The 'Execute Committee'

Doesn't the function of the committee actually embody a doctrine of authoritarianism?

Personally, I just wanted to be clear on this. I mean, let's just call a spade a spade. The aims will be better achieved this way. I think this topic should be discussed.

Not really. At least i dont endorse non-democratic principles. But the committee remains neutral in the question of style of leadership regarding a possible socialist nationalist society. The committee exists only to develop the basis of the "Revolutionary Syndicalist Front" ideology, as well as to maintain an open channel and base for honest, plural socialist dialogue.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:Not really. At least i dont endorse non-democratic principles. But the committee remains neutral in the question of style of leadership regarding a possible socialist nationalist society. The committee exists only to develop the basis of the "Revolutionary Syndicalist Front" ideology, as well as to maintain an open channel and base for honest, plural socialist dialogue.

So, insofar as the Front is a think-tank, when does it stop deciding for the masses and letting the masses think for themselves?

It seems as if the 'handing over the reins' will be impossible because all the progress has been made through a process built in the opposite fashion.

The masses decide to agree with our ideology or not. In any case the "front" is only rigid and adamant regarding the fact that capitalism explotation cannot continue, and it is defined by a set of guidelines that can be cristalized in an alternative to said system. And i think nobody here disagrees with that.

The Executive Committee currently functions on the basis of democratic centralism, but committee members don't hold a unanimous opinion regarding how a post-capitalist state should be governed. Some of us support the expansion of democracy, others are somewhat more authoritarian.

godlessnorth wrote:So, insofar as the Front is a think-tank, when does it stop deciding for the masses and letting the masses think for themselves?

We're merely involved in the formulation of a nationalistic syndicalist ideology which people can either choose to adopt as their own or reject. Leaders will certainly emerge during a popular uprising, and they will either succeed in convincing the masses of the desirability of Socialist-Nationalism or fail at it. The power ultimately rests with the people, insofar as revolution is concerned.

It seems as if the 'handing over the reins' will be impossible because all the progress has been made through a process built in the opposite fashion.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? For example, what exactly do you mean by "progress"?

Celtiberian wrote:The Executive Committee currently functions on the basis of democratic centralism, but committee members don't hold a unanimous opinion regarding how a post-capitalist state should be governed. Some of us support the expansion of democracy, others are somewhat more authoritarian.

I suspect this is due to the infancy of the committee. But in the long term isnt uniformity desirable in order to be effective?

We're merely involved in the formulation of a nationalistic syndicalist ideology which people can either choose to adopt as their own or reject. Leaders will certainly emerge during a popular uprising, and they will either succeed in convincing the masses of the desirability of Socialist-Nationalism or fail at it. The power ultimately rests with the people, insofar as revolution is concerned.

The committee, by definition, are already the self-appointed leaders of this ideology. If I am wrong, then you are not the leaders then no one should listen to you.

Your involvement is not just to forumlate ideology but to implement it, i.e. there's no point building a cart if you don't have a horse.

Sure, the power is with the people, but empowering the people takes a quite a bit of, as you say, 'convincing'. The word 'convincing' can be interpreted in many ways. Regardless, the committee must be that convincing-machine. If you don't do it no one will. You have to be authorative.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? For example, what exactly do you mean by "progress"?

By progress I mean the empowering of the people. How should this be achieved? By an executive force; an instrumental, essential initative to enlighten and inable the masses into action. The 'progress' is in convincing the public.

The problem, to use a metaphor, is learning how to make a cake, giving that cake away, and expecting the recipient to be able to bake another one on his own in the future. That is, if your aim is to empower the people, then the only way about doing that is to do it for them; 'convince' them of the need to learn to bake their own cake. Of course, what I'm alluring to is the notion that the masses will never be able to take control of their own destiny because they were never the ones who enabled it in the first instance.

If democratic socialism were to emerge it would have to spontaneously. As soon as an individual or small group of inidividuals steps up and creates something to benefit the rest, they are the leader(s). In reality, no revolution can exist without a spark. There needs to be an authority to take control of the emergence.

My summation is that large scale socialism must also have a leadership and that leadership has to be authoritarian.

One thing is leadership of some revolution.


Another, is the ideology behind it.

