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:

"...my 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 
money?

 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 
edge. 

 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 
currency? 

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 
damaging. 

 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.

 It's probably for the best if you don't give Martin Durkin any money

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

Confabulation: Lessons To Learn, Promises To Keep

"I got the feelin' something ain't right..."

If you look up the above Sunday Politics on the BBC show: Is the EU good for business? you can observe the argument between Digby Jones and Richard Reed. Both are apparently very prestigious and successful businessmen. I like Jones' projected persona when he's on TV a lot, even though Richard Reed comes across as shrill and tremulous in his attempt to appear dominant, I do love Innocent Smoothies drink.


Previously we looked at Arguments: In The Deadly Grip of Confabulation; and we see that the above is exactly this kind of false argument. Now we look at a glimpse of how far and wide this potentially was distributed:-

BBC: Distribution of the above argument across the entire UK

 What is the function of Confabulation Arguments? In this case the title gives the game away: The Economic Question of the EU Referendum is focused upon. The very thing we already suggested is not needed:-

 Confabulation Arguments are detracting from the Main Point/Central Focus of the Argument

 Now, we have information why the Pro-EU side of the argument would want to conflate EU and EEA from political calculations information:-

Leave could be making the same mistake Labour made at the 2015 General Election

"If the referendum comes down to a popular leader with economic credibility versus an unpopular leader without any economic credibility then there will only be one winner, again."

"The ComRes poll showed “44% British adults say they think the state of the British economy would be better off with Britain remaining a member of the EU, compared to 23% who feel the state of the economy would be better off if Britain left the EU.” This is the type of polling advantage the Tories enjoyed over Labour in the run up to the last election."

Irrespective, the default voting intentions of the electorate are invariably to avoid risk to the Economy. However the article's parting advice is poor interpretation through clear lack of understanding of the argument itself:-

"Leave should make more use of someone like Lord Lawson of Blaby, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, under Margaret Thatcher, to help boost their economic credibility. As a seasoned political campaigner once observed about winning votes and elections, it’s the economy, stupid."

We know Lawson is no use from his ERM days. But also his stupidity and arrogance concerning the IEA Brexit Prize competition, from previous blogs: Lakshmi: Goddess of Prosperity (2). Secondly the nature of the argument is not an Economic Question. We can remove the Economic Question via EFTA/EEA. In fact comparing EU/EEA to EFTA/EEA is what Campaign For An Independent Britain have recently done in this article:-

EU/EEA or EFTA/EEA + Opt Outs?

Notably the exact reverse effect is produced from arguing for EFTA/EEA instead of EU/EEA:-

Q. What does the opinion poll show for different regions of the UK?

• A. Scotland: EFTA/EEA 68%, EU/EEA 32%
• A. Wales: EFTA/EEA 59%, EU/EEA 41%
• A. London: EFTA/EEA 63%, EU/EEA 37%
• A.UK: EFTA/EEA 71%, EU/EEA 29%

What we see from the Pro-EU argument is the use of "RISK + ECONOMICS". There is a solution to this inherent in sticking to the Political Question: "GROUP + POLITICS":-

 Possible EFTA+ Group via UK removing EU->EFTA + EEA

The rational for EFTA/EEA replacing EU/EEA for the UK needs to be the greater focus of the argument. And this lesson has yet to be learnt, to find more examples of Confabulation arguments:-

(1) FEAR (FUD/Risk-Aversion Exploitation):-

 

Britain Stronger In (BSE): 1. We'll lose FDI if we leave 2. We'll lose "lower airfares if we leave" 3. We won't protect the environment if we leave 3. Ireland will be majorly disrupted if we leave 4. Leaving EU or Europe or Single Market (???) will be "worst of all worlds": How terrible and frightening.

The defeatist, dishonest, manipulative propaganda from Pro-EU campaigners who cannot even campaign on the real merits of Political Union (EU) and must resort to conflation and fear of: Europe, Political Union, Single Market.

(2) UKIP: Control Our Borders & Trade Deal!

 Poor old Steven: Comparing China and the UK's political situations... Confabulation is in full throttle to excuse "Control of Borders!" empty meme and explain away EEA Treaty obligations via reference to China... and - and Trade Deal! Trade Deal!

If you look at the above Steven is trying to self-justify borders with appeals to non-applicable Treaty relationships to the UK's EU present membership status.

(3) Bonfire of Cutting Red-Tape & "We Buy more German Cars!"

 Ruth Lea bangs on about Economic Question and falls for Confabulation over both Red-Tape Bonfires (see Digby Jones also) as well as "German Cars!" economy comparisons. She's detrimental to Leave Arguments

Lessons still need to be learnt. And if there is any good reason to learn them, for Leave Campaigners it's this: Sooner or later if you make arguments which attack promises to them, you have to either PROVE those promises beforehand or afterwards KEEP your promises.

EU Referendum: the third battle

Ask yourself both of those questions before selecting from the tired, old out of date eurosceptic arguments that are the property of the old eursceptic aristocracy who fail to advance the arguments because they believe they OWN the arguments and hence are a part of the problem as much as the Pro-EU campaigners who resort to low quality arguments too.

"Political Union" OR "Free Trade Association"?

Referendum: "Plenty of Time To Finish This Game."

