Cenocracy: A New Government Perspective
Predictable Despotic Governments


Despotic governments are pretty predictable in that they prefer to convert rather than be converted by someone, some group, some entity. Whereas the word "Despotic," "Despotism," and its associated corollaries: authoritarianism, oligarchy, coporatocracy, aristocracy, plutocracy, dictatorship, emperorship, monarchy, totalitarianism, autacracy, autocracy, etc., have acquired very many negative connotations, despotically-inclined rulers have had to adopt methods by which they can conceal or camouflage their activities behind, between, beneath, next to...etc., more acceptable references such as Buddhism, Christianity, communism, Confucianism, Daoism, democracy, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, libertarianism, meritocracy, socialism, etc... In such cases, what we find are despotic formulas of communism, of democracy, of libertarianism ... etc... In this sense, America and Britain (as well as others) are practicing their own models of despotic formulas of democracy.

We also find expressions of despotism in both military and law enforcement practices in that while the members feel and think they are upholding democratic standards, they in fact display quite the contrary in that superiors are rarely if ever voted into leadership positions. Whereas such organizations claim they are modeled on democratic standards of orientation to serve the public, the absence of a democracy in the form of voting for one's leaders, is starkly absent. So, on the one hand they claim they are the protectors and defenders of the public's right to a democracy, yet they themselves somehow don't think that they should have to comply with the same rule-of-thumb they expect the public to abide by. The same goes for government institutions.

In an actual democracy the people would not have to threaten nor act out riots, rebellion and revolution to get a redress of grievances to be resolved to the satisfaction of the people. Only in a despotism must the people be forced to do so. The so-called Representatives would hasten to hear and confer with the public about its grievances and not make excuses why a given issue isn't resolved.

Only in a despotism must the people map out a public strategy to effect necessary government reforms by the usage of a incrementally progressive level of assertions, because in an actual democracy the Representatives of the people would collectively be just as outraged that they are disenfranchised from being able to effect necessary improvements.

Only in the presence of a despotism are the people confronted by those in governmental leaderships who will go out of their way to force the public to comply with its wishes to maintain a system that is anti-thetical to the best interests of the people, because it is a system in which given leaderships have learned how to maneuver themselves in order to accomplish personal goals that are often self-centered and not citizen-centered.

Only in the presence of a despotism are the people met with a "petition the government" process which is directed to a single branch of government and not the whole of the government, and that this process requires a payment of signatures before it is even provided with a 'lip service' level of reply... and that after a reply is given, that is supposed to be the end of the matter... as if the issue for the petition has somehow miraculously been adequately addressed!

In an actual democracy, the people would not have to be subjected to an elections and voting system that is clearly rigged against the public. Only in a despotism are the people unable to use the ballot to voice their dissatisfaction with all candidates and force a new selection to be provided. Only in a despotism are the people forced to choose time and again between two or more evils, incompetents or untrustworthy candidates, and that a refusal to participate in such a ludicrous system is somehow an expression of a lack of patriotism, civic pride, civil duty and overall public responsibility.

Only in the presence of a despotism, do we find generations of children being subjected to the publicly educated idea that they are living in a democracy instead of a bathed, well-manicured, well-dressed, and educated despotism... whereby as adults, they come to regard the idea of despotism with both suspicion and curiosity because of the conflict their consciousness must wrestle with when confronted by the reality of their oppressed lives and the many fairytales of governance they have been brought up to believe in.

Only in the presence of an arrogant, self-assured, self-important, self-divined ("royal prerogative") despotism do we find its self-assessment referred to as an "enlightened" or "benevolent" despotism as is characterized in the following excerpt:

Enlightened despotism (also called benevolent despotism):

A form of government in the 18th century in which absolute monarchs pursued legal, social, and educational reforms inspired by the Enlightenment. Among the most prominent enlightened despots were Frederick II (the Great), Peter I (the Great), Catherine II (the Great), Maria Theresa (mother of Queen Marie-Antoinette of France who was against reforms and did not want to abolish feudalism), Joseph II (son of Maria Theresa), and Leopold II (3rd son of Maria Theresa. In August 1791, he joined with the Prussians in issuing the "Declaration of Pillnitz," appealing to the European sovereigns to use force to assure the maintenance of monarchical government in France.... during the revolutionary movement that shook France between 1787 and 1799).

They typically instituted administrative reform, religious toleration, and economic development but did not propose reforms that would undermine their sovereignty or disrupt the social order.

Source: "enlightened despotism." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

Only in a despotism do we see a repeated reference in which the word "great" is a salient characterization of intended efforts.

Only in a despotism do we witness those in government refusing to infuse reforms which will effectively increase the level of social equality by establishing a Full Wage and Benefits package of the peoples' Inalienable Rights.

Only in a despotism do we come to realize that the people are forced to practice a pittance measure of democracy in order to insure that it is those in government and their corporate confederates who are allowed to practice a modern day expression of the old "royal prerogative", and will actively interfere, in whatever means possible, with the public's attempt to establish a greater level of democracy.

Only in a despotism are the people forced to wait until some would-be "enlightened leader" emerges from the ranks of a severely despotically-controlled elections and voting system to do battle against an aristocratically-oriented conservatism as the champion of the people, instead of the people being their own champion unto themselves because they have learned to stand on their own two feet and meet their oppressors head-on with a liberality draft in hand that expects all leaderships to sign it and conform to the Will of the People.

Only in a despotism do we experience the fruits of a democracy being forcibly collected into the basket of government when they are just about ripe... in order to let them over-ripen and then left to rot... because even in spoilage a profit is to be made... though the people grow hungry waiting for the once useful government to make up its mind when, where, how and by whom an equal redistribution of resources is to take place. In an actual democracy, the fruits of the public's labors would be theirs to distribute amongst themselves as they see fit in order to ensure all would be guaranteed their basic needs are being met and not discarded so that a few could reap a larger profit at the expense of the many.

Only in the social environment of a despotism do we find advocates of despotism advocating against one type of (assumed artificial) despotism in order to permit another (assumed natural) type of despotism to become more prominent, unless they pit one artificial despotism against another artificial despotism if no two competing natural forms of despotism can be reasoned, rationalized, or represented.

Only in the political environment of a despotism do we find both conservatives and liberals arguing over the extent to which despotism should be permitted to exercise control over control of itself or control over the freedom, liberty, justice, equality, etc... of the public. The Will of the general public is not permitted to have an opinion amongst conservative and liberal intellectuals whose discussions amongst themselves reflects a despotic situation in itself.

Intellectuals can be very opinionatedly despotic even while they are voicing an opinion against despotism!

Only in a despotism are we furnished with recurring economies that effect a "royal prerogative" attitude on the public resulting in recessions, depressions, and various cyclical swings in stock markets whose indexes do not represent the employment situation of a populace that is all too often forced to fend for itself against mounting instances of greed perpetrated by the wealthy onto the poor because of an insatiable avarice the despotic mentality of government officials have no cause to interrupt or else cut their own financial throats in so doing. The following excerpt is informative:

Problems of market economies

By the end of the 19th century, some unforeseen but serious consequences of the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America had produced a deepening disenchantment with the principal economic basis of classical liberalism—the ideal of a market economy. The main problem was that the profit system had concentrated vast wealth in the hands of a relatively small number of industrialists and financiers, with several adverse consequences. First, great masses of people failed to benefit from the wealth flowing from factories and lived in poverty in vast slums. Second, because the greatly expanded system of production created many goods and services that people often could not afford to buy, markets became glutted and the system periodically came to a near halt in periods of stagnation that came to be called depressions. Finally, those who owned or managed the means of production had acquired enormous economic power that they used to influence and control government, to manipulate an inchoate electorate, to limit competition, and to obstruct substantive social reform. In short, some of the same forces that had once released the productive energies of Western society now restrained them; some of the very energies that had demolished the power of despots now nourished a new despotism.

The modern liberal program

Such, at any rate, was the verdict reached by an increasing number of liberals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As noted above, modern liberals held that the point of government is to remove the obstacles that stand in the way of individual freedom. In this they followed the lead of thinkers and reformers such as the British political philosopher T.H. Green. According to Green, the excessive powers of government may have constituted the greatest obstacles to freedom in an earlier day, but by the middle of the 19th century these powers had been greatly reduced or mitigated. The time had come, therefore, to recognize hindrances of another kind—such as poverty, disease, discrimination, and ignorance—which individuals could overcome only with the positive assistance of government. The new liberal program was thus to enlist the powers of government in the cause of individual freedom. Society, acting through government, was to establish public schools and hospitals, aid the needy, and regulate working conditions to promote workers' health and well-being, for only through public support could the poor and powerless members of society truly become free.

Although most liberals eventually adopted this new course, there were some dissenters, notably the influential social Darwinists Herbert Spencer in England and William Graham Sumner in the United States. As the term Darwinists indicates, these writers thought of politics, economics, and society in general in evolutionary terms. Like Paine, they regarded government as at best a necessary evil—not, however, because it coerces but because it too often interferes with the struggle for survival that nature imposes on human beings as much as on other species. Helping the poor and the weak, they argued, impedes individual freedom and retards social progress by holding back the strong and the fit. The social Darwinists concluded that the sole responsibility of government must be to protect the lives and property of the people—that is, to be nothing more than a "night watchman."

Limited intervention in the market

Because they appreciated the real achievements of the market system, modern liberals sought to modify and control the system rather than to abolish it. They saw no reason for a fixed line eternally dividing the private and public sectors of the economy; the division, they contended, must be made by reference to what works. The spectre of regimentation in centrally planned economies and the dangers of bureaucracy even in mixed economies deterred them from jettisoning the market and substituting a putatively omni-competent state. On the other hand—and this is a basic difference between classical and modern liberalism—most liberals came to recognize that the operation of the market needed to be supplemented and corrected. The new liberals asserted, first, that the rewards dispensed by the market were too crude a measure of the contribution most people made to society and, second, that the market ignored the needs of those who lacked opportunity or who were economically exploited. They contended that the enormous social costs incurred in production were not reflected in market prices and that resources were often used wastefully. Not least, liberals perceived that the market biased the allocation of human and physical resources toward the satisfaction of consumer appetites—e.g., for automobiles, home appliances, or fashionable clothing—while basic needs—for schools, housing, public transit, and sewage systems, among other things—went unmet. Finally, although liberals believed that prices, wages, and profits should continue to be subject to negotiation among the interested parties and responsive to conventional market pressures, they insisted that price-wage-profit decisions affecting the economy as a whole must be reconciled with public policy.

Greater equality of wealth and income

To achieve what they took to be a more just distribution of wealth and income, liberals relied on two major strategies. First, they promoted the organization of workers into trade unions in order to improve their power to bargain with employers. Such a redistribution of power had political as well as economic consequences, making possible a multiparty system in which at least one party was responsive to the interests of wage earners.

Second, with the political support of the economically deprived, liberals introduced a variety of government-funded social services. Beginning with free public education and workmen's accident insurance, these services later came to include programs of old-age, unemployment, and health insurance; minimum-wage laws; and support for the physically and mentally handicapped. Meeting these objectives required a redistribution of wealth that was to be achieved by a graduated income tax and inheritance tax, which affected the wealthy more than they did the poor. Social welfare measures such as these were first enacted by the decidedly nonliberal government of Otto von Bismarck in Germany in the late 19th century, but liberal governments soon adopted them in other countries of northern and western Europe. In the United States such measures were not adopted at the federal level until passage of the Social Security Act of 1935.


Only in a despotism are the people taught to rely on the government's disposition to institute reforms and that if it doesn't, reforms are to be considered as unneeded... or not worthy of the government's time and the peoples' money.

Only in a culture with a despotic history are we confronted by those whose ideas of genuine democratic liberality are contorted and convoluted to advance underlying despotically oriented inclinations which set the public up to a "bait and switch" tactic in that the people are baited into believing they are supporting policies that will ensure a full wage and benefits package of their inalienable rights, only to be later confronted by a miniscule allowance and the necessity of practicing an "ask for forgiveness" attitude after liberties are taken because they are forced to... due to one or another privation having been sowed upon them.

Only in a despotism is the collective opinion of the public viewed as having value to evaluate themselves as being unworthy enough to Represent themselves and yet have enough value to choose someone else to Represent them because their individually-collectivized opinions are otherwise valueless in making important decisions concerning their own lives.

Only in a despotism is it thought that a government can be helpful in promoting and protecting the freedom of the individual but not in the perfection of personal equality, liberty, justice and all inalienable rights such as collective Self-Representation and Self-Determination.

Only in a despotism can civic leaders speak of progress, creativity, genius and some grand futuristic achievement, while using such words to describe their own mediocrity to be used as a rule-of-thumb and role model in which to fashion public polices.

Only in a despotism can we find the government arguing that the way to real collective freedom, equality, and justice is to make sure everyone sticks together by being chained to one another by creating laws which enforces obedience to its guidance and guidelines to prevent anyone from leaving their assigned role of laboring on a road to make it easier for commerce to move about and make a larger profit because they people are forced to express equality by making sure all the large corporations get rich at the same time off of their combined work ethic to serve the needs of the government to ensure the public abides by its standards of redistributed equality, freedom, and justice... one for all, all for one... the great "E Pluribus Unum" (out of many, one)... one great equality, one great freedom, one great justice to be epitomized by one great government and its one great monopolistic corporate-supporting mentality because the one great public is united in one great despotic effort to succeed in perpetuating the present despotism!

