01. When negative social attachments stick to Britain

02. Propping up one’s indicant codes

03. The real truth behind free trade and experiences in gullibility

04. Re-examining a seeming victory

When negative social attachments stick to Britain

From this area, I need to submit my memory of another incident. There was a time in my life when I worked as a Real Estate Agent in a small town in India, for around one year. Even though in cities like Bombay, this profession has no social negativity, in other small towns, it is a job the higher classes Hindus connect to lower class people.

The experiences I received and the observations about the underbelly of Indian society, that I could make during this brief period was quite astronomical. There was a marked character of cheating a lower guy in many people’s attitude. Even though I was trying to set up an elegant level professionalism into the business, there was all-round back stabbing, mainly from my own side of people. I was trying to introduce an English ambience in a rude feudal language speaking area. I was quite far from my home base.

I had a business discussion with a retired college professor. I met him and we discussed the issues in English. This language of communication more or less set me on a particular platform. There was another meeting and visit to a location planned on for another day. On that day, I took one of the workers who were now my mates in my residential area, with me.

Due to my totally egalitarian attitude, there was not much of a pose of servitude in the person who came with me. In way, that is an innate training of mine. However, when I raise such a person to my level, the wider society simply views it as my going down to the lower level. That the lower man has risen cannot be conceived by them. For, in actuality they do not have any quality elevation other than the power to pull down or push down another person. The stature increase is only what I tell them. In all dispositions, intelligence, level of information and also mental stature, they remain the same.

When I reached the Professor’s house, his driver was there. He very powerfully understood my companion’s social standard. Since I was in a very close level with him, I was quite easily bracketed to his levels. Now, came the next issue. When I started conversing with the professor, I was quite aware of a strain in the air. He seemed quite tense. And in the midst of a very innocent word, he seems to lose his cool and straight away went into Malayalam and addressed me in anger with a very definite lower indicant word.

Now, this was really an insult, and it was quite clearly understood as such by my companion who was a worker in my family’s business unit. [The insult was in the change of indicant word You to a lower level. It is an insult which the blacks and Asians who have risen up in the US will not know of. They only know of an insult if they are addressed as a Nigger. A Nigger word is nothing compared to an indicant word lowering. But how to inform them that? Their forefathers practised all such things in their native lands, spoiling their native social system. Yet, the complete complaint they have is on the English society!]

Later I understood from his words, that the worker had taken this incident as a measure of my social capacity. I myself couldn’t at first understand why a very nice English relationship had turned so sour with no tangible reason.

However, later, much later, as I went through life with many more social experiences, I understood that when I was positioned at the level of the worker, my free conversation in English was creating an rankle in the Professor, for he was also in attendance of his own servants. As to my case, I had no one specifically to introduce me, in a route that would have included some powerful social entities.

The only companion that I had, who should have stood in an obsequious stance and introduced me in very respectful word and pose had been totally compromised. For, I had given him over time, the idea that no one is higher or lower. This idea he could connect only to me. And not to anyone of his own native superiors.

Looking back at this far-off in time, incident, I can connect the understanding to what is currently happening to England. It is like this. When I search for England or British native citizens on any social website, many times I come across persons who cannot be defined as English or British from my innate understanding of these words. Many times, I come across Asians, including Indians and Pakistanis, African and even Continental Europeans under the definition of British. Even though England may say that all its citizens are same and equal, the others know that they are not equal. These outsiders, when they are evaluated from their own native ancestry, they are seen in a very wide array of levels.

Now, what is the extension of this issue? There is a natural disaster. A lot of British doctors arrive. However, these are Hindi or some other feudal language speaking persons. The females among them wear sari and other Asian dresses. Well, what is the message that Britain is giving? The people in the disaster zone are expecting British or English doctors, and not persons who masquerade as them. In the long-term, the impression of the word Great Britain and England would get erased. These visual and mental impressions are quite powerful. England should not play the fool with national heritages of priceless value.

There is need to define non-native British citizens differently. For, there is a huge world outside Britain that looks up to England and English traditions. They should not be fooled. A native-British citizen is not a Hindi or Malayalam knowing person. His or her family links are not entwined powerfully with feudal language social systems.

