N A T O
Why NATO? Economically the US and the EU are deadly enemies! **
The NATO must be terminated because, economically, the US and the
EU are deadly enemies.
It is not advisable to consider, and especially to assess military
and economy only separately.
The EU has no fear of Russia, because Russia isnt militarily
strong - apart from its nuclear weapons. And besides that: The EU
could also arm itself. Why not?
The NATO was once founded as an alliance of defence, at least it
was said so (and as usual a lie), but more and more it became obvious
that it was an alliance of attack and even the most aggressive attack
alliance of all times. We have been becoming aware of it at least
since the Attack on Vietnam.
Okay, if the existence of the NATO has not to be terminated, then
it has to be reformed - as well as the EU.
AND SO ON.
The NATO should be an alliance of defence - and nothing more than
an alliance of defence!
Please make suggestions how the NATO can be reformed that it can
become an alliance of defence - and nothing more than an alliance
The EU has to be reformed too!
I think many of the people of the US and many other countries outside
from Europe do not know enough about Europe. And what they are told
by the media, is largely lie.
The Holy Roman Empire of German Nation lasted 1000 years - exactly
from 843 (treaty of Verdun) to 1806 (during the Napoleonic wars).
And b.t.w.: Metternich was not Austrian but German, he was born
in Koblenz; but that doesnt matter very much because Austria
had been a part of Germany until 1866 - and again from 1938 to 1945
as you probably know, for example: Hitler was an Austrian, he was
born in Braunau (Inn). Since the end of the Second World War the
Austrians have been confusing Metternich with Hitler ()
and saying Metternich was an Austrian and Hitler a German, although
the reverse is true.
There were more than one attempt in the European history to form
an European Union, and any time it was Germany that did the first
step. The EU we now have is a product of six countries: West-Germany,
France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg.
Earlier, in the end of the 19th and in the early 20th century the
German government and the German Kaiser Wilhelm II. were going to
build something like an European Union, then the First World War
startet and the hope was destroyed. Cui bono? The idea of an European
Union is good but it has to work. The current European Union doesnt
work well. So it has to be reformed - soon - or it is going to decay.
What the German government started at that time was almost the
same that Europe got later, after the two world wars, but it was
just the beginnig of the First World War that destroyed this European
Union, as if there were interests to prevent it (and such interests
existed, especially in England).
The German Hanse or other Städtebünde (associations of
cities in Germany and Italy) were the first attempts of creating
something like an European Union. The project of an European Union
has always had proponents and opponents. The last powerful European
opponent was the British Empire. No wonder that there was no possibility
for an European Union before the British Empire ended. The German
Empire was no European opponent but the most powerful proponent,
and - of course - the most powerful rival of the British Empire.
The profiteer of the rivalry between the British and the German
Empire was the USA - that is the reason why the Dollar Empire could
be formed. So the current most powerful European opponent is the
USA as a Dollar Empire, and merely other than economic unions with
the USA are no European opponents, for example the NATO. So the
NATO is important also for Europe; but again: I dont want
such an aggressive NATO, and I also dont want the hierarchical
structure the NATO has. We should reform the NATO, change it from
an aggressive and unilateral into a defending and multilateral military
After the ascending United States of America and the descending
British Empire had bombed Europe (especially Germany and robbing
it, cp. the robbed patents, knowledge, scientists and technicians
[by blackmailing them], and - amongst much others - territories
[cp. the forced displacement of about 20,000,000 Germans] and the
whole gold of the German Reich) the United States of America have
been bombing it with immigrants because thatt will weaken it sooner
or later. Why should we again defence the USA by sacrificing all
Many of those immigrants and many of the indigenous Europeans have
already built an alliance (a colored alliance that units
these very different humans because of the fact that they have the
same enemy) and try to continue and reinforce the so-called permanent
revolution by their terror, civil war. Why should
we tolerate or even accept that?
The NATO is the United States lapdog: a very
aggressive and schizophrenic lapdog.
This reminds me of a term used by Peter Scholl-Latour (1924-2014):
Tony Blair als »Pudel Amerikas« - Peter
Scholl-Latour, Deutschland muß atomar aufrüsten!,
in: Cicero, 2007.
Tony Blair as »America's poodle«
Furthermore there is a Trojan horse (Turkey) in the NATO, and 2004
the EU got a Trojan donkey (Poland) of the USA.
According to Nietzsche the state is the coldest of all cold monsters:
(Staat heisst das kälteste aller kalten Ungeheuer.
- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra,
1883, S. 57 (**).
