Talk:Synarchism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Synarchism = Un-Americanism?

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". --Bk0 21:07, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:08, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

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. - Peter Perlsø 20:49, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

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.--Herschelkrustofsky 21:27, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I made some modifications which I hope will be useful.--Herschelkrustofsky 21:51, 13 Jun 2004 (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. - Peter Perlsø 22:29, 2004 Jun 13 (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.--Herschelkrustofsky 23:09, 13 Jun 2004 (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. - Peter Perlsø 00:34, 2004 Jun 14 (UTC)

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 Strasserites. Secretlondon 22:49, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC) : It's a variety of far right politics and does deserve an article - although I for one have never heard this term used. Secretlondon 22:53, 20 Jun 2004 (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. Secretlondon 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. --Herschelkrustofsky 01:52, 21 Jun 2004 (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 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche/Evidence, not on the Synarchism page. --Herschelkrustofsky 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. --Bk0 00:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bk0, does Adam's version strike you as an NPOV presentation? --Herschelkrustofsky 05:03, 17 Jul 2004 (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. --Bk0 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.--Herschelkrustofsky 00:12, 18 Jul 2004 (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 Wikipedia with LaRouche propaganda. Adam 11:00, 17 Jul 2004 (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 - Wikipedia 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). Wikipedia is not, and should not be one of them. - Peter Perlsø 21:02, 2004 Jul 21 (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? --Herschelkrustofsky 14:45, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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. - Peter Perlsø 21:08, 2004 Jul 21 (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. --Bk0 13:35, 18 Jul 2004 (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. - Peter Perlsø 21:08, 2004 Jul 21 (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). --Bk0 00:10, 22 Jul 2004 (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. - Peter Perlsø 21:45, 2004 Jul 22 (UTC)

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. --Bk0 23:42, 22 Jul 2004 (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? Adam 03:00, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would like to add that the term synarchist in the french version of wikipedia is more instructive about D'alveydre, you can also find on the internet a synarchist pact in french that is very constructive which lead to think Larouche haven't look at them to moderate their view of synarchism. I had an interview with a meeting of young Larouche leaders, they tend to think synarchism are avid of killing, which in my research looks very excessive. samuel champagne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.172.247 (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Greek lesson for Krusty

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. Adam 11:00, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good explanation. Should be kept in the parent entry. - Peter Perlsø 21:08, 2004 Jul 21 (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." Adam 04:21, 22 Jul 2004 (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. Adam 06:59, 8 Sep 2004 (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 Umberto Eco's occultist novel Foucault's Pendulum 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? --Axon 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 Joseph Caldwell, 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. --Herschelkrustofsky 14:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be another nuance to this -- the term synarchy (which is presently redirected to synarchism) 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. --Herschelkrustofsky 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!!!--Jack Upland 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.) --HK 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!--Jack Upland 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". --Diderot

Thanks, Did. kblais

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 Skull and Bones (1832-present) and Scroll and Key (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 Brown Brothers Harriman, 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? --HK 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. --ReSearcher 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 Wikipedia 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 -- HK 07:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

ReSearcher: if synarchy is a 'practice', what is this 'practice'? You can't just lump every alleged secret elite association together.--Jack Upland 20:12, 2 August 2007 (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.--Jack Upland 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. --HK 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. [1]

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. [2]

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." [3]

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. [4]

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. [5]

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. 172 | Talk 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 Wikipedia. It is not an attack on LaRouche to accurately describe the best known theories of his movement. -Will Beback 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 Wikipedia 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." --HK 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. 172 | Talk 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.--Cberlet 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 Opium Wars, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia into a soapbox. --HK 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." [6] I am now waiting for your one week block. 172 | Talk 15:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Debating poltics with LaRouche is like debating science with Professor Irwin Corey[7].--Cberlet 15:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Great link! "World's foremost authority"-- sounds familiar. 172 | Talk 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 Wikipedia, 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!--Jack Upland 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 Bertrand Russell, the Beatles, Dick Cheney, and the British Royal Family," but please don't delete or alter it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 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?--Jack Upland 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: [8]

Sam Spade 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 Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh more or less the head synarchist? HK, you must know the answer. -Will Beback 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 [9].

I won't be responding further on this page, because I smell a set-up: first User:172 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." --HK 15:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The LaRouche concept of the synarchist financial elite is a coded analog for the Jewish bankers from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Much of the LaRouche analysis is lifted from antisemitic conspiracy theories written in Britain and the U.S. from the 1930s to the 1950s.--Cberlet 19:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like Chip Berlet "scholarship" to me... Sam Spade 21:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam Spade, you were warned about these petty personal attacks in the recent arbitration. Please desist.--Cberlet 20:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If anyone can name one of the financiers at the top of the LaRouche-envisioned Synarchists I'd be quite interested. Even George Soros is a mere operative of theirs:

• George Soros is not a Democrat. He is, like Shultz, a high-level operative of the "Synarchists," the international fascist movement created in the 1780s in reaction against the American Revolution, to impose "beast-man" dictators from Napoleon Bonaparte, to Adolf Hitler, to Vice President Dick Cheney. The Synarchist International is the heart of the drug and terrorism operations that are used to destabilize most of the nations targetted by Dick Cheney's cabal today.[10]

I can't find anywhere that LaRouche actually designates the heads of the Synarchy by name. -Will Beback 21:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have re-added the details about the Beatles, the royals etc as this is highly relevant. I never said that LaRouche claimed they were themselves "Synarchists" (whatever that means) and I have made that crystal clear in the current edit. It is wrong to say that supposed "Synarchism" is purely economic/political and it is deception not to let readers know what LaRouche & co really believe. The topic is Synarchism/Synarchy, not the identities of these secret personages, the "Synarchists" (though that is relevant) and clearly LaRouche claims that the Beatles etc were involved in the conspiracy. Read the cited article, don't just scan it for references to the Beatles being Synarchists!!!--Jack Upland 00:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're in agreement. LaRouche writers seem to use the terms loosely to refer, directly or indirectly, to leaders, members, operatives, unwitting dupes, and other people involved with what they call the synarchist movement. I think that LaRouche view of synarchism belongs in "Political views of Lyndon LaRouche" rather than here. Outside of the LaRouche world, his usage of the term has no relevance. -Will Beback 01:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least in the English-speaking world, LaRouche is the main purveyor of the term.--Jack Upland 03:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche, the Protocols, and the so-called Synarchist Secret Elites

1978, Lyndon LaRouche states there is: "a hard kernel of truth," in the Protocols.

• Lyndon LaRouche, "New Pamphlet to Document Cult Origins of Zionism," New Solidarity, December 8, 1978, as cited by King, Lyndon LaRouche, p. 275, see also pp. 174, 274-285.

Dope, Inc. cited the Protocols. According to the book "The Order of Zion was simply the Jewish division of the Most Venerable Order of St. John of Jerusalem, the London-centered chivalric order and secret society."

• U.S. Labor Party Investigating Team (Kostandinos Kalimtgis, David Goldman, Jeffrey Steinberg), Dope, Inc.: Britain’s Opium War against the U.S., New York: New Benjamin Franklin House, 1978, pp. 25-37. On the Protocols, see pp. 31-33; on the Rothschilds, see the chart on pp. 154-155, consult index for more than 20 page entries on the Rothschilds, quote from pp. 31-32.

