Anger may well turn to protest which can erupt into violence, but it may also be directed along an interdependent and sequential course of Madness, Insanity, and Genius. While some may prefer to place the term "insanity" as a sequence of mental transition occurring before "madness", others think these two terms are relatively inter-changeable. But while many interpret anger, protest and violence as undesirable characteristics, they may have a deep-seated fear of those "extreme" states of mind... called madness and insanity... and a few might not want to experience genius because they adhere to the notion that there is a thin line between genius and insanity... such that they think in order for one to experience the mental realm of a genius, they may have to experience moments of madness as a sort of side-effect. And this says nothing about those who are afraid of even discussing madness or insanity, or some other word relative to their particular culture, just as they would not want to discuss ghosts or demons, for fear of falling victim to some supposed presence of them that exists in some nearby corridor just waiting for the chance to emerge by having their name evoked in conversation... as a sort of modernized version of a Rumplestiltskin story and is reminiscent of the old idea that to know someone's name is to have a measure of power over them. In short, they think it is madness to discuss madness, even if it is from the perspective of a clinical analysis. They feel it is best not to tempt the unknown into a resurrection.
However, at this point, the cat is out of the bag and we can not but go forward into this shadowy realm where to get lost is a certainty, but such a certainty is a signpost leading us either out of or into a deeper terrain thereof. And no, you are not permitted to walk down the center of the road while whistling a comforting tune. You can not merely partake of the ambiance because the cover charge is the cost of your soul. Oooh, though it sounds spooky and ominous, in the present context of discussing a social governance topic, one must caution the reader to interpret the aforementioned sequence of mental events as a metaphor... a comparison with other squential events which might have been used instead. No less, by now, it is too late for you to turn back. There are no bread crumbs, broken sprigs on bushes or other tell-tale marks that you might use to retrace your steps and return to where you stood and who you thought you were. Simply put, it's too late for you to push forward.
You have now begun to experience the beginning stages of being initiated into the realm of Cenocracy... a realm a bit further on than this realm of madness called Democracy. It is a territory once discovered by those who strayed far from the land of a Monarchy, dictator, Caesar, Czar, and equivalent parental forms of social servitude. Those who stayed too long and held the breath of its air in their lungs which they expelled unto their brethren upon return, were thought mad. Even though the word "Democracy" had not yet been invented, its ideas were thought to be absurdities of thought. If the usage of trephination (making a hole in one's head) did not suffice to release these demons of Democracy, then there was not left but to banish or stone the purveyor of such insanity.
No doubt the ideas of Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Islam and Judaism were likewise viewed as strange and bewildering when they first arrived on the scene. Many a philosopher, theologian, inventor, musician, artist and statesman have had to contend with disbelieving throngs who thought their views akin to the incantations of some Black Magic. Such is the case for those aspiring to bring "the message" of a Cenocracy. For surely such individuals are in league with the devil or commensurate associate or disciple. How dare these so-called Cenocratic Revolutionists speak of that to embrace anything than the precious traditions of a Democracy. No doubt the anguish of their protestations for beneficial change has demented the normal processes of rational thinking as a compensatory attempt to regain some semblance of normalcy. Should we not be remiss if we did not prevent still more suffering by throwing them into a den of lions as our faithful ancestors had done to those calling themselves a Christian? It matters not if it be called Christianity or a Cenocracy, anyone can plainly see they are expressions of total craziness!
But let us explore the notion of a new idea as being madness when compared to a social perspective generally accepted as rationality. An example to be used for the present discussion is to contrast the long established perspective of the British government in the 1700s with the emerging ideas of the Colonists who were not yet called Americans, but nonetheless came to be united in their effort to secure basic rights of self-governance. What the early Colonists had done without being cognizant thereof, at least as one might surmise by an historical review set into the present context, is that they created a rational, collective madness to confront a weaker rational, collective (national) madness that we of today might refer to as a Monarchist parliament, as opposed to the then used parliamentist monarchy; each of which describes different practices of preeminence. Similarly, Nazi Germany, just as the Ghandi-inspired self-government movement of India, also were types of rational madnesses confronting weaker forms though we might want to include other ideas which were stewed into a revolutionary stance of the people.
The presumed rationality of a society has an established right and wrong way of doing things. Over time, the established protocols of what is assumed to be right become questioned, and those adhering to opposite or an alternative view might initially be viewed as a sub-culture or fringe group. As the group begins to adopt a larger system of values that coming to be accepted by more as being a superior perspective, those holding onto the idea that their view is more true, may well find themselves in conflict with those holding a preferance for an older perspective. However, an old perspective may in fact be comparable to the new perspective, with differences that amount to an insignificant negligibility. The usage of a proposed new idea which may be nothing more than an old idea clothed in a new set of garments or the old garments arranged in a different way; may be adopted simply because its assumed different appearance is percieved as a break, as a division, as a disassociation with someone (or a group) or thing (such as a law), that practiced or exhibited something that came to be interpeted as bad or wrong.
For example, let us create the story of a King who practiced a generally fair an orderly system of governance but liked to kill animals, and would not give the meat to those having difficulty feeding their family with the desired meat. The king prefered to give the meat to his dogs. The king and his authoritative friends viewed his activity as being rational, and was accepted as the normal national rationality. In other words, they couldn't see anything wrong with it. In order to stave off public protests, the presiding authority made the proclamation that it was lawful for the king to do what he wanted with the meat. And though he provided a food subsistence to the poor, the poor thought his action of killing and not giving the meat to them, as a totally inexcusable exercise in his authority. If a person publicly objected so as to call for a heated argument that could not be dissipated, they were flogged or placed into a dungeon. The King could not have anyone attempting to create public unrest or encourage disorderly conduct. While the people were permitted to voice their opinion, they were not allowed to try to stir up rioting protests.
Over time, as more and more people began to protest, the associated punishment and incarceration, or simply dismissal of someone's protest as an irrelevance, were felt by the people to be wrong and needed to be stopped. In order to fore-shorten the story, let it be concluded that the people over-threw the government and established a new one that was not based on an actual practice of different social laws, but as a means to stop the king from practicing his sport. The people didn't actually want a totally new system of goverance, just the change in a given practice. But such a change would not come about unless the whole of the governing system was altered as a means of forcing those in authority to make this one change in governing policy. The people did away with the king but established a rudimentary form of a "peoples government", that is, a government without a king; even though many of the laws used by the King-headed government were left intact, albeit many with new names or placed into different arrangements with other old laws. While the image of the old government changed, it actually retained a dominant presence... like someone getting a face-lift, set of false teeth, or wig that makes them appear younger.
In short, a system of governance may be established to stop a single event that is associated with a government because an undesirability, is accepted by a majority to be wrong... or non-rational. Their view is considered to be rational, though it too may come to be viewed, in one way or another as having something unforgivable wrong with it. Hence, an old system of rationality becomes interpreted as an irrationality that is supplanted by a once-defined irrationality that becomes defined as a rationality. While both are rational madnesses, the one supplanting the other becomes the established "national" (rational) madness.
In any system of governance, for the young, it is of primary importance to 'play the game' in the "right way", according to some assumed sequence of proprietous order, as if it were a necessary biological clock expressed in a sociological formula... as one's society or internalized culture is presumed to be organized with, to and for. In contrast, for the old, a heightened understanding or appreciation of the game's rules as they are played in comparison to other games' rules, is more paramount; with an interest in "playing by the rules" of secondary or tertiary importance, if at all. However, short-cuts frequently are sought by both old and young and precipitate cheating, lies and other deceptions with which one can advantage themselves.
Others, such as criminals, either want to construct their own rules which will best advantage themselves, or simply ignore the rules (as-the-are-played) out-right, or seek to instigate circumstances which gives a reason to alter, ignore or circumvent laws as they see fit... Some such players want to legislate their own rules but give the impression (or dispense an illusion) for engaging in a legality to be believed in an honor, yet not necessarily practiced by them unless they are under observation by those expecting them to conduct their behavior accordingly. Nonetheless, all of of them, criminals and non-criminals alike, participate singularly or collectively in some form of rational madness; though the usage of such a phrase and its associated description, admittedly is an intellectualized coinage, albeit with an undeniably useful applicability to profit visualized scaffoldings of typically unacknowledged sociological architectures from. This not only is the case for Democracy, Socialism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, sports rules, etc., and the written or unwritten by-laws of every single Corporation and Association; but is that expressed by individual acts such as the process and procedure used by the S.E.C. through its Receivership, for handling the ZeekRewards case— in such a way as to induce a deepening suspicion and animosity for government intervention that should alternatively exhibit an embraced practice of transparency and welcomed support. But the existence of ulterior motives for self-enrichment, whether directly or indirectly, undermines such honesty.
Similarly, some Islamists are trying to use their interpretations of the Koran to effect the development of a rational madness to confront the Western madness of influence, but have thus failed because of an over-reliance on religious precepts. Their out-moded convention of thought attached to medievalistic "Holy War" comparisons, contravenes such a development because it is dominated by a rationalized and not a rational madness formula. If they would get past this hang-up, they would indeed become a magnified formidable force. But this can likewise be met and beat, in a sort of escalated arms race fashion in the form of a constructed idea, by an ever greater rational form of madness... of which the present form of Democracy is not... neither are its preserved and protected religions as if they were a highly viable national and natural resource.
In appreciating what is meant by the term "madness" as it is used in the present context, let us note that the emergence of Christianity was viewed as a madness by those who wanted to persist in being able to impose their own brand of socially practiced madness as the preeminent governing model assumed as being natural and normal... as well as completely logical. Early Christians where thought mad, sacrilegious, and perhaps given other then-current labels of evil and treasonous. The developing social mentality that we of today might refer to as Sociology, was being used as a tool of analysis and explanation for undesirable circumstances, and later as a weapon to confront an insane form of government-aligned-with-religion formula. Because it was a mentality that a guy named Jesus was out-spoken about, such sociological views became aligned with him because of his protest methodology, and was later called Christianity. Likewise, Buddhism was named after (the) Buddha, though not all social movements seeking a redress of grievance in the form of an obtainable resolution, are necessarily named after one or more individuals, though they might well be named after a particularly recurring behavioral theme, such as the recent-in-date "Occupy!" protestors as a modern day version of the 20th Century "Sit-In" protestors who would occupy places as a form of civil disobedient protest against those whose arrogance made them obstinate and unmoving from their (mental) position as well, producing a stand-off like two stubborn kids.
In other words, Christianity, like Buddhism, Islam and a host of other perspectives, are forms of a rational madness that, to opponents, may be viewed as being irrational, if not insanity. Such views, for better or worse, express a change in conceptualization. However, not all perspectives actually represent the origination of a heightened awareness to be used as a bona fide liberation of a constrained consciousness in order to supplant an undesirable situation. If those practicing an antagonistic form of Islamic-appended philosophy should ever acquire one or more leaders who actually did experience a "revelatory" pronouncement of insight, they might indeed produce the magnification of a formidable force to beat the presently practiced rational madness of America. It is a madness which is diminishing in American because wide swaths of citizens are developing varying collectively acknowledged suspicions against a government needlessly entices the eruption of the smallest of grievances to become large protestations. Far too many rights on far too many people are being violated by different representative factions of the government. The once "national madness", though still retaining an evident patriotism, can be over-run by a larger accepted social orientation because it will be the adopted usage of a more powerful rational madness. It is a circumstance that is being provoked into a realization like it has many, many times in history.
Yet, it is indeed a strange occurrence to not apprehend the phenomena of a claimed genius with some gesture of personal superiority called megalomania. How can it be that none of these so-called Cenocrats are professing to be a Messiah or reincarnated virgin mother? How is it that they have followed a sequential step and pace from anger to protest into a cultivated madness from which a field of insanity caused the fermentation of a genius without the announcement of some charismatic leader? Is the leader hiding? Are they yet to be chosen? Where are they and whom are they? How is it that a social movement's leader emerges not in a traditional human profile, but an underlying functionality when in a leading position? ...Like the presence of a ghost in a machine that is neither seen nor realized until the machine begins to yawn into wakefulness?
Who are these people that become Cenocrats? Are they closet geniuses having awaited an appropriate social atmosphere before emerging and professing some New-Age technique of self-nurturance? Are they newly released psychotics whose centuries of sub-cultural concealment is beginning to manifest itself, because an increasing world population has produced so many that a once cowering minority is attempting some measure of majority status... by vociferous clamorings and demand for equal rights like those cultures obsessed with some preoccupational focus on their particular type of practiced sexuality? Are they aliens from another planetary system having inter-bred with "chosen" individuals of the human race? Are they normal humans having been infected with some alien spore or newly mutated Earth-born disease for which certain individuals are susceptible to? Are we thus just as insane as they are in their comments by making such inquiries because only an insane person would do so... as a reflection of the old adage that "it takes one to know one"? Though a so-called normal person might easily detect some oddity of a genius as they would someone with a specific talent, or the unusual extremities of behavior or though which frequently accompany a psychosis; is it only a genius that can truly recognize the genius in another, or someone that is insane who can fully appreciate the insanity of another? Is this why psychiatrists are able to recognize madness so easily, because they themselves are mad... since birds of a feather flock together? Or is it that the necessity of insight requires some definite contrast (opposite)?
