...In the contemplation of carrying out a Revolution, it is of need to consider how many individuals are needed. With respect to a protest, a single person can conduct a protest, whether or not they so describe their actions as such. However, when it comes to the description of a "Movement", "Revolution", or "Revolt", it is of some interest to analyze not only how many people are needed, but also what type(s) of individuals. Some instances of "over-throwing" a presiding government occur by way of using a selective body of military soldiers, such that are to be differentiated from those who might not describe themselves as soldiers but freedom fighters. Nonetheless, irrespective of what name is applied to those engaged in altering the formula of a practiced government, there is a quantity that can be taken into account.
Yet, there typically is not an analysis of exactly how many do and as well, don't engage in an activity which alters a governing structure. Journalists and Historians appear to be inclined towards the usage of a "quantitative generality" by using such terms as gang, group, mob, many, numerous, few, coup (coup d'état), committee, etc... For example, it may be impossible for a reader to discover exactly how many people were directly involved with the English, French and Russian Revolutions... not to mention the American one as well. While some would like to assume that "everyone" was in some manner involved, such a statement is the usage of yet another generality like the "Many" quantity used by different peoples in their individual histories of developing words to describe a particular quantity. For example, historians of number concept development have time and again exhibited the reference that different social groups, in their own language equivalent way, developed the word "one" for a quantity of "1", the word "two" for a quantity of "2", and anything beyond two was a word to described "many"... such as many sheep.
The reason for wondering how many individuals actually take place in carrying out a Revolution is to prepare would-be or wanna-be (want to be) Revolutionists for the realization that there is no need for harboring a presumption that a change in the prevailing government requires the assistance of millions or most of a given public. Most people act as spectators because most, if not all governing formulas train their publics to be an audience that is given the illusion of direct participation like a television studio audience who is provided with a cue card to direct them when to clap, laugh, or mutter disagreement. Not only will most of the public remain unresistant towards a change in a government's structure when the intended changes are described in terms to benefit the public, but those in government agencies will likewise adapt to the changes in a similar manner. In short, most people practice a herd mentality and will go along with the path being drawn out by those whose actions represent a legitimate authoritative reason to do so.
An "authoritative reason" is a generality describing a situation in which those who present a reason for others to ascribe to, will be granted the authority to introduce, assemble, and put in to practice, a particular view. When a Cenocratic formula is recognized as being superior to the presently practiced Democratic formula, all those in possession of other authoritative positions will be obliged to assert the need for the better perspective to be practiced. However, some people will not readily see the advantages of one idea when compared to that which is presently used and appears to offer the best of the most for the least amount of effort. In simple terms, some people will act like trained draught animals who stubbornly resist changes to habituated routines. Social circumstances which breed a loss of habituated routines for many people due to a lack of available employment opportunities, lack of marketable skills, etc., helps to create the viable circumstances for a different idea to be exercised if the unemployed believe it represents the possibility for an enhanced livelihood which represents a routine to provide a desirable measure of subsistence in terms of regaining some semblance of presumed control of one's life.
A Cenocratic formula of governance not only represents, but actualizes greater public control that present governing systems do not provide and frequently erode under varying guises such as posturing the notion of an elitist model called "Representative Government". But the "Representation" is one of minimized control of social forces that are claimed to be so complex that they need someone who is a defined representative expert harboring particular skills to interpret and manage the representative information. It's a contrivance of logic used as a tool of persuasion that many are convinced represents a superior expression for which they give assent to being governed in accordance with. (Some refer to this situation as a "social contract" between the governed and those that are provided with the authority to govern.) The public very often is duped into thinking that one or more in authority have some superior skill exceeding that of most others, thereby requiring the public to obligingly accept them in occupying a particular role.
The presumption of someone having superior skill for a given authoritative position is, in part, a reflection of an assumption that certain activities require skills the average person does not possess. Take for example the position of a Captain placed in charge of a large battle ship. While the ship is not an office building with many offices, the analogy that it is can help some to understand the captain performing the role of an office manager. Granted that knowledge of the business, its various functions and employees is of great value, and that it is the person's experience which the employees may respect their authority for; the person in charge is only as good as the position they are placed into. Most people will respond to the same situation in similar ways. In other words, though different captains may run the same ship in slightly different ways with respect to their personalities, relationship with personnel, and perceived expertise; there is no exceptional characteristic amongst them to be distinguished in the day to day routinized operation of the ship. Individual creativity, originality, and even genius... may not be seen unless their is a situation which permits such superior, or exceptional traits to surface. Otherwise, the required skills for running a ship can be "expertly" handled in terms of someone with everyday, common-place ship running (office-like) managerial skills.
The point to be made with the foregoing example applied to the present discussion is to highlight the fact that many people lack the confidence in their unrealized competence because they assume the need for a greater competence instead of a diligence and interest to develop an acquired aptitude. A person may feel intimidated by the presence of someone they have been taught to assume represents some authority to whom they must defer to, instead of respectively treating the encounter as a moment for learning that the person actually exhibits a mediocrity of ability. For example, most people defer to the authority of a police officer taking charge of a situation, but do not consider that the police officer may have less education and experience then themselves. The officer may only have more experience in dealing with a present situation in a way similar to others which they may interpret as being similar... even if the given situation has differences which can be detailed. The officer, like so many of us, rely on an individualized system of "quantitative generality" in making deductions. It is absurd to expect a police officer to act differently to encountering situations for which they may have not prior experience with. They may well react, initially, in the same manner as any one of us. Their competence is limited as well as specific.
Attempting to "master" the requirements for carrying out a Revolution as if one's acquired competence is by way of cumulative experience, assumes that Revolutions take place frequently enough in order to acquire "relevant" experience. In the absence of a "Revolution" assigned to the circumstances of a political arena, one must interpret non-political occasions of protest as a "Revolution" even if no one else is using the definition. In such instances of absence, the experience acquired is by way of obtained knowledge about Revolutions, along with the repetitive usage of a vocabulary in which the word "Revolution" and typically associated ideas, by way of a memorized historical chronicling, are frequently used. Some might imagine themselves to be engaging in a Revolution by indulging in ideas about Revolutions as a type of preparation for a believed-in eventuality. Nonetheless, despite all the individualized variations of thinking about and speaking of some presumed eventual Revolution that is to take place, the overall present discussion entertains a cyclicity because we again ask how many individuals are needed to exhibit behavior to be described as a Revolution?
While a single person can identify themselves as a Revolutionist (to be distinguished from those labeled an Anarchist), can a single person carry out a Revolution in terms of redirecting the course of a social governance practice? How about two people? How many people and in what specific capacity? Would an occupation of Congress by one person cause a Revolution? How about a hundred people? How about a thousand? Would such an act of occupation cause those in authority to accede to the requests of those wanting to redesign the government? How many signatures on how many petitions sent to the White House and Congress would suffice as a means to perforce a change in the system of governance? If such actions would work, then the need for staged protest marches would be items for the purpose of educating the public, through the media, on what and why something is being proposed as a better social governance formula.
However, if changing the minds of those in authority was as simple as sending in letters and getting petitions signed, then there might well be numerous Revolutions taking place on a frequent basis. But authority does not easily give in to the requests by some to make one or more specific changes. Those in authority often interpret requests for changes in public policy similar to the request of an employee wanting permission to have a particular day off or take their vacation at a particular time of year. The authority, the "boss", may give preference to someone else they claim as having made a prior request, or that they must honor the request of the more senior members of the overall organization. In some employment instances, the ability of one employee's desires are provide the ability to supersede another employee's desire based on the idea referred to as "bumping". One employee can "bump" another employee based on employment seniority, a "first request" basis, or some other criteria that may arbitrarily be applied. In most employment situations as it is in most social governing situations, those in authority set their own values of right and wrong that everyone else must abide by, with respect to whether or not a request should be honored. The authority being addressed may claim that the request, the requester, or themselves have no authority to make changes in the circumstances in which the occasion has taken place.
Requests by the public do not have to be honored, particularly when public requests carry no weight of enforcible authority. In fact, many a person employed as a Congressional Representative knows first hand how difficult it is to get a change in policy to occur... much less get a new idea passed into law. If getting a law passed could be accomplished by way of public requests and petitions, there would be no need for someone to seek a Congressional position, unless the title of the position fulfilled some personal need of presumed status to be achieved in an idealized social stratification. But such acknowledged impediments should not deter those sincerely intent on pursuing that which expresses an honorable altruistic endeavor. Such obstacles are not to be seen as impassable terrains, but as challenges to be met as an unexpected variable in an equation to be worked out by applying an unexplored talent for creative thinking to ad-dress that with the appropriate garment and accouterment necessary for the occasion.
The contemplations for engaging in a Revolution entail that there is a point at which authority will decide to give in to protested requests. Eventually, authority does give in. Protestors must have the wherewithal to persevere and carry out a program of protest by way of exercising alternatives which can serve to whittle away at the resolve of those whose obstinacy may even minimize public requests into some respective miscellaneous file that is alternatively characterized as being of negligible importance. Why and how such a file becomes maximized into relevance must be deduced in order to ascertain what has changed. Is it something obvious or something unseen that is to be used against the public at a later date as a punishment or some childishly rendered version of "I told you so" in order to exert even more control over the populace through some contrived reaffirmation of another's Right of authority? What and who was changed by who or what? Even protracted denials for no apparent reason are to be scrutinized as having some intended psychology for those whose purpose for existence is to use the public as chess pieces. A Revolution being polished into some perfected reflection of the public's consensus of agreement is the development of a "personhood" with their best interests at heart, and not those seeking to dismantle their individualism like some raw recruit in a bootcamp that must learn to do and if necessary to die, but not ask nor question the reasons why.
A Protest, a Movement, a Revolution often brings to the fore greater public attention through a concentration of individualized voices about a circumstance which causes people to specifically identify a perception thought to identify and define that which is thought to be the culprit causing their angst and anger. As they protest and are met with options of response available to authority, it is initially found that anger is increased along with larger displays of protest either in an increased number of people taking part in a protest or the frequency of protest events occurring. Both protestors and authority may resort to a tactic of "falling back to regroup", as is regularly practiced in military theaters of advance and retreat, but there is little, if any change in the overall model of assault to acquire more ground. The use of force by a group defined as or viewing itself as a "force", typically engages in more of the same maneuvers. The group works and thinks as a group instead of the group working and thinking as an individual who must resort to the usage of a tactic that can often produce results that a group can not.
In the situation of an individual confronted by the circumstance of being unable to find work in a given area of interest, they might well resort to succumbing to the adoption of a job where minimal skills are required such as a fastfood restaurant, driving position, production, etc., where, over time, they will gain a "high level" of competency to perform a menial task even though they may have an "aptitude" for learning more complex thinking-related skills of association because they have previously learned how to persevere at an applied task of studying which involves memorization. While working at a job which requires minimal skills in thinking, they may concentrate their earnings on acquiring the necessary knowledge and recognized certificate which describes that they have learned at least some basic skills for a specific task. For example, a mechanic unable to find work as a mechanic takes a job as a dishwasher in the day but attends school at night to learn the skills and accreditation to be a general contractor. In short, the person has taken steps to re-invent themselves.
