all of the promises made by politicians regarding the construction and stability of this artificial currency have already been broken. Not one of the central promises made to voters at the introduction of the Euro has been kept. Besides the broken promises, laws were broken in ever shorter frequencies in order to finalize new rescue packages which ultimately only served to maximize the drop height.
Among those are the determined limits for state deficits and public debt as well as the political independence of a European Central Bank, the ban on financing foreign state deficits and the most important point: The liability exclusion of every member state for the debt of another.
The minion of high finance, Juncker, said among other things: “We have come together in a common destiny for good or for evil”[36] and in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: „When it becomes serious, you have to lie“.[37] This is probably what he did in December 2009 during a congress of the European people’s party (EVP). He said that a “public bankruptcy of Greece is entirely impossible”. He went on to state that therefore no supporting measures from other EU states should be necessary.
The wrong-way drivers in Brussels tried by any means possible to put into action the goals they were given. As a side effect they managed to completely do away with democracy. The larger goal that is behind the European Union is the complete dissolution of national states. One of the architects of this idea was the Frenchman Jean Monnet (1888-1979), founding father of the process and founder of the “Action Committee of the United States of Europe”. Back in those days he already maintained repeatedly that “Europe’s nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”[38]
His spiritual heirs continue to pursue this vision.
We have already established that there are very different interest groups behind the EU bureaucrats. Also in the case of the Euro we keep bumping into the legendary Bilderberger Group.
In an interview with the internet newspaper EU Observer, the honorary president of the Bilderberger Conference and former EU Commissioner Etienne Davignon explained that the powerful Bilderberg Group has helped to create the Euro: “As we had debates over the Euro, people at Bilderberg Conferences were able to explain why it was worth taking risks…[39]
Basically, the Euro was merely the Trojan horse for accomplishing the real goals. At the end of January 2012 the minions of high finance, the heads of state, proclaimed where the journey will lead. A council of governors elected by nobody, consisting of finance ministers of the Euro Zone and a directorate elected by nobody, decide over the distribution of hundreds of billions of Euro in tax money. This should above all benefit the banks.
The head of the European Central Bank (ECB) and former Vice President of Goldman Sachs, Mario Draghi, substantiated these plans in a third-party article in the German newspaper DIE ZEIT (August 29th, 2012), in which he voiced his support for an end to the sovereignty of the parliaments of Europe.[40] This would then be tied to the old democratic order and comes close to a dictatorship in Europe.
According to Professor Dr. Wilhelm Hankel there are two sure-fire ways of destroying with the middle-class of any society:
1. Freeing the banks from all oversight, creating lawless areas and providing the banks with a permit to create money out of nothing via the means of loans.
2. A monetary union, as in the case of the Euro.
This way, so Hankel, is by far the most effective. Since the Monnet’s vision has become a reality by now, the Euro can be viewed as a total success for its initiators since politics is always based on deceit and also consists of the art of hindering people from being in control of the things that affect them.
CAUTION! EURO BILLS (Y) SOON WORTHLESS!
„ It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.“
Henry Ford (1863 – 1947)
We have been living with the Euro since January 1st of 2002, but only very few have ever thought about the true meaning of those letters and numbers on the bills.
On the example of Greece it is plain to see that the end of the Euro experiment is nearing its end, even if it was suggested that the Euro could survive by a series of emergency measures.
In the meantime many corporations are preparing for the case that Greece may leave the monetary union. In December 2011 the German travel giant TUI asked Greek hotel operators to sign new contracts. The following passage was cited in the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung: „If the Euro should no longer be the currency (…) TUI reserves the right to pay the sum in a different currency. The exchange rate depends on what the government will provide.”[41]
As mentioned before, only very few people think about whether all the Euro bills are the same. Each Euro bill is allocated to a different country, and the deciding characteristic is the serial number that is located on the top right of the backside of the bill. This so-called “country code” lets the insider know which central bank has ordered the printing of the respective bill.[42] The letter X, for example, is for Germany, Y for Greece, M for Portugal, V for Spain and S for Italy.
Professor Dr. Max Otte wisely recommended back in 2009 that bills with serial numbers starting with Y, V, M, and S should be brought back into circulation as quickly as possible, according to the Financial Times.[43] [44]
Should Greece leave the community of Euro countries, what would happen to the bills of the Greeks (Y) that are in the hands of private individuals? There is a plan by the member of the scientific committee of the Ministry of Commerce, Charles Blankert, who also happens to be economics professor at the Humboldt University in Berlin. In a study (according to German tabloid Bild Zeitung)[45] he suggests that all bills with a Y before their serial number should be valid as the new Greek currency immediately upon Greece’s exit from the currency union and would therefore lose their value with immediate effect. Owners of bills of Greek origin within the remaining Euro zone would therefore be immediately affected, according to this study.
Regardless of the Y-bills, a much larger issue arises for the inhabitants of those Euro countries in that those who have gotten themselves into financial problems, as was the case with Greece and Spain, could have their cash withdrawn from their banks in large numbers.
The problem here is that there are substantially more entitlements to money among our banks than there is actual physical money.
In other words, there currently are about 900 billion Euros of bills and coins in circulation. With a German cash wealth of about 5 trillion, this means that there would only be about 2,000 Euros in cash at the disposal of every German citizen. Due to a range of assurances and supposed guarantees by politicians like Chancellor Merkel or Peer Steinbrück, etc. who live according to the motto: “It does not matter what was accomplished, but what is told to the public”, many citizens believe that they could at any time withdraw their savings from the banks.
