Posts by Lisa Patel4

Anthony Cooper2 said:Thanks for that deep dive into meritocracy; it was super interesting. But when it comes to how our Republican and Democratic crowd handles politics, it seems pretty obvious—the question is, how do we make it stop?? Especially since you pointed out that leaving the European Union or NATO is basically out of the question. Honestly, our current policy isn't even about national sovereignty, or even the free will of those politicians—it feels almost 100% dictated from abroad through this toxic cocktail of corruption, blackmail, and just straight-up incompetence from the politicians. So, how do we break out of that loop? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should ditch any international community that actually benefits us, but the way the EU and NATO operate today is 🤦🤦🤦

A massive YES when it comes to getting closer to Poland. But honestly, will that even be possible in the way we’re all dreaming of if the EU keeps running its current setup?
I bolded that last sentence because it basically serves as the conclusion for any organized society—yeah, you need a whole new generation—but you also need the right CONDITIONS for that generation to actually be raised properly. Looking back over the last century, the US has faced situations at least four times where we had to wipe the slate clean (whether by choice or by force) and start everything from square one. In those kinds of circumstances, it’s just impossible to build a society where the "torch" passes naturally from grandfather to father to son—or from grandma to daughter to granddaughter. Our society would also have to let go of that excessive, I mean excessive revanchism—that constant urge to get back at whoever came before, or anyone with different political views—but hey, all of that is only doable under conditions of decades of peace. I really hope we see that someday...

A massive YES when it comes to getting closer to Poland. But honestly, will that even be possible in the way we’re all dreaming of if the EU keeps running its current setup?
I bolded that last sentence because it basically serves as the conclusion for any organized society—yeah, you need a whole new generation—but you also need the right CONDITIONS for that generation to actually be raised properly. Looking back over the last century, the US has faced situations at least four times where we had to wipe the slate clean (whether by choice or by force) and start everything from square one. In those kinds of circumstances, it’s just impossible to build a society where the "torch" passes naturally from grandfather to father to son—or from grandma to daughter to granddaughter. Our society would also have to let go of that excessive, I mean excessive revanchism—that constant urge to get back at whoever came before, or anyone with different political views—but hey, all of that is only doable under conditions of decades of peace. I really hope we see that someday...

A massive YES when it comes to getting closer to Poland. But honestly, will that even be possible in the way we’re all dreaming of if the EU keeps running its current setup?
I bolded that last sentence because it basically serves as the conclusion for any organized society—yeah, you need a whole new generation—but you also need the right CONDITIONS for that generation to actually be raised properly. Looking back over the last century, the US has faced situations at least four times where we had to wipe the slate clean (whether by choice or by force) and start everything from square one. In those kinds of circumstances, it’s just impossible to build a society where the "torch" passes naturally from grandfather to father to son—or from grandma to daughter to granddaughter. Our society would also have to let go of that excessive, I mean excessive revanchism—that constant urge to get back at whoever came before, or anyone with different political views—but hey, all of that is only doable under conditions of decades of peace. I really hope we see that someday...

Big yes on moving closer to Poland. But I guess you have to wonder if that's even possible if the EU keeps functioning exactly the way it does now. Maybe not.
I’ll give you that last sentence—it's basically the conclusion for any organized society. Sure, we need an entirely new generation, but we also need the right conditions to actually raise them properly. Over the last century, America has been hit at least four times by situations where we had to wipe the slate clean and start from scratch, whether by choice or by force. In those kinds of circumstances, it’s just impossible to build a society where traditions pass naturally from grandfather to father to son, or from grandmother to daughter to granddaughter. I guess our society would have to break free from being overly... well, you know. It’s all just an exaggeration, I guess. Maybe. "Revenge, settling scores with whoever came before you, targeting political opponents... I guess all of that is only possible when you've enjoyed decades of peace. Maybe we'll actually see that kind of stability one day."

An average person can barely make an impact here. You have to realize that every political party is serving someone else—they’re all under someone's thumb and answering to higher powers. You hit the nail on the head with that "spiral" idea. Honestly, corruption is like a virus in every society. Whether it's the US, Germany, China, or Russia, these countries are all suffocating under corruption; it's just legalized there through that famous lobbying system. It’s practically institutionalized graft. I guess the only thing you can actually control is how you educate your own family.

I guess real change can only come from massive global shifts that fundamentally overhaul our entire political and philosophical landscape. It’s hard to say when that might actually happen. We're stuck in an era dominated by neoliberal capitalist philosophy that basically turns people into robots. But since no system lasts forever, maybe we can hope it all changes one day.

The EU and NATO are massive structures that you just can't walk away from today, and honestly, we shouldn't even try. If any administration attempted to leave, they’d face an immediate color revolution and be completely powerless to stop it. Global history is played out on levels we can't even fathom—wars between nations, intelligence agencies, big capital, secret societies... I guess there isn't much a single country like the US can actually do. There's no humanity in this game; they use every method imaginable, both legal and otherwise. It's probably better not to get involved at all. We should just position ourselves as best we can, grab whatever benefits we can get, and let the Russians, Chinese, Britons, and Americans tear each other apart.

