Cenocracy: A New Government Perspective
A Cenocratic Manifesto Addendum XII


How do we Reformers, we Revolutionists speak to the people about Freedom if they are not conscious of their enslavement? How can we speak about the economics of their Inalienable Rights if they have difficulty in giving us change for a dollar, because the commerce of today is using technologically-assisting whip bearers that enforce their subservience of even simple mental tasks of memorization into a dependency of reliance on electronic task masters? How are we to get the people to think for themselves when they are expected to perform tasks that require a slave-like obediance to a production line of bureaucracy? How are we to speak from our own respective mounts of sermon relative to our ideological perspectives if there is no mount and the people are obsessed with various behaviors of consumerism because the prevailing marketplace and its adherents initiate day-to-day programs of registering one's mind to do their bidding? How can we speak of increasing the wage and benefits package of Inalienable Rights when the concept is so very foreign to their conceptualization of self?... A self that at present is not truly theirs, but a reflection of how well they have been consumed into the day to day routines of a bureaucratically-assisted commercialism which is used to define one-self via clothes, cosmetics, toiletries, vehicles, housing, employment, etc.?

How does one speak of their brand of Anarchism, Communism, Democracy, Libertarianism, Meritocracy, Socialism, etc., if the present government and economic systems impresses upon the people the need to perform their day to day activities in an urgency, under legalized time constraints and loop-holed agreements that the people are not given an opportunity to contemplate with due reflection? Why should the people want to listen to you if your ideologies have negative connotations that can not be surmounted because the social "system" is a mechanization created with an intent to keep you subjugated as well? When you yourselves make excuses for taking action, you too have been enslaved into a sub-serviant compliance that renders you dependent on conducting a protest under the assumed "right conditions" which necessarily are most convenient for authoritative control over any kind of protest undertaken? When there are laws governing protest to give legitimation to how, when, where, and why one protests, is this not a subservience, a dependency, an exploitation of your Inalienable Right to create a better government as the people collectively see fit to organize?

Why are you so convinced that violence against the government does not solve anything, when the government itself frequently resorts to the use of violence measured by whomever in authority is making the calculation? Where did you come to embrace the idea that crime doesn't pay, though it actually pays so well that the government and businesses use it as an available strategy to get what they want, and then provides the necessary rationale to justify it, whereby the public, assisted by a bought-and-paid-for-news media, 'smoozes' in the persuasion by the monotony of repeating themselves ad nauseam? So long as division amongst the different political ideologies can be instigated and maintained, the public doesn't stand a chance against a government with a sychopantic entourage of Journalists.

Not only are we of Cenocracy.org faced with the task of teaching the general public to think differently, but we are similarly tasked with doubling our efforts to introduce the different genres of social/government reformers and revolutionists to a class struggle of economics they have overlooked as an underlying part of their accessed equations concerning inequality. For example, in speaking for the need of pursuing an increased wage and benefits package of our Inalienable Rights, there is a need to point out that without this, the indentured forms of slavery which no doubt existed in pre-history would still be with us today in the same fashion as it was then. If the people had not turned to the usage of magic, superstition, and religion's many forms of empowerment, we would not have the small gains which we have today. And we must speak in terms of the present way of life as an expression of small gains in our Inalienable Rights because both Religious Beliefs and Political Ideologies, not to mention various life philosophies created from Asian shores of contemplation, would not then be able to speak of an eventual attainment of something so far greater we of the present can only feebly imagine. Call it Heaven, call it Nirvana, call it Enlightenment, call it Ascension, call it Utopia, call it Shangri-la, call it Bliss, call it Paradise, call it Elysian Fields, Call it the Promised Land, or call it super-abundant equality... They are all the same. To attempt some distinction between the Natural and Supernatural, the Corporeal and the Spiritual, the practical/rational and visionary/quixotic, is mere self-centered egotism constructed by cultural impressions of endowed speciality presuming a perfection to be differentiated as one might compare one's bank account with another that uses the coinage of language to suggest their is no equivalence with which to barter or trade, or one would then recognize how very commercialized is the human brain in its different forms of legerdemain to create the illusion of a differential calculus referring to a doubl-entry accounting process which uses various dichotomies, dualities, and binomial representations.

