# Secret Societies?



## Cruentus (Apr 12, 2004)

How do you all think Secret Societies fit in to the political picture?

Societies like the Freemasons (most of these fraternal organizations are an offshoot of this group), an all white mens club who can be very charitable, yet can also be very exclusionary based on wealth and status?

How about fraternal organizations like Skull and Bones, of who both Bush and Kerry are a part of from their university days?

How about the Bohemian Grove, a group of the most influential men in politics and in business who gather for a few weeks out of the year to "unwind," an unwinding that includes heavy drinking and partying, rituals, cult-like ceremonies, and public policy talks that the public is not privy to?

I am not a big conspiricy nut myself, but I do think that the role of secret societies need to be looked at.

What are your opinions on these?  :idunno:


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 12, 2004)

I'm not a big conspiracy nut myself either.  I've listened to several episodes of Coast to Coast A.M. that have featured "experts" on secret societies. I guess ignorance is bliss in these sort of things.  I don't know about them so I don't worry about them.  I just don't think that these secret societies have enough pull to affect life in a major way.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 12, 2004)

I'm less concerned with the FreeMasons and Skull & Bones and more concerned with Dick Cheney's Continuity of Government. The secrecy of the Bush administration is beginning to stink a bit, and is in need of some sunshine (the best dis-infectant). I also find it odd that the 'COG' did not include the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch of our government. 

Certainly, if Weapons of Mass Destruction and Terrorist Organizations with Global Reach are a concern, our society should be discussing a 'Continuity of Government' plan in all aspects of the media. But, we hear nothing of this; except that Vice President Cheney is hiding underground somewhere outside of Washington DC. Hmmm ?


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 12, 2004)

"Continuity of Government" is kind of broad. What exactly do you mean? Please elaborate...Thanks!

 :asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 12, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> "Continuity of Government" is kind of broad. What exactly do you mean? Please elaborate...Thanks!


The 'Continuity of Government Plans, have been around since President Eisenhower. Originally conceived to ensure the existance of a government structure in the event of the Cold Wars' mutually assured destruction plans of attack. The COG plans have been updated periodically over the decades. The last time there was an update was under President Reagan.

Under the COG, approximately 100 full time federal government workers have been living undergound (with Cheney) in remote bunkers. These government officials are transported to one of two locations by the Military District of Washington. From what I understand, they live in these bunkers for 90 days at a whack.

The COG plans are not necessarily bad in themselves, however, the continued use of these plans should become suspect at some point. Government works best when the governed are aware of the actions of the government... What might be going on in those bunkers?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A20584-2002Feb28&notFound=true


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 12, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> How about the Bohemian Grove, a group of the most influential men in politics and in business who gather for a few weeks out of the year to "unwind," an unwinding that includes heavy drinking and partying, rituals, cult-like ceremonies, and public policy talks that the public is not privy to?



Did anyone catch the video where they sacrificed the children (in effigy) to the idol of the god Molloch?  Yeah, its a bit over the top, but you can clearly see peoples faces and who was in attendance.  There was a long series about this on coast to coast and you can order this video from that "source."

For what its worth...


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 12, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Did anyone catch the video where they sacrificed the children (in effigy) to the idol of the god Molloch?  Yeah, its a bit over the top, but you can clearly see peoples faces and who was in attendance.  There was a long series about this on coast to coast and you can order this video from that "source."
> 
> For what its worth...



I saw part of it; I am tempted to get the whole thing, even though I think that the person who filmed it is a bit over the top himself.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 12, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> How do you all think Secret Societies fit in to the political picture?



There is so much obfuscation of information in regards to this topic that it takes a long time to wade through the BS.  One thing that I have found that ties them all together is the concept of the Hegelian Dialectic.  This is a little bit of occultism where both sides are played against each other by the middle.  Using this process, the Society can create their thesis and antithesis, thereby controlling the sythesis.  It is much like watching a guy play chess in the park by him/herself.  

A corroborating example of this would be the fact that both Kerry and Bush belong to the "Skull and Bones" society out of Yale...yeah, this has been pooh poohed before, but seriously, do you think things are going to change much because of the results of this election?

Blatent Hegelian Dialectic.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 12, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> I saw part of it; I am tempted to get the whole thing, even though I think that the person who filmed it is a bit over the top himself.



Now, here is the crux surrounding most events like this.  Can you trust it?  Is the media so controlled that this video is just another bit of obfuscation or is this truly something that we should be concerned about.  (I don't think that anyone has complete control over media sources in the US by the way)  Perhaps contemplation of this sort is just another manifestation of the dialectic.


----------



## Andi (Apr 13, 2004)

Has anybody here ever been invited to join one of these organisations? I suppose if you're a member you might not want to shout it from the rooftops, but maybe some have turned down the invitation? Any repercussions?

The only time I've come across the Freemasons in the real world is when my uncle worked for a law firm for a while. They invited him to join their 'club', he said, thanks but no thanks, and all of a sudden he was mysteriously out of a job. Hmmm.


----------



## someguy (Apr 13, 2004)

Strange I was about to make a topic about this.  Uh -oh I must be being lead around on this so I don't uncover who ever is listening to me.  Of course I'm only kidding about the second part of that.  But I was going to make a topic about it.  And I didn't even see the coast to coast thnigs.  
Sure things like that may exist but ignorance really is bliss.  I think some one stateed that earlier on this thread.  If some group like that really is that powerfull and controls so much than  I'd reather just let it slide so I don't get in trouble and end up in an insane assylum or something.  Wow that makes me look like I'm into conspiracy theories.  I'm not.  I just am to apathetic to be.  Maybe its more that my life is good enough that I don't care to bother looking for trouble.
I'd rather be a sheep than the shepherd.  Leave the shepherd to do the work and just go along with it.  If there is one.
btw Andi I'm part of the Illuminati...
Illuminati is a Greek word meaning Illumination a name given to those who submitted to Christian baptism. not really I don't come from an Anti Nicene sect of christianity.
OK now I have rambled for long enough and I'm not rally part of the Illuminati or anything.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 13, 2004)

My personal opinion on these "clubs" is that there is not really a conspiricy, but there is something to be concerned about.

I think that what happends is that when people become powerful, a kind of fear comes over them. The reason is because anyone can lose their money, and anyone can lose their power. Many people who are very wealthy don't even realize how well off they are because of this fear. So, these powerful and wealthy people become very interested in making sure that they continue to gain more wealth and power, and they become fearful of others who aren't already "there," and fearful of them gaining wealth and power for themselves. The game of attaining wealth, then, has become very elitist in that way because the thought seems to be that there is only so much wealth and power out there; and if people without wealth and power attain it then this will leave less available for those who have it. Plus, the more "strangers" who attain power, the less likely that their interests will be protected. So, before someone becomes powerful, they naturally want to make sure that person will protect their interests.

This drive to stay wealthy and powerful and this fear that others who are "have-nots' may attain wealth and power leads into elitism. What grows is a genuine belief that "I am better" then others in society because of class, accomplishments, wealth, and power. So unless you are accepted by them in these social circles, you are seen as lower class, and a lesser person. You are accepted based on your wealth and success, because success is seen as soley being based of your hard work and abilities. What they don't recognize is the fact that opportunity plays a tremendous role when it comes to wealth and success. If you come from wealth, you are tripping over opportunities so often that hard work and intellect is only a small factor for you. If you don't come from wealth you have everything working against you accept your hard work and ability, and it may be very difficult for you to attain success. Even then, no matter how talented and hard working you are, without the opportunities you will never attain success, period.

This elitism is what leads to the forming of and the membership to these secret societies. Only those who are special enough  are allowed in. But, this is not a conspiricy, really. It is a fact of life that "like" people hang out together. "Like" people also form clubs; we have martial arts clubs for those who do our particular style, casino clubs for those that like to play cards and gamble, gardening clubs for those that like to garden, etc. It is natural that if you are successful (never mind how you got there) that you would want to join a club full of like people. 

It is the extreme elitism and secretism of these clubs that creates the danger, though. It's not just a gathering of successful people, like a business convention. These societies have a whole philosphy and pseudo-religion to go with them. The idea of doing a mock human sacrifice to Molloch, a stone owl, significantly demonstrates what I am talking about. These philosophies and pseudo-religions revolve around preaching exclusionary practices, elitism, and securing positions of wealth and power. Women are not allowed in many of these organizations. It was only within the last 10 years or so that the Bohemian Club allowed people of color. Many of the Freemasons and The Skull and Bones still do not allow people of color as well.

There are a lot of beliefs that come out of these philosophies that can be very dangerous. The skull and Bones allegedly believe that change for the better cannot occur without a tragedy or war. If this is true, and if Bush adheres to this philosophy, then perhaps this might explain why a war in Iraq was so important to him. Most of these organizations believe in deception as a means to fullfill their agenda. This could range from manufacturing ideas through propaganda, outright lying, or playing two sides against each other. They even do this within their own organazations. An example would be from a book I read from an Ex-freemason who exposed many of the secrets of their society. He said that most people don't go past the first few degrees, and are content there. The initial ceremony involves kissing a bible. In later degrees (all of which are kept secret from the lower degrees) you are told that the kissing of the bible is actually you kissing Jesus and conventional Christianity goodbye for the exceptance of a "higher religion" that not all are privy too. These higher degrees all involve higher dues to be paid, as well as higher social status requirements. Basically, a poor person will never make it up the ranks in one of these societies. These are just examples of how the philosophies of these can be dangerous.

