Cenocracy: A New Government Perspective
A Democracy Labeled Socialist Military



Flag Counter
Progressive Thinkers as of 8/16/2019

FWT Homepage Translator


In the many variations (or versions) of the so-called "Democracy" being played out by different countries, let me focus on the U.S. government which uses the word "Democracy" (defined as of, by, for the people and not "All" the people), to conceal a practice of hypocrisy. Whereas in one instance a word or activity will be viewed as wrong, bad, criminal or treasonable by the government, this attitude and descriptive language changes when the government itself adopts the activity as a means to increase its own revenue. Its former labeling undergoes a revision so as to promote something of value. A few examples are called for before getting to the main topic as outlined by the heading. Because the government adopts the activity by which to generate funds, its attitude and labeling does an about-face with a mental gymnastics of rationalization. A previous criminal activity becomes viewed as a useful social tool that is described as a democratic practice and not a socialist or communist one... even though all three orientations have become combined into a 3-in-one ensemble... and represents a government created version of Trinitarian theme, both of which are related to an underlying basic cognitive structure being played out in multiple subject areas under different guises.

There are many people who come to acknowledge the many hypocrisies under which we live. Whereas in one era a given enterprise or activity is viewed as being criminal, in another era under the control of another entity using a self-supporting rationale will claim the same activity and enterprise as a justifiable legality meriting respect and deference. Take for example the government labeled "numbers racket" scheme used by labeled criminal enterprises which has now been "adopted" by the government and labeled a lottery system. The "adoption" took place by the same tactic used by criminals who muscled in on someone else's efforts. In effect, to the point, the government muscled into the numbers game/racket conducted by labeled criminals (because they didn't give the government a portion of the gains), by way of using strong-arm tactics of violence, imprisonment, and even death... all justified under a collective assertion of using a mindset of imperialism and colonialism that it has used to profit directly or indirectly from through a source of enforced revenue sharing. The old "might is right" philosophy is the typical stance taken to get its way when its efforts to manipulate others through double-standard negotiations fails to provide sustained gains. Whereas because the old so-called "numbers racket" activity did not pay the government any dividends (it did not get a cut/portion of the gains), the present day lottery system provides the government with a revenue that it was jealous of in the distant past.

Another example is the interplay mixing of two old ideas, one of which is the Pyramid Scheme and the other is the Ponzi Scheme... both previously defined as a scam, that came to be adopted by the government by way of altering the terminology and combining the two; as another means by which the government could gain revenue and also provide so-called "investors" (who are all the citizens forced by law to participate or the scheme wouldn't work), and now singularly labeled as Social Security... in which a portion of its game playing rationale is provided through the use of individual betting opportunities through the purchase of stocks in the Stock Market. It is little more than a gambling operation that can unduly affect the retirement funds of millions of people. It is rather pathetic that a government would allow its citizens to bet their earnings on speculative practices defined as "chances" offered through a confidence scam such as the 401K. No person's retirement funds should be subject to such a gambling scheme that would otherwise be viewed as criminal activity if the government was not involved in it in terms of reaping some reward.

A third example is the old Protectionist Racket wherein a person or business is typically forced to pay for "protection" from a potential source of danger, such as those who want to be paid for doing the protection. In modern day terms we see an array of legalized models such as being forced by law to pay for vehicle insurance or pay taxes. Indeed, no one actually owns a home in the sense that if you fail to pay yearly taxes your house can be confiscated by the government. So-called "ownership" of one's home is merely a long-term lease program... so long as you pay your residential taxes. Many a senior citizen has found that the house they once paid for through sustained labor over many years, has to be paid for over and over again by way of enforced tax "contributions" to government coffers... at least until such time in the future it adopts some other corporate criminal idea for generating revenue... that it can enforce by laws. In short, no one really owns their home. You have little more than a long term lease agreement with the government so long as it doesn't create or use some law that forces you to leave. Realistically, under present laws, you cannot operate a vehicle on so-called public roads if you don't pay a yearly fee called Vehicle Registration. Paying tithing or performing some non-monetary duty to a religion is also a protectionist tax... to save you from some presumed ideologically confabulated hell or purgatory. So is the enforced obligation to believe in a religious institution, or medical practice, or government sponsored law, (or practice such as pledging allegiance, singing a National Anthem, kneeling in church, praying in a given way towards a given geological direction at a give time of the day) etc... Belief is a big payment a person provides which enables a given institution to manipulate most citizens into agreeing with its policies, perspective, philosophy and persuasions from which it generates an income to provide for those who make up its civil servant workforce, politicians notwithstanding.

One should not look too closely, not have their blinders removed, not become sober to the reality that although businesses, governments and religious have the capacity to do many wonderful things with their resources, one might come to see that there is a deep stinginess which exists. Indeed, I am not the first to realize that governments can be the most back-stabbing, double-dealing, two-faced voraciously greedy, demanding and self-serving enterprises without equal, except for those occasions when a religion or corporation ventures into an inclined socio/psycho-pathic personality trait that emerges like a toad buried beneath the mud awaiting the next windfall of rain that they want to take advantage of.