When we have the different religions and different political theories each defining the "end result" of their respective programs, that each of them has the "true" answer and therefore humanity must follow their lead along a 'straight and narrow' path without being able to recognize that they are not a path but a stepping stone, or log, or sand bar, or Lilly pad, or human-made construct, how do we proceed? How is humanity to progress further than these stepping stones when they are being commercialized and advertised and sold at competitive discounts like so many other products? And even though we note that such products are not easily transferable to different places and peoples with established cultures of ingrained sentiments, superstitions, and supplemental narratives of truth, beauty, strength, wisdom and various other concerns and considerations, how are the to value the currency of a products value such as a concept involving their human market place right to receive a higher wage and benefits package of their Inalienable Rights? How are they to understand the value of a metaphor that they can not easily translate into an everyday valuation applicable to their individual lives... an "individuality" which exhibits a cookie-cutter image of their culture?

How does one attempt to convey that the present practice of our Inalienable Rights is the symptom of a disease that is being interpreted by many so-called economic, social, and philosophical professionals in the same manner that professionals in the past effected the usage of one another treatment plan based on their lack of knowledge and biases? If we were to describe the current conditions of living as a plague, and the present practitioners as having no concept of germ theory, inoculation, mutation, sanitation, etc., how do we provide the idea of an alternative treatment if all of them are dead set against using other than their brand of treatment called religion or political philosophy? And not only this, but the fact that these adherents of old ideas might well conspire with one another to create the impression that the adopted usage of the new treatment plan is what caused an extraneous occurrence of debility that they themselves instigated in order assist with one another's program of uselessness, because in such a uselessness was a means by which they themselves had a measure of public control and public donation to their cause. If we attempt to suggest that current religious beliefs and political theories are akin to those professionals who were well versed in the idea of the Miasma Theory while at the same time being introduced to a new perspective called Germ Theory... analogously aligned with the Cenocratic Reform Idea as a representative model thereof, the following extract may be instructive for some readers:

Broad Street pump and the "Grand Experiment"

Many British physicians investigated the epidemiology of cholera. The first cholera epidemic in London occurred in 1831–32, when Snow was still learning his craft. When the second cholera epidemic occurred, in 1848–49, he and others founded the London Epidemiological Society, intending to advise the government on ways to combat the disease. Snow reasoned that cholera was caused by a microbelike agent, or germ, that was spread through direct fecal contact, contaminated water, and soiled clothing. However, his theory was at odds with the then prevailing theory that cholera was spread by bad air, or miasma, arising from decayed organic matter. The two etiologic hypotheses—germ theory and miasma—were widely debated, with available clinical and population-based evidence serving as the basis for arguments from both sides. The etiologic debate raged for many years. It was not until the causative organism, Vibrio cholerae (initially discovered in 1854), was well characterized in the 1880s that the debate was decided in favour of germ theory.

Pump with detached handle

Snow's respected reputation in epidemiology arose from two classic studies of the third epidemic to reach England, which began in 1853 and lasted until 1855. The first study concerned the Broad Street pump outbreak of 1854, which killed many persons in the Soho neighbourhood. He used skilled reasoning, graphs, and maps to demonstrate the impact of the contaminated water coming from the Broad Street pump. The second study was the "Grand Experiment," also of 1854, which compared London neighbourhoods receiving water from two different companies. One company relied on inlets coming from the upper River Thames, located away from urban pollution, and the other company relied on inlets in the heart of London, where the contamination of water with sewage was common. Snow showed the harmful effect of contaminated water in two nearly equivalent populations, and he suggested intervention strategies to control the epidemic. His ideas and observations, including innovative disease maps, were published in his book On the Mode of Communication of Cholera (1855). Later, in the 1930s, Snow's work was republished as a classic work in epidemiology, resulting in lasting recognition of his work.

