Europaische WirtschaftsGemeinschaft

BEING in Translation:

EUropean Economic Community


ReichsWirtschaftMinister u. President der Deutschen ReichsBank Funk;

Professor Dr. Jecht, Berlin; Professor Dr. Woermann, Halle;

Dr. Reithinger, Berlin; MinisterialDirektor Dr. Benning, Berlin;

Gesandter Dr. Clodius, Berlin, und GauWirtschaftsBerater Professor

Dr. Hunke, Berlin

Mit einer EinFuhrung von:

GauWirtschaftsBerater Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke

President des Vereins Berliner Kaufleute und Industrieller

HerausGeGeben von dem

Verein Berliner Kaufleute und der Wirtschafts – HochSchule

Und Industrieller Berlin


Second edition 1943

Haude & Spenesche VerlagsBuchHandlung Max Paschke


To assist non Germans, reading the above, certain letters have been capitalised for convenience ONLY

Pamphlet #01

Europaische WirtschaftsGemeinschaft

BEING in Translation:

EUropean Economic Community


ReichsWirtschaftMinister u. President der Deutschen ReichsBank Funk;

Professor Dr. Jecht, Berlin; Professor Dr. Woermann, Halle;

Dr. Reithinger, Berlin; MinisterialDirektor Dr. Benning, Berlin;

Gesandter Dr. Clodius, Berlin, und GauWirtschaftsBerater Professor

Dr. Hunke, Berlin

Mit einer EinFuhrung von:

GauWirtschaftsBerater Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke

President des Vereins Berliner Kaufleute und Industrieller

HerausGeGeben von dem

Verein Berliner Kaufleute und der Wirtschafts – HochSchule

Und Industrieller Berlin


Second edition


Haude & Spenesche VerlagsBuchHandlung Max Paschke


To assist non Germans, reading the above, certain letters have been capitalised for convenience ONLY

Pamphlet #01
Being the FIRST of a series of Pamphlets being published on the internet at:

Greg Lance-Watkins, who has overseen this project, originally for SilentMajority, over the last few years would like to thank ALL those who have helped in tracking down the original full text in German, and the short term acquisition thereof for photocopying. Also for the lengthy process of accurate translation and independent checking of the translation work.

The European Economic Community

Mr. Funk, the Reich’s Economic Minister and President of the German Reichsbank

Professor Dr. Jecht, Berlin

Professor Dr. Woermann, Halle

Dr. Reithinger, Berlin, Ministerial Director

Dr. Beisiegel, Berlin

Secretary of State Königs, Berlin

Director Dr. Benning, Berlin

Ambassador Dr. Clodius, Berlin and Economics Committee Advisor

Professor Dr. Hunke, Berlin

With an introduction by

Economics Committee Advisor, Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke, President of the Society of Berlin Industry and Commerce

Issued by

The Society of Berlin Industry and Commerce and the Berlin School of Economics

Second Revised Edition (Berlin 1943)

Haude and Spenersche Publishing House Max Paschke

Preface to the First and Second Edition

This text contains the lectures presented under the title:

“The European Economic Community”
by the Society of Berlin Industry and Commerce at the start of 1942 in conjunction with the Economic Advisor to the Berlin Committee of the NSDAP and The Chamber of Trade and Industry. The order of lectures was as follows:

· Walter Funk, Reichs Economic Minister and President of the Reichsbank:

“The Economic Face of the New Europe”

· Dr. Horst Jecht, Professor at The Berlin School of Economics:

“Developments towards the European Economic Community”

· Dr. Emil Woermann, Professor at Halle University:

“European Agriculture”

· Dr. Anton Reithinger, Director of the Economics Department of I.G. Farbenindustrie A.G., Berlin:

“The European Industrial Economy”

· Dr. Philipp Beisiegel, Ministerial Director of the Reich’s Labour Ministry:

“The Deployment of Labour in Europe”

· Gustav Koenigs, Secretary of State, Berlin:

“Questions About European Transport”

· Dr. Bernhard Benning, Director of the Reich’s Credit Company, Berlin:

“Questions About Europe’s Currency”

· Dr. Carl Clodius, Ambassador of the Foreign Office:

“European Trade and Economic Agreements’’

· Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke, Economic Committee Advisor of the NSDAP, President of Germany’s Economic Publicity Agency and the Berlin Society of Industry and Commerce:

“The Basic Question: Europe – Geographical Concept or Political Fact?”

The lectures met with considerable interest and very strong agreement. On account of this, we feel we should make them available to a wider circle of people.

