One of the biggest obstructions to overcome in our pursuit of establishing the acceptance of a Cenocracy as a premise for a new social movement, are revisionist Revolutionists. While different factions of protestors one or another personal agenda, their call for change is in the manner of expecting prevailing authority to agree with their perspective and make changes for them... which can be particularly stupid when those in authority, or those attempting to secure a place of "political authorship" are those that will set up a change in accordance with established protocols to do so, yet the protocols may be part of the problem. Because established protocols such as a Constitution and Bill of Rights were designed to fit within a structure of government that is limited by the underlying philosophy of its supposed parameters called a Communism, Corporatocracy, Democracy, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Plutocratic-Aristocracy, Republic, Socialism, Theocracy, or whatever... the amount of possible revision must be accordingly contoured to this form. Like a suitcase that has a particular shape and overall carrying capacity, the type of government so named as the established practice, guarantees a particular type of content must fit within the design.
Though in the case of making comparisons between one or another types may reveal one or another similarity as in the case of inter-species, inter-racial, or inter-religion examinations; each of them have an underlying internal skeleton as well as an overall exoskeleton. In effect, different ideologies are like different species that, upon encountering a particular type of food-for-thought like the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, and various other expressions of protest attitude; will use the subject matter consistent with their prevailing interests. Ideas become reconstituted to specialized needs, or are turned into a generality providing for a larger birth of application. In short, Revolutionists can collectively be their own worst enemies because they refuse to achieve a solidarity amongst themselves by making useful comparisons. Instead, their individualized forms of embraced anger for a given agenda that causes them to view any authoritative expression with distrust and negativity. They refuse to make comparisons or for that matter, attempt to create a holistic account of similarities being espoused by different protestors. They must be trained to utilize their individuality of expression so that they can choose to combine their energies and resources along a singular path directed with the intent of accomplishing a goal, and not merely venting frustration, anger and disgust.
We must begin to join forces. By all means, speak of your personalized agendas, but do so from a platform of directing your energies towards the establishment of a New Government... a collective movement called a Cenocracy. Voice your opinion of what you think a Cenocracy should be, so that by doing so, a solidarity of effort may begin the production of a premise. As is the case throughout history, as a reminder which effects the presence of a precedent, we see groups coming together in agreement by establishing a treaty, as a bill denoting a type of behavior to be honored by all. It is an established behavior to sign a treaty before, during or after wars, for economic interests, for establishing laws of conduct. Whereas Revolutionists are pushing for change, to create some sort of document where their ideas are honored; they are particularly recalcitrant about establishing a treaty of confluence amongst themselves. Because some are so self-centered they can not be trusted to abide by any Revolutionist treaty, whether spoken, written or handshake exchange... they should be noted not as a radical amongst radicals, but as a fringe element whose own ideological premise exhibits itself as a questionable ambiguity... even though in their eyes they may think in terms of being so far ahead of their time their views are difficult to comprehend in any conventional present context.
A further problem arises amongst self-named social reformists and Revolutionists, however they may refer to themselves, is that they don't actually want to pursue the development of a New Government. They don't think in such terms because it requires an expansion in consciousness never before explored by them. They can only think in terms of the rules in which their adopted government is run by... which only sets themselves up as part of a recurring cyclicity that a future generation of like-minded protestors will likely pursue in a similar manner. In effect, they play out a role which provides for themselves a self-generated image of distinction as part of an ego structure which seeks out compensatory methods to assuage feelings of inadequacy, by comparing themselves to observed and desired standards of normalcy. They are merely actors on a stage playing the role of an assumed rebel, as a means of giving themselves the impression of distinction and notability amongst their peers... and a peer group they need, as a type of pseudo- culture of socialization... unless their wounds and insecurity are so deep they can only feel safe by restricting their socialization to a cave of separateness sometimes referred to as a lone wolf.
But many potential Revolutionists are not part of any present protest group. They intuitively grasp the current protest situations as having negligible impact on securing significant changes in governance, despite the level of violence, destruction and news media coverage. They are waiting for they believe is a real protest. The acts of organized protests are not the same as a protesting organization. Lots of people practice greater organizational planning and ability in their day to day lives in caring for their families, running a business, or their personally structured research efforts. For example, during the "Occupy" movement, many arm chair revolutionist waited for the moment when the movement would move into the phase of development which would signal a call to arms. Unfortunately, no such call came by way of the expressed protest efforts which were limited to exhibitions reminiscent of middle class brats throwing a temper tantrum. There was no leadership nor direction of intent which arose as a manifest ideology. Even the multiplicity of journalists which covered the protests were divided in their opinions as to what the "message" was, since so many ulterior motivated personalized agendas arose because their was such a void due to the absence of a manifesto.
