0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
100 $
JULY 2022

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

Support SouthFront


PayPal: southfront@internet.ru

Donation alertshttps://donationalerts.com/r/southfront


Or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront,

BTC: 3Gbs4rjcVUtQd8p3CiFUCxPLZwRqurezRZ,

BCH ABC: qpf2cphc5dkuclkqur7lhj2yuqq9pk3hmukle77vhq,

ETH: 0x9f4cda013e354b8fc285bf4b9a60460cee7f7ea9

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

Illustrative Image

NATO is a military and political alliance, a security community that unites the largest number of States on both sides of the North Atlantic. During its existence, NATO has expanded 2.5 times. It accounts for 70% of global military spending. It is rightfully considered the most powerful military association of States in the entire history of mankind in terms of combined armed power and political influence. The fact that this year NATO turned 70 years old, which is more than the independent existence of some of its member States, proves an incredible success of this project. However, while the Alliance has successfully resisted external enemies in its history, today it is experiencing significant internal divisions that threaten its existence more than ever.

The founding date of NATO is April 4, 1949, the day 12 countries signed the Washington Treaty. NATO became a “transatlantic forum” for allied countries to consult on issues that affect the vital interests of participating countries. The organization’s primary goal was to deter any form of aggression against the territory of any member state, as well as to protect against these threats. The principle of collective defense, enshrined in article 5 of the Washington Treaty, implies that if one NATO member state is the victim of an armed attack, all other member States of the Alliance will consider this act of violence an armed attack on all NATO countries and will take actions that the organization deems necessary. At the end of the 20th century, the real threat to the West was the Soviet Union.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

11.09.2001 / Photo by Steve McCurry

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the question arose about the existence of NATO, as an Alliance created to protect against the Soviet threat. The disappearance of the external threat has led to a process of transformation that has been going on for 30 years. Each stage of transformation is directly related to the adaptation of the Alliance to certain changes taking place in the international arena and affecting the stability of the security system in the Euro-Atlantic and the world as a whole. In addition to the collapse of the Soviet Union, one of the key events that affected the development of the Alliance was the terrorist attack of 11.09.2001, which actually allowed the Alliance to be preserved, since then there was a common external threat to the member countries.

Traditionally, NATO’s transformations are considered in the following three areas: geographical changes, political transformations, and processes in the military-technical sphere.

Important political transformations are manifested in adapting to changes in the international arena, which are represented primarily by the disappearance of block opposition. The Alliance remains committed to the principle of collective defense, as set out in article 5 of the Washington Treaty. The main command structures also remain the same. The main transformations are expressed in the form of declarations of new NATO functions: maintaining peace and stability not only on the territory of the member States, but also outside the area of responsibility of the Alliance. The operations carried out in these territories are aimed at maintaining local and regional stability, eliminating ethnic and religious conflicts, maintaining respect for human rights and various national minorities, and, most importantly, fighting international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The “new NATO” is being transformed from a regional organization into a guarantor of global stability, taking responsibility for stability in regions outside its own territories and in situations not covered by article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Assuming global responsibility, NATO is forced to maintain the necessary level of military power, participate in collective planning for the organization of nuclear forces and their deployment on its own territories. New threats encourage NATO to expand geographically.

The expansion of NATO, which implies the inclusion of former members of the Warsaw Pact And the full-scale advance of military infrastructure to the East, represents a change in geography.

Changes in the military-technical sphere imply a General reduction of the Alliance’s collective military forces, their relocation, etc. The main form of transformation of the armed forces was the transition from ” heavy ” military associations to more flexible and maneuverable groups in order to increase their effectiveness in the fight against new threats. The beginning of the economic crisis in autumn 2008 revealed the urgent need for reforms. Member States were forced to reduce their military budgets, which meant abandoning programs involving the development and purchase of precision weapons. In 2010 the plan of the NATO Secretary-General A. Rasmussen’s plan to optimize the budget, and in 2012, the Chicago summit adopted the “smart defense package”, which implies a parallel reduction of funds and increased efficiency.

However, despite all the reforms carried out within the Alliance, today the new missions do not have the same clarity as during the cold war. Options for the purpose of NATO’s existence after the collapse of the USSR vary: the fight against terrorism, assistance in the spread of democracy, nation-building, “world police”, the fight against “soft threats”, the fight against a resurgent Russia. But the main problem of the Organization is that none of the options is universal for all member countries. None of the considered “enemies” unites NATO.

After various stages of transformation, NATO turned out that the condition for its perfect functioning was precisely the situation of structured confrontation. The current unstructured confrontation, which implies that all member countries have different primary threats, makes it meaningless to have a cumbersome and generally rather inert organization.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

Illustrative Image

In 2014, NATO had another opportunity to create a common external enemy, the role of which was approached by Russia. The summit held in Wales in 2014 radically changed the agenda of the entire Alliance. The main topic of discussion was the Ukrainian crisis, which led to the conclusion about the need to contain Russia. The final Declaration of the summit notes that ” Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine have fundamentally called into question the vision of a whole, free and peaceful Europe”. “The illegal self-proclaimed annexation of Crimea and Russia’s aggressive actions in other regions of Ukraine” were highlighted as special threats among the spread of violence and extremist groups in North Africa and the Middle East.

