Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Red Cliffs Of Dawlish
Red Cliffs Of Dawlish

Thursday, 4 February 2016

Decrypting: What is Babel-17?

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen" ~ Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein

Samuel R. Delany's sci-fi novel Babel-17 tells the story of a humanity encountering an alien language in the far future galaxy. This language "appears" to threaten invasion, but in order to counter the threat, the messages must first be understood. Not only the above consideration from Wittgenstein is implicit in this contention, but also:
" work consists of two parts: of the one which is here, and of everything which I have not written. And precisely this second part is the important one."
Here we have two considerations: The limitation of language and the limitations of what we select in order to use language to communicate. In fact Wittgenstein manages to get to the heart of the story in Babel-17 without giving away the underlying plot of the story.

Now imagine these 2 core elements of the language used in the our politics of EU Referendum and Brexit in the Legacy News-Media broadcasting the ideas from the Top Tiers of the Political Food Web:-

  • (1): Without the core concepts of understanding - one cannot speak without being able to think first.
  • (2): What is said necessarily omits a vast range of potential communication.
  • (1) + (2) = (3): Combining both: If the language itself omits the words and hence ideas, then these in reverse prevent the necessary thinking!!!
By now I hope you are reading this, thinking I knew this blogger was cracked; a little too quirky and now banging on about sci-fi and Wittgenstein and language... !

 A "low drone" dominates and is broadcast incessantly

Now, instead of travelling far into the future and facing the seemingly inscrutable dangers of an alien language, let us take a journey back into the recent past that already looks so far away: PANORAMA The Great Euro Debate TX. 27/1/97.

 Panorama: The Great Euro Debate - 27.01.97

  • "The words used in the argument are a foreign language."
  • "Strong passions"
  • "Most of us aren't well informed"

Our next witness is John Monks, the 
General Secretary of the Trades Union 
Congress, a man who fears for Britain’s 
workforce, that if they are outside a 
single currency life will be a cold and 
uncomfortable place, and Peter Sutherland 
questions him first. I should just point 
out that friendly witnesses are questioned 
for a rather shorter period than hostile 
witnesses, which is why Ruth Lea had 
rather more time than you did.  The 
opposite will happen when the other 
witnesses come in.  Peter Sutherland.

 Peter Sutherland 
 Well let me take up the invitation from 
that introduction.  What is your view as a 
union leader of the effect on jobs of 
staying out of a single currency when it 
is created? What will the effect be?

 John Monks 
 Well on balance I think it would be 
Caption: damaging. Immediately I think we would 
JOHN MONKS pay a premium in interest rates. I think 
GENERAL SECRETARY, TUC our interest rates would go higher than 
that for the Euro area and I think that 
would be a damaging consequence.
Peter Sutherland 
 So that would cost business and investors 

 John Monks 
 Well it would cost everybody - mortgage, 
people who have got mortgages and so on.  
Because we’ve got a record of devaluation 
and the Germans haven’t, which will be the 
core of the system, we would pay I think 
greater, a premium on our interest rates. 
I think too that we would lose some of the 
inward investment  which has been very 
important to Britain. Something like forty 
per cent of our exports at the moment come 
from foreign-owned firms and that’s been a 
tremendous boost at a time when a lot of 
British industries of the traditional kind 
have been struggling. And the third reason 
I would say it’s damaging is that our 
influence in this thing called Europe, the 
European Union, would be so much less. We 
would be peripheral to what was going on. 

 We would be in a small minority of 
countries and I think for Great Britain 
that’s a pretty hopeless future. We want 
to be at the centre of things, not on the 

 Peter Sutherland 
 Do you think it would be possible to 
Caption:  sustain membership over the medium to long 
PETER SUTHERLAND term by remaining outside a single 
CHAIRMAN, GOLDMAN SACHS currency with virtually everybody else in 
INTERNATIONAL the European Union inside a single 
John Monks 
 You see I think it would be difficult to 
stay in the European Union indefinitely if 
we were floating our currencies against 
the Euro. If, as some people would argue, 
we actually pegged the level of the pound 
to the Euro then we get all the 
disadvantages of being in the Euro without 
 any of the influence and the advantages 
and probably still pay a premium on 
interest rates but I think, if we float 
against it, then it’s a matter of time 
before there’s tremendous tensions between 
us and the Euro area about devaluations or 
revaluation, probably devaluations on the 
long-term given our recent economic 
history, and that could blow us out of the 

 European Union which would be tremendously 

 Peter Sutherland 
 Thank you, Mr Monks.

 David Dimbleby 
 Norman Lamont. 

What is absolutely fascinating is that the time is different, yet the pattern of the subject is almost identical to the present prevalent "LOW DRONE" we find drowning us in the Legacy News-Media in the newspapers, webpages, radio and television mediums.

You can read the above or watch the video link.

I was just watching the latest BBC Question Time and the deception over the Norway Option was manifest once again:-

Summary from White Wednesday refining Paul Reynolds "Norway Scorecard"

Unfortunately this scorecard won't be broadcast far and wide by the BBC so instead we have:-
  • Shabana Mahmood - Labour MP for Birmingham Ladywood
  • Sal Brinton - House of Lords Peer and President of the Liberal Democrats
Emitting their "low drone" and suffusing the British electorate with it. Do they know what they speak of? If not they cannot speak of it. 

 Here's a most illuminating consequence of our "Babel-17" language on the EU Referendum: Pawel Swidlicki now TALKS FOR PEOPLE!!! because he knows what they want - OR, because people like him exploit the "low drone" language that people use to speak about the subject.... [Details: Norwegian model or Norway Option a lot like EU / Europe; Flexit or FLEXCIT]

There are 2 very hard results to discuss here:-

  1. The language of the EURO matches the language today of the EU immaculately in it's shape, it's pattern, it's tendencies: Above all: It's severe limitations.
  2. This language allows our "betters" to think for us and hence speak instead of us.

Yet more Babel-17; coming to cinemas near you in 2016!!!