Bildebergs Rise And Rise From Obscurity

The fact that Bildeberg and all it now stands for began in 1954 with two well-known names at his head table namely Royal Dutch Petroleum and Queen Beatrix and proceeded to a point when in 2013, none other than our chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne attended, then it is beginning to achieve what it began so long ago! Namely control of the people by the economic means, will shortly reach its ultimate conclusion!

The Davignon Report that was published on 27 October 1970, was a report on the future foreign policy of European Economic Community member nations. It was written by a council chaired by Étienne Davignon of the Belgian Foreign Office. The committee was appointed by the Council of the European Communities to make proposals on political cooperation between the member states.  It recommended that member states should try to speak with a single voice on international problems, a proposal that was approved by all six member governments. It resulted first in European Political Cooperation and later in the European Union‘s Common Foreign and Security Policy in 1992.  Étienne Francois Jacques Davignon, Viscount Davignon (born 4 October 1932 in Budapest) is a Belgian politician, businessman, and former vice-president of the European Commission. He also was a member of the first steering committee, which eventually would have such people as in 2013 known other than Kenneth Clark ex Chancellor of this present UK government.

The funding of such an organisation would eventually become a lot easier with such people who were regularly invited, providing donations. One of the first was to Rockefeller and he was instantly classed as a honoury member, with other such prominent leaders as Henry Kissinger and Pinochet! The main family that l mentioned earlier was the Rothschild’s and they would provide a way forward, with what would eventually become known as “Club Bildeberg” with each additional member representing a particular area of the economic globe! This may be either oil, news, finance, media, etc eventually leading to an annual conference in some part of the world, always behind close doors and nobody knowing what they are really discussing, or planning!

Useful links:

Related articles


#acenewsservices, #etienne-davignon, #bilderberg-group, #common-foreign-and-security-policy, #council-of-the-european-union, #davignon-report, #european-commission, #european-economic-community, #european-political-cooperation, #european-union, #first-steering-committee, #former-vice-president, #henry-kissinger, #honoury-member, #queen-beatrix, #royal-dutch-petroleum

Tavistock: The Best Kept Secret in America

Formed in 1947, the Tavistock Institute is an independent not-for-profit organization which seeks to combine research in the social sciences with professional practice. Problems of institution-building and organizational design and change are being tackled in all sectors – government, industry and commerce, health and welfare, education, etc. – nationally and internationally, and clients range from multinationals to small community groups. A growth area has been the use of a developmental approach to evaluation of new and experimental programs, particularly in health, education and community development. This has also produced new training events alongside the regular program of group relations conferences. The Institute owns and edits the monthly journal Human Relations (published by Plenum Press) which is now in its 48th year, and has recently launched (in conjunction with Sage Publications) a new journal Evaluation.

Three elements combine to make the Institute unusual, if not unique: it has the independence of being entirely self-financing, with no subsidies from the government or other sources; the action research orientation places it between, but not in, the worlds of academia and consultancy; and its range of disciplines include anthropology, economics, organizational behavior, political science, psychoanalysis, psychology and sociology.

The ideology of American foundations was created by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London. In 1921, the Duke of Bedford, Marquess of Tavistock, the 11th Duke, gave a building to the Institute to study the effect of shellshock on British soldiers who survived World War I. Its purpose was to establish the “breaking point” of men under stress, under the direction of the British Army Bureau of Psychological Warfare, commanded by Sir John Rawlings-Reese.

Tavistock Institute is headquartered in London. Its prophet, Sigmond Freud, settled in Maresfield Gardens when he moved to England. He was given a mansion by Princess Bonaparte. Tavistock’s pioneer work in behavioral science along Freudian lines of “controlling” humans established it as the world center of foundation ideology. Its network now extends from the University of Sussex to the U.S. through the Stanford Research Institute, Esalen, MIT, <>Hudson Institute, <>Heritage Foundation, Center of Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown, where State Dept. personal are trained, US Air Force Intelligence, and the Rand and Mitre corporations. The personnel of the corporations are required to undergo indoctrination at one or more of these Tavistock controlled institutions. A network of secret groups, the Mont Pelerin Society, Trilateral Commission, Ditchley Foundation, and the Club of Rome is conduit for instructions to the Tavistock network.

Tavistock Institute developed the mass brain-washing techniques which were first used experimentally on American prisoners of war in Korea. Its experiments in crowd control methods have been widely used on the American public, a surreptitious but nevertheless outrageous assault on human freedom by modifying individual behavior through topical psychology. A German refugee, Kurt Lewin, became director of Tavistock in 1932. He came to the U.S. in 1933 as a “refugee”, the first of many infiltrators, and set up the Harvard Psychology Clinic, which originated the propaganda campaign to turn the American public against Germany and involve us in World War II.