The basic themes of these LaRouchite claims track back to:

• Sergei A. Nilus, Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion, "translated from the Russian Text," by Victor E. Marsden (London, The Britons Publishing Society, 1921).
• Nesta H. Webster, The French Revolution, (1919). Republished, Noontide Press, 1988;
• _____, World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilization, (London: Constable, 1921);
• _____, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, (London: Boswell Printing, 1924).
• Anonymous, The Reign of the Elders (Gold, Gold, Gold), (no publishing data, circa 1938).
• Cincinnatus (anonymous pseudonym), War, War, War, (no publishing data, circa 1940).
• E.C. Knuth, Empire of “The City”: A Basic History of International Power Politics, (Mequon, Wisconsin: Empire Publishing Co., 1946).

Current LaRouche publications calling the neoconservatives "The Beast Men," and the "Children of Satan," echo anti-Jewish rhetoric from the Middle Ages suggesting that Jews were subhuman agents of the Devil. --Cberlet 21:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Most conspiracy theories do "echo" antisemitism ("the socialism of fools" in the words of August Bebel). This doesn't make LaRouche antisemitic, nor does the fact that he occasionally accuses individual Jewish people of involvement. As I said above, he's more anti-British. There is a common corpus of conspiracy theory that goes back to the Middle Ages and is reflected in such novels as Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code and Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. This is not necessarily antisemitic though common themes - and even entities - recur. LaRouche's use of the terms Synarchist and Martinist actually places him in the very oldfashioned tradition of Masonic conspiracies, rather than anti-Semitic.--Jack Upland 23:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not so simple. The Protocols explain that while the Freemason/Illuminati conspiracy theory is well-known, it is really the secret council of Jews that is behind the Masonic conspiracy. So in figuring out which thread a group follows--Masonic or Jewish--one has to take into account the text and subtext. So the John Birch Society primarily pushes a "Masonic" conspiracy theory, the neonazis primarily push a "Jewish" conspiracy theory, and LaRouche promotes a hybrid which includes elements from both. LaRouche learned to code his anti-Jewish rhteoric after being criticized for citing the Protocols and being obviously antisemitic. As for the anti-British aspect, that is exactly the thesis of E.C. Knuth, Empire of “The City” and many other similar works: that the "City of London" financial center and the British royal family has been infiltrated by the Rothschilds and other Jewish families and now the Jews control Britain. This is, in fact, exactly what the original edition of the LaRouchite opus "Dope, Inc." claims overtly. Subsequent editions play that down. It has never been repudiated or retracted, however. See Dennis King, Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, chapter 29: "Elizabeth, Queen of the Jews," pp. 280-285. --Cberlet 00:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet, you claim that when LaRouche says "synarchist financial elite," that is a "coded analog" for Jews. I say that's a bunch of crap. When you can't provide any evidence for your claim, you simply argue that no one can see the evidence because it's in code. That's the cheapest sort of propaganda conspiracy theory. Then, in this impressive lookin bibliography you posted above, you provide only one actual piece of evidence, which is that at one time LaRouche (or someone in his organization) considered the Order of Zion to be "simply the Jewish division of the Most Venerable Order of St. John of Jerusalem, the London-centered chivalric order and secret society." So instead of the argument that you and Dennis King make, that LaRouche uses "British" as a code word for "Jews," it seems to be the other way around in reality -- he is saying that the Order of Zion, whatever that is, is controlled by the British.

The other thing going on here is that you and Jack Upland are playing tricks with logic. LaRouche may say that synarchism is a conspiracy, but he does not say that all conspiracies are synarchist. Synarchism is a more specific term, and you are pretending that it is not. Jack, LaRouche said that the Beatles were promoted by people involved with British Intelligence (actually, it is not uncommon for intelligence agencies to try to boost the "products" exported by the nations they work for.) It is quite a leap of logic to then claim that LaRouche thinks the Beatles were "involved" in this "international conspiracy," and it is another leap from there to claim that this "conspiracy" is "synarchist." --BirdsOfFire 02:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

So instead of the argument that you and Dennis King make, that LaRouche uses "British" as a code word for "Jews," it seems to be the other way around in reality -- he is saying that the Order of Zion, whatever that is, is controlled by the British. I'd laugh if this were "No Joke." BirdsOfFire, a LaRouche activist, claims that LaRouche is saying that "the Order of Zion, whatever that is, is controlled by the British." The belief in the existence of an 'Order of Zion' conspiracy, regardless of who is said to be controlling whom, is a textbook case of classical anti-Semitism straight out of Nazism and its predecessors. Berlet establishes the fact that LaRouche is a true neo-Nazi ideologue [11], although LaRouche, it seems, has been successful in obfuscating his true political orientation by cloaking his anti-Semitism in loads of pseudo-intellectual sophistry to a greater extent than other neo-Nazis. 172 | Talk 07:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is clear from the speech previously cited,[12] that LaRouche considers the Beatles etc to all be in the same conspiracy:"Don't look for conspiracies of any importance from other sources; they are all of this type".

On antisemitism, I'm sorry Chip & co, but there's a lack of logic in your arguments. After all, why would LaRouche encode his antisemitism? He's quite happy to attack Dick Cheney and make wild claims about the Beatles etc - why would he tone down an attack on the Jews? Who is more powerful, the British or the "Jewish lobby"??? (By the way, I don't dispute he's a fascist.)--Jack Upland 22:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Because as LaRouche drifted toward more open antisemitism in the mid to late 1970s, a large number of Jewish members left his organization, and denounced his antisemitism, and some non-Jews left as well. The controversy over the obvious antisemitism in the book Dope, Inc. hurt the organization. LaRouche learned a lesson. Also, I have no doubt that LaRouche does not think of himself as an antisemite. LaRouche has made the same retreat from openly bigoted rhetoric concerning his racism, sexism, and homophobia. It is all still there, but presented in an oblique way which makes him more difficult to critique. Also, he is a lunatic--always good to remember. I had to spend several days in depositions with LaRouche when he sued me for defmation (he lost). Both brilliant and nuts. He made his lawyers complain to the judge that my attorney, Dennis King, and I were planning on assassinating him during the deposition. He refused to show up one morning. That's why the judge dismissed me and Dennis from the case. Bonkers. But I did hear him deliver a three-day explanation of the vast conspiracy that was awesome--connecting me to McGeorge Budy to Kissinger, to George Bernard Shaw and the Fabian Society, back to Plato.--Cberlet 01:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a known fact, that the most dangerous anti-Semites are the ones like LaRouche who never do or say anything anti-Semitic. Chip Berlet himself also has a long history of concealed anti-Semitism, but he deflects attention from himself by aggressively "outing" other "closet" anti-Semites.

I find it strange that he would be sensitive to criticism of antisemitism etc, when he - as you have seen first hand! - is not wary of making quite outlandish claims.--Jack Upland 00:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

PS With regard to the anonymous smear against Chip above, are you saying that Hitler was not a dangerous antisemite?--Jack Upland 22:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved for discussion

I have moved these two sentences to the talk page for discussion:

LaRouche identifies Dick Cheney as a latter-day "Synarchist" and asserts the wide-ranging conspiracy has involved people as diverse as Napoleon Bonaparte, Bertrand Russell, Adolf Hitler, the Beatles, and the British royal family, though these participants may not necessarily be aware of their roles.[13][14]. The vast majority of scholars and journalists in the United States dismiss these claims by the LaRouche network as unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

The first sentence, in my opinion, is Original Research. First of all, the two citations provided are worthless -- the word "synarchism" doesn't even appear in either article. It looks to me, from some discussion on this page, that editors are reformulating concepts in those articles and then applying them to synarchism -- that is not permitted under Wikipedia rules (Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.)