In 1846 Snow learned of the use of ether in America to relieve pain during surgery. He soon mastered its use, and in 1847 he was appointed as anesthesiologist at St. George's Hospital. Later that year he started working with chloroform. Finding the prevailing drops-in-handkerchief method to be too crude, he developed an apparatus that improved both the safety and the effectiveness of chloroform. His success with administering chloroform to Queen Victoria produced a dramatic increase in the social acceptance of gaseous anesthesia. Snow spoke extensively on his work with anesthetics and wrote the influential book On Chloroform and Other Anaesthetics, which was published shortly after his death in 1858.

Ralph Frerichs: Professor in the Department of Epidemiology at University of California, Los Angeles.
Resource: "Snow, John." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

1854 Broadstreet Pump

Believe it or not, educated idiocy is not confined to the past. It is very much a brain disease that is not stopped by national boundaries, cultural barricades, age, gender, social status and other demographics... including time... if not space and dimension. And what the above short article doesn't describe is how many of the miasma theorists may have retained a belief in miasma theory even in the face of Germ Theory proof! Nor does it describe how the pump handle was replaced by government authority after the cholera outbreadk because it was thought that the idea about fecal matter getting into drinking water was too unpleasant a thought. Because the miasma theory was respectfully help by professionals of the day, it is difficult to assess how many of them were unwilling to give much credence to the idea of Germ Theory ... just like we of Cenocracy.org may have to fight against many different authorities in providing the Cenocratic Reform theory as an alternative to those current religious and political theories being used in respective ways as attempted cures for social ailments... much less get them to agree on a "Grand Social Experiment" in which the practice of an increased wage and benefits package of Inalienable Rights is permitted!

How does one go about fighting educated ignorance? Or ignorance in charge of dispensing an equitable amount of social resources to even meet basic needs, if their idea of equality is a scale being looked at with one's head obliquely tilted in one direction? Because of a lousy Inalienable Rights Wage, how can we expect a commensurate Benefits package from those whose mentality thinks it is proportional for the many to serve the interests of a few? Playing musical chairs with politicians at elections or viewing a ballot sheet like one does a racing program at a horse track, is pathetically stupid. The public is smarter than this. Why aren't all the social reformists and revolutionists up in arms? You can't use tactics like the Unibomber, ignorant male teenagers or vengeful and naive women to strap a bomb vest on themselves in order to kill a few civilians and expect to make some monumental difference in policies that will be of value for everyone in terms of an increased equity instead of increased security by those who become more entrenched with their single-mindedness. This is ridiculous! Come on Reformists, Come on Revolutionists... you're not that stupid. While anyone of us could act out some pathetically insane lone-wolf attack on one or another innocents, why not strike out at those in Congress or the White House? Because you know that such senseless not backed up by a rational Cause makes you look like a mentally deranged moron and your obsessive incongruity carries no weight as a public-originating plebiscite to transform the government into that in which the scales are unchangeably even according the acknowledge vote of the public's collective Will. There already enough idiots in government that we don't need them in our ranks of Reformists and Revolutionists. If we are going to carry out an armed Rebellion, then it must be because we have exhausted all other efforts, documented them, kept the public in the loop with respect to our beliefs, our efforts on their behalf, and the results which have either provided for a valuable change in governance or admits to one and all... just as it did in the early colonies of America... we are left with little choice to effect a Full Measure of our Inalienable Rights.

