It has been noted by both scholar and interested lay person alike, that Revolutions can bring about as much, if not more, frustration and disappointment as they do needed and necessary welcomed social changes. Some Revolutionists join a CAUSE based on some personal interest which may not be initially or appropriated addressed as they think a particular concern should be. Some of those involved with a MOVEMENT are taken aback to find that someone in their midst attempts to force themselves into a leadership role after they have done all the hard work for encouraging a PROTEST and they are afterwards reduced to some negligibility which doesn't even afford them a spittle of recognition. While the vocalized effort of the group may in fact be one in which fairness in one or another respect is being sought, a REVOLUTION may well propitiate conditions of unfairness for one or another person or even group of people. While particular points of unfairness may be discussed, someone(s) amongst the discussions... and they may not actually be taking part in saying anything except to agree with a given consensus... may be trying to use the overall situation for some ulterior purpose. In short, history points out that some who are involved with a battle against some ruling elite, provide concessions and allowances and may even permit supportive agreements, only to turn on these Soldiers For Social Equality, Justice and Liberty. This might well be termed the Joan of Arc phenomenon. Making someone into a Martyr does not actually bother them, since they will contrive social mechanisms to work their way around, over, above and through the aftermath. However, it is fortunate that history also provides us with examples of Revolutionists who have throw a wrench into this type of machination.
Let us take for example Woman's Suffrage to be noted in explication as the Woman's Right-to-Vote their own opinion, to express their voice, as a means of addressing issues of experienced inequality. Yet, it took women centuries to reach a point at which one, than two, and then many women began to speak out for themselves. It is not that they were unaware of the inequalities forced upon them, and in fact many may have voiced their opinion but were punished by heavy-handed men for being out-spoken, it's that the initial collective will of women was submerged by various rationalizations as to why they should not buck the system. In fact, one of the arguments levied against women having the expressed ability to vote as they saw fit, was that they would vote in concert with the opinion of the man in their lives anyway. Hence, as it was viewed and parenthetically deemed "logical" and common- sensical, there was no need to burden the ballot box with a doubling of votes that would not effect the overall outcome and would merely be an exercise in mimicry.
In a sense, woman were treated very much like chattel, something belonging to another like a piece of furniture, suit of clothes or pet, without having a mind of their own. They were viewed as being too stupid with respect to understanding the workings of society, too naive to have a full grasp of how the world works, and particularly ignorant about business and the economics of running a nation and could therefore not be able to actually choose a suitable candidate for office. Yet, there was little or any examination as to why this was the case. If we are to accept the notion that women were less knowledgable, then the reason for this should be contrasted as to why men were, or at least thought they were more likely to be knowledgable. Clearly, there was a difference not only in standards of learning between men and women based on social constraints and expectations, but access to education were remarkably different as well. Men of past eras, just like today, are fearful of women who have a parity of education and use it according to their own inclinations which sometimes does not coincide with the predilections of an authority-wielding male figure. However, not all men are afraid of intelligent women and some men prefer them to be in order to have the occasion for a mutually respectful conversation.
The Suffragettes, as they were journalistically referred to, had a specifically outlined goal... which was to get the right to vote... to have their own voice... even if some women did not want the right and some men thought that such a right would subject society to a morass of incomprehensibility because they thought that a vote cast by idiots would result in social circumstances of like-minded idiocy. Some thought it was an inevitability that society would degenerate if the perspective of stupid population such as women, were permitted the foothold of becoming a dominant voice. Such is the case today with those who think that if the public is given the right to vote its collective opinion by way of a Cenocratic governing formula, the wide-spread idiocy of the public will result in the construction of a degenerate society. Many of the arguments used against those who had to struggle to gain the right to vote will no doubt be cast into modernized formulas to fit the situation in which the public strives to acquire the right to vote by way of a Cenocracy.
The lack of a right to vote was a social problem the Suffragettes addressed. And despite all the inter- and intra-group politics some like to indulge themselves with like watching a soap-opera as a form of entertainment, the women were undaunted in their pursuit of a just cause. If the situation had been delayed, many of us today might well be involved in the protest. But it should be fairly noted that many women disagreed with the opinions of the Suffragettes. They preferred to keep things as they were being practiced. They had no desire to vote and did not want their known and accepted domestic role altered... because an alteration might bring other responsibilities and expectations which would force them out of their zones of comfort. Similarly, though there obviously were men dead-set against women acquiring the vote because they imagined it in some apocalyptic end-of-the-world scenario of devastation to human society, there were many men who joined in their cause, or at least voiced their opinion of approval. The women had to fight both a stubborn governing elite and an accepted social custom that we of today find unconscionable. The woman's right to vote is sometimes erroneously viewed from the neurotic perspective that it hasn't solved other social problems. In fact, some think that more social problems have been created by establishing a woman's right to vote. Such perspectives are distortions of reality that try to place blame on circumstances not actually understood.
While the social problem of voting inequality for women was solved by establishing their right to vote, and just as many social problems of inequality have been solved by establishing a fair equality of rights for blacks; social problems remain. It is ludicrously foolish to think that the measures for addressing a particular inequality will automatically solve some or all other inequalities. While some inequalities can be inter-twined, others remain as hard and as fast as before though another inequality has been satisfactorily addressed. For example, while the right to vote for women necessarily spilled over into the consideration of unequal voting rights for others, the inequalities experienced by American blacks in other areas of their lives (education, health-care, employment, etc.) did not become resolved. Establishing basic rights in one area of human need does not mean these rights will solve other issues. Indeed, we still have an issue of voting inequality that needs to be addressed... yet, even blacks and women are too insensitive to notice that a basic voting right is being denied the people.
Both blacks and women are acting just like the larger societies of the past acted when it came to whether or not women and subsequently Native Americans as well as American Blacks should have the right to vote. The larger society in past eras never even thought to permit women, Native Americans or American Black (slaves) peoples to vote. Such an idea was too far removed from their adopted normality of permissiveness, much less consciousness. Not only governing authority, but authority in all areas of social activity. In present terms, not even those educated in political science, sociology and other erudite fields can even recognize their participation in perpetuating the situation for denying the collective will of the people the right to vote by way of a Cenocratically-architectured social governing formula. It's like taking a time machine into some past era where denying the right to vote to particular people is natural, normal and necessary to effect "a proper government". The present day experts, just like the experts in the past, don't recognize an inequality existing in their society. And those that do, don't care because they make a well-enough living that they don't need to publicly voice an opinion on behalf of the people.
The rationale of practicing the necessity of a view based on the perspective of describing behavior in terms of some naturalness and normalness is all to often itself viewed as a similarly proportioned derivative thereof. As such, the argument is established as a preeminent form of logic instead of the actual formula of sophistry underlying an intent for having a means of concealing personal motives by those in authoritative positions that can easily manipulate public trust to their advantage like the S.E.C. and other agencies have, on occasion done. Authority wanting to promote the argument of naturalness or normality as a preferential political tool of choice, very often effectively camouflages the fact that a governing process can be used to justify the legislation of laws or the usage of processes and procedures to coincide with the offered predication as if it too were as common-place as breathing, sleeping and eating. For example, to claim that human greed is normal and natural may influence the development of economic laws which permit the presumed necessary expression thereof. To claim that it is natural for people does not automatically obviate the need to adopt and practice laws which permit some or all the people to normalize a practice of duplicity so that its presumed natural inclination to greed can more effectively be realized.
While we of today can readily see the necessity of equality for everyone having the right to vote, most of those in the past never even considered the idea... or so we can think since no one voiced a collective opinion to the contrary. While the Sufferagetts blazed a trail that they perceived, even though the established social ethic was to deny their right to vote, they persevered... and we all now travel the path that they found based on pure common sense that they had to fight to teach society the error of its ways. They were out to right the wrong of a specific inequality which denied them the exercise of a personal opinion... it is particularly foolish to think that by having achieved their goal the rest of us should expect this achievement to solve all social problems.
Likewise is it the case for establishing the right of the people to actually govern ourselves by way of a Cenocratic formula and not some ridiculous vicarious (Representative) model as is presently practiced. It is rather absurd to think that the establishment of a Cenocracy will automatically solve all social problems. It will be difficult to address social concerns after a Cenocracy is established, just as it is now difficult without a Cenocratic government, because there are those in authoritative positions who will use every resource they can muster, to defend their right to deny the people their rights. However, once the culprits are recognized and dealt with, a Cenocracy affords the people the advantage of constructing laws which close those deliberately contrived legislatively adopted loopholes that are used against the people. Without the people having the power to do so, there can be a resurgence of those social problems caused by those whose self-centered motives do not care if the public suffers. The adoption of a Cenocracy will help the people to better address social problems, even though our initial attempts may well be like a young child learning to dress themselves for the first time. Despite all our fumblings, and outright mistakes, we can learn to directly govern ourselves.
No doubt some of you who are reading this find the idea of a Cenocracy quite foreign to your present standards of sensibility and logic. It was the same situation faced by women who began to speak of their right to vote, and blacks who began to assert themselves in their right to be treated equally. Even though there are those who are slow to come to the realization of being treated unequally, those of you who think you are "socially aware" of what's going on, are just as blind as those in the past that the Sufferagetts tried to show the error in their thinking. It isn't right to deny women or anyone else the right to vote, just like it isn't right to deny blacks complete social equally. But neither is it right to deny the collective will of the people a right to vote. To put it bluntly, present standards for using a process of Referendum for the public to voice its collective opinion are stupid and designed so that the will of the people is used as an uncommon process for establishing laws.
Many of you might well react with one or another rationalization or "reason" for excusing the adoption of a Cenocratic formula and your participation in the Cenocratic, Cause, Movement, and Revolution. It's the same type of 'excuse behavior' that may resort to accusation against a Cenocracy and those interested in achieving its realization. Present governing formulas, regardless how one defines them, can not solve problems that they themselves create. We need a better system of governance. Yet, you may be one whose mentality is like those of the past when they were confronted by women demanding the right to vote and blacks asserting their right to be treated equally. While both groups thought their requests were reasonable and fair, their were others who thought their ideas were nonsense and would result in a disastrous social upheaval. They wanted to keep things as they are. Granted that some didn't care one way or another, others weren't even aware of the protests because their lives were "managed" by those who could effectively isolate them from becoming aware of, or at least too aware of advances being made by the Revolutionists. There were those in authoritative positions who tried every means they could think of to discredit those involved and that which they were trying to achieve. Protestors of today are faced with the same situation.
There are a lot of social circumstances that one or another person views as an inequality... as a wrong that needs to be right. It may be a perceived wrong occurring on a local, state or national level. And yet, those who are voicing their concern may as well be wrong by attempting to voice a local concern in a protest that is focused on a national situation. Because there are perceived social problems occurring in different places for specific concerns, it is necessary for the people to have a means of addressing their perspectives through a referendum-guided peoples legislative branch. Such branches can be established on local, state and a national level. It is self-defeating for a group of protestors to collectively rally for separate causes. It is a situation which permits someone to get something off their chest, but does little to address an issue someone thinks there is a need for. While it is accepted that a person voicing a concern is genuinely concerned, it is embarrassing if the same person does not have even the initial construction of a solution. Cenocracy provides a solution to the problem of not only permitting the perspectives of individuals to be voiced, but also openly discussed and voted on in a process that can produce a law by way of the public's collective will, and not have that will altered, contoured or refracted through the prism of a select few striving to effect a personalized agenda even if the public is not assisted or is subjected to a "needless nothing"... much less suffer some short coming.
All those so-called professionals who arrogantly believe they are socially aware, be they anthropologists, historians, journalists, political scientists, politicians, psychologists, sociologists, social workers, theologians and others... are just as insensitive to a deserved right of the people to have a Cenocracy as those so-called professionals who were unaccustomed to the idea of women having the right to vote and blacks having the right to experience a fair equality. The public is suffering from your rationalized reticence in voicing approval for a Cenocracy. You are insensitively aware that the public is being denied a basic right. Your logic defends the established means of governance just like those in the past who weighed in against the Woman's right to vote. The very prejudice that the black peoples were subjected to in their travails to establish a basic right of fairness is having a comeback by your insistence in denying the peoples' right to have a Cenocracy. Not only is America said to be experiencing the most obstructionist Congress in history, but the people also are having to experience the most obstructionist body of professionals in our right to have a Cenocratic government.
There is no reason for professionals to care about the public's right effect a Cenocracy. They have learned to use the present system to their economic advantage... at the expense of the public. The medical establishment is exempted from anti-trust laws, thereby enabling them to increase their earnings while the public has no say so and the government sits idly by because they get benefitted by way of campaign contributions. When there are so many professionals in different genres fleecing the public, such as for example, the belief that university professors are 'commanding' large salaries which cause enormous tuition increases which support those in financial lending institutions because many students must borrow money to attend college; there is a decided attitude against the public by professors to do anything which might effect not only their livelihood, but their social status... thereby causing problems with future employment. If everyone of their colleagues voices an opinion on behalf of establishing a Cenocracy... so too will they... but they don't want to forge the trail of being the first.
Establishing the right to vote for women and others and establishing the right to fair treatment for blacks and others in all social avenues, did not in any way mean that all social problems would be solved. Likewise, it is a function of expressed primitive thinking to imagine that all social problems are to automatically or even eventually be solved by the adoption of a Cenocracy. Even the best of intentions can lack the necessary foresight. While a Cenocratic Revolution will unleash a vivacious level of energy, as do all Revolutions, such a level of energy does not always equate with an increased level of ability to see far into the future. While Cenocracy is a new path just as was the right to vote for women and the right to have a fair and full measure of equality, it is not right to expect the new path to be fully or even partially paved, much less have signposts and be fully lit with street-lights. While some may want to envision greener grass on the other side of a hill, at the very least it is a path being forged by all of us equally and not as beasts of burden or indentured servants for a select ruling few.
Some seeking to disparage the adoption of a Cenocratic "path" by voicing the opinion that many a trail of revolutionary proportions were blazed by individuals. While this is true, it is also true that many of them offered a map of the trail free-of-charge. They sincerely wanted others to experience the benefits of their findings without trying to place themselves on a edifice for controlling the public. Such egregious acts typically come afterwards by those wanting to practice a self-centered form of Capitalistic control. Such a control invariably produces various forms of inequality by provoking the development of stratified standards. Very often the public is sub-standardized into a negligibility which marginalizes its means of altering conditions to express a greater level of fair equability. It's not that making a buck is bad, that is, Capitalistic ventures, it's just that present social conditions wrought by legislative acts, permit an atmosphere which indulges the maximization of profits at the expense of the public with little regard for a measured fairness of equality.
In the present social system of practiced government, a well-intention person elected to the Presidency will meet with obstruction if they should try to effect policies which make the standard of equality more fair— because this means those who use the Congress to legislate laws to their advantage will have their profit maximization efforts reduced below the standard of greed that has become a mood shared by others and becomes an expressly expected business atmosphere deemed a personal right that was foraged by the Supreme Court's decision to grant businesses a "Personhood" that has been socially denied a Right. In all accounts, it is the people who suffer and are forced to behaviorally adopt a similar form of S.O.P. (standard operating procedure) in an attempt to acquire an amount of subsistence above the "struggling level", which, when placed in the context of a higher standard of living, is just a few months away from poverty if their income would in some way become interrupted. The people are denied the right to right the wrongs carried out by a ruling elite that engage in a multi-level practice of monopolization against the public. A Cenocracy will forcibly address this issue which is a persistently dire social problem.
No system of governance, be it by way of a business, government or religion, is a magic wand. Some social problems are like illnesses which will take time to nurse the public back into a state of health. But this does not mean the disease is wiped out. Diseases can linger below the surface... and societies, like people, may simply develop some level of immunity there-to. Yet, Cenocracy is a means of providing a type of inoculation against certain types of social problems which continually resurface, albeit often in a mutated form than that which it presented itself in the past. Present governing structures do not provide an inoculation. Democracy and its counter-parts are like the perspectives held by medievalistic authority who had their own rationales for interpreting and responding to illnesses and plagues. They are largely ineffective... especially when they can not identify themselves as part of the problem for creating the plague. They have no foresight, no past means of recollection for even expecting any widespread tragedy to occur. The public is expected to believe in and abide with the 'authoritative nonsense' it is being spoon-fed by many present systems of governance. Like other social diseases which spread due to inept governing policies promoted by standards of tradition that "worked well enough in the past", present social problems are the symptoms of an underlying disease which can not be addressed with anything than a new system of social governance treatment. In this respect, Cenocracy is a revolution in a type of treatment program to address social problems as a disease stemming from the effects of a systematized business, government and religious atmosphere that collectively practice their respective social programs from modernized techniques of superstition.
It is quite difficult to get an entire culture to move away from the ceremonialized practice of offering the public up for some respective sacrifice, like those of antiquity who thought it natural, necessary and normal to engage in a blood sacrifice. Again, and again, and again the public is subjected to some form of sacrifice that may or may not be denoted as a privation. We have many conveniently constructed reasons to provide us with excuses for accepting the condition of someone's sacrifice, typically formulated in terms of some economic issue... yet we seldom if ever question the system of used economics as a representation of an old sacrificial mindset. Economic circumstances which cause as much suffering as being experienced by the people should hit people over the head that such systems of economy are a problem. Their persistence gives evidence of a disease, and their wide-spread prevalence details the existence of a plague. It's because there are many people who do not appear to be suffering the effects of the plague that causes these non-sufferers to voice the opinion that the assessment is wrong... not to mention making them feel they are somehow special or chosen like those in the past who, for whatever reason, escaped the contraction of an illness. One's ego may well be inflated to suggest a supremacy of one sort or another and that things should remain as they are because some male god, nature or even lady luck as favored them to express the adage about 'only the strong (or fittest) survive'... and all others "should" be sacrificed to make room for a better humanity. Such thinking can be very problematic for a society promoting the practice of a philosophical perspective concerning fairness in equality.
Many different concerns can arise and be defined as a social problem. The presence of a social problem does not mean that everyone equally experiences the same effects. While everyone may experience some a privation, the deprivation might be markedly different from one person to the next, and one social context to the next. While the loss of a dollar from a poor person may be tantamount to the collapse of their savings, a similar level of loss with respect to a millionaire would have to be millions of dollar. The loss of a dollar to a millionaire might go unnoticed, particularly if it takes place in the purchase of a particular product whose value is based on personal preference. Analogously, the presence of a plague in a society does not mean everyone will necessarily get sick or die. When the quantity or type of person is estimated or esteemed as being low, the reaction to the presence of a disease, the loss of employment, or an inequality also becomes similarly measured. The fact that only a few are at present even aware of a Cenocratic Movement and the reason for conducting such, speaks of the prevailing social mindset of the public. Not only are they unaware of the existence of a Cenocratic governance formula, they aren't aware that the social troubles they are experiencing are due to, stated very basically, the lack of a right to effectively vote on their own behalf. Instead, the people are forced to abide by some pathetic vicarious nonsense known as a "Representative" government.
While there were many who were and are still suffering from the effects of the Supreme Court's decision to provide a "personhood" to businesses, the Justices nor many thousands in the public did not directly feel any ill effect. They did not experience a lessing of their economic status and therefore had no means of empathizing with the protesting "99%s" (ninety-nine per-centers), a moniker adopted as a means of describing themselves amongst a reigning public majority in terms of an economic status in contrast to those "1%s" (one per-centers) who were said to fill a niche' by those whose greed had caused much of the economic grief being felt. (One Cenocrat disparagingly termed the 99%s as "Occuparchists" because of the frequent usage of public parks as a venue of Occupation and their rather anarchist (disarrayed, civil war styled encampment) approach at seeking some inner-calculated consensus of opinion.)
However, this is referenced perspective is not to intended to be dismissive of the fact that some observers quite easily and sympathetically understood their plight and earnest desire to effect a social motivation to force a repeal of undesirable laws thought to have contributed to their social inequities such as the poorly adjudicated "Personhood" of businesses born into reality by a Supreme Court whose decision was not made by way of protecting the rights of the people in accord with the dictates of a Constitution meant to assist them and not a bloodless entity whose damaging effects against the public are given the right to do as it pleases and provided with a form of diplomatic immunity for which the people are not to have any recourse against. The Supreme Court has time and again violated its trust with the people.
But many such sympathizers didn't protest with one or another of the various Occupy groups taking place in different social venues. In fact, in most Protests, only a few may take an actual physical part in terms of being present. Many people did not participate with the Occupy protest because the groups showed no solidarity in singular focus nor effectively stated their position... or at least none were conveyed to the public by the media still trying to come to grips with what it was trying to report on. Many observers, speaking of those who take a very serious view of Revolution, were watching and waiting for the 'Occuparchists' to get equally serious and provide an opening for them to show support by a direct physical or indirect financial participation. Unfortunately, the "Occupy Movement" fizzled like the energy expended in a reflex. There are many Revolutionists 'waiting in the wings' for the opportunity to come forth. But they don't want to begin exerting their support for some movement that may turn out to be a fly-by-night antic of mischievousness like kids pulling pranks on Halloween night; which "operation occupy" has turned out to be viewed as... by some analysts, in a retrospective comparison with other would-be Revolutionistic intent.
One such intention is to bring to the fore the recognition of a recurring Supreme Court violation of the public trust promoted by the antiquated Monarchial standard of both implied and applied immutable sovereignty giving an unassailable right to make inviolable decisions supported with a provision of life-time employment at the hands of a few the rest are to obliging defer to as if the perceptions of the larger public are of a lesser standard and quality; is a treasonous insult to the established precedent of a practiced Democracy established on the solemn premise that is given expression to by the idea of a government Of, By and For the collective will of the people.
This is why the Supreme Court justices and their rulings must be subjected to a public review process to determine appropriateness. The people should have the right to remove any or all Supreme Court Justices as the public deems fit to do so. The selection of Supreme Court Justices also should be by way of public approval because their sole political affiliation should be to the people and a Constitution written and accepted by the people themselves and not those in positions whose primary advocation is the exercise of perspectives largely aligned to a practiced political ideology. Constitutions are designed by and for people, not the other way around. A constitution should not enforce the provision for effecting a means to disenfranchise the people from making any and all government employees, departments, agencies as well as agents, in any capacity, directly answerable to the people.
The protest of Women seeking a right to vote was serious business, even though many had fun thinking of different protest assertions against the enculterated male-dominated stubbornness. Likewise, so was the protest to achieve fairness in equality by blacks in America a very serious order of business. Both of them had a specifically outlined goal to achieve... even though the achieved goals has not solved all the problems faced by both groups. They are problems all of society are faced with and all of society must address in protest against by the practice of a Cenocracy. Established authority can not solve social problems they create by perpetuating traditionalized systems of governance that work well for some, but do not work equally well everyone. Present systems of government help to maintain the systematic presence of those in authority who do well and want to perpetuate it, regardless of how many people must be "sacrificed" by experiencing the effects of a sub-standard level of equality.
The adoption of a Democracy in America has solved many problems developed in the course of practiced inequalities... many of which have been by way of an unfair application of an established equality viewed as a Right. Very often, social problems are not recognized as being necessarily wrong until the situation begins to produce more and more examples thereof with respect to more people being affected. A few observers can sometime see an undesirable situation long before it becomes denoted as a social problem. Take the circumstance involving the usage of children as a source of cheap labor. This was exploitation pure and simple. While we of today are shocked when the situation is reviewed in a discussion, those in the past found it a socially acceptable and financially 'sound' business practice in order to maximize profits.
In Medieval Europe, for example, children were sometimes seen, and thus dressed, treated as and expected to act like small adults before the advent of an established child psychology came to mind... which brought to light differences that were not as readily seen, much less even considered. But circumstances of child mortality, general standards of public education, nutrition, subsistence needs, etc., were all contributing factors to such an inclination to treat children as small adults. A cursory examination of the development of a greater understanding of children presents us with the information about a Swiss Psychologist by the name of Jean Piaget who developed a theory of cognitive development in children which might be said to be a part of a much larger overall philosophy from which stemmed the notion of: "Only education is capable of saving our societies from possible collapse, whether violent, or gradual." Let's face it, on the whole, people in the past were more ignorant about children than the ignorance many of us witness being expressed by adults of today. Admittedly, social problems very frequently occur due to ignorance that becomes enlightened about an activity that was once viewed as normal and natural, but is later recognized as an exercise in blunderous thinking. Awareness in a given social problem can take time to be considered as such, then defined as such, and then analyzed in terms of trying to develop a solution for.