But with respect to this page's heading regarding the observed socialist (and notably communist if not a sometimes dictatorial) activity involving the military, let us make an asserted foray into the discussion by first asking: Is a Nation with a (presumptive) Democracy so weak and fragile that it needs a non-democratically run organization to protect it? And by extension... if not being guilty through an Association therewith...since we can readily see the Socialist/Communist organizational methodology being used in the military with its extensive list of entitlements; what sort of "government" ideology is incorporated in civilian police units? Could this not be one of the reasons for conflict with the police that many people experience? Whereas a (presumed) citizenry of democratically oriented individuals are expected to conduct themselves in an illusory-defined democratic cultural fashion, yet they are often confronted by police officers who wield their position in a non-democratic authoritarian fashion which is anti-thetical to a democratic practice.

Hence, a resounding hypocrisy exists as a model of conflict that the citizenry are exposed to, yet far too many come to accept without question and defer all rationale to such a condition of oft' met irrational treatment. Indeed, while in America, many companies adopt the policy that employees are required to thank someone for their (Military) Service once a person becomes recognized as a Veteran... even though most people who join the military never put their life on the line in a combat situation by working at jobs which are far removed from any conflict. Like police officers, doctors, politicians, etc., once they adopt some title (as a soldier, doctor, dentist, professor, police officer, mechanic, etc...), a person's attitude about themselves is altered and may be followed by an expectation that everyone treat them with the same sense of loftedness they adorn themselves with.

It is easy enough to recognize the military as an non-democratic institution by the very fact that no one is permitted to vote in their leadership. Is not a system of open voting a Hallmark requirement for a Democracy? Hence, its absence is a stark tell-tale indication that the military is not a Democratic institution. As such, let us ask: Why does a (presumed) Democracy need to resort to the usage of non-democratically run institutions for protection, unless that (presumed) democracy that the people are expected to abide with is a system of delusion and illusion for the purpose of crowd control to serve the interests of a Capitalism that is not primarily focused on the well-being or rights of the general public.)

Voting for one's leaders is the Hallmark of a Democratic practice. Since Military personnel can not vote in their leaders, it is not a Democratic Institution. We must therefore recognize it for what it is. It is hypocritical to define a nation as being Democratic, while it must rely on a resource wasteful/gouging institution as its primary means of protection that must adopt a philosophy of being perpetually useful for those who enjoy the military way of life and do not want it to vanish... to the extent they will do anything they can to preserve their way of life... no matter what gets destroyed or who gets hurt or killed. This includes those institutions like the C.I.A who want to keep themselves a viable entity by pursuing activities that will foster a quid pro quo relationship with the military or anyone that will help it survive... like volunteer fire fighters of old who started fires in order to convince the public that a public funded full-time fire service was needed. The present hypocrisy of the adopted democratic philosophy projects the image of a figure who claims to come in and practice equality, fraternity, sorority and peace, yet carries an arsenal of sharpened claws, teeth, and technology-driven accoutrements that were designed soley for use in combat egotistically displayed ss a chip on one's shoulder amongst kids claiming themselves to be the toughest on the neighborhood block. Indded, military insignias can be looked upon as little more than government sponsored gang graffiti and symbolism.


The Socialist practices of a so-called Democratic Military

The following article is provided as a reference to all those who retain their blinders sometimes called patriotism, yet in the present instance credit must be given to the writer for having made a concerted effort to consciously analyze her respective situation that she is respectful of, just as all of us should be, even though it reeks of the commonly occurring naïveté' most citizens everywhere embrace when it comes to the rationale of having a military. Widespread paranoia, mistrust, greed, anger, prejudice, enmity, lust, envy, jealousy, duty, honor, pride, habit, tradition, etc., all come into play to create the justification for the present state of military practices. We justify the military way of life and its value based on values we have adopted to benefit ourselves and family in the larger social and environmental context that we find ourselves occupying. The following article is written well, and if I were standing inside the same psychologically-based circle as she, I would agree with her perspective. However, like myself, many people have either selectively stepped outside that circle or due to being a victim of circumstances The US Military Is a Socialist Organization, by Liesel Kershul, Nov. 4, 2019. (Liesel Kershul is an applied psychologist and freelance writer based in San Diego, California. She is a longtime military spouse.)

The US Military Is a Socialist Organization
Affordable housing and food, tuition assistance, and universal health care are hallmarks of a social welfare system—and life in the armed forces.

I recently attended the wedding of one of the Marines who serve under my husband and fell into conversation with a retired colonel. He was effusive in his gratitude for my family’s nearly 20 years of service, and during the course of our conversation, cocktails in hand under the dappled shade of California live oaks, he became agitated, railing about how important my husband’s continued service was in light of “all the socialists in our government.”

