by Guillermo Coletti
P.O. Box 61221
Pasadena CA 91106
e-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org
I have often considered writing about the real purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as I see it, however, lack of means to substantiate a number of my suspicions was a major reason of discouragement. Now I have at my disposal something that can help me break the ice: an American General speaks openly, on national television, on the real reasons for the existence of NATO. What he has to say is quite interesting for the uninitiated as well as for the irreverent and the perennial skeptic. I will use this opportunity to explain same of my initial ideas on this matter.
Adolf Hitler, simultaneously with Mussolini, and other European leaders, was involved in an extraordinary effort to eradicate the threat of Bolshevik tyranny from Europe. The stability of the governments they led was threatened via the USA as much, or perhaps more, than any danger that could have originated in Moscow. When Hitler's defense of Europe was forced into the military alternative the United States made an alliance with Stalin. That to me was an indication that America was becoming friendlier to Communism than to the traditional values of Western Europe. We know that American intervention resulted in a greater and stronger Soviet Russia. The Communists have indeed a debt of gratitude to America for the expansion of Bolshevism. But when the Second World War was over America "agitated" the anti-Communist cause and formed NATO! Why NATO? It all sounded very phony to me because if America had truly stood against Bolshevism it should have joined Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco, instead of Josef Stalin. America, of course, has never admitted to have fought on the wrong side. I can't help but asking myself when was NATO a real problem for the solidity of Soviet Communism? Certainly not when Russian tanks and the Red Army occupied the streets of Prague, or Budapest. The anti-Communism of the American Establishment has always been as serious as an Abbot and Costello movie. However, America's true concern was what Germany represented and what to this day survives in the German. Ellie Wiesel expressed similar sentiments when he advocated that every Jew must have same room in his heart for hatred against the Germans. The great difference between Wiesel and gois Franklin Delano Roosevelt and "Ike" Eisenhower is that Wiesel has expressed his emotions with more sincerity. The real hazard to the American Way, the America of the Gay Pride Parades and Martin Luther King Day, was not Bolshevism but the Traditional Western values that Germany had tried to maintain at the expense of a multitude of sacrifices.
On April 24, 1999, NBC aired John McLaughlin's "One on One." The show had the participation of two guests: Lieutenant General William Odom and Professor Harvey Sapolsky. We are going to review same of the remarks made by General Odom. General William Odom was introduced as a graduate from West Point who obtained his PhD at Columbia. He served in President Carter's National Security Council and during President Reagan's administration in the Office of the Army Chief of Staff for intelligence and for the director of Reagan's National Security Agency. He is currently director of International Security Studies at the Hudson Institute and professor of Public Policy and organization in the Department of Political Science at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he is also the Director of the Security Program. Gen. Odom authored six books, the latest of which is "The Collapse of Soviet Military."
What I have always suspected as the real purpose of NATO was disclosed, much to my surprise, right at the beginning of the show by Gen. Odom: "(NATO) was created not as most people think to defend against the Soviet military threat. The French didn't even mention the Soviet Union in the debate for it. They wanted NATO to deal with the German question. The British wanted NATO to keep the U.S. in Europe." Gen. Odom added, still remarkably candid, that "the expansion of NATO is for the same reason; the German question versus Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary is put to bed if there is a NATO roof over it."
The type of policy advocated by this American General is strikingly similar to the policies the Germans were accused of implementing during the Third Reich era, in the Nuremberg Trials. Here are two more passages of this conversation between McLaughlin and Gen. Odom:
Mr. McLaughlin: Are we supposed to run Europe?
Gen. Odom: It pays. Yes.
Mr. McLaughlin: Why does it pay?
Gen. Odom: You are richer today because of it.
Mr. McLaughlin: Can the United States defend its interests in Europe without NATO?
Gen. Odom: No.
One of Odom's comments brings to public attention a second player in the game, further substantiating the Germanophobic character of NATO: "In 1994, the British foreign secretary said it would be better to have the Russians on the Adriatic than the Germans."
I hope that this brief article will bring some light to those who still don't understand why Dresden was destroyed and why millions of Germans were exterminated in American and Russian concentration camps at the end of the war.
Those who desire to verify the veracity of these quotes can order their own transcript of "One on One" from:
Federal News Service
620 National Press Building
Washington, DC 20045
The 3 June 99 response by Eric Thomson:
Dear Mr. Coletti: Many thanks for your excellent analysis of NATO, as an occupier of Germany, rather than a defender of Europe. I have seen these indications in my own research over the years on such major points as The Cold War Hoax, to wit: the U.S.A. aided in the foundation of the Soviet Union and continued to fund it and feed it until its recent name-change under its kosher commissars now turned capitalist. Then I encountered such minor points as the article of the United Nations Charter that allows any World War II ally to invade Germany unilaterally, at any time. The deployment and equipment of NATO forces was far more appropriate to an occupation force, than it was 'for the defense of Europe'. The fact that the French kicked NATO headquarters out of France was another indication of NATO's true role as occupier of Europe. It is obvious that the undemocratic Zionist occupation regime in Germany would be swept away were NATO to leave or evaporate, for Germans bear the burden of endless tribute to their enemies inside and outside Germany.
During the Soviet era, I advised Germans like Manfred Roeder to beware those who felt obliged to choose the U.S.A. or the U.S.S.R. as German allies, for both were simply the hands of Satan Incarnate, so choosing the left hand or the right hand was no choice at all! Francis Yockey erred in this regard in his own description of "The Enemy of Europe". He believed that the Soviet Union had become free of jew-rule, because Russia's jewish rulers had killed some other jews, just as they have done in Israel, to a lesser extent. Yockey apparently believed that a jew who kills a jew is not a jew. When Meyer Lansky had Bugsy Siegel killed, poor Yockey might have believed that Lansky was not a jew, and since Bugsy was a criminal, his killer must not be a criminal! From this absurdity, one can gather that logic based on wishful-thinking, rather than fact, is dangerous logic indeed.
From my childhood experience in wartime U.S.A., I had no doubt who was the enemy of White Civilization: it was the people of the U.S.A. The Germans were the defenders of White Civilization. Hitler deemed those who appreciate music to have political potential. I appreciate music in the European tradition. Such music quickly vanished after 1945 on U.S. radio stations. As I noted, the Western Allies SEEMED to champion White Civilization, so Whites who fought for the Western Allies were successfully duped into killing the defenders of our civilization in the name of White Civilization! It is cruel irony that Stalin duped Russians into fighting fellow nationalists in the name of nationalism. That is why Soviet propaganda suddenly switched from its promotion of Communist internationalism to the promotion of Mother Russia. Anything to gull the Goyim. After 1945 we could see what we really fought for: the Afro-Asiatic values of Judaism! In musical terms, postwar American culture was dominated by Africa, not Europe, as we see today. The White people served their purpose as the destroyers of their fellow Whites. Now they are being 'phased out' culturally and demographically. The absurd thing is that most Whites seem to enjoy being Africanized and Asianized to extinction. "Our Race We Slew, for the Inner Jew," as I wrote in a little poem about the British, who have served the jews for some four centuries whereas the Americans have served Judeo-British interests for some two centuries.
Most Whites have lost their racial identity under the jewish spell. Many of them identify with their enemies: they applaud non-White victories and side with non-Whites on every issue. If Whites are to survive, along with White Civilization, we must become aware of our racial identity and become pro-White. Afterwards, our successful self-defense will follow logically and naturally.
OUR RACE IS OUR NATION!