top of page
Writer's pictureNémeth Debs

The US Should Withdraw From NATO


"Marx himself said workers of the world unite, how can we unite without globalization?"


The U.S. Should Withdraw From Nato


First, the US Constitution does not permit Congress to “sell” or “delegate” its authority to declare war to a Foreign Power - which is essentially what NATO is - where the US is somehow automatically required to defend NATO countries, without authorization from Congress. A Treaty like NATO canNOT override the US Constitution - only a Constitutional Amendment can do that (something that American politicians knew the People would punish them for, so they skirted this “minor” detail).


Second, the rationale for this Unconstitutional arrangement was that the US was under unique threat from a Socialists (The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) who advocated a World-wide Socialist revolution towards Communism, as per Marx’s theory. Of course, the United States opposed its inclusion in this Socialist Revolution, given that America’s philosophically of governance and Constitutional Republic is anathema to Socialism.


The USSR is dead.


Thus, the rationale for NATO’s binding war-guarantees on America’s military power no longer exists.


Third, NATO was proven obsolete during the Afghan War. After 9–11, the United States deployed its forces alone to Afghanistan for weeks on end, and drove the Taliban into the Pakistani-Afghan border regions.


Even when NATO countries sent forces, these were “window dressing”, had zero effect on operational efficacy (as intended by the NATO nations from Britain to Poland), and never went anywhere NEAR the Pakistani badlands. The United States would ultimately have to push these envelopes alone, penetrating deep into the heart of even the Pakistani military in Abbottabad to kill Bin Laden.


The “Afghan War” was a ultimately a war between Pakistan and America which was delicate due to the presence of nuclear weapons, and which “NATO” was useless - in fact the parasitic drain on American logistics and resources (food, fuel, transport, disparate chain of command, etc) diverted to useless NATO troop contingents “in Afghanistan” are famous in American military circles.


The Europeans (including the British) pried priceless concessions from America from EUV technology to SIPRNET and NSA pipe access, for the price of hamstringing US military efforts against Pakistan - an operation who’s purpose ended nearly a decade ago with the collapse of the Pakistani leadership (as with the Soviet Union, victory over a nuclear power is a delicate application of military power and persuasion).


None of this was surprising or unforeseen, but it gives the lie to “collective defense”.


There is only “American defense”, as it always has been. The United States has maintained nuclear weapons in Europe for the past 60 years, which are held today in European bases like Volkel, Buchel, Aviano, Incirlik, etc.


These weapons were not meant for the defense of America - if America were hit with nuclear weapons, nobody is under any illusion that the European nations would refuse cooperation for use of weapons based on their soil; nuclear weapons “sharing” requires agreement between the American political and military Command, and its European counterparts.


By contrast, nobody is under any illusion that these same nuclear weapons (built, maintained, and under positive control and guard by US forces in Europe) would have, and will be, used in the event of a devastating attack on the European country - even if the attack were non-nuclear!


This was the case throughout the Cold War when the US faced off against the Soviet Union, and it is ABSURD for this arrangement to continue hereafter.


This is partially the reason for European and American Socialist vitriol against Trump - his attempted withdrawal s from Europe and Asia threaten their cushy arrangements which lock American military guarantees in place - the US Military controls not simply the “ownership” of airspace and sea-control, but the vast trade routes, communications, and transport of trillions of $ worth of goods and services across the world.


A shift in the deployment or control over this military force essentially shifts “ownership” and leverage over these vast resources. Without NATO to bind the Command and Control of the US Military, European countries (and others) would be unable to leverage America’s might for their own purposes - against the Will of the American People and the rightful control of US forces under the Constitution.



Did the Templars protect the Jews?


Yes.


The Templars were allied to Jews in the trade of “usury” - that is, charging interest on money, thus “making money from nothing”, which is prohibited under Christian faith. However, Christian Kings had fallen into the debt trap of allowing Jews the privilege of conducting usury, while the average Christian was prohibited on pain of death.

The term for this arrangement where the Jewish bankers were permitted special accommodation within Christian kingdoms was called “The Court Jews”.


It’s little different from the banking and gambling trade today, where only certain municipalities and races are allowed the privileged of such activities, giving them an easy and lucrative advantage over average citizens, who are promptly arrested if they were to engage in gambling or banking without permission.


Jews, however, also allied with the Muslims*, and largely ran the administrative State (and lorded over Christian Dhimmis) under Muslim rule, from the slave markets in Anatolia to the appraisal of booty seized in Muslim raids on land and sea - something which did not go unnoticed by the general populace. There were plenty of European nobility who were willing to sell their serfs, peasants, and even children of noble birth, into Muslim and Jewish slavery to cover their “debts”.


Needless to say, this had a corrupting influence on their allies, the Templars, who were supposed to be protecting Christians against predatory Muslims (and the Jews who undergirded their system). More often than not, they acted as couriers for the delivery of Christian slaves, and did not protect Pilgrims if they could not pay “debts” claimed by Jews.

To stop this corrupt system, King Phillip IV had to eliminate the bankers in one stroke, such that their financial leverage could not be brought to bear and collapse the economy. Hence the Templars’ destruction. Truthfully, the Templars were aware that they were under threat (the conspiratorial nature of stories is ahistorical), as their Jewish allies were also being expelled or killed.


Phillip IV, his son, Louis, and Louis’ son, John, were all assassinated in very quick succession.

The assassinations and resurgent attacks by Muslims and Jews led to another Crusade by Phillip V.


*If you want to understand some of the resentment of Muslims: historically, Muslims know the Jews were largely their subordinates during the heyday of the Islam.

4 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page