In 1938, Roosevelt executed a secret agreement with Churchill which in effect ceded U.S. sovereignty to England, because it agreed to let Special Operations Executive control U.S. policies. To implement this agreement, Roosevelt sent General Donovan to London for indoctrination before setting up OSS (now the CIA) under the aegis of SOE-SIS. The entire OSS program, as well as the CIA has always worked on guidelines set up by the Tavistock Institute.

Tavistock Institute originated the mass civilian bombing raids carried out by Roosevelt and Churchill purely as a clinical experiment in mass terror, keeping records of the results as they watched the “guinea pigs” reacting under “controlled laboratory conditions”. All Tavistock and American foundation techniques have a single goal—to break down the psychological strength of the individual and render him helpless to oppose the dictators of the World Order. Any technique which helps to break down the family unit, and family inculcated principles of religion, honor, patriotism and sexual behavior, is used by the Tavistock scientists as weapons of crowd control.

The methods of Freudian psychotherapy induce permanent mental illness in those who undergo this treatment by destabilizing their character. The victim is then advised to “establish new rituals of personal interaction”, that is, to indulge in brief sexual encounters which actually set the participants adrift with no stable personal relationships in their lives, destroying their ability to establish or maintain a family. Tavistock Institute has developed such power in the U.S. that no one achieves prominence in any field unless he has been trained in behavioral science at Tavistock or one of its subsidiaries.

Henry Kissinger, whose meteoric rise to power is otherwise inexplicable, was a German refugee and student of Sir John Rawlings-Reese at SHAEF. Dr. Peter Bourne, a Tavistock Institute psychologist, picked Jimmy Carter for President of the U.S. solely because Carter had undergone an intensive brainwashing program administered by Admiral Hyman Rickover at Annapolis. The “experiment” in compulsory racial integration in the U.S. was organized by Ronald Lippert, of the OSS and the American Jewish Congress, and director of child training at the Commission on Community Relations. The program was designed to break down the individual’s sense of personal knowledge in his identity, his racial heritage. Through the Stanford Research Institute, Tavistock controls the National Education Association. The Institute of Social Research at the National Training Lab brain washes the leading executives of business and government.

Such is the power of Tavistock that our entire space program was scrapped for nine years so that the Soviets could catch up. The hiatus was demanded in an article written by Dr. Anatol Rapport, and was promptly granted by the government, to the complete mystification of everyone connected with NASA. Another prominent Tavistock operation is the Wharton School of Finance, at the University of Pennsylvania. A single common denominator identifies the common Tavistock strategy—the use of drugs. The infamous MK Ultra program of the CIA, in which unsuspecting CIA officials were given LSD, and their reaction studied like “guinea pigs”, resulted in several deaths.

The U.S. Government had to pay millions in damages to the families of the victims, but the culprits were never indicted. The program originated when Sandoz AG, a Swiss drug firm, owned by S.G. Warburg Co. of London, developed Lysergic Acid [LSD]. Roosevelt’s advisor, James Paul Warburg, son of Paul Warburg who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and nephew of Max Warburg who had financed Hitler, set up the <>Institute for Policy Studies to promote the drug. The result was the LSD “counter-culture” of the 1960s, the “student revolution”, which was financed by $25 million from the CIA.

One part of MK Ultra was the Human Ecology Fund; the CIA also paid Dr. Herbert Kelman of Harvard to carry out further experiments on mind control. In the 1950s, the CIA financed extensive LSD experiments in Canada. Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, president of the Canadian Psychological Association, and director of Royal Victorian Hospital, Montreal, received large payments from the CIA to give 53 patients large doses of LSD and record their reactions; the patients were drugged into weeks of sleep and then given electric shock treatments.

The U.S. Government had to pay millions in damages to the families of the victims, but the culprits were never indicted. The program originated when Sandoz AG, a Swiss drug firm, owned by S.G. Warburg Co. of London, developed Lysergic Acid [LSD]. Roosevelt’s advisor, James Paul Warburg, son of Paul Warburg who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and nephew of Max Warburg who had financed Hitler, set up the <>Institute for Policy Studies to promote the drug. The result was the LSD “counter-culture” of the 1960s, the “student revolution”, which was financed by $25 million from the CIA.

One part of MK Ultra was the Human Ecology Fund; the CIA also paid Dr. Herbert Kelman of Harvard to carry out further experiments on mind control. In the 1950s, the CIA financed extensive LSD experiments in Canada. Dr. D. Ewen Cameron, president of the Canadian Psychological Association, and director of Royal Victorian Hospital, Montreal, received large payments from the CIA to give 53 patients large doses of LSD and record their reactions; the patients were drugged into weeks of sleep and then given electric shock treatments.

