Cenocracy: A Declaration for Greater Independence
Calling All Communists and Socialists
page 24


It is disturbing to many who look to their government for security against the vagaries of economic depravities to be confronted with one another structures whose interests are driven by an incentive of increasing wealth for a few; by a global reach that entails the efforts of various globally inclined economic panels of individuals who must work together to prevent regressions that effect all of us, because their philosophical globalism has sacrificed internalized forms of self-sufficiency. Indeed, whereas many countries encourage and expect their own citizens to be self-sufficient so that governments will have more capital reserves to use as a mechanism for bartering amongst those whose own self-interests are not focused on establishing a standard of living with an expressed idealization and therefore, realization for all citizens; but so that a few will prosper more than the many by using what belongs to them and thus exploits the very dependency that it says is a burden to a given Nation's coffers... coffers which belong to those who contribute to it.

In the United States for example, there is an expression which the late President John F. Kennedy gave in a speech, though the original design of the idea belonged to another (supposedly George St. John); that the public should not ask what their country can do for them, but what they can do for it:

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Source: Presidential Library and Museum: John F. Kennedy

It is a rather stupid perspective in that, as denoted in the U.S. Independence Declaration of the 1700's:

"...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."...

Source: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration

In other words, a government instituted amongst "people" (not just men), is for their benefit, not the benefit of the government that becomes viewed as an entity that is no longer answerable to the people whose consent makes it possible. This is especially troublesome when such an entity engages in activities which spends monies belonging to the people, on activities that do not produce a lasting result, and that would be better used if the people were supplied with an increased system of care, such as medical, that was not subjected to a medical industry that dictated uncontrolled costs whose burdens are anti-thetical to the original intent established by the Hippocratic oath, named after Hippocrates (wikipedia), known as the the Father of Medicine.

Hippocratic Oath

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgment, I will keep this Oath and this contract:

To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.

Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.

Translated by Michael North, National Library of Medicine, 2002.

Source: History of Medicine Division, National Library of Medicine, National Institues of Health

However, as a matter of fact, the medical profession does do harm by pursuing a lifestyle amongst its many practitioners which creates a financial burden on the public. Likewise, so does government entities. Whether it be in the form of directly defined taxes, or in the manner of an insurance and co-pay, the people are asked to assist both the government and the medical field, along with their participating supporters in business and industry whose existence is dependent on continually increasing fees which are explicitly intended to exceed referential costs; in order that a surplus may be acquired... and yet the surplus is not used to benefit the people whose such entities imply their efforts are wholly dedicated.

On the one hand the governments such as the United States has offices of health that encourage the public to be healthy, and yet uses a Department of Agriculture to stipulate public values of needed nutrition based not on a primacy standard of health, but a standard of economics for nationalized agricultural interests which result in costs that substantially add to the financial burdens of most households. In other words, it is pathetically and hypocritically stupid to have a Government department operating under the guidelines of conflicting directives by using a subjective philosophy which obfuscates the conflict by labeling the situation under the heading of "related issues":

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), also known as the Agriculture Department, is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for developing and executing federal laws related to farming, agriculture, forestry, and food. It aims to meet the needs of farmers and ranchers, promote agricultural trade and production, work to assure food safety, protect natural resources, foster rural communities and end hunger in the United States and internationally.

Approximately 80% of USDA's $140 billion budget goes to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) program. The largest component of the FNS budget is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as the Food Stamp program), which is the cornerstone of USDA's nutrition assistance.

Source: Wikipedia: United States Department of Agriculture
Direct Link to U.S.D.A. site: United States Department of Agriculture

Clearly the operational directives create a conflict of interests situation, since promotion of agricultural foodstuffs with an underlying incentive for creating profits has shown that it can not be trusted to police itself within the guidelines of a program whose ambitions are schizophrenic (ambivalence creating) that promotes a bipolar organization due to its attempt to establish a "happy medium" of all needs, when this centralization does not produce a "healthy medium". It is rather neurotic for the same institution to encourage the production and see of goods that are contributing to an unhealthy lifestyle with assists the medical profession in its interests to be able to treat unhealthy conditions brought on by a food industry backed by a government institution which permits it to produce industrialized foodstuff artificialities that contribute to obesity and other a multitude of other unhealthful commodities.

American Agricultural Movement logo (5K)

This is but one example of many that contribute to a growing situation in which the people are being forced to support a government whose economic incentives are not in the best interests of the public. It is a philosophy that has been adopted so far and wide that the well-being of the entire species is at stake of having to suffer the long-term consequences of an economically driven poor judgment. This is not to exercise any opinion against those separate issues placed under a single departmental roof, but that a department that operates underneath a singular umbrella must allocate priorities of those who are to be protected most from possible inclement social conditions. Indeed, while personal interests of the American Agricultural Movement can be fully and sincerely appreciated, the need for self-representation exhibits the plain fact that a so-called Republic government of Representation is inadequate because it permits too many conflicting and oppositional interests to be lumped into a system of dysfunctionally designed Communism whose shared "community" and "commonism" (of interests in a shared "Communalism") are subjugated to a prioritization organized by a commercialized philosophy of economics that is not in the best interests of a public whose common needs of health and overall living equality should be used to dictate government standards, instead of being viewed as secondary or tertiary interests to the economic interests of a few whose decisions of policy are faulty in their formulation.

