Talk:Atlanticism

Definition of the word

This Article still does not fully define what "Atlanticism" is.

There is an alternative use for this word, the belief in an ancient and hugely advanced human civilization that was destroyed. (Danekenism, after Erich von Däniken, is similar but considers the civilization of extra-terrestrial origin.) Atlanticism in this sense was coined by Ashworth, C.E., 1980. Flying Saucers, Spoon-Bending and Atlantis: A Structural Analysis of New Mythologies. Sociological Review, 28(2):353-76. The term Atlanticism in this meaning has been used lately by e.g. Walliss, John, & Spencer, Wayne, 2003. The Lost Aisle: Selling Atlantis in the "Spiritual Supermarket". Journal of Religion and Popular Culture, Vol. 3.

The word Atlanticist is also used of a person who believes in or promotes Atlanticism in this sence, such as author Graham Hancock.

Incidentally, the term Atlantis could also be split in two, one for Plato's tale of Atlantis, one for the modern myth of Atlantis as it appears in this form of Atlanticism (the belief in a hugely advanced civilization, the origin of other civilizations, that was lost).

Furthermore, in the text that exists, the phrase "Germany had invaded many Eastern European countries in World War II - French and British security guarantees to these countries were quietly forgotten." sounds like history revisionism to me.

In that case we need 2 articles Atlanticism (politics) and Atlanticism (mythology), turning this into a disambiguation page 9which would be great), --SqueakBox 15:14, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

2003 crisis and beyond

This particular part is not sourced and seems to imply that atlanticism means that European countries always have to agree or cannot criticize the US. I think that constitutes OR, and several sources can be found that claim the opposite: Atlanticism often includes the defense of the mutual values and interests which may imply that mutual criticism and discussion is necessary. Also, this particular part seems to overemphasize the current transatlantic issues, while atlanticism is more than 50+ years old... Sijo Ripa 13:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Breakdown cooperation NATO-EU

While I don't dispute that relations between the two organisations are not always like they should be, I disagree with the word "complete breakdown". The source used doesn't explain in any way how there is a complete breakdown. Sijo Ripa 13:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can we balance the stmt with a second source, and change the text without saying the opposite of the first source? -- Iterator12n ^Talk 16:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Conflicts between Grand Lodges and Grand Orients

It would be interesting if we could have valuable information detailing the history of socio-political conflicts between Grand Lodges and Grand Orients since the original 1877 schism. There are reports that several wars in South America and Africa were somewhow related to internal opposition between various factions of Masons. For instance, during the 1920s Mexican Civil War, there were essentially two or three groups of Masons that were literally figting each other for control over the Mexican government. In the 1980s, several CIA-sponsored coup d'états were thought to have been related to a fight for control between lodges. The First World War itself was the first major conflict involving opposing Masonic factions. Other possible conflicts include wars in the Congo and Burundi-Rwanda that involved opposing groups of American and French masons. ADM (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything you're saying is "reported" or "thought to be". That's a pretty good red flag there. Without proof from reliable (and especially in this case, objective) sources, all of the above is mere speculation and not encyclopedically appropriate. I also don't see what your point is - there were Masons on both sides of the Revolutionary and American Civil Wars, too, and there's a well-known story of Jonathan Maynard being rescued by another Mason, Chief Joseph Brant during one of the Indian Wars. Basically what you're trying to say is that one group of Masons (probably 40 or less, even) got mad at another group (of probably 40 or less), took up arms, and incited a country-wide civil war for control of what, exactly? When put that way, does it even sound plausible? MSJapan (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The revolutionary wars and the US civil war occured before the 1877 schism, so that is not the point at all. What I am saying is that there have probably been secretive Masonic wars of religion, in a similar way that Catholics and Protestants or Sunnis and Shiites have fought each other for control of their respective territories. One one hand, you have an ideology that is called atlantism, which is centered on the Scottish Rite cities of Washington, London and Ottawa, and on the other hand you have these anti-Atlantist Grand Orient types who operate from Brussels, Paris, Rome, Madrid and Istanbul. So there is clearly a history of political conflicts between different factions of Masons. ADM (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)