Today the Tavistock Institute operates a $6 Billion a year network of Foundations in the U.S., all of it funded by U.S. taxpayers’ money. Ten major institutions are under its direct control, with 400 subsidiaries, and 3000 other study groups and think tanks which originate many types of programs to increase the control of the World Order over the American people. The Stanford Research Institute, adjoining the Hoover Institution, is a $150 million a year operation with 3300 employees. It carries on program surveillance for Bechtel, Kaiser, and 400 other companies, and extensive intelligence operations for the CIA. It is the largest institution on the West Coast promoting mind control and the behavioral sciences.

One of the key agencies as a conduit for secret instructions from Tavistock is the Ditchley Foundation, founded in 1957. The American branch of the Ditchley Foundation is run by Cyrus Vance, former Secretary of State, and director of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Winston Lord, president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

[Editor, Tim Aho’s note: The wife of Winston Lord (CFR, Bilderberg, Skull & Bones), Bette Bao Lord (CFR, Bilderberg), is Chairman of the Board of Freedom House whose manipulation of the Christian Right via the Religious Persecution issue is documented in our report <>Freedom House: A CFR Front.]

One of the principal but little known operations of the Rockefeller Foundation has been its techniques for controlling world agriculture. Its director, Kenneth Wernimont, set up Rockefeller controlled agricultural programs throughout Mexico and Latin America. The independent farmer is a great threat to the World Order, because he produces for himself, and because his produce can be converted into capital, which gives him independence. In Soviet Russia, the Bolsheviks believed they had attained total control over the people; they were dismayed to find their plans threatened by the stubborn independence of the small farmers, the Kulaks.

Stalin ordered the OGPU to seize all food and animals of the Kulaks, and to starve them out. The Chicago American, February 25, 1935 carried a front page headline, SIX MILLION PERISH IN SOVIET FAMINE; Peasants’ Crops Seized, They and their Animals Starve. To draw attention from this atrocity, it was later alleged that the Germans, not the Soviets, had killed six million people, the number taken from the Chicago American headline by a Chicago publicist.

The Communist Party, the Party of the Peasants and Workers, exterminated the peasants and enslaved the workers. Many totalitarian regimes have found the small farmer to be their biggest stumbling block. The French Reign of Terror was directed, not against the aristocrats, many of whom were sympathetic to it, but against the small farmers who refused to turn over their grain to the revolutionary tribunals in exchange for the worthless assignats. In the United States, the foundations are presently engaged in the same type of war of extermination against the American farmer.

The traditional formula of land plus labor for the farmer has been altered due to the farmer’s need for purchasing power, to buy industrial goods needed in his farming operations. Because of this need for capital, the farmer is especially vulnerable to the World Order’s manipulation of interest rates, which is bankrupting him. Just as in the Soviet Union, in the early 1930s, when Stalin ordered the Kulaks to give up their small plots of land to live and work on the collective farms, the American small farmer faces the same type of extermination, being forced to give up his small plot of land to become a hired hand for the big agricultural trusts. The Brookings Institution and other foundations originated the monetary programs implemented by the Federal Reserve System to destroy the American farmer, a replay of the Soviet tragedy in Russia, with one proviso that the farmer will be allowed to survive if he becomes a slave worker of the giant trusts.

Once the citizen becomes aware of the true role of the foundations, he can understand the high interest rates, high taxes, the destruction of the family, the degradation of the churches into forums for revolution, the subversion of the universities into CIA cesspools of drug addiction, and the halls of government into sewers of international espionage and intrigue. The American citizen can now understand why every agent of the federal government is against him; the alphabet agencies, the FBI, IRS, CIA and BATF must make war on the citizen in order to carry out the programs of the foundations.

The foundations are in direct violation of their charters, which commit them to do “charitable” work, because they make no grants which are not part of a political goal. The charge has been made, and never denied, that the Heritage-AEI network has at least two KGB moles on its staff. The employment of professional intelligence operatives as “charitable” workers, as was done in the Red Cross Mission to Russia in 1917, exposes the sinister political economic and social goals which the World Order requires the foundations to achieve through their ” bequests “.

