Blog Dis
To topple the hierarchy...
2026-05-05
Despite the suggestive title, and before you delve deeper into this subject, know that it cannot be done. Hierarchies are here to stay. Not once, have they gone away, not once.
I studied political science at Uni, along with French language training, only to later abandon both pursuits in the pursuit of my creative writing. Regrets are a waste of time but spending time in the pursuit of learning is never a waste of time. One all-important truth you teach yourself, and learn to reconcile, is the line between the elites who own and shape the world (or the super-rich as they're more commonly known) and everyone else who falls underneath the top ranking.
In our Western societies of democracy, where freedom to choose to live in the manner that best suits you, as well as to speak out against a ruling power, without fear of retribution, is regarded as a fundamental right, the most fundamental of all rights. To that, I agree. I've voted in every Federal election in my home country of Canada, even when I had only just come of age to cast a vote, at 21 years. So, when I was scheduled to travel into New York City, before voting day, I cast my vote in advance, and then while away, I was able to watch the election results on the news. The clear winner came as no surprise, and it was a surprise to me that while in the USA, their local news had covered the Canadian federal election results.
Will wonders ever cease?
Not everyone shares an interest in politics, and to this I understand from an intellectual and emotional perspective. Yet, without having some understanding of your country's political process, you're really announcing to the world that you'd prefer to remain ignorant, and therefore your opinion is baseless, and by extension so is your vote. It's a big deal to be able to cast a vote, to be counted, more so to my mind if you're a woman, given that women in Canada were only granted formal status as 'persons' in 1929. I take my right to vote seriously. I don't want it removed from me, and this is a reality that women are now facing in the USA, as Christo-Fascist fundamentalist groups are promoting the removal of rights for women, to include removing their individual right to vote in favor of each household only casting one vote, which in other words means what the husband thinks. Be very afraid. These ideological divides are fueled online, and will continue to gain momentum, so long as no one pushes back on them. Taking an interest in politics is therefore a worthwhile endeavor, as it is to listen to political analysis, and commentary, to self-educate yourself, at least to be exposed to differing views.
The study of political science is an interesting one. It teaches you the ins and outs of your country's political system, as well as to educate you on some of the original heavy weights, the great political thinkers. The big daddy's, as I call them are Adam Smith (d. 1790) and John Stuart Mill (d. 1873); the first being a Scottish philosopher and economist while the latter being an English philosopher and economist. If you're feeling up to the challenge, take some time out of your busy life to acquaint yourself with these famous works that still possess the power to shape opinions: '[Essay] On Liberty' by John Stuart Mill, considered to be one of the most influential thinkers on utilitarianism (promoting the greatest good to the greatest number of people) as well as a naturalist and a Liberal. While, Adam Smith was known for his work 'The Wealth of Nations', his laissez-faire stance that all governments should have as little a role to play in running the economy as possible.
I'm not going to go into a lesson on political science for those reading this blog. Suffice it to say that I've read these two aforementioned books, and submitted papers on them. I admit freely that they've influenced my thinking, perhaps one of the reasons why I identify as a Liberal-minded person, who's centrist in many of my beliefs, rather than a far-left Liberal.
When I ponder the notion of a government invested by a popular vote, to exercise power, I'm drawn back to how hierarchies will invariably fall into place in every country, regardless of their political system, and almost always as if to spit in the face of the silly belief that a just and fair society can be created by the people, one that operates with the aim of helping all citizens to make a better life for themselves. Not a chance, has been my gut-feeling. That feeling, which is more opinion, has evolved over the years of having had to work hard, and in an attempt to adhere to a discipline life where the management of my money is concerned. So, I very much want to believe that corporations and governments are not in bed with one another.
I wish I could tell you this old story of politics and governments has a happy ending. Not really.
After 17+ years working for a professional services firm, during which I supported two managing partners, one of whom was an Audit partner throughout his career, I've come to accept, begrudgingly, that an Annual Auditor's Report on government spending is nothing more than virtue signaling. Governments are all about bluster and media moments. Governments simply cannot manage their budgets. This harsh proof comes out in the wash every year, when the Auditor General's report specifically cites the millions of dollars that can't be accounted for, to know where the monies were spent, by whom and why. To put this in proper perspective, it would be analogous to you being paid every two weeks, and a large portion of your pay evaporates into thin air. Maybe, of course, you've got kids and a partner and you share a joint-account, so in this instance the expenses can tally up quick. Yet, you'll still have an idea where you're money has been spent vs not having any clue whatsoever. You'll continue to go about your life, accepting it as an ordinary fact of life, that you'll lose track of tens of thousands every year. It shouldn't and can't be this way with Governments but this is the reality.
Life is a brutal teacher and humans are at the front of the line when it comes to perpetuating trends and habits, and also when it comes to running away, whenever that spotlight of accountability shines on them. The hardest of realities is knowing that some form of a hierarchy falls into place every time, every single time.
There are typically three forms of Government that are generally accepted, despite there being many forms of government and these are: democracy (the people), oligarchy (a small group) or an autocracy (one person). When I think of Russia, I've been known to throw out the term kleptocracy, given how their ruling elites are especially successful at thieving from the public coffers. But this is another angle to the same story for another time in your life.
Here's a breakdown on what I mean:
The top tier, those who we regard as our elites, more often than not represent the top 1% of the population, the super, filthy stinking rich who own more than half of the wealth of any country, and in some cases who have a global reach. Our elites live the kind of life that few of us can conceive. Inflation doesn't touch them. High taxes don't touch them. Thankfully, however, they're unable to escape Father Time when death comes calling for them.
Right underneath our elites you'll find our Ruling Class who are comprised of politicians and bureaucrats (decision makers), and who hold top senior positions with the power to influence those underneath them. Here I'm highlighting the bureaucracy of a government, the power brokers who award government contracts to corporations, and who are answerable (supposedly) to rules and strict guidelines on doling out precious tax dollars to fulfill these projects. Let me not forget the influence of lobbyists and their ability to sway the procurement of projects, where influence and money are spent to secure concurrent projects. And I haven't forgotten either the CEOs of large corporations, also able to make direct change to a community through their charitable campaigns, another form of virtue signaling, when the corporation's employees do their leg work, but at least they're being paid for the day.
After our ruling class, here's where it can get a little dicey. The Press and Media Corps are ostensibly and supposedly expected to act as an independent body, not connected to the government or corporations because their role is to report on the actions of those in power, to be our watch-dog, and to tear away the veil of secrecy. One of the best examples in history is Watergate. However, this isn't always the case, given that the super wealthy may own many media outlets. Independent free press zines, and even small news print issuances are the exception but they don't have the same mass following.
Next up we have the military apparatus, considered part of the middle class because they represent the professionals whose careers are devoted to protecting citizens, and yet this area too often is openly co-opted by government leaders, to carry out their political bidding, rather than to uphold the sanctity of life, on the whole. We see this now in the USA where military leaders are issued marching orders to bomb and invade countries, which isn't really anything new, but whose personnel are not known for pushing back. In some forms of government, this is best described as dictatorships because the military apparatus works closely with the dictator in charge. If you're unfamiliar with Mohammad Ali, think back to that time in USA history when he was drafted into the Army to fight in Vietnam. He was a boxer and activist, and he refused to answer the draft call, questioning why in 1967 would he be expected to travel to another country, as a Black man, to kill Vietcong when his own country continued to treat his people unfairly. Long story short, his views cost him his Heavyweight title, his boxing license and a conviction. The Supreme Court later over-turned this decision, in a unanimous vote, stating that you cannot order one of your citizens to go into another country to kill people. Governments do this all the time. So does this make them a democracy or an autocracy?
The middle class is disappearing, as we know this is obviously becoming more apparent in the 21st Century, that the divisible line between the super wealthy and the impoverished is increasingly blurred. The middle class is comprised of households earning between 75% up to 200% of the median income, the exact middle point of a population's income, where 50% of earners make more and 50% of earners make less. The middle class consists of professional workers, managers and skilled workers. Being a member of the middle class means that you're able to pay your bills, that you have some measure of a formal education, and that you're able to enjoy financial security. Don't throw tomatoes at me, if you recognize yourself in this group, based on my description, and you're scratching your head and thinking, "Oh! Is this what it means to be part of the middle class? I can hardly pay my bills!"
The aforementioned is what I'm delineating here, how the divisible line between the filthy stinking rich and the poor is dissolving, because the middle class and the extremely poor are blending into one, as inflation and economies under-perform, while dividing up the pieces of the pie for the super wealthy continue without recourse, leaving the middle class, the backbone of a democracy, scrambling for cover, to cover all their expenses.
I haven't forgotten, by the way, the one rung on this ladder called the hierarchy and this is the Priesthood, that special arm, more like a dotted line that branches outside from the hierarchical ladder. Religious groups enjoy charitable status, to receive special treatment by way of not having to pay income or property taxes, despite enjoying preferential privileges in perpetuity, and who are helping the 'poor', apparently, the ones barely scraping by, and managing to exist. I've railed on this special status umpteen times. I will continue to do so. It's time that the Churches and Mosques of this world pay the income taxes for their poorest followers.
Hierarchies are everywhere and will not, repeat cannot disappear any time soon. There's also no vanilla business model, to define a hierarchy, which is why I've chosen an older model dating back to Egyptian times, a civilization considered to be the grandfather of hierarchies for many other civilizations and how their politics operates, at least in intent. The Egyptian Empire was regarded as one of the most powerful and which had left a mark on Mediterranean and Western democracies. Even with modern-day small businesses and the services provided, such as the construction industry, there are hierarchies. You live with one in your own family; someone is typically dominant and the other partner submissive, while the children are relegated underneath the parents. Think for a moment about Roman civilization, how 90% of their population lived in total abject poverty, while the elite 10% lived in absolute opulence. These ancient and violent times, when slaves were an accepted practice, were viewed more as household helpers, rather than regarded and treated as human property to be sold for money.
We have improved our standard of living, for the most part, and notwithstanding developing countries, but in many respects we haven't improved on the hierarchy business model. Now in our capitalist societies, the super filthy stinking rich have made it easier to stack the deck in their favor, along with corporations which are able to make tax laws work in their favor, by setting up tax shelters in other countries, to avoid paying any taxes. The media have exposed these practices on many occasions but public interest wanes very quickly because taxes are really a boring subject.
Humans are not the only societies based on hierarchies. Look at the insect world, specifically ant colonies, each ant born to a specific role. I based the structure of my seventh novel Portals of Middle-Vision on ant colonies. To do so, I created a hierarchy that depicts supremacy at the very top, and the lowest portal at the very bottom. Not surprisingly, however, the lowest portal and its dwellers have turned out to be the most exciting to write about, even down to the ownership of slaves. Before you jump down my throat, know that ant colonies employ this tactic, to enslave other ant species to do their bidding. This is the reason why I used this plot line in my novel, not out of a desire to dehumanize the human experience, but to represent a truth about the nature of hierarchies.
In the animal kingdom, where species of predators co-exist, their hierarchies are often matriarchal in nature, with female predators in charge. I'm thinking of prides of lions, hyenas, killer whales, meerkats, and some species of primates, all of which are social groups that don't question the role of their lead females. Rather, each member exists within the hierarchy and does their best to thrive. Their males, on the other hand, fight for the supremacy to claim females to continue their bloodline. We humans are no different.
One question still remains: Will we ever be set free?
I studied political science at Uni, along with French language training, only to later abandon both pursuits in the pursuit of my creative writing. Regrets are a waste of time but spending time in the pursuit of learning is never a waste of time. One all-important truth you teach yourself, and learn to reconcile, is the line between the elites who own and shape the world (or the super-rich as they're more commonly known) and everyone else who falls underneath the top ranking.
In our Western societies of democracy, where freedom to choose to live in the manner that best suits you, as well as to speak out against a ruling power, without fear of retribution, is regarded as a fundamental right, the most fundamental of all rights. To that, I agree. I've voted in every Federal election in my home country of Canada, even when I had only just come of age to cast a vote, at 21 years. So, when I was scheduled to travel into New York City, before voting day, I cast my vote in advance, and then while away, I was able to watch the election results on the news. The clear winner came as no surprise, and it was a surprise to me that while in the USA, their local news had covered the Canadian federal election results.
Will wonders ever cease?
Not everyone shares an interest in politics, and to this I understand from an intellectual and emotional perspective. Yet, without having some understanding of your country's political process, you're really announcing to the world that you'd prefer to remain ignorant, and therefore your opinion is baseless, and by extension so is your vote. It's a big deal to be able to cast a vote, to be counted, more so to my mind if you're a woman, given that women in Canada were only granted formal status as 'persons' in 1929. I take my right to vote seriously. I don't want it removed from me, and this is a reality that women are now facing in the USA, as Christo-Fascist fundamentalist groups are promoting the removal of rights for women, to include removing their individual right to vote in favor of each household only casting one vote, which in other words means what the husband thinks. Be very afraid. These ideological divides are fueled online, and will continue to gain momentum, so long as no one pushes back on them. Taking an interest in politics is therefore a worthwhile endeavor, as it is to listen to political analysis, and commentary, to self-educate yourself, at least to be exposed to differing views.