Look, as a small nation, we’re basically forced to pick a side, whether it's geopolitical or ideological. That’s just realpolitik. It’s like how we probably would have vanished if we hadn't been forced to accept the Habsburgs as our rulers. I guess that's just the reality of our geography and our fate.

Every generation brings something new to the table, I guess. We'll just have to wait and see what the future holds.

Anthony Cooper2 said:@mistygull16: Short and sweet! 👍

I’d also love to dive into the cultural side of things for a second—personally, I think it's absolutely vital for the government to step up and back our major cultural institutions, you know? We're talking about the big-deal stuff like museums, national theaters, or even major publishing houses. Honestly, it breaks my heart a little when I see places like small towns in the Midwest or rural parts of Texas—where you can barely find a single decent little bookstore, but man, there's a damn betting parlor or a liquor store on every single corner. It’s just... yikes!! Also, looking at the bigger picture globally, we really need to push American literature harder. We should be translating our classics—think guys like Hemingway, Faulkner, or Steinbeck—into every major language out there. They need to be accessible to everyone, everywhere. Now, I get it—on paper, that doesn't look like a massive money-maker, and honestly, it probably isn't, but in my book, it's absolutely essential.

I agree. It’s just sad that a good chunk of people in America don't even know what Shakespeare's most famous work is or who wrote "Beautiful us."

Cultural promotion can definitely happen through mass media. Maybe Russia could serve as an example here. They have dedicated TV channels for culture, and they really push Russian literature in schools. They also use the Church to drive cultural literacy, and now they're introducing laws regarding patriotic education.

Or look at how Americans do it. Everyone is expected to know American history.

For instance, I’d probably make movies based on the works of Lewis Carroll. She’s basically considered the mother of American fantasy, our own J.R.R. Tolkien. Since sci-fi and fantasy are such massive genres globally and kids love them—not to mention the huge pop culture impact of LOTR or The Hobbit—it makes sense.

Say, making a movie based on a Fairy tale. We're talking about a work steeped in Slavic mythology. I suspect a film like that would definitely find an audience in Slavic countries. Given how strong the Slavic pagan movements are in places like Poland and Russia, I really doubt it wouldn't succeed.

My suggestion? Maybe open a themed park based on this in the US.

Paul Thomas46 said:The Supreme Court isn't really a "court" in the traditional judicial sense...
And yes, it’s perfectly normal—given how many massive hurdles we face when actually enforcing laws (and the Constitution). What is truly abnormal is seeing bodies whose decisions are repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court continue their unconstitutional practices anyway. In fact, they even push forward after ECHR rulings—that is what’s genuinely wrong...

Common law systems differ quite a bit from ours, including how the courts are structured. When discussing these issues, one shouldn't be comparing us to the USA—unless we're talking about the UK, I suppose...

Fine. I'm no lawyer; it was just an idea. Clearly, I'm wrong here. Thanks for the explanation.

Casey Ramos31 said:Theoretically, they could if there was a specific department within the Supreme Court dedicated solely to constitutionality and legality.
But we aren't even talking about interpretation here—it's about assessment. Every body that applies a law interprets it while they're at it.

True. Fine, I take it back. 😁

Anthony Cooper2 said:Meritocracy, wow, that term sure sounds fancy in this day and age, doesn't it? It’s something Michel Onfray—that famous French philosopher who the mainstream media loves to tear apart lately because he dared to say he "supports any common-sense idea, even if it comes from the National Rally"—talks about. He also mentioned how, as the child of a Norman peasant, he was able to achieve his current status and intellect thanks to the old Republic and its education system. He expressed real concern about the absolute disaster of our modern schooling, where access to knowledge—though even that "knowledge" is questionable given how heavily it's ideologically biased—is mostly reserved for the wealthy elite. It used to be possible for everyone, including him, a kid from a poor farming family. So, this idea of a meritocratic republic with the power structure you're describing seems super interesting to me. Does a system like that actually exist in the world, or maybe even in history? Do you honestly think a setup like this would take root here? I'm asking seriously. I mean, no matter how efficient or tempting foreign systems might look—people always point to and romanticize those Protestant Scandinavian models—we really have to consider what works best for US culture, because we aren't Swedes, we aren't Americans, and we aren't the British.

I am totally on board with the whole pro-natalist policy vibe and the debate over the abortion law. 👍 Taxing the sun or whatever—honestly, everything you mentioned is a solid 5/5 in my book. Quick question though—how do you think our policies are actually landing on the global stage?

Thanks.

In practice, I guess meritocracy has never actually existed as an official form of government. Ancient China had a meritocratic bureaucracy, which is probably why they managed to survive as a nation for 5,000 years. Maybe.

