As a result of watching two WW2 films which portrayed the menacing inhumanity of the Nazis on Saturday evening, a question came to mind which I then sought to find an answer to, and in the process found information regarding the Role of the European Commission and the European Council as well as the long standing plan for ”Genocide” of the white race in Europe. They were found together as part of the search process but will be separated out.
So here is the question: ” Was the Marshal plan a continuation of the funding of WW1 and WW2 as well as the Bolshevik Revolution by Wall Street?”
Europe Must Accept Diversity Or Face War Timmermans in EU Parliament
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QW6crLuz2tg
(It is quite ironic that the proof of the plan to homogenise all Nation States into one EU defined mass, taking away their unique historical characteristics is demonstrated by the rejection of a request by the German National Socialist Party itself. The following video was bundled together in an archive which was necessary to find because many YouTube accounts showing the Timmerman’s video above which had been bundled together with blog articles had been deactivated. This made it all the more curious but at the time of its release there were many such blog reports. In one sense it was fortunate because this find hits home the rigidity of this Supranational plan.)
Proposal to “Ensure Continuation of the German People” REJECTED as “Racist and Nazi” in Parliament
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSTRIZARsGg
(The Shengen agreement was originally signed by only five of the 10 member states in 1985 and Britain under Mrs Thatcher was one of those along with Ireland that chose to opt out. Mrs Thatcher was ultimately deposed due to her strong opposition to segments of EU policy.)
From Wikipedia:
[Quote] Thatcher and her party had supported British membership of the EC in the 1975 national referendum,[226] but she believed that the role of the organisation should be limited to ensuring free trade and effective competition, and feared that the EC’s approac[h was at odds with her views on smaller government and deregulation.[227] Her opposition to further European integration became more pronounced during her premiership and particularly after her third election victory in 1987. During a 1988 speech in Bruges she outlined her opposition to proposals from the European Community (EC), forerunner of the European Union, for a federal structure and increased centralisation of decision making.[228] She said: “We have not successfully rolled back the frontiers of the state in Britain, only to see them re-imposed at a European level, with a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels.” [Unquote]
(It would be reasonable to believe that it was her stance against further integration into a Federal structure which was to become the European Union which was to become the seed of her demise. This was to come in the form of a challenge for the leadership of the Conservative Party from a back bencher a staunch supporter for further integration into a supranational dictatorship by Anthony Meyer who had very little personal support but it set the ball rolling in 1989.)
Again from Wikipedia:
[Quote] Sir Anthony John Charles Meyer, 3rd Baronet (27 October 1920 – 24 December 2004) was a British soldier, diplomat, and Conservative and later Liberal Democrat politician, best known for standing against Margaret Thatcher for the party leadership in 1989. In spite of his staunch right-wing views on economic policy, his passionate support of increased British integration into the European Union led to him becoming increasingly marginalised in Thatcher’s Conservative Party.
After being deselected as a Conservative parliamentary candidate for the 1992 general election, Meyer became policy director of the European Movement, and in 1998 he joined the Pro-Euro Conservative Party. After that disbanded in 2001, he became a member of the Liberal Democrats.[Unquote]
(So it is very clear to see where his sentiments lay.) The Party leadership challenge continued in the form of michael Hestletine in 1990 but it was John Major who finally won that position and took office on 28th November 1990. I remember the time surrounding the General Election in 1992 nd there was much sissatisfaction with the Conservatives under John Major, the ”Grey Man” and it certainly felt ripe for a change and there was an expectation for it to happen and Niel Kinnock leader of the Labour Party had prematurely celebrated by singing the Red Flag. I wanted a change too but not to Labour and my feeling was much the same as it was for the Ted Heath back in the 1970s. For some reason the Conservatives retained power.
Come the General Election of 1997, Tony Blair and New Labour took office and of course, in the spirit of this article, Tony Blair received the Kalergi award for his contribution to immigration. Also for the duration of New Labour, media reports stated that our immigration policy and border controls were ”unfit for purpose”
There was much difficulty in finding information about the award given to Tony Blair because there was no mention of it anywhere in the Mainstream media and the search was done on the basis of general knowledge that Kalergi award had been given.)
The Coudenhmuchove-Kalergi plan – The genocide of the Peoples of Europe
http://www.westernspring.co.uk/the-coudenhove-kalergi-plan-the-genocide-of-the-peoples-of-europe/
The Pan-Europe
Few people know that one of the main instigators of the process of European integration, was a man who also conceived the genocide of the peoples of Europe. He was a sinister individual whose existence is unknown to the masses of our people, but the political elites consider him as the founder of the European Union. His name is Richard von Coudenhove Kalergi. His father was an Austrian diplomat named Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi (with connections to the Byzantine family of the Kallergis), and his mother the Japanese Mitsu Aoyama.
Thanks to his close contacts with European aristocrats and politicians, and due to the network of relationships created his nobleman-diplomat father, Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi was able to work unseen, away from the glare of publicity, and he managed to engage the co-operation of the most influential heads of state for his plan, making them supporters and collaborators for his “project of European integration”………
In 1922 he founded the “Pan-European” movement in Vienna, which aimed to create a New World Order, based on a federation of nations led by the United States.
The essence of the Kalergi plan
In his book «Praktischer Idealismus», Kalergi explains that the citizens of the future “United States of Europe” will not be the people of the Old Continent, but a new mixed breed, the products of thorough and widespread miscegenation. He states that the peoples of Europe should interbreed with Asians and other non-White races, to create a multiracial population, with not clear sense of tradition or identity and therefore easily controlled by the ruling elite……..
A prestigious prize is awarded every two years by the Coudenhove-Kalergi Foundation to Europeans who have excelled in promoting this criminal plan. Among those awarded with such a prize are Angela Merkel and Herman Van Rompuy. ( And of course not to be missed out, Tony Blair)
(Just to round things off in the context of the original question which was to do with the role of Wall Street funding activities in Europe, here is something that I didn’t expect to find but in a way it should have been expected given what we know about the relationship of America with Europe.
Likewise there is the case of Deutsche Bank funding Julia Middleton’s training in America, to then be unleashed on the UK first with the ideology of Common Purpose which has now gone International. Their motto is ”Leading beyond authority”.)
And what of America?
Joe Biden Admits Breeding Out The White Race Through Immigration Is The End Game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=sYqQQJcNUTE
Perhaps Donald Trump knows a thing or two after all.
I understood the spirit of the original question in a particular light, and the component parts of accumulated information also seemed right, but after posting, I had overall misgivings about the content in relationship with ”the good name” of the Marshal Plan, as it is projected to us, and was tempted to withdraw this article. However I know from experience that information can come which seems to tie things together, in the round, sometimes better than expected and it is often a surprise how things work out. Therefore I felt that I must persevere as the question of the Marshal plan hadn’t been answered and all of the content had hung from the original question and so felt that it was not fair.
A different set of questions had to be asked and finally found some content which seems to square the circle, but perhaps you can judge for yourselves and comment if you wish.