Cenocracy: A Declaration for Greater Independence
The Cenocratic Mission


A mission, however so directed, involves Missionaries. Though some may prefer to entitle themselves as a Revolutionist, we have taken upon ourselves the yoke of responsibility to furrow the path of a fully foliaged tomorrow. We are a new breed of path finders. For whatever reason, from whatever walk of life... we hear the beat of a drum to which we are inclined to march with. Though those around us, our co-workers, our colleagues, our neighbors, our friends, our relatives, or our loved ones may not hear the beat as we do nor perhaps even at all... we nonetheless do. Some will step outside their know sphere of day to day social encounters to be amongst those who, in their own way, share an unspoken of camaraderie of spirit in a task that they feel in the inner-sanctum of their soul, know in the depths of their mind and embrace in their heart is a new call of patriotism for all of humanity.

The once trusted and practiced views of social governance are now dying and seen as experiencing a crisis of suffering that the publics of the world are forced to endure because no other way of life has been presented to debate the case for an alternative consideration. And like the sentimentally cherished and honored perspectives of a primitive culture selected by the most wise who entreated others to accept their observances as an endowment provided by a god enriched by ceremonial supplications... the realm of Democracy is now being homesteaded by a different species of thought called Cenocracy. Democracy will be shown, if not already known to those unable or unwilling to survey its affects on culture after culture as the practice of an intellectualized toilette-ry in need of advanced articlization and proper sanitation. Simply put, replacing one high-brow or upper-crust metaphor with an easily understood colloquialism; present Representative forms of Democracy— stink. Present so-called Democracies are brutish totalitarianisms which may analogously be viewed as a Neanderthal. And despite all the anthropologically proffered re-examinations based on a supplemenatlized interpretation of old evidence, the stark contrast between Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens can not be dismissed as a point of irrelevant conjecture described as an anomaly. It is just as foolish to suggest there is no stark difference between the Homo sapiens of old and the Homo sapiens sapiens of today. Such will be the contrast spoken of when future generations look back upon today's anciently-formed governments and the emerging Cenocracy whose natural state of being will eventually come to supplant, and make them extinct.

Analogies contrasting the old with the new can be drawn from every subject. And even though some decry the loss of something old, the arrow of time is not a boomerang despite the contemplations of those wanting to interject a reference to history repeating itself. However, if an allowance may provisionally be given, it must then subsequently be retrospectively applied in kind to suggest that a Democracy is a re-rehearsal historical event preceding a re-rehearsed Cenocratic event... thereby giving the weight of necessity and naturalness to the advent of that which is fated to occur... because, as you say, history repeats itself. Cenocracy then, MUST come into being because its historical season has once again arrived... like the seasons of a year or a person's lifetime... the notion of a repeating history inclines us to consider the cyclicity of historical repetition, though its course of occurrence has an interval not easily recognized nor understood, presents itself through changes in that which our human state of mind can functionally perceive.

Different species' do not customarily look upon themselves as partaking in a mission. Neanderthals most likely did not conceptualize themselves as being involved with a "Neanderthal" mission, though their preeminence did supplant those of the hominid line before them. And no doubt, there were small enclaves of their forebearers which gave up in their individual struggles, just as Cenocrats of the future might well encounter those whose minds are structurally configured to subsist with the usage of the old social governing tools of Democracy. It will be difficult, if not impossible for some to adopt a different manner of thinking and living that they have acquired like the imprints of young at critical periods of development. Allowances will have to be made to permit enclaves of Democracy to live as we do so for jungle Primates who can not grow beyond the dictates of their brain's architecture. Some will cling on to Democracy because it is an inflexible scaffolding in their brain for which their mind will shriek in alarm like an animal in the wild whom we come across and mean no harm to. Such a primivity of mind exists widely and deeply in some present day cultures only because the systems of governance and education have not adopted more advanced observances and practices.

