NATO IS OBSOLETE, EXPENSIVE & A GRAVE THREAT TO AMERICA!

The guys discuss the history of European alliances which leads to world wars

Episode Transcript

(00:03):
Third rail issues, third rail politicalissues? Jeneral, how are you serving,
Frugen Leewell, sir so? Thirdrail political issues? How would you
describe what a third rail political issueis? The usual definition of its is
that threat. It's something where you'renot allowed to talk about. It's untouchable.

(00:27):
Yes, And when I hear that, I think of this is something
that leftists don't want to talk about, so therefore it's a third rail issue.
They don't want to have to defendit. So I think that we've
become a prisoner of the words thereand there are no real third rail issues.
Well there can't be, not inthe United States of America. And
whoever, any politician or public officialwho dares broach the subject that is deemed

(00:51):
a third rail or untouchable subject willsuffer politically. Of course, the metaphor
comes from the high voltage third railin electric railway systems lead to electrocution.
Third rail issues, social security andmedicare true abortion to these days, race
someone US support for Israel. Ithink that a lot of these have evolved

(01:14):
out of becoming supposedly untouchables, becausethe fact is people see this discussed all
the time. Mass immigration and whitereplacement theory. So the last part would
definitely be not within the overtin windowguns. I think that's been pretty open
to talk about NATO. Withdrawal ofNATO. I'd say three or four years

(01:40):
ago, yes, you could notbring that up today. I think that
a lot of people are questioning therole of NATO. That's today's show.
And in the last decade in WesternEurope you had two main systems of alliance,
NATO and the EU EU of coursehad Brexit. So clearly some people
in Great Britain didn't see the upsidebeing more up than the downside. In

(02:06):
fact, I should say the majorityfor sure. So being kind of cynesis
about politics. I look at thingsas who's paying what I'd be the money
part. And with NATO you giveup part of your sovereignty. Do you
know what happens over there to thisnation? Could daisy chain the United States

(02:27):
into a global conflict? Right,very possible. So daisy chain what was
regional becomes global. One arch dukegets shot, twenty million people die,
twenty twenty one million wounded in nineteenfourteen, and somewhere George Washington's saying I
told them not to get into thoseentanglements he's turning over in his grave.
Countless alliances have existed across Europe.You had the Elves, Dwarfs and men

(02:53):
versus the Orcs and soar on,right, and that's fair. The Lanisters
and Boltons versus the Starks and Targerians, true all right. And then the
alliance of the Empire and the rebels. That was way back. George Lucas
told us. That was way wayback in the past. Wasn't that a
long time ago in a galaxy farfar away? That was in Europe?
Was it? I was more justbetween planets. It was some sort of

(03:16):
an alternate universit, yes, butclearly Elves, dwarfs and men versus Orcs
and saar and that was that wasEurope, right, ancient Europe, and
the Landisters and the Boltons versus theStarks and Targarians. That's all part of
Europe, I think. So that'swhat I thought. Now many Americans,
I'd say millions, I would daresay, are starting to question NATO that

(03:38):
alliance just kicking around a bit.Would leaving NATO really be the end of
Western civilization? Hardly? History showsus, does it not? General that
empires die because of alliances, oras with the ancient Roman Empire, they
fell under because they tried to assimilatetoo many other types of people and their
civilization just crumbled up. You justhad, you had differences of loyalties,

(04:03):
and that eventually eventually caused the ancientRoman Empire to fall apart. I think
too many Romans started looking out forthemselves, and not enough Romans were looking
out for Rome. Now the continentEurope, the continent. The policymakers in
Western Europe, Central Europe have begunto think the unthinkable. That seems as

(04:27):
though now they are quietly discussing howthey might prepare for a world in which
America removes ourselves as the centerpiece ofthis seventy five year old alliance. And
one of the reasons we're bringing thisup is NATO turned seventy five on April
fourth, as I recall, andwhat is the world coming to if European
governments can no longer cheap ride richUncle Sam the whore. So Trump's comments

(04:55):
probably are going to accelerate this process, probably more than all the complaining,
one and demanding of prior presidents combined. So specifically, what is Trump saying
He's the one that really got andgot him in trouble. Is would America.
Would Trump send in the American cavalryif that European nation failed to meet

(05:16):
it. It's NATO obligations. AtTrump's response, quote, you didn't pay,
you're delinquent. No, I'm notgoing to protect you. In fact,
I'd encourage them to do whatever theywant. You gotta pay so well
as if this is not setting everythingup for some sort of a grand bargain
down the road. Europe's addiction toUS military welfare and the resulting costs to

(05:40):
you your home, your household,rather your kids, your grandkids, and
it's our government's Our government is complicitin these European nations who have the state's
most fundamental duty is to protect hercitizens, and they've abdicated so much of
that because they know they have richUncle Sam back there. So when Trump

(06:05):
comes along, it wakes up Europeto the fact that the US might not
always act in European interest, especiallyif it goes against American interests. So
again I ask you who comes first, the United States of Europe. And
yeah, it took Pottymount Donald Trumpundiplomatically these comments to restore a sense of

(06:28):
sanity to this US europe relationship sogeneral. I think that one way to
kind of look at our military industrialcomplex in the Pentagon as an international welfare
agency for well healed clients. Othernations, well here old socialist clients with
grand military schemes for NATO, meaningthe US the NATO. When you say

(06:50):
the NATO, it really is theUS because we're picking up I believe this
is just on my own research.I could be wrong on this, but
sixty six percent of the tap.I'm surprised it's that low. Other nations
with big Uncle Sam behind them,they start to get ambitious. It's one
thing right to be self sacrificing andgenerous with your life or your son's life,

(07:14):
or your daughter's life in defense ofyour homeland. But you don't get
my son's life. You don't getyour son's life. We're talking about sacrificing
the lives of Americans. If NATOends up at war with Russia. We
all know who would be doing thebulk of the fighting and dying Americans,
right, It's not going to beDenmark with their three tanks. When your

(07:34):
military can fit on a game board, so it clearly is an unbalanced alliance
for going to war called frank andwhen it was created in nineteen forty nine,
even the proponents of NATO, thefolks who were moving forward with this
alliance, remember after World War One, the League of Nations the United States

(07:56):
said pass. Now after World WarII, lege Nations now are calling it
NATO, and it's like, allright, we're in. But the proponents
who put together NATO, they wereadamant the US is not going to be
a permanent fixture in Europe. Andour man, I Ike said, and
I have another quote here, Iwill read it. Get this, get

(08:18):
this straight. We cannot be amodern Rome guarding the far frontiers with our
legions if for no other reason thatthese are not politically our frontiers. We
must do. What we must dois to assist these people to regain their
confidence and get on their own militaryfeet. Close quote Dwight David Eisenhower.

(08:39):
Do you think that maybe Dwight DavidEisenhower has some experience in wisdom certainly where
military and strategic planning come in.Yes. So again, when you're talking
to people and the topic of NATOcomes up, if you roll in those
type of nerd circles like the GeneralI do. You got to remember the
people who actually form the alliance,the proponents, They were adamant that,

(09:01):
look, we're not inviting America into control Europe. They're just here to
help us get our confidence back up, get our military built back up.
But unfortunately we stayed as even asnot only has Europe recovered, but Europe
has thrived in the last seventy fiveyears. They've been cheap writing on the

(09:24):
US. And by the way,inducting Ukraine and the NATO will provoke,
will absolutely provoke a preemptive Russian militaryaction. This is what we're talking about
today. Let's take a look atNATA and let's kick this can down the
road a bit and take it offthat plat round. Well, Unfortunately,

(09:45):
I believe adding Ukraine would require theSenates to affirm that treaty, and I
think there'd be some senators, especiallyfor Kentucky, who would filibuster as we'll
see. Hey, thanks for jumpingin and listening to us. This is

(10:07):
for the defense of the American people. With Attorney Brad Koppel and the General
Attorney Eric Willison, we are talkingabout what we're talking about NATO and Trump's
comments on NATO and now it's turnedseventy five recently for the record, that's
older than Joe Biden or No,it's not. No, it's not in

(10:31):
the attempt by the establishment to makeNATO a third real political issue that it
is. It's sacrisanct. You can'ttouch it. That's foolish. We have
to look at the If we're goingto look at being an alliance with Europe,
then we need to look at whathistory tells us about Europe, the
alliances, how those have fared inthe past, and whether or not it

(10:56):
really is an America's best interest tobe part of NATO. And I'm not
saying we need to just to pullthe plug on NATO today, and I'm
not saying we need to abandon alliances. I'm just saying it seems to me,
at this stage of my own research, to be a bit in need
of evolution. Maybe yeah, andmaybe a little yeah. It just seems

(11:18):
it's moving. It just doesn't seemto be as much. It seems to
be very dangerous, like a powderkeg right now that really we don't need
to be part of. It's veryexpensive powder powder cake that could daisy chain
us into another World War, justlike the European alliances did with war won
World War One, and of coursethe Interregnum and then the prolongation of the

(11:39):
Great War with World War Two allgoes back to these alliances. So let's
look first, we've got to understandif we're if we're filled filling an alliance
with European powers. Let's take aquick look at European history and what this
could mean for us and what dowe really in the middle of. Of

(12:01):
course, this starts with the ancientRoman Empire, and that was for several
hundred years Pax Romana, the Romanpeace they had it spread through Europe,
North Africa, Western Asia, ruledby emperors. Christians rose to power.
You had the Migration period involving largeinvasions of Germanic peoples, the Huns of

(12:24):
Attila led to the decline of theWestern Roman Empire and the assimilation of so
many Germanic speaking peoples who had didn'treally have loyalty to Rome, and the
Empires started to dismember itself. Andthen you have the Holy Roman Empire,
which was neither whole, not reallyholy, nor really wasn't Roman and not

(12:46):
really much of an empire. Itwas a motley medley, sort of like
the Federal Reserve Bank. It's themotley medley of independent kingdoms and different religious
principles beliefs. You had free cities, and that was destroyed by Napoleon and
the French. So for a thousandyears, the quote Holy Roman Empire seemed

(13:09):
to keep everything pretty well, tampeddown some skirmishes along the way, but
essentially from eight hundred to eighteen ohsix when Napoleon came to town, was
that Austrolitz, the Battle of Austrolitz, that kind of broke the Holy Roman
Empires back. And once that,once the Holy Roman Empire fell apart,
France became a big player there andthe Germanic speaking people, Prussia probably the

(13:35):
largest Germanic speaking state was Prussia wasdealing with the rise the Republican revolutions across
Europe. France then comes back underanother Napoleon to reassert its dominance on the
continent. That's eighteen seventy. Thisis very important stuff. So you have

(13:56):
the German Empire, which was basicallythe Holy Roman Empire for one thousand years.
This was led by German speaking emperorsand these weren't Romans, these were
not This wasn't this was not whatit sounds like. And after the Holy
Roman Empire, that the German Empirenumber one fell to France, it tried

(14:20):
to make a comeback and it did, and that's Bismarck. And you have
the reunification of Germany, the GermanEmpire, which kind of became the Second
Reich. If you follow German history, they're thinking, this is the second
rise of the German Empire. SoFrance and England are now very concerned about

(14:43):
this upstart Germany. Russia courses overhere on the east and they're flexing.
By nineteen fourteen, Europe was anarmed camp, I mean, everyone on
his on edge. It's politics dominatedby two rival alliances. So fear of

(15:03):
this Germany, this rising German risingGermany again again again. The Holy Roman
Empire was essentially Germanic speaking people rulingover these vassals and duchies and these little
independent states, religions weaving its waythrough there, the Protestant Refervations weaving its
way through there. But essentially fromeight hundred to eighteen hundred, through the

(15:26):
Middle Ages, we just have theseYou had wars and conflicts, but not
a global conflagration, which you gotin World War what became World War One
because of alliances. So fear ofGermany encouraged France and Russia to form an
alliance. They then these nation statesintroduced compulsory military service. You have the

(15:52):
industrialization with new weapons of war,which are very expensive weapons, the industrialization
of war, and you need alot more money. Now you used to
have to pay your soldiers and somelight weaponry. Now it takes a lot
of money. Now you have gottanks and machine guns and planes, lots
of money to be raised, taxed, borrowed. Now you've got bankers involved,

(16:19):
and you have a balance of powerthat is on the verge of going
one way or the other. Rememberit used to be that the wars ended
when you ran out of money.Not anymore, No, not with finance
anything exactly. So Britain's policy atthe turn of last century was to maintain

(16:40):
a balance of power in Europe.Britain aligns with their historical nemesis France.
In Russia. Again, this isbecause of the rise again of the of
the German Empire. Germany meanwhile feelslike it's getting encircled Russia right now,
and NATO and the growing military threatof Russia over here to the east,

(17:06):
France and England to the west,and Germany is like, hey, it's
a now ur number situation. Nineteenfourteen the guns of August, so the
military and political leadership of Germany saidwe need to risk war now or never
if we are going to achieve ourdestiny. And think about it, just

(17:27):
for a moment, about the geographicalposition of Germany at a time when seafaring
trade routes are everything. Their onlycoastline is on the Baltic Sea, and
they've got to get out through theBaltic and the French and the British can
so easily stop them. Does theRussia. Does Russia have something similar,

(17:48):
Yes, they do. They havethe same problem. Their only warm water
port year round is a lot ofAstok over by Japan. Soerm so military
historians, I will say that Germanyplanned to defeat France very swiftly before Russia
could get involved. And then theinvasion of France violated because they have to

(18:12):
went through Belgium, and that violatedBelgian neutrality, and that brought Britain into
the war. And I don't knownecessarily that that Germany thought that would happen.
But you can see these events startswith aspirations of like minded people.
Wanted self rule, they wanted freewill. And when Napoleon rolled through in

(18:37):
the early eighteen hundreds, it justupset the apple cart that had been relatively
stable for a thousand years. Well, when you get to see these other
military powers as existential threats to you, then that becomes a real issue.
The guns of August of nineteen fourteenthat kicked off World War One. Without
these alliances, it probably run mainswould have simply been a regional conflict of

(19:04):
Serbians and the Eastern Central Europe andEastern European and American dough boys would never
wound up in the trenches. Twentymillion wouldn't have died, twenty one million
would not have suffered serious injuries.And we're not even talking about PTSD.
They really were talking about PTSD innineteen nineteen. Well, they called it

(19:26):
shell shock. Then they brought outright then that led to Spanish flu and
that wiped out However, many Ithink ten percent of the world's population died
during this because these alliances. Itwas perfectly avoidable. Just like right now,
how do we avoid World War three? I think we really need to

(19:52):
study our alliance in NATO, andwe're gonna give you some statistics and some
hard facts to chewan after the breakinto like Trump, I will, I'm
Brad Goffel. That's the general.One more time. We would really appreciate

(20:18):
it if you would support our showby supporting our sponsor. I then chose
Round Automotive Groups just south of Delaware, a fabulous family American made products.
Go support America, Go support ourshow, Go support the Gill family at
chos Round Automotive support people who thinklike you, we are talking about alliances

(20:41):
and whether or not alliances make sense. And our founding fathers, who really
spent a fair amount of time inEurope, and they were very much aware
of European history. They studied Europeanhistory, they studied military ambitions, nation
state building, religions. They hada front row seat. And our founders

(21:02):
said, stay out of foreign entanglements, stay out of alliances, and here
we are. Alliance has kicked upWorld War One, it led on into
World War two, and we putwe are. I think it's reasonable that
there's going to be something major.I don't know how Russia walks away from
this thing as NATO continues to expand. Now many Americans, millions, I

(21:25):
would say, are starting to questionNATO just kicking around a bit, and
is there an addiction to us militarywelfare which costs our The money comes out
of our paychecks. And if there'swar, the boys and women, the
young men and young women come outof our homes. So we're talking about

(21:48):
your paychecks being confiscated, parts ofyour paycheck being confiscated to go to this
ever growing global interdependence. You desireto have a unipolar world where it's a
an Anglo American New World Order,the Bush doctrine, and it really has
not made us any safer, Iwould submit. It also comes out of

(22:11):
your bank accounts because when they producemore money just by waiving a digital magic
wand inflation than that bank account youhad with one hundred thousand dollars in it.
Now it won't buy a new Fordpickup truck. Who comes first?
The United States, your Europe.That's problem number one with NATO. And
yes it took an undiplomatic Donald Trumpto comment that either either you pay your

(22:37):
fair share or you're not getting thebenefits of being in this bargain. It's
one thing, as I said earlier, it's one thing to be self sacrificing
or generous with your life or thelife of your sons or daughters to protect
your homeland. Probably nothing more honorablethan that. But we're not sending our
boys and girls over to protect thehomeland of somebody else because they want a

(23:00):
flex. We are talking about sacrificingthe lives of Americans. And if NATO
ends up at war with Russia,when we say NATO, we're really mean
America because the rest of the powersare dwarf militaries and midget nations. And
if the conflict were to go nuclear, we know where the Russian ICBMs would
be targeting Americans again, and NATO, the NATO Alliance is unbalanced, that

