Cenocracy: A Declaration for Greater Independence
Military and Para-Military Intervention


In preparation for a formal, publicly announced Cenocratic Declaration For Greater Independence and the various ensuing forms of protestation in support thereof, it is necessary that we entreat all officially sanctioned and vigilante- propagated Military and Para-Military groups to Stand Down in opposition to our Cause because they are legally, morally and spiritually bound to do so.

Whether a country's Constitution, a people's Bill -of- Rights, or a manifested explication of a protest explicitly outlines a Right of the people to alter or abolish their government and effect one which best befits their developed consciousness to create one accordingly— as does the original Declaration of Independence prior to the establishment of an American government; the Right to do so is embraced as a collectively accepted provision of one's consanguineous humanity to preamble, promote and projectively develop a social governing perspective that is architecturally drafted as a provision to both enhance and maintain fairness as well as integrity in the stated principles of equality, justice, and liberty in order to provision the greater fraternity of our humanity and human endeavors.

Agreeably, a people should not seek to redress grievances to instigate an alteration or abolishment of a government based on light and transient Causes. Causes promoted by those whose efforts instigate the irrationality of a mob's mentality to effect little more than mayhem, anarchy and social discord to suffice as a justification for simply controverting an authoritative position, whether or not it is legislated into law; should be met with a legal means of proactive resistance.

While Revolutions have been effected in shear reflexive response to intolerable conditions that a people have been forced to suffer under the traditionalized auspices of conventionalized authoritative beliefs that it was their duty to sacrifice for a greater whole, a larger picture, or the illusion of a promising future whose appearance never actually reaches the light of day in any semblematic form... intended Revolutions based on a Cause voiced as being Just, is bound to the predisposition of public presentation if said Revolution is publicly oriented.

Those so directed with a Cause that influences a Movement from which a Revolution in the larger social perspective is introduced and becomes assigned with the acceptance as an ascendent formula of Common Sense; should at the very least abide by the unspoken principles of conversational respectfulness:

  1. State or show as clearly as possible what is being opposed.

  2. State or show as clearly as possible why something is being opposed.

  3. State or show as clearly as possible one's architectural draft as a proposed solution to a perceived problem.

It is incredulously inconsiderate and profoundly illogical for anyone, much less a group of like-minded individuals to assume that "everyone" or the overall "public" feels and thinks about a given situation as oneself does. One's temperament and infused personal sympathies projected onto others can produce insurmountable conflicts of spirited inclination that, if applied in some other endeavor, might well be termed an expression of creativity, originality of thought or even genius... but in one's present context leads to misconstrued and misdirected efforts of both explication and expression. However, this is not to say that a single individual or a group of similarly focused individuals do not have a predictive insight into that which will be of wide-spread acknowledgment in some future or distant time. There are those whose hearts, minds and souls... as history has bore out with respect to a retrospective analysis of past lives... that are ahead of their time. Yet, in many instances, when their futuristic visions are portrayed through the prism of the prevailing logic of their time, frequently do not fully understand or are totally unappreciative of what is being portrayed and may even react violently against that which, by way of authoritative injunction, is defined as wrong, bad or even evil.

Whereas all individuals come into the world as ego-centric biological organisms, most grow out of this insistence to describe the world in terms of that which they put into their mouth. This is what infants do. As infants grow along a path towards greater maturity they come to recognize themselves in a mirror and then to make the distinction between themselves and others, sometime during childhood. Each to their own in their own time and in their own way.