The appearance of a ” dangerous external enemy ” entailed not only political transformations. There have also been reforms in the military sphere of NATO. Among the new security challenges were “hybrid wars”, that is, military actions involving an expanded range of military and civilian measures of an open or hidden nature. The adopted Action Plan, which includes the concept of “hybrid war”, was primarily aimed at countering the tactics of warfare used by Russia. Thus, a number of measures included in the Declaration were directed against Russia.

NATO was forced to return to the role of a guarantor against severe security threats, which significantly increased costs for the organization. At the 2016 NATO Warsaw summit, it was decided to further deploy 4 battalion tactical groups to existing military bases in Poland and the Baltic States. In addition, more than 550 tanks and an armored unit of the United States have been transferred to the region. These units are deployed on a rotational basis, which does not contradict the NATO-Russia Founding act of 1997. In the Declaration of the 2018 Brussels NATO summit it is recorded that the “enhanced presence in the forward area” of tactical groups includes a total of 4,500 military personnel, which is approximately equal to one brigade.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP

At the same time, it is clear that Russia does not pose a real threat to NATO. Real foreign policy practice proves that Russia will not threaten Western countries in the next 50 years. The only point of instability today is the Ukrainian conflict, which had no preconditions until 2014, and was in turn artificially created by the American establishment in partnership with Brussels. Russia, for its part, even in this conflict does not seek to expand its influence, and also observes the Minsk agreements that are unfavorable to It.

“The main reason why the United States has assumed the role of arbiter of the fate of Ukraine and its citizens is the allegedly increasing threat from Russia not only to Kiev, but also to Europe and the rest of the world. And this is despite the fact that it was with the help of the United States that mass protests were organized and the elected government of Ukraine was overthrown in 2013-2014, which led to the war that has now unfolded in the heart of Eastern Europe,” writes geopolitical columnist Tony Kartaluchi in the new Eastern Outlook.

In 2016, the RAND organization conducted a study that showed that in the event of a Russian invasion of the Baltic States, Russian troops can be on the approaches to the capitals of Estonia and Latvia within sixty hours. The study showed that NATO forces are not sufficient to repel the Russian attack. In an interview, NATO Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller said that the main goal of deploying additional forces in Eastern Europe and Poland is to demonstrate the unity of the Alliance, and to maintain its members ‘ commitment to article 5 of the Washington Treaty. Thus, NATO adheres to the policy of declarative deterrence of Russia, in fact, its forces are not enough to respond to a potential attack from Russia. The NATO administration is well aware that the likelihood of a military conflict with Russia is minimal, but it continues to maintain the image of Russia as an aggressor in order to unite the member countries.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

U.S. President Donald Trump, left, and Poland’s President Andrzej Duda, leave at the end of a joint press conference in Warsaw, Poland, in June 2017. (Czarek Sokolowski/AP)

Moreover, maintaining the image of a dangerous enemy gives the United States the opportunity to promote its own interests in Europe and manipulate its “partners”.

On June 25, Donald Trump finally confirmed that part of the American military contingent in Germany would be transferred to Poland. In the end, the American contingent in Germany will be reduced from 52 thousand people to 25 thousand. According to official data, in Germany there are about 35 thousand US military personnel, 10 thousand civil servants of the Pentagon and about 2 thousand contract workers. Some of the US military will return to America, some will go to Poland to strengthen the deterrence of the “Russian threat”. In addition, according to media reports, Polish President Andrzej Duda and Donald Trump discussed the possibility of transferring 30 f-16 fighters.

“They [Germany] spend billions of dollars to buy Russian energy resources, and then we are supposed to protect them from Russia. It doesn’t work that way. I think this is very bad, ” said Donald trump, accusing Berlin of supporting the Nord Stream 2 project.

When asked whether the US administration is trying to send a signal to Russia, Donald Trump stressed that Moscow was receiving a “very clear signal”, but Washington still expected to normalize their relations. This only underscores the fact that the US is taking advantage of the perceived Russian threat to NATO.

The American leader, by undermining cooperation between Moscow and Berlin in the energy sphere, not only prevents Russia, as one of their enemies in the international arena, from developing a profitable project. The US is also interested in weakening the leading European industries, primarily Germany. The United States does not tolerate strong enemies, but it also does not accept strong allies. It is in the interests of the Americans to prevent the redevelopment of Europe as a self-sufficient and independent center of power in the international arena.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

Defense spendings in relation to GDP of NATO member countries

Therefore, Donald Trump is strongly calling on Germany to reimburse the billions of dollars it owes the White House. Trump is dissatisfied with the fact that Berlin does not comply with the promise made by all NATO members to increase defense spending to 2% of GDP. At the same time, Germany has already followed this path, increasing funding to 1.38%. In its turn, the US spends 3.4% of the state budget on the needs of the Alliance.

The problem of NATO funding is very often the main criticism of Berlin. However, in addition to this issue, new problems are emerging in US-German relations.

Washington is very dissatisfied with Berlin’s interaction with Beijing. The White House, which has strengthened the anti-Chinese vector of its policy, blaming the PRC for the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic and accusing the Chinese side of “controlling” the World Health Organization (WHO), did not receive sufficient support in Europe, and Germany criticized.

Moreover, Berlin does not support Washington’s sanctions policy on Chinese Hong Kong, which Beijing allegedly takes away its independence from.

The US is particularly dissatisfied with the EU’s desire for a major investment agreement with China. Germany is the main ideologue of this process and seeks to close the deal during its six-month presidency of the EU Council.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

“One Belt, One Road” Initiative

China today, of course, is the main competitor of the United States in the struggle for world hegemony. China also raises considerable concerns among European countries, which is primarily due to economic expansion and the successful development of the large-scale Chinese initiative “One belt, one road”. European leaders are also competing with China for resources in third world countries in Africa and Southeast Asia. In addition, there are ideological differences between the two world regions. However, China does not currently pose a military threat to Europe, which does not allow the use of NATO forces against it.

While Western countries see Russia and China as the main threats, strategically they are primarily concerned about Iran and North Korea. These countries are also a threat primarily to the United States, but their European partners are not ready to conduct active military actions against them at the moment.

The only real dangerous factor that unites almost all NATO member countries remains international terrorism, in the fight against which Western countries act as a united front.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

Click to see the full-size image

The current military and political course of the European Union is determined by the clear desire of its leadership to transform the military and political organization into one of the world’s leading centers of power. The aggravation of political and economic differences with the United States is the main incentive for the implementation of this goal. Thus, the EU’s focus on increasing independence in crisis management in the area of common European interests has had a decisive influence on the development of the common security and defense policy. In order to reduce dependence on the United States and NATO for conducting operations and missions within the framework of “force projection”, the leadership of the Association has stepped up activities to develop its own military component.

France and Germany are the main engines of this process, and are promoting the initiative to create the so-called European Defense Union. However, despite active efforts to expand military and military-technical cooperation within the EU, the declared goals of creating a “European army” with collective defense functions that duplicate the status and activities of NATO seem difficult to achieve in the foreseeable future. This situation is due to the reluctance of the majority of EU member States to transfer control over their armed forces to the supranational level. Moreover, the US opposition to the process of forming the European Defense Union and the limited resources available due to the absorption by NATO structures of the major part of the defense potential of European countries, most of which are simultaneously involved in two organizations, do not allow the full implementation of EU political decisions on military construction. In this regard, it is only possible to talk about giving a new impetus to military cooperation in order to increase the collective capacity to protect the territory and citizens of the States of the region.

Given the lack of forces and resources for conducting operations and missions, Brussels is interested in the practice of involving military formations of third countries in its anti-crisis actions on the basis of bilateral framework agreements. Currently, such agreements have been reached with Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine and a number of other States.

Currently, the European Union conducts 16 military and mixed operations and missions in various regions of the world, involving about 4,500 people. The greatest attention is paid to the “zones of instability” in North and Central Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans and the post-Soviet space.

70 Years Of NATO: Is It A High Time To Retire?

NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg

Thus, NATO today has to do everything possible to support the unity and coherence of actions of all its member countries, which are more than ever under threat. The main European leaders are no longer ready to support US policy and continue to sacrifice their own national interests. If in the case of Germany, this is manifested primarily in support of the Nord stream 2 project, despite the threats of the United States. France today supports its own interests in Libya, which contradict the interests of other countries-members of the Alliance: Turkey and Italy. Certainly, Turkey and Italy have different positions and aspirations in Libya. Italy was previously a traditional ally of France and does not actively intervene in the military conflict. However, now, given the current predominance of Turkey in Libya, Italy is trying to sit on two chairs. On the one hand, Italy, while supporting Tripoli, does not actively help them. On the other hand, in political terms, it clearly stands on the side of Tripoli and Turkey, thereby trying to ensure its share of participation in the next division of Libyan natural resources after the supposed victory of the Turkish-Tripolitan Alliance.

Summing up, today the imaginary Russian threat no longer allows US to unite the Alliance members, but only serves as a method of implementing US interests. The White House, which has always played a leading role in NATO and retains it thanks to the largest percentage of investment in the Alliance, allows itself to more openly abuse its leading position and promote its own national interests and the interests of its elites through the North Atlantic Alliance to the detriment of the interests of partner countries. Thus, article 4 of the Washington Treaty, which implies decision-making by consensus and is the basis of NATO itself, is of less and less importance in practice. The United States cannot renounce its membership in NATO and is interested in preserving it, because it is the Western Alliance that allows the US to give at least a small share of legitimacy to its military actions. A kind of neo-colonial policy, that the United States is used to employ in relation to European countries, and the current significant shift in the political paradigm within the US itself do not allow us to hope that the American leadership will be able to strengthen its position in Europe in the coming years.


Support SouthFront


Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
rightiswrong rightiswrong

Just another committee handing out taxpayers money to their sponsors.

Corruption, the plague of the political classes, alive and kicking in Europe. The Yanks of course, are corrupt to their core.

Brother Ma

That article Five is a load of crap. What happened when annato member baits another Nato member, as Turkey did both in 1974 with Greece and with France in 2020?


N.A.T.O. has been divided into 2 parts .the Germanophile section and the American-friendly section.The time will come when NATO will be completely disbanded

Brother Ma

Both are useless to all its countries ; apart from Germany ,Turkey and the US. It needs to be undone altogether and maybe redrawn up appropriately.