The Ottoman Empire utilized a meritocratic nobility system. Since there was no hereditary aristocracy, anyone could rise to become a Vizier or a Beg. I guess that’s why the empire was such a highly organized state during its peak.

If I recall correctly, I think there might be something about that in Singapore's laws.

Would this actually take root? No. It wouldn't happen in today’s Western societies, and it couldn't. In America, you have a majority of the electorate that is essentially dependent on political parties—whether it's for their jobs or just the hope that it might lead to one. I don't really blame people much for being in a situation like that, I guess.

Maybe this kind of setup would actually work in some collectivist Asian societies. I guess China used to run a system pretty similar to this, where you just have one single party rotating through power.
I guess you could say neoliberalism and corporatism are basically just Darwinian systems. It’s pretty simple: either you're the best, or you get crushed.

Look, history shows us that monarchies had their perks back in the day, I guess. But like any system, they eventually became hostages to a bunch of idiots in the nobility who got so drunk on their own power that they just started doing whatever they wanted.

Absolute monarchy was overthrown, obviously. Then came enlightened absolutism, which I guess produced some pretty solid results at first. But eventually, that system just became a hostage to its own structure.

And here we are, living in a Republic. A Republic that seems to serve various special interest lobbies while constantly sidelining the actual interests of the nation, I guess.

When it comes to Protestantism, I guess it only really works in societies built on heavy individual responsibility. Those cultures have moved past that collectivist mindset. That’s probably why it just won't stick in American culture.

When it comes to meritocracy, I honestly don't see a better way to run things. It’s basically putting the smartest, most capable, and wisest people in charge. No one knows everything, obviously, but if you had a council of 20 experts—people everyone actually agrees are highly skilled and qualified to lead the country—I’d trust them to run the nation in a heartbeat. I’d take that over the same tired faces from the Democratic or Republican establishment who have been cycling through Washington for twenty years and can barely string a coherent sentence together.

We have a Congress where most people don't even show up. There are over 100 parties involved. 🙂

Foreign policy.

Mandatory entry into the V4, aligning more closely with Poland since their influence is growing and they share a lot of our cultural DNA.
I’d view the so-called region strictly through the lens of market opportunities and the interests of Americans living in Canada and Mexico, nothing else. I wouldn't bother meddling in what Mexico does. In Canada, resolving the American question would be non-negotiable; without that, there's no entry anywhere.

I’d try to push projects—mostly infrastructure—toward the V4 nations to bolster our own influence. Things like a low-land rail link from a coastal city to Budapest, and so on.

Leaving the EU or NATO would be nearly impossible, even if we wanted to. Our progress mostly depends on our own will to fix how the country is run. It’s about a total shift in the nation's mindset, which I guess takes decades.

For example: teaching kids from day one that paying taxes is a duty. That following the law is mandatory. That you have an obligation to demand and exercise your constitutional rights, just as you have an obligation to fulfill your constitutional duties. That education—both institutional and self-driven—is the bedrock of personal growth. We should teach children that rationality is what keeps a system sustainable. Spend only what you actually have. Only take on debt when absolutely necessary. Protect your identity. Teach them that patriotism is beautiful, not ugly. Get rid of narcissism. Be confident and honest. Teach them that greed is a vice that destroys people. And so on...

It would take an entire new generation to pull that off.

Casey Ramos31 said:It's not really like that. At the end of the day, someone's gotta make sure everything actually follows the Constitution and stays legal.
Who else is the Supreme Court gonna turn to when they run into a law they think is unconstitutional?

Why does the USA only have one Supreme Court that acts as its constitutional court too?

They probably just have separate departments there.

Why couldn't the Supreme Court just interpret the Constitution themselves?

It feels like a total joke when two different courts interpret the exact same law differently.

That's just my suggestion. I guess maybe combining them isn't the move.

Paul Thomas46 said:I’ll just weigh in here—and honestly, I suspect the entire legal community would push back on this idea.
The Constitutional Court isn't technically part of the judicial branch (though how you define "the courts" doesn't really matter)... having some kind of oversight body above the legislature, judiciary, and executive is a good thing—most European nations have something similar in place.
Protecting the Constitution and our fundamental rights should be the job of a specific, dedicated body... personally, I don't see the need for a merger. Their roles just don't overlap...

Do you honestly think it's normal for one court to overturn almost every decision made by another?

Why does the USA only have one Supreme Court that functions as its constitutional court?

Anthony Cooper2 said:This is such a fascinating topic, and honestly—even for someone like me who’s just a political amateur—it’s pretty tough to know where to even start. You look at Plato, right? In his book "The Republic," he basically argued that a truly great state is one where everyone finds their niche—like, a shoemaker who is actually happy being a shoemaker. It’s all about that specialized harmony...

