Posts Tagged ‘EU’

“As Greece celebrates the inauguration of its anti-austerity government, the euphoria should be tempered with a bit of realism. Although new Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, who named his son «Ernesto» after Cuban revolutionary Ernesto «Ché» Guevara, and the vast majority of his new Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) government have good left-wing and pro-labor credentials, the same cannot be necessarily said of the man Tsipras chose to be Greece’s new finance minister. Yanis Varoufakisis a citizen of Australia who was educated in Britain and worked as a professor at the University of Texas. Europe has witnessed such dual nationals with conflicting loyalties take power in countries in Eastern Europe, most notably in Ukraine, where American Natalie Jaresko became finance minister in order to deliver International MonetaryFund (IMF) and European Central Bank (ECB) austerity «poison pills» to Ukraine.

Today, the nations of eastern and central Europe are populated with globalists, overt types and those of the «crypto» variety, with many of them, like Varoufakis, citizens or past legal residents of other nations. Romania’s finance minister, Ioana Petrescu, is a Wellesley and Harvard graduate and former fellow for the U.S. Republican Party’s National Republican Institute at the neo-conservative and anti-Russian American Enterprise Institute (AEI). She is also a past professor at the University of Maryland. Although Petrescu’s right-wing connections to Washington appear at odds with Varoufakis’s ties to the neo-liberal Brookings Institution, in the world of «make believe» political differences, Petrescu and Varoufakis are two sides of the same coin. When one follows the money that helped create these two finance ministers, as well as Jaresko, all roads lead back to Washington and entities that suckle from the teat of the Central Intelligence Agency and its myriad of front entities.
Varoufakis’s curriculum vitae, like that of Jaresko’s, reeks of George Soros-intertwined globalist links. For a finance minister who is to — if we believe the dire warnings from the corporate press — challenge the austerity measures dictated to Greece’s previous failed conservative and social democratic governments by the «Troika» of the IMF, ECB, and European Commission, Varoufakis has had a past close relationship with the global entities with which he is expected to battle.
Varoufakis also served as «economist-in-residence» for the Valve Corporation, a video game spinoff of the always-suspect Microsoft Corporation of extreme globalist Bill Gates.

The warning signs that Varoufakis is a «Trojan horse» for the global bankers are abundant. First, Varoufakis served as an economic adviser to the failed PASOK social democratic government of Prime Minister George Papandreou, the man who first put Greece on the road to draconian austerity measures. Varoufakis now claims that he was ardently opposed to Papandreou’s deal with the «Troika» but no one will ever know how much the now-anti austerity finance minister agreed to while he was advising Papadreou on the proper course of action to settle Greece’s enormous debt problem.

Varoufakis is a close friend and co-author of American economist and fellow University of Texas professor James K. Galbraith, the son of the late «eminence grise» of American economists, John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith’s ties to the global banking elite are exemplified by his guest scholar position at the elitist Brookings Institution in Washington. In other words, although Tsipras’s biography suggests a bona fide leftist, Varoufakis’s background indicates that Greece’s new finance minister is at home and comfortable with the banker elites who carved out Greece’s national soul with a sharp blade of austerity cuts to social security, public health, and other basic public services.

The foreword to Varoufakis’s book, «A Modest Proposal, which deals with Europe’s financial crisis and which he co-wrote with James Galbraith and former British Member of Parliament Stuart Holland, was written by former French Prime Minister Michael Rocard. Rocard has called for the EU to appoint a European «strongman» and Rocard’s choice is European Parliament president Martin Schulz, the very same man who has warned the new SYRIZA government to abide by the austerity agreements concluded by the past PASOK and conservative governments.
Holland, an adviser to former Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou, along with French President François Mitterand, helped craft the 1986 Single European Act, one of the charters that helped create the European Union financial system that has been used to emaciate the Greek economy in the name of austerity.

Varoufakis’s commitment to work within the IMF and European banking system is obvious from what the Greek finance minister wrote on his website. After calls by American financial writers Paul Krugman and Mark Weisbrot for Greece to follow the example of Argentina and default on its debts and exit the Eurozone altogether, Varoufakis argues that Greece must «grin and bear» the measures imposed on it by the bankers and the German government as a member of the Eurozone. And that means the SYRIZA finance minister surrendered to the whims of the bankers long before SYRIZA’s electoral victory. Considering the unquestionable leftist credentials of many members of the Greek government, the bankers have, at the very least, a willing accomplice as finance minister on the Greek side of the negotiating table on the future of the nation’s economy and the unpopular Troika-imposed austerity measures that swept SYRIZA to power.

Although Varoufakis stands ready to cut deal after deal with the global and European bankers, his colleagues in the coalition government SYRIZA crafted with the anti-EU but right-wing Independent Greeks party, will not follow EU diktats when it comes to such matters as agreeing to continued austerity, as well as EU sanctions against Russia. No sooner had Tsipras become prime minister, he criticized the EU for issuing a warning about further sanctions against Russia over Ukraine. Tsipras said an anti-Russia European Council statement had been issued without the consent of Greece.
Greece’s new foreign minister, Nikos Kotzias, is, like Varoufakis, an academic. However, unlike Varoufakis, Kotzias, a former Communist, has been a professor at a Greek, not a foreign, university. Kotzias and Tsipras are following through with their promises of opposing current and future EU sanctions against Russia, something that will not endear them to the Soros elements who have their clutches on Varoufakis. Kotzias has the power to veto new or renewed sanctions against Russia. Kotzias is opposed to German domination over Europe and was such a staunch Communist, he supported the crackdown by Polish Communist leader Wojciech Jaruzelski on the Solidarity trade union movement in Poland in the 1980s, a fact that places him at complete loggerheads with EU Polish President Donald Tusk, an early activist within the Solidarity movement, who wants to impose further punitive measures on Russia.