Not only is this tax fraud, because the foundations are granted tax exemption solely to do charitable work, but it is criminal syndicalism, conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States of America, Constitutional Law 213, Corpus Juris Secundum 16. For the first time, the close interlocking of the foundation “syndicate” has been revealed by the names of its principle incorporators—Daniel Coit Gilman, who incorporated the Peabody Fund and the John Slater Fund, and became an incorporator of the General Education Board (now the Rockefeller Foundation); Gilman, who also incorporated the Russell Trust in 1856, later became an incorporator of the Carnegie Institution with Andrew Dickson White (Russell Trust) and Frederic A. Delano. Delano also was an original incorporator of the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Daniel Coit Gilman incorporated the Russell Sage Foundation with Cleveland H. Dodge of the National City Bank. These foundations incorporators have been closely linked with the Federal Reserve System, the War Industries Board of World War I, the OSS of World War II and the CIA. They have also been closely linked with the American International Corporation, which was formed to instigate the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Delano, an uncle of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was on the original Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in 1914. His brother-in-law founded the influential Washington law firm of Covington and Burling. The Delanos and other ruling families of the World Order trace their lineage directly back to William of Orange and the regime which granted the charter of the Bank of England.

#acenewsservices, #climate, #duke-of-bedford, #england, #hudson-institute, #libya, #london, #politics, #research, #science, #sri-international, #tavistock, #tavistock-institute, #tavistock-institute-of-human-relations, #united-states

The Passage of the Uniform Small Loan Law -Part One

For many a year and more than l care to remember l have studied and looked deeply into rules and regulations governing lending, of any kind! When l first read about this law and how it affected lending right up until the 1940’s l was surprised to learn, that certain companies could keep interest rates higher than the norm.

The Uniform Small Loan Law (USLL) allowed specially-licensed lenders to charge much higher interest rates than those allowed by most state usury laws. In return, small-loan brokers had to adhere to strict standards of transparency. The USLL was the Russell Sage Foundation’s primary device to combat the problem of high-rate lending to poor people in the first half of the twentieth century. The Foundation drafted successive versions of the law and fought for its passage in state legislatures. About two-thirds of the states had passed the USLL when the Foundation ended this
effort in the 1940s. This paper describes the USLL and reports econometric models of which states passed the USLL and when. We find that the demographic and political factors that occupied much of the Foundation’s own discussion played little role. Measures of state economic structure as well as the presence of credit unions and banks, on the other hand, are powerful correlates of the state’s passage. There is no evidence of spatial dependence across states in the law’s passage.

For its first 40 years the Russell Sage Foundation (RSF) was heavily involved in efforts to reform the conditions under which poor Americans obtained credit. Through its lobbying, publications, and other efforts, the Foundation operated as the clearing house for information, leader of several reform proposals, and primary interlocutor for lenders and industry groups that sought to improve their industry’s image. This paper focuses on one particular initiative, the Uniform Small Loan Law (USLL). The USLL formed the heart of the Foundation’s early efforts to improve
credit conditions for poor people. The USLL reflected two central ideas. Supporters thought that making small loans was an inherently expensive business, and that the only way to encourage legitimate lending was to let capital earn a realistic profit. The law also reflected a perception that borrowers were hurt less by high interest rates than by other features of “loan-sharking,” such as lack of transparency. This paper focuses on the USLL’s passage: which states passed the law and when. Section 1 provides background on the problem of credit for poor people, as well as the RSF’s views of the problem. Section 2 focuses on the law itself. Section 3 describes the data and methods we employ, and Section 4 discusses our results.

1. Credit for the Poor and the Foundation’s activities:
Starting in the 1890s, U.S. reformers came to view credit as a serious problem in causing or exacerbating poverty (Calder 1999: 112-123). In their eyes, borrowers usually sought small loans only because of financial necessity: unexpected medical expenses or loss of income due to unemployment. The dire circumstances for such emergency borrowing drove small debtors into the hands of usurers, loan sharks, and
other unscrupulous lenders. The Foundation was established in April of 1907 and credit for poor people remained a major focus until World War II. The first approach it tried was to publicize the problem (via a “crusade”) and warn borrowers about the dangers they faced. But mostly the RSF tried to cultivate new sources of credit that could drive out the “loan sharks.” This included Remedial Loan Societies, charitable lenders that
extended credit to poor people at much lower rates than those charged by for-profit lenders. RSF provided financial and organizational support to a number of remedial loan societies, and to their national organization. RSF also played a key role in the early U.S. credit-union movement, but the Foundation’s ardor for credit unions cooled by the 1920s. One reason was the intellectual understanding noted above.1 Institutional and personal conflicts were also important. Edward Filene’s Twentieth Century Fund staked out credit unions as its policy turf, and while the Fund tried several times to work with the RSF, the relationship remained awkward. The personal problems stemmed from repeated conflict between Roy Bergengren, who was Filene’s man for the credit-union groups, and various figures at the Foundation. The RSF also tried to promote consumer lending by commercial banks, again seeking market competition that might reduce costs to borrowers. Commercial banks were late entrants into this field, in part because of legal restrictions on the lending activities of national banks. RSF assisted several New York banks in setting up these new loan departments.2 It also considered various legislative measures, although these ran aground of the question of whether state laws legalizing personal loans applied to federally-chartered banks. In general and despite RSF efforts, commercial banks were slow to make small loans to individuals (RAC 28/216, p.7).

