Cenocracy: A New Government Perspective
Calling All Communists and Socialists
page 22


It can not be certain that the social governing philosophy which would arise by taking the best attributes of Communism, Democracy, and Socialism, is the best for humanity under the present, much less any environmental conditions which the deteriorating Earth and Planetary system can provide. Nor is it certain that a philosophy which espouses the best ideas of all religions or economic ideologies would yield what is best for humanity.

If we view the different nations of the Earth as we might as individuals in a group, the individual personalities may be such that you would not want to have any relationship with them... though conditions forces you to make an effort to do so. While you might want to be intimate with them in the sense of a romantic entanglement, you might nonetheless do business with them because they have a needed resource in terms of goods or service, such as providing a strategic position of placing a military base. But if one is an outsider, such as being an extra-terrestrial, you might view the collection of nation-individuals as being a crowd in a circus, carnival or psychiatric ward, where all imagine themselves as being someone they are not. The personalities of the different nation-individuals might well be interpreted as those whose personal philosophies do not exhibit any great intelligence, insight, nor wisdom. They might well resemble different neighbors who exhibit different day-to-day behaviors that a superficial view suggests they have some talent in doing something, but upon closer examination, may have some latent potential, but actually have no skill if they were stripped naked of all their resources.

Like so many neighbors who, from the perspective of a child appear to be strong, smart and able to fix things, are seen as being not so strong, not so smart and not so talented, when they are later viewed through the eyes of someone with increased strength (physical, emotional, financial, moral, etc...), increased "smartness" (experience), and increased abilities (via trial and error application). Indeed, those that one has previously looked up to and relied on, are now seen as having faults and deficiencies that were not so readily apparent from the perspective of a naive child. Analogously, the different views of Communism, Democracy, Economics, Philosophy, Religion, and Socialism are found to be wanting. No nation that we might bring to a table of discussing what is best for all of humanity, embodies the best philosophy. Every nation, when viewed from the perspective of being an individual, is particularly self-centered... because this is the central market-place ideology being practiced in the bartering sessions. It is very difficult for the whole of humanity to pursue greater ideals when so many nation-individuals are still scrambling to provide themselves with basic needs. A situation that is all too-often exploited by those who want to take advantage of less resource fortunate individuals... like a Monarchy or Religion of old handing out alms to make itself feel good for exhibiting a sense of charity but not striving to relieve the conditions of poverty... because such a situation affords them with a means of manipulating the public by keeping them in a state of indentured servitude.

As long as a nation-as-an-individual or citizens within a nation are kept in a state of full or semi-full servitude because basic needs are not being met... or are met by an illusion of possible attainment through a convoluted and labyrinthine bureaucracy; the nation-individual nor citizens within a nation are able to gather a momentum of thinking in any real individual sense, much less a collective one, if they are preoccupied with scratching out a hand-to-mouth existence. If any nation can brag about being able to feed its people adequately, then there should be no need of charitable food banks, or other charitable food sources for anyone, because all should be provided for if a system of governance was actually committed to having a public that is nutritionally stabilized, instead of being subjected to policies where food is artificially manufactured with too much salt, fat, carbohydrates, cholesterol and other anti-healthy ingredients which contribute to obesity, heart attacks, and multiple other needless health issues.

No less, a nation (such as the United States) that claims its political philosophy is the greatest example of Democracy, would not indulge in the hypocrisy of having the need to be protected by an established form of Communistic-Socialist military. It's presumed "Great Democracy" should be able to protect its self-centered interests, except for the problem that its interests often are anti-democratic. Indeed, such a practice indicates that we are dealing with many so-called democracy-focused nation-individuals who are hypocrites, and can not be trusted at their word. The situation becomes more noticeable for some when they view the actions of the United Nations, as Representatives of the nation-individuals. The expressed collective philosophy of the U.N is an exercise in puerile gratifications that it has not grown out of in its entire history since October 29, 1945, which came to replaced the earlier established League of Nations which closed its door (for renovation into becoming the United Nations) in 1946. If we look at its charter and compare it to what has not been accomplished (instead of concealing the inadequacy of the charter by trumpeting what has been done); we realize that it too, like the individual nations, must be revamped with a new philosophy:

According to its Charter, the UN aims:

To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,...to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights,...to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.

In addition to maintaining peace and security, other important objectives include developing friendly relations among countries based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples; achieving worldwide cooperation to solve international economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems; respecting and promoting human rights; and serving as a centre where countries can coordinate their actions and activities toward these various ends.

The UN formed a continuum with the League of Nations in general purpose, structure, and functions; many of the UN's principal organs and related agencies were adopted from similar structures established earlier in the century. In some respects, however, the UN constituted a very different organization, especially with regard to its objective of maintaining international peace and security and its commitment to economic and social development.

Source: "United Nations (UN)" Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

The UN charter reads like an old Aesop fable, Grimm's fairy tale, McGuffey Reader, or Dick and Jane story. It is not deserving to be entitled as a collective philosophy established by experienced, intelligent, insightful, reflecting, nor circumspective adults portraying wisdom; but more like the mimicry of an entertaining bird song, or the chatter of those engaged in hanging decorations for a party or school dance. The UN charter is a disgusting superficiality that should be cause of great embarrassment to all of humanity. What a disgusting frivolity! Whereas the idea of having an organization of Nations United in a Cause of establishing a beneficial commonality for all peoples, it is nonetheless of need to note what type of methodology of governance is being employed. Because of the superficiality upon which the UN charter is based, we must initially presume that it reflects the type of governing system employed to promote such an embarrassing monologue. We need to take a look at a bit of its History to get a sense of internalized government structure, and whether you prefer to name it a Communism, Democracy, Socialism or something else:

Despite the problems encountered by the League of Nations in arbitrating conflict and ensuring international peace and security prior to World War II, the major Allied powers agreed during the war to establish a new global organization to help manage international affairs. This agreement was first articulated when U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter in August 1941. The name United Nations was originally used to denote the countries allied against Germany, Italy, and Japan. On January 1, 1942, 26 countries signed the Declaration by United Nations, which set forth the war aims of the Allied powers.

The United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union took the lead in designing the new organization and determining its decision-making structure and functions. Initially, the “Big Three” states and their respective leaders (Roosevelt, Churchill, and Soviet premier Joseph Stalin) were hindered by disagreements on issues that fore-shadowed the Cold War. The Soviet Union demanded individual membership and voting rights for its constituent republics, and Britain wanted assurances that its colonies would not be placed under UN control. There also was disagreement over the voting system to be adopted in the Security Council, an issue that became famous as the “veto problem.”

The first major step toward the formation of the United Nations was taken August 21– October 7, 1944, at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, a meeting of the diplomatic experts of the Big Three powers plus China (a group often designated the “Big Four”) held at Dumbarton Oaks, an estate in Washington, D.C. Although the four countries agreed on the general purpose, structure, and function of a new world organization, the conference ended amid continuing disagreement over membership and voting. At the Yalta Conference, a meeting of the Big Three in a Crimean resort city in February 1945, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin laid the basis for charter provisions delimiting the authority of the Security Council. Moreover, they reached a tentative accord on the number of Soviet republics to be granted independent memberships in the UN. Finally, the three leaders agreed that the new organization would include a trusteeship system to succeed the League of Nations mandate system.

The Dumbarton Oaks proposals, with modifications from the Yalta Conference, formed the basis of negotiations at the United Nations Conference on International Organization (UNCIO), which convened in San Francisco on April 25, 1945, and produced the final Charter of the United Nations. The San Francisco conference was attended by representatives of 50 countries from all geographic areas of the world: 9 from Europe, 21 from the Americas, 7 from the Middle East, 2 from East Asia, and 3 from Africa, as well as 1 each from the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Belorussian Soviet Socialist Republic (in addition to the Soviet Union itself) and 5 from British Commonwealth countries. Poland, which was not present at the conference, was permitted to become an original member of the UN. Security Council veto power (among the permanent members) was affirmed, though any member of the General Assembly was able to raise issues for discussion. Other political issues resolved by compromise were the role of the organization in the promotion of economic and social welfare; the status of colonial areas and the distribution of trusteeships; the status of regional and defense arrangements; and Great Power dominance versus the equality of states. The UN Charter was unanimously adopted and signed on June 26 and promulgated on October 24, 1945.

Source: "United Nations (UN)" Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2013.

If you are a reader who chanced upon this page and have not read the first few pages in this series, or you are a reader whose attention span did not include the references to a "three" and "3 -to- 1 ratio", you might not make the psychic connection to the previous information and the above stated examples of the "Big Three"... with the addition of China which were then labeled the "Big Four" (which should more appropriately have been entitled as a 3 -to- 1 ratio (complement). The symbolism in this regard, because it can be compared with other similarly organized examples from a variety of subject areas which represent a commonality of occurrence related to a similar (environmentally originating influence); is a tell-tale sign that the collective perspective of the UN, as described in the superficiality of its governing philosophy, lacks the depth and scope needed by humanity for its future, which is always a moment in the past when we look for it in the present. The UN charter is inadequate to the philosophical perspicuity that it needs in order to establish, much less practice greater goals.

For example, while the goal of "peace" may be viewed as an admirable one, its definition based principally on an absence of war, represents a perception aligned with a reflexive knee-jerk response, and not much fore-thought... despite all the historical information available to make a corrective hindsight. A far more reaching definition would entail an absence of poverty, hunger, crime, and lack of housing, health care, and self-actualization within the context of a larger collaborative social philosophy involving the entire species. But the adoption of a more extensive philosophy (and not mere embellishment), requires that member states not be so preoccupied with trying to acquire and maintain the chartered basics; that they are incapable of seeing past the grasp of their own individual as well as collective finger-tips. However, it should not surprise us that even though a hierarchy of personal development is available, this does not automatically mean a person, nation or the UN will strive for personal improvement which assists in collective improvement. In other words, although a person is taken out of poverty or helps themselves out of it, this does not mean they will be on a path towards greater personal improvement that will assist others in a like-manner. If for one reason or another they are incapable of exceeding their grasp beyond the boundaries of an identified poverty which they are a step away from, they may well view their further growth based on an assumption derived by actions which create conditions that sabotage "upper mobility" of others.

Some UN participators are interested in helping those who are believed to be in a position of helping them, and are not necessarily concerned with the well-being of all other members. While some nations can be helped a little for a short period of time to help them over a "rough patch", others might well be helped a lot over an extended period of time and never reach a point of self-sufficiency because they do not have the necessary resources to accomplish this. They will forever be dependent, and such a dependency may well breed a condition that most of its citizens can not develop a nurturing disposition of self-actualization with which contributions to humanity can be made. It is then of need to determine the value of a Nation, with respect to its non-viable real-estate (and not its people). Similarly, the capacity of the Earth's ability to promote both health and growth needs to be determined and appropriate population control mechanisms put into place, because there is a limit and that limitation must be guided by an enhanced formula of practical philosophy. The religious doctrine of "be fruitful and multiply" was based on a poor appreciation of both environmental limitations and decay.

While large populations can provide the resource of cheap labor, and that labor be rewarded for practicing an ethic of production which creates commercial conditions able to fulfill the needs of everyone, this does not also mean everyone's needs will be fulfilled if this goal is tertiary to the goals of wealth and social control. No less, if the foremost goal of any people is to be defined by a socially observed practice in which wealth, power and personal prestige are deemed the ultimate achievements, then these Three also define a limitation that, if even thought to be exceeded by some alternative view that more and more others begin to accept as valid, the alternative idea and advocates may become subjects of organized derision and attack by those whose only interest is in maintaining a system of traditionalized ignorance. If we continue to let these three set the standard of thinking, then being able to exceed their cognitive orientations may well lead to a confrontation both internally and externally.

Such a philosophy, as might be referred to as a "New Government" (Cenocracy) formula— with an application extending into the development of a New United Nations Charter, needs to be comprehensive enough to withstand the criticisms of those whose perspectives may be as varied as the types of life forms in existence; though a small limitation may be the actual capacity because of the typical forms of constraints human apply to considerations. Because definitions often entail the usage of acceptable parameters like a system of rules applied to a game, within which frequent players acquire the adaptive skills labeled talent, expertise, mastery, proficiency, etc.,, a promoted belief system must be able to withstand challenges from those who may well do anything to win, such as forcing a contest within the confines of an arena they are most comfortable with, because it accentuates their adaptive abilities... like an energy drink, steroid shot, or if needed, inspiring them by distorting their own vision so as to promote a heightened state of intellectual adrenaline... like making them feel they are the underdog, are backed up against a wall, or have nothing to lose and can therefore take any risk which, if successful, may later be interpreted to be courage, craftiness, or even a desirable craziness.

If the UN does not have the appropriate operational philosophy which will assist it in achieving higher ideals, it can not possibly be used as an instrument to "impose" (encourage) such a standard on member states... so as to force them to improve on their governing philosophies. If the UN is a reflection of the collective views of member states, then we must consider that an alteration in its philosophy might well be adopted by individual members. The present standards of a "collective perspective" displayed in the UN charter is the articulation of a superficial altruism. Needless to say, it needs a new operational algorithm.

Although most countries have a displayed interest in preserving some measure of their own environment as is attested by the practice of creating natural reserves and preserves, preventing erosion and voicing opinions for the collective regard of reducing various petroleum-based emissions; such actions are often backed up with the usage of science and aesthetic concerns. Because of this, a Cenocratic form of New Government philosophy involving various sciences will make the effort of introducing the concept much easier, though it must be acknowledged that the perspective is in its elementary stages of fact gathering to amass corroborating evidence in preparation for would-be critics. Although a research grant from the the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and/or the Environment Programme (UNEP) would be helpful since the idea presents us with a major philosophical detour sign, it can otherwise be accomplished by the assistance of those whose interest is as sincere as our own in promoting the usage of a practical governing philosophy that addresses more of the issues than do any current forms of government.

As of yet, our experience has indicated that even when others claim an interest in being helpful, their actual interest is in setting up road blocks with the intent of directing the course of research into dead ends so that their present philosophy of government will be not only sustained, but be given a feather to put into its cap. While many are indeed skilled researchers, they rely on skills applied in concert with the prevailing environment of governance, like a regulated system of mathematical proofs considered to be an irrefutable road map in reaching a given destination. And though you may intuitively grasp which way the road winds around a given point, the intuition is not permitted as a sound piece of evidence, even if in reaching the intuitive point, one must use a different path that is not being considered in the practiced algorithm. For example, while many children know that a result to a given math problem is correct, an instructor might not believe them if there is not step-by-step blueprint that they can follow. However, making claims that we are will necessitate the development of proofs by those who are entranced by the idea, or even if they want to use their proofing rigour to develop a proof against it. In other words, those who develop an idea may not have the necessary skills by which a result can be proved.

The Cenocratic model of a New Government, to which this series of essays began with is not one that is being asked to be accepted on faith. It is being offered as an invitation to develop a comprehensive idea that will be able to stand toe -to- toe with current models of governing philosophy, though some might want to consider that their application and usage are definitive proofs of their viability over and above anything else that can be created. While this may be quickly denied, the fact that something is being used by hundreds of millions is sometimes felt necessary to persist in using because of the many social habituations that have been established. Getting people to shift gears in adopting a new government philosophy will be difficult if there is little or no preparation, though complete life-changing adaptations have occurred under traumatic events, with valuable experiential lessons earned or pragmatic effects rewarded.

Despite our earnestness in promoting the idea, we do not know what style of government will best be able to make full usage of the model. Seeing as how there are no fully fledged practices of Communism, Democracy, or Socialism, it is difficult to create an image of application in order to draw out an architectural draft. The problem is quickly understood if one attempts to construct a draft of an actual Communism, Democracy, or Socialism based solely on the simplistic definitions being applied:

  • Communism: Government by way of Collectivism and no private ownership.
  • Democracy: Government by way of Collective opinion.
  • Socialism: State Ownership of industry.

While we can what are assumed to be definitive elaborations of enhanced distinction, the accompanying models of economics such as a Market Capitalism, occludes the recognition that such models are only maintained if available resources are enough to reinforcably ensure their viability. For example, if the United States and other large countries did not have enough resources to impose their interests in a particular type of economics model being used, lesser amounts of resources held by multiple smaller countries would thus substantiate the value of their preferential model to serve their foremost interests... and such a model, or models, would thus be used to support the type of governance being applied. If we were take the presence of America out of the equation of influential economic modelers based on its government structure, the world's usage of a different economics model may be the rule of thumb. The so-called "global market" may indeed be run by a different set of rules if there were no major super-powers able to impose their will through bribery, intimidation, manipulation and other nefarious tactics described erroneously as "it's just business".

It is because of the world's present usage of governing models that create precariousness and uncertainty, that we are forced to seek out a better model that will provide us with a more secure hope for a sustainable future. Since the goals of the United Nations do not help humanity avert recurring problematic issues even amongst member states, much less those groups who have no affinity for the United Nations nor any singular nation because of a practiced independence being sought after; we need a form of governing philosophy which will provide greater stability and growth that will not be based on the superficialities of a charter that is philosophically out-of-step with the reality which is being presented to us by available information.

While there appears to be nothing vile about making money in a social environment which requires the usage of such, it is an extremely contemptible ideology when the desire for wealth suspends the value of any other philosophical view having to deal with providing a living wage in the context where given labor is required. Using divisions of labor as a rule of thumb by which human value is measured, and is not adjusted for the valuation of the overall labor market which defines the criteria for which the poverty, lower and middle class levels are lessened... in order to create greater wealth by the additions of an altered social philosophy that is arbitrarily applied based on a given political mood; is a situation in dire need of reformulation.

If the charter of the United Nations nor the practiced social philosophy of any nation is incapable if providing that which so many have sought for in so many different places and times, then we must seek the application of an alternative, though the initial consequences may be that which affects all stratifications of society to effect a level playing field by devaluing the worth of those who have been in charge of devaluing everyone else for too long. A New Government awaits us, and we are in pursuit of this Cenocracy.

Page Initially Created:Thursday, 01-Sep-2016... 01:48 AM
Page First posted: Thursday, 01-Sep-2016... 12:32 PM
Updated Page: Sunday, 18-June-2017... 7:20 AM