I am posting here an article which I had posted on May 9 2004 in one British website. However, that particular website later changed into an immigration advisory site. I was informed that my writings were not in sync with the new policies of the new owners, and removed from the forum pages.
I suddenly had a feeling that after the passing of around 10 years, it might be interesting to see how history has evolved around the theme. However, this very theme had been discussed much earlier in my book: March of the Evil Empires.
My writing style at that time had a diffidence connected to the trivialness of my own location, as a rank outsider. A slight bashfulness of how others would measure my position did overawe me in those days. As of now, I do not care much about negative evaluations of my words or location. Unless they can materially hurt me. (Moreover England has very much changed in the last ten years, that much is what I sense). I was still green in the field of writings in 2004. And was trying out different writing styles to suit my temperament, and the peripheral nature of my ideas.
The European Union, Case for keeping away
May 9 2004:
I went through the debate on UK joining the European Union. I though I also might put in a few words. Yet, seeing the fierce passion that it has evoked, I decided to open a new page and not join the battleground. I am not reacting to anyone. And kindly read on only if you have the time, for it is a pretty lengthy article.
Have anyone thought about what is different about a Briton? There is a definite difference. It is not in the colour. It is not in the courage, nor in the wisdom. It is in the language. This language, English, has created a social system which is in many ways unique, in comparison to so many others. Even though the Scots and others may have separate languages, it is their English identity that rings throughout the world. (I must say that even the history of Bonnie Prince’s tragic disaster may have some thing to do with the communication structure, wherein there must be some factor of feudal, stumbling block. I have not much idea about this language. I am quoting from my own book: “If that be the case, it is possible that the defeat of the Bonnie Prince Charlie was due to the feudal language of the feudal lords, who accompanied him on his tragic march to London.———”
Nobody would say that the Prince was without courage.
It is possible that Napoleon was of superior calibre than Nelson; that Hitler had better military acumen than Winston Churchill; that the despotic authority of many oriental kings was of more power than any British King’s; that Dupleix, the French colonial leader was of superior leadership than Robert Clive. Yet, all these things do not count, when one considers who outlasted that other in the competition. Actually it is not in individual capacity that a society functions. The character of a society is a total of so many seemingly minor issues. And it is generally embedded in the language.
For example, I do know many languages, which do not have the exact equivalent of such words as thank you, please, I apologise, Good Morning and many others. I mean exact. There are words, but many of them can be used only by a subordinate to a senior, not the other way round. Can you imagine the brute impact this factor can add to so many sentences in, as it is, brute languages? Actually, what I have mentioned in only a minor part.
Do you think that it would be nice if a group of Russian girls were equated to a group of British girls? For one thing, the understanding is not the same.
There is an inherent dignity that pure English imparts to its speakers, irrespective of their social or financial status. It is very difficult to find such languages. There might be some language in Europe, may be Dutch, I am not sure.
The fact is when one moves with a vile crowd, one gets infected with the vileness. For example, the factor of slavery. I do not know whether it was an ancient fact in Britain. Even if it is, it does not matter. But when the continental Europe found a gold mine in such an activity, those Englishmen who moved with them had nothing else to do, but to join. And most of the blame is now on the head of the English nations.
There is possibly a factor of regimentation, possibly of some element of feudal content, in the German language. I discern it from it history, also I have seen it in the novel by Kafka: The Castle.
I am more or less sure that the Italian language is heavily loaded with hierarchal elements, with some severe element aimed at women also.
What about the French? There is a lot of frivolousness in their whole history, and also in many other things that really point to some similar feature, either there in the past, or still in the present. They may not be dependable as a nation, for some level smarting-under feeling would always burst out, at the most crucial time.
What about the Spanish, or the Portuguese? Just see what their colonialism has achieved in the South Americas. The real factor that differentiates US from the southern American nations is basically English, the language.