In what can only send EU and NATO interventionists into a tail spin, Kotzias will find himself more at home in Moscow than he will in Brussels or Berlin. Russian President Vladimir Putin has already started the process of establishing close relations with the new government in Athens. The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) has likely commenced «surge» surveillance of all official communications links between Athens and Moscow and it has also certainly placed Greece, like Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Hungary, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon into the category of a hostile «target» nation for the purposes of collecting signals intelligence or «SIGINT».

Greece, which pioneered the Trojan horse weapon used against Troy, must be on guard against Trojan horses like Varoufakis who have been implanted in the new Greek government”.
Wayne Madsen

Advertisements

“ENDLICH”: EU-Standard-Chip EPS ersetzt Personalausweis

Microchip on a fingertipWas für Hunde und Katzen schon seit Jahren weltweit Standard ist, wird ab 1. Januar 2016 auch für die Bürger der Europäischen Union schrittweise eingeführt. Ganz neu ist diese Idee nicht, wird aber mit dem Vorhaben in der Europäischen Union jetzt zum ersten Mal in großem Stil in einer Staatengemeinschaft eingeführt.

Vor wenigen Tagen haben sich die Mitglieder der Europäischen Union nach langen Geheimverhandlungen auf die Eckdaten für den Europäischen Personal-Standardchip (kurz: EPS) geeinigt. In den letzten Monaten hatten die Veröffentlichungen des amerikanischen Sicherheitsexperten Edward Snowden über den amerikanischen Geheimdienst NSA für Aufregung gesorgt. Aus Angst, dass durch diese Veröffentlichungen Details über die schon lange vereinbarte enge Zusammenarbeit der EU mit den USA über den EPS bekannt werden könnten, hatten die europäischen Regierungen einen Stopp der Vorbereitungen zum EPS beschlossen.

Wie durch eine Indiskretion jetzt bekannt wurde, hat die EU mit Snowden ein Schweigeabkommen schließen können, damit keine Details über die Zusammenarbeit zwischen den USA und der EU im Zusammenhang mit dem EPS-Chip veröffentlicht werden. Nach unbestätigten Meldungen soll Snowden hierfür eine einmalige Zahlung von 12,35 Mio. Euro erhalten haben.

EUROPÄISCHER STANDARDCHIP HAT NUR VORTEILE

Gegenüber den bisher bekannten Hunde-Chips sind die Möglichkeiten, die in Verbindung mit dem EPS geschaffen werden, um ein Vielfaches größer. In einer bisher noch nicht veröffentlichten Pressemitteilung der EU-Chip-Kommission heißt es: >>EPS werde für alle Bürger außergewöhnliche Vorteile bieten. So könne der Personalausweis abgeschafft und bei Unfällen die Identität der Personen sofort festgestellt werden.

Ein besonderer Vorteil des EU-einheitlichen EPS-Chips sei die extrem schnelle Identifikation von Personen mit Hilfe elektronischer Mini-Detektoren (EMD), die ein Auslesen aller relevanten Daten innerhalb von nur 50 Millisekunden ermöglichen. Durch die 16-stellige europäische PIN (Personen-Identifizierung-Nummer) könne man für einen Zeitraum von mehr als 100 Jahren jedem europäischen Bürger eine eigene Nummer zuordnen, die auch über den Tod hinaus Gültigkeit haben werde.

Mittelfristig werden auch Scheckkarten und Kreditkarten überflüssig, da sich jeder EU-Bürger durch den in seinem Arm implementierten Chip in jedem Geschäft eindeutig ausweisen kann. Hierzu wird man seinen Arm nur über einen aufgerüsteten Barcodeleser führen, der dazu mit einem Mini-Detektoren-Zusatzmodul aufgerüstet wird.

Die mobilen europaweit einheitlichen Handy-Detektoren EHD verfügen zudem über Kommunikationsmöglichkeiten, die mit einem Smartphone vergleichbar sind. Dadurch ist an jedem Ort der EU der Zugriff auf die staatlichen Rechnernetzwerke aller EU-Staaten möglich.

MEDIZINER UND DATENSCHÜTZER HABEN KEINE BEDENKEN

Die EU-Chip-Kommission weist ferner darauf hin, dass Nachteile mit der sog. Chiplementierung bisher weder bekannt, noch für die Zukunft zu erwarten seien. Es gebe auch keinerlei medizinische Bedenken gegen die Einpflanzung des EPS bei Säuglingen bereits kurz nach dessen Geburt. Dafür sprechen auch die Erfahrungen, die man seit August 2011 mit der Einpflanzung eines ähnlichen Chips bei weit mehr als einer Million Katzen und Hunden gemacht habe.

Bei keiner der Katzen oder Hunde, denen ein solcher Chip in der Vergangenheit implementiert worden ist, sei eine Erkrankung festgestellt worden, die auf den Chip zurückzuführen wäre. Wenn man bedenkt, dass ein Hundejahr wie sieben Menschenjahre zählt und viele Hunde mit Chip mittlerweile 14 und 15 Jahre alt werden ziehen die Wissenschaftler daraus den Rückschluss, dass auch bei Menschen bis ins hohe Alter keinerlei medizinische Komplikationen zu erwarten sind.

