Burg Ockenfels

Billedresultat for Burg Ockenfels

Ockenfels is a local municipality in the district Neuwied in the north of the Rhineland-Palatinate region. It shares a border with the town of Linz on the Rhine and is home to a 13th century castle of the same name. The surname Ockenfels is found in this part of Germany as well as both the United States and Australia.

The small community of Ockenfels lies along the northeast shore of the Rhine. The castle Ockenfels is located along the boundary with the town of Linz at the Rhine. It is primarily a residential district, although there are a few businesses as well

Burg Ockenfels von Norden

The first recorded mention of the village of Ockenfels was in 1257. It wasn’t until 1809 that Nassaui regulations required the Kirchspiel Linz to be divided into eight sections. Since the re-organization of the land registers of 1828 only small border corrections have been made. In 1829 the village recorded 300 inhabitants in 62 houses, as well as a chapel and a school building.


Originally called The Castle Leyen it housed the gentlemen of the Leyen noble family and was under the rule of the Archbishop of Cologne. In 1341 it was in the possession of the Knight, Johann von der Leyen (-). When his male line ceased in 1420 it fell into the hands of Rolman von Dattenberg (-). In 1439 the ownership passed to Dittrich von Monreal (-) upon his marriage to Anna von Dattenberg (-). His descendants held ownership until 1623.The castle was destroyed in 1475 when Charles, Duke of Burgundy (1433-1477) clashed with the Archbishop of Cologne in the Cologne-Stift Feud.

It was called a ‘strong fortress’ in 1609 while in the possession of Johann Adam von Hoheneck (-). The next mention of the castle was in 1623 as a possession of the childless Ferdinand von Bayern (1577-1650), Archbishop of Cologne. He sold it to George von Gerolt (-) in 1624. His line ended in 1887 with the death of Friedrich Josef von Gerolt (-).

In the 1800’s the ruins were prey to scavengers who used the original bricks and stones for building projects of their own.

It then became property of the city of Linz who sold it to Vice Consul Franz Delden (-) who hired architect Heinrich Reinhardt (1868-1947) to rebuild it in 1925. The wall and base were incorporated into the rebuilding project and can be seen today.

1936 saw it open as a church for the Sisters of St. Mary. They also used it as a nursing home.

It became a spa and hotel in 1960. It changes hands several times until it was declared forfeit for lack of use in 1998.

It is currently home to the administrative offices of the shoe brand Betula Birko Orthopedics.



Europe after the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union: 2004-2014

Image result for VikingLifeBlog

EU attitudes towards enlargement, ten years on

Ten years after the first eastern enlargement, attitudes in the EU towards further enlargement – both among publics and among Member State governments – have become noticeably more negative. Of course it should not be forgotten that the incumbent Member States were also rather reluctant about the 2004 enlargement. The EU’s reluctance to commit to the goal of enlargement was a longstanding source of frustration for the post-communist applicant countries. The Member States did not acknowledge enlargement as a shared objective until 1993; it took until 1998 to start accession negotiations with the first post-communist countries; and, as mentioned above, the accession treaties were distinctly unfavourable to the new members. Even in Member States, where the government was among the strongest supporters of enlargement, such as Germany or Austria, public opinion was distinctly negative. Nonetheless, public opinion has become noticeably more negative about enlargement since 2004.

A recent review of the literature on public opinion towards enlargement in the EU reveals increasing hostility among EU citizens.  As of 2012, EU-wide representative surveys show a net negative opinion towards enlargement. And even when earlier surveys still indicted net support, underneath the aggregate support there was considerable, and growing, opposition in many of the old Member States, most notably France, Germany and Austria. In these countries, public opposition to enlargement remains strongest. There also seems to be an east-west divide in attitudes towards further enlargements: in all old Member States, except for Spain, a majority of the population opposes further enlargement, while in the post-communist Member States – except for the Czech Republic and Slovakia – the majority supports enlargement.

