Brexit ruling: A rejoinder to User flayman

This is a rejoinder for User flayman. The preceding conversation that led to this rejoinder can be seen on this link

After re-reading your posts, I thought I would write a slightly more detailed rejoinder.

I will go through them one by one. However, before that I might as well give a broader perspective of what is happening.

The discussion on this issue has the problem of it working out just the technical aspects of a very minute element in the national history, when actually the whole history of the nation is being dismantled on every aspect.

The wider perspective is that GB and also all the other native-English nations have been quite gullible and foolish since the very beginning period of colonial years. And totally gullible and foolish after the WW2. I will leave that topic here, for it is quite a very big topic.

When going for a razor sharp technical examination of the present quandary with regard to Brexit, the scene is comparable with that of a doctor putting full focus on the minute aspects of a minor disease, when actually the whole body is infected with all kinds of malignancies.

QUOTE: Her Majesty is effectively the claimant, and she won.” END OF QUOTE.

Isn’t it quite obvious that academic detailing and defining have brought in some kind of mad levels of understandings?

These kinds of utter nonsensical academic derivations are what has been the undoing of all native-English nations.

Any totally formally-uneducated person on the streets in any location in the world can see through the nonsense. For, Her Majesty has not won in any sense of this word in almost all languages.

This more or less reflects the history of English colonialism.  For in most colonial locations, it was a most welcome event for the local populations. However, there were the traditional upper-classes of these locations inside England to redefine everything into similar absurd visualisations.

QUOTE: I’m not sure about the issue you raise of wiping out the English political entity END OF QUOTE.

From inside England, the nation might seem quite formidable and unassailable. However the universally mentioned fact in most other languages is that England is very small and can be encroached upon and devoured in pieces. All that has to be done is to enter in minute numbers as would termites and to eat up the vitals. This is going on in a very rapid way as of now.

I am privy to conversations in languages which native-Englishmen cannot understand, wherein it is very openly mentioned that England is more or less up for grabbing.

Continental Europe might be the least of problems for England. And yet, see the tremendous preoccupation that England has to be engaged in to mitigate this minute issue.

It should be mentioned that a more or less precise prediction as to what would happen with regard to this Euro-Connection had been done at least a decade and a half earlier. See these links



There is something about English and Englishmen (and women) which is more or less unique. It has nothing to do with DNA or genes or genius, or pedigree or ethnicity. It is that they speak native-English and used to be connected socially and by family to Englishmen and women, of whatever class.

I can’t deal more about this here. I can only say that this uniqueness is that in all kinds of communications, it gives a sort of elevated personal stature to the individuals.

In feudal language nations, a similar kind of stature is condoned, if seen in a higher. However, if exhibited by a person defined as lower in such nations, it can be treated as rank impertinence. And can stir-up a sort of homicidal mania in the other-side.

If England joins Europe as an equal, this very specific factor would create a huge social communication irritant across the continent (a few European nations would be exceptions).

Being a superior outsider to a social system and being part of the system are two entirely different experiences in feudal languages.

In fact, this feature of English social communication has indeed created many problems for them even during the colonial period.

Unacknowledged Englishmen who displayed their native communication stature had their limbs and lips cut in the South Asian subcontinent, which was erroneously called India.

See this narration by James Scurry who was made a servant of some subordinate staff of Sultan Tipu of a minor kingdom in the South Asian subcontinent.

As of now, the situation is getting more dangerous. See what happened to the British sailors who were taken to a police station in India.

A native-Englishman or child under a feudal language speaker is quite a different person from a native-Englishman or child above a feudal language speaker. These are all powerful information about which England has no idea at all.

QUOTE: fast transactions of today does not really apply to the business of legislature, END OF QUOTE.

QUOTE: it does arise out of a history of the absolute power of the monarchy such as it once was in feudal times. END OF QUOTE

Well, this is the tragedy that modern-day democracy has heaped upon native-English nations. Even though you might speak about the great dictatorial powers of autocratic monarchs, the fact is that if the monarchs and the people are both native-English speakers who live and interact in pristine-English, both these terrors you mention are actually in the realm of pure fantasy and imagination.

All the great political and social issues mentioned and discussed in England with precocious diligence are actually mere nothings. What is experienced in feudal language nations have nothing to do with these ludicrous levels of intellectual meditations. What England debates are of issues, which if taken in comparative terms, of mere 2 cm ambit, and that of feudal language nations are of 1km ambit.