But the worst thing about these in my opinion is that these societies like to fix the opportunities for whom they choose, as much as they can. Just like how the belief about wealth and power and how there is only so much to go around (so they must secure as much of it as they can), the same belief seems to be applied to opportunity. There are only so many opportunities out there, so they need to reserve as much of those as they can for their children, and for others who they feel would be fit. People getting fired after not joining their organization has definatily occured. If 5 people are on the line for a promotion, and one of them is in the same secret society as the decision maker, guess who's getting promoted? If your in business and a part of a secret society in your community, your going to get all the referrals and the business, even if the guy in the office accross from you is better at what he does then you. So not only does a person from a poorer community not have the same opportunities as someone else do to demographics, they have to work against other people actively fixing opportunities, and not in their favor.

And in terms of the Hegelian Dialectic, I believe that this does occur, but more as a natural product of elitist philosophies, not out of some grandious scheme. A prime example is the abortion issue. Every year you have one issue voters who will only vote for a canidate based on one reason; pro-life or pro-choice. That takes a big chunk out of the voting pie who can be manipulated by this one issue. And, while that chunk of the pie is focused on their one issue, they are ignoring the fact that government is working together with business interests to secure the wealth for themselves and the wealthiest 1%. It's hard not to think this way when government officials and big business execs all belong to the same secret clubs, where deals are made and policy is discussed.

So, I think that these secret societies do play a major role in our state of affairs. I do not think it is a conspiricy, though, or that there is some illuminati out their cooking up a grand scheme for world domination. I don't think that is the way it works. I do think that these groups consist of powerful and wealthy people who are fearful of losing their power, who are very elitist, and who are going to work very hard to secure their own interests.

The real question is, though, if I am right, what the heck should we do about it?

PAUL
(hey...what are these guys in black suits and sun glasses doing at my door?   )


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 13, 2004)

> Blatent Hegelian Dialectic.



You sure have an.... interesting interpretation of Hegel's sytem.  :uhyeah:


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 13, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> You sure have an.... interesting interpretation of Hegel's sytem.  :uhyeah:



I actually know very little about it, so perhaps you can enlighten me. I just understood it vaguely as creating the thesis and antithesis, then "playing two sides against the middle." But those could just be rumors.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 13, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> You sure have an.... interesting interpretation of Hegel's sytem.  :uhyeah:



I guess a better example of this would be...

Thesis: You have terrorist activity.
Antithesis: We wage an indefinate war on terror.
Sythesis: The result of this war on terror is a stripping away of our freedoms through the patroit acts, which allow us to be controlled more easily by the powers that be.

I still know very little about Hegel because I haven't read much on him, but this is how I understand the theory.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 13, 2004)

Hrmmmm...

Well, as I understand Hegel (and my understanding is indeed limited), his dialectic process was meant mostly to apply to ideas (whether lowercase or capital 'i' there) --- and not necessarily external socioeconomic policies, such as the examples that have been given in this thread.

The application of dialectic in terms of exterior/material changes seems to be a more Marxist usage, in my humble opinion.

Then again, these may be differences of degree moreso than type.  :asian: 

Still... I really wouldn't call the establishment of the Patriot Act(s) as a synethesis to the thesis and antithesis you named. I would 'lump' the Patriot Act(s) as part of the antithesis (we wage an indefinate war against terrorism). A synthesis, in Hegelian thought, is supposed to be the balance, the medium, between a thesis and antithesis. I don't believe the Patriot Act does this, I believe it is just a continuation of the antithesis.

The synthesis, in my opinion, has yet to be enacted. I believe it would be some sort of mutualistic understanding between Western and Middle Eastern cultural blocs --- at least, that might be one possible synthesis.

Laterz.


----------



## Andi (Apr 13, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> My personal opinion on these "clubs" is that there is not really a conspiricy, but there is something to be concerned about.....


Good post. There's far too much scope for insider trading and corruption for my liking.



			
				PAUL said:
			
		

> The real question is, though, if I am right, what the heck should we do about it?


About four years ago, there was a bit of an uproar over here about Freemasons in the judicial system. So, to try and allay public fear, the government set up a survey of those serving in the law courts and the police. It was voluntary, and there was a 96% and 87% response rate from Judges and Magistrates, but only 36% from police officers. The government weren't happy with the police turnout, so they've been making moves to set up a register of interests, with particular focus on secret society membership- Northern Ireland I think is starting one soon (might have started already) for their police force.

Also, both Welsh and Scottish parliaments have been debating mandatory declarations for the elected members. Don't think anything's gone through yet though.

Could that be a way to go? Of course the societies aren't too keen on being unmasked, so maybe (if they're as influential as we think they might be) they'll make some helpful suggestions for any new laws on the subject to make them fairly toothless. Leading us back to the Hegelian malarkey I suppose.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 13, 2004)

Thought police...nice.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 13, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Hrmmmm...
> 
> Well, as I understand Hegel (and my understanding is indeed limited), his dialectic process was meant mostly to apply to ideas (whether lowercase or capital 'i' there) --- and not necessarily external socioeconomic policies, such as the examples that have been given in this thread.
> 
> ...



I see what you are saying, and it makes sense. I guess what I am talking about isn't Hegel in the classic sense; it's kind of a mutation of the idea. I have studied politics and public policy and administration to a better then average degree, but as I said, I am not really well read on Hegels theories.

A lot of conspiricy "nuts" have been using Hegels theories in this way, and I guess I sort of jumped on the nut train for a second. I do believe that there is a level of smoke in mirrors that does go on. Some of the results may not be a true synthesis in that regard, such as my patriot act example. I can see how the patriot act is really still part of the antithesis by your explaination (although, I still need to read up a bit), yet I still think that patriot Act I  and possibly Patriot Act II was/is a result of smoke in mirrors. In other words, we are attacked by terrorists, our Administration wages a war against terrorisrm, then they push patriotism and the idea that it would be unpatriotic to question the activities of our administration on to the public, then they call an act that strips many of our freedoms away "the patriot act" as they push it through congress. The same "smoke in mirrors" idea occurs with issues like abortion; where a big part of the voting pie argues and votes soley over one issue, taking their minds away from the fact that either canidate will make a policy decision based on what is good for a large corporate interest over what might be good for the general population of the american people; and could really care less about their one issue.

So, I may have fallen into the trap of using Hegels theories incorrectly, like many "conspiricy nuts". If so, then thank you for pointing it out politely, and I will be looking to read more on the subject.

I believe that my point regarding "smoke in mirrors" still stands, though. 

Now, I am not a genuine conspiricy nut, in that I don't believe that all these people belong to some grand planning commission that meets in secret to control the world. I think that a lot of the problimatic things in our public policy are a result of structural problems within our government, a misinformed and apathetic public, conflicts of interest that go unquestioned, all mixed with the fact that wealthy and powerful people and entities are going to try to secure their interests over the public.

Now, I actually don't have a problem with someone trying to secure their own interests in business; hell, its their job to make decisions that work out the best for their company. My problem is that we have lost our balance, and have been losing our balance at an accelerated rate since WWII at least. Our system should be structured where business focuses on making money and doing what is best for them, but government protects the people and makes decision with the public in mind. But instead, we have the people that run the corporations and the decision makers in the government hanging out at the same places, belinging to the same "societies," investing in the same business deals, scratching each others backs, and basically securing their own interests over the interests of "the public". 

And, as it applies to this thread, you also have secret societies where the whole purpose appears to be moral justification of "elitist" behavior coupled with policy meetings and discusions on how to control the "public," all to make matters worse.

I may have misinterpreted Hegels theory, but I don't think I am misinterpreting what has been going on in our society.

I think that we are basically a fascist democracy. If you look at my definition, we are basically a state where business and government interests have merged together, and the public is controlled through propaganda and extreme nationalism. Yes, I believe it has gotten that far.

What we do still have, though, is our vote. We have a democracy still, and an ability to change things by getting and being involved. I believe that we can change things for the better before we become a police state, or something worse.

IMHO


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 13, 2004)

Also...

When I do think of a solution to the secret society mess and how it effects government policy, I think of insider trading rules.

First of all, conflicts of interest are not allowed (or at least, not supposed to be allowed) in regards to securities, so why should we allow them in government? Dick Cheney still gets 200K a year from haliburton, plus he is a substantial stock holder. Sorry, but if you are an elected official, these conflicts should not be allowed. That would be a start.

Also, we aren't technically allowed to use private information to get an edge in the stock market, especially if we are an officer or insider of a company. Hell, we aren't even supposed to act on insider advice (ex. Martha Stewart). So, why do we allow the social elite to gather together to discuss public policy and make plans secretly, to then go through with the plans right under the nose of the public?

If we could put laws in place that would prevent these conflicts of interests, and these secret policy discussions by decision makers, I think we would see a better run government. And, we wouldn't have to worry about "secret societies;" if the conflict of interest is prevented then these societies are reduced to the faternal "boys clubs" that they profess to be today.  

Just a thought.


----------



## someguy (Apr 14, 2004)

ITs a slipperry slope to do that. Imagine what would have to happen and continue the results.
If you say secret societies must be declared than you invade peoples privacy.
If you say that secret societies can exist than you limit free speech.
I'm sure one of you will come up with a better way or why I'm wrong so this will get intresting.
btw If you can force people to declare if they are members of a society then does the secret society really have much power?