The European countries need to no longer be puppet states and regain their position as great powers from before world war I and II. Additionally, the promotion of ancient pagan history, culture, languages and religions with Christianity to fill the void as a stop gap and Hinduism for spiritual guidance.

If NATO is to become undone, so should the CSTO. Once ZOG is defeated, Russia and America should become friends not enemies.

A proposal like the one introduced by Arthur Cherep-Spiridovich would be the better solution—a joint alliance between all nations of Europe, North America and Oceania. That doesn’t mean there couldn’t be good relations with countries elsewhere.


Brother Ma

I will give it a read but who will head this new league ,Germany ,UK ,America and Russia? Too hard to decide matters and people are sick of big countries deciding the fates of Nato nations.

A first step is certainly getting rid of Nato and making possibly an EU League . This league must have binding laws that force ALL other countries to attack any one of its own troublemakers that invades or makes trouble with a fellow leaguer.

This would punish Turkey for instance for its belligerance and invasions with Greece ,Cyprus ,Italy and France. The state of affairs currently is a disgrace. In fact ,Turkey should be excluded altogether as they are not Europeans in cultture nor religion.


I don’t see Turkey having a place in NATO or EU either, as for EU I think it shouldn’t grant citizens the of being allowed cross borders freely, or if it keeps that policy it should only be allowed for citizens of those countries and not for migrants.


Brother Ma

I agree. Culturally ,religiously and historically Turkey has not been European since the Turks invaded Asia Minor and took over.

No, noone should have the automatic ability to cross borders and especially those from outside of the EU.

Australians and Canadians are loved and welcome in Europe but they do not have an automatic right to come even for holidays, buy property or work . The policy is fine.


There is no real Germanophile political representation anywhere in Europe or the world for that matter that holds substantial power, especially one that cares about the German people. That was swept away after WWII, the watershed moment in the collapse of European civilization. I’m pretty sure the Germanic countries in Europe are American-friendly.

Brother Ma

Germany is a bully- boy who was given too many ” free kicks” after WWII. It is now like Athens was just before the Peloponnesian War; a once- respected ally turned enemy , and bully ,just like the US.


I disagree, if anything Germany, the rest of Europe and every White-majority country has gone mostly downhill since WWII culturally and psychology. As for Germany being the villain of WWII, I think the situation was more complicated than what is commonly believed and said.



“Militaristic” Germany? As this recent Canadian newspaper chart shows, the notion that Germany has been a particularly warlike country is a myth. Of the 278 wars fought by Europeans between 1480 and 1940, Germany was involved in only eight percent. The most “warlike” countries were England, France and Spain. (This information is also given in A Study of War by Prof. Quincy Wright, cited in R. F. Keeling, Gruesome Harvest [1992], pp. 131-132.)

If anything, Germans have suffered disproportionately as victims of war. During the devastating Thirty Years War, 1618-1648, at least one·third and as much as three-fifths of the German people lost their lives. Some historians estimate that this protracted conflict reduced Germany’s population from 17 million to eight million. Many cities and whole regions were laid waste.

During the First and Second World Wars, Allied propaganda portrayed Germans as pathologically aggressive and “war loving.” Today, American television helps to keep alive this hateful stereotype.”


cechas vodobenikov

Adorno conducted anti semitism studies in USA, Germany; he found that amerikans were far more antisemitic that were ordinary Germans of the WWII period


Theodore Adorno was a liar from the Frankfurt School and lived in a completely different era, their definition of “antisemtism” is always dishonest and nothing more than empty words weaponized to subvert society. His “studies” were not objectively carried out and ignored any evidence that ran counter to the views he propagated.

Culture of Critique debunks subversive figures like Adorno and Max Horkheimer: archive[]org/details/CultureOfCritiqueForNormiesPartIIIJewsAndTheLeft_201803

Cultural Marxism: bitchute[]com/video/C9V1PlQIyHxl/ Critical Theory: archive[]is/sPHZZ


It’s “antisemitic” to oppose Zionism.

Jens Holm

People also fight against war.


Cultural Marxism Or Cultural Capitalism? youtube[]com/watch?v=fg_rhpiyQuQ


Fascist philosophers Giovanni Gentile (Origins and Doctrines of Fascism) and Mario Palmieri (The Philosophy of Fascism) were influenced by Hegelian philosophy.



I’m not sure if they were far more antisemitic than ordinary Germans of the WWII period, otherwise there would have been little public consent to wage war upon Germany. Philosophers of the first half of the 20th century criticized the lack of spiritual character in American life and more judicized compared to Germany.

As Evola put it, the difference between Aryan and Semitic (especially j**ish) spirituality is that the Aryan climb upwards and the j** pulls downwards into decadence by feeding on people’s primal urges and encouraging them into being the lowest versions of themselves.

In Nietzsche’s book “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”:

“Man is something that shall be overcome. Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman — a rope over an abyss. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.”― Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

In essence, the j** spirituality (or lack thereof) promotes materialism, hedonism and nihilism; whilst the Aryan promotes masculine virtues and high culture, to being higher versions of ourselves physically, mentally, spiritually and morally. Thus the dichotomy between the Aryan and the j** is a frequent tug-o-war between becoming Over-men and over-women (Übermenschen in the original German version), and beasts or sub-humans (Untermenschen).

