I don't claim to know much about history. I basically just know from the last few years that I do not trust the government or media. Can someone explain why NATO sucks, in actual educated terms?
Comments (6)
sorted by:
Basically, a bunch of little countries who can't afford armies or otherwise protect themselves, join an organization that promises "world peace" by offering protection from larger countries. Imagine a mafia protection-racket in a city like New York or Chicago. They pay a certain amount of dues, and are guaranteed the protection of the umbrella. It originally grew out of the League of Nations, which was a failure.
But they also have to concede military and banking controls, and other wealthy influencers (like the Clinton Foundation, WEF, etc.) access into their systems for laundering money, and furthering more corruption. "Here's $100 million dollars we got from a grant from tax-dollars from so-and-so country. We'll give it to you for your LGBTQ+ and gender studies programs, as long as you make a donation of $20 million to our foundation." That kind of garbage.
In short, it's a disease under the auspices of world peace, but in fact funnels more dollars to the uber-rich who own everything around the world, including the central banks, media, justice departments, and pharmaceutical companies. It also allows bankers to grow their own private army. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/15/un-backed-troops-accused-rape-congo
NATO is a system by which a bunch of Nations ally together and decide if anyone in NATO attacks another country in NATO, then all the other countries will turn on the instigator.
Similar situations apply economically, like preventing one country from hoarding all of a material. The others agree if anyone does that, they get beat on by the others.
If you look at it objectively, it's the same as corporate collusion.
Say there are 8 bakeries in the city. One bakery is closer to the flour mill, so his costs are down. He can charge 10% less than every other bakery.
Eventually, that 10% adds up and he becomes the dominant bakery and starts pushing the others out of the market.
The others gang up and demand he charge more so they aren't competed out of business. They force the dominant bakery to price fix at an agreed amount, and now everyone charges the exact same price on everything.
You can see how the consumer is screwed over by this collusion.
Now, consider that same dynamic, but with war.
A bunch of Nations promise not to invade one another over land and resources. Invariably, the most powerful one is always knee-capped, because the lesser ones together gang up on it and keep it from controlling the market.
This is how NATO and the UN has been.
The United States has been paying for nearly the entire thing, and all the others are allowed to slack off and stop competing for the best circumstances for their citizenry.
Ultimately, it's a bad solution to the problem of one Nation getting too big. It's, effectively, international equity and only those in charge have anything to gain. The citizen will always lose.
To me, it seems like a slush fund from the US to Europe. They don't seem to do anything but take our money and think we should do all the work.
At the close of the WWII there was a race to take newly carved up territory. The Soviet-aided communist coup of Czechoslovakia triggered Western European allies to forge a pact that would create a bulwark against communist state expansion
By 1991, the USSR had dissolved and the original purpose of NATO was gone. Since then it’s pretty much been a tool for deep state hegemony.
Globalist's thugs.