Karl Marx wasn't the "leader" of the Russian revolution, yet it was his ideology that influenced it. If you want the simplest explanation, our objective as the committe is to write the ideology, not to be the leaders of some particular revolution, even because we are not even in the same country. Thats why agreing on a style of leadership for example, is irrelevant within the objective of the R.S.F. committee.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:One thing is leadership of some revolution.


Another, is the ideology behind it.

Karl Marx wasn't the "leader" of the Russian revolution, yet it was his ideology that influenced it. If you want the simplest explanation, our objective as the committe is to write the ideology, not to be the leaders of some particular revolution, even because we are not even in the same country. Thats why agreing on a style of leadership for example, is irrelevant within the objective of the R.S.F. committee.

Ohhhhh...

You guys are just theorists.

EDIT -- Might have to leave the armchair socialists to it. Have fun, fellers.

godlessnorth wrote:
I suspect this is due to the infancy of the committee. But in the long term isnt uniformity desirable in order to be effective?

It has more to do with the Committee acknowledging the fact that the organization of a Revolutionary Syndicalist state will invariably differ from nation to nation, due largely to various post-revolutionary circumstances. (National traditions may also play a part in how various populations seek to organize the state.)

The general (and uncompromising) position of the Committee on this matter is that any post-revolutionary order function in full accordance to the interests of the national working class —as conceptualized in our Socialist-Nationalist ideology. The means utilized to secure such ends are more of a peripheral concern, though the Committee will certainly formally recognize any positions (and corresponding concerns) on the matter that its officials care to elaborate on in various articles, treatises, etc.

The committee, by definition, are already the self-appointed leaders of this ideology. If I am wrong, then you are not the leaders then no one should listen to you.

I disagree with the premise that just because an individual or group happens to develop an ideological framework intended for eventual application, it automatically places them at the fore of whatever revolutionary effort it may inspire. As Leon Mcnichol rightly points out, the fact that Marx and Engels provided the Bolsheviks with the ideological framework by which to pursue communism, does not accord either individual with direct responsibility for what the Bolsheviks did in the name of communism. In this respect, the Committee cannot function as anything more than a source of ideological guidance (rather than outright leadership) for political efforts undertaken in the name of Revolutionary Syndicalism.

The Committee is not dictating terms to anyone outside of the Revolutionary Syndicalist Front —which is a formal organizational body, but not one intended to function as a domestic political party or movement. The idea is to maintain an international form so as to spread the principles of Revolutionary Syndicalism to all national revolutionary movements willing to embrace them. This may in turn unite revolutionary movements throughout the West under the banner of the RSF. (In this respect, one could perhaps compare it to what the Socialist International represents to the Social Democrats; what the Comintern represented to the communist parties; and what the IAF represents to various anarchist groups.)

Your involvement is not just to forumlate ideology but to implement it, i.e. there's no point building a cart if you don't have a horse.

One must precede the other, at least in our opinion. The Committee openly acknowledges the fact that organized revolutionary activity is absolutely essential, but we do not wish to repeat the mistake innumerable revolutionary movements throughout history have made —which is to prematurely assume the role of a formal political party or movement that purports to be suited to immediately assume political power.

Sure, the power is with the people, but empowering the people takes a quite a bit of, as you say, 'convincing'. The word 'convincing' can be interpreted in many ways. Regardless, the committee must be that convincing-machine. If you don't do it no one will. You have to be authorative.

I very much agree with you with respect to the question of outreach efforts. However, there should (and will) first be an effort to cultivate those movements capable of directly addressing the respective concerns of peoples of the various nations in question.

By progress I mean the empowering of the people. How should this be achieved? By an executive force; an instrumental, essential initative to enlighten and inable the masses into action. The 'progress' is in convincing the public.

The problem, to use a metaphor, is learning how to make a cake, giving that cake away, and expecting the recipient to be able to bake another one on his own in the future. That is, if your aim is to empower the people, then the only way about doing that is to do it for them; 'convince' them of the need to learn to bake their own cake. Of course, what I'm alluring to is the notion that the masses will never be able to take control of their own destiny because they were never the ones who enabled it in the first instance.