(23:25):
is a fact. And when itwas created in nineteen four fronteen forty nine,
rather, it was never supposed tobe a permanent US military occupation of
Europe. It's never supposed to be. The United States was going to provide
all the military, primarily the militarycover for Europe. Eisenhower even said as
much. But we stayed on Europe, and we've spent the last seventy five

(23:47):
years being a welfare a military welfaresystem to several dozen European nations. Now
we've the expansion of NATO, notgeographic, but the members on the team
Finland and Sweden. These are minorpowers, nor do they make American war
secure. Slovakia Slovakia's armed forces generalseventeen thousand, Croatia sixteen thousand, Denmark

(24:17):
fifteen thousand, Sweden fourteen thousand,Albania seven thousand, Estonia seven thousand,
Latvia six thousand, Slovenia six thousand, Montenegro two thousand, Luxembourg four hundred
and ten. The point is,though, that where do we have the
right to put our bases in anour actually powerful military. It's sort of
like Israel. It's like a giantaircraft carrier right in the middle on land

(24:41):
in the Middle East. Now we'vegot a staging point for which we can
attack Russia if you have these thesecountries that are bordering right up against the
borders of Russia. And that's whatthey're concerned about. These are the addition
of these recent dwarf nations. They'reconcentrated in the Baltic and the Balkans,
Neither of of those regions are significantto American security, and those regions are

(25:07):
very, very difficult to defend andoperate in. I don't know that it's
an America's best interest to be there. I don't know if it is an
America's best interest on a military policy. And ye, Europe deserves Trump's harsh
words. In my opinion, shouldwe withdraw abruptly. No, We've got
to give these other nations a chanceto spin up their militaries. But their

(25:30):
reliance on America's presence has become permanent, and it was never supposed to be
that way. It's time to adjust, and it's time to reevaluate. But
subsidizing the privileged, which is essentiallywhat we're talking about here, we were
subsidizing very wealthy nations in the WesternAllies. We should remain close, we

(25:52):
should continue to cooperate on issues ofcommon concern. But Joe Biden expects Americans
to die for Europe. Trump believesEuropean should do the fighting slash dying for
their own countries, and a seriousforeign policy debate on this issue is long
overdue. So general does ending orrevising our commitment to the European alliance.

(26:14):
Alliance make sense, It makes perfectsense. And if you're going to do
that, then you need to puteverybody in a mindset that, hey,
a lot of things are going tobe on the bargaining table here. You
don't walk into a negotiation saying we'renot going to change anything. You walk
into a negotiation with the other sidebeing abjectly fearful of you and saying,

(26:38):
what can we do to keep youfrom doing X, Y and z.
That is how you extract meaningful bargainingpositions and change from the other side.
You don't walk in and say we'renot going to do anything. Check this
statistic, but I've seen the statisticsseveral places. The United States contrybute sixty

(27:00):
six percent of NATO military spending.You think that's low. I think it
is low. I think the ideathat NATO only contributes a lawyer's third it's
just not doesn't seem right. Eachnation is supposed to be spending two percent
of GDP on their GDP on NATO. Germany does not, France does not,

(27:21):
Italy does not, Spain does not. Again, according to my research
and a handful of different resources thatI've gone to, NATO is a one
point four trillion dollar US dollar behemoth. The US subsidizes sixty six percent of
it. That's a lot of moneyin a in a bank account. Going

(27:44):
to blank going to their defense isa defense contract, which is an expense
that they should be bearing. Thenwe get these leftists telling us, oh,
we should be more like Europe.Look how successful they are. Look
at all the money they have tospend on social problems. Well, they
don't have any money to spend onthe military. However, look at it
this way. We are giving them, We're subsidizing them. We're giving these

(28:08):
NATO nations money to then turn aroundand buy from our export market the weapons.
Let's think about that. We're givingthem tax dollars to spend on private
businesses, corporations that make military weapons. It would be awesome if there was

(28:33):
a fund out there that families couldgo to when they needed to spend ten
twenty thirty forty fifty thousand dollars ona criminal defense lawyer. See where I'm
going, or when the bank isabout to invade your home, that there's
a place that could just give youthe money that you could then come to

(28:55):
me and you don't need to worryabout it because my friend's over here at
this bank. They're going to giveyou the money to come and pay me
so that I can defend you incourt and not even alone. And I
go, well, where's that moneycoming from. I don't worry about it.
You coming. It's coming from theworking class. And by the way,
if you work, you take aten ninety nine at W two,