2. The Uniform Small Loan Law:
Most of the Foundation’s efforts went into the creation and promulgation of a uniform law to cover small-loans. Support for the USLL involved two tasks: writing (with other interested parties) a model law, and then encouraging its promulgation and passage. This “uniform law strategy” was relatively new to American politics. In the 1880s, the American Bar Association (ABA) devised a long-term plan to standardize state laws. Legal variability across states was an ongoing problem. National legislation to deal with various social and economic problems was simply

1. The conceptual underpinnings of the credit-union and USLL approaches are quite different. Credit unions are non-profits that distribute all surplus to members. The entire point of the Uniform Small Loan Laws was to attract private capital into this type of lending with the promise of profits. Credit unions experienced little of the legislative opposition that the Uniform Small Loan law encountered.
2. One bank that set up a new loan department was the First National City Bank of New York, whose president, Charles Norton, joined the RSF board of trustees in 1918, not an option because of how the U.S. constitution allocated powers between state and national government. The uniform law strategy seemed to offer a solution: promulgating uniform laws at the state level ensured constitutionality and defused the problem of multiple jurisdictions. RSF staff believed that a decision in one state could establish (political) precedent in other states (LC 4, “Anti-Loan Shark Committee” folder). One of the prime movers behind uniform laws was the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL). This group emerged from the ABA in the late 1880s and was later supported by the American Law Institute (Grant 1938, p.1086). Together, they promoted model laws, eventually including the Uniform Commercial Code (Frank 1998, White 1997). The first law proposed by the NCCUSL was the Uniform Negotiable Instruments Act of 1896, adopted in thirty-eight states and territories by 1910 (Lapp 1910). This was followed by a uniform warehouse receipts act, uniform sales act, and so on (Guild 1920).

RSF correspondence suggests that the foundation tried to coordinate with the NCCUSL on laws pertaining to credit: 

3. As a commercial law serving a social purpose, the USLL was something of a hybrid. One feature of the uniform-law strategy seems odd for the USLL. As Smythe (2005) emphasizes for the Uniform Sales Act, there are issues where legal differences across states impose higher transactions costs. A firm might prefer that all the states in which it does business have identical laws to reduce legal uncertainty and the costs of inter-state sales. No such strong rationale applies for the USLL. Some of the larger chain lenders that operated under the USLL might well have preferred that the small-loan law in each state be similar. But they rarely lent across state lines.

RSF and the USLL:
At first, the RSF extended its “crusades” approach and pushed state authorities to enforce existing laws. A more ambitious strategy entailed pushing particular legislation. Starting in 1910, Ham was involved with state efforts to regulate the small loan business. By 1913 Ham, working with the National Federation’s Committee on 3. One letter of 17 November, 1919, was sent to a J. Hansell Merrill, appointed by the NCCUSL to consider anti-loan shark laws. See LC 4, “Anti-Loan Shark Committee” folder.

Legislation, had determined eight key features that state laws should contain. All successive drafts of the USLL negotiated over the next decades reflected these ideas. They included: (1) Licenses for USLL lenders; (2) Bonds to ensure compliance; (3) A maximum interest rate higher than that allowed for banks (3.5% per month), coupled with a prohibition on ancillary fees; (4) Enforcement by public officials; (5) Penalties for violation; (6) Notice to employer and to wife in the case of assignment of wages; (7) Records that can be inspected by supervision officer; (8) Borrowers to receive memorandum of transaction along with relevant sections of state law.

The USLL defined a small loan as $300 or less (average annual earnings of a non-farm worker were $1,434 in 1925). The first incarnation of the USLL was New Jersey’s Egan Act, passed in 1914.4 Ham’s role in passage of the Egan Act went well beyond that of technical advisor. He drafted the legislation and organized support at each stage. This pattern continued, with revisions to the Uniform Law and efforts to pass it in other states. Between 1911 and 1915, six states including New Jersey passed versions of the USLL. As opposition formed, the law passed on close votes in six more states in 1917, but failed in California. The Foundation mustered a considerable lobbying effort. By 1929, RSF staff had visited more than thirty states to urge adoption of the law (RAC 28/216). When Leon Henderson was hired by RSF in 1925, his first act was to visit states where the USLL was in operation. Through 1929 he organized support for the Act in the states where it was in play, and fought efforts to weaken the law in states that had enacted it.