The second sentence may be true, but it needs a citation. I did a thorough Google search and found no comments at all by "scholars and journalists" regarding LaRouche's views on synarchism. More general comments about LaRouche belong in the article on LaRouche. --205.177.246.156 00:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this better?

• The vast majority of scholars and journalists in the United States, however, dismiss claims by LaRouche and his followers as unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

You do realize that on Wikipedia proponents of LaRouche theories are not allowed to add, delete, or edit content that mentions LaRouche or his theories?--Cberlet 01:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

-LaRouche and his followers are the leading users of the term "synarchism" in the English-speaking world.

-Consequently it is only fair that an uninitated reader is able to learn what these people mean when they use the term.

-LaRouche makes his view of history abundantly clear. To state that this alleged conspiracy (or call it what you like) only involves corporation is false. It involves the Beatles, Bertrand Russell etc. This is to deny the breadth of LaRouche's vision.

-The claim that neither article uses the term "synarchism" is absurd. In the first LaRouche says:

• Dick Cheney and the neo-conservatives associated with him, are not only an imitation of the Adolf Hitler movement, they are a continuation of it! As I've identified it, it's a movement, that was called in the 20th Century, the Synarchists.

-The claim that this constituted the verboten Original Research is wrong. It is merely illustrating what LaRouche & Co mean. --Jack Upland 08:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Fomatting mania aside, I think that Jack Upland has made a good series of arguments here.--Cberlet 12:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that LaRouche's views on Synarchism are a worthy topic for this encyclopedia, it might be better to cover them in Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. -Will Beback 23:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

2 propositions:

• Synarchism is a valid topic for Wikipedia.
• LaRouche and his followers are responsible for the main use of the term in the English speaking world at present.

If you accept both these propositions, the views of LaRouche must be included here. If you deny the first, then this entire article should be deleted. If you deny the second, I would like to see evidence. Which is it???--Jack Upland 09:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny either proposition, I assert that a different conclusion is possible: that the material should be covered in a different article. LaRouche has a number of concepts particular to him that we've merged into Political views of Lyndon LaRouche. That isn't to say they aren't notable in some fashion, just that we can handle the whole topic of LaRouche's views in one article without having them all over the encyclopedia. -Will Beback 11:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How about a shorter blurb and then folks can rewrite the synarchism section of one of the LaRouche pages and link to it from here? I made a stab at shortening the entry here. I do think it needs a mention on this page. It is proabably the most widespread current usage.--Cberlet 12:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

However, you are misrepresenting LaRouche's views. He never uses the term the way that you say he does. It's easy enough to find a quote from him about synarchism. I found several by Googling. He also has an article called A short definition of synarchism which could be linked as an external link. --172.191.232.84 23:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to defend the views of LaRouche. I believe they have been accurately summarized.--Cberlet 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with defending his views. The point is, information on Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable. --172.197.183.219 07:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that Will Beback's response to my points is valid. This is the page on synarchism and the meaning of it must be discussed here. If LaRouche is a leading user of the term, then his use must be outlined to the reader. It's not enough to direct them to another page. Space is not the issue here. My contribution that keeps being cut is one sentence! (Or one word: 'Beatles'!) The real issue is that some LaRouche sympathisers object to the non-initiates being introduced to the more 'interesting' aspects of his theory.--Jack Upland 22:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The current edit cites LaRouche in some modest detail, and properly identifies him Are we done yet?--Cberlet 00:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that the Beatles, British royals etc should be mentioned because they give some idea of the range of the usage of the term, "synarchists". (As I did previously.) I think I could edit the piece to insert this without adding to length. (But I don't want to get into a revert war.) I also think that describing La Rouche as a convicted criminal is irrelevant here and puts neutrality at risk. Similarly with the sentence about the lack of support for the theory. Surely that's self-evident.--Jack Upland 01:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, verifiability, please. I have found articles on the web (not very many) where LaRouche talks about the Beatles, and articles where he talks about synarchism, but none where he talks about both, or says that the Beatles are synarchists. This does seem to be an example of Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. An overview of LaRouche's eccentric theories belongs in the LaRouche articles, not here. Ditto for the "convicted criminal" -- people can follow the wikilinks. We should assume that people come to this page because they want to know what synarchism is. --172.193.15.93 14:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, give it a try. I'm flexible on this one. I usually abhor including LaRouche stuff, but Synarchism is an exception. I've been researching LaRouchite use of the term. Significant. Which I loathe, but cannot deny encyclopedically-speaking.--Cberlet 01:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the citations above, particularly the first one. In it LaRouche talks about a synarchist phenomenon and this includes the Beatles. I have never said that the Beatles were synarchists, just that the (alleged) conspiracy involves them.--Jack Upland 03:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither of the two articles you cite ever mentions synarchism, so I do not believe your claim that LaRouche is "talking about a synarchist phenomenon." There are many articles available where he specifically mentions synarchism, so the material in this Wikipedia article should reflect what he says in those articles. I wish you would read this: Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position because it exactly explains why you should not be inserting this sort of thing into the article. --172.190.54.80 14:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't lecture me about reading! Do it yourself!! You have repetitively stated that 'Neither of the two articles you cite ever mentions synarchism'. But the first article says:

Synarchists Against the American Republic

Because Dick Cheney and the neo-conservatives associated with him, are not only an imitation of the Adolf Hitler movement, they are a continuation of it! As I've identified it, it's a movement, that was called in the 20th Century, the Synarchists. The Synarchist organization was created, actually, under another name, called the Martinists, in France, back in the 1780s. It was created by the British leadership at that time, Lord Shelburne, who was the political boss of the British East India Company, and the paymaster of the British Parliament, and of George III, himself.

So is your point that "Synarchists" is radically different from "Synarchism"???

The second citation was intended to buttress the first - to which it is obviously connected by a thousand conceptual threads - and in particular to point out that, rather than being merely a political and financial conspiracy, Synarchism also involves - in LaRouche's stated opinion - philosophers and rock bands. This is clearly an important aspect to the meaning of the term as used by the practitioners and as such it deserves the brief mention I am attempting to give it!!!

PS I have noticed that contributors who have no case always fall back on Wiki protocol to support themselves. In this case, I have not presented a 'synthesis' of two different authorities but merely cited LaRouche twice. And after all, as I mentioned above, LaRouche says that we shouldn't look for any other conspiracies - Synarchism is what he's on about. Readers deserve to know the full extent of what this entails.--Jack Upland 10:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad on the first article. The stuff about the Martinists, Lord Shelburne and the East India Company would be quite suitable for inclusion (better yet, link to "A short definition of Synarchism. Not much room for dispute on that one.) On the second article, I disagree. Your claim that it is "obviously connected by a thousand conceptual threads" seems to me to be the "synthesis" which is not allowed, and also not necessary, since we have quotes where LaRouche is explicitly talking about synarchism. --172.191.112.205 14:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As on other pages with text related to LaRouchite ideas, I think it is not too much to ask that anonymous users either sign up and pick a User Name or use a consistent pseudonymn with which to carry on discussions. The constantly-shifting URLs make it difficult to know if we are having a discussion with one editor or several. I consider it a common courtesy.--Cberlet 14:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Signing comments is a standard requirement:

Help:Talk page#Basic rules for all talk pages, Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, Wikipedia:Username.