"There is plenty of time to finish this game. And to thrash the spaniards too." ~ attributed to Sir Francis Drake, 19th July, 1588

Quoting BritishBattles.com - The Spanish Armada:-

"On 19th July 1588 Captain Thomas Fleming in the Golden Hinde, glimpsed the Armada through the swirling morning mist off the Lizard and raced for Plymouth, Lord Howard’s home port. Fleming came up the channel into Plymouth with the afternoon tide to find Sir Francis Drake playing bowls with his officers on the Ho, high above the harbour. On hearing of Fleming’s sighting Drake insisted on continuing with the game."

I grew up in this part of the world and hence this story of Sir Francis Drake and The Spanish Armada, captured my imagination very deeply, as a child, and the quote above is ingrained into my memory as more stylish and sophisticated than anything I ever heard the fictional James Bond 007 come up with, irrespective whether or not it is an apocryphal anecdote: It makes sense and serves as an instructive example of "taking action when action can be taken":-

"It is possible that he knew that the tide of the River Tamar in Plymouth was against him, so that he could not get his ships out of Devonport - therefore, he knew that he could finish his game of bowls because his ships were dependent on the tide to move. If the tide was coming in, his ships had to stay tied up. If the tide was going out, then he had the freedom to move his ships into the Channel."

Now if the tide had somehow been the reverse he might have instead said:-

"Time to finish this game and to finish the Spaniards, too." 

The former shows his pragmatism and bravery. The latter would merely have shown his potential bravery. I think it's this that makes the quip so fine in meaning as well as providing unspoken interpretations of events eg the tide.

Here people are being asked for the first time in >40yrs: What does Remain in the EU mean? What does Leave the EU mean?

The above ballot paper form asks two questions. But like Sir Francis Drake's quote above, our answers very much depend on the context (is the tide coming in or going out?) when we give our answers.

The big problem I have with the Remain question being asked between now and 2017 is that it is not at the same time as Next Major New EU Treaty. Irrespective of Mr. Cameron's:-

Read David Cameron's speech outlining his four key EU reform demands

The four key points from David Cameron's EU letter

We have x3 Elements to look at:-

• David Cameron
• Reform
• EU

David Cameron:-

We looked previous at David Cameron's track-record on the EU, in MIND THE (credibility) GAP. He is not "consistent".

"REFORM":-

His x4 Reforms are:-

• Economic governance: Securing an explicit recognition that the euro is not the only currency of the European Union, to ensure countries outside the eurozone are not disadvantaged. The UK wants safeguards that it will not have to contribute to eurozone bailouts
• Competitiveness: Setting a target for the reduction of the "burden" of excessive regulation and extending the single market
• Immigration: Restricting access to in-work and out-of-work benefits to EU migrants. Specifically, ministers want to stop those coming to the UK from claiming certain benefits until they have been resident for four years
• Sovereignty: Allowing Britain to opt out from further political integration. Giving greater powers to national parliaments to block EU legislation

Has this clarified his position to vote Remain? Well again looking at the BBC's output, gives us an indication:-

 Reform doesn't sound very clear by the sounds of it: It sounds much more like political calculation than problem-resolving

In effect "Reform" still means this:-

The Hydra of Complexity: Voters will not know what they are voting for: "A leap in the dark" = "Reform"

 European Union (EU):-

 And what of the EU:-

• The Five Presidents' Report: Completing Europe's Economic and Monetary Union
• A Fundamental Law of the European Union
• Andrew Duff - Protocol of Frankfurt: A New Treaty for the Eurozone

Here we see high magnitude, high orders of multiple intentionality and uncertainty concernign the EUROZONE required changes. This is effectively what the EU is transforming towards in the next major EU Treaty.

We also see confusion in the role of the Legacy News-Media, for example the BBC:-

David Keighley: Not the BBC news. Norway is very rich and very outside the EU

"But then the rot set in. According to website Leave HQ, what followed about the boiler-maker and Norway’s involvement with EU rules and the single market was ‘a pack of lies’, essentially because it most certainly does have influence, through its participation in the European Economic Area (EEA) and membership of EFTA (the European Free Trade Association)."

Dr. RAE North also looks at the BBC bias EU Referendum: BBC – the enemy without

Tommy R's blog Dismantling Britain Stronger in Europe's Leaflet showing that the Anti-Brexit case is being made by the "Remain" Campaign group not the case for Pro-EU (see above). This type of campaigning is increasing confusion and complexity.

Dr. RAE North notes not the first nor last time that the Tory's are fuelling confusion too EU Referendum: the Tory delusion; leaving the word. "eurosceptic" devoid of value and meaning. Vote Leave are also adding to confusion on Article 50 by Dominic Cummings: EU Referendum: a lack of thoughtful analysis along with EU Referendum: Hannan, the enemy within. And finally various think tanks are spreading more confusion: Civitas: EU Referendum: a report to myth the point; CER: If the UK votes to leave: The seven alternatives to EU membership ; Credit Suisse: Brexit: Breaking up is never easy, or cheap. Pete North points out the obvious: Stop problematising Brexit.

Effectively,

Is proliferating, and hence increasing the "Poltitical Plausibility Scope" into ever greater and wider implausible scenarios away from actual limits of political possibility that delimit the argument between "Remain" and "Leave":-

So, if we look at all the above, the hope for Real (direct) Democracy: Hiding in Plain Sight; feels as distant as it ever did when we joined the EEC back in 1972 before a Popular Referendum! However, we can remove an enormous source of the confusion:-

• Single Market (EEA) = Remove Economic Question
• Article 50 = Remove Legal Question
• Referendum = Resolve Political Question