The many are being used to serve the few

If the idea of increasing the wage and benefits of Inalienable Rights is not well understood, it will falter as a Movement. If the people can not be impressed upon the need for increasing the I.R.W. (Inalienable Rights Wage), with examples of how it was gained in the past, though the people did not comprehend their gains in Rights as a wage increase with attendant benefits, how can we suggest to them that they are in slavery if their only idea of slavery is a notion aligned with some past model described as such by historians? How are the people of the present to realize they are experiencing an enslavement if they are like so many millions in the distant past who were born into slavery and had no conception of freedom other than what the ruling authority presented them as a role model of abusers, exploiters, and creators of dependency? No less, even though we are able to describe to the enslaved what freedom means with respect to choice, what good is it if... like a freed slave... they have never actually thought of the possibility of what freedom can bring... if the furthest they have ever traveled in heart, mind and soul is the property line of their enslaver(s)? So what if we encourage them to walk beyond the property line to a point where, upon looking back, the property with its familiar sights, sounds, smells and memories are no longer clearly visible? Where are they to go, what are they to do... if their enslavement has become so very much a part of them their whole philosophy of life... and death, exist within the boundary of the property in which they have been enslaved? How is it possible to teach someone what an increased wage in Inalienable Rights can bring if it is a value of currency no different than giving a primitive tribal people a handful of round pieces of metal and slips of paper... which we call coins and bills and have an artificially established value for?

What good is our currency of coinage, clothing, philosophy, etc., if it has no value in a way of life which will emerge once a higher wage of Inalienable Rights becomes practiced as a new way of life? Will such a thought not cause fear in those who hoard such resources and want them to continue to have wealth? How will they not react except to charge the idea of a new way of life as an antagonist to theirs? Because many of the political ideologies speak of doing away with present forms of valuation, they are met as a threat to be denied any currency of empowerment that an increased I.R.W. will provide the people with. Imagine, the creditors waking up to a world one morning where the value of money is deemed worthless by choice, which effectively represents a stock market crash. How do the rich prepare for a loss in the value of all their goods, if all their hoarded goods are viewed by the public as being worthless? Do they then try to find out what the public values and then try to hoard it, or create a social environment... like the present one... which creates conditions and terms within those conditions which enable the to control basic necessities... such as Inalienable Rights? If the people get an increased wage in their Inalienable Rights, the values of their hoarded resources will be commensurably changed in ways they can not forecast and therefore can not prepare for. The Cenocratic Reform Movement, once it is understood, is a significant threat to the wealthy... who will stop at nothing to keep the public from getting such and increased wage with benefits that might cause them to go broke. The present scales of inequality, which favor the few... the rich... over the many, will become dramatically altered. Those who have bought into the present system of valuations will also be faced with a loss of their accumulations gained by playing current economic games.

The uneven scales of equality

The ideas of Anarchy, Communism, Direct Democracy, Libertarianism, Meritocracy, Socialism, etc., all represents threat to the presently practiced values placed on one another resource. Once the system begins being systematically subjected to changes in the valuation of resources, those who have carved out a respective niche for accumulating the presently desired resources, will find themselves faced with having to adopt a different strategy for acquiring some measure of wealth to sustain them during periods of inclement economic weather... a cyclic event which has so often occurred even in the best of sunshine and springtime- economic appearances, they will be faced with an uncertainty of what will happen to them because the New Formula of government is untried, and the political theories of old have expressed an unreliability. It's not that political theories are incapable of change and adaptation, it's just their advocates are presenting them as a stability to be counted on... when they are actually drawing board models of hopeful ideas and wishful thinking. In other words, they're not being honest and upfront, and don't represent anything substantially different from what exists already, except for perhaps a recurrence of some past practice which caused misery because those who assumed authoritative positions did not have a clear vision and resorted to using their positions as an opportunist platform of personal gain.