And the Federal Reserve is a private bank. The European Central
Bank (in Frankfurt) is a bank of the European Union. So in this
case we have one superordinated monster (Fed) and two subordinated
monsters (EU and ECB) like states. And they lie always: I,
the state, am the people: Ich, der Staat, bin das Volk.
- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Also sprach Zarathustra,
1883, S. 57 (**).
And if a state is already a monster, then an empire like the Dollar
Empire, which is monetarily based on the Federal Reserve System,
is a many times huger state-like monster.
The so-called Western World has been completely united
or already overstretched (which seems to be more probable) since
e.g. Poland, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia
, Estonia became members of the NATO (1999-2004) and the EU (2004).
This empire as the superordinated monster (see above), thus the
super monster, is comparable with the Imperium Romanum of
Expansion is everything. - Cecil Rhodes.
Economy and military belong more together than many people believe.
Economy and military are very closely connected with each other.
Almost all wars have their causes in economy.
My thesis is: If the NATO partners are enemies, then the NATO
is either useless, or very schizophrenic, or both; so one of the
consequences must be the end of the NATO.
My opinion is: The occidental culture needs something like a military
alliance but not an aggressive one like the NATO. My opinion is
is not yet an ingredient of my thesis. If it were, then I could
not so easily speak about the end of the NATO as a consequence but
would suggest to reform the NATO in order to prevent the end of
Economy and military are very closely connected with each other
Will there be war in Europe before 2050? **
The EU and the US are economical enemies (and that is something
different, isnt it?). And furthermore: Germany and the US
(as well as 99% of the world) are military enemies because
there is no peace treaty for the Second World War (cui bono?). This
all is absolutely schizophrenic but true. The historical facts do
not lie. Humans lie.
When it comes to defense its own territory:
1) Where is the NATO? **
2) Is the NATO what you call the »theater of the absurd«
3) Why NATO(**|**)?
1) I am asking where the NATO is in that situation you showed from
the Greek border, because the NATO was founded as a defensive alliance.
2) If the NATO is no defensive alliance anymore, then it has no
right to exist and is - for example - a theater of the absurd
3) The NATO is no defensive alliance anymore, and, economically,
the US and the EU are deadly enemies! Therefore the question: Why
Unfortunately, the economical problems, especially those of the
US, have become so huge, that it is not possible anymore to hide
the fact that the US and the EU are enemies - sometimes one can
have the impression that they are alraedy military enemies too.
The economical facts have been dominating the military facts for
a long time. That is not good and not the reason why all this alleged
partnerships and mutual securities were
originally made for. The NATO was built as a defensive alliance,
then it changed to an aggressive attacking alliance, now
it is a chaotic bunch that still attacks the rest of the
world, although more chaotically and sometimes also itself, but
is not capable of defensing the societies of the NATO territories.
And the Arabs alone did not cause the alleged Arab Spring
that led to the flood of the alleged refugees (young
boys willing to conquer Europe with terrible violence).
A defensive military alliance that attacks the rest of the world
but is not capable of defensing the societies of the NATO territories
is no real military alliance, at least no defensive military alliance.
And actually: You must be capable of defending yourself before
you start attacking somebody, unless you want to be attacked.
NATO means US domination and US global domination and the prospect
of an endless war. I am against this megalomania.
If there were an equitable or at least a democratic structure within
the NATO (there is nothing except US dictatorship), then it would
be a little bit possible to have a defensive alliance again (but
does anybody believe that?).
It requires that the Europeans start protecting themselves - and
by protecting themselves I only mean defending
themselves (thus not attacking others - if possible).
I see no will to self protection in Europe. I merely see egocentric
greed, overprotected young (I mean those few who are NOT aborted)
Europeans, ... and so on ... , thus: decadence.
Okay, I also see that there is still a huge potential, but is is
To be honest, I am not the one who deeply believes in so-called
revolutions, because they are paid, thus made by almost
those who should be overthrown by this so-called revolutions.
Revolutions are historical games - more or less. Having
said that, I would never say that there is no upheavel possible.
And you and I know that catastrophes, regardless whether they are
natural or economical/political/societal catastrophes, are always
possible and do cyclically occur - for sure.
So I still believe in the hopefully peaceful chance of those Europeans
(also those who do not live in Europe) who are currently powerless.
Peace as the real opposite of war.
We need to have such opposite words and concepts.