Only in a despotism is the word "law" a legalized heir to a previous royal authority that is to be protected and enforced at all costs by modern day champions of the crown called police officers, judges and the "court" system. It is a heritage which provides an easy access to larger practices of court favoritism, lavish court expenditures, court extravagances, and multiple other court indulgences that are accepted due to practiced traditions of despotism.

Only in a despotism can equality be defined as "equality under the law"... or in other words: "equality under despotism".

Only in a despotism are laws used to enforce public compliance instead of asking the public for its permission for self-compliance. Despotic regimes have no patience in subjecting themselves to a public that may disagree with the agents of despotically driven opinions.

Only in a despotism do we find oaths of office declaring a primary interest in protecting specifically named despotically oriented documents such as the Constitution instead of the people which the documents is an artificial representation thereof. Only in a despotism do we find documents being supplied with a regal affirmation of importance over the people themselves who are likewise obligated to serve the document being observed as if it were a religiously sanctified script.

Only in a despotically oriented education system do we encounter public opinions which favor the advocation of despotic practices for the classroom, sports teams, and usurious banking enterprises— that foe example, influence laws which force the people to use banks for electronic bank deposits in order to use their own money at the disposition of the bank's convenience and control of their money... and then seek to charge them a fee for being forced to used a government encouraged credit card system historically initiated by individual companies that was then eventually spread to banks— not on behalf of making the financial lives of people better (financially secure), but on the prospect of being able to make people pay for using their own money by extorting an added premium for insisting that everyone establish (a get-it-now-pay-later form of) credit to make purchases of repeatedly advertised goods and services--- formulated on a government-supported-cultural system of a commercially profitable indebtedness reminiscent of the old government/business-collaborated social institution of indentured servitude (slavery, temporary labor, contract labor, etc...), involving three "C's" (Character of the person, Capacity of a person to repay, Collateral of a person)... a process of judgment similar to that used by prospective (prospecting) employers looking for valuable (marketably-skilled) employees to enrich their pool of 'laboring investors' whose wages are frequently nominal with respect to the work load to which they are assigned to assist a company in making profits.

Only in a social aura of unregulated despotism do regulated forms of despotism create ideological suppositions which favor despotism through applications of oppositional philosophies suggesting that some measure of success can be achieved by an unrecognized despotically controlled release from or return to some imagined freedom, equality or justice to be experienced. For example, a despotically engender de-regulation of previous despotically-regulated social activities can invite extremes of commercial and consumer activity that is injurious to the overall stability of an economy that is not designed to accommodate wide swings of personalized indulgence used as efforts to create opportunities which do not become apparent during times of social equilibrium. The following excerpt is one perspective of a much larger appreciation of economic activity that can be assessed within different frames of reference:

Liberalism remains a vibrant and influential, if divided, political ideology. In the two decades following the elections of Thatcher and Reagan in 1979–80, modern liberalism appeared to be in dispirited decline. Most sectors of the British and American economies during this period were deregulated or privatized to effect what Reagan called "the magic of the marketplace." Unregulated markets, it was claimed, produce prosperity, abundance, and economic efficiencies. In keeping with this vision, regulations governing the banking, insurance, and financial industries—many in place since the New Deal—were watered down or eliminated in the 1980s and '90s. The resulting lack of oversight was a major factor in a worldwide financial crisis that began in 2007–08 and threatened to turn into a global depression. Almost overnight, the ideal of the unregulated market was discredited in the eyes of many. Newly elected U.S. Pres. Barack Obama undertook, with widespread popular support, a "new New Deal" in which banks were re-regulated—many effectively nationalized—and the automobile industry radically restructured. Formerly overshadowed, modern liberalism gained a new lease on life.

