Yet to speak of anything even remotely similar gets you labeled a crackpot conspiracy theorist, even on HN.
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.
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.