top of page

My Online Writings - 2004 - '07

Part 1
It is foretold! The torrential flow of inexorable destiny!
Joining the Euro: Don’t do an historic blunder

Posted on: Mar 30 2004

I have gone through the reply and comment of all those who have posted with reference to the subject. I just want to put in my comments. In between I would like to say that many persons who have expressed misgivings about the whole project, do stand in the right. Among other persons, I may say that the fears expressed by Miguel, is not to be taken lightly. As it is, the English nations do seem to have lost their collective wisdom in many aspects.

I am a social scientist of a rare order. That is, I have, due to some strange psychic effect, made my life to experience the many unfamiliar sides of living and come up with some strange understandings.

I have done a writing on the basis of the understandings that I have acquired. This is a very big piece of writing. I have tentatively given the title as: March of the Evil Empires. Incidentally, I find that in this writing I have actually dealt the concept of European Union, in a very brief manner. May I post this brief chapter here for the members’ perusal? The reader may not get the full gist of the theme, as it is a continuation of a big set of arguments.

The following chapter comes in the third part of my four-part writing.

Chapter 23

The European union: Now I am going into a subject that surely is none of my business. But as a thing on which my intellect has naturally gone into, as a natural extension of all these thinking, I may say something on this issue. The issue is about the advisability of Britain joining the European Union. It is a union, which many in the big businesses would definitely support. Yet, it should be understood that the interests of the big businesses have always been of a trans-national character. And never can it coincide with the interests of the local people. The condition of the workers during the Industrial Revolution in England is only one instance to be noted.

And before departing from this theme, I would like to opine that Britain resolved the terrible issues, connected with the exploiting of the workers during the Industrial Revolution, amicably because the national language was English; had it been a feudal language, then nobody would have bothered about the sickening conditions, of the society, and each of the intellectuals would have gone seeking his own social safety.

Beyond anything, there is a deep chasm of differing social structuring between many of the countries in the European Union, and Britain. This contention of mine is based on the premises of all the arguments I have made in this book.

I contend that if there is a joining of Britain with the rest of Europe, then Britain would come worsted.

For, then the average British citizen becomes equal in dignity and stature with a lot many persons who are not allowed the same level of both by their societies.

The very physical poster of a straight back, exhibited by the British, and possibly by all English language programmed persons everywhere, would be like that of the anecdotal red-scarf for a bull. There would be a lingering query in the head’s of other citizens of the Union, as to Who are these English, that they should display so much individuality, when the whole of Europe can be so adaptable? There would be a continuing fun in provoking them, at all places where they assemble with a British identity. And it could cause flare-ups of so much intensity, that the pitched battles that took place between the British football fans and the locals, in certain nations, a few years ago, would seem like a mere dress-rehearsal.

The main thing that would provoke the person of English breeding would be on tackling the bureaucracy that would come from non-English areas. The others of the European Union would not understand why the English man should get wild when they themselves are used to more terrible nuisances from the Bureaucracy.

Another place of disturbance would be when the same professional from the English nation, get into contact with those of another European nation. Before the union, there is a definite understanding that the other is a British and hence different. But once the union takes place, both of them are equal. So, the dignified posture and the natural attribute of free communication of the English man would cause deep heartburns in the mind of the other professional who may be under social strictures, which are non-tangible. The latter would then ache to undo the individuality of the Englishman as an effective means to bring about a repair of the social and mental beating he would have endured from his own countrymen.

The ancient themes of Our one citizen is equal to a hundred British citizens, would be heard again. Just to assuage the bruised ego.

All ancient prejudices would be recorded in languages, and in many non-tangible aspects. It would be a grave mistake to forego the warnings these factors give.

And beyond all these, there is every chance that such things, as Hookworms*, Rabies*, Bureaucratic corruption, Red Tape, Megalomania and many other things, the clear character of which the British may have not experienced in all vividness, would get a free visa, if Britain joins the Union.

There may be many arguments in favour of joining. Yet, the very elementary question of how long would the Union last, before it is overtaken by a gush of corruption, and inefficiency, remains. And the question of what is wrong in remaining as Britain, as it is now. Why can’t the British be more vocal of what they have contributed positively to the world?