1937 Degenerate Art Expo: bitchute[]com/video/MvKFheCy13Zr/

Degenerate Art: The Exhibition Guide in German and English: ostarapublications[]com/product/degenerate-art-the-exhibition-guide-in-german-and-english/

From the previous post (Critical Theory) in response to Richard Spencer doubting Cultural Marxism:

[1. “Cultural Marxism” didn’t penetrate mainstream consciousness until Bill Lind and Pat Buchanan started talking about it in the early 1990s. But, its roots can be traced back to Marxist Aesthetics which surfaced before the 20th Century.

2. Marxist Aesthetics was particularly concerned with art and its social function. To Marx, art was a superstructural element of social relations of production and a form of social consciousness. All of the Frankfurt School academics were adherents of Marxist Aesthetics?

3. Hitler, Alfred Rosenberg, and Robert Ley were fighting this cultural scourge in the 1930s, but they didn’t call it Cultural Marxism – they called it Kulturbolshewismus, or Cultural Bolshevism. Cultural Bolshevism was the precursor of Cultural Marxism.

4. As far back as 1925, Hilter mentions Cultural Bolshevism and its effects in Mein Kampf. Hitler identifies art as the catalyst for Germany’s cultural deconstruction, which would later precipitate to theater, literature, and even typography.

5. Here is the same excerpt with the word “art” highlighted. Hitler was clearly concerned about the impact art was having on traditional culture in Germany. It is widely agreed that art was at the center of the ideological struggle between Marxists and National Socialists.

6. The National Socialists certainly didn’t dismiss Cultural Bolshevism as just a meme either – they set up several institutions to fight it: the Combat League for German Culture, the Office for the Cultivation of Art, and the Ministry of Enlightenment & Propaganda, to name a few

7. Twenty years after Hitler identified art as a catalyst for Germany’s cultural upheaval, Jewish Frankfurt School academics Theodor Adorno & Max Horkheimer would write about art’s ability to convey the need for social change in their seminal 1944 book, Dialectic of Enlightenment

8. Frankfurt School Jews believed that art creates culture, so they continued developing aesthetic theories throughout the 1950s/60s. Adorno wrote at length about art’s ability to subvert society in his 1970 book, Aesthetic Theory, thus influencing Postmodernism & Structuralism.

9. Jewish Frankfurt School academic Herbert Marcuse, who was arguably the most popular author of the 1960s – his book One-Dimensional Man sold 300,000 copies in its first printing alone – further developed Marxist Aesthetics in his 1977 book, The Aesthetic Dimension.

10. In Aesthetic Dimension, Marcuse wrote that art can be used subversively to deconstruct socially unacceptable beliefs and that over time, real life will imitate art. It is irrefutable that art has played a significant role in shaping our current zeitgeist.

11. Aesthetic Dimension illustrates why Marxism evolved into Cultural Marxism. To Marcuse, Marxist aesthetics was too reductive because it focused solely on the proletariat. Marcuse argued that *every* oppressed class can stimulate a revolution through art.

12. Since economic class consciousness failed to unite the proletariat over shared economic interests in England & Germany, the Frankfurt School Jews sought another way to rally non-Jews to undermine their own group interests: convince them they’re oppressed.

13. The Jews at the Frankfurt School set out to increase revolutionary potential by galvanizing more than just the economically oppressed; they sought to unite every oppressed class to bring about human emancipation. What was the target? Western society.

14. Western society has historically been oppressive to Jews, stifling their Judaic rituals and sexual proclivities. Since Jews refused to assimilate, they recruited an army to force the West to assimilate to Jewish values. Thus, Jews were the biggest beneficiaries of this effort

15. This assault was executed via Critical Theory – a method of criticism designed to corrupt the perception of Western values, traditions, and institutions. The more people who perceive these things as oppressive, the more foot soldiers Jews had in their war against the West.

16. Frankfurt Jews began recasting the perception of the West as an institute of oppression. White majorities upholding “oppressive” traditions were characterized as oppressors, while minority groups living in the West were characterized as oppressed.

17. This a priori characterization of White majorities as “oppressors” and non-White minorities as “oppressed” is simply an evolution of Marxism except the bourgeoisie were re-cast as “privileged” White people and the proletariat was re-cast as non-White minorities.

18. Whites were re-cast as the apex oppressors because they are the pillars of these “oppressive” structures and have historically posed the biggest threat to Jewish prosperity. The Frankfurt School was conceived to respond to Fascism, which was also promulgated by Whites.

19. But this transcends race; any tradtional element of White society is now oppressive: heterosexuality, Christianity, etc. Even within the White class, men are depicted as oppressive to women. All of this creates revolutionary energy by stoking antagonisms between classes.

20. The Frankfurt Jews attacked Western art & culture for desublimating oppressed classes. Sublimation is a Freudian concept where man deflects his primitive, egoistic, and carnal instincts by doing good deeds. The Frankfurt academics claimed Western culture was “desublimating.”

21. According to the Frankfurt Jews, Western culture was “repressively desublimating” because it stifled oppressed classes from uniting and emancipating themselves from oppressive Western traditions; art & culture provided an artificial sense of emancipation through materialism.

22. The Jewish media is now compelling people to sublimate with the “woke” movement. People are encouraged to be part of an oppressed class, and every minority class, whether they are transgender or gay, is directed to attack their prescribed oppressors and system of oppression.

