It is decidedly unconscionable that anyone in the public would have to seek a redress of grievances from the the head of an organization or government in asking for assistance in resolving an issue... particularly when an internal department or legislative body has been uniquely set up for this purpose; and yet prefers to mitigate requests for assistance with unnecessary defiant, albeit polite and courteous, absurdity by reciting some procedural and process (processional) accountability standard being judiciously, fairly (and ceremoniously) executed in accord with a credibility conveniently established by way of a legal contrivance... frequently attached with some letterhead formality that we should esteem with unparalleled honor and reverent obeisance as an admission of alliance, allegiance and self-refuted allegation for having been wronged and will hereafter submit ourselves towards advocating the reality of circumstances as 'they' (in some self-admired authoritative position) deem it proper for us to do so. Simplistically put, 'they' not only want to participate in the design of the game, but be permitted to change the rules at a legislative, judicial or authoritative whim, and all others are but different forms of to-be-chosen game pieces like the shoe, iron or thimble in a Monopoly game. Oh yes, and let us not fail to mention, for those who have not as yet availed their consciousness of the reality that the present design of democracy permits a few to have a monopoly, supported by a like-minded Supreme Court, and will most likely get very angry when it is suggested that everyone should be permitted to collectively do the same.
For example, there was once encountered an event involving the respected individual of a social group who decided to join in the playing of a just-for-fun card game with other friends who frequently played together, but the individual had not done so on any previous occasion. And it should be mentioned that although money was not used, there was a type of betting in the form of keeping score and making claims of going to win a particular hand or even the overall game except for a given moment's satisfaction which did not linger long and did not improve nor detract from someone's social position in the group... Since winning and losing alternated from player to player and game to game, wins and losses had no real value of calculation.
The opening rule of the game, commonly observed as a taken-for-granted 'given' by the group every time they played together, stated that the dealer was permitted to decide which, if any, of the cards were wild... thus providing the holder of such cards an opportunity for acquiring additional points. Each player, in turn, got an opportunity to participate as the dealer and thus choose not only what cards were wild, but, as an occasionally added proviso, how many cards could be dealt out... if they so chose to exercise the ability. All was going reasonably well until about the third dealer's alternative "wild card" choices were selected. Everyone seemed to quickly make the mental adjustment, no doubt working out potentially viable individual strategies as the cards began being dealt out; until the group was met with an array of totally unexpected antagonisms from the individual who wanted everyone to "play by the 'real' rules" that the individual was more accustomed to and comfortable with, as interpreted from their reading of the printed rules accompanying the game... and were read out-loud to the rest of us as if to add authoritative weight to the individual's opinion that everyone should conform to their request... despite the alternative collective opinion of everyone else.
Retrospectively viewed, the individual's enjoyment for "really" winning was a presumption derived from "playing by the rules" as they were "codified" on the instructions supplied with the game and interpreted as an authoritative injunction. The individual had no imagination nor much tolerance for making alterations which might benefit everyone, though this was the undefined implication... yet it was never described to the individual or the other players as such, at the time. The rest of the group had made and accepted their individual deduction of being benefitted by the "changing rule provision", as if it were as logical as adopting their life to a daylight savings time rule-of-thumb. Playing a game by rules established by the group was easily understood not only as an equality, but as a right that was obviously wrong not to adopt and practice.
It was a rather extraordinary scene to witness this rather muscular and "cool" individual become so upset by a provision that the rest of the players took so matter-of-factly without need for an extended debate. It was a simple rule to appreciate and accommodate one's mindset to. But the individual became remarkably distraught by the differential change in the selection of wild cards and how much they were worth; an event no doubt compounded into a greater misgiving by the accompanying rule that the dealer also was able to determine how many cards were dealt out. For all intents and purposes there was a general assumption that the individual was "as normal as the rest of us" since they effected to exhibit an interest in adopting a "normal" life-style involving employment, marriage and the like (as opposed to criminality, or a listless indifference towards an occupation, personal goals, etc...); little realizing it was a type of facade, with respect to them, which concealed an otherwise chronic disposition towards inflexible concrete thinking. Ideas revolving around a latent form of autism or some other vagary of similar orientation were far removed from any possible consideration at the time.
With respect to the consideration that this individual may have harbored some undiagnosed or even unsuspected form of latent autism, let us extend this proposal of interjected conversation to a larger landscape as an attempt at an objectified re-focusing applied to a much wider breadth of human activity. While for some it may well be quite difficult to imagine the behavior of a company, nation or cultural practice as exhibiting some incongruity to a presumed rationality void of any errant quality; others may find its inclusion as an obvious, but overlooked simplification they can easily appreciate, if not at face value, then by way of some approximated metaphor which elicits at least a smile... if not outright chuckling or gut-panged jocularity. Indeed, the joke on ourselves is the reserved contemplation that all businesses, governments and religions represent some latent chromosomal damage.
A statement such as the foregoing is not actually that difficult to be provided with some merit when we take into consideration all the cellular damage caused by environmental changes and human induction such as chemically treated foodstuffs. While some may want to philosophically counter that such institutions of today are far better than their primitive origins and thus exhibit a greatness or even genius; and that the presumed "excellence" of acquired thought may be more in tune with the biological metaphor of mutation— the previous comment of a latent form of autism might well include accumulated groups (repositories) of latent forms of expressed mental illness... Yep, it's a crazy world because it is designed by very crazy people who use numerous legal and other authoritative means and methods to "convince" less-crazy people to join in playing their particularly "sound" game of (judge-mental) madness... a din which makes so many "normal" people deaf, even to their own voice of diminished group insanity and increased individual rationality... but that can be magnified and echoed by way of a Cenocracy. Cenocracy is an enlightened practice of Democracy.
When the above indicated individual's requests for playing the game "the right way" were expressed with a very apparent discordance of affect in facial appearance along with an otherwise overall explicitly calm exterior; an older, parental member of the group wanted everyone to accommodate the request of the individual so that we would "play nice" together. However, the rest of the group thought the suggestion of playing "the right way" was silly because that was exactly what the group was doing in a collectively agreed upon way, and the individual's desire for engaging in a practice of the individual's "the right way" assumption; detracted from the enjoyment derived by their "improvement" of the rules by being given a personalized in-turn voice. Playing by the "codified" rules were not fun because they detracted from the players' ability to exercise expressions of individualized personality that gave them a real measure of control over, and might well lead to some profit. Letting a single dealer voice a collective opinion of all the players as they prefer to express what they think they interpret being said, would have been an undesirable form of Representation. Most people prefer to have their own opinion count for something, and not be provided with a mere illusion thereof.
Despite the outspoken desire of the individual asserting that everyone should follow the rules expressed in writing by the company that manufactured the game, the other players not only liked being in a role of momentary control... of being the leader; but that there was a practiced fairness in that each would get another chance as the dealership exchange revolved around the group. While a person could exercise the third rule option of passing their opportunity at dealing to the next player, it was never used. Overall, the group did not want to relinquish a game rule which not only benefited everyone, but enabled each person to individually contribute to the game; and did not need someone telling the group how to play a game according to another's singular definition of right and wrong, when the collective decision of permitting individualized expression was the right game with the right rules for the group.
There was no aristocratic type of hierarchy (or economic-centered oligarchy) in the form of a single dealer or in-the-box rules which deprived players from voicing their own opinion or defining the form and function of individualized opinion— that other dealers might or might not copy when they got a chance to alter the rules... intended for everyone's benefit. Such a dealership role-playing schematic prevented others from cheating or else-wise everyone was permitted to cheat, creating a state of undesirable free-for-all that would result in an abrupt end to the game and produce an enduring distrust and social disorganization. If one is permitted to cheat, then all should be permitted... which will bring about anarchy... a situation which is forcibly controlled by authority who likes playing a multi-flavored game of double- standards, like a boxed set of all-in-one board game assortment. The design of the leadership (dealership) and rules-change formula as it was played in the game, enabled everyone to participate on behalf Of, By, and For everyone.
The circumstance, when viewed in terms of an extrapolated social self-governance effect, was a very simplified form of Cenocracy; though it was not recognized, described, nor labeled in such terms... but is used quite often by many, in different instances, as if it were the beginnings of a larger unfolding consciousness in the making. However, the extrapolation should not be viewed in a one-to-one corresponding fashion as a means of refuting some applicability to a much larger and more complex gathering of players... such as a game = players compared to a society = citizens formula in terms of delineating incongruities for imposing one's disparaging rules of interpretation such that everyone must not only use in their particular brand of analysis... but their view of how to correct that which they interpret and define as being less than optimal.
Some people prefer to remain as an audience and do not want to actually involve themselves with a direct form of participation. Such a position of interest can be accommodated so as to give them a voice of participation, nonetheless. In the game which was played by the group which the individual was a part thereof, a period of time for adjusting to their desire for everyone to "play by the real rules" was not given an opportunity to be added; which could have been, and actually was, to some extent, included by simply permitting the individual to adopt the provision of playing by the "real rules" during their turn of acting as dealer. But this was not the case, since they not only wanted everyone to play by the "real rules" as they saw them, each and every hand that was being dealt no matter by whom, but that everyone should like playing the game in this fashion and prefer it over any other set of rules. One must wonder what the individual would have done if they had encountered another set of printed rules arriving out of a misprint.
Modifications to the generally accepted dealership rule were permitted so long as everyone had a potential means of winning a hand, if not the overall game, in context, through individualized participation. This is quite unlike the process presently used in the U.S. government when a four-year presidential term is sometimes extended to eight years, and members of Congress and other government employees deliberately create circumstances which validate the often publicly viewed unnecessary need for long term occupation by a single person, group or political party... much less having a government practicing a parental form of congressional Representation, and the public is provided the illusion of having the "Will of the People" formulated into law. It is a joke and a mockery which defines the people as herd-minded culturally-branded idiots for accepting the continuance of such a system. Clearly, a system can be set up that does not need extended "occupational" presences in order to further the best interests for the most, if not all, by giving everyone a participating voice.
It is of further interest to note that because there was no printed allowance or practice for using alternative rules, such as those being practiced by the cooperative group, the individual, very surprisingly to the rest, preferred to quit playing, after throwing down their cards and expressing further frustration. All of us had no idea the individual was so closed minded and insecure, as well as finding it difficult, so to speak, to sail their ship along a winding river. There was an evident level of bewilderment by everyone present as to the inflexibility of this person's ability to adapt to what the rest thought were small changes, yet the individual obviously perceived to be too unsettling for their traditional way of playing the game. As an epilogue to this story, the individual went on to remain at the same menial job until retiring, while all the rest pursued various skilled and semi-skilled forms of experienced employment, according to the dictates of a capacity of mental divergence.
With respect to rules and the overall topic of discussion, authority relies on a codified body of laws to impose a particular perspective on the people who have not taken the time to think beyond a given set of game playing illusions, because authority is insecure and promotes a higher quality of insecurity on the public to give the impression its authority is qualified to be authoritative. Under present governing processes, a higher standard of living is commensurate with a higher standard of expected security; which has produced an unexpected higher level of poverty that evolves complex strategies for survival maintenance and become quite stubbornly resistive to alleviation when previously-used, selective authoritative methodologies are tried... and are era-specifically recognized with such labels as Monarchy, Oligarchy, Hierarchy, etc..., though they are otherwise promoted with labels which suggest a renouncement of such elitisms such as Communism, Democracy and Socialism.
But many of those in authoritative positions see the same irrationalities of presently practiced social governance that we do and long for a means of resolving social issues which continue to plague the sole of humanity. Even if every Congress and Parliament collectively announced that they were going to adopt a Cenocratic form of social self-governance, the public might well be resistive to something "new", because it has been trained to think, to react in a manner similar to a primitive that has never publicly encountered something outside its cultural purview. The public is a timid and fearful creature who needs to be taught how to think in Cenocratic terms... even though it already does in different instances... it does not realize that it does, and have not been introduced to a reflection of themselves, their own image, their own individuality by having it named with the word "Cenocracy". Those in positions of authority who already recognize these circumstances need concerted assistance from the public to hold up a mirror and define the image as being good, and that Cenocracy is not that which captures and entraps the public's soul; like some primitives who thought that a photograph of them was tantamount to having taken their soul away. The public must come to be shown that Cenocracy is a much clearer image of its individual and collective self, over that of the ornamented polished surfaces of Communism, Socialism and Democracy... irrespective of their presumed depth, breadth and height.
The primitive cultures of present businesses, governments and religions, are destined to become marginalized retreats of consciousness explored by a few like so many other ideas of antiquity... though their value will be recognized, for example, like that of:
...Let us thus look into the light of our own eyes to see them as shooting stars which have fallen as seeds to be planted on Earth, that are best nurtured by the well-spring of a meadow called Cenocracy... that will come to supplant the jungled deserts of Communism, Socialism and Democracy; though its form in the future will no doubt be far removed from its present remediations of governance being sprouted.
A further exercise in perusing more of the aforementioned (unconscionable) unbelievability is for one to consider that they may have to travel to the doorstep of the offender(s) and seek public condemnation by an actual protest display of picketing. Imagine having to walk in a to -and- fro peripatetic fashion outside a perpetrator's domain with one or more signs suggesting incrimination in order to bring attention to an incident that could have, long ago, been dealt effectively with... and need not have had to occur in the first place if the public had been treated with a common sense level of fairness instead of keeping or taking self-Representation away from the people by various measures resembling a legalistic sleight of hand. No such ridiculous protest scene should ever have to take place... It is not a point of ridiculousness that we do engage in it, but that we are left with no other visible option.
It is a shameful expression of a "peoples government" for the practice of an Electoral College in the selection of a President to ever take place. The people should be permitted to express their collective voice by having an actual and honest free choice. The "Voiced Choice of the peoples' Will" should be as much a practice of common sense as using a round-shaped wheel... without any politically convoluted vicarious "Representative" distortions; like the shadows on a cave wall meant to illustrate some imagined real world to be defended by the specifically related superstitions of business, government and religion. It is with even deeper disgust to acknowledge that the "Will of the People" is the opinion of a few that is expressed as a publicly adopted illusion, as a means of concealing the absence of a true "Voice of the People" and used as a tool to effect particular political vote results to favor one perspective over another— yet deep social problems continue unabated. Present democracy is practiced as if it were just another type of gladiatorial sporting event, with society as the arena, and many suffering by being inflicted with sustained wounds... all under the watchful eyes of a public audience and the presumed aegis of authority who gives the final thumbs up or thumbs down vote. What an incredibly stupid system we have perpetuated if it is little more than than a sublimation of baser expressions that have been "civilized" in a manner little different than putting a suit on a great ape and describing it as exhibiting a progressively intelligent or 'smart' appearance to be envied by others. Indeed, if the present form of Democracy is the best we can do, humanity is headed for a prolonged "Age of Irrationality".
