By Stanley Collymore
What a grotesque misnomer, eh?
As someone who’s been actively involved in Academia for a significant part of my life and who despite my specific forte being English have a great love for and interest in history, I nevertheless unequivocally support the notion that residents, and not just citizens, of every country should know not only the history of the country that they’re residing in but also that of other countries as well, regardless of whether it puts their own country or others in a good or bad light; since the important issue at stake is the truth and by knowing that and understanding it can, in my view, lead to a better understanding between peoples and nations.
Significantly too moving to another country for whatever reason and hoping to live and work there permanently should also be a necessity to learn as much as possible about that country, its people, history and way of life. For it not only gives one a true feel of what they’re getting themselves into but can equally pave the way for social cohesion as well as other forms of integration on the part of that migrant to the land of their choice.
That said, if the leaders and other influential parties within that host country don’t approach this particular matter in the same straightforward manner but choose instead to embark on xenophobic and revisionist attitudes to those who enter their midst never mind their own penchant, past as well as ongoing present, to migrating to and even taking over wholesale and/or exploitatively the lands that these immigrants come from, then that isn’t only hypocritical but also downright pernicious, and can and invariably does sow the seeds of resentment and antagonism. So I’m all in favour of people getting themselves informed, but the information that’s churned out to them or which they explore and find out for themselves should be based on facts not fiction.
The current 2013 British government aided and abetted by many MPs and comparable legislators in the House of Lords along with the licence fee propped up BBC, other corporate and so-called mainstream media together with significant sections of the brain-dead: those whom these vested interested media organizations recurrently, collectively and all so easily manipulate and brainwash think that we should have a Citizenship Test for those who want to come and live in Britain.
What they don’t say however is that this test should be restricted to others not those that come here because one or both of their grandparents left or were carried from these shores when they were infants, never returned to Britain having lived the life of Riley in stolen lands and continents like the USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, for example, instigated and propped up the apartheid system in South Africa or Zimbabwe or ruled large chunks of the globe without the consent of its indigenous people. In other words people they don’t consider to be like them or who aren’t their so-called kith and kin.
The stark irony being that many of these people as well as those that are championing their cause to have no restrictions placed on them coming here, is that few of them have any clue whatsoever of the real history of this land we call Britain and furthermore as several empirical and independent tests have already and repeatedly shown would individually and collectively be quite hard-pressed to answer correctly or even know the answers to the same questions that they arrogantly demand that immigrants to Britain should know.
Now this doesn’t in itself negate the fact that immigrants of all descriptions: and the definition of an immigrant is someone who migrates to a country or place that he or she wasn’t born in or hadn’t been to before and has absolutely nothing to do with one’s ethnic background, racial origin, skin colour, or a perverse and selective choice of where this immigrant/non-immigrant, based entirely on prejudice, comes from.
And if you ask me the overwhelming majority of white Britons living in countries abroad, whether these were brutally and often savagely stolen from their original owners or are simply the choice of living space for expatriate white Brits, would be flummoxed and even terribly pushed to give even the most rudimentary account of the history of those countries they’re living in. But what the hell; nothing wrong on their part as they see it or for that matter that of their kith and kin in the UK that can effortlessly saunter off to these same lands without Citizenship Tests of any kind being applied to them, and with their pot calling the others’ kettle black!
Out of curiosity and for the record David Cameron: how many white Britons to the US, the latest one in the offing being David Miliband brother of the Leader of the Labour Party as well as Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition in the House of Commons, and both of them the sons of World War II Jewish refugees to Britain; or come to that any of our other Caucasian subjects, as we don’t have citizens in the UK as you well know David Cameron, to white colonialist outposts like Australia or Canada have any requirement placed on them to take a citizenship test or have ever been obliged to participate in one in order to go to these enduring remnants of a past British history that is far from exemplary?
Moreover Britain like the rest of Europe is still significantly Caucasian in composition and without exception across the entire length and breadth of the European continent every government there is white! In marked contrast the indigenous people of the US, NZ, Australia or Canada, just to name four stolen countries, don’t get the chance to play any part in the administration of their indigenous lands far less are their opinions sought on who comes to live in them; and we all know exactly who those immigrants are, what their skin colour is, and where they habitually come from. Why Europe of course!