Berlin, September 1942

The Society of Berlin’s Trade and Industry – The President: Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke, Advisor to the Economics Committee

The Berlin School of Economics – The Rector: Dr. Edwin Fels, Professor of Geography



Introduction 8

The Discussion So Far and its Results

Economic Practice

Problems Related to Economic Community of Continental Europe


The Economic Face of the New Europe

Real and False Economic Freedom 15

Co-operation in Continental Europe

Europe’s Resources and Completion

Directing of the Economy by the State and Work

between the States of the Community

The Movement of Payments between the States and European Currency Issues

Securing the Area and Economy of Europe

The Will for Co-operation in the Economic Community


Developments towards the European Economic Community

The European Economic Community and its Enlargement 30

The Problem of the European Economic Area in Late Antiquity and
the Middle Ages

Recent Changes to the Problem of the Area of Europe

The Formation of the Nations and Independent Economies

Overseas Expansion and its Consequences for Europe

The Release of England from the Continent and the Formation of the

“Free Global Economy”

Europe’s Economic New Order: The Present Task

Collapse of the Previous World Economy

Means and Objectives of the European Economic Community



European Agriculture

The Development of Agricultural Enterprises and

the Structure of Europe’s Food Economy

The Formation of the Division of Labour in World Agriculture

Production Increase in Germany and Italy

The Supply Situation under the Influence of Economic Restrictions and Change

Political Consequences for Production

Possibilities of Increasing Europe’s Food Production


The European Industrial Economy

The Development of Industry in the 19th Century

Stages of Technical and Economic Development

Socio-Political Effects

The Loss of Europe’s Hegemony in the World War

The Transition to State Direction and Planning

New Europe and its Shared Features

Regional Differences in Europe

The Major Powers at War – A Comparison of their Capabilities


The Deployment of Labour in Europe

Population Density, Number and Structure of the Employed

People – The Wealth of Europe

Worker Exchange on the Basis of Inter-State Agreements

Adaptation of the Organisation for Labour Deployment

Employer Action and Order Switching


Questions about European Transport

“Technical Unity” in the Railway System

The Magna Carta of Europe’s Internal Riverboat Traffic

Motorways’ Contribution to the European Transport Community

Community Work in Shipping

Joint Work in Air Traffic


Questions about Europe’s Currency

Currency’s Two Sides

The Internal Economic Situation of Europe’s Currencies

Managing Foreign Exchange and Bilateral Settlements

Development of Multi-Lateral Settlements

The Problem of the Clearing Balances

Adjustment of Europe’s Exchange Rates

Future Formation of the European Currency System

Europe’s Future Currency Relationship to the Currencies of Other Major Nations

What about Gold?

The European Currency Bloc


European Trade and Economic Treaties

The Period of the Old Trade Policy

German Economic and Trade Policy since 1933

Changes to Trade Policy Caused by the War

The Reversal of the Law of Supply and Demand

The Question of Labour Deployment in Europe

The Problem of Traffic

Effects of the English Blockade on Europe

Principles of European Co-operation

The European Regional Principle

Europe’s Economic Independence

Europe and the Global Economy

Internal Preconditions of a European Economic Community

Ways to Achieve European Co-operation


The Basic Question: Europe – Geographical Concept or Political Fact?

New Learning and Thought

Starting Point for European Task

Three Eras

The Character of the Global Economy

Political Weakness of Continental Europe due to the Idea of

English World Superiority

Britain’s Dominant Theory about the Modern National Economy

The Foundation of the European Economic Community

Categories within the European Economic Community

Three Principles

A New Era

Taking a Look Back to the Past and to the Future

The Illustrations – Maps, Charts etc. Summary of the series and Comments

Request for help locating further FACTS

Including Reinhard Heydrich’s 1942 Reichs Plan for The Domination

of EUrope – published in Berlin in 1942 believed to have been November.

ALSO – details of the Berlin Conference of 1944 Titled ‘How Will Germany Dominate The

Peace, When It Loses The War.’ & 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 Bilderbergers, Council for Foreign relations, Tri Lateral Commission and other arms of the New World Order.

Introduction – by Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke, Economic Committee Adviser to the NSDAP, President of Germany’s Economic Publicity Agency

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 following 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 militarisation 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 militarisation 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.

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

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

4. 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 which is: 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 evident.

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.

2. 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.

3. 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 evident 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.

2. 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.

3. 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 monocultures, of industrialisation of the agrarian south-east and the awakening of new needs.

An answer can easily be given to the first question. Monocultures 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 monocultures 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:

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.

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 individual economies. 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…”

We can only agree with this view, leaving the matter open, as the Reich’s Economic Minister Funk described, how large the direct sources of help will be and whether raw material acquisition from overseas will take place through the system of clearing or free flow of currency. With the introduction of the multi-lateral clearing system, on a practical level there is no change from the pre-war time. As this learned person said, “All the benefits of the method of paying are regained from the system of free currency.” Nor can it be realised – contrary to him – that this system of clearing through Berlin should function without those countries outside the European system. But the decisive factor is the way in which the continent is bound to Germany and Italy by one fate.

Since 1940, therefore, we are faced with an unparalleled economic and political revolution. The problems created for us are large but can be solved. Their solution will give Europe the peace it yearns for and will bring a great era of joint development. It is worth fighting and working for this.

The following discourses should contribute to helping us to broaden and deepen our understanding of the tasks and nature of the European economic community.

The Economic Face of the New Europe by Walther Funk, Reich’s Economic Minister and President of the German Reichsbank

Today the peoples of Europe are at a turning point in their fate. Without any hint of exaggeration, one can say that the problems, which are pressing in this war for a solution, have secular significance. What sense could the blood spill have, which the allies of Europe joined together with the combined forces of the great German Reich are prepared to make, if not that of creating once and for all a sound foundation for a really social life order. The call and warning is issued to the politician, the scientist, the economist from the front line fighters to prepare the great task of attaining peace for the future even in the midst of war.

