"Cenocracy" means New Government. (Ceno = New, Cracy = Government)... though the application specifically to Democracy as "Ceno-Democracy" is acceptable by some, and "Cenocracy" has an application beyond democracy to whatever government may be formed in the centuries ahead.
A Nation that does not respect the Collective Will of its sovereign people, and in fact operates with policies (such as for example, the Electoral College, Gerrymandering, no term limits, campaign costs, entitlement provisions, etc...) that are intended to undermine the Collective Will so that the people are deliberately kept from being able to exercise its Collective wisdom, foresight and intelligence based on a Collective experience; is a Nation that cannot itself be respected, and the people must... without equivocation or vacillation, begin the unenviable process of predisposing their consciousness to the occupation of collectively fomenting the decision to bring about a New Government which suits them better. For we are on a forced path of Revolution to establish a Cenocracy!
We are pursuing an effort to interest others in establishing an Actual Democracy. What we mean by an "actual democracy" is defined as:
Literally, rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek de-mokratia-, which was coined from de-mos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the middle of the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens.
Source: "Democracy." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
The idea of "Rule by the People" is generally viewed as being synonymous with Abraham Lincoln's phrase used in his Gettysburg address: A government of the people, by the people, for the people... shall not perish from the Earth.
Even though he is said to have gotten the phrase from reading ideas written by the Abolitionist Preacher Theodore Parker (who actually used the word "all" when referring to the people), the idea that Americans have a unique brand of Democracy that "will not perish from the Earth"... is actually false.
In fact there are very many differently styled phony practices of democracy being exhibited throughout the world. For example, the 2016 U.S. Presidential election in which the majority of voters chose Hillary Clintion— only to have their opinion undermined by a non-democratic political practice called the "Electoral College" which elected her opponent Donald Trump (even before all the votes were counted!), is a slap in the face, punch in the stomach, and kick in the shins to all those who think America practices some sort of government which epitomizes what a democracy is. And yet, the public is not yet hit hard enough to wake them from their illusion which has so inebriated them that they actually live out their lives in a delusion. Hence, some refer to American Democracy as a DeMockery of its actual meaning.
Needless to say, the United States does not practice an Actual Democracy. As noted by many observers, it is not a democracy but is variously referred to as a:
While some readers may prefer to define the U.S. government (and others) with different terms, the three examples will suffice in highlighting the perspective that many of us do not recognize the U.S. government as a Democracy. And with respect to Abraham Lincoln's comment that such a government (assumed as a democracy) will not perish from the Earth... it is a true statement when one considers the fact that such a government "of, by, for the people" doesn't actually exist. Something that doesn't exist in the first place can not possibly vanish. True to its initial design in the 1700s, America was never set up to be a democracy, never set up to let the people control their government and in fact were meant to be cheerleaders, cannon fodder and supporters... without having much say in anything except to comply with the collective Will of a few.
However, it is of need to refresh the memories of the those who are inclined to think that the type of government the U.S. has is a "Republic" and this is to be designated a "Democracy" because it is a formula derived as a "Representative" government whose leaders are chosen by a vote taken amongst the citizens; but in actuality is a convoluted expression of democracy because the Will of the people are not permitted to actually decide on their leadership as denoted by the laughable exercises of an "electoral college" and "gerrymandering"; which permit the voting process to be controlled to serve or preserve a special interest group; be it called a Republican, Democratic or Independent party... or otherwise. There are three falsehoods with respect to interpreting a "Republic" as a democracy, because:
Hence, a "Republic" form of so-called democracy can not be respected and therefore can not be sustained as a viable form of government because it promotes socially-disabling forms of governance inimical to the highest values of equality, liberty/freedom and justice.
In a discussion about democracy and its origin centuries ago, it is of value to review a bit of history so that the reader may fully appreciate those of us at Cenocracy.org are not making wild claims or basing our judgment on falsifications of details for which there is little documented evidence of. Nonetheless, we will admit that different interpretations of the same material sometimes arises in discussions, but that eventually, some overall consensus is achieved.
Monarchy, oligarchy, democracy
No Athenian believed that he had anything to learn from the bureaucratic monarchies of the East, which were incompatible with Greek notions of citizenship. If self-defense necessitated that every citizen be required to fight for his polis when called on, in return each had to be conceded some measure of respect and autonomous-personal freedom. To protect that freedom, government was necessary: anarchy had no attractions for any Greek except perhaps Diogenes, the father of Cynic philosophy.
