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 isn’t 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.

Otherwise:

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 of defence!

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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t work well. So it has to be reformed - soon - or it is going to decay. Cui bono?“

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 don’t want such an aggressive NATO, and I also don’t 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 union.

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 European people?

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.
Translation:
„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 the mid-2nd-century-B.C..

“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 the NATO.

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, isn’t 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 NATO (**|**)?

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).

Again:

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 not activated.

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? No.

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 1990’s 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 advance remain?

- Register -