Real and False Economic Freedom

To sum up the theme in one sentence I would say that the economic face of the new Europe will have two identifiable traits, which are already being formed in the fire of war. They are work for the community and economic freedom – of course, not the sort of economic freedom that is embodied in capitalism and leads to the strange pact between plutocracy and Bolshevism. The peoples of Europe have heard the big promise of freedom in the liberal-capitalist economy. Today it is sinking in wretchedness, blood and ruins.

What did not the liberalist idea of freedom promise? According to that theory of economics, life develops most fully if all the individuals are allowed to pursue their own self-interest without restriction. The state can hand over the harmonious development of the economy to the forces of competition, which each individual should exploit for his own self-interest.

Regarding international trade, one expects that given full freedom, competition would ensure that each country produces those goods best according to its natural production conditions. According to the theory, each nation buys on the world market where they are cheapest and sells its own products with relatively high margins thanks to its natural conditions allowing the lowest costs. Consumers can in theory get a supply of goods at the lowest cost, businessmen can use their skills freely and workers can find work wherever they find the highest wage. The situation that was sought after – social harmony – seemed to be most achievable this way. So much for theory!

But what happened in practice? Europe’s population grew in the 19th century (i.e. in the springtime of liberalism) from 180m to 450m capita; and people on average could clothe and feed themselves better and provide themselves with more goods than before. All the same, Liberalism can claim to have driven forward technical progress a long way due to its principle of unrestricted profit seeking. Also it can be rightly maintained that the liberal capitalist economic way for decades proved to be capable of existing right up to World War I despite the increasing numbers of defects. Free trade was not, in fact, carried out without restrictions, but the duty agreements on the basis of maximum favour barely affected trade. Flows of gold and capital were never restricted; nor was the movement of labour subject to any notable restriction. The international gold standard, which England manipulated almost unnoticed, enabled an easy movement of money. The value of gold followed interest rates and goods followed the world price. As long as the participants were prepared to observe the complicated rules of the game, economic harmony really seemed to exist. If we recall the economic conditions that existed pre-World War I, all this supposed harmony did was to give enough elbow-room to those powers ranged against one another. Freedom to expand, it seems, was the only thing then that prevented earlier confrontation between the powers.

The vast expanse of land overseas constantly offered new areas of discovery. Europe’s infinite source of labour was available not only as the workforce for it but also as the buyer of everything produced there. Constantly improving technology offered a constant flow of possibilities for development, hitherto unknown. Despite the apparent equal opportunities there, the individual people were not able to gain equal advantage from the system, just as the individual classes of society were unable to. The English moral philosophy of Hobbes and Hume, which was tinged with a shot of Jewish spirit from David Riccardo, has proved to be an extraordinarily safe and imperceptibly effective means for justifying and safeguarding the British world superiority. In the system’s early hey-day, the English had the most advanced industry. They entered the race with the biggest price advantage. Added to that, they had the biggest commercial and naval fleet in the world, which enabled them to get started in world trade in such a big way. Thus their economic and political power grew. Each concentration of trade opened the way for new profit. England became the paymaster of the world, as well as the banker, the manufacturer, the trader, transporter and, last but not least, the policeman of the world.

Just look at the states of continental Europe! Together they could only derive small advantages from this economic system. Even the large nations were forced to suffer from the real and extended competitive advantage of England. The small nations just existed to increase England’s wealth and had to be content with a few crumbs from England’s table. Before World War I, the south-east European states were so peripheral for world trade, although they were no worse placed than many overseas exporting nations. However, they could not come into their own. Thus agricultural technology and transport routes were not advanced by the developments happening in elsewhere in the world economy. Technical backwardness occurred there while the newly productive nations grew, forcing down the standard of living. There were no buyers, who could constantly buy more and more goods at stable prices and which was supposed to lead to investment

in new machinery and equipment that improves life. After World War I the capitalist world powers consciously left these states in their economic backwardness, so they remained politically dependent. It was our deliberate and compassionate trade policy that recently brought about a fundamental change and, in fact, their trade policy has also changed favourably over recent years. These states were the first testing ground for our economic and political principles. We can rightly say that the use of these methods was of great mutual benefit for both sides and became a sound basis of co-existence.

The debt account of the British capitalist era was considerably larger. Signs of serious economic damage, caused by the effects of the laissez-faire system and free trade principle, became apparent among all those connected with it, both the favoured ones and the step-children of the liberal economic order. Symptoms of malaise were the same everywhere. Agriculture in the industrial nations was incapable of asserting itself confronted with the interests of industry, trade, bank and stock exchange. The freedom to feed disappeared, the position of farmers became wretched, the population fled from the countryside to the city and abroad. The very top class layer of bankers, industrialists and speculators could amass huge wealth and, with it, create a dangerous power base beyond the state, because money bought everything, especially public opinion. On the other side, the rank of the industrial proletariat swelled constantly and was driven by increasing dissatisfaction with pseudo-socialist Marxism and Communism.

The prevailing line at the time “get rich regardless of the means” was probably the reason why all these symptoms failed to gain sufficient attention and clouded over the sight of the facts.