23. This has essentially programmed minorities to see their failures as a consequence of oppression, and the only way they can emancipate themselves from failure, is to emancipate themselves from their oppressors. This is not a system of equality, it’s a system of vengeance.

24. Jews are dangling a phantom “equality” carrot in front of “oppressed” classes, completely censoring anything counter-narrative like affirmative action, biased college admissions, etc. According to Cultural Marxism, tolerating dissent is “repressive” and should be censored.

25. Incidentally, Repressive Tolerance & Desublimation are theories of Marcuse. Marcuse was so impactful, he’s considered the father of the New Left social movement which was responsible for the protests of 1968 & catalyzed the Civil Rights, Black Power, Chicano, & gay movements.

26. Some may say Jews aren’t using Cultural Marxism to bring the West to its knees, but if they’re not chasing Cultural Marxism in name, they’re chasing it in spirit. Whether they’re conscious of this is irrelevant; the outcome is the same: subjugation of the White majority⛔End]


If the Tsar in Russia had not been overthrown and managed to crush the Bolshevik revolution financed by Wall Street, the world today would be a very different place, especially if Hitler rose to power in America than in Germany, and Oswald Mosley becoming British Prime Minister. These two countries allying themselves with a pro-Tsarist Russia. Together they would be unbeatable.

Jens Holm

And if we we westerns didnt had made oil usefull Syria was only populated with 3 mio inhabitants and Iraq about 5.

Jens Holm

Not only Adorno says so. Its highly correct. It was Hitler by Mein Kampf and the many fleeing jews arriving to western Europe, where Berlin for them was number one, which added his hate.Was it only for jews? He let millions of lowlife slaves kill too. He killed all Romans. He killed politicians. He gassed handicapped by car gas before a single jew was killed.

Emmigrants sometimes are like him. Ot didnt stop him, he wasnt a blond Adonis himself.

Some Danish illustrater once said, that culture is a product which make our furniture shine.

He also sais honesty lives longer then lies, because its more diffcult to find it.

You dont understand USA is structured, so everybody can live there with their culture and relogion. You really dont. Many nationalities hate each other as well as parts of USA are totally mixted and has no problems of that at all.

So taking out Jews as You seemes to do, dont make much sense.

Jens Holm

It makes no sense to count like that. Germany wasnt Germany as we see it today as well.

Preussen was an expander in it and was in war with France, Austria-Hungaria and Denmark.

I allow me to count Xtra, they as “Germany” started WW1 and WW2.

How many countries were they in war with, defeated and lost to in WW2.

Tempting to add they were in war with Russia both as Tzars and Bolsjevics ad win twice.

Poland, Belgium, Holland,(Luxemburg), France, UK, Norway, (Denmark) Yugoslavia, Greece and Russia.

I allow me to add how they helped Franco to take Spain hoping that Franco would take Gibraltar. ………………………………………..

Yóur version of USA about Germany has many levels and Trump has its own.

Its not strange USA and EU has to renew Our relationsships. EU(sith UK) has the same GDP as USA.

Nato also has changed by the Russian collapse and the newcommers. We have been less homogene and Russia again seemes to have its correct seize. So its more like keep then expecting any real agression with the smaller and smaller dwarf armed with old nukes and almost one aircraft carier.


Some interesting books:




Some books:












cechas vodobenikov

more complicated—balkans nations have different interests—the Baltic’s and Poland is most paranoid about Russia—the visoorad nations, Hungary, Greece—do not align w Germany, France, DK….Spain, Italy r becoming less attached to NATO (1/2 of Italians want an exit)…Sweden, Finland, Austria did not joined—the Austrian dense minister stated that Austria trusts Russia more than NaTO…Turkey aligns w USA and UK….ZATO exists but it whether it disintegrates r maintains a paper presence—it is only relevant for the USA


1) ” the Baltic’s and Poland is most paranoid about Russia” They hate Russia. 2) ” it is only relevant for the USA” … Big mistake …NATO was created to repel Russia. So it concerns mainly and primarily Russia.

Jens Holm

I think You should see most of those countries as parts between and in the big old structures such as Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Turkey.

Germany today almost are struntured and by that didvided as USA and by that is not dangerous. Austria-Hungary dont exist and Osmans dont exist.

So its very much about the spoke intensions from those neighbors. Here Russians and Turks are the ones demanding repsct as in the old days.

I also see USA avoided France as after WW1 again shoud punish Germany that hard even Germany was the agressive ones.

You ignore the economic part with Marshall helo rebuilding and industriaizig, so we can sell and buy with USA and the rest of the world.

Just as for China right now it makes no sense to priduce a kit of things,íf non can efford tobouy the stuff.

I finally will remind You that nazisne in coutry seize was taken back by force but communisme only was changed into socalled peacefull change for us living in the west even the Bolsjevics before that had told the whole world, it would reform it with guns.

USA wasnt in the start of WW2. They traded just as much with Germany as with UK. USA also did not participate in WW2 until Hitler decared war against them and Russians stopped giving them coal, iron, nikel and a lot of food, so they were able to attack us.

The Danish communist fully supported the Germans until Barbarossa arrived to USSR. None forget that putting a line named Molotow-Ribbentrop as well as dividing Eastern Europe agaín.