Source: "liberalism." Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

In an attempt to look at how wide-spread the usage of despotic thinking can be applied, it is necessary to view beliefs, theories and philosophies as amalgamations of different perspectives, like a breeding population producing one or another variant, sometimes exhibiting one trait over others, like the composition of traits one may see in a DNA test spanning origins in multiple countries. In other words, it is rather difficult to visually realize what a "pure bred" or "pure breed" would be of any belief, theory or philosophy, despite the claims by one or another adherent that their perspective is the one, the true, the absolute original. When one gives a description of communism, democracy, socialism, etc., we invariably find variants, but are frequently inclined to make an assessment based on a singular value of definition. If someone attempts to make a contrast between two or more ideologies such as democracy and despotism, a person should provide a definition but a reader must be aware that definitions are not always adhered strictly to. Even those supplying a definition can vary in their usage without even realizing they are. While we strive for specificity, in reality we are speaking in generalities... even amongst those who insist they do not waver... and find themselves confined to a very narrow usage of a term or idea in an effort to at least maintain (to themselves) the impression they are holding a steady course in a wind-swept sea of ideological foraging.

While we can make an effort to provide a definition for a given term, keep one's comments in close adherence to the concepts we have supplied and interpret, it is difficult to speak of old ideas that have been adapted to more recent contexts and no longer resemble the item they once were. Take for example the word "democracy". Do we use it as it was once initially conceived by the 5th century Greeks as "rule by the people" and allowing these words to be interpreted in a modern context of usage, or rely on that definition which we can at best interpret from historical documents of the era in question? In other words, are we of today using it in the same way, or have we amalgamated it with other ideas? The same goes for the word "despotism". If we allow these words to be used in connection with one another because of an identified association (such as a "despotic formula of Representative Democracy"), does this help the reader to understand that other conjunctions with other ideologies can likewise be made? For example, a despotic formula of Communism is clearly a different animal from either a plain reference to Despotism or Communism. However, by making such a connection, we might be enabled to grasp circumstances and situations that were perceived to be incongruous or even hypocritical without being able to fully analyze the circumstance or situation because there was no readily accessible label to assist in acquiring a greater identification.

At the same time, however, the knowledge of such amalgamations can also assist in not becoming too attached to any single representative idea as being representative of a person's views. For example, in the following, I make reference to "liberalism" because there are excerpts from a much larger article which can be used to help elucidate a given point, and not necessarily because I am advocating liberalism. It simply provides a convenient assemblage of ideas related to the topic at hand in my attempt to contrast a distinction to be made between despotism and democracy, even though in some instances the blending has become so enmeshed it may be difficult to decipher where one ideology begins and another ends. Despite this, those of us attempting to seek the establishment of a better government accept a liberal approach at combining different ideas from whatever ideology we have in our bag of resources, because like a pool of different people, each has their own unique qualities which may be of value to the group and should be allowed to participate in an individually-collectivized way. The present situation in our socio-politico-economic lives is that the global village of humanity is still very rural... despite all the technologies that have been developed. As a rural village we have to "make-do" with whatever resources we have available to create the best conditions we can. If this means using a little of this, a little of that, a pinch of something else or a handful of another... this is what we must do. The idea that we must concentrate on developing a society based on a strict adherence to any one idea is rather despotic... that is, singularly minded.

Metaphorically speaking, in the sense of an ideological "amalgamation," we are constructing what may amusingly be viewed as a "contraption", a "thingamajig", a "doohickey", or back-of-a-napkin-sketched blue-print of an idea that may profoundly change as we begin constructing it within the constraints of practicality and available resources... not to mention whether or not we can get the other kids in the neighborhood to try out an experiment... or if all the kids and their parents, grandparents, friends, neighbors, relatives, acquaintances and strangers alike join in! An enterprise the likes of which comes to overwhelm us all with a wide-eyed enthusiasm of timelessness between insouciance and a method-to-one's-madness type of euphoria where a dreaming sleeplessness ventures upon an uncontrollable ecstasy known to those whose serendipitous adventure through a forest chances them upon an unexpected clearing with so many wonders... whereby they stand with mouth agape filled with a motionless wonder of bewildered excitement that carries them to an horizon akin to a tree-shaded watering hole at the edge of a desert. This is the direction in which our Cenocratic Reform Movement is headed. One person's welcomed watering hole may well be another person's utopia. We only know we are still traveling in a desert that some have been trying to make the best of, and have developed religious beliefs, social ideologies and political philosophies as make-shift encampments which they have revolved their lives around... only because they have either given up, been detoured from, or got momentarily lost in traveling towards that their vision once saw. It would be very helpful if such visionaries took up their walking staffs and began anew, the journey humanity started on a long while ago. It took humanity millions of years to get out of the tropical jungle, it is time to move beyond the sub-tropical Savannah.

Date of Origination: Saturday, 10th-February-2018... 2:21 AM
Date of Initial Posting: Saturday, 10th-February-2018... 8:45 AM