Aufgrund der vorliegenden Erkenntnissen haben mehrere führende Medizin-Professoren in einem Gutachten für die europäische Kommission eine Unbedenklichkeitsbescheinigung für den EPS ausgestellt. Die Gesundheitsminister der führenden europäischen Staaten – darunter auch Deutschland – haben deshalb ihre Zustimmung zur Einführung des Chips gegeben.

Auch die Datenschützer, die in vielen europäischen Staaten unmittelbar dem Innenministerium unterstellt sind, haben keinerlei Bedenken gegen die Einpflanzung des EPS bei allen Bürgern. Weitere Verletzungen des Datenschutzes seien ohnehin nicht mehr zu erwarten, da die amerikanischen Sicherheitsbehörden einschließlich der NSA schon alle wesentlichen Daten der EU-Bürger bereits in den letzten Jahren gesammelt und gespeichert hätten.

Die Zusammenarbeit zwischen der EU und den USA bei der Einführung des EPS schaffe einzigartige Möglichkeiten zu einem Datenabgleich zwischen den befreundeten Machtblöcken. Damit könne die Sicherheit aller Bürger gegenüber denkbaren Gefahren wesentlich erhöht werden. So ließen sich in Zukunft jederzeit und an jedem Ort Terroristen aus Nicht-EU-Staaten sofort orten, da diese keinen EPS besäßen.

AB 1. JANUAR 2016 EPS FÜR ALLE SÄUGLINGE UNMITTELBAR NACH DER GEBURT

Die ursprünglich für den 1. Januar 2015 geplante Einführung des Europäischen Personal-Standardchips wird sich allerdings um ein Jahr verzögern. Denn um den EPS-Chip flächendeckend und für alle EU-Bürger verbindlich einführen zu können, müssen zunächst noch die gesetzlichen Grundlagen in allen EU-Staaten geschaffen werden.

Die geringsten Widerstände in der Bevölkerung sind bei Säuglingen zu erwarten und bei Ausländern, die eine Einbürgerung in die Bundesrepublik wünschen. Eine entsprechende Gesetzesvorlage ist in Deutschland von der Großen Koalition bereits erarbeitet worden und soll dem Parlament noch vor der Sommerpause zur endgültigen Abstimmung vorgelegt werden. Damit wird bei Säuglingen mit der gesetzlich vorgeschriebenen Implementierung am 1. Januar 2016 begonnen werden. Auch für Ausländer, die die deutsche Staatsangehörigkeit erwerben wollen, wird die Implementierung zum gleichen Zeitpunkt eingeführt.

Für alle übrigen EU-Bürger ist eine fünfjährigen Übergangszeit vorgesehen. Grundsätzlich soll aber innerhalb dieses Zeitraums bei allen medizinischen Eingriffen, die eine Vollnarkose erfordern, der Chip implementiert werden. Patienten werden deshalb ab dem 1. Januar 2016 vor der Operation eine entsprechende schriftliche Zustimmung abgeben müssen. Lehnen sie diese ab, wird die Operation nur noch bei lebensgefährlichen Erkrankungen möglich sein.

Anträge auf die Ausstellung eines neuen Personalausweises werden bereits am 1. Januar 2018 nicht mehr möglich sein, so dass EU-Bürger, dem EU-Chip notgedrungen werden zustimmen müssen, weil sie sich sonst nicht mehr ausweisen könnten.

Möglicherweise wird es in einigen Ländern zu Klagen von EU-Bürgern oder Interessenverbänden gegen den EPS-Chip kommen. Einer unbestätigten Meldung zufolge soll der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte gegenüber der EU-Chip-Kommission aber bereits deutlich gemacht haben, dass man die gesetzlich vorgeschriebene Implementierung des EPS-Chips keinesfalls als Verletzung der Menschenrechte ansehen werde. Entsprechende Klagen dürften deshalb keine Erfolgsaussichten haben.

Idee & Text: Peter Räuber

credit-links

2015-01-30_204656

 

Thousands of civilians, even unborn children, have been killed by the extermination  Orders of Ukrainian regime. All this, with the strong support in particular Germany, which drags across the EU as complicit in the crime.

See now the document to understand who PROFIT from the slaughter of nations:

2015-01-30_telefunken_ukraine_massacre

LONDON, October 21 (RIA Novosti) – The ASEM summit in Milan cruelly exposed the illusions EU leaders hold about the Ukrainian conflict, and not for the first time

https://i1.wp.com/en.ria.ru/images/19434/57/194345742.jpg

Ever since the February coup in Ukraine, the EU’s leaders have held to two assumptions: First, that the crisis in Ukraine is a conflict between Ukraine and Russia, and second, that they can bend Russia to their will by applying pressure on it to achieve the outcome they want in Ukraine. This outcome would entail the complete restoration of Kiev’s undiluted political control over the whole country, including the rebellious regions in the east (even the EU leaders quietly acknowledge that Crimea is lost to Ukraine forever).

These two assumptions blind the EU leaders to reality. Since they insist on seeing the conflict as one between Ukraine and Russia, they deny the reality that the regime in Kiev that they are supporting came to power through a violent, unconstitutional coup, which is behind the current conflict.  As a result, they refuse to see that this is not a conflict between Ukraine and Russia but an internal conflict between Ukrainians, between the people of eastern Ukraine who opposed the February coup and the ultra-nationalist, Russophobic regime in Kiev and the political system it has created.