And if it is reasons, they want for joining another nation, by the same logic India would stand a better chance to be the partner. For, isn’t India the ‘greatest’ democracy in the world? But which Englishman would even bear to think of this possibility?

Note of caution: I personally believe that it may be unwise to play into the hands of big trans-national business.

Posted on: Mar 31 2004

Hi Justin of Oz:

I read your letter with interest. Yet, I need to differ. I will come back to you later. Before closing, I would like to add that I saw your logo lines, at the bottom: [QUOTE]”They only have power over you that you give them.”

Only Native English Speakers would really believe this. For, it is not true. I need to explain. And I will. Give me time.

Posted on: Apr 2 2004

Hi Justin of Oz:

First of all, my thanks for your letter, which really does show that you did seriously read my letter.

Your letter exhibits the typical mind of a man, whose is of a very altruistic nature. And also, of some level of belief that English language is just like any other language; that the present day world development has nothing to do with the English (that is, even in this language’s and its speakers’ absence, the world would have developed to the same level etc.); that poverty is because of a lack of a more equitable distribution of wealth in the world and nothing to do with the social negativity in that particular nation; that whatever one’s association is with, one still remains the same, unchanged, and retaining one’s innate culture and standards.

Maybe, some of these ideas presented above may not be yours. Yet, for the sake of debate, let me continue.

I must say that I can’t discuss the whole theme here; for it may require a lot of writing. But let me ask: have you noticed that almost all English nations do have a minimum level of dignity for the citizens. They do have an anthropological feature of dignity. While many other nations’ citizens do come in varying levels of physical and mental dignity.

Also, many nations are not really poor, in that there it is not they do not have adequate money or resources. What is lacking is a lacking in its distribution among all sections. Or, there is some other social program that runs there that impedes the smooth functioning of the economy of these nations.

Also, do not believe that it is just market economics that lends prosperity to a nation. For, all nations do indulge in Trade. Yet, there is a difference in the English trading systems that brings a very positive aura to society. This factor may be understandable, only if one has really understood the basic social philosophies of Asian nations, or of South American nations, or even of independent Black African nations.

Actually, what I am trying to say has not come into the picture yet.

You see, I have, after years of persevering studies, written about my understandings, which I have tentatively titled as: Oh, Ye English, Beware the March of the Evil Empires. But then, this is not the only title that would have suited it. Other titles like: Feudalism in languages and its affects on Society; Social philosophy of language and the designs of society; etc. and many other titles would have been equally suitable. Small parts of this writing have already appeared on this site. Yet, I am yet to put on this site, the main ideas.

I am just quoting from the synopsis of the book; if you read it you may get some idea as to what I am driving at:

This is a book containing a revolutionary idea about understanding society, human behaviour, history, anthropological features and many other aspects of human beings. The basic understanding that is being put forward is that languages, which are the software for human communication, are powerful media, which not only can help in communication, but also does contain extremely powerful designs and programs, which literally design all societies. Languages are actually powerful machines that can create a definite and pre-definable pattern, along which all human beings arrange themselves, to form different societies.

Different type of languages form different type of societies; for example, a group of persons who think and talk in Tamil, would form a society, which would have remarkable Tamil features, and identifiable behaviour patterns. A group of persons who do the same thing in Spanish would display definite Spanish looks, demeanour, behaviour and social pattern and arrangement. An English speaking society would be having its own definite looks and, also a very easily identifiable interpersonal interaction configuration.

From this understanding, which actually is a very complicated theme, yet dealt here in a most easy to understand manner; the book goes into the depths of the theme and shows the definite difference of English when compared to many other languages. Here the author claims to show that popular English, as is being practiced in the English nations, is much different from many other languages in that there is an evident lack of feudalism or hierarchy in it, when it is compared to many other languages.

All languages, which do have feudal content in them, create social relationships, and social structure according to the feudal design in the language. This very much affects the social cohesion, homogeneity, family structure, anthropological features, efficiency, mental calibre, sense of security, history, township planning, civic sense, dressing, work atmosphere, economy and many other things.

