There’s no discussion to be had with a reichsfuhrer such as yourself I’m afraid. You simply love the Reich too much to engage in good faith.

🤣 👉

Thanks for the advice obergruppenfuhrer you definitely are perceiving reality as you run defense for the Epstein alliance 🤣 👉

More serious than you and your lies 🤣

“It does not.”

The preamble explicitly commits members to “safeguarding the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.” Lying about an easily verifiable fact isn’t a rebuttal, it’s just embarrassing.

“That’s not imperialism, that’s just capitalism.”

Then you don’t understand how capitalism operates at scale. Military alliances aren’t separate from economic systems, they enforce them. When NATO standardizes procurement, secures trade routes, and backs regime change, it’s not “just capitalism” floating in a vacuum. It’s capitalism with teeth.

“Portugal ‘contradiction’ is from 1950s… I’ll need you draw me a graph”

History doesn’t expire because it’s inconvenient. Portugal used NATO-supplied weapons to wage colonial war into the 1970s. France used NATO intelligence in Algeria. Belgium used NATO logistics in Congo. The alliance didn’t “accidentally” include fascist colonizers, it coordinated with them. That’s not a graph problem; that’s a priorities problem.

“That wasn’t NATO, that was the UN” / “Again, that was the UN” / “Once more, not NATO. That was the US.”

This is dishonest. NATO executed the Yugoslavia bombing campaign under a UN mandate. NATO led the Libya intervention under a UN mandate. The Greece coup was US-backed, yes, but NATO never suspended a fascist junta that violated its own “democratic principles.” You’re splitting hairs to dodge institutional responsibility. When the alliance provides the command structure, intelligence, and logistics, it’s NATO.

“Locking the West into the US-led military economic bloc happened ‘on accident’… It was just laziness and naivete by Europe.”

Sure. And the Marshall Plan was just generosity. US defense contractors didn’t lobby for NATO standardization. Congress didn’t tie aid to arms purchases. This isn’t conspiracy, it’s documented policy. Europe wasn’t “naive”; it was integrated into a hierarchy that served core capital.

“NATO has no capability of imposing sanctions… That’s just capitalism you’re angry with.”

Military power and economic power aren’t separate spheres. NATO secures the conditions for capital to operate: sea lanes, airspace, regime stability. You think finance capital enforces unequal exchange by itself? It doesn’t. It has gunboats. NATO is the gunboat coordination mechanism.

“You’re just ignorant, mate… Read a bit, learn some, then we can talk.”

You lied about the treaty preamble. You dismissed fascist Portugal as “old news.” You pretended NATO had no role in Yugoslavia or Libya because “UN.” You reduced structural analysis to “that’s just capitalism” like the two aren’t intertwined. That’s not good faith engagement. You have only shown deflection, arrogance, and intellectual laziness.

I’m done. I don’t want to waste more time on someone who either can’t engage basic political economy or chooses not to. You’ve made it clear you’re not interested in reality, just the branding. All the best to you.

It’s a straw man? There is no rebuttal because it’s not a position I took? You are so funny 🤣

Nice straw man. Debate pervert🤣 👉

You are not a serious person. 🤣

“Modern imperialism is a specific stage of capitalist development… OK, if you mean ‘imperialism via specifically means of economic pressure’, sure, call it ‘modern imperialism’ or something. But ‘imperialism’ is what I already said it is. Britain was pushing imperialist agendas before capitalism was a thing.”

Again imperialism isn’t just “strong countries pushing weaker ones around.” That’s a surface description, not an analysis. The modern form is structural: monopoly control of capital, export of finance rather than just goods, and a global system where wealth flows upward from subjugated economies to core powers through enforced unequal exchange. Pre-capitalist empires extracted tribute; this system extracts surplus value through debt, trade terms, and military backing. Conflating the two isn’t a rebuttal, it’s just avoiding the actual analysis of the mechanism.

“I didn’t dodge it. I answered it specifically - you have no clue what NATO is. NATO has nothing to do with what political system is running in a member country. It’s a military alliance. Has nothing to do with democracy.”

Then why does the treaty’s preamble commit members to “safeguarding the freedom and common heritage of democratic peoples”? Why were “democratic reforms” mandatory for post-Cold War expansion? You can’t dismiss the values rhetoric when it’s useful, then hide behind “just a military alliance” when the Portugal contradiction hits. Fascist Portugal proved the priority: strategic alignment and capital protection over any real commitment to self-determination.

“The USSR applied to join NATO in 1954. They were rejected. ‘The murderer asked to be let in the house. He was rejected’. Stop gobbling up russian propaganda. The threat was USSR.”

The USSR applied to test whether NATO was about collective defense or containing any state outside Western capital’s orbit. The rejection confirmed the latter. Yes, the Soviet state committed atrocities, but NATO’s function wasn’t moral arbitration. It was to lock Western Europe into a US-led military-economic bloc. The “Soviet threat” was instrumentalized to justify permanent arms spending, discipline allied capitals, and secure markets for Western defense monopolies. That’s in US diplomatic records, not just “propaganda.”

“Show me ONE instance of NATO sending tanks to suppress an independence movement in a country.”