----------



## Ender (Apr 14, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> Also...
> 
> When I do think of a solution to the secret society mess and how it effects government policy, I think of insider trading rules.
> 
> ...



Exactly, like the husband's company of Sen Feinstien getting a $160 million contract in Iraq, Or Terry Macauliffe getting the inside scoop on Worldcom to receive $18 million in profits, Or Sen Boxer making over $200,000 in Enron profits, or Hillary turning a $10,000 investment into a million thru insider trading...I hear ya!..nods.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 14, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> Exactly, like the husband's company of Sen Feinstien getting a $160 million contract in Iraq, Or Terry Macauliffe getting the inside scoop on Worldcom to receive $18 million in profits, Or Sen Boxer making over $200,000 in Enron profits, or Hillary turning a $10,000 investment into a million thru insider trading...I hear ya!..nods.



Exactly...this isn't a bi-partisen issue. Both Dems. and rep. are guilty to varying degrees.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 14, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> ITs a slipperry slope to do that. Imagine what would have to happen and continue the results.
> If you say secret societies must be declared than you invade peoples privacy.
> If you say that secret societies can exist than you limit free speech.
> I'm sure one of you will come up with a better way or why I'm wrong so this will get intresting.
> btw If you can force people to declare if they are members of a society then does the secret society really have much power?



Slippery slope...yes and no.

I am not saying that you should take away people's freedom of speech or freedom to be in secret societies.

But I will say (because I work with securities) that as an investment banker, all of my activities, business or otherwise must be disclosed to my company, and records must be kept for the NASD. Certian conflicts aren't allowed; like I can't sell insurance and be affiliated with a funeral home, for example. And, insiders for companies are not allowed to join investment groups where they talk about insider information. In fact, spreading insider information is not allowed.

So, the arguement that your limiting free speech or limiting the right for people to gather falls short for securities. If I don't like the regulations, I don't have to be an investment banker. If someone doesn't like the insider trading rules, then they don't have to invest in individual stocks. The free speech or freedom to gather arguement falls short with Securites regulation fairly quickly.

Similarly, I think the conflict of interest should be removed from policy makers in government. If people want to be in the executive or legislative braches, they should have to move their investments (without penelty) to T-Bills, Muni-Bonds, and Spiders (Indexes) only, eliminating that conflict. They shouldn't be allowed to have policy talks in secret meetings with senior officers of large companies, in the same way that insiders can't exchange or spread "insider information." 

These are just some examples, and I don't have all the answers. But, I'd like to see an active effort to remove the conflicts of interest from Washington, starting with solid campaign finance reform.

Ah, but what do I know?


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 14, 2004)

Hrmmmm....

I have to admit that Paul has some pretty good ideas there. In my opinion.

Of course, I'm far from an expert on the subject so I may just be blabbing out of complete ignorance.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 14, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Hrmmmm....
> 
> I have to admit that Paul has some pretty good ideas there. In my opinion.
> 
> Of course, I'm far from an expert on the subject so I may just be blabbing out of complete ignorance.



Thanks you sir!

:boing2:


----------



## someguy (Apr 14, 2004)

Yes well um hmm err yeah I'll give you that.
But what about my other point If you can force people to declare if they are members of a society then does the secret society really have much power?
I hope that part makes sense.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 14, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> Yes well um hmm err yeah I'll give you that.
> But what about my other point If you can force people to declare if they are members of a society then does the secret society really have much power?
> I hope that part makes sense.



It helps to break down the structure of power, but just by doing that alone, I don't think it takes away their power.

It would make the fact that these individuals are getting together in private public information, but we still would not be privy to know the backscratching, business deals, stategic planning, and public policy making that is decided behind those closed doors.

Disclosures of these kinds of conflicts of interest would be a start, but I don't believe it would be a finish.

 :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2004)

I have a Coast to Coast program that talks about the Bohemian Grove and about Skull and Bones.  I want to post it, but have no idea how to attach sound files.  Can anyone help?


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 14, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I have a Coast to Coast program that talks about the Bohemian Grove and about Skull and Bones.  I want to post it, but have no idea how to attach sound files.  Can anyone help?



Ask in the technical support forum. They should help you better then I could!  :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 14, 2004)

Okay, lots of stuff on my mind regarding this stuff...

First of all, I have a TSD student who is working on his Doctorate in the Philosophy of Science.  At this moment he is writing a book on secret societies and their influence on the government.  I am one of the readers for this book, providing some scientific insight because of my training as a scientist.  

With that being said, Paul, I think that you have some great ideas, but they don't take into account the possible scope of these things.  Allow me to tell a personal story...Please take my word - the following is abridged, but is described to the best of my ability at this time.

I went to a Dennis Kucinich rally recently.  I was very impressed with his positions and was throwing my support behind him as much as I could.  The rally was interesting.  All sorts of really left people turned out.  Rep. Kucinich starts talking about world peace and a One World Government where human rights are valued above all else and there was a sort of religious ecstactic energy flowing through the room.  People were crying, holding their hands in praying positions, and swaying with the cadence of Kucinich's speech.  It was an "interesting" experience.  

Then we got to the question and answer part...

Many questions went by and some really agreeable answers were delivered.  Then one man had the gall to ask the question, "Aren't you afraid man?  I mean Paul Wellstone was assassinated for saying the same things that you are saying?"  Rep Kucinich responed by pulling out a dollar bill.  He turned it over and pointed at the pyramid and the "all seeing eye" floating above.  He told us that,  "...the pyramid represents the earth and all of the suffering we feel is at the base of the pyramid.  Together we build the pyramid toward the apex.  You do your part and I do mine.  The eye at the top of the pyramid represents the ideals that we wish to reach.  If you trust in the Eye you will have no fear of Death.  If you break that trust..."  Kucinich pauses to shake his head and then takes another question.

Anyone that is familiar with secret societies and the occult can see the parellels.  This ties into the Bohemian Grove stuff and the Skull and Bones...more on that later.

What do you think of my experience?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 15, 2004)

Honestly??

I think Joseph Campbell gave a more lucid and accurate interpretation of the symbolism on the dollar bill than Kucinich did. Which, really, isn't all that surprising.

More on that laterz.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 15, 2004)

> With that being said, Paul, I think that you have some great ideas, but they don't take into account the possible scope of these things.



Correct me if I have interpreted your wrongly, but I think that you are meaning to say that the scope of secret societies, and some of the issues that we are discussing, could be much bigger then I think.

My response to that is that you may be right, or you may be totally wrong, _and that is the problem._ As of right now, we do not know the scope of how merged together business and government leadership is, or how much the public is actually being manipulated by the leadership, or what the agenda is, or if there is even one focused agenda. All we can do is theorize because a lot of public policy is decided behind the eyes of the public. The reality is, there may not be any manipulation or "foul play" at all (although, this would be very hard for me to believe), or we may be completely controlled by an illumanti without even knowing it (also, very hard for me believe). I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle, but even that can't be known for sure.

And, WHY don't we know these things for sure? We don't know them for sure because we continue to allow conflicts of interest to occur between government and corporate entities, and we continue to let public policy to be decided in "secret". The whole point of it being secret is that we are not able to know for sure. Then, it is very easy to manipulate the public into believing that if you ask any questions "outside of the box" then you must be a "liberal" or a "conspiricy nut" or a "militia man" or whatever negative label that can be doled out to prevent the majority from wanting to think outside of the dialectic at all. 

So, I don't know the scope of these things for sure, even though I have theories. A first step that I would like to see, though, is that the public policy making be actually put out in "the public" where it belongs, so we can find out.

Now, my personal feelings so far (and I am learning more and more every day) is that I don't follow what most of the "conspiricy nuts" are saying. Most people who write publications and discuss these issues seem to believe that there is a grand scheme that has been going on, and that we are all being manipulated to achieve the goal of total control by the grand schemers. Some believe that its marxism gone wild, others believe that it is secret societies that are in control, some believe that its the republican agenda, others the "liberal" agenda, and the list goes on. I don't believe that there is a "grand scheme" at all. 

The reason that I don't believe in a "grand scheme" is because I think that the idea is too complicated when you try to apply it; and especially if you try to apply it over many generations. I think conspiricy theorists are way off base with this one. What I do believe is that people are ultimatily selfish, unless they adhere to a higher moral authority of some kind to not be selfish. Because people are selfish, they are going to do what is within their best interest 1st, and what is best for everybody else second. Most people, including business people and policy makers try to have their cake and eat it too. For example, maybe they make that decision in congress that helps the insurance companies that they get $$ and campaign support in different forms from, for example, with a logic that will justify that it will help the people in the long run (even when it is clear to others who aren't attatched to that interest that the decision will hurt people in the long run). Or, they make comprimises, making a decision to go against the good of the people because they don't want to risk bad PR from a large entity, with the logic that at least they will be around to fight another day, and do other things for the good of the people. It is a constant securing of their own self-interest first.

So, when people are interested in securing their self-interest first, then they are going to do a lot of back scratching to get their, follwing the reciprocity rule of business. They are going to knowingly make bad decisions, justifying that it is for "a greater good." They are going to join clubs, and network among influential people like themselves to secure their own interests. They are going to plan and scheme policy that will help them and their interest first. This is the selfish behavior that I believe most people exhibit.