#acenewsservices, #american-bar-association, #econometric-models, #loan-law, #loan-shark, #reform-proposals, #roy-bergengren, #rsf, #russell-sage-foundation, #spatial-dependence, #state-legislatures, #state-usury-laws, #uniform-commercial-code, #uniform-small-loan-law, #united-states

EUropean Economic Community – Prelude To The EU

Euro Disaster  Peace, When It Loses The War.’ and details of the massive amounts of cash moved out of Germany during the war to safeguard the future of German domination against the economic collapse of losing the Second World War against EUropean Union. AND connections with organisations like The Bilderberger’s, Council for Foreign relations, Tri Lateral Commission and other arms of the New World Order.

Around the end of 1939, most of Europe was either consciously or unconsciously under the influence of the economic concept of England. Over recent years, however, it has been swept out of European countries, politically, militarily and economically. Politically the three-power pact has given honour once again to the ancient figures of life, people and room. It has also established a natural order and a neighbourly way of co-existing as the ideal of the new order. The foundation of English economics, which is the basis of the balance of powers, has been militarily destroyed. And economically, a change has come about after the political and military development, the shape of which is easy to describe, but whose final significance is very difficult to evaluate. I can only repeat, that the changing order that is happening now has to be ranked as one of the greatest economic revolutions in history. It signifies a reversion of the economy of Europe to a time before the English concept of building an overseas Europe, i.e. an awareness of one’s own country.

The Discussion so far and its Results

Discussions about questions relating to Europe started as the power of the NSADP grew. At the Congress of Europe in Rome from 14th to 20th November 1932, Alfred Rosenberg developed, for the first time in front of an international forum, thoughts and ideas that have moved us since. No one, who fights for a new economic order in Europe, can ignore these perceptions and conclusions. The economic and political wheel was set in motion, when the NSDAP declared the militarization of the German economy. It is to the credit of the journal ‘Germany’s Economy’ that it first seized these questions in 1932, kept on bringing them up and stuck doggedly to those original perceptions. The idea of German economic self- sufficiency in the new political sense and the German economic militarization are synonymous with this journal. Besides this, Daitz, the ambassador, has earned the special credit of being the first to have related German economic history to the present time. Part II of his selected speeches and essays, which appeared in 1938 under the title ‘Germany and the European Economy’, summarizes his concepts formed between 1932 and 1938. The Italian, Carlo Scarfoglio, delivered with his book ‘England and the Continental Mainland’, a decisive historical contribution to the consciousness of the European continent. Meanwhile German and Italian economic policy drew the political consequences from the historical lessons that were learnt during the blockade and learnt again during the sanctions. The speech made in Munich in 1939 by the leader of the Reich’s farmers, R. Walther Darre, at the 6th Great Lecture at the Commission of Economic Policy of the NSDAP, takes a special place in the discussion at that time. Its theme was “The market order of the National-Socialist agricultural policy – setting the pace for a new foreign trade order.”

While our leader maintained the hope of reaching a peaceful agreement with England, the route for European economic unity remained problematic. The end of 1939 was a decisive point and it was natural that the years 1940-1941 heralded the new economic and political order. The writer, in particular, developed and extended in speech and writing the intellectual fund of the new economic policy, which has been translated into most languages, so that today everywhere the great constructive texts are known. These contexts revolve around the following issues:

  1. Theory about the Reich and the European economy.

  1. The historic, cultural, and economic significance of the German economic order.

  1. The foundations of the future economic relationships between the states.

  1. The nature of the European economic community.

On 25th June 1940 the Reich’s Economic Minister, Funk, publicised in his official capacity his thoughts, which underlined the development so far and thus gave them state sanction. In October, the journal ‘German Economy’ summarised for the first time the principles of European co-operation, the fundamental principles of German foreign trade, Germany’s export economy and ways and means of promoting export. It did so in a popular review “About A New Europe”, providing an overview of the important problem of European economic fusion. Around the end of 1940 the Berlin historian Fritz Rorig finally outlined in his book “Hanseatic Essence” the historical foundations of the greatest economic and political achievement by the Germans.

I am clear in my mind that total clarity is to be found in the principle questions: The necessity is recognised for a political order for the economic co-operation of the people. The nature of the new order : awareness of tradition, using up one’s own economic resources, long-term economic agreements and fair relations, is affirmed. The economic inter-dependence is underlined by fate. The economic unity of Europe is thus clear.

