The Last Secrets of Skull and Bones (1977)
reprints.longform.org
reprints.longform.org
I knew a guy who went to Yale and was tapped by the 322...
But there is so much more to all of the secret societies, occult and other aspects of conspiracy which I find fascinating.
This is a talk given in 1958 regarding the Illuminati: - Pawns in the Game - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1uem-RXmJU
This would be a result of how many people immediately jump to absurd conclusions that something evil absolutely must somehow be at play. It’s bizarre how many otherwise rational and logical humans turn into full blown conspiracy theorists the moment they read “secret society” it’s like their own personal rationality offswitch.
Until we can calm down the mass hysteria surrounding this topic, it will almost certainly remain taboo, and honestly, considering how weird the topics always turn, I’d rather it stay taboo than watch a panicky hysterical mass attack innocent people who just want a bit of privacy. History is full of paranoid mass hysteria instances where the masses go absolutely bonkers and innocent people suffer—for somewhat recent examples, look at the satanic panics or Wenatchee WA where, in their hysteria, they issued 29,726 charges of child abuse... yes, that number is correct, 29,726 charges. A number of people’s lives were ruined as they were publicly dragged through the ordeal, yet not a single charge stuck. Not one.
Mass hysteria is a very real phenomena and these topics of secret societies and the occult are probably better left as taboo, just reference any forum about the subject to see clear examples as to how much of our population are incredibly ill-equipped to discuss them rationally.
”Many witnesses and defendants later said they were pressured into making false confessions and accusations by caseworkers from the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and by Wenatchee Police Department Lieutenant Bob Perez.
All who confessed later recanted. Some defendants said that when threatened with life imprisonment, they pled guilty to lesser charges. Some said they were told that if they confessed they wouldn't go to jail but would be treated in the community. Many were told they would never see their children again unless they signed a confession. Those questioned also said they were told that their children wouldn't be placed in foster care or put up for adoption if they signed confessions.” [0]
Considering the entire contextual insanity of this case, the obvious and absolute hysteria which surrounded the entire case, the biased and careless ways the cases were handled, the decision making processes which happen when someone must choose between life in prison or lesser charges, the literal thousands of charges which were dropped/overturned, and perhaps most disturbing of all—the way that dissenters were suddenly brought up on charges, I have no problem sticking by my original statement:
This was mass hysteria.
> Those who were convicted were freed by higher courts and had their convictions overturned or pleaded guilty on lesser charges
It would seem they plead guilty to lesser charges. If it would make you feel better, I can amend my original post to say “...none of the original charges stuck...” Would this make you feel better?
I don't think your characterization captures what happened given people ended up serving reasonably long sentences. When I hear "no charges stuck" I think nobody got convicted - even a conviction later overturned isn't quite consistent with that.
If you want to make the point that the charges were baseless, sure - but that's not the only thing you're saying and implying. I think the original post is misleading.
Charitability is something to be applied to arguments where reasonable interpretations may be stronger. It's not something to be used to defend misleading factual claims, which are properly pushed back against.
It's typical of mafia-like, criminal organizations. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due
Everyone here should be well aware by now that wanting privacy != nefarious behavior.
But it is very reasonable for the society to expect a basic degree of transparency from an NGO or a political party - insofar as the actions in question are meant to have public impact. It's a two-way street, to me.
Note that I'm not even entering the subject of legal obligations here. Whether or how to enforce this approach is a separate discussion (quite a few democratic constitutions do forbid political organizations of clandestine structures and membership). I'm only referring to common sense, and what feels justified.
Is it a private matter if someone held on trial is the judge's boss in a secret organization they both belong to?
> Is it a private matter if someone held on trial is the judge's boss in a secret organization they both belong to?
A judge has an obligation to recuse where there's a conflict of interest, regardless of the nature of that conflict. This is not a good argument against private societies, unless you want to start banning any situation that could at some point lead to a conflict of interest.
I think most folks misunderstand the use of secrecy in initiatic orders. If someone joins an order to learn their secrets, they will be sorely disappointed. Signs, passwords, and grips can have symbolic meaning, but they convey nothing the initiate is unlikely to already know. Some of the secret legends can be entertaining, but they, by themselves, won't improve your life. Rather, all these things are tools that, when used in concert, can bring about a change in a person. Not everyone needs or wants that, and that's fine.
Some people try to be experts in theoretical conspiracy. I think he is just more into the experimental side of the field.
But has the signal worked for others?
re: Wenatchee WA. The justice system not providing enough proof for a guilty verdict does not mean the events did not happen. It only means there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt according to the courts. However, it does seem like law enforcement did not act ethically & it's more likely they created false testimony from their witness badgering (of children) & dubious theories. In this case, members of law enforcement conspired to create a false case.