The reason for the foregoing example is to point out the possible need for a protest group faced with one or more set backs in their efforts to re-invent themselves. They can think outside the typically used box of protest measures which will analogously be comparable to the acquisition of a different set of marketable skills... with their desired "market" that may be contextually outlined by being redefined but wholly in line with the initially sought after goal. A protest would not have to be undertaken to present a blueprint for adopting the architecture of a new social governing structure if the prevailing form of governance had learned how to keep reinventing itself. While present governments do have an ability to re-invent themselves by way of acquiring new skills to be used as a valid marketing tool to improve the lives of the public, the tried and tested skills of old have become tired and rusted. Like an old person who has incrementally lost elasticity and flexibility, even though their is no waning desire to be adaptive and useful, their old body, as an analogy to an old system of government, must rely on greater and greater measures of restricting the movements of those that they come into contact with. For example, a person unable to play with a dog may use a training method of teaching the dog to be more sedate... to keep the old person company... thus sacrificing its life for the interests of the old person. And once trained, its sedated behavior, like the sedated behavior of a population, begins to affect the interpretations of those that come into contact with them... thus perpetuating a restriction of available potential.
The present government of the United States and elsewhere is failing to adequately re-invent itself. Simply "changing the guard" in terms of one politician for another does not amount to the application of available potentials being explored to advantage a population's interests for greater self-improvement. The re-invention of oneself, just as the re-invention of a society is the encouragement for permitting the practice for subtleties of creativity, vision and implied genius to express themselves and not be unknowingly suppressed in order for someone to conform to regulated standards of acceptable perspective. Such a practice is not a blatantly disregard, disrespect, or total disinvolvement with a present social governing observance and practice that has been drawn up by a history of a similar desire for a Nation's progress by way of the public's efforts. In order for a Nation to prosper, there is sometimes need to re-invent itself by a method and manner not provisioned by a standard of rule set out in a Constitution whose design of accommodating amendments is only as good as those who are in a position to willing accept the need for a larger and different application of re-inventiveness. Cenocracy is a means which will enable many a Nation to prosper beyond themselves through a methodology of re-invention that brings otherwise subtleties of desired potential to a level of fledgling growth that can be better nurtured for the equitable value of an entire nation.
Reinventing oneself takes time and patience and a willingness to be supportively diligent during initial steps when mistakes will undoubtedly be made during a learning process of new experiences that will attempt to apply old patterns of emotional, intellectual, and physical behaviors to new requirements. Frustrations might well at first ensue because the old, established inclinations will sometimes create moments of consternation and dispondency like children being confronted with the task of learning how to write in cursive. Re-inventing one's Nation to learn how to re-invent itself with better social governing tools to permit a public's potentials to prosper; is a learning process that many may find difficult to master because of their unrealized reliance on routinized habits, but others will interpret as an exciting challenge or even easily understood and practical exercise once one gets over the initial shock of being slapped on the bottom to begin the process of breathing fresh air for the first time. Analogously, Democracy has been the womb and Cenocracy is life away from the umbilical cord.
Metaphorically viewed, present Democracy can be termed "Mommy-archy" to describe a governing system which, by its design, practices a social nurturance by way of a dependency; and Cenocracy is a formula of symbiosis... a mutual inter-dependency of respective inter-active individualism that is not manipulated into adopting the illusion or delusion of self-rule through some sort of nonsensical "Representative" reflection effected by way of a political prism which is permitted the personalized digression of contorting, convoluting and refracting the will of the people along lines which represents a distortion of the actual image of the people. Present social governance formulas practicing their own versions of a "Representative" government scaffolding are a flavor of the old Monarchial rule which wrested social control away from the public. Cenocracy represents a more actualized formula of Democracy by providing the people with a fair equality of self-governance through a Redistribution of socio-political power. The presently practiced "Mommy-archys", are versions of the old "Monarchys" (single person authority rule), while Cenocracy is a truer form of an actual Democracy (people authorized-rule). For those who grasp the metaphor with an appreciation applied to a realization of application, they will be cognizant of the fact that the presently practiced system of welfare-ism will, significantly, be altered over time, as will the social security system and ideas revolving a national health care system, public education, public transportation, etc... and, needless to say, the present political desert will be replaced with a new terrain of vernality and verdancy.
