NHPUK Don't Drink the Koolaid

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth
good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast
into the fire

Why is NATO a concern for you and me? – Why is NATO a concern for the
NHPUK? And why is leaving NATO an important policy for the party? These are
things that must be crystal clear.

First and foremost, you cannot have a nationalist vision and remain part of NATO.

In short NATO is part of the Globalist system that seeks a global power
structure.. A One World centralised economic system propped up by One World
governing institutions. That of course means the end of: the Nation State, control
over borders and population, land, property, industry and war and peace.

On a deeper level, Globalism also means the loss of control of the people over
the state, the family as the foundation of society and faith as the guiding light for
people’s lives.

So, was NATO always a Globalist project , was it always part of a ‘One World’
vision? That is not an easy question to answer and beyond the scope of this

Certainly, at the time of its founding it made sense. It was in fact not NATO, it was
the North Atlantic Treaty. A treaty between nations for the common defence,
which later became NATO when the ‘Organisation’ was set up.

Obviously NATO was set up with one thing in mind and that was defence from
the Soviet Union after the Second World War. General Mac Arthur had wanted to
take the war to Russia once Germany had been defeated, but the politicians were
not interested. That the Allies had made a deal with the Devil to defeat Hitler was
clear. It was the UK that at first sought a common defence policy among
European nations and created the Western Union. Later the U.S decided that a
joint ‘anti-communist alliance was in line with their foreign policy and the North
Atlantic Treaty was signed.

Were invisible Globalist forces pulling strings at the foundation of NATO as there
were at the foundation of the EU? That is a question I cannot answer. It is easy to
look back from where we sit today and make a case for it. However, then was
then and now is now. We know for a fact that it was the case with the EU,
because it is written into the founding documents of the Coal and Steel
Community, which is the founding organisation for the EU.

One thing that we have to realise – which is very much relevant to us now, is that
the UK was at the heart of NATO right from the very beginning and still is today.
The British establishment is deeply attached to NATO and that is the reason why
we have been at the heart of keeping the war in Ukraine going.

If the North Atlantic Treaty genuinely started as an alliance of nations to protect
their sovereignty from a big bad beast of an enemy or not, it has been sliding
away from that original foundation.

What is very clear, is that the founding purpose of NATO no longer applied after
1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The threat of the Communist
superpower evaporated almost overnight. The collapse of the Soviet Union also
saw the evaporation of the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet Union’s counterbalance to
NATO in the Eastern European nations left under its influence after the Second
World War.

What emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union was just one Super Power in
the world:- The U.S.A – China was not an issue at the time. The U.S was the boss
of the world, and those elements in the US with a Globalist vision of a ‘New World
Order’ saw their opportunity. A One World Government was now possible. By this
time the Neocons had become influential in Washington, making peace with
Russia as an equal partner was not on the agenda. Integrating Russia into the
European economic and cultural sphere, was also not in the interests of the U.S,
the Neocons and Globalists. By now, the West was being taken over by the
Globalists in a big way. Traditional constitutionalism, Christianity, family values,
had all been under attack since the sixties.

At the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was the issue of East Berlin
and East Germany to be dealt with. President Gorbachov, the architect of the fall
of Communism was assured by western leaders that NATO would not expand
beyond East Germany. Whilst verbal and written assurances were given, no treaty
was made at the time.

Twice, Russia sought to even join NATO itself, and were rejected – Once under
Yeltsin and once under Putin. Russia then and to this day, sought a common
security framework.

In 1997 Russia and NATO established the NATO-RUSSIA COUNCIL and signed the
FOUNDING ACT ON MUTUAL RELATIONS. This act was a commitment not to
tread on each other’s toes basically. However, if you read it you will find that there
is no specific commitment by NATO not to expand. It is a kind of gentleman’s
agreement and that is how the Russians saw it. Russia was in no position to
dictate terms. It is a victor’s treaty in that sense.

Of course, the Russians were very much mistaken if they thought that NATO was
going to hold back on expansion, as nation after nation of the old Warsaw Pact
joined. They looked on in alarm as NATO expanded ever closer to their border on
three fronts.

One thing that was made very clear by Russia, was that Ukraine joining NATO
would be seen as an existential threat and it would be followed by military action.
Western leaders were fully aware of this, but chose to ignore it and Ukraine was
added to the list of nations to join NATO in 2008.

The other issue was Ukraine joining the EU. Whilst Russia technically we’re not
opposed to it, they were not happy and tried to woo Ukraine with their own
economic package. Of course, the issue being that becoming a member of the
EU is almost an automatic pathway to NATO, or at least coming under its

By now NATO has become the de facto military arm of the Globalist powers and
Globalist interests. If there is any doubt about this, the war in Ukraine has
exposed it beyond doubt. Statements by leaders of Globalist organisations have
exposed that they fear that Russia is a threat to the globalist project and must be
dealt with for that reason. Ukraine’s sovereignty is not their overriding concern.

Why are Globalists so invested in Ukraine? There are probably more reasons than
we will ever know. What we do know is that U.S global corporations like
Monsanto are heavily invested in land and resources. The IMF bailed out the
economy in 2014, so Ukraine has a large debt to global financial institutions. Lots
of mineral resources and access to the Black Sea make it a prize for global
corporations. U.S politicians have had financial interests and the U.S government
was conducting biological research in labs across the country. The West is
heavily invested and by extension seeks to bring Ukraine into the Globalist family
via the EU.

What makes it galling for the Russians, is that NATO has been training and
arming Ukraine since at least 2014. Whilst Ukraine is not officially a NATO
country, it is a de facto member even if it is not under article 5, NATO is still able
to project power up to the Russian border.

Whilst NATO started as a defensive alliance, somewhere along the line that
changed. What didn’t change is that Russia is the main focus of its intent.

However, as the military arm of Globalism, NATO’s remit is now growing beyond
Russia. It now has what it calls ‘Partners Across The Globe’ – These are
individual relations with so far, nine nations that it calls: ‘Global Partners of
importance, in a complex security environment’

NATO is also looking at its relations in the Pacific region, as it considers how it is
going to deal with the expanding power of China. In other words, our government
is now part of a Globalist partnership that protects the interests of the Globalist
power brokers. Of course, that doesn’t mean that our nation’s interests are not
always served, but the question is, what is the ultimate purpose? Is it the borders
of our nation and the lives of our people at the heart of our defence policy or
something else.

Throughout history nations and groups of nations have made alliances for
common defence. There is nothing wrong with that. However, they have not
invested their power in a supranational military organisation to uphold them.

When nations become part of supranational governance structures such as the
EU, UN, WHO, WEF etc, then an organisation like NATO will automatically become
an extension of those institutions.
That is why NATO can never be part of a vision for the restoration of National

For most of us, it has been in existence our whole lives and the world without it is
not easy to conceive.

Britain has been so weakened by the globalist, socialist, communist project that
we can hardly stand on our own feet. Militarily, we can barely defend our own
land any more. Our military is designed to support the globalist agenda not
defence of the realm.

Britain throughout its history has been a nation able to produce and have surplus,
which is why the Romans invested in it for 400 years and why the battle for
control of the land was so fierce in the years after they left. Once a unified land, it
became a strong nation in all ways including militarily.

Leaving Globalist organisations and treaties that do not have the interests of our
people at heart is of the highest priority.

That is why the NHPUK policy to leave NATO is not a side issue in its policy
platform, It is central and urgent.