(29:18):
you're working class. So we arewe are getting We're getting ripped off on
both ends of this. And thenif the alliance falls apart, it's our
boys and girls that are going They'regetting flown over and globe globeasters and drop
behind enemy lines or the parachuting inthere are going to be targets of missiles,
bullets, bombs, artillery rounds.Right, it's insane to me how

(29:44):
this is happening. European countries shouldbe preparing for war with Russia. If
the neo cons and neolib warhawks arein DC are correct that Putin wants more
of Europe, then why aren't they? Is European country spending more right now
because they're waiting for us to doit for them. Welcome back, Thanks

(30:21):
for joining us here on for thedefense of the American people on six to
ten WTVN. Let's look at whattype of private conversations are being had in
parents, Berlin, Rome, Madrid, where these nations are not stepping up
to pay their fair share towards NATOor build up their own defenses, which
is the fundamental duty of every nationstate is to protect their borders and protect

(30:45):
their people as the whole. That'sthe quid pro quo, that's the consent
of the government. You can taxus, you can tax our property,
you can tax our incomes, youcan tax our payroll, you can tax
our sales, and that money goesinto a common kitty and from there you're
going to provide our defense. Well, now you're taking our money and you

(31:08):
are put you're now giving it awayso that these other nations can come back
and buy billions of dollars worth ofarms granted from primarily American corporations. Not
actually, though you think of thewhen you look at the British Navy,
the French Navy, they're not flyingF sixteens and F fifteens. They're flying

(31:30):
their own planes that are built,you know, the gru tornadoes, the
sob jet planes. Just seems veryvery just seems very very convenient that these
nations that have their own money arebeing subsidized by the United States. And
if the sixty six percent figure istrue or roughly true, it just seems

(31:55):
peculiar that we're subsidizing these wealthy nations, giving them money so that they can
buy from private military industrial corporations intheir own country. The British don't use
the m one A one tank,they use the Challenger. So the globalists,
the interventionists, the never Trump militaryindustrial complex started working against Donald Trump

(32:19):
as soon as he came down thatescalator. You're Bolton's, Mattis's, Kelly's,
Tillerson's, Ramsey Bolten, Ramsey Bolten. They turned out to be Magus
Sabatur's, if not outright foes toDonald Trump fifth column and uh, and
he was forced to keep shuffling thepersonnel deck. Apparently only the Warhawks understand

(32:42):
Russia and Europe. The rest ofUS aren't allowed to comment on that.
No, no, and there's abizarre fetish general with Putin and no qualms
about treating European nations like our owncolonies. Again, something that no one's
really highlighting, that we're treating thesenations like colonies. Let me be aware
of the anti colonialists. Let mebe clear, right we're Let me be

(33:04):
clear. Had there been no pushby America, I mean NATO to include
Ukraine, there would have been nowar in Ukraine. Pudina has not shown
the slightest inclination to restore the SovietEmpire, other than restoring its vital buffer
zone with the West, that iseastern Ukraine. As they see that buffer
zone, disappear to say that withoutNATO Poland would have already fallen to Russia

(33:30):
is absurd. Europe, Taiwan,South Korea, Japan, Israel should never
have been offered permanent American military support. Our national security cannot be tied to
Benjamin Nutt and Yahu's decisions regarding Gazatoday and Iran tomorrow, or a skirmish

(33:51):
on the thirty eighth parallel in Korea, or the results of the presidential elections
in Taiwan. Why are tied tothem this way? And ever since NATO
was hatched in the late forties,the League of Nations a generation before that,

(34:12):
European conservatives, European patriots, Europeanpopulace were opponents of NATO rightly so
that these European nations would lose theirnational sovereignty. And the French, the
Germans, the Italians, they werevery worried inviting the trojan horse of the
American ivy educated elites way of thinkingand governing. And we are now at

(34:37):
that crossroad where if you're part ofan alliance, you've got to have a
common foe, you've got to haveprinciples aligned, and you have to everyone's
got to be kicking in their fairshare. The European conservatives right after World
War Two feared the Americanization of theircountries, that they would lose their cultural

(34:59):
identity, they would become subjects toAmerican power and banking and media, and
this burgeoning cultural revolution would soon bein their cities. Whoops, sorry,
right, look what we opened up. So the first generation NATO members,
they were rational patriots who fought andbled in back to back World wars.