The other reality the EU leaders seem ignorant of Russia itself and its role in the world. Not only is Russia far stronger economically than they seem to realise (witness its success in absorbing the recent oil price fall) but their entire approach shows that they have still not adjusted to the comparative relevance of the Chinese and Asian economies in terms of Russian oil and gas consumption. They act as if it is still only the West that matters. That Russia is not dependent on their goodwill for its economic survival and has other partners to trade with is something they seem unable to face.

The assumption that the conflict can therefore be “solved” in the manner the EU wants, by pressuring Russia, is therefore doubly misplaced. Russia didn’t cause the conflict in Ukraine and is not responsible for its outcome; it cannot simply switch it off at the EU’s bidding in the way EU leaders appear to think it can, even if it wanted to. At the same time, the sanctions the EU has imposed to pressure Russia, while causing Russia real problems, cannot damage Russia in the way they think. Europe’s moves are much more likely to anger Russia and consolidate popular support for the Russian government than bend it to their will. In the meantime it is becoming clearer by the day that by adopting sanctions, the EU leaders seriously underestimated the harm they would do to their own economies.

https://i1.wp.com/en.ria.ru/images/19434/57/194345790.jpg

This persistent failure of the EU leaders to face reality has set the scene for a fiasco.

With their own economies coming under increasing pressure and with Ukraine itself continuing to suffer due to its deepening crisis, the EU leaders, especially Angela Merkel, need to resolve the Ukrainian conflict quickly.  They seem to have persuaded themselves that a combination of sanctions, falling oil prices and their collective presence in Milan would somehow force the Russians to retreat in the way they wanted.  They seem to have disregarded warnings from Moscow that this would not happen and that Moscow would not change its policies in order to get sanctions lifted.

What happened therefore came as a shock. Not only did the Russians not retreat as expected but as Dmitry Peskov, the Russian Presidential spokesman said, they sought instead once more to educate the EU leaders about what’s really going on in Ukraine, explaining that the conflict is an internal one and not one between Ukraine and Russia. Since this is a reality the EU leaders refuse to face, the lesson was extremely unwelcome.

The EU leaders were left clutching at a comment by President Putin that he did not want to see the situation in eastern Ukraine become another frozen conflict and that Russia does not dispute or seek to undermine Ukraine’s integrity. These words in fact simply reflect what has been Russia’s position all along – that since this is an internal Ukrainian conflict, it is for the Ukrainians themselves to settle their differences between themselves through negotiations and that the outcome is for them to decide. However, the EU leaders refuse to see this, instead persisting in the fantasy that the conflict is one between Ukraine and Russia, with Russia committing “aggression” against Ukraine, and misunderstood these banal words as Russia somehow “backing off” from its phantom aggression.

The only practical result that appears to have come out of the summit is that Ukrainian customs officials and guards will resume working at their posts on the Russian border. This was actually agreed on by the Russians as long ago as July 2, 2014 at an earlier summit in Berlin and is therefore nothing new. Both Ukrainian officials and OSCE monitors have been observing the border for months and have seen no evidence of the heavy traffic of Russian troops and military equipment the Ukrainians and the West claim is happening.  The fact that there is no evidence for it does not however shake the EU leaders’ belief that it is going on. Given their stubborn belief in something for which they have no proof, it is difficult to see how a further deployment of Ukrainian customs officials and guards and of more OSCE monitors on the border is going to make any difference.

The Milan summit is a textbook case of a conflict that is being unnecessarily prolonged because of a refusal to face facts.  It is still in theory possible to resolve this crisis diplomatically through a settlement brokered by the Russians and the Europeans. However, for that to happen, the Europeans need to completely change their understanding of the crisis. Since it seems they cannot do this, the conflict will continue, and will not be settled diplomatically but by events on the ground.  It is a certainty when that happens that the result will not be the ones the Europeans like, but by refusing to face facts, they are losing the ability to influence the outcome.

https://i0.wp.com/en.ria.ru/images/19295/27/192952722.jpg

The Milan summit witnessed a similar fiasco in the gas negotiations, again because the Europeans came to them with a completely wrong set of assumptions.  That however is something to discuss later, once the latest round of tripartite gas negotiations between the Ukrainians, the Russians and the Europeans are over.

Alexander Mercouris is a London-based lawyer. The views expressed in this article are the author’s and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

credit-links

The paper is aged and fragile, the typewritten letters slowly fading. But US Military Intelligence report EW-Pa 128 is as chilling now as the day it was written in November 1944.

The document, also known as the Red House Report, is a detailed account of a secret meeting at the Maison Rouge Hotel in Strasbourg on August 10, 1944. There, Nazi officials ordered an elite group of German industrialists to plan for Germany’s post-war recovery, prepare for the Nazis’ return to power and work for a ‘strong German empire’. In other words: the Fourth Reich.

Heinrich Himmler with Max Faust, engineer with I. G. Farben

Plotters: SS chief Heinrich Himmler with Max Faust, engineer with Nazi-backed company I. G. Farben

The three-page, closely typed report, marked ‘Secret’, copied to British officials and sent by air pouch to Cordell Hull, the US Secretary of State, detailed how the industrialists were to work with the Nazi Party to rebuild Germany’s economy by sending money through Switzerland.

They would set up a network of secret front companies abroad. They would wait until conditions were right. And then they would take over Germany again.