How crazy can someone get? It is a mindless absurdity to think that the people themselves either could or should run their own government as they see fit? While it is alright to give the people the illusion that they do, it is quite another to permit them to do so. We can not let such an idea to get out of hand. We've got to stop it in its tracks before more people begin to adopt this insanity. We all want conformity. Conformity to the ideas of a few who take it upon themselves to tell everyone else what to do, and yet let them think they have free choice. It is the greatest con perpetrated on a public since those very ancient ages when the notion of monsters was accepted as a valid reason to explain everything to a culture of wide-spread ignorance. Present Democracy affords us a means to perpetrate a new age of like-minded mythology cast in new garments. It is best that the public live in a world of modernized fairy tales then have it consciously sober with too much truth. The public must live in a society dominated by government duplicity because it is the best way to control it.
The circumstances of a Cenocracy are too much of a slap in the face for the public. Let the public continue to indulge in its many obsessive- compulsions which heighten its drunkenness into an easy manageability. We can not have people thinking for themselves. Are you crazy? It is madness to have a system of governance which permits an increased awareness, request for, and usage of Equality, Justice and Liberty. Anybody suggesting the contrary needs to be locked away. Cenocracy is a four-lettered word just like Christianity used to be so many centuries ago. Anyone attempting to practice the suggested tenets of a Cenocracy should be seen as committing treason against the adopted observance and practices of a Democracy. It is politically incorrect and socially suicidal to make mention of the word or meaning of a Cenocracy. You can not go around talking about a Cenocracy or you might well be viewed as someone saying they were kidnapped by aliens who did all sorts of sexual experiments on them. Talking about Cenocracy is like talking about having hallucinations in the presence of a psychologist or psychiatrist.
Talking about and engaging in a protest that is similar to the antics of a Don Quixote fighting a windmill is one thing, but talking about engaging in a protest where some actual goal is achieved... you have got to be insane. You're supposed to act like a neurotic dog chasing its own tail or chasing a mechanical rabbit around in circles. You're not supposed to be a "real" individual, but an automaton who merely is programmed to think they are. Your supposed to experience an endless cycle and family circle of welfare and associated poverty so that those in governing authority don't have to commit themselves to such a social penance. We're supposed to have increasing jail and prison populations so that society can take care of them through these alternative welfare systems which would not be permitted if these individuals weren't subjected to ridiculous social circumstances which precipitated criminal behaviors as cries of distress that governing authority doesn't know how to recognize, much less interpret. Society is supposed to be in a state of manageable shambles.
You're not supposed to be smart, you're supposed to be stupid and go along with society as it is. While you are permitted to protest, those in authority are permitted to ignore you. While you are permitted to get angry and grumble about your lousy social conditions, you are also encouraged to express your anger and outrage in forms of protest which enable authority to be justified in using deadly force to stop you, even when your protest is provoked into expressing itself in useless avenues because there are no viable alternatives for you to use to introduce or agree upon for resolving social problems. To think otherwise is pure madness. You must be plain bonker nuts to want to create a better society. Shame on you for thinking in such disgusting irrational forms of rationality. The only rationality you are permitted to have is to assert the definitive right of the present Democracy to continue in its quest for a cyclical return of social problems. You need to be tarred and feathered for espousing such a Cenocratic doctrine. Don't let anybody hear you even whisper the word Cenocracy. Your entire life will be ruined. You will formerly be ostracized as a notorious "one of them".
I can not socially be seen with someone who calls themselves a Cenocrat or engages in conversation related to a Cenocracy. The old saying about being "guilty by association" will come into play. I will be looked upon as a Terrorist, a potential assassin to those wanting to perpetuate the present flavor of "Representative" Democracy which denies the people their own representative voice without the need for such a go-between. Talking about a Cenocracy is like talking about getting drunk while sitting in church during a sermon about the evils which can arise by drinking alcohol or taking drugs. Talking about UFO encounters and Crop Circle meanings is far more acceptable than talking about a new design in social governance. Such discussions are used as a verifiable validation that people enjoy free speech and thought in a Democracy, so long as they don't talk about conducting a revolution in such a Democratic process. While you are allowed to contrast Democracy with Communism and Socialism, don't do so with Cenocracism. It is a type of fire you should never play with.
You can't do it. It is not allowed. You are either stark-raving mad, somebody hit you over the head with a baseball bat, or your parents dropped you on your head way too often... and maybe on purpose, if the first babbled word out of your mouth sounded like Cenocracy. And though some might want to claim that Adam and Even were the first Cenocrats, it is on good authority to suggest that they heard of the idea from a traveling salesman selling some bottled snake oil. Some consider the salesman to have been Mr. Beelzebub (the Devil) who could only sell his wares to sinners and that is how the word "Sin-acracy" (Cenocracy) came into being; others point out assuredly that this is a progressive step forward when we note its presently-used alternative called "Demon"-acracy (Democracy). Surely humanity would be a bit better off as a representative body of sinners than demons.
