By Stanley Collymore
Just goes to show how easily led
you Brits so clearly are. Since I
can absolutely recall when all
of you idiots were quite adamantly
saying directly regarding Camilla
being queen, over my dead body.
Typically also the Daily Mail not
one to logically flout a financial
trick was also viciously, stating
rather publicly the same thing.
How laughably then weren't it
so crazily serious and fittingly
also, distinctively ironic from
my actually sane perspective
having this quite undeniably
rightwing and Nazi pedigree
Daily Mail rag; its imbecillic
totally societally privileged,
tax evasive in tandem with
its endemically inured evil
distinctively, intellectually
challenged; perceptibly so
universally but cheerfully
regardless, very piss-poor
grammatically, laughably
idiotically so, journalists!
Similarly, the bevy of palace PR
stooges keenly conjoined with
the dubiously, oligarchically
wealthy rapturously shouting from
the rafters to these very same silly
manipulated, cravenly dimwitted
and such clickbait, morons - long
live our queen Camilla! Come on
you braindead serfs you frankly
didn't really think, did you, that
Elizabeth Windsor, would ever
have actually allowed you oiks
to really decide, who would be
the forthcoming king or queen
of Britain, did you? Dearie me,
seems that you did! But rather
lamentably pathetic and truly
customarily servile, as the lot
of you are, have fallen in line
with how your firmly loyally
perceived societal betters, do
define how you should think.
(C) Stanley V. Collymore
10 February 2022.
Author's Remarks:
Each to their own; but assuredly if you have the morals of a toxic sewer rat you'll obviously see no wrongdoing however much it is glaringly staring you in the face. But that's your problem, and it's you who have to live with it publicly, if it's known about, or most damnably so in those private moments when even your much abused conscience organizingly for you rears its irrepressibly and discomforting head.
There's nothing remotely consconsionable, moral or intelligent - and is the worst kind of misogynistic conduct - about intentionally, deceptively and additionally with full familial support marrying a naive, young and virginal female who embarrassingly had to provide irrefutable medical proof of her virginity, so she could become what you and distinctly your family wanted her solely as: an unknowingly, convenient Stepford wife and broodmare; while no such sexual limitations were placed on yourself, as you egregiously had your numerous adulterous liaisons, while callously treating your lawful wife and your children conceived by her with the utmost contempt.
Which prompts the obvious question and debunks all the baloney being proselytized now about how much you and your current wife were always passionately and devotedly in love with each other - really? Pull the other one - well when you first met and started seeing each other you were both single, so you could have married her. Why didn't you Charles? Because she had form? And the very repulsive, cowardly and morally weak misogynist that you are and every senior member in your rather toxically vile family encouraged you to be, you happily went along with their concerted limitations on you. Still having your adulterous affair even after she herself married and had children of her own. The sane and intelligent world knows what disastrously happened to Diana and no amount of whitewashing of your second spouse by your evil and very lousy as a parent mother, very much so distinctly like her own odious mother, is going to realistically rewrite history; any more than if the entire Windsor family or luminaries in the Church of England like the former Archbishop of Canterbury of that church George Carey, were to seek to rewrite history by declaring Jimmy Savile who had the full run of Buckingham Palace and the other hereditary households, as well as Bishop Peter Ball - both of them paedophiles of the very worst calibre and decades old close friends of Charles - as saints! And it's on record that while Jimmy Savile's infamous activities were purposely covered up until after his death for obvious reasons, Bishop Peter Ball was actually convicted and spent a very paltry jail time, thanks to the direct intervention of Charles and also Archbishop Carey, both of whom if they had their way Peter Ball would not have seen the inside of a jail far less so have been incarcerated in one. Prompting the apt question for those with functioning brains who know how to use them - not many in the UK alas - why is Camilla now the British poster girl, and not when she and Charles were both single and before he cynically and egregiously entered Diana's life; aged just 19?
The victims, if still alive, or the descendants of the perpetrators who've used them most egregiously, and even murderously, are fully at liberty if these said perpetrators fully and unconditionally acknowledge their wilful wrongdoing; genuinely apologise for their evil and odiously toxic abuses and quite voluntarily make reparations or appropriate compensation for what they did are entitled to ask for forgiveness. It's a contention that all rational, intelligent, sane and moral persons would readily and conscionably subscribe to; and, additionally, would say hopefully, let those directly involved amicably, if possibly, endeavour to peacefully resolve their differences.
