You are the key

You are the key

To make a better world we need to establish just two things. One – we need to ascertain what has to be done and two – we need to ascertain who is responsible for making it all happen.

If we systematically list all of our concerns and then put them into categories we will find that we then know what has to be fixed, and then we can prepare a plan. Later on, we can prioritize the list into a comprehensive 25 or 30 year plan.

If we look to whom is responsible for the dire mess we are in, we will surely see that we need to look elsewhere for a solution. It is not hard to find the answer as it is ultimately you and I who are the key. That is, you and I, and all like-minded people worldwide.

As an example, let’s assume that in step one we decided that PLASTIC was a category that needed to be addressed. If you watched today’s news regarded the pollution of the oceans with plastic you might agree that this would be a suitable, and essential, category. The newscaster suggested that the problem lies in the world’s recycling and waste management programs. This is a grave error in reasonable thought as plastic and the manufacturing in plastic is the problem itself. It is a problem so destructive that it threatens every aspect of all that exists.

Can we eliminate all manufacturing in plastic? – Not realistically or likely! Can we eliminate manufacturing of drinking straws in plastic? Why not? Using waxed paper straws would not diminish my lifestyle at all, but it would be a small step for correcting earth’s ecosystem.

Using the above logic, after demanding “No manufacturing of plastic straws” we could demand “No manufacturing of citrus, onion and garlic bags.” Manufacturers and suppliers could revert back to twisted paper code bags. My life style would not be diminished.

As you will note, we would prioritize the problems. We could put the “no brainer” ones first and gradually add the more difficult ones as the movement grows.

Next might come “No excess plastic may be used as fillers in packaging of food stuffs”. My life style would not be diminished.

As we progress we might demand “No manufacturing of toys in plastic”. Kids would still have toys to play with, as manufacturers look to alternative material. Life would not be diminished what-so-ever.

Let’s try tackling something that might be more contentious. “No packaging of toothpaste in plastic tubes” I’m not sure that this could ever be accomplished but really, if my tooth paste came in powder form in a little tinned or cardboard container I’m sure I could survive. Also, more than one billion tubes would be essentially removed from the ecosystem each and every year, forever and ever. (Imagine the number of albatross that might survive because there were fewer plastic caps to feed (and kill) their fledgling offspring)

Here are a few more (you are welcome to offer more.) “No plastic in razor manufacturing”, “No plastic coat hangers”, “No plastic stickers on fruit and vegetables”, “No plastic inserts in bottles”, “No injection molded chairs” etc. Again my life style would not be diminished.

In this exercise, I have addressed only one category of problems and only a few issues within said category. Altogether, I suggest 26 categories be used in this plan so that one of the 26 categories would put forward one issue, to the public, for consideration, each and every year. Over the course of one year all 26 categories would demand action on one issue. They would have their chance to gain public support and action in this first ever exercise in worldwide participatory democratic action.

In summary you are the solution to the problem. Your participation, your opinions, your input, your voice added to one larger worldwide voice will be the key to turning things around. We can make a difference.

If you would like to write a paper on any category of your choosing let me know. Together we can formulate an all-encompassing plan.

Sincerely – Matt Foster world att golden dott net




The world is coming apart at the seams and at some point will almost certainly be unable to adapt to, and sustain our excessive numbers, abuses and demands. While this is assured without some dramatic changes, the majority of us feel helpless and do nothing, when we should be collectively looking for a unified solution, and more importantly formulating and tabling a long range plan. The reality is that we have to take action, and without having a long range plan, we will just keep spinning our wheels and nothing will get accomplished.

There is always a small part of society that grasps the injustice of any given situation and reacts to it. The issue could be racism, homophobia, apartheid and injustices such as the Viet Nam war. The driving force is generally from the meeker side of society fuelled by passion coupled with compassion. In the greatest social and environmental challenge ever to face humanity, we need to awaken and focus this meeker segment of individuals in all societies worldwide.

