Cenocracy: A New Government Perspective
Another Barking Dog

Canine Remarks

website translator plugin

Flag Counter

The American Democratic Party needs to sober up. They are living in a fantasy world that is not shared by many people. The present Democratic candidates for the Presidency reek of the old phony democracy inebriation the public is tired of smelling and having to deal with from one generation to the next. It is a stench that will simply replace the fitful soiling of Trump whose neurotic antics are like a dog with their testicles cut off chasing its own tail in an attempt to snif and hump; that is if any one of the Democratic Party candidates should possibly be elected... which appears doubtful at this point. The people do not want to replace one pile of crap for another one under the guise of proposals that will not be accomplished because the Republicans in the Congress have smeared themselves so deeply with the feces of Trump and have packed frozen samples away for future usage, because it reminds them of themselves in the latrines of meetings that flush the general public down the drain from one decade to the next.

For those of you who have spent anytime in a rural area in Arizona where the "Average American" living on what they may describe as "their property" but it, like all citizen-held property in America, is actually a piece of property that allows them to have the illusion of ownership so long as they pay yearly taxes on it. In fact, some senior citizens have paid more in taxes over their lifetime than the actual initial cost of the home. The longer a person lives on a single piece of property, they become... what can be called, is a punishment by way of taxes. No one actually owns their property, for all of the land is owned by some measure of government to which they lease it from.

Anyway, land ownership is not the topic this present tale is about. So let's begin again: The "Average American" living in at least one rural area of Arizona that this writer is familiar with (though other places might well be included in this representation), owns a pet, which typically is a dog used to ward off coyotes and the increased incidence of thieving "tweekers" (TWEEKER or Tweaker is slang for "A methamphetamine user") who are out to steal anything they can in order to exchange it for money to buy some more drugs and perhaps liquor. They will strip abandoned mobile homes of their wiring for the copper and whatever item that can be easily and quickly removed, though some take an inordinate amount of time if they can do so by being unobserved... including the temporary occupation of the dwelling they are dismantling. And surprisingly, let us note that there may be in some rural areas, a high incidence of convicted sex offenders who were let out of prison after serving their purported time in jail for their disgusting offense(s). This writer would have no qualms in executing all of them without giving a second thought to these people whose world view is that they represent some version of an "Average American". Yep, each person from their own vantage point has an interpretation of what they presume is meant by the phrase "Average American", though no doubt this same type of orientation takes place in different countries as well, with respect to what is meant by the "Average German", or "Average Russian", or "Average Brit", or "Average Jew" or "Average Pacific Islander", or "Average Hungarian", or "Average Chinese", or "Average Japanese", or "Average Vietnamese", or "Average Drunk", or "Average Prostitute", or "Average Criminal", or "Average Used Car sales-person" (which are typically men), etc...

Yet, let us take a step back and once again make reference to the ownership of a dog, since the title of this page is using the incidence of a cacophony of barking dogs as a metaphor referring to the many voices of politics being encountered on the internet, if not personally, on a day to day basis. The "Barking Dog" reference is being used to describe the many different political voices (though multiple other subjects could be addressed in this way as well), being "heard" (read or listened to), which gives this writer the impression of being amongst multiple neighbors who own dogs and leave them outside at night to howl in succession, or as if they are in a chorus... if not relaying some sort of gossip as when adjacent property dogs bark at one another.

Like so many television news shows, though all shows engage in some sort of tabulating ratings so as to impress their sponsors with; those on the internet frequently adopt the usage of one or another counter (hidden and/or visible), as a means to judge their relevancy. The "like/dislike" categories found on social media sites is a similar formula for accessing some presumed viability, though each person may inculcated some different meaning of value to a particular number of readers and/or listeners... not all of whom care to make their presence known. In fact, some readers judge the merit of a webpage contents by the number of "hits" a counter displays, though counters can be artificially manipulated to give a false reading. Such people are crowd followers and don't feel secure enough in their own judgment to decide whether or not they like or dislike something without voicing the same opinion as one or more others, like a dog that barks when it hears another dog barking, though many dogs bark upon hearing a fire or police vehicle siren.

Because so many writers rate their relevancy according to book sales or some other numerical value, and this value can than be translated into some measure thought relevant to someone whose notability in public is afforded a high value of public viewing income, the writer(s) may then have an opportunity to approach and speak with someone such as Obama. However, even noted journalists or other public celebrities may not be afforded an ability to personally meet anyone they want much less speak with them and ask pointed questions. This is not only the case for Cenocracy.org, but many, many, many internet sites who would like to publicly question one or another politician, government employee or another, that they would like to in order to get information for some topic they are concerned with at a given moment.

For example, the "Average American", whomever this creature actually is, is not permitted to question just any government official. They typically have to go through some process, person or procedure, after which they may nonetheless be confronted by a go-between who supplies one or another excuse for their superior's absence. Officials are said to be too busy, or too important, or too something or another, and will look or listen to someone's comments when they have a moment, though there is no guarantee that a reply will be quickly or even at all coming. Yet, how are we to blame such officials or other notable public figures when they are confronted by so very many "barking voices", each having their own types of barks, howls, and yaps? Anyone who has been subjected to an onslaught of multiple junk mail most likely over time will simply not even open an envelope or e-mail. They adopt a behavior of throwing out the mail, (sometimes even relevant ones by mistake), or disregarding e-mails... that may or may not also be subjected to an automatic sifting system incorporated into a given e-mail service. Sometimes one has to look over their junk e-mails in order to find even a previously accepted model of mail that the e-mail automation system has decided is not to be considered as junk mail and we have to tell it (scold it) otherwise.

Then again, once relevant mail may later be construed to be irrelevant or unwanted, and attempting to tell the sender this is the case, falls on deaf ears. The sender may continue to send mail though a person has discontinued a service, to the point that the word "harassment" needs to be evoked, which defines their actions in such a way that legal action against them can be taken. Typically, a business will back off, though some businesses seeking to discontinue a person's right to seek remuneration may claim the person is engaging in some type of "escalation' of emails, where the word "escalation" is to be interpreted as an offense, when the actual offense is the receiver not wanting to adequately address an issue.

The US government likes to put up stumbling blocks against the public being able to adequately address issues and have them resolved. The US government has adopted the attitude that it is the right of the public to seek a redress of grievance(s) against the government, but that the public must go through a process aligned with a strict time and quantity of signature. Then again, even if all conditions are met, the reply may be a stale response offered by some subordinate and not an actual head of state, nor the whole of the government, since the petitioning process of the US government is to petition the White House, but no other branch is ever given a copy thereof. There is no single entity or person within an entity to direct a query to, since individual Congressional Representatives may have no personal interest in investing any effort to those constituents who are not recognize as having provided any funding for their campaign. In any respect, their individual power in their respective position, is particularly meager in most instances anyway, since they may not have acquired any clout amongst their peers. They too become just another barking dog amongst other barking dogs in Congress, each seeking to establish some relevancy by way of some personalized counting system... which may be viewed in terms of how many news interviews they receive, as well as pats on the back by colleagues. Even though the larger public may have a different opinion of them. This opinion however, is of little value in the "real world" to which they live in, since the "Average American" in their given context of rubbing elbows with a few hundred others whose frequent monetary worth is in the millions, if not billions, which is quite different from the impoverished state many millions of "Average Americans" who have no one actually speaking for them, and those who attempt to do so are drowned out by others seeking to make their own views relevant, or those who have been paid to bark louder so that the public voices can not be heard. Hence, this is why so much of the "Average American" silence is aligned to an internalized echo of wanting a revolution that will bring about a decisive alteration in the formula of government being practiced. It is a formula no present Democrat or Republican candidate for the Presidency is talking about.

Claiming the following list of needed social reforms (by Representative Omar) is of primary interest to the "Average American" in setting a course by which future social problems will be forestalled, is actually a testament to how deeply widespread Congress and the rest of the political climate in the government is out of touch with the actual needed reforms that Cenocracy.org has placed next to it. The list by Representative Omar is incredibly naive and superficial. All she is has done is join in the same barking chorus that so many others are engaged in, like hounds baying at a full moon because nothing substantially important will come of the collection, though minor and miniscule alterations in laws may be hailed a triumph of Legislative action because this is the typical rationale of an inept Congress that over values its mediocrity and wants to sell the public on yet another illusion like the phony brand of democracy being practiced:

Two perspectives

Addressing her issues will not solve the underlying core problems of an inadequate government based on a phony democracy design. We have the problems outlined by Representative Oar due to fundamental design problems in the overall government. One of which is not only the allowance of an idiot of Trump to hold onto an office that he is clearly unsuited for... unless we are to admit that the office of the Presidency is a joke or vestigial organ of an outdate Monarchical orientation which continues on in the act which invites and maintains a governmental hierarchy of a selected few such as those who perpetuate or perpetrate:

  • A Dynasty of like-mindedness, typically involving those in large corporations directly involved in some government resource activity.
  • The illusion of a "peoples government".
  • Similarly oriented undefined social Aristocrats accounted for by personal monetary worth, who may or may not be directly involved with providing some resource for the government but are nonetheless viewed as being culturally important by those in government.
  • How much money and resources back a person up in their political campaigns and later legislative efforts which may be little more than to establish the hoped-for beginning presence of a:
    • Specific gender (such as more women in high ranking positions, as if the collective will of a majority of women can solve all social problems);
    • Racial orientation (any non-white person in a white dominant culture whose presence routinely results in buffing up the egos of their respective race);
    • Particularized religion (any minority, be it Muslim, Mormon or Moonie, etc., that can use the presence of "one of their own" as a justification of their religious belief);
    • Sexual orientation (such as the LGBTQ group with a modernized old-world subversive matriarchal orientation trying to inveigle its way into every nook and cranny of society like a pandemic infectious disease that claims all dissenters as a "homophobic", as if this actually defines all rationale arguments against them);
  • Elections as ceremonials of elitism, of which the pathetic "Electoral College" has been branded to be a part of;
  • Monarchialism under the guise of some purported standard of equality where everyone's singular vote has meaning.
  • etc...

No less, let us also mention that once a festering social problem is addressed, it is used to curtail the effort for any other actions in addressing and resolving other pressing issues as well. Congress does not address all the issues at the same time and resolve them in one fell swoop, otherwise their presence and participation in the "Legislative/political game" is devalued. For example, take away poverty and we take away the need for all charities involved in the money making scheme that poverty and other social problems provide. Threaten to take away a social provision and the public is thus more easily swayed to become more dependent and thus enabled to be manipulated into providing fodder for the grinding wheels of corporations that have made poverty and social problems into a very large and lucrative business.

Here is one very laughable representation of how American businesses and politicians view poverty, and have done so year after year after year after year after year: Help Americans find meaningful relief from poverty. It is pathetic nonsense to have established foundations and charities decade after decade who make money off of the poor, or else they would not be involved in such a process that should be addressed by tax dollars already given, and not expect the public to give more money; which then leaves the already paid taxes to be distributed to agencies seeking to run scams on the public like ICE, the Border Patrol (including Homeland Security and the SEC: Securities and Exchange Commission) to name but a few of the so-called "security/judicial" services that run various bait-and-switch or wait-and-switch scams like so many criminal-minded organizations such as for example, those now involved with advertising certain types of discounts at the automotive stores named O'Reilly and Autozone, whose prices for the same products with their own respective name brands attached, are so close that one has to think that some level of collusion of price fixing is taking place. America is a nation of criminal organizations operating under frivolous laws that permit them to appear to be legitimate, but actually fulfill the present government's need to undermine the public's need to have a more meaningful democracy instead of the present phony one.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez accuses Congress members of blindly funnelling money to ICE so it could set up 'fake universities to trap students'.

