Every day, week, month and year there are a myriad of people who in addition to looking out for their own interests are responsible for the well being of others; namely parents, teachers, clergy, municipal leaders, provincial premiers and federal politicians. Mapping the drawing board of that altruistic agenda is a great deal easier if one erases the multitude of possibilities and replaces them with what are predominantly narrow objectives, perhaps those which are most digestible by the masses or those which least interfere with the personal objectives of the leaders themselves. It is by definition a blackboard of functionality versus originality. Generally the scheme preserves control exclusively in the hands of the decision makers not their audience. The object is smoothness and quietude – a well serving beehive of activity.

The curious feature of this seemingly restrictive paradigm is that because the primary goal is control (not any particular conduct), alternate behaviour (if illustrated in a cautious manner) is regularly tolerated even though not openly acknowledged. Seldom is there any misinterpretation of what is going on or blind ignorance; as long as conflict is not excited among the ruling parties – the parents, teachers, etc. – incongruity is accepted as a mere bump in the road. It is for this reason that one must keep in mind the corporate objective of uniformity. Disturbing that underlying motif is what causes reactionary decisions by those in power. Their purpose is not to object to individuality but to preserve the appearance of complacency and regularity. And remember, they’re carrying the weight of two objectives – others and themselves.  For this reason one mustn’t fail to consider that leader themselves often bear characteristics similar to our own – that is, qualifications, blemishes and inadequacies.  Accordingly it behooves the masses to choose their leaders carefully, with a view to the most proximate and beneficial outcome.

My own experience as a social deviant is the less said, the better. Amusingly this is not to contradict the cultural novelty of my being – one which is surprisingly shared by any number of those rulers of whom I have earlier spoken – rather it is merely to accept that within the stratagem of collective management, singularity is not an especial virtue worth propelling in the face of the larger cooperative envelope.  Naturally one must also recall that the governing body wishes to maintain the fluidity of its own agenda. If, for example, the populace can be convinced that the collection of tariffs on foreign goods will afford a large capital resource sufficient to address certain social necessities – and that as a result the personal income tax of the masses is reduced by not having to fuel social programmes – this similarly reduces the tax burden of the billionaire managers (while the masses effectively pay the tariffs which have been added to the cost of their goods).

At the root of the dilemma between the majority and the minority is the failure to confess the truth of the matter; namely, that everyone one of us is only at best superficially different from others. In nature, war is unheard of; intolerability is a uniquely human characteristic. While there may be occasional incidents of aggressive controversy between animals, it is mostly driven by rudimentary necessity such as food or lodging, not power and control.

The further significant difference between humans and animals is the human appetite for excess beyond gratification of elemental needs such as food and lodging. While I appreciate the thrill of material acquisition, I am nonetheless bound to confess that in the end my absorption far exceeded the reward. As I approach the end of life, having withered my real and personal property to its “refinement”, I hesitate to extoll the value of materialism. Instead I direct my focus not to the unique or common characteristics of those with whom I associate; rather to the improvement of relationships and conviviality through intelligent and helpful application. Indirectly this model is the same as the one of which I initially spoke where attention is removed from individuality – not because we seek to conceal it – but because we opt to overlook differences which seldom play any role in the operation of the whole.

There can be no question that among humans – as in the animal world – there are those who will lead the pack. But one must not fail to observe that, without the masses, the leaders are blank bullets. It is only by promoting corporate movement among the masses that distinguishable events happen. The structure of a beehive without its worker bees is nothing. Our strength lies in numbers – far surpassing our individual traits. This will of necessity require accommodation.  Assuming our leaders are well-spirited and intellectually sufficient, and that the masses share a mutuality of corporate welfare, our ambitions are most likely to succeed. If however there is contamination of the objective by greed, deceit or ignorance, then the purpose is altered for the worse.