The central question of politics, then, was the distribution of power among the citizens. Was Greek freedom best preserved and defined by the rule of the few or by that of the many? On the whole, the great names favoured aristocracy—the rule of the best. Plato believed that the object of politics was virtue, and that only a few would ever thoroughly understand the science by which virtue could be attained and that those trained few should rule. Aristotle, his pupil, seems to have put the cultivation of the intellect highest among human goods, and he believed—quite reasonably, given the limited economic resources then available—that this fruit of civilization could be gathered only among a leisure class supported by the labours of the many. In return for their leisure, the gentry should agree to sacrifice some of their time to the tedious business of governing, which only they would be sufficiently disinterested and well-informed to do successfully. Neither of these apologies for oligarchy had any success in practice. The champions of democracy carried the day, at least in Athens and its allied cities. In return for playing their parts as soldiers or sailors, ordinary Athenians insisted on controlling the government.
The result was imperfect but impressive. The people were misled by demagogues; they were intolerant enough to put Plato's master, Socrates, to death; they were envious of all personal distinction; and of their three great wars (against Persia, Sparta, and Macedonia), they lost two. Furthermore, passionate devotion to the idea that Athens was the greatest of all cities, the school of Greece and the wonder of civilization, misled them into basing their society in large part on slave labour, into wanton imperial adventure abroad, and into denying Athenian citizenship to all who were not born into it (even Aristotle), however much they contributed to the city's greatness and however much more they might have done. The foundations of Athenian democracy were narrow, shallow, and fragile. But to say all this is only to say that the city could not entirely shake off the traditions of its past. Its achievement was the more remarkable for that. Seldom since has civilized humanity surpassed democratic Athens, and until the last the city was satisfactorily governed by law and by popular decision. It owed its fall less to any flaw than to the overwhelming force that was mounted against it.
For to the north of Hellas proper, a new power arose. Greek civilization had slowly trained and tamed the wild men of Macedonia. Their king, Philip II, forged them into a powerful army; he and his son Alexander the Great then seized the opportunity open to them. History and geography made it impossible for the Greek cities to hang together, so they were hanged separately. It seemed as if the city-state had been but a transient expedient. Hence-forward Athens and Sparta would take their orders from foreign conquerors—first Macedonia, then Rome.
But, as it turned out, the city-state had barely begun to display its full political potential. To the west, two non-Greek cities, Carthage and Rome, began to struggle for mastery, and after the defeat of the Carthaginian general Hannibal at Zama (202 BC), Rome emerged as the strongest state in the Mediterranean.
The Greeks did not know how to classify Rome. The Greek historian Polybius, who chronicled Rome's rise, suggested that its constitution was such a success because it was a judicious blend of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. The Romans, a conservative, practical people, showed what they thought of such abstractions by speaking only of an unanalyzed “public thing”—res publica—and thus gave a new word, republic, to politics. With this focus the patriotism of the city-state reached its greatest intensity. The Romans were deeply attached to their traditions, all of which taught the same lesson. For example, the legendary hero Gaius Mucius Scaevola gave his right hand to the flames to prove that there was nothing a Roman would not endure for his city, which therefore would never be defeated. That passionate devotion to Rome's survival was tested again and again in war. All the tales of early Rome turn on battle. With dour persistence the peasants who had gathered on the seven hills beside the river Tiber resisted every invader, fought back after every defeat, learned from all their mistakes, and even, however reluctantly and belatedly, modified their political institutions to meet the new needs of the times as they arose.
Polybius was right: power in Rome was indeed shared among the people, the aristocracy (embodied in the Senate), and the consuls—the executive officers of the republic who had replaced the kings. The claims of the many and the few were fought out at election time, when the world's first clearly identifiable political parties appeared. Until the republic's decline, the results of elections were universally respected, and the triumphant alliance of the few and the many against the world was proclaimed in the letters blazoned on the city's buildings and battle standards: “SPQR,” for Senatus populusque Romanus (“The Senate and the people of Rome”).
Like Athenian democracy, this system worked well for a long time, and if the chief Athenian legacy was the proof that politics could be understood and debated logically and that under the right conditions democracy could work, Rome proved that the political process of competition for office and the public discussion of policy were valuable things in themselves.
Nevertheless, the Roman Republic had been forged in a grim world. Wars, always supposedly in self-defense, had gradually extended Rome's power over Italy. It is not surprising that what impressed the world most about the city was its military strength rather than its political institutions, even though the two were intimately related. As the weakness of Rome's neighbours became apparent, the Romans began to believe in their mission to rule, “to spare the conquered and war down the proud,” as their greatest poet, Virgil, put it. Military strength, in short, led to military adventurism. By the 1st century BC, Rome, having become a naval power as well as a military one, had conquered the whole Mediterranean basin and much of its hinterland. The strains of empire building made themselves felt. The Roman armies, no longer composed of citizens temporarily absent from the plow or the workshop but of lifetime professionals, were now loyal to their generals rather than to the state; and those generals brought on civil war as they competed to turn their foreign conquests into power at home. The population of Rome swelled, but economic growth could not keep pace, so many citizens became paupers dependent on a public dole. The aristocrats appointed to govern the provinces saw their postings chiefly as opportunities to get rich quickly by pillaging their unfortunate subjects. The republic could not solve those and other problems and was in the end superseded by the monarchy of Augustus.