What goes hand and hand with this selfish behavior is handling the guilt that ultimitally comes with it. This is where the need to justify their behavior comes in. This justification comes through moral philosephies, religious ideas, and even cultic behavior in cases we have mentioned. Ideas like, "People ultimatily can't make the best decisions from themselves," stems through this justifying process. I think that these secret societies come to play as a means to justify elitism and selfishness. And, I think that this behavior has been going on in one form or another for hundreds of years.

Now, the end result may be something that looks like a "grand scheme," but I don't think that it is that organized. Certian results, such as the fascist democracy that we live in now, are a product of this elitism. The constant merging of companies creating unfair competition is a product of these special interests merging together as well. And, if we allow unilateral, elite control to continue, then there may be other results that are even worse then a fascist democracy.

To prevent minority control of the majority (minority not being a race but a class), our constitution was "fixed" by our forefathers. Our government is supposed to prevent a dictatorship or the rule by a small ruling class by ensuring that we retain certain rights. The dynamics have changed so much since our original constitiution, that we now have a major dillema that we have never had before. That delima is we are endanger of being ruled by a fascist dictatorship WITHIN THE VERY RULES THAT WE HAVE CREATED.

*On Kusinich:* I have liked some of the things that Kusinich has said in the past, but your account of him preaching of a NWO is very frightening to me. A NWO where we are all ruled by one government is NOT a good thing at all. We seem to be moving in that direction with the U.S. being a unilateral power, but I hope we never see that "vision." The reason a NWO is not a good thing is because it won't be the case where everyone is ruled by one big happy democracy like Kusinich is expressing. Part of what allows us to be free is the fact that if I don't like the U.S., I can go somewhere else. If the U.S. (or any country) try's to oppress a group of people, then other countries can step in and say "no you don't". This is supposed to work in theory, but hasn't since we became a unilateral power. One world government means "totalitarian rule." One world government means that the rights of an individual can be compromised if it is for the good of the "state" (in which case, this would be "the world".) In the case of a true world government, you could see all the breakdowns of individual freedoms, and there would be nothng to stop us from being ruled by a small ruling class through military force. 

I would never vote for anyone who wants an NWO. Also, the Dollar analogy seems to freighteningly fit in with "secret society" philosophy. Very strange.

PAUL


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 15, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Honestly??
> 
> I think Joseph Campbell gave a more lucid and accurate interpretation of the symbolism on the dollar bill than Kucinich did. Which, really, isn't all that surprising.
> 
> More on that laterz.



Although strange, Kusinich's analogy sounds like an off the cuff, kind of stupid analogy used to impress a very emotional crowd (political rallies of any kind are supported though emotionally based thinking, not logically based thinking). I wouldn't put to much stock into it myself. The WTO thing is much more frieghtening!  :anic:


----------



## someguy (Apr 15, 2004)

So why would a secret society allow there power structure to be damaged by allowing a law to be passed?  My main point is if a law can be passed then those societies aren't really all of that powerfull.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 15, 2004)

Since my ignorant use of the term yesterday, I have done a bit of reading on the Hegelian Dialectic.

The first thing that became very evident to me is that most people don't understand what the Hegelian Dialectic really is. The reason is because Hegel is not an easy read, not is his dialectic easy for even most educated people to understand. This became very evident to me right off the bat.

The common interpretation I have heard is 2 sides playing against each other, masking a true "conclusion" or result. This is not exactly what it is. I have also seen people describe it as 2 opposing sides producing an illogical conclusion, which is not really what hegels philosephy is either. So there are many common mistakes made that unless you actually read Hegel, you really risk looking like a dummazz (as I did yesterday, and even today because I haven't fully finished reading up on this yet).

So far here is my basic understanding of Hegel (again, very basic; I am not done reading yet.)

Hegel proposes that you have a Thesis and an antithesis, or two opposing ideas that are true. The comprimise between the 2 ideas creates a sythesis. A systhesis can be considered a "new thesis" that can then be opposed by another antithesis to create another sythesis. This goes on and on until you reach an "Ultimate Sythesis" or a conclusion that is the highest solution.

If my diagram turns out, then it looks like this:

Thesis------>Antithesis
          Sythesis------------>Antithesis
                        Sythesis----------->Antithesis
                                       Sythesis------------->Antithesis
                                                     (Ultimate)Sythesis

I can see how this theory fits in with marxism. Marx basically took this theory to another level when he applied it to marxist theories, with the ultimate "Sythesis" being communism. I have read Marx before, and I can see how this fits together.

Now, I have major problems with the Hegelian Philosephy (at least in how it is applied in marxism and in other places) in that it doesn't fit in with the laws of logic. And, when it does, it does not always lead to this proposed "higher" conclusion.

For one, it is difficult to determine whether or not the "Thesis" or "Antithesis" is "true" or not, which makes it difficult to determine whether the Sythesis is true. Also, just because something is "true" that doesn't mean that it is the "best" response, nor is there any evidence that it will always lead to a "best" response. And that is the problem with Hegel's philosphy; it is not just dealing with logical "truths" but it has merged logic with the idea of a "higher result." What truely is a "higher result," at least by human standards, is going to be a matter of opinion.

So, what happends when we look at Hegel's Dialectic is a misapplication of the Dialectic, and it seems, a misapplication by even Hegel himself. So the result you get is completely false logic.

First off, a true Antithesis has to be the opposite of the thesis, which often makes one or the other false. According to the truth table If the Antithesis is false when the Thesis is true, then the Sythesis will be false.

Example:

Thesis: We were attacked by terrorists. (True)
Antithesis: We were not attacked by terrorists (False)
Sythesis: We were attacked by terrorists because we were not attacked by terrorists. (Not only false, but doesn't make any friggin sense)

So, what we often find in this application is not a true Antithesis in that it is not an opposite of the thesis. We usually find a reaction or conclusion to from a thesis, which leads to a sythesis that may or may not be logically true.

Ex:

Thesis: We were attacked by terrorists. (True)
Antithesis: We do not want to be attacked by terrorists again (True, but not a true antithesis or "opposite")
Sythesis: So, we have declared war on terror. (May sound good, but doesn't logically fit in at all. "Terror" is not the same as "terrorists." A "War on Terror" logically may not prevent another terrorist attack any more then (not that I'd suggest it) sitting on our hands and hoping that terrorism never occurs again. For two, a war on terror is a war on an idea. Fighting an idea will not ensure that terrorists, who are people and not ideas, will ever attack us again. So what this gives the authors of this arguement the licesnse to do is assign ANY person, place, or thing, to the idea of "terror". "Terror" could mean Afganistan, Saddam Huessien, or the Democratic or republican party).

So, what I am finding is that Hegel's theory seems to give a license to create illogical conclusions for the purpose of fullfilling an agenda.

This is my laymens opinion so far. I'm not done reading yet.
 :uhyeah:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 15, 2004)

The previous readings of the basic Hegel (which is about where I am) are fundamentally correct. However, there's a basic and absolute difference between Hegel's dialectic and Marx's: it has to do with the difference between idealism (Hegel) and materialism (Marx). 

It's a question of what one takes for Real. In Hegel, what's finally real is the "world-spirit," that unfolds itself through history; in Marx, what's real is human action, which as it goes on creates a series of "dialectical," struggles that lead to new syntheses, which lead to new antitheses, just as was previous described. 

Marx's work is frequently criticized by leftists with any brains (yes, Virginia, we lefties think about what we're doing) for his idealism, oddly enough: especially after people like Althusser came along, there's an extended critique of what's sometimes identified as the "Stalinist," or, "utopian," streak in Marxist theory.

Basically, the problem is this: Marx, discussing the period 1844-1848, positions himself outside history in order to critique it. Why's this a problem? because it postulates the same sort of, "perfect," access to the truth about history that Hegel claimed. And, it presupposes that the critic is not subject to the same blindnesses (see Paul deMan on, "blindness and insight," read a little about him, and then you'll have some DECENT intellectual ammo to use against leftist criticism if you want it--then read about Althusser's life, and you can start hauling out the big guns) as thosepoor benighted, class-bolund souls in history.

What that  seems to lead to, intellectually speaking--and unfortunately, polticially speaking--is a remarkable and dangerous arrogance. I've heard some of these guys (Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield--more ammo; I support the right to bear decent intellectual arms, rather than this worthless, "you really hate America," claptrap) say that, baasically, intellectuals can just lie to working-class people for their own good. Stalin--and Pol Pot--both proceeded from a fairly-correct analysis of history (like the Unabomber's) to start slaughtering and starving people in the name of historical truth. 

It also seems to be a guy's position, an assumed and patriarchal position of superiority which helps to explain why so many Marxists try to avoid discussing people like Emma Goldman. 

Secret Societies, my foot. Conspiracy theories for people who don't want to consider what Wall Street actually means. And as for One World government, it's coming. It's called, "multinational corporations."

Your enemy is capitalism, duders. That's what's going on, and that's what's producing all the effects you're fussing over. Bad part is, capitalism don't give a rat's *** about the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Nor do the wealthiest capitalists, whatever they blather on TV.

By the way, all this stuff about critics--it's claptrap, TR at his intellectual worst. Funny how everybody cites that, and nobody wanna mention TR's a) founding the national park system and pushing for conservation; b) hatred of Big Money and capitalist trusts.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 15, 2004)

Good insight, Robert.



> Secret Societies, my foot. Conspiracy theories for people who don't want to consider what Wall Street actually means. And as for One World government, it's coming. It's called, "multinational corporations."



I think I agree with you there. I believe that secret societies are only a product of an elitist mentality, which is a product of "capitalism." Secret Societies aren't the cause.