Certainly, liberalism was a system for ‘freedom’. He, who could no longer find work or food in his local area, had the ‘freedom’ to emigrate. And if the economy of a nation was depressed, this nation had the ‘freedom’ to run up debts with England. But this type of freedom was of too poor moral foundation to have been of any real substance. The type of gift made by the English economic philosophers to mankind with their output of ideas about freedom only became obvious as the economic area around individuals and nations became smaller, and as the last reserves of colonial raw materials were distributed and the fight for sales markets intensified. The liberalist system, that had weaved its way into big time capitalism, then lost its necessary flexibility due to cartelisation, pooling, monopoly formation and the rising fixed costs for industry. Conflicting interests started to collide at full speed with one another, because they were driven by egotism and no longer sought ways to avoid problems. How many wars have been waged due to this attitude, this greed, which has wrecked the lives of so many? For example, there were the Spanish-Cuban wars that started in 1868 and supported by the Cuban speculators and North American sugar syndicate; the war between Chile and Peru was all about the saltpeter fields. To finance this war, Chile took loans that were guaranteed by European bankers, who insured themselves with the gains to be made from working these fields; England’s Boer War was supposedly a colonial war, but it was all too conspicuous how much interest was shown by the gold mine syndicate of Mr. Cecil Rhodes and those of the London stock exchange in the war’s outbreak and continuation. No wonder everyone called it the war between the stock exchange and the Boer. The Russo-Japanese war 1904-1905 was caused by the interests of Russian capital in Manchuria and Korea.

Finally the First World War was the peak of the capitalist economic system but also the start of its demise.

Since World War I Europe’s people have been through a generation of extremely hard lessons, which we all know now, and they sooner or later realised, that the freedom ideal of the past era was false and perishable. War, inflation, tough economic crises, hunger and unemployment have hammered it into people that economic sense lies in the fulfillment of a social task – not in self-interest and selfish profiteering. No wonder then that those people of central Europe, who suffered most under the whip of an unsocial system, were first to set up a different freedom ideal of higher morality.

We can now see the new ideal of real economic freedom in the safeguarding of food and raw material reserves, the liberation of the economy from international finance interests and dependence on economic cycles, as well as in the subjugation of the individual to the primacy of the economy.

Co-operation in Continental Europe

The authoritarian governments of Germany and Italy gave their people the task first of all to invest their efforts in voluntary co-operation under the state directive of the national welfare. Thus they protected their economy from exploitation by international finance powers. The fight for the nation’s food and raw material freedom is now a thing of the past. The last world war already taught the people that it is unwise to leave their fate to excessive international division of labour. At the time, the industrial nations were ploughing the last square metre of uncultivated land. The mainly agricultural-based countries made haste to become self-sufficient in industrial goods by forcing through industrialisation. In both cases, the result was not satisfactory. In particular, those industries of small European nations prolonged their unpleasant, and for the majority, costly existence in the post-war period by standing behind protective duties. They devoured subsidies, unnecessarily reinforced the international battle between competitors, raised the cost of living of their people and ended up in the mess of the world economic crisis – simply because natural reserves were drying up everywhere.

European people could have recognised long ago that they share a common fate with only one logical consequence, which is European co-operation. Politically, though, the time then was not yet ready for that. The victorious nations of World War I deliberately placed so much dynamite in Europe with the Paris Agreements that it was not possible to consider a constructive, idealistic plan. The only pioneering work possible was, for example, the deliberate promotion of economic relationships in Germany and the south-east.

First the Fascist and then the National Socialist revolution created the foundation for a new political era and social order in Europe. Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, between them, gave Europe the chance to become truly European. Now the time is finally coming

when the people of Europe can continue their path towards co-operation, as they rightly strive for economic security. After World War II there will be no more tension and grounds for conflict in Europe, which might justify useless isolation. The economic system will be without the germ in it, such as the Anglo-American system, which has caused dramatic disagreements between people. No European nation can attain alone for itself that highest level of economic freedom that meets all of society’s demands, as it constantly relies on the production strengths of its nearest and furthest European neighbours. The blockading around Europe organised by our foe today shows clearly just how much individual states are bound together for better or for worse. In a large economic area, a community sharing the same fate holds the nations together. This area, though, is capable of feeding, clothing and providing them with all the necessary goods in sufficient quantities, moreso when the area also includes the east European areas that surround it. Until now these areas were beyond the reach of the historic creative forces of our continent.

The European economic area of the future will be untouched by blockades, so no one will easily dare to attack it. Recently I declared that there will no longer be any sense in economic wars.

The idea of an enlarged area has been subject to a degree of discrimination, although it was barely discussed in a serious way. Even the politicians belonging to the English plutocratic system suddenly adopted the idea. They wrote their ideas about large economic areas, which were not and really never should have been classed as ideas. Power and political aims simply lay at the root of it all. Nonetheless the idea of an enlarged living area proved to be capable of standing the test of time. I can see nothing that might seriously stand in its way, as the creation of large economic areas follows a natural law of development. I have absolutely no intention of contributing to the economic teaching about the stages of economic development, but I just want to draw attention over towards an economic and historical process, which shows a strong resemblance to how things are developing today.

About 100 years ago a German economic entity started to be formed out of many regional economies. As unification of the country was still way out of the question, economic treaties started to develop, finally reaching its peak in 1843 with the German ‘Zollverein’ (Customs Union) and bringing with it huge economic advances.