Hugh Brogan: Professor of History, University of Essex, Colchester, England. Author of Longman History of the United States of America and others.
Source: "Government." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
Let us note that in America, its own arrogance was revealed in such phrases as "Manifest Destiny", "Right of Imminent Domain" (used against the public), and "[Right of] Civil Asset Forfeiture" (used against the people), "Might Makes Right" and the more ancient European ideas of "Divine Right of Kings" and "Papal Infallibility". Let us also note that the foregoing "SPQR" should more rightly have been "PSQR", where the people were respected first and foremost and would not be subjected to an eventual discarding that in the present era is clearly seen in that the "people" are not even mentioned in the Presidential oath of office; but that the "Senate" remains an Honored convention and the "People" have been symbolically reduced to the word and negligibility conveyed in the phrase "House of Representatives"... thus requiring that the people reassert their rightful place by establishing a Congressional "Home of the People" by way of a "Peoples Legislative Branch".
Here is the rather pathetically worded U.S. Presidential Oath of Office:
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 particularlized 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.
Unfortunately, over the centuries, a government by way of an Aristocracy showed itself to be less than the "best" of all citizens. (Nor were they able to exhibit what Plato argued in the Republic: the best government would be led by a minority of the most highly qualified persons— an aristocracy of “philosopher-kings”... Britannica citation from "Democracy" article.) They were (and are) often less intelligent, less compassionate, less wise, less generous, less insightful and (sometimes) generally exhibit opposite characteristics which have created needless privations and abuses amongst various populations. The same is true today because those who obtain a leadership position are those who have learned to play one sort of political game over another, supported by a governing system that is enabled to undermine the collective Will of the people... as is the interminable case in the U.S. and U.K... and many other places as well.
No less, if we were to permit members of the military to be the governing leadership of the Nation, the people would find themselves in the midst of an organization which is run like a Socialist-Communism that conceals its existence as a welfare program because it is not self-sufficient and must be continually supported by taxes. In fact, a short list of the military way of life clearly exhibits its non-democratic nature:
While there are various arguments against the notion of the military as a Socialism, Communism, welfare program (to which we could add businesses and religions because of tax subsidies and bail-outs, the most prominent one appears to be the reliance of an opinion that the practice of a Socialism (or welfare, or Communism) is that such descriptions involve a type of specific economic practice. In other words, the Military is not organized as a traditionally branded Socialist or Communist form of economic system (as opposed to a Capitalist-Democracy), and therefore is not and can not be a Socialist or Communist (or welfare) practice. Such a logic is like describing someone having to be in love because the are loving, and if they are not in love they therefore can not be loving. The argumentation being used to refute the claims that the military is the practice of a Socialist-Communist (welfare) system are just as convoluted as those which claim the U.S. epitomizes the practice of Democracy and therefore means not only the nation is great, but because of an assumed virtue, has to be and must be great... where as in actuality, the social structure is imploding and exhibits parallels to the beginning stages of ancient Rome's demise.
Let it be plainly noted that our description of the Military as a taxes-paid-for practice of a Socialistically-Communistic welfare model is in pointing out the Humanitarian Aspects of Socialism and not its economic dynamics which needs to go through a serious reassessment based on the knowledge we have today regarding the evolved globally inter-dependent social realities. The dichotomy which arises between an idea of basic Socialist economic practice labeled "State ownership of the means of production" and the idea of a basic Capitalist economic practice labeled "private ownership of the means of production"... overlooks the fact that so-called private ownership commonly involves the situation in which actual ownership is more on the order of a long-term leasing program (due to required fees, taxes, insurance, etc...); which makes the assumed "private ownership" as much an illusion as is the practice of democracy.
A person "owns" a car, a house, a business, etc., so long as they continue paying registration fees, license renewal fees, house payments, insurance, utilities, taxes, filing fees, etc..., or else they can very well be forbidden to drive "their" paid-for vehicle on the road, face fore-closure on "their" house, lose "their" business, etc... In other words, the STATE already owns many of the presumed "privately owned" items a person has. In other words, most people are on a long-term lease program... including a person's so-called "privately owned" land which can be confiscated by the STATE under a provision called "right of eminent domain for public use"... In other words, Capitalism is a system of opportunism for the STATE to take whatever it wants whenever it wants, so long as there is a law entitling it to do so. And where no law exists a few can get together and draft a law and the people are not enabled to stop it. Far too many arguments for or against either Socialism or Capitalism are the result of narrowly defined criteria so that compliance with an observed rationale has to jump through a specific set of arbitrarily placed artificial hoops... typically subjected to a time-constraint.