The industrialists included representatives of Volkswagen, Krupp and Messerschmitt. Officials from the Navy and Ministry of Armaments were also at the meeting and, with incredible foresight, they decided together that the Fourth German Reich, unlike its predecessor, would be an economic rather than a military empire – but not just German.

The Red House Report, which was unearthed from US intelligence files, was the inspiration for my thriller The Budapest Protocol.

The book opens in 1944 as the Red Army advances on the besieged city, then jumps to the present day, during the election campaign for the first president of Europe. The European Union superstate is revealed as a front for a sinister conspiracy, one rooted in the last days of the Second World War.

But as I researched and wrote the novel, I realised that some of the Red House Report had become fact.

Nazi Germany did export massive amounts of capital through neutral countries. German businesses did set up a network of front companies abroad. The German economy did soon recover after 1945.

The Third Reich was defeated militarily, but powerful Nazi-era bankers, industrialists and civil servants, reborn as democrats, soon prospered in the new West Germany. There they worked for a new cause: European economic and political integration.

Is it possible that the Fourth Reich those Nazi industrialists foresaw has, in some part at least, come to pass?

The Red House Report was written by a French spy who was at the meeting in Strasbourg in 1944 – and it paints an extraordinary picture.

The industrialists gathered at the Maison Rouge Hotel waited expectantly as SS Obergruppenfuhrer Dr Scheid began the meeting. Scheid held one of the highest ranks in the SS, equivalent to Lieutenant General. He cut an imposing figure in his tailored grey-green uniform and high, peaked cap with silver braiding. Guards were posted outside and the room had been searched for microphones.

Auschwitz

Death camp: Auschwitz, where tens of thousands of slave labourers died working in a factory run by German firm I. G. Farben

There was a sharp intake of breath as he began to speak. German industry must realise that the war cannot be won, he declared. ‘It must take steps in preparation for a post-war commercial campaign.’ Such defeatist talk was treasonous – enough to earn a visit to the Gestapo’s cellars, followed by a one-way trip to a concentration camp.

But Scheid had been given special licence to speak the truth – the future of the Reich was at stake. He ordered the industrialists to ‘make contacts and alliances with foreign firms, but this must be done individually and without attracting any suspicion’.

The industrialists were to borrow substantial sums from foreign countries after the war.

They were especially to exploit the finances of those German firms that had already been used as fronts for economic penetration abroad, said Scheid, citing the American partners of the steel giant Krupp as well as Zeiss, Leica and the Hamburg-America Line shipping company.

But as most of the industrialists left the meeting, a handful were beckoned into another smaller gathering, presided over by Dr Bosse of the Armaments Ministry. There were secrets to be shared with the elite of the elite.

Bosse explained how, even though the Nazi Party had informed the industrialists that the war was lost, resistance against the Allies would continue until a guarantee of German unity could be obtained. He then laid out the secret three-stage strategy for the Fourth Reich.

In stage one, the industrialists were to ‘prepare themselves to finance the Nazi Party, which would be forced to go underground as a Maquis’, using the term for the French resistance.

Stage two would see the government allocating large sums to German industrialists to establish a ‘secure post-war foundation in foreign countries’, while ‘existing financial reserves must be placed at the disposal of the party so that a strong German empire can be created after the defeat’.

In stage three, German businesses would set up a ‘sleeper’ network of agents abroad through front companies, which were to be covers for military research and intelligence, until the Nazis returned to power.

‘The existence of these is to be known only by very few people in each industry and by chiefs of the Nazi Party,’ Bosse announced.

‘Each office will have a liaison agent with the party. As soon as the party becomes strong enough to re-establish its control over Germany, the industrialists will be paid for their effort and co-operation by concessions and orders.’

Enlarge   The 1944 Red House Report

Extraordinary revelations: The 1944 Red House Report, detailing ‘plans of German industrialists to engage in underground activity’

The exported funds were to be channelled through two banks in Zurich, or via agencies in Switzerland which bought property in Switzerland for German concerns, for a five per cent commission.

The Nazis had been covertly sending funds through neutral countries for years.

Swiss banks, in particular the Swiss National Bank, accepted gold looted from the treasuries of Nazi-occupied countries. They accepted assets and property titles taken from Jewish businessmen in Germany and occupied countries, and supplied the foreign currency that the Nazis needed to buy vital war materials.

Swiss economic collaboration with the Nazis had been closely monitored by Allied intelligence.

The Red House Report’s author notes: ‘Previously, exports of capital by German industrialists to neutral countries had to be accomplished rather surreptitiously and by means of special influence.

‘Now the Nazi Party stands behind the industrialists and urges them to save themselves by getting funds outside Germany and at the same time advance the party’s plans for its post-war operations.’

The order to export foreign capital was technically illegal in Nazi Germany, but by the summer of 1944 the law did not matter.

More than two months after D-Day, the Nazis were being squeezed by the Allies from the west and the Soviets from the east. Hitler had been badly wounded in an assassination attempt. The Nazi leadership was nervous, fractious and quarrelling.

During the war years the SS had built up a gigantic economic empire, based on plunder and murder, and they planned to keep it.

A meeting such as that at the Maison Rouge would need the protection of the SS, according to Dr Adam Tooze of Cambridge University, author of Wages of Destruction: The Making And Breaking Of The Nazi Economy.

He says: ‘By 1944 any discussion of post-war planning was banned. It was extremely dangerous to do that in public. But the SS was thinking in the long-term. If you are trying to establish a workable coalition after the war, the only safe place to do it is under the auspices of the apparatus of terror.’