Both sinners and demons, and angels as well, create systems of governance that show themselves in the best light they can. One might even suspect that the Devil, or some disciple thereof, will at times claim to be misunderstood in order to mislead or dupe someone into believing that they are not as bad or evil, all the time, as some are inclined to believe... since they too need an occasional rest from the pedaling of their wares. In effect, many formulas of governance are deliberately manufactured to conceal flaws, and the flaws of those who best able to operate within a given set of flaws... that they need to maintain in so that they are viable with respect to their type of marketable employment skill. Such a skill, if it is viewed as a "natural" quality, will not only be presented in a manner to make oneself appear right or good, is a contrivance they themselves perpetrate to make themselves look better, and yet not have to exert themselves for. And yet, with respect to a public employee, whether they are a politician or otherwise, they want to be able to give the impression for working hard on behalf of the public without actually having to do so.
Politicians are not so different from so many state, city and county employees who are seen standing several shoulders abreast holding on to brooms and shovels while a single individual is engaged in actual work. Politicians simply have learned how to better conceal their "standing around" and "looking good" when a supervisor happens to show up on the scene. Much of politics is office management and office maintenance. There is little need for creative, original thought or action. Some learn how to delegate their responsibilities to others so that they can affect some sort of "standing around" behavior, while others become quite adept at their duties so as to create a work routine making such a circumstance frequently available to them. But such a situation occurs in many types of employment. One either acquires physical skills enabling them to do such or mental skills to do so. It becomes so common an occurrence that it can be called a normal activity that permits one to "idle" on their job. Such "idling" also occurs in a protest march and at a protest rally, though you have to be looking for it in order to perceive it.
Those who exhibit or harbor an aptitude for madness, insanity or genius also idle for time to time. Though all of these mental states might be claimed to possess the capability of "high performance" on a given situation for a given task. A Cenocratic formula has this ability above and beyond the present Democracy formula which has been in an "idle" mode for a very long time. Communism and Socialism no longer challenge it because they utilize democratic principles to suit their own predispositions... as do all governing formulas. We have Democratic forms of Communism and Socialism, as were Monarchies so equipped in their own fashion. Whereas present Democracies are in a mode of mediocrity, a Cenocracy provides the exercise of AP (Advanced Placement) efforts so as to encourage the development of latent potentials of advancing abilities through constructive challenge. Whereas present Democracies are an ongoing protest of the public on many fronts, a Cenocracy is the genius enabling it to firmly address those protests. Though such a genius might well be viewed as an outgrowth of an insane idea, there nonetheless is a utilitarian method to the madness.
Are Cenocrats mad? Oh yes. Hopelessly and happily mad. It is an hysteria of excitement like the illumination of an idea acting as a strobe light by which a timing mark of revolutionary proportions can more easily seen. With an adjustment here and a bit of tweaking the formula there, Cenocracy is the revelation of a to-be-experienced insight that will liberate the Eureka! moment of all its eccentricities, oddities, and abstract codifications of language. And it will be achieved by the combined madness of a public that history will record as a publicly shared practice of genius... that expands beyond its own borders to yet a greater realization beyond the present territorial boundaries imposed on a public by way of a stultifying economic system using antiquated tools for surveying and marking such boundaries with respect to the practiced methodology.
Democracy was a genius of the people developed by a winding path of various protests confronting past madnesses once thought to be insurmountable rationality. Cenocracy is now a new threshold of genius and presently practiced Democracies are the accepted madness. However, Cenocracy sees itself as the madness of a mediocrity that will be supplanted. It realizes itself to be a stepping stone while present Democracies are unable to fully grasp themselves as bogs, as cogs in the wheel of a yet a greater mechanism of time with multiple wheels and a disposition away from this antiquity of an expressed analogy to make room for the analogies and metaphors of a new day and age that humanity has the capacity to waken up to, but is still very drunk on old ideas of Democracy.
It is time to wake up humanity, time to open the doors of your mind and walk through each of them simultaneously, because they are all distortions of a single image created by the illusions produced by an image of superstition called Democracy. By trying to enslave its principles to ourselves, we have enslaved ourselves to it like a dog placed on a short leash. Humanity must learn to let go of its own leash which binds its heart, mind and soul. It matters little if the future awaits at our fingertips if we can not reach it because the more we tug against the leash to extend our grasp, the more we ourselves pull back in an earnest reflex thereto. Let go humanity. Let go of this present madness of Democracy so that far greater principles of Democracy can be realized, though they will be so named a Cenocracy.