Here one comes upon the issue of some British citizens marrying non-British persons. Well, how does one define them? Well, there is a powerful method to evaluate and define them. In which system are their children brought up? If they are fully in English and other British language system, they are British. If they are brought up in a feudal language system, they are definitely not British. If they are brought up in a mix of two, they are ‘multicultured’. In which case also, they have a definite amount of negativity. They are not British. For an anti-English stance is quite evident.

Propping up one’s indicant codes

Now coming back to the issue of working under an Indian and about what spurs entrepreneurship. In feudal language social systems, the ultimate aim of any social enterprise is to bring out an immediate social pattern of oneself being the head of group of people in the immediate surroundings. It is that specific scene that gets conveyed through the social system. When a person comes to see me, and I am seen with a lot of persons in attendance, then my indicant word codes go up.

If on the other hand, they come and see me alone, it can send a negative indicant word signal through the social system. If this is the scene that has appeared when outsiders come to see me, then I have to mend it by some technique to redraft this idea. One thing would be to phone someone of social prominence with who I am in intimate contact with and talk to him in indicant word codes of intimacy. This can serve as a prop to my diminished indicant word codes, in the mind of the outsider.

In current-day India, everyman would mentally strive to seek an opening in which he can break out as an independent employer, away from his slavish stance of employee. It is not the work that repulses him, but the positioning in the indicant word codes. In each and every one of these words, the others are informed of his slavery to another person. Everyman evaluates another person on the basis of: who is he a slave to and at what level. The higher the level, lesser is his indicant word code depreciation. For then it is understood that he has his own slaves under him.

The spirit of entrepreneurship in English is different in that it is not connected to the desperate need to escape from lower indicant word codes. It so happens that in India, loyalty is deep till a very plausible prospect appears, for the employee to break out, on the horizon. If and when this appears, every one of his relatives including his wife and children would prompt him to throw off his cloak of commitment to his boss, and go on his own. For, once he does this, their all indicant words would rise. His wife can transform from Oal (Aval) to Oar (Avar). In a way, every loyal Indian does carry these codes of treachery in his heart. It is not that he is dishonest or bad, but that in his innermost section of his soul, he doesn’t like to be in an atrophied form. For his soul yearns for a noble bearing. He has to break out of the social ambience, in which he is dirt, even though he is honest, courageous, committed and loyal.

Yet, the prompt for betrayal comes not necessarily from within, but from close persons who also want to elevate themselves to a better position, by being associated to a higher personage.

It may be noted that every time the Englishmen won a campaign, business, warfare or otherwise, they went back to their base. That of England and links to England. They had no hesitation to hand over their powerful successes into the hands of their king. Would any Indian do such a thing? They wouldn’t dare to do it. For, the moment they give it up, they are nothing in the new scheme of things.

Even in communicating with the new bosses, they would have to be very choosy in their words. In fact, words change from their earlier position of owners to their later position of being without possessions. James Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak can be mentioned in this regard. However, the whole history of British colonialism is that of a people who made grand successes abroad, but never gave up their British nationality and loyalty to their nation [with the possible exception of the men of mediocrity in the US]. However current day, England might be quite different, with many persons from other nationalities fixed up in the various routes of communication.

In the case of Indians, they enjoy a terrible fraud called Dual Nationality or Double Citizenship. That is, they can become citizens in some other nation like the US and still remain as Indian citizens. They can come back to India to use the money power that comes through another fraud called currency exchange rate difference, to enslave the local population. The power they gather from here, they can use to prop themselves up back in the other nation.

The real truth behind free trade and experiences in gullibility

It is here that I would like to insert my ideas on trade and economic prosperity. In my youthful I day, I was a vociferous advocate of free trade and opening up of all economies. However, after having lived through several business and commercial environments for at least brief periods and moments, I feel that it is an untruth that trade does bring in comprehensive social prosperity.

Actually trade is only a means to make money, sell one’s goods and produces and services, a means to spend time in adventurous enterprises, a motive to travel, a means to have a lot of persons to dominate, to keep oneself busy, to improve one’s knowledge and experience and possibly to conquer other persons or nations’ intimate resources and possessions. In itself, it does not bring in prosperity to the majority population. However, it can bring in value to things which are locally seen as of miniscule value. For example, pepper that was there in south India received value when tradesmen came from afar to buy and sell it in European markets.