Whereas the Congress woman urges listeners to "Look out for those in politics who like to label themselves 'fiscally responsible,' yet only seem to care about the price of justice–not the cost of oppression"; this perspective is rather superficial. Anyone having worked in a corporate, legal or education atmosphere where back scratching, tit-for-tat, grading-on-a-curve, quid pro quo, and various other formulas of hide-n'-seek, tag, red rover-red rover, mother may I, four-square, swing the statue, bribery, and multiple other children-played game exchanges take place in and out of formal professional settings; should not be surprised to see the presence of a standardized "me-too" behavioral expression where different types of believe-in compromises for some imagined remunerative expectation to eventually be experienced. All too many who enter into the Congressional sphere do so as a means of making contacts for some future career or financial move, because they feel that the Legislative process is so cumbersome that it is of little value for them to assert an individualized effort for a proposed bill that most likely will never be voted one; much less for them be antagonistic to the flow of a procedural occurrence that to agree with will express to the ruling status quo that they are team players and thus deserve a spot on some externally-linked association. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is confronted by a situation many of us who have never entered Congress know all too well exists as part of the government culture. Either join in the chorus of barking like everyone else or quite possibly be drowned out by the baying of hounds who have learned how to echo their sentiments the loudest, and have a ready, willing, and able journalism culture to back them up. Whereas she is expecting her colleagues to be rationally objective and want to serve the public as declared in one campaign speech after another, the only rationale for many of them is to serve themselves in a government that is designed to serve itself, as it was set up by the Founding fathers with specific interests so often tied to some commerce which benefited them.

The US government like so many governments is selfish because it was set up by those with commercial self interests whose legislative efforts were primarily focused to this end, and had no widespread and deep concern for the welfare of the people. If it had, there would have been the right to vote for everyone at the very beginning. Equal rights would have been one of the first declarations on a Bill of Rights which accompanied the Declaration of Independence, but was not permitted to become its own voice after the initial Independence Declarations. Instead, the rights of man, woman, child, slave, and non-white male holding property, were buried away by subsequent political acts and thus performed the typical bait and switch theatrics, like so many campaign promises which sound good, but are used to create public illusions and delusions. Congress is a boys club with boys club rules. Just because a woman gets into Congress and her supporters think she can make a world of difference belies the fact that many women who enter politics either defer to men or become a tomboy. And when having achieved a tomboy status where they feel they are "just as good as any man", they overlook the necessity of the public for them not to be just as good, but better. Women don't necessarily do a better job, just a female version of the same nonsense, like girls adopting the uniforms of the same games being played by men. They are not creating new games. Similarly, they are not focused on creating a desperately needed new formula of government. Simply replacing a man with a woman so she can carry out the same office routines is a stupid political exercise. Likewise, replacing a white person with a black person or some other-than-white person or other-than conventionally oriented person, does not appreciably create the conditions by which the overall public will be helped. It may well help those that support them because they share the same race, same gender, same sexual orientation, same religion, same "family values" speech (though no one actually knows what those values are); such replacements typically do not have the vision nor skills needed to bring about the fundamental changes in government to solve social problems instead of addressing them with inadequate policies of management to which they offer a position in to someone they know, or can provide a means to pay someone back for some sort of support. It goes without saying that far too many non-public servants are in public service positions that have no business being there, but want a position in government because government is self-serving and provides for the means of a financial stability and security, with multiple perks that are paid for by a public that is not allowed to share in because the government is run like a many tiered aristocratic castle-like court, that other types of employment do not have.

In other words, those making money off of poverty do not actually want to solve homelessness, hunger and the disgusting health care problems. Their actions help to sustain and perpetuate the problems created by a poorly designed government structure that has become dependent on a system of commerce that is psychopathically selfish and self-centered. Such charitable organizations get funning directly from donors and even (sometimes) government grants, as well as the "funding" provided by way of tax subsidies or being excused from taxes, which helps large churches become even more lucrative and not answerable to the public who must then take up the slack by giving more to offset such loses. Many institutions and businesses (such as MSN) get involved with charitable schemes typically for financial reasons, including to the point of expecting employees to participate by way of workplace collected donations as well as requiring their participation in voluntarism, which is culturally forced on them, like the social impositions used as a means of manipulation in many situations. Many companies get involved with charitable efforts because they can advertise thief support for causes in which they are financially involved with in a direct manner, or in an indirect manner through social contacts that afford them accessibility to those who can provide some service or resource as a type of unspoken quid pro quo. The advertising of doing some purported good deed is often an attempt to cast themselves in a good light (such as MSN because Microsoft has a very bad reputation) and make money at (to recover money lost because of bad publicity), or get a tax break, or have some perverted sense of expressing a feigned religious morality for helping their fellow humans— and perhaps serving some religion anointed god who oversees their religion (or some religion they have targeted to be associated with and thus bathe in some supposed halo of goodness and righteousness), which expects good deeds to be performed; but no religion expects them to solve the many problems of poverty or they would not then have a means to perfunctorily express some psychotic inclination to fulfill a religious requirement for assisting the needy... without which they could not then fulfill a pathetic religious requirement which needs the needy in order to accomplish a religious goal... goals that have become institutionally more important than solving social problems that they prefer to manage, and thus perpetuate their organization.

Yet, Representative Omar is not alone. Let us take a look at the rather naive expression made by Obama because he is a superficial student of history when it comes to Revolution:

Obama's rather naive perspective

Here are a few expressions dealing with the concept of Revolution and the future that do not share Obama's childish perception. It is obvious that Obama is not a student of Revolution or he wouldn't have made such a blunder:

Three noted historical figures on Revolution

  • It is impossible to predict the time and progress of revolution. It is governed by its own more or less mysterious laws. (Lenin)
  • Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. (John Kennedy)
  • Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and force a new one that suits them better. (Abraham Lincoln)

Three quotations on the Future:

  • When all else is lost, the future still remains. (Christian Bovee)
  • I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past. (Patrick Henry)
  • My interest is in the future because I am going to spend the rest of my life there. (Charles Kettering)

In fact, it is astonishing that Obama fails to take into account the words from the Declaration of Independence, which in fact was a Declaration of an agreed upon act of Revolting:

...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...

Like so many former and active politicians, Obama needs to be relegated to the dustbin of history. His time has come and gone. His presence during the present pre-Presidential election only shows the desperation that the Democratic National Congress is in trying to establish a viable candidate against an idiot named Trump, only to be faced with a lineup of idiots itself... yet there are not enough people to support any one of them in a collective manner, since they all reek of the same former nonsense which prevailed before Trump promoted his own variation of nonsense.

First of all, since we at Cenocracy.org like so many other political sites are just variations of barking dogs without the noted relevancy that would enable us to speak with Obama and ask him what he means by "Average American" and do not want some go-between proxy doing this for us after reading this webpage, since they would most likely not be able to address his response with a pointed refrain not chained to providing some status quo perspective, we can only assume he means those that share his proclivity based on the historical data that Americans have not really engaged in revolutionary behavior like so many other countries peoples have. However, a survey of history also tells us that the majority of citizens don't engage in revolutionary behavior... only a small minority. Thus, we at Cenocracy.org (though there are other sites as well), are to be counted as Revolutionaries and thus do make up what may be designated as an "Average American" who believes in the processes of Revolution to bring about decisive progress. Then again, the word "Revolution" is not to be construed as being synonymous with "tearing down" a social order or government since we are all too aware of the resulting innocent casualties that can take place by a loss of government programs already in place. The public must be provided for and brought into the fold if a "tearing down', so-to-speak is to take place, so that the public can lend a hand in its demolition and subsequent immediate reconstruction.

Hence, the "Average American" who believes in the process of Revolution to bring about progressive change vehemently disagrees with the Ma-Ma's boy attitude and perspective of Obama and his counterparts such as Representative Oar. Yet, they are not alone. Far too many misinterpret the usage of the word "Revolution" and "deconstruction" to mean undesirable negative orientations. But this is not the case at all. Since it is well recognized by professed and armchair Revolutionaries that the present formula of the US government and in fact many governments throughout the world do not incorporate an internalized mechanism by which large swaths of progress can be made at a single time, such a need requires the tactic of a Revolutionary approach. This is not anarchy. This is not the fanaticism of some Communist and Socialist upheavelers who have an urge to destroy but no real vision for construction and instead think that their brand of a dictatorship is a desirable formula of government to "set things right', yet only corrects small errors while simultaneously creating new ones.

Lots of revolutions take place by way of different models found in different subject areas such as science, art, religion and otherwise. And while some can be quite socially disturbing of attitudes, they do not necessarily alter the underlying activities of day-to-day commerce nor sending kids to school. Day to day practicalities can remain as they are as large governmental revolutions are undertaken such as the adoption of a Peoples Legislative Branch, so long as the public is brought into the fold and the changes are translated into the respective vernaculars of different social settings with the many different sub-cultural venues. People will still go on vacations, plan weddings, pursue careers and continue to perform the many different personal pursuits they do while revolutionary changes in how the government is run take place. Hence, Obama's interpretation of what is meant by an "Average American" is based on a personal proclivity to perpetuate the status quo which he is most comfortable with and has helped him to achieve his present level of economic stability. But it does not assist millions of people in theirs. He and Representative Oar are overlooking some very fundamental issues that they appear not to have a grasp of and may make excuses for if questioned about, but do not offer any real road to progress. They are simply engaging in tactics that amount to playing chess, checkers, Monopoly, Rummy, etc., with the same rules leading to the same outcome, though one or another singular person may be benefited by some small toke of change they want to introduce.

However, we need a massive, a wide-spread, a deep-to-the-core fundamental change in how the government is run altogether. We Revolutionaries want to rid ourselves of the stalemating aristocratic groups and cliques which are now permitted to perpetuate a process of government which benefits them and their ilk, but the majority of citizens are not permitted to share equally in the distribution of desperately needed resources without being subjected to multiple double and triple-standards in the justice system, welfare system, education system, social security system, personal property ownership, health care, military service, etc...

The people need to be an actively direct, day-to-day participant in governmental activities without being subjected to various formulas of vicariousness which puts up one or another barrier like the present system of so-called Representation does. 20 year terms limits will be a small beginning in getting rid of the disgusting elitist hierarchy of "employment aristocrats". No less, since it is obvious that the aged do not have a genetically endowed characteristic of being all wise, all intelligent, all seeing, all knowing, age limits need to be established for all employment sectors, with provisions for noted exceptions to the rule in order for someone willing to be trained, is trained in such a capacity to take it over, without being subjected to a process that intentionally tries to subvert the actions of them being able to learn the skill... analogous to the present government's policy of expecting the public to jump through a series of hoops such as time constraints, signature counts and electronic transfers of information that can easily be lost and thus used as an excuse not to have to abide with a level of fairness defined as equality and not the arbitrarily assigned enigmatically driven labeling such as Equal "opportunity", but no equal result; or "Right to Work" but no "Right to a guarantee of Employment" or even consideration for employment.

In closing, let me bark out a refrained howl hoping it will become more than just another echo in the vast canyon of electronic media: It is unfortunate that so many voices in the internet wilderness are not being listened to in a way so as to produce a concerted effort to stir up the pack of Revolutionary dogs so as to enforce their collective to bring about that which will bring about the construction of a bridge so that the desires of people like Oar and Obama can unfold in a meaningful way and not simply perpetuate the present nonsense of do-little, do-late, which collectively amounts to a lot of recurring urinating on fence posts and doodoo-ing on the public's need for expanding its social territorial horizons. As it stands, the present government continues to mark out its territory with the stains of colors from a out-worn flag that needs to be replaced, just like the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These are three stains whose stench has circled the globe for long enough... Just like the stench of so many other countries flags as well and should be counted as a level of pollution requiring New York to be quarantined because of the presence of the UN and all the different countries flags occurring in one place.

Reference: No Legitimate Government

Date of Origination: Thursday, 28th November 2019... 2:03 AM
Date of Initial Posting: Thursday, 28th November 2019... 7:53 AM
Updated Posting: Friday, 29th November 2019... 3:23 AM