The People must have a voice of their own. The people must have their own Representation. Neither the Congress nor the President... and let us add the Supreme Court, will decide the Will of the People without the people having their own, non-vicarious form of Self-Representation. If the people want a new Bill of Rights, a new Constitution, and a new direction for the Nation, then it is their right to establish a new form of government which the people determine is best for them. No activity of the Government will have an immunity as if it were a diplomatic territory on a foreign soil or some child's arbitrarily determined "safety zone" to be respected by all players in a game with rules designed by one or a few to be adopted by all without a means of voicing an opinion that is likewise merited. All processes and procedures of the government are to serve the public as the public sees fit to maintain, alter, or dispense with. The Peoples' right to alter their government as they so determine, shall not be infringed upon. While the exact functionality of a Cenocratic Government will need to be worked out, a simplified illustration is instructive... so long as the simplification is not interpreted as some ingrained definitive without flexibility.
The adoption of a Cenocratic (Cenodemocratic) form of government will entail a change in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The above illustration uses a left to right, top to bottom, right to left, diagonal, and bottom to top presentation... not necessarily in that order, because of the predominant way in which many cultures read. Another culture using a language such as Arabic, will use a right to left standard. While some readers prefer a pictorial diagram, others prefer written text. Thus, let me describe the above simplified Cenocratic process in a simplified textual format:
For example, instead of attempting to resolve problems by writing to an agency, one's Congressional Representative, by way of a "Petitioning The Government" effort, Attorney General's Office, etc., any citizen can direct their efforts to the People's Legislative Branch. Non-citizens need only get a citizen to support their view. Such a process is an alternative, since many people will prefer to write to their Congressional Representative, the White House, the Attorney General's Office, or some agency... as a means of seeking a resolution to a complaint. It is a situation which denies most people from being able to afford taking an agency to court, particularly when it is generally thought by the public that the judicial system is on the side of the government... and therefore means the 'deck is stacked' against the people... because the scales of justice either has a biased "mechanical" scale in the form of policy, or that those assigned the task of interpreting the measure hold a prejudiced opinion against the public in favor of the government. Such a right to register a complaint with anyone a person chooses to do so, is not taken away. The Peoples Legislative Branch of the Federal Government will not only be able to investigate, but also legislate public concerns to be addressed by way of a Referendum... if needed. The public can ask the P.L.B. of the Federal Government for a Referendum to be held on any topic that is thought to be of National Importance. The People will have a right to abrogate the usage of a court procedure if it is thought by the people to be in their best interest. No court, including the Supreme Court, will have a means of thwarting the will of the people. The people will have the ability to remove and replace any appointed Federal Court employee, by way of a Referendum. This includes Supreme Court Justices. The Law of the Land will be that which is the Peoples' Law of the Land, by way of Referendum.
But let us return to the Simplification:
A Public complaint goes to the Peoples Legislative Branch that determines there is need for a public discussion... though the complainant (complaintant) may ask for a public discussion regardless if those of the P.L.B. think otherwise. If a topic has an implication for effecting others' lives should it become a policy, process, procedure or law, the people should be permitted to discuss the topic. After such a discussion, a referendum may be needed to decide the interest of the public... whether to accept, alter and accept, or negate. If negated, the topic may be re-introduced at a later period of time (length to be established) for further public discussion, and if necessary, a referendum.
Let us look at a three-process Referendum formula:
The event of a "1st Referendum Process" is conducted by a tabulation of votes cast in acceptance for, or refutation of a proposal.
A (if needed) "2nd Referendum Process" is conducted by way of permitting the count of the 1st Referendum to be accepted as a given, and those who vote are voting in opposition to the 1st opinion. In other words, for example, in the case of a majority vote having been tabulated as in accepting (or denying) a proposal, the majority opinion will stand as it was 1st rendered. The people do not need to vote again to accept the proposal. Only those wishing to vote in opposition need vote. And yes, even those who previously voted for (or against) a proposal may vote in opposition to their first opinion. If a majority changes its mind, this change will be reflected in the proposal being rejected.
The (if needed) usage of a "3rd Referendum Process" requires a complete re-vote as a declarative public opinion in order to force the government to accede to the Will of the People, when those in government have use their abilities (comments, arguments, resources, etc...) to stop the public from having the government it wants.
If unrealized information needed to be considered for public discussion is submitted by Congress, the White House or the Supreme Court (i.e. the "government industry"); since it frequently withholds information like a poker player with a wild card to be used as a trick up its sleeve in order to advantage itself... because it position's itself as a participant in a contest against the public, a "1st Referendum Process" may be required. Simply put, everyone will need to vote again because the collective opinion might very well change because of the new information.
A referendum that has passed for being accepted as a desired change in policy, procedure, process, law, etc., will be sent to the House and Senate to be accepted or rejected, with accompanying reasons for acceptance or rejection. If it is accepted, it will then go to the President, just as Congressional Bills now do, to be accepted or rejected. Reasons for acceptance or rejection must accompany the rejection or acceptance. The reasons for a rejection may, but not necessarily require further public discussion and another Referendum. Either the Congress or the President may request further public discussion based on reasons not considered in the original discussions on which the initial Referendum was based. If the Referendum of the people stands or is altered, this will then be returned to Congress for approval or disapproval. Intentional delays in addressing a Referendum can be termed an act of Filibustering by the P.L.B. and will automatically permit the Referendum to become law. The law of the people can be modified, entirely replaced, or nullified at any time by the people through Referendum.
In the event the Congress and/or the White House seek to use the Supreme Court as a means of expressing a rejection on the grounds of questioning its Constitutionality, a referendum of the people will takes precedence over all other Supreme Court Cases and be directly addressed. Reasons for rejection will be publicly submitted and addressed by way of public discussion, and a referendum, if needed. Otherwise, the Referendum of the people will stand and become the Law of the Land. The Constitution will be written according to the Will of the people in Referendum. The people can accept, accept through alteration, or reject the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights if they see fit to do so.
However, it should be realized that many people are afraid of true equality because it is not known to them. It's never been practiced on the scale being proposed by a Cenocracy. People often want to excuse themselves from having to make a serious decision, so they permit someone else to be in charge in order to compliment or blame... even though the selectable alternatives may be acknowledged and understood. Some people even want to exclude friends, family co-workers and neighbors from being able to participate in the active legislation of laws because they think they are below some standard of ability; not realizing they are practicing an inequality... and in some cases, a prejudice. Uncertainty can not only breed indecision, but also mistakes. Whereas people don't mind leaving something for another day, they don't like making what may turn out to be a mistake. In a Cenocracy, where the people acquire an actual voice to speak on their own behalf through an enlarged Referendum practice, the right of the people to choose a decision may well resort in making no decision at all... though a decision is needed for a given issue. If the people should refuse to participate, or refuse to amalgamate different points of view to appropriate a Referendum process for a given issue, then the decision can be left up to the previously designed Congressional standard of legislating laws. The Congress and/or President can intervene in the event of a lack of public consensus being reached, by a provided-for judicial ability to carry on the traditional means of legislating a bill. The initial ability to speak for oneself, via Referendum, may make the public a little shy, squeamish, and further fearful of legislating laws which might be retaliated against by unrealized sources of social power... such as businesses closing, war instigation by government agencies, religious condemnation, etc...
The Cenocratic formula is intended to streamline publicly-developed policies, procedures, processes, laws, etc... and not create a larger bureaucracy that is often calloused, dismissive and disrespectful to the actual will of the public insisting that it be able to represent itself. At present, the people do not have a Cenocratic means of Self-Representation... it is forced to accept a vicarious form of Representation that often is out-of-touch with the actual collective Will of the People.
It is a Will that is denied Citizenship, denied Individuality, and denied the right to Vote. The present government design denies the public its right to Personhood and secures its Rights in terms of being subjected to a cultural mentality like:
*Unions act as arbitrators between employees and a business and the government acts as an arbitrator between a Union and a Business. The Peoples Legislative Branch is an arbitrator between the people and the functionality of government that may attract one or more people into positions through which they attempt to impose their will on the public by way of contrivances -of- legality which assist them in achieving the realization of an ulterior motive. The public needs protection from those who attempt to use governing processes to effect predation on the people. Such predators must be relocated, caged, or exterminated. Processes, procedures, policies, laws, etc., which create predators out of otherwise civil people need to be altered in accordance with the dictates of the public through a Referendum. Referendums are not about putting a feather in the cap of anyone, they are solely used for improving the well-being of the public. A government that is premised on the idea of a "Demo-cracy" (people-rule... or rule by the people), must not be hypocritical about utilizing the perspective that the people are the final arbitrator... and not some business, government, or religious nonsense.
Many of those in the present government, institutions of so-called "higher" learning, and the general public accept such conditions as normal and natural... thinking that life outside their accepted context is a terrifying territory to explore. The beat of a different drummer is reacted to like a discomforting high pitched emergency vehicle siren that makes them howl or seek out a place to hide. They are like those existing in an ancient culture with a frame of mind that can not grasp the design of any social governance except in terms of that which they were brought up with, be it slavery, serfdom, or employment in squalid conditions. To such people of the past, the idea of a Democracy was so far removed from their considerations, that, if known, might well have appeared as an alien, if not insane concept that could never be achieved... because the realization of joining together in protest in order to make improvements in government, was an unexplored territory beyond the common purview of their immediate cultural landscape.
And for those who would like to say that the people have a means of conducting a referendum, let us note that it is a process of referendum according to the rules of the current form of Democracy and not a Cenocracy. Under the current systems of practiced democracy— even if the people held a referendum, the result of the Referendum could be refuted by some present process of governance, such as, for example, the Congress and White House both seeking support from a Supreme Court that would obligingly declare the result as being Unconstitutional or that the vote didn't take place according to some manufactured rule which gives the present so-called democratic government a means to abrogate (revoke, dismiss, deny) the result. For example, let's say the people wanted to hold a referendum, instead of being permitted to individually stand up and have the people's vote used as a collective agreement, an instructed process of carrying out a vote is administered not as a fundamental right controlled by the people, but by the current government. This is not semantics, it is a descriptive difference even if the difference is not readily appreciated.
While the intent of present Democracy is to permit a Referendum, it is set up as an auxiliary component of the overall voting process in directing the course of government; by way of vicarious Representation which can modify collective individual participation in accordance with the mindset of the Representatives. The process of Referendum in a Cenocracy is a standard, not an alternative. The present Representative form of government should be an alternative, not the standard by which a government OF, BY and FOR the people operates. The people need a provision, a tool, a weapon against government predation that can be described as any action or non-action which the collective opinion of the public disagrees with and has a viable substitute, in its collective perspective, for adopting. Present election and voting processes denies the public a ready, willing, and able means of altering the actions of one or more government employees found to be conducting their assigned business in a way that is viewed to be anti-thetical to the collective opinion of the public.
As it stands, the collective opinion is determined by the perceptions of Representatives who presume they know what the public wants, and operates accordingly. They do not actually know, they only think they know based on interpretations which may be derived from the opinions of a few, or that derived from public samplings called polls. But the actual collective opinion of the people is never permitted to illustratively speak and have that voice echoed in an actual vote. Just because the public goes along with something, such as a government policy, does not mean the public actually agrees with it. Current governing processes force the public to accept government policy because there is not direct way of altering it except by way of a protest methodology... that can be ignored or reacted to with measures meant to evoke reactions to be defined in disparaging terms so that the public far removed from the protest, acting like a vocal audience in a Roman Amphitheatrum Flavium (Colosseum), may interpret and denounce, with present day sensibilities, as being wrong, uncivilized, disrespectful of others' rights, etc... In other words, the government, through the media, uses the public to protest against itself, to its own disadvantage.
Let it be fully understood:
We do not want the Declaration For Greater Independence to be viewed as a call for the exercise of lawlessness or violence.
We want the transition towards the establishment of a New Democratic form of Government, a Cenocracy (a Cenodemocracy), to be smooth... and we want those in authoritative positions to assist us.
We do not want protest measures that bring about an anarchy which produces rioting, looting and other destructions to people and/or property.
We want the establishment of a right to full, collective Citizenship that is presently denied due appropriate and legal recognition as a 'self', as a person, as an individual... with a voice that can speak for itself and does not need a vicarious "Representative" mouth-piece as if we have some speech impediment, were born without vocal cords, or have an illness such as laryngitis.
We do not want to engage in forms of protest to violate the rights of others through disrespect or discourteousness... reflectively acknowledging impulsiveness wrought by exuberant emotion sometimes produces actions and expressions to later be contrite and penitent about for which amends are sought.
We want everyone to be feel safe and secure with their government and governing processes and not have to live in a thickening cultural atmosphere of suspicion and distrust which requires a persistent level of hypervigilance as if in the presence of a predator surveying the landscape for something or someone to prey upon.
We do not want the public to view a need to engage in various personalized efforts of establishing a "low profile", secrecy, or some other form of social camouflage, as a means of preventing a potential act of government retaliation, retribution, or reprisal for having exercised a right to free speech, free thought, free assembly, etc... whether it is explicitly against the government or not... so long as such activities do not violate the rights of others.
We want laws established by the people for the benefit of people and not as an instrument to perpetuate a form of government that has been legislatively contoured to assist a few over the expense of the many.
We do not want to engage in shameful acts which create social discord which could lead to a civil war.
We want the culture of the government and its associated mindset to be the culture of the people and their collective perspective... not the other way around as it presently exists as a government imposition.
We do not want to have to engage in conflicts with differing government bodies because the work-place atmosphere of an agency or agent thereof, creates a culture of attitude by way of a mentality which differs so substantially with the common sense of the public; thus rendering a stalemated position as being unresolvable because a viable means of communication is lost and the governing agency cites some right to assert its views regardless if someone gets hurt in some fashion.
We want a real "Peoples" government as expressed by the phrase: A government OF, By and For All the people... despite Abraham Lincoln's exclusion of the word "All" from where the expression originated.
Lincoln got this phrase from the American preacher and abolitionist Theodore Parker who actually said:
Perhaps Lincoln was unconsciously(?) expressing an underlying political view established by America's fore-fathers in which he thought "the people" meant a select land owning and voting minority... a widespread feeling amongst many business professionals, clerics, and politicians who see the majority as a means by which they can achieve personal ends for themselves and/or the organization to which they selectively choose to advocate with supreme primacy of purpose, though most of them would claim this statement erroneous... but the state of current affairs says otherwise. We got where we are because of widespread personalized forms of greed (i.e. business, political, religious "causes") being expressed and practiced by those in governing positions in various sectors of society.
However, it must be fully appreciated that our desire for a smooth transition is equidistant to our determination to have a non-vicarious voice of legitimation to bring about governing changes and to have those changes become the peoples' law of the land. We will make every effort to conform to existing laws in order to bring about a change in the overall governing processes... but we will not be denied the right to alter or create a new government as was established in the former Declaration of Independence... as a viable point of dissension from those in authority who thought otherwise. This right implicitly directs all military and para-military law enforcement groups to ensure this right and not impede it... and to reject any command, without consequence, by a superior whose personal view is anti-thetical to the Will of the People... particularly in the desire to alter, abolish, or create a new governing process.
We do not want to be led into a consequence of using force in our desire towards altering the government by those who would use a currency of laws to buy the public's agreement in its right to act forcibly against us. The usage of laws to legitimize a false interpretation as a means of validating extreme measures to force others into a servile compliance offered by way of an illusion; is itself a vindication of an improprietous act against the people and can neither go unquestioned nor uncontested. Laws which have been established and transformed into processes and procedures with a design that effects to fatigue the public into a discontinuance of their individualized or collective efforts to make dutiful changes to governance, must be obliging altered or dispensed with. If we are to be met with a bureaucratic wall of rejection, no matter the time, place and manner of application, whose intent is to stubbornly execute a refusal to assist the public in making the transition to a Cenocracy, then the desire of the people to speak on its own behalf will be left with no choice but to aggressively remove those in authority, or elsewhere, who act as if they are the voice and will of the people and not the people themselves.
However, let us momentarily defer to the usage of an analogy culled from the era of Lincoln's struggle and our own: As it is spoken of that Lincoln commented about the Civil War for the purpose of preserving the Union either with or without slavery; in that his primary interest was for the Union's preservation; so must we, in our present context of struggle, admit that the establishment of a Cenocracy as an expression of the dutiful right to govern ourselves... can be had with or without a violent Revolution... with a preference for the latter... but an acceptance of the former if we are left with no other choice.
In our efforts to establish a revolutionary new government, a Cenocracy; let us seek for it to be accomplished by way of peace. We will try. That is all we can do. Let us also hope that history will view our efforts in a favorable way.
*** Three noted historical figures on Revolution:
*** Three quotations on the Future:
The zeal of our efforts in wanting to establish a Cenocracy are tempered by a quality of resoluteness in not wanting to create more social problems than those which already exist. Yet to such an expression must also be attached the labeled recognition that distinctions between our attitude and views may well be met by contrary ones. Indeed, those holding various purse strings of economy might well tighten those strings in an effort to claim our efforts are causing harm, when in actuality, it is an opposition to our efforts. Those who have walked picket lines in the past know all too well what deeds can be wrought by those wanting to soil the efforts of people seeking some measure of improvement in their lives. Our labors are well understood by laborers throughout the world in every occupation. For it is in a step-wise fashion that those in authoritative positions seek to assert a continuance of conditions which serves them best, including the use of joint conspiratorial acts of deceit, disparagement and fomenting disillusionment.
While our efforts are factuality stated as a working bylaw of intent not to engage in acts counter-productive to social activity, there may well come a moment when the usage of a particular governing process and procedure will have to be dismantled... leading to disagreeable, albeit necessary conflict in order to create a level surface upon which to place a foundation and scaffolding that will assist in the development of a more profitable construction for everyone. No doubt it was of great dismay to many when the horse -n- buggy, wagon and plough became replaced with mechanization initially ushered in by the steam engine. While the loss of jobs during earlier eras is minimal when compared to losses experienced in present day population terms, antagonisms against change and adoption of new methods would no doubt have a similarity irrespective of era. As such, let us be sensitively aware that change can bring disruption in individual lives and that this disruption can be a source of virulent vituperation against that meant to do more good than harm... like the sting of a needle from a vaccine. Some people do not like needles and similarly even fear the procedural cures for dental problems as being more painful than the endured pain and suffering of the problem. Likewise, there are times when surgery is necessary to prevent a further deterioration in health.
If we judge the health of a Nation solely or primarily based on some economic valuation, such as a GNP (gross national product), Stock Market gain, Housing Market Index, etc., then other values of a Nation's well-being could well experience undesirable consequences. Because interpretations vary as to what values we as individuals and as a Nation "should" aspire to fulfilling by way of utilizing laws to direct our human and other resources to accomplish the goal(s); a government that practices a singular or selective orientation perpetrated by a few will justify its right to act accordingly— promoted by a "the end justifies the means" adage, which serves as a sort of:
The adoption of a Cenocracy disentangles the many web-like creations perpetrated by a form of Democracy which produces its own ad hoc validations for a reliance on that which can be as persuasively self-defeating— as the ruminations of suicidal logic that does not use the same level of persuasiveness to think itself out of the many dilemmas it as cornered itself into; and astonishingly overlooks the existence of using the same self-constructed doorway to take advantage of for effecting an exit to utilize the experience as knowledge for building a more useful government. Put more simply, Democracy is a self-constructed doorway through which we have entered a room into which has been constructed a labyrthine assortment of digressions with windows that are actually causeways that lead into more corridors of like-minded construction... like constructing a box within a box within a box; or a figurine within a figurine within a figurine like Russian crafts-persons; of which odd-numbered 3, 5, or 7 combinations can readily be found...
...and is sometimes expressed with a three-pattern formula as a Mystery wrapped in a Riddle inside an Enigma... (for which far too many people think this silly phrase is the earmark of an intelligent expression... like others with a particular ability to do something most others can not do and they think it means they are somewhat superior... only if they can convince others into thinking that they are, and wanting to perpetuate circumstances which make their presumed "superior ability" useful.) But one might create a similarity of other phrases such as:
...to which we might add the old "Who's On First?" comedy skit of (Bud) Abbott and (Lou) Costello; ...and so on and so forth. Such is the current state of Democracy... stupid, silly and full of nonsense that is given esteemed credit only because those in authority deem the buffoon as having an unsurpassable genius. Not that it is actually stupid, silly and full of nonsense, but how it is used.
As long as you stay within the same box of thinking, of course the ideas used as "the common (box) sense" is rational, logical and filled with warm and fuzzy views. Like a sane person placed into an insane asylum, you have to go along with the craziness about you as a point of adopted/adapted to "survival madness", otherwise it will drive you crazy!... but many a patient are considerably more insightful than the reigning key-wielding zoo keepers... and know how to keep from yelling "It's a mad house" like Charlton Heston in the first episode of the old 'Planet of the Apes' movie saga. (His voice had been muted by the accepted "logical" process and procedure of the prevailing government— used as a method of restraining (and capturing) a wild population for the purposes of domestication; just as present governments do to their populations... metaphorically speaking.
It may be of some interest for some to note that the expression "and so on and so forth" is a mathematical sequence using words if some measure of liberality of interpretation is accepted. Historically, with the development of using words to express numerical quantity which had periodic stopping points in the construction of concepts; it has been cited that primitive peoples used three number words consisting of, in their own language equivalent way, words for the quantities one, two, three— but any quantity involving the value of three or more was considered "Many". Hence, after the quantity "two", was the notion of "and so on", expressed with a singular term such as "Much" or "Many". Thus, the expression "and so on and so forth" might be viewed as an exploratory development of a concept after "three", called "forth" (i.e. "fourth"). Since it is sometimes considered that "higher" concepts are developed in a sequential order, in that they are only developed after and not before or in conjunction with a "lower", "prior", "earlier" or "primitive" concept, the usage of a concept such as "forth" in reference to a quantity "four", is evidence for a false type of logic. Simply put, the usage of the word "forth" as a description for a "four" quantity is wrong because a word for the quantity "three" has not yet been established. Advances in conceptualization do not necessarily have to proceed along a simple sequential formula. Leaps of imagination, of intelligence, of faith, etc., can occur as do characteristics called mutation; to produce features which may in fact be an enhancement, but are not necessarily recognized as such until particular circumstances show the development as a desirable feature. The reason for introducing such a consideration is to compare it with the usage of the word "Cenocracy" (New Government) to "Democracy" (Peoples Government-rule) as a beginning point of departure into a "higher" realm of a social self-governing perspective by illustrating it as "Cenodemocracy" (New Peoples Government-rule).
Evolutionary Development of a Number Concept: "One 2 Many" page a"
Whereas in some cases of social change the prevailing web-like entanglements of social governance were torn apart by way of a violent Revolution as one might do to remove a spider or cobweb with a broom; the present webbing of democratic governance, in most cases, need only be directed to make a better structural design... so long as those left in charge of over-seeing construction do not resort to some "natural instinct" of reliance on a traditional methodology because they are ineptly qualified for thinking outside a box they are most comfortable with by being inside thereof. While some leopards do change their spots to give the impression of being unlike those with spots, such spots are more than just skin deep. Again, there are only three options open to us with respect to such predators: they must be relocated, caged, or exterminated. A rabid animal remains a rabid animal no matter what civilized environment you place them in. Those that exhibit a "civilized form of domestication" may merely have learned how to use such an exhibition as a type of camouflage. They want to be able to conceal themselves by maintaining the type of environment which best suits their abilities, regardless of how many others must suffer. Cenocracy is a different environment which will permit the growth of a new social landscape.