And though the "Black Lives Matter" movement did eventually establish a manifesto, its content has come to be viewed as a laughable digression from the initial argument concerning the singular issue of police department attitudes towards Blacks... in given communities, but by means not all and not most. The initial development of the movement has become ambushed and kidnapped by a Black Nationalist sentiment whose ideological inclination is to voice invectives aligned with digressions that conceal different neurotic themes which present skewed variables having no place in the original equation; yet the instigators of the movement set back with a self-place feather in their cap overwhelmed by different "selfie" reflections that are so egotistically consuming as to cause a blindness from being able to witness an embraced socio-pathology. The movement, like the Nazi regime, has allowed far too many socio-paths to gravitate to individualized leadership position. Instead of a legacy of credited attempts at social reform, the originators and the Movement, are well on their way at achieving an unwelcomed notoriety. Their credibility has become deservingly lost amongst other revolutionists and social reformists. The espoused Black Nationalism is just as irrational as a Mussolinian Fascism. They don't want reform on behalf of improving society for everyone, they just want to impose a self-centered Black mentality which will serve to create conditions for more Blacks to substitute themselves in social positions held by non-Blacks. They only give a damn about their own people, like an ancient custom of tribalism, aristocracy and current governing systems pitting themselves against the public.
If governments were not pitted against their publics, there would be a practiced democracy in place. The people would be enabled to vote in their will for any and all social issues, and not minimize and ostracize the public from being to collectively run "their" government. Instead, the people are continually subjected to forms of governance which perpetrate forms of social control that enable a few to dictate their views to the many... and many of these "many" like someone telling them what to do because they retain a childish disposition of seeing themselves in need of parental guidance. They want to be told what to do, when to do it, and how to do something, in a type of conveyor belt robotic mentality that will easily be swayed into accepting the introduction of more robotic systems into different labor positions because there is an underlying robotic identification taking place. It is easy to replace organic (people) forms of robotic systems with mechanical forms, since the organic model sees the exchange as an expected progression of themselves. There is no need to argue against being replaced by a robot when one participates in daily activities as if they were a robot themselves. When the organic type of robotic personality is replaced with a mechanical form, it is difficult for one robot to argue with an upgraded version that is not troubled by flaws associated with the variability of organics. Mechanical models can be ideally tuned to serve self-centered commercial interests just as the current model of Capitalism is tuned accordingly.
Yet, the present organic models of commercial robots are likewise based on the functionality of the underlying programs written into their processing units called a brain. When it is noted that the differences in personality can be attributed to different operant conditioning models of training within the scope of gender, culture, and physiological attributes, improvement of organic robotic systems is a possibility of the overall governing structure were altered according to this desire. Instead, operant forms of conditioning are left to run amuck, creating more and more variabilities which produce conflicting variants whose combinations can cause the system to overload, resulting in poor production behavior and a loss in revenue... referred to as protest, strike, walkout, slowdown, sick call or some other work stoppage scheme. Under the current models of government and economic policies, organic robots are particularly troublesome. Such models and policies would work more efficiently if mechanical robots were used, and organic models were rendered into a junk pile... which is how current systems of retirement are being run. Current retirees are treated as junk and their retirement programs as junk yards guarded by dogs that enable the junk to be scrapped by one or another government exercise trying to cut corners from an operation that does not yield much... because it is not designed to. Whereas junk yards can be quite profitable, and junk quite valuable, the overall operational process must be run as such... instead of as a sewage system needing treatments to deal with odoriferous decay.
Humans, seen as organic models of robotic systems, are in effect, a type of artificial intelligence, with the word "artificial" is viewed in the context of programming differences due to the variability of operant conditioning a person undergoes in their development. Instead of using brain washing techniques, a design of government permits various developmental experiments to take place according to the dispositions of parents, teachers, random experiences and the like, in different social settings. Whereas the public might collectively argue against the adoption of specific forms of operant conditioning being used on children, such is the case anyway, with respect to the dominant role a government, religion or education system plays in a person's life. Each of us, our so-called individualized personality, is the result of a specialized operant conditioning model, though we may not be able to cognitively "read" the formula as a script by a deduction of observed behaviors... though some people are quite adept at making what can be described as intuitive appreciations of behavior that can be used for good or ill, though such "intuition" is a practiced cataloging of memories which are identifications of cause -and- effect behavioral situations.
