| Revision as of 15:47, 29 March 2006 editHerschelkrustofsky (talk | contribs)2,877 edits →Original research← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:09, 30 March 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,808,168 editsm Remove unknown params from WP Politics: fascism, oligarchy, corporatism, fascism-importance, oligarchy-importance, corporatism-importanceTag: AWB | ||
| (326 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| Herschelkrustofsky - Please describe exactly how my copyedit was "confusing" and "misrepresented" the concept. While the present text is marginally clearer than the first version of the page it appears to be no less confusing as "Synarchism" appears to be essentially a euphemism for "unamerican". --] 21:07, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC) | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start| | |||
| {{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid}} | |||
| }} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| :It's not -- that's why I said that your edit misrepresented the concept. Also, "Synarchism" is not the name of a theory, that says that "left" and "right" fascism are two branches of the same critter; "synarchism" is the name of the critter. The critter is a reaction by the old feudalist structures to the emergence of constitutional republics, which you might want to call "Americanism", but I think that that would be imprecise, especially the way America behaves nowadays. I don't rule out the possibility that my present edit can be improved -- I'll see if I can think of a way to make it clearer myself.--] 00:08, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC) | |||
| {{archive box| | |||
| *] | |||
| }} | |||
| == Etymology == | |||
| :: I have edited this page to put it in it's proper context. The fact that LaRouch publications was the soucre of the article with all its misconceptions and distortions is not a surprise, however. Fact remains, that LaRouche & associates are largely the only ones using this terme - it is not used in mainstream, or for that matter, fringe politics. ] 20:49, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC) | |||
| :The term ''synarchism'' derives from the {{specify}} meaning "rule together", from the prefix {{specify}}(''syn'', "together, with") + ἄρχή (''archê'', "sovereignty, realm, magistracy") + -ισμός (''-ismos'', from a ] -ιζειν, ''-izein''). | |||
| :::You can't have it both ways -- if it were true that only LaRouche uses the term, then you would be obliged to define it the way he does. As it stands, this version of the article is just a USENET-style rant, and I have returned it to its earlier, relatively informative version.--] 21:27, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, I made some modifications which I hope will be useful.--] 21:51, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) | |||
| Can someone help with the ''Etymology'' section? --] (]) 03:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: The wikipedia is not a soap box for various political extremists, and Larouche et al. does not have any rights to present their preferred definitions for made up political terminology. As such, it should not be presented here, at least not without setting them in the proper context. But by all means, add info if you can find a source that *verifiably* do not lead back to LaRouche propaganda. ] 22:29, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems quite complete relative to other articles, which usually don't have any etymology at all. What more needs to be added? <b>] ] </b> 06:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Your re-write provides no source for an alternate definition; it only suggests that the expression "synarchism" is an invalid term, making your article not especially useful for wikipedia users. You also make assertions that are false and propagandistic: for example, that LaRouche claims that the term "synarchism" "...encompasses George W. Bush." LaRouche has never suggested that George W. Bush is a synarchist. I do agree that wikipedia ought not to be a soap box for extremists, and consequently I am restoring my previous re-write, finding yours to be an enraged venting of your own personal point of view, and not useful to the reader. Your assertion alone, that LaRouche "apparently invented the term", demonstrates that you have done no research whatsoever, and are simply looking for an opportunity to rant against LaRouche. Perhaps wikipedia has a mechanism for refereeing such disputes as this one -- if so, I would welcome it.--] 23:09, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::The Greek words are missing as the two specify tags indicate. Read the last paragrah of the lead section of the ] article for an example of what are aiming for. --] (]) 16:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::The emphasis on Greek words seems to me misplaced. As I understand it "synarchism" is not Greek but rather a compound word (formed in French and adopted into English) from the commonly used Greek-derived elements "syn" together, "arch" rule, and "ism" system. These elements are really part of a specialised French/English vocabulary for creating compound words, and their spelling and meaning is removed from their Greek origin, as ordinary English words are more their Germanic derivation. To include Greek script in this context seems unnecessary, pedantic, and misleading.