What about the east European nations? May I digress to another issue? Do you know the level of personal respect, and hence safety, a British passport can deliver in the varying nations. I am talking about the official one, not about the factor of terrorism. Not many rogue policemen would in many rogue nations would dare dilly-dally with a British female, as there is an understanding that there is a very fast, powerful, and also approachable leadership for these persons. Not many East European nations do have this reputation. It is doubtful if many West European nations also have this reputation. The reputation is inbuilt in the fact that a British citizen can approach the authorities. In many nations it may not be that easy for the common man.
There must be some element in their communication structure that takes care of their lingering social inequity.
I must categorically state from experience that there is more natural democracy and individual freedom in the English language communication, than one can find in many communist parties offices, in non-English nations.
What would happen when Britain is firmly entrenched in the European Union? Well, once there is no way out, then it would be party time for the others at British expense. Like I have mentioned elsewhere, arrogance, pseudo superiority complex, disrespect to authority, lack of team spirit and many other comments would be heard about the British.
How can I say this? Because the person with the English mindset would find it impossible to function at the mindset of the other language people. Mind you, the other way round is very much possible, and also enjoyable.
The dignified, to the point, straightforward level of speech possible in English may be not possible in many other languages, and hence it would create a very subservient level of social communication especially between the bureaucracy and the common man.
If at all, Britain is joining, let there be an exit plan also in place, in case it is needed. Otherwise, one would have to weep at the sight of the final gasping of a fine culture, that has outlived almost all other upheavals in history.
If Britain doesn’t join, the demise of the European Union would be faster than one would expect.
But then, there is another factor that needs to be discussed here. If Britain is not joining, then what? For, it might be faced with the might of many gigantic political structures.
Again, before going on with the theme, let me tell you, there is no need for Britain, if it remains internally English fully in spirit, to live with that fear. Just check history: When Napoleon launched his attack with around 2000 boats, when Hitler’s plane filled London skies, and also in many other areas, Britain was statistically weak; but the social computer was not infected.
Now, Britain needs a tangible geographical expansion. Why not expand to the other English nations. That is where your Monarch can still come to your aid. For, a most tangible link is still there.
I know you people will not be moved with inspiring rhetoric. So, let me say, there is need to make your Monarch more accountable, and absolutely English. No German nonsense inside the palace. But at the same time, do not make the scene so horrible that the Monarch simply has to don an antagonistic face or an air of indifference. For, the modern British Monarch should feel free to debate with the subjects, without fear of being ridiculed or mentally tormented.
Kindly check the equivalent of the word You in the many European languages. See, if there is a differing version for differing levels of persons.
I am concluding.
PS: What is my interest in all this? It can be either pure intellectual acrobatics or something more.
Posted on 13 May 2004
For, so many years, I have made some observations, and have come to see that there is a program in all languages, that does really affect the social behaviour of human beings.
Whatever summarisations, I have made about European languages are just that, summarisations. From an understanding that I have arrived at.
I do know that English is very much connected to European languages, but I do think that at a certain time in history, it did delete certain minor programs from its main program. And this change is what created the highly liberal, interacting social system, that is English social systems.
Well, I cant tell you the whole of my understanding in so brief a space.
As for German, I have also heard that it is having some level of connection with Sanskrit, the claimed language of the Indian ‘Aryans’. I do not know much about it.
About slavery, I can understand your views, for it is a fact that slaves were bound, chained and possibly whipped by the European Slave masters, to extract beautiful submission. Germans were superb slave masters, and possibly the Spaniards did evolve a special style in this. And as you go backward, English converges into Europe.
. Slaves were viewed as sub-human and thats how we treated ‘em.
But, let me remind you that the slaves in Asian and probably African nations, did not need such enduring reminders to make them work and labour. For, it was ingrained in their minds that they were slaves, and nothing else; and hence, there was no need for chains, or wiping, or any such cruel things; for everything was more or less beautifully kept in control by the language.
Now, I know I have reached a premise that requires clarification. But then, I hope to spark your own thinking on the lines that I have dealt out.