Now, what has to be understood is that when a businessman goes to an area with money, he can literally buy not only goods, but also dominate the people there.

For example, there was a time when I used to go to a far-off place, quite near to forests, for buying certain agricultural produces. I found that the rich merchants from afar are on terms of equality with the local rich farmers and traders there. However the vast majority of ordinary individuals literally get despoiled as these rich tradesmen from afar enter inside their geographical areas and address and refer to them in low indicant words.

It is not only domination that was happening, but real stinking-dirtification of the people. Now, this is something that has to be discussed. For, when Englishmen come as traders, this sort of stinking-dirtification of local people does not take place. Rather the local ordinary individuals feel a personality elevation. This creates havoc in the social system, in that the local social leaders and rich persons get the creeps. For their servant classes are seen as improving. I have already discussed this item elsewhere in this book.

Now, this is something that England or rather Great Britain has to take cognizance of. The English academicians, the professors in Economics do not know much about feudal languages. They have led the nation into deep perils. For the last so many years, they made their national policymakers swear by free trade policies. I could see the potential pitfall in this stance. If this policy is enforced between nations in the Anglosphere and with some selected European nations which have planar languages like English, it is not a problem.

However, advocating this policy on a basis of reciprocity with feudal language nations is stupidity. It is similar to saying that the mouse can pat the snake’s tail, and the snake can pat the mouse’s tail. Allowing the mouse to pat the snake’s tail is of no consequence to either of them. However to allow the snake to pat the mouse tail is totally dangerous to the mouse. The snake would pat the tail and then gobble up the mouse. If the Economics professors have not been able to see this much, I would say that it might be a good time to retire this whole subject from academic studies.

Beyond that when giving value to international trade treaties, English nations should give them only as much value one would give to a rule prohibiting shooting and killing of tigers in India. For when a tiger attacks and there is a possibility of being maimed and killed by the tiger, there is no need to think of the rule. What then is imperative is to take the gun and shoot the tiger, to kill.

Re-examining a seeming victory

Fat good these professors have done to the English nations. I could very well foresee the grand dangers of all recent activities of utter folly done by the English nations. Y2K was not really the beginning of this folly. Actually it really started with the so-called winning of the World War 2. I have never been able to see WW 2 as a winning. If it was a winning, it was a winning that really made Britain lose much of its possessions and standards.

The whole of British colonial empire was dismantled. How can such a thing be done, without the acquiescence on record, of the people who were all part of the grand British Empire? When the British Empire was dismantled how many millions died immediately and how many millions died in later years? In India, immediately there were the mass massacres of people in both Pakistan and India, literally in millions. Did these affected people agree to the withdrawal of British administration in their areas? [Riots, Direction, Rape] Can people be simply given to a new set of leaders? Can administrative systems and other things like army, navy, air force, railways and much else be handed over to a new set of leaders? All of the world, including Africa and Asia, many persons, families, forests, national resources and social systems were ravished by the absolute shaking of the roots of political administration.

In Sri Lanka, it led to decades of war between the Tamils who claimed their rights to be independent on the basis of right to self-determinism. However, the huge military setup was with the Sinhala leadership. For, democracy gave them the leadership to take it over. Did the British administration get the okay from the Tamil populations when they were summarily handed over to another group to rule, by the right of numerical might?

United Nations Organisation was setup by the English nations. This was then handed over to be run on democratic basis. Can anything of quality be created or maintained by democracy, in nations where there is only feudal languages? For example, there are so many government-run-schools with bare quality. This is the creation of democracy. Yet, a fantastic quality English school can be created only by persons of quality and not by persons selected by democracy.

Low-quality persons from low-quality nations are made the Secretary Generals. These persons get salaries which when converted to their native-nation currency expand to astronomical amounts. They become international giants. What is the use of English nations creating fantastic international organisations and then handing it over to base persons? Do they have the mental calibre or refinement to rise up to the need of the moment?

