---

 

1. Let’s Think Big

Members of the Board, why stop at Australia? Let’s think big, on a global scale, if we are seriously interested in promoting the ideas and institutions which lie at the heart of western civilisation and which we believe have created the liberal democratic and free enterprise societies which have given unprecedented freedom and prosperity to our corners of the world.

Why shouldn’t the RC be a “global leader” in promoting and defending the WT given its “deep pockets” but perhaps not yet its long term strategic thinking and commitment.

Given the fact of the growth of prosperity and the emergence of a new middle class in both India and China this provides us with an opportunity to satisfy the curiosity of those new classes about how wealth creation is possible, the source of the ideas and institutions which made that possible (“western civilization”); why it occurred in the west first; how it was spread, and how it can be best protected. Thus we should be aiming some of our program towards India and China. They already send many of their children to study in the west (engineerings, science, technology) so why not “the humanities” as well (they are turned off by its Leftism and hostility to the West and so direct their children to safer courses of study).

Goals it could achieve:

1. establish a definition of the core texts of the WT (broad church perspective, showing conflict and divisions, struggle to achieve liberal democratic outcome)
2. build a repository of those texts in digital form which is accessible to anybody anywhere in the world (open access)
3. create teaching materials (study guides, curricula, commentaries) which interested parties can use to teach and learn about the WT
4. create a forum to discuss the meaning and significance of this body of work
5. liaise with other institutions (especially universities) interested in the WT to assist them and their students in studying and understanding it
6. create other centres for the study of the WT (mini-RCs) around the world - initially limited to the English speaking world (London, US, Oz, NZ, English speaking Asia (Singapore, HK, India))
   1. need to “reacquaint” Europe, US, Oz with the best of the WT
   2. satisfy curiosity of non-Western nations about what the WT is (why did the west industrialise first and create liberal democracies (LD) 1st?)
7. encourage people to adopt and implement the best the WT has to offer in reforming societies politically, economically, socially, and intellectually
8. to act a counterweight to non-western bodies like Confucius Institute

Problem of definition: what is THE Western Tradition?

Not everything which emerged over the course of 3,000 years is ”good”; the RC (like other groups) have cherry picked the WT for what fits in with their current preferred world view (hence the membership of Liberal and Labor Party politicians on RC Board!)

One could say that other persistent themes, ideas, institutions, practices have an equal claim to being “western” as LD:

1. universal empire, monarchy, church/papacy
2. censorship, repression of dissidents and critics
3. slavery, serfdom
4. war and conquest
5. rule by elites (throne and altar)
6. heavy taxation and regulation of economic activity

So why is LD seen as being quintessentially “western”? a modified “Whig interpretation of history” is at work here I think; this may not be wrong but we have to be honest about it; in which case the opposite to all the above defines what the WT is:

1. decentralized logically controlled government - federation
2. freedom of speech and assembly
3. freedom to work and trade
4. peace
5. democracy, republicanism, limited government, rule of law
6. free markets and limited government

So why one and not the other? Couldn’t Marxists, socialists, Fabian socialists (Labor) also see themselves as being just as much part of the “western tradition”?

Thus, RC is pushing a subset of “western” ideas as being the “true western” ideas; if so, how did these ideas prevail? why did they “break loose” from the standard oppression most civilisations have had to endure? (political struggle even revolutions over several centuries)

1. scientific revolution
2. rediscovery of ancient critical though (renaissance)
3. rejection of universal church (reformation)
4. rejection of universal state (enlightenment)
5. economic and industrial revolution of 19thC
6. modernism (looking at the world differently)

Work of E.L. Jones and Deidre McCloskey on why all these things came together in Europe first, and thus solidified one stream of thinking / institutions into what we now call “western civilization”.