But, out of curiousity, what is your exact belief on the role of secret societies (other then your foot :uhyeah: )?



> Your enemy is capitalism, duders. That's what's going on, and that's what's producing all the effects you're fussing over. Bad part is, capitalism don't give a rat's *** about the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Nor do the wealthiest capitalists, whatever they blather on TV.



I agree with you there; at least I believe that the particular "capitalism" that we have created (where "healthy competition" has been eliminated) is an enemy to our concept of a free american society. 

I don't believe, however, that "communism" is the answer either. (which, if you have a problem with capitalism, these days, your automaticaly assumed to be communist.   )

I think that the answer lies somewhere outside of either box.

Nice post.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 15, 2004)

> Basically, the problem is this: Marx, discussing the period 1844-1848, positions himself outside history in order to critique it. Why's this a problem? because it postulates the same sort of, "perfect," access to the truth about history that Hegel claimed. And, it presupposes that the critic is not subject to the same blindnesses



Ah, but the reverse could also be claimed.

Many "postmodernists" and "deconstructionists" claim that history is nothing but interpretation --- but apparently their view on history being nothing but interpretation is somehow seen to be a timeless "fact". A very intriguing position.

Its bascially a contradictory position: the truth is there is no truth. Then, we may appropriately ask, but isn't that claim itself a truth??

Very, very slippery slope. IMO.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Secret Societies, my foot. Conspiracy theories for people who don't want to consider what Wall Street actually means. And as for One World government, it's coming. It's called, "multinational corporations."
> 
> Your enemy is capitalism, duders. That's what's going on, and that's what's producing all the effects you're fussing over. Bad part is, capitalism don't give a rat's *** about the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. Nor do the wealthiest capitalists, whatever they blather on TV.



Money is like energy and energy tends to pool in static system.  At lower levels capitolism encourages a dynamic flow of wealth.  At higher levels, it pretty much stays the same.  And as new resources are found, the pile is taken by those who have the strength to take it.  The nature of capitolism is like evolution.  Those who reach the top must ascribe the philosophy "do what thou wilt" people with those pesky morals are usually outcompeted by those who will do anything for money.  (deontological moral theory I think)  There is also that darn fact that many of these super powerful are blood relatives - which leads again to the concept of secret societies (Kerry and Bush are cousins by the way - Kerry also was the one to induct Bush into Skull and Bones...)

So, with that being said, the concept of these people fitting into secret societies is not so far fetched.  With capitolism and the flow of energy pooling at the top, bloodline organizations are entirely possible.  All I have to say to end this post is that some of these families have been aquiring wealth for a thousand years.  How is this possible unless there is some overarching system?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2004)

PAUL said:
			
		

> I agree with you there; at least I believe that the particular "capitalism" that we have created (where "healthy competition" has been eliminated) is an enemy to our concept of a free american society.
> 
> I don't believe, however, that "communism" is the answer either. (which, if you have a problem with capitalism, these days, your automaticaly assumed to be communist.



I don't think that we are living in a truly capitolistic society or a democracy for that matter.  Both of those things need a free flow of information and considering how much money it takes to get a message out to a lot of people, those with the most money are those who control the system.  Unfortunately, most of those people also belong to secret societies.  Is this coincidence - please a little Occum's Razor.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 15, 2004)

Ah yaaas, the cure to capitalism is more capitalism. Or real capitalism. Duders, the Old Mole has at least tunnelled its way out into the open. We are getting real capitalism, true capitalism, for which all morality--and for that matter, all humanity--is a side effect. 

Capitalism is by its very nature anti-democratic, though it seems clear that contemporary democracy is twinned with the rise of the middle class.

Why do people hate the UN? because the UN represents (not IS, but represents) the utopian alternative to a world of business. Why don't people hate the UN enough? because the UN represents (not IS, but represents) the world of pure capitalism.

Marx was right, as far as he went. "Under capitalism, everything that is solid melts into air." Only good thing about it is, under capitalism you can have Bruce Springsteen, who understands what's wrong with capitalism. And Cyndi Lauper, "Money/Money changes everything...."

Or in sf, you can get Ken MacCloud and Kim Stanley Robinson's books on Mars, smartest sf I've read (always with the exception of Frederic Pohl) in twenty years...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2004)

I truly could not tell you what secret societies do.  I am trying to find out, but that story is such a rabbit hole and I don't have enough acid.

I do know that secret societies exist.  It has been shown that ALL of our presidents back to Johnson (with the exception of Clinton) have belonged to the Bohemian Grove/Skull and Bones organization.  It also has been shown that many other world leaders belong to these organization.  Some of them like the ex-chancellor of Germany have made statements like, "We are the NWO.  We are the Illuminati.  We will Rule the world..."

This is not something to just blow off.  Its not something that can be shifted to an ideologic debate because members of all ideologies belong to these societies.  What is going on here?  And can anyone provide some more information on Skull and Bones.  

I say again...both Kerry and Bush were members...perhaps, at the very least, this is something voters should know about.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 15, 2004)

Pogo's most famous remark was dead on: WE are the Secret Society.

And so was Pynchon:

"There is a Hand to turn the Time
Though thy Glass today be run
Till the Light that hath brough the Towers low
Find the last poor Pret'rite one
And the Riders sleep by ev'ry Road
All through this crippl'd Zone
With a face on ev'ry Mountainside
And a Soul in ev'ry Stone...

Now everybody..."

"Gravity's Rainbow," yawl. Last page, you might say. For the short form, check out Laurie Anderson. 'Course, the Pogues will do in a pinch...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 15, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Pogo's most famous remark was dead on: WE are the Secret Society.
> 
> And so was Pynchon:
> 
> ...



Are you sure you haven't been to the Grove?  

Yeah, I bet it was like Pat Buchanen said, "yeah, uh, I went with Nixon, but I didn't go down to the Owl with him."


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2004)

I am going to post a series of articles that will aid in this discussion...please bear with me.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2004)

Please Keep in mind, this is CBS whose damn logo is the ALL SEEING EYE!

Skull And Bones At Yale

A 60 Minutes Special Report

Oct 5, 2003 10:03 pm US/Eastern
NEW YORK (CBS) There are secrets that George W. Bush guards at least as carefully as any entrusted to a president. 

He's forbidden to share these secrets even with the vice president -- secrets he has held ever since his days as an undergraduate at Yale. 

In his senior year, Mr. Bush - like his father and his grandfather - belonged to Skull and Bones, an elite secret society that includes some of the most powerful men of the 20th century. 

All Bonesmen, as they're called, are forbidden to reveal what goes in their inner sanctum, the windowless building on the Yale campus that is called "The Tomb." 

There are conspiracy theorists who see Skull and Bones behind everything that goes wrong, and occasionally even right in the world.

Apart from presidents, Bones has included cabinet officers, spies, Supreme Court justices, statesmen and captains of industry - and often their sons, and lately their daughters, too. 

Its a social and political network like no other. And they've responded to outsiders with utter silence  until an enterprising Yale graduate, Alexandra Robbins, managed to penetrate the wall of silence in her book, Secrets of the Tomb. Correspondent Morley Safer reports. 

I spoke with about 100 members of Skull and Bones and they were members who were tired of the secrecy, and that's why they were willing to talk to me, says Robbins. But probably twice that number hung up on me, harassed me, or threatened me. 

Secret or not, Skull and Bones is as essential to Yale as the Whiffenpoofs, the tables down at a pub called Mory's, and the Yale mascot - that ever-slobbering bulldog. 

Skull and Bones, with all its ritual and macabre relics, was founded in 1832 as a new world version of secret student societies that were common in Germany at the time. Since then, it has chosen or "tapped" only 15 senior students a year who become patriarchs when they graduate -- lifetime members of the ultimate old boys' club. 

Skull and Bones is so tiny. That's what makes this staggering, says Robbins. There are only 15 people a year, which means there are about 800 living members at any one time. 

But a lot of Bonesmen have gone on to positions of great power, which Robbins says is the main purpose of this secret society: to get as many members as possible into positions of power. 

They do have many individuals in influential positions, says Robbins. And that's why this is something that we need to know about. 

President Bush has tapped five fellow Bonesmen to join his administration. Most recently, he selected William Donaldson, Skull and Bones 1953, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Like the President, he's taken the Bones oath of silence. 

Ron Rosenbaum, author and columnist for the New York Observer, has become obsessed with cracking that code of secrecy. 

I think there is a deep and legitimate distrust in America for power and privilege that are cloaked in secrecy. It's not supposed to be the way we do things, says Rosenbaum. We're supposed to do things out in the open in America. And so that any society or institution that hints that there is something hidden is, I think, a legitimate subject for investigation. 

His investigation is a 30-year obsession dating back to his days as a Yale classmate of George W. Bush. Rosenbaum, a self-described undergraduate nerd, was certainly not a contender for Bones. But he was fascinated by its weirdness. 

It's this sepulchral, tomblike, windowless, granite, sandstone bulk that you can't miss. And I lived next to it, says Rosenbaum. I had passed it all the time. And during the initiation rites, you could hear strange cries and whispers coming from the Skull and Bones tomb. 

Despite a lifetime of attempts to get inside, the best Rosenbaum could do was hide out on the ledge of a nearby building a few years ago to videotape a nocturnal initiation ceremony in the Tomb's courtyard. 

A woman holds a knife and pretends to slash the throat of another person lying down before them, and there's screaming and yelling at the neophytes, he says. 