From this premises, the book goes on to discuss the chance of the various nations having feudal content in their languages, and proceeds to debate on the various nations of Europe, including France and Germany; East Europe, Asian nations, African nations and many others. Actually, here the debate is not on identifying the feudal element, but to show that there is a definite relationship between the programs in a language, and the history, society, and other aspects of the people who speak in that language.

The summary continues—————————

Justin of Oz: I must admit that it is a long bit of writing. I should not take too much of your time in one space.

So I will continue the debate in a later letter. Yet before closing, I need to say just one thing more: and that is, no culture or standards of behaviour or even attitudes or social structure is safe or stable. Any person would adapt and change his attitudes, behaviour, cultural standard and many other aspects, according to what attitudes, behaviour, cultural standards and many other aspects, he is forced to react to.

Let me conclude for the time being.

Apart from that, let me wish you a good day.

Posted on: Apr 23 2004

Hi Top Hat:

Native English speakers really are using a very fast, impedment free, communication software.

And there is a great deal of difference thinking and living in English will make. And I would contend that even a person’s facial features would change as per the language he or she speaks.

You see, you people do not understand how lucky you are compared to many others all around the world. What is in many cases simple and extremely easy, would be like climbing a steep mountian for many persons living in other language areas.

I can really make you understand what I am trying to convey. But it would require much space.

Yet it is not an easy theme to convey.

As for your NHS being sluggish, I fear many more things in your country would start exhibiting the features of feudal language, negative nations, if you are not understanding the infection that has set in.

Posted on: Apr 30 2004

Hi Top Hat! Does did really matter the land of my birth? Especially when the debate is hotting up on a lot of race related issues.

But I do believe that there are items in my writings, which can convey you the answer.

But what matters is that when Britain is on the threshold of making grave decisions and the nations is literally going through really uncharted waters, why don’t someone extend a bit of appreciation for the messages that come, though unsolicited. There is always a perspective from beyond the horizon.

Also, I would not have come visiting this site if there was nothing that for me to get across.

Posted on: May 1 2004

Hi there: There was an acquaintance, an academician in a Middle East University, who told me emphatically that there would not be a political entity called Britain within a matter of 50 years.

Well, if this happens, it would be a true tragedy. Not because all British are the best of individuals; no, there are a lot of other persons who, if you know them at an individual level would be of far better personal refinement. The only problem with them is, you have to know them individually. As a group, they may not amount to much. I will leave this at that.

But if Britain decides to join the Europe, and be a lot of Lilliputians among a lot of persons of questionable refinement, then it may be a most irresponsible action on the part of the present generation.

There is a difference that cannot be bridged.

0. Book profile

1. March of the Evil Empires

2. International Intervention

3. Schools with Asian language study

4. Immigration to English nations

5. We are White and we are proud

6. The other face of ‘Terrorism’

7. have they gone NUTs

8. Rantisi Assasinated

9. Nick Griffin BNP

10. Survived and home from iraq

11. Monarchy v Republic

12. Joining the Euro: Don’t do an historic blunder

13. Princess Michael of Kent, a Royal Bigot?

14. Spying on the UN

15. Changes in America

16. Hijjab - Religious dress code, Have the French got it right?

17. Chinese School Janitor attacks nursery school kids (in China)

18. Prince Charles:, Eternal Bachelor

19. Answering Oldfred – How did the British, who came to India

20. Perspective from a vantage position

21. Is Oldfred still around?

22. What one could lose

23. Intelligence

24. Business Process Outsourcing

25. Immigration policy & Freedom of Speech

26. Education: Formal verses informal

27. Israel’s “Terrorism” Barrier

28. The London Olympic Bid, will the benefits outweigh the costs?

29. Thatcher son arrested for alleged coup link, can mommy bail him out?

30. Tsunami and the British legacy, Part I: What exists below the surface

31. The foreign worker and economic prosperity, A thinking in construction

32. A theme from the Reader’s Digest

33. The legitimacy of the Asylum seekers

34. Social welfare system, the best of British

35. Delete multiculturalism

36. Euro Myths, here are some of them

37. Inter-racial marriages in the House of Windsor

38. Nationality, immigration and asylum act 2002, An Overview

39. What ails Britain?, My inferences

40. What I am trying to convey

bottom of page