In the trials and tribulations which beset any adventure into uncharted realms of determined endeavor, we must permit ourselves the humility to laugh at our mistakes and learn from them as a collective public as we learn to adapt to the structural formula of a Cenocracy. Our creativity, our ingenuity, our strengths, our weaknesses, and all that which we are at the very core of our being, will be tested along the trek towards a realization of who we will become because of our resoluteness to pursue that which lays at our fingertips and sometimes denoted as the future. Present Democracy is an old pair of shoes far too worn to be patched with a piece of thin cardboard or resoled by those who retain old skills but whose costs greatly exceed the necessity of a growing populace which requires that process best suited to its needs.
Democracy is an old dog that has been faithful, and to whom many of us extend the due sentiments of love, respect and deference of sympathetic kindness for all that it has provided us... it grew as we grew, but we must grow beyond. We can not share in the like-mindedness of being leashed to an old system of restraint which denies us the freedom to exercise our collective will. Democracy is not our master, we are its caretaker. It must submit to the collective will of the people and not be used as a justification to control the people for the ulterior motivations of a few. Democracy must be taught to relearn how to learn if it is to gain a new lease on life for future generations; though its appearance will differ from that which we assign a portraiture of it today, and its name will be that needed for a new age in the beginning. This is the promise of a Cenocracy. The presently used old style of Monarchial rule cast in the garment of that so named as a "Representative" government, must be refashioned to suit a changing era. The old social governing garment is worn, tattered, and can no longer be continually patched up with quilt-sewn amendments. The present governments are old garments that do not wear well on the present frame of the world's populated bodies. Cenocracy is not a fashion statement, it's a new wardrobe that the publics of the world will learn to wear quite well.
In our protest against presiding governments is an underlying protest against varying versions of practiced Democracy which refuse to adopt new behaviors that can best suit an exercised collective will of the people. It is a protest by way of a to-be established Revolution occasioned by a populace that has learned to re-think its notions of what an actual Revolution entails. Harbored impressions of armed revolt and an expressed lawlessness of the social contract between the governed and those that govern to effect an anarchy, are ideas as archaic as is the presently practiced "Representative" forms of governance. However, the forth-coming Revolution will see an insolvency of the social contract if it is met with an unyielding obstinacy instead of a commitment to submit to the concessions of a populace seriously determined to establish a new form of governance on its behalf. The people must be permitted the government they want as determined by them and not those in authority, or those in authority will have to relinquish their positions due to an expressed public vote of no confidence.
Replacing those in authoritative positions is not the primary goal of a Revolution cast in the spirit of wanting those in authority to assist the public in implementing and developing the practice of a new social order. We The People desire those in authority to draw up a new social contract from the perspective of a Cenocratic formula. We would like you to use your skills and department or agency resources to assist the public in the transition to the adoption of a Cenocracy. We do not want the people to become so outraged by an incongruity of learned diplomacy to effect a dissonance and division of the public to advantage the present government in a position of intolerable disobedience to the will of the people that the public is forced to abide by the old standards of Revolution by committing an armed Revolt. You must take us seriously. Yet in so doing, this should not be in the direction of an intellectual defensiveness which detracts you from the rationale of engaging in a reasoned dialogue with the sole intent to cede to the public's request. We do not wish to cause alarm which entrenches present authority, both publicly visible characterizations and those unseen actors wielding power behind typical social awareness; so as to feel or think they are being pushed into a corner.
We Cenocratic Revolutionists are fully cognizant that some people react to new ideas with reflexive concerns of bewilderment like a deer caught in the headlights of an approaching vehicle, or a rabbit made momentarily motionless by the presence of a flash or spotlight. Some people, no matter what precautions are taken so as not to spook them, will react with fear if they are introduced to something that has no readily observable commonality to that which they can bring to mind in a given instance of presentation. Even authority whose position is predicated on serving the people do so within very narrow limits of a prescribed functionality, and have very little flexibility with respect to the ability of contemplating the benefits of a new idea. They are like a horse with blinders on who, by way of habit, "knows" the right way from one place to another and don't need to be told their job. Taking them out of their habitually trodden path can create confusion and disorientation as well as a stubborn obstinacy of defiance which may occur before or after a measure of self-recrimination applied by those whose sensitivities and sensibilities are conscientiously reflected inward in an attempt to appraise a new situation which has created uncertainty.