What did the situation look like before? Anyone passing through Germany travelled on poor roads and had to pay countless duties and tolls on his way through dozens of states. Each of these states had its own sovereignty, financial system and currency attempting to form something like its own independent economy. Those in charge then simply could not understand that their great neighbours, England and France, had advanced because they had created an economic area for themselves, which corresponded to the level of technology and transport reached at the time. Friedrich List, the great proponent of Germany’s economic union, criticised the situation at that time saying, “The chances for

German industry to rise up would immense if each factory owner could choose from an pool of 30 million people! Mining, agriculture and cattle rearing could really take off if each branch of production could take its natural course!”

One of the decisive forces, which the small nation ideal finally had to bow to, was the revolutionising effect on the economy and transport of technical progress, especially the steam engine. If we say Europe now, instead of Germany, then we come naturally to a similar, if not identical, conclusion – from a purely economic perspective. Once again it is the economic and technical progress, which pushes inexorably to the formation of large continental economic areas. Today technology offers possibilities, which cannot be fully utilized by individual national economies. Nations’ borders have been brought closer together by the increased speed of trains, the extension of the road network and waterways, the transcontinental energy supply, which offers so much potential and, above all, the aeroplane. Outside Europe, huge economic areas are already, or are in the process of being formed, from a combination of these factors. For its own good, Europe has to be dragged out of its romanticized backwardness. The difficulties, of course, of a European economic union are larger than those that had to be overcome by the German Customs Union. The means will be difficult and more complicated, and it certainly will not be achieved just through a customs union. Nonetheless, there will be a European economy entity because its time has come.

Europe’s Resources and Completion

If one recalls the natural resource of our continent, it becomes obvious that Europe is actually an economic area capable of meeting most requirements. I am not going to go into details here, but just touch on some basic points. First of all, excluding the erstwhile soviet-Russian areas, our continent produces sufficient quantities of the essential industrial materials i.e. coal, iron and aluminium. Looking at the agriculture resources available, there is also plenty of food available. Many people may think it sounds improbable that in 1939 around 46.4 million tons of wheat and 24.8m tons of rye grew on European soil. These figures again exclude the production of the Soviet Union, but we know for sure that 10m tons of cereal were produced there. This figure could be much more if the means of production there were brought in line with the new technology. Wherever European soil has been treated all to badly by Nature, the imagination of its people has managed to seek and find new solutions. I recall those areas in which Germany has excelled, such as rayon, oil production from coal and synthetic rubber. What we lack will be secured through this war in the east of Europe. Even today, we have a large and valuable part of Soviet Russia in our possession and we are directing all our energy into opening up this area so rich in raw materials. Later we will have the task of creating the political shape of the eastern area, but firstly the people will have to be adopted into the European economic system. They too stand to profit from the good deeds done by European civilisation.

The major tasks we need to solve are truly European tasks. Even today Europe looks eastwards and the huge arsenal of soviet weapons gives an idea of just how much natural reserves that area can yield. If the rich soil there can be rendered usable with the modern tools of Europe’s food agriculture technology, then Europe will definitely not be touched by blockades.

In addition, the tropical colonies of Africa will offer us all those luxuries that are unnecessary for survival, but which make life pleasant and ought not to be withheld from a people with a high standard of living.

And finally, we will have global trade, which will help to ensure that misunderstandings no longer arise. But it will look different to trade system, which degenerated into utter confusion and simply enabled a few powers to gain a position of world superiority.

The economic problems in east Europe will obviously not just suddenly be solved by us securing these areas and raw material reserves. However, we have put together statistics showing a reasonable amount of economic capacity, which has yet to be put into practice.

We have to mobilize every available raw material and energy in the economy of Europe – this is the task of the new economic order facing us now. Naturally, a new order that is perfect cannot be created straightaway, but over the years it will be possible to match supply and demand in the entire European area to a remarkable degree. Then, according to the plan, it will be possible to put the finishing touches to everything and we will get on with the task of opening up hitherto neglected areas of production. For example, I am thinking about how we successfully achieved much higher yields and we will continue to do so by a more intensive use of the countryside.

Those areas of Europe that are still backward have to be encouraged to bring about an intensive economic system. The industrialisation of these areas will undoubtedly continue, but with the difference that each nation will create its own industry, which best suits its own natural production conditions, as well as meeting the needs of the European market. Already detailed negotiations of the various European nations have taken place along these lines. We will one day tackle the problem of the rationalisation of the European economy and I believe that, after consolidation, we will achieve production increases that are unimaginable today.

Directing of the Economy by the State and Work between the States of the Community

The movement of goods between the nations will not yet be regarded as home trade as it is still too premature to consider a total removal of duty and currency barriers. As a large trading area, though, it will enjoy all the privileges of a market under state direction. The Romanian farmer, the Norwegian timber dealer, the Dutch gardener and the Danish fowl breeder will no longer worry whether they will sell their products or if they will get an adequate price that is commensurate with their efforts. They will know that inter-state agreements will determine and secure production and sales, and that speculators and crises are a thing of the past. Spinning companies in the Protectorate, French chemical workers and Belgian miners will no longer live in fear of low wages and unemployment. They will be reassured that the European economic area contains a wealth of technical and natural possibilities, as yet untapped and, furthermore, that the demand for goods in this enlarged area will never dry up. The word “unemployment” will cease to exist in the European economic dictionary.

