China is very naturally a very feudal country, notwithstanding the communist*�cloak it is exhibiting with so much nonchalance. The language would be extremely feudal. With contempt for the working class; and with supreme indifference to the comfort of everyone other than the ruling bureaucracy, life would be just a reflection of ancient feudal times.

One may see the well-dressed young men and women, who adorn the capital cities, and the modern commercial cities of China, but the millions who remain nameless and possibly faceless, may be living a life of extreme subjugation. The power that subjugates them won't be seen in the rulebooks; but in the stranglehold of the language.

It needs to be said that persons from the English speaking countries, who do not understand the niceties of the Chinese language would not feel or understand the power of the feudal words; and the intangible mental chain they tie on a person's mind and personality. For the foreigner, the layman would be seen to function in a sort of mechanical perfection and harmony, with no external force or command to be seen or heard. And they would miss the unseen omnipotence that fill the air, and would remain in blissful ignorance of what is the real social motivating factor in China.

The regal authority of�Ghengis Khan, that ran throughout China in the ancient times would be based on the solid strength of the intangible chain that existed in the language, that put each person, in the structure, in positions with little manoeuvrability from the general dictates.

China is a communist country and hence it is a classless society. But I would contend that the moment a person from the English West, entered into China, what would impress him most would be the existence of solid social classes. It would be headed by the senior positions of bureaucracy. And a general contempt for all service-oriented careers would be very much evident.�Communism�would exist as a farce; as in many other places, all round the world. Here I must emphasis that I do concede to the general sincerity of the communist revolutionaries in all places where the language is feudal; yet, they also ultimately fall into the trap of the same feudal language social structure.

In this context, one may even rethink about the�Opium Wars*�that paved the way for British supremacy over China. Contempt for the merchant class was very much in exhibition among the official class of China at that time; this attitude will still be in evidence over there. The feudal language would give a feeling of supreme omnipotence and of megalomania, which are common afflictions that effect all bureaucrats when they are able to communicate with the common class, in a feudal language. The language lends a feeling of supreme capabilities.

It is this attitude that led to the war; which could have been avoided if the bureaucrats were living in conditions that are more down-to-earth. They had the same attitude Napoleon also exhibited for the benefit of his followers. That Britain was�a nation of shopkeepers.

When the British came for trade, the higher officials did not allow them to approach them without exhibiting exquisite actions and poses of servitude.��The British merchants were expected to show all inclinations of homage as shown by native merchants, which they invariably declined to do. Even the English ambassadors were treated as mere tribute bearers and they were also expected to perform the�Kowtow�*�or the nine prostrations, before the Emperor, which one can, by understanding the underlying philosophies of the English language, expect they would not do. (Actually, this aspect of the English personality, that they are second to none, anywhere in the world, is what gives them the edge, over others).��The Chinese feudal leaders and Bureaucrats till the very end were disinclined to accept the English merchants as equals and negotiate with them on a level of equality.�

This stupid attitude of pseudo superiority forced them to hold on to their belief of the inferiority of the merchant class from England, which was not under similar strangleholds, of the language, experienced by the Chinese merchants. This was the real starting point of dispute and antipathy. And it led to the Opium Wars.

And again, the British won, in a war, which they fought, from few ships in a far away land, which still claims the greatest of human resources.

Actually the war was not fought between two groups of people; but between two different communication software; the one which had the least of communication blocks and could function faster, with the least of hindrance, won. And it was only the most logical thing to happen.

Usually, in feudal��language conditions, persons tend not to move out from the sphere of influence of their feudal position. Wherever they go, they tend to carry their feudal positions for exhibition. In a way, this lead to a life of living in an artificial halo, with not much understanding of the realities. They communicate only with persons who are willing to show exquisite homage, who do it possibly to exploit the situation. These persons slowly tend to think that the whole world is of minor importance in comparison to their own worth.

This stupid attitude is very much evident in the letter sent by the Chinese Emperor to the English King. The size of Britain is insignificant when compared to that of China. And any gift that came from the English Monarch could only be regarded as a piece of homage, and not as a gift from an equal person.��A part of the letter is quoted here:

You, O King, live beyond the confines of many seas, nevertheless, impelled by your desire to partake of the benefits of our civilisation, you have despatched a mission respectfully bearing your memorial. Your Envoy----has crossed the seas and paid his respects at my Court on the anniversary of my birthday. To show your devotion you have also sent, offerings of your country's produce.

I have perused your memorial: the earnest terms in which it is couched reveal a respectful humility, on your part, which is highly praise worthy. Swaying the wide world, I have but one aim in view, namely to maintain a perfect governance and to fulfil the duties of the state: strange and costly objects do not interest me. I---have no use of your country's manufactures. It behoves you, O King to respect my sentiments and to display even greater devotion and loyalty in future, so that by perpetual submission to our Throne, you may secure peace and prosperity for your country hereafter.

Tremblingly obey and show no negligence.

Some historians have opined that King George of England must have been shocked at the audacity and arrogance expressed by the Chinese Emperor in his letter to him.��For, the Chinese Emperor was addressing a small king and that, in Chinese language could have allowed the bold impoliteness of expression.��But my own feeling is that the Monarch of England and his councillors must have been amused by the tone and this letter itself could have given them the evidence of the underlying stupidity and structural weakness in the Chinese society.

Here it must be emphasised that when the English West is thinking of going for commercial enterprise inside China, they should go from a position of supreme strength, and should maintain an armour of impenetrable united-ness; and see that they interact from a base of English language and never, ever try to bring in the Chinese language into their environment; for once the environment turns Chinese, power would move to the hands of the Chinese bureaucrats, and the English would lose their vantage position.

Here I would like to slightly digress on to�a certain factor about communist leaders. In many countries, they enjoy great power and, naturally, the luxury power can deliver. At the same time, they have to live within the limitations proposed by their political philosophy. In the modern world, it is a very difficult thing, for the modern technologies have brought in gadgetry that, if kept at a distance, can offer a real tormenting temptation.

Let me take case of communist leaders in India; many of them, after getting across to the national political canvas, get to taste the international scene. The satellite television, Internet, Computers, International travel, Five Star Hotels etc. The cosiness of these items really intoxicates them, for they have come from philosophical areas, which very forcefully argued that all these are the toys of the exploiting rich. They slowly start making all these items a part of their living style. Later they find that from the vantage positions that they occupy, they can easily be a part of the business, these technologies offer.

The next scene is that they are all running businesses of vast dimensions, like Satellite TV channels, and also having their fingers in various such enterprises. Now, the communist parties descend to condoning capitalism, and private ownership. All in the name of progressive correction of ideology. But it should be understood that this is only a opportunistic, fooling of the followers, for what is being done is to use the ideological change to legitimise the capitalistic ventures of the Communist leaders. And these leaders naturally are very feudal in their social communications.�And, are not at all different from the earlier feudal lords, whom they claim to have fought against. The same thing is now taking place in China.

Now we can think of Russia; a historically sluggish empire with strength more in pretension than in reality, it has always displayed inherent feudal tendencies. A huge landscape governed always with a supreme lack of efficiency and sensibilities, it has withstood the test of time, because of some strange program in its language software.

In the erstwhile Soviet Union, which was the natural growth of the Russian Empire, with its multitude of States and Nationalities, there were a number of languages. Some from the Asian side and some from the European side. The European language of Russian was in supremacy; but then being in close contact with the Asian languages, which are generally highly feudal in nature, much feudalism may have been superimposed on the Russian language, even if it otherwise did not have any. Life in such a software program would never have given the solace from feudalism, even when the so-called force of liberation, that is, Communism came into power.

