A short overview of Left – Right Politics and Sociology
(subtitled "An individualist’s survival manual")
by Peter Rayfield-Staniek

It is obvious that many volumes of literature have been and will be devoted to this subject as well as to many of all its constituent parts – so large that whole buildings can be filled to the rafters with same. So why am I attempting to cut through all this thought in a few short pages ? Well, it simply occurred to me that a short synopsis may be a helpful catalyst for some – either for every day purposes or to inspire further and deeper study.

In order to avoid any misunderstanding let me first define some terminology and principles in the context of this presentation – at least as it is presently applied:



Left = liberal, socialist, larger government, permissiveness (gay rights, etc), the contradiction of
political correctness, collective rights ranking above individual rights, environmental
issues, legal restrictions on freedom of expression in order not to arouse offense, etc.
- positive aspects: encouraging creative potential and the development of a caring
consideration for our fellow man and all environment
- negative aspects: arrogance, judgmental, vindictiveness, dictatorial, utopian, agnostic,
large government bureaucracies
- extreme aspects: when this point is reached and all sensibilities are gone, liberalism
becomes a mental illness (I believe we may have just about reached that stage)

Right = conservative, free enterprise, smaller government, freedom of expression, individual
rights ranking above collective rights, social restraint, etc.
- positive aspects: protection, free spirited, entrepreneurial, respect for tradition,
supportive of all responsible religions
- negative aspects: non-imaginative, encrusted, engendering greed and exploitation,
disinterest in exploration for better alternatives
- extreme aspects: fascist dictatorships

First principle: A democracy cannot solve any problems efficiently (in fact, in most cases it will make them worse).

Second principle: Support the lesser evil (i.e. one of the presently available options instead of some impossibly idealistic goals) – this, if rigorously practiced would not have allowed our system to be part of the dumbing down of society on all levels over the last 50 years to its present state of ignorance, financial duplicity and decadence.

Third principle: System Dynamics – the system will resist any attempt at changing its behaviour; the more you push, the more it will resist – until critical mass has been reached. This applies to almost everything.

Our oppositional politics are the outcropping of a misplaced belief in democracy through voting within a system of established political parties. This system at first grew out of individuals promoting their ideas to the voting public and it was not long before people who supported the various viewpoints gathered together in antagonistic groups and which then coalesced into official parties and gradually but relatively quickly became entrenched into a system we now refer to as democracy with all its sacred cows. While this system is admittedly very clumsy and inefficient it is still assumed to be the only and best system in the light of all others (this is indeed unfortunate because it is purely based on one of Churchill’s comments which was taken out of context).

The belief here is that since the aristocratic elites were done away with, citizens will have freedom of choice to collectively make the right decisions and any necessary corrections could be made by means of the following election (… to live happily ever after …) – Well, as most of us by now know, this picture is far from the truth and fact is that the most horrendous mistakes and corruptions continue to take place and mostly at the expense of the general population whom it was at first thought to be benefit most. – Most western countries kept rushing into that direction and no thought was given to perhaps improve the system further and develop it somewhat more intelligently. But, lest I stray from the essence of my thoughts, this subject is here not under review.

It is self-evident that no one man nor one group or party has the complete or perfect answers to any given situation nor is the opposite the case that anyone of the opposite viewpoint, be that an individual or a party will be completely wrong or stupid; however, since we became entrenched in opposition politics intelligent consensus is rarely attempted and the fortunes of all aspects of a country wax and wane in accordance with the success or failure of the established parties and their outreach arms (the media) to indoctrinate a public incapable of comprehending the complexities of the issues on hand – by that it is not to be inferred that the politicians understand the issues any better, only that they have arbitrarily chosen their positions in order to sound convincing to themselves and to the public at large. Being charismatic and sounding “as if” one has a grasp of the situation is usually sufficient in achieving these results and so we seem to be stuck in a situation where the blind are leading the blind or at best where the one-eyed ones are king.

Shameful indeed – as most situations would require full consciousness and a clear vision from both eyes (in fact, a third eye if available would indeed be most helpful ….) – and as King Solomon already stated “where there is no vision, the people parish”.

So how did we get into this mess or better still, how do we get out of it ? Unfortunately, we won’t get out of it in the short run – but for the long run there are indeed some survival methods available to investigate and to review, particularly for individuals or small groups – but we need first to come to grips with how to swim in the present morass.