--] (]) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: I'm pointing out in my edit that synarchism is a fabricated term made or blown out of proportion to whatever meaning it may have in spanish circles by L. LaRouche, and you are actively working to maintain this nonsense. As to the propagandism, I'll leave the verdict on that to the moderators. I for one don't have a vested interest in propagating claims that put LL in an undeserved rosy light. The rest of your personal attacks deserve no comment. ] 00:34, 2004 Jun 14 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well Jack, if you know better, why don't you improve the Etymology section? ;) --] (]) 20:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <s>This seems to be "third position" politics (not to be confused with the third way). A synthesis of the far left and the far right. Groups I have come across include national anarchists and national bolsheviks. They are sometimes known as ]. ] 22:49, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)</s> | |||
| <s>: It's a variety of far right politics and does deserve an article - although I for one have never heard this term used. ] 22:53, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)</s> | |||
| :::::Well, sure, I could delete everyone's work, but they would just restore it...--] (]) 10:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Sorry - completely misunderstood this - I thought this was a description of LaRouche himself. The concept seems to be tied up in United States national mythology - the myth of a free nation against the world. I've not heard the term used but then I'm in Europe. Right/Left synthesis is an interesting subject to study - but this just seems to be yet another conspiracy theory. ] 23:08, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :The term means "against anarchy" and is an umbrella term for various types of authoritarianism -- synarchists equate republican forms of government with "anarchy." I think that if you poke around, you can probably find interesting examples of leftists and rightists collaborating -- or doing a "Mutt and Jeff" routine like the Jacobins and the Bonapartists. --] 01:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you make uncontroversial changes that are supported with reliable sources these changes would not be deleted. --] (]) 17:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Adam's "Version" is not just POV -- it is vandalism. It provides no meaningful or useful material on Synarchism, but instead provides a bunch of venom against LaRouche. This should be settled at ], not on the ] page. --] 00:16, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :If your assertion that "synarchism" is just a neutral political idea is true then there is no reason to tie this article in with the LaRouche edit war. If, on the other hand, this page is just a propaganda article for the LaRouche crowd then, well, you probably should refrain from editing or at least allow it to be presented in as NPOV a way as possible. --] 00:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Well, perhaps. But my point is that you're barking up the wrong tree. "Synarchism" is not a Greek word. It's an obvious fact but I'm sure it's "controversial".--] (]) 10:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bk0, does Adam's version strike you as an NPOV presentation? --] 05:03, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Jack, you seem confused. No one ever suggested that "synarchism" is a Greek word. The article simply use to state that the word was ''derived'' from Greek words. However, since no one was providing reliable sources for claims made in the section, I chose to delete content that seem speculative. Regardless, my point was simply that no one would delete your edits to the etymology section or any other section if they are based on reliable sources and they aren't controversial because of some political bias (such as the Lyndon LaRouche controversy). So, if you can better explain the etymology of the word "synarchism", feel free to do so. No one will stop you. --] (]) 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, that's why I reverted to VeryVerily's version which much improved Adam's inflammatory wording. I think the VV version should be the starting point towards getting this page unprotected. --] 17:47, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Incidentally, Bk0, are you still under the impression that "'Synarchism' appears to be essentially a euphemism for 'unamerican'"? There is some ambiguity in that assertion -- because, for one thing, the present policies of the Bush Administration, including the Preventive War doctrine and the disregard for the Geneva accords, should certainly be considered "unamerican" by any honorable standard. There was a clear and intelligible philosophy that accompanied the American Revolution, and it is more or less antithetical to that of the latter-day neoconservatives.--] 00:12, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Well, no, I think you're confused. The issue is simple. "Synarchy" is formed by two Greek-derived elements "syn" meaning "with" or "together" and "archy" meaning rule. It could be translated as "joint rule". That's it.--] (]) 10:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The word has no significant current usage except in LaRouche propaganda, and this must be stated. It may well have an earlier history, and this could be added by someone familiar with it. My article may well be deficient, but my ''intent'' is to write a NPOV encyclopaedia article, whereas Krusty's intent here as everywhere is to contaminate Misplaced Pages with LaRouche propaganda. ] 11:00, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::: *sigh* Fine. Jack, stop arguing with me if I am hopelessly confused and make yourself useful by editing the article, making sure to supply full citations when adding information. --] (]) 10:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I second Adam's opinion. Scrutinizing Herschelk..'s global edit history reveals that H. is engaged in numerous edits which silently removes criticism of Lyndon Larouche and replaces it with positive commentary instead. That was my gut feeling when this thing started, and now it seems to have been true all along. I'll repeat my initial criticism - Misplaced Pages is not a billboard for political propaganda. Larouche has enough propaganda sites on the net (as seen on the wiki article on his, which is almost plastered with links to his owns sites). Misplaced Pages is not, and should not be one of them. ] 21:02, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC) | |||
| We should indicate the context in which Thomas Morehouse first used "synarchy." As stated, the article merely states that Morehouse used "synarchy," but does no attempt at explaining. Its a bit unuseful. ] (]) 01:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Adam's intent is to write another bogus vehicle for injecting false and irrelevant invective, slandering LaRouche as a fascist, anti-Semite, and homophobe, none of which charges are true. You see my point, Bk0? --] 14:45, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Saint-Yves == | |||
| :: Don't try to smear Adam for allegedly having an agenda here, when it appears you're the one with skeletons in the closet, H. ] 21:08, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC) | |||
| This article casts doubt on Saint-Yves' occultism but the article accept it as fact.--] (]) 18:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Clearly you both have a POV on this. I do too. Your original version is deficient by not mentioning LaRouche at all (and making it seem as if this is a generic apolitical term). Adam's version is deficient in the opposite way, by stating a laundry list of anti-LaRouche charges. Neutral ground needs to be found. --] 13:35, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :No, it doesn't. --] (]) 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: That may be a bit difficult, since all indications about the subject seem to indicate that the term "synarchism" has had no meaning in historical politics whatsoever until LLR invented it and started applying it to anything he opposes. ] 21:08, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, I meant the article on Saint-Yves accepts it as fact.--] (]) 10:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: LaRouche inventing the term is not, in and of itself, a negative thing. Every term has to be coined by someone. I see no problem with clearly stating in the article that the primary users of the word are LaRouche and his followers, however I see no need to fill in this article with lots of anti-LaRouche charges. Note that I'm not saying I support or agree with his position or those of his supporters in any way (or any alleged anti-semitism, etc). --] 00:10, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::So what do you propose we do about it? --] (]) 22:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Have I said that LLR inventing the word is a negative thing? No. I'm objecting to the fact that it is incorrectly being claimed to have a history beyond the last 50 years, plus the fact that it is not being made clear that it is indeed a Larouche invention. Both of these points should be nailed down with 7 inch nails. ] 21:45, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You should make add in somewhere that it is some form on controversy on the subject.] (]) 04:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Confusion == | |||
| :::::: We agree that a) "Synarchism" didn't exist before LaRouche, et al invented it, and b) this needs to be stated very clearly (preferably in the first paragraph) in this entry. The VeryVerily revision which is the current protected version accomplishes this I think. We could however reduce or remove the "conspiracy theory" charge, perhaps moving it to the end of the entry. --] 23:42, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| There seems to be a confusion in the article between "synarchism" meaning "joint rule" (basically a dictionary definition) and specific uses of the term (particularly by La Rouche and other conspiracy theorists). I think this should be made clearer.--] (]) 10:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Since Krusty seems to have given up arguing in defence of the LaRouche version of this article, perhaps it can now be unprotected so that it can be improved in the ways suggested. Also, are we ''certain'' that the word was actually coined by LaRouche? ] 03:00, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. So work on it. ;) --] (]) 18:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Greek lesson for Krusty== | |||
| ::IT would be a big improvement to the article, coming from someone not all that familiar with the topic.] (]) 04:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC) | |||
| The derivation of "synarchy" is the Greek prefix ''syn'' meaning "with" or "together", as is used in many English words such as synthesis, symbiosis etc, and the verb "arkhein," to rule, as is used in words like monarchy, hierarchy etc. It thus means "ruling together". The word "anarchy" comes from ''arkhein'' with the prefix ''an'' meaning "no" or "not", thus a state where no-one rules. The Greek prefix for "against" is usually ''anti''. A word meaning "Against anarchy" would thus be ''antianarkhia'' or in English antianarchy. ] 11:00, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == Occultism == | |||
| : Good explanation. Should be kept in the parent entry. ] 21:08, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC) | |||
| I have restored the Occultism section that was recently removed as unsourced. There was a source for it. In addition, as discussed previously, Saint-Yves' article does describe him as an occultist. A lot of the claims about synarchism are strange and far-fetched, but we have to accept they are out there.--] (]) 12:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| I am happy to give Krusty more Greek lessons any time he likes. I notice he persistently uses "sophistry" incorrectly, as though it were synonymous with "propaganda." In fact it means "shallow or misleading philosophical teaching." ] 04:21, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Very well; I'll edit the section to reflect the claim made in the cited source then. ] (]) 12:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ::Thanks!--] (]) 12:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Have done this now; I should note, I don't really think the book is a reliable source - it's fringe scholarship from a non-academic press. But in any case, it's the only source given. I should also note, the article on Saint-Yves himself does not source any of its occultism claims to anything besides Godwin's book. So I continue to have major reservations about this entire aspect of the topic, at least as sourced. Would have no problem if someone pulled together decent sourcing; it's interesting stuff. To my eye, the most interesting thing I found looking the topic up on Misplaced Pages. But it's not reliably sourced, and that's really important with fringe theories like occultism. ] (]) 12:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Given the nature of the "topic", many of the sources are not particularly reliable.--] (]) 10:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That fact does not override policy on sourcing. ] (]) 23:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
| The more I think about this, the more I think Godwin's book is not a reliable source and that this section should be omitted entirely. ] (]) 21:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| This document which Herschelkrustofsky has added looks like a fabrication to me. Who were these Mexican and French "synarchists"? Has anyone got a non-LaRouche reference to their existence? I have read quite a lot of French wartime history and have never seen a reference to them. I don't claim any expertise in Mexican history, but even if there was a group calling themselves ''synarquistas'' in wartime Mexico that doesn't validate any of the LaRouche conspiracy theories. ] 06:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :Removing the section, given the lack of objection over the past week. Happy to entertain arguments for why it is a ]. ] (]) 20:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Later: There was a group called the Sinarquistas in 1930s Mexico. It was a right wing group formed in Guanajuato in 1937, with the states purpose of fighting Communism (which probably meant the Cardenas government) and reinvigorate the Catholic Church. There is a drawing by the left-wing artist Diego Rivera called "Los Synarquistas" showing them as masked terrorists. There are a number of references to them on the internet, most but not all at LaRouche websites. I'm not sure what this proves. | |||
| == Occult Definition == | |||
| I believe there may be an alternative version. In ]'s occultist novel ] he makes reference to a "synarchy" as being some sort of mystical utopia. Is this usage common outside of this book, is this definition the same as the one given here, or is it an invention of the author? --] 13:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :This has turned up before -- at one time there was an external link in the article to some guy named , who carries on in quasi-mystical way about the "synarchy," attributing the authorship of the term to Saint-Yves d’Alveydre, who was a 19th Century occultist. I had difficulty making any sense of it. In the case of Umberto Eco, though, we are dealing with a thoroughly political animal; as I recall, he had some connection to Italy's Red Brigades back in the 80s, which would put him in the left-wing zone of synarchism. --] 14:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| ::There seems to be another nuance to this -- the term ] (which is presently redirected to ]) appears to be used exclusively by fans of the occult, whereas synarchism is used in a political context. We might want to set up a disambiguation page. --] 15:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) | |||
| :::Look, ''Foucault's Pendulum'' is a work of fiction which '''plays''' with a range of '''conspiracy theories'''. "Synarchy" is briefly mentioned in this context. Eco is not endorsing it a political goal nor asserting its existence as a historical conspiracy. It is a joke!!!--] 07:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK. Meanwhile, I have learned that Joseph-Alexandre Saint-Yves AKA d’Alveydre did in fact originate the term "synarchy." It was originally an occultist term which took on political connotations (the world of the occult overlaps the world of politics more than a little.) --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 07:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I don't think it is "OK" to make wild accusations (Umberto Eco was a terrorist) or to jump to conclusions based on admitted ignorance. You seem like a character from ''Foucault's Pendulum''!--] 07:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Earlist use? == | |||
| "The earliest use of the word synarchy comes from the writings of Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre (1842-1909), who used the term in his book L'Archéomètre to describe..." | |||
| Since I can obtain a definition of this word from the American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster, published in 1828, it seems to me the statement above is not accurate. | |||
| From Webster: | |||
| SYN'ARCHY, n. Gr. Joint rule or sovereignty. ''Stackhouse''. | |||
| :It was reported as earliest by two secondary sources. That doesn't mean it's true - it's a flaky word - but then you can edit it, give a reference since you've got an early Webster and I don't, and explain what it meant in Webster's era. It hasn't been used in that sense in English in recent years, so it could be modified to say "the earliest use of the word with its modern meaning". --] | |||
| Thanks, Did. ] | |||
| ==Skull and Bones, et al== | |||
| I have moved this section to this page for discussion: | |||
| ===United States synarchism?=== | |||
| :A highly contentious topic in the United States, Yale University's junior tapping societies of both ] (1832-present) and ] (1842-present) have had, with a very small number of members, a very large institutional footprint in the policy and leadership direction of the United States in many areas--particluarly in the 20th century. | |||
| :Recently, Bonesman George W. Bush appointed 11 Skull and Bones members to his administration. He additionally chose Scroll and Key member Porter Goss as his CIA Director. The 2004 Presidential Election "choice" in the United States pitted two Bonesmen, George W. Bush and John Kerry, against each other. According to the Kitty Kelly book on the Bush family, Bonesmen have always called the CIA since its invention in 1947 their "homebase." Bonesmen have additionally appeared prominently as first administrators in novel educational foundations or universities in the mid 1800s, and soon after, were foundational administrators of the U.S. territory of the Phillipines from 1898-1930s. Several of the families that are intergenerational in Skull and Bones have seen their family members become Presidents, whether they were not Bonesmen or were Bonesmen (the former like Harding and Coolidge; the latter, like Taft, George Bush Sr,. and George Bush, Jr.). Bonesmen have additionally been deeply involved as Partners in the international private merchant bank ], of which one Bonesmen Partner, Robert Lovett, was asked by President Kennedy to choose all of the people that Kennedy would then verify for "his" Cabinet, 1960-63. A Bonesman was even on the Warren Commission as well. | |||
| I'm not disputing anything that you say here. I just don't think that you have demonstrated that this is specificly synarchism. It might be more relevant to another article. Do you have a source which says that Skull & Bones subscribes to a synarchist philosophy? --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 16:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, HK. I think that synachy refers to the practice instead of necessarily the public use of the term. Besides, humorously do you ancitipate finding an synarchistic organization willing to put "synarchy" in its title to advertise itself? I think that the article should be wided to have (I think the wholly deserved and very interesting) section about open synarchic names, though it should have a section on other PRACTICES of synarchy itself. If you have no other objections, I would set up another section outside your philogical issues mentioned, for these issues of practice. --] 05:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Again, I don't dispute what you are saying, although if I were asked to name some organizations that exemplify contemporary synarchism, Skull and Bones et al would not be at the top of my list. However, you are running a risk here of starting a wiki-kerfuffle; there are some editors who associate the use of the term "synarchism" with Lyndon LaRouche, who enjoys a somewhat unique status at Misplaced Pages as a sort of bogeyman, and any edit that might be remotely construed as LaRouche-related will immediately set off a firestorm of controversy. You might want to review this talk page from the beginning. A word to the wise -- <font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 07:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Mexico == | |||
| In the current article there is this statement on Mexico: | |||
| :There are now two organisations, both calling themselves the Unión Nacional Sinarquista. One has an apparently right-wing orientation, the other is apparently left-wing, but they both have the same philosophical roots. | |||
| What are these "philosophical roots". There seems no point in stating this without explaining this paradox at all.--] 01:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Superfluous material on LaRouche== | |||
| Will Beback and 172, it appears that you are attempting to turn this into yet another attack article on Lyndon LaRouche. Please provide some evidence that the material you wish to add has something to do with Synarchism. If it is not specifically about Synarchism, then please refrain from spamming the same Chip Berlet-sourced stuff into article after article where it is not germane. --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 03:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I hate to break it to you, LaRouche is indeed a crackpot. He does believe that Bertrand Russell, the British royal family, and the Beatles are part of a global "synarchist" conspiracy. (Or perhaps he's just targeting a handful of non-Jews in order to make it seem as if his rantings about conspiracies are not totally motivated by his anti-Semitism?) | |||
| LaRouche on Russell: | |||
| :''How did the implicit Synarchist Bertrand Russell propose to establish the system of "world government" which his confederate H.G. Wells prescribes in his 1928 The Open Conspiracy? Russell proposed the threat of "preventive nuclear war," just as Synarchist Vice-President Cheney has done. In other words, unleash a monster so awful that nations would cringe before that virtual but consummately evil god.'' | |||
| LaRouche on the Beatles: | |||
| :''The U.S.A. and Canadian use of these practices was pioneered in Los Angeles, Hollywood, and left-wing circles, and in Canada locations, during the 1930s and 1940s-1950s, through circles associated with Aldous Huxley and with the London Tavistock Clinic and Tavistock Institute. During the post-war decades, this work was promoted through the Department of Defense's Special Warfare division, including projects such as "Delta Force." The post-war "Beatniks," and the orchestrated cult of Elvis Presley, are typical of the pilot-projects used to prepare the way for the "rock-drug-sex youth-counterculture" launched, like a rocket, with the appearance of the "Beatles" on the Ed Sullivan Show.'' | |||
| :''CIA-directed Congress for Cultural Freedom, whose destructive cultural influence intersected the shock of such of such effects as the 1962 missiles-crisis, the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, the launching of the U.S. official war in Indo-China, and the impact of that bug-like pestilence spewed from Britain, known as "The Beatles."'' | |||
| LaRouche on the British royal family (plus some of the usual Jew-baiting): | |||
| :''A climate of fear is setting in, resembling the "Red Scares" era in the United States of the late 1940s and early 1950s, under synarchist puppet President Harry S Truman. The near-term target of this apparatus are the associates of Lyndon LaRouche in the Citizens Electoral Council (CEC), Australia's fastest-growing political party .... At the apex of this police state sits Britain's Queen Elizabeth II, who is also head of state of Australia. An arm of her ruling Privy Council—the Anti-Defamation Commission of B'nai B'rith of Australia (ADC)—has repeatedly called for the CEC to be banned from Federal politics.'' | |||
| Finally, although I don't see the word synarchist mentioned, according to LaRouche's 1994 "How Bertrand Russell Became An Evil Man," | |||
| :''Britain's Lord Bertrand Russell has been, beyond any reasonable doubt, the most evil public figure of the passing century.'' | |||
| I assume that Russell, from LaRouche's point of view, has to be pretty central to the global "synarchist" conpiracy with the Jews if he fits that description. ] | ] 03:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The article says of the LaRouche movement: | |||
| ::*''They claim that an international combination of financial institutions, raw materials cartels, and intelligence operatives.. used their financial and political resources to install fascist regimes ... in an attempt to maintain order.'' | |||
| ::In that regard, it seems appropriate to list a few details of the claimed combinations. Windors/Opium, Tavistock/Beatles, etc. I'm sure that the examples can be improved, like all text on Misplaced Pages. It is not an attack on LaRouche to accurately describe the best known theories of his movement. -] 10:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Allow me to remind you that this is an article about Synarchism, not about LaRouche. If it is the consensus that LaRouche is an important commentator on Synarchism (because when it suits your purposes, you two usually insist that references to LaRouche should be ''excluded'' from Misplaced Pages articles), I am fine with the two examples that 172 dug where synarchism is actually mentioned: Cheney as a synarchist, and Russell as an "implicit synarchist." --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 15:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is an article about "Synarchism," not about LaRouche? What a farce. "Synarchism" is just a figment of LaRouche's crackpot imagination. When discussing LaRouche's views about synarchism, is a about LaRouche, as it is just a LaRouche fantasy. ] | ] 03:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::This page (and several others) needs to be listed as one of the pages LaRouche proponents should not be allowed to edit. In modern political parlance the idea of an ongoing "synarchist" conspiracy is primarily propounded by LaRouche.--] 14:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There are many editors that have contributed useful information to this article. But if you review this talk page from the beginning, you will also find various editors claiming that the expression "Synarchism" was invented by LaRouche, which has turned out to be yet another irresponsible attack. The policy of Berlet and his collaborators is never to debate LaRouche's ideas, but always to misrepresent them. In fact, LaRouche did say that the Beatles had "no real musical talent," and he generally condemns rock music as being childish and banal. Does that mean that he says that the Beatles were Synarchists? Well, no, it doesn't. He commissioned a book that said the British Empire, beginning with the ], was involved in narcotics trafficking, and in the more recent period, money laundering through unregulated banks in places like Hong Kong, the Cayman Islands, and so on. Does that mean the Queen is selling nickle bags? No. For a look at the guy who originated the story that "LaRouche believes the Queen pushes drugs," visit http://www.marknykanen.com/ I submit that in the best interests of Misplaced Pages, editors should endeavor to make this article helpful to readers who want to know about synarchism, rather than looking for yet another opportunity to make Misplaced Pages into a soapbox. --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::LaRouche's synarchism is just a figment of his imagination. This is a LaRouche-related topic. The arbcom has banned you from from editing any article relating to Lyndon LaRouche. "If he edits any LaRouche-related article, he may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator. Administrators may use their discretion in determining what constitutes a LaRouche-related article. The prohibition against inserting La Rouche material into other articles remains in effect." I am now waiting for your one week block. ] | ] 15:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Debating poltics with LaRouche is like debating science with Professor Irwin Corey.--] 15:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Great link! "World's foremost authority"-- sounds familiar. ] | ] 19:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well, I must accept responsibility for triggering this debate, but I'm not sorry. I think that the previous - and even the current - description of LaRouche's theory of synarchism (which is probably the leading usage of the term) is bland to the point of dishonesty. If this topic is discussed on Misplaced Pages, the full truth should be told. (By the way, I feel uneasy about the censorship of the LaRouchites, but I presume some behaviour warranted this.) Finally, to state that LaRouche only objects to the Beatles' music when he's accusing them of being a front for British intelligence is absurd!--] 08:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :HK, your editing of this article is arguably a violation of the LaRouche arbcom rulings, so I've reverted. You're welcome to request sources for: "The LaRouche movement claims that this international conspiracy has involved people as diverse as philosopher ], the ], ], and the ]," but please don't delete or alter it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| PS. I have provided a source for this, and isn't it a goldmine! None of this namby-pamby financial cartel waffle! I think LaRouche should repudiate followers such as HK who water down the gospel. | |||
| PPS. The accusation that LaRouche is antisemitic lacks merit. Whatever instances are cited - and what I've seen has been dubious - they pale into significance besides the rampant anti-British slant! | |||
| PPPS. Is there any truth in the theory that LaRouche is still a Trot who has gone deep undercover to parody the Right?--] 09:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Original research == | |||
| You'd need to cite sources comparing LaRouche's synarchism to Saint-Yves. I know of no occult tie-in's in LaRouche's worldview, so that claim strikes me as spurious. | |||
| Secondly, where does LaRouche call the Beatles "synarchist"? The Royal family? Certainly not here: | |||
| ] 10:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The classic LaRouche reference regarding the Beatles is: | |||
| :*''The Beatles had no genuine musical talent, but were a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division (Tavistock) specifications, and promoted in Britain by agencies which are controlled by British Intelligence.'' | |||
| :I've never seen a reference where he says outright that they were synarchists. However he has implied on more than one occasion that they were tools of the synarchists. In his worldview, everybody is an operative of someone higher-up, and the Beatles were low men on the totem pole. I think we can find better examples of synarchists. Isn't ] more or less the head synarchist? HK, you must know the answer. -] 10:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, he is not. In LaRouche's view, the head synarchists are strictly financial operatives; they promote political figures as pawns. Philip would probably qualify as a pawn . | |||
| ::I won't be responding further on this page, because I smell a set-up: first ] vandalizes the article by adding original research, converting it into an attack article against LaRouche when in fact, there is really no need to mention LaRouche in this article at all. Then he proposes that the article be classified as "LaRouche-related," and SlimVirgin shows up on my User Talk page, offering to ban me if I edit the page further. I don't see much in this operation that could be considered "good faith." --<font color ="darkred"><font face ="georgia">]</font></font> 15:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:09, 30 March 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Synarchism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 Archives |
Etymology
- The term synarchism derives from the meaning "rule together", from the prefix (syn, "together, with") + ἄρχή (archê, "sovereignty, realm, magistracy") + -ισμός (-ismos, from a stem -ιζειν, -izein).
Can someone help with the Etymology section? --Loremaster (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- It seems quite complete relative to other articles, which usually don't have any etymology at all. What more needs to be added? Will Beback talk 06:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- The Greek words are missing as the two specify tags indicate. Read the last paragrah of the lead section of the Anarchism article for an example of what are aiming for. --Loremaster (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- The emphasis on Greek words seems to me misplaced. As I understand it "synarchism" is not Greek but rather a compound word (formed in French and adopted into English) from the commonly used Greek-derived elements "syn" together, "arch" rule, and "ism" system. These elements are really part of a specialised French/English vocabulary for creating compound words, and their spelling and meaning is removed from their Greek origin, as ordinary English words are more their Germanic derivation. To include Greek script in this context seems unnecessary, pedantic, and misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well Jack, if you know better, why don't you improve the Etymology section? ;) --Loremaster (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, sure, I could delete everyone's work, but they would just restore it...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you make uncontroversial changes that are supported with reliable sources these changes would not be deleted. --Loremaster (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps. But my point is that you're barking up the wrong tree. "Synarchism" is not a Greek word. It's an obvious fact but I'm sure it's "controversial".--Jack Upland (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Jack, you seem confused. No one ever suggested that "synarchism" is a Greek word. The article simply use to state that the word was derived from Greek words. However, since no one was providing reliable sources for claims made in the section, I chose to delete content that seem speculative. Regardless, my point was simply that no one would delete your edits to the etymology section or any other section if they are based on reliable sources and they aren't controversial because of some political bias (such as the Lyndon LaRouche controversy). So, if you can better explain the etymology of the word "synarchism", feel free to do so. No one will stop you. --Loremaster (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, no, I think you're confused. The issue is simple. "Synarchy" is formed by two Greek-derived elements "syn" meaning "with" or "together" and "archy" meaning rule. It could be translated as "joint rule". That's it.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- *sigh* Fine. Jack, stop arguing with me if I am hopelessly confused and make yourself useful by editing the article, making sure to supply full citations when adding information. --Loremaster (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
We should indicate the context in which Thomas Morehouse first used "synarchy." As stated, the article merely states that Morehouse used "synarchy," but does no attempt at explaining. Its a bit unuseful. Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Saint-Yves
This article casts doubt on Saint-Yves' occultism but the article accept it as fact.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. --Loremaster (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant the article on Saint-Yves accepts it as fact.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- So what do you propose we do about it? --Loremaster (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- You should make add in somewhere that it is some form on controversy on the subject.MilkStraw532 (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Confusion
There seems to be a confusion in the article between "synarchism" meaning "joint rule" (basically a dictionary definition) and specific uses of the term (particularly by La Rouche and other conspiracy theorists). I think this should be made clearer.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. So work on it. ;) --Loremaster (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- IT would be a big improvement to the article, coming from someone not all that familiar with the topic.MilkStraw532 (talk) 04:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Occultism
I have restored the Occultism section that was recently removed as unsourced. There was a source for it. In addition, as discussed previously, Saint-Yves' article does describe him as an occultist. A lot of the claims about synarchism are strange and far-fetched, but we have to accept they are out there.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Very well; I'll edit the section to reflect the claim made in the cited source then. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks!--Jack Upland (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Have done this now; I should note, I don't really think the book is a reliable source - it's fringe scholarship from a non-academic press. But in any case, it's the only source given. I should also note, the article on Saint-Yves himself does not source any of its occultism claims to anything besides Godwin's book. So I continue to have major reservations about this entire aspect of the topic, at least as sourced. Would have no problem if someone pulled together decent sourcing; it's interesting stuff. To my eye, the most interesting thing I found looking the topic up on Misplaced Pages. But it's not reliably sourced, and that's really important with fringe theories like occultism. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Given the nature of the "topic", many of the sources are not particularly reliable.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- That fact does not override policy on sourcing. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Given the nature of the "topic", many of the sources are not particularly reliable.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Have done this now; I should note, I don't really think the book is a reliable source - it's fringe scholarship from a non-academic press. But in any case, it's the only source given. I should also note, the article on Saint-Yves himself does not source any of its occultism claims to anything besides Godwin's book. So I continue to have major reservations about this entire aspect of the topic, at least as sourced. Would have no problem if someone pulled together decent sourcing; it's interesting stuff. To my eye, the most interesting thing I found looking the topic up on Misplaced Pages. But it's not reliably sourced, and that's really important with fringe theories like occultism. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks!--Jack Upland (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the more I think Godwin's book is not a reliable source and that this section should be omitted entirely. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Removing the section, given the lack of objection over the past week. Happy to entertain arguments for why it is a WP:RS. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)