THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENTS:

A LEFT-RIGHT, CROSS-GENERATIONAL, POPULIST PROCLAMATION TO OVERTHROW THE CORPORATE TYRANNY OF THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM THROUGH CROWDOCRACY

JULY 5th 2026

(By Z.X.C. for Generations XYZ)

Almost all of the Founding Fathers vehemently opposed factions and political parties. They feared that partisan loyalty would tear the fragile new nation apart, destroy national unity, and lead to political violence. The most prominent Founders who opposed political parties include: 

·       George Washington: He was universally opposed to political parties and famously warned against their “baneful effects” in his 1796 Farewell Address, cautioning that the “alternate domination" of rival factions would fracture the country. 

·       John Adams: He believed parties were the “greatest political evil under our Constitution,” famously declaring that nothing was more to be dreaded than a division of the republic into two great parties. 

·       James Madison: Known as the father of the Constitution, Madison famously argued in Federalist No. 10 that a strong union could “break and control the violence of faction,” which he viewed as the mortal disease of popular governments. 

·       Alexander Hamilton: Despite leading the Federalist party later in his career, Hamilton initially warned against the dangers of factionalism, calling partisan spirit “the most fatal disease” of popular governments. 

·       Thomas Jefferson: Jefferson also despised the idea of parties, famously writing, “If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” 

Despite their shared hatred for factionalism, the Founders’ deep ideological differences (such as debates over the size of the federal government and foreign policy) ultimately led to the creation of the very first party system, splitting the Founders themselves into the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party.

“In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations […]. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit […] is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty […]. The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it…” 

The above excerpt is from President George Washington’s “Farewell Address,” given on September 19, 1796 (almost 230 years ago). He cautioned that political factions would ultimately become engines “by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people.” A prescient warning against what he understood as the two greatest dangers to American prosperity: political parties and foreign wars. Washington urged the American people to avoid political partisanship and entanglements with European wars—most importantly to beware of political parties, for they could bring us to disunion, riot, and insurrection. So, it is in this spirit of preserving our union and admonishing the perilous rise of political parties by one of our greatest founding fathers and first president of the United States that we, the political Independents of America, ask meaningful questions to commemorate our founding but not celebrate our current state of affairs by declaring the following:

PREAMBLE

What to the Debt Slave is the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the birth of the United States of America on this past Fourth of July? For that matter, what is America? In fact, what does it mean to be an American? Is there still an American Dream? If so, what is it and is it still within reach of most Americans anymore? What is America’s social contract? Do we need a new one like FDR’s “Second Bill of [Economic] Rights” and an updated rule book that protects local sovereignty like “Constitutional Community Rights”? Shall we convene a new, nationwide, “Citizen Crowdsourced Constitutional Convention (C4)” by Sept. 17, 2027, for all us to participate in answering these, and other pertinent questions? Isn’t this a more reasonable and responsible way to mend the fragmentation of the United States? What other peaceful and nonviolent recourse is there for whole-system-change?

After all, we all know (even among many Democrats and Republicans) that “The System Is Broken!” Our courts corroded! Our politics bought! Our economy rigged! Our society fragmented! Our culture polarized! All as a result, in the most general integral terms, of stunted individual consciousness, maladaptive personal conduct, a pathological culture of narcissism, shamelessness, shortsightedness, immediate self-gratification, and a dysfunctional social system of despotism, power, greed and corruption in almost every institution and most industries—all leading to our collective deconstructive demise—the metacrisis of mass extinction and the ensuing civilizational collapse. 

Is it any surprised then that a record high of “45% of U.S. adults identify as political independents,”[i] making us the largest political demographic in America surpassing both political parties with each a paltry 27%[ii] and congress hitting a near all-time low approval rating of 10%.[iii] “The recent increase in independent identification is partly attributable to younger generations of Americans (Millennials and Generation X) continuing to identify as independents at relatively high rates as they have gotten older. In contrast, older generations of Americans have been less likely to identify as independents over time. Generation Z, like previous generations before them when they were young, identify disproportionately as political independents. In 2025, majorities of Gen Z adults and millennials identified as political independents, as did more than four in 10 Gen X adults. One-third or less of Baby Boomers and Silent Generation adults were politically independent.”[iv]

So, where does all this leave us? 

What we don’t want is the present or past status quo. Even going back to before 2015 is not option; after all, that world order is what gave us Trump and Biden in the first place. Over the past 50 years, we’ve toggled back-and-forth between Clintons and Bushes, Obama and Trump in pursuit of change—all to no avail—at most it has been “change within changelessness.” Surface alterations by voting in the first African-American President to “blowing up the system” by Trump authoritarianism. All of past efforts for “whole-system-change,” have failed, failed, failed. Activism itself is broken, mass movements are unsuccessful at achieving comprehensive change and even if we go back to the old status quo, government gridlock is the best we can expect and hope for especially during this American autocratic rule. Protests are ineffectual and political movements are squandered for legislative scraps (water down policies) of “social change.” Any perceived changes are merely superficial “facelifts” and even these are only reversed with the next administration through the fecklessness among many in the “opposition party,” the corruptions of some in the courts and the prevailing fraudsters in the federal legislature. Whatever social change models reformers, rebels, change agents, and citizens have been using is clearly not working. The fatal flaw of today’s activism and for that matter during the past 50 years at least (if not more) is the false belief and erroneous notion that we just need more of the same only in larger numbers, bigger budgets, better branding, more effective marketing with succinct messaging from activists and social movements to attain success (however that is defined today). So despite the widespread access to knowledge, experience, technology, resources, and increasingly larger and larger number of participants in mass marches and movements throughout recent history and around the world, why hasn’t the desired fundamental whole-system change been achieved? 

“The greatest weakness of the 1960s, 1990s, [2000s and now 2020s] protest movements is a lack of strategic thinking about how to accomplish its goals. For the [2020s] as well as for the sixties, the most difficult challenge concerns the means of change. We need [a new and] adequate theory of social change. We need to diagnose the malady that afflicts our society, and on the basis of that diagnosis, we need to fashion an appropriate remedy. We need a strategy that understands the obstacles that have been placed in the way of change—a strategy that can overcome these obstacles and has been missing for [at least a half century].”[v]

We must restart by asking: “What is true fundamental social change, i.e., revolution or societal transformation?” What does successful fundamental social change really look like? Do we need a new term to describe it? If so, how does one effectively redefine it to yield its desire result? Does it matter and if so, why? Is mass movement activism no longer an effective means for comprehensive change? If so, why and can it be resurrected in a novel and more effective manner? First and foremost, a redefinition of the phrase “change” is badly needed and long overdue, without it, it confounds and corrupts the very means, methods, and collective attempts at “transformation” by citizens, change agents, reformers, and rebels. It has become such a watered down, overused, and ubiquitous term (some would even go as far as to say “like the collective behavior itself”) that it has lost all significant meaning (much like the word “revolution”). 

This has led to not only redefine the meaning of “social change” (and its offshoots: revolution, transformation, comprehensive change, whole-system-change, etc.,) but reconfigure it in a much more successful way and method of operation as “radical evolutionary transformation.” In doing so, it addresses the root causes of wicked problems (this is the “radical”) in an integrative fashion that includes and transcends by preserving the positives of our society and purging its pathologies (this is the “evolutionary”), while doing it in a swift and sweeping manner (this is the “transformation”) in all four terrains of manifest human reality: Consciousness [what I think and experience], Conduct [what I do], Culture [what we experience] and Social Systems [what we do]). It denotes the necessity to address both the interior and exterior realms of individual and collective change derived from Ken Wilber’s four-quadrant model (I, It, We, Its) otherwise known as the “Integral Meta-Theory Framework” (see the “S3K Sextet Synthology” by Zoren X. Cross called “THE LAST TOME: Volume II—Project S3K” available within the new book THE REBEL RODDER: A Race Against The Descending Sun Of Democracy…), which was crucial in forming the ten foundational pillars (The Dynamic Decalogue) of “Integral Activism,” based on a new theory of social change.

So, are there any valid historical examples that we can draw comparisons from for “whole system change?” Yes. In Mary Clark’s book Ariadne’s Thread, she alludes to the view that most changes in during the modern era have been “strictly limited in scope.” In fact, “true transformation” has only occurred twice over the past 2 millenniums.

In Western history there have been but two major periods of conscious social change, when societies deliberately ‘critiqued’ themselves and created new worldviews […]. This first occurred in the Greek city-states, specifically in Athens, during the Golden Age of Pericles (500-400 B.C.). Along with music, drama and the visual arts, there flourished dialogue and argument and there arose the first schools. There the disciples of Socrates and Plato taught the young to philosophize in order to create social change […]. The early Greek philosophers succeeded in starting a new way of directing their thinking. They asked a different class of questions and were led to an entirely different line of thought,’ Benard Mehl. [However], creative social change slowly waned and then disappeared for 1500 years. Not until the Renaissance and its sequel, the Enlightenment, did Western culture again subject itself to critical philosophical thought. Out of that ferment emerged our modern worldview, which has remained largely unchallenged for two centuries [until the 1960s with the emergence of the postmodern worldview and its Neo-Transcendentalist adherents of the sensitive green meme].

This does not mean that during those long historical periods when mould-to-fit was the educational mode no social or technological changes were occurring. Quite the opposite. As historian Leften Stavrianos has pointed out, the so-called Dark Ages were in fact a time of considerable social reform and technological inventiveness. And no one would deny that during the past 200 years there have been great social, political, and technical changes in the West, including of course the ideas of Darwin and Marx. Yet in each of these periods, change has evolved out of—and, more importantly, has been justified by—the received worldview. While social and political change is possible within a particular worldview (especially in our own, where change is a built-in expectation), that change is strictly limited in scope. It must not offend any of the major beliefs, assumptions, or tenets of the worldview. It is “change within changelessness.”[vi]

So, what is the source of such anti-status quo sentiment from both the left and right? It basically stems from a whole series of failures from most of our corrupt or dysfunctional institutions—the courts, mass media, religion, police departments, labor unions, corporations, Wall Street and the federal government. Such institutional distrust goes as far back to the devastating consequences of the Vietnam War and Watergate to more modern times. From the deplorable behavior of President Bill Clinton and the ensuing 1999 impeachment proceedings to the partisan Supreme Court decision of the 2000 Presidential election recount. From the intelligence failures of detecting the 2001 conspiratorial terrorist attacks of September 11 to the 2002 Enron financial fraud. From the WMDs lies to justify the 2003 Iraq War to the bureaucratic mishandling of Hurricane Katrina in the 2005 natural disaster. From the financial fiasco of the 2008 economic crisis to the betrayal of the first black President’s promise for profound change during his two terms but especially his first two years in office when the Democrats had both houses.

And what will this populist anger morphed into when the pervasive sentiment of being betrayed by a rightwing administration continues to not only loom but also increase in the coming years? Revolution. After all, the revolutions from the “outside-of-the-system” populist from both ends of the political spectrum have now been squelched twice during the first quarter of the new century. And unless the problems plaguing the American populist are resolved at the root cause level, this fury will continue to ferment far beyond the power elite’s ability to snuff out in another Presidential election in 2028. So what do Donald Trump and Barack Obama have in common? Both were presidential candidates who portrayed themselves as agents of change and protest against the status quo system. Both have and will leave a populace much more disaffected in a few years from now, (if not already) at which point, Americans may have wised up enough from both the Left-Right to realize no outsider candidate can save us. “We Must Become The Leaders We’ve Been Waiting For!” by becoming citizen legislators in a new direct democracy called Crowdocracy.

As a political independent all of my Gen X life, I can safely say we want to transcend “change within changeless” with swift and sweeping whole-system-change—otherwise redefined as Radical Evolutionary Transformation (RET). The problem we have had in our society and the world at large is looking to individuals to bring about this depth, type, and pace of comprehensive change instead of looking to ourselves. We have looked to others to rescue us, our community, our country, our continent, and the world itself, which is asking for the impossible and only leads to more and more disappointments and desperate measures of fear, anger, hatred, and violence by descending into despotism. Once again, it bears repeating “We Must Become The Leaders We’ve Been Waiting For” through a new form of direct democracy—a “meta-integral solution” to reinvent government for the 21st century. Within the Grand Unified Theory & Strategy (GUTS) for social change is the Dynamic Decalogue that serves as a “Meta Integral Activist Framework,” within Philosophical Pillar VIII offers a new form of human governance by synthesizing a few existing integral applications to create Integral Governing Dynamics (IGD) that was submitted as an entry in the “2017 Global Challenges Prize: A New Shape” for a new system of Global Governance. Within it is the central strategic initiative of “Crowdocracy” that acts as a panacea for our dying democracy. According to Alan Watkins and Iman Stratenus, co-authors of the 2016 book, Crowdocracy: The End of Politics, “Democracy is struggling to produce solutions to the challenges of our times. Populations feel disenfranchised with the political process, with the real power today being in the hands of a small elite. Crowdocracy offers a radical new way forward, one that allows all of us—not just some of us—to participate in how we are governed. Using technology and the insights of crowd wisdom […] we can ultimately shape and govern our communities. A revolutionary idea that can be implemented in an evolutionary way.” If you agree, please sign this national “People’s Power Petition” drive. We, the Independents of America are now the “Super Majority!”

 
[i] Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup News, “New High of 45% in U.S. Identify as Political Independents,” January 12, 2026.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Megan Brenan, Gallup News, “Disapproval of Congress Ties Record High at 86%,” April 22, 2026.
[iv] Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup News, “New High of 45% in U.S. Identify as Political Independents,” January 12, 2026.
[v] Charles A. Reich, Opposing The System, 1994.
[vi] Mary Clark, Ariadne’s Thread, St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1984, p. 39.