The feudal elements in the language could have easily aided the party officials and the bureaucracy to turn their stations into fiefdoms.��If the languages do have this character, then no amount of `Perestroika*� or�Glasinost'*�could liberalise the Soviets.��The liberalism could only allow the more prominent elements in society to build up capitalistic organisations, but which at heart would be just a modern manifestation of feudalism. In other words, the old communist leaders and officials would end up as owners and proprietors of gigantic commercial organisations, which the English West may imagine to be Capitalistic, but in reality would just feudal organisations.

And another connected feature of the stifling atmosphere of a feudal language is that it can both create dissension, and at the same time hold the mutually antipathetic components together in a web of dynamic, mutually destructive unity. Everyone holds on to the system, as it is the only thing, which gives them an identity. But when one fine morning, when the system fails, then forces of dissension would become overwhelmingly powerful and individual components would move in tangential directions.

The statements that I have now made in the last paragraph need much refinement and development and that can be done only in another area. So, the assertions that I have made may just stand alone, for the moment, awaiting more detailed interpretation.

Feudal languages make individuals live in a strange stifling atmosphere; a feeling, and an air of heavy subjugation, which individuals who have always lived in perfect English conditions, would find difficult to sense and perceive. And Communism may appear as a flawless and fitting answer and solution for this affliction. But as long as the language is feudal, Communism cannot help, for the Communist leaders and other officials would just replace the ancient feudal lords, and manoeuvre themselves into the senior, significant positions in the language hierarchy; and the show will go on, with possibly more dogmatic, ideological justification.

As a total generalisation, I would state here that the amount of feudal content in Asian languages might be more in quantity and also in intensity. This I mainly infer from the messy looks of the Asian town planning, messy administrative structures and also from the general stunted anthropological looks in persons of a number of areas, with a few exceptions.

Now let us take the case of the Asian Capitalistic Nations. Japan, South Korea, India, Pakistan etc. Japan, we have already discussed in isolation. Here I may make some sweeping generalisations.

None of these countries are, and never can be capitalistic countries. What is going to be identified as capitalism is just feudalism, in a more cunning and ingenious attire. Actually in these places what exists, as capitalism is really a metamorphosed form of ancient feudalism. All these societies have a non-tangible ingredient, which acts as a limiting factor to liberating the people and keeps them under the tutelage of despots, minor or major. This non-tangible factor is the feudal language program.

The English West, mainly America, has consistently taken an attitude of helping the growth of capitalism, in these countries, thinking that it would give more liberty to the people. But the reality is that it is not the common people who come up. Only a certain limited number of persons, who act in constant association with the ruling and local bureaucracy, get all the benefits; these persons also put all their ingenuity to see that the common person does not achieve the liberty that was originally aimed; for in a feudal language set-up, it could severely challenge their positions.

Many times, America has helped the ruling forces to tackle the outburst of the suppressed populace, identifying them with leftist upstarts. Herein I must interject the contention that no self respecting Englishman from any English speaking country would be able to bear the life in these Asian countries as an ordinary citizen or bear what the local citizen is made to live as. And, leftist ideology is only a trap that awaits the intellectual person who desperately seeks a solution for the miseries he sees. On the background of this reality, for the English West to take sides with the ruling forces in the Asian countries, be it in Japan, India, China, Sri.Lanka or anywhere else is actually an act of perversion and intellectual arrogance.

�

Liberal capitalism is an outgrowth of English Language.

�

This statement requires much more elaboration. I state it for the time being and leave it as that, till I come to a place, when I can elaborate with more inputs.

Hong Kong*

We need to discuss Hong Kong now. A British colony for a long time, result of the Opium War, it was an island of prosperity in a region, known for poverty and privation. Now it is in Chinese hands. It was just a case of handing over on a silver platter, a Jewel to a group of monkeys. They would not know the value to what they have been given. It is only a matter of time, before Hong Kong becomes a sort of capital of mess and mischief.

Many citizens of British Hong Kong would miss the old rule. The rules would now be different. Earlier, there would have been a striving for impartial, good governance, with a premium for dignified, interaction with the officialdom. Now, dignified communication would be a negative factor. What would move the official bosses would be obsequious behaviour, with a set of rules of homage.��A feeling of unquestionable supremacy of the bureaucracy would prevail. The politicians would also be very insecure, and would in many cases be just a supplicant of the bureaucracy; instead of the man to leash the bureaucrat. The feudal power of the bureaucrat would increase manifold.

What else is going to happen? Well, the financial discipline that the British had, with characteristic ease brought in would be lost, and in its place, the mess and chaos of a heterogeneous feudal land would come. There would be a tumble down of financial prosperity, in times to come, for the average man, but the higher up would have a favourable time.��Hong Kong which could have been once described as�the financial capital of Asia,�would loose it place, plunging many a local nation into financial distress, due to the loss of a secure place, where rule of law is precise, fast and detached from status of personalities, for financial dealings.

But, would the British official on deputation to Hong Kong have liked the place, during the British times? It is possible he would have felt stifled and suffocated, when dealing with the local society.

Now let us move to the South American Continent. A place with a strange antiquity. A place where the European blood, mainly non-English, mixed and lived in close quarters with the native blood. A place where the European languages, impacted with the native languages. Both could have feudal elements. Or only one side could have it. Now it does not matter. For, I am sure the present day language is heavily imbedded with feudal inclinations and dispositions.

Now, in a nation, where each person may try desperately to cling on to some superior claim in ancestry, or blood, or lineage, to escape the suppression by the language, and where the other individual may not be inclined to accept the more likeable aspect and may allude to the more disparaging aspects, tensions and intense animosity would linger around in the social circles, like a haunting ghost. This negativity would haunt the minds and social systems, and lead the nations to what they now have in common: political and social instability along with economic chaos.

Historically, these countries, which did have a history of colonialism, do have another common feature or missing: These countries did not have British colonialism.��So the one thing, they missed was the enduring administrative systems and rule of law, which was a characteristic feature of British colonialism all round the world. This legacy, if they had, would have given them some degree of stability.

At the same time, they on their own have failed to create any stable systems. Absolutely due to a mixture of feudal languages and heterogeneous population. And hence among these countries, the stable ones would only be those ruled by despots i.e., persons who are venerated and have a halo around them.��Ordinary concepts of practice of democracy would be converted into farce.

I may not assert here that if five persons meet on the street, and interact in close quarters for a few hours, they would start fighting; but there might be enough ingredients in the language to cause it to happen, if the combination of individuals are from a definite, well defined, or pre-definable mixture of social, age, financial and official positions.

All the constant civil wars, and military coops, and other civil strife could be the result of a real need for the people to reach a level of contentment. For, every man and group of men, who reach the various levels of power would suddenly or slowly metamorphosis into unbelievable, unapproachable entities; a change that the language program would force very naturally.

�

The Middle East*

There are certain nations in the Middle East, which are very small in size, yet remain in deep significance in the World, due to their financial clout based on Oil, and Oil based businesses. Some of them may have gone beyond the parameters of Oil, but that is not the issue of discussion here. These countries include nations like the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait etc. With negligible native human resources, and also very weak militarily, they maintain their political sovereignty mainly on the basis of the support lend to them by the countries of the English West.

One common thing noticeable in these countries is the general neatness of town planning, a thing that is remarkable for its sharp contrast to what is seen in other Afro-Asian countries. For many years, the administrative systems, courteous adherence to traffic rules, neat buildings etc. were admired much by the populace of the neighbouring Asian nations.

These countries are reputed to be very disciplined and also it was believed there is no corruption there. It is believed that it is so, because of the stern laws enforced over there. This belief is slightly erroneous. For, the efficiency of the systems was not due to the stern laws and efficient law enforcing machinery. Rather, it was due to the fact that these nations were maintaining a lot of relationship with the English nations, and for a long time the actual management was in the hands of persons from these countries.

Actually, these countries, for a long time even after independence, were, more or less, managed by people from the English speaking nations, by their being in positions of prominence and authority. And this is the reason for the efficient social functioning in these countries. For, there are many other countries where laws are enforced with equal severity, but with no apparent difference to the efficiency of the society.

