Why NATO? Economically the US and the EU are deadly enemies!

suppose that larger forces are at work here, historical processes not easily overthrown. The revolutions of 1848 are analyzable in terms of re-arranging systems of aristocratic rule, which for the most part were Austrian dominated in Europe. What really happened was the power transform from their hegemony , by simoltenious conceptual brackeup, of the then European Union, - The Holy Roman Empire. The Napolionic wars were again such attempt at unification, so the effort was neither unique nor new.

Power shifts, territorial claims, unreasonable actions based on singular dispositions were some of the underlying fundamentals causing the shifts, and revolutions of re-distributions of power and wealth were always cumulative results.

I am no fan of extreme forms of Capitalism, but new trade practices, new rising classes, made conflict inevoidable on the continent. However, Capitalism did flow out of the new laissez faire mentality of these rising bourgeoise , and they themselves are at the brink, in their lack of control, humanism and rationality.

They are the international Capitalistic constituency.
The protection of Capital is sacrosanct and a new revolution would not be new, but a re-affirmation of thr Russian model. The reason NATO still stands, is because, the ‘communist threat’ is still alive and well in the minds of those, who lived through it in leading positions. Putin is an example of this kind of person, and some pundits say, he would like nothing better to bring back those good old days. It had been a mere generation since the ideology of communism fell, due mostly to economic and not ideological factors, and the fall was so rapid, unexpected, that the new world wide capitalism was too vested among those power brokers who control most of the world’s military, as well.

I see an implosion most likely, and that is an event that is most likely to eclipse any kind of revolution which could be garnered.

There is some good news coming out of the Trump camp, which in principle will please people who think Eropean and Asian US military presence should be financed by more regional spending on it, and it has made me see Trump in a much better light. The nations in question, relying less on US military presence, still feeling voulnerable to foreign intervention, may see the balance of power, more in terms of their ability to build up and finance their own militaries. And that is, if they really feel threatened.

However, a military threat is often a cloak for power dominance by other nations, so that, if a negative view of mankind is taken as a social-psychological trait, then nations looked at generically, will oft exhibit such traits.

Therefore for some , military organizations are still necessary as an assurance against such UN-sorted problems.

Opinion is confusingly divided, as to whether the US is still THE major power, and many believe that the next major player is China, not the US. So varied theories, and projections floating around differ as to the ability to weigh the true intentions of what some consider a fading empire.

That minus the social homogeneity in the US, descriptions of pride do manifest within the society, but not to the degree, that more homogeneous societies exhibit. Therefore jumping to the conclusion that national pride and megamalona is at the heart of US ‘imperialism’ , sounds like a communist swan song of outmoded , reactionary rhetoric.

However, within the US military circles, there too, exist the similar wish to go back to the time during the WW2 era, when pride in the military became a national Paradigmn.

My point is, that a necessary overview and analysis of power motives have become many leveled, studied by military organizations, think tanks, and academic circles associated with military funding and research and development. Oversight by congressional committees also wield the power of other, influential points of view.

It is very difficult to take a neutral position of varied views, but it is sometimes essential to remain impartial.

I meant “peace” as the 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 the brutal captures and conquests “befriended” (loosely translated), although they had just killed most of the inhabitants of those “befriended” countries.

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 almost 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”.

I too believe that economic “rivalry” does not stand in the way of forming a military alliance and mutual agreements on that front.

The exact name of the “Holy Roaman Empire” was “Holy Roman Empire of German Nation”. So it was a German Empire. And since 1438 it had been ruled by the house of Habsburg, in the mean time, but merely for three years (1742-1745) by the house of Wittelsbach. It was dissolved after about 1000 years, in 1806, during the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon wanted a French empire instead of the German empire. The whole Occidental history can be described as the attempts of copying the ancient Roman empire. The EU is such an attempt too. But note: The modern Europeans are especially jealous, and therefore I do not believe in the EU project as it is put into practice. The jealous neighbors of Germany are whining that “the EU is dominated by Germany”, but in reality the EU has always been dominated by Germany. So what? It is because of this jealousy and the lack of a real European solidarity that makes it so difficult to find a real political unit. It is not the Old Europe but the New Europe that lacks a real European solidarity too much. So if the economical part of the EU becomes problematic, then the total collapse will follow, because the non-economical parts of the EU will still be too weak.

And 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 protecting 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.

Your message brings up an interesting, and yet unexplored theme, as to why, the US as a union seems to hold together, monetarily, economically and socially, and ever since the Civil War, there have not been major calls for cresses soon, except by the Lone Star Stae, Texas, which did not garner much support anyway. The Irish push for independence was much more serious.

Which, if Your prescription be taken as a basis, for unification, that selfishness and greed and jealousy be the stumbling blocks to a successful unification in thr EU, can a conclusion be reached that the USA lacks those features? Or, is there something else going on? Perhaps a very deep underlying crack in the very foundation of it? (Whereas, the foundation in the USA is a mere 250 years? Did a couple of centuries conformed the cracks, whereas in Europe ,yearning for unity based on repeated attempts, 2000+ years have not proved sufficient.

This is puzzling, and perhaps has to do with the social contract it’s self, that all knowledge really, was born there, the cradle of civilization, notwithstanding the very early Egyptians, Chinese?

Many questions abide here, and perhaps it is best to look at the big picture, of changing winds of feasible
effecting differing places in different qualitative ways?

Ahem … No. The US nation does not lack those features, but does lack them less than the EU, because 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.

Yes. If you want to create a nation, you need (a) time enough, (b) an authoritarian state, (c) both.

Yes. But note: The premises must be given (see above).

Different cultures have different histories, different politics, thus also different philosophies of politics. Therefore I point to one of my other threads: “Occidental Philosophy versus Oriental Philosophy”.

We do not want TTIP !


I was told that as a European-American I cannot apply for citizenship in most European countries by blood or soil rights, but citizenships are available to all non-European refugees.

If it is true that European-Amercicans are not allowed to go back to Europe, then I have some questions:

  1. Are African-Americans allowed to go back to Africa?
  2. Are Aisan-Americans allowed to go back to Asia?
  3. Are Mexicans allowed to go back to Mexico?

Ghana in Africa csmonitor.com/World/2014/04 … wer-is-yes
Mexico seems fairly open to 1st generation descendents going back, but not open otherwise.
Speaking/teaching English will get your foot in the door in many Asian countries, but not too welcoming for descendants in general.

Is it really true that “Ghana has become a particularly popular destination”? :laughing:

(Are you mocking my proof? :stuck_out_tongue: ) Not popular enough, but if what the article says is true, the door towards citizenship is open in Ghana.

Also, Liberia 2.0 will perhaps be founded.

Will Ghana be “Liberia 3.0” then? :wink:

[tab]Greetings from Spain again.


The more global control, the more “Liberias”. :evilfun: