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 to who is he a slave 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 shi*ification of the people. Now, this is something that has to be discussed. For, when Englishmen come as traders, this sort of sh*tification 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. 

 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 Gurkha Brigade was massively expanded during World War II. Over 250,000 Gurkhas 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 these facts 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. 

You can download this book as a Digital Book come here