Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Synarchy vs. Anarchy
08-22-2011, 10:57 AM,
#1
Rainbow  Synarchy vs. Anarchy
Synarchy vs. Anarchy

I dont blame young people for taking the wrong road; I simply say that they are imbibing ideas and examples which are far from magnificient. We should not try to destroy all the old traditions; there's a great deal of good in traditions which are the outcome of thousands of years of experience. Men have spent their lives searching and suffering and groping their way and, thanks to their efforts, have discovered a certain number of rules on which they have built their culture and civilisation. Some of these forms need to be changed; that is true. But that does not mean that everything must be thrown overboard, especially when no one has any idea how to replace what exists with something better. Do I go around destroying traditions? Certainly not! I am in favour of tradition on condition that it be adapted to our own times. But young poeple, who have no proper perception of present-day reallity nor of what it should be, simply follow their impulses and rush into action blindly, changing this and destroying that without a thought for the consequences.

Let's take it, then, that young people want a revolution. They want to upset the existing order. but have they ever asked themselves whether there are not certain immutable laws which no creature has the right to transgress? Life has its laws, laws that are studied by chemists, physicists, biologists, etc. and, whether we like it or not, we cannot go against those laws without being destroyed by them. Believe me, there are such things as immutable principles and anyone who tries to deny them is condemning himself to darkness and death. Of course, I know that young people justify themselves by saying that they are dissatisfied with what adults offer them. This I understand, for I am equally dissatisfied! But I still cannot side with them, for the freedom they are demanding, the freedom to do whatever they please, isnot at all ideal or divine.

Freedom! Liberty! Well, however much you repeat the slogan, 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!' there is really no liberty and no equality; of the three, only fraternity exists. I assure you: there is no such thing as liberty, freedom. How can you talk of man being free when he is a slave to his own appetites and pleasures, his family, his physical circumstances and the constraints of time? God alone is free and man will be free only when he identifies with God, when he becomes one with God. Outside of God there is no such thing as liberty. Licence? Yes, there's plenty of that and, for many, this is what the notion of liberty has become: a total lack of respect for everyone and everything. But the danger of this is that others can do the same; you will not be the only one who thinks he has the right to be unjust and violent; others will retaliate in kind. But nobody bargains for that. You are in love with violence? Well, I can understand that. I may have a tendency i that direction myself – wouldn't I just love to set the whole world on fire! – but that is not sufficient reason for doing so.

Human beings think they have the right to be violent, and then they are pained and surprised when others react in the same way. You must realize that every act or gesture on your part triggers a similar act on the part of others. Be generous with someone and they will be generous with you. Something i them will whisper, 'Ah, I'll just show how kind, noble and generous I can be, too!' and then i becomes a battle of smiles and gifts; a Battle of Love. This is what is so wonderful, and it is something that people have never really understood: the law of echo, of rebound. They say, 'Just let me get my hands on that fellow: I'll break his jaw!' And I say, 'Go ahead! Hit him...you'll see where that gets you!' But they are astonished when they get some of their own medicine in return. Young people think that they are justified in doing what they please to others but they object when others do the same to them. But you must never forget that this law exists and that it makes others reflect your own behavior.

They cannot do otherwise: if you start something they are obliged to retaliate.
If you think that everyone is going to let you ride roughshod over them without hitting back, you are very much mistaken. Sooner or later the law will strike back. If you have no respect for anyone, no one will have any respect for you. You need not expect to receive respect if you never give it. If you want others to respect you, you have to begin by respecting them. If there is one law I have proved to my satisfaction, it is this one. All my life I have shown respect for others and now I can see the law at work: others respect me. Sometimes, in fact, I wonder why. It is because, having spent my whole life respecting others, I have triggered a movement which is now bouncing back to me.

It is perfectly true that we are living in a society in which a great many things need to be changed, but this must not be achieved by violence. In any case, violence never brings about true change; it only makes things worse. How, then, can we transform society? By our own way of life. If we begin by changing ourselves we shall end by changing the whole world. This is why, in the Brotherhood, we are working to become a tangible example of a better kind of society. We are endeavouring to become a solid core of highly conscious, resolute men and women who will prove that mankind is capable of becoming one family, one brotherhood. Our first task, therefore, is to transform ourselves into living examples and even, one could say, to impose this example on others, not by physical force, of course, but by the nobility, magnanimity, light an spiritual beauty emanating from us. The need to feel their own strength and power drives too many young people reckless actions. They don't realize that true strength is inner strength, the ability to control an master themselves, to show themselves to be noble, great-hearted, perfect. Initiates, too, want to become strong and powerful but they know what true greatness and true power are, whereas so many young people, by ginving way to their instincts and seeking power through violence and destruction, merely wearken themselves and become the slaves of their own base instincts and vices.

I am completely impartial: I love all these young people and I love their elders, but believe that both are at fault: the adults because they have not known how to educate the young and, especially, how to give them a good example, and the young, because they think they can settle all their problems through revolution and violence and by destroying everything that adults have done.

I readily admit that there are a few real revolutionaries such as Lenin, Mao Tse-tung and Fidel Castro. But people like that didn't destroy everything. Besides, can you say that things are really better since their revolutions? No; nothing is really different except, perhabs, that the man at the top has disappeared and someone else has taken his place. The rhetoric has changed a little, the slogans are not the same, the songs are new, but the vice and crime, the fear and corruption are still the same.

Anarchists are incapable of doing anything constructive. some revolutionaries can be constructive, perhabs, if they are very intelligent and generous and work to improve the situation rather than making it even more intolerable. History shows that tyrants come and go: they may rise to power and liquidate their enemies, but they cannot stay on top for long. For this, too, is a law of life: a tyrant, by his very tyranny, attracts others of the same kind who end by destroying him. You know the saying: 'They sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind'.

The young have chosen anarchy? Very well; let them have it, but the laws are merciless: anarchy will take control of their beings and, later on in life, they will be subjected to identical reactions from their own children or the people around them. Then they will start moaning about injustice and declaring that they have done nothing to deserve such dreadful children. Not deserve them, indeed! Have they forgotten how they behaved when they were young? Let them remember that and then they will begin to understand. But it will be too late. The damage will have been done. The boomerang effect exists in the psychic as well as in the physical world, but it is only when the consequences of their acts rebound and hit them on the head that people begin to reflect.

If I had to give you a really exceptional example I would not choose any of the great Initiates of the past, but someone you all know: Socrates. After he had been condemned to death, some of his disciples tried to persuade him to let them organize his escape but he refused to leave his prison, saying that a good citizen should obey the laws of his city. One cannot help but refer constantly to the example of this great man who, although he never wrote anything, he continued to influence men's minds for the last twenty-four centuries. Of course, this is largely thanks to Plato, who was his disciple, and Plato and his own disciple, Aristotle, are still the twin peaks of philosophy; no philosopher since has ever surpassed them. But what an extraordinary man Socrates was! He had the face of a satyr and, in fact, he confessed that this was because he had, once, been very vicious, but that he had succeeded in conquering his vices; it was a thing of the past. So his merit was all the greater.

Im sure you all know the story of Socrates' life: how he married Xanthippe and how he strolled through the streets and public places of Athens, teaching his fellow citizens simply by talking to them and asking them awkward questions. Although he was very popular with the people, his integrity and outspokenness gained him some powerful enemies and, in a plot to get rid of him, they arrested him on trumpedup charges of corrupting the youth of Athens and he was condemned to drink the cup of hemlock.

Socrates could certainly have escaped death if he had wanted to, but he refused and it was precisely because he was conscious of his innocence that he was able to accept his sentence so fearlessly. What calmness and courage he demonstrated in his last moments! You have probably read the account of his farewell to the gaoler who told him that the time had come for him to drink the poison, of how he asked the man who brought him the cup exactly what he should do and how he followed his instructions to the letter. Then there was that encounter with his disciples shortly before he died... After all these centuries, the death of Socrates still lives as something unique in the memory of men.

You may say, 'Surely, he must have had special guidance?' Yes, of course. All the sages are guided. How could the Invisible World abandon a sage who possesses truth and respects the laws of God? Socrates was constantly accompanied by an entity which he called his daemon (the meaning of this in Greek has nothing to do with the Christian notion of the Devil or of Hell). Socrates' daemon was a very exalted spirit who guided and counselled him. All sages have one – sometimes several – of these guides.

If young people would only accept to learn, they would discover within themselves all the same truths and laws that the sages have discovered over the ages by observing what went on in nature and comparing it with what they saw happening in themselves. All sages come to the conclusion that life is based on laws of harmony, disinterestedness and love and that, if one fails to respect these laws, everything falls apart. This is how moral laws were discovered. And what I find especially inspiring in Socrates is that he understood that what matters most is the way you live. In this he was very different from other philosophers and sophists of his day who claimed to know all that physics and metaphysics had to teach and be able to discourse about everything. Socrates concentrated on the study of man; he adopted as his personal motto the famous inscripition from the temple of Delphi, 'Know thyself'. All true Masters have the same philosophy. What is good and true for one is good and true for them all; they all teach the same ethic, the same philosophical system. Depending on time and place, there will be some minor differences, but the fundamental principles are always identical.

Initates refuse to have anything to do with anarchy because they know only too well that they would be the first to be affected by the ensuing illness, disorder and destruction; that anarchy would destroy them. As soon as you open your heart to the seeds of dissolution, invisible currents and forces begin to ravage your whole being. It won't happen all at once, of course; but, little by little, you will disintegrate. Even physical health depends on obedience to this universal order – call it what you will: synarchy, hierarchy or divine monarchy – and, once a man begins to establish that order within himself, every part of him finds its balance and he dwells in peace, harmony and beauty. He is illuminated and strengthened; he receives new life and begins to vibrate in unison with the whole cosmos, with the Heavenly regions above.

He becomes a gushing spring, an ever-flowing source of light; radiance streams from him. This is the higher man, the ideal man that we are all meant o be, instead of being a door flung wide to every destructive current that swirls round us in the form of anarchistic philosophies and ideologies. All those, be they individuals, families, social groups or whole countries... all who open themselves to these currents destroy themselves. The law is absolute and it is essential to give it an important place in one's life.

Blessed are they who understand this! They have the power to trigger unlimited forces within their own being and then to see how these eternal forces work within them to liberate and transform them. And those harum-scarum bunches of young rebels with their black flags must realize that they will not succeed in destroying society. Society needs to be improved and it will be, but only by good example, word and selflessness.

Sooner or later, in the presence of these qualities, things are bound to change. The attempt to change things in any other way can only justify those who say, ' The more things change, the more the filth is the same!'

Without light there will never be any real change. There is no need to invent new systems, revolutionary or otherwise. Nothing needs to be invented, all the solutions we need have already been invented by Nature. All we have to do is rediscover them.

Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov
Reply
08-23-2011, 12:41 AM,
#2
RE: Synarchy vs. Anarchy
Quote:Synarchism is a term which generally refers to "joint rule" or "harmonious rule".

Beyond this general definition, however, both "synarchism" and "synarchy" have been used to describe several different political processes in various contexts. Increasingly, the terms have been used by conspiracy theorists to mean rule by a secret elite.

Origins

The earliest recorded use of the term "synarchy" is attributed to Thomas Stackhouse (1677–1752), an English clergyman who used the word in his New History of the Holy Bible from the Beginning of the World to the Establishment of Christianity (published in two folio volumes in 1737). The attribution can be found in the Webster's Dictionary (the American Dictionary of the English Language, published by Noah Webster in 1828). Webster's definition for "synarchy" is limited entirely to "joint rule or sovereignty". The word is derived from the Greek stems "syn" meaning with or together and "archy" meaning rule.

The most substantial early use of the word "synarchy" comes from the writings of Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre (1842–1909), who used the term in his book La France vraie to describe what he believed was the ideal form of government. In reaction to the emergence of anarchist ideologies and movements, Saint-Yves elaborated a political formula which he believed would lead to a harmonious society. He defended social differentiation and hierarchy with collaboration between social classes, transcending conflict between social and economic groups: synarchy, as opposed to anarchy. Specifically, Saint-Yves envisioned a Federal Europe (as well as all the states it has integrated) with a corporatist government composed of three councils, one for academia, one for the judiciary, and one for commerce.

Rule by a secret elite

Some conspiracy theorists use the word "synarchy" to describe a shadow government, a form of government where political power effectively rests with a secret elite, in contrast to an "oligarchy" where the elite is or could be known by the public.

Occultism

Some authors have claimed that Saint-Yves was a "theocratic occultist" who used "synarchy" to describe a form of government where political power effectively rests with secret societies or, more precisely, esoteric societies, which are composed of oracles. Furthermore he is supposed to have associated "synarchy" with the rule of "ascended masters" who lived in the subterranean caverns of Agartha and supposedly communicated with him telepathically. However, other authors have described these claims about Saint-Yves as false and originating in occult conspiracy theories.

In Vichy France

According to former OSS officer William Langer (Our Vichy Gamble, Alfred A Knopf, New York, 1947), there were French industrial and banking interests who "even before the war, had turned to Nazi Germany and had looked to Hitler as the savior of Europe from Communism. These people were as good fascists as any in Europe. Many of them had extensive and intimate business relations with German interests and were still dreaming of a new system of 'synarchy', which meant government of Europe on fascist principles by an international brotherhood of financiers and industrialists."

This theory allegedly originated with the discovery of a document called Pacte Synarchique following the death of Jean Coutrot, former member of Groupe X-Crise, on May 15, 1941. According to this document, a Mouvement Synarchique d'Empire had been founded in 1922, with the aim of abolishing parliamentarianism and replacing it with synarchy. This led to the belief that La Cagoule, a far-right organisation, was the armed branch of French synarchism, and that some important members of the Vichy Regime were synarchists. An investigation was in fact ordered by the Vichy government, leading to the Rapport Chavin but no evidence for the existence of the Mouvement Synarchiste d'Empire was found. Most of the presumed synarchists were either associated with the Banque Worms or with Groupe X-Crise and were close to Admiral François Darlan, and this has led to the belief that synarchists had engineered the military defeat of France for the profit of Banque Worms.

This belief system has been dismissed as a "work of a paranoid imagination which wove together the histories of three disparate groups of activists, creating a conspiracy among them where none existed". In fact, some historians suspect that the Pacte Synarchique was a hoax created by some members of La Cagoule to weaken Darlan and his technocrats.

LaRouche

Lyndon LaRouche, leader of a controversial movement on the political fringe, describes a wide-ranging historical phenomenon, starting with Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre and the Martinist Order followed by important individuals, organizations, movements and regimes that are alleged to have been synarchist, including the government of Nazi Germany. He claims that during the Great Depression an international coalition of financial institutions, raw materials cartels, and intelligence operatives, installed fascist regimes throughout Europe (and tried to do so in Mexico) to maintain world order and prevent the repudiation of international debts. LaRouche identifies U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney as a modern "synarchist", and claims that "synarchists" have "a scheme for replacing regular military forces of nations, by private armies in the footsteps of a privately financed international Waffen-SS-like scheme, a force deployed by leading financier institutions, such as the multi-billions funding by the U.S. Treasury, of Cheney's Halliburton gang."

Other uses of synarchism

China

Harvard historian and sinologist John K. Fairbank used the word "synarchism" in his 1953 book Trade and Diplomacy on the China Coast: The Opening of the Treaty Ports, 1842-1854 and in later writings, to describe the mechanisms of government under the late Qing dynasty in China. Fairbank's synarchy is a form of rule by co-opting existing elites and powers, bringing them into the system and legitimising them through a schedule of rituals and tributes that gave them a stake in the Chinese regime and neutralised any risk that they might rebel against the monarchy. He believed that the Qing, who were considered outside rulers because of their Manchu origins, had developed this strategy out of necessity because they did not have their own political base in China. This conception of Qing rule is not universally accepted among sinologists and historians of China, but is a respected, mainstream view with significant support in the field.

The term is also used by some political scientists to describe the British colonial government in Hong Kong (1842–1997). Ambrose King, in his controversial 1975 paper Administrative Absorption of Politics in Hong Kong, described colonial Hong Kong's administration as "elite consensual government". In it, he claimed, any coalition of elites or forces capable of challenging the legitimacy of Hong Kong's administrative structure would be co-opted by the existing apparatus through the appointment of leading political activists, business figures and other elites to oversight committees, by granting them British honours, and by bringing them into elite institutions like Hong Kong's horse racing clubs. He called this "synarchy", by extension of Fairbank's use of the word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synarchism

Quote:Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre

Alexandre Saint-Yves, Marquess of Alveydre (1842 - 1909) was a French occultist who adapted the works of Fabre d'Olivet (1767 - 1825) and, in turn, had his ideas adapted by Papus. He developed the term Synarchy - the association of everyone with everyone else, into a political philosophy, and his ideas about this type of government proved influential in politics and the occult.

Biography

Early years


Born in Paris, from a family of Parisian intellectuals and son of psychiatrist Guillaume-Alexandre Saint-Yves, he started his career as a physician at a naval academy in Brest which he soon abandoned after becoming ill. During 1863 he relocated to Jersey where he connected with Victor Hugo. During 1870, he returned to France to fight in the Franco-Prussian War during which he was injured.

He then began a career as a civil servant. During 1877 Saint-Yves met and married Countess Marie de Riznitch-Keller, a relative of Honoré de Balzac, and friend of the Empress Eugénie de Montijo, a move which made him independly wealthy. He dedicated the rest of his life to research and had a large number of influential contacts including Victor Hugo. Saint-Yves later knew many of the major names in French occultism such as Marquis Stanislas de Guaita, Joséphin Péladan and Oswald Wirth and was a member of a number of Rosicrucian, and Freemason style orders. Saint-Yves supposedly inherited the papers of one of the great founders of French occultism, Antoine Fabre d'Olivet (1762 - 1825).

During 1877 he published the "Lyrical Testament", a collection of poetry, and "Keys of the Orient". In the latter book, he presents a solution (based on developing a religious understanding between Jews, Christians and Muslims) to the "question of the Orient", brought about by the decay of the Ottoman empire which caused tensions in the Near and Middle East.

He also began to study the development of industrial applications of marine plants ( "Utilising extracts from seaweed" was published during 1879) but he could not perform the operation for lack of capital. During 1880, he was granted the title of Marquis of Alveydre by the government of San Marino.

His book the Mission des Juifs 1884 was favourable to Jews, but material from this was used for The Secret of the Jews an anti-semitic tract attributed to Yuliana Glinka.

Development of Synarchy

Saint-Yves used the term Synarchy in his book La France vraie to describe what he believed was the ideal form of government. In reaction to the emergence of anarchist ideologies and movements, Saint-Yves had elaborated a more conservative political-theological formula over a series of 4 books from 1882 onwards which he believed would result in a harmonious society by considering it as an organic unity. This ideal was based partially on his idealised idea of life in medieval Europe and also on his ideas about successful government in India, Atlantis and Ancient Egypt. He defended social differentiation and hierarchy with co-operation between social classes, transcending conflict between social and economic groups: Synarchy, as opposed to anarchy. Specifically, Saint-Yves envisioned a European society with a government composed of three councils, representing economic power, judicial power, and scientific community, of which the metaphysical chamber bound the whole structure together. These ideas were also influenced by works such as Plato's The Republic and by Martinism.

As part of this concept of government Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre, gave an important role to secret societies or, more precisely, esoteric societies, which are composed of oracles and who safeguarded the government from behind the scenes. He saw the Rosicrucianers as having fulfilled this role in medieval Europe and was involved with a number of Freemason and other groups who claimed descent from the Knights Templars.

Contact with Agartha

During the year 1885 Saint-Yves was supposedly visited by a group of Eastern Initiates, one of them being named prince Hardjij Scharipf. It was then he associated synarchy with "ascended masters" based in subterranean caverns of Agartha, who supposedly communicated with him telepathically.. He wrote about this secret location in his "Mission de l'Inde en Europeä" published during 1886. Worried he revealed too much he destroyed all but two copies of this book: it did not become available again until 1910.

Saint-Yves believed that an ancient synarchist world government was transferred to Agartha within a hollow Earth at the start of the Kali-Yuga era, around 3,200 B.C. Saint-Yves d'Alveydre was the man who really introduced the concept of Agartha to the Western world.

Final Years

After Saint-Yves's death, portions of the writings he left behind were compiled by a group of his friends and devotees into a volume entitled l'Archéomètre. The title is Saint-Yves's name for a color-coded diagram he developed, showing symbolic correspondences between elements in astrology, music, alphabets, gematria, and other areas. This book has been translated into Spanish, and was translated into English for the first time during 2007 (publication pending).

Influence

Saint-Yves main disciple was the prominent occultist Papus who established a number of societies based on Synarchist ideas. Other notable followers included Victor Blanchard (1878-1953), Nizier Anthelme Philippe, René A. Schwaller de Lubicz and Emile Dantinne. Saint-Yves' works were also utilised in the development of Theosophy and Rudolf Steiner used Synarchy as a major influence in developing his political thought.

Saint-Yves' ideas influenced the turbulent French politics of the early twentieth century where they served as a model for a number of right-wing groups and also in Mexico where synarchist groups have had a major political role. Theories concerning Synarchcist groups also have become a key element in a number of conspiracy theories.

Saint-Yves on The Great Sphinx of Giza

One of Saint-Yves most influential theories nowadays was a minor feature of his work. This is his claim that the Great Sphinx was much older than Egyptologists thought, being created around 12,000 B.C. He believed the Sphinx was created by escapees from the destruction of Atlantis. He did not base this claim on any physical evidence. Saint-Yves' disciple René A. Schwaller de Lubicz was thus inspired to investigate the age of the Sphinx and as a result inspired an ongoing Great Sphinx controversy over the age of the monument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Saint-Yves_d%27Alveydre

Other links of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislas_de_Guaita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabre_d%27Olivet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9rard_Encausse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martinism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9phin_P%C3%A9ladan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Wirth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuliana_Glinka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizier_Anthelme_Philippe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile_Dantinne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._Schwaller_de_Lubicz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliphas_Levi
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  From Synarchy to Shambhala: The Role of Political Occultism and Social Messianism Solve et Coagula 2 2,040 06-16-2010, 09:54 AM
Last Post: ---
  Synarchy vs. Anarchy Solve et Coagula 1 852 01-25-2009, 01:55 AM
Last Post: ---

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)