Business circles today offer positive examples of work between the nations. Think how Germans and Italians work together and about those agreements between German, Italian and French car industrialists. Think of the German-French institutions in the chemical industry, the various community enterprises between Germany and Hungary, and Romania, Finland, Holland or Norway. Just think of the truly European agreements in the field of cellulose products, artificial silk, rayon and paper! Or the orders placed by German industry in France, Belgium, Holland, or the commodity markets and the technical fairs. All of these forms are expressions of private initiative, which I wish to stress. Here the entrepreneurial spirit finds plenty of opportunity to show itself. I stress this particularly, as the position of the entrepreneur in the directed economy is a question that is frequently mentioned but not addressed in a proper and accurate way.

Let us not be mistaken that this system of economic co-operation depends to a large extent on state directives and to a greater extent than entrepreneurs in many European states have been used to until now. The examples cited here and Germany’s internal economic practice clearly show that the state can and will leave the entrepreneur to prove himself in the directed economy.

If the direction of the economy by the state and inter-nation agreements create a form of economic movement that is like a motorway equipped with all sorts of safety features, such as control of raw materials, of production, sales, deployment of labour and an ever more refined payment and clearance system, the result would be that on these roads only the barrows of a nervous bureaucracy and excessive collectivism would drive around. Remaining with this analogy, the movement of goods has to remain a matter for private entrepreneurs, provided communal issues do not require state intervention. It is left to his initiative, his spirit of discovery, to achieve the highest performance for his economic vehicle, which is only possible if initiative is left to him.

His job is to be careful that the flow of traffic does not get out of control, while ours is ensure that the driving licences of those undisciplined road users’ are removed, who jeopardise the flow of goods due to a lack of conscience or to ignorance.

Indeed entrepreneurial initiative has no boundaries and although this century’s complicated economy does need state direction, it cannot do without the driving force of entrepreneurial activity. It is absolutely understandable from a human perspective that the initiative of an entrepreneur is awoken and stimulated by social conscience and sense of community, as well as by the desire for adequate profit for his efforts. Provided he in accordance with the state’s economic order and respects the general rules of traffic, he should be appropriately rewarded.

The relevance to the German economy provides a clear example to other people, whereby the principle of achievement has become reality through a great number of laws. For example, there was the state pricing policy for public tenders. This successfully overcame the model of pricing based on prime cost which inhibits performance, managing to emphasise even more powerfully than before the principle of achievement. This was done by rewarding private initiative and giving recognition by presenting awards. The leaders of the state economy may not have been able to perfect this regulated form of competition, but on a practical level they came very close.

The objective remains to allow a particular achievement to be rewarded with an appropriate increase in profit and to stop cost wasting from taking its place. Where competition is concerned, I will do whatever I can to suppress and fight against all such signs.

This is the only way that the peak of economic development can be reached, which we strive for by combining the forces of state and entrepreneur. For this alone, will offer a secure foundation for social and political peace.

The Movement of Payments between the States and European Currency Issues

This is another problem, one whose difficulties are mostly overestimated, but which is just as clear and easily solved as the one dealt with above. We have extensive practical experiences in this field so that we are able to imagine the viability of a particular route chosen. In the European movement of payments a settlement requirement regulated between the states has been imposed in the form of multi-lateral clearings on the primitive bilateral payment method. The strict bilateral settlement, which came about as an emergency measure with the collapse of the gold standard, brought about an even more dangerous tendency of reducing commercial trade. Already today, this serious defect has been overcome by the technology of multi-lateral payment via a central clearing point. This movement of payments still stands some way from its ideal form, but it will be possible to gradually demolish the regulations relating to the movement of goods and capital, which still exist and were created partly by the war. As soon as the exchange of goods and labour between the nations comes into play under different conditions, its success will be greater provided it is under the framework of constructive and long-term trade agreements.

Moreover, the movement of payments will be subject to such a minimum of state control that any uncontrollable, international movement of capital does not effect the planned direction.

Judging by the present conditions, the clearance system has a major weakness. If a country’s imports exceed its exports, then clearing peaks start to develop, which can cause problems also for clearance under certain conditions. An oft-cited example is the clearing debt of Germany.

Firstly, the debt figure quoted is mostly higher than it actually is and this accounting mistake comes about because it is not sufficiently considered that payment dates for two-way deliveries go awry. The decisive point is this, that Germany has managed to create the victorious army with the finest soldiers and weapons in the world from its own working classes with which it will keep guard over Europe.

At negotiations about clearing peaks I have constantly stressed that it is totally wrong to treat Germany as if it is an unreliable debtor. Due to the war our import requirement has grown and will continue to do so, and our production of consumer goods for export has to be adjusted. Those are simply the consequences of war, but it will be different in peace! Our system, in itself, is in no way affected by these things and they do not prove that our system is wrong or that it does function.