Some of can witness the mechanization of human behavior being exhibited in an organic form, whether it is the observation of someone indulging in excess, playing chess, washing clothes, playing a musical instrument, etc... They are all forms of operant conditioning results, even though the schematic of the conditioning process is not laid out in front of you to read like a architectural blueprint. Governments are like the parameters of a sandbox which enable various behavioral activities to take place inside, but most of which are determined by other items such as toys, bucket and shovel, rocks, sticks, etc... and of course the design parameters of a person's imagination and whether or not they can exploratively play alone or require social participation like many girls playing with dolls together, or boys playing with trucks, cars and plastic human characters, by themselves. We define and defend freedom as being able to play the game of personal liberty in whatever way we want, so long as it has not been judged to be illegal. In short, a government gives us the freedom to engage in personal liberties... within the constraints of the government design. And most protestors do not want to change the traditional shape of the sandbox (from square to a circle, or rectangle, or star, or triangle, etc...); they simply want to be the ones enabled to either guard or enforce the limits (laws and law enforcement: judicial system), or decide where, how and when the limits are to be placed (legislative system), or be a superintendent monitor that wants to mold the limits to their motivations (like making the limits stretch without breaking them: executive system). They don't want the people inside the system to be able to have the final word as to the type of sandbox, kind of sand, or what instruments of play/work are to be permitted.
Many a Revolutionist acts as a guard to one or another form of established government. Like those in prison who may well participate in a riot, do so only in so much as they want to improve internal conditions, but not necessarily alter the form of confinement itself. They surrender themselves to the idea that they are obligated to be in prison, even if the conditions under which an alleged crime took place, was the result of a faulty external system... which necessarily designed the prison system that they abide with, so long as basic needs are adequately addressed. They will wear the required clothing, attend the required classes or work schedule, and go along with the established routine of dining, recreation and sleeping... as an organic robot being guided by an underlying written program. Though not all prisoners readily comply, and a few outright refuse to participate in the "system", most simply want to occupy their days most beneficially, in order to do the required time so as to be able to return to the "real world" where their daily routine is thought to be as they choose it to be, instead of some other designed routine that many people used to overlook, more so than they do today. Day to day (life) program routines once embraced as a natural activity, have now been confronted by increasing instances of conflict, one might assume, because of an increased level of conscious awareness that the routines of life are just routines... amongst many possible ones, and the design of the government is preventing the full development of a person's potentialities by forcing them to conform to highly restrictive day to day routines in order to fulfill some economic and citizen role based on an antiquate philosophy of what is meant by the pursuit of happiness, progress, and the meaning of life.
As is noted in the (1st) following banner associated with a (presumed) Socialist perspective (voicing an antiquated notion about Capitalism), we don't have to live as we presently do, both on an individual and socially collective way:
As was noted previously, Capitalism is working. It is working according to the design with which it is being implemented. It works quite well for what it was designed to do... and that is make a few people very rich. But Capitalism is not the problem. The problem rests with those who are designing Capitalism to coincide with the type of government in place which, in the case of the United States, is a phoney Democracy. Such a state of affairs can not be addressed by a political process which is designed to sustain such a government. Every time a presumed "new government" is implemented, we regularly see the application of some truncated formula of Communism, Democracy or Socialism. Just because people are now voicing an opinion against their robotic lifestyles in which a falsified Communism, Democracy or Socialism is acknowledged, does not mean those advocating a better model thereof actually have a specific better model in mind. People may readily know what they don't like, but this does not mean they can as well articulate what they do like and how this might be fully achieved given the type of structure of commercialization set in place by the faulty form of Capitalism being played out. In other words, what is the design of blueprint, and not just use the word "blueprint" to advocate desired personal changes but no actual blueprint is available for review.
On the one hand there may be many wanting changes to take place, their desire for progressive change can also act as an impediment to change because their assumptions are tied to the expressions of those who don't actually have a plan of action, only the dream of a proposal for improvement that doesn't have a plan applicable to present structural formulas so as not to create needless social chaos, and afford us with a manageable model of development through transitional phases. The common orientation of Socialist ideology to blame Capitalism as a despicable character is intellectual dishonesty. Since Capitalism is itself a victim of a less-than-optimal government system, its attitude, name tag, and dress code must abide by the dictates of the system in charge of its implementation. But in such a perspective, would a Socialist brand of Capitalism, or Communist brand of Capitalism be better suited for enabling humanity to achieve and exceed its potentials... that is if such a philosophy was also incorporated into a plan of governance? Capitalism does not belong to presumptions of a Democracy which do not actually exist in the first place. For example, the United States version of practiced Capitalism is assumed to be a naturally grown appendage of democracy, except that America does not practice an actual democracy, its governing practices is that of a Republic. Just because America wants to claim it is a democracy, does not make the definition a factual one. This is similar to religions claiming an ownership of morality and god, when neither are true. They imply such a claim in order to give the impression of being something they are not.