That’s a deliberately narrow frame. NATO doesn’t always need boots on the ground: bombing Yugoslavia in 1999 to break a sovereign state, arming proxies to overthrow Libya in 2011, backing the fascist coup in Greece in 1967. But the deeper point isn’t about direct occupation, it’s about how military hegemony enforces the economic conditions for extraction: debt traps, structural adjustment, resource access. NATO secures the airspace; finance capital does the rest.

“No, the argument is ‘NATO good because they don’t subjugate or attempt genocide’”

That’s a embarrassingly low bar. By that logic, any alliance that doesn’t commit genocide is “good.” Meanwhile, NATO’s actions have enabled mass death through sanctions, bombing campaigns, and destabilization. “Not genocide” isn’t a defense, it’s a deflection from the material function: enforcing a global hierarchy where wealth flows from the periphery to the core.

“I guess discussion is difficult when you’re arguing against reality.”

You called my analysis “propaganda,” told me to “read Wikipedia,” and dismissed structural critique as “talking points.” Don’t pose as the adult when your rebuttal is moral scorekeeping and establishment sources. If you want to debate how the system actually works (finance flows, military backing, unequal exchange) I’m here. But you clearly have a narrative and talking points you like.

we will not take part in the alliance because there is a potential that maybe, who knows, some of the knowledge we shared might be used incorrectly

NATO action and support has only ever been used for bad

Grow up. The world is not black and white, it’s not simple, and people are not all-knowing.

The world may not be black or white but that does not mean all good and bad is equivalent. The US is particularly egregious support for them since 1949 should be shameful and disencouraged where possible. The world would be net better if the US empire crumbled.

No but if you provide them the alcohol knowing they plan to drive you are. You are a debate pervert. Tying yourself in knots to justify unjustifiable evil because you benefit from it.

It’s like saying whoever was the provider of satellite images has “participated in the US bombing” of X

If you provide military intel on targets to a military who then strike them using said intel you are absolutely an accomplice.

“the store owner participated in the killing of XYZ” because he sold someone the knife…

More akin to the store owner killed XYZ by pointing them out to the crazed gunman looking for them.

Ancient Rome was an empire. Modern imperialism is a specific stage of capitalist development: export of finance capital, monopoly concentration, unequal exchange enforced by state power. Mixing them up isn’t a gotcha, it just shows complete illiteracy in the realm of political theory.

You dodged the Portugal point entirely. Fascist dictatorship, founding NATO member, using alliance supply chains to wage colonial war in Africa. France and Belgium same deal. If NATO was about “democracy,” how does that fit? Or do we just ignore the actual history?

And on your “buy weapons from Russia?” joke: the USSR applied to join NATO in 1954. They were rejected. The whole point was to have a permanent external threat to justify massive arms spending, lock in Western defense contracts, and discipline allied capitals.

Also wikipedia isn’t a neutral source on US-led institutions. It’s edited by volunteers, heavily influenced by Western narratives, and routinely policed for “fringe” critiques of state power. Citing it as the final word on NATO is like citing a Pentagon press release and calling it independent journalism.

If the argument is just “NATO good because wiki says so,” then yeah, we’re not having the same conversation. But if you want to engage in actual analysis and conversation like an adult, as opposed to shouting talking points ad nauseum like a petulant child I’m all for that.

Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism defined by the export of finance capital, super-exploitation of subjugated nations, and unequal exchange enforced by state power. NATO was not founded to protect democracy but to secure the geopolitical conditions for Western capital to extract surplus value. The narrative of defending freedom is merely a facade to obscure this class function.

The alliance institutionalized a transatlantic arms market guaranteeing demand for Western arms manufacturers, facilitating finance capital export while enforcing Euro-American hegemony. It standardizes military procurement to ensure profits flow back to core industries, maintaining the superiority required to enforce unequal exchange rates and resource extraction abroad. This is the material function of the organization beyond the rhetoric.

History disproves the democratic pretense immediately. Portugal was a founding member while under a fascist dictatorship, using NATO logistics to wage colonial wars in Africa. France and Belgium, also founders, were violently enforcing colonial rule in Algeria and the Congo at the alliance’s formation. NATO coordinated with these regimes to protect imperial property relations, proving it exists to enforce the global hierarchy that makes super-exploitation possible.

https://theindicter.com/iraq-war-swedish-participation-in-us-bombing-of-baghdad-civilian-shelters/

Who would’ve thought that somebody with an account on an anarchist instance has problems with other people telling them what they can and can’t do?

Sure sounds like you’re against moderation. Or are you just a liar who only cares because it’s about shunning Zionism.

So all moderation is wrong? Also you seem to very clearly not understand what anarchism is beyond the infantile “tyranny of bedtime” surface.

The linked definition doesn’t match with you calling the vote/outcome authoritarian.

Authoritarian/authoritarianisn is so widely defined that literally every country, organisation and movement fits it by necessity in class society

Authoritarian is a pejorative used by idiots to avoid grappling with the reality of one class necessarily suppressing another in class society.

Authoritarian is a basically meaningless word already but “people voting for something I don’t like” is an especially idiotic way to define it.