Robbins says the cast of the initiation ritual is right out of Harry Potter meets Dracula: There is a devil, a Don Quixote and a Pope who has one foot sheathed in a white monogrammed slipper resting on a stone skull. The initiates are led into the room one at a time. And once an initiate is inside, the Bonesmen shriek at him. Finally, the Bonesman is shoved to his knees in front of Don Quixote as the shrieking crowd falls silent. And Don Quixote lifts his sword and taps the Bonesman on his left shoulder and says, By order of our order, I dub thee knight of Euloga." 

Its a lot of mumbo-jumbo, says Robbins, but it means a lot to the people who are in it. 

Prescott Bush, George W's grandfather, and a band of Bonesmen, robbed the grave of Geronimo, took the skull and some personal relics of the Apache Chief and brought them back to the tomb, says Robbins. There is still a glass case, Bonesmen tell me, within the tomb that displays a skull that they all refer to as Geronimo. 

The preoccupation with bones, mortality, with coffins, lying in coffins, standing around coffins, all this sort of thing I think is designed to give them the sense that, and it's very true, life is short, says Rosenbaum. You can spend it, if you have a privileged background, enjoying yourself, contributing nothing, or you can spend it making a contribution. 

And plenty of Bonesmen have made a contribution, from William Howard Taft, the 27th President; Henry Luce, the founder of Time Magazine; and W. Averell Harriman, the diplomat and confidant of U.S. presidents. 

What's important about the undergraduate years of Skull and Bones, as opposed to fraternities, is that it imbues them with a kind of mission for moral leadership, says Rosenbaum. And it's something that they may ignore for 30 years of their life, as George W. Bush seemed to successfully ignore it for quite a long time. But he came back to it. 

Mr. Bush, like his father and grandfather before him, has refused to talk openly about Skull and Bones. But as a Bonesman, he was required to reveal his innermost secrets to his fellow Bones initiates. 

They're supposed to recount their entire sexual histories in sort of a dim, a dimly-lit cozy room. The other 14 members are sitting on plush couches, and the lights are dimmed, says Robbins. And there's a fire roaring. And the, this activity is supposed to last anywhere from between one to three hours. 

Whats the point of this? 

I believe the point of the year in the tomb is to forge such a strong bond between these 15 new members that after they graduate, for them to betray Skull and Bones would mean they'd have to betray their fourteen closest friends, says Robbins. 

One can't help but make certain comparisons with the mafia, for example. Secret society, bonding, stakes may be a little higher in one than the other. But everybody knows everything about everybody, which is a form of protection. 

I think Skull and Bones has had slightly more success than the mafia in the sense that the leaders of the five families are all doing 100 years in jail, and the leaders of the Skull and Bones families are doing four and eight years in the White House, says Rosenbaum. 

Bones is not restricted to the Republican Party. Yet another Bonesman has his eye on the Oval Office: Senator John Kerry, democrat, Skull & Bones 1966. 

It is fascinating isn't it? I mean, again, all the people say, Oh, these societies don't matter. The Eastern Establishment is in decline. And you could not find two more quintessential Eastern establishment, privileged guys, says Rosenbaum. I remember when I was a nerdy scholarship student in the reserve book room at, at the Yale Library, and John Kerry, who at that point styled himself John F. Kerry would walk in. 

There was always a little buzz, adds Rosenbaum. Because even then he was seen to be destined for higher things. He was head of the Yale Political Union, and a tap for Skull and Bones was seen as the natural sequel to that. 

David Brooks, a conservative commentator who has published a book on the social dynamics of the upwardly mobile, says that while Skull & Bones may be elite and secret, it's anything but exciting. 

My view of secret societies is they're like the first class cabin in airplanes. They're really impressive until you get into them, and then once you're there they're a little dull. So you hear all these conspiracy theories about Skull and Bones, says Brooks. 

And to me, to be in one of these organizations, you have to have an incredibly high tolerance for tedium 'cause you're sittin' around talking, talking, and talking. You're not running the world, you're just gassing. 

Gassing or not, the best-connected white man's club in America has moved reluctantly into the 21st Century. 

Skull and Bones narrowly endorsed admitting women, says Robbins. The day before these women were supposed to be initiated, a group of Bonesmen, including William F. Buckley, obtained a court order to block the initiation claiming that letting women into the tomb would lead to date rape. Again more legal wrangling; finally it came down to another vote and women were admitted and initiated. 

But Skull & Bones now has women, and its become more multicultural. 

It has gays who got the SAT scores, it's got the gays who got the straight A's, says Brooks. It's got the blacks who are the president of the right associations. It's different criteria. More multicultural, but it's still an elite, selective institution. 

On balance, it may be bizarre, but on a certain perspective, does it provide something of value? 

You take these young strivers, you put them in this weird castle. They spill their guts with each other, fine. But they learn something beyond themselves. They learn a commitment to each other, they learn a commitment to the community, says Brooks. And maybe they inherit some of those old ideals of public service that are missing in a lot of other parts of the country. 

And is that relationship, in some cases, stronger that family or faith? 

Absolutely, says Robbins. You know, they say, they say the motto at Yale is, For God, for country, and for Yale. At Bones, I would think it's For Bones.'


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2004)

SPIKED!: CNN Refuses to Run Connie Chung's Skull & Bones Broadcast

 by Todd Brendan Fahey
September 5, 2002 

CNN spiked Connie Chung's widely-publicized "expose" on Yale University's Order of Skull & Bones, chapter 322, which counts among its membership President George W. Bush and his father and grandfather before him, and influential aide and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, and Connie Chung ain't talking.

The program--billed at CNN's Web site to air 8:00pm ET, September 4, did not materialize; in its place was a story of a murder trial in Florida. 

Contacted repeatedly at CNN studios, representatives of Ms. Chung and producers of Connie Chung Tonight were either "unavailable" or had "no comment." 

The Order of Skull & Bones forms the nucleus of the private Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Trilateral Commission--which are, themselves--the guiding forces behind the drive toward an United Nations-run World Government. Each year at Yale, since 1832, 15 sophomores are "tapped" for consideration into this secret society, whose headquarters, called "the Tomb," lie underground, beneath Yale's campus; contained within the Tomb are computer facilities which are said to rival NORAD in sophistication. And although initiates are sworn to secrecy, a complete membership roster, initiation rites and Bones history was furnished to the late Dr. Antony Sutton in 1981. 

Dr. Sutton, who died this year at the age of 77, was at the time a Research Fellow at the prestigious Hoover Institution of Stanford University. His ardent anti-communist/anti-globalist views and reputation for impeccable research doubtless attracted the attention of the disgruntled Bonesman, and with the records, Sutton eventually produced America's Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order or Skull & Bones, the definitive expose on that which lies at the core of a conspiracy to enact Global Government, via the destruction of America's Constitutional republican political system. 

For a good overview of Dr. Sutton's research, please follow this Google link. 

Ms. Chung's TV program would probably have been a puff piece anyway, but the 11th-hour spiking of her Skull & Bones broadcast is a glaring example of the Pravda-like protection of the Establishment that is the so-called "mainstream media."


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2004)

The following site is research done to dig up the membership of who is involved in the Skull and Bones.  The numbers and the people are astounding.  Lets see if I can find Bohemian Grove next.  Skull and Bones runs the Bohemian Grove...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/skull_and_bones_membership.html

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2004)

White House 'Bonesman' leads nation into the dark

By Alexandra Robbins 

"My senior year (at Yale University) I joined Skull and Bones, a secret society," President Bush wrote in his autobiography, "so secret, I can't say anything more." 

He doesn't have to. He's practically turning the government into a secret society - an old-boy, throwback establishment that even holds its secret spy-court proceedings in an elaborately locked, windowless room that sounds similar to the Bones' elaborately locked, practically windowless "tomb," or campus clubhouse.

Bush, a loyal and particularly active member of Skull and Bones, a mysterious, historically misogynist Yale-based secret society, seems to have done almost all he can to promote a level of secrecy in government not seen since the Nixon administration:

Last month, Bush-appointed Assistant Attorney General Robert McCallum, a member of Bush's 1968 Skull and Bones class, filed pleadings in U.S. District Court seeking to extend executive privilege to any government official in pardon cases; the move makes information on presidential pardons more secret than it has ever been. 
After 9/11, without initially telling Congress, Bush assembled a shadow government assigned to secret bunkers somewhere on the East Coast. He also tried to cut off some members of Congress from classified information about the anti-terrorist campaign. 
The USA Patriot Act Bush eagerly signed lets the FBI - with permission from a secret Washington "spy court" - view some customer records; store owners cannot reveal the review 
In October 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft released a memo encouraging federal agencies to withhold as much information as possible from the public. 
A month later, just before documents from the Reagan-Bush administration were to be released, Bush signed an executive order severely hindering public access to former presidents' records. 
Bush also signed legislation that jails or fines journalists who publish sensitive leaks, essentially reviving the Official Secrecy Act that President Clinton vetoed. 
Bush has a "fetish for secrecy," Vanderbilt University professor emeritus Hugh Davis Graham, now deceased, told the National Journal earlier this year.

Granted, pressing issues of national security merit a level of secrecy. But security and secrecy are not always necessary companions, and some of these examples suggest secrecy for secrecy's sake, such as the pardons and the Reagan documents. Also, a government that operates in secret prevents its constituents from holding it accountable and so may be more prone to arbitrariness and ill-considered conduct. This administration may even be doing itself a disservice with its excess secrecy, which can cause people to conjure up much more malicious and elitist scenarios than may actually exist.

