Again, this is the question. Wake up to what? That the proportion of British citizens who are muslims is vastly inferior to what it was in the 30s?

Comparing Muslims to Nazis is the thinking of a mind which is culturally ignorant, bereft of any grasp on reality or history, and which deserves a home in a primary school, not a prison.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

This is absurd.

Being from a Commonwealth country does not mean you are British and are a resident. It means that at one time you were in the British empire. That doesn't make you British.

It's a lie to say immigration has helped the economy. The most recent figures shows that immigrants cost more than they bring in.

Being British should and does mean you come from the four home countries and some islands we have around the world.

That means, you are mostly either English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish. If you don't hold allegiance to one of those you shouldn't be here....unless you are just temporary here like a worker or tourist.

The fact that the number of people who don't call themselves any of those is growing so rapidly is a direct threat to these country's practical existence.

For a country to be called England....guess what....you require the majority of people to be English. I accuse you of being one of those 'useful idiots' engaged in the destruction of a homeland for the English.

More absurdity.

I don't give a crap about the past. Every single country tried to do the same. We were just more successful. I don't own anyone anything for historical histories.

Name me a country today that wasn't involved in repression of some other group. It's just a matter of looking back far enough.

I have a birthright and no one born aboard (without a British parent) can equalise that birthright.

They were in an empire, they aren't British. The most common way people from the commonwealth become British was via naturalisation.

And the extent of that immigration has been a disaster.

The Irish are a part of the British Isles. It's culturally far less of a leap than what's happened.

Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jun 2018 4.51pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I said it within the post. It's the home countries and a few islands.

I'm not referring to the ridiculous claim that because you're in the commonwealth you're British. It's a technicality and always was.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

The isle of Ireland is a part of the British isles.

It's not the same as being British. It's a description of the geographical location. It was a nod to the cultural similarity of the Irish to the British generally.

Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jun 2018 2.47pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I'm no good at quoting, so can't forensically and fancily do what you did, but let's still break down what you've said.

Britain is, apparently, the exclusive realm of those from the four nations who compose it. But Ireland too, according to you, is also some kind of honorary member of Britain, an opinion I would love to hear you put forward in a Dublin pub on a Friday night and see how it went down. It is 'culturally similar', so culturally similar that we felt the need to colonise it, subject it to a devastating famine, and then, when it pushed for the same autonomy and home rule that England enjoys, was brutally repressed by the military.

'There was an Empire but they're not British'. Well, legally 'they' were imbued with citizenship, so the British state would disagree with you on that one. That the Scots only joined this empire several years after Jamaica did in 1655 I suppose doesn't refute your attribution of Britishness on Scots. If you went back to the Victorian period, or even to the late 40s, you would see maps in schools showing the 'British territories', with Queen Victoria and her predecessors reigning over British subjects from Malaysia to the Carribean. The wealth of those nations was harvested by Britain, and helped to pay for not only the grandiose lives of the wealthy, but also for the state services which we on this island enjoy today. Many were even forcibly migrated in after the war by the British government to provide cheap labour, not only in the NHS, but in every area of the domestic economy, from farming to construction.

So given all this, it seems peculiar that these people are not considered British by you, even though many have lived in British territory, drunk tea, played cricket etc for generations. What could it possibly be that lies behind this?

Could it possibly be that these people happen to have been born with a different skin colour to, say, the Irish that you are comfortable calling Britons?

For a country to be called England....guess what....you require the majority of people to be English. I accuse you of being one of those 'useful idiots' engaged in the destruction of a homeland for the English.

What is Englishness then? You are terrified of demographic change, but most of the people who are causing this are happy being called British, English, Scousers, Cockneys and the like. They and their forefathers have contributed as much as we and our forefathers have to the economy, and probably have all intentions to live and die on English soil. Yet you find the need to claim that they, consciously or uncosciously, are 'engaged in the destruction of a homeland for the English'.

This follows a very similar train of argument from the 17th century onnwards in this country, which was keen to keep the island white. Sometimes this came in the form of explicit racist arguments, such as the pseudo-science of phrenology which we introduced. Other times, like your post, it simply coated itself in nationalistic arguments around citizenship, even though as I say, we were very keen to push citizen status on to those we conquered to promote obedience.

But all this is beside the point to you, clearly, as you 'don't give a crap about the past'. Well, you really should. If you have any desire to know why many non-white people are in 'your' country, you should read a book or two. May I suggest anything by Pankaj Mishra, David Olusoga, or even Akala's new book 'Natives: Race and Class in the Ruins of Empire' which will do a better job assuaging your paranoia than I ever could.

Were you to read them, you would find out that, though we are not alone in our imperialist credentials, we were - not 'the best' - but the most savage, bloodthirsty and ruthless of any nation in history. We were fond of genocide - see Churchill's oft forgotten quote ' I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes'. We were deaf to any demands of democratic decision making, such as the slaves in our plantations often rebelled for. We weren't against pushing addiction on to other countries in order to plunder them, or sending war boats in to their capital when that nation tried to ban the drugs, or bombing their parliament for its resistance, as we did in China.

We are now a nation on the decline, and mercifully, we are yet to be subjected by any off those newly independent nations to vengeance. Your views, however, shows how little we have learnt from our own mistakes, and how deeply ingrained racial paranoia is in parts of our society. Unless we understand ourselves, and acknowledge how and why other countries in the world see us in a bad light, we will make no progress, will become less and less compassionate and humble, and will slip further and further off the map of political relevance.

Edited by serial thriller (09 Jun 2018 5.15pm)

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

Serial

I feel that I've already answered the points in your post. So to pick it apart again seems pointless.

What I will do however is show you have to answer a post point by point.

First you copy the 'quote' line' you always see this at the top. I'll put it in curly brackets instead of its square brackets. Otherwise it doesn't show.

(quote=derby eagle;334233

You appear to be quite evasive by answering a different question to the one I am asking and using vague comparisons. For a simpleton like can you give your definition, in one sentence of what you believe the definition of being British is?

(/quote)

Then you have the person's text. After that ending the text is an end quote, which I've also put in curly brackets just above to highlight.

Anyway, all you have to do is ensure that any text you want to answer to is segmented like that. So you copy and paste the start quote...have the text...and then copy and paste the end quote.

This way you can effectively cut up a post and answer individual segments all the way down if you wish.

Just make sure the quote lines have square brackets and not the curly ones I used.

Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jun 2018 5.41pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)