Although there is still a gap between the attitudes of elites and public opinion, the position of Member State governments towards further enlargements has become more openly hostile, partly in response to public opinion. Just as public opinion is most opposed to the accession of Turkey and Albania, these two countries also are the main focus of open opposition from Member State governments.

In France, changes to the constitution since 2005 make it compulsory to hold a referendum on further EU enlargements, unless the two houses of parliament, meeting in congress, endorse it with a demanding 3/5 majority. This constitutional change was a response to perceived public opposition and evidence that the failed ratification of the draft Constitutional Treaty in France was partly due to hostility to opposition to enlargement (even if the treaty had no link to enlargement). Politicians in Germany and Austria in particular have openly questioned whether the accession negotiations with Turkey should lead to accession, and suggested instead a vaguely defined ‘privileged partnership’ (which ignores that Turkey already enjoys such a privileged partnership with the EU and it is difficult to identify measures, short of accession, to make the relationship closer).

More generally, a sense of ‘enlargement fatigue’ has characterised Member State government attitudes especially since the accession of Romania and Bulgaria in 2007. The uncertainty surrounding ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon after the failure of the Constitutional Treaty, combined with the economic and financial crisis from 2008, made the member states and the Commission reluctant to accelerate the ongoing enlargement processes. For example, when Montenegro and Albania submitted their formal applications for membership in December 2008 and April 2009 respectively, several Member States, led by Germany and The Netherlands, took the unprecedented step to block the Council’s request for the Commission’s opinions on these applications (which had hitherto been considered an automatic, technical act) for several months. Moreover, although the Commission recommended granting the status of an official candidate country to Albania, a number of Member States in the Council have so far – as of May 2014 – opposed even such a symbolic step.

At the same time, the negative impact of hostility to enlargement on the prospect of further enlargements should not be overstated. There has been much progress towards membership across the would-be members in South-East Europe, maybe with the exceptions of Bosnia-Herzegovina, where progress remains limited, and Turkey, with which accession negotiations (opened in 2005) have stalled (at least partly due to the failure of the Turkish government to recognise the Republic of Cyprus as well as recent restrictions on civil liberties by the AKP government). Otherwise, however, Croatia joined in July 2013. Montenegro and Serbia have started accession negotiations. (The Former Yugoslav Republic of) Macedonia has obtained candidate status and the only obstacle to the opening of accession negotiations is a veto by Greece while the dispute over the country’s name remains unresolved. Kosovo – although not recognised by five member states – has concluded the negotiations for a Stabilisation and Association Agreement.

Such progress notwithstanding, the clearest indication of a prevailing ‘enlargement fatigue’ in the EU is the success of opponents of enlargement in introducing a renewed emphasis on the EU’s ‘absorption capacity’ as a key requirement for further enlargement.  The condition that the EU could only enlarge if it was able to absorb new members without jeopardising the momentum of European integration had been one of the criteria listed by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993. It had been controversial for being a condition that was outside the control of the candidate countries and could therefore become an instrument for reluctant member state governments to stall enlargement.  In the event, the notion of the EU’s absorption capacity did not play a major role in the 2004 enlargement. In 2006, the Commission made an attempt to define in clearer and more functional terms what this notion entailed: the impact of enlargement on the EU’s budget and its ability to implement common policies, and on effective and accountable decision-making.


Read more about the polackistan invaders here:
Polackistan and Eastern Europe:
Read more here:

Can most pension funds last?

Additional survival tricks

by tonytran2015 (Melbourne, Australia).
When a pension fund with legislated rates of pay out operates in a negative interest environment, its fund is bound to be depleted.

You have to ask how can it have money to pay out at the legislated (high positive) rates. It can only do that if it is injected with goverment printed fiat money or if it has an ever expanding number of subscribers (a type of Ponzi scheme).

The stop on payouts byDallas police fire pension board isno surprise. It is only the tip of the iceberg.

In general, negative interest rates have revealed the unsustainability of many pension plans with legislated rates of payout.


Dallas police fire pension board ends run, bank stops 154m withdrawals.

View original post