··· Their perspective of "self" may then become defined in terms of the immediate family to which they belong.
··· And then the definition of 'family' may come to include an extended family involving relatives and even some close friends.
··· This vision may then become enlarged to involve one's neighborhood that is thereafter supplanted by an appreciation of one's village, town, or city for which they might then join a police force or run for some election in an attempt to provide a public service.
··· And again, as one matures, their vision may reach beyond this enclosure to involve a state, province or territory for which they may want to provide a service for in some other form of law enforcement or elected official fashion.
··· Where in some presumed finality of achieving an ultimate level of perception, the former singular perspective gives way to an acknowledgment of one's nation or several nations collectively organized, such as into a European Union or United Nations... for which one might seek to serve in a law enforcement, military or political position.
··· For some, this is as far as they can reach. They can see no tangible place or position beyond this point. This is the limit of their Will, their courage, their mental capacities at this moment in their lives. They have been taught by tradition, by custom, by everyday observances that this is the edge, and the ledge of an unsurpassable void that we must not venture past because it hold too many uncertainties. Most people are like DC (Direct Current) needing multiple and frequent points of supportive regeneration, which can be quite costly since one's overall life is finite. Only a few seem to harbor an internalized repository of extended resilience like AC (Alternating Current) which requires fewer and can tolerate more widely spaced points of encouraged regeneration. And Though the analogy is useful, it may not be understood by most who are not familiar with the history of why we chose to use AC over DC as being the most useful when Nationally applied... based on a perspective of economics.

And even if one tries to draw an image outside this line, this human contoured prefect of assumption, no residual mark can be seen. It is like trying to draw a line with some invisible ink. Or the placement of bread-crumbs to be used to circumscribe some never-before-realized dot -to- dot game. It's like traveling back in time to the 12th century BCE and telling people about the many lands outside their world perspective that may have been delimited by the few miles within the providence of a protective leader. You might be interpreted to be speaking about something that only those defined as demented or demonically designed in the imaginations of madness. There may have been no given social rationale or accepted means to even begin conceptualizing that which lays beyond themselves because it does not yet even exist in their vocabulary which would enable them a means to begin an exploration thereof. This is the edge of the world, of reality, of a time and place that most ascribe to with that called beyond death. Such is the limitation of their perception which requires the usage of superstition in an attempt to give some semblance of form, and functionality to their lives. Thus, it remains a type of forbidden territory like a chimpanzee sitting at the edge of a forest and seeing only the dead bodies of those chimps who thought to go beyond their limitations by venturing beyond, and yet succumbing to that which they were unprepared for... and whose skeletal remains are now used as mile markers and reminders of those who think to pursue a position further removed from their present vista. And no matter how wildly I flay my arms atop a distant hill beckoning them forth, I may have to turn and proceed further yet, beyond even my own horizon. Nonetheless, I shall plant a Cenocratic flag to encourage them forth, to remind them there is another like themselves, and as yet a signpost to a future yet awaiting them up ahead.

It is a signpost Revolutionists see, and must often act like parents who must grab a child by an earlobe, nose, collar or swap the obstinate child in the behind as a means of affecting the conditions for which a needed realization must be made.

··· But for others, all of humanity becomes to be viewed as their family. Which, for most, this represents the greatest achieved realization in their lives.

Yet, there exists no position of law enforcement, military duty or political placement, that is unattached to any single nation yet is bound with all of humanity... and that all of us, collectively, may be employed with. And to such a trio of ideas, one must wonder why it is these three which have become standardized as employment opportunities while those working in an organization such as the Peace Corps are forced to endure privations for embracing a greater acknowledgment of humanity— and those that should be doing so as a means of acquiring the wisdom wrought by an empathetic intimacy, are being rewarded through paid employment, to do otherwise. Humanity is yet an extremely ignorant species which practices self-defeating double-standards. The world has not yet developed the collective ability to see beyond its own historical borders... its own "self". Humanity is as yet, very self-centered, though it be called public service, civic duty, or patriotism. It is an embarrassing ignorance which breeds an arrogant authoritative obstinance.

We humans are not customarily permitted to hold and express a patriotism to a larger nation, to a larger purpose, to a larger realization greater than ourselves... called humanity. For the most part because such a nation does not yet exist as a conceptual entity in the everyday working consciousness of every single person. And neither is such an ideal idea promoted in education systems or by every single politician and government policy whose protections of interests should define the operative "our", with all of humanity. To defend their selfishness, some resort to the defensive posture that is it natural and is expressed in the biological idea of being "fittest". Yet, if this were the over-riding imperative of biology, we would not take care of the injured, the old, the weak. There would be no laws against murder and theft and rape. Clearly, such a presumed biological proscription is not what is in preeminence. If only the human mind could readily see, reach, experience that which exists beyond its present frontier of intellectual considerations.