Yet, in citing comparisons between the military, welfare, socialism and Communism, it must be emphasized that no disparagement is intended. It is merely an effort to establish a greater level of perceptual truth so that we are not burdened by the wares of illusion which suspend social development because it is preoccupied with living in the realm of an accepted delusion that We The People need to wake up from and not create a functionality of dependence on various forms of contrived distractions which act as different types of drunkenness which cause us to embrace personalized forms of fairytale narratives. It goes without saying that most of those who perform military service do so honorably, yet this is not to say that all those receiving honorable discharges served honorably or those that did not receive an honorable discharge actually served dishonorably... because military superiors can and do make faulty judgments.
As part of our "program" to promote the idea for needing a New Government (a Cenocracy), we assert the need for establishing a "Peoples Legislative Branch" in Congress to participated as a fully-fledged Checks-and-Balances provision to ensure that the Will of the people will become the law of the land. The "PLB" will be made of one man, one woman, and one worker... randomly chosen from a list of self-elected citizens whose wish to be placed on the to-be-chosen-from-list of candidates. The process by which such individual citizens are chosen and their full Congressional duties can be worked out. Respectively, the "PLB" can call for the public to provide a reassessment of any and all laws, including the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and change it according to the collective will if so desired.
The need for establishing an Actual or fully-fledged democracy is to enable the whole of the public to practice making collective decisions which will eventually entail what sort of government is best for the Nation and humanity the whole. In other words, the establishment of creating an Actual Democracy will be a step forward in our historical direction instead of wallowing in the mud as we presently are.
If we want to step forward into a New Dawn, a New Age, a New Awakening of Consciousness, we must accept the responsibility of foraging ahead past the foliage of the present governing jungle being falsely claimed as a democracy. It is an expedition into the unknown because the Actual Democracy to which we speak of has never been tried on the scale of a global population which exists today, and is marked for an increase in the days ahead... accompanied by diminishing resources which will need for us to have an established means of collectively dealing with the upcoming reality of increased privations, instead of reacting like an unruly dog-eat-dog mob. It is time for the entire public to stand up, be individually counted, and not accept any deviation from its right to self-rule. A place of honor that is presently subjected to business, government and religious formulas of minimization, disenfranchisement, and other forms of dismissiveness which are intended to prevent us from our rightful place as heirs to a full democracy... and not begrudgingly accept the scraps tossed to us by a select few... during a moment of their economic satiation at the expense of the public's needs.
Because the interest of these few is in fulfilling their own greed, they think to falsely impress upon us that a true practice of democracy is to permit everyone the free access to participation, except that "accessibility" and "opportunity" are words describing a labyrinthine gauntlet like a gambling casino set up to reap the lion's share of the winnings because it is a system architectured in this manner by permitting only those types of social activities (games) which ensure that the majority of people can be taken advantage of due to exceptionally high odds fixed against the public. In other words, their call for "privatization" is just another way of describing a method which permits increased instances of individualized exploitation of the public protected by the government with laws meant to serve its self-surviving interests, and let the public be damned if it doesn't like it.
For example, when seeking legal assistance to settle a dispute in small claims courts, the courts-system gains by collecting filing fees, and yet even though a person may win a judgment in their behalf, the courts washes its hands of any further involvement and expects the winner of the case to set about collecting any reimbursement; except that the loser can simply deny to acquiesce to any judgment. In other words, there is no follow-up law which forces a losing part of a court judgment to pay or provide and compensation. Thus, the government wins by virtue of collecting fees for its "assistance", but will not assist in making sure its judgment is fulfilled... because it has fulfilled its bureaucratic obligation, leaving the people to fight it out amongst themselves, thus deliberately setting the people up to create yet another possible litigation so the courts (government) can get even more money. The people can either submit to the one-side will of the government, or retaliate in a fashion which permits the government to step in and asset itself to be obeyed by collecting fines or incarcerating those who don't agree with its single-minded one-sidedness that is ludicrously called "law" and is supposed to be interpreted as some god-sanctioned righteousness. It is a double-standard of government being widely practiced. No less, if one seeks assistance through an agency such as the Better Business Bureau, it wants to "help" by collecting fees from both sides to carry out an arbitration, but again, even if one person wins, they other is under no obligation to provide any reimbursement even if they agreed to do so while in arbitration. And this is but a very small part of the hypocrisy evident in the U.S. brand of so-called democracy.
Needless to say, there are many social issues which need to be addressed but we feel can only be adequately addressed by establishing a New Government... a Cenocracy.