By establishing a truer "Scientific Sociology" we hope to establish a governing system that is free from the exploitations of political careers in practice today. When the careers of many politicians is based on subterfuge, lies, obfuscation, cheating, deception and numerous other nefarious qualities of personal qualification; careers which attempt to exceed general goals to reach upper stratifications such as the Presidency in the United States, often involves the assistance of people in business (such as corporations and the media), government (typically, though not always the Judicial and Legislative branches alone), and Religion (those who claim conservatism but use it to conceal personalized radicalizations). In effect, the U.S. Presidency often becomes a bought and paid for political position yielding great political power to be used by others, because it is put up for sale every four years. The political process for electing a President is set up to minimize the effect of the public having a greater claim to be solely beholden to. Others get to claim a greater share of the Presidential bounty.
A lot of people have a great stake in keeping things as the are in relative terms where circumstances permit them to carry out their individual social games of public manipulation, be it the business of advertising deceptions or using tradition as a means of persuading the public to follow suit in helping them retain a means to maintain and perhaps exceed their resource base. And those who actively protest against the many faults being played out, are up against a mechanized process which is capable of distorting, distracting and dismembering public opinion into diluted factions where the ultimate result may be little more than a disgruntled public that extricates itself from a collective protest because the previous protest assemblage was based on knee-jerk impulsations and not calculated excursions. Protests can not act like a frenzied mob of zombies unless there is an overwhelming majority and it too knows how to fight fire with fire... or in the case of zombies being shot in the head... being able to shoot their predators in a like manner. In other words, the assumed zombie-ism of the public's attitude conveyed in such a word as apathy, needs to evolve.
Whereas the U.S. Presidency should be an office beholden to the public, it typically isn't. It may say that it is, but even in the Presidential Oath of office, there is no statement saying that the Office of The President is actually the Office of the People. Take a look at the oath and notice there is no mention of respect and deferment to the collective Will of the People:
|"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."|
The oath says nothing about preserving, protecting and defending the people themselves, unlike the oaths taken by others in their countries.(see: Oath of Office. The people are not mentioned and are therefore were and are viewed as a negligibility of consideration and concern. It is a piece of paper that is of most value... and let the people be damned so long as it is preserved, even it is is incongruent with an evolving social consciousness. Because neither the Bill of Rights nor Constitution represent the people... since the Will of the people did not collectively draft the contents and nor are enabled to vote regularly on its contents as a factuality of need or revision, the oath of the Presidency is a joke. It is not a legal document, it is a formality with little relevance to the political, economic, and governing nonsense the people have to put up with... and although many in the public recognize all of this, they are afraid to consider a change based on an expressed scientific sociology exceeding the Communist, Democratic and Socialist ideologies.
Whereas an oath or pledge of allegiance did have great meaning and value in past instances, they have now become so routine as to act more like a script to be expressed by a telemarketer as a pretense of service equality because they are used as contrived connivances of manipulation created by an elitist few who require an oath be used to establish a fabricated commonism, but do not actually abide by its respective tenets of practice in the formulaic expression the general population of people (workers)are impressed upon to respectfully embrace. In other words, oaths, pledges, and other supposed guarantees of loyalty are routinely circumvented such as is described by high divorce rates (breaking of marriage vows), abuses of presidential powers, abuses of Judicial and Legislative powers, abuses of Judges, Lawyers and business ethics, abuses of a "team" mentality (such as in sports), etc...
Oaths do not have the socially applied life and death consequences they once had. If they did, breaking an oath, a pledge, a vow, etc., would not be taken so lightly as they are today. For example, if a President engaged in misconduct, or any government employee for that matter, they should be directly answerable to the public's wrath, and not be protected by the current double and triple standards of law being practiced. Then again, a whole new type of concealment would evolve amongst business, government and religious officials... who would no doubt work more closely together than they already are to defeat the collective Will of the People.
The current practices of a governing system are frequently felt to be some sort of inviolable oath that a person has sworn to uphold at any cost, though no such oath has taken place. Indeed, many social reformers adopt a mentality that their views are a sacred oath which can not be violated by discussing alternative considerations. This stance is particularly true amongst many factions of would-be Revolutionists who have embraced some version of the old Communist Manifesto, that attempts to engage them in discussing alternatives is tantamount to speaking about some sacrilegious content. Like speaking about the devil when others are reading scripture by way of a faulty memory. They are as much fanatics as those who strive to maintain a status quo no matter how bad it is for many.
