Systems Theory 2
[Ed: “Weltanschauung”: ‘worldview’, a concept fundamental to German philosophy (see wikipedia)]
In my last article “A Bit of Systems Theory” we had a look at basic systems theory 101 and how it relates to our country’s systems, political, economic etc.
We can carry on this analogy much further though, carry it on beyond the hard systems methods of models and prototypes used on a daily basis by engineers and systems analysts. We can carry this on into the nebulous and shadowy world of ‘Soft Systems,’ a world not fully understood by many and occupied most often by psychologists and academics.
When we design, redesign or make changes to a system, we need to start with a Weltanschauung or world view. We’re looking for a mental construct of what exactly the system is, what it is designed to achieve and how it interacts with its external environment. But whose Weltanschauung, whose world view, whose mental construct? This is where it becomes interesting.
Let’s assume that we’re analysing a business system, either creating a new system from scratch or changing an existing system. The first thing we’ll need is a Weltanschauung or mental construct. This mental construct will need to come from someone with a strategic view, perhaps even vision as to how the completed system will look.
Business academics like Henry Mintzberg – there’s an interesting article by him here – have long recognised the synergy between strategy and structure in a business or organisation. This synergy, in academic terms, is a can of worms but for the sake of this article I’m happy to perhaps oversimplify things.
Until we have this strategic world view and hence structure, we can’t begin to conceptualise the systems that our business will require to become operational. Oversimplifying things again, most enterprise level businesses will try and encapsulate this Weltanschauung with a theoretical, at least, mission statement.
Most business organisations such as those above, will have a Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Richard Branson, Steve Jobs type character as their figurehead. Although this is another oversimplification, we could assume that it’s safe to capture the Weltanschauung of people such as this to obtain our strategic world view.
As we move down through the levels of abstraction in an business organisation, we identify the players or actors and their different classes, we identify the processes, the inputs and outputs between processes and external entities, all in ever increasing detail.
Modern systems methods are usually ‘top down’ and this suits our business model, the Weltanschauung of the actors at the lower levels are usually, to a greater or lesser extent, more of an operational nature and constrained by the requirements of those at a higher level, the strategic world view of perhaps the CEO.
We can apply these same analysis techniques to democratic and governmental systems. When we do, and we compare and contrast the resulting model to the business model above, we can quickly see how fundamentally different they are or at least should be.
Our politicians and civil service are meant be the representatives and servants of we the people. It’s OK for our Prime Minister, his or her cabinet, backbenchers and civil servants to have their own Weltanschauung, mental constructs or vision of how things should be, but they should honour their manifestos, the manifestos that we the people voted for.
As UKIP has long recognised, the different mainstream political parties in the UK (LibLabCon) may market themselves in different ways but in reality there isn’t much difference between them and our civil servants are playing their own game. All of these actors all largely globalist acolytes, they only pretend to represent we the people.
Globalist organisations – and here I’m talking about the European Union, although it applies to the United Nations too – if we analyse these organisations in a similar way, they more closely represent not a democratic system but the business system that I’ve outlined above. The rot in our democracy set in a long time ago, the betrayal of we the people is well advanced.
This may also explain the relationship between the European Union, the banks, people like George Soros, his businesses and other Non-Government Organisations
A very frightening aspect to all of this is that when we look at the various actors, the Eurocrats and politicians, I can’t help but feel that when we analyse their Weltanschauung, we’re looking at those at a lower more operational level. Politicians and civil servants come and go, but the globalist organisations such as the EU have been planned in brilliant and meticulous detail for a very long time.
We all have our suspicions as to who the globalists are. Often these are dismissed as conspiracy theories – after all, it wasn’t so long ago that globalism itself was regarded as a conspiracy theory. The truth is though, we’ve never really flushed these creatures out and shone a light on their devious and deceptive activities.
What this means is that we’re allowing people that we know little of, don’t understand their Weltanschauung, their real objectives or goals other than the centralisation of ultimately global power, to make deep and very significant changes to the political and other systems of our country and the wider world.
As I’ve said, not many people understand the soft systems techniques that I’ve used here, we’re very vulnerable to the machinations of the army of psychologists and academics in the employ of globalist organisations such as the EU and UN.
If we don’t shine a spotlight on the nefarious activities of these globalists, both the Lefties that support them and ourselves, we’re not going to realise what we’ve lost until it’s gone and then it’s too late. The hordes of migrants that are turning up on our shores: one da, they’ll realise that they were just pawns in a power game.
Not only do we need to recover our country and its true democratic systems of government, we need to decide just how we’re going to extract recompense and compensation for the damage that has been done to not just our country, but to we the people.