From a complaint to a protest is how many of us progress in our efforts towards seeking some resolution to a perceived wrong. Some think in terms of promoting the need for a Revolution aligned with the necessity of encouraging an armed rebellion that advocates varying forms of anarchy, as the primary means of effecting purposeful change in opposition to those who may appear to be disagreeably obstinate... no matter how courteous and respectful we might be in our attempts to resolve issues. But this is not the singularly-minded course for a Cenocracy espousing a "Peoples Government". If we are to be viewed as an extremist and radical group, then let that extremism be equated with the sought after development of a new form of social self-governance like the colonial American Declaration of Independence, when it was viewed by the reigning Authority in Britain.
There is nothing to be proud of when having to engage in violence. There is no glory to be embraced, but a deep sadness that one or more acts of violence were required in order for the people to have a true, representative voice. Ideally, we Cenocrats prefer not to resort to violence in order that the people may develop a form of social self-governance which is a maturational stage beyond the present antiquated parental form of vicarious Representation. We want our own self- representative voice. This can only be accomplished by a newly designed process of Referendum specifically outlined in a new Constitution and Bill of Rights ratified by this new process of Referendum... as determined by the public with its own legislative branch.
At present, the usage of a "Representative" government denies the people a right to have an actual personal Representation; in the form of bureaucratically negating the right of the people to have a Constitutionally-mandated and guaranteed "Voice of the People" Referendum as a standard procedure of voting with results that can become a legislated "Will of the People" law and not some auxiliary political component used sporadically, whimsically and eccentrically at the behest of some politician wanting to use a referendum to advantage some singularly personal motive. Nor do we want some regionally applied "grass roots initiative" promoted as representing an epitomized bold "Will of the People" act as if it were a standardized definitive model of exceptional democracy for all of us to be arrogantly and defiantly proud of and yet remain resistively stupid about an actual analysis thereof... with respect to it being an intermittently used exception instead of as a forthright Rule -of- Necessity for an actual democratic process exercised by a public considerably more enlightened than many of their forebearers. In a truer form of Democracy that is not as yet practiced, the collective "Will of the People" by way of a Cenocratic process is not an exception, it is the "Rule of the People", which is actually described with the word Demo-cracy (People ~ Rule). Democracy must be re-defined and have that definition printed in every single reference book, along with being taught in every school, both public and private... but is not that which is reminiscent of a pack of coyotes howling at the moon like those ideas which are taught about present Democracy as an accepted and politically correct perspective.
The Traditionalists, those who believe the current design of the government is the best and that through the accepted Amendment process, it can be "tweaked" into a finer resonance in accord with condition-specific circumstances; will be hard-pressed towards accepting any suggestion for improvement... since they might well react to such proposals as if being personally affronted— like a person whose support of a particular sports team feels attacked if someone should make a disparaging comment about "their" team.
There are those who magnify the underlying simplistic nature of a game into something representing a do -or- die, life -or- death, or other dichotomy instead of seeking some mutually beneficial compromise. This is because those they are confronted with have no interest in compromise and they are socially manipulated into playing someone else's game; like a gun-fighter who is skilled in taunting others into a confrontation because they live for putting as many notches on their gun handle as they can because they have little imagination or intelligence to do otherwise.
Various forms of opposition to the introduction of a remodeled form of Democracy is to be expected... just as there were those in America during early colonial times who did not want to accept the adoption of an "American" government, even though it was not initially called this and would prove to be a better "we the people" formula of social self-governance. Those who would oppose the introductory suggestions of a Cenocracy prefer to hold on to that which they are used to, though it may cause discomfort and although that which is being introduced actually has a better structure of utility for them (i.e., it is more "user friendly").
While the present Democracy in use is more user friendly than the old government once imposed on the people, Cenocracy can be compared with a new "operating platform", (to take a reference associated with computer software technology). But we don't want to make the mistake of deliberately trying to force people to adopt a new platform that requires an enormous shift in thinking as did Microsoft with its usage of Windows 8. Regardless of the platform's merits, Microsoft's approach to getting people to use the program were the "like it or not" tactics once employed by arrogant Aristocracies of old in which a "culture of arrogance" was exhibited as a type of personality to which we of today might refer to as an artificialized personhood. Microsoft's position in the industry involving a frequency of interaction with various political venues has attracted too many of those who would use their position in the company coupled with its worldly-placed position; as a means of projecting haughty personal egos which have a poor practice of exhibiting a measurable level of humility in dealing with others from different walks of life and occupation... and they are unable to differentiate that the humility they practice on an individual bases is substantially different from that being practiced collectively... In other words, the stated values of a company can become mangled into offensive personal variations when oversight is permitted to be personified and not objectified— as a compliance standard initiated by those having written the values individually interpreted as a generalized rule-of-thumb and not as a specified given.
...Just like members of Congress, the White-house and other government agencies do in their individualized workplace cultures. They can not see differences between themselves as individuals and their interactive participation in sustaining a culture of mentality which takes on a personality of its own. The overall structure of respectively- employed governance does not incorporate a means for those involved to recognize the existence of any problem to be differentiated and might even be resistive of such a claim against; particularly when someone receives a paycheck and other benefits therefrom. Hence, not only does the public have to fight the collective idiocy of a workplace culture, despite the presence of individual intelligence when attempting to resolve an issue, complaint or protest, the people have to confront an overall system which supports the mentality of those very cultures which emerge into a collective consciousness of inexplicable rationality devoid of a public's common sense values... which on the one hand are said to be too ignorant to make collective decisions for itself, and yet is permitted to elect those who are said to be more intelligent and need to Represent them. Current forms of Democracy abound with hypocrisy.
With respect to Microsoft, even though people may be viewed in the singular while being labeled a 'public' set against a giant, their opinions need to be respected; lest they begin slinging disconcerting rocks as they have done against windows 8... sometimes referred to as Microsoft's problem child. While earlier platforms were indeed problematic, and caused mistakes due to their immaturity, they were not representative of a teenager who instigates trouble by deliberately "being different", backed by a supportive, protective and smiling parent armed with a repertoire of excuses and deniability.
But please permit the usage another analogy in an attempt to explain what is thought of as being a much deeper problem the public is confronting when trying to get the government, an agency or agent thereof to resolve an issue. Democracy can be described as an umbilical cord which should serve to nourish all of us by being deeply rooted into every aspect of our lives, but instead has become a tangled web from which is described falsified freedoms, liberty, justice and hope. It breeds a dependency which promotes rules, regulations and requirements (i.e. laws and beliefs...assumptions), that has created an undesirable level of co-dependency addiction with all the associated disparities, deficiencies, and desperation— leading to multiple kinds of deterioration.
Not only the public, but its governing authority become so addicted they seek out increasing levels through legislation and judicial rulings without a realization they have established a "fix-ed" ratio of supply and demand. Both the 'suppliers' and consumers of Democracy claim that it will "fix" such and such problem without being able to recognize that it, itself, is that which by its present usage is the source of our problems. Hence, for example, it is difficult for a single "customer" to get a "supplier" to get back property, particularly money or that which is convertible to an economic advantage; when the supplier advocates that their "business" transaction is legitimately sound based on Democratic principles of standardized law...
...Though we public "customers" are claiming the product to be tainted, "cut" with impurities and even poisonous to both suppler and customer... and yet the government, an agency or agent thereof wants the public to continue being a junkie who is receptive to its brand of narcotic-laden Democracy which permits it to incrementally increase its profits from the public, in various 'lawful' tactics, like taking candy from a baby that is left to whine and cry itself to a soiled sleep... because the "parent" government and governing processes are too drugged themselves to think or move outside the box of the predicament they help to construct, reinforce, and maintain. It is indeed frustrating in attempting to have a rational conversation with someone whose values of right and wrong are dedicated to a preservation of what can be described as a narcotic- driven perspective that they are totally oblivious of, like an intoxicated person denying they are drunk and insist upon driving. Yet some of us try, with great patience and perseverance, nonetheless.
It is difficult to get a problem resolved which was caused by a situation created by an addiction that is pedaled by a supplier who is addicted to the product themselves; and may want to claim one or more people are confused, mistaken or harbor some other inability to comprehend as well abide by the story-telling "High" of the supplier. The present formula of Democracy is a concoction which produces a habit that those in authority can become more addicted to than the general consuming public... like the manufacturer and distributor of a narcotic... democracy, like religion and some businesses, are supplied to the public as a drug they say we must have and can't live well without.
Clearly, there is need of a socially wide-spread rehabilitation program called Cenocracy, which will help both the public and its suppliers kick the bad habits associated with the present formula of Democracy... which advocates self-immolating activities of dependency instead of self-sufficiency. The application of such a program will no doubt be reacted to like any addict subjected to that which is meant to remove a debilitating addiction that they do not recognize and will claim as being otherwise in order to preserve that which they are most familiar with. Varying methods, manners and manipulations might well be used as rationalization by those wanting to sustain their role in the chain of manufacturing, supplying, as well as usage. Any and all may want to minimize the analogy of addiction by associating Democracy with an acceptable "high" such as drinking coffee, the "buzz" of temperate alcoholic beverage consumption, or various other expressions meant to evoke a parallel with maturity, intelligence and "being in control", such as "reaching a plateau", exhilaration, nirvana, spirituality, eureka, etc... While forms of armed Revolution are, in effect, a "cold turkey" program for releasing individuals from a self-destructive addiction, such a program advocacy must be a last resort attempt. And though some may say that Cenocracy is a substitute form of drug, it nonetheless provides the user with a conscious acknowledgment of its value and does not need to rely on false hope, delusion or superstition wrought and tethered to destructive traditions that those addicted to will surely want to defend as a means of maintaining their present intoxication designed by hallucinatory levels of illusion.
While the above analogy is instructive, it is a metaphor not meant to be taken so literally that no other comparison is made for an extended useful application of imagination to assist us in achieving a greater vista. As such, it is necessary to point out that Democracy has been a good investment because it has helped us to manufacture enormous benefits which have exceeded earlier designs of governance. Despite the many misgivings many of us may want to share, we might also agree that things do not have to be this way. There is room for improvement on our present form of government. And for those who would want to suggest a complete rebuild in our governing structure is needed, few might actually be able to offer a comprehensive blue-print. If you think that a total rebuild is needed, by all means, let us all know how this is to be accomplished, which should included a detailed breakdown of cost and resource allocation. You will also need to submit who is to do what and why they are so chosen. Though you may have commendable ideas, the rest of us can't read your mind. Give us at least a hint of your plan even if it is written on a paper napkin, the margin of a book, or some scrap of paper like that torn off a paper bag. Realistically, whereas we might focus on one or a few particular circumstances in providing some suggestion for improvement, our views are either a specialized generality or a generalized specialty and not one of omniscience. It is doubtful that any one of us has all the answers for all concerns... including the naive and foolish who lean towards the suggestion that "THE" answer to all problems is to eliminate humanity, all life, or all of existence.
Let us again say that Democracy has been a good, if not a great investment, and yet has resulted in producing problems created by perpetrating and perpetuating illusions like hearing one's voice in an echo (false representation), one's "conscious self" in a shadow (false personification in a government), and one's unrealized potential achievement in a store window (false hope based on illusion). It is a three-alloy amalgamation created by the fusion of business, government and religion that have built up an alliance steeped in an ages-old alchemy; which must be replaced with a more effectual chemistry sporting a different philosophy of social physics... utilizing a new algorithm of investment calculation that all may have stock in, from which will evolve the language of a more fulfilling future dimension of length, breadth, depth and its corollaries, as opposed to the constraining socially abstracted contrasts experienced today.
Many people are soured by what might be described as festering social wounds that are either not treated or not treated well enough. Indeed, it is difficult for a person, much less the whole of a country to march to the beat of any drummer when its pace towards a better future is slowed and even halted at times by aches and pains of grievances for which the government, an agency, or agent thereof will not adequately re-dress. The people do not need another crutch or stretcher. And they do not want to be met with an attitude of obstinance, abandonment or ostracism in circumstances which are designed to force them to accept a dependent role. It is easy to force someone to comply with one's directives when they are subjected to circumstances which are designed, knowingly or unknowingly, to engage in varying forms of promotion (reward) persecution (shaming), or punishment (impediment to or denial of services), in defense thereof.
And before continuing it is necessary to distinguish when someone is speaking from a philosophical perspective and not to use the associated comments as if they were some definitive expression of desired application... even if the writer or speaker does not begin a particular topic example with the phrase "philosophically speaking".
Musefulness, thought experiments, knee-jerked responses, "out of the blue" illustrations, etc., are too often misconstrued as if that being rendered were a dyed-in-the-wool belief or concluded factuality instead of a supposition of generalities presented amongst those who might be thought to have a means of thinking outside conventional lines of consideration; without someone being committed to some conventionalized social asylum of deviancy after being convicted of engaging in some form of an illegality, immorality, insanity or other intellectual impropriety as if in claiming such, another is somehow to be advantaged in a position of unspoken mental chess game in which they apply their own personal rules.
Such things are transparently conjectural and can thus be referred to as conjectural transparencies... like so many comments are in fact rendered in different moments of social discourse.
In a mood of philosophizing, one should not expect oneself or another to present a finger-pointed-to definitive, since one perceptual vantage point requires letting out the string of one's mental kite, and the other requires tethering it in. It is sometimes difficult to reign in a kite on a windy day... even if one or more others can not "see", nor feel nor hear the wind or some semblance thereof. Some prefer to let their kite soar to never before reached heights when a wind of opportunity presents itself, though one or more others nearby may have no perception thereof.
While some prefer to ignore winds altogether, or decide not to try to fly a kite in the presence of too many public utility poles, and yet others can even imagine themselves riding aboard the kite, and then some,... metaphorically speaking of course... have you ever tried flying a kite at night with a flashlight attached to it, or are you more interested in swinging on stars, rowing a boat down a stream or else-wise just singing a ditty thereof? And don't be surprise if you discover that those who once flew a kite alongside you, have placed their kite in a forgotten umbrella rack... but can be retrieved to be flown again.
For example, if the usage of a biblical story can be offered as an allegory and rendered without evoking spiteful crimination, and not taken as a confession of a particular religious faith, one way or another, the illustration of Peter being ostracized from a community which forced him to "live out a social death" in a cave, might be of value to some readers when applied to the present context. Whereas the actual prologue (reasons) for his assumed ostracism are not told, the era-specific occurrence must be taken into consideration of a constructed inference of the tale as told from the epilogue; in which he was "reborn" into the member-only social sphere by being thrice-told to come out by someone who can be said to have been, in many respects, an early social worker and reformer whose "outside the box" grasp of the situation understood that existence within a desert community set apart from distantly placed other closely knit communities... presented most people with an unavoidable, do -or- die, life -or- death circumstance.
Conformity and mediocrity was and is the general rule of thumb... However, one's oddity, "difference" or esotericism can be defined as having some applicable social merit... like entertainment or story-telling, resource scrounger, quick study capability, comforter/consoler, strategist/adviser, problem solver/idea conjurer, domestics preparation, etc... It doesn't take a genius to foretell one's fate in a closed social order in which they are 'bucking the system'. By bucking too hard, if you are not spurred, corralled or made to fend for yourself, you may be totally incapacitated by those who believe such an act is for the good of the system. However, today, Jesus might well say: "Forgive them not oh Lord, for they know exactly what they are doing and they are doing it deliberately."
While Jesus, Mohammed, the Buddha and other religious figures as well as non-religious followers saw the realities beyond the social perceptions of their day and age, and asked others in one way or another to "see the light" beyond their own fingertips and constraints of mind imposed on them from the governing authority they were exposed to and forced to abide with; most of their followers only pretend a similarity of individualized perception. They indulge in constructing a believing member-only social box within which no believer is supposed to look too long or too far beyond, much less live outside of... and are therefore subjected to blinders that those who have assumed control of the box design, lead around in circles with a (three-part) carrot attached- to a string attached- to a pole. Present Democracy is such a box that provides those within some assurance of survival and salvation and personal redemption so long as they remain close to it... like an umbilical cord. But it is an umbilical cord attached to a parental figure who is not taking care of their own health and thus effects the development of those made dependent on it.
Many people are skeptical, hesitant and even deadly fearful of change, even to the point of killing those and that which appears to be the cause of their fear... which in actuality, may well be only themselves. No less, in comparison to a state of Democracy, there are those who would like to return to a Monarchy, such as in Britain; while others think it would be best for their country to be rid of the whole monarchial state of observance and practice, even though it is greatly diminished from days of 'yore' (before- past). And yet, there too is no National (Cenocratic) Referendum process taking place in Britain which permits the public to have a true self-representative voice. Neither do the people have their own Legislative Branch. Such absences might well describe that the people of Britain also need a Revolution in their political process. In addition, we might even say that a Cenocracy is indeed overdue throughout the world, though Switzerland practices what may be viewed a simplistic model called 'Direct Democracy'.
We do not want to be viewed as having a chip on our shoulders to the extent of being ready, willing and able to pursue a fight at the drop of a hat, word, or gesture. Each of us must move beyond our anger, frustration and our "it's a shame" labeling for occurrences we perceive as being unnecessary and could be dealt with more effectively, if the people themselves had the power to enact needed legislation as an expression of the Peoples' Will. However, instead, many seek some level of solace by congregating amongst those who will provide sympathy and empathy... and simply provide the acknowledgment that what we are perceiving is a reality perceived by one or more others. But walking or marching down a street carrying banners and slogans most often results in little effective change. Though it may well make those involved feel empowered, that they are "doing something", no real change takes place on either a regional or national level.
We can not march nor "occupy" a public venue or even engage in a "sit in", as it used to be called, and expect to be respected by the public if the action appears to be disrespectful and is perceived to be a violation of another's rights, regardless if you feel you have been treated as such.
We can not make demands, threats nor ultimatums which backs someone up against a wall. We do not want to use force, manipulation or intimidation to get others to assist us. It is a primitive's type of magical thinking which imagines a self-devised conclusion that "Everyone knows" why you are doing what you are engaged in. It is ridiculous to think that the whole of the public sees and defines things as you do just because you are surrounded by a hundred or so similarly-minded others chanting some slogan in unison. Just because fifty thousand people are parroting each other's expressions on behalf of one sports team doesn't mean everyone is doing so in the nation, much less the same stadium. Proximity and similarity does not necessarily equate with confluence.
We must use every single form of communication to tell the public what a Cenocracy is and why we believe it is better than the current form of Democracy... which includes forestalling the fears, reticence and rejection which accompanies the introduction of something new— by revealing that "Cenocracy" can well be viewed as a New Democracy (Cenodemocracy). We want to take the old form and remold it into something better. Granted it too will not be perfect because it is doubtful imperfect beings can create perfection, but they can make viable improvements to imperfect systems.
Everyone must be advised that we are not trying to hurt anyone, but changes in a government just like changes in how a business or religion is to operate, can well mean shifts in the placement and positions individuals presently occupy.
Our intentions must be made clear, even if our methods of attempting to instill a Cenocracy on behalf of everyone are initially amateurish. Even after a Peoples Legislative Branch becomes a reality there will be a significant learning curb. Cenocracy is in a fledgling stage of development. It must be given time to mature and not ravaged on by vultures wanting to take advantage of its early vulnerabilities.
We can not assume that our thoughts, feelings, views and intentions will automatically be dispersed by some sort of osmosis; like a type of silent dog whistle that can only be heard by humans... akin to a specialized "grapevine" word-of-mouth backyard gossip system. Some people do not watch TV, listen to a radio, read a newspaper or browse through magazines. Many people exist in isolated forms of lives even if they walk amongst hundreds each day on their way to and from work. The voice of Cenocracy must reach everyone no matter what personal barrier is in place. Some people need to be breast fed (heart to heart, personally relevant discussions), spoon fed (slowly and routinely), or provided a free sample (particular offering based on ambiance).
We must take advantage of every legal means available to bring about a constructive re-design of the governing system. This will entail the adoption of our own lobbying formula in order to educate both the public and authority of our desires, our intentions, and the mode of executing our methodology. We want to be up-front because this will help to establish a greater legitimacy of action, irrespective if our initial efforts will be humorously viewed, retrospectively, as having been naively simplistic.
We are foraging a new path; no doubt mistakes and stumblings will be made in our first steps. We will rethink old ideas and if necessary, discard those which do not meet newly developed standards for achieving and then practicing our acquired goals. And yes, though we may have our personal complaints, we must not permit them to keep us from a unified goal. Likewise, we may well experience moments of anger and frustration with current authority and the processed procedures they use, but we must follow through by attempting to resolve our differences within set "codified" parameters that they request us to take... though we may perceive it as little more than a hoop-jumping routine. We will take the time and catalogue our efforts to show whether or not they resulted in little but an obstinance meant to fatigue and dissolve our intent.
We will need to be able to provide documented evidence to substantiate that we did indeed attempt to "play the established game" as defined by current political rules... in the event that we are left with nothing to do but effect an armed Rebellion in a Declaration For Greater Independence. It is the same era-specific route which early American Colonists took when attempting to get a redress of grievances from a governing system of authority who wanted nothing else but for everyone to be subservient with their views. Imagine where we of the present might be if the Colonists decided to give into those who thought they were their betters instead of effecting a call to arms in order to assert their rights to developing a form of self-rule according to the perspective of those living in the past... that has now shown itself to be less than that which we desire for ourselves today.
