I find systems theory a fascinating subject, particularly the way that we conceptualise situations and arrive at solutions.
Many years ago, I went aboard an ocean racing yacht with a famous skipper; I can’t even remember what we were doing. Looking into the heads, there were a row of the crew’s toothbrushes, all of the handles had been cut off to about half of their normal length to save weight.
When you look at the few grams of weight saved by cutting off the handles of toothbrushes, it may seem insignificant. However, the only useful weight on a racing yacht is below the waterline. When the yacht has been stripped to a bare minimum, and every weight saving option carried out: where do you go from here?
Well, if we consider the toothbrushes as part of a crew hygiene system or even just look at the heads, on a sixty-foot yacht, this weight may indeed seem insignificant. What about if we expand they systems boundary, the part of the system under consideration? What if we consider the whole sixty feet of the yacht to be a system?
Suddenly, simply by changing the way that we conceptualise the problem, new solutions emerge. We can save a few tens of grams in the heads; we can limit the personal effects of the crew and rigorously specify the equipment that they are allowed, perhaps shave off a few grams of metal, plastic or cordage here and there. Over the sixty-foot length of the yacht, all of the small weight savings add up, a few grams here and there add up to kilos, then you can understand why we’d cut the handles off of toothbrushes.
On another occasion, speaking to some budding engineers at a college, I was talking about different types of outdoor cooking equipment and asked them to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of the different types. None of these students seemed to think that a few grams of weight here or there mattered until I asked them to consider my whole rucksack as an outdoor survival system, where perhaps I’d save a few grams on my sleeping bag, my clothing, etc. Before you know it, I can save a kilo, sometimes that can help a lot.
Every engineer faces problems like this; it explains why the designers of racing car engines, drill holes in connecting rods or shave seemingly insignificant amounts of metal off of pistons. The way we conceptualise problems or situations is incredibly important; we need the appropriate techniques to break down complex problems and find solutions or even just enable us to weigh up the pros and cons of different approaches.
For so many years now, we’ve had the concept of globalisation rammed down our throats, a relentless indoctrination. We’re so bombarded by propaganda; it’s hard to know what is real, what is in our own interests or someone else’s, who are the winners and losers in globalisation?
I don’t wish to appear to be rude, but not everybody has the skill to be able to break these problems down, hence many of us are vulnerable to globalist propaganda. It isn’t always a good idea to expand a systems boundary; it is something that needs critical analysis, these aren’t decisions that we should leave to others.
We can consider the borders of our country to be a systems boundary, a system that has served us well for centuries. We were once a cohesive nation; we could if need be, be independent and grow our own food, compete as a nation for scarce resources and confront our enemies with a united front.
Today in a globalised world many of our strengths have been compromised, our diminishing resources are very thinly spread, our social, health and other important services are reaching a breaking point. Certainly, for the vast majority of us, there don’t seem to be too many benefits to globalisation, not with so many more people in pursuit of ever scarcer resources within our own country, a country that with each passing day is less and less our own.
It is inevitable that in the Internet age, the age of jet travel, etc, that some of our systems would become more global, for example, financial systems, trade, and commerce systems, but these seem to have become deceptively linked to our political systems. Globalisation is nothing new though; we’ve been trading globally for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, we’ve never needed deals that undermined our sovereignty to trade successfully at an international level.
One can’t help but notice, that all of the greatest exponents of globalisation are some of the wealthiest, George Soros and many more. We need to ask ourselves, just who stands to gain the most from globalisation, what are the real objectives?
The globalists have been preaching to us for so long, while we sometimes question their dialogue, we never really challenge it effectively. Globalists claim that immigration is good for us, a ridiculous argument given the scale of immigration that we’ve had, and it goes on endless propaganda. The frightening thing to me is the fact that I can understand just how well this propaganda has been planned, planned over a long period of time by brilliant minds: unfortunately, though we’ve never challenged the narrative effectively.
We moan, and we groan but we never produce the research, detailed analysis and statistics to effectively challenge the globalist narrative and time is running short.
Globalists now are hardly trying to hide their lies and deceit as they steamroller over us with barely concealed contempt. Theresa May this week has agreed a Brexit Deal with the European Union that is almost beyond belief in its deception and duplicity, not Brexit at all and not what we were promised. We are in serious trouble as a nation, our democracy is almost gone, and things are looking bleak.
Before we take to the streets, however, there may still be time to challenge the globalist narrative head-on. Such a challenge would need a very careful, scientific and methodical approach; we should not let the likes of the European Union, United Nations or anyone else control the narrative, we need to use their own methods against them.
We are in frightening times and if we don’t fight back, some of the weight to be saved, well, it may be you or me.