Today’s worldwide dilemma is complex in the extreme. Trying to get the attention of politicians with our million complaints and suggestions all at the same time has the opposite effect to what we desire. To gain support, the message must be singularly specific and the goal must be clearly defined, practical and attainable. In addition, while the concerned individual is all important, he or she must have the power of numbers to be taken seriously.

The pressure for meaningful action and change must come from the people themselves. This is the key that is being overlooked. The findings of conferences, scientists, activist groups, the UN, or anyone else are meaningless unless the people are moved, in great numbers, to clearly support and voice such support for such findings and initiatives.

Trying to address the whole challenge as a single issue is ineffective and futile. This multifaceted and global challenge needs to be broken down into its component parts so that they can be addressed logically, systematically and consistently. Saying something like “Stop Global Warming” is like saying “Cure my fever” without first identifying the underlying cause. The latter is a symptom with perhaps several causes. The former is a symptom with thousands of causes – each of which needs to be identified, action proposed, agreed upon and prioritized.

Changing the direction of politicians is fundamental to success. Unfortunately politicians, for the most part, are as frail and frustrated as the rest of us. Just as we acquiesce to our superiors and bosses, our elected officials acquiesce to the Party leaders, who acquiesce to right winged pressure, influence and power. While citizens collectively think that our elected officials will act in the interest of society, this is seldom the reality. Willingly or unwillingly, they in fact are very much under the influence and direction of highly organized and powerful forces.

This simple paper makes no effort to expose the countless right winged influences. These influences are complex and cover almost every aspect of our daily lives. Fortunately in today’s world, information, and knowledge, is everywhere even though it is withheld from the general public to a large degree. Providing information must be part of this proposed plan for change.

Democracy itself also has many flaws, and in its present form often fails to produce legislatures which reflect the aspirations of a cross section of society. Identifying and correcting these basic flaws will be one of the objectives in the overall plan being envisioned here. (As an example, here in Canada, we have the Conservatives with 100% power, obtained with 39.6% of the vote in our flawed, so-called, democracy. No party, or individual, should ever have this unlimited and potentially devastating power.)

Is civil disobedience the answer to the problem? I advocate that we do not need to ‘take to the streets’ so much as we need to take to “social media” – but while we are considering how such a venue and forum might work, we first need an all-encompassing plan. Then it can be made available to everyone, everywhere through the suggested site. (Well! to almost everyone)

If we await our politicians, in our respective 300 or so countries, to address global concerns we will achieve nothing of consequence in a thousand futile years of trying. Unlike the sophistication of the right wing influences we are amateurs. Together worldwide, we have the research; we have the knowledge; we have the talents, but we are as a million individual voices all trying to be heard; all at the same time. It is time to change all of that. To be effective, it is time to make a plan, get organized and be really heard. The right has the power of money but the left has the potential power of people.

THE PLAN (which awaits your input, should you choose to do so)

First – We must identify the problem. The opening paragraph offers one for consideration.

Second – we must take all of the social and environmental problems that we can envision and place them into 26 categories or less. (The reason for this will become evident)

Third -we must take the issues in each category and prioritize them into a 25 year plan. (Starting with issues that are not too disruptive, while business and societies adapt to the changes that are imperative and essential)

Fourth – we must develop a dedicated social media site where the plan can be translated and displayed in all major languages. (If we see this as a global problem then we must inform and solicit input and debate as one worldwide society)

Fifth – we must allocate a two week period each year to each and every category, so that everyone will know precisely when any category (complete with its current prioritized issue) will get its opportunity to be considered. (And acted upon)

Sixth – an easily identifiable name and banner and mission statement should be chosen for this movement. (Preferably a Latin name to remove the stigma that can be attached to English etc. – for consideration, I offer Civis Mundi or Terra Cotta – meaning world citizen and burnt earth)

Seventh – using the technique of other organizations, or in collaboration with other groups, we could provide a petition related to the designated issue. (This would be chosen by those participating in the process)

Eighth – To provide direct contact with all politicians (and governing bodies) on the planet, we then direct the petition to only those who can act on our behalf. (If they fail to react, we must do everything in our power to put them out of work and replace them with people who truly represent society’s needs.)