When the Tamil population desperately begged of the UN officials not to move away when the Sri Lankan army had surrounded them, the UN observers were very forcefully ordered to move out and leave the people for the invading thugs to molest and murder. Who took this decision? Did the Secretary General take money from the Sri Lankan invaders, for this heinous act? These things are not beyond possibilities. {Actually I remember the scene in The Godfather in which Michael finds his father’s security guards removed on the orders of the police chief, who had taken payment from the other Mafia group)

It was rumoured that LTTE leaders including Mr. Prabakaran had been duped by giving them a message that an international team was there to arrange for their surrender and safe passage. Did any senior officials in the UN collaborate with the Sri Lankan authorities to hoodwink the LTTE leadership? It was reported that Mr. Prabakaran was made to surrender and tortured to death. Well, what about his daughter and wife? Where are they? Were they sexually molested and killed? Or were they sexually molested and kept alive?

When the Secretary General came visiting the refugee camps of the Tamils, he looked quite unconcerned with their plight. From my own experience about the goings-on between Asian officials, it would be quite interesting to know what the transaction that took place between the Sri Lankan authorities and the UN officials was. Cash, war booty in wine, women (in plenty) and song, and ripped out jewellery?

Well, looking back, one can find blood on the hands of Clement Atlee and his gang of super nuts who handed over huge geographical areas to rank misfits. I can only quote the words of Sir Winston Churchill when he spoke in the debate on the Independence of India Bill in the British parliament:

Power will go into the hands of rascals, rogues and freebooters. Not a bottle of water will escape taxation. Only the air will be free, and the blood of these hungry millions will be on the head of Mr. Atlee. These are men of straw of whom no trace will be found after a few years. They will fight among themselves and India will be lost in political squabbles.

My note: Not just India, the whole of the erstwhile geographical areas of the British Empire has been lost to treacherous leaderships, everywhere.

Now going back to World War 2, it more or less made the Russians the masters of half of Europe. Nothing could be done by the English sides as the Russian killed a huge section of populations in such nations as Poland and Hungary. Even half of Germany was in Russian hands.

SEE this quote from a comment that was attacking my comment on HuffingtonPost:

honeybear July 14, 2012 at 5:08pm

One last word about Americans making English the language of business. If we had not saved your bacon...German would have been the language of business and English would have been an “also ran.’”

MY COMMENT: If one were to read the history of World War 2 on Wikipedia, the impression that one would get is that of a US led war with a small Britain helping it. The fact was that it was a war between Britain and the German side. The US only came to aid it, for it was a time when the people of US had a lot of commitment and affection for England. And not like now, when persons like the above one have multiplied over there.

It is a false belief that Great Britain was the smaller item on the English side. Actually Britain was then the British Empire. And the US was only a nation. The British side actually was a huge side with battle fronts in many places, including India. British command extended through far distant areas like Mesopotamia, Alexandria, Colombo, Singapore, Hong Kong, Bombay, Karachi, Malaya and Newfoundland.

And also in the nations of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and India. Well, only Irish Free State stood truant, typically. As in the First World War, the Ghurkha Brigade was massively expanded during World War II. Over 250,000 Ghurkhas served in all theatres of war, most memorably in Burma, North Africa, the Middle East and Italy. When writing history, modern history content-writers should not leave out this fact from their imagination.

The problem that Britain immediately faced was that the enemy was powerfully stacked just within a distance of 22 kilometres across the English Channel. It is like the typical situation seen in Chess. One side is quite powerful. But its King has no protection and can be cornered. In a similar manner, Britain had power all over the world. Yet, the enemy can simply walk into England and seek the surrender of Britain.

When thinking like that, I should wonder why Hitler did not simply focus upon the capture of Britain and only Britain, not of its colonial possessions. It was a strategy that Robert Clive did in Arcot. When the British fort was under siege by the French forces with support of the local king, he simply wandered with a small group of committed men into the unprotected French fort some 20 kilometres away.

Africa, the Dark Continent was literally handed over to the thieving master classes of individual nations. They made mincemeat of all animals and trees in their possession. At the end of all this thieving, they would still have the composure to teach in their history books about the British ‘looting’ of their nation. To understand the real magnanimity of British colonialism, one has to just see through the colonial actions of Continental European nations such as Belgium, and of what the Indians have done to the tribal populations of the geographical areas occupied by India.