However, when the perpetrators regularly, repulsively and clearly contemptuously refuse to acknowledge what every moral person knowingly is fully aware of, that they have maliciously, conceitedly and recurrently been in the wrong, yet arrogantly and rather delusionally pretend otherwise and, moreover, avidly proselytize themselves as what they self-evidently aren't, plus hubristically expect and quite literally demand, because of their birth privileged and entitled position, that everyone: sane and intelligent persons most specifically, as undeniably their brownnosing sycophants will always fall in line and gullibly believe everything that their perceived social betters say in such circumstances and instinctively uncomplainingly do what's expectedly required of them. The height of egregious narcissism, from my personal perspective, and as such must not under any circumstances be approvingly countenanced, accepted, or ever be forgiven!
Throughout the intensely close 396 years old continuous and hugely financially profitable for England and subsequently after its formation the UK, from 1625-2021 when on the 55th Anniversary of its Independence Barbados concertedly ceased to be a realm and officially became a Republic - forget the so-called UK where we Bajans aren't concerned as that concept never ever registered with us even from its inception and didn't either when we eventually ditched the British monarchy; Barbados has been, and still is, a predominantly Christian country. There are diverse Christian denominations in our country, as freedom of worship has always been officially and societally recognized, even during the period of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, but it's the Anglican Church that was essentially most prominent throughout our history and still is.
However, with typical Bajan humour, irony, contempt and determination the Anglican Church in Barbados, courtesy of the Bajan public, government and the Anglican Church itself was freely disestablished and disendowed; permanently severing its intimate ties with the political organs of state, effectively the government that paid the salaries of the clergy and a situation that allowed church influence to be wielded in what were essentially political matters. In other words the Barbados Anglican Church officially and by law became fully and irreversibly independent, and just as significantly the government no longer had any say in the appointment of senior clerics or how the church itself was actually run. This situation occurred on the 1 April 1969 to the huge delight of all Barbadian Christian Anglicans and others alike.
Why the desire for change? Because Bajans fervently believe in the separation of powers, and in the new era of the sixties saw no reason why a privileged lay woman with no academic qualifications, far less so any liturgical ones or relevant experiene should automatically be head of all things a religious organisation purely on account of her accident of birth; fully cognizant too, were/are Bajans, of the lascivious adultery of her father George with his married mistress Sheila Loughborough and the duplicitous and lascivious manner that it was engineered by his brother Edward, who had his own married mistress Freda Dudley Ward; reprehensibly repulsive behaviour going back, to cite just one example, Edward VII whose longstanding and married mistress Alice Keppel was the great-grandmother of Camilla Parker Bowles, Charles' married mistress, and who is himself, and I'm referring to Charles Windsor, the great-grandson of Edward VII.
In a nutshell, Bajans who are devout Christians can well see the contemptible and contradictory state of affairs pertaining to the Saxe-Coburg-Gothe-Mountbatten-Windsor family with its toxic, lascivious, routinely and concertedly adulterous and the most amoral propensities of randy alley cats having the bloody effrontery to be the "saintly" Head of the Anglican Church; and Bajans well aware of this sickeningly type of vile and noxiously evil behaviour, quite literally for centuries, were just not willing to simply shrug it off anymore. Leave that sort of rather irreligious bullshit to the idiotic and sycophantic English is their response if questioned about Barbados' pragmatic move in disestablishing the Anglican Church at home.
And if you want my honest opinion on a similar state of affairs in England; Elizabeth Windsor, for all the sanctimonious and puke inducing, PR crap sickeningly proselytized about her, is no more fit to be Head of the Church of England than her son and hereditary heir Charles and Camilla are! For if you asininely think otherwise your own moral standards are equally either pretty low or absolutely non existent. So in those circumstances why not posthumously have Jimmy Savile: the Windsor family's close and intimate friend, rehabilitated and fittingly so have Liz Windsor award him an appropriate gong, Tony Blair style?
Time we abolished this ludicrous, antediluvian, self-serving, taxpayers funded institution. It does nothing concrete for Britain, costs a fortune, and to thinking minds is a national and international disgrace.
Thank you for being patient!
No comments:
Post a Comment