Now we are seeing an emerging phenomenon. In some of these Middle Eastern countries, positions of authority and prominence are increasingly being filled by people from the Asian continent. For, the cost factor is heavily in favour of the Asian Bosses. These persons are no less in efficiency than the English, but then they bring in with them their feudal culture also, in which professional relationships and interactions are weaker compared to the strings of family and social hierarchy. In a matter of few years, these countries will slowly show signs of corruption, nepotism, and inefficiency. The change will be slow and subtle and may not be noticeable for a long time, but it will come.�

Another thing that need mention here is that the Arabic language need not be as feudal as the other Asian languages; but there may be regional and national variation, with their consequent affect very much evident on the social psyche.

This country is an absolute creation of the British. All social systems here are basically British; or to put it in more clear terms, English. But it was a country made up by people who were forced to leave their sanctuary of home, native place, family, friends and everything that one may build up in a lifetime.

Incidentally, one may, for reasons of pedantry, claim that America is different from England, and so many similar things. It may be so. But I claim here to show that the great base and the canvas on which America exists are English. I will do it at a later stage.

USA is different from the South American countries, as Britain is different from the rest of Europe. America would have more in common with Canada, than with any of the South American countries. Off course, it is because of the sameness of language. Yet, both countries, one may notice are prosperous, with good town planning, democratic in practice as different from democratic in pretence as in the South American countries; the citizens of both countries get dignity from the officialdom; as against either disdain if one is an ordinary mortal, and resounding respect if one is a big man in South America.

Yet, America is the place where the language can liberate anybody; even if they have lived in tutelage for decades in the stranglehold of their native tongues.

Now America is getting filled by people from diverse language background; from the West Europeans, East Europeans, the South Americans, Black Africans, Arabs, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Pakistanis, Sri.Lankans, Indians, Bangladeshis etc. to many others of varying colours and languages.

When persons who have lived in the terrible regimentation of feudal languages, come over to America, and start speaking English with the same parameters that the British practice, the effect is one of supreme liberation. One, which they can never, never achieve in their own country, whatever their position or wealth. This statement needs a lot of elaboration and understanding; and can be dealt only at a later stage.

Yet the continuous and incessant bombardment of alien cultural ideology embedded in feudal languages, could create experiences, which are not�English�and will lead USA to social tensions. Though the extreme emotional disturbances, it causes would be understood as racial feelings, and colour discrimination, the real reasons could be the strange, and disturbing social restructuring that is being forced on an easy going English society. Ordinary, peaceful persons would react violently to alien disturbing cultural signals, which are disturbing, and at the same time difficult to understand.

With callous indifference, one can claim that America is the melting pot of cultures. If full melting does take place, and an English mould is formed, it is all right. But I have fears that with this severe influx of alien cultures that come with a package of virus software, a stage may come, at least, in certain areas, where the innate resilience of the English structure may be severely tested; and cause much distress to the individual persons; and can in a matter of time, cause domino effect on many other areas, causing strange happenings of technological failure, inefficiency, conflict, hatred, events that may be described with shallow understanding as racially motivated, decent and peaceful persons acting with unnatural violence etc.

Rude officialdom, arrogant and trigger-happy police, increasing corruption, insolent attitude to persons who are judged to be doing lower jobs, time consuming judiciary, rules and regulations, which are laughable in meaning but having a sting from which many get hurt, and a general feeling of hopeless for the solitary individual, as against the might of the society are all general characters of the effect of feudal languages.

What has to be borne in mind is that feudal languages do have elements in them, which aim at subjugation; and where they fail to do so, they may at least cause deep mental hurt. And that too, in an extremely soft and inconspicuous manner, that it may not be discernible to another person, other than the person who felt it. Though persons who do not know these languages may not actually understand the full significance of each and every word; they may be able to sense the negativity from the body language of the person who says the words, and of the other's of the same language who may actually understand it.

Beyond all this, there may be a factor of mental waves, or energy, which may radiate along with the words, which may have a deeper effect than is currently understood. It could all lead to a lot of side effects, possibly due to a sort of domino effect, and the effect need not be at the place the disturbance took place. Examples could be unexplainable road rages, air rages, shooting of colleagues, and so many actions with criminal overtones, by seemingly decent persons.�

Yet, persons who actually come from these feudal language countries would display a supreme level of emotional balance, which they could and would never have displayed in their own country. For, what they are experiencing is a freedom in the English nations, which they could not have dreamt of, in their wildest dreams, if they had the imagination to conceptualise it.

More, actually much more, needs to be said on America; but those things can be dealt with only after much discussion of other basic things, is finished.

{Note: Huffingtonpost effectively blocked me from commenting on their reports. However, this bit of comment from another member is indicative of the correctness of my contentions on the US, written some 2 decades back}

I do not know anything about the Dutch language; I do think that this is one language that may have certain characteristic of the English language; namely, the lack of feudal grading of citizenry, who otherwise do not have any feudal pedigree. I deduce it on the basis of the fact that these are the people who have held up to the British might, just on the basis of their human quality factors. And in an African country, where they had the opportunity to handle political power, they did improve the lot of the local population; even this dialogue of mine may not be acceptable to many. At the same time, I am not very sure how much of the credit can be shared by the British, who also did have political power there, and did aim to improve the lot of the natives, facing sharp antipathy from the�Afrikaners*.

I am not in a position to make much comment on the Jews, other than comment from the basis of some of their certain of their international reactions and something from their antiquity.

One thing that has caught my imagination is the history of�Jesus Christ*. Taken from a secular point of view, many of his deeds do smack of an attitude of a revolutionary, bent on wiping out the corruption and the strangling hold on the society by a section of the dominant class. At the same time, at the end of the scene, the very section, that is the common people, who should have seen him as their saviour against the exploitation by the master class, cried for his blood. Both these phenomena do point to a sort of feudal content in their language.��For, stifling domination by a section is a very sharp pointer to a feudal language structure. And the fact that at the end of all the show the people would still bend before the powers that be is also a feudal language, phenomena. For, a feudal language does lend an enchantment to all higher positions that one really reels with pleasure whenever one gets an occasion to appease the higher person, and achieve his pleasing approval.

Now, I am in a premises that I do not have much idea about. So, my comments may need to be confirmed. But then all my judgements regarding languages and nations that I do not know much about, are based on information, which came to me through reading and comments, on the basis of which I have developed some understanding on them. At the same time, I stand by the correctness of my original understanding that there is a factor of the structure of the language that defines all social phenomena.

Another thing that has to influence this understanding about the Jews, is the consistent�nuisancevalue, they have evoked in almost all nations, where they were in financial power. The word�nuisanceshould be qualified here. For in many places, where they lived, there has been antipathy to them socially. Yet, it need not always be that they are in the wrong. They may be positive in a negative society, or they may be negative in a positive society, or both may be negative. These ideas also need to be discussed in relation to certain factors in their spoken language. I do not know much about what they spoke either during the age of Jesus Christ, or in during the recent centuries. Their language is considered to be�Hebrew*. Or was it Aramaic? But what they did speak in other nations like Germany among themselves, and how much some other language features influenced their spoken languages like German, I have no idea. Or whether, they were disturbed by the feudalism in the local languages like German etc., is also a moot point.

It is only natural that I discuss South Africa here. It is easy to claim that the Dutch settlers exploited the Black Africans and they never allowed the Blacks natives to come up in life. It is a very complicated question. But if anyone wants to speak on this affair, they should first check if there is any component of feudalism in the local Black African languages and dialects. And also, see if the major Black leadership come from higher feudal hereditary. If it is so, then it could very well be said that the Blacks would have been better off under the Dutch settlers' rule. If both the answers are in the affirmative, then I can put it in words that there would be many Blacks who would improve their lot fantastically under the Black Majority rule, but the majority would be in plights, which are very pitiably indeed. And the more the difference builds up, the more the blame would be put on the erstwhile Afrikaner*�rule.

Here I may seem to be saying that the White settlers are better people than the Blacks. That is only a mistake, easily made; for my arguments are on so fine a borderline, that they, if not properly understood, can seem to stand for the opposite of what it was intended to stand for.

What I am trying to say is that if the language program of the Blacks does have a stinging feudal element, then it will clearly be the reason why the Blacks do not improve as a group. And that same factor must have, indeed, been the reason why they were so disunited, weak and mutually antagonistic that led to the supremacy of the settlers on them. And if this factor of feudal content is indeed in their language, then it is only correct that the Afrikaner did keep them at a distance; or else the same virus would infect and inflict them also.

Since the Black majority rule has come, naturally the native languages would once again be blooming. Now, what is disturbing is that if the Black languages and dialects do have this feudal content, then the whole country would get infected by it; the settlers included and instead of the social and administrative systems and conventions improving, could see a marked and steady movement to disaster. But these things being slow, solitary individuals may not be able to discern the disaster that looms on the horizon.

What I would like to say is, to put it more effectively, that the Blacks in South Africa, as a whole group, would not achieve the grandeur of the Blacks in U.S.A, unless they are able to remove any feudal language or dialect they otherwise use, and imbibe English as used in U.K or U.S.A. And if they continue to feel fierce passions for their mother tongue, or any other language just because of its hereditary associations, then they would just be carrying on the ancient encumbrances of the major peoples of Africa.

Now let me discuss Britain. Britain was just a small island on the fringe of the European continent. Yet it has been the most significant nation on earth, when the total effect its presence has caused for the whole world is taken into account; and most of it of a rare positive quality. Being very near to the European continent, the social systems and philosophies that prevailed all over Europe influenced Britain also.

The British language, that is English, may also possibly have been having a certain level of feudalism in it in the far away ancient times. Yet, it may have certain areas, which allowed aristocracy to debate the issue of Magna Carta*�with the Monarchy, and yet not destroy the prestige of the Monarchy, and make the whole affair into an intelligent experience. The significance of what I said here is that in many other language environments what had happened would have led to a lot of simmering anger due to bruised egos, which would have been a result of the running of the language program through the mind and mouth of a lot of persons. And would have led to the destruction of the political system; instead of the strengthening of the system that, took place in England.

Whatever be the ancient character of the British language, that is English, it must have slowly developed in a most positive manner, shedding it hierarchical character, from among the common communication. And then Britain started becoming different from the other European nations. Slowly the language started allowing the common men, the freedom to communicate to each other without any reference to their age, social, official or financial position. It was a wonderful experience that most of the mankind all round the world is yet to experience. This is the real reason for the blossoming of so many scientific discoveries in Britain, and also of so many remarkable incidents in the British history.

This is the real reason, why a common British citizen could think of the�Gravitational*�pull and then lead on the argument to reach the realm of classical science; why the British administrative systems, though remarkably simple, was unique; why every branch of human knowledge bloomed in the minds of the common citizens, while at the same time many other country were filled with remarkable scholars, and hallowed persons, with negligible contributions to human knowledge. And this is the reason why British claim themselves as a nation of�geniuses*, when actually they are only a nation of ordinary persons using their brains and social communication to process ideas in a most un-harried and unhindered atmosphere.

At the same time, the supreme geniuses and scholars of the feudal nations had to preserve a significant part of their daily thought and attention for maintaining and extracting their proper respect, decorum and dignity, especially from the lower class of people. Their every action would be first and foremost aimed at impressing the least of the persons in the society. And the least of the citizens could disturb them with the most minor of words, used in a heartless and indifferent manner.

In this context, a mention may be made of the European Nation; a conglomeration of diverse European nations. Britain has not joined it. To put it in so many words, Britain has saved itself from a sure route to unmitigated disaster. To deliberate more on this issue, many more themes have to be finished. When the basis of my contention are set and ready, I will come back to this theme.