What's Wrong with "the U.K."?

The Yeekay being the term for the current parody of Britain as opposed to the real country, one would have a quicker and easier time asking what isn't wrong with it. But that isn't what we mean. The question posed in our title is, what is wrong with the current use by bongos of the expression "the U.K."

Most readers will be aware that there is a strong tendency in the Pit to refer to Britain as "the U.K." Travellers abroad will say "I am going back to the U.K. on Monday". No one in the real world ever said that. They would say either "I am going back to Britain" or "I am going back to England". Indeed it is this widespread usage of the term "the U.K." as opposed to "Britain" or "England" which (together with the abominable pronunciation with which the bourgeois bongo distorts the word) gives rise to the expression "the Yeekay" to mean Pit-britain.

But what precisely is wrong with the expression, apart from the fact that Johnny Bongo uses it? Of course that alone would be sufficient. If the Pit calls something by a different name from that which the real world calls it one would adhere to the real word as a matter of principle. And not merely of principle. It is a practical measure of secession to avoid those usages that conjure up the mental universe of the Pit. If we wish to keep our image-sphere free from pollution, we must avoid the terminology of the Pit just as we avoid its style of dress or its corrupt music.

But there is more to the matter than that. The partial eradication of the words "Britain" and "England" from everyday speech, replacing them with "the U.K." is more than a merely accidental quirk of terminology. It has both causes and implications which stem from the deracinated state of Pit-england.

Of course there is nothing in itself objectionable about the term "the United Kingdom". It goes back some two hundred years and represents the union of the British nations upon which all subsequent British history has been founded. It has been honourably used for all that time, mostly in official or legal contexts and not usually reduced to the initials.

What is significant about its current usage is not primarily what the expression is, but what it displaces. The United Kingdom is a purely political entity brought into being by an act of parliament. Britain and England are not merely political entities, they are geographical and spiritual realities. The words carry with them deep emotional connotations which "the U.K." completely lacks. Take as an example the song "There'll Always be an England". Substitute "There'll always be a U.K." and the very absurdity demonstrates the difference in emotional and spiritual weight and connotation between the two expressions.

And this, of course is precisely the reason for the adoption of "Yeekay". The emotional associations of the words "Britain" and "England" are at best embarrassing and at worst hateful to the inverse-elite of television studios and other mass-media. And in this, as in other matters, this anti-cultural oligarchy has the power, unparalleled in history, to change, virtually overnight, the everyday idioms of ordinary people (which is, incidentally, another reason for avoiding all Pit-argot). To exchange the powerful words "Britain" and "England" for the sanitised, emotionally-neutral "U.K." is a victory for deracination. And a very complete victory it is with even people of patriotic tendency happily calling their country the Yeekay.

And there is another aspect to this linguistic transfer - one which one may also suspect is not entirely accidental. For the truth is that there will not always be a U.K. Nothing short of a seismic catastrophe could eradicate either Britain or England as geographical entities. Nothing can eradicate them as spiritual and emotional realities. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, was created by an Act of Parliament in 1800 and will probably cease to exist well within our lifetime. The dissolution of the Union between the constituent nations, the abolition of the monarchy, or the abolition of Britain as a sovereign state as part of its subsumption into a larger state - any one of these three events would abolish the United Kingdom, and at least one of them is likely to happen within the foreseeable future.

By the time this happens, the post-British teletariat will have transferred to the term "Yeekay" whatever small remnant it is capable of bearing of the emotional power once vested in "Britain" and "England". Their identity, such as, it is will be bound up linguistically with the impoverished term "U.K." even as a beggar who has no house may at least possess a blanket. They will then be told that they can no longer say "Yeekay" as the United Kingdom no longer exists. A new and even more sanitised verbal vehicle will be devised. One designed to spill whatever dregs of emotional content still remain in "the U.K."

He who controls language controls not only thought, but feeling.