THE "MIDDLE" DECEPTION

                                       T    h    e        M    a    j    o    r    i    t    y _____

            Extreme Left                                                               Extreme Right

         (Fringe groups)                                                                (Fringe groups)

        (Outer-edge individuals)                                              (Outer-edge individuals)

          ANARCHISTS                                                                   FASCISTS

         (Lawlessness)                                                                 (Legalistic Terror)

There has been a great misunderstanding in our culture due to the mass media always striving to reduce every thing to its simplest expression because of estimated public illiteracy. For example, even though most reporters have college degrees, they are advised to write at a "sixth grade education level." And lately, from the media itself, it has been promulgated that the level of literacy is even lower in American society, and that they should be writing at a "fourth grade education level."

 This media estimation is an insult to our intelligence. For, regardless of education level, people always possess the "undeveloped" intelligence that allows them to reach for a higher level of performance. And this I know from personal experience. For, I knew a man who had a son who was in a motorcycle accident that tore his knee cap, after which he became disabled. That son, a fine young man, explained to me all the adjustments he had to make, however, with great surprises about the person he had been all along.

  He told me that he returned to school to obtain a degree in electronics and discovered to his utter amazement that his intelligence was in a "dormant state," because he never applied himself completely--that in high school, he "just cruised;" and that he never really "applied himself" to "reach for the stars" or to "stretch himself" in order to be "the best that he could be." In short, he was excelling in his studies of electronics, within a journey of self-discovery as well.

              "To shoot for the lowest rung of the social ladder," is a tragedy of tremendous regrettable proportions.  The media and public schools bureaucrats and teachers should not insinuate to students that there is no right or wrong answer in social studies classes and other courses.  Students have the right to try--after which they discover whether they fail or succeed. If students leave with the attitude that there is no difference between failure and success, then a great wrong is being perpetrated against them and their well-being.

             In mathematics or sciences, there is a correct or incorrect answer; therefore, so too in the social sciences--for example, America is a free, representative republic, and not an oligarchic tyranny. Thus, there are right and wrong answers, correct and incorrect solutions. Otherwise, students, young people are being programmed for failure--to simply seek to "belong" to the "common lot of the average" in accomplishment, achievement and personal development.

              It is not true that the majority always seeks the "middle," "the average" or "the mean," or the "lowest common denominator." 

              But rather, the majority is "the whole widest greatest middle" AWAY FROM BOTH EXTREMES, as shown in the diagram above.

              There are extremes from both the left and the right. An example of extremes to the left may have been Charles Manson; an example of extremes to the right, perhaps, may have been Ted Kazinsky, the so-called "Unabomber" (a term created by the media).

               The misunderstanding or rather the "deceptive middle" emerged, I believe, due to the great difficulty that had arisen in developing consistent policies regarding racial discrimination born of past historical slavery of Afro-Americans, and past colonial occupation of "non-white" ethnic groups. Since the perpetrators of slavery and colonialism appeared to have belonged to the Caucasian groups of the Earth, from the 1920s onwards, the concepts of "majority" and "minority" began to be associated with "race," rather than political or economic interests.

            For example, in Congress, when the Democrats are the "majority party" as a group regardless of race or ethnicity of members, the Republicans as a group, are the minority party regardless of race or ethnicity of party members.

            Unfortunately, whereas in Congress the meanings attached to "majority" and "minority" are due to political affiliation, in the society at large, the meanings associated with "majority" and "minority" have been distorted to only refer to "white" and "non-white," or as the mass media, public schools and university bureaucrats say, "people of color," as if "white Caucasians" have no "color" themselves.

In Federalist Papers or Publius, No.51, James Madison addresses majority-minority problems in terms of political, economic and social interests:

"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be

connected with the constitutional rights of the place........................

"Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority

be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There

are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in

the community independent of the majority--that is, of the society itself; the

other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens

as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable,

if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an

hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security;

because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views

of the major as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be

turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal

republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it be derived from and

dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts,

interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority,

will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free

government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious

rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in

the multiplicity of sects."  

(The Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison, Jay by Clinton Rossiter, 1961,    

  Mentor Book) (emphasis, added above)

Individuals enjoying freedom of religion and freedom of association being the foundation of lawful, constructive liberty, given the multiplicity of interests and diversity of groups, no "majority combination" would emerge, Founders believed, to infringe upon the rights or interests of "minority groups"--but read, political, economic, cultural or other social minority category; not racial or ethnic.

Individuals have the inalienable right to associate in ways that are compatible with other individuals freely willing to associate on the basis of their respective interests, but no individual or group can be physically forced or legally forced to associate with another individual or another group. It is all on a free will, voluntary basis.

America's Founders envisioned a society filled with individuals and groups of diverse interests, all enjoying the equal protection of laws based upon consent, whereby the rule of the majority would animate the public interest, the majority being the greatest number of diverse people coming to a lawful, reasonable and constructive agreement on a certain resolution, regardless of ethnicity or racial affiliation--for example, as the will of the voting majority encompassing all individuals of all interests, as all individuals would have equal access to all available legal opportunities to prosper, while enjoying the inalienable rights to avail themselves of these opportunities.

With the inalienable right of equal access to all available legal opportunities to comprehensively prosper in society, no individual would seek to rebel against his own destiny, since he had the free will to fashion its outcome. It is therefore wrong to speak of a so-called "right to fail," but rather one should speak of the "right to try." For failure or success comes after trying to achieve.

For example, when we vote in presidential elections, the elected person receives votes from all ethnic groups in America, therefore, being elected by the will of the majority of Americans. And this has nothing to do with the statistical "mean," "middle" or "average." Each individual vote is counted and is as important as every other individual vote. Each individual vote has a qualitative excellence that is not diminished by any other individual vote--but that, as they are added together, the majority of voters with the most votes for a candidate win the election. But that majority is constituted of all individual voters whose candidate won the election, regardless of race or ethnicity.

In the same vein, as we consider individual development and social success, all individuals have the same inalienable rights to lawfully attempt to excel without undue impediment from government, from any group or other individual, the complex of which conducive to open channels of achievement parading individual merit as the determinant of outcomes rather than hereditary succession or genetically-derived causation.

Therefore, it is not the so-called "average" or "middle" or "mean" that individuals should target in their personal development, prosperity and maturity, but rather they should apply themselves to the fullest extent of their capacity to succeed in this great nation where every one can "dream big," to then witness and live the accomplishment of their dreams in real, achievable, enjoyable prosperity, in terms of both social and material benefits.

In other words, it is ok to be Bill Gates as it is ok to be Bill Cosby; it is ok to be Donald Trump as it is ok to be Lee Trevino.