I agree that the goal of any revolutionary movement should be to provide the sort of leadership you find essential. Without direction, most revolutionary endeavors are doomed to suffer the sort of fates we have seen throughout the world (the 'Egyptian Revolution of 2011 being a perfect contemporary example of such). Indeed, if the outstanding concerns of the people are to be addressed and a revolutionary program implemented, there must be mature movements, composed of capable (ideologically-driven) individuals, who can actually fill a power vacuum.

In order to accomplish that, however, a coherent ideology must first be developed —capable of adequately addressing the main problems facing the world today. Hence, the role of the Committee and rightly so.

If democratic socialism were to emerge it would have to spontaneously. As soon as an individual or small group of inidividuals steps up and creates something to benefit the rest, they are the leader(s). In reality, no revolution can exist without a spark. There needs to be an authority to take control of the emergence.

My summation is that large scale socialism must also have a leadership and that leadership has to be authoritarian.

I suppose that it depends what you mean by 'democratic socialism'. If by that you mean to denote an anarchistic system, you may have a point. (Indeed, that is where the anarchists part ways with the orthodox Marxists in terms of securing their respective 'utopias'.) If, however, you mean to denote a political system that is based on democratic accountability and various levels of democratic participation on the part of the population —which I personally find to be ideal in a post-revolutionary society— then I disagree with the notion that hierarchical organizational bodies are somehow ideologically incompatible. Society needn't be structured in accordance to one universal model.

There are invariably going to be aspects of a society which necessitate more rigid forms of stratification (such as the military). Others can reasonably function in a more democratic capacity —especially as society evolves in such a way as to develop a well informed, responsible citizenry (something which modern capitalist societies lack). As such, I don't see the need to support the formation of an authoritarian state; which, by definition, lacks any democratic accountability or participation. It just strikes me as redundant and likely to alienate many people.

godlessnorth wrote:
there's no point building a cart if you don't have a horse.

On the other hand there is little point in having a horse if you haven't thought of a role for it.

I prefer not to be considered an "armchair socialist" but for the moment that's what we have to be.

Wait a second...you want to tell us to wait for spontaneity, and then you want to call us armchair socialists?
Come on, godlessnorth. How can you not see the contradiction here? Are you just trying to be a armchair disturber or does it flow from you spontaneously?

I don't understand your conclusions 'GN'. Do you think that a Revolutionary Syndicalist agenda will, somehow, spring fully formed to enable it to be imposed on a socialist revolution?
Do you expect us to go to the people with a half-baked theory and an amalgam of ideas based around a pre-existing ideology (a la Lenin)?
To adopt a failed 25 point programme or a manifesto written some 150 years ago for a world so different from our own?
Would you have us break the primary rule of socialism, that it should rise from below and not be imposed from above?
You ask us what we want, well what do you want? A socialist workers democracy based on the principle of worker control, or an authoritarian-capitalist dictatorship where the means of production are controled by the state, an aristocracy of 'flat hats' to replace the aristocracy of capital?
Eagerness is fine, the fires of revolutionary zeal are necessary, but a Socialist-Nationalist revolution must be nurtured, allowed to grow, or become just another failed ideology - and we don't have time for yet another failure.
I see the function of the 'executive' as a recepticle of ideas, ideas from which a revolutionary programme will form. How those ideas will be implemented is not the executives function, for the moment we must be, as you so charmingly put it, "armchair socialists".
Perhaps instead of condeming us and rushing off, you should pull up an 'armchair' and help formulate a strategy for future impementation.

Hi, Admin. I didn't mean to provoke so much. I intend this to develop into a healthy topic which I believe needs to be discussed.

Admin wrote:It has more to do with the Committee acknowledging the fact that the organization of a Revolutionary Syndicalist state will invariably differ from nation to nation, due largely to various post-revolutionary circumstances. (National traditions may also play a part in how various populations seek to organize the state.)

The general (and uncompromising) position of the Committee on this matter is that any post-revolutionary order function in full accordance to the interests of the national working class —as conceptualized in our Socialist-Nationalist ideology. The means utilized to secure such ends are more of a peripheral concern, though the Committee will certainly formally recognize any positions (and corresponding concerns) on the matter that its officials care to elaborate on in various articles, treatises, etc.

This is promising.

My interest is in linking the two together: theory and practice.