Economic Practice:

Even practical economic life has increasingly allowed entry to new thoughts. I am able to see the decisive steps in the start and realisation of the following points:

  1. In the increasing payment traffic through Berlin.

  1. In the exchange of experiences in various areas of economic life. Thereto belong also the statements of ministers and business people, the calls made by special advisers and the collective tackling of important tasks relating to the economy. Even the specialist is surprised, once he has taken the trouble to put together all the connections. Today they are already legion.

  1. In the signing of long-term economic agreements between the Reich and the other European states, which the public is aware of, there can be no doubt that such agreements are those of the future.

Of course, that cannot prevent unclear points and new problems from arising, which become clear at the time when the situation is reviewed.

Problems Related to the Economic Community of Continental Europe

These unclear points primarily relate to the concept of economic direction, the extent of solidarity and neighbourly attitude, the development of one’s own powers, the care to maintain the standard of living and the question of raw material purchase from foreign countries. It is natural that one or another issue will take priority of interest, depending on the set of conditions that prevail. It should be attempted at this point to give a reply, albeit a summary one.

There can be no doubt that the concept of direction of the economy, or rather its leadership, is as novel as it is revolutionary. Its classification is all the more important, as the fate and consequence of European co-operation depend principally on a new consistent form of economic understanding. The Anglo-Saxon view of economics is dead: consequently, even the so-called ‘classical’ national economy is no longer classical, but it has survived. So what it comes down to is that a new understanding arises to do with ideology and terminology, which represents a sound basis for agreement and co-operation. Relating to this, one must point out the following in detail:

  1. Economic direction is not a momentary emergency solution, instead it forms the core of new theory and practice. First of all, it takes the place of individual egotism and the automatic autonomy of the Anglo-Saxon precept.

  1. Economic direction is not identical to the tendencies of a centrally planned economy. It does not seek to cancel the individual or to administer through the state operators.

  1. Economic direction really means the following: the new instruction of the creative and constructive power of the individual in relation to the whole system; the creation of a consistent economic view and an attitude towards the economy; the selection of important tasks through political leadership and the state’s final decision on all questions about economic power. Beyond this, the economy is free and responsible to itself.

The degree of solidarity of the individual economies and their neighbourly attitude is characterised by three guidelines:

Firstly, it is limited in regard to its own economic development by the recognition that the utilisation of individual resources represents not only a requirement of the new economic precept, but is the very foundation for economic activity. The European economic community has no interest in leaving any abilities or possibilities unutilised.

Secondly, it contains the obligation that, because of Europe’s freedom, consideration is given firstly to continental Europe regarding any matter related to economic activity. Not only should the shared fate of the European people be emphasized, but the fact should also be stressed that the supplementation of the European economies beyond their borders is possible and sought after.

Thirdly, it must be maintained that, above all else, the spirit of the individual economies may not be allowed to go against the spirit of neighbourly co-operation.

The question of developing one’s own powers refers to the problem of mono-cultures, of industrialisation of the agrarian south-east and the awakening of new needs.

An answer can easily be given to the first question. Mono-cultures are the result of the same economic precept that made the world market price the determining factor in the economy. According to that precept, people and land are the vestiges of some by-gone age. Europe is well on the way to destroying these mono-cultures with initiatives ranging from land improvements and growing new crops to discovering new local resources. All these have the same aim, which is to develop the economy and broaden its basis. Germany and the whole of Europe can only greet these efforts with gratitude.

The industrialisation of the south-east poses a particular problem regarding these questions. As I am unable to handle this problem – like all other problems – here in a comprehensive and exhaustive manner, because the industrialisation of economies is theoretically a difficult problem, I can only say as follows:

  1. Just as it is in the nature of things that each country will strive to utilise its available resources for its own production, so will there will be a knock-on effect for other economic partners.

  1. If, as is the case in the South-east European countries, there is heavy over-population in the countryside, then there are only three possibilities to solve it: itinerant workers, a permanent emigration and an ‘intensivisation’ of the local economy, a term correctly created by Dr. Ilgner for the problem of industrialisation. Itinerant workers can only form a part solution. Besides, it only applies to agricultural and construction workers and gone on for ages. Permanent emigration from Europe is just as false as impossible. There just remains the intensivisation of the economies of south-east Europe as the way to self-help.

3. The economies should make it possible for an independent life according to the modern economic view. The intensivisation of their economies therefore is right for the time.

4. The old features of industrialisation, which evolved from the price collapses in countries with agriculture and raw materials, have to now belong to the past. Europe is a communal living area. Only through a joint development of economies – and not through independence from one another – can protection against crises be achieved.

