It is of a very deep need, in terms of conducting a restructuring of government on behalf of the people, that the topic of Supremacy be seriously and sincerely discussed. However, such a discussion is specifically tailored to the idea of a "Public Supremacy"... though one might prefer to use "Citizen Supremacy" if there was an inclination to specifically delineate those who are and are not "legal" citizens, whether or not an "illegal" person engages in lawful activities in their attempts to obtain a regular income for themselves and perhaps their family as well. A point that should be brought to bear in discussions of illegal immigrants who attempt to achieve some measure of legality by marrying citizens, and thus creating a needlessly more complex issue... but is an event that would not take place as frequently if laws were directed either towards making immigration easier, outlawing it altogether, or deporting citizens, including any children, back to the immigrant's place of origin; as a means of derailing attempts to undermine an immigration system as it is designed... right or wrong.
But the entitlement of "Public Supremacy", "Citizen Supremacy" or "People Supremacy", must be direct in its assertions, for this is not just a Public Supremacy!, or Citizen Supremacy!, but a "We The People Supremacy!" that is to be unencumbered with the denigrations so often frequented by those seeking to align the word "Supremacy" with some disparagement because their opinions, vocabulary and intellectual acumen are just as myopic as those who would use the word as a justification for exclusionary principles advocating some personally deduced standard of superiority related to race, religion, ethnic group or other self-centered egotism.
The topic of "supremacy", in its various genres (White Supremacy, Black Supremacy, Native American Supremacy, etc...), must likewise be identified as general headings because, for example, different Supremacist ideologies and individualized interpretations are practiced by different members of different ethnic backgrounds who may be lumped together under a single heading, such as Asian, African, European, Slavic, etc... "Supremacy" is an issue which can not, and should not be avoided; and should be noted as a topic overlapping what may be described as the "chosen" mentality as a phenomena of Consciousness, and will be addressed on another page.
The American government, as a general title representing an amalgamation of different agencies, departments, agents, etc., views its self as a "Supreme Power". Regardless if you agree with or scoff at such a view, it is an idea that nonetheless held both by many citizens and others in the world. Different governments of different countries hold their own self-defined "Supremacist" orientation. However, the word "Supremacist", or at least some variation of an elitist self-perception, frequently becomes represented with other words, so as not to create the impression of being associated with a perspective that might be viewed as dogmatic, if not a brand of political extremism which has, unfortunately, been customarily attributed to the word "Supremacy".
However, let us interject that the label "Public (or Citizen) Supremacy" can be viewed as an extremist position if it occurs in the form of a lynch mob. Though its formulation as an extremist "organization" when referred to as a Revolution or Revolt should be viewed in context of a situation having arisen due to provocation as a means of confronting one or more issues where more normalized attempts to achieve a rational redress of grievances has resulted in the reception of arrogant obstinacy.
Whether a word is used as a tool by analyzers to define and describe the purported existence of an underlying aggression, if not someone's mere personal ego; or if the word is interpreted as concealing such an ego with a word such as "humility" in order that a passive aggressive inclination is permitted periodic expression, is not the point to be brought up. Granted that not all ideological stances promote a desire for widespread sociological change, and that some are more focused on living within a system to carry out whatever criminal activity they might profit from, the fact remains there is an untapped source of "Supremacy"-oriented "power". It can not be tapped by conventional means. Let me provide a very simple example:
Let us say there is a Supremacist group that wants the rest of their same-minded, same-gendered, same-racial, same-religious, etc., people in the larger public, to wake up! and see the light, smell the roses, or whatever metaphor they are predisposed to use. And yet, for all their efforts, they can not get a massive level of support from this larger public as defined by the absence of a mass movement in their direction. Those of this Supremacist group think that what they see is so obvious, they are dumb-founded that so few have rallied to their cause... whatever it might be. However, those amongst the group who are more inclined towards an analytical bent, that the very many separately internalized cultures in the current social structure, act like "robotic thinking" automatons. There are so many different forms of indulged-in distractions, that peoples' lives get in the way of being able to recognize the espoused "truth" as it is being presented. Yes, under extreme conditions, like so many governments or agents thereof have practiced, people can be forced to share in one or another "Supremacist" thinking. Or, a process which provides for self-recognition can be used.
Again, let it be stated plainly, that everyone practices some measure of "Supremacist" orientation, though it may well be described according to a particular observer's ideological, experiential, and educational penchants, that may be either offer enhanced insight or prejudiced constraints. If the goals of one's "Supremacist" leanings is to effect what might be perceived as a greater socialized servitude than that already being experienced, it is doubtful that anyone would want to intentionally subject themselves to the possibility of such enslavement... unless they are presently in a desperate situation or are backed into a wall requiring them to do or die. Many of those whose charismatic abilities develop a cult of followers, use their own techniques of isolationism. And isolationism can likewise be practiced on what some would describe as "Supremacist Cults", by a government... and a public that is forced to abide by the interpretations of a government about the activities and ideology of a particular person or group practicing elitist notions which differ from those enforced and protected by legislated law. Simply put, if your ten foot, 5,000 pound monstrous looking neighbors don't like a particular person or group living around the corner on the next block, it is quite likely you with your 5 foot 8 inch, 140 pound stature will go along with their views. Such is the circumstance with many in the public when faced with the bulk, suspicious nature and war-readiness posture of a Government.
It is absurd for those in a Supremacist group to expect everyone to exhibit a level of courage that, in some cases, may not have been self- or externally tested on all Supremacist members themselves. Then again, what sort of courage are they to test for? That they can shoot a gun? Participate in a crime? How about Raping, murdering, drug usage or participating in a drunken orgy? How about irresponsible defiance in the face of some presumed authoritarian whose mentality is so suffused with a life-time of practice and study, it is difficult for them to see something in any other way... and yet you are cognizant of the totality of the situation? Is the exercise of stupidity to be equated with courage? Or how about being engaged in a drive-by shooting of innocents, committing adultery, molesting children, etc.? Additionally, does overcoming a personal or group fear actually represent a sough after expression of courage? Those advancing a Supremacist Cause, have got to think outside their own boxes... containers which might unnecessarily being shut by those who use an extremist position as a self-made prison for which they might practice some unrecognized personal penitence... unless this is exactly what the leaders of one or another Supremacist group are themselves doing... because they don't want to be alone in a state of suffering in desperate need of a catharsis.
The adoption of a Cenocratic ideal will be a whole new ball-game of both individualized and group Supremacy. The present "Representative Supremacy" being practiced, will become relegated to a bygone era through a Redistribution of socio-political power that will evince the usage of a new Economic policy. The present "Capitalist Supremacy" model has often been described, and thus used as a supportive argument for, in the framework of presenting various actors in the following scene, or in some variety thereof:
We can witness the dejected spirit, the down-trodden self-respect, and the emaciated figures of those who toil in servitude for another...
...and yet in toiling for themselves by way of a Capitalistic entrepreneurial state -of- mind (in that they are working for a personal goal), we see the enlightened spirit of hope, a self-respect of embraced courage, and the healthfulness of personal progress... beyond the vista of an earlier self that decided to reach beyond themselves... by taking that first step.
It is an expression that is born out in various presentations by different writers— describing an idleness, an underlying defiance clinging to the vestiges of an undaunted spirit, a lack of interest, and various other acts of counter-productivity when harnessed to the yoke of laboring for another... like a person dragging or moping about a place of employment all day and complaining that they are tired in need of a vacation only to be miraculously cured and become vested in a new found vigor of excitement, as they walk away from a job whistling with a happy-go-lucky personableness of new-found freedom.
In different ways in different words, we encounter such a foregoing occasion of human behavior that those promoting Capitalism eagerly cite in varying formulas of context. The simple message being that Capitalism is an economic system that will work well for those who are themselves willing to work well (i.e. hard), despite all the nepotism, back-scratching, manipulative legislation, sexist, racial, religious, bribing, and other undermining activities that are allowed to prosper in the present system of "Capitalistic-Democratic fairness". The public need not be enslaved to the proposed servitudes presented in the ideologies of other economic systems such as Communism and Socialism. While economists may argue which formula of economic Capitalism is best, they may generally agree on the need to retain some form thereof because of the purported "individualism" of the society, so dependent on free thinkers... so long as they don't rock the social boat too much. A rocking of the social boat is thought to be acceptable, because it is an advertisement for the Supremacist ideal known as "Freedom of Speech."
While many readers might well agree, this line of thinking makes an about-face by its Legislative and business advocates, when it is proposed that we adopt a similar "Capitalistic" model of social governance. If we agree that those who are willing to work harder and be more productive is due to the rationale of encouraging the public to pursue personal goals which contribute to the overall presumed collective goal of a company or society, then the better Capitalistic model should be that which increases the encouragement for self-productivity. However, while we do have the Right of Assembly, it is not practiced in a similarly "Supremacist" way. We have the Right to Assemble, so long as the assembly has no Legislative power. The people are denied the "Supremacist Assembly" ideal of true self-governance equality. A public controlled process of idea generation, discussion, and Legislation to be finalized through a Referendum, is an enhanced model of Capitalism... in both provoking and encouraging the public into a spiritful (esprit de corps) entreprenurial exercise.
On the one hand Capitalism, as a "supreme" economic idea is advocated by those who can use their positions of authority or have access to positions of authority in order to serve themselves up a heaping helping of the proceeds available to those practicing Capitalism. Positions of authority are just different labels for a position of Supremacy. But these same advocates do not want to share equally in the proceeds, which can be substantially increased for the whole of the public by an enhanced form of Capitalism called a Redistribution of socio-political and hence, economic power. It's no wonder some assume that a better system of governance would be effected by the adoption of an enhanced commune system. However, such an idea is retrogressive and not progressive. To regress, stay where we are... or progress, is another one of those non-religious trinitarian structures (known as a "threes phenomena"), for which we can compare with the psychology formula of flight, submit, or fight. And fight is what We The People need to do, because it will help us to similarly progress.
No, I am neither advocating nor trying to persuade anyone to start kicking the shins of our business, political and religious leaders, or punching them in the stomach, or slapping them up-side the head, despite how often one may have thought to do so. Then again, perhaps a few swift kicks in the derriere (butt) might provide them with an incentive to produce an enhanced governing structure. The trouble is, though they hold positions of Supremacy, they do not wield a brain with a plan for creating a Supremacist equality, justice and liberty social governing formula. They might argue to the contrary, but they are not truly leaders, in a "path finder" sense. As has been repeated on other pages at this site, these presumed leaders are "keepers of the flame". In understanding these metaphors, one must visualize a nomadic clan ever in search of a more suitable environment in response to the vagaries of seasonal changes. Yet, since we as a virtually "stay put" society, must adapt to cultural alterations brought on by changes in demographics (population, economics, etc...). If we view ourselves as a people who want to practice individualized national policies of inter-active isolationism, like several tribes or clans occupying a given global location, then there is no need for progress. Practicing the same type of culture for centuries will suffice. This is in fact what we of today are doing, despite all the claims of progress someone might want to provide. They are amongst those who can not see beyond the edge of their own forest, their own notions of Supremacy.
Democracy is but one of several "Supremacist" doctrines. So are the different religions. Adherents to each of these view them as being supreme, though some might make comparisons with other ideas. Not only do few migrate away from a given Supremacist ideology, but in trying to free oneself from all such idea, regardless of subject area, we come to adopt yet another flavor of Supremacy. Call it individuality, free thinking, back to nature or whatever, each in its own way is a Supremacist orientation. This behavior may be the effect of the planet upon which we live. It may be a disease, or even an accident. In fact, some think that all governing systems are developed "are found" by way of some accidental tripping over one's feet. The reason such accidents are occurring is not because they are necessarily natural, they are mere logs, rocks, or potholes in humanity's trek through history while on this planet with a slowing rotation, an enlarging (and burning out) Sun, and a receding Moon that may eventually produce the presence of a waveless ocean. But though such speculations are of interest to those with a penchant for examining life on Earth as but part of a larger geo-physical, if not galactic inter-face. The only way to escape these types of influences may be to pursue a long-term exploration of Space... though this too may be counted as a "Supremacist" perspective.
When society was confronted by the to-become Supremacist biological ideology of Darwinism, the Religious Supremacists at the time took exception. Such authority did not like being confronted with a different idea than its own as having equal, much less a similar qualitative level of Supremacy much less a claim a superiority based on the young upstart called Science. The same is true for those involved in the manufacture of one or another product... who think that their product(s) is/are superior to another, in toto, or some fashion of especiality. But numerous other examples might proffer some consideration. Take for instance those who own thoroughbreds may think their horse enjoys the command of some Supremacy, so long as that which it is compared to actually is of some presumed inferiority; or that the owner can be viewed as having some inferior quality themselves, which makes the horse guilty by association. And while we find one doctor or another espousing some superiority, there has not been anything to challenge medicine or medical treatment, as itself had done to ancient coarse herbal remedies, trephination and a host of other primitive exercises which were once widely used, and were at least of some value as a placebo, like a bandaid on the knee of a child who fell on the "sharp" blades of grass. Because of this, there is no real competition and so-called modern medical practices includes the practice of (unregulated) anti-trust violations which they are exempt from. The same goes for those practicing law, and the roles of various political positions. As such, exercises in inequality, injustice, and "in"-liberty abound. Many of which probably remain unrecognized because we are too close to the culture... in need of a serious form of objectivity.
It is an objectivity that must be as philosophical in breath, depth and length, as it is in practicality... and to utilize a type of "user friendless" that all people from all walks of life can participate in without the evident biasness now being extolled in the present design of "Representative" governance which isolates the people, sometimes sociologically referred to with the economic term of "disenfranchisement", which suggests the people have somehow been previous business partners, but are now no longer in good standing. It is a point which needs to be highlighted by emphasis because the people have never been partners in the social enterprise. They have always exercised the role of indentured servitude, that, from time to time, have been given a marginalized means of expressing their opinion and have that opinion account for more than that which they are told to accept by way of political authority. Authority is so fearful of the public having an equal share in the social partnership that the idea of a "social contract" has been established to offer authority with some additional credibility for denying the public with an actual "contract of partnership". The establishment of such a contract should be provided with an identifiable itemization:
Regardless of the role that a "Supremacist" idea or activity may play in our individual lives, we must seek for the adoption of some useful utility, and systematically note that an enlarged pecuniary coffer does not necessarily equate with factuality. Individualized varieties of Supremacy should welcome a system for promoting Supremacist Individualism, without which it is only a supremacy of prejudice serving isolationism, like a clan mentality of old. The present practice of Democracy is prejudiced against the public because it is a formula for isolating the majority of the people from exercising an actual "self-rule". But the same can be said for any governing system which get their models from out-dated business practices.
For example, American Democracy, while advancing a complex... but sometimes conflicting formula of Capitalism, such that it wants to encourage and practice free trade, regulate the competition of commerce— as well as protect citizens from being exploited by businesses; is not itself a practice of an "open market system" in its organizational format. Though there are the provisional "Checks and Balances" and "Separation of Powers" which would seem to boldly exemplify equality, justice and liberty; the people themselves are, for the most part, excluded from enjoying an equal proportion of participating in these provisions as an actual partner would be expected to advance in their day to day activities... that we, in terms of a business vernacular, might refer to as company bylaws. Claims of the people having an "equal partnership" defined by the existence of public voting, the ability to petition their government, directly contact and receive a response from a Legislative Representative, are untenable and incredulous examples when looked at closely. Let us briefly look at each example:
Quite obviously, Americans are not enjoying the practice of a "Supremacist Governing Ideal", when the word "Supremacist" is defined in terms of a sought after excellence, much less a practiced form thereof. And though some might want to argue that is Great, or the Greatest Nation in the world as seen through the eyes of their defined patriotism, we must note that it is a poor representation of greatness when the government exercises the practice of severely marginalizing the Will of the People. In turn, we must wonder what this presumably great nation is so afraid of? It should rightly be afraid of its people rising up and creating a better "greatness" in the image of the Peoples' Will, and not the image of those who continue to exploit the populace and drive it further, ever deeper, into such a disenfranchised state of perception, only but a few patriotic diehards will come to its rescue when the people are given the opportunity to free themselves from its fetters of an unequalized opportunity to have an equal share in a social governance partnership.
In addition, it should be acknowledged that the level of one's Supremacy can be dictated by the environment to which one is subjected. If a government practices a mediocrity of governance, it can be the role model that is emulated by those thinking to exhibit a similarity of presumed greatness. Hence, those advancing an ideology of presumed Supremacy, regardless of how labeled, or to what applied, may be portraying but an everyday variety of ideological mediocrity emblazoned with a title to conceal its superficiality. Each Supremacist should take this into account, and expect the government to exhibit an actual and honest practice social-self governance. A Cenocracy promoting a Cenocratic formula is such an idea. It is ideally suited for those who want to advance "Supremacist" idealization in every single subject area, and not be expect to express a lower level of Supremacy, so that a prevailing government is not seen for expressed mediocrity that it is.