However, it is appropriate that we make note of using the word "Communism" not as an evil in the larger sense of application... with respect to its true nature of definition divorced from any previous expression used under conditions which brought forth a discreditation of its true character— when devoid from the adulterated use of those seeking a means to advocate their own brand of dictatorship by way of a forced public servitude. In other words, it is not that the ideas of Communism are in and of themselves bad or wrong, but that those who try to impose their interpretations of Communism frequently give rise to the realization that such interpretations are particularly disastrous when applied to social conditions with behavioral dimensions tied to disintegrating environmental conditions not appreciably understood. The same goes for Democracy, Socialism, Theocracy and every manner of governance thus far applied to varying social circumstances. Analogously, it is naive to be involved with assumed progressive methods of production and economics to create a vehicle that will propel the public to a goal along a road subjected to environmental conditions which is incrementally altering the landscape and may introduce larger unseen distortions that cause the vehicle to be stuck in a bog of economics which causes the vehicle to spin its wheels ever faster just to keep the occupants in a steady state motionlessness just to keep from sinking further into depths (debts) than they already are.

It has been said that the young of today are faced with such harsh realities concerning their present and future well-being, that it is difficult for them to embrace the promise of hope that past generations exploited as a means of enabling themselves to weather hardships based primarily on a faith promoted by an ignorance. It is an ignorance that many of today's youth do not have, but attempt to compensate for by adopting interpretations of facts into enculturated myths and illusions, as incentives to propel themselves along courses that those in antiquity pursued, but that the realisms of today have found to be dead ends called delusions.

Because of the mounting interest in those seeking some alternative social philosophy, as indicated by an increasing readership selectively choosing to read the Developing a New Theory of Government page containing an article by Margaret Levi, the reasons "why" many people want to make a change is because the present varieties of governing practice yield too many incongruities related to ideas involving the generalities described as equality, justice, freedom, education, liberty, happiness, progress, and various other commonalities of consideration which are unsatisfactorily being addressed because old standards are being supported that are in consistent with the reality of knowledge that we of the present possess. The situation becomes more poignantly accentuated by the fact that forms of government described as Communism, Democracy and Socialism are practiced distortions of their true ideals, and that no government body is attempting to make the corrective alterations in adopting a more complete governing philosophy. Instead, they rest assured that the public will continue to obey the observed rules and regulations of deferred commitment to rationales of idiocy, by being subjected to a system of governance that diminishes the public's means of effectively enforcing its collective will.

It is a view that has been noted time and again by Cenocrats and others who have come to accept the realization that a New Government is needed, but do not necessarily refer to themselves as Cenocrats, though New Government philosophies differ. Such a philosophy, in order to be realized, must have in place those adherents who will be ready to secure differing social posts if and when a revolutionary over-throw of the government is required, should the need arise because all legal and diplomatic channels for creating the conditions of a non-chaotic transition have proved to be futile gestures. By adopting a new philosophy of purpose based on the realization we are presently living by standards adopting to incremental environmental degradations which cause us to make incremental adjustments to governing practices that embrace the view that amounts to a surrender of an eventual inevitability that we have no means of over-coming, the motivations and incentives of our economic policies will be altered to suit the needs of a populace that does not believe in surrendering ourselves to such a presumed fate so readily.

Because the current practices of government departments such as that of agriculture... and health centered associations such as Medicine and Medical products exhibit philosophies based on antiquated values of living and survivorship, it may be necessary to use high levels of assertiveness in order to alter the course upon which they take, so that they will adopt the perspectives more in tune with the reality to which we are all subjected, and must collectively address with a philosophical standard best befitting the species in such a realization. The old myths of assumed reality which such institutions have based their commercialized philosophies on must be brought into the warmth of a sunlight whose presence and intensity are become more prominent, and must be dealt with by an enhanced social philosophy that presently causes the public to live in a world where many have their heads thrust into varying sands piles of believed in economic mounds of sustainability.

And though there are many other issues which can provide additional reason(s) for adopting a change in the venue of government philosophy, too many seek to "issue-fy" the problem by promoting the need for change into a selective means such as by changing a given law, given politician, or given amendment... or the establishment of yet another department that adds to an already long list of existing inter-department and inter-government conflicts. One problem with most government philosophies is that they are based on very short term perspectives, though some may reference comments such as describing various mindsets of "future generations" with extremely limited parameters of time and perhaps a given people. In general, both governments and their populations do not think in very expansive proportions of time and place, like children whose perception of such things as these concepts entail in their cognitive abilities is of an exceptionally short duration, though not all government employees nor general citizens are similarly limited.