I disagree with the premise that just because an individual or group happens to develop an ideological framework intended for eventual application, it automatically places them at the fore of whatever revolutionary effort it may inspire. As Leon Mcnichol rightly points out, the fact that Marx and Engels provided the Bolsheviks with the ideological framework by which to pursue communism, does not accord either individual with direct responsibility for what the Bolsheviks did in the name of communism. In this respect, the Committee cannot function as anything more than a source of ideological guidance (rather than outright leadership) for political efforts undertaken in the name of Revolutionary Syndicalism.

Nonsense.

Given oppotunities that may be present, there is interest, no, necessity in pursuing it. If you have the method without the measure, then you may as well have neither.

Is actually became problematic that Marx didn't end up having the final say on how the theory was implemented. This was a dangerous disconnect which was observed in subsequent Soviet leaders.

The executive must be closest to the source in order for the theory to be implemented most effectively and securedly.

The Committee is not dictating terms to anyone outside of the Revolutionary Syndicalist Front —which is a formal organizational body, but not one intended to function as a domestic political party or movement. The idea is to maintain an international form so as to spread the principles of Revolutionary Syndicalism to all national revolutionary movements willing to embrace them. This may in turn unite revolutionary movements throughout the West under the banner of the RSF. (In this respect, one could perhaps compare it to what the Socialist International represents to the Social Democrats; what the Comintern represented to the communist parties; and what the IAF represents to various anarchist groups.)

Great. I'm not ruling this out at all. International, conscious effort is a hallmark of socialism.

One must precede the other, at least in our opinion. The Committee openly acknowledges the fact that organized revolutionary activity is absolutely essential, but we do not wish to repeat the mistake innumerable revolutionary movements throughout history have made —which is to prematurely assume the role of a formal political party or movement that purports to be suited to immediately assume political power.

Precisely my point.

I'm not about to suggest that we get an overdeveloped sense of granduer. Only that the cart follows the horse, as it were.

I suppose that it depends what you mean by 'democratic socialism'. If by that you mean to denote an anarchistic system, you may have a point. (Indeed, that is where the anarchists part ways with the orthodox Marxists in terms of securing their respective 'utopias'.) If, however, you mean to denote a political system that is based on democratic accountability and various levels of democratic participation on the part of the population —which I personally find to be ideal in a post-revolutionary society— then I disagree with the notion that hierarchical organizational bodies are somehow ideologically incompatible. Society needn't be structured in accordance to one universal model.

There are invariably going to be aspects of a society which necessitate more rigid forms of stratification (such as the military). Others can reasonably function in a more democratic capacity —especially as society evolves in such a way as to develop a well informed, responsible citizenry (something which modern capitalist societies lack). As such, I don't see the need to support the formation of an authoritarian state; which, by definition, lacks any democratic accountability or participation. It just strikes me as redundant and likely to alienate many people.

I am less concerned with the unpalatable aspects which might emerge from authoritarianism than to harness its capacity to ensure that an effective social structure is implemented in the first place.

Sure, a certain amount of producing a pragmatic result is 'selling' it to the people, but there is no reason to leave any aspect of the structure to ambiguity just because the leadership doesn't want to get their hands dirty. But that's democracy: ineffective in producing strong leadership or definitive results.

Isakenaz wrote:I don't understand your conclusions 'GN'. Do you think that a Revolutionary Syndicalist agenda will, somehow, spring fully formed to enable it to be imposed on a socialist revolution?
Do you expect us to go to the people with a half-baked theory and an amalgam of ideas based around a pre-existing ideology (a la Lenin)?
To adopt a failed 25 point programme or a manifesto written some 150 years ago for a world so different from our own?
Would you have us break the primary rule of socialism, that it should rise from below and not be imposed from above?
You ask us what we want, well what do you want? A socialist workers democracy based on the principle of worker control, or an authoritarian-capitalist dictatorship where the means of production are controled by the state, an aristocracy of 'flat hats' to replace the aristocracy of capital?
Eagerness is fine, the fires of revolutionary zeal are necessary, but a Socialist-Nationalist revolution must be nurtured, allowed to grow, or become just another failed ideology - and we don't have time for yet another failure.
I see the function of the 'executive' as a recepticle of ideas, ideas from which a revolutionary programme will form. How those ideas will be implemented is not the executives function, for the moment we must be, as you so charmingly put it, "armchair socialists".
Perhaps instead of condeming us and rushing off, you should pull up an 'armchair' and help formulate a strategy for future impementation.

