sentiment.
The educated reader can, and likely will, come across suitable works
in which he can make an informed viewpoint in this regard; and in all likelihood,
he or she has already done so. But in researching this book, one particular strand
tends to serve as a unifying factor behind the seeming disparity of these groups.
That factor is that of a singular philosophy that seeks to construct a homogenized
culture and governmental structure, wielding an inordinate and unassailable
power, aided by the twin guardians of finance and cronyism. One in which
dissent is silenced—by acts of violence if need be—by force, and control exerted
over every aspect of its citizens lives, often unknowingly.
In order to understand how the theory of such
a global totalitarian regime
could possibly manifest, we need to go back to its roots—ones which date back
to the 19th century and which lay in an obscure political doctrine entitled
synarchy. And one which was first proposed by a French occultist and known
Freemason named Joseph Alexandre Saint-Yves d’Alveydre.
As mentioned in the previous chapter, the
emergence of radical anarchist,
socialist and nihilist philosophies had entered into vogue in Europe during the
latter half of the 19th century, inspired by writers such as Bakunin, Marx, P.J.
Proudhon, and Karl Heinzen (who wrote that “
the principal agent of historical
progress is murder
.”) Simultaneously, there was a resurgence in Hermetic and
Rosicrucian philosophies throughout the artistic beau-monde at the time, with
even noted philosophers in support of rationalism and reason becoming
entranced with the mystical doctrines. Central to this doctrine was the notion of
an elite and unseen cabal of “secret chiefs” that guided the progress and
evolution of man’s spiritual and even material progress (a trait that should now
be evident as common to Freemasonry and the doctrine of the Illuminati.)
Also in vogue was the notion of Hegelian dialectics, which held that the
principles of thesis, antithesis and synthesis were the rational successive
conclusions behind all phenomena but also that that this model could apply to
large scale political constructs as opposed to the merely subjective queries of
ontology. One of the early adopters of this strange graft of dialectical logic with
esoteric philosophy was the aforementioned D’Alveydre,
whose solution to the
threat of nihilistic social breakdown was to counter it with what he termed
synarchy
, or
synarchism
, which translates to “joint rule.”
In his work
La France vraie
(
The Real France
), D’Alveydre put forth that the
concept of synarchy—his idealized form of government derived from bizarre
beliefs about Ancient Egypt and Atlantis being harmonious societies existing as
an organic “unity”—rested on two pillars. The first being that synarchy
represented a ‘Government by an enlightened elite.’ Naturally, the “elite”
themselves would decide on the definition of “enlightenment”; presumably it
referred to those who were agreement with them. The second would be the polar
opposite of anarchy, where if a minimal necessary state was needed it would
have minimal control, in synarchy the state would have maximal control over
each aspect of individual’s lives.
To this end, D’Alveydre and his followers
predicted the rise of a Federal European Union,
creating a classless but
hierarchal mega-state, run by an enlightened elite with neither conservative nor
liberal policies but ones whose enlightenment entitled them to decide and control
every single aspect of the lives of the populace.
Despite the legitimate threats of both World Wars effectively ending the
luxury provided to the leisure class to pursue this crackpot mystical political
theory, its fundamental ideas began to seep throughout Europe. Both Fascism
and the Communism of the USSR are essentially elaborations on fundamental
synarchic principles, and
during the second World War, French Synarchists
collaborated with German occupying forces in Vichy France on grounds of
preserving the model of state apparatus. Of course, the world has learned from
the mistakes of totalitarian regimes, and would never seek absolute control over
an absolute populace in the 70 or so years since?
Unless, that is, you ask residents of the European Union.
Who can count a
predominantly high number of representatives among the most visible advisors
of both the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