Sometimes people act on incomplete information and are correct. When organizations act in secret, a rational person ought not to trust these organizations. In the realm of politics, where warfare is fought in many domains, it is beneficial to be critical of such organizations. Otherwise, instead of being a "conspiracy theorist", one becomes a "coincidence theorist", when creating models of how & why related events occur.
Some true believer found an anomaly with ground penetrating radar and called it a tunnel. It's more likely a buried garbage pile.
https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/bsi/article/viewFile/...
One possible avenue is to look up land permits & to create a case as to why the trash was filled in (if that's the case). However, this study is somebody's opinion of the readings, so it may not even be a trash pit. Further physical examination would probably be necessary to confirm one way or another, but at this point, it's a cold case.
However, the childrens' testimonies of some sort of underground anomaly is a strange "coincidence". How would they know that there was something out of the ordinary underground, whether it's tunnels or buried trash?
At this point, there are mysteries in this case & a number of possible truths. However, there are known cases of Satanism & ritual abuse. There's even more cases of testimony from different sources. I don't see this as a panic at all, but an acknowledgement of a possibility.
Note that the alleged purpose of ritual abuse is twofold. Trauma based mind control & blackmail to keep the practitioners in line. You can't deny it's effectiveness as a political strategy for criminal syndicates. For example, the "mafia" blackmailed politicians by recording them in compromising sexual encounters. If it's done using prostitutes, why not take it a step further & use children? Children are easier to control, are more "expendable" since they do not have full adult legal status, and the crime is far more heinous. It's been done before...
I'm not sure what the rest of your conjecture is about at all.
Maybe what was labeled as "hysteria" was really awareness to this type of criminal. It was the discrediting, pathologization of potential victims, general lack of empathy by the media, & conspiracy by law enforcement which caused the likes of Jimmy Savile (who was in royal circles) to get away with his crimes for so long. Also child sex trafficking being a widespread phenomenon deeply embedded in influential circles (otherwise, how would it be so widespread & networked around the world).
I agree in keeping the analysis open-ended by not committing to a particular narrative, however there's plenty of possibilities given the information that we know & what we don't know. Secret societies with influential members do not help the analysis since it's plausible that they would be involved with criminal activity & conspiracy.
---
edit: I did more research & found then former FBI Agent Ted Gunderson's account (with photos) of the tunnels which lead to a ritual site. Also there were photos of satanic symbology found on plates & murals. Maybe I missed something in research or something else is amiss...
They've been well studied, and far from turning up an international network of demonic ritual abusers, baby murderers and cannibals, they've turned up good evidence of a clusterfuck that damaged children by removing them from parents, damaged relationships and even entire towns with widespread false allegations.
With "Satanic Ritual Abuse" there is no "this type of criminal". There is no crime.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to be a true believer on this one.
There's nothing that substantiates a "satanic panic" other than appeal to emotion and tautology; and there's plenty of effort to convince the public of the narrative.
I don't need to convince you of anything, however, I also don't buy the demonization of law enforcement & possible victims for unsubstantiated reasons. Have you considered that you have been fed a story? Have you done any meaningful research into this from a variety of sources that don't confirm your bias?
Your attempt to convince me of your beliefs with poor logic only makes me question your narrative & motivated to look more into the case.
I found this podcast to be interesting...
Whoops, sorry, forget I said that...
> ...And it came to pass that they formed a secret combination, even as they of old; which combination is most abominable and wicked above all, in the sight of God...
> ...And it came to pass that there arose a rebellion among the people, because of that secret combination which was built up to get power and gain...
> ...And the regulations of the government were destroyed, because of the secret combination of the friends and kindreds of those who murdered the prophets...
As much as being fans of the Illuminati (and who isn't?) they might also be fans of Diogenes of Sinope.
>"I am searching for the bones of your father, but could not distinguish them from those of a slave."
Diogenes of Sinope trolling Alexander the Great (again) ~300BC
One thing about these secret societies is that they give the political hegemony some resistance to the Rasputin problem. People who are addicted to power have a peculiar weakness to woo merchants promising further power over supernatural realms, which if the power addict even slightly entertains as a possibility of existing, they will feel compelled to follow, even on the off chance of more power. If they already feel they have the inside track on the occult, they are far more likely to rely on the resident court woo merchants, rather than following the latest wild eyed cosmic debris that just wandered in.
As an aside, a friend of mine has the theory that Trump is conclusive proof of the non-existence, or at least lack of real power, of the Illuminati or equivalent. On the basis that there is no sane over-arching conspiracy of total control where you would choose to end up with Donald Trump. He only makes sense from a world of many groups that have varying power and competency, where one of them is currently trying to fuck the other up.