All Revolutions breed uncertainty. Indeed, some Revolutions are carried out without the Revolutionists having the slightest idea of how to run a government that they have acquired possession of. Like a sports team having won a contest against some opposition, that is afterwards at a loss of what to do when the emotional celebration of the win has dissipated. It is a type of ongoing political game formula that has been practiced by several South American countries at the expense of the public. In some instances, neither the public nor those placed into governing authority know what they want. Both harbor over-valued expectations that can never be realized, much less in a time frame of desired expediency to effect some semblance of a livelihood they imagine can be accomplished within the constraints of a social context that prevents the realization of interests which may be an amalgamation of superstition, an absolute need suggested by advertising gimmickry, and various elements derived from hearsay and other sources of communication detailing what others in different countries regularly experience. Preconceived notions about a given topic such as a Revolution may be an accumulation of images strewn with ideas suggesting more negative than positive activities. Though we would like to stress otherwise, it is difficult to get some people to change their minds and their associated inclinations to participate, if necessary, in accord with their beliefs despite the presentation of a contrariety of opinion and desire.
Though one may resort to the discussion for engaging in a social "Revolution" in terms commensurate with "Revolutions" that have occurred in music, art, and science, the usage of the word "Revolution" when applied to politics would appear to invariably bring to mind some violent form of insurrection. Such an image can predispose some to incline others to agree with this image and participate in the adoption of a conventionalized attitude for accepting violent actions as the only means by which a "true Revolution" can take place... which provides them with the incentive to justify directive thinking towards an objective of bringing about a realization thereof. While we Cenocrats can forthrightly speak of violence as a possibility within the context of a philosophical discussion about human behavior as an itemized capacity thereof, the desire for engaging in the usage thereof is neither desirable... but is a philosophically acknowledged plausibility. For example, just because a person is physically capable of washing their hair, taking a shower or brushing their teeth, doesn't mean they want to or even will just because someone may think they should. It is to such a confession that the obverse of a pacifist approach to engage in a Revolution must be viewed. In other words, the desired pacifism of a group is not without the behavioral ability to engage in violence as if it were an absent software program. Hence, even pacifism can, within given circumstances, be altered to use violence such as in the case of interpreting an occasion requiring actions of self-defense. It is rather naive to think otherwise. But it must be further understood that the idea of "self-defense" is in the eye of the beholder like beauty and truth.
Cenocratic Revolutionists have the behavioral means to engage in a violent Revolution if they are intentionally provoked to interpret the need to be self-defensive. Out-right attacks on the people who are not protected from such attacks by those whose authoritative positions obligate them to, will have no recourse but to engage in self-protective, defensive violence and pro-active violence to assert their sovereignty. Identifying the ability to engage in violence also evokes the necessity of knowing when it is permissible and advisable. Potential antagonists should be aware that such forms of violence will be carried out in an organized fashion, of which the tactical usage of a guerrilla warfare can be used. Revolutions can also be carried out by a fashion of organization that prevailing authority is neither aware of nor prepared for, like battlements of old which were unprepared for the usage of armaments creatively developed. Many an army has used the tactic of presumed retreat only to lull their opposition into a false sense of confidence which causes them to lower their shields which enable them to be more easily taken by surprise. Some proponents are relentless, and pass on their ideas and intentions to multiple generations which carry on the fight... like woodpeckers whittling away at a tree season after season until the tree falls to the ground in a forest that muffles the sounds and sprouts new life over the remains.
It is not if the presently practiced governments will fall to a Cenocracy, but when. Cenocracy is coming.