Alas, there is far too much selfishness because the people emulate their own nation as the primary role model in their life. A government that uses double-standards, a government that is suspicious of other nations and its own citizenry, and a government that uses legislated means to provide itself with pecuniary opportunities... is the same behavior the whole of the public tries to emulate in one fashion or another. And yet, governments want its citizenry to do as they say and not as they do. Whereas when the people symbolically reflect the government through the expressions of protest and Revolution, a government is taken aback at an image they believe to be a fun house distortion. And it is a distortion because the people are taught to use different forms of obfuscation, denial, double-standards, social machinations, and a host of other moves and counter-moves clothed with facades, embellishments, subversions and the like. A government not trusting its citizenry is met with a citizenry not trusting it. Like a child very often observing or being subjected to abuse, it may well become an abuser of those who are perceived as having abused them. Like often, but not always breeds like. And this same government may wonder why its citizens don't want to patriotically lay down and die for it because of all its social services handouts which are used more so as bribes to keep the populace from revolting against its stupidity, as well as a type of drug that is meant to enforce dependency. It is a modernized formula for a myopic British parliamentary orientation to be involved only when then is some self-centered profit to weasel out of someone... including its own citizenry. We are expected to be selfish and self-centered in our allegiance to one's self, one's family, one's city, state, country; if not to one or another group or some selfishly contrived ideal.

Most of us are not in a law enforcement capacity. Most of us do not hold a military position. And most of us have never entered a political arena. But we nonetheless share a similar vision of wanting to make a difference to improve the lives of the population we represent. In our own way, in our own time, we are striving to embrace a greater ideal for all of humanity. We have resigned ourselves to the acknowledgment that Enough is Enough is Enough. We can no longer tolerate that which we perceive to be utter nonsense. There is no other way we can express our earnest desire to collectively assert our opinions except through protest, through a Revolution; because the present forms of governance are exercises in irresponsible Communism, Democracy and Socialism— which often produce social conditions of irrationality.

It is incredulous to think that humanity has only three dominant and prominent means by which a civic-minded populace can assist in expressing an altruistic predilection... and all three are government entitled paid positions! Where is the objectivity to be gained and ventured by being attached to that which one has a need to be most objective about? It is a means by which a government pays for its own tenure-ship and personalized advocacy.

Those with a penchant for military, para-military (law enforcement) or pre-military (pro-active) intervention, frequently carry or have a ready access to armament as a means of intimidation, threat or destruction to enforce another's "participation" to not engage in that behavior, such as a protest, which may be interpreted to be directed along a path but may, in actuality, not be the intention of a protest. Assumptions on both sides of a protest fence can lead to unnecessary confrontation that produces needless and regretful consequences. Very frequently, such individuals engage in their respective activities based on an assignment directed by those who have obtained a higher ranking in a particular organization. An "assignment" is an impressment of an individual's behavior to act in accordance with a superior's directive. If an individual fails to carry out the directive of an assignment, an increased magnitude of insistence may be rendered in the form of a Formal Order. In other words, an individual may be explicitly ordered on an individual basis to perform a given function. However, most often, directives are carried out as a given requirement of a person's duty to the service to which they have joined. The purpose for performing a particular function may not routinely be provided with a reason for someone to comply and those giving the directive are not likewise required to give a reason why a certain activity is to be acted on.

To put the foregoing in simpler terms, an individual must do what they are told to do because to do so is part of being who they are and what they are about. To take and comply with directives of superiors.

Protests most frequently occur in civil and not military situations, and are thus confronted with some form of para-military action called law enforcement. If a protest group does not break the law, there should be no need for the presence of law enforcement, though as in most civil situations, some representative of law enforcement is nearby and acts as a reminder to the public to be conscientious of their behavior. Such activity is neither bad nor wrong, and unfortunately, is needed in situations where the social atmosphere, particularly when alcohol or drugs is present and being consumed, can induce one or more individuals to engage in unrestrained and unlawful conduct. But the same can sometimes be witnessed when the inebriation of youthful hubris, overzealous ambition and a publicly expressed collective exuberance of a protest group are entrained by the appearance of unrestraint directed by an assumed purpose interpreted as a Just Cause that is imagined as a Revolution.