This is likely due to how it is being discussed.
Too often, when secret societies are brought up, many people have convinced themselves that secrecy must mean something nefarious is at play, and many of these people are absolutely unwavering in this belief.
Considering that the HN community is privacy centric and generally rejects the notion of “You don’t need privacy if you’ve got nothing to hide.” it doesn’t surprise me that many people discussing secret societies are downvoted because many of the people discussing this turn into blithering crackpots the minute secret is brought up.
If a society wishes to have privacy, this privacy does not make it axiomatically evil. Some people, yes, even groups of good people, just like to be left alone.
"Must" is an exaggeration, but it is certainly a red flag.
> Considering that the HN community is privacy centric and generally rejects the notion of “You don’t need privacy if you’ve got nothing to hide.”
A society by definition isn't private in the sense used here. Noone complains about book clubs not listing all their members on the front door. A society, however, is an organization with the purpose of playing some role in the public life. You can't have it both ways.
We absolutely should be able to have it both ways, to choose whether or not we wish to list our book club members on the front door. This should be our choice. Maybe one week we wish to list attendees and another week choose not to list, why can’t we have it both ways? Why is it some random stranger’s business who attends my gatherings or what happens at my gatherings? Whether it’s a book club or a group of classmates drinking in my living room, why would random people feel like they’re entitled to invade my private space and dictate what I can and cannot do?
I understand the very real concerns with power concentrating in the hands of a few, but I’m not sure attacking our ability to have private gatherings is the appropriate way to address power concentration. This type of attack is also very concerning when we consider how much off-base speculation, wild paranoia and hysteria tends to come along once people start speculating what’s happening behind my book club’s closed doors.
Ultimately, everything does - butterfly effect and all that. But it doesn't always take the form of openly intending to make it happen - eg. lobbying for a specific law.
If your organization is lobbying for something, but you don't want to disclose who exactly you are, people are perfectly within their rights to be sceptical, suspect conflicts of interest etc.
It's the same as speaking out in public wearing a mask. You can, but sooner or later someone will question your reasons, at least if the subject you're on about makes it seem pertinent.
> We absolutely should be able to have it both ways, to choose whether or not we wish to list our book club members on the front door. This should be our choice.
It is. And it's also people's free (and understandable) choice to be suspicious of secret societies which define their purpose in terms of seeking power and influence.
There literally is no point trying to defend this position to people who have not spent a great deal of time investigating it, because it takes a lot of time to investigate.... and the MSM is not the source of the truth. Yet, it is entrenched in UK political life, either by being involved, or turning a blind eye.
A search for Cyril Smith, for example, will begin to open the eyes of the most logical and rational of thinkers.
An example from the US of lies (that dragged UK and others into the war) is the testimony of a 15 year old girl to make up a fake eyewitness account to justify the first Iraq war: https://old.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/a4mx0m/american_gov_g...
>Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by an American public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government.
In practice, the system may or may not be harmless. But to keep it alive serves zero useful purposes and degrades the reputation of the institution.
What makes you think such an affiliation serves no benefit to the institution? Exclusivity can be enticing unto itself. People want to have a shot of being elite.
Couldn't the description "organizations rooted in sociopolitical elitism (with an attendant history of discrimination)" be applied to elite universities or the "ivy league" generally? Exclusivity, a taste of the old upper class traditions, a bit of mystique..
Isn't the very notion of an Ivy league university "rooted in sociopolitical elitism"?
And doesn't it serve major "benefit to the institution"? That's its target group, and they want prospective students to know they can enter that elite themselves.
And if there's a secret society you can aspire to get in of students and alumni promoting each other and handing out favors, even better.
They should write it in their ads!
As an alumnus, I find the hand-wringing over these societies weird, because they're completely irrelevant to most students and have been for a long time. (No, I wasn't invited to join one. I don't even think I knew anybody in one of the name-brand societies, at least not well.) The fact that Bush and Kerry were both Bonesmen was amusing, but hardly surprising - the societies are exactly where you'd expect ambitious, privileged social climbers to end up by senior year. They're not even very secret, since the membership lists inevitably leaked. The only time the rest of campus noticed is when they walk past one of the "tombs" - windowless clubhouses - or when a really terrible movie about S&B ("The Skulls") came out while I was an undergrad.
Are they creepy and elitist? Of course. Are they a sinister conspiracy? No more than Goldman Sachs or McKinsey.
This stuff might not affect the colleges that much, the fallout happens later when these people go off and get jobs.