When we advance the proposition which claims that the present forms of government are not good enough, that we don't have to live this way, and that there are alternative considerations which could be applied to correct mistakes; their response is to be attentive with a shield in one hand and a sword in the other. They act more like a member of a marauding band of at-the-ready terrorists whose personal gains are acquired by bullying attack methodologies if any comment suggests itself as a threat to their practiced game plan of sociability... which is an exercise one step removed from the barbarism of old... but goes unnoticed as anything but an expression of normalcy because it is the standardized world-view of many like-minded others. The many factions of would-be Revolutionists are like the disparate clans of old that have as yet not been rallied around a central banner as Genghis Khan did with the variously scattered Mongol tribes... tribes in which different members did acquire a sizable increase in resources which were delimited because of an inability to carry and store them, but also be subjected to the eventuality of becoming over-run by the culture in which they carried out their attacks.
Without knowing it, many of the would-be social reformers, anarchists, and wannabe (want to be) Revolutionists become absorbed into the culture to which they carry out their intellectual, or pretended physical raids on different encampments of established institutions. They become part of the entertainment scenery that so often accompanies large social enterprises. By the various types of dress, mannerisms and expressed clothing ensembles worn by different protestors, we pay witness to different troops of actors like those that once traveled from town to town in ancient times. Whereas many in the audience may laugh, cry and express disregard or heart-felt emotional agreement with the "message" being conveyed by this and that troop of protestors, the vacuity of the result surrenders the message to being a marquee sign for a given social enclave... like a show which is seen on a Broadway stage, or a musical for a given highschool audience, or a company picnic with food, fun and frolicking. In short, the protests are exercises with little impact beyond a limited venue of appearance.
In many cases, a crowd of protestors venting emotional forays of independent motivations, do not have a collective rationale aligned with a genuinely focused intent for accomplishing a goal other than to engage in what appears to be a defined snowball preceding down a hill that comes to a barrier known as a loss of inertia after the bottom of a protest march has been reached. Very often the imagined steepness of a hill is but that of a short neighborhood variety that, although may have different numbers of participants at various times, they will all dissipate because of changing conditions in weather, parental control, or some other social accommodation to a practice tradition... be it church, work, a family gathering, shopping spree, or what have you. The hill(s) of protest upon which a momentum may begin, may not gain enough momentum to go up the other side, and misconstrues flowing down stream another variation thereof, because of an unobserved melting of ideology over the passage of time. Every fresh water of ideology that flows downstream, encounters the coarseness of salinity when applied to the larger ocean of ideological currents and waves.
It is rare that a fresh water current of ideology will have an effective measure of dilution on the wider ocean of saline mixed ideological waters. While it is rare for fresh water to be effectively measurable, not so the effects of some poisons... though they too may be limited in scope, like that which comes out of a factory. Even large barges of oil tanker spills are particularly regional, even if they are sharply felt... causing death and destruction. The effects of a good protest may take centuries, unless we Revolutionists can simultaneously advance the same source of ideological dilution of the larger tainted sociological waters. All of us, in our separate social (environmental) enclaves can have a greater impact on the larger ocean of sociological endeavor if we each open the spigot of a singular premise in order to set the stage for a larger churning of a dedicated impact. Let each of us open the valve to reform by naming the spigot "Cenocracy". Let the idea of a Cenocracy be used to create a well from which will fountain out an ideological spring that all people everywhere make drink a full drink of refreshment from. This does not change their taste sensations of ideology, but creates an invitation to drink of it as an elixir of sobriety... to replace the many currents of intoxication being spoonfed to the public.
If your ideas of reform are a certainty, then you need not fear dilution by exposing them to alternative considerations... whereas you may find your ideas but a part of a larger ideology whose momentum has the potential of exceeding your grasp. Some are already embracing this consideration and ask for others to share their views because the reform they want involves all of us. If theirs is a stepping stone to a greater realization, then so be it. It is imperative that all those who truly want to see the dawn of a brighter day of social governance, must speak of this same preference of premise from their location, in their own language. Whereas we all want a New Government, we have not as yet spoken of such in Unison, with a dedicated reference thereto. Let us do so now. Let us begin the affirmation of a collective intent for establishing a New Government by giving it a name as we would the naming of a new born child. Let each of us breathe a social life into this new born ideology by giving it recognition. We dare not leave it on the doorstep of any religion, any business, or any government agency that will attempt to institutionalize it for traditions which, if not causing so much misery, have created a starvation of consciousness through a dedication to mediocrity and somnambulant worker drone-ism that flitter about like moths forced to die at the hands of an artificial enlightenment.