So tell me truthfully what’s Europe’s problem and specifically that, from the perspective of what I’m outlining here, the UK’s when we actually need immigrants to save our asses financially and help rebuild this country as they did post World War II? Having fought and died for us when they didn’t have to, and could have simply adopted the attitude taken by the Irish Republic that curried favour with Nazi Germany against Britain on the vindictive basis of my enemy’s enemy being my friend. And to such a degree that Winston Churchill even wanted to attack it because of this.
But these altruistic “immigrants” although they were very much themselves under the colonialist and imperialist jackboot of the British Empire, no different in my view from what Nazi Germany was blatantly doing across the European mainland, didn’t adopt Eire’s stance did they? Neither did they charge Britain a single penny for coming to its assistance! What short or convenient memories Britain’s so-called indigenous population, that’s akin to calling Arabs resident in Africa indigenous to that continent, have!
In the meantime, Britain’s much admired bosom pal, the United States which continues to use the United Kingdom for its own selfish and imperialist ends, having belatedly entered the war but only doing so after Japan at Germany’s behest had attacked Pearl Harbour, and with its own population, which prior to that Japanese attack wasn’t only pro-Nazi in sentiment but knew that these opinions were rife and shared universally across the USA, charged Britain an arm and a leg for its so-called help; the capital and exorbitant interest of which consecutive British governments didn’t manage to finally pay off until 2002.
Some friend in need; I must say! I’ll help you buddy, but it’ll cost you!
In marked contrast, how much did India that raised armed forces totalling two million in number, the largest ever assembled armed forces in the history of mankind or the other colonies of the then British Empire that like India also voluntarily contributed hundred of thousands of armed farces of their own to fight on Britain’s behalf charge for their services and sacrifices?
ZILCH!
Yet any white yank, even though the US armed forces though officially racially segregated, a state of affairs which their racist top brass in several instances were able to cajole some local authority, Home Office and even Ministry of Defence officials within Britain to emulate, weren’t exclusively white can to this day saunter into this country of ours as they like, Black Americans can’t though, and even run it, as the US administration routinely does; with our buffoon legislators obsequiously acting as their eager surrogates, and not a word of Citizenship Tests for them is ever contemplated let alone crosses the subservient lips of our brave and noble legislators.
Which brings me to my history lesson in order to put a true perspective into actual British history and at the same time let the colonialist architects of this Citizenship Test: posh, rich and in politics, know that there are some of us out here who’re actually conversant with the true history of Britain. Admiral Nelson features in it and quite rightly so in my opinion, but Nelson’s Column in London, corruptly, totally dishonestly and quite falsely portrayed as the symbolic, patriotic and archetypal British icon it’s supposed to be is far from being the case.
The first ever Nelson Column and Trafalgar Square were commissioned and created in Barbados. No you’re not dyslexic nor are you hallucinating. YES, BARBADOS!! That’s what I said. In 1813 to be precise, when the parliament of Barbados: England’s first and only autonomous colony set up in 1625 - there was no United Kingdom then, voluntarily staying so until the 30th November 1966 when the government and people of the island opted for independence from Britain, the parliament of Barbados established in 1639, making it the second oldest continuous parliament in the world after that in Westminster London, together with the inhabitants of that country commissioned and voluntarily paid for a statue as well as a piece of land directly in front the House of Assembly, as the Barbados Parliament is known, which would be named Trafalgar Square and where the statue was to be permanently located.
That original statue was erected in 1813; and the first ever Trafalgar Square, where it was located as planned and still stands to this day, was also inaugurated at the same time. Barbados’ Trafalgar Square kept its name until after the island’s independence in 1966 when the Barbados government with the full blessing of the island’s inhabitants renamed it Heroes Square to honour all those who in a diversity of ways had made notable contributions to the stature of Barbados, but the statute of Admiral Nelson atop Nelson’s Column are still located at their original site.
Some time after the original Nelson’s Column was established in Barbados the people of Bermuda, another English Caribbean colony, followed suit and honoured Admiral Nelson as the Barbadians had done; the second country to do so. But it wasn’t until 27 years after the original Nelson’s Column and Trafalgar Square were established in Barbados’ capital city of Bridgetown that Britain eventually came on board and set up an exact copy of the Nelson Column and Trafalgar Square found there in London itself.