Now, that sounds lovely on paper, but let’s be real—I don't know how deep of a hole our own country has actually fallen into. But, here’s my take:

In my book, we need to make sure society always has access to fundamental knowledge across the board. Whether you're part of the ruling elite or running one of those massive corporations of national importance, I’d insist on everyone having a perfect grasp of at least one foreign language—though, obviously, the more the merrier! English is a given, but maybe German, French, or Russian too. And hey, why not Mandarin Chinese!

We should probably consider leaving the European Union if it stays stuck in its current ways. I actually find myself leaning toward Marine Le Pen's vision of a "European people"—where every nation maintains absolute sovereignty over its military, borders, and economy, while perhaps keeping the Euro as a secondary currency alongside our own national one. We need to trigger a depreciation of the dollar and kick out those predatory foreign banks that are bleeding us dry.

We also need to offer killer scholarships to talented young people in EVERY discipline, paired with a guarantee from the State that they'll have the best possible working conditions and job opportunities once they graduate...

Then there’s the big one: reindustrializing the country and getting the elite to actually step up and save our dying industries. It is genuinely painful—like, personally gut-wrenching—to watch a collapsed giant like U.S. Steel or other former industrial titans just wither away.

We have to INSIST on high levels of self-sufficiency—everything from agriculture to manufacturing to energy. We should be subsidizing our domestic farmers and giving them preferential status over foreign competitors when it comes to buying and selling within our own markets. The same goes for our most vital cultural institutions, like the Encyclopædia Britannica.

And we absolutely need to RECLAIM the natural resources of the USA that were snatched away through those terrible, lopsided contracts.

Finally, we need to implement strong pro-family policies and give real privileges to large families.

...I'm sure I've missed a hundred other things, but that's my two cents for now!

I'm also a supporter of a Europe of nations, without the EU Commission and its kind of parasites.
A country should generally organize itself in whatever way suits it best.

Economically, I favor entrepreneurial capitalism, just not this wild neoliberalism. Socialism is a system that practically creates a society of slaves to the State and its policies. An economy can't function without a government, but you really need to minimize the State's role in economic matters.

I only consider an ethnically homogeneous national state to be long-term stable and sustainable in practice.

Government policy should focus on national security, justice, education, healthcare, and cultural policy.

Though, I suppose there's only one truth in practice. Pure economic liberalism doesn't exist; it isn't even possible. Every state uses some kind of Keynesian model.

Industry? Yes, but only what you can actually maintain. Producing things just for the sake of production turned out to be a disaster under socialism.

Again, I think the USA urgently needs to fix its over-reliance on tourism.

My platform:

- Abolish the parliamentary republic. We need to scrap this current US Congress where about 70% of members don't even show up for debates. It’s just inefficient, weighed down by lobbyists, and filled with incompetent politicians. There are way too many useless parties just draining taxpayer money without providing any value.
- Instead, let's build a meritocratic republic led by a supreme council. The country would be run by the smartest, most capable people, overseen by a supervisory board. That board could fire anyone if they fail at their job or prove incompetent. They’d be chosen through general elections, nominated by councils and a popular council representing the people. Terms would be 6 years. This council would consist of 14-20 leaders. Requirements for entry would be crystal clear: high expertise, proven ability, and deep patriotism. Maybe then we wouldn't see constant friction between the President and Prime Ministers who barely finished high school.
- Every single change to the law should be decided via referendum.
- The introduction of compulsory voting in elections and referendums.
- A complete overhaul of the school system. High school should be mandatory, we need fewer general liberal arts schools, and more vocational high schools.
- Higher education reform. Anyone with a degree from a state university should be legally required to work in the US for five years.
- A GMO ban.
- Adopting a Swiss-style model for mandatory military service.
- Merging the Constitutional and Supreme Courts into one single judicial body.
- The introduction of a national natalist fund along with strict maternity leave laws.
- Building up tech hubs.
- Privatizing everything except strategically vital state companies—like energy and natural resources—which would be protected by a constitutional ban on privatization.
- Abortion law. For a woman seeking an abortion, the state would offer financial compensation to choose birth instead. Those children would be raised by the state and eventually serve the country, maybe in the military or diplomacy.
- A tax on junk products.
- Strong cultural and educational policies.
- Legalizing prostitution.
- Scraping the "autonomy" of counties where local sheriffs waste millions on nonsense. All county projects would need approval from the supreme council.
- A total ban on any regionalization of the US.
- Heavy subsidies for agriculture and for pushing new technologies.
...
I probably have another million economic reforms I'd implement.

Suppose someone handed you five years of total control to do whatever you wanted.

What would your political platform actually look like?

Anthony Cooper2 said:She’s definitely being played, honestly. You just can't hold onto those kinds of ideologies when they actually run headfirst into the messy reality of how things work.

Oh, it exists. It really does.

Noah Sullivan said:One individual—a single person—can snap... but what kind of political system are they running in Germany that they haven't forced this stubborn individual to resign months ago?!?