As a place to start here are 24 categories of concerns – all of which need our collective and immediate attention. We just need to put them in order; prioritize the issues within; and collectively demand action from our respective politicians.

Category Ideas. (open to revision so long as we do not exceed 26 groups)

1. Air degradation

2. Democracy/Voting

3. Drugs

4. Energy

5. Farming/Forestry

6. Fishing/Whaling

7. Food

8. Genetic engineering

9. Health

10. Human Rights

11. Land/Soil Degradation

12. Mining

13. Non-personages (Influential groups)

14. Nuclear Issues

15. People’s Commons/Natural Resources

16. Plastic Issues

17. Population

18. Public Broadcasting/Freedom of speech/Right to Knowledge

19. Species (or biodiversity)

20. Toxins/toxicants

21. Trade and Labor

22. Transportation

23. Waste/Recycling

24. Water Resources

25/26 Open

In conclusion,

we need to arouse the passion, and compassion in the generally non-demonstrative and meeker side of the world’s peoples. They alone can gather and exert the power to affect change. Probably more than half of the world is rather meek. Meek does not have to mean weak. Inspired we can be a force for change but nothing can be done without a plan.

The ‘Stupid’ Albatross

The ‘Stupid’ Albatross

There is a heartbreaking video on YouTube web that shows the plight of the splendid albatross on Midway Island. See –

The parent birds comb the ocean for food for their chicks. They pick up our discarded plastic waste and bring it all to the nest to disgorge into the waiting beaks of their offspring. Of course the chicks wither and die agonizing deaths when the ‘food’ provides no nourishment and clogs their collective digestive systems. The unfortunate chicks rot in the sun and the released plastic returns to the environment to potentially kill again and again. We may well think about how unfortunate it is that these ‘stupid’ birds cannot learn from this cause and effect experience.

This unfortunately is but one example, with one single species, but it plays out similarly with many fish, turtles, mammals and birds – E.g. Pick up coloured plastic waste – eat it or feed offspring – consumer dies – slow erosion of the species – eventual extinction – poor stupid creatures!

Of course the ‘stupid’ albatross will never learn from the experience as it is beyond its ability. Only we ‘advanced and evolved’ humans have the capability to reason out this simple cause and effect equation and resolve it. However, we humans appear to be as helpless and as unwise as the lowly albatross. If we examine this plastic crisis, we know without a doubt, that we are headed for certain disaster. We however expand our use of plastic at a horrendous rate and (like the ‘stupid’ albatross) we feed it our planet, and every organism upon it, at an ever increasing rate. We then fly off, again and again, to purchase more to use, discard, corrupt, poison and kill.

Before you shrug your shoulders and say “it’s not my fault, and I cannot do anything about it” let me suggest that you can do something, and that you must do something.

First have a look at the ideas expressed at Read closely and if you think there is any merit in the basic ideas, then ask your friends to help debate, refine, and expand them.

Only when we categorize the whole range of problems; list the issues under the headings; prioritize the issues into a long range plan of at least 25 years; unit the people worldwide under a common banner with a common mission to resolve the issues one by one; resolve to make our elected politicians represent our collective interests; stand united in our resolve; only then will we make any headway.

Pass this on if you do nothing else. Show the world that we can do something tangible. Let’s create a worldwide movement that will put the common people in charge of our own destination and survival.

Remember that time, above all things, is now our greatest and unforgiving enemy.

Matt Foster – civis mundi




Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. ~Seneca the Younger

“I do not fear the man who does not read, I fear the man who reads only one book.” Anonymous


As I recall, the Left originally had a stranglehold on the religious voter as those on that side of the political chart pretty much embodied the notion of “treat others as you would like to be treated yourself”. This “golden rule” (that we all learned in Sunday school) was generally accepted as the prime directive of Christianity and other religions. Then after the Second World War, along came ‘abortion’ as an issue of reproductive and women’s rights. This was pretty much accepted as a left issue as it fit into the ideology of individual freedom. It was accepted and put under the Democrat/Liberal umbrella. Then along came the ‘gay issue’. This was pretty much adopted by the same people as it also fit into the broad ideology of liberalism. The ‘gay marriage’ issue intensified the situation but like other human-rights issues, it was brought in, out of the storm of controversy. It also fit under the umbrella, but now if it was becoming somewhat unpleasant for some of the people seeking a political haven there.

For generations the Republican/Conservative “right” had difficulty drawing in the religious voter as they collectively had an air of self and greedy ambitions about them and sharing was not their big virtue. That was about to change.

The religious voter found him/herself in a bit of a dilemma with neither the Left nor Right representing an ideology that he/she could totally accept without making a compromising decision of conscience on some of these thorny issues.

The only solution was for “religion” to become more tolerant of the “right” ideology. This was done in two ways as a bit of compromise was in order. – The Republican/Conservatives adopted and embraced ‘religion’s’ viewpoint on issues of reproduction, and homophobia as their own, while ‘religion’ accepted and promoted the possession of material goods and money as virtuous. Problem solved!

Christ was given a makeover and transformation like at no other time in history. His beard was trimmed and he donned a blue business suit and he threw away the whip he had used on the moneychangers as he welcomed them back into the temple.

The flag was dragged into the church and placed next to the altar along with other symbols on nationhood and of the aggressive God of the Old Testament. (Kind of like Hitler dragging his crooked cross into the church seventy-five years ago, more or less)

The entire flock became Crusaders – the Cross became a sword – the Bible became a deed for land in the Middle East – getting the Jews back into Israel became an obsession – promoting Armageddon became a passion – science became regarded as obscene – Darwin was dismissed – creation was taught as fact – patriotism was portrayed as virtuous – The pulpit became a soapbox – thwarting the Ungodly liberal by any ‘sleazy stuff is OK because it’s in the service of a greater good’ (Reference Bill Maher) – brain washing became an art form – doing whatever necessary to bring on the second coming of Christ was deemed laudable – the fouled planet’s continuance was deemed irrelevant, and presumably left for the devil and the unholy when Christ returns and makes a new home in Heaven for the believers .

North American religion is now under the big-business umbrella and spreading the dogma around the world. If it were on the stock market, I would be in line to buy some shares.

The combination of dogma and ideology is somewhat unstable in this union. The leaders from both sides – I.e. The plutocrats accept the theocrats votes and cash, while the Theocrats get their hand on the tiller of government. They play the game of cooperation but they are not real happy in this marriage of convenience. They are often contemptuous of one another in this unholy union. For me it is hard to tell; which are the wolves, and which are the sheep? Ref: Gospel of Matthew 7:15



Please note that ideologies are not just Left and Right but are influenced by the Independent versus the Interdependent characteristics of individuals. In the Civis Mundi Political Chart the Independent ideologies favour the top of the chart.

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Winston Churchill

(First we have) LAISSEZ FAIRE FREEMARKETISM (Independent-hands-off Ideology)

(Below see the other Tolerable Free-marketism ideology – TRADITIONALISM)

Title of Graph  –  Tolerable Right Ideologies

Tolerable right


In Canada, the USA and elsewhere, support for the Free Market system is the perceived source of prosperity. It is unfortunate but often the creative contribution of small business ENTREPRENEURIALISM and the efforts of LABOURISM are forgotten when big business ideas become excessively predominant.

The ideology of Freemarketism is complex as it encompasses both the Laissez-faire ideas (Independent-hands-off Ideology) and those of the less dogmatic Traditionalist (Interdependent hands-on ideology) ideas. The former would like government to butt out of their affairs whereas the later accepts reasonable government participation and regulations.

The Laissez-Faire Free-Marketism is on the upper right of the graph and Traditionalist Free-Marketism on the lower right. (Between the Acceptable and Radical political ideologies) As the ideologies are similarly Right and Tolerable they share the same segment of the graph entitled in part as FREE-MARKETISM.