But what fundamentally pisses me off about this is that successive British governments, including the current one which is pushing these British Citizenship Tests and using Nelson’s Column and Trafalgar Square as one of their core questions of archetypical Britishness that is evidently not the case in respect of either Nelson’s Column or Trafalgar Square, and furthermore arrogantly as well as ignorantly doing so without any reference whatsoever to the origin or real history of either of these two monuments, have deliberately done absolutely nothing to dispel the myth that that both of these creations were sheer “indigenous” British ingenuity and patriotism at work!
And I’ve even come across white Britons on holiday in Barbados who on seeing Nelson’s Column and the former Trafalgar Square located in Bridgetown have instinctively and conceitedly adopted the condescending attitude in reference to Barbados of “monkey see, monkey do!” Never in their wildest imaginings ever thinking far less believing that that reference is much more applicable to Britain than it ever could to Barbados or Bajans for that matter. But then nothing is ever known or considered to be important by such mindless assholes until it’s sanctioned by whites. And another key instance of this is the so-called Victoria Falls in Africa, supposedly discovered by Livingstone; never mind that countless generations of Africans, particularly those living next to it, would have been very cognisant that it was there.
Which begs the rather relevant question: who the hell is David Cameron or for that matter the other British xenophobes kidding? Twenty Seven Years Later! And not even the second but actually the third such Nelson’s Column to be erected!! Either Britons at the time weren’t as patriotic as those historical revisionists in our midst are trying to make out or else with wars between Britain and its perennial old enemy France such a commonplace feature it wasn’t that newsworthy an issue to be celebrated in the manner that the Barbadians saw fit to.
But it’s not just the Nelson Column thing that bugs me or the complete dishonesty which clearly surrounds it; it’s the entire revisionist project which is at play here by racist xenophobes who to be charitable to them in dumbed-down Britain, and most particularly so in England, don’t have a clue about the real history of this country of ours. That said, making icons out of people who aren’t, Jimmy Savile readily comes to mind, and distorting historical facts to suit their own racist agendas are what the British elites and a largely subservient and fatuous public are especially good at.
Take Winston Churchill for example: the architect of the concentration camp used for the first time ever in South Africa against the Boers and in turn used quite extensively by the Germans in their two holocausts against the people of their then colony of South West Africa, now an independent Namibia; and was the precursor for the Germans’ later holocaust in Europe that ad nauseum we all know a great deal about but bugger all by the majority of British people of what happened in these two African holocausts, which the Germans at the turn of this century belatedly apologized for but made no compensation in respect of as they did relative to what occurred in Europe.
This despite the fact that the entire Witbooi people of Namibia were totally eradicated and 80% of the Herero in that same country suffered the same fate. But we all know that Black lives don’t rate the same as Caucasian ones! In the twisted minds of white racists and supremacists that is.
In 1910, as Home Secretary, Winston Churchill, a staunch eugenicist all his life, put forward the proposal that a minimum of 100,000 Britons to start with: namely from among the working class but who he termed “mental degenerates” should be dispatched to state-run labour camps and there be sterilized. This action he maintained would take place in the name of saving the “British Race.” His sort that is from inevitable decline, as these “inferior” specimens, his labelling of these people, breed profusely and his proposition would preclude this from happening.
And while our leaders and so-called mainstream media: stenographers rather than journalists who regurgitate everything that they’re told because they’re too bloody lazy to get off their sedentary asses and actually do some proper investigative journalism and fact checking enthusiastically take to castigating Saddam Hussein for gassing the Kurds of Iraq, guess who was there first? Good old Winston Churchill whose gassing of these same people by the RAF was the first of its kind and predated Saddam Hussein’s by 70 years. In fact Saddam wasn’t even born at the time.
And in 1944 Winston Churchill was at his murderous preoccupation again when he seriously asked his military chiefs to consider using poison gas on the Germans,” or any other method of warfare we have hitherto refrained from using.” Unlike 1919 however his proposal was declined. I wonder why? As if I didn’t already know! Because the Germans, you see, even though they were acting as barbarically as they were, were WHITE and the Kurds were not? But it didn’t stop the firebombing and “war crime”, something that quite ironically the British at the end of World War II instituted to indict and execute German leaders and military personnel for but not their own war criminals like Winston Churchill who were deemed heroes, by the RAF of Dresden, even with Germany already on its knees and about to surrender.