We should also acknowledge the unique contributions of “western” societies to the creation of the foundations of modern, free, and prosperous societies, compared to other parts of the world. I would list:

• economics - the development of theories to explain economic activity, the creation of wealth, and how to promote this, is unique to the West
• ideas about individual liberty - partly based on Christian notions of the soul and the “natural law”, and partly on the secularization of these ideas
• constitutions and other documents deliberately designed to limit the arbitrary power of the state
• science - the west in the 17thC and onwards went far beyond what had been achieved by the ancient Greeks, the Ottomans; free inquiry which often challenged established political and religious notions

 

2. Goals and Strategies

Ultimate goal: [See RC website]

Strategy to achieve that goal: [See RC website]

Steps to be taken (in rough chronological order) to achieve this goal (I think this is a 10 year program to begin with and a several decades long programme before we see the university sector gradually turn around in our direction):

1. outreach to identify sympathetic scholars and intellectuals, and members of the public
2. make contact with American Great Books programs and the professional association, the Association of Core Texts and Courses (ACTC) to learn from their experience, engage in joint programs, set up an exchange program for both scholars and students
3. development of a public program of talks, discussions, debates, and seminars
4. build a website to house the key texts, images, and study guides and host online debates and discussion
5. develop a variety of curricula (which should be modular for different groups and purposes) suitable for high schools, universities, reading / book clubs
6. write supplementary guides, readers, booklets to assist people in reading and understanding the texts
7. publish a public monthly magazine/journal of articles written by academics (and perhaps students?)
8. outreach to universities to develop courses which will offer degrees
9. develop a program to mentor and place PhD students with sympathetic supervisors to create a new generation of scholars and intellectuals to carry the work forward
10. visiting scholars program to host in-house scholars (on sabbatical) to write articles or finish book on topics to do with WT (also post-docs??)

 

3. Some Prefatory Remarks

The Problem of the Centre’s name

There is a problem of the Centre’s name - “for Western Civilisation”. Choice of name “shows your hand” a bit prematurely. The reaction of many academics in the first year of operation shows this clearly - they interpret the name to mean that you think WC is superior to other civilisations (which of course may or may not be the case).

Why not call it “The Ramsay Centre for the Study of Western Civilisation”?

LF on the other hand preferred to refer to the ”Great Books” always understood as “The Great Books of Liberty”. PFG included works from China, India, Middle East (Sumeria) and deliberately did not limit himself to just the “West” (Europe). This is one area where he differed from the Chicago Great Books people in the 1950s.

There is also the problem of how we refer to the tradition we wish to promote and understand: Western Civ. vs. Western Tradition vs. Great Books. I prefer to use “GB” (so as not to be too specific) or the GB of the WT (if I want to be more specific).

If possible, I would downplay the full name of the Centre in order to bypass this widespread prejudice and opposition among the intellectual class to “Western Civ”.

The Problem of being too ambitious at the start

The goals stated on the website to

• create BA degrees in Western Civilisation in collaboration with two or three Australian universities;
• support these degrees through a suite of Ramsay Undergraduate Scholarships and the creation of new academic positions

These praiseworthy goals are too ambitious to realise in the short term, as the strong reaction against collaboration as expressed by ANU and Sydney U has shown. These should be mid-term goals (5-10 years) after considerable work has been done to prepare the ground. That is why I put them at number 7 in my chronological list of steps to be taken.

The preparatory work involves identifying sympathetic academics and intellectuals across Australia; engaging them and the public in sponsored conferences, workshops, public lectures, and shorter summer seminars. Only after the RC has a core of academics “on the inside” (as it were) willing and able to help should the more more ambitious program of setting up degree programs in Western Civ. in the state run Universities be undertaken.

Since there is very little tradition in Australia (unlike the US) of wealthy individuals or foundations creating funded “Chairs” in colleges and universities I think this too will be resisted strongly by the entrenched “left-leaning” academics in the Universities. The RC may well be tarred as the “Australian Charles Koch” with all the bad publicity that will produce - that you are trying to “buy your way” into the state funded public university system. What would you call these endowed Chairs? - “The Paul Ramsay Chair of …”

We Need Conversations not Didactic Lectures

We Need to stress “Conversations” and Interpreting the Texts for Yourself

For pedagogical reasons (critical thinking and questioning is very much part of the “Western” way of thinking after all) and for political reasons (the RC should not be seen as heavy-handedly pushing a “party line” but an educational and research organisation) the discussion of the texts with the students should not be in the form of a lecture (keep this for your occasional lecture series for the general public). The purpose in the classroom should be to encourage socratic conversations about important texts/ideas. It is important to stress the idea that the students have to “interpret the texts for themselves” so we do not to appear to be too didactic or partisan (PFG also wanted people to read the texts in the original language as he distrusted translators and this is what I have tried to do on the OLL website and my own personal website where possible).

Engaging with the GBs are “Conversations” across space and time

One of the key principles behind the LF approach to the GBs is to see them as part of a “great conversation” about the meaning and purpose of life, and how human beings can live peacefully together.

The conversation can take two forms:

• intra-temporal - between two contemporaries (e.g. Erasmus and Machiavelli)
• inter-temporal - between us now and them then (or inter-spatial as in “us Australians” here and “those western Europeans” or Americans over there)

Important to note:

• the conversation has not ended and is ongoing
• different people take different things away from the conversation
• to be part of the conversation the reader has to read the text themselves, and make up their own mind about its meaning, relevance and usefulness
• there has to be an actual conversation (preferably face-to-face, but electronically if need be, but this is very much second best)

For example, the LF organises colloquia and seminars where people gather, eat, drink, and talk for an entire weekend; the participants sit at an oval table where there is no “dominant position” (see the image of the GSR at Wabash College, Indiana below); there is a discussion leader who “conducts traffic” but does not dictate the direction of the conversation; there are strict rules of procedure (the DL draws up a list of speakers as they raise their hands; hand signals are used for short comments or interruptions; all sessions start and end exactly on time - there are no exceptions).

[The Goodrich Seminar Room in the Lily Library at Wabash College, IN]

What are the Great Books (of Liberty)?

PFG’s Lists of the GB

PFG’s list of GB which he drew up for the LF was his selection of the “Great Books about Liberty” (and political power). The selection of texts was very important to him and over the course of his life he drew up three or four such lists. His interest in non-western cultures (like India and China) and his great interest in liberty and power meant that he came to disagree with Mortimer Adler and the University of Chicago GB people who had a different list. We made a combined list of all his recommended authors and titles of the GB as a core component of the OLL website.

To avoid these kinds of squabbles I think it best to be flexible about what list one finally settles upon. The list of GB is not a predetermined number of texts which is set in stone (literally in the case of the limestone walls of the Goodrich Seminar Room); there may be a generally agreed upon “core set” of texts (maybe not); each culture or country will have its own list (the RC will want to have some Aussie novels, poems, or political documents to show how Australia fits into the WT and that it has its own “conversation” to add to it).

Not only did PFG take a great interest in the list of authors and titles which made up his version of the GB he was also interested in the physical surroundings in which discussion of these texts would take place. As the picture of the Goodrich Seminar Room in the Lily Library at Wabash college (which PFG paid to be built) shows, he wanted the discussants to sit around a curved table (in roughly equal positions of authority), with the names of the great authors engraved on the limestone walls surrounding them, with copies of the books in shelves around the perimeter (so they could be consulted to check facts or to quote from). We try to recreate this effect on a smaller scale at LF colloquia (usually with no more than 14-15 discussants) with a round or elliptical table (but laptop computers have now replaced the names on the walls and the books around the perimeter of the room).

The names on the GSR wall have been emblazoned on the exterior wall of LF’s new $22 million building (2017) for all to see (at least the passing traffic, when the sun is shining at the right angle!).