(35:21):
It was truly a defensive alliance tokeep the upstart Soviet Union out of the
rest of Europe. It was GeorgeKennon's containment. And if you don't know
who George Kennon is, we're goingto be talking about George Kennon in the
future. It was containment. Withthe fall of the Wall, containment.

(35:42):
With the fall of the Wall,the collapse of the Soviet Empire, NATO
went rogue, and George Kennan warnedus that eastward expansion of NATO was the
biggest mistake in American history. GeorgeKennan knows a few things. Again,
we will do it show on GeorgeKennon. We're also going to do a
show on a lawyer by the nameof Paul Cravath. And I think it's

(36:07):
important to talk about the World WarOne American aristocrats that were what we're called
atlanticist, they were internationalists. Thatwas the first generation globalists. So we're
going to talk about that. Washington'spost Cold War mentality was to be the
only superpower in the world. NATOhas more than exceeded its original scope.

(36:32):
It's a chronic threat to American peace. Let me say that one more time.
NATO is a chronic threat to Americanpeace. Why because we are now
tied to the fates of thirty twoother nations like a daisy chain. Thoughts
on that general, I would likenit more to being chained to a boat

(36:53):
anchor on a very large ship andif they drop that anchor going down.
And we're not saying that the UnitedStates doesn't need to have allies, of
course we do. But there's noreason for America to keep such a focus
on Europe thirty years after the fallof the Soviet Union. There are other
parts of the world we probably needto be keeping an eye on. And

(37:15):
by the way, we've kicked upenough dust in the Middle East, we've
brought the radical Islam now to ourhomelands. The people that make the argument
that Russia must be stopped in Ukraineso they can't ultimately threaten US is absurd.
It's absolutely absurd. I mean,it was one thing when you had

(37:38):
the Russia being dominated by the SovietUnion, and it was a totalitarian society
bent on world domination, and itwas a existential threat to the United States.
That's no longer the case. Russiacan't even get troops into Kiev.
How are they gonna get past Poland, much less France. That's just not

(38:00):
going there. America's NATO allies simplydon't pay their fair share. In twenty
twenty two against statistics are statistics.They can be bent, they can be
false information. But I'll just gowith some information that I found in twenty
twenty two, only seven of thirtyNATO members spent their two percent of their

(38:21):
GDP on defense. Seven of thirty, some like Germany, appear to be
adamant in the refusal to do so, while being adamant that America defend them
from Russia, a country which theydesperately need to make gas deals fuel energy.
We do need allies, and letme suggest an ally that we need

(38:45):
Russia exactly. Then. One ofthe things that iin Rand used to talk
about is that if you had strongeconomic ties between people who are somewhat inimical,
that tends to not encourage war becauseyou have very very wealthy people who
have very very important assets in theother country and don't want those endangered.

(39:07):
So peace generally prevails. Because ofa natural human tendency, which is greed.
China and the rise of radical Islamin the Middle East, we could
really use another large Christian power likeRussia. They do not need to be
our enemy, and historically they've beenour ally. You can find historical references

(39:32):
to Russia all the way back tothe Ward eighteen twelve. We didn't take
Alaska in a conquest we purchased itfrom them. And as East Asia China
prepares for what could be a centurylong struggle with China, or East Asia
and China, when we deal withPalestine, the Arab Muslim world and Jews

(39:58):
and Christians, doesn't make any sensethat we continue to have this ancient civil
war of Christian nations fighting each other. This war is transcending into a holy
war, if it hasn't already,It's always been one. It's just that

(40:19):
we got mucked up in these civilwars, these revolutions. As nation state
building replaced monarchies, always look towhom the leftists hate, and there you
will find your friends. So nowEurope needs to step out on its own
as a family. America will bethere to defend it should things really turn

(40:39):
sour. Europe being conquered by antiWestern forces would not be in our national
interest, of course not. ButEurope being built into a strong military means
it could also come to America's aidone day should we need help, whether
it's China or radical Islam or both. This would give Americans the feeling that

(41:00):
we're actually getting something from NATO.And why do American policymakers stoff at the
idea of Europe defending itself. Ithas four hundred and fifty million people in
advanced arms industry, nuclear weapons atleast to France and the UK, and
a long history of military experience.There's no reason for the continent to have
deporable military capabilities. There needs tobe a standing EU army so Americans can

(41:23):
shift to Asia and the Middle East. I think see what happened to America.
We'll talk about it next week.