So we are in Nato are very happy USA could replace the collapsed UK and France Empires as well as changing Germany minus DDR.

And it do concern the whole world as the world is today – and was.

M.A. Lamett

You don’t understand Article 5. It applies to outsiders attacking Nato countries. Turkey’s interference in Cyprus in 1974 was totally legal and justified under international treaty signed by Turkey, Greece and Britain. Each country had the legal right to interfere and send forces, if their rights are violated and/or citizens are killed. Don’t forget that Greece initiated a mass ethnic cleansing by massacring defenseless Turkish Cypriots including women and children in the thousands, burying them into mass graves (pictures and events are in archives). Turkey warned and Greece did not listen. Thus Turkey initiated the “Peace Operation” and landed soldiers on the island in 1974. Turkish army cleaned half of the island from Greek murderous EOKA Greek terrorists and liquidated most of them within days. Britain threatened Turkey with war and US put sanctions on Turkey. Otherwise Turkey would have conquered the entire island. Greeks were saved by its Anglozionist handlers.


Bullsht,greece were stopped by usa and the uk ,no fkn brainer anf there was no such genocide as implied by your vile incest spawned master (period) Britain was complicit with us (johnson is a wanker (period) none the kess it was britain who arranged the transition with turkey predrawn lines,sure there were some liberators but they did not hit on peoples,communists are not the evil but rather liberators,Greece subdued under pressure,befor the invasion took place and your narrative,well give you 75 iq for effort! se’low gimp:

M.A. Lamett

what language is that? Klingon? Next time use google translator. You idiot!

Brother Ma

Yes . Quite right and all now-opened archives now PROVE it.


They prevented a Greek response since Turkey was strategically valuable during the Cold War, it opened up a southern front against the Soviet Union when the Warsaw Pact still existed. Not to mention that Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic countries, Georgia and Azerbaijan were all apart of the Soviet Union.

Cyprus, a former British colony, was granted independence in 1960 as an independent country, it hasn’t been apart of Greece since the Hellenic period until 58 BCE, or under the Roman or Byzantine empires depending on how anyone may look at it.

Even so Turkey illegally occupies the northern half of the island.

“communists are not the evil but rather liberators.”

History shows otherwise, if you’re thinking of colonial rebellion then the Communist insurrection in and surrounding Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and South Africa screwed those countries up beyond measure since the black population has proven they’re too incompetent to self-govern, unlike any other continent.

The vast majority of blacks in Angola and South Africa aren’t native to either country, they conquered the Pygmies native to these regions before European arrival. The Zulus aren’t native to South Africa either, they were the only collection of Sub-Saharan African to utilize military tactics other than the Nubians which only became somewhat civilized after coming into contact with the ancient Egyptians who conquered the area and transformed the kingdom of Kush into a satellite state they extorted for slaves and tributary taxes.

“give you 75 iq for effort”

The average national IQ for any country in Sub-Saharan Africa is at least 3-13 IQ points below 75.

“fascist kweer loving commy hating incests”

You are mistaken about what Fascism really is as opposed to what it isn’t. Incest in all developed and most developing countries is rarely found outside of royal families and all jewish ethnic groups. Incest among the general population is extremely rare in the vast majority of countries with the exception of virtually all 3rd world countries, India and many different countries where Muslims are the demographic majority. Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei Darussalem in south-east Asia are among the exceptions, and perhaps post-Soviet countries in Central Asia and the southern Caucasus. Georgia is predominantly White and Christian, it therefore has no proclivity to engage in incest.



Brother Ma

Propaganda and all evidence has shown it. UK and US Archives gives recently opened up but always suspected have shown that it was policy for the US and Nato to remove Makarios and they did that by the Turks and The Stupid Greek Colonels who were fooled or bought.

Martin Ball a main person of the Britishin Cyprus throughout the Sixties also came out and said he had Atcheson and Brit gov tell him not to stop Turk terrorists from making trouble in Cyprus and he said that British and the US actually supplied them and told them to attack Greeks. Ie cause the 1963 -1964 fights between Turks and Greeks in Cyprus. In all, Kissinger and others admitted they actually stirred up the Turks even since the 1955 Constantinople pogroms against Greeks to get Cyprus out of Greek hands.ie admitted it was the Turk’s fault just like the Natoists stirred up troubled by the Moslems in Yugoslavia.

In any case, the treaty says that the intervening power GOES Home and doesn’t bringing settler invaders.When will Turkey go home?

As for massacres ,yep and your point is? Have theTurks not committed Massacres in Cyprus or Asia Minor from day one of your arrival?

You said you were at army schools with Baltics and you appear educated but maybe I am wrong. If you were as above and reasonable you would know all the above and nitbe afraid to admit it as it is all out there and acknowledged now. Why do you stick with your nationalistic mantra?

So you are fifteen years old ,an educated but sly propagandist Turk , just a brainwashed Coban or just a kind Turk soul who really doesn’t know much .

I was not born yesterday friend, I am very educated and do necessarily react with emotion or nationalism. I believe in truth and reason and say it and expected you to do the same.

Article 5?

Yes , I always thought it was for outside aggressors but some writers have said it is a “grey area” . Pretty stupid if France and Greece go to war with Turkey , and Nato Naples and Smyrna headquarters have all the intelligence from everywhere ie leaks etc.

Jens Holm

As I recakk it Makarips went to be too much a fanatic greek nationalist. Turks was treated vet bad – and now by him too.

So its no wonder to me if USA tryed to find a more moderate greek.

cechas vodobenikov

your stupidity suggests that a carrot has more braincells—to this day no nation considers the invasion of Cyprus by the turkeys legal—none recognize it as such

Hasbara Hunter

The North Atlantic Terrorist Organisation including their filthy ISIS-Al-Ciada-Headchopper-Brigades should be completely & utterly exterminated…

Lone Ranger

Hear hear.


There are too many Zogbux at stake for NATO to disband itself, but it will most likely implode due to ethnic and class warfare.

Hasbara Hunter

Holland is ready to explode…that is the current situation…the people are gettin’ angrier with the day…our government better takes shelter in their bunkers…Elites better panic…

Vince Dhimos

Top economists like Stephen Roach and Shameer Goel predict a 30% loss of the dollar’s value and the dethroning of the USD as the primary reserve currency in 2021. That would be the time to end NATO – if it doesn’t die a natural death.

Ashok Varma

NATO is a US extortion organization to sell small weak occupied European racist vassals expensive weapons and continue the occupation of Europe on the pretext of Russian bogeyman. US is the world’s largest military spender and warmonger and also the most impoverished of unstable of all NATO members as a the Covid 19 failures have exposed.

Lone Ranger

Yes, would be about time.

Raptar Driver

NATO Was never a defensive organization. It was created before the Warsaw pact. Who are they defending against, the Soviet union which was nearly obliterated in the war?


Afghan was mission accomplished after conrtolling as much as 60% (factual) territtory after they were (infact) invited by the legitimate communist governance to oust cia/blowjob, inwhich the communist leader remained in power for the next few years (proof succeded their mission)

When they were called back,ther destroyed all poppy fields along the way walking out of afghanistan to the much praise of the locals whom cheered the,(not jeer) them,for obvious reasons,syria is very telling insomuch as the truth about the middke east ,yet unlike usas history

of rushing out in frantic vain via helicopters(aka) north korea,vietnam,reafrims to the fact CCCP was as victorious as ever in their mission,however that mission and a host of cia destruction along the way aka chernobyle,train gas explosion (which didn’t kill anything let alone 600 people as ranted by the covert/cia assflogged medias,by the way,well used my head not cia diks,dont I’

That is just some of it,infact the one whom at end infact obliterate the cccp was gorbachev! Not only was that corrupt and no official lawfull russian constituate (including required nato alliance post warsaw agreement) C.I.A media always try to downplay,well it certainly stands to reason to concieve why if Russia in the future draft a law bill to reinstate the cccp with existing

c.i.s members, would have every right in the world to do so,seens U.S.A doggy sproged them! Just Saying:


What about the Spetznaz raid on Tajbeg Palace that resulted in the Soviet assassination of then Afghan President Hafizullah Amin


Fk ’em off,they are only a tax burdeon on each and every nation,3rd rate outdated technology which in that alone is a serious blow to their drug traddicing operations from the middle east and other,basically a mafia/criminal/drug/infastructure destructing/ base almost identical to nazism except they need our money to survive,which is the only reason Greece and Turkey are not at odds to war,Fuk ’em off! Nations can collaborate with one another far more viable solutions,national level + peace with russia!


Drug cartel of europe,lgbtq preservationiists,tax looters+all nations infactructures destroyers,proof? Poland (communist) 17,000+ ship building jobs,todays Poland (nato) less than 600+ only spare parts: Do the math,we use our heads,not the others dks,have a nice day yeall!

Ashok Varma

NATO is a racist corrupt waste of the western duped taxpayers money. What chance do a few small European vassals have against the power of Russia, China, India or even Iran?

Vince Dhimos

NATO slaughtered 4000 Europeans, mostly civilians, in 1998-99. At that point, its credibility as an alliance for the PROTECTION of Europe was gone and every member state should have walked away. After all, the Russian Federation, the supposed enemy, never committed any such atrocity in Europe! But it’s not too late. France and Germany are showing signs of disgruntlement. Ideally, they and others should band together and form an alliance and should regularly consult with both Washington (for appearances and to apply pressure) and with Russia with a view to eventually including Russia as a regular consultant (Russia would never agree to join).

cechas vodobenikov

NATO like the EU is declining in influence and relevance—internal divisions are increasing—civilized nations have less patience for amerikan meddling and diktats, especially their greed, sanctions and tariffs. Many circumvent the USA with trading blocks that exclude them where trade is conducted outside of the dollar zone…both the EU and NATO poorly serve many of the newer additions—there are many nations that have rejected membership in NATO or the EU—–Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Serbia, now UK…Hungary, Visograd nations, sometimes Poland are often unwilling to adhere to Brussels —Germany, Netherlands refuse to abANDON Nordstream…even their colony is upset that they are attempting colonize Greenland

Jens Holm

Much hostile talk here. It makes me smile.

I suddenly got a kind of funny vision seeing muslims every friday smelling each others behinds after the weekly corona feet washing.

Maybee thats why You seperate men and women as well.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x