It appears she holds onto that Chancellor position even tighter than Otto von Bismarck did—and he was someone who frequently held back from various moves once he realized certain influential circles would deem them controversial. In the end, they actually managed to force him out...

And how exactly did they "break" Greece, when it seems she isn't even allowed to go there to try and negotiate anything?!? Even though she makes trips to Turkey.

Seehofer has already squeezed her in one way or another.

Maybe Merkel is being heavily blackmailed by something—everyone forgot about that NSA scandal—or maybe she's just doing this for ideological reasons. There really isn't a third option.

Paul Thomas46 said:I don't think I'm wrong at all, since those effects bled into the Eastern countries too—if that weren't the case, we'd be living at the level of Rwanda right now instead of sitting here trying to solve global issues on the internet...
The two of us aren't driving our cars or riding the city bus every day thanks to our own little resource grabs or wars fought across the globe. If others didn't make that possible for us (for a price, naturally), we'd be out tending to horses... Since we don't produce our own oil, we buy it from those who do. Everything is interconnected; there's no such thing as isolation or clean hands.

The whole European continent enjoys a high standard of living compared to the rest of the world—food security is solid, healthcare and education mostly work, etc. Sure, the colonizers have more (aside from the Spanish and Portuguese, who somehow managed to mess everything up 🤣), but the fact remains that within Europe, everyone is doing alright.

Turkey focused on its own neighborhood—everything within walking distance, essentially. One could debate how technologically advanced their resource extraction was during the peak of the Ottoman Empire, and how much they actually needed... regardless of what they took, we still ended up with 100 times more...

Look, honestly, they’d just waste way too much money on that debate.

Dana Kern5 said:Folks, let me tell you, it’s purely delusional to think that Germany could ever walk away from NATO in any scenario unless the alliance itself simply ceased to exist.
And we aren't just talking about Americans being stubborn about it. Neither France nor the UK—and certainly not Poland—would ever tolerate a version of Germany that isn't "tethered" (and I mean that quite literally!) to a military Union designed to keep them in check.
Under this arrangement, they’ve essentially had their ability to rearm stripped away without oversight from their "allies." Their entire defense industry has been neutralized by being woven directly into the fabric of their other European partners. They can't even build their own legendary tanks on their own anymore (well, they aren't allowed to), and don't even get me started on military aircraft.
It’s almost absurd when you look at the current landscape: while Germany is busy decommissioning its energy plants, the UK is working alongside China to build new nuclear reactors in the south of Britain. Why is that?
It’s simple, people: because outside of the framework of NATO and the EU, Germany wouldn't be permitted the capacity to develop nuclear weapons. And to have that capability, you need nuclear facilities! Just look at the massive circus surrounding Iran right now...

If you really stop to think about it: a major industrial powerhouse like Germany claims to rely only on coal or nuclear power, yet they are "voluntarily" abandoning both to pivot toward the Sun and wind! For an industrial giant? It doesn't add up.

But, of course, all of this could change if the circumstances shifted—specifically if there were a population truly committed to those goals, meaning a single ethnic group, a unified nation, a shared culture, and common roots.
With millions of foreign nationals who share zero connection to German tradition, and a social climate where even the mildest sense of national identity is treated as taboo, the "German problem" has effectively been solved.
Only once that specific project reaches its conclusion could Germany even begin to dream of leaving NATO.
Until then, it's simply not going to happen.

The UK is one of those nations that basically shapes world events. It makes sense they’re leaning toward China and their Asian bank. Honestly, I think the British Empire never actually vanished; it just went underground. And look at Canada—they got stuck with a new government that immediately started meddling in the Middle East. Interesting, to say the least.

It’s pretty obvious nobody is going to let Germany become a military superpower. Not the USA, not the UK, not France, and certainly not Russia. But hey, maybe in some new global restructuring, Germany might be allowed to leave NATO after what you just laid out? You've got a point there.

Paul Thomas46 said:You're overthinking the Americans.
Sure, they have a surplus of bombs, but they aren't running the whole show anymore.

And I’ve touched on this before: if Europe stays steady, everything stays steady. If Europe goes downhill, it's all downhill from there. History is pretty clear on that point. Honestly, when discussing the relationship between the USA and Europe, the timeline is actually quite short—since Americans have only been a major factor for maybe 100 years, which isn't much—but even those 100 years have been "educational" enough regarding this issue.
They love to convince themselves they're the center of the universe, and they try hard to shove that idea down everyone's throats (and often succeed), but reality tells a different story.

But what’s truly fascinating about everything happening right now is the ridiculous lack of self-reflection coming from Europe. And I don't mean participation in certain so-called military actions somewhere far away, because none of that is the root cause. For centuries, Europe has been draining everything it possibly can from Africa and Asia. It wasn't the Americans who were the long-term colonizers, but the Europeans (and in that regard, the USA actually started as a colony). We haven't lived on our own resources for a very, very long time.
The die was cast a long time ago...

I think you're mistaken there. You can't just lump all European nations together under one label. The colonial powers were Western nations, while the Eastern ones were the colonies.

