Does Nick Dearden actually read his own pieces?

Now we know what “global Britain” means. Optimists have clung to Theresa May’s phrase in the hope that Brexit might avoid falling into insularity and isolation; that a hint of liberal England might survive Brexit. But with May in Saudi Arabia, Philip Hammond trying to build empire 2.0 in India, and trade secretary Liam Fox visiting Gulf tyrants and a Philippines president busy wiping out his own citizens, we can rid ourselves of such illusions.

History repeats itself first as tragedy then as farce, said Marx. Certainly there is something ridiculous about May, Fox and foreign secretary Boris Johnson scampering around the world as if the last 150 years hadn’t happened, dreaming of a military presence east of Suez while clearly desperate for a deal with any human-rights-abusing dictator that will meet them. But it is no less frightening for that. A ruling elite tortured by its inability to rule the world, which believes such a role is its birthright, can still make dangerous decisions.

“Global Britain”, the international component of Brexit, is just such a decision. It is a strategy that the hard right has dreamed of for decades. We will be the financier and arms merchant to dictators. We will be the trading centre for financial products too dangerous for European standards. We will be the premier investment hub for the emerging super rich of the developing world, where everything can be bought for a good enough price. Britain is for sale, and we don’t much care who is buying.

All of that running around the world may or may not be a good thing. Meeting lots of dusky Johnny Foreigners and asking whether they’d like to buy our lovely Maxim guns, agreeing that they can come and trade, no worries about skin colour or national origin, in our marketplaces.

Hey, make up your own minds about the desirability or not of that.

But it’s not exactly insularity and isolation now, is it?

Last week, development secretary Priti Patel opened the London stock market and promised to use British aid to expand the City’s financial tentacles into Africa as a great “development partner”.

That’s insular isolation?

And this is where Dearden shows he’s a twat:

And what sort of society is this is likely to create? While this pomp and wealth is enjoyed by the government overseas, it presides over a society where public services are collapsing, homelessness is more visible by the day, social divisions become deep canyons. The domestic implications of “global Britain” will only pour salt into these wounds. A service economy for the corrupt super rich has no need of well paid and fulfilling employment, or a healthy and educated workforce. It needs cleaners and baristas, and call centre operatives and fast food workers. It needs them to be cheap and plentiful. Everyone else will have to survive on jingoism and blaming migrants for their problems.

The best paid jobs in Britain are in the financial services in The City, nu? It’s our biggest export sector, most productive industry…..

15 comments on “Does Nick Dearden actually read his own pieces?

  1. Disgraceful socialist cockrot.

    “Friends with dictators” from the sanctimonious gang with 150 million murders under their belt.

    Horseshit about “the Homeless” from middle class marxiands who wouldn’t give you the skin off their shite. Dress up like a dosser and go up to Dearden’s door begging for a handout and see what will happen. You might get a cup of tea in the cells–I don’t tjink you will find yourself being offered same in his drawing room. Or Pol’s –or any of the CM establishment.

    As for weapons we already supply them to dictators of one kind or another–which is most of the planet outside the white, free-market(ish) West. Blair and Broon were not exactly against the trade as I recall.

  2. Someone will always sell the weapons. Despite the cries of, “the West armed Saddam!”, his inventory was full of Warsaw Pact gear.

    At least when the Iranians went down the wrong path, the Americans had the option to stop providing spare parts for their F-14 jets.

    It is all a bit distasteful, admittedly.

  3. It’s almost as if he prefers insular isolation, then we would not have to engage with those nasty, messy, furriners.

  4. Don’t know why socialist types can’t be honest with themselves and just come out and say: we really don’t like darkies.

  5. Usual conflation of issues. Export policy has sod all to do with homelessness or the vague “social divisions”.

    Same on the schools issue: VAT on private schools has nothing to do with free school meals; we don’t hypothecate tax like that.

  6. A service economy for the corrupt super rich has no need of well paid and fulfilling employment, or a healthy and educated workforce. It needs cleaners and baristas, and call centre operatives and fast food workers. It needs them to be cheap and plentiful. Everyone else will have to survive on jingoism and blaming migrants for their problems.

    This is very confusing. He is a socialist writing in the Guardian. Generally importing cleaners and baristas, cheap and plentiful, has been the whole fucking point. Yet these simply prop up an economy for the corrupt super rich. So is the Guardian beginning an historic 180 degree flip over mass immigration?

  7. The new game of the 21% is to pretend that Brexit has been the trigger point for all sorts of horrid things that have in truth been around for years.

    So the previously woke Daily Mail now feels emboldened enough to objectify female politicians’ legs. Meanwhile Britain’s foreign policy in the Middle East, in the past so ethical and clean, is now greedy and careless of human rights.

  8. As well as the trigger point for all sorts of horrid things that aren’t really happening much, that have in truth not been significant issues for years.

  9. It needs cleaners and baristas

    Following the link, I get this banner at the bottom of my screen:

    For less than the price of a coffee a week, you could help secure the Guardian’s future. Support our journalism for £5 a month.

    Where could you find a more compelling argument for deporting all those baristas patronised by Guardian types and the corrupt coffee culture they underpin?

  10. It is the people who presume to tell the Third World what they can and cannot do who pine for Empire. It is those who do not have a proper appreciation of the weakness of modern Britain and its inability to force Third World dictatorships to adopt our values who have not noticed the withdrawal from East of Suez.

    A proper understanding of the end of Empire is to accept nothing we can do can change them. We may as well sell them whatever they want to buy. Because we should be solely concerned with British jobs.

  11. “Don’t know why socialist types can’t be honest with themselves and just come out and say: we really don’t like darkies.”

    Absolutely spot on. Its there right through all the Left’s attitudes like the name in a stick of rock. Fundamentally they think dark skinned people are stupid and incapable of behaving ‘properly’ so must be held to lower standards than the white man, and anyone who deals with them on an equal basis is ‘lowered’ to their standards. Hence why the Left love foreign aid – it plays to their sense of superiority.

  12. I’m glad I read that piece from Dearden, so I now know never to read anything by the cvnt ever again. I had the misfortune to click through to his picture as well – he sports a convincing Hannibal Lecter type of expression.

  13. “But with May in Saudi Arabia, Philip Hammond trying to build empire 2.0 in India, and trade secretary Liam Fox visiting Gulf tyrants and a Philippines president busy wiping out his own citizens, we can rid ourselves of such illusions.”

    These are not modern countries because their economies are basically about land, like 16th century England or early 20th century Korea. You get rich there much like in those days – you kill the bloke next door and steal his land. And until people understand that, they’ll never understand why trying to fix the middle east is so futile.

    The only approach to the middle east is putting in bastards that like us, and then selling them as much overpriced stupid garbage (weapons, skyscrapers, snow domes) as possible. There is no better outcome.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.