We must use our efforts to overshadow the falsifications of present sociological pursuits so that the people will no longer be blinded by phoney intensifications of would-be Communism, Democracy or Socialism as intended bribes, and thus be subjected to a routinization of thinking that amounts to being a ring in the nose, a leash around the neck, and a harness about one's torso. A populace that has little history in commanding a Nation's government to abide by its collective will, can not be expected to make collective deductions to be submitted for its best interests without training it to think for itself and not some commercialized patriotic jingle aligned with some business or religious interest due to an established conventionality of thinking. When some such conventionalities are so deeply inter-meshed into the psyche of a person's self awareness and identity that they can not even imagine their social circumstances being nationally or globally improved upon, though they may deny the existence of such an embodiment; this truth comes to the fore when they are asked for an opinion of how might the overall social system be improved upon. Many honestly do not know and take their lead from others voicing an opinion that they do know... but may actually not... except to voice an opinion for something better. Others may think they know and offer an opinion that would be counter-productive when other information is accessed in concert with. And still others know all to well that what they imagine is something quite unlike anything that has come before, which surrenders their consciousness to the realization we are at the threshold of a discovery that there is no precedent by which to establish a protocol of analysis in order to provide a complete picture thereof.
But metaphor and digression into metaphysical themes are not appreciated by everyone. They are more inclined to call a tree a tree, regardless if it has foliage or not... while others see the canopy as a type of skull cap covering interconnected neuronal branchings. However, the type of government and economic systems of today might well be regarded as some other-worldly vision created by unsalted forms of hallucination-producing wild mushrooms... by those in ancient civilizations, not to mention discussions about television, radio, vehicles and spacecraft... or a world without numerous gods to explain the unexplainable. Likewise, those deluded into believing they live in a world of democracy are like those of old who used anthropomorphism as a methodology for rendering the surreal into some known presumption. Perhaps it is a way by which humans prepare themselves for some semblematic adoption... like astronomy from astrology, chemistry from alchemy, and physics from its roots in philosophy. In short, such excursions into contemplative imagery can be useful, particularly when constructing a New Government unlike that which is not known to have existed before.
Though such discussions may irritate those who rely upon the reality of practicalities of a given context, they are necessary for those of us whose intellectual endeavors do not get easily lost even when set adrift in voids that do not require some drug inducement to create social science fictions that writes of one or another genre would eagerly clasp on to in order to create a chapter, episode or complete novel for the very large crowd of eager listeners. Such is the case for promoting a Cenocratic theme. To some the ideas will be way beyond their grasp of contemplation, while others may view it as a reference to something they have previously read or thought themselves. But it matters not so long as the readers themselves become the origin of the serialization... the episodes of characterizations to follow... because the story is a good one, and is not at all like the presently played out antiquated themes which can exceed its poor rating scale, but is interpreted as desirable because the people have not been introduced to anything better.
Every Revolution needs a story-line which the audience can follow without too much difficulty, and can be perceived on different levels of understanding, with respect to what audience may be in attendance. It needs a script... just as the Communist and Socialist movements which took greater public momentum after the writing of the Communist Manifesto. Though many of the ideas are rather dated, having been found better suited to a different time and place than today, though as incomplete a script it was; the documentation of ideas has provided much for many to think about and place into the context of some revision, if a reader was so inclined. Without it's presence in the lives of millions, the movements surely would have been much different than they turn out... for better or worse. But revision of the document is not enough since, as mentioned before, it has too many shortcomings due to a lack of information which was used to compile the parameters of the ideology. Again, Marx, Engels and others of their time can be forgiven, since the information being used today to think in sociological terms did not exist.
And yet, even though the information being spoken of in the present Cenocratic context is well known in some respects, its application and usage is not a conventionality... just as the ideas in the early Communist manifesto were not collated as such until Marx and Engels came along. Their views was a compilation of information well known to others, but had not been assembled as they chose to do so. But neither are the many different interpretations without their own measure of originality. It goes without saying that Marx, Engels and many others were/are creative thinkers. Yet the time and place of such ideas do not provide them with a context for such ideas to become widely known or dispersed. In fact, as is noted by history, the Communist Manifesto has been used as a stepping stone for others to propel their own sociological variations... often with dire results for millions, under the guise of some Communist, Socialist, religious, or even Democratic pretense. A "True Communism" was not and is not to be found in the manifesto because too much information about sociological development was not included... because it was not known.
For all their sincere intentions, far too many social thinkers do not include the depth, breadth, and grasp of even a basic grasp of developmental themes... or even describe a lack thereof. While some do, the developmental theme often represents elementary themes... even for mature (educated) audiences. Because social governance is an "after-the-fact" creation of developed brains, that which has influenced the identified symbolic, conflicting, and functionalist properties of society must be addressed from a different perspective than the simplistic themes of sexuality, genderism, and racial complementary, complimentary and divisive inequalities, as is displayed in the old Yin/Yang formula which sometimes includes a third "unity" label. Protests which focus primarily on such themes are too childish to comprehend the grasp of a larger social ideology exceeding such ego-centric grasps.