Besides, a huge part of Africa and Asia was exploited by Turkey.

Paul Thomas46 said:I actually mentioned this earlier in this thread (in one of the previous parts)—though I didn't get much of a response... 😬

Of course, you have to be careful with all of this—but there's really no need for total paranoia...

Caution might be our only hope.

Anthony Garcia19 said:If everyone else is still in NATO, and there are millions of immigrants and refugees inside the borders, I don't see how leaving would actually help her.

Who says NATO is here to stay forever? I guess we just don't know. Leaving the alliance would give them much more room to maneuver, maybe.

Dana Kern5 said:

Lisa Patel4 As I was saying:
I was just reading through some recent discussions regarding the deployment of NATO troops in Germany, and it really got me thinking about how much the geopolitical landscape in Europe is shifting right now. It’s one of those topics that feels heavy, but when you step back and look at the broader strategic picture, there is a lot of nuance to unpack. The core of the debate seems to revolve around whether increasing our military presence in Germany acts as a necessary deterrent or if it inadvertently escalates tensions with Russia. From what I can gather, the conversation isn't just about moving soldiers from point A to point B; it’s about the logistical backbone of the entire Atlantic alliance and how we maintain stability on the continent. I remember a few years ago, while I was working a consulting gig in Berlin, sitting in a small café and listening to locals debate exactly this kind of thing. There was this palpable sense of cautiousness—what the Germans call *Vorsicht geniessen*—about how much involvement in larger security frameworks they should embrace. Even then, the tension between wanting security and fearing escalation was a constant theme in the local news. Looking at the current situation, the push for more robust NATO positioning in Germany feels like a direct response to the volatility we’ve seen in Eastern Europe lately. Proponents argue that a visible, strong presence is the only way to ensure the security of the EU and prevent any sudden shifts in the balance of power. On the other hand, critics worry that such moves could be viewed as provocative, potentially triggering the very instability we are trying to avoid. It’s a delicate balancing act, much like managing a complex investment portfolio where you're trying to hedge against risk without overextending your capital. You want enough protection to feel secure, but if you move too aggressively, you might end up creating a new set of liabilities. Ultimately, as we watch these developments unfold in Germany, it will be interesting to see if the policy shifts toward a permanent increase in troop levels or if the alliance maintains its current posture of "flexible response." It’s a fascinating time to follow international relations, and I’m curious to hear what others think about the long-term implications for the transatlantic relationship.

It’s funny how things work out—it feels like some of us were calling this quite a while ago, and now we're actually seeing it play out. In Germany, there’s already a petition gaining traction to have NATO troops withdrawn from the country. It's interesting to see these discussions moving from theoretical debates to actual organized movements.

I think people are finally starting to see the real reason behind this entire refugee crisis. If you ask me, Germany's only real way out of this mess would be to pull out of the NATO pact entirely. I’ve actually mentioned this before—it feels like things really started spiraling right after that agreement to expand the Nord Stream pipeline was signed.

I think we should approach this exactly how they say in Germany—"Vorsicht geniessen"—which basically means taking it all with a massive pinch of salt.

Back when we were looking at the possibility of leaving NATO—long before socialism collapsed and that Wall came down—there were all these little "Marxist-Leninist" groups and segments of the "progressive left intelligentsia" active right over in West Germany.
Ever since Unification, you’ll occasionally hear the Left-wing party, Die Linke—which essentially functions as the successor to the old SED from East Germany—bring this up. It’s a bit like how our own Democratic Party acts as the successor to the SKH here in the States. In their early days, the Green Party used to mention it quite a bit, too. However, once the "realos" faction took control and Joschka Fischer stepped in as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, they sort of stopped bringing it up altogether.

Honestly, Christoph Hoerstel is such a bizarre individual, especially considering he’s the one who spearheaded that whole Petition. If you look him up on Google, you'll get a sense of the controversy, and I actually dug through his Wikipedia page too—though, unfortunately, it’s only available in German. It certainly gives you plenty to think about!
If you have a moment, I think it’s worth taking a deep dive into the career of Christoph Hoerstel. I was browsing through some history today and found his trajectory particularly interesting from a political standpoint. For those who might not be familiar, Hoerstel has been a significant figure within the Green Party, serving quite a bit of time in the European Parliament. His work often centered on civil liberties and human rights, which is an area I’ve always found fascinating because of how much it intersects with international policy. He wasn't just someone sitting on the sidelines; he was actively involved in shaping how we view oversight and accountability within large institutions. I remember reading about his stance on various regulatory frameworks back when I was first getting into political science. He had this very measured way of approaching complex issues—never jumping to conclusions, but instead looking at the granular details of how laws actually affect people on the ground. It reminds me of how some of our own policymakers in Washington D.C. try to balance massive federal mandates with individual freedoms, though Hoerstel’s focus was very much on that broader, transnational scale. It's easy to get lost in the noise of modern politics, but looking at the long-term contributions of individuals like him provides a bit of much-needed perspective. He represents a specific era of political activism that focused heavily on transparency. Whether you agree with his specific policy leanings or not, you have to respect the consistency of his advocacy. It’s definitely a profile worth studying if you're interested in how grassroots values eventually find their way into high-level legislative halls.