Individuals employed as a law enforcement office in a government agency or organization will most likely abide by a directive to resist the assumed or explicitly stated intention interpreted as a violation of some law that a prevailing governing body has the right to intercede in. While it is true that a society such as that of the United States permits the allowance of peaceful demonstrations, the definition of the word "peaceful" may differentially be distinguished according to the perspective of the protesting individual or group and the perspective of a social authority for a given time, place and season of both social and larger environmental events. If there is an expectation of violence by either a protest Movement or give law enforcement body, tensions may produce, either as a consequence or instigation, circumstances that one or both sides of the situation may want to use as an excuse to escalate a conflict or seek, through an act of senseless violence, some consensual concession which mitigates the need for reprisals, retributions, or demanded reparations, the latter being an exercise akin to a form of Taxation Without Representation.

The presence of law enforcement at a Protest Rally or March is both good and appreciated because some nefariously-oriented individuals want to use a group's distraction as a means of concealing their motivated unlawful activities. Others attempt to use the mood and temper of a protest to effect manipulations that would not otherwise be as easily perpetrated if a person's vigilance was not preoccupied with a supportive passion for a given event of activity. A protest group with legal intentions should welcome the presence of law enforcement. Law enforcement is not the enemy. They are individuals who want the best for themselves, their families, and all of society. If protestors have a grievance, that grievance must be carried out in a legal manner. A protest must insist on dissuading any and all would-be and intentioned criminals from carrying out their various duplicities under the guise of the protest. The law and law enforcement is a needed and desirable presence for a protest genuinely focused on addressing one or more social issues that have been inaccurately, inappropriately, indecisively or incompletely addressed by the prevailing system of social governance.

A protest group with the intention of establishing the legal legitimacy for their perspective(s) must insist, and even demand the injunctive presence and inter-activity of law enforcement and judiciary review. A protest directed towards the re-design of the prevailing government is extremely serious event that can not be taken lightly. It must be viewed, re-viewed and masticated emotionally and intellectually because it entails a digression from the path of practiced convention and traditions supported and upheld as a personification of unequaled righteousness with the humility to be conscientious of, reflect on, and flexibly amend as changing conditions dictate.

It must be fully understood that once a society takes a step towards the direction of accepting a formula of governance which encourages an equalized fairness in the redistribution of socio-political power, it is highly unlikely that a populace would give assent towards returning to the present governing formula whose intended Checks -and- Balances provision, though given the credibility of logic, is the logic of a three-shells or three-card monte game which disenfranchises the majority of the public from its own Representation of collective decisioning to direct the course of its own history modeled on the will of its accumulated insight as wisdom, intelligence as reason, and hope as a designed purpose of pursuing a brighter future than has ever been imagined.

Yet, history has taught us to be mindful that established authority does not easily yield to the proposal for relinquishing position and power through the adoption of a social governance program which does not afford them with a means to practice the pretense of ceremony that permits their views to emanate over that of the collective will of the people; though they may assert that they are permitted to have a singularity of purposeful voice predicated on the assumed presentiments of a public vote, though the vote has been carried out by a method and manner unconducive to accepting the direct will of the people. Protest sometimes takes on the course of actively promoting a Revolt because authority refuses to accede to a perspective accredited by the will of the people and directs a standing military and/or law enforcement body to use force to "persuade" the people to give up on their request for change. Such authoritatively directed groups typically do as they are told and do not take the time to consider an active and collective disagreement with their superiors because there are no laws to protect them from their conscientiously-designed disinvolvement.