Speaking about the Aborigines of Australia, and I find this most appropriate in the wake of David Cameron’s British Citizenship Test, this is what Winston Churchill had to say: “I do not agree that a dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a long time. And I do not admit for an instance that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. Furthermore I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more world-wise race, to put it that way [Caucasians in effect] has come in and taken their place.”
There’s much more elsewhere, if you’ve the balls to research and check it out, of this nauseating stuff from a man that many in Britain are still gutless apologists for and see as some kind of noble icon , like the letter he wrote to his close soul mate the Italian dictator and fascist Benito Mussolini in 1927; an extract from which reads: “If I had been an Italian I’m sure I would have been entirely with you from the beginning to the end of your victorious struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism.” And after World War II Winston Churchill still found room in his heart for the Italian dictator; this despite Italy’s close alliance during the war with Hitler’s Germany against Britain and the Allies, explaining his attitude the British Parliament in 1940 in these words: “I do not deny that he [Benito Mussolini] is a great man but he became a criminal [but only then] when he attacked England.”
Benito Mussolini’s “criminality for attacking England aside”, Churchill certainly took note of the Axis tactics [those methodically employed by the Third Reich and its Allies including Mussolini’s own Italy], cavalierly observing that “everyone was bombing civilians. It’s simply a question of fashion,” Churchill rather insensitively explained, “similar to that of whether short or long dresses are in.” Churchill must have been a slave to fashion because in 1943 he ordered the wholesale fire-bombing of Hamburg; Dresden would follow later and ironically as stated earlier almost at the end of the war when Germany was already on its knees and about to surrender.
Even when the outcome of the war was inevitable and independence for India and the rest of the Indian sub-continent was an inevitable conclusion it was Winston Churchill who still vehemently opposed India’s independence and that of the other countries in the region, regarding the retention of colonial India as essential and an integral part of the British Empire as well as vital to England’s sphere of influence globally.
Likewise it was Winston Churchill who lobbied enthusiastically for and succeeded in persuading Roosevelt and Stalin to create the UN in its present guise and block the entry of newly independent states, which were all non-white, from being part of that organization on the specific racist pretext that “the UN wasn’t for subject peoples.”
Furthermore throughout his entire life up until his death Winston Churchill was an active supporter and fervent member of the eugenicist movement; the same supposedly inherent white-Caucasian and specifically European, racial superiority perception with its automatic entitlement to global domination of the rest of the world’s population and their natural resources; attitudes that were also passionately shared and espoused by fascists and Nazis alike across the European continent and formed a central plank of Germany’s Third Reich’s political and social doctrine.
And how very ironic that the inspirational poem which Winston Churchill used in his propaganda speeches was written by a BLACK Jamaican, with Churchill apparently unaware of this not only at the time but throughout the rest of his life! Some great leader!! Nothing more in my opinion than a bloody robotic mouthpiece who either didn’t have the intellect, commonsense or even the curiosity to research what he was so copiously plagiarizing for his own aggrandizement, and from someone belonging to a race which he asininely regarded as immeasurably inferior to his own? But that’s Britain’s warped and grotesquely inbred aristos for you!
And these are the kind of so-called leaders then and now with their perverse sense of entitlement that the rest of us should bow and scrape to, put on pedestals and fashion into laudable icons. Well, be my guest and proceed in this manner if you want to, but no prizes for guessing who definitely won’t be joining you in this loathsome enterprise. Since from my personal perspective Winston Churchill like many of his British prime ministerial successors are on a par with the likes of Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Pinochet and all the other barbaric hooligans who at some time or other have regrettably in their regional or even global sphere of influence discernibly exerted undue influence in this world that we all must share but because of our own mortality can never, no matter how powerful, rich or influential we become, ever own it. And it would be wise to remember that!!
Returning to David Cameron’s British Citizenship Test let’s not forget for a moment that this sort of thing is grist to his personal mill and very much in his political and racial DNA. For this was the very same man who as the public relations guru and campaign manager for Michael Howard when the latter was leader of the Conservative Party and essaying to be PM of Britain that came up with this couched but unequivocal racist and xenophobic slogan about immigrants: “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?” Interestingly enough David Cameron has never apologized for it although it was widely criticized; but then why on should he? After all, does the Cosa Nostra ever apologize for being mafia criminals?