In fact, there is no correlation with the various thoughts on social studies, political studies, international relationship studies, and even psychological studies, between a native-Englishman’s ambience and that of a feudal language speaker’s mental and social ambience.

This is one of the terrible truths that are withheld from the purview of a native-English mind. What gets conveyed is lost in the translation version.

The above-mentioned item has nothing to do with individual goodness and badness.

The above is only one minor aspect of the quoted item.

The words ‘absolute power of the monarchy’ and ‘feudal times’ are at best totally un-understood or under-understood items.

The wider issue is that the item called Legislature is most evidently a very dangerous and wasteful entity, as per your quoted words. What a monarch decide and act upon in a few seconds or minutes or hours or days, has now been stretched beyond all logical lengths of time and expense. All to choose just one from most probably two possibilities.

I can propose that democracy in native-English nations has gone insane, useless and totally dangerous to the kingdom. In fact, democracy is good in England only if it contains only native-Englishmen. If outsiders, whose mind and quite powerful mental links are not understood, are allowed inside the apparatus of English democracy, terrible despoilment of the nation is in the offing.

When I mention ‘quite powerful mental links are not understood’, I know what I am speaking about. However there is no conceivable manner in which I can convey this information to a native-Englishman or woman. For, it is like an animal trying to convey its social experience to human beings. There are things that have no corresponding items on the other side.

If it is the fear of a despotic English monarch that is inspiring this traumatic item called legislature and democracy, it is indeed a very tragic understanding. Ancient English monarch had their own terrors to deal with. And they cannot be compared with an oriental or African or even a Continental European monarch. There are differences that cannot be defined in a few words.

[King Richard of England was not an English king, and did not speak English, I am told. I speak of English monarchs, who speak natively in English.]

The best way to study English Monarchy is by first understanding what is different about pristine-English from feudal languages. The next item would be to totally disconnect English monarchy from other monarchies when taking up the study. The next item would be to understand why Englishmen and women were different from others.

QUOTE: This does not mean that the referendum is invalid END OF QUOTE.

The word referendum might mean something like an opinion poll. However, it has its defining power. For instance, the people of Kashmir have been demanding for a referendum since 1947, when the British-Indian army (handed over to the new nation of India) marched into the location and occupied it. If Referendum was just an opinion with doubtful value, India would have conducted it.

However, India will not do it. Unless there is some intervention by providence and Nemesis.

QUOTE: It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, END OF QUOTE.

Speaking of the two Referendums done in the last few months in Great Britain, take the first one. If the pro-independence side of Scottish referendum had won, would it have been treated in a similar tone?

I am sure that within a couple of months of the results coming out, Scotland would have been apart.

Now, take the second one. If the pro-Europe side had won the referendum, would the argument that the government need not mind the referendum results that be acceptable?

Well no!

These types of arguments and counter arguments are best suited for some academic debate forum. To allow such things to dictate national policymaking is the tragic side of democracy in a planar-language nation.

QUOTE: The judiciary is subordinate to Parliament. The government is subordinate to Parliament. At the end of the day, even the Queen is subordinate to Parliament if Parliament in its supreme capacity passes law that abolished the monarchy END OF QUOTE

This is Political Science in its worst attire.

When the national enemies have gathered at the national borders, to depend upon and to spend time on such useless textbook ideas of national structures and command lines is being utterly treacherous.

Take up an alternative vision of the kingdom.

A totally different version. One which should shock the outsiders into tremulous disquiet.

It is England. Three other nationalities are connected to England on their own will, and at the pleasure of England. That is, if England does not want them, they can be disconnected.

England is a kingdom and not a nation. People are not citizens, but subjects.

The kingdom’s language is English and only English. No feudal languages are allowed inside. For, feudal languages spread social disarray, discrimination and inequities which are not detectable through English.

The kingdom is owned by the kingdom.

The Monarchy heads the kingdom. People joined to each other in pristine-English are attached to the Monarchy as subjects.

The Monarchy stands for the kingdom and its native people.

The monarch is the supreme dispenser of all rights and justices.

The monarch will decide which outsider can be given subject-hood and for how long.

People who indulge in subversive activities can be exiled by the monarch.

Political decisions are taken by the monarch, not on the basis of protracted legislative and judicial processing. But on a very time-based agenda, focusing on the exigency of the moment and the issue.