Changes are also possible without catastrophes, One example is
the peaceful revolution that led to the fall of the
Iron Curtain and the end of the Cold War,
the conflict between the West and the East. There was no war in
Europe between May 1945 and June 1991 (when the Yugoslav war[s]
started) - except terrosrism or civil wars in Northern Ireland and
in the Basque region. And the said peaceful revolution
of 1989/'90 was a change without violence but left the old violence
behind it and led to a new violence in Yugoslavia. So it is possible
to get change without violence, but the peaceful revolutions
are nevertheless more the exceptions to the rule than
the rule itself.
If we did not know the meaning of peace, then we would
also not know the meaning of war. This is what dictators
usually instrumentalize, exploit. Then peace means war,
and war means peace. George Orwell described this very
well by reference to the dictatorship in the Soviet Union. The Romans
called their brutal captures and conquests befriended
(loosely translated), although they had just killed most of the
inhabitants of those befriended.
We need to have opposite words like war and peace
for understanding, for knowledge, for philosophy, for wisdom. To
not know what opposite words like war and peace
mean means to not know what war and peace are.
Do times without war in the countries A and B
mean peace is everywhere? No. War is often (thus: not
always) exported into foreign countries. So at last it is very probable
that there is war everywhere just because of the peace of few humans
who live in peace. But does that mean that peace is an illusion?
How did Heraklitos (Heraclitus) know that war existed? He knew
it because he also knew that peace existed. And that does not mean
that his famous formula about war is false.
Naturally we humans are almost like animals, but culturally we
humans are not animals. I would say the ratio is 98% (nature) versus
2% (culture). But the effects of this little 2% are vast. Look at
our genome. There is only little genetic difference between humans
and bonobos, but the effects of that little difference are vast.
And this is not only because of nature but very much more (probably
also 98%) because of culture.
The ratio between war and peace is almost like the ratio between
nature and culture.
Peace does not mean passivity or laziness,
although it often leads to such behaviors. Therefore it was said
in former times: War is inevitable. But it was not meant
as peace is an illusion.
If there is no real military partnership (and that can only be
a defensive alliance without an US dictatorship) between Europe
and the United States anymore, then there might be one between Europe
and Russia or/and between Europe and China. The best way for the
Europeans is that they start protecting themselves - and by protecting
themselves I only mean defending themselves (thus
not attacking others - if possible). Currently I see no will to
self protection in Europe. I merely see egocentric greed, overprotected
young (I mean those few who are NOT aborted) Europeans, ... and
so on ... , thus: decadence. Okay, I also see that there is still
a huge potential, but is is not activated.
An EU nation does not exist. The United States of America are an
empire too, but they are also a nation or at least something like
that. Yet the European Union is no nation but merely an empire.
And there are no United States of Europe, because the
European nations are not united. If they were, then each of them
would be no nation anymore. I know that the rulers of the EU try
to eleminate the European nations, because they want to create those
"United States of Europe" (after the model of the United
States of America). They try it in order to get an European nation
(after the model of the US nation). But I am pretty sure that they
will not be successful with that attempt. Europe is just Europe,
and that means (like it or not): a bunch of many nations.
Note: In the following I am going to use the word Europeans
for all those people who are of European origin (except those who
are globalists), regardless where they currently live.
China started its protectionism politics about 2200 years ago by
building the big wall. Why should the Europeans not start doing
it today too? The answer is that the globalists do not want the
Europeans to do it, and that all European politicians are the henchmen
of the globalists.
During the so-called cold war the peoples of the NATO-bloc
were told that the NATO was a military defense alliance
- a lie. At the very latest since the 1990s we have clearly
experienced that the NATO is not a military defense
but a military offense alliance. The Europeans have to reform
the NATO, so that it can be a real military defense
alliance. This is possible without huge economical disadvantages,
if they start doing this as soon as possible. The later they will
start doing this, the more expensive their doing and the more likely
their breakup or even extinction will become.
The demographic development is one point, but the huge economic
and military power - both based on and correlative with the technological
advance the Europeans still have - is the other point. As long as
the said advance will remain, the Europeans will be capable of doing
whatever they want, provided that this doing will serve real European
interests. So we have two questions in this case: (1) Will the Europeans
start defending themselves early enough? (2) How long will the said
But I fear that the Europeans will further on serve the globalists.
In that case, we can only hope that the globalists will some day get
their senses back, get some common sense. The last chance for the
Europeans in the case of remaining homogenous will be one country
somewhere on this planet (or on the planet Mars or the moon Europa?
), but even
then they will have to calculate on much resistance against them.
In the long run, the globalists themselves will have no future either.
After that globalistic era many solutions will be possible, also SAM
or a reign of machines (AI).