What tickled my sense of humour then and still characteristically does whenever I see the likes of David Cameron getting atop their dishonest soapbox is their rampant and blatant hypocrisy. For in Michael Howard’s case two things unhesitatingly come to mind. He’s of Romanian stock, the very same people whom David Cameron and his privileged, posh-boy and financially exclusive, fellow xenophobes are now rather relentlessly targeting as unbefitting immigrants to Britain. Furthermore, Michael Howard’s - an anglicized surname and not his Romanian one – parents were World War II Jewish refugee immigrants to Britain. His mother supposedly came into the country legally but his father didn’t.
In fact, having been discovered to be an illegal immigrant Michael Howard’s father was kicked out of Britain but so determined was he to be here he sneaked back in, again illegally, but was allowed to stay here this time largely because I suspect of what most Britons knew was happening to Jews in mainland Europe. However, prior to their coming here as immigrants neither of Michael’s future parents notwithstanding that both of them were Romanians had previously met or even knew of the other’s existence, and in fact it was here in Britain where this happened. So without this fortuitous event Michael Howard would not have existed far less be in a position to be racist or xenophobic towards others that come to Britain for perfectly legitimate reasons; as many of his kind who were slaughtered Europe-wide in Nazi and Fascist death camps would attest to, if only they could!
But repulsive bastards like Michael Howard are what one can best describe as gingo-narciscists; if it’s happening to them and they’re on the receiving end then the entire world must sympathize and assist them all it can but other than that they’re not ever going to expend their time, energy or their empathy on others whom they quite indefensibly and illogically despise even though these victims’ plight might be far worse than their own ever was.
Even so Michael Howard isn’t alone in this and there are similar recalcitrant cretins, sadly many of them with Jewish backgrounds as well, who happily reside in this vitriolic and insidious cesspit. I think of course of the likes of Melanie Philips: an arch-Zionist, aggressive neo-con, xenophobe and racist extraordinaire, and those are her redeeming features, who works as a rightwing columnist for the Daily Mail, which for those of you who don’t know is owned by an elite British family whose Nazi and Fascist credentials throughout World War II coupled with their poisonous and unabashed antipathy towards Jews generally and their enthusiastic support for what was happening to them in mainland Europe and wanted to see the same happening to their kind here in Britain, is legendary and makes the statements and actions of Josef Goebbels look pretty anodyne; and in the process, I must say, literally causes people like me whose father and other close relatives fought, and in some instances sacrificed their lives ridding Europe of these scum-doctrines, to very much want to puke.
The utterly sickening thing about Melanie Philips and her sort is that while they seize every chance presented them and waste no time regaling the world, or more properly put the like-minded cretins who pay any notice, that is, to what they have to say in regards to how terrible Europe’s holocaust was, which we all know as we have close family members that courageously fought against it, then dishonestly and venally wrap the mantle of this dastardly atrocity firmly around themselves to give a twisted and perverse credibility that as Jews they alone have the exclusive right to be perennial victims and to benefit in every way from that, they somehow can’t get it into their entirely selfish, narcissistic and egotistical skulls that other people can be and quite often are legitimate victims and also need the same kind of compassion, understanding and support, both from a moral and physical standpoint, that these odious Zionist clowns reserve for themselves.
The same criticisms levelled at Melanie Phillips - who is quite asininely giving succour to a family and a newspaper that wanted her kind wiped off the face of the earth, with the sole difference now being that today’s victims for pragmatic reasons on the Daily Mail’s part are others and not Jews, (although leopards never or more appropriately can’t change their spots or the Daily Mail its DNA) is that were they still Jews that would undoubtedly in a Zionist run world be suicidal for the Daily Mail’s owners and they, believe me, are the consummate survivors – is also applicable to London’s Mayor Boris Johnson.
For here is a man whose views are identical to those of Melanie Philips and who portrays himself as the quintessential Englishman: Eton and all the rest of it, when in actuality his roots are the most mongrelized of any which I’ve ever researched. For beginning with Russian Kazar they work their way through western central Asia, eastern, western and southern Europe and encompass Turkey as well. Quite diverse I would say by any definition of that word; and while I applaud Boris Johnson for having such a diverse DNA, albeit involuntarily so on his part, and consider him no more so or any less of an Englishman as I am, that’s where he and I part company. For rather than lauding this extensive diversity that has landed him in Britain, facilitated him becoming Mayor of London and as some pundits speculate a possible PM of Britain/England, depending on whether or not Scotland quits the United Kingdom, other than Michael Howard, Melanie Phillips et al Boris Johnson could not be any more xenophobic in my opinion. And how sick, perverse and pernicious is that!!