Whereas dichotomies, dualities and dualisms are widely known and incorporated into individual philosophies, and trichotomies in others, along with perhaps the realization of monisms (singularities) and pluralities, but they are not being put together in terms of an expressed ideology concerning overall development applied to an appreciation of sociological development within the context of a disintegrating environment. Attempts to develop a more meaningful form of governance are doomed to fail because such ideas, like the Communist Manifesto, are not comprehensive enough for the day and age in which they are to occupy. One must draw the conclusion of Communism, of Democracy, and of Socialism are not due solely to the improper application of correct ideas, but that the correct ideas are not yet in existence in the time, place and format that the correct social reformists can take advantage of themselves. In order to provide for the right time, place and person to come to the fore, we must make preparations for the conditions to unfold. We can not sit and wait for the kettle of social revolution to boil if no flame is provided.
So how do we ignite not just a flame, but a controlled fire, when there are various opportunists waiting in the wings ready to step in when they think the time is right? How do we initiate a whisper to become an echo heard from one corner of the world to another? How do we stir up the necessary contemplations which will foment the necessary frothing of energy to be unleashed in a controlled fusion of wide-spread value? How do we prevent members of the status quo from trying to douse the flames or deflect the echo into worthless channels of dissipation? And not so much were are the troops, but where are the leaders? How will you lead? What sort of economic program will you direct to be established? And how is this to be done if those with the majority of the resources fail to abide by you wishes, and instead try to stop you at every turn? Will you use force? Will you unwittingly ignite fires of anarchy that will not die out except for when available resources have been exhausted? Will chaos provide the incentive for the status quo to declare some state of emergency whereby any and all perceived as a threat will be hunted down... just so former levels of status quo civility can resume... in the hands of those whose leadership may be worse than those presently in charge?
Or will we instead need to resort to surgical eliminations of those whose presence acts as a visible guidance for those who are provided the strength to resist temptations to try something new... like a New Government? Who and how many? Will their loss simply be replaced with another and another and another? Will we have the necessary resilience to repeat the actions over and over and over again, until we exhaust their means of replacement... since such necessarily has a limitation. Can we outlast them ideologically by getting more to agree with changes than keep that which is shown as being less than that which is described... such as calling a government a democracy when it actually isn't, but a majority of the public has not given their full conscious attention to? Can we beat their rationale with a smarter logic? Or their insight with a deeper perspective? Or their manipulations with a more sophisticated strategy? Are we willing to give one another the benefit of the doubt to share a singular premise denoted as a Cenocracy?
Let us ask all social reformers for their own manifesto. Since those in the future will not have the advantage of hearing ideas directly from the horse's mouth, so-to-speak, it is of need for their ideas to be catalogued. Imagine if you will how the religions of Islam and Christianity would have turned out, if Mohammed and Jesus compiled their own views, instead of later generations having to rely on the good or bad memory of those who heard them directly, or were far removed in time and place. And how much different would western philosophy be if the many philosophers in the past also wrote their own ideas down. We of the present, as the future of those who have come and gone, can only guess and make-believe what was actually thought and spoken of by leaders in the past. Indeed, even the short pithy expression by Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, has variations due to the differences in listening and hearing capacities of those writers in attendance. Ideas are very often altered according to the biases of a listener and transcriber... even if they think otherwise.
While there are those who attend to the ideas committed to paper by Marx and Engels because they are described as a science, not much science, in the form of ideas, is being used. And nor do they offset this absence with additions of more science in their revised social discourse. Instead, they stick to simplistic themes with simplistic references in order to produce another variation of a simplistic social idea being proposed as an ideal. Where is their science? Does science not matter? And what science will it be? Some spuriously noted Political Science? Or some science of argumentative diplomacy? Where is the science in the themes of White Supremacy, Black Nationalism, Feminism, Oriented Sexualisms and other ego-centricities.. unless they reject science due to some underlying magico-religious preference? If their ideas are factual, and their views represent a suggested advancement for the human species, then there should be a means of aligning such with science. Unless we are to assume that all of science is wrong if it has little to offer for supporting an hypothesis.
If we displace Sociology away from the ideas of a maturational 1,2,3 and 3-to-1 ratio patterning, it nonetheless stands on its own merit. It does not need a sociological theme to buttress its existence. But we can not say the same thing for those attempting to use science to support their views. Whereas views of desiring a New Government do not need science nor religion to bolster its presence in different social venues, they often resort to using science or religion in an effort to persuade others to believe in their ideas. The idea of a New Government (a Cenocracy) came long before science or religion were used as shields and weapons. And if you took them away, the people would still think in the manner which would bring forth the desire for a Cenocracy. For it is not they which embrace a Cenocracy, but a Cenocracy which embraces them.
And we will start again, and then again and again and if need be, all the more with different voices... until such time as we rid the species of the decrepit forms of governance which exist today. We have a future goal for the many, just as we have a history of goaless nonsense at the hands of a few. We the many are on the path of a Cenocracy, even though the same vision is not yet solely named nor being echoed yet beyond a whisper. Bit it's time will come, and its birthdate shared by all as it makes its first fledgling step.