 

 

4. Pedagogy and the GB Curricula

The Need for a variety of approaches for different levels of interest

Activities to Interest the General Public

• weekly/monthly lectures in house by a guest speaker for the general public to get them interested in the program (this is already underway)
• film nights of classic texts or classic films introduced by a visiting expert; open to the public and followed by drinks and discussion
• poetry or literature readings of new (or classic) works with wine, cheese, and discussion (perhaps streaming the video online); we need to show this is a living tradition of appreciating what is old and beloved as well as new and challenging (note the great classical music slogan “everything old was once new”)

Activities for the Next Level of Interest

• regular weekend seminars modeled on LF’s colloquia (Thursday night to Sunday morning with 6 1 1/2 hour discussion sessions) for 12-14 invited participants; some of these could be co-sponsored with LF
• short programs of Summer Seminars to extend discussion for those interested in pursuing things further; this also serves as a way of looking for talented students to go onto next level
• a more ambitious summer program similar to LF’s “Adam Smith Bootcamp” which is a 6 day intensive discussion of key texts which is conducted in a hotel with full food and accommodation provided by LF. These are interdisciplinary discussions designed to delve deeply into an author or topic of special importance
• an online program of mentored discussions with students over a “semester” leading to a “certificate of competence” (perhaps credit with a university??)
• an online discussion of a GB by invited scholars (modelled on the “Liberty Matters” online discussion forum at the OLL)
  • eventually (mid-term to long-term) plan for collaborative programs at an accredited university to award degrees in Western Civ.

The Need to tailor programs to suit beginners and more advanced students:

• a brief survey which provides an overview of the “acknowledged greats” for beginners and high school students, and private book clubs
• a more nuanced (and hence longer) view of debates/controversies; dialogs and challenges for more advanced students; shows more of the complexities of WC tradition and the counter-currents within it; also the “darker side” of the WT which cannot be dismissed lightly and which we have to confront.
• we need a “ladder of progression” where we find good students at high school or at first year university, get them to attend some of our short programs, and direct them to the future degrees we plan to offer

The Need to stress the variety of perspectives which can be taken

There are ways to structure the reading of the texts in ways to make them more interesting and provocative, even if the Centre does have its own view of what the best texts are and how they should be interpreted - as does LF. The strategy of LF is to gradually nudge the direction of the conversations about the texts and ideas in a more pro-liberty direction. This is partly achieved by having a range of views present for the conversations (this includes strong believers in liberty, fellow travelers, and some critics) and by setting the agenda for the conversations (making sure the texts we like are always included in the reading list).

A major theme of LF conferences and readings of the GB is the contrast between individual liberty vs. excessive state power as this has been manifested in thinking about economics, politics, history, society, and culture. Of course there are many other binaries (or opposites, or confrontations) which you can use to focus the conversation, such as

• a representative of the status quo (the orthodoxy) vs. a challenger to the status quo (heretics, revolutionaries); this can also shoe hope an idea that what was once “heretical” can and sometimes does become the new “orthodoxy”
• elites vs. the common people (or outsiders)
• men vs. women
• black (coloured) vs. white
• good vs. evil
• faith vs. reason
• what happens when civilisations “clash”? - peaceful co-existence or war/crusades
• (see list of themes below for details)

Getting the Balance of Texts and Historical Periods Right

One of the strengths of PFG’s lists of the GB was their comprehensiveness in terms of geographical spread (China and India), historical period (going back to ancient Sumeria / Iraq), and topics covered (science, and music). I can see some gaps in a list drawn up for one of the “Indicative Curriculum”, namely the absence of science, although you have more modern literature which PFG did not have but which we now include in our conference programs.

I have drawn up a rough “rubric” which can help us to plan the right balance of topics and periods.

Topics/disciplines:

1. literature
2. philosophy and religion
3. history
4. economics
5. political theory
6. music, art, architecture, film/TV
7. science

Historical periods:

1. ancient world (Greece and Rome)
2. medieval
3. early modern
4. 18thC
5. 19thC
6. 20thC and beyond

When drawing up specific curricula it would be good to make each one as “modular” as possible so that schools, colleges, individual academics can pick and choose what to use in their own teaching (for example a religious school might to use the module dealing with “Philosophy and Religion” while the CIS might prefer the module on (“Political Thought and Economics”). When the RC finally is able to organise an entire degree program it can use them all in a more structured way as requirements for the students.