The bottom line as I see it with these people is that everyone they xenophobically don’t like are immigrants, never mind their own specific ethnic roots or cultural backgrounds or where these are actually embedded. Previously anyone in possession of a black or brown skin, as far as these nerds were concerned, was routinely considered to be an immigrant regardless of whether they were born in the UK or how long they lived in the country, or even whether or not they were invited here by the British government to help post-war Britain back on its feet.
Now several of these people have re-emigrated overseas, invariably back to their own countries of origin and in many instances have also been followed by children or grandchildren who were born, raised and educated in the United Kingdom. So those remaining tend more often than not to be in the category of third and even fourth generational non-white Britons. And even though they’re still seen by recalcitrant xenophobes and racists as immigrants this is very much a minority attitude and not universally held by your average run-of-the-mill xenophobe and racist in the United Kingdom, who know perfectly well that were one to scrutinize their own biological roots their much vaunted Englishness would instantly be found to be without much if any credibility at all to their somewhat spurious claims. In this regard the called English Defence League (EDL) and UKIP readily come to mind.
So effectively and somewhat pragmatically prevented from mounting a credible xenophobic attack on Black or Asian British born men or women but still very much buoyed up with their pernicious hatred of strangers and those whom they deem as outsiders, and bizarrely so in a country that is the most mongrelized of them all in Europe, these xenophobes and racists, the latter expression being rather idiotic in itself since one cannot logically be racist against someone of their own race, quite conveniently change not their intolerable direction as they should but their emphasis to include the likes of Romanians and Bulgarians who aren’t only white like themselves but also fellow members of the European Union. And for no other reason that I can detect other than the fact that these quite odious xenophobes, just like drug addicts, need to have their xenophobic and racist fix.
On Thursday night, 5 April 2013 I tuned in to watch the 10.30 pm BST airing of the Press Preview on Sky TV. The invited guests were Ken Livingstone former Mayor of London and David Mellor a government minister in a prior Tory government and an MP in the House of Commons. Inevitably what habitually and idiotically passes for informed discussion in this segment of Sky News turned to the issue immigration into Britain. And this is a summary of what this prized moron Mellor who even physically looks like an imbecile had to say on the matter. Laying out the welcoming mat for Poles who he says he didn’t mind having in Britain regardless of how many of them were here and seemingly unaware of the fact that many of these Poles are now returning home in droves as living conditions and wages significantly improve in their homeland, David Mellor then ranted on about his distaste for Romanians and Bulgarians who he didn’t want anywhere near our cherished island.
Then implying, without a shred of evidence to support his grotesque contention, that they would all be scroungers of our welfare and other services without contributing anything in return to the UK, he then made the quantum leap into his perverse and somewhat perverted fantasy by assuring us all that these would-be Romanian and Bulgarian migrants to the United Kingdom weren’t like us or the Poles and weren’t imbued with the same social ethics or civilized code of conduct as the rest of us, but were in effect ingrained in, his words, “a criminal subculture” that would be inimical to the interests of Britain and those of us fortunate to be in it.
As I listened to not in the least surprised but nevertheless dumbstruck by the remarks of this prized asshole as he cheerfully but unchallenged mouthed off his opinionated and xenophobic prejudices, my mind flashed back to another Tory idiot, an oxymoron in itself as there are so many of them, by the name of Michael Howard: Ex-Conservative Party Leader, wannabe-Prime Minister and whose views, formulated as they are in the same Tory cesspit, are unsurprisingly indistinguishable from those of David Mellor who he was in government with and clearly knows very well. Isn’t Michael Howard I instinctively asked myself not of Romanian stock, with both of his parents, one of whom we know with absolutely certainty came here illegally, immigrants to Britain?