While 'Left and Right' ought to be in essence the two sides of the same coin, in the reality of present day politics this is always a shoddy compromise between the two and so it is important to always support the lesser evil and not reaching for too idealistic an outcome as such goals are not attainable. – Also, what needs to be avoided and where most of us make the mistake is to throw their support lock, stock and barrel to one side or the other instead of weighing each issue very carefully – as we have stated in the beginning, nobody or no party has the right answers on all issues (often parties have and will continue to hijack any issue that appeals to them or their supporters at the moment and this issue may indeed be the correct one – but as we have become psychologically positioned to one side or the other, this contradiction often escapes the best of us).

To begin with it is best to investigate the psychology of mankind, both individually and collectively and we will see that essentially we still have the mark of the tribe in us (and correctly so) at the same time we have learned to also identify with a larger context such as a nation and some even with the world at large and beyond – all these facets need to be psychologically harmonized and honed into functional tools so that we can individually and collectively evolve – while we still have to take our cue from a position of ‘harmony through conflict’ – and by conflict, I do not (necessarily) mean violence. Conflict is usually a very useful catalyst to unhinge entrenched comfort and resistance to progress but once unhinged it can become a very effective tool to investigate and experiment towards the next level of achieved synthesis (conflict resolution) – providing both sides of a conflict (within ourselves or without) are willing to rise to the challenge. Obviously this latter thought is as yet not possible within the context of our oppositional and competitive politics.

1) Free enterprise (I don’t like the term capitalism) versus socialist interference: This is a primary problem area frequently under discussion, and one which produced the initial social confrontations. - In order to arrive at a suitable tool with which to approach this subject it would be best to investigate the human being first as an individual – and I assume to be in agreement with most readers to assign to man and woman a certain streak of in-built survival to perform any task to the best of their abilities and to be rewarded for same by either good trade or good wages. If we were properly trained by our parents or the collective consciousness (the tribe) this would be the proper mode of functioning for most individuals – on the other hand if we were used to handouts from the beginning of our lives, then there would be little incentive for us to produce on our own and our qualities for survival or at best the ability to make a contribution to the collective would atrophy. This therefore would tell us that socialist interference in this area is psychologically as well as sociologically counter-productive (the recent events in Greece come here to mind). Individuals should nevertheless be free to function in a voluntary community, such as a kibutz, which is akin to a modern tribe. Also, we are indeed our brothers keepers and so support systems from insurance companies or governments for temporary assistance program (unemployment, sickness, etc) should be encouraged as they also reflect part of our tribal inheritance – and so are worker protection programs. All other forms of seemingly excessive socialist measures are to be avoided at all costs as they are not part of the psychology of mankind – no matter what any party is attempting to promote in order to access the voters ear. (Collective bail outs of companies or whole industries fall into the same category).

2) Religion: I hope again that I have the agreement of the reader that this is an area that has all throughout history always been at first approached through individuals adhering to some teaching with respect to their metaphysical essences (souls) and how they should consequently interact with their fellow men. Since most were advocating good and solid values such should be encouraged – the mistakes were made when an organized structure was built around such teachings with possible external controls and acceptance of such by the rulers of tribes and countries and subsequently imposed collectively on the population at large – present day governments of any kind still practicing such methodology are actually counter productive to the religious and psychological spirit of mankind. It is also necessary to appreciate that humanity has evolved through many religious and political systems that were suitable for its time and place which may or may not be any longer applicable to our present stage of development. Such would and does indeed become a problem when some may still think that such is appropriate and the only way to assess the correctness of same is to see whether this is achieved only by means of rigid control of the population or through violent exportation of its ideology – in which case they become political and sociological pariahs on the world scene and aught to be dealt with accordingly. You may ask the question as to how to do this and I will answer with a counter question ‘How do you deal with delinquent behaviour of a child or adult in general ? The answer that you will give to this question will also be the answer to the previous question. To summarize, all governments are to stay out of religious matters as long as the community and population maintains its harmony – all interference of such by various groups ought to be promptly dispatched with. (This should not interfere with thorough scientific investigations into space and for that matter into the consequent research of appropriate levels on the subject of metaphysics).