People who speak against the native people can be exiled by the monarch. People who had spoken against the native people can be stopped from entering the nation.

Let the parliament be placed as an advisory body.

Dissuade party-based elections. For, it only leads to the splintering of the social fabric. Beyond that, outsider vested interests can misuse the situation to gather a lot of rights for themselves. In fact, democratic election is actually a breech through which outsiders can take-over the kingdom.

When one reads the terrible ideas above, the visuals of some terrible barbarian despotic rule could emerge. But then, the fact is that when pristine-English is the national language, no such thing will happen.

QUOTE: nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. END OF QUOTE.

During the colonial times, there was a fabulous farsightedness in the English colonial administration everywhere and at times in England also. This was due to the fact that decisions were taken on the spot and implemented.

The above quoted words are the issue. The referendum’s actual agenda when seen in words do bespeak a lot of deficiencies. There should have been a very pointed wording on what it wishes to accomplish. Words which do not lead to a logical conclusion are useless. There should be very specific wording on what the results can mean and what it cannot mean.

To read and enjoy the utter lack of logic in the sentences does not help.

To conduct a national event which at best has no judicial or statutory value and has a lot of loopholes for the outsider lobbies to perch upon, is a very useless activity.

QUOTE: which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. END OF QUOTE

Has the British government gone so insipid that it couldn’t understand that if only a public opinion to influence a policy decision was all that was intended, there are indeed online public opinion gathering website which does this work fabulously. Is there any difference between for instance this and what the referendum did?

In other words, does the EU Referendum have only the same value? Both are dealing with terrible themes, both connected at the code levels on comparable codes.

QUOTE: But those who would criticise these judges END OF QUOTE

There might be a broader item here. A judge is just an individual. However, one would not treat judicial decree as a nondescript individual’s opinion. For, he or she is part of a statutory machine.

If this be so, what is wrong in visualising the monarch also as part of a huge statutory machine, with similar and yet much more powerful rights of deciding?

One problem with discussing the English monarchy is that it is easy to identify the monarch with an individual. However, it is not an individual but an institution and a statutory position that it is.

It decides. Fast and precise.

And this decision-making entity is much less expensive than the gigantic machinery of democracy which is leading the nation to hopeless confusions, unending debates, erosion of national sovereignty, bad decisions, social and civic infightings and much more.

Democracy can lead England to subordination to nations like India, China, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Japan etc.

Be forewarned.

As a last word on Europe, it is in a hopeless situation. All brought about by senseless democracy. However, their own monarchies were not that good also. For many of these nations had languages with at least a slight hue of feudal content.

An England under an English Monarch would be quite a powerful entity. Maybe Continental Europe might seek to submit to its protection. Others might also.

However, not to this mixed-breed England that is being sponsored in the current carnival-like atmosphere.

And look those realities. There are British (sailors) subjects imprisoned in India. There is no time in England to even think of these things. A very boisterous mood of entertaining, yet useless and dull intellectualism has gripped the kingdom.


6 thoughts on “Brexit ruling: A rejoinder to User flayman

  1. I have to admit that I find most of what you say here utterly incomprehensible and I am not prepared to take the blame for that. Overall the strong impression is that you do not value representative democracy. That’s how Britain is governed though. You are in a miniscule minority if you are looking to change that. There is one paragraph above that I have no trouble agreeing with:

    “To conduct a national event which at best has no judicial or statutory value and has a lot of loopholes for the outsider lobbies to perch upon, is a very useless activity.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. QUOTE: I find most of what you say here utterly incomprehensible END OF QUOTE

    I wrote in English of things which might have connection to incomprehenisble (to Englishmen) items from other language understanding.

    The dilemma facing England could be more complicated. In that, many populations inside do not talk in English. It is a huge wonder that native-English policymakers feel that they understand anything. They might be understanding nothing.

    I do understand both sides.

    Please do not understand my words as any kind of personal insults.

    I am totally grateful to you that you have come visiting these solitary pages. Most of them were on Telegraph.UK blogsite. One fine day, Telegraph took the terrific decision to stop the whole blogsite, without mentioning the clear reason.

    Reasons were my writings.

    As to the present article being incomprehensible, if you have time to take it up at one paragraph at a time, you might find some sense in the verbal jumble.

    ‘Overall the strong impression’ you make has very little to do with what I wanted to convey. I have no personal stakes in supporting the English monarchy. My actual support is elsewhere.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s