Let's take for example Communism. For all its wondrous ideas of community, sharing and growth towards some beautiful society that is mutually beneficial to all, those who acquire a dominant role in the construction of such, do not have the necessary managerial skills to direct the public on a course of development without creating conditions of austerity, authoritarianism, enforced servitude, enforced dependency and enforced exploitation... because they don't actually know how to get to their version of Shangri-la. Any one can speak of a glorious "will someday be" a perfection that eventually emerges, but this does not deal with the practicalities of reality. The same goes for religions. Oh how wonderful it is to speak of some heavenly abode where you are provided this and that to your heart's content, yet their social rule-of-thumb is to acquire great wealth, great property, and a personal greatness for their individualized hierarchies... that, no matter how humble and contrite for indulging in some physical need, doesn't create an actual system where there is a wide-spread equality. Religions don't practice views of equality, they practice ideologies which express superiority. Their's is the true god, their's is the right way, their's is the ceremony which you MUST practice or be denied entrance... because in their unspoken of view, heaven is a commercialized product with a price tag that they alone are to collect the appropriate fees of tithing, observance, subservience, fidelity, etc... Their heaven is little more than but another product of human commercialism... when in fact it is freely acquired as a benefit from a full embrace of one's Inalienable Rights that the Declaration claimed came from (a) god:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women) are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

If we continue with the paragraph and cast into the Cencratic framework of today:

--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of the people; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their present System of Government. The history of the present government of America is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations against our Inalienable Rights, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute subservience, dependency, and exploitation over the people....

Yet, even though the people have a legal precedent to effect a better way of life for themselves, they choose to suffer... because no group of social Reformers and Revolutionists step forward and establish a Unanimous Declaration for Greater Independence! Where are you Reformers and Revolutionists? Why haven't you collectively met in a Congress to create such a Declaration? How much more must the public be abused. Is it not Common Sense, or has the philosophical premise upon which social and political philosophies are said to be based, have fallen into the trap of a babbled tower of absurdity? Let us look a bit closer at this idea of common sense derived from two separate articles:

Philosophy of Common Sense

18th- and early 19th-century Scottish school of Thomas Reid, Adam Ferguson, Dugald Stewart, and others, who held that in the actual perception of the average, unsophisticated man, sensations are not mere ideas or subjective impressions but carry with them the belief in corresponding qualities as belonging to external objects. Such beliefs, Reid insisted, “belong to the common sense and reason of mankind”; and in matters of common sense "the learned and the unlearned, the philosopher and the day-labourer, are upon a level."

The philosophy of common sense developed as a reaction against the skepticism of David Hume and the subjective idealism of George Berkeley, both of which seemed to issue from an excessive stress on ideas. This provided what seemed to the common sense philosophers to be a false start leading from fundamental premises to absurdities. This false start stemmed from René Descartes and John Locke inasmuch as they gave to ideas an importance that inevitably made everything else succumb to them.

From 1816 to 1870 the Scottish doctrine was adopted as the official philosophy of France; and in the 20th century the teaching of G.E. Moore, a founding father of analytic philosophy (especially in his "Defence of Common Sense," 1925), convinced many British and American philosophers that it was not their business to question the common certainties but rather to analyze them.

Resource: "common sense, philosophy of." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
The informalist tradition

Generally speaking, philosophers in the informalist tradition viewed philosophy as an autonomous activity that should acknowledge the importance of logic and science but not treat either or both as models for dealing with conceptual problems. The 20th century witnessed the development of three such approaches, each of which had sustained influence: common sense philosophy, ordinary language philosophy, and speech act theory.

Common sense philosophy

Originating as a reaction against the forms of idealism and skepticism that were prevalent in England at about the turn of the 20th century, the first major work of common sense philosophy was Moore's paper A Defense of Common Sense (1925). Against skepticism, Moore argued that he and other human beings have known many propositions about the world to be true with certainty. Among these propositions are: "The Earth has existed for many years” and "Many human beings have existed in the past and some still exist.” Because skepticism maintains that nobody knows any proposition to be true, it can be dismissed. Furthermore, because these propositions entail the existence of material objects, idealism, according to which the world is wholly mental, can also be rejected. Moore called this outlook “the common sense view of the world,” and he insisted that any philosophical system whose propositions contravene it can be rejected out of hand without further analysis.