Laissez-faire definition from

1. The theory or system of government that upholds the autonomous character of the economic order, believing that government should intervene as little as possible in the direction of economic affairs.

2. The practice or doctrine of non-interference in the affairs of others, especially with reference to individual conduct or freedom of action

FREE MARKET definition from Wikipedia – the free dictionary

A free market is a market where the price of each item or service is arranged by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers (see supply and demand); the opposite is a controlled market, where a government sets supply and price. However, while a free market necessitates that government does not dictate prices, it also requires the traders themselves do not coerce or defraud each other, so that all trades are morally voluntary. For more information see

Simplified Laissez-Faire Free-Marketism Summary:

  • They apparently would reduce government to the basic responsibility of protecting the country from invasion. (Defence Only)
  • They support the maximum liberty in personal matters.
  • They support maximum liberty in economic matters.
  • They support the concept of barter for goods and service. (Tax avoidance?)
  • They enthusiastically support the free market.
  • They advocate small government and dislike government interference in most everything.
  • They embrace individual responsibility.
  • They oppose bureaucracy.
  • They oppose taxes.
  • They oppose government social programs but support voluntary and private charity.
  • They defend civil liberties, just as everyone claims to do.
  • They apparently tolerate diverse lifestyles. (but not so much in reality)
  • They support strong law enforcement.
  • They would dismantle health care, elderly benefits/tariffs/labour laws/unemployment benefits/public, support of sports, arts, education, culture etc.
  • They would sell off parks etc.
  • Some support euthanasia, and the likes, but there are dissenters as in all ideology.
  • Policy suggests they oppose meddling in other countries affairs (but this is unlikely in practical terms as the military is always a tool of big business)
  • They have open distain for the UN


As noted on the graph, this ideology favours the upper right side of the graph. I see this complete segment of the Civis Mundi Political Chart as strongly supporting self-interests as opposed to group interests.

There are some who say that Laissez-Faire Free-Marketism was what brought on the great depression but as I am not much of an economist I defer to others to draw their own conclusions.

Perhaps you have a better title for this ideology. Here is the challenge – No fair using the two words freedom and liberty.

TOLERABLE RIGHT IDEOLOGIES (second consideration)

FREEMARKETISM TRANDITIONALISM (Interdependent Hands-on Ideology)

Traditional Conservatives believe in the Traditional structure of society, with different social classes and different sex roles. We do not believe in everything that happened in the past. We believe that the family is the basic structure of human society, not the individual nor the Government. Mark Moncrieff blog

Traditionalism definition:

1: adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition

2: the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism


Title of Graph  –  Tolerable Right Ideologies

Tolerable right


Some may use the word Conservatism for this area of the political chart but I believe the name no longer applies to the ideology. `Parties continue to use names that do not reflect the original ideas. There seems to be little conserving in the world of Conservatism.

The Traditionalism category is currently being influenced by two groups of well-organized and strongly opinionated people – the powerful Religious Right ( by the Laissez-Faire Free-marketers. The former would lead us into Theocracy ( and the latter into Free-market Anarchism (

Simplified Traditionalism Free-Marketism Summary:

  • They tend to passionately support economic freedom.
  • They favour a free-market economy.
  • They defend civil liberties and free expression for their personal viewpoint.
  • They oppose business taxes.
  • They oppose excessive bureaucratic control over their activities.
  • They support government control and legislation on “family values” and on society’s morality.
  • They support nationalistic symbols.
  • They often support more religious teachings and symbols.
  • They outwardly promote national patriotism.
  • They oppose environmental regulations preferring voluntary standards.
  • They generally stifle raises in minimum wages for labour.
  • They generally oppose benefits for labour.
  • They generally legislate against the labour force.
  • They tolerate legal and illegal immigration and foreign worker programs as they have a positive effect on lowering labour wages.
  • They support a strong military and are not afraid to use it to protect national and business interests.
  • They support strong law enforcement.
  • They set rigid boundaries on political expression.
  • They have ever increasing dislike for the UN as the ideology moves right.



There is no ideal or real free Market economy. The Laissez-faire Free Market concept would reduce the encumbrances to zero in their version of the ideal economic world but hopefully this will never happen.

The concept of Free-Marketism encompasses entrepreneurial spirit, capitalistic input, small business, big business and international business.

In actuality the free market always has some interference by government in the mechanics of the system. Government subsidies, tariffs, taxes, labour laws, and regulations, are always there. In the Real Traditionalist Free Market world there will always be regulations so long as there is any ideology from the LEFT in the coalition of ideas within the governing party.

The following makes a good read:





Egalitarian policies are the best way to unite and empower people, and are also a necessary counterweight to the sometimes detrimental influence of market forces. Johanna Siguroardottir

Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind. Mikhail Gorbachev

Dictionary definition for Egalitarianism

1:  a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs

2:  a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people


Position of Left Tolerable Ideology on the Civis Mundi Political Chart

(Between Acceptable Left and Radical Left Ideologies)

tolerable left2


I had some difficulty with putting a name to this tolerable Left ideology category. I think that egalitarianism seems to suit it best as some other titles are used as political party names. It is used here to designate social ideas separate from Labour ideology and separate from Collectivism ideas. It is not a political party name as far as I can determine

Many people say that this ideology is a step towards Collectivism but that is not necessarily true and in fact there are many variables in the two categories of ideologies. The ideologies grow further apart as people now realize that both Socialism and Communism, as political systems, simply do not work very well.


Basic Egalitarianism Ideology:

  • Advocates believe that everyone should have a say in how the government works.
  • Many egalitarians believe that Capitalism is immoral and unjust.
  • Many egalitarians believe that Capitalism has the only viable economic system.
  • Many believe in the basic concept of private sector ownership as opposed to collective ownership. (Generally called Social Democrats)
  • Advocates believe in the principle “from each his/her ability, to each according to his/her deeds (work)
  • Advocates believe that everyone should share in the benefits of industrialization.
  • Advocates may ardently believe that natural resources should belong to the people.
  • Egalitarians believe that the government should be in control of the distribution of money for compassionate programs. (Health Care, Social Insurance, Old Age Pensions, Unemployment Insurance, Child Care etc.
  • Egalitarians favour free education. (There may be admission considerations and advancement intelligence considerations for higher education)
  • Egalitarians favour welfare where needed.
  • Egalitarians favour progressive laws and programs, for those unable to help themselves.
  • Egalitarians believe that everyone should have food regardless of their ability to work.
  • Originally both Egalitarians and Collectives believed that land, factories, and other economic resources should be government owned instead of privately owned. Since then there has been much disagreement and subsequent compromising with the Right.
  • Egalitarians believe in protecting the people’s commons (separate paper) from exploitation.
  • There is strong support for the UN



Egalitarianism seems like an appropriate name to describe those who want all of its society to be cared for from cradle to grave. (I.E. each according to his needs) You may not agree with the concept but I hope you agree that the name applies.

Egalitarians as a characteristic correctly needs to be admired and is therefore a “tolerable” ideology for the electorate to consider. (After all, most people admire the character and deeds of the Good Samaritan)

I believe that most citizens of our western countries would agree that Egalitarianism is well worth a place in the political arena to offer a counter force to Free Marketism. It is therefore given a place on the Left as a Tolerable Ideology. (Between Acceptable and Radical on this Civis Mundi Political Chart: More at

There are some distinct variables in this ideology that are brought on by the Independent versus Interdependent characteristics of individuals. If you would like to know more, you should read this Wikipedia page:

Political Chart criteria

Civis Mundi Political Chart

Before moving on to tolerable ideology lists, after previously providing acceptable and centrist ideology lists, it might be best to show how this political chart was put together.

It is obvious that Left ideology should be on the left side of the chart and the Right on the right side. It is less obvious how to handle the aspects of neutrality vs. severity; equality vs. inequality; individualism vs. authoritarianism; independence vs. interdependence; state intervention into the market place; economic systems and the markets themselves. Following all are graphically displayed for those interested. (Visit the link to see all the additional links to further information at


So if Left is on the left, and the Right is right, we have this first basic representation.

left - right2

On this next sketch the chart is divided horizontally into two equal portions.

Monism vs plualism

The upper half represents ideology that stresses independent thought and limited government intervention. This is labeled Monism rightly or wrongly.

The lower half represents ideology that promotes government and interdependent participation. This is labeled Pluralism rightly or wrongly.


Next we show how business is handled in the markets.


And the economic systems that are used to control the market place.

Markets 2

There are many more variations but this should show that they are part of all political ideologies.

This last chart simply includes the greater part of Left and Right ideologies. You can use these words to do Wikipedia searches for more information.

political systems

This project was started because I felt that any of the so called political charts that I found were designed to mislead and direct the reader/visitor to embrace and identify with Libertarian or Conservative ideology. I know I am Left leaning, but I hope that this is a fair representation of both sides of the ideology scene.

If this presentation is difficult to follow, I would appreciate any ideas on how it might be improved.




This is the third of about a dozen planned papers designed to list the ideology, and (where applicable) the manifestations of such ideology, for most all  political leanings. They will start with the Acceptable and Centrist ideologues and work through to the Fanatical ideologies over the next few weeks.

Please refer to the political chart at – It is a bit dated but it is available for anyone to take and improve.


“I must follow the people. Am I not their leader?” ~ Benjamin Disraeli

“The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters.” —Dwight D. Eisenhower

“It is from the center that leaders must lead.”        — Dick Morris, pollster & political adviser Reference:

2. of or pertaining to centrists or to their political views; middle-of-the-road.


Graph Title:

Centrist -position on my political chart















There is no party in North America, that I am aware of, that is called centrist but a large segment of society fits into this category.

This citizen has been called many names – Centrist, Independent, Fence sitter, and Moderate. All covet his/her vote at election time. All try to hit him/her with some issue that will move him/her of off the fence and into their camp. All it takes, at times, is one sliver from one plank in their professed political ideology. If it strikes a nerve, you have his/her vote – providing you can get the converted to the polling station.

Many can be swayed with messages of fear and patriotism. Many can be swayed with religious prejudices and phobias. Many can be moved with a promise of prosperity or a tax cut.

Simplified Summary:

They advocate the “middle ground” regarding- governmental control of the economy, and interference in personal behaviour.

They tend to keep an open mind and make decisions based on the situation.

They tend to oppose political extremes.



Let Thomas Jefferson make this conclusion.

“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”




This is the second of about a dozen planned papers designed to list the ideology, and (where applicable) the manifestations of such ideology, for most all  political leanings. They will start with the Acceptable ideologues and work through to the Fanatical ideologies over the next few weeks.

Please refer to the political chart at – It is a bit dated but it is available for anyone to take and improve.


“The entrepreneur is our visionary, the creator in each of us. We’re born with that quality and it defines our lives as we respond to what we see, hear, feel, and experience. It is developed, nurtured, and given space to flourish or is squelched, thwarted, without air or stimulation, and dies.” Michael Gerber 

“Nobody talks of entrepreneurship as survival, but that’s exactly what it is and what nurtures creative thinking.”  — Anita Roddick

 Definition of Entrepreneur – American Heritage dictionary:

A person who organizes, operates, and assumes the risk for a business venture.


Graph Title: Entrepreneurialism = position on my political chart

Accept Right













I would like to think that this name includes everyone who sees big and small business and all entrepreneurial ventures as worthy of a political ideology. It also includes everyone who aspires to be with the group at some time in the future.

This is a word borrowed from the French to designate an individual who has a drive to innovate, create, invent, and lead. This person assumes the responsibilities of Capital risk, of management, of organization of any economic enterprise.

This person is distinct from an ordinary manager who assumes the administration of an existing business or enterprise without any real knowledge behind the venture.

Basic Ideology of the Entrepreneur: (not obligations)

  • The right to use capital to make capital.
  • The right to incorporate the enterprise.
  • The right to take a risk with his or her own money.
  • The right to make a profit.
  • The right to hire people for wages or salary.
  • The right to discipline employees.
  • The right to discharge people who do not meet minimum expectations.
  • The right to keep the benefits of his or her endeavour.
  • The right to take advantage of new innovations and processes.
  • The right to modify objectives.
  • The right to define working hours.
  • The right to produce 24/7 if necessary.
  • The right to sell all or portions of his/her venture.
  • The right to take partners
  • The right to sell shares in the business


The Entrepreneur’s competitive spirit and creativity was, and is, the human force behind western advancement. The entrepreneur, and his financial backers, assumes this financial risk and face economic loss if the creativity is flawed in any way. Years of creative thinking, development, and planning are all wasted if the venture fails.

The important function of this individual has declined somewhat with the advance of major corporations, however small business endeavours still provide greater employment than the major corporations.

I have placed this ideology opposite Labourism, as it is the corresponding and complementing component that provides the prosperity of our cultures.

Both ideologies should be regarded as critical, and respected, components of our individual societies.

Entrepreneurialism is to be admired as much as those who labour within this concept. Everyone dreams of financial success within the business/labour framework, as both are essential components of the whole.

Common sense and reasoning suggests that we have reached another place on the graph that is totally acceptable to the average person. Once again – people being the way they are, we can expect that there will be equal suspicion, and distrust, from both sides of centre. Ergo – Democracy



This is the first of about a dozen planned papers designed to list the ideology, and (where applicable) the manifestations of such ideology, for most all  political leanings. They will start with the Acceptable ideologues and work through to the Fanatical ideologies over the next few weeks.

Please refer to the political chart at – It is a bit dated but it is available for anyone to take and improve.


“A truly American sentiment recognizes the dignity of labor and the fact that honor lies in honest toil.”   — Grover Cleveland

“If I were a factory employee, a workman on the railroads or a wage-earner of any sort, I would undoubtedly join the union of my trade. If I disapproved of its policy, I would join in order to fight that policy; if the union leaders were dishonest, I would join in order to put them out. I believe in the union and I believe that all men who are benefited by the union are morally bound to help to the extent of their power in the common interests advanced by the union.” Theodore Roosevelt,

LABOURISM (Laborism) definitions from

  1. political theory favoring the dominance of labor in the economic and political life of a country
  2. the doctrines and programs of the Labour party.



For all intents and purposes I have separated LABOUR from PROGRESSIVISM (A broad term used here for social ideas) as I see it as a distinct entity worthy of separate considerations. Most people, including labourers, simply want a fair deal in society. Their ideology is pretty basic when we separate out the more distinctive socialism ideology.


There is no active political party called LABOUR in Canada or in the USA that I am aware of. From what I have read from the various Labour groups they have socialist ideologies or Social democratic ideology – an ideology that reaches into the right for economic policy. (Like much of Europe perhaps)

Position of My Political Chart

POLITICAL CHART 2click on icon to see chart



Basic Labour Ideology:

  • Fair wages for work.
  • Regular review of wages
  • Reasonable working conditions
  • Opportunities for advancement
  • No discrimination
  • An adequate health and drug plan.
  • Affordable education.
  • A good workers accident compensation plan.
  • Adequate unemployment insurance.
  • Protection of bargaining rights if unionized
  • Progressive measures to prevent the hiring of replacement workers (during labour disputes.)
  • Adequate paid vacations.
  • Protection of pension plans.
  • There are many who want the social benefits of socialism while maintaining a capitalist economic system.

Conclusion: Labourism seems like a nice name to describe those that toil for their daily bread, wine, and shelter from the cold. I would like to think that this includes everyone regardless as to whether, or not, they receive actual pay for their efforts. You may not agree with the concept but I hope you agree that the name LABOURISM applies. Labour ideas should be better represented in all political party ideology in Canada and elsewhere.