-Will Beback 23:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As I stated before, the synthesis provision is not relevant as it refers to several different authors. But due to consistent opposition I will rewrite the sentence and only use the first citation. Could anyone please argue their case before deleting it again?--Jack Upland 04:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Simple. The allegation that you make is not supported by the article you quote. End of story. I see that this has been discussed before. I'd like to know why you have such a thing about including the Beatles in this article? --172.191.227.156 14:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• I think the Beatles - and popular culture more broadly - are an important part of the purported Synarchist phenomenon as theorised by LaRouche, who is, as discussed, the most important purveyor of this term in the English-speaking world. To portray it as a merely political - and perhaps economic - phenomenon is an obvious misrepresentation of the theory. Readers should not be misled in this way. (And, yeah, I do think it's funny.)
• I note that you claim that the Beatles reference is 'not supported' but also insisted on my dropping of a citation which would support it!
• I will reinsert my sentence - a mere sentence - in the text and see if you or others remove it. As a democrat, I will drop the Beatles reference, though I think it is valid.
• I would like to ask, in turn, why you have such an objection to the full-blooded reality of LaRouche's theories on this topic being briefly aired to the public. Please explain.--Jack Upland 10:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Response: LaRouche clearly has theories about the promotion of popular music in general -- not just the Beatles. He uses them as a well-known example of a pop music group, one of the first to become a world-wide phenomenon. However, these theories do not fall under the rubric of Synarchism. I think that they might be appropriate to discuss in a article like Social engineering (political science).

Also, I think that while the present version of this article is pretty good, I don't think it is proper to say that LaRouche speaks of a "conspiracy" involving Napoleon, Bertrand Russell etc., since they didn't know one another and therefore could hardly conspire. I am making a slight edit to say that he claims they had a shared ideology. --172.191.250.193 00:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like (again) to direct you to the article cited:

Because Dick Cheney and the neo-conservatives associated with him, are not only an imitation of the Adolf Hitler movement, they are a continuation of it! As I've identified it, it's a movement, that was called in the 20th Century, the Synarchists. The Synarchist organization was created, actually, under another name, called the Martinists, in France, back in the 1780s. It was created by the British leadership at that time, Lord Shelburne, who was the political boss of the British East India Company, and the paymaster of the British Parliament, and of George III, himself.

And later:

So therefore, we are dealing with something in the continuation of the Hitler phenomenon, the so-called Synarchist phenomenon, whose origin goes back to the 18th Century. This has undergone changes over the period, but this phenomenon is continuing. Don't look for conspiracies of any importance from other sources; they are all of this type.

Clearly this is not about a particular "method" or "ideology" and clearly "conspiracy" is a word that LaRouche uses, however illogical you think this may be. I will re-edit the passage to use the words that LaRouche himself uses.

Time and again there's an attempt to "normalise" or "rationalise" LaRouche's theories - but this is no more than misleading the reader.

The Beatles issue is a case in point. You admit that LaRouche does see them, among others, as I said, as part of a social engineering project. However, you state - without evidence - that this is unrelated to Synarchism, despite LaRouche's statement that there are no other types of conspiracies and despite LaRouche's linkage of the Beatles to Synarchism in the article cited.--Jack Upland 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, the Beatles are going back. They're linked. And no response has come to the above for over a year.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments about Mr. Cheney

One may not like Mr. Cheney but it is not appropiate to make remarks like "The Halliburton gang" in a encyclopedia. One must also remember that if it was not for such "gang" members, more planes would be crashing into buildings in America.

The reference is a quotation intended to indicate what 'synarchism' means to the people who use the term. This article is not endorsing the view.--Jack Upland 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Synarchism in various parts of the world

Should this section be deleted? It consists of a complicated and obscure citation which, if accurate, merely confirms what is said later about Mexican and French synarchism.--Jack Upland 20:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Well here it is:

The question of synarchism became an issue for U.S. Intelligence analysts during World War II. In a now declassified U.S. report dated April 22, 1942, Raleigh A. Gibson, First Secretary of the U.S. Embassy in Mexico, sent the U.S. Secretary of State an English translation of an editorial from El Popular, the newspaper of the Confederation of Mexican Workers, published on April 21, 1942. It reads in part as follows:

"The French sinarquistas rushed into furious strife against French and European democracy; those of Mexico organized to combat Mexican and continental democracy. The French sinarquistas were adopted by Abetz, the Ambassador of Hitler in France; the Mexican sinarquistas were recruited, were given a name, were educated and directed by Nazi agents in Mexico and by Falange directors who are working illegally among us. And this is so apparent, so conclusive, that it eliminates the need of concrete proofs of the organic connection between them. The fundamental proof is that sinarquism is not a unique and exclusive Mexican product, as its leaders untruthfully argue. That Sinarquism, even bearing the identical name, does exist in other parts of the world and is an international movement formed by those who are under the supreme orders of Hitler."

We need citation for the US intelligence connection - we do have details of the Mexican newspaper. But we also need justification of relevance. This claim is made in a relatively obscure Mexican newspaper at a tumultous time. Doubtless many people have made many allegations against many nebulous entities - we can't cite them all in Wikipedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Synarchy and Archeometre

The book "Archeometre" edited in 1910 after the dead of Saint-Yves d'Alveydre (1842-1909) don't explain the synarchy. The books "Mission des souverains", "Mission des ouvriers", "Mission des juifs", "La France vraie", ... edited from 1882 to 1887 expose this theory.

Peter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.248.201 (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hitler, the Beatles etc

So someone has deleted my sentence about the wide-ranging nature of the supposed conspiracy (again). And I can't find any justification for this deletion in the discussion page despite debate about smaller issues. Surely Hitler is a more important historical figure than Dick Cheney, but his supposed connection with Synarchism is suppressed. Ironically it appears that La Rouche's acolytes don't want their master's teachings to be shared with non-initiates. Well, too bad. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. We need the full information.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be pointing the accusing finger in the wrong direction here. The big re-write was done by Loremaster, who appears to be anti-LaRouche. I've just gone over the main LaRouchista source cited, "Synarchism: The Fascist Roots Of the Wolfowitz Cabal" by Jeff Steinberg. It does emphasize a connection to the Nazis, so that ought to be included. You lost me on the Beatles -- is that facetious? There is also a paragraph on the origins of Synarchism:

At its core, the Synarchist international—like its front group Pan European Union—sought to create a one-world tyranny, modeled on the reign of Napoleon Bonaparte. The first "Synarchist" text was written in the 1860s by Joseph Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre (1842-1909), an occultist and follower of Napoleon Bonaparte's own mystical advisor, Antoine Fabre d'Olivet (1767-1825). Fabre d'Olivet had started out as a leading member of the Jacobins, participating personally in the foiled assassination plot against King Louis XVI in 1789. He later served as a top official of the Interior and War Ministries under Napoleon Bonaparte. His occult writings about "purgative violence" and the "will to power"—antecedents of the works of Nietzsche—were adopted by Saint-Yves d'Alveydre, who launched the idea of Synarchism as a counter to the anarchy that had destabilized all of Europe, from 1648.

I googled a bit and found that LaRouche also regularly refers to Saint-Yves as a Martinist (see for example [15]. So, I propose that the sentence that now reads

For example, American dissident Lyndon LaRouche describes a wide-ranging historical phenomenon, starting with the Martinist Order followed by individuals, organizations, movements and regimes that are alleged to have been synarchist.

be amended to say

For example, American dissident Lyndon LaRouche describes a wide-ranging historical phenomenon, starting with Saint-Yves d'Alveydre and the Martinist Order followed by individuals, organizations, movements and regimes that are alleged to have been synarchist, including in particular the regime of Adolph Hitler.