That is not so since in reality we have a fiat money system (money created out of nothing), and that as a result of that, savings in our accounts do not physically exist. When it comes down to it, they are nothing more than a nice little piece of paper – an account balance – on which some numbers are printed.
Since we in Germany have already been in this position before, it is about time to learn from history and not believe in the statements of our politicians. Ultimately, most politicians are nothing but puppets with much greater powers behind them pulling their strings.
EC, EU AND THE SECRET POWER IN THE BACKGROUND
"A constitution usually protects citizens from politicians. It sets limits to what the elected may decide on between elections. The EU Constitution and the Lisbon treaty are different. It protects politicians from the influence of voters."
Jens-Peter Bonde, *1948[46]
We Europeans have a government that hardly anyone knows, that most do not want and that are intangible to them; in other words, that are even more unintelligible to the voters than our party representatives are already. From a legal perspective, the EU is a hybrid, a legal monster that is very hard to grasp because it is neither a federation of states nor a federal state. For example, the EU has, in contrast to NATO, no treaty that is valid for any amount of time. Out of the Amsterdam treaty came the Maastricht treaty, then the Nice treaty came along out of which the Lisbon treaty evolved. In the end it is always only an alteration of the previous treaties that are always agreed upon in quick succession, so that nobody knows what is valid at any point in time. It is evident that every one of these treaties only ever lasts for a few years; even though commonly international law treaties are implemented for a duration of 20 years and that a possibility of extension is granted once they expire.
In the case of the EU one would have to speak of a democratically not legitimized council dictatorship because the decisions made within the EU are made in committees, councils and commissions. Originally in 1957, it was the EEC[47], then the EC[48], which had been so tainted at that point already with negative associations like milk lakes and Butter Mountains, subsidy fraud so that it became the EU[49]. The name sounds more capacious and better, European Union has a ring to it not unlike the USA, however the basic construct of the EC continues to exist and has never been disestablished, it was simply a name change. Democracy never was the goal of the initiators of the community. Jean Monnet[50], one of the founding fathers of the European Union, said it very plainly: “I hate democracy!It is totally uncomfortable”.[51]
And Jacques Delors, the former president of the EU Commission verbalized it like this nearly 20 years ago: “Had we done it democratically, we never would have come this far.” He went on to say that 50 percent of all laws in the EU come out of Brussels, in respect to economic laws it is 80 percent. In other words, the not exactly unimportant economic laws decisions are made in Brussels by a margin of 80 percent, and then the elected party representatives, namely the parliaments of participating countries are disconnected.[52]
One of the darkest chapters of the EU was pushed into the background that one had to undertake pretty substantial research in order to stumble upon it. In the year 1999 a vast amount of strong accusations regarding deceit, corruption, nepotism and mismanagement were made against the EU Commission.
The Belgian newspaper „La Meuse“ for example was one of the press bodies, which uncovered several scandals of the Commission. The publisher of the paper happened to be robbed and beaten up by masked and armed men.
This however was not an isolated case; many others that had reported about the internal fraud and corruption affairs of the EU Commission were intimidated with violence. Among them the Belgian businessman André Hardy, who had half of his teeth beaten out of his mouth with a baseball bat after he decided to blow the whistle on the company Perry Lux with which he cooperated in Brussels. The EU Commission had hired illegal employees via the Luxembourgian company and its offshore subsidiaries, making millions of Euros disappear in the process.[53]
What also disappeared was the entirety of the bills and receipts of the Office for Humanitarian Aid for the years from 1993 – 1995. The total sum was estimated to have been 2 billion Deutsche Mark. In the meantime two things have changed: First of all we now have a different EU Commission and secondly such events are no longer reported on in the media.
There is however one EU rebel left: Nigel Farage, who does not mince his words as an MEP and openly speaks and protests against the forced EU dictatorship. He asked the President of the European Council, Herman van Rompuy: “Who elected you? (…) Sir, you have no legitimacy for this job…”[54]
It was this sort of questions with which Nigel Farage made himself very unpopular at the council dictatorship in Brussels. One could see the plane crash of a small two-seater plane in which he was travelling and survived with injuries in this context.
The EU regents, who were attacked by Farage, are really only minions in the end who act out what they are told by their handlers. Behind the EU exists – unbeknownst to the public – a secret shadow government, the so-called “European Round Table of Industrialists”, founded by 17 leading European industrialists in 1983, that has continued to exert huge influence over the happenings in the EU up to the present day.
In the year 1986, the alliance between the EC Commission and the ERT (the power of corporations) had been agreed upon, which played a major role in the increasing centralization of Western Europe. Already in 1985 the ERT demanded that the single European Market was to be completed with a single currency.
What few people know is that in the spring of 1991, the ERT published a detailed roadmap for a European currency union. This in turn had astounding similarities with the Maastricht treaty that was reached in 1991.
Especially interesting in this context is the overlap of people involved in both the ERT and the Bilderberger Group that is shrouded in legend. In the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group there always were ERT people. Those in want of a steep political career needed to hope for an invitation to a meeting of one of these groups in order to then act according to the motto: “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you!”
One example: The President of the Bilderberger Conference in 2011, EU Commissioner and Head of the CFR, Mario Monti, became the new strongman in Italy. He is a new face to the voting public with the hope to lead it out of the financial crisis, under the same guise as always. He is not the only beacon of hope to the common man because there is also the President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, as well as Loukas Papadimos, the head of the transition government in Greece.
One thing connects these three men, the common former employment at the investment bank Goldman Sachs that was heavily involved in the financial crisis.