However, it should be emphasized that a Cenocratic form of social self-governance is not "the" answer to all the many different complaints encompassing the different ways of life in a vast nation, just as the current form of Democracy lacks this ability as well. But the current form of Democracy is out-dated and needs to be sorely revised. Both Cenocratic and Democratic forms of government can only provide a better means of addressing complaints if the processes are used well. Present Democracy is not used well and it will never be unless it is substantially altered to accept a new vision of what is meant by a "Peoples Government."
The present form of government is wholly inadequate for a true "peoples" government when its practiced structure minimizes and often negates the "Will of the People" from having a means of expressing its concerted opinion without some vicarious, or otherwise substituted representation thereof. Indeed, even when the U.S. Presidential oath is taken does the nation as a whole little realize that the person elected is swearing to uphold a Constitution effected by the "Will of the People" of past eras, and not the Will established by those of us living in the present... because a Congressionally mandated Referendum process involving a more effectual complaint forum for discussion is discredited. Why, we must ask, is Authority so afraid of the "Will of the People" of the present it will do anything it can to wrest and manipulate control into the hands of a few who must promote the continued illusion of so many social self-governing falsehoods?
Here is the U.S. Presidential oath:
It is a particularly shallow oath. It's lack of depth evinces a superficial appreciation and practice of a real OF, BY, and FOR the people democracy. It mentions the Presidential office, the Constitution, and the United States. But it does not explicitly mention the people. Whereas some might want to argue the people are implied, this "implication" displaces the people into the position of an after-thought... into some vague recollection. The people should not be an implication, they are THE single most important element and should be respected by being named. The Office of the President, the Constitution, and the United States belong to the people, and not vice versa. They have a right to be personally acknowledged as the true proprietors of the United States, the Constitution, and the Presidential Office. The people are not a shadow, are not an echo, are not an entity which can not be named because of some superstitious philosophy evincing a Fairy Tale like Rumpelstiltskin and that some religious observance might ludicrously adopt as a means of suggesting its own greatness because of. The people are not that which is owned, but are in fact the owners who can and want to speak for themselves through a Cenocratic Formula of governance. The oath of the highest office in the land is that of an employee of the people and should, at the very least, recognize its boss by publicly naming them. Hard working people deserve to be recognized as being of primary importance and not be slighted by being nameless... like some shadowy figure standing in the background so as not to detract from some assumed "chosen one" intimation which distorts an underlying messianic or megalomaniac insinuation of self-importance.
We The People have a name just as we have a voice and are fated to become fully recognized as the preeminent governing Will guaranteed by a Cenocracy (New Government). All governments will be forced to accept the people as a collective identity with a viable passport to a better future. It is a Will that shall Tell the Tale of a public's arrow shot true, as a Declaration for Greater Independence! (Mentioned as a reference to William Tell who shot an arrow off of his Son's head to voice his opinion against the directive of Authority.)
At present, the people do not have a Cenocratic means of Self-Representation... it is forced to accept a vicarious form of Representation that often is out-of-touch with the actual collective Will of the People and makes guesses based on spurious polls and gut-felt assumptions.
It is a Will that is denied a full Citizenship, denied Individuality, and denied and actual right to Vote on its own behalf, without being subjected to some political machination of reigning authority.
In effect, the collective will of the people is denied its own personhood, its own incorporation and its own stock-market designation as a standard of social self-governance and not as an auxiliary component of infrequent permissibility.
The Presidential Oath describes a serious and pervasively practiced short-coming that needs to be rectified. Instead of the Presidential Office being used to preserve, protect and defend a Constitution, it should, for example, be stated thusly:
The Presidential Office, the Constitution and the United States are nothing without the people. We need to not only begin thinking WAY outside our enclosed, segregationist boxes of tradition, but begin a practice thereof by altering the wording of oaths, pledges, and declarations to be reflected in our laws and social practices. If the public is to grow up as an expressed governing self of maturity, then the government should practice such a maturity as a preeminent role model. Let it lead with the leadership of a true leader.
If grocery stores and other businesses can display a respectful acknowledgment and humility towards senior citizens, handicapped persons and pregnant women by providing particularlized parking spaces as an oath of a stated business practice; at the very least the President of the United States can exhibit a respectful acknowledgment of all the Nations' peoples by providing a particularized comment thereof and there-for... if for nothing else, than to thank the public for the privilege of being able to serve it. Whereas the Person elected to the Presidency is named a President, and those elected to Congress are at least referred to as Members of Congress, the people are unduly slighted when they are not as such individually acknowledged in the Oath taken by the President. In fact, all government oaths should be provisioned with a recognition of the people. This is an oversight that needs to be remedied.
For example, here is the Presidential oath refashioned to individually include the people that, for the most part, uses the same formula but that may not raise the eyebrows of some traditionalists, even though it will have a great impact on the perception and practice of politics and governance:
While some may prefer to use the word "Citizens", the usage of the word "Peoples" has merit, since many believe in the ways and means of the United States but are as yet not a citizen. Whereas, we could use the phrase "Citizens and supportive Peoples" as a useful concession to include both. In any respect, the oath must be changed to effect a greater comprehension of the present reality and not continue an expression of an antiquated mentality the people have grown out of.
And it should be fully noted that the protection and defense of the citizens very much includes a Bill -of- Rights that was initially omitted from the U.S. Constitution but were an essential inclusion in order to protect and defend the people from arbitrary acts of the Federal government, and later adopted as a necessary provision for the people against arbitrary acts of State governments. As presently practiced, the U.S. Presidential oath places the Constitution and the people in a secondary position, thus rendering a needed change as:
Without an alteration in the Presidential Oath, the people remain a superficial adjunct of consideration. Any lawyer who truly represents the people would not stand for such a specious oath. The people can not expect the Supreme Court to protect the Rights of the People when it is their job to protect the Rights of the Constitution... and all its short comings... The Constitution, the Bill -of- Rights, and the Presidential office mean nothing without the people. To not mention the People and their Rights is to disavow their singular and collective importance.
A new Presidential oath is needed just like the people need a new government... a Cenocracy. The future must not continue from its present footing or else more disharmony will ensue as the population increases with little change in the standard of Equality that ensures a more even redistribution and redefinition of all wealth to enhance everyone's life.
Philosophically speaking, if we were to remove all the people of the United States and replace them with Africans, Asians, or some other generalized but selective group, it is rather questionable that the "New Americans" would retain the three elements (Presidential Office, Constitution, United States) as we now presently know them. Yes, they might well evolve into some greater practice of democracy, or they could just as well change into using a form of governance more in line with some past practice. The wording in documents would likely change, and with them their meaning. However, the same could be true for any country.
For example, if all the people of Britain were replaced with Americans, would the country retain its present laws or would they change because Americans collectively espouse a different type of consciousness regardless of where they might be placed? How about replacing all the Russian peoples with Japanese? Or Mexicans with Germans? Or, stated rather comically, the people of Florida with Eskimos, the people of India with Californians, the peoples of the Middle East with Icelanders, Americans with the Peoples of the Middle East, the peoples of Hawaii with Danes, males with females in all sports, etc... or the reverse thereof? Is the presumed "American", Japanese, Russian, Icelandic, Middle Eastern, Italian, Mexican, etc., consciousness, like all governing consciousnesses the world over in that they are mere rationalities fashioned into a culture-specific conveyor belt system representing the prevailing economics in use... without which the governing consciousness may diminish, divert to something else, or die?