Shrewd SS leaders such as Otto Ohlendorf were already thinking ahead.

As commander of Einsatzgruppe D, which operated on the Eastern Front between 1941 and 1942, Ohlendorf was responsible for the murder of 90,000 men, women and children.

A highly educated, intelligent lawyer and economist, Ohlendorf showed great concern for the psychological welfare of his extermination squad’s gunmen: he ordered that several of them should fire simultaneously at their victims, so as to avoid any feelings of personal responsibility.

By the winter of 1943 he was transferred to the Ministry of Economics. Ohlendorf’s ostensible job was focusing on export trade, but his real priority was preserving the SS’s massive pan-European economic empire after Germany’s defeat.

Ohlendorf, who was later hanged at Nuremberg, took particular interest in the work of a German economist called Ludwig Erhard. Erhard had written a lengthy manuscript on the transition to a post-war economy after Germany’s defeat. This was dangerous, especially as his name had been mentioned in connection with resistance groups.

But Ohlendorf, who was also chief of the SD, the Nazi domestic security service, protected Erhard as he agreed with his views on stabilising the post-war German economy. Ohlendorf himself was protected by Heinrich Himmler, the chief of the SS.

Ohlendorf and Erhard feared a bout of hyper-inflation, such as the one that had destroyed the German economy in the Twenties. Such a catastrophe would render the SS’s economic empire almost worthless.

The two men agreed that the post-war priority was rapid monetary stabilisation through a stable currency unit, but they realised this would have to be enforced by a friendly occupying power, as no post-war German state would have enough legitimacy to introduce a currency that would have any value.

That unit would become the Deutschmark, which was introduced in 1948. It was an astonishing success and it kick-started the German economy. With a stable currency, Germany was once again an attractive trading partner.

The German industrial conglomerates could rapidly rebuild their economic empires across Europe.

War had been extraordinarily profitable for the German economy. By 1948 – despite six years of conflict, Allied bombing and post-war reparations payments – the capital stock of assets such as equipment and buildings was larger than in 1936, thanks mainly to the armaments boom.

Erhard pondered how German industry could expand its reach across the shattered European continent. The answer was through supranationalism – the voluntary surrender of national sovereignty to an international body.

Germany and France were the drivers behind the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the precursor to the European Union. The ECSC was the first supranational organisation, established in April 1951 by six European states. It created a common market for coal and steel which it regulated. This set a vital precedent for the steady erosion of national sovereignty, a process that continues today.

But before the common market could be set up, the Nazi industrialists had to be pardoned, and Nazi bankers and officials reintegrated. In 1957, John J. McCloy, the American High Commissioner for Germany, issued an amnesty for industrialists convicted of war crimes.

The two most powerful Nazi industrialists, Alfried Krupp of Krupp Industries and Friedrich Flick, whose Flick Group eventually owned a 40 per cent stake in Daimler-Benz, were released from prison after serving barely three years.

Krupp and Flick had been central figures in the Nazi economy. Their companies used slave labourers like cattle, to be worked to death.

The Krupp company soon became one of Europe’s leading industrial combines.

The Flick Group also quickly built up a new pan-European business empire. Friedrich Flick remained unrepentant about his wartime record and refused to pay a single Deutschmark in compensation until his death in July 1972 at the age of 90, when he left a fortune of more than $1billion, the equivalent of £400million at the time.

‘For many leading industrial figures close to the Nazi regime, Europe became a cover for pursuing German national interests after the defeat of Hitler,’ says historian Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, an adviser to Jewish former slave labourers.

‘The continuity of the economy of Germany and the economies of post-war Europe is striking. Some of the leading figures in the Nazi economy became leading builders of the European Union.’

Numerous household names had exploited slave and forced labourers including BMW, Siemens and Volkswagen, which produced munitions and the V1 rocket.

Slave labour was an integral part of the Nazi war machine. Many concentration camps were attached to dedicated factories where company officials worked hand-in-hand with the SS officers overseeing the camps.

Like Krupp and Flick, Hermann Abs, post-war Germany’s most powerful banker, had prospered in the Third Reich. Dapper, elegant and diplomatic, Abs joined the board of Deutsche Bank, Germany’s biggest bank, in 1937. As the Nazi empire expanded, Deutsche Bank enthusiastically ‘Aryanised’ Austrian and Czechoslovak banks that were owned by Jews.

By 1942, Abs held 40 directorships, a quarter of which were in countries occupied by the Nazis. Many of these Aryanised companies used slave labour and by 1943 Deutsche Bank’s wealth had quadrupled.

Abs also sat on the supervisory board of I.G. Farben, as Deutsche Bank’s representative. I.G. Farben was one of Nazi Germany’s most powerful companies, formed out of a union of BASF, Bayer, Hoechst and subsidiaries in the Twenties.

It was so deeply entwined with the SS and the Nazis that it ran its own slave labour camp at Auschwitz, known as Auschwitz III, where tens of thousands of Jews and other prisoners died producing artificial rubber.

When they could work no longer, or were verbraucht (used up) in the Nazis’ chilling term, they were moved to Birkenau. There they were gassed using Zyklon B, the patent for which was owned by I.G. Farben.

But like all good businessmen, I.G. Farben’s bosses hedged their bets.

