Archive for September 4th, 2002

Welcome

Wednesday, September 4th, 2002

The readers of this site know I am a synergic scientist. I often talk about synergy and  Synocracy. I recently found a link to an article about Saint-Yves d’Alveydre on another website. He was a frenchman who lived from 1842 to 1909. He is best known for a “utopian” socio-political concept called Synarchy. I don’t think his concept is strongly related to synergic science, but I found it interesting.

The second half of the 19th century was a period in which many new political ideas were being developed and taking hold. Saint-Yves was alarmed by the rise of Anarchy, and developed “Synarchy” in order to counter it.


Synarchy

As a philosopher and mystic Saint-Yves drew upon many esoteric systems, from both East and West, in developing his ideas. Developed in the early 1870’s, Synarchy proposed “government by an elite of enlightened initiates”. This was to be a world government  forming one institute which would govern humanity based on the highest spiritual and social fundamentals. Synarchy was to be more than a purely political movement, it was to be sensitive to the history and evolution of the human race, changing and developing a “social law” that would  evolve with humanity.

Saint-Yves was inspired by earlier “Utopian” writings. The ‘message’ of the “Utopian view” is the restoration of the original condition of life, which Christianity calls ‘Paradise’, a condition known in all the Ancient cultures. Famous French Novelist (and ‘Rosicrucian Martinist’ ) Victor Hugo once stated :

“L’utopie, c’est la vÈritÈ de demain”,

“Utopia is the truth of tomorrow”.

Being an occultist, Saint-Yves believed in the existence of spiritually superior beings. He believed these ‘beings’ could be contacted telepathically. Saint-Yves claimed that he was in touch with these ‘superiors’ himself, as a matter of fact the principles of ‘Synarchy’ were partially based on communications with these ‘Masters’. According to Saint-Yves these ‘Masters’ lived in the mysterious underworld realm of the world known as “Agartha” in the West or “Shambhala” in India. 

Saint-Yves popularized the myth of “Agartha” in the Western world. The secret world of “Agartha” and all of its wisdom and wealth “will be accessible for all mankind, when christianity lives up to the commandments which were once drafted by Moses and Jesus, meaning–when the Anarchy which exists in our world is replaced by  Synarchy”.

Saint-Yves gives a ‘lively’ description of “Agartha” in this book as if it were a place which really exists, situated in the Himalayas in Tibet.

Principles of Synarchy

The world which is lead by one institute which is based on spiritual and social fundamentals.

Synarchy is a ” FORM OF GOVERNMENT BASED ON ‘PRINCIPLES’, in contrast with ‘Anarchy’. In ‘Synarchy’ a social entity is lead by an Authority. The Authority controls RELIGION, ARMY, and EDUCATION. The foundation of the philosophy consists of three elements:

1. EDUCATION – 2. LAW – 3. ECONOMY

The Authority belongs to ‘the Wise’, according to this philosophy. In a ‘Synarchic(al) Society’ social life has a hierarchical structure. Society is lead by three departments which are not based on politics but on social values.

Culture, Art, and Science belongs to the fundamental element “Education”.

Court, Police, the Army and Foreign Affairs belongs to the element “Law”.

the Unions, the Government, and the working class belongs to the third element “Economy”.

The highest ambition of the philosophy of Synarchy was a society without classes. Furthermore, in a Synarchic society the responsibility of the politicians would be in the hands of the “Wise”, the “specialists”.

Saint-Yves’ principle of “Synarchy” resulted from certain historical questions he had formulated. The central theme of Saint-Yves’ historical quest was:

“What were the principles on which the institutions of a State / Society were build which resulted in a progress of this civilization in an atmosphere of peace, justice, and prosperity”

His historical research was concentrated on solving problems as :

  • On which principles are civilizations founded ?
  • The Holy Scriptures of ancient civilizations contain valuable sociological aspects, what did they teach?
  • The great ancient civilizations – where did they came from and how did they evolve?

According to Saint-Yves the outcome of “the lessons which history teaches” are the synthetic results of experiments which were carried out in the laboratory of humanity. The knowledge of the sociological problems and its solutions in history would make it possible to apply this knowledge on our society. “A State / Society based on forms of slavery is not viable, Synarchy is the only form of government which is build on principles, the others function in Anarchy, i.e. without principles”

It is interesting to know that Saint Yves stated that the first impulse towards a “synarchic federation”, a union of states, should be the establishment of a economical federation of states, i.e. the first step consists of linking the economical interests of countries, an economic community of interestsÖ

Umberto Ecco writing in his book, “The Pendulum of Foucault”, described Saint Yves:

“He was determined to find a political formula that could lead to a more harmonious society. Synarchy in opposition to Anarchy. A European society ruled by three councils representing the economical power, the executive power and the spiritual power, that is, the churches and the scientists. An enlightened oligarchy through which class struggle could be eliminated”


Source: Synarchy and Secret Societies by Milko Bogaard

More on Saint Yves , Agartha


Googling farther, I found another page on Synarchy, although the author makes no mention of Saint-Yves d’Alveydre.


 SYNARCHY

Nicholas Roberts

Synarchy is Greek for Joint Rule. Syn means to work with, to act in concert, as in synergy (1+1=3). Archy means to rule or govern, as in monarchy (rule by one), or anarchy (rule by no one). My definition of Synarchy is synergy in politics.

Aristotle (384-322 BC) the Athenian scientist and encyclopaedist refused to specify any one constitution as ideal. Instead he emphasised that the essence of good government was really a matter of what worked. He advanced reason and moderation, and encouraged humanity to live in harmony with nature. His political and ethical philosophies rested on the notion of cooperation and mutual assistance; this is how happiness would be achieved. To him a democratic state ruled by a manipulative demagogue, was essentially as bad as a poorly run monarchy. What mattered was the life of the state, the quality of that existence. Aristotle was big on essentials, and tried to keep his theories grounded in reality. For this today he might be called a moderate or a realist.

What really matters then is not so much the artificial form prescribed for a political system, the theory, but the actual, real application. In Australia at present the constitutional reform issue has singly focused on such superficial and shallow issues as Head of State and the Flag. The debate is so extremely restricted that it is more distraction and entertainment than a seriously productive activity. Canada recently spent a lot of time indulging itself in similar redecoration games, and in doing so exerted much effort on playing trivial pursuit.

Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings and Queens don’t rule states; they are made to rule. They get their mandate to govern from four sources. 1.Religion. 2.Aristocrats (Meritocrats). 3.Corporations (CIA, Farmers, Doctors, Phillip Morris). 4. The Citizens (Individuals acting as one). Heads of State are more like semi-autonomous puppets having their strings tugged by the interest groups that hold them up. Occasionally a strong and agile performer enters the stage and can reverse that direction of control. However the strings can be cut, knotted, or the performer whipped of stage if he doesn’t follow the script.

In a deep democracy, which Australia is supposed to be, the people, not Parliament, run the country. In the shallow democracy that is the real Australia it is the corporations, the monied interest groups that control agendas. Multinationals have internal economies bigger than many nations (for example Phillip Morris-Big Tobacco-is bigger than New Zealand). These companies effectively are nation states. But though Ford is bigger than Saudi Arabia and Norway combined it has no open seat at the United Nations and is rarely held accountable. Instead their representation is through campaign contributions over coffee, and other back room, undemocratic manifestations of money politics.

So instead of worrying whether the flag should be pink, or whether the Crown is relevant, we should be thinking about how the real system works, and what important reforms need to be made. The simplest thing would be a Bill of Rights. ie Freedom of Speech.

Deep reform, the redesign of a Nation State is very, very hard. If Australians want a Republic they should actually first create a working democracy. Australia is not a liberal democracy, or even a constitutional monarchy, it is a corporatist state. The first President of Australia may well have an Australian passport, but what other hip-pocket passports will he/she carry into office. If we do accept the notion of popular presidential elections, which the media naturally love (more drama, more work, more power, more money) we will become consumers of the grand act of American-style presidents, all form and no function. In the USA the politician who spends the most money is the most likely to win.

Aristocracy or meritocracy is as natural as rain. Reward for intelligence is an accepted rule of every economy. This is not a support for a static and hierarchical feudal system but an acknowledgment of the need to match virtue with social status, and rights with responsibility. The Order of Australia for example, is a non-hereditary variant on the old honours system.

Wealth, status, and family have social weight in this country, just like anywhere else. De facto king of the USA, JFK and the “white light on the hill Camelot” Administration was a potent mix of archetypal myth and calculated backroom positioning. An unconscious desire for the charismatic King and a conscious administration of that need. So to deny the reality of the meritocracy (aristocracy) we leave ourselves open to its subtle manipulation.

Religions form the basis of even the secular states. This element is so deeply rooted, with such wide branching implications that it cannot be underestimated. In Australia Religion plays a vital yet independent part of mainstream national life. Officially the Churches are separated from the state, but it must be remembered that the underlying philosophy of our society and law is based on a Christian tradition. Sensibly Australians do not have an excessively deluded mystical Nationalism as a proxy religion.

George Soros, billionaire investor and philanthropist, recently said in an article in The Atlantic Monthly that in the past 50 years Fascism and Communism where the great threats to open society. Today it is unregulated free market Capitalism. Markets do not operate according to their theoretical foundations, and information itself is a commodity that is being restricted and corrupted. Vital information does not reach citizens because of the essentially corporatist nature of the current state. Australia has one of the highest, and growing, media ownership concentrations in the world. Meritocracy and its fruit, free enterprise is being stifled due to the lack of free flowing information, the bullying tactics of big business and the tall poppy syndrome. Church religion has little sway over politics. But the Religion of Marketplace Discipline, the Temple of Trading, has a large managerial class membership of zealots and a larger captive congregation of doubters.

For an increase in the synarchy of Australia the citizenry must demand less corporate distortion of the information flow. Independent media is the umbilical cord for that most valuable nutrient, Truth. If that cord is constricted or severed the foetal neo-Australis Republic will suffer. The ideal equation of a working nation state is a synergistic sum, that is {Religion + Aristocracy + Corporations + Citizens = Synarchy (as in 1+1+1+1=5)}. That occurs when these elements are strong yet dynamically balancing one another, acting in concert, in cooperation. In a democracy it is the Citizens who run the show, and this can only work if they are properly informed. That would assist synergy in Australian politics. It is an ideal destination to be always approached and never finally reached.

More