The study of political science is an interesting one. It teaches you the ins and outs of your country's political system, as well as to educate you on some of the original heavy weights, the great political thinkers. The big daddy's, as I call them are Adam Smith (d. 1790) and John Stuart Mill (d. 1873); the first being a Scottish philosopher and economist while the latter being an English philosopher and economist. If you're feeling up to the challenge, take some time out of your busy life to acquaint yourself with these famous works that still possess the power to shape opinions: '[Essay] On Liberty' by John Stuart Mill, considered to be one of the most influential thinkers on utilitarianism (promoting the greatest good to the greatest number of people) as well as a naturalist and a Liberal. While, Adam Smith was known for his work 'The Wealth of Nations', his laissez-faire stance that all governments should have as little a role to play in running the economy as possible.
I'm not going to go into a lesson on political science for those reading this blog. Suffice it to say that I've read these two aforementioned books, and submitted papers on them. I admit freely that they've influenced my thinking, perhaps one of the reasons why I identify as a Liberal-minded person, who's centrist in many of my beliefs, rather than a far-left Liberal.
When I ponder the notion of a government invested by a popular vote, to exercise power, I'm drawn back to how hierarchies will invariably fall into place in every country, regardless of their political system, and almost always as if to spit in the face of the silly belief that a just and fair society can be created by the people, one that operates with the aim of helping all citizens to make a better life for themselves. Not a chance, has been my gut-feeling. That feeling, which is more opinion, has evolved over the years of having had to work hard, and in an attempt to adhere to a discipline life where the management of my money is concerned. So, I very much want to believe that corporations and governments are not in bed with one another.
I wish I could tell you this old story of politics and governments has a happy ending. Not really.
After 17+ years working for a professional services firm, during which I supported two managing partners, one of whom was an Audit partner throughout his career, I've come to accept, begrudgingly, that an Annual Auditor's Report on government spending is nothing more than virtue signaling. Governments are all about bluster and media moments. Governments simply cannot manage their budgets. This harsh proof comes out in the wash every year, when the Auditor General's report specifically cites the millions of dollars that can't be accounted for, to know where the monies were spent, by whom and why. To put this in proper perspective, it would be analogous to you being paid every two weeks, and a large portion of your pay evaporates into thin air. Maybe, of course, you've got kids and a partner and you share a joint-account, so in this instance the expenses can tally up quick. Yet, you'll still have an idea where you're money has been spent vs not having any clue whatsoever. You'll continue to go about your life, accepting it as an ordinary fact of life, that you'll lose track of tens of thousands every year. It shouldn't and can't be this way with Governments but this is the reality.
Life is a brutal teacher and humans are at the front of the line when it comes to perpetuating trends and habits, and also when it comes to running away, whenever that spotlight of accountability shines on them. The hardest of realities is knowing that some form of a hierarchy falls into place every time, every single time.
There are typically three forms of Government that are generally accepted, despite there being many forms of government and these are: democracy (the people), oligarchy (a small group) or an autocracy (one person). When I think of Russia, I've been known to throw out the term kleptocracy, given how their ruling elites are especially successful at thieving from the public coffers. But this is another angle to the same story for another time in your life.
Here's a breakdown on what I mean:
The top tier, those who we regard as our elites, more often than not represent the top 1% of the population, the super, filthy stinking rich who own more than half of the wealth of any country, and in some cases who have a global reach. Our elites live the kind of life that few of us can conceive. Inflation doesn't touch them. High taxes don't touch them. Thankfully, however, they're unable to escape Father Time when death comes calling for them.
Right underneath our elites you'll find our Ruling Class who are comprised of politicians and bureaucrats (decision makers), and who hold top senior positions with the power to influence those underneath them. Here I'm highlighting the bureaucracy of a government, the power brokers who award government contracts to corporations, and who are answerable (supposedly) to rules and strict guidelines on doling out precious tax dollars to fulfill these projects. Let me not forget the influence of lobbyists and their ability to sway the procurement of projects, where influence and money are spent to secure concurrent projects. And I haven't forgotten either the CEOs of large corporations, also able to make direct change to a community through their charitable campaigns, another form of virtue signaling, when the corporation's employees do their leg work, but at least they're being paid for the day.
After our ruling class, here's where it can get a little dicey. The Press and Media Corps are ostensibly and supposedly expected to act as an independent body, not connected to the government or corporations because their role is to report on the actions of those in power, to be our watch-dog, and to tear away the veil of secrecy. One of the best examples in history is Watergate. However, this isn't always the case, given that the super wealthy may own many media outlets. Independent free press zines, and even small news print issuances are the exception but they don't have the same mass following.