5. The tasks that have to be solved in Europe are so big that the powers needed to do so have to be released by an intensivisation of the each economy. This can be easily done by employing the workers that have been liberated in new branches of the economy.

Without affecting the difficult questions of purchasing power, it can be regarded as proven that the joint work to build up Germany’s and the south-eastern states’ in the area of industrialisation lies in the direction of the intensivation of interest of the whole continent.

One important and until now completely overlooked task in this regard exists and that is the awakening of new needs in the south-eastern countries. It is because, in those countries, wealth has grown and will gradually continue to grow, as a result of the reliable purchase of agricultural products and available raw materials at adequate price levels. According to the principle in economics that giving equals taking, peoples’ living habits there will have to change, otherwise one day the process will come to a halt. Germany’s ability to absorb the products from the south-east is practically infinite, whereas creating a demand for German goods there is not only a matter for economic intensivation but also one of modifying the people so they consume more. This task is of such importance that it has to be considered from the very outset, so that the south-eastern European economies are elevated after the war.

Equally important as the industrialisation of south-east Europe is the question of the standard of living in the north. Their economic development and high standard of living, which underpin their lives though all economic conditions, should not be mistaken. This standard of living has grown considerably during the 19th century and around the time of the world war due to free trade, so that various circles view world economic events with particular concern. From a German viewpoint, only the following points can be made:

Firstly, a higher standard of living is also the aim of the German government. The German people not only understand this well, but also through its fight wants to ensure European civilisation and culture. This fight will benefit the whole of Europe, and with it the north.

Secondly, despite being connected successfully to England and its economic system (one should not ignore the countless economic troughs that feature there), the economies of the north whose fate and greatness are very closely linked to Germany.

Thirdly, the northern states’ difficulties are going through a temporary phase of adjustment. In the long-term, this will bring about a lasting advancement, rather than destruction, for their economies’ foundations.

Maintaining a high standard of living is not an insoluble problem. To finish, I now come to the problem of purchasing raw materials from overseas markets. A leading south-east European economist once wrote about this principal question: “Unlike the war, we were in the following situation: in order to import raw materials from overseas countries, we bought goods from west European countries with foreign exchange. In the area of continental Europe there is no gold. Everything had to pass through the system of clearing – goods sold against goods. We have no product that can be sold to North or South America. That means that the leading nations are obliged to acquire and distribute to us the raw materials that we need. The leading nations of Europe can supply, with its capacity, enough products to overseas countries with which to acquire raw materials. The one question is whether exchange will ever happen… Even before the new order is introduced, and without even joining in with the Axis powers, we stand in solidarity outside Europe with its traffic of goods…”



#acenewsservices, #angela-merkel, #economic, #economic-revolutions, #economy-of-europe, #economy-of-germany, #england, #european-union, #eurozone, #german, #germany, #libya, #middle-east, #new-world-order, #politics

Is the US Dollar losing its grip as the top-dog of World Currencies!

Over the past few years many economies have gone through massive change, none more than the United States of America. Having survived the 2008 crisis  and been able to re-float the economy, ever cautiously! The question of how, has never reared its ugly head until now! The link to the video l have added to the bottom of this post, lets you the people decide, about what really when on behind closed doors, to save the almighty dollar!

The fact that Germany deposited a vast amount of their Gold could lead some to believe this was to support an ailing economy, but others would argue it was just the best place to store their most precious possession! The action of the Federal Reserve, to refuse the auditors of Germany’s  Bundesbank access to check their deposit, could lead some to believe that it has been secured against some massive debt, to support the US Dollar maybe! Or it could just be a misunderstanding and it will all be made clear very soon!

Either way one fact is that of the 9 strong rooms in the Federal Reserve, the auditors were not allowed to view more than one, and not allowed in the room to touch or check their most valued asset!

After many years of studying currency providers and watching from the sidelines as people gambled on the stock-markets risking millions of £’s and $’s everyday, one thing is sure ,without people having faith in the currency, people start divesting themselves of their share portfolios, as in the news over the past 12 months many billionaires have done!

So when l see or hear about theses types of actions ,involving a currency l always remember the simple phrase ” There is  no Smoke without Fire” so once again l will watch and see how this latest story unfolds, and see if this time, the US Dollar and its mighty power over the world, finally loses its grip, and the top-dog on the world stage, is replaced by a mongrel that has been snapping at its heels for a long time, namely China!

More soon: Editor – link to video –

#acedebtnews, #acefinancenews, #acenewsservices, #china, #currency, #deutsche-bundesbank, #economic, #federal-reserve-system, #federalreserve, #germany, #politics, #united-states