Many whose minds are already prepped for making an evolutionary step will become astonished to find that some of those they once considered intellectually astute, actually retain a formerly unrecognized autism or retardation of consciousness. Their fearful and perhaps antagonistic reactions to a Cenocracy will be a tell-tale indication of an existing inability to accept that which is not in-sync with what they are accustomed to think in terms of self-governance for a large nation. To tell someone you are getting aboard a new form of public or government transportation system called Cenocracy, may well be reacted to as if you were talking in a foreign language. At best, present Democratic standards of governance are like an old farm wagon best used as a sentimentalized Hay Ride or some nostalgic trip down some to-be-forgotten memory lane. Whereas we have a government and business community which frequently extols the benefits of progress, well let us all see them put their money where there mouth is and adopt the standards of a progressive system of self-governance. And for those politicians arguing on the platform of family values, let's see them practice what they preach by letting the entire family of our nation be a direct and not an indirect participating member as if we were some black sheep member ostracized through various forms of disenfranchisement. Family values are family values, whether of a single family unit or the family unit called a Nation.

Simply expecting the members of a 'national family' to act in accordance with democratic standards of a presumed civilized maturity without the ability to practice that maturity of mind and purpose through a fully equalized, fully redistributed, full exercised share of personal socio-political responsibility does not provide the majority of family members with the needed experience to develop our own individuality instead of being a "chip off the old block" because of a parental figure's insecurities which require a projected image of themselves as a means of self-assurance that what they say and do is correct. Present Democratically-designed socio-political "family value" practices create a wide-spread occurrence of middle-man, go-between systems of social dysfunctionality in order to create some measure of employment because those few who are hoarding the most resources are too greedy to reinvest in the well-being of the family and instead choose to give campaign contributions to those who will legislate the necessary means by which they can continue their reign of self-centeredness. One might say that the over-riding "family value" of presently practiced Democracy is the creation and maintenance of a dysfunctional social family as a government funded public works program for which some can receive a subsistence paycheck but unable to receive other benefits other than the illusion of participating in some grand humanitarian effort. Social workers would not tolerate being employed in a work place environment which precipitated discord and dissonance amongst staff, yet they sit unmoved by the actions and inactions of those in the government who insist upon retaining a larger work-place culture where dysfunctionality runs rampant in so many needless forms causing so much suffering.

By engaging oneself in a Cenocratic mission to create an understanding for the need of a Cenocracy amongst the general public is a cake walk compared to the attempt of trying to discuss issues of social need whose day to day activities in teaching and social work have made them into mindless automatons who don't realize they contribute to the very problems they would like to solve... in terms of managing so as not to cure something that would put them out of a job because the lack of a problem would thus require the development of a new one so as to perpetuate their profession... though many would argue that they are who and what they are because of existing problems... and don't reflect on this view as detailing the very perspective about a functional dysfunctionality being perpetrated by the prevailing governing systems of the world. And, in reflection and agreement, they still remain unremoved from a reticence to contribute their assertions for producing a new system of social governance!

Instead of supporting the promotion for practicing a system of governance which can be used for giving their particularlized pet social theory a means of acquiring a larger social voice and possible practiced eventuality, professionals want to argue a point as a salient prominence like some Lilliputian arguing over which (large or small) side of an egg should be used to open it instead of realizing it as a mute point if the people are deprived of having a chicken in the first place because authority fences it in order to prevent it from choosing which side of the road it prefers. And this says nothing to the presence of porcine esurience in business, government and some religions which is creating a surfeit of scarcity because the scales of resource availability are of a fixed diameter... though they are sometimes artificially enlarged by creative accounting methods.

All the Social Workers, Social Psychologists, Sociologists and Political Scientists who know there is wide-spread social dysfunctionality and that it is caused by an out-dated form of social-governance that needs to be altered, sit on the sidelines of protest because like a stockmarket clientele wanting to reap the rewards of social conflict, the maintenance of dysfunctionality represents job security. All those whose ideals were initially directed towards alleviating public hardships and suffering have resigned themselves to the position of being a glorified baby-sitter because all the members of the National family are not communicating, are intelligibly communicating by having adopted a specialized vernacular for thinking and speaking, or have taught themselves to keep their mouth shut in order to reduce the chance of being selectively targeted as a person of "fringe" ideas.

Like missionaries of religion, Cenocratic Revolutionists may encounter those whose penchant for discussion is underscored or even underwritten by a perfected verbal maneuver to wrestle or goad someone into a debate. However, their predilection rests not on the challenges presented in a logical argument, but a semantics tailored to a specific point of interest that is little more than the memorized recital of an echo reverberating within the restricted dominion of a mind... acting as a cadence like the to -and- fro motions of a baby who has learned to rock themselves into a state of stuporous bliss by way of suckling a frequently chewed-on pacifier. If you try to interject a point of consideration they think they have won because you have honored them by taking the time to debate... because little else matters. If you simply excuse yourself by way of a socially accepted excuse, they think they have won by default. They are in fact interested in little else than themselves. Some missionary excursions are not successful unless one is able to flexibly contour goals to the context they may unexpectedly encounter. Sometimes one can do otherwise... but to introduce the word "Cenocracy" to those who are wholly preoccupied with something else. For example, the wearing of a T-shirt which says "A Cenocracy is Coming" can be a loud-speaker in a room such as a library where silence is the golden rule... or at least it used to be before the advent of the cellphone and computers on which after-school children congregate together to play a computer game and librarians must act as referees, self-esteem counselors and social workers, instead of the "library science" job they were hired for.

A Cenocratic Revolutionist will entail providing an account to those who think their idea about a specific social issue has merit, that a Cenocratic structure of governance will permit then the means to actually test out a theory so long as it is not an attempt to dissuade a government committee that their rationale has the singular motive of advancing themselves financially through a grant. A grant should thus be provisionally provided with a loan guaranteeing full re-payment or be faced with a criminal default, if a funded idea at any future time is identified as a con-man's hustle.

Though there is a government grant process already in place, those who are given a grant are done so on criteria established by way of assumptions based on a person's education and previous experiences which enable them be "professionally vested" in that which they are wanting to test. In other words, grants are not given out to just anybody simply because they request one. Not only must there be some means of validating the need for an experiment, but that it contains an hypothesis for achieving a goal of social value. It is difficult for a grant committee to commit money to just any idea even if an idea is convincingly argued as having merit. The reputation of a person or controlling organization can play a decisive role in who does or does not get a grant. While assisting individual researchers in their given field of interest has merit, since it might well prove of future social value, the limitation of funds makes it impossible to fund everyone... though there can be an allotment set up for the presentation of a "hair-brained" idea, since many a discovery come by way of serendipity.

An idea, particularly one suggesting a restructuring of our social governance as that which is being promoted by way of a Cenocratic formula, has to be worked through to a point where experimentation is a valid means of deducing social merit. Clearly, in the absence of a wide-spread social dialogue, as opposed to a citizen- excluded government committee "study", the presence of recurring social problems for which the present government responds to with various "management" techniques that some might want to argue is the best available solution to a social problem; as if a historical reference to an ages-old occurrence suffices as an "explanation" that a particular social problem (such as prostitution) is the oldest profession and is therefore natural, and is not an actual problem... concretely represents a mindset that some of those in Corporations might want to justify their acts for causing economic hardship because poverty and suffering are even older professions.

It is doubtful that those who were thrust into prostitution did so because of receiving some direct monetary payment, though some might want to argue that being given a place to stay, food to eat and clothes to wear was a kind of payment... though they may not readily apply this same logic to the conditions of those thrust into poverty. Their argument for using Prostitution as some everyday appeal to common sense, is void of the appreciation that it stems from the very foundation from which the very practice of our monarchial-styled "Representative" government formulas were initiated to provide the now titled as a citizen "professions" of Prostitution and Poverty with the equality of clean clothes, sanitation and an unbiased access to medical treatment, along with the rights of personal liberty to practice their respective "professions" as social circumstances permitted them to, and a 'due process' of Justice... all in the name of Democracy. Let us all be so proud of this disgusting lack of accomplishment.

Present grant committees are not set up to assist "a researcher coming from out of no where" in developing an idea... but a committee for this can be set up if the idea of an equitably balanced social governance ideology was practiced. All citizens should have the right to contribute ideas and have those ideas subjected to a system of provisional, under-contractual-agreement assistance for furthering clarification and cataloging of all ideas. Submitting an idea to a so-called "Government Representative" very often receives a thank you for letting us (or me) know response, but little else. They are both ill-equipped for such a task and were not hired to do so. There is an identifiable need to develop a means by which the public can submit ideas, have those ideas subjected to a public review and accept/reject, or re-review process, and be given the necessary follow-up assistance. Necessarily so, other kinds of review processes might well be identified to indicate a need for implementation and development. Such positions must not be "a government job", because those who often seek such a position do so primarily for receiving a steady income with benefits, and a system of employment which makes it difficult to remove those who are neither philosophically committed, or otherwise competent to continue in a position which may have hired them solely on a basis of having a college accreditation in a specific area of departmental applicability. Some people are intelligent, do have research abilities, and need a job, but they are not appropriate for a position where a dedication to public assistance has to be a primary and sustained prerequisite.

Financially assisting someone in the writing of a book is a loan and not a grant stipulating a singular interest in developing those ideas meant solely for benefiting society and humanity. Ideas formulated on the premise of assisting society should be developed... even though an initial idea is extremely raw in characterization. Seeking funding to assist someone in a protest does not merit a grant, but a larger publicized process of review and consideration by way of a Peoples Legislative Branch provision, whereby a Referendum can be held if so merited by a public request or branch design. The assistance of ideas which present themselves as a metaphysical approach towards addressing a social concern must be tethered to a concrete means of exploration and not remain solely in a philosophical realm with out a course for actual experimental application. A researcher is pointedly reminded that they must commit themselves to the necessary research of existing materials (ideas, notions, inferences, etc.) to present their idea in the direction of an experimental trial that they must carried out, or give permission to another for developing their idea further. In short, good ideas can be generated from anyone, and the possible good which might be derived, should be explored. While ideas do favor a prepared mind, some ideas appear to "come out of no where", like an impression, an image, or even a vague notion which thereafter becomes overlayed with a framework that presents a definitive idea. Such an exploration, if based on an underlying premise of using government funds to produce a product to be sold at profit, should thus define the product as a publicly owned, operated and sole beneficiary... whether or not it takes several years after the initial funding, for the idea to resurface and be reanalyzed. Some geniuses are noticed quite early in their life, while others may take a longer process of development. If the public and humanity can be benefitted by "quietly spoken, shy or fearful of condemnation" ideas, such ideas should have a means of being presented and explored.

Democracy, like the usage of language, once, long ago... came out of no where... even though some have tried to reconstruct a plausible history and accompanied genealogy of participating inventors. For example, in an effort to identify what the first language may have been, there are three historical references about language development:

3 rulers are noted for carrying out experiments (by isolating children from all spoken language influences) to determine which language would be spoken first, and hence, identify the first language:

  1. Egyptian Pharaoh Psammetichus (664 - 610 B.C.)
  2. James IV of Scotland (A.D. 1473 - 1513)
  3. Roman Emperor Fredrick II of Hohenstaufen (A.D. 1200's)

The usage of this example is to note that the person's carrying out the experiment are not necessarily those who generated the idea, but they are nonetheless given historical credit and used as an unspoken assumption that the nobility are thus capable of ideas, views and notions that the "common" person does not. Because nobility had the means of "experimenting" on social issues and questions applied to social observations, they were frequently placed into a position for coming up with something to address a particular situation. Even if another person had an idea, they may have had to give their idea to "someone in the government loop" who then offered it as their own to a ruler or significant member of a society. The person who actually generated the idea, that is if they didn't accept some token reward to keep their mouth shut, might well have had their mouth shut for good by way of being killed. Those who are in a position of authority and looked at by the general public in the expectation of "doing something", can at times resort to any number of tactics to retain the public trust for having an ability, a capacity, and a desire to use their publicly derived resources to maintain an image of authoritative viability. For example, for those who remember the "race" between the government and private industry to unravel the human genome, called the genome project, it is of value to note that while private industry was well ahead and marked for achieving the task first, the end result of the race expressed a "tie". The "tie" was made by way of a concession, a bribe that many think involved more than just a huge amount of government funding. Such a lie afforded the government with the ability to maintain the public illusion of authoritative competence just like all the money that was poured into the "first to reach the moon" race... even while thousands upon thousands of people suffered various economic privations in their lives.

Cenocratic Revolutionists, posed as missionaries, do not want to have to carry a shield and sword as if determined to engage in a crusade to right the wrongs of Democracy by replacing it with a Cenocracy. While some people no doubt link all political ideas to one or another religion— by way of analogy, correlation or entertained superstitious suppositions, there is no implied intent for doing so in the present discussion though when used as a metaphor, may be of some use. We do not have a penchant, proclivity, or predilection for doing so. In fact, it would be wonderful if there existed a means by which new social ideas could genuinely and sincerely be tested as to their social value. While some are, they are those which address a needed concern so long as the overall system of governance retains its over-riding and over-bearing "Representative" domicility. There is no present provision which permits the testing and development of a new government formula which might create the circumstance which requires the dissolution of the presiding government. In effect, some might feel this is akin to a suicide instead of an intended reinvention which permits a rebuild without having to resort to a dismantling by way of first tearing the old system down.

The people of an advanced governing system should have the creativity, wisdom and genius to develop a means by which their governing formula can be completely rebuilt without sacrificing functionality. It is absolutely ridiculous for We The People to have to engage in a method of protest which might bring about social discord. We don't want chaos, we want a better system of order which breeds a greater equality without having to submit to a requirement of accepting equality defined by mediocrity... in which everyone is supposed to be clones of one another achieved by way using some denoted average of extremes as the standard by which all things must be judged as an ideally achieved equality. We do not want to artificialize equality by some notion of blending as representing the greatest and best idea of Democratically-oriented parity; just because the obverse of this is viewed as a dichotomously aligned objection and there is no other way to conceive of a plausible answer to a given dilemma simply because most people can not think in any other terms of consideration.

If we Cenocratic Revolutionists must use protest, it is because we are being force to. If we have to engage in a pointed remark of manifest Revolution, it is because we are being forced to. And if temperaments, after a due course of Protest and Manifested Revolution can no longer be assuaged and presently augmented by forthright reservations to promote a functional observance of social stability... whereby an outright Revolt comes to bear on the social order, it will be due to having been forced in this direction. Yet it is rather unconscionable to think that a society which houses so very much wisdom an intelligence does not incorporate a ready means to implement a needed redesign without having to subject the population to a level of discord; which alone, suffices to give evidence of a system of social governance more in line with the practice of a team of indentured draught animals subjected to the wearing of blinders on a barren desert road— while pulling a wooden-wheeled cart in which are the provisions of sustenance unable to be reached by the many confronted by labor intensive tasks, but is not the case for those lesser few who are authoritatively privileged and positioned "inside", to do so.

So very long ago that which we call Democracy, had adherents who spoke of it though the initial ideas were no doubt odd to the learned common sense of those in a distant past. Even without realizing it, these who spoke of Democratic ideals may not have even used the word "Democracy". All they knew was that they were seeking a better way than that which was being socially practiced. Such is Cenocracy. Such is but a reflexive smile for those of us engaged in its Mission. It is a far, far better thing that we do, in this tale of two systems of social self-governance.

Date of Origination:Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:15:04 AM
First Posting: Tuesday, January 6, 2015