While one person or a small group might adopt and adapt to the prevailing laws practiced in a given location, what if an entire people were replaced by those who had practiced a different perspective? Is one's perspective dependent solely on the place they inhabit, or can it be enlarged to accommodate concerns and considerations of multiple places and peoples? If there is a Universality in that we are all a type of species, does this entail a basic commonality of consciousness which can be used to develop a Universal set of laws? With respect to the idea of a political consciousness as described by the social governance adopted by a group-culture (in contrast to one's individualized views not typically described as a "personalized culture"), how is a change in governance to take place unless there is a change in the culture without the use of a Revolution? Indeed, a change in governance is effected by a cultural revolution which may occur by way of changes in technology, communication, education standards, economics, etc..., whether good or bad for the people. And it can also occur by someone in a political office engaged in nefarious activities to effect conditions for ulterior motives. But such activities often require the complicity of numerous like-minded individuals whose personal interests are valued over and above the needs of the public. Yet, electing a single person to an office does not typically alter anything substantially. One person has difficulty making changes if there are not particular others who support them. Simply supporting a single person for a given office of leadership, if the person is little more than an office manager, (a keeper of the flame and not a path finder), is a waste of a vote.
While we Cenocrats have no stated interest in removing anyone from a government job, a different political process might well eventually result in their removal, as well as define term/employment limits, pay, cost of living allowance, health insurance coverage, etc. Likewise, in seeking the adoption of a Cenocracy, we have no real desire, at present, to promote any candidate... and therefore do not need to register ourselves as a typical political party. Whereby, we have initially begun to establish the first of the three Cenocratic goals:
If anyone wants to support us, then let it be right alongside us. No visible candidate offers us any incentive to do otherwise. We not only need to hear them speak of a Cenocracy, but need to know what they are going to attempt to do is make a Cenocracy a reality. Don't promise anything you can't realistically deliver. We have enough of that nonsense already.
A Cenocracy offers the people a means of not only addressing complaints, but bringing them to public attention if the character of the complaint warrants such... of if the complainant (complaintant) so desires it because they feel those elected to make a determination there of in one way or another, are, in their perspective, without the necessary acumen. In addition, the complaint can be offered up for public discussion that can be followed by a Referendum. If the Referendum shows a public disfavorableness, the complaint can be presented for additional discussion and another Referendum at a later date. If the Referendum shows a favorability amongst the people, the acceptance of such can be sent to Congress for approval and, where needed, an appropriate level of funding. If the Referendum is voted against by both the Congress and White House, it can still become a law by way of the Will of the People. The people are old enough, wise enough, intelligent enough and experienced enough to make decisions on their own without some go-between who acts like a parental or overseer figure. To those elected Representatives who think otherwise, then they would never have been elected if it weren't for these presumed "ignorant masses" as some might want to disparage us as a means of posturing their own ego.
The complaint and referendum process will be handled by a Peoples Legislative Branch and selected by way of the procedure outlined on this page: The Cenocratic Formula
A Cenocracy must make every attempt to pursue a peaceful means of contributing to governmental reforms on behalf of the people who are its stewards. We can always resort to violence which involves destruction and/or death and follow such acts with a veritable zoo of rationalizations used as justification. Such acts must be viewed in abhorrence and seen only as a last resort when all other efforts have been exhausted. However, they are not necessarily needed if reform ideas are described in ways that can be easily understood by both the public and social authority alike. A reform process such as that being advocated by a Cenocracy, is an educational process. Both the public and social authority will be in need of a Cenocratic education that will no doubt be modified as we pursue a definitive application by way of increased resource attributions by those who identify the need for reforms with efforts to be complemented by those who will contribute their own creativity, genius and originality of thought with a sincere and outlined intent. The idea of a Cenocratic form of government is growing along a path towards a maturity which may well experience growing pains and on occasion, tripping on its own shoe laces from time to time as it acquires the skill to tie its own shoes. Old ideas are being supplanted by better ones, but the primary ideal of a Cenocracy remains intact. Cenocracy is coming. If not today, then tomorrow.If not tomorrow, then the next. Incrementally if need be, or all at once if necessary. There is no way to stop a Declaration For Greater Independence.
However, there is no definitive guarantee that a Cenocratic form of government will provide us with a better life. Like any Democracy, Socialism, Communism or otherwise, it will be a practice... a gamble, but one which resides on a firmer foundation like a more stable computer platform. It is an idea promoting the realization of a greater promise, a type of hope superseding that envisioned by the forefathers of Democracy for a greater future to be realized by the whole of humanity and not a select few who influence the direction of policy making towards accomplishing their self-centered objectives which views the public as a utility to accomplish their personal goals.
Yet, no matter what form of government is used, it can not protect us from bad policy decisions or a public that will not enforce its right to be collectively heard and have their concerted opinion legislated into law. Whereas one might think that after thousands of years humanity would be able to develop a form of government to supersede all past forms, we are still confronted by recurring politically motivated stupidity. Even though a social self-governance formula can provide us with guidelines towards not repeating past mistakes, the guidelines do not protect us from the ignorance of those who are in a position to alter the guidelines according to their self-centered inclinations. Such people will use any means at their disposal at effecting desired changes and many of the public might well go along because such actions are a vicarious means by which they too make changes according to personal desires. They simply like to exercise control or at least give themselves and others the illusion thereof.
While literature is replete with intelligence and wisdom, it is not necessarily transferred from one generation to the next nor given any greater expression in one race, ethnic group, gender or even age... though recurring problems amongst a given people lead us to consider there are otherwise exceptions to this perception. The transference of intelligence, wisdom, insight, magnanimity, altruism, generosity, sincerity, courage, consideration and the like, is made more difficult by those who cling to out-moded forms of survival variously represented via business, government and religious models which help to perpetrate social conditions from which spring the recurrence of similar problems generation after generation.
The public is suffused from the day each of us is born by repeated ignorance inherently used by antiquated models of perception which requires us to pay some form of homage in one fashion or another; all of which exhibit their own means and methods of extracting payment called tithing, taxes or otherwise. Hence, it is not too difficult to appreciate the recurrence of so much nonsense being exuded in every human culture but are so much of a culture that the problems created by such models are overlooked or rationalized into some fatalistic inevitability or seen as a rightfully earned punishment. But those of us recognizing the many faults, failings, and seemingly fatalistic endeavors, nonetheless want to attempt to make improvements.
Those of us with a Cenocratic perspective are old and young alike, arising from different cultures and different walks of life. Like so many others, we too acknowledge and point out observations we think need to be addressed by way of an altered social self-governing policy that seems wholly irresponsible in addressing what we perceive to be an obvious wrong. Granted, on occasion, our interpretations of a given situation are based on a misunderstanding resulting in what can be termed a knee-jerk or impulsive reaction that is emotionally charged. And we are well aware that if such is adopted by a group as the sole means of self-motivation, a lynch mob mentality becomes a pervasive aura that may result in a form of protest suggesting the wailing of an infant... resulting in little or nothing being accomplished.