That is what has happened with Skull and Bones, which operates a powerful alumni network but, despite the lore, does not run a secret world government, collaborate with Nazis or require initiates to lie naked in a coffin.

Bonesmen have long helped Bush; he received a fair chunk of his early business financing from them and turned to them for help when he needed a job, investors and campaign assistance. Even his baseball-team purchase involved at least one Bonesman. As president, Bush has appointed fellow Bonesmen to high-level positions, such as Edward McNally, the general counsel of the Office on Homeland Security and senior associate counsel on national security. Yet, although one of his first social gatherings at the White House was a Skull and Bones reunion, Bush feigned ignorance when asked recently about Bones: "The thing is so secret that I'm not even sure it still exists," he replied.

Is it a coincidence that the federal government suddenly prioritizes secrecy when a Skull and Bones president is in power? Maybe. But there's no question that the Bush administration increasingly resembles the Bones' dark, locked tomb.


Alexandra Robbins is the author of Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2004)

Skull and Bones in Bush's Foreign Policy Closet
New California Media, Paolo Pontoniere, Sep 30, 2002 

Amidst the debate over the impending US-led war against Iraq, some European media, mostly in Italy and Germany, took note of the publication of Secrets of The Tomb: Skull and Bones, The Ivy League and The Hidden Paths of Power. 

In the Little Brown book, author Alexandra Robbins discusses the connections between America's wealthiest families, secret fraternities and the role of Ivy League institutions in the genesis of United States foreign policy. For some European analysts, Skull and Bones explains much of the mystery surrounding how power is apportioned in the US by describing a well-established system of nepotism and co-optation among members of this fraternity. They fear that the unwieldy influence that secret lobbies--such as those described in Skull and Bones--have on the American administration may interfere with President Bush's ability to decide freely what action to take. They also believe that Bush's belonging to such a secret fraternity may explain the nihilistic overtones of his foreign policy and his strong drive toward waging war against Iraq because of the gothic character of the fraternity.

Europeans have noted that not only the current US president is a Bonesman, but that also his former-president father and his grandfather, senator Prescott Bush, are members. In the Bush family, connection to the Tomb--the name of the Yale building where the fraternity meets--also involves three uncles of the current president and two of his cousins. A couple of Bonesmen came up with the money to launch President Bush's career in business when he founded the oil company Arbusto; another Bonesman provided the capital for Bush to acquire a stake in the Texas Rangers; and another member of the fraternity that bolstered Bush's 2000 presidential campaign by paying for advertising billboards at a million dollars a piece. One of President Bush's first actions when he entered the White House was to organize a dinner with the members of his fraternity.

What worries Europeans most about the Bonesmen is the suspicion that the organization may have a neo-Nazi tendency or that it may be animated by anti-Semitic sentiments. According to various reports about the activities of the Bonesmen throughout the years, it appears that many prominent members, in particular those linked to the Union Bank in New York and its sister bank in Holland at the beginning of WWII, were financing Hitler throughout the war and as late as 1945. Italians and Germans alike have a long history of secret associations meddling in the internal affairs of their countries. 

This fact makes European analysts tend to distrust both politicians that can be linked to such groups and secretive associations that have links to political parties or single politicians. In the case of the Skull and Bones, Italian and German media have reported that such ties between the secret organization and politicians could be understood as a multigenerational secret society with a global reach and a finger in many different pies. They describe the Skull and Bones' influence as resulting in a sort of oligarchic government that includes some of the most influential American families such as the Bushes, the Harrimans, the Tafts, the Whitneys, and the Rockefellers.

Skull and Bones was founded in 1832 by William Russell, the heir to Russell and Company, at that time one of the world's most prominent opium traders. According to author Robbins, Russell befriended the leader of a secret society during a year of study in Germany. Returning to the US, Russell sought to re-create in the US the spirit of exclusivity that he had encountered with the German secret society, whose main goal was the establishment of a strong government of the kind that would mold every individual to the obedience of the state. 

In the rarefied atmosphere of Yale University, Russell found a receptive environment for his dream, enrolling the help of Alphonso Taft, future US secretary of war and father of President William Howard Taft. The society they founded was called the Brotherhood of Death, or more informally, the Order of Skull and Bones. Later the order would include among its ranks Prescott Bush, who would take the helm of the Union Bank, Roland and Arvell Harriman, several Rockerfellers, Henry Luce, and others who read like a who's who in American public life.

European reporters were astonished to learn that the cult has been extremely successful in its pursuit of establishing a "New World Order"-the Bonesmen's lingo was used by then-President Bush Senior to describe the philosophy behind his foreign policy. The Bonesmen's New World Order consists of fewer individual freedoms for the majority and of a few elected people sitting in the collective driver's seat. They noted that besides pushing three of its men-the two Bushes and Taft-to the presidency of the United States, the society has produced nine supreme court justices, several senators and congressmen, and that the idea of launching both Time and Newsweek magazines was first conjured up in the Bones' Tomb. Skull and Bones members founded the American Historical Association, the American Economic Association and the American Psychological Association. More than a dozen Bonesmen have worked at the Federal Reserve. Bonesmen are believed to control the Rockerfeller, Carnegie and Ford families' wealth.

European reporters don't appear to buy Alexandra Robbin's suggestions that Bonesmen may have developed and dropped the first nuclear bomb; may have organized the Bay of Pigs invasion; were tied to the Kennedy assassination and to the Watergate break-in; or that they may control the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. Nevertheless, Europeans are intrigued by the notion that Bonesmen may be tied to many of history's recent conflicts, compelling them to wonder if the fraternity mentality may not explain a tendency toward destruction rather than building. They also wonder how a 2004 presidential race between Senator John Kerry on the democratic side running against President Bush-both Bonesmen--might unfold.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 16, 2004)

And the last one in the series...

Yale grads Kerry, Bush share bond of secrecy

Palm Beach Post | March 8 2004

WASHINGTON -- In the spring semester of their junior years at Yale University, John Kerry and George W. Bush were tapped on the shoulder and abruptly asked: "Skull and Bones, accept or reject?"

Both answered, "Accept."

Kerry was initiated into this most famous and mysterious of Yale's secret societies in 1965. Bush entered Skull and Bones in 1967, following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather. Thus was set up the first presidential election between Bonesmen nearly four decades hence.

This development was perhaps inevitable. For generations, 15 Yale seniors -- frequently future leaders of government, business, media, arts and other professions -- have gathered in secrecy in the Tomb, the windowless home of their select society on the Yale campus.

Often after graduation, their bonds have strengthened inside a Bones network entwined throughout American culture.

"The only agenda of Skull and Bones is to get its members into positions of power and then to have those members hire others to positions of prominence. The organization has an enormous superiority complex that partly fuels their secrecy," said Alexandra Robbins, author of Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power.

"I think the problem here is that, frankly, I don't believe that the people who represent our country, especially the president of the United States, should be allowed to have an allegiance to any secret group. Secrecy overshadows democracy," said Robbins, a 1998 Yale graduate who belonged to Scroll and Key, another secret society.

"They stopped talking to me after my book was published," she said, describing the spirit of secrecy that still permeates the societies.

Such secrets seem safe with Bush and Kerry, the likely Democratic nominee for president.

In separate episodes of the NBC program Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked Bush and Kerry about their memberships in Skull and Bones.

"It's so secret we can't talk about it," answered the president.

"I wish there were something secret I could manifest there," Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts, replied warily when Russert asked if he would divulge rituals of the Tomb.

"What's so staggering about the fact that both presidential candidates are members of Skull and Bones is that this is a tiny organization with perhaps only 800 living members," said Robbins. "This isn't an organization in which a member can simply get an interview at some Joe Schmo law firm. This is an organization where members can call up presidents, Supreme Court justices, and Cabinet members, and ask for jobs, power, money, or connections."

In researching her book, Robbins interviewed more than 100 members of Skull and Bones. She inquired about which candidate the secret society would rather have in the White House.

"I asked many Bonesmen that question," she recalled. "The sincere answer to me was, 'We don't care -- it's a win-win situation.' "

Of course, Bush and Kerry are only the latest Bonesmen to star on the national stage. President George H.W. Bush, the incumbent's father, was also a member of Skull and Bones, as were former President William Howard Taft; former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart; former Sens. Prescott Bush, David Boren, James Buckley, John Heinz and John Chafee; Time magazine founder Henry Luce; writers Archibald MacLeish, John Hersey, William F. Buckley Jr. and his son, Christopher Buckley; historian David McCullough; Washington power brokers Averell Harriman and McGeorge Bundy; anti-Vietnam War activist the Rev. William Sloane Coffin: Morgan Stanley founder Harold Stanley, and a wealth of other well-connected notables.

"I think Skull and Bones has had slightly more success than the Mafia in the sense that the leaders of the five families are all doing 100 years in jail, and the leaders of the Skull and Bones families are doing four and eight years in the White House," author and Yale graduate Ron Rosenbaum said on the CBS News program 60 Minutes.


Ritual and reverence

With roots stretching to 1832, Skull and Bones is the oldest of Yale's secret senior societies. There are others, however, that also meet on Thursday and Sunday evenings in their own "Tombs." Among them are Scroll and Key, Book and Snake, Wolf's Head and Berzelius.