In my last article “A Bit of Systems Theory” we had a look at basic systems theory 101 and how it relates to our country’s systems, political, economic etc.
We can carry on this analogy much further though, carry it on beyond the hard systems methods of models and prototypes used on a daily basis by engineers and systems analysts. We can carry this on into the nebulous and shadowy world of ‘Soft Systems,’ a world not fully understood by many and occupied most often by psychologists and academics.
When we design, redesign or make changes to a system, we need to start with a Weltanschauung or world view. We’re looking for a mental construct of what exactly the system is, what it is designed to achieve and how it interacts with its external environment. But whose Weltanschauung, whose world view, whose mental construct? This is where it becomes interesting.
Let’s assume that we’re analysing a business system, either creating a new system from scratch or changing an existing system. The first thing we’ll need is a Weltanschauung or mental construct. This mental construct will need to come from someone with a strategic view, perhaps even vision as to how the completed system will look.
Business academics like Henry Mintzberg – there’s an interesting article by him here – have long recognised the synergy between strategy and structure in a business or organisation. This synergy, in academic terms, is a can of worms but for the sake of this article I’m happy to perhaps oversimplify things.
Until we have this strategic world view and hence structure, we can’t begin to conceptualise the systems that our business will require to become operational. Oversimplifying things again, most enterprise level businesses will try and encapsulate this Weltanschauung with a theoretical, at least, mission statement.
Most business organisations such as those above, will have a Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Richard Branson, Steve Jobs type character as their figurehead. Although this is another oversimplification, we could assume that it’s safe to capture the Weltanschauung of people such as this to obtain our strategic world view.
As we move down through the levels of abstraction in an business organisation, we identify the players or actors and their different classes, we identify the processes, the inputs and outputs between processes and external entities, all in ever increasing detail.
Modern systems methods are usually ‘top down’ and this suits our business model, the Weltanschauung of the actors at the lower levels are usually, to a greater or lesser extent, more of an operational nature and constrained by the requirements of those at a higher level, the strategic world view of perhaps the CEO.
We can apply these same analysis techniques to democratic and governmental systems. When we do, and we compare and contrast the resulting model to the business model above, we can quickly see how fundamentally different they are or at least should be.
Our politicians and civil service are meant be the representatives and servants of we the people. It’s OK for our Prime Minister, his or her cabinet, backbenchers and civil servants to have their own Weltanschauung, mental constructs or vision of how things should be, but they should honour their manifestos, the manifestos that we the people voted for.
As UKIP has long recognised, the different mainstream political parties in the UK (LibLabCon) may market themselves in different ways but in reality there isn’t much difference between them and our civil servants are playing their own game. All of these actors all largely globalist acolytes, they only pretend to represent we the people.
Globalist organisations – and here I’m talking about the European Union, although it applies to the United Nations too – if we analyse these organisations in a similar way, they more closely represent not a democratic system but the business system that I’ve outlined above. The rot in our democracy set in a long time ago, the betrayal of we the people is well advanced.
This may also explain the relationship between the European Union, the banks, people like George Soros, his businesses and other Non-Government Organisations
A very frightening aspect to all of this is that when we look at the various actors, the Eurocrats and politicians, I can’t help but feel that when we analyse their Weltanschauung, we’re looking at those at a lower more operational level. Politicians and civil servants come and go, but the globalist organisations such as the EU have been planned in brilliant and meticulous detail for a very long time.
We all have our suspicions as to who the globalists are. Often these are dismissed as conspiracy theories – after all, it wasn’t so long ago that globalism itself was regarded as a conspiracy theory. The truth is though, we’ve never really flushed these creatures out and shone a light on their devious and deceptive activities.
What this means is that we’re allowing people that we know little of, don’t understand their Weltanschauung, their real objectives or goals other than the centralisation of ultimately global power, to make deep and very significant changes to the political and other systems of our country and the wider world.
As I’ve said, not many people understand the soft systems techniques that I’ve used here, we’re very vulnerable to the machinations of the army of psychologists and academics in the employ of globalist organisations such as the EU and UN.
If we don’t shine a spotlight on the nefarious activities of these globalists, both the Lefties that support them and ourselves, we’re not going to realise what we’ve lost until it’s gone and then it’s too late. The hordes of migrants that are turning up on our shores: one da, they’ll realise that they were just pawns in a power game.
Not only do we need to recover our country and its true democratic systems of government, we need to decide just how we’re going to extract recompense and compensation for the damage that has been done to not just our country, but to we the people.
This was published first on UKIP Daily and is republished by permission.
Comments
Post a Comment
Responding to