Of course, long term planning in the free European economy will make clearing peaks and trade balance peaks inevitable. But those nations with a strong economic capacity will be called upon to bridge these peaks until they are offset, possibly through investment amortisation. Germany is ready to help in this way. It will be able to do so, because it will have grown and developed to such an extent that it can absorb all the European goods and its exports will be boosted enormously having secured raw materials and production facilities that have been freed from the war effort. If the threat of European wars can be banned once and for all by our final victory now, Germany will easily reach and exceed its 1913 export figure of 10 billion Marks. And in foreign trade Germany will be able to offer secure support to the nations of Europe and dispel their worries concerning their currencies’ external value. Once again business on credit terms will start again and banks will find normality in export trade. Lest something fundamental is forgotten here, I have to emphasise the fact that currency stability always depends on a currency’s internal value. The war inevitably causes an imbalance whereby the production of consumer goods gets slows right down or even sometimes stops. But elsewhere, total production grows due to the huge war requirement, which causes money supply to grow. My theory is that if there is plenty of work, plenty of money will be generated. Other factors, though, are at play here. Clearly a larger nation, such as Germany has become now, needs a much larger amount of money to meet its payments. Through the war property assets and therefore capital will be converted into gold. Even gold acquires purchasing power now, which remains uncovered during the war. All nations are faced with this problem today – not just those waging war.

By the effective means of a directed economy, particularly by regulating prices, we have managed to maintain a stable currency and we will continue to do. This is the right way and one copied by other nations during the war with varying degrees of success.

Somehow price control tends to be problematic, but we in Germany had a favourable starting point. Due to National Socialism’s education work we have a disciplined population, an economy aware of its responsibilities and a capable, informed and incorruptible civil service, unlike other countries, whose success will reflect the extent to which these conditions are met. The principle, however, remains the same. In the long run, there is only one alternative: either keep prices steady or face inflation.

The policy on price control is not the only means of maintaining national stability. It also needs a fair wages policy. A strict and ascetic public and private spending policy is also essential, but, above all, a reasonable control of production and sales, as well as money, credit and consumption. We manage all these factors so thoroughly that no shocks have happened. Nor will they because we realised early on what was required controlled everything with all the nation’s means, in order to create order at the right time.

Financing the war of course relies heavily on taxation, which is the only way we could at last remove purchasing surpluses. On the other hand, we have always taken care to avoid overtaxing for social reasons and to preserve people’s motivation. The Economic Ministry has been extremely careful about this precise point.

Money excesses should not be allowed to loiter around markets, but should be used up as credits and made available for financing the war. The huge savings increase has shown the German people’s firm belief in these methods. With these means that we have developed, we have reached a rather more tricky area and I recall here the ‘Iron Saving’ and ‘Factory Investment Credit’ schemes. Just holding prices firm, though, on its own is not the solution, rather it is half of it, because the excess of purchasing power caused by the war will have to be met later by consumer goods. Otherwise the pressure on prices would be such that devaluation would soon follow the end of the war.

In Germany we have no such fear. That is because if we can produce immense quantities of goods for war use, then we are equally capable of producing consumer goods in order to catch up on what was missed during the war. This problem can be solved not only for Germany, but for all nations. Basically all that is needed is adequate labour and raw materials. After the war, workers will be automatically freed and raw materials will have been secured by the war – those to be found in east Europe and the colonies. Increasing imports and cheap labour will be a firm basis for the currencies. One should always consider this connection between currency stability and additional raw material acquisition and availability of labour. The person who realises it will have no fear of a threat to our money.

Furthermore, there will be even more of an unburdening. In these newly acquired areas, mines will be set in motion, large industrial plants operated, areas of land will be available in certain areas for settlement, trade will find major development opportunities and much more. The right thing will be basically to leave most of these tasks to private initiative. All European nations have easily enough capital for this today. There is no doubt about Europe’s will to invest. Good yields will be there to be enjoyed.

The significance in currency and political terms is that these aforementioned excesses can be diverted into savings accounts, whose gains will have started to become apparent event during the war. After it, they will help to bring a recovery to Europe’s economies and their currencies. Economic recovery here will be the foundations for the restoration of international currencies. A sensible control of export would also work on this principle.

It will be no easy task to create a balance between the currencies of Europe, which have suffered due to the war, and then to do so in relation to those outside Europe. The only way is to establish order in the economies and thus for the internal values of their currencies. Then external values can strengthen by bringing about co-operation in economic policy. No solution is to be found in gold automotism. We, in Germany, will certainly not try the so-called gold currency, which lost all significance after the last World War. In fact, it could subject our economy to uncontrollable international influences and become misused as a way of groups intent on suppressing political power. Other European nations will not close their eyes to this fact and benefit from it.

Of course, we recognise that gold as a commodity can help to offset peaks in international trade and I often repeat that gold in itself is neither good nor bad, it just depends on how it is used.

Nor are we against healthy trade with overseas nations. Even if in our own colonies we had all the important raw material available to us, we could still calculate some advantage to be gained from buying elsewhere more cheaply or through lower transport costs. The one thing we will certainly avoid is the old style of the world economy. We know only too well how this model is dependent on an open or veiled Anglo-American world domination and that it is synonymous with inconsiderate exploitation of the German people and political impotence. By creating a European economic bloc, we want to protect ourselves from this system.

Securing the Area and Economy of Europe

Two pre-conditions need to be examined here that have more to do than just with economics. They relate more to the political and ethical arena in which a fruitful and lasting European economic community can be established.