I can envisage a number of ways these modules could be organized into degree programs utilizing the GB from different disciplines and different historical periods, such as the following;

1. a full-time 3 or 4 year degree which includes all (or a lot) of the GB (like St. Johns College)
2. a degree with a major in the GBs in the following subject areas:
   1. History, Economics, Political Thought
   2. Philosophy and Religion
   3. Fine Arts
   4. Science
   5. War and Peace

Develop modular curricula

These can be for RC’s own use or be made available to outsiders (schools, colleges) for their use. Hence need to be modular to fit their individual curriculum needs. Modularity can be based around themes/topics, historical periods, or have shortened versions which can be used for summer programs, half-term, full year, or whatever.

There may be some high schools which would be interested in a simplified GB program for their year 11 or 12 students. Perhaps schools doing the International Baccalaureate program.

Church groups or religious might want a “religion and spirituality” module; the CIS might one more on politics and economics.

Book clubs might find it useful to have a short list of GB and related guides to use so they can begin exploring the GB on their own.

Don’t Hide the “Dark Side” of the WT

We also need to be honest about the fact that there has always been a “dark side” in the WT; that some practices and institutions have been a central part of the WT but which are now regarded as abhorrent. We need to avoid the “triumphalist” reading of the WT by showing that the struggle for individual liberty was long and hard (and frequently repressed by governments using traditional “western” arguments about the need to obey “throne and altar”), and there sometimes have been setbacks (20th century fascism and communism). The uniqueness of the WT was that after many centuries individual liberty became an accepted thing, but this was not always so, and may not remain so in the future. Western history is both a dialog between these two traditions (repression vs. individual liberty) which at times has broken out into real violent conflict where liberty has sometimes won and sometimes not. By being upfront and open about the fact that the WT has a “dark side” and a "bright side" to it makes the study of the WT both more interesting and is a way to disarm its critics.

For example, some of the best the WT has to offer concerns:

1. philosophy
   1. beauty
   2. the good
   3. love
   4. the individual
2. society
   1. liberty
   2. private property
   3. the free market
   4. cooperation
   5. justice
   6. the law
3. fine art
   1. music: the symphony, the mass, quartets, lieder, cantatas
   2. architecture
   3. art
   4. poetry
   5. popular culture unique to WT

On the other hand, some of the worst the WT has to offer concerns:

1. tyranny
2. slavery
3. injustice
4. hate
5. persecution
6. racism
7. torture
8. imperialism
9. war and conquest
10. socialism/communism/nazism

The point of doing this (apart from being honest) is that it will show that at various times WC could have gone in different directions; that a liberal and democratic outcome was not pre-ordained (the so-called “Whig interpretation fo history”); that what we have achieved has been the result of people making choices and taking actions over centuries; that we have not yet achieved the “ideal society” and that our civilisation might go backward or regress to a less free condition; therefore there is more that needs to be done (students need to know that these ideas are not just “dead” museum curiosities but “living” principles and guidelines for improving their own lives and those of the people around them).

Pairing the Texts "provocatively"

My preference (for pedagogical reasons) is to have a pairing of contrasting/opposing texts. The aim is to show that conflict over ideas existed then and now; and that it is an ongoing debate which has still not been resolved. The pairing of opposite texts/opinions is truer to the actual events of history as well as a way of deflecting criticism from leftists that “their people” have been left out. The downside is that the students have to read more.

The RC (like LF) may have its own “preferred” or favored texts within the WT, so pairing them with opposing texts is a strategic way to get our preferred texts “on the agenda” for discussion. It is hoped that the ideas in our preferred texts wold win out in the “battle of ideas.”