During the war the company had financed Ludwig Erhard’s research. After the war, 24 I.G. Farben executives were indicted for war crimes over Auschwitz III – but only twelve of the 24 were found guilty and sentenced to prison terms ranging from one-and-a-half to eight years. I.G. Farben got away with mass murder.

Abs was one of the most important figures in Germany’s post-war reconstruction. It was largely thanks to him that, just as the Red House Report exhorted, a ‘strong German empire’ was indeed rebuilt, one which formed the basis of today’s European Union.

Abs was put in charge of allocating Marshall Aid – reconstruction funds – to German industry. By 1948 he was effectively managing Germany’s economic recovery.

Crucially, Abs was also a member of the European League for Economic Co-operation, an elite intellectual pressure group set up in 1946. The league was dedicated to the establishment of a common market, the precursor of the European Union.

Its members included industrialists and financiers and it developed policies that are strikingly familiar today – on monetary integration and common transport, energy and welfare systems.

When Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor of West Germany, took power in 1949, Abs was his most important financial adviser.

Behind the scenes Abs was working hard for Deutsche Bank to be allowed to reconstitute itself after decentralisation. In 1957 he succeeded and he returned to his former employer.

That same year the six members of the ECSC signed the Treaty of Rome, which set up the European Economic Community. The treaty further liberalised trade and established increasingly powerful supranational institutions including the European Parliament and European Commission.

Like Abs, Ludwig Erhard flourished in post-war Germany. Adenauer made Erhard Germany’s first post-war economics minister. In 1963 Erhard succeeded Adenauer as Chancellor for three years.

But the German economic miracle – so vital to the idea of a new Europe – was built on mass murder. The number of slave and forced labourers who died while employed by German companies in the Nazi era was 2,700,000.

Some sporadic compensation payments were made but German industry agreed a conclusive, global settlement only in 2000, with a £3billion compensation fund. There was no admission of legal liability and the individual compensation was paltry.

A slave labourer would receive 15,000 Deutschmarks (about £5,000), a forced labourer 5,000 (about £1,600). Any claimant accepting the deal had to undertake not to launch any further legal action.

To put this sum of money into perspective, in 2001 Volkswagen alone made profits of £1.8billion.

Next month, 27 European Union member states vote in the biggest transnational election in history. Europe now enjoys peace and stability. Germany is a democracy, once again home to a substantial Jewish community. The Holocaust is seared into national memory.

But the Red House Report is a bridge from a sunny present to a dark past. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda chief, once said: ‘In 50 years’ time nobody will think of nation states.’

For now, the nation state endures. But these three typewritten pages are a reminder that today’s drive towards a European federal state is inexorably tangled up with the plans of the SS and German industrialists for a Fourth Reich – an economic rather than military imperium.

• The Budapest Protocol, Adam LeBor’s thriller inspired by the Red House Report, is published by Reportage Press.

credit-links

A look at how dangerous the new energy-saving light bulbs are. The EU has banned many incandescent bulbs in favor of Compact Florescent Lights (CFLs). CFLs emit serious toxins while being used. All Florescent lights contain Mercury. There is enough Mercury to pose a serious health risk in the event of a CLF breakage. People are being told to run out of the building for 15 minutes, open windows and turn off the heat. Additionally the bulbs do not last as long as advertised and they take a long time to warm up, decreasing in brightness over time. The light they emit is not a full spectrum steady light. Few Bulbs actually get recycled and they need to be treated as hazardous materials when discarding them. Consumers be alerted!

(Update1)

George Papaconstantinou, Greece’s finance ministerhttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?pid=avimage&iid=i9LTRy206o1o

Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) — Greece arranged swap agreements with about 15 securities firms, including some payments from banks that may have helped hide the country’s true deficit, according to a person with direct knowledge of the contracts.

The swaps that allowed Greece to receive payments upfront date from before 2008, when European Union regulators changed rules to limit the use of the contracts, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which provided Greece with about $1 billion in funding in a 2002 swap, may have arranged the biggest of the contracts, the person said.

The EU accounting watchdog ordered Greece last week to provide information on its swaps as it probes whether the country used derivatives to hide the extent of its budget deficit, and if other countries used them. Swaps are typically designed to help countries to manage their debt rather than generate cash, according to Cesare Conti, a business professor at Italy’s Bocconi University.

“Upfront payments don’t necessarily lead to hidden debt,” Conti said in a telephone interview from Milan. “If swaps are used to manage obligations, rather than increase them, they’re beneficial.”

Concern about Greece’s ability to finance its deficit and debt have roiled financial markets since the government revealed the country had a budget shortfall of 12.7 percent last year, more than four times limit allowed for those countries using the euro, and the highest ratio in the 27-nation European Union.

Primary Dealers

The spread, the premium investors demand to hold Greek 10-year notes instead of German bunds, Europe’s benchmark government securities, reached 396 basis points last month, the most since the year before the euro’s debut in 1999. That compared with an average of 57 basis points in the past decade. A basis point is 0.01 percentage point.

The 15 banks that have swap agreements with Greece are among the country’s so-called primary dealers, said the person. Greece had 21 dealers last year, including Citigroup Inc., Barclays Plc and Morgan Stanley, according to the country’s central bank.

Spokesmen for Goldman Sachs in New York and Morgan Stanley in London declined to comment. Officials at Barclays and Citigroup in London didn’t have an immediate comment.

“Governments seek a large number of swap counterparties to reduce the exposure to any one bank,” Conti said.

An official for the Greek government didn’t have an immediate comment. The swaps used by Greece were “at the time legal,” Greek Finance Minister George Papaconstantinou said on Feb. 15. The government doesn’t use the swaps now, he said.