--Niels Gade (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I approve. But for the record, I'm not "pro-LaRouche" nor am I "anti-LaRouche". I am simply interested in making sure readers readers know the facts regardless of whether it makes pro-LaRouche or anti-LaRouche faction of editors happy. As for my "big re-write", one could argue that it "sanitized" LaRouche's views by making them seem far more reasonable than they actually are... --Loremaster (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Jack Upland, do you approve of the current version of the Rule by a secret elite section? --Loremaster (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "approve". I don't condemn it, but as you suggest you have "sanitized" LaRouche by ignoring some of the more unusual parts of his theory. His view of Synarchism is far more wide-ranging than just a financial elite which backs dictators. For the record, my addition was:

The LaRouche movement claims that this international conspiracy has involved people as diverse as philosopher Bertrand Russell, the Beatles, Dick Cheney, and the British Royal Family.

No, this is not facetious. The evidence and the reasons for including it are well canvassed in archived discussions. Unfortunately it appears that consensus editing means that the more unusual material is bound to be deleted. At least the version as it stands mentions Hitler...--Jack Upland (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

1. What I mean by "approve" is that Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Consensus is typically reached as a natural product of the editing process; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, and then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to either leave the page as it is or change it. In essence, silence implies consent, if there is adequate exposure to the community.
2. I didn't "sanitize" LaRouche's views. I meant to suggest that one could argue that this is the consequence of my "big re-write" therefore the repeated accusation that I am "anti-LaRouche" is fallacious.
3. The current version of the Rule by secret society section does reflect the fact that LaRouche's view is far more wide-ranging than just a financial elite which backs dictators. It simply doesn't mention names to avoid this article being used to promote conspiracy theories that defame prominent historical figures.

--Loremaster (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

In most jurisdictions the dead can't be defamed. And Cheney's name is mentioned anyway. I think it's important to show that this supposed conspiracy extends to more than conventional political figures. After all, LaRouche claims Russell is one of the most evil people ever. An innocent enquirer might come to Wikipedia wanting to know what this is all about and we ought to tell him or her. To say it's merely a straightforward political and economic issue is misleading - and does effectively sanitise LaRouche's views.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche does refer to Russell as an "implicit" synarchist.[16] However, I think I should point out that this article is primarily about Synarchism, not about LaRouche's views. There is an article called Views of Lyndon LaRouche, and that would be the proper place to "expose" LaRouche. --Niels Gade (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Gade. Claims that Russel is one of the most evil people ever doesn't contribute to a better understanding of what synarchism is. It's simply points to how idiosyncratic LaRouche's views in relation to synarchism are. Furthermore, I would argue that article cites LaRouche's essays and links to them so innocent enquires can simply go there to know what this is all about. --Loremaster (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected again

Please use the talk page to find consensus rather than edit warring. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for putting an end to this needless edit war. --Loremaster (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit warring

Loremaster, calling LaRouche a "revisionist historian" is Original Research, prohibited under Wikipedia policy. LaRouche has been called many things, but never that to my knowledge. And the article is about Synarchism. If people want to read Chip Berlet's rants, they can follow the link to Lyndon LaRouche. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisionist history carries both positive and negative connotations. Historical revisionism has both a legitimate academic use and a pejorative meaning. Within the academic field of history, historical revisionism is the critical reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards rewriting histories with either newly discovered information or a reinterpretation of existing information. The assumption is that history as it has been traditionally told may not be entirely accurate. The pejorative use refers to illegitimate manipulation of history for political purposes, for example Holocaust denial.

Although I agree that describing Lyndon LaRouche as a "historical revisionist" may be problematic, there is nothing pejorative in simply stating that LaRouche "revises history" when this in fact what he is doing. There would only be a problem if we were to say that LaRouche "negates history". Therefore, I will continue to restore the sentence that is in dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether your analysis is correct or incorrect. Wikipedia does not permit the inclusion of Original Research. You must use only opinions that have already been published in reliable sources, and you may not incorporate your own unsourced opinions. Also, please don't re-add off-topic material such as Berlet's opinions about LaRouche. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If more sources are needed I will had them. However, I haven't included original research. I have dispassionately stated facts therefore I'm restoring my edits and will continue to do so until this matter is resolved once and for all. --Loremaster (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Proceed with caution

Loremaster, you're not exactly a newbie around here, yet you don't seem to grasped a number of core policies. So, let me explain in very explicit way how they affect your edits:

• WP:NOR: You may have an absolutely burning conviction that Lyndon LaRouche is an "historical revisionist," or that he is "engaged in historical revisionism." However, you may not add this to the article unless you have a reputable source that says, explicitly, that Lyndon LaRouche is an "historical revisionist," or that he is "engaged in historical revisionism." No matter how well reasoned your personal view is, it is considered Original Research unless it has been published.

• WP:BLP: Since we are dealing with Living Persons, any characterization of a living person must be backed up by an A-1, absolutely trustworthy source. Until recently, Wikipedia was pretty lax about this, but I believe the community is getting much more serious on BLP. My view, having seen and participated in many discussions on this topic, is that Chip Berlet and his organization should be avoided as sources when it comes to BLP. Note also that BLP violations may be removed on sight without violating the 3RR rule, whereas if you edit war to restore them, you run the risk of being blocked.

• WP:SYNTH: You may have an absolutely burning conviction that LaRouche is being accused, by some source, of something that seems to you very similar to his own definition of synarchism. However, unless the source explicitly says that "LaRouche is a synarchist," you are in violation of policy if you add it to this article. this edit is an example of a violation of SYNTH, because you are making your own claim that it is "similar to synarchism." It is off-topic and irrelevant. It is also a violation of BLP and NOR.

I am personally doubtful that this article needs to mention LaRouche, but as you can see from the edit history, some people feel strongly about it, and there are published sources where he discusses synarchism. I also think that we should avoid adding yet more material on Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre -- what we have is fine, but more would put it in the Undue Weight zone. --Marvin Diode (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I don't have "absolutely burning convictions" when it comes to Lyndon LaRouche. For what's it worth, I'm neither "pro-LaRouche" nor "anti-LaRouche". When someones engages in the critical reexamination of historical facts, with an eye towards rewriting histories with either newly discovered information or a reinterpretation of existing information, this is the textbook definition of "historical revisionism". Lyndon LaRouche is clearly doing this when he describes a wide-ranging historical "movement", "organization" or "phenomenon", involving a Martinist cult and their ideological descendants. I am simply making a neutral statement of fact when I say that LaRouche is "revising history".
2. I can and will provides sources that state that LaRouche does engage in historical revisionism even if this isn't necessary in light of my explanation above.
3. You have revealed both your "interest" in Lyndon LaRouche and your bias against his critics, Chip Berlet and his organization, so I feel justified in questioning your own objectivity.
4. I have never said that "LaRouche is a synarchist" so I don't need a source to support such a statement. If the LaRouche movement is similar to LaRouche's own description of synarchist, it is not only ironic but more than relevant. However, I agree that it is original research to suggest it so I will find a better way of informing readers that LaRouche's thoughts on synarchism are dubious. It would be a disservice to them not to.
5. It is not up to you to decide whether or not an article has enough material on Lyndon LaRouche or Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre.

--Loremaster (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have "proceeded with caution" and phrased a compromise (respectful of Wikipedia guidelines) which all reasonable watchers of the Synarchism article should be able to accept. I'm moving on since I don't have anything more to add. --Loremaster (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus needed

Guys, instead of writing "you need to change" or "you're wrong", how about "Here's a source which says X"? That is the simple basis for building a foundation for including a point of view. POVs are made neutral when someone produces a "Here's a source which says Y" counter. Both are best included in the article. Obviously none of your beliefs will be changed, but surely there are a number of issues you all can agree on, right? Please, find the common ground which you all agree is true. Name calling and reversion warring doesn't do anyone a bit of good. It impedes forward progress on the article, and discourages potential new helpers. I'm not familiar with the topic, but a cursory look at the debates indicate these points are without consensus:

• Is the statement Lyndon LaRouche is a revisionist historian relevant to the article? How important is it? Isn't it enough to describe what synarchism is without saying who uses it?
  • If it is relevant, how should it be stated? Would it be better to edit Lyndon LaRouche instead?
• Should the coverage of Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre be increased or decreased? Should the emphasis of his influence be changed?
• The secret elite seems to be even further from the article's topic? True/False? Why or why not?
• Are there any other points of dispute?