Even though a Declaration for Independence, such as that written by pre-Americans in their struggle against the British government, explicitly stated the Right of the people to abolish or overthrow their government to effect one that suits them better, to which a person reading the document might necessarily agree with; in practice, law enforcement individuals are directed by their superiors to disregard this provision of self-governance by not making its presence known as a reminder of a public Right. The use of legal enforcement actually is a misnomer because all law enforcement activities are not necessarily an enforcement of law with respect to the presence of a protest. In other words, the usage of 'law enforcement' personnel does not automatically constitute a legal enforcement. It's not that a law enforcement action may be illegal, it may simply be wrong under given circumstances. If a protest is forced to engage in force because authority is unwilling to make a viably useful concession, that is not a subterfuge to simply cause crowd dispersal and regain some semblance of a past social conformity in order to more easily carry out reprisals against a protest's leadership; individuals in law enforcement organizations are left with little leeway in the making of a personal decision as to whether they should and can refuse a superior's directive to attempt a restoration of social circumstances in-line with the desires of those in authority.

An individual in a law enforcement unit may be in total agreement with the legal views and interests of a protest group, but the use of force may force them to enforce the laws as they are given to understand. If a Cause, a Movement, an intended Revolution such as that a Cenocracy is being formulated as, is sincerely directed along the lines of a peaceful assertion of its views and proposals, then it must state its purpose at doing so but that a usage of force is nonetheless an option; if the people are confronted with a formula of opposition based on a obstinacy promoting actions like that of some alley-way promoted antagonism of placing a chip on one's shoulder.

While protestors of the 1960's America used a methodology of sitting in (called a "sit in") the presence of an authority as a means of registering their disapproval of some act or proposal, and the more current (early 21st century) similarly-used protest methodology called "Occupy" who congregated by way of street marches and public park sleep-overs; it should be noted that a more serious effort along these ends will be to "sit-in" or "occupy" all of Congress, the offices of the Supreme Court Justices, and the White House as well. However, because the mood of those in these government branches can be just as mercurially neurotic as those involved in the Stock Market, it will be advisable that no protestor be permitted to carry pocket knives, nail files, nail clippers, piercing jewelry, matches or anything that might possibly be interpreted as a chemical, biological or nuclear weapon of mass destruction. Yet, despite all the precaution, such that some may be inclined to suggest we protest at these venues in the nude, no doubt the color and thematic scheme of some tattoos might be viewed as a threatening weapon which might be used to provide authority with a "credible reason" for a group to be executed on the spot. It's difficult to predict what might be interpreted to be "credible evidence" or some "official truth" when dealing with a government whose reality is sometimes at a hop-scotched position from that of the larger society that, very often, is forced to or reluctantly obliges authority by conventionally humoring it.

All humor aside, a Protest can not solely rely on an "occupation" as a protest methodology. Neither can a Protest with the dimensions of seriousness being generated by the idea of a proposed Cenocracy which resort to a few marches which may cause unruly characters to gravitate towards as a means of covering up their desire to foment social disarray so that they can participate in some imagined anarchic role. It must be understood that the proposed proportion of protest involves the entire Nation, regardless if some individuals are inclined not to get directly involved by an actual demonstration of solidarity. Because a Cenocratic proposal involves the restructuring of the prevailing government, different people in different walks of life will want to participate. Many of them will actively demonstrate in their own locales. There is no way in which another Cenocratic focused group may have the necessary measure of influence to stop individualized protest demonstrations whose members are using the presence of a Cenocratic Movement to effect violent or some other nocturnal activity. This is why the observing public and law enforcement alike must be able to distinguish those who are and are not actually focused in their actions with a respect for the law. It must be clearly understood that those interested in a Cenocracy are also interested in abiding by the law. Cenocrats must emphatically disagree with the usage of violence even though we are intelligently cognizant of the fact that violence is an option open to anyone in any situation. It is a philosophical statement, not an assertion of a preparation for the usage thereof. We do not want law enforcement, much less the larger military forces, to be against us. We want to effect such a persuasion that they will arguably assist us.

Those who are seriously engaged in a public protest against either a single government entity or the whole of the government, in terms of its basic architectural formula; must accept the responsibility for trying to achieve their goals through non-violent means. Yes, violence is always an option. Just as are different positions on a baseball team different options. But one does not even have to play a position on a protest "team" to be a participating member. There are score keepers, photographers, concessionaires, gate keepers, program sellers, team paraphernalia stands, security personnel, game commentators, grounds keepers and supportive fans. One does not have to play an actual position on a given protest "field" in a given "stadium" wearing a team uniform in order to be a part of the "game"... a label often given to political election events with or without the attributive "media circus" accompaniment. Hence, violence does not have to be in one's rule book, unless it is a rule-of-thumb being used by an opposing team that engages in the acts of an adversarial opponent who will use any means at its disposal to win. Sometimes, dirty players have to be thrown into the mud even if they try to postpone the game on account of some contrived rain in an attempt to better advantage themselves through some additional nefarious deed. Protestors can also resort to meanness and nastiness, in an organized fashion, instead of a routinely observed mass mob frenzy of grimaced emotions.

Just as the establishment of the first U.S. Constitution has involved more than two centuries of learning and making amendments to previous considerations, so too will be the case for the adoption of a Cenocratic governance formula. It is granted that its present form is quite raw and will undergo revisions as time and usage alters temperaments... but it must equally be granted the accommodation of being viewed as a fledgling in need of public support and further nurturance. The present symbol of the U.S. eagle, when used in furthering the present ornithologic metaphor, knows its end is nearing and must make way for a future inevitability by its passing its arrows of time and seeds of future growth onto a symbol better suited to convey the development of a New Nation in the making. Such is the case that history bespeaks time and again of new nations, over long expanses of time, that have been slowly built atop the foundations of a predecessor. However, the quickening pace of knowledge and deduction coupled by an enlarged population with the ability to share, almost instantaneously, the development of a new idea for which multiple members of any given society can improve upon from the vantage point of their own experience, wisdom and intelligence; present societies with the phenomena of creating governing systems with greater flexibility in order that they can be alternatively be creatively refashioned in reference to the dictates of a changing population over short expanses of time.

A social governance formula is an adaptation that, over time may come to be realized as an unwelcomed system of protectionism initially asserted on behalf of the people to advantage them in the presence of an observed, potential or actual circumstance of privation, danger or hostility; but then, as times and conditions change, becomes a guardian of public restraints that may well have been of necessity in a former age, but are eventually realized as a needless observance, reverence and ceremonialized tradition that detracts from a populace's prosperity of mind, heart and soul... more than it once promoted a guarantee thereof. Such a guardianship has an abiding need to promote the conventionalized military and para-military mindset which will advocate its right to rule the people from the old protectionist perspective which imparts a denial of acceding to requests to permit the people the right to a redistributed equality in fairness of self-governance. But many people do not want to think outside the bounds of their routinized conventions. It is easier for them to accept things the way they are and even suffer the consequences of a conveyor belt system of thinking. Many like the role of dependency because they have been taught to like it and/or have no visibly recognizable means of producing a similar or greater standard of living through self-sufficiency.

Those of a Military and Para-Military mindset are not to be viewed as being stupid. They are no different, in a basic usage of their brain, than anyone else not in the Military or Law Enforcement. But their mindset may not stray too far afield from exerting a dependent role for asserting themselves with armament, if directed to do so. Again, they are not the bad guys (and gals). They, like the public, must be convinced not only in the sincerity of our Cenocratic efforts, but that the governance formula being offered is indeed a larger, more refined usage and practice of the very laws an activity underlying their organizations. Military and Law Enforcement entities alike, view established rights as a given and deserving of their collective allegiance to honor, defend, and maintain... at any cost. Those who would presume to dishonor, attack and disconcert are rightly interpreted to be viewed as a potential threat to the sovereignty of the people and their nation. They must become fully cognizant of the fact that the promotion of a Cenocracy is not an open or veiled threat to the safety, security, and survival of them, theirs, us and all ours. And it must be re-acknowledged that their initial description of a Revolution is not the only way in which a Revolution can come about in concert with.

Revolutions frequently come about by way of militantly enforced efforts. Just imagine, of you will, a protest group that is not met with any confronting Military or Law enforcement body of personnel because all or most of them agree with the requests of the protestors, as well as the right of the protestors to bring about an alteration the the structure of the prevailing government by way of exercising the least amount of force as necessary to accomplish their objectives. A Revolution which takes into account the prevailing sentiments and dispositions of Military and Law Enforcement bodies of organization and philosophy of functioning is one in which a genuine respectfulness is attempted and hopefully returned in the same spirit. However, while an attempt is made for the usage of establishing an open diplomacy may be shared, this does not mean the ideas of the Protesting group are accepted as a genuinely useful argument to be employed as the logic for adopting one or another change. A person can be civil and yet remain in total disagreement with a given idea. This is the reason why alternative approaches to conveying a protest must be noted as an accessible tool. While protest marches can be a means of gaining recognition for a shared idea in the need for a change in social governance, the recognition thereof does not guarantee an automatic adoption thereof.

You can not expect Military or Law Enforcement personnel to join in a Protest March on their day off or to take a vacation or call in sick for the same purpose. Likewise, you can't expect a mother with kids at home or in school, or someone living a thousand miles away to high-step around their yard or neighborhood in support of a Protest March. Some people may emphatically agree with a perspective yet not engage in some easily visible expression of concordance. While we may make light of a serious event to interject a comical mental image for a moment's digression into humor, it is necessarily qualified that we must do so in an effort to regain a solid footing on rationality by an occasional testing of reality even though excursions into realms of imagined potentiality can be entertaining. Each of us must keep a handy stock of self-pinching, slapping and shin-kicking reality-testing methods so as not to let a consensus of opinion be the only measure by which we come to value truth and deny the right of another perspective to voice an opinion.

It would be wonderful to instigate a Revolution in the present social governing program through a consensus of opinion that is used as the means of determining the right to do so. But, as is presently practiced, even during an age with technological advances in communication, it is both difficult to communicate ideas to all of society in a single instance and receive an acceptance or denial thereof. There is no prevailing means of communicating to or being in communication with the whole of a society on a given topic. Present systems of communication are wholly primitive. While we may claim that certain television media sources achieve this, not everyone watches the same singular source or for that matter, even watches any source for one reason or another. Some people do not watch televised allotments of News or even listen to radio broadcasts thereof because they find that their lives are so much more pleasant not being subjected to a preponderance of bad news that those who are writing the script for a particular news addition, appear to primarily focused on reporting the bad... and argue, that there is more instances of bad than good to report which is ideally suited to the interest of the majority of viewers.

A Revolution conducted by way of the interest of a majority of the public gets its review and determination by those who can influence the writing of news material for televised broadcasts, radio programs, news papers, news magazines and today's internet sources. An analysis of the arguments and overall rationale for a Protest that are not liked by those involved in a survey, can greatly affect the perception of a social "Movement" in the eyes of the public who simply go along with the opinions of the news report they regularly give attention to. Those sources which are harsh and negative will have to be confronted forthrightly so that their comments are fully acknowledged as being a personal opinion no matter how they attempt to personify some expertise that their customary audience should have full confidence in. Negative opinions can be the "raison d'ĂȘtre" (reason) which justifies or gives assent to authority to instruct military and law enforcement personnel to use force to repeal what they view as an assault, though some other rationale might well be adopted.

Military and/or Law Enforcement personnel may not take the time to question their authoritative leadership in the use of force against a public whose actions are defined as illegal, though a protesting group may have explicitly denoted that it is their right to alter or abolish a government which is supposed to be theirs. In such circumstances, the actions of government directed forces are acts of insubordination to the Right of the People to effect change to their formula of governance as they see fit. Such insubordination can be used as a reasoned justification for practicing greater levels of civil disobedience, but not a willful disregard of laws meant to protect the public from criminal impositions such as theft, murder, rape, molestation, etc... An atmosphere for conduction acts of civil disobedience does not give permission to characteristics of bestial primivity for occasions of exercising brutality against the public or an opposing force that has not perpetrated such acts against a protestor or group thereof. Acts of insubordination to the Right of a Public to alter or abolish their government as they so direct; by authority or authority influenced non-government resources of personnel used to disguise government involvement to suggest that a protest is not warranted by public approval, constitutes a legal right of the people to engage in lawful acts of civil disobedience. If authority exercises a willful disrespect and disregard for the Rights of the People, than the people have the right to willfully disrespect and disregard authority.

Because the Rights of Protestors dutifully directed towards effecting a formula of governance best befitting its collective assent are not readily understood or even known by protestors, the public and authority as well, a protest with the dimensions of intent as that being described by a Cenocracy must include the instructive clarification of the boundaries of protest and reasoned justifications for exceeding those boundaries if necessary. An extreme breech of what might be termed the 'Protocol of Protesting' by engaging in force that results in blood shed and the destruction of government buildings and/or facilities, must be counter-balanced by a reasoned justification such as in the case of self-defense. Authority does not have the right to engage in acts of barbarity to dispel protestors when those protestors are engaged in the determination to effect a wilful change in the social governing formula. In such instances, the public can not be assured with confidence that those who directed and those so directed will be addressed to the full extent of the law when the law is wielded by the very authority whose position was to protect the rights of the people. It is therefore admissible and necessary that the larger public conduct the practice of being the presiding power of legal jurisdiction and not the authority nor the protestors. Striving for the greatest expression of impartiality should be the enforced intent.

Acts of insubordination by any government authority, directed personnel, or influenced others, can neither be accepted nor tolerated when effected against the peoples' Rights. No Constitutional provision should be permitted as a means to subvert the peoples' Rights which would be tantamount to the exercise of a legalized loop-hole. The perpetration of such acts or activities constitute a level of deliberate insubordination that necessitates and gives full legal authority to the public for engaging in acts of equal insubordination to the will of authority through acts of civil disobedience. Such acts of civil disobedience might well include:

  • The seizure of those committing or directing the commission of such anti-public rights acts.
  • The seizure (i,e. "occupation") of their places of work and/or living.
  • The seizure of their resources so used against the public.

Such seizures are imposed, educationally-directed, "time out" restraints and are not confiscations in the sense of theft or some dubiously applied "Right of eminent domain" used by governing bodies as they so determine its usage with or without the assent of the public so long as it is defined in the public's best interests even if those interests have not been defined nor determined by way of a Referendum. Those who view such seizures as levels of criminal deprivation to oneself and one's property or livelihood, might well be viewed as those with an intent to direct further definitions in concert emotively directed vehement infuriation which dictates the usage of unmitigated retaliation, retribution and remonstrations with types and levels of assertion which bring about violent forms of assertiveness. Such actors are predisposed to creating respective social theaters in which they might more fully engage in reciprocities of personal satisfaction that might never be quelled without an excessive display of blood shed and destruction against those whose sole intent was to exercise their right to alter or abolish their government without injunctive impediments or censures used by authority based on some personalized predisposition to effect discouragement. Decidedly, such actors may have to be deduced as those committing treason against the people and dealt with accordingly.

Authority very often interprets justification and right to proceed in a given direction if there is not apparent publicly displayed opposition. On the other hand, military and law enforcement bodies interpret justification and right to proceed in a given direction if there is either apparent or some defined potential of a displayed opposition. The old adage of being "damned if you do and damned if you don't" might receive some application of approval from a few readers... and earmarks the presence of what might be viewed as an underlying sub-consciously used regulation of social behavior which produces indecisiveness on the part of a public to engage in a protest... even if the protest is meant to effect changes which will effect a greater fairness in equality through an equalized redistribution of socio-political power as being presented by the Cenocratic proposal.

It is a proposal based on the formerly and formally declared principal that a people have a right to alter or abolish a presiding government in order to effect a better one. It is a proposal which asks all military and para-military groups to review and take stock of their history... so as to note that as it is their duty to protect the Rights of the people first established by reasons and justifications which necessitated a Declaration for Independence from which was constructed both Federal and Civil Constitutions used as a basis to effect the written formulation and legality to consensually-derived ideas; that we ask you to individually and collectively stand down if asked by superiors to violate a preeminent Right of the People in their desire to establish and practice the formulation of a Cenocracy.

Date of Creation: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 12:38 AM
Initial Posting: Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Updated posting: Sunday, February 1, 2015