Since Capitalism has not yet been placed into service by an Actual Democracy, it is supremely wrong to judge its full merits by associating its present faults with a government structure that makes claims for an expressed democracy where none actually exist. But such also is the case for assuming that anti-Capitalism views are central to Communism and Socialism, since such governing practices have never been exhibited in any full expression as well. We can not judge the merits of such ideology based on the falsified applications of those who used such terms to advance personal agendas that were out of touch with the realities to which they are thought to be possibly applied. All such attempts to date, have been unrealistic models based on the insufficiencies of application made by those whose ideas did not conform to the ideals linked with the practicalities of the era to which they were attempted. Because some social reformists are true visionaries, we should not expect their views to be appreciably applicable if the infrastructure of technology, industry, economics, education, religion, literacy and average public I.Q. are insufficient to make an appreciable usage thereof. Without such an infrastructure, the best of ideas can be looked upon as a fools errand... much like trying to plug in a television, radio, cellphone or electric car in an era that has not developed the concept of electricity, much less electrical outlets.
...But neither should such an acknowledgment be used to impose the restriction of relying on antiquated precepts because someone is fearful of even placing their toe in a new pool of water where no one has swam before. One of these pools of recognition is exemplified with the notion of BIG GOVERNMENT which was instituted in greater force by Teddy Roosevelt (1901–09) in addressing the social problems created by the actions of Big Business which led to a "square deal" policy in effecting needed socially progressive reforms:
...From what he called the presidency's “bully pulpit,” Roosevelt gave speeches aimed at raising public consciousness about the nation's role in world politics, the need to control the trusts that dominated the economy, the regulation of railroads, and the impact of political corruption. He appointed young, college-educated men to administrative positions. But active as he was, he was cautious in his approach to domestic affairs. Roosevelt recognized that he had become president by accident, and he wanted above all to be elected in 1904. Likewise, as sensitive as he was to popular discontent about big business and political machines, he knew that conservative Republicans who were bitterly opposed to all reforms controlled both houses of Congress. Roosevelt focused his activities on foreign affairs and used his executive power to address problems of business and labour and the conservation of natural resources...
...Despite his caution, Roosevelt managed to do enough in his first three years in office to build a platform for election in his own right. In 1902 he cajoled Republican conservatives into creating the Bureau of Corporations with the power to investigate businesses engaged in interstate commerce but without regulatory powers. He also resurrected the nearly defunct Sherman Antitrust Act by bringing a successful suit to break up a huge railroad conglomerate, the Northern Securities Company. Roosevelt pursued this policy of “trust-busting” by initiating suits against 43 other major corporations during the next seven years...
Source: "Roosevelt, Theodore." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
And yet in today's world, what the public appears to be faced with, is a resurgence of anti-trust not only against Big Business, but Big Government as well... leaving the public with no one to turn to except for effecting a Revolution. Here are some quotes about Big Government by Thomas Jefferson:
While some readers may view Jefferson's views as akin to a biblical statement, it is more important to view them in the context of how long ago an existent cautionary approach to government occurred with respect to the newly established Republic, which denoted is argument against having a democracy:
The points to bring to bear on the present discussion is that he didn't care for Democracy, and that the people of the United States (as well as in many other presumably democratic nations), do not have an actual democracy... they have a Republic. Whereas if they did have a democracy, there would not be an over-bearing government nor business community effecting a one-sided form of Capitalism, and that the notion of "Big Government" would be radically altered because the practice of a Democracy, a "peoples government", would mean that the entire nation (of at least a voting public) would represent the government. In a nation of some 300+ million people, this would constitute a very large government. Hence, the idea of a Big Bad Wolf Government would be dramatically altered.
In the face of such contingencies, it is vital that we Revolutionists find a common ground for combining our talents and resources for promoting the premise of a New Government that we are referring to as a "Cenocracy". We often repeat ourselves in this instance as an affirmation of our intent to strive for an effective diplomacy to project a recognition of this inclination to those who share this idea, though the associated ideal remains to be fully articulated. We do not pretend to see ourselves in the image of being a single writer or group whose investment of effort will result in a document of Independence Declaration commensurate with the development of that which took place in the colonies of the 1700s. It is a document although held in much reverie by many since its publication was:
...It can be said, as John Adams did, that the declaration contained nothing really novel in its political philosophy, which was derived from John Locke, Algernon Sidney, and other English theorists. It may also be asserted that the argument offered was not without flaws in history and logic. Substantially abandoning contention on the basis of the rights of Englishmen, the declaration put forth the more fundamental doctrines of natural rights and of government under social contract. Claiming that Parliament never truly possessed sovereignty over the colonies and that the crown of right exercised it only under contract, the declaration contended that George III, with the support of a “pretended” legislature, had persistently violated the agreement between himself as governor and the Americans as the governed. A long list of accusations was offered toward proving this contention. The right and duty of revolution were then invoked....
...The defects in the Declaration of Independence are not sufficient to force the conclusion that the document is unsound. On the contrary, it was in essence morally just and politically valid. If the right of revolution cannot be established on historical grounds, it nevertheless rests solidly upon ethical ones...
Source: "Declaration of Independence." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2013.
However, our claim for the right to establish a Cenocracy is morally, politically, ethically, and historically valid.