It was the second time in a week I’d heard some form of this complaint from retired service members, and though I don’t watch cable news, I can only imagine that it has been a recent talking point there. I knew the wedding wasn’t an appropriate venue for doing so, but I couldn’t help but gently call attention to his hypocrisy. He had spent a career reaping the rewards of social welfare benefits provided by taxpayer dollars, and the elected representatives he condemned that evening are advocates of, among other things, similar policies for a wider swath of the population.

Let me be clear: I believe that colonel earned those benefits and his pension, and so does he; he wasn’t about to renounce them simply because they’re the product of democratic socialist–style policies.

In American society, “social welfare benefits” are often conflated with the theory of and colloquially referred to as “socialism” in a way that’s designed to evoke images of the Soviet Union or famine in Mao’s China. This intentional muddying of the waters and impoverishment of our vocabulary and thus our understanding has led to fear mongering and red-baiting, leaving us unable to talk about these issues or debate them with the seriousness they deserve. This, as a result, has led many in the military community to misunderstand the reality in which we live: a curious mix of authoritarian hierarchy and a welfare state.

Since my marriage at 23 to a career Marine officer, I have never had to exist in the messiness of what we in the military community refer to as living “on the economy.” I have benefited from a tax-free housing allowance; the ability to shop for wholesome, subsidized food at the commissary; nearly free health care; and generous tuition assistance, which my husband and I were able to use to help pay for our master’s degrees. When my husband retires from the service, he will still have income in the form of a pension. This is the very definition of social welfare.

These benefits are an investment that allows service members to be free of the daily struggle to make ends meet and to limit the stressors their families face in what can be a highly stressful existence. They are the result of activism by military spouses and are provided not because our leaders are secret communists who seek to turn military members into leeches on society but in order to retain top talent and make an all-volunteer force more effective.

But America is more than its military, and it takes more than prepared armed forces to further American interests. We should be asking ourselves exactly what those interests are. Who defines them? And why? If we go back to the Constitution, our founders believed that America’s interests lie, in part, in promoting the general welfare.

To many Americans, “welfare” has become a dirty word—thanks in no small part to Reagan’s myth of the “welfare queen.” The word has been twisted and adulterated to mean “a benefit someone doesn’t work for and hence doesn’t deserve.” Its true definition, which seems to have been lost, is “a social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need,” or more generally, “the health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.”

The social welfare/democratic socialist–style policies being championed by the likes of Bernie Sanders aren’t particularly radical even by American standards. In fact, they’re reminiscent of social welfare benefits that were supported by General Eisenhower’s administration and a more moderate Republican Party of yore. Today, it’s progressives who are advocating for all Americans to benefit from policies my military family enjoys in spades: universal health care, a living wage that keeps pace with inflation, free or heavily subsidized higher education, access to quality and affordable child care, retirement safety nets, and affordable housing.

It’s because of this investment in my community that the military now seems to be one of the last bastions of the middle class in America. Military members don’t go broke if they have a medical emergency. They can save for their retirements, purchase homes, and send their kids to college with a little financial planning (help with which is offered for free). In contrast, teaching (which requires a master’s degree) used to be a solid, middle-class profession. But now, just to make ends meet, many teachers work more than one job and, depending on the cost of living where they’re employed, some teeter on the verge of homelessness. None of this has happened by accident. Our elected representatives have chosen where to invest our tax dollars, and indeed whom to tax and how much. The boards of corporations have chosen, too, whether or not to invest in their employees and the communities in which they’re based.

Where are we left if we no longer have the language to speak authentically about the reality in which some of us live, and some of us can’t? Terms like “socialist” and “welfare” are off the table when speaking to a large portion of the US population. This makes it nearly impossible to have the honest and necessary debate we need about whom we invest in as a country. Should we just invest in our military members and other government employees? Or is it also in our national interest to invest in teachers? What about nurses, child care providers, public health employees, journalists, scientists, farm laborers, the builders of infrastructure, and all of the other workers who make this country thrive? To borrow language from the Marine Corps, what is our duty, responsibility, and obligation to one another? And what is our government’s duty, responsibility, and obligation to our welfare?

It’s logically possible, although I imagine not popular, to argue that the military should hold a privileged place in society and thus be among the few beneficiaries of social welfare programs. It’s impossible, however, to deny that those military benefits are socialist-style policies, and it’s hypocritical for service members to be aghast over the promotion of benefits that mirror our own for the broader American population.

It is also willfully ignorant to fall prey to fear mongering and red-baiting when our social welfare benefits enable us to live solid, middle-class lives in a time when America’s middle class has all but disappeared. If we’re going to be a nation that is more than its military, we need to rediscover our duties, responsibilities, and obligations to one another.




Date of Origination: Friday, 14th August 2020... 3:00 AM
Date of Initial Posting: Sunday, 06th August 2020... 6:20 AM