He’s got one decisive flaw that really throws everything off.😁 Regarding that one specific country we all know so well, he went on to say this on the message board: I’ve always felt that when an entity functions more like an Un-State than a legitimate government, it loses its moral authority to lead. It’s a bit like trying to fix a broken engine using parts from a different machine entirely—it just doesn't fit. If a State becomes part of the very problem it’s supposed to be solving, it fundamentally cannot be part of the solution.
I’m really struggling to find the right way to express that "Un-State" term in plain English. When he uses a phrase like "Un-State," he isn't just being clever; he’s essentially creating a direct negation of the very idea of a legitimate State. It’s a heavy, loaded term—the kind of language historically used to describe the Third Reich, which carries an incredibly dark and negative connotation. Honestly, given that baggage, I don't see this individual ever finding any common ground or seeing any success. His track record speaks for itself, too; if you look back at the various political "projects" he’s tried to launch over the years, they all seem to follow that same failed pattern.
Right now, one of the biggest favorites within the Muslim community is back home and out on the town. It’s pretty safe to assume he’s the driving force behind most of those names appearing on that Petition...

So, if you want my honest take, I’d say none of that is actually going to happen.

I know. But if I start making noise now, it might actually carry some weight. PEGIDA is pretty much pro-Russia anyway. We'll just have to see if they turn into a mass movement that eventually tries to dictate German policy. Russia is attacking on multiple fronts right now, and they're being pretty aggressive about it.

Mark Harris66 said:Honestly, the EC is just a parasitic entity at this point—mostly because of the bureaucrats running the show.

Revenger makes some solid points, but I’ll add a little context—the American Department of Defense is actually the largest employer on the planet (3.2 million people, including over a million active duty). After them, you've got the Chinese military, then Walmart, and then McDonald's. But look at the trends... Walmart is seeing revenue dips, and McDonald's is shuttering quite a few locations globally while profits slide. That alone tells you the American economy is feeling the heat... not to mention all the other issues brewing under the surface.

Exactly. The American economy is essentially a war economy. The oil industry is taking the biggest hits. Chevron recorded losses of nearly a trillion dollars.

Anthony Garcia19 said:You say the American elite is angry and greedy. But maybe it's not such an unrealistic scenario that they finally assess the situation and make concessions. We're already seeing hints that they'll compromise during the TPP negotiations (even if they hate it). It's possible some new winds will blow through the USA. Not because of sudden altruism, but pure survival instinct. Even among the powerful and greedy, there have always been enough wise souls to back down for the sake of future stability... 🤷

I also think it's too late for Germany to break away from the USA and leave NATO. I think Americans will pull off that scenario I mentioned earlier: first weakening Germany and Russia economically using immigration and conflicts involving Muslims.

Look, they’ve cast themselves as the messianic leaders of humanity. In practice, it means "we have to control everything." They haven't really had any real competition until now. China and Russia are serious contenders.

I've said this before. There are different factions within the USA. It's a constant clash between the military and the banking/financial lobbies. People in America are getting louder about nationalizing the Federal Reserve, which would practically wipe out those rats who create chaos through financial manipulation.

Germany? It isn't too late. Actually, as time passes, opportunities will only increase. We'll see what happens after the 2016 US elections.

Paul Thomas46 said:At the same time—by bringing half the population (aka women) into the workforce—we saw this massive economic surge... a level of prosperity that simply wouldn't be sustainable without everyone working together—both men and women...

Because everyone was finally freed from the grind of basic survival—you know, food, healthcare, education—they could all focus on one thing: figuring out how to swipe someone else's resources... which is exactly what’s been happening for decades. It’s left nations across Africa and Asia stuck in the dark ages—dealing with ignorance and constant dictatorships—and honestly, it makes sense why...
That doesn't exactly absolve them of any responsibility for their own infrastructure—not by a long shot. America has spent thousands of years dealing with constant warfare, famine, and general shortages of just about everything... And at the end of the day, no Martians swooped in to save us with some divine grace—well, there are theories about that, but let's not go down that rabbit hole right now... 🤣).

At the end of the day, everything carries a price tag—though the most expensive costs are usually those paid in things other than cash... When that happens, it’s probably time to start a whole new round...

It seems "fair distribution" just isn't on the menu today—not even close...
Just like everything else in human history—it’s inevitable—this will all end up working out in favor of the wealthy minority. It’s actually pretty funny when you think about it—we Americans, compared to almost everyone else on the planet in terms of population—are basically just a wealthy minority...

That’s really the heart of it. The law of survival is absolute. People are always going to fight over resources.

