[Ved]

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: Oh, Ye English, Beware the 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.

[JustinofOz]

Hello Ved. thank you for the article and the imformative post. You make many valid points. However (There is always a "but"), let us look at things in a rational way and from a point of view of a more down-to-earth nature.

Firstly you said that the Union will be applauded by multinational corporations. This is true. It is true because the world now runs on a market economy driven by the need for mankind to do trade. There is, perhaps, an alternative or two that might be trotted out to meet our social and industrial needs. But those alternatives have all met with scorn, ridicule and a measure of "It can't be done". In short, we are stuck with the world as is. Practically speaking, any possible alternative will not be attempted, at least, not until such time as this system in which we now live has run it's course and proven to have been a failure.

You then go on to suggest that some or all of the English character will be lost within the melee of the sheer numbers of peoples of the EU. This too may eventually prove to be so. However (again!), as we are stuck with the system as it is, and as there is no way of immediately doing a U-Turn, I suggest that we should spend our time and energy in making the system we now have work better for all of us.

There are many checks and balances, adjustments and re-adjustments needed in order to fine-tune the engine of our global economy. Individually, we may or may not like the world as it is and the way it seems to be going. But as there is absolutely nothing that we as individuals, or even as nations, can do to change the status quo, I suggest that we should be perhaps hooking up with one or two of these fine-tuning devices, and attempt to make the world a better place in which our children may grow and live.

There are some problem areas such as the environment, poverty, child abuse, despotism, terrorism, and a whole plethora of other "isms" with which we can exercise our minds. Should we not therefore get on some bandwagon that is within our grasp and attempt to make the world better from that point of reference?

We must, for instance, make our businesses, no matter how large or small, more sustainable. We can't simply keep on taking from the available resources without putting something back. The production of energy and fuels must, in the end, become fully self-sustaining industries. (There are some good inroads into this, but that is another story). We must stop such industries as genetic playing around with our foodstuffs. The industries producing these GM crops and other gene technology must be brought to a halt. It is far too risky an endeavour to play around with the very food without which we will become extinct. One slip and we're history.

It is the future of the world that is at stake. We are talking here of a simple little bit of the machinery of our modern culture. Joining the EU, We in Oz joining with the Asian nations as a block of countries with social and economic affiliations, is all par for the course. We will not simply stop being Aussies any more than the British will stop being Brits. I am not at all afraid of the future, although I have little enough of it left to me. What I am afraid of however, is a future that has arrived upon us without enough of us having had our say and spoken out as part of the social adjustment machinery, so that we can have the best possible future. It really scares me that there are not enough young people going into politics. It frightens me that there are not enough young people demonstrating against whatever they see as not being right with their world. That is really something about which we should be afraid.

Finally, there is no reason to be worried about going into a liason with the EU. It is the finer points of the deals that are struck that will tell the story, and make it tolerable, pleasurable and mutually beneficial, or a disaster for all. It is precisely for this reason that a leadership with vision, and dare I say inspiration, should be carefully elected before any deals are struck. Perhaps the UK First Party, but that is something about which the British voters must ponder.

[Ved]

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.

Regards: Ved.

[Ved]

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 programme 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 programmes, 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 programmes in a language, and the history, society, and other aspects of the people who speak in that language.

The summary continues-------------------

And dear, 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.

Regards: ved.

[Ved]

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.

Regards: Ved.

[Ved]

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.

Regards:Ved.

[Ved]

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.

Ved.