When did Paul Mason become a turncoat?

It does not matter that Republican-drafted legislation to pull the US out of the United Nations is a gesture: “America first” means what it says. The US designed globalisation, benefited massively from it and imposed it through the twin methods of commercial dominance and military supremacy. Now it is determined to walk away from globalisation, and on its own terms.

But until two weeks ago we were all supposed to be fighting against an American imposed globalisation, weren’t we Paul?

33 comments on “When did Paul Mason become a turncoat?

  1. Everyone hates Daddy until he cuts up the credit cards and moves without leaving a forwarding address.

    Mason is just a fool. He probably can’t even see his inconsistency.

  2. I said that Trump would have the loonies arguing that black is white and up is down.

    I just didn’t think it would happen so fast.

  3. He thinks globalisation was ‘designed’?

    That’s what you get when a music teacher self-identifies as a political economist.

  4. “He thinks globalisation was ‘designed’?”

    When you want to run economies as your own conspiracy, it’s comforting to think they are already run as one.

    It’s a kind of “intelligent design” for the Loony Left.

  5. As we say in Spanish ‘like an octopus in a garage’ (a dark one, one presumes), flailing around trying to come to terms with something he just cannot get his head round.

    Their heads are going the way of those disgusting videos which blew kids apart for whatever… Only it is going to be self-combustion.

    Ho, ho, ho

  6. For Mason his world ended when his alma mater the USSR collapsed – everything he writes has to be seen through that prism. I am surprised he hasn’t yet gone to RT to peddle his theories there.

  7. They never know what they want. Other than everything is sub-perfect and should be protested against and gaining virtue signals as they are ‘good people’.

    Unlike us who chose to hold a different opinion because we chose to be evil

  8. “But Trump regards the Nato mutual defence commitment as a mere suggestion, not a treaty obligation.”

    Which brings us neatly to Van Patten’s observation on the bereavement suffered when the USSR collapsed. After decades spent decrying the U.S. And NATO, marching, protesting, setting up shit camps outside airbase, selling secrets to Russia, they suddenly find themseleves outraged that Trump should be questioning what’s SELF-EVIDENTLY a great thing. Two-faced commie cunts.

    To those with consistent standards NATO is self-evidently a great thing and Trump is self-evidently an arsehole.

  9. It is the same with Ritchie and his econo-loon friends: one week you’re lauding Bernie Sanders and his promise to “protect” jobs the next you’re screaming “imbecile” at the president who starts to put those very promises into action.

  10. abacab said: “When you want to run economies as your own conspiracy, it’s comforting to think they are already run as one.”

    It’s projection. eg ‘Climate sceptics are well connected and well funded and only say what they say because of money’, say the well connected, often taxpayer funded, shills for green socialism.

  11. “To those with consistent standards NATO is self-evidently a great thing and Trump is self-evidently an arsehole.”

    If NATO is so great how come most of its members have consistently failed to meet their defence spending commitment?

  12. “To those with consistent standards NATO is self-evidently a great thing and Trump is self-evidently an arsehole.”

    If one was an American, one might look at NATO as a device where the American taxpayer subsides those lazy European arseholes’ defence requirements. And look kindly on a President who’s had the consistent standards to ask WTF this should continue?

  13. NATO is a great thing for Eastern European countries who benefit from being free riders.

    It hasn’t been a great thing for us since 1991. Bombing Yugoslavia so that Moslem drug dealers and pimps could have their own statelet in Kosovo wasn’t a smart move either.

  14. The fact that the lefties marched, protested, wrote endlessly in the Guardian against NATO tells me what a great thing NATO was and is. The fact that commentators on this blog share those sentiments confirms it.

  15. From who’s perspective, Ironman?
    The American taxpayer showed great generosity in allowing his politicians to continue supporting the interests of European politicians, using his money. For there’s scant evidence the European public particularly cherished their freedoms, by paying for their protection.

  16. Ecks

    Two reasons I stay here:

    1. I do like it here.
    2. You don’t like me here and would shut me up if you could.

    The first reason is very nice; the second just wonderful.

  17. The Left define themselves entirely by their opposition to the Right. If the Right takes one of their policies, they flip positions on it.

  18. Ironman: “You don’t like me”

    You got that bit right.

    ” here and would shut me up if you could.”

    Because your voice is the unspoken heartbeat of the teeming millions and must be silenced at all cost ?

    You ramble on all you like-

    “Those medals you wear on your moth-eaten chest
    Should be there for demented punctuation at which you are best”.

  19. “The fact that the lefties marched, protested, wrote endlessly in the Guardian against NATO tells me what a great thing NATO was and is. The fact that commentators on this blog share those sentiments confirms it.”

    Well I don’t take a position for something just because the left is against it or vice versa, ditto Trumps position on something.

    The USA had good reason to fund NATO as part of its cold war with the USSR but also to try to stop European countries falling out with themselves, again, and dragging it in to yet another European war.

    The rules of the game have just changed. It still has the chance to be a great organisation, again, but European countries need to decide if they are prepared to pay their fair dues for their own defence, if not why should the US tax payer?

    I would like to see NATO continue and suspect this is all part of Trump’s negotiating stance, but if we don’t want to spend on our own defence I can at least understand why the USA isn’t prepared to pay for it.

    If I were Trump my next move would also be to tell the laggards that not only do they have to start coughing up now, but they had better back date those cheques (or checks as he would say) at least 15 years.

  20. abacab

    It’s a kind of “intelligent design” for the Loony Left.

    And the Designers are the Hidden Capitalist Illuminati who control Davos, the Trilateral Commission…cont’d p94.

  21. “When the EU sets up its own military, what will NATO’s role be?”

    To wipe the EU’s clowns out before tea-time.

    Tho’ the Girl Scouts could probably do that without help.

  22. Ironman:

    “Two reasons I stay here…”

    Stick around. You’re welcome. Which is not to say I always agree with you…

  23. TiS

    NATO is a great thing for Eastern European countries who benefit from being free riders.

    According to NATO it isn’t the Eastern Europeans who are the free riders: the 12 lowest spenders (as share of GDP) include Germany, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy, Canada, Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg. The twelve highest spenders include Estonia, Poland, Lithuania, Romania, and Latvia.

  24. dcardno – fair point. And defence spending as a % of GDP is, of course, the metric NATO uses.

    However, does it really matter if, say, Estonia spends 2% of its GDP, or 20%, or 0.2% on defence?

    They’re never going to pull their weight in NATO, because they’re Estonia. A stray cat would represent a credible military threat to them.

    I can see the appeal of NATO to them. What do we get out of being obliged to defend Estonia though?

  25. Well – it’s the metric everyone uses, because it’s the only one that makes sense – it indicates a population’s willingness to defend themselves, or at least to sacrifice to make the effort. I disagree that (say) Estonia isn’t “pulling their weight” if they spend (say) 4% of GDP on defense. First, ‘pulling their weight’ indicates some comparison to ability to pay, and second, the value of the target is probably somewhat related to the value of production in the country in question.
    As to “what do we [I assume British] get out of the obligation to defend Estonia?” You get an ally who is in the path that Russian tanks will take across the north European plain. You get someone who might slow down that advance, so that it stops in Poland or Germany, rather than at Calais. In the event short of that extreme, you may get a couple of regiments of a reasonably trained professional army to assist in whatever actions your government might decide to undertake.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.