By exercising a given limitation, like a constraint, arbitrary definitions can be applied to serve as a means of "proving" one's ideas are appropriate. Within such a practiced parameter, a government can exercise short-term and self-centered policies under the guise of a labeled long-term interest, so that those involved might be better enabled to reap personal rewards... and let those of the future be damned... not necessarily in word, but in the actuality of expressed deeds that may not be realized until some future generation. And these future generations may do likewise under the guise of their own era-specific economic perspectives which do not take a much longer view on the order of multiple centuries... because the collective vision of government and government sponsored industries are more interested in their own personal gains which want to leave whatever conditions may ensue, to the interests of those in future generations. When this self-centered view becomes that which acts as the role model by which the general public embraces as their own personal philosophy which grants them the ability to engage in their own productions of exploitation according to self-centered business-generated economic policies, attempts by others to make corrective changes frequently results in conditions of head-butting exercises... that do not frequently end in a draw, but a win by those who are enabled to apply force of social pressure, force of law, or force of arms to effect the greater advantage.

Yet again, we are confronted by the acknowledgment that such a view is widely known, but what is not known is how to initiate a definitive exercise of correction. In other words, as has been asked by those who have previously responded to a call for wanting to "over-throw the government" as a general statement for desiring an expedited means of instilling corrective changes in governance and attendant social policies; "How do we do it?" How do we begin the process of over-throw? To such questions we begin the exercise of answering them in the fashion of a serialized list of approaches amounting to steps which are meant to document the necessity for generating the premise of an established righteous Cause which can serve as its own precedent (and are steps that are not immutable), because former precedents are wholly inadequate for the undertaking presently being sought, given the amount and types of information which must be contemplated and correlated into a comprehensive amalgamation that will have to be translated into the various vernaculars of different social perspectives.

  1. Establishment of a Premise (such as "Cenocracy") based on a documented rationale for needing it as a requirement for pursuing life's goals.
  2. Use of legalized attempts to bring about changes that are fully documented as to their success and/or failure.
  3. Acceleration of assertiveness methodologies based on documented increases in acceptance of ideas.

Granted that details for specific applications will be both context- and personnel- driven, the fore-going generalities can nonetheless serve as incentives for opening conversations. No doubt that more "intensified" efforts will be executed by those who are more committed, and that the number of participants may be small in number, those who are committed in the same sense they are presently oriented to upholding the present policies of government, will nonetheless serve as a base of adherents. In other words, if a general number of citizens were asked to describe their level of commitment to retaining the form of government they presently have over another they might find as having merit, that which they describe may be wholly different when it came to actually rendering a supportive level of personal sacrifice. Because most people simply go along with a given set of rules that do not unduly discriminate against them or another, the present form of government can analogously be viewed as a game whose rules have been formerly established but are subject to change... like many games played amongst neighborhood children. A measure of flexibility is an inherent reality. We need only capitalize on this reality by promoting the need for change based on the description of rules which offer a greater advantage for all in terms of fairness, even if the fairness is described from the perspective of taking turns.

The presence of a general cognitive mood instructing the need for adopting a New Government, adds to the predisposition of a citizenry that is open to a New Ideology which takes into consideration multiple dimensions of thought that the present governing philosophy disenfranchises as an irrelevance; and that the New Ideologically provides an adequate rationale of believability because it re-enfranchises those who needlessly ostracized, but retain fundamental values of morality and experiential interpretation embraced by a majority whose collective voice is kept from exercising an honored means of self-expression. Whereas the present government philosophy opinionates the collective Will of the people into a practice negligibility, the New Cenocratic Philosophy permits it to regain the once honored standard of having a collective say and ruling to be embodied into a projected realization.

While such descriptive language may give the impression of a selective jargon best preserved for an esoteric application, it is easily translatable into the notion of a governing style which equalizes the best qualities of all governing styles... under the control of the public. Assertions which attempt to claim that such a standard is without the merit of a previous exercise, and that individualized (but adulterated) representations of each separate ideology has produced troubling social dysfunctionalities that are historically visible, is like claiming a given fish hood is a bad design because of the type of bait a given fisherman used due to personal motivations and interpretations of what type of environmental conditions supported their particular choice. In other words, their arguments turn out to be tall fish tales that excitedly flap and flop about by the expulsion of hot air which condenses on the gullibility of the very naive.

The problems of promoting the development and adoption of a new fishing model are compounded by the types of fishing tackle as well as time and place one chooses as being appropriate for the adventure to begin. No less, whether one is on a natural shore, a constructed pier, or a devised platform of flotation, be it a boat, canoe, wading boots, life preserver, or what have you. And though the usage of such an analogy may be instructive for some, its intent of generality can be taken too serious by some and thus back them into a corner because of the cognitive painting technique being used. They become so encumbered by analogy that they get lost in the imagery and do not permit themselves a breath of fresh air, (as it were in our polluted age), by removing them from the scenery of a vivid imagination so that the world of nature and abstraction can be inter-meshed into a productive usefulness that others readily recognize from their self-originating perspectives.

Such is the trek for establishing a New Government, a Cenocracy.

Page Initially Created: Saturday, 03-Sep-2016... 04:26 AM
Page First posted: Saturday, 03-Sep-2016... 09:50 AM