All the different practices of Democracy, Communism, Socialism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and all other philosophies are the practices of different prejudices. Comparing all such ideas in order to find similarities in order to suggest some universally applicable value of righteousness and propriety of correctness... that there is something deeply right with an idea, is but another type of discriminatory behavior played out on a collective sense and should rightly be considered an indication that there is something deeply wrong with the idea. It is wrong to convey to oneself that an idea has a Universally applicable degree of rightness because so much effort is needed to convince oneself and others that it exists as a Universal truth, but that truth is a mystery unless a type and level of effort is expended... as a means of justifying one's pursuit. None of the beliefs offer a true philosophy of non-prejudice, non-discrimination, or non-selectivity. And such a realization should not incline oneself to imagine a universal rightness by the present of a universal wrongness, as these beliefs inherently do.
For example, adherents of Communism claim it is an idea which presents us with a means of exercising the best form of social governance we can have. These same believers say that Democracy (its Capitalistic form) is its diametric opposite and that Socialism is in between. Such distinctions rightly point out that Communism, or at least the perspective of such adherents, is the practice of its own stylized formulas of selectivity, prejudice and discrimination. It its presented as a means by which underlying dichotomies such as good/bad, right/wrong, higher/lower, etc., can be practiced with different labels in different settings. As such, the act of making distinctions, however intellectualized we present the comparisons, is nonetheless the participation in one's own formula of prejudice. It is so common that we need to look elsewhere for the origination of such as an impression upon our psyche... if not as an extension of some biological imperative because of the planetary rhythms we are subjected to (night/day, hot/cold, low elevation/high elevation, wet/dry, etc...).
Far too many use the acknowledgment and acceptance of human imperfection as a defining characteristic of our humanity to practice humility as a form of deference to one's adopted belief... and likewise exclude others because of a presumed inherited fallibility. All such ideas are prejudicial and discriminatory. Such a perspective of giving ourselves permission to adopt a notion of righteousness based on a proclivity for attempting to curtail different actions of defined wrongness, may be impossible to diverge from, because we are at present forced to live within the dictates of a global collection of different environments that require some measure of adaptation in order to survive. In short, all the aforementioned philosophies and beliefs are little more than survival mechanisms. Like the capacity of our omnivorous diet, the different philosophies and beliefs are expressions of our capacity to digest a variety of ideas and feelings... though there are regional (cultural) variations with respect to intellectual tastes.
Communism, Democracy and Socialism are three different (intellectual) feeding types. In order to get a better grasp of what is meant by three different types of feeding, the following image may be of some insistence:
The above image displays selectivity, though we might also interpret this as a prejudice and discrimination born of environmental influences on biology. But the above chart is selective in the type of animals it surveys. When we look at the diets of all the different species, we again find a three-patterned formula being used, in the guise of Herbivore, Carnivore and Omnivore:
In another type of categorization, we find the usage of the word Vegetarian to denote those whose diet is selectively focused on a consumption of fruits, grains, nuts, and vegetables; which may involve a lifestyle of avoiding any item made from animals such as leather clothes, suit cases, wallets, etc... However, the word Vegetarian is used as a focal point for recognizing those who view themselves as Lacto-vegetarians because they include milk products in their diet and the usage of the term Lacto-ovo-vegetarian if they include the usage of eggs... though no doubt variations in dietary types have occurred, even if they were not explicitly identified and labeled. Nonetheless, in all three above instances involving dietary references, there is a recurring usage of three categories, just as we see when discussing the social governing formulas of Communism, Democracy and Socialism.
While Democracy is on the plate of millions, it has left these same millions with a sense that it is being offered as a poorly prepared recipe. The authoritative cooks, bakers, and chefs who are either elected or selected to their respective office... are applying too many cultural variations that invite criticisms of unequal fairness— of prejudice and discrimination which are leaving a bad taste. The currently practiced recipes of Democracy are at times so embellished with presumed uniqueness, that they conceal an inclination towards Socialism and/or Communism, and vice versa. The recipes are becoming mixed and matched in a sometimes unacknowledged substitution of ingredients, in a well meaning effort of some authority figures to design what they think is a more wholesome meal for everyone; though they may be prejudiced towards a particular cultural taste, and not taking others into consideration.
But some societies are attempting to use their governing recipes as rich, one-of-a-kind pastries, while others are promoting theirs as a more wholesome breakfast, lunch, and supper dietary regime... Or as a 3-course meal... Or like a WalMart type of variety store in which multiple departments exist but the selections within each are extremely limited... based on store purchasing prejudices and discriminations called a discretionary spending philosophy. As such, most products, like most people in society, are not given an opportunity to fully "express themselves" to affect public opinion and establish themselves as a desirable quality. Whereas some prefer a smorgasbord effect utilizing the best ingredients of Communism, Democracy and Socialism, others are attempting to masquerade their desired taste for a dictatorship, monarchy, aristocracy or plutocracy by naming them a Socialist-Democracy, Democratic- Socialism, Philosopher-Monarchy, Philosopher-Dictatorship, etc...
Some people like to practice occasional "Fasting" diets as a cleansing and/or restorative mechanism which might be interpreted as bringing about an economic recession or depression... or causing millions to "tighten their belt" because "money is hard to come by" due to a lack of employment opportunity. If someone (such as a political leader) or a group of some-ones (such as a banking cartel) can not locate their particularly desired intellectually tantalizing foodstuff such as political power, money, property or some other social control mechanism; they may well become despondent and instigate social circumstances that lead to the deprivation of stuff for multiple others... like a child that would rather break a toy than share it or pout and cry when they don't get what they want. And if a lot of people are not getting what they want, or think they want because of some assumed need; they may be willing to talk about your views but not take any action beyond the discussion.
The present practices of Democracy are like that of store policies in offering an extremely limited sampling of available products... and thus cause many products (people) to fall into cracks and crevices without being advantaged the opportunity to be of productive use. Fledgling products, like people, take time to be cultivated into qualitative representations that are both practical and reliable. Such products and people have little chance to develop when there is a trend to make name-brand products into cheaper versions of themselves, as an experimentation they can afford because of large cash reserves that most people, particularly those already living hand-to-mouth, can not afford without becoming face to face with the possibility of extinction.
If we view the ideas of Communism, Democracy and Socialism as intellectual diets comparable to Herbivores, Carnivores and Omnivores— though one might want to argue against making references between them beyond a generalization; we necessarily need to ask which of the diets is being played out in one or another policy? For example, if we decide that war is a carnivorous diet because of its link with predation, than self-absorbing social policies may be aligned with a ruminant (herbivore) diet because of the meaning we can attribute to the word "rumination", with respect to "chewing one's cud" as an image of self-reflection or self-orientation. Those policies or governing programs which entail not only internalized frequent "snacking" such as domestic programs and infrastructure maintenance coupled with assertive territorial colonialism and business expansion... could thus be viewed as being omnivorous (to reference a varied diet). Yet, all the diets are products brought about by adaptations to the natural or artificial environment(s) we are subjected to. Artificial environments are produced by such things as economic and other social policies which can effect the natural environment due to over-grazing or watering of domestic stock, polluting the ground, air and water with chemicals... as well as destruction of the environment by way of logging, fishing, or mining for minerals, oil, and gaseous deposits.
If the "intellectual" dietary needs of some groups of people require periodic excursions into a carnivorous foray in terms of blood letting activity, a governing diet that is trying to exclude such aggressiveness may be left with little choice but to adopt a similar dietary regime as a means of self-protection. In other words, if a country does not keep its teeth and nails sharpened as well as visible, they might well be subjected to policies developed by others which are deliberately focused on trying to instigate a move that makes them more readily available to be taken advantage of. Similarly, though many of us may view religion as exercising an intellectual diet that is not predatory, the usage of blood letting activities by those professing a particular type of religious belief presents us with a different view. Yet, problems can arise by having all three types of dietary regime to flourish in different government branches, agencies or departments. For example, the Justice department can be seen as being carnivoric because of its inclination to use aggressive acts. The Legislature might well be viewed as being Omnivorous because of the variety of activities it is involved in, and the Executive Branch frequently exercises a a strict observance of one or another dietary type of intellectual leaning.
A country whose government Branches is a regime of the three dietary types, will necessarily need to keep its social structure designed in terms of accommodating public programs as diet-specific food-for-thought enterprises. Hence, the "commonism" (as in Communism) is an omnivoric one, in which all three dietary orientations are observed, but not necessarily accepted or practiced by everyone. For example, the government of the U.S. is a diet that permits the adoption of Socialistic practices so long as they are commonly labeled Democratic; because "Democracy" is felt by its adherents as being better than Communism and Socialism. The words "Communism and Socialism" have been given multiple poor interpretations because of those in authoritative positions who used such words to describe the practice of severe prejudicial and discriminatory activities that were felt to be antagonistic to the views held by those claiming to be the authoritative leaders of a Democratic philosophy. And all the while, the people have suffered because of their confusion perpetrated by an unrecognized unstable dietary regime that is perpetrated because of an unrecognized unstable natural environment... which leads them to develop policies of differently flavored prejudice and discrimination that are concealed by words such as equality, justice, liberty, fraternity, peace, etc...
Democracy, like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., can be compared with Walmart. They all have a large worldly presence... generally speaking. While some practices are more regionally defined, each retains a dominant voice in socio-economic affairs, whether or not such a connection is explicitly observed. The loss of any such practice would be keenly felt, and each has mechanisms of self- preservation, like any organism having developed a viability in a given environment. No less, each of them have some expectation of public support. So does the public with respect to the prevailing governments. But, how much suffering would there be if Walmart or any of the World's religions/philosophies would become insolvent? If the insolvency is through disusage, the trend might well occur over a long period of time and result in alternatives being adopted. Each of the listed examples are themselves adopted alternatives from a previous social consciousness. As such, it is easily understood that alternative thinking is valuable as a survival mechanism. If we could implement the means to entice the conditions for thinking in alternatives to better serve us, we could project ourselves into a forward time... a sort of time traveling venture; and set into place the necessary safeguards to prevent us from falling backwards or creating a yo-yo effect that may instigate undesirable social conflicts.
But as creatures of habit, thinking routines prejudice us to a treadmill type of living that finds considerable discomfort when we are confronted by a new reality that does not readily offer us the ability to return to the comfort of a social pattern that is "broken in" by individualized usage. The religions and social systems of today play out like a pair of old shoes that we find comfort not necessarily in a practice of wearing them for the occasions for which they were intended, because of long established sentimentalities, of which this idea is very much a part of the collection and contributes to the list of applied prejudices... but also lends itself as a mirror image that may have been overlooked.
Democracy is truly prejudiced against Democracy by not letting itself see a truer image and make corrective changes where they are needed in its appearance and behavior. Unfortunately, as has so often occurred in history, violence is the motivating factor towards creating the circumstances for change to come about. Though not every expression of violence is equally effective, even those expressly intended for doing so, will necessarily bring about the desired change... unless the change is simplistically defined by simple removal in order to promote replacement. For example, change can come about by assassinating the leader of a country, that is if the successor is so inclined... though the situation may have been set up by those of the larger peer group in order to advance their own desires for change... or cover up ulterior desires under conditions of social discord. A prejudiced practice of Democracy does not work by the actions of a lone wolf... the talents of many so inclined to this end are typically employed in key authoritative positions to perpetuate the ruling prejudices which very often go unnoticed.
But as creatures of habit, humans have difficulty in changing behavior... because physiology often accommodates habituation by way of practices which produce reflexes. Re-thinking can not only be a practiced reflex, but so can forgetting. In an attempt to forestall the effects of forgetfulness, we invent behavior such as writing or other types of recording and label them as necessary rules-of-thumb that future generations must follow. And yet, this prevents future generations the ability to alter the rules based on new ideas. The practices of structured governments can thus become not only a life jacket, but also a weighted anchor which keeps us immobile though interpretations tell us to move on. Such anchoring practices may have been useful for a past environmental circumstance, but may not be accompanied with a means to weigh anchor and sail on to better waters. Hence, because there is so much bureaucracy in trying to get a consensus to pull up the anchor, the citizen-crew are left but with the only choice and that is to carry out a Revolution-mutiny.
In conducting a desirably productive, non-violent overthrow of the government, in order that Revolutionary changes in social policy can come about, even the face of violence might well be exhibited with a smile. Not a smile of the mischievous cat who stole the canary, but by a realization of redefining the word violence to achieve the same effect without spilling blood or causing destruction. However, while this can be hoped for, the reality is a much more calloused refrain long since established in the earliest of primate assertions. Nonetheless, a desire for non-violent changes needs to be firmly established as one's assertions become more manifest. The peoples of the world must be fully aware that a non-violent approach to social reform of the government structure is of preeminent intent, even if violence breaks out in the inevitable tug-of-war trek that Cenocracy is on. Democracy must be freed of its imposed prejudice against itself, even if in the purgation, violence erupts because of personal conflicts arising from the confusion which may result from the loss of its practiced ugliness.
The ugliness of the present practices of limited Democracy is an interpretation expressed as a philosophy from different vantage points. There are many observers of many different social wrongs who have contemplated this ugliness and have offered solutions generally focused on actions which do not substantially alter the structural formula of governance as a means of addressing one or more issues. Some feel that changing from one type of government to another simply transfers the problematics of human interaction in growing populations, from one area to another. Others feel that no present government structure can adequately address underlying behaviors of humans such as greed and aggression. And still others do not want any formal consensus to occur amongst either the public or those in positions who might readily effect change. Such people throw obstacles in the way of any effort directed towards either an analysis or the application of a fledgling idea. But the idea for the need of a Cenocracy (New Government) is growing. Application of the word "Cenocracy" describes a growing emphasis to think differently about different subject matters.
The assigned reputations of law, philosophy, economics, politics, psychology, religion and history, are inter-changeable labels to which other subjects can be added to the list. While accommodations to a minimized set of definitions are more easily handled for generalities to be made, specificities can be noted by employing a larger vocabulary of an unconventionalized logic whose constraints are limited only by imagination and application. Whereas a mathematician might render simple perceptions into conventional symbols that are then used to describe an abstraction, the abstraction is little more than an unconventional means of describing a simple perception. While such efforts may persuade an insecure ego into thinking an alternative expression is automatically derived from an underlying inclination to intellectual profitability through an enlarged self-regard, it is a subject matter lessened or increased in value by the usage of a title and applied vernacular. For example, an argument may be called a fight, conflict, battle or war. Labels can be used to enlarge or diminish the activity of an event or perception. Whereas different people can be viewing the same scene, each may label and value it differently... as well as refuse to alter the label and value if it suggests a decrease (or increase) in participation.
Describing the present practice of Democracy as a shameful exercise may or may not serve the purpose for wanting the practice to be examined and altered to accommodate a definition that suits a greater rigor of an intended value of becoming a greater assistance for (and not "to") everyone. Then again, usage of the word "Democracy" may impose unrecognized limitations and requires the adoption of a different label... or else a different description and/or application of the old label. Yet, all of this can be viewed as a discussion about semantics... the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, text or even an overall idea. The definition of the word "semantics" is itself, in a sense, describable as a philosophy, a law, an economy, a belief, a history, an art, a science, and politics. Though each label may require some to engage in an applied context of specificity, a multiplicity can be noted, though not necessarily generally acknowledged or used. Most people appear to engage in the adoption of using a strict application of assigning a definition to common associations of words. The phrase that "Democracy is Prejudiced Against Democracy" can disrupt commonalities of associated perception that some may prefer to avoid because it implies something is amiss... and to examine any closer evokes a commitment of involvement which might occasion disruptions in daily life routines. Yet others may venture towards a bit closer with fearless abandon or reckless curiosity, though most may disregard the phrase as an anomaly of speech not worth further investigation. However, it describes a Democracy we should be ashamed of— except that in order to be shameful thereof, we must have the necessary consciousness for feeling shame. We of the present have the capacity to feel it, but "do not think to feel it".
A discussion about the Prejudice of Democracy against itself reveals itself to be a classification of thought. While typically most would describe it as an idea, it needs to be elaborated in terms of a development so as to illustrate the present so-called practice of Democracy as an immature or crude representation of that yet to be developed. Present practices of Democracy rely heavily on dichotomies, whether fully acknowledged or not. And despite the usage of a three class stratification (upper, middle, lower), there is a reliance to subvert this organizational methodology into various polarizations such as rich/poor, civilian/government, lawful/criminal, etc., from which the assumptions of right/wrong and good/bad may be attributed. In other words, the present type of Democracy, as well as Communism and Socialism, are adherences to outdated ideologies, much like the usage of a two-field system of planting long thought as an ideal form, but was later found to be inferior to a three-field system:
Three-field system: method of agricultural organization introduced in Europe in the Middle Ages and representing a decisive advance in production techniques. In the old two-field system half the land was sown to crop and half left fallow each season; in the three-field system, however, only a third of the land lay fallow. In the autumn one third was planted to wheat, barley, or rye, and in the spring another third of the land was planted to oats, barley, and legumes to be harvested in late summer. The legumes (peas and beans) strengthened the soil by their nitrogen-fixing ability and at the same time improved the human diet.
Source: "Three-field system." Encyclopædia Britannica, Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.
The analogy between the presently used forms of government and planting is an apt one. And yes, let us provide a comment about crop rotation for those who have some knowledge about the subject, so that it will not be introduced as an argument against the intended analogy with governance:
The choice and sequence of rotation crops depends on the nature of the soil, the climate, and precipitation which together determine the type of plants that may be cultivated. Other important aspects of farming such as crop marketing and economic variables must also be considered when deciding crop rotations.
Source: Wikipedia- Crop Rotation
In short, there are variables to be considered when using a particular crop rotation as well as a form of governance. A distinct problem arises in both areas when traditions are upheld simply because they are traditions in a sort of "It's always been done this way" perspective.
The problems in identifying the necessary ideas to incorporate as a New Government model are necessarily a concern involving the usage of categories from which a formula can be identified and used to address a working solution. While the old planting routine was superseded by one which practiced more of the same by an increased formula of proportionism, so might this approach be used by increasing the proportion We The People are permitted to participate in their own governance. The increased proportionism would thus be reflected in a much broader entitlement practice of social programs. For example, in the newly posted (23-Jan-2016 12:25 PM) Cenocracy's Chemistry page, there is a listing of entitlements given to Military Service personnel that could be universally applied to everyone in society. And though some might argue that the benefits are needed to bribe people to enter a service that might result in killing or being killed, the recruitment plan can be altered to reflect a necessity of performing some type of military or other government service in order to be a beneficiary thereof.
In short, we need a new plan of social action by way of an adopted Cenocracy (New Government). By redefining the type of government we have and the type of government we need for a more prosperous future, we need the provision of a philosophy with wide-spread applicability. It must be of a type that is both persuasive and pervasive in its commitment as well as testability as to its viableness.