Next up we have the military apparatus, considered part of the middle class because they represent the professionals whose careers are devoted to protecting citizens, and yet this area too often is openly co-opted by government leaders, to carry out their political bidding, rather than to uphold the sanctity of life, on the whole. We see this now in the USA where military leaders are issued marching orders to bomb and invade countries, which isn't really anything new, but whose personnel are not known for pushing back. In some forms of government, this is best described as dictatorships because the military apparatus works closely with the dictator in charge. If you're unfamiliar with Mohammad Ali, think back to that time in USA history when he was drafted into the Army to fight in Vietnam. He was a boxer and activist, and he refused to answer the draft call, questioning why in 1967 would he be expected to travel to another country, as a Black man, to kill Vietcong when his own country continued to treat his people unfairly. Long story short, his views cost him his Heavyweight title, his boxing license and a conviction. The Supreme Court later over-turned this decision, in a unanimous vote, stating that you cannot order one of your citizens to go into another country to kill people. Governments do this all the time. So does this make them a democracy or an autocracy?
The middle class is disappearing, as we know this is obviously becoming more apparent in the 21st Century, that the divisible line between the super wealthy and the impoverished is increasingly blurred. The middle class is comprised of households earning between 75% up to 200% of the median income, the exact middle point of a population's income, where 50% of earners make more and 50% of earners make less. The middle class consists of professional workers, managers and skilled workers. Being a member of the middle class means that you're able to pay your bills, that you have some measure of a formal education, and that you're able to enjoy financial security. Don't throw tomatoes at me, if you recognize yourself in this group, based on my description, and you're scratching your head and thinking, "Oh! Is this what it means to be part of the middle class? I can hardly pay my bills!"
The aforementioned is what I'm delineating here, how the divisible line between the filthy stinking rich and the poor is dissolving, because the middle class and the extremely poor are blending into one, as inflation and economies under-perform, while dividing up the pieces of the pie for the super wealthy continue without recourse, leaving the middle class, the backbone of a democracy, scrambling for cover, to cover all their expenses.
I haven't forgotten, by the way, the one rung on this ladder called the hierarchy and this is the Priesthood, that special arm, more like a dotted line that branches outside from the hierarchical ladder. Religious groups enjoy charitable status, to receive special treatment by way of not having to pay income or property taxes, despite enjoying preferential privileges in perpetuity, and who are helping the 'poor', apparently, the ones barely scraping by, and managing to exist. I've railed on this special status umpteen times. I will continue to do so. It's time that the Churches and Mosques of this world pay the income taxes for their poorest followers.
Hierarchies are everywhere and will not, repeat cannot disappear any time soon. There's also no vanilla business model, to define a hierarchy, which is why I've chosen an older model dating back to Egyptian times, a civilization considered to be the grandfather of hierarchies for many other civilizations and how their politics operates, at least in intent. The Egyptian Empire was regarded as one of the most powerful and which had left a mark on Mediterranean and Western democracies. Even with modern-day small businesses and the services provided, such as the construction industry, there are hierarchies. You live with one in your own family; someone is typically dominant and the other partner submissive, while the children are relegated underneath the parents. Think for a moment about Roman civilization, how 90% of their population lived in total abject poverty, while the elite 10% lived in absolute opulence. These ancient and violent times, when slaves were an accepted practice, were viewed more as household helpers, rather than regarded and treated as human property to be sold for money.
We have improved our standard of living, for the most part, and notwithstanding developing countries, but in many respects we haven't improved on the hierarchy business model. Now in our capitalist societies, the super filthy stinking rich have made it easier to stack the deck in their favor, along with corporations which are able to make tax laws work in their favor, by setting up tax shelters in other countries, to avoid paying any taxes. The media have exposed these practices on many occasions but public interest wanes very quickly because taxes are really a boring subject.
Humans are not the only societies based on hierarchies. Look at the insect world, specifically ant colonies, each ant born to a specific role. I based the structure of my seventh novel Portals of Middle-Vision on ant colonies. To do so, I created a hierarchy that depicts supremacy at the very top, and the lowest portal at the very bottom. Not surprisingly, however, the lowest portal and its dwellers have turned out to be the most exciting to write about, even down to the ownership of slaves. Before you jump down my throat, know that ant colonies employ this tactic, to enslave other ant species to do their bidding. This is the reason why I used this plot line in my novel, not out of a desire to dehumanize the human experience, but to represent a truth about the nature of hierarchies.
In the animal kingdom, where species of predators co-exist, their hierarchies are often matriarchal in nature, with female predators in charge. I'm thinking of prides of lions, hyenas, killer whales, meerkats, and some species of primates, all of which are social groups that don't question the role of their lead females. Rather, each member exists within the hierarchy and does their best to thrive. Their males, on the other hand, fight for the supremacy to claim females to continue their bloodline. We humans are no different.
One question still remains: Will we ever be set free?
