We have difficulty in finding the proper language and adequate discourse. Our choice to use English comes from a habit, which is in turn created by the perception of English as the most accessible world language. This convention is particularly emphasized on the Internet where technical lingo and majority of content are in English. Therefore it seems like a natural choice to accept it as given. We do not feel politically threatened by English language as we do not see it as a direct extension of the English nation state. It is perceived as more of an international standard used by everyone who has interest in operating on the global level. However, if English is not our first language, we are facing an unavoidable disadvantage from the very beginning. Since the language is not our focal point, we don't have time to study it with our complete attention, to research connotations of each statement or even proof read texts that are still in making. This position could be a major setback in any polemic that will require quick response, delicate wording or number of other things. Before anything else, any claim for the legitimacy of the statement is hardly sustainable. We are not referring to the published text with the academic pedigree, but to the more pragmatic use of words such as the web log. The web sets a forum open to everyone who has access to it, at any geographical location. But the language divides the text of the Internet in two parts: by those who were educated in English language and by those who were not. This fact is followed by a great asymmetry between for example, a highly educated person who is not very proficient in English and a native speaker who could still be in the high school. In a polemic that will require speed and economy of words, the native speaker, even less educated, will always be in a great advantage. And it is the nature of the information flow in digital media to favor speed and efficiency over any other concerns, which is after all the elementary economy of information. It is impossible for us than, within this context, to post the text online and except that a signifier will transpire as such. The clumsy or incorrect use of language will always decrease speed and efficiency, question legitimacy and bring the asymmetry into play. And this asymmetry, as we have explained earlier, is not in the field of language. In an ideal situation we could have written the text in our mother tongue, gave it to the professional translator and fully master the language. But in the concrete situation, semiotics are not isolated from the economy of information and economy of production. Therefore this asymmetry is political, with one appropriation: English language is not the extension of one nation state, but of a group of nations that mostly overlap with the what used to be British colonial project. The popularity of English language reached its peak only in the postcolonial world, especially after the WW2, thanks to growing importance of the United States, when it definitely overpowered French. The importance of the American English is especially visible in the case of Internet which, although global in theory, is physically predominantly developed in the US. When a student in a non-English speaking country studies HTML syntax they learn commands as completely new words, memorizing them as they would unfamiliar names. The native speaker has an advantage of easily understanding HTML commands such as body, head, table, border etc. This is true in the case of any other computer language and it actually happens on all levels of information technology. However, this imbalance of powers has never been considered a threat. The post WW2 advent of American entertainment industry spread English in much more efficient way than any grand master plan could have ever desired. While Esperanto and other academic efforts to construct the optimal universal language never produced much effect, the English that could have been heard in movies and music, and later read on the Internet had a tremendous appeal, and was learned with enthusiasm. In a great number of international languages English expressions are used within local slang, while some words such as rock, show business or software are completely irreplaceable. Therefore, this political asymmetry was not only tolerated but it has produced a strong affection for the US. Consequently one can say: we - foreign language speakers - are using English in this text out of habit, and that habit is: liking the US and anglicized Western World. That habit is also in accepting this political asymmetry as given, consenting to employ higher effort with efficiency loss, and restraining from claiming legitimacy.

Our difficulty with the language doesn't end here. It only becomes more complicated. Our account on asymmetry of powers has set this text as a political argument. It has examined the notion of the global power divided in two groups of countries: English speaking on one side, and rest of the world on the other. Certain nations come across as privileged, while other disadvantaged. One who possesses certain knowledge as given has a great lead over the one who still has to learn. Since knowledge is the crucial asset in the era of mass information systems, economical argument directly underlines the political. The broadening of the argument and further implications could go on, and require an extensive research in a number of fields: international politics, American and British foreign politics, English language, international languages, political behavior, political and cultural propaganda etc. However, we find this discourse and its language very difficult to adopt. It is also very difficult to avoid it. When addressing the power distribution within the social field, we immediately confront the political discourse, and end up locked in it, where even our rejection of it comes as an expression within the discourse. Political discourse, and it is the same case with many others, have a tendency to claim a variety of subjects. It is not anymore a grand theory that is enveloping us, but systems of highly specialized discourses, operating as discrete modules. Any claim will be scanned and evaluated by discrete modules [or ignored]. It requires an expert to follow this complex network of references and trace its connotations. Yet, our aim is not to follow the implications of related discourses, but to try to prevent or at least control the interaction with them. Which in another words means to get an idea across in such a way that it does not get under the control of the directly related discourses. It becomes increasingly hard to advocate authority of the assertion in this delicate position. On top of the language that already subverts the legitimacy of our text, the political discourse as such destabilizes it further to a point when we wonder if it is possible to make any claim.