3) Tradition and social values: Under the rule of not doing undue harm to any individual or animal, none should be subjected to undue legal interference with their desired social interactions (the government should stay out of the bedrooms of the people) – however, in order to respect all traditions in general (and I do realize that stupidity is also a tradition of mankind) any behaviour that crassly falls outside traditional norms should not be encouraged while preserving the freedom of the individual – thus, it would make logical sense to have decriminalized gay lifestyles and it should not be allowed to castigate people who choose to practice such a lifestyle – on the other hand it ought not to be permissible to encourage such behaviour and most certainly not to legalize same in terms of gay marriage (as this would interfere with the traditional and natural concept of a marriage being between a man and a woman – and society has been favouring such bonding in order to substantiate the family and the procreation of the species – whether or not such an arrangement is of a kind or loving nature is not the business of the government). – Pornography: Not so long ago, any publication of such nature were disallowed even in all so-called democratic countries – at the risk of disintegrating the existing moral standards; such caution has fallen by the wayside and is unfortunately now only practiced in more regimented countries such as China on one hand and Singapore on the other.

4) Immigration: We don’t need more cab drivers or gas station attendants ! Also, the cold war is over – so no more refugees please, individual exemptions upon review. Still, let’s not even doubt for a moment, there are plenty of people willing to come to our shores who will work in our country on our terms – so let’s define our terms (and not in language of some airy-fairy, multi-culti rubbish) and only invite those individuals who are willing to do just that – all others can stay where they are and those who are already here and complain about something or other, let’s offer them the freedom to return to their place of origin – and we’ll pay their return fare. (So you should know: I’m only dreaming …..)

5) Foreign Relations: Priority must be given to our war effort … what am I talking about ? Are we at war with some country or region ? Well, yes indeed ! (and I am not speaking about Afghanistan). Just in case it has escaped your attention, we are involved in a civilizational survival war, declared or otherwise – one that will be of much greater consequences for our future than any previous wars this country volunteered to fight. The self-declared enemy is international Islamo-Fascist Jihadism – and the enemy is already within our country. Can we win this war ? In theory, if our (the forces of the dedicated West and its allies) hearts and minds were in the right place this war would be over within two years. Unfortunately, such will not be the case – my predictions are that it will be long and drawn out and our people will not have the resilience and awareness to fight for their survival – perhaps the US, Canada and Australia will be spared the final catastrophe – but ultimately the enemy will have won. Thereafter, a new energy will sweep the world and Islamo-Fascism will either collapse from within or from the strong and unquestioning will of the Chinese forces who by that time will have realized who the real enemy is – and they will not have our qualms in confronting it – remember Tian’anmen Square !

6) Freedom: Ultimate freedom here on earth is an illusion. When we speak about freedom in our context, which by its nature is always 'relative', we consequently ought to mean 'relative freedom'. Therefore, any consideration in this arena would consequently depend on the given context and thus any reference to such would need to be explained within a specific frame in order to further expand its relevant thoughts.

7) Equality and intelligence: Since we live in a relative world we are all only relatively equal and relatively intelligent – which means that in actual terms we are all unequal and have different levels of intelligence. That being the case, it would not make much sense to allow any high quality work of human endeavour to be performed by a person of a lesser intelligence than is required for such performance. This presumably having been agreed upon, it naturally follows that we are all at different levels of intelligence – and therefore, using our political voting system as an example it would behoove us either to understand that the outcome of any election would thus only represent the level of the intelligence of the average citizen – which therefore must be fairly low and most certainly inadequate to elect the best people to run the government – at least as seen from the perspective of voter intelligence.

8) Human Rights: This is an area I am not very familiar with and I would invite others to make their contributions as with all other parts to this tract. - Yes indeed, all human being have the right to earn a living in dignity according to their capabilities – also each one ought to be responsible for his share to the greater whole. Rights must be balanced with responsibilities.


Conclusion:

While the left (liberal) and right (conservative) aspect in a government ought to be functioning in harmony and balance like the tail and head of a coin – this, unfortunately, has proven to be illusionary within the context of competing parties in a democracy in the long run; Switzerland being the exception that proves the rule – but then again it is not a democracy like any other, and it could be used as a hybrid model on which to develop a republican governmental system that takes the presently competing liberal/conservative aspects into account and institutionalizes the interests of the population indirectly through the presently existing professional guilds of a country (professional associations, labour unions, academe, etc) within the framework of a constitution. (This will then be the natural successor and akin to a tribal government by the elected elders and lead to a non-dictatorial system that will fulfill the needs of a population in war and peace).

This brings me to the end of my tract and I hope some of you will be able to expand further on the various subjects under consideration. That I am at this stage of the worlds situation (particularly in the West) generally supporting in most cases (but not all) the Right as the lesser evil, is perhaps known to most readers – I would just like to mention that I am doing so out of my firm believe that Liberalism has reached the state of mental illness. A temporary support of the conservative side will be important in cushioning the ultimate collapse of a decayed and degenerated political structure and enable the rising of the Phoenix. - However, theoretically I can also understand that someone else of sincere and intellectual disposition (but naïve credentials) will choose the other side as his lesser evil (President Obama, et al and their supporters comes here to mind – most of them being of thoughtless opinion or still in their psychological ”Sturm und Drang” state – and this in the face when a solid case could readily be made for dismantling most every facet of our encrusted present political and social institutions).

To better days – in some unforeseen future - FIN

Quote: “The problem in Europe is not a lunatic fringe but a lunatic mainstream ever more estranged from its voters”.

This time it was Mark Steyn who got me going with the above succinct ending to one of his articles in MACLEANS (thank God there are still some readable publications in Canada) see http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/06/18/why-the-fascists-are-winning-in-europe.

This is a tell-tale article concerning the European parliamentary mess resulting from its last election, (just a bit more of a mangle than in North-America) – and one could venture to refer to it politely as “the effluent of democracy finally hits the proverbial fan”.

And still we continue to natter about politics or bury our heads in the sand, (similar to sleepwalking) – when it should be obvious that democracy cannot resolve intricate problems, i.e. according to the law that ‘a problem cannot be resolved with the same consciousness as that which created it in the first place’. So in essence it is a phantom problem, i.e. it doesn’t exist on its own accord and is entirely due to notions that evolved fiction-like out of the partisan state. Root issues used to be dealt with by tribal councils, but when such councils are succeeded or superseded by bureaucratic state functionaries under partisan voter guidelines, unresolved conflict is the natural consequence. We just delude ourselves by the thought that our various internal struggles for control have a more essential basis - when in fact it all boils down to unresolvable conflicts due to system hemorrhage. Sadly, democracy – at least as we know it – is dysfunctional !

Such a statement will be followed immediately by the shout “how can you attack a self-evident truth?” This outcry will first be trumpeted by the media which is beholden to the system, and secondly followed by the voter who is used to the existing paradigm and is just not ready to even consider a possible alternative. And all this while we have an unimaginably successful western country as a positive example for just such an alternative, in fact the country with one of the longest lasting continuous governmental system in modern history – Switzerland! This country has a non-adversarial decentralized governmental structure and the political parties have little power as the country is mostly guided by the highly influential professional associations that function in a similar manner to the old guilds. This is a country with one of the highest standards of living, a country who since its inception has never fought a war, a country that many people tend to vacation in – and yet it is talked about by very few people in a political context.

Why is that ? I don’t have the exact answer to that question, but it is surely rooted in our psychological avoidance nature, perhaps nurtured by our political class. But there comes a time – or sooner or later there will come a time – when we can no longer afford to neglect our own madness and/or the madness of our self-centered politicians (aka lawyers). But in order to start the inquiry we need a committed group of individuals willing to assist their country to climb out of its morass – not in order to create a revolution, but in order to be ready with a new structure to be put in place if and when the inevitable revolution will take place.

Those of you who are familiar with the science of System Dynamics, (as taught at MIT and several other universities), will no doubt be familiar with the underlying principles of natural system change and to those my thoughts will not be entirely strange – to everyone else I shall ask for forgiveness, either for having shattered their illusions or for having prematurely awakened them from their somnambulistic state.

Highway robbery …..

At least that is what David Warren calls the Federal Government’s bailout plan for GM and Chrysler – and blaming our gutless Conservative Party as the primary culprit -see http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/

Well, if it were only that simple! I have no dispute with David’s essential assumption, although calling it “highway robbery” is incorrect because such action would require the intention to do just that (either openly or surreptitiously) while the intention is here to save the jobs of the employees – however misguided the whole concept may be. (No doubt David has a point with respect to the many MPs covering their behinds by supporting this plan – this being a natural outcome of psychological default in a voter democracy – as can also be seen in the behaviour of liberal politicians in the EU with respect to the modern demographic pressures from Islamist constituencies. But I think that this is more of an assisting nature rather then the primary cause).

No specific group can be blamed for the direction our government is so unwisely embarking on in this case, particularly as we are just walking in the footsteps of our big neighbour to the south (not that this alone would give it greater legitimacy but it underlines the tremendous pressures that are at work within our so-called democratic system).

And that brings me again to my favourite subject – the malfunction or our governmental system per se. It is here the problem lies. If our elected guardians were not beholden to the voters and in fact were not beholden to any specific parties we may not be in this mess to begin with but most certainly would not have been tempted or cajoled into such a ridiculous bailout plan. If our guardians were instead appointed from the country’s professional guilds they might have had a completely different outlook on our economic as well as our political affairs – nor could they have been exposed to undue pressure from voting constituencies.

Now that I have stated my point, however briefly, I have no illusion that any changes in this direction are afoot nor that they could be officially promoted at this time in our political development, underdevelopment or misdevelopment. In order for such ideas of guild government to even surface it will require major catalysts of a different order and also no doubt a further disintegration of our system would need take place - the phoenix only rises from the ashes and while we are well on that way I would not hold my breath for such remedies in the immediate future.

Our flawed political assumptions (March 4th) - continued

Let’s give this a whirl to get us out of our comfort zones – particularly interesting for those of us who go through life with an agenda as to what’s wrong with this or other aspect of modern life and how we could do away with it by means of some activist motion or other; or better still whose fault it is and who ought to be blamed for it, etc.

The original brief may be useful in reviewing our own assumptions (which I believe are just that, i.e. assumptions ! Although we often go about thinking about these as if they were our very own heuristically arrived truths and therefore ought to be self-evident – and so they are ! …. but only until somebody questions us about their logic – at that point we go into a frenzied sequence of emotional justifications, etc all of which amount to …. ah well, you know what I mean - assumptions and opinions being the cheapest commodity around).

The purpose here is not so much to deny the fact that there are many areas of life that could do with some improvement (as this obviously has always been the case) but to clarify that most institutions or paradigms come out of a context of societal modalities that had their origin in something else and simply became part and parcel of society’s protective engagement with the vagaries of life (i.e. mostly fear based protection against the unknown).

And this of course brings us to Henry Higgins’ exclamation in “My Fair Lady” when he says “Why is thinking never even tried …..” (although this was said jestingly with reference to the so-called “weaker” sex , it would equally apply to just about everyone).

This modern struggle where everyone becomes their own Don Quixote fighting windmills (with or without the benefit of one’s own Sancho Panza to take up some of the burden) is destiny's consequence of having engaged in rebellion and for which we now have to pay the price in the school of psychological hard knocks – that’s the positive benefit of a negative action. (Or as it has ever been philosophically paraphrased “out of bad comes good”, e.g. when the Mafia’s off-springs turn their inherited structures into sociologically legitimate businesses, similar in fact to the off-springs of the robber barons of old who became the later governing aristocracy, etc).

Of course collectively that’s the only way a society will ever proceed, however, the painful part is having to observe the process in individuals, knowing that it is at least potentially possible to surrender one’s rebellion in exchange for the acquisition of guided instruction from a philosophical formula - that’s why the oracle of ancient Greece had declared Socrates the wisest of men – and why ? Only because he always maintained (or most likely feigned) his ignorance in the face of everyone else having “an opinion” (see here our above “assumptions”).

And now for a “Hurray” to David Warren !

Having just given a plug to Ezra Levant (via Mark Steyn) it is now my pleasure to do likewise for another very worthwhile writer that some of you are familiar with - not that he needs it. You can access David Warren’s article Slippery slope on his website at http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/.

It is not the first time I am supporting David on this location (and it probably will not be the last time) but his present thoughts contained therein are especially appreciated as I finally feel vindicated, having myself predicted these outcomes a few years ago, as some of you know – only to be decried as an ultra-conservative fear monger.

As a species it seems, we are collectively wired for resisting the obvious – I still haven’t figured out what it is specifically that causes this dilemma, which ultimately and inevitably leads to social disintegration, revolution and then a new run at the spiral of upward societal achievement. Of course I do not pretend to understand the underlying principles of this trend – but thank heaven neither does anyone else. However, since it is also self-evident that some people are smarter than others – and they could and are consistently ferreted out from within the various professional groups which are part and parcel of and give meaning to our daily existence – why is it that we have allowed our country to be run by politicians (mostly lawyers to boot – not that I have anything personally against them, after all ‘some of my best friends’ fall into this group; ok, so the word ‘best’ may here be somewhat excessive) under the disguise of democracy and freedom ?

I invite your contributions to these thoughts – if you’re Swiss you don’t qualify as you would have an unfair advantage.

A well deserved plug for Ezra Levant

“Shaken and stirred” is a MUST READ article by Mark Steyn endorsing Ezra Levant’s best-selling book Shakedown at http://www.steynonline.com/content/blogsection/14/128

And, although very unusual for that paper, you will see The Globe and Mail giving it top marks as well. – It is about time that some of us sleepwalking Canadian citizens wake up to what is (and has been) going on by means of uncalled-for censorship and harassment by the various federal and provincial HRCs.

Take a look and stand up to be counted defending your rights and freedoms.

Towards a functioning Republican Government

Before I'm off taking a short winter break I had better rush off the thoughts for your consideration. They are by necessity in an embryonic state and require the further input from the other participants in this project – and are here offered only as a starting point or a directional catalyst.

In order to define what such a government could be, we would first need to be convinced that what we experience now is dysfunctional and as such is in need of change. But the next question that arises is what makes it dysfunctional and what would constitute a functional government ?

Perhaps we could agree that the main source of dysfunction is the structure of competition between opposition parties, which in essence is also illogical.
A government’s purpose is to make the ways of the people smooth by means of laws and to protect its citizens from internal and external aggression. As such government ought to primarily reflect a cosmic order it would therefore also be hierarchical rather than egalitarian which is also typical of most natural constituent groups and species. The problem of the hierarchical governments of the past (aristocracy, oligarchy, not to speak of fascism, communism, etc) was in their disregard of natural law and a focus on self-serving ideologies.

Next we would want to protect the citizens from any undue overlording of governmental institutions – and this would best be protected by a parliamentary assembly of responsible citizens appointed by the very many professional interest groups such as are existing in daily life (somewhat similar to the governmental structures of Switzerland – we may call them modern guilds, e.g. mechanical industries, academia, health services, chemical industries, transportation, communications, tourism, etc) rather than the presently artificially created parties around isolated and usually competitive arbitrary political concepts (liberals, conservatives, socialists, sessionists, etc).

We would also further need to protect the average citizen from exploitation by the guilds by means of a mandatory elective format within the guilds as well as within regional (and/or municipal) representation.

While we are on the subject of elections – the presently egalitarian system has proven its illogical inefficiency by neglecting the fact of different human development in the areas of intelligence and responsibility – therefore it should be no surprise that the present format is catering to the lowest common denominator, i.e. the weakest link in the system. Instead, a country would want as high an order of functional intelligence as possible at the governing levels and thus voting qualifications would seem inevitably necessary. As to who or which group would lay out the corresponding criteria in as just a manner as possible, it would seem that this were then best decided by the guild administrators (elected or appointed) – this is not written in stone, and as of this moment is at best a road under construction.

With all these efforts we have to bear in mind that whatever will be the outcome of our deliberations, it will require a long uphill struggle – always cognizant of the need of ultimately stating our thoughts in inoffensive terminology and while still having to anticipate resistance from the political establishments of all presently elected politicians. This will most likely be the case for as long as we would need to persist within the presently given political environment – and it will therefore be unlikely that our ideas will sufficiently penetrate to reach critical mass prior to the collapse of our present systems (due to political or economic disintegration - the latter having no doubt recently commenced).

Of course, another alternative for the introduction of such a system as herein advocated would be a successful military take-over of a positive and temporary nature, which only rarely has been able to maintain a stable government in the long run in modern history – Turkey's Attaturk having been the only exception and it is itself now in a state of disintegration on account of a newly introduced democratic opening which allowes the fanatical Islamic segments to make its distructive inroads.

And so it would seem better to start with something rather than nothing – and I invite my friends and associates to step up to the plate and assist in this challenging endeavour. Seeing that the goal is far off into the future we had better get started right away – and as some of you may here recall the words of an unknown author ….”that labour is the lot of man ….. in vain, if the hand be not prompt to execute the design” and ….. “persistence is necessary to establish perfection, that the rude material receives its fine polish but by repeated efforts alone, that nothing short of indefatigable exertion will induce the habit of virtue, enlighten the mind and render the soul pure” ….