The types of pairings can be varied according to our needs. Here are some possibilities to consider:

• a universally acknowledged classic text vs. a forgotten/ignored but nevertheless deserving text on a similar or related topic
• in the LF universe many pairings of texts take the format of “bad text” (pro-government, coercion, defense of unjust status quo) vs “good text” (pro-individual freedom, free market, critical of status quo) - we don’t call it that, but that is what in fact it is
• showing how different individuals from different ideological backgrounds can read the same GB and come to very different conclusions; for example, take a pair of texts such as Burke vs. Paine on the French revolution and invite a conservative and a libertarian (perhaps also a die-hard Labor Party supporter) to give their interpretations of the texts before an audience of students, who can then discuss what this controversy means about the WT

The pairing of texts is also useful to show the debate/conflict that has existed within the western tradition itself; in some cases the issue is still not resolved. Some "binaries" which reveal the tensions within the WT include for example, the following:

• Niccolo Machiavelli vs. Desiderius Erasmus on the duties of a Prince
• Edmund Burke vs Thomas Paine on the French Revolution
• Robert Filmer vs. John Locke on the divine right of kings
• Karl Marx vs. J.S. Mill (or Frédéric Bastiat) on the nature of the free market (“capitalism”)

Having "conversations" about contested topics in this way means we get “our texts” onto the agenda for discussion (all too often they get left out completely) and thus hope that our readers will take ideas about individual liberty and free markets more seriously once they have had a chance to read them and judge them against the opposition. The risk however is that this may not always work out to our advantage. My own experience teaching at the University of Adelaide in the 1990s when I got the students to read Karl Marx and J.S. Mill side by side is that some students, who had not heard of Marx, preferred him over Mill!

With regard to some “texts” where there are no “opposing points of view”, such as literature or art, the pairing could be of plays or novels which have something in common (such as justice, or tyranny) but which are separated in time by centuries; the goal is to show that humans have been concerned with the same problems for centuries; that they invent new and innovative ways of thinking about these similar things, that tastes change over time (this can be good, neutral or bad depending on your perspective); and that our understanding or current texts is deepened by reading older/classic texts in this comparative way.

Sometimes we should discuss important, innovative, and influential artistic creations for their own sake, or discuss the work of individuals who have been unjustly ignored by history for various reasons (I’m thinking of neglected female composers like Clara Schumann or Hildegard of Bingen). A lesson to be learned from this is that we haven’t yet fully plumbed the great depths the WT has to offer the modern reader.

 

5. Outreach to Academia and the Public

Finding and Cultivating sympathetic academics

This is a very hard and time consuming job. In LF’s experience this can take years, perhaps even decades. Part of the problem is the great ideologically driven hostility to a program which is perceived as “elitist,” old fashioned, and dominated by “dead white European males” - which it is in many ways.

There are people out there who are sympathetic but they, let’s call them “The Remnant”, need to be discovered (brought “out of the closet” as it were), encouraged, and protected from the abuse they might get from colleagues.

However, the majority who oppose the program are so entrenched that it is foolish to tackle them head on. Some might argue that the state monopoly higher education system is too far gone to be saved or changed, and that a GB program should be developed outside the university system altogether and done privately and/or online. This would be, in effect, a parallel and competing educational system outside the state-run university sector.

If you do want to “infiltrate the system” you have to do this slowly - in other words, our own “long march through the institutions” à la Gramsci. I would suggest beginning outside the system so you can bypass this entrenched hostility entirely by using the web to offer online courses for credit (if possible); linked to a summer seminar program of face to face meetings; weekly or monthly talks in the office to bring in interested members of the public (what about “lunch time seminars” for local city workers).

During this initial period you will be able to build an online library of professionally edited texts and study guides which anyone anywhere can use. This will show your credentials and commitment.

Once you have established a reputation for good online material and successful weekend or summer seminars, then you can try to infiltrate the universities. You will need to find out who The Remnant is and where they are teaching. You also need to find the “Fellow Travellers” who have some interest in the GB but are not evangelists for the cause. They might teach some of it in their courses but perhaps not openly and explicitly as a “GB of the WT”.