—EncMstr 04:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement Lyndon LaRouche is a revisionist historian is irrelevant, and a BLP violation which should be removed without waiting for consensus. The same goes for Loremaster's new version, Several critics have accused Lyndon LaRouche of holding a world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history, and rewriting history by minimizing, denying or simply ignoring essential facts. He doesn't identify the critics, which of course are Dennis King and Chip Berlet. I am familiar with their writings and they don't say what Loremaster attributes to them, specifically the phrase which he links to Historical revisionism (negationism). Otherwise, they are not suitable sources under Biographies of Living Persons, and the whole last edit that Loremaster made is off-topic. I guess that just about sums it up for me. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem identifying critics. However, it seems that Terrawatt and Marvin Diode have appointed themselves authorities on the suitability of the critics of Lyndon LaRouche (who are all citable and notable published journalists and academics). This is unacceptable. --Loremaster (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a higher standard for the reliability of sources where BLP issues are concerned. This has been the subject of an ongoing discussion at WP:RSN#Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates. But on the other hand, there's no need to debate the suitability of the sources when the material itself is off-topic. This is an article about synarchism, and you are trying to take it off in some other direction. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Terrawatt is engaging in wikilawyering. This article is not a biographical article about Lyndon LaRouche. It's about his views on synarchism and how his views should be understood. I've made my case and it's now up to a Wikipedia administrator to judge. --Loremaster (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I have provided sources but apparently any source critical of Lyndon LaRouche is biased and therefore unacceptable.
2. I don't know why people keep bringing up the statement Lyndon LaRouche is a revisionist historian since I stopped using it a long time because I recognized that it was problematic. However, I argue that it is important that readers who stumble upon the Synarchism article understand that LaRouche isn't reporting history but revising history.
3. I think it is revelant in the sense of informative to note that LaRouche's credibility in general and his views on the subject of synarchism in particular are dubious.
4. The coverage of Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre is acceptable to me. The only thing that could be added to the subject is how his ideas have influenced modern political philosophy.
5. "Rule by secret elite" as one definition of synarchy is relevant in light of its use by LaRouche and many other writers. The fact that Lyndon LaRouche condemns rule by a secret elite yet, according to his critics, advocates rule by an enlightened elite is not only ironic but relevant in the process of judging the value of his opinions.
6. As I explained earlier, I am satisfied with the current version of the article and I will move on if my edits stand or are expanded upon rather than deleted due to bias.

--Loremaster (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please: make this easy for me. I've tried to sum up what's been answered so far, but the answers are at least an order of magnitude more complex than I expected.

• Is the statement Lyndon LaRouche is a revisionist historian relevant to the article?

Terrawatt: No

Loremaster: No with qualifications

• Should the coverage of Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre be increased or decreased? Should the emphasis of his influence be changed?

Loremaster: No

• The secret elite seems to be even further from the article's topic? True/False? Why or why not?

Loremaster: False

Is this correct? —EncMstr 05:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be incorrect insofar as Loremaster appears to remain committed to getting some version of the "revisionist historian" formulation into the article. Loremaster makes the following comment: However, I argue that it is important that readers who stumble upon the Synarchism article understand that LaRouche isn't reporting history but revising history. It appears to be an important objective for Loremaster to link this section to the Wikipedia article Historical revisionism (negationism). Loremaster added source citations to King and Berlet, but to my knowledge they don't make this claim. Perhaps Loremaster could quote a passage on this talk page from a published source where this claim, that LaRouche "isn't reporting history but revising history," is made. Otherwise, it's Original Research.

Loremaster also asserts: I have provided sources but apparently any source critical of Lyndon LaRouche is biased and therefore unacceptable. This assertion is false. I will accept any criticism that appears in a reputable, published source, such as the New York Times or Washington Post, both of which have harshly criticized LaRouche for decades. However, I still would like an explanation of why any of this is relevant to the topic. In my view, if Loremaster wants to challenge LaRouche's credibility, the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" ought to do nicely -- LaRouche has been called that many times in reliable sources. Also, a link to LaRouche's bio would be appropriate. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

1. As I explained before, I am neither an apologist nor a critic of Lyndon LaRouche and/or his movement. It is because the Priory of Sion article links to the Synarchism article twice that I decided to improve the latter. In the process of editing this article, I realized that the section containing the views of Lyndon LaRouche on synarchy lacked context. Providing a critical view of LaRouche provides that context.
2. When someone speculates about a wide-ranging historical "movement", "organization" or "phenomenon", involving, among others, the East India Company, Napoleon Bonaparte, Bertrand Russell, Adolf Hitler, the British royal family and the Beatles without pointing to any historical evidence or citing works of historical scholarship; one is clearly not reporting information that can be found in mainstream history books. Readers of the Synarchism article would be misinformed if they did not know this and simply took LaRouche's speculative views (if not propaganda) at face value.
3. I have provided sources and will provide more if necessary. However, I don't think someone with a bias as Marvin Diode clearly has should be the arbiter of what is and isn't a good source. A published academic, however controversial he might be, is a good source.
4. Lastly, in light of Marvin Diode's preoccupation with guidelines surrounding living people, I am perplexed that he would tolerate Lyndon LaRouche being described as a "conspiracy theorist" but not a "historical revisionist". Is this because Lyndon LaRouche has proudly described himself as a "conspiracy theorist"? I don't know. I'm just asking.

--Loremaster (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's because reputable sources have described LaRouche as a "conspiracy theorist," so that characterization is not in dispute. I know of no reputable source that supports your claim that he is a "historical revisionist." Please note (in response to your claim that you have "provided sources and will provide more if necessary") that it is not a question of how many sources you list -- it's a question of whether any of them specifically back up your claim. Please quote a passage on this talk page from a published source where this claim, that LaRouche "isn't reporting history but revising history," is made. Otherwise, it's Original Research. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... Reputable sources have described LaRouche as a "conspiracy theorist" yet you never asked for sources. Why is that? Regardless, as I said before, I am not proposing that we should include my opinion that LaRouche is a "historical revisionist" or that he "isn't reporting history but revising history". I am proposing that we should include the accusation by some critics that LaRouche has engaged in "politically motivated historical revisionism". I will quote a passage on this talk page from a published source as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The disputed sentences should be removed on BLP grounds until such evidence is provided. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it might take me something to get a copy of the books I read a few years on the subject, I am willing to accept the following compromise text in the meantime:

Holding a world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history, American political activist Lyndon LaRouche regularly uses the word "synarchy" to describe a form of government where political power effectively rests with a secret elite. He describes a wide-ranging historical "movement", "organization" or "phenomenon", involving the Martinist Order and their ideological descendants. He claims that during the Great Depression an international combination of American financial institutions, raw materials cartels, and intelligence operatives such as John Foster Dulles, installed fascist regimes throughout Europe (and tried to do so in Mexico) to maintain order and prevent the repudiation of international debts. LaRouche identifies Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney as a latter-day "synarchist", and claims that the "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." However, several critics have accused Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement of advocating "a dictatorship in which a 'humanist' elite would rule on behalf of industrial capitalists."

--Loremaster (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence is irrelevant to the subject. It is also sourced to Chip Berlet's website (although not cited) which is inadequate for a claim about a living person, and on top of that, the claim is an asinine, malicious slur. It creates the impression that you are making a sly attempt to revive your earlier claim that LaRouche is some sort of synarchist, which if true, I suppose, would make it relevant, but since it's false, the point is moot. If you want to discredit LaRouche as a source on the nature of synarchism, why not take Marvin's suggestion and substitute something along the lines of "However, LaRouche is often described in the press as a conspiracy theorist." That is factually correct and can be sourced to mainstream publications. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm no longer interested in debating this dispute with someone has uncompromising (and biased) as Terrawatt. I think I have made my case and offered an acceptable compromise. It's up to a Wikipedia moderator to decide now. That being said, I prefer using the sentence "holding a world view that centrally places conspiracy theories in the unfolding of history" rather than calling someone a "conspiracy theorist". Furthermore, the sentence which is critical of what LaRouche advocates is relevant in light of his views on elitism. --Loremaster (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, you seem to have a penchant for infiltrating wildly misleading Wikilinks. For example, in your proposed edit, you have taken the phrase "prevent the repudiation of international debts" and inserted a link to United_States public debt#Amount of foreign ownership of U.S. debt, which is completely irrelevant. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I am willing to admit error if I inserted the wrong Wikilink (External debt would in fact have been the right one), the accusation that I have "a penchant for infiltrating wildly misleading Wikilinks" is groundless and shows bad faith. --Loremaster (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

<--------- I have repeatedly warned pro-LaRouche editors about continuing to spread the lie that the website of Political Research Associates is "Chip Berlet's website." Please desist. It is a violation of BLP, along with being false.--Cberlet (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Loremaster (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversial topic

I've made my last major edits to the Synarchism article, specifically the Rule by a secret elite section. I've rephrased the sentence that was considered controversial and provided two good sources for it. I consider this "controversy" to be a product of the pro-LaRaouche bias of some editors. However, I'm hoping they will be able to overcome it to end this needless dispute. --Loremaster (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Controversial topic" means you discuss the edits before you make them, rather than trying to create a fait accompli. If you want to play around endlessly with the Saint-Yves d'Alveydre sections, you have my blessing. The rest of the article I'm reverting to where it was when it was unprotected. --Terrawatt (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have restored all my edits that are not controversial. The following sentence is the one in dispute:

who is perceived as a conspiracy theorist and political cult leader by his critics,

I ask all reasonable observers to comment on the pros and cons of adding this sourced sentence to the Rule by a secret elite section to describe Lyndon LaRouche. --Loremaster (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you consider it necessary? LaRouche has been called everything under the sun, so I would question why you select that particular formulation, and why it is relevant to the topic of the article. Frankly, after all the recent wrangling I see reflected on this page, I would suggest you stick with the present version of this article, declare victory, and move on. --Niels Gade (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it is intentional, I'm concerned that the Synarchism article is disseminating Lyndon LaRouche's conspiracy theories matter-of-factly as if there are the views of a respected academic historian, as if they are or could be accepted by a majority of scholars in that field. Readers of the Rule by a secret elite section deserve to be informed of LaRouche's credibility in order to better understand and judge his views. --Loremaster (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My sense is that the reader is likely to take the entire article with a grain of salt, especially after reading about how Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre associates Synarchism with "ascended masters" in subterranean caverns from the land of Shambhala and Agartha, who supposedly communicated with him telepathically." --Niels Gade (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Although that's possible, the section in question has nothing to do Alexandre Saint-Yves d'Alveydre. --Loremaster (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I support adding the material suggested by Loremaster.--Cberlet (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't. It's gratuitous and biased. I would, however, support the restoration of "activist and conspiracy theorist" in place of "dissident." --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So "political cult leader" is gratuitous and biased but "conspiracy theorist" isn't?!? Despite how derogatory this term is, you have stated that you approve the use of the term "conspiracy theorist" to describe LaRouche because there are several reputable sources, which are very critical of (or "biased" against) LaRouche, that can be cited to support its use. The same can be said about term "political cult leader", which only refers to a leader of a group on what is generally considered to be the political fringe. By the way, the use of the term "dissident" is has been reappropriated by some. --Loremaster (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Dissident" would be fine by me, but it looks like you are angling for something more pejorative. "Cult leader" is used only by attack sites like PRA; your WaPo source doesn't endorse it per se. LaRouche, of course, scorns the "cult leader" label. He also scorns what he calls "populist conspiracy theories" of the John Birch Society type.[17] But on the other hand, he insists that there are actual conspiracies, some of which he supports, such as the conspiracy which led to the American Revolution. So if you need something more pejorative than "dissident," I would say that "conspiracy theorist" is not entirely unfair. I oppose the "cult leader" description. --Terrawatt (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am honestly not using the word "dissident" pejoratively (on the contrary, I would personally love to be considered a dissident). It simply seems to be the best word to describe LaRouche from a neutral perspective. Furthermore, there is a difference between a "cult leader" and a "political cult leader". I consider the latter less pejorative. But ultimately it doesn't matter since the issue is reporting (while citing sources) what critics have said about LaRouche in order for readers to able to judge the credibility of his views. It seems that both you and Marvin Diode have a bias for LaRouche and a bias against PRA. Unlike the two of you, I'm simply presenting the facts, however awkward they may be. --Loremaster (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm dropping the term "conspiracy theorist" to directly describe LaRouche since I've moved it to an introductory sentence. Therefore, I am now suggesting the inclusion of the following sentence as a good compromise:

, leader of a movement considered by some to be a crypto-fascist political cult,

Thoughts? --Loremaster (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than being a compromise, it appears to be more tendentious than your last proposal. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I actually agree. Let me think about an alternative. --Loremaster (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche has been called a Communist, an anti-Semite, anti-Irish, a "wealthy Jew," a liberal, a conservative, an "unrepentant Marxist-Leninist," ad nauseum. The place to catalogue and weigh the various malicious characterizations is at the Lyndon LaRouche article. It's superfluous here. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote carefully, you will notice that "crypto-fascist political cult" is what the LaRouche movement is being called not him. That being said, I am will to offer something less tendentious:

, leader of a controversial movement on the political fringe,

Factually accurate and neutral. The best compromise? --Loremaster (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I note that political fringe redirects to "extremism." Delink it, and I'll support the edit. Incidentally, why do you insist on so many links? They should be used only when they are actually informative, not for purposes of innuendo. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of opinion since I think these links are, er, extremely informative. That being said, I added the sentence you approve. I consider this particular dispute now resolved. --Loremaster (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no unbiased justification for the removal of Berlet's book as a source for this statement. Is a Wikipedia administrator going to intervene to put an end to these transparent attempts by pro-LaRouche editor to whitewash Wikipedia articles? --Loremaster (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In short: no. See your talk page. —EncMstr (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Can you perhaps explain to me whether or not there is anything wrong with the source I used for the compromise statement everyone seems to be able to accept? --Loremaster (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an extensive, on-going debate at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about whether Chip Berlet/Political Research Associates is a suitable source, especially where BLP issues come into play. Mainstream sources are available to support the "fringe" characterization; I recommend this one. --Marvin Diode (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

But the problem with taking that debate into account is that some of the participants, including you, have a pro-LaRouche bias. --Loremaster (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I have had little to do with actually writing LaRouche-related articles. But I will say that the Chip Berlet productions seem to me to be too venomous and propagandistic to be used as a source about LaRouche or any other Living Persons under WP:BLP, and I have objected to their use in a variety of circumstances. There are undoubtably people on both sides of the the Reliable Sources debate who are biased, so your claim about that debate is sort of meaningless. Do you have an objection to the mainstream source that I propose? --Marvin Diode (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is that your opinion about the worth of this source is not a fact. Berlet is a notable, published academic. The fact that his writings might be "too venomous and propagandistic" is a POV that anyone could argue about any source they disagree with. That being said, Berlet's book is not being quoted from but simply cited as source. You're making a dispute out of nothing. --Loremaster (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a simply question, Loremaster. Why would you prefer to cite Berlet, when a mainstream source is available? --Terrawatt (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple answer: Berlet is more comprehensive than most mainstream sources that tend to be superficial. --Loremaster (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Too simple: mainstream sources tend to be more responsible, and less likely to fling inflammatory charges without evidence. Berlet has a penchant for constructing defamatory fairy castles out of pure speculation. The WP:BLP policy on sources is intended to prevent precisely this sort of thing at Wikipedia. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Again this is your opinion not fact. You're simply wikilawyering to exclude a source you are biased against. Regardless, as I said before, Berlet's book is not being quoted from but simply cited as source. So this is taking your bias too far. --Loremaster (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Loremaster, please let me call your attention to this passage from the beginning of WP:BLP. I would ask you to pay particular attention to the final sentence. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material.

— WP:BLP

Marvin Diode, please let me call your attention that citing Berlet's book as source for the no longer controversial sentence does not in anyway violate the Wikipedia guidelines you quoted from. You are simply engaging in wikilawyering. By the way, being critical of a living person's movement is not the same thing as being critical of the living person in question. --Loremaster (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this was discussed elsewhere, and I think the consensus was that the BLP policy applies to eponymous movements as in this case. But my question for you, Loremaster, is the following. You say that the source citation doesn't matter, because the sourced claim is non-controversial. If that were really true, you would have no problem using the New York Sun as a source. However, you seem very insistent upon bringing in Berlet as a source, which suggests to me that there is an inconsistency in your argument. --Niels Gade (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. My point is that 1) Berlet is the most extensive source on the subject while others sources tend to be superficial, and 2) I think it is outrageous how pro-LaRouche editors are manipulating Wikipedia guidelines in order to whitewash any critical mention of LaRouche on Wikipedia so, although I am willing to make compromises, I am not going to roll over. It's a question of principle for me: Readers are entitled to know the facts. --Loremaster (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Berlet is a very dubious source, because he engages in a great deal of speculation and innuendo. He is definately on the fringe of "LaRouche criticism." Now, elsewhere on this page, you say this: "I'm not "pro-LaRouche" nor am I "anti-LaRouche." And yet, you insist that only Berlet is an acceptable source. Your story doesn't add up. --Niels Gade (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion of Berlet is nothing more than an opinion. Regardless of what you think of him, Berlet is a citable published academic. He has extensively written about LaRouche. That's the reason why I am citing him rather than someone else. This has nothing to do with being "pro-LaRouche" or "anti-LaRouche". I don't care about him, his movement or his critics. We could be having the same dispute about Mother Theresa vs Christopher Hitchens and I would be defending the use of the latter as a source even if I worshiped the former as a saint. So find me someone who has written on LaRouche as extensively as Berlet has and I will cite him instead since I only care about being ruthlessly comprehensive when it comes to sources and not letting you or any of the pro-LaRouche editors whitewash this article. By the way, it is because of strong critics like Berlet that the sentence about the LaRouche movement being controversial makes any sense and is necessary. --Loremaster (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding another an edit war

I would like to move on since I'm satisfied that the current version of the Rule by secret society section of the Synarchism article is relatively well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, and neutral. Although people are welcome to improve it, deletion of disputed content or references should be done after a discussion has been engaged and a consensus reached. Can we at least agree to this rather than engaging in another edit war? --Loremaster (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length, and your views on the question of the disputed source are distinctly in the minority. I don't know whether one version has to have 100% approval to be "consensus," but I would suggest that you respect the majority view. As to the other edit, about the "power behind the throne," perhaps you should explain what you are trying accomplish. It does seem peculiar and the link is inappropriate. --Marvin Diode (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not my view is in the minority, my view is still one that none of you pro-LaRouche editors have been able to legimitately refute as demonstrated by the fact that no one responded to my last intervention in the section above for weeks. As for my edit about "power behind the throne", if you read LaRouche's essay, it seems that he was critical of the powerful interests who backed and/or funded Hitler. Therefore, the expression "power behind the throne" seems appropriate since its refers to "a person or group that informally exercises the real power of an office". That being said, if one argues convincingly that it isn't appropriate, I would have no problem deleting it. --Loremaster (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that you delete it. You are adding your own gloss to the material cited in the source, and although it may be plausible it still falls under the category of original research. The phrase is also awkward. --Terrawatt (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You have an extreme interpretation of the NOR guideline which you seem to selectively use whenever you are unsure whether or not a new edit threatens your intepretation of LaRouche's views. That being said, since I agree that the phrase sounds awakward, I will delete in favor something better. --Loremaster (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Since I have a feeling that pro-LaRouche fanaticism will always threaten the stability of this page (and I have better things to do then waste my time undoing vandalism), I've decided to drop the Berlet book as a source in favor of the Washington Post article mentioned in a section above. I therefore consider this dispute and controversy over. --Loremaster (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche

1. We need a section devoted to LaRouche because his is the leading usage of the word in the English-speaking world (as previously canvassed in archived discussion). This is not to endorse his views.

2. There is a "conspiracy" (please note the quotation marks) between pro- and anti-LaRouche contributors to effectively sanitise his Synarchist theory as a relatively commonplace political critique rather than the florid, wide-ranging extravaganza that it is. There is no justification for this at all. Previously (in archived discussion) it has been argued that this is defamatory. This is legally false and intellectually unacceptable. Secondly it has been argued that this duplicates existing articles on LaRouche. This is a valid issue. There should only be a summary here, with links.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

1. We do not need a section devoted to LaRouche when we already have a section devoted to his use of the term.
2. Although there is a conspiracy by pro-LaRouche contributors to protect LaRouche from criticisms, there is no conspiracy to "effectively sanitize" LaRouche's synarchist theory. However, I agree that the most crackpot elements have been ignored. So feel free to add them and I will improve the phrasing of your additions if necessary.

--Loremaster (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the term is more widely used outside the English-speaking world. However, that does not require us to compensate by spending more time talking about LaRouche, if he is indeed the main English speaker who uses it. I would also warn against OR -- I have seen disputes at this page in the past, because some editors would use the logic that a)LaRouche talks about Synarchism, and b) he also talks about x, y, and z, therefore x, y, and z (for example, the Beatles) should be included in the article. This is incorrect -- see WP:SYNTH. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree (except if it can be shown that the Beatles are part of LaRouche's synarchist theory). --Loremaster (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, rubbish!--Jack Upland (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Marvin Diode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Niels Gade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Terrawatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were all sock puppets of banned user Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The edits of those accounts may be undone regardless of their value. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I am not surprised, it's good to know. --Loremaster (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the long-term interest of that editor with this article (63 edits not including IPs), there's a good chance that if he creates new socks some will find their way here. So they may return, but, according to WP:BAN, banned users may not edit any part of Wikipedia, and their edits may be reverted on sight. "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban...This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." Since you've been engaged in editing this article I'll leave it to you to decide whether the banned user's edits should be kept. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood. --Loremaster (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)