The first one is securing the area and economy of Europe, which is where we find ourselves today. Last year, though, we made a good step forward: for the first time in history, the peoples of Europe (with few exceptions) showed exemplary solidarity by resisting the biggest threat to their life and culture. Most economies of Europe had to be controlled in a highly uniform manner and furthermore their sons fought shoulder to shoulder for the same cause. This is clearly a political success and a type that our enemies cannot beat or even match.

I wish to emphasise this explicitly because recently the English and more so the Americans are turning out grotesque propaganda about their alleged superiority. Therefore I want to tackle things critically again with you.

The Leader said in one of his latest speeches:

When you read in the paper about the huge plans of other nations and you hear of the billions being talked about, just remember these words:

1. We too have a whole content that we can put into service.

2. We talk about workers, not about capital, and we will employ every one of them.

3. Just because we do not talk about it, does not mean that we stand still.

What the Leader was saying with regard to enemy propaganda has already happened to an extent, which must astonish the person who has long had the American disease of being swept along by record figures.

We know that the Americans are supposed to have the biggest, the best, the widest, the longest, the fastest etc. President Roosevelt has over promised on all these. Moreover, he had strong reasons for doing so, since he had to offer his people something while he announced a huge tax increase at the same time. At last, he also had to offer some consolation for the painful losses wrought on the USA by the sudden Japanese strikes at Pearl Harbour. Then he quoted figures about everything the USA could produce in the future. Basically, these figures are ridiculous to a specialist, let alone to any competent observer. He reckoned it was barely possible for the public to get access to precise information about the production capabilities in the USA. Also the thought that it would be even more difficult to draw comparisons with our production power because a veil is

drawn over the production of every war material. Mr. Roosevelt believed it to be easier to deceive a nation whose very religion contains the belief in the superiority of their own ability to produce and whose belief was they should spread this myth around the world. Even Mr. Churchill lives and breathes this myth. For European people who are able to think, there are happily some bright factors with which to judge those persuasive figures, which President Roosevelt indulges in.

The Will for Co-operation in the Economic Community

The second of the two preconditions I mentioned for a lasting economic unity was an ethical one. The will to achieve European co-operation, as is presently being seen in the war conditions, has to be the leading thought of economic philosophy, even in peacetime. This requires a constant effort to grasp the big objectives and tasks and adapt to them, and a willingness to subjugate personal interests when necessary to those of the European community. That is the ultimate goal that we demand of the European nations and that we strive for. There will be victims here and there but the end result will benefit all the peoples of Europe.

Unlike England, our concern is not to make our trading partners as weak as we can – quite the opposite. Not only to we pay the costs for their agricultural development in the form of higher prices, but we also promote equally a reasonable degree of industrialisation, even if it appears we are creating new competitors. That is only how it seems. You see, we know that an industry creates a need for investment that is temporary, but which gives rise to new needs, improves the overall standard of living and therefore benefits our economy.

This kind of economic philosophy requires a social conscience and the people of Europe can and must demand an awareness of social responsibility from their leaders so that they bring about a new economic order.

The new European economy’s first task will be to fulfil their social duties. This war is not just about a new economic order, it is the scene of a social revolution. From the noblest blood spilt, a better social order for life in Europe will and must grow.


“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.”
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821),

Greg L-W.

for all my contact details & Blogs:

For More Information & Facts visit:
Greg’s WordPress Blog

‘The arrogance and hubris of corrupt politicians
will be responsible for every drop of blood spilt
in the Wars of Disassociation, if Britain does not
leave the EU.

The ugly, centralised, undemocratic supra national policies being imposed by the centralised and largely unelected decisionmakers of The EU for alien aims, ailien values and to suit alien needs stand every possibility of creating 200,000,000 deaths across EUrope as a result of the blind arrogance and hubris of the idiologues in the central dictatorship, and their economic illiteracy marching hand in glove with the idiocy of The CAP & The CFP – both policies which deliver bills, destroy lives and denude food stocks.

The EU, due to the political idiocy and corruption of its undemocratic leaders, is now a net importer of food, no longer able to feed itself and with a decreasing range of over priced goods of little use to the rest of the world to sell with which to counter the net financial drain of endless imports.

British Politicians with pens and treachery, in pursuit
of their own agenda and greed, have done more
damage to the liberty, freedoms, rights and democracy
of the British peoples than any army in over 1,000 years.

The disastrous effects of British politicians selling Britain
into the thrall of foreign rule by the EU for their own
personal rewards has damaged the well-being of Britain
more than the armies of Hitler
and the Franco – German – Italian axis of 1939 – 1945.

~ for more Quotes & Facts:

############-\\\///-########### #
############= ~ = ############
###########(`~0~0~’) ###########
##########M r C H A D###########

Until we gain our liberty, restore our sovereignty, repatriate our democracy and reinstate our Justice system and our borders – defended by our Police and Military armed with sustainable and obtainable weaponry:
Treat every election as a referendum.

Don’t spoil your Ballot Paper by wasting it on a self serving Politician in ANY election until we are liberated from the EU and are a Free Sovereign peoples, with independent control of our own borders, making and managing Law & Justice for our own benefit, in our own elected Westminster Parliament where we can fire our politicians at the ballot box, if they fail to represent OUR best interests and de-centralise their powers.

Make your vote count

Write on YOUR ballot Paper in EVERY Election: