Any half decent wizard can survive even under the most trying circumstances; however we do generally flourish better under conditions of religious, economic and political liberty. I could tell you plenty of horror stories from colleagues in Islamic theocracies and in the remnants of the Soviet Union, without of course naming those involved.
Magic attracts those with a penchant for self-reliance and free thought, many of us in the west have our own businesses for example, and most of us have our own personal and highly unorthodox moral and social values. Magicians value individuality and eccentricity above most other things. We do not accept the consensus view and the received wisdom; we want to experiment for ourselves, whatever the cost. We appreciate a modicum of anarchy.
Over the last few decades a threat has started to grow against many of the freedoms that we have enjoyed in Europe since the fall of the last crop of totalitarianisms. I speak of the EUROPEAN UNION, and you may laugh, but I have looked deeply into this and uncovered the philosophy that underlies the EU. I have found out where it comes from, and I regret to inform you, Fratres et Sorrores, that, as with theosophy & fascism, the fault lies with ourselves, yes us occultists and wizards again. It all began with a French occultist Joseph Alexandre Saint-Yves d’Alveydre (1824-1909).
D’Alveydre devised Synarchy.
Many of us in the goldfish bowl of Anglo-Saxon wizardry will probably never have heard of Saint Yves d’Alvedre, but he remains a seminal figure in French esoterics. As grandmaster of the Martinist Order he was mixing it with Blavatsky, Theodore Reuss, Eliphas Levi, Papus, and all the rest of them. I strongly suggest that you source the history and the connections and the ideas, because this man’s ideas about Synarchy have finally started to happen for real and we have a potential war situation. If we do not wake up to events soon, then things may get very nasty.
I will not go into the history here; the web offers plenty of starting references for that tangled tale. I will however briefly outline what Synarchy means so that you can see for yourselves the challenge that we face and the probable consequences of inaction.
Synarchy literally means Joint Rule. D’Alveydre used the term to imply several things in particular:
1) Synarchy implies Government by an Enlightened Elite. The Elite themselves of course decide on what Enlightened means, naturally it means those who agree with them.
2) Synarchy implies the opposite of Anarchy. Whereas in Anarchy the state should have minimal controls over individuals, in Synarchy the state has maximal control over every aspect of individual’s lives. Zero freedom in all spheres.
3) Synarchy comes neither from the Right or the Left, rather it consists of the Totalitarianism of the Centre.
Already in the post communist states of Russia and China we see the adoption of the Non-Democratic Mixed Economy as the preferred model. The Euro-Synarchists appear to want to follow suit.
D’Alveydre proposed that a secret society of The Elite should take over the three main instruments of Social Control, the Political, the Economic, and the Religious Institutions.
He and his followers envisaged taking over first France and then creating a Federal European Union, and then perhaps One World Government. Their basic aim was to create a classless but Profoundly Hierarchical state, or mega-state, run by Elite Technocrats of neither the right nor of the left, but simply The People Who Know Best, and that this Elite should seek to control every single aspect of the lives of the populace.
D’Alveydre delved deeply into the crackpot mystical utopianism and freemasonry of the late nineteenth century and considered that his inspirations came from The Mystical Adepts of Agartha. So we have another Black Hat Illuminati sponsored project here I’m afraid, another dystopian conspiracy to put certain cliques who know what’s best for us into power.
Now French society has always suffered from domination by Elite Cliques. Ever since the revolution France has led the world in Elitism and Corruption. They replaced an elite and corrupt aristocracy with another clique, and just carried on with added enthusiasm, for now even peasants could in principle get a foothold on the elevator of the meritocracy of those colluding with the political class.
D’Alveydre’s ideas failed to really take off for some decades, because two world wars got in the way and France came under intense American pressure to become more democratic at the end of each one. Yet Synarchic ideas continued to spread throughout many of the elite French academies. The USSR of course provides an almost perfect example of a Synarchic state apart from the personality cultism associated with Lenin and Stalin. (Synarchs usually prefer the faceless anonymity of the technocrat) During WW2 French Synarchists collaborated with the German occupying forces in Occupied France and in Vichy France on the principle that they wanted to preserve their apparatus of state.
However with the advent of the European Union the Synarchist Conspiracy took its chance and grasped at it with all of its tentacles. It started to cleverly persuade most of the European political class that it had the perfect formula to perpetuate and aggrandise the political class itself, without reference to the tiresome niceties of democracy.
You may think me mad but consider this: -
The Synarchist Eurocrats of the EU have largely circumvented democracy and now work on putting themselves beyond the reach of law. The real power in the EU lies not in its elected parliament but in the unelected Commission and in the vast bureaucracy and array of Quangos attached to it. The Commission provides the perfect home for members of the political class who would either rather not risk submitting themselves to democratic selection or for those who have failed in that selection. Once a person has become accepted into the Eurocracy they cannot easily become removed from it, no proper de-selection processes exist. We cannot vote them out, and they strive for increasing immunity from prosecution. Once inside, they become the arbiters of whom else they will admit or exclude. The Synarchists have almost completed step one of their agenda and taken over the political apparatus.
The Synarchist Eurocrats have created the most prolific Law-Mill in the history of the world. The sheer volume of laws and regulations staggers belief and seems to go beyond all sense and reason until you recognise that it constitutes step two of the Synarchist agenda in action, take control of the economy in minute detail. To do this, simply gradually make everything illegal, pass arbitrary regulations just for the sake of having them, pass regulations that nobody can comply with properly, and then apply them selectively.
Do this and you have effectively legalised what medieval monarchs dreamed of, you have legally given yourself the freedom of Arbitrary Rule.
The Synarchist Eurocrats seem to have upgraded d’Alveyde’s third step of taking over the Religious powers of their domains because they have ended up with a huge domain with too many religions in it. Thus they seem to have decided to create a new religion whose morality and dogma have legal precedence over all of the religions within that domain. They call this new religion Social Democracy and we should recognise it as a religion despite that it never advertises itself as such. Social Democracy permits slight shades of opinion but no real dissent. (Neither of the left nor of the right, remember?) You will never enter the Eurocracy if you do not basically agree with it. Like all religious ideals it remains forever unattainable because of its inherent paradoxes, socialism remains incompatible with real democratic freedom. Like all religions it has its own Thought-Speak, in this case mainly what we identify as Political Correctness. Like most religions it seeks to restrict the activities of competing religions. In this it has acted with considerable subtlety. Yes, you can have complete religious freedom, but we will increasingly take away your freedom to observe or to promote any of the customs of your religion. You can believe what you like, but you have to behave exactly as we tell you.
Some wizards and occultists may gloat over such aggressively irreligious secularism; however, as we have learnt from both fascist and communist totalitarianisms, your turn for persecution will come eventually as the Synarchy gets into its stride.
Europe became the cradle of so much of the world’s art, culture, science, and politics precisely because it has usually existed in a highly divided state. Various nations have tried many different social and political experiments and nations have struggled against nations, religiously, politically, economically, and militarily. The modern world arose almost entirely out of that crucible of struggle and experiment. Geography accounts for much of this. Europe contained enough mountains and rivers and forests to make hegemony difficult and to allow experiments to take place.
Technology (nearly all of it invented in Europe) has now broken down those barriers and a new form of hegemony now threatens to radically reduce the diversity of the entire continent.
Welcome to The USE, The United Synarchy of Europe.
Does Synarchisn exist as a hard conspiracy or merely as a pervasive soft consensus amongst the political class? The answer to this question will probably tell us whether to expect a Europe that merely becomes amorphously boring, dull, mildly oppressive, and fairly unproductive for a while until it changes tack, or whether it will descend into full-scale totalitarianism.
I leave it to the historians and the conspiracy theorists to find out the details and the philosophical lineages of the guilty. History suggests that it probably exists in both forms simultaneously at the time of writing. Most of those who act out of self-interest in the service of the Synarchy have probably never even heard of it as a formal concept. The status quo just seems to move in that direction and they move with it because it pays them to do so. However I cannot believe that Eurocratic Synarchy has evolved entirely by screw-up. Some element of conspiracy appears necessary to explain the contra-logical economics, the contra-liberal politics, and the covertly aggressive secularism of the EU.
We know that d’Alveydre formally enunciated the principles of Synarchy and we can now see them coming to fruition. We know that d’Alveydre had enormous influence in French Freemasonry and esoterics and in the French elite academies. Can we track the intellectual lineages of his followers and challenge them before they achieve complete hegemony and plunge Europe into totalitarianism?
If this all seems a little paranoid, then try reading the proposed European Constitution.
This astoundingly pompous, ambiguous and incredibly lengthy document ultimately reduces to a single terrifying sentence that perfectly reveals the agenda of Synarchy.
The Government of the EU can take Any and All powers that It deems necessary.
Of course nobody in their right mind (outside of the political class itself) would ever sign up to such an agreement presented in such stark terms. Any proper constitution should both define and Limit what a government can do. The EU constitution basically gives the EU government carte blanche. Thus the actual document dissembles and waffles for hundreds of pages in a ponderous legalistic attempt to disguise what it actually means. It actually means quite simply that: -
The Government of the EU can take Any and All powers that It deems necessary.
Perhaps we should look further into the record of the author of this Synarchist Manifesto, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, ex-President of France. Even a cursory analysis throws up much that appears disquieting.
As Churchill so astutely observed; The only thing worse than Democracy is every other system that we have ever tried.
Above all we must not follow the examples set by Russia and China or feel compelled by difficult world economic conditions or fear of social unrest to allow our freedoms to disappear by stealth.
The defeat in the referendums on the EU constitution in France and The Netherlands comes as heartening news. Both the Left and the Right in those countries combined against the Totalitarianism of the Centre.
The far Left and the far Right have always instinctively opposed Hard Centrism, finally the moderate Left and the moderate Right woke up to the threat as well.
However a battle won does not mean the end of the war against Synarchy.
The Synarchists tried to do too much too quickly, and too many people saw through their schemes. In future they will act more cautiously.
The euro political class has made a mighty career investment and a mighty investment of our money in its infrastructure, they will not give up easily, and they will become ever more devious and dissembling in the promotion of their agenda.
Expect a fightback now; expect more Federal Euro-creep by any and every possible back door.
Remain vigilant; resistance has proved far from futile, freedom and diversity can win if enough people care about it.
We have a situation in which the majority of the population of Europe does not want further forced integration into the EU and more centralised rule from unelected bodies.
However, the European Political Class largely does want such things.
Obviously the Political Class can look forward to a considerable expansion of its own size and power but perhaps it also knows or believes something which the population in general does not.
Information available to the Political Class may well have convinced them that the world situation will become exceptionally unpleasant over the next few decades as food and energy shortages get worse, population spirals in the developing world and the environment deteriorates.
Such information does not necessarily depend on secrets. Politicians and bureaucrats continually call for private reports and analyses on information which lies largely in the public domain.
See the ‘Report on Project Eschaton’ paper.
If the Political Class has concluded that a period of exceptional unpleasantness lies ahead with the world divided more seriously than normal over resource conflicts they may well justify ever closer European Union to themselves in terms of a Fortress Europe against the world theory.
Thus they may view the reduction of democracy in Europe as a necessary evil.
Don’t expect them to express this explicitly in public.
They may have a point, but not necessarily a good one. Although democracy has so far beaten Bonapartism, German militarism, Fascism and Communism it does seem in retreat in many parts of the world.
Nevertheless it has proved a winning formula so far despite facing terrible challenges and it seems worth trying it against whatever the future has to offer rather than accepting defeat in advance.
Perhaps we should consider devising a stronger form of democracy for the eventual fightback against Synarchy.
The Irish, the only electorate within the EU allowed a referendum, have said NO to the European Constitution masquerading as the Lisbon Treaty and the only response under discussion in Brussels concerns how to circumvent or ignore or sidestep this democratic decision and proceed with further implementation of the Synarchist agenda.
I fear the battle lost now. The EU Synarchy has got the entire European political class on-side and successfully corrupted even UKIP. The people mainly sleepwalk to their designated fate or wearily resign themselves to the seemingly inevitable; Eurocreep towards Ever Closer Synarchy.
Thus we must look to the longer-term campaign.
It may seem a little premature to consider what should supersede democracy because it seems the least worst system tried so far, and so many parts of the world have not even achieved it yet.
Nevertheless there are signs that democracy cannot deal with many of the effects of the unrestrained growth of the free market consumerism that comes with it because people will tend to vote for economic growth until the consequences become catastrophic, both ecologically and socially.
An ideal government would consist of an oligarchy of experts drawn from all relevant fields that would plan for a sustainable and equitable future for its entire polity that does not preclude sustainability or equitability in other polities.
Such a government cannot exist in principle if the Oligarchy of experts has full executive powers, for it will inevitably use them to privilege, protect, reward, and aggrandise itself. The system would require another element to check and balance the Oligarchy to ensure that it behaved selflessly, wisely, and with farsightedness.
A democratically elected and democratically de-electable body cannot properly perform this function because it remains at the mercy of the short term economic interests of the electorate.
We need to find some way of checking the power of the Oligarchy of experts that involves the electorate in an equitable way, but does not involve the use of politicians.
Thus I propose Government by Chaocracy & Oligarchy. (Chaoligarchy).
Oilgarchies of Experts divided into various ministries or departments can propose and draft whatever legislation or actions they see fit.
The Chaocracy, has the absolute power of veto over any of it. It may also repeal any law.
Society selects the Chaocracy by random means from the population; everyone remains eligible for drafting into the Chaocracy by lot, as with jury service.
If the Chaocracy has some several hundred members then it should contain a representative selection of ages, sexes, and interest groups, unlike most parliaments.
Half the Chaocracy gets replaced every few years and those serving on it receive the kind of rewards that put them beyond concealable bribery and corruption.
The system also requires a specialised Oilgarchy called an Independent Judiciary.
The Chaocracy settles all matters by debate and their own consciences expressed by secret ballot. (Thus they cannot be bought or intimidated).
The Chaocracy can dismiss or downgrade a limited number of Oligarchs.
The Chaocracy elects a head of state, if required, as frequently as it wishes.
The emerging ‘political class’ which has begun to loose its class roots in the class structure of post-industrial societies, will thus become partly absorbed into the Oligarchy of experts. A random selection of the people will decide which of their policies to adopt, after searching their own consciences.
An Oligarchy offers the best means of producing and maintaining a group of experts in any field, for only experts can decide what constitutes expertise, and we should let them get on with that through their own efforts to persuade each other in the battle of ideas. It works well enough in universities, and we would have no obligation to accept their recommendations.
Members of the Chaocracy would get paid handsomely to turn up and argue and vote on all measures proposed by the various departments of the Oligarchy. The members would consist of a roughly equal mix of sexes and a representative selection of age and interest groups. Half will display below average intelligence and some will make little or no impact on debates but about 5% will show leadership qualities, so a selection of 500 people will provide a nucleus of about 25 persons capable of leading serious debate about exactly what policies a society should pursue. As they have nothing else to do, and no accountability, or re-electability, or short term self interests to worry about, I think that they would inevitably do it well.
I believe that the majority of humans instinctively act for the good by default, except when they find themselves in situations where other courses of action appear more rewarding. Thus we should endeavour not to put them in such positions.
Many elements of the political class, and those with strong political convictions would find a natural home in the oligarchy and revel in the internal power struggles of its various departments. They would also enjoy considerably enhanced job security, for failure to persuade would usually mean merely failure to advance, not outright unemployment.
The legislation offered by the departments of the Oligarchy would at least have the virtue of having been devised by specialists in the relevant fields rather than by politicians with little understanding of anything but its short-term political implications for themselves and their power bases.
The population at large would become free of the tiresome duty of voting merely to exclude the least apparently desirable candidates and parties.
The power to approve or discard policies would lie with those who did not seek such power but had it thrust randomly upon them as a well rewarded public duty performed for a limited period only. In return for discarding a mostly pointless personal vote everyone would receive a chance to perform this privileged function of government.
The media would loose much of its political influence as would big business and indeed any self-interest group with disproportionate influence.
Can ‘Chaoligarchy’ ever evolve out of any current form of government?
I suspect not, but I suspect that it could evolve out of the Synarchy towards which many Democracies seem to drift nowadays.
I can imagine an eventual popular uprising against Synarchic government in which the people reject the executive power of the Synarchy but retain it as an advisory Oligarchy answerable to a randomly selected group of citizens, the Chaocracy.
A society must delegate power, for not everyone can continuously involve themselves in matters of government. Yet we should not delegate it to those who seek it. Thus we should delegate it by the only truly fair method – pure chance.