An armchair socialist has no intention to ever bridge the gab between theory and practice.

Given several statements on this thread, this is a fair accusation. Tell me that you would be willing to make the leap in the future, and I will retract my comment.

godlessnorth wrote:

Isakenaz wrote:I don't understand your conclusions 'GN'. Do you think that a Revolutionary Syndicalist agenda will, somehow, spring fully formed to enable it to be imposed on a socialist revolution?
Do you expect us to go to the people with a half-baked theory and an amalgam of ideas based around a pre-existing ideology (a la Lenin)?
To adopt a failed 25 point programme or a manifesto written some 150 years ago for a world so different from our own?
Would you have us break the primary rule of socialism, that it should rise from below and not be imposed from above?
You ask us what we want, well what do you want? A socialist workers democracy based on the principle of worker control, or an authoritarian-capitalist dictatorship where the means of production are controled by the state, an aristocracy of 'flat hats' to replace the aristocracy of capital?
Eagerness is fine, the fires of revolutionary zeal are necessary, but a Socialist-Nationalist revolution must be nurtured, allowed to grow, or become just another failed ideology - and we don't have time for yet another failure.
I see the function of the 'executive' as a recepticle of ideas, ideas from which a revolutionary programme will form. How those ideas will be implemented is not the executives function, for the moment we must be, as you so charmingly put it, "armchair socialists".
Perhaps instead of condeming us and rushing off, you should pull up an 'armchair' and help formulate a strategy for future impementation.

An armchair socialist has no intention to ever bridge the gab between theory and practice.

Given several statements on this thread, this is a fair accusation. Tell me that you would be willing to make the leap in the future, and I will retract my comment.

I, for one, have every intention of venturing into the political realm (to "practice" that which I uphold, so to speak). The Executive Committee represents a medium for development of theory and allows for personal growth, which I will eventually come to utilize in the formation of an actual political body. I believe that such an outreach is premature at this time, and I would rather that I learn far more, but I have always intended to initiate a formal political movement.

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:I, for one, have every intention of venturing into the political realm (to "practice" that which I uphold, so to speak). The Executive Committee represents a medium for development of theory and allows for personal growth, which I will eventually come to utilize in the formation of an actual political body. I believe that such an outreach is premature at this time, and I would rather that I learn far more, but I have always intended to initiate a formal political movement.

Fantastic.

Now, where's the statement from the committee which mentions future interest in practical application.

godlessnorth wrote:

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:I, for one, have every intention of venturing into the political realm (to "practice" that which I uphold, so to speak). The Executive Committee represents a medium for development of theory and allows for personal growth, which I will eventually come to utilize in the formation of an actual political body. I believe that such an outreach is premature at this time, and I would rather that I learn far more, but I have always intended to initiate a formal political movement.

Fantastic.

Now, where's the statement from the committee which mentions future interest in practical application.

The Committee was designed in order to provide ideological guidance to political movements. It is implicit within our mission statement.

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:The Committee was designed in order to provide ideological guidance to political movements. It is implicit within our mission statement.

Ideological guidance is preaching not practice.

godlessnorth wrote:

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:The Committee was designed in order to provide ideological guidance to political movements. It is implicit within our mission statement.

Ideological guidance is preaching not practice.

In addition to guiding the philosophy, the intention is to further it, which naturally entails supporting political action. Whether the Committee itself acts as a direct political organization is irrelevant and, given our circumstances, undesirable.

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:In addition to guiding the philosophy, the intention is to further it, which naturally entails supporting political action. Whether the Committee itself acts as a direct political organization is irrelevant and, given our circumstances, undesirable.

If I were involved in politcal activism I wouldn't turn to an armchair committee for guidance. Why should I?

Are you about to represent me legally or financially?

Nope. I have to represent and finance myself. So then I decide ideology, not you.

The concept of a purely ideological body is quite impotent, don't you think? Who on the ground will give the committee any weight? No one.

The committee must decide its direction as a politcal organization and then do its own footwork to achieve it.

godlessnorth wrote:

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:In addition to guiding the philosophy, the intention is to further it, which naturally entails supporting political action. Whether the Committee itself acts as a direct political organization is irrelevant and, given our circumstances, undesirable.

If I were involved in politcal activism I wouldn't turn to an armchair committee for guidance. Why should I?

Are you about to represent me legally or financially?

Nope. I have to represent and finance myself. So then I decide ideology, not you.

The concept of a purely ideological body is quite impotent, don't you think? Who on the ground will give the committee any weight? No one.

The committee must decide its direction as a politcal organization and then do its own footwork to achieve it.

The ideal purpose of the Committee is to function as an international front organization for socialist nationalism, much like the Communist Internationals and the National-Anarchist Movement. As figureheads within the movement, we provide valuable resources and organization potential to various willing political movements. Whoever said that the Committee would not become actively involved? Our only contention is with the assertion that the Committee must act as the sole and direct political organization of the socialist nationalist movement.

We are the seed from which the tree and branches will grow.

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:The ideal purpose of the Committee is to function as an international front organization for socialist nationalism, much like the Communist Internationals and the National-Anarchist Movement. As figureheads within the movement, we provide valuable resources and organization potential to various willing political movements. Whoever said that the Committee would not become actively involved? Our only contention is with the assertion that the Committee must act as the sole and direct political organization of the socialist nationalist movement.

Then the movement is not a movement. Socialist Nationalism is the Executive Committee.

I'm glad we could come to this conclusion.

EDIT - What follows is of course is my original contention: The committee is authoritarian - the sole and direct political organization of socialist nationalism.

godlessnorth wrote:

Isakenaz wrote:I don't understand your conclusions 'GN'. Do you think that a Revolutionary Syndicalist agenda will, somehow, spring fully formed to enable it to be imposed on a socialist revolution?
Do you expect us to go to the people with a half-baked theory and an amalgam of ideas based around a pre-existing ideology (a la Lenin)?
To adopt a failed 25 point programme or a manifesto written some 150 years ago for a world so different from our own?
Would you have us break the primary rule of socialism, that it should rise from below and not be imposed from above?
You ask us what we want, well what do you want? A socialist workers democracy based on the principle of worker control, or an authoritarian-capitalist dictatorship where the means of production are controled by the state, an aristocracy of 'flat hats' to replace the aristocracy of capital?
Eagerness is fine, the fires of revolutionary zeal are necessary, but a Socialist-Nationalist revolution must be nurtured, allowed to grow, or become just another failed ideology - and we don't have time for yet another failure.
I see the function of the 'executive' as a recepticle of ideas, ideas from which a revolutionary programme will form. How those ideas will be implemented is not the executives function, for the moment we must be, as you so charmingly put it, "armchair socialists".
Perhaps instead of condeming us and rushing off, you should pull up an 'armchair' and help formulate a strategy for future impementation.

An armchair socialist has no intention to ever bridge the gab between theory and practice.

Given several statements on this thread, this is a fair accusation. Tell me that you would be willing to make the leap in the future, and I will retract my comment.

Point taken. It was and is my intention to make that 'leap', like many others here, and especially the members of the executive, I long for the day when we are able to take our message beyond the 'gamezone' of the net, onto the 'real' streets of the 'real' world.

But before we can do that we need the tools, the weapons, to make it happen. That is the function of the executive. When we have those tools, we will be ready to move forward, but we will never have those tools if 'comrades' desert us.

Help us, give us the occasional kick up the backside. I can assure you that it is not my intention to sit comfortably in the 'armchair'. Keep talking we are listening, even if, for the moment, that's all we can do.

Isakenaz wrote:Point taken. It was and is my intention to make that 'leap', like many others here, and especially the members of the executive, I long for the day when we are able to take our message beyond the 'gamezone' of the net, onto the 'real' streets of the 'real' world.

But before we can do that we need the tools, the weapons, to make it happen. That is the function of the executive. When we have those tools, we will be ready to move forward, but we will never have those tools if 'comrades' desert us.

Help us, give us the occasional kick up the backside. I can assure you that it is not my intention to sit comfortably in the 'armchair'. Keep talking we are listening, even if, for the moment, that's all we can do.

This is great to hear. I want to let you know that I don't ever want to criticize this initative for the sake of it. I am deliberately provoking a responce to get the committee to address certain areas. You can bet that if at all tolerable, I will continue to raise what I can to advance the overall initative of this great promise.