So how the hell then is it perfectly OK for these people and many others like them not only to end up in the UK but also have their progeny not only aspire to holding prominent positions of power and influence in Britain but likewise assume such situations to be their God-given right when they had no historical or other connections whatever with Britain; yet Black and other non-white British Empire/Commonwealth immigrants from lands routinely plundered, ruthlessly exploited, as is still the case, and stolen by Britain to enrich itself and its so-called kith and kin, along with Romanians and Bulgarians who are lawful EU Citizens with all the entitlements of EU citizenship enshrined in their membership of the European Union should perversely be excluded from Britain to gratify the poxy prejudices of unctuous, xenophobic and racist morons like David Mellor?
I’ll leave you to reflect on that and much more! But as my maternal Grandmother was always fond of saying s when I was a kid growing up and she assiduously embarked on teaching me the rights and wrongs of life: “Never confuse book learning with commonsense,” she warned, “as the former can always be gained by rote; the latter never!” That excellent piece of advice as many others from her have stayed with me throughout my life and will continue to do so; and unfortunately what we have far too many of in Britain, and indeed the world, who are running the show and ruining the lives of many people in the process are learned morons devoid of any modicum of commonsense.
In the meantime you can, if you’re capable of doing so that is, exercise the brains God has given each of you by constructively employing them instead of wastefully and gratuitously using them to jump to unwarranted and/or ill-informed conclusions.
Anyone with a functioning brain knows what the real motives behind this British Citizenship Test are, and we don’t have to revert to Winston Churchill’s remarks about the Aborigines or the Native Americans to comprehend why. And to round matters off I’ll like to put some relevant historical questions of my own to David Cameron, his fellow MPs and other legislators in the House of Lord, our media and the growing band of xenophobes and racists in our midst.
We just witnessed the enthronement of Justin Welby as the new Archbishop of Canterbury: who was the first appointed Archbishop of that See? I’ll give you a clue. He was appointed in AD 668 by Pope Vitalien and is buried in St. Augustine’s Chapel, Canterbury. And what did he do when he was offered this papal appointment? Please remember that at that time Canterbury Cathedral was very much a part of the Roman Catholic sphere of influence as Protestantism hadn’t yet been born.
Ulster located in Northern Ireland and part of the United Kingdom and Great Britain and therefore in my opinion properly qualifies to be part of this British Citizenship Test being promoted by our current government had a Bishop who died there in AD 658 and was created a saint by the Roman Catholic Church. Who was this man? Another clue for you; like the first appointed Archbishop of Canterbury he was also BLACK!
What do you know of the West India Regiment that played such an instrumental role in conquering territories for the British Empire; and where was it based throughout its entire existence?
Who was mother of the Black Prince that historical revisionists claim was so named because of his armour but was actually of African origin?
And which Royal House did Princess Sophie Charlotte: date of birth May 19 1744, wife of George III, Queen of England, and the great-great-great-great grandmother of our current Queen Elizabeth II of England descend from? And what popular and enduring Christmas activity did she introduce into England?
What residence close to St. James’s Palace did George III, as an indicator of his feelings towards and also an abiding love for his wife and England’s queen, Queen Charlotte, buy in 1761 for her to use as a comfortable family home, and where 14 of their 15 children were born?
Here’s a clue for you. This residence would subsequently become the UK’s premier palace, was elevated to the status of a palace which it wasn’t previously at its purchase or was it so for some considerable time afterwards, eventually becoming the official home of England and the United Kingdom’s ruling monarch and to this day, April 2013, still holds pride of place in that regard. Now even the most fatuous of dunderheads among our historical revisionists, empire loyalists or the growing band of xenophobic and racist Colonel Blimps should be able to answer that question correctly; but can they?
And continuing on the theme of George III and Queen Charlotte, Edward Augustus: Duke of Kent (2 November 1767-23 January 1820) was their fourth eldest son but who did he father that went on to become and still is England’s longest ever serving monarch, is a direct ancestor of our present Queen Elizabeth II and for her part diligently ensured that her many children and grandchildren married into every European royal house?
And while you’re at it perhaps you might also like to get hold of a copy of Peter Fryer’s brilliant and informative book: “Staying Power: The History of Black People in Britain,” and pay particular attention to the opening chapter of that book. Likewise do some research on who Olaudah Equiano was and what role he played in England/Britain’s history.
Finally, I’ll like to draw your attention to this article: “The United States, Britain and the world’s indebtedness to the nation of Barbados,” that can be found on the website listed below as well as on Twitter.