Government Inquiry

A Greek government inquiry uncovered this month a series of swaps agreements that have allowed the government to defer interest payments to a later date, causing “long-term damage” to the country. Greece’s central government debt totaled 298.5 billion euros ($406.8 billion) at the end of 2009, according to the Finance Ministry.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Feb. 18 it would be a “scandal” if banks helped Greece massage its budget. French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde, speaking on France Inter radio the same day, said that even if the swaps were legal, they probably contributed to instability.

Greek government bonds tumbled last week amid concern the country may not deliver measures to trim its budget deficit, and as the EU promised assistance without specifying what form it would take. The yield on the benchmark 10-year Greek government bonds rose 32 basis points to 6.46 percent last week.

To contact the reporter on this story: Elisa Martinuzzi in Milan at emartinuzzi@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Edward Evans at eevans3@bloomberg.net

credit-links

The White House and State Department have engaged in brazen lying to EU governments regarding the ability of the US to supply more than enough natural gas to replace Russian gas deliveries. Recent statements by US President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are so patently false that it betrays an incredible desperation in Washington over the situation in Ukraine versus Moscow. Or it suggests that Washington is so out of touch with any factual reality she simply doesn’t care what she says. Either way, it suggests an unreliable diplomatic partner for the EU. 

After his recent meeting with EU leaders Obama issued the incredible statement that the secret Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) that is being secretly negotiated behind closed doors by the major private multinational companies would make it easier for the United States to export gas to Europe and help it reduce its dependency on Russian energy: “Once we have a trade agreement in place, export licenses for projects for liquefied natural gas destined to Europe would be much easier, something that is obviously relevant in today’s geopolitical environment,” Obama stated.

That bit of political opportunism to try to push the stalled TTIP talks by playing on EU fears of Russian gas loss after the US-orchestrated Ukraine coup of February 22, ignores the fact that the problem in getting US shale gas to the EU does not lie in easier LNG licensing procedures in the USA and EU. 

In other recent statements, referring to the recent boom in unconventional US shale gas, Obama and Kerry have both stated the US could more than replace all Russian gas to the EU, an outright lie based on physical realities. At his Brussels meeting Obama told EU leaders they should import shale gas from the US to replace Russian. There is a huge problem with that.

Shale revolution a failure

Number one, the “shale gas revolution” in the USA has failed. The dramatic rise in US natural gas production from “fracking” or forcing gas out of shale rock formations is being abandoned by the largest energy companies like Shell and BP as uneconomical. Shell has just announced a huge reduction of its exposure to US shale gas development. Shell is selling its leases on some 700,000 acres of shale gas lands in the major shale gas areas of Texas, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Kansas and says it may have to get rid of more to stop its shale gas losses. Shell’s CEO,Ben van Beurden stated, “Financial performance there is frankly not acceptable … some of our exploration bets have simply not worked out.”

 A useful summary of the shale gas illusion comes from a recent analysis of the actual results of several years of shale gas extraction in the USA by veteran energy analyst David Hughes. He notes, “Shale gas production has grown explosively to account for nearly 40 percent of US natural gas production. Nevertheless, production has been on a plateau since December 2011; eighty percent of shale gas production comes from five plays, several of which are in decline. The very high decline rates of shale gas wells require continuous inputs of capital—estimated at $42 billion per year to drill more than 7,000 wells—in order to maintain production. In comparison, the value of shale gas produced in 2012 was just $32.5 billion.”

 So Obama is either being lied to by his advisers on the true state of US shale gas supplies, or he is willfully lying. The former is most likely. 

 The second problem with the US “offer” of gas to the EU to replace Russian gas is the fact that it requires massive, costly infrastructure in the form of construction of new Liquified Natural Gas terminals that can handle the huge LNG supertankers to bring it to similar huge LNG terminal harbors in the EU.

The problem is that owing to various US laws on export of domestic energy and supply factors, there exist no operating LNG liquefaction terminals in the US. The only one now under construction is the Sabine Pass LNG receiving terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, owned by Cheniere Energy, where John Deutch, former CIA head, sits on the board. The problem with the Sabine Pass LNG terminal is that most of the gas has been pre-contracted to Korean, Indian and other Asian LNG customers, not to the EU.

The second problem is that even were a huge port capacity installed to satisfy EU gas needs to replace Russian supplies, that would push domestic natural-gas prices higher and cut short the mini-manufacturing boom fueled by abundant, cheap shale gas. The ultimate cost to EU consumers of US LNG would have to be far more than current Russian gas pipelined over Nord Stream or Ukraine. The next problem is that the specialized LNG supertankers do not exist to supply the EU market. All this takes years, including environmental approvals, construction time, perhaps seven years on average in best conditions. 

 The EU gets some 30% of its gas, the fastest-growing energy source there, from Russia today. In 2007, Russia’s Gazprom supplied 14 percent for France, 27 percent for Italy, 36 percent for Germany, with Finland and the Baltic states receiving as much as 100 percent of gas imports from Russia.

The EU has no realistic alternative to Russian gas. Germany, the largest economy, has foolishly decided to phase out nuclear power and its “alternative energy”—wind power and solar–is an economic and political disaster with consumer electricity costs exploding even though alternatives are a tiny share of the total market. 

 In short, the chimera of shutting Russian gas and turning on US gas instead is economic, energy and political nonsense.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics , exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

credit-links