We also understand that not every situation has a ready-made answer for solving all issues; not least of which is because some problems are not understood. Some answers in fact may produce even greater problems that are not recognized until some future moment. As such, in short, it is very naive to think that a particular governing structure, or those using any such structure, are automatically endowed with some tool chest of answers for every situation. No business plan, no government structure, no religious model has the means of predicting all possible future scenarios that we might be faced with. Yet, inasmuch as most of us would heartedly agree at the existence of such limitations, many of us would not be so quick as to identify the presence of limitations in that which we utilize, be it a business formula, government structure, or religious doctrine. While we may disagree with a singular point or another, few might want to call for a re-formulization, re-structuring, or "reveal"-ation (revelation) for the purpose of a concerted change for something presumably better. Humanity is predisposed to a life of habituation. It doesn't like change... though many of us realize that change can provide monumental benefits.
Whereas some can see the faults of a government based on some imposed limitation brought about by its structure, thereby promoting the insistence by some to call for greater freedoms suggested by a Democratic process; those of us living under the endorsement of a democracy know that Democracy can be expressed in different ways. For example, in America, while the "democratic process" professes a government that is Of, By and For the people, the actual "voice" of the people is muted through such actions as:
The people of 1700's America and France declared an Independence from their oppressive governments because of limitations imposed on them. Each of them developed their own form of democracy as a reaction to the circumstances peculiar to their situation. And while the people did and still do enjoy acquired freedoms, the peoples of these countries and elsewhere know that their governments are only as good as the wisdom, intelligence and experience of those placed in a position of governing in accord with policied guidelines. The greater the collective wisdom, intelligence and experience, the greater will be the government. But only if the larger populace can recognize such wisdom, intelligence and experience as a benefit. If either the leadership or the public fall short of the larger ideal, society suffers. A suffering society is a reflection that either the people or/and the political leadership lack the necessary wisdom, intelligence and experience to improve its conditions. It thus behooves a government to be designed in accordance with this principle and the people to support such a change: Because it is a means by which the greatest amount of wisdom, intelligence and experience can be acquired and utilized.
But present government structures do not permit this. Instead, they retain an expression of relying on the judgments of a select few that are laughably defined as the "Will of the People" by those claiming some "Representative" over-seer alliance like some pseudo-minded religious "chosen one". Decidedly, a clear and distinct separation of church and state has not been achieved when Representatives still harbor a view of elitism akin to some religious model of ordained directive, where their judgment is interpreted as being of paramount importance due to some envisaged over-valued egotistic sentiment. Such sentiments, whether openly voiced or covertly expressed through regulations legislated by a consciousness of nonsense, very often lead to public protestations.
Governments are changed by way of Revolution because those in the controlling positions of a government refuse to accommodate the requests for change by the people who want a hands-on greater voice in governing affairs; after being subjected to Executive, Legislative and Judicial acts that enforce recurring detrimental social functions. Throughout history, each time a new government is effected, the people have achieved a greater voice. Those countries which experience frequent Revolutions are because the newly empowered government begins to limit the participation of the people as the people themselves think to define and express such a participation. Such is the case with all present governments. Therefore, imposed limitation, which denies self-expression in terms defined by the people themselves, and is not re-defined in accordance with the perceptions of those in governing positions or their intellectual and financial supporters, is a precursor to Revolution. Such is the case before the peoples of the United States, Great Britain and elsewhere. Such is the case to Call for the Declaration of Greater Independence. It is a Revolution in the making that was and is inevitable so that the people can achieve a greater voice in their own social self-governance.
The Peoples of the United States, Great Britain and elsewhere have enjoyed more freedoms brought about by a greater participation of the people themselves. The governing structures are a result of the peoples participation. While they are not perfect, they are better than that which preceded them. Such is the case today. The present governing structures must make way for a greater participation of the people which will result in a re-designed governing structure which seeks to advantage itself of the greatest participation in order that it may prosper by way of a greater collective of wisdom, intelligence and experience. Necessarily so, it will be like the introduction of a wide-spread education program addressing a form of illiteracy which has for too long subjugated the populace to a form of ignorance commensurate, in modern terms, with the illiteracy shared by a communal slave mentality that was born into servitude. And such a process will "up the ante" in expectation for the common citizen to look beyond the very many intellectual superstitions which are contrived by way of supposition due to a lack of wisdom, education and experience. All present businesses, governments and religions breed their own forms of public servitude. It is a slave mentality not yet recognized, but once it is, a world revolution will unfold... unless the majority prefers their lives to be lived like this as did others in past centuries.
Participation by the public in its own social governing process will persuasively argue for and readily insist that the ordinary citizen acquire a more comprehensive appreciation of where their country and the whole of the human species has been, where it is, and in what direction it must go. In as much as present Representation will not in the beginning be totally dismissed into irrelevancy, such Representatives will be forced to acquire a far greater level of wisdom, intelligence and experience or find themselves sitting in some legislative corner wearing a dunce cap because their acumen will fall short of that embodied by the collective throng. Eventually, the present Representative model of Democracy will be relegated into obsolescence because the practiced model of social self-governance will ensure that the greatest level of collective wisdom, intelligence and experience will be skillfully applied to address social concerns. This is what the people want and this is what we must have... by force if necessary.
Whereas we might hope to persuade the present government leadership to arrive at the same perceptions and conclusions we have; if history is not but a rule-of-thumb gauge of recurring human behavior under similar circumstances: then it shows that governments do not readily change unless there are mass protests. Though we prefer the pacifist stride, we know that our cause is too just to leave this view as the sole watchword of our intentions, abilities and resolute affinities to set into motion that which will bring about a means of enacting a form of social self-governance that is an obvious improvement over that presently used. In other words, although we prefer the route of peace, if we are left with little else, than an armed revolution will ensue.
Statements of historical facts are not threats. They are intent on showing a statistical probability of occurrence based on a willful exercise and are not intimations about an emotional exuberance that becomes reactionary and creates needless mayhem, injury and destruction. Nor is it an account of premeditated violence as a necessary addendum that uses an unleashed social protest moment to conceal some obliged hidden agenda such as committing assault and battery as a distorted image of unexpressed aggression or rage. Is is a comment about a viable possibility which flirts with a high probability but is not inevitably promiscuous in terms of violent thought and deed. History shows us this has happened before during the American, French and Russian Revolutions, to name but three. To threaten is frequently used as a successive attempt to scare, then to frighten, and then to create some level of panic. We have no desire nor need to engage in such puerile antics. We are not terrorists using some religious doctrine to profess a presumed God-ordained righteousness in order to carry out and mask wanton deeds of personal 'evility'. Decisive government change can occur by respectful, conciliatory, and purposefully agreeable terms.
Throughout history, changes in business, government and religion were brought about by increased self-representation of the people. In all historical cases where a business, government or religions did not heed the request of the people for a greater self-representation, a protest, riot or revolution was effected. Be it passive, violent or inter-mediary, we will have our Cenocracy or there will be a revolution unlike that yet seen in history... though similarities to others having occurred in the past might be offered in comparison.
By contract, by treaty, by charter, by deed, by constitution, by bill, by fashion, by defection and by numerous other expressions of attempting to assuage disaffections, disillusionment, dissatisfaction, and overall distrust with the prevailing current of activity that the people themselves had no actual collective voice in personal representation; or whenever the peoples' voice was effected, became dismissed as irrelevant. Cenocracy is the voicing for the need of a new Bill of Rights, a new Constitution, a new chance for a better way of life that the present form of Democracy attempts to omit from our lives and substitute with various illusions. We must and will have our Cenocracy, one way or another.