wheres the jack wilshere gif with the comment

“yeah whatever mate”

when you need it.

were you there throwing railings at the police?

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)

its a sad inditement of the current state of society that a racist criminal like tommy robinson going to prison can cause a protest to have the police on the run in our capital city, lets face it, as they drink more im sure it will only get worse when the sun goes down.

i cannot believe how a racist philistine can have so many desciples.

It is true. People keep saying "it is our country" when they own next to none of it.
People did fight in the world wars. the first was started because one lot of
super rich were jealous of another lot of super rich. They persuaded people that their enemy was the foreigner, when the real enemy was at home.Millions of working class people were killed or starved because of it. It twisted German society particularly so that the bile of racism took over and led to another war and mass murder of millions of people because of their race.
We should learn that we should not be divided by race and nationality and to realise who the real exploiters are.

Absolute bollocks. Read up on the real history of the empire and stop being so ignorant to an alternative history other than what you have been force fed.