No media outlet, constitution, law, or UN convention is going to change human nature or how individuals act. Survival comes first. There isn't some magical law that can actually stop you from accessing vital resources.

That’s why every nation defends its assets with actual firepower, rather than fairy tales about international law.

How would leaving NATO actually save Germany? I mean, isn't it probably too late for that anyway?

If they left the NATO alliance, the country wouldn't be occupied anymore, I guess.

Anthony Garcia19 said:Maybe the USA actually wants to avoid that mess, which is why this refugee crisis was manufactured. The goal would be to create a collective resentment toward Muslims across Europe, painting them as the cause of everything wrong with native European life. This creates the necessary motivation and unity for the next big war against Arab and Muslim nations (and no, I haven't been reading Nostradamus! 😉). I'd include Russia in this anti-Muslim alliance too, since it's highly probable that these populations will push into their territory through Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, and Ukraine, where tensions are already simmering.

If the USA, EU, and Russia win that war, they get exactly what they've always dreamed of, and the pie will be big enough to prevent any fighting over the slices.

It won't happen tomorrow, obviously—preparations take years—but this could be the beginning.

A fellow forum member gave me the initial idea on another thread (he'll know who he is if he's reading this!), and I just expanded on it a bit in terms of timing and scale.

Lisa Patel4, what do you think? 🙂

Some people will probably finally see why this refugee crisis started. Germany's only hope is to leave NATO. I've mentioned before that this crisis really ramped up right after the Nord Stream expansion deal was signed.

How would leaving NATO actually save Germany? Isn't it already too late for that? 🤷

We shouldn't rule that out either. Nostradamus spoke of women on the Rhine, a scorched France, and a savior from Central Europe. 🤔

You're wrong about the cake. The American elite is greedy and furious. Their influence depends entirely on the petrodollar, which is being systematically dismantled. If it weren't for nuclear weapons, WW3 would already be raging. That’s why they’re rushing TTIP; the US is desperate for fresh capital that just isn't there anymore.

In reality, we're seeing the collapse of the neoliberal capitalist system. The theory of infinite growth has proven impossible because it fails to account for controlling vital resources. The stock market doesn't feed people; food does. It doesn't run cars; oil does. It doesn't heat homes or power industry. And America doesn't have them anymore. America has run dry on oil, is already importing gas, and those projects in Alaska have been absolute disasters.

It's what I've said before. The US has nothing left to use for blackmail except military force. The global banking system isn't dominantly in Western hands anymore. They can try pulling industry out of China, but that takes years of massive investment, and they don't have the time. That's why they signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, even though it doesn't actually mean much to Americans.

The EU is the largest economy in the world, and that's where the money is that Americans need. Germany realizes that Anglo-Americans are historical rivals and that they rely on Russian energy, so they stay tied to them. Germany will probably try to leave NATO at some point, though I doubt they'll be allowed to.

Muslims aren't really part of the equation here. They're just leverage for blackmail.

For America to maintain global dominance, they need Siberia. Everything else is just too little.

https://investmentwatchblog.com/germ...f-nato-troops/

Well, what some of us predicted ages ago is finally happening. A petition to pull NATO troops out of Germany has officially started.

Maybe people will finally realize why this refugee crisis hit so hard. I guess Germany's only real way out is to exit the NATO pact entirely. I’ve mentioned before that this whole mess really ramped up right after the Nord Stream expansion deal was signed.

That insane population spike is Europe's own fault—or more accurately, it's thanks to those "charity organizations" still running the show today.

Back in the 70s, population growth in Africa was naturally capped by available resources. If a tribe couldn't feed its members on their own land, they didn't have massive amounts of kids. There were internal checks and balances in every tribe, especially if neighbors were strong enough to stop them from expanding.

Then all these European charity organizations stepped in, using photos of starving African children to flood those regions with every bit of material aid possible. Areas where resources could only support 100 people saw populations explode tenfold because of unlimited medical and humanitarian aid from Europe. It creates a cycle of external dependency and constant growth. This is exactly what happens when you have government "aid to developing third world" programs. That's why we're stuck with this mess now.

In Europe, they managed to curb "overpopulation"—which was the big media scare in the 70s and 80s—through birth control and legalized abortion. Meanwhile, they forced an abnormal growth rate in Africa. It's madness...

It's just like how a native European family with five kids is labeled "antisocial," while an immigrant family with the same number is seen as perfectly "normal" and deserving of endless support.

That's what happens when self-proclaimed "scientists" use their "studies" to try and engineer modern humanity, only to trap themselves in a moral pit of their own making...

True. Only, these global architects are being held back by natural laws they can't fix. The planet has limits. Europe has high standards, but it doesn't have the resources to sustain them.

redridge35 said:It's not 2050, though. We're talking 2100. For 2050, the projection is actually closer to 2 billion people.

Yeah, obviously. I mixed up the years. But I guess the point remains the same.