Ordinary language philosophy

The two major proponents of ordinary language philosophy were the English philosophers Gilbert Ryle (1900–76) and J.L. Austin (1911–60). Both held, though for different reasons, that philosophical problems frequently arise through a misuse or misunderstanding of ordinary speech. In The Concept of Mind (1949), Ryle argued that the traditional conception of the human mind—that it is an invisible, ghostlike entity occupying a physical body—is based on what he called a "category mistake." The mistake is to interpret the term mind as though it were analogous to the term body and thus to assume that both terms denote entities, one visible (body) and the other invisible (mind). His diagnosis of this error involved an elaborate description of how mental epithets actually work in ordinary speech. To speak of intelligence, for example, is to describe how human beings respond to certain kinds of problematic situations. Despite the behaviourist flavour of his analyses, Ryle insisted that he was not a behaviourist and that he was instead "charting the logical geography" of the mental concepts used in everyday life.

Austin's emphasis was somewhat different. In a celebrated paper, A Plea for Excuses (1956), he explained that the appeal to ordinary language in philosophy should be regarded as the first word but not the last word. That is, one should be sensitive to the nuances of everyday speech in approaching conceptual problems, but in certain circumstances everyday speech can, and should, be augmented by technical concepts. According to the "first-word" principle, because certain distinctions have been drawn in ordinary language for eons—e.g., males from females, friends from enemies, and so forth—one can conclude not only that the drawing of such distinctions is essential to everyday life but also that such distinctions are more than merely verbal. They pick out, or discriminate, actual features of the world. Starting from this principle, Austin dealt with major philosophical difficulties, such as the problem of other minds, the nature of truth, and the nature of responsibility.

Speech act theory

Austin was also the creator of one of the most original philosophical theories of the 20th century: speech act theory. A speech act is an utterance that is grammatically similar to a statement but is neither true nor false, though it is perfectly meaningful. For example, the utterance "I do," performed in the normal circumstances of marrying, is neither true nor false. It is not a statement but an action—a speech act—the primary effect of which is to complete the marriage ceremony. Similar considerations apply to utterances such as "I christen thee the Joseph Stalin," performed in the normal circumstances of christening a ship. Austin called such utterances "performatives" in order to indicate that, in making them, one is not only saying something but also doing something.

The theory of speech acts was, in effect, a profound criticism of the positivist thesis that every meaningful sentence is either true or false. The positivist view, according to Austin, embodies a "descriptive fallacy," in the sense that it treats the descriptive function of language as primary and more or less ignores other functions. Austin's account of speech acts was thus a corrective to that tendency.

After Austin's death in 1960, speech act theory was deepened and refined by his American student John R. Searle. In The Construction of Social Reality (1995), Searle argued that many social and political institutions are created through speech acts. Money, for example, is created through a declaration by a government to the effect that pieces of paper or metal of a certain manufacture and design are to count as money. Many institutions, such as banks, universities, and police departments, are social entities created through similar speech acts. Searle's development of speech act theory was thus an unexpected extension of the philosophy of language into social and political theory.

Avrum Stroll: Research Professor of Philosophy, University of California, San Diego, at La Jolla. Author of Twentieth-Century Analytic Philosophy and others.
Albert William Levi: David May Distinguished University Professor of Humanities, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, 1952–79. Author of Philosophy and the Modern World.
Richard Wolin: Distinguished Professor of History, The Graduate Center, City University of New York. Author of The Terms of Cultural Criticism: The Frankfurt School, Existentialism, Poststructuralism and others.

Source: "philosophy, Western." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

Date of Origination: Tuesday, 30-January-2018... 2:39 AM
Date of Initial Posting: Monday, 5-February-2018... 2:02 PM