Outreach to academics includes the following:

• go to professional association meetings to meet them and give papers (to show we are “in the game”)
• invite/pay them to come to conferences to discuss key texts, to get to know you and you them
• provide them with resources to help them in their teaching - such as curricula, readings (online or published readers/booklets) , and guides - this makes their lives easier and they will thank you for it (and hopefully like you more and recommend the RC to others)
• ask academics you already know to invite you to give a guest lecture in their course or to a student club
• spread the good word at meetings of the Association of Core Texts and Courses and other GB bodies
• have a high school program to create interest in the RC approach (from teachers, parents, students) which will carry over into higher ed.

Reach out to the “Gatekeepers” - librarians

University librarians are a key group - I call them “gatekeepers” - because they are the ones who recommend resources for academics and students to use via their library and subject guide web pages. If we can persuade them to trust us because of our high quality texts and free online resources they will drive traffic to our website.

To reach out to the librarians:

• go to professional library association meetings such as ALA (American Library Association) or the Australian equivalent
• prove our credentials, provide them with access to our free websites, etc, get them to list our sites/books on their subject guide pages; librarian referrals to the website are very important for building traffic and credibility

 

6. The RC Website

Online version of the GB

• you need to have your own version of the texts which are high quality and available free of charge; I can negotiate with LF to get a copy of the code of the GB texts which are out of copyright and thus save the cost of recoding them)
• they need to be placed in context as part of your “curated collection” of texts with links to related material and study guides
• readers/anthologies and collections of quotes can be used as gateways to further reading (the goal is to get them to read the whole text, and then ask for more)
• create a library of study guides organized by themes and historical periods which can be given away or sold very cheaply
• your editions of the GB (online or printed, or even better both) should have scholarly introductions written by Aussie academics for the Australian audience - what I call the “Australianisation” of the WT
• create online annotated editions of key texts; invite scholars or groups (students, summer seminar class) to comment on / identify key passages, comment about their significance, how they have been interpreted over time, and their impact on other writers; these annotated texts then become part of the living, evolving “conversation” about the GB of the WT

Anthology/reader of key texts

• have a reader or anthology as an introduction to the broader program; this is the first thing some people will read to find out what the GB program is (the model is the “OLL Reader”)
• this could be used as a textbook in high school or an intro program at college
• it is an inducement to read more and read more deeply in the literature

Publishing Program: “To Print or not to print, that is the question”

The RC’s own Editions of the GB

You need to have your own editions of the great books with an Aussie intro for local perspective and flavor - not just regurgitating American stuff.

Guide Book series - the “Great Booklets”

• you should commission 30-40 short booklets (20-30 pp.) on thematic topics with an intro by an academic, info about the RC, a bibliography of further reading, links to the website for further reading
• models of good short guide books:
  • the Intercollegiate Studies Institute guides to the major disciplines <https://isibooks.org/books/series/isi-guides-to-the-major-disciplines.html >: e.g. Paul Heyne, A Student’s Guide to Economics (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2000).
  • the Atlas Economic research Foundation’s Student’s Library of Liberty <https://www.atlasnetwork.org/media/books/our-books >: e.g. Why Liberty: Your Life - Your Choices - Your Future, ed. Tom G. Palmer (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, Inc., 2013).
  • the Oxford UP “Very Short Introductions” Series <https://global.oup.com/academic/content/series/v/very-short-introductions-vsi/?lang=3n&cc=fr >
  • the books published by the IEA - “Occasional Paper”, e.g. John Blundell, Waging the War of Ideas. 3rd edition (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 2007).
• pay a scholar to write 10-15,000 word intro
• when complete, give the complete set to every high school in Australia/Pacific (like LF does with its books)

Monthly RC Magazine

Publish a public monthly magazine/journal of articles by academics (and students?) for schools and the general public.