Each chooses 15 or 16 new juniors as members on "tap night" in April. As seniors, they will spend countless hours together in their Tombs and form lifelong relationships. With varying input from alumni, each class chooses -- "taps" -- its successors.

In Secrets of the Tomb, Robbins revealed much of the ritual and reverence of Skull and Bones:

New members are assigned secret names. Some are traditional: "Long Devil" is the tallest member. "Boaz" (for Beelzebub) goes to a varsity football captain. The new member with the least sexual experience is dubbed "Gog." The most sexually experienced member becomes "Magog."

The elder George Bush was nicknamed "Magog," Robbins reported. George W. Bush was called "Temporary" because he was not assigned a name and didn't choose one. The author didn't know Kerry's secret name but "Long Devil" might be a good bet.

Kerry's Bonesman class of 1966 included Alan Cross, now a physician and director of the Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Federal Express founder Fredrick W. Smith; and William Warren Pershing, grandson of Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing, an infantry officer who died in Vietnam.

Among Bush's diverse group of Bonesmen, who graduated in 1968, were Olympic gold medalist Don Schollander; future Harvard Medical School surgeon Gregory Gallico; Jordanian Muhammed Saleh; Donald Etra, an Orthodox Jew; and Roy Austin, then African-American captain of Yale's soccer team and now U.S. ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago.

As president, George W. Bush has appointed other Bonesmen to his administration, including Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman William H. Donaldson and Assistant Attorney General Robert McCallum.

Most of Yale's secret societies set aside long sessions in which members tell their life stories in deep, intimate detail.

The lore of Skull and Bones, which began accepting women members in 1992, describes additional meetings in which each member gives explicit accounts of his or her sexual history. This is known as a "CB" or "Connubial Bliss" account.

"There was nothing perverse or surreal or prurient -- just an open exchange," a Bonesman told Robbins.


Alumni gather annually

Skull and Bones is a "dry" society. No alcohol is consumed inside its Tomb. Members dine together at 6:30 p.m. on Thursdays and Sundays in the Firefly Room, where light comes through fixtures shaped like skulls and beverages are served in skull-shaped cups.

There are also plenty of actual skulls and bones, both human and animal, inside the Skull and Bones Tomb. Initiation puts new members in coffins.

"The preoccupation with bones, mortality, with coffins, lying in coffins, standing around coffins, all this sort of thing I think is designed to give them the sense that, and it's very true, life is short," said Rosenbaum. "You can spend it, if you have a privileged background, enjoying yourself, contributing nothing, or you can spend it making a contribution."

During their senior years, members often hang out in the Tombs, which are closed to outsiders. The Skull and Bones building is described as more comfortable than plush, and the society is financed through an endowment and contributions by alumni. There are no dues.

Meetings are held behind a locked iron door in the Inner Temple, or Room 322. The number is hallowed in Skull and Bones history. In its beginnings, the society was known as the Eulogian Club and honored Eulogia, the goddess of eloquence. She "took her place in the pantheon upon the death of the orator Demosthenes in 322 B.C.," reported Robbins.

Inside their tomb, Bonesman refer to outsiders as "barbarians."

Alumni are expected to return to the Tomb for events. And members from over the years gather at least annually on Deer Island, which is owned by Skull and Bones and located just north of Alexandria Bay, N.Y.

"Bones likes to bring back its prominent alumni, especially, because the visits remind younger members of the illustrious footsteps in which they are expected to follow," said Robbins, "and that the bizarre traditions in which they participate are traditions that famous men have been following for nearly 200 years."


----------



## CanuckMA (Apr 16, 2004)

The question that is not asked of course is this:

Are these people all powerfull because they are Bonesmen, or were they ask to join because they were powerful?

Then again, they will not rule the world until they wrestle control of it from us Jews.   :boing2:


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 21, 2004)

I wonder if anyone got the point that Skull and Bones is a Death Cult and that both our presidential candidates belong to it... :idunno:


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 22, 2004)

Since Coast to Coast has been mentioned a couple of times so far in this thread I'll mention that George Noory will be doing a show on secret societies on thursday night (4-22-04).


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 22, 2004)

theletch1 said:
			
		

> Since Coast to Coast has been mentioned a couple of times so far in this thread I'll mention that George Noory will be doing a show on secret societies on thursday night (4-22-04).



What Channel?


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 22, 2004)

Coast to Coast A.M. is a radio show that comes on the a.m. band from 1:00 am until 5:00 a.m.  Coast to coast a.m. I don't know if there is a radio log that would tell you which station to listen too or not but their site has a streamlink feature for listening to it over the 'puter.  There's a fee associated with the streamlink but since I'm in the truck all night long I've never bothered with it.  C2C deals with a lot of the paranormal, mystical, fringe news type stuff and their discussions on secret societies have proven to be fairly interesting.  A good bit of the stuff on the show is "ghost stories" or "I had a visit from an alien" stuff during the open line portion of the show but the interview portion of the show has been getting a little more mainstream.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 22, 2004)

> I wonder if anyone got the point that Skull and Bones is a Death Cult and that both our presidential candidates belong to it...



Very interesting articles, I must say.

Still, nothing in any of them struck me as either presidential candidate or the organization itself as being involved in anything "diabolical".

I think the label of 'death cult' to the organization fits only in an allegorical sense. As far as I can tell, its a somewhat bizzare secret club with powerful political connections. Of course, those connections derive mostly from the members themselves, moreso than the club's nature or organization structure.

I fail to see what the big deal is.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Very interesting articles, I must say.
> 
> Still, nothing in any of them struck me as either presidential candidate or the organization itself as being involved in anything "diabolical".
> 
> ...



An unelected, extremely powerful organization of political leaders and sponsors...we the people have absolutely no say about their structure and politics and they have the power to keep in the game.  I have a problem with that.  As far as nothing diabolical...well, I wonder what Connie Chung had to say...also, I think I can find something to fit that bill.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 22, 2004)

> An unelected, extremely powerful organization of political leaders and sponsors...we the people have absolutely no say about their structure and politics and they have the power to keep in the game. I have a problem with that. As far as nothing diabolical...well, I wonder what Connie Chung had to say...also, I think I can find something to fit that bill.



Well, honestly, when it really comes down to it --- its just a private club. Sure, its a club made up of very powerful people who are all very influential, but it is still just a club.

If you think these people are somehow obliged to tell us what they're really doing or make the club open to anybody... well, that's an infringement of constitutional rights. Kind of defeats the purpose you're trying to fight for.

Unless there is _solid proof_ that the club is responsible for nefarious events, then there is really nothing illegal or immoral about what they're doing. Let them have their little club. 

If I created a private organization, I would feel pretty damn pissed if a bunch of people started trying to force me to change the ways I do things, too. This, of course, is provided such an organization is truly innocent of any illegal activities.

If not, then...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, honestly, when it really comes down to it --- its just a private club. Sure, its a club made up of very powerful people who are all very influential, but it is still just a club.
> 
> If you think these people are somehow obliged to tell us what they're really doing or make the club open to anybody... well, that's an infringement of constitutional rights. Kind of defeats the purpose you're trying to fight for.
> 
> ...



I don't want to force the government or anyone to crack it open and expose its secrets.  That is not the kind of governmental activity that I would EVER approve of (unless solid evidence of nefarious deeds sprouted)  The point that I am trying to make is that a club like that, espousing all of the symbolry of death, is probably not a good place to pick our political leaders.  Whether it is a joke or something serious its not something to mess around with.  888 I'm assuming you know something about symbology if you know something about numerology so I'm hoping you'll understand what I'm talking about.  Perhaps I should change my name to Kyosa999 - that is if I were tapped and if I had gone to Yale and such...

As far as solid proof...well there are some things that I've run across...

You promised to break down the symbology of the dollar bill after my story concerning Kucinich.  Where is that?


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 22, 2004)

> The point that I am trying to make is that a club like that, espousing all of the symbolry of death, is probably not a good place to pick our political leaders. Whether it is a joke or something serious its not something to mess around with.



Well, then, it sounds more like you have a problem with the voters of this country than anything else. 



> 888 I'm assuming you know something about symbology if you know something about numerology so I'm hoping you'll understand what I'm talking about.



Sure, and I really don't think its a big deal. I doubt anyone in that club really understands the true meaning of the symbology (such as with the rather shallow "it means life is short" interpretation that was given to the articles' author), and its probably just a neat little social group for them.



> You promised to break down the symbology of the dollar bill after my story concerning Kucinich. Where is that?



The pyramid and the All Seeing Eye are Egyptian symbols, originating in the the Mystery Schools of Osiris. They symbolize transcendence of the finite self (in Greek referred to as the 'eidolon', which in English became 'ego') and union with Divinity and the timeless, spaceless Spirit (symbolized by Osiris in olden times).

You'll notice about the pryamid on the dollar bill, among other things, that it is four-sided, as juxtaposed to the more common three-sided pyraminds we see throughout Egypt. The four sides symbolize the four elements, with the point indicating transcendence in the Source (there are similar ideas in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Greek philosophy).

The 'star of david' is on the other side of the dollar bill, composed of thirteen stars. The star, of course, was also originally an Egyptian symbol. It has six points with the "seventh point" unifying them all in the Center. The number seven was regarded as the highest heaven in ancient thought, as well as the abode of the true God. In Eastern thought, the seventh chakra is also the highest 'level' in that belief system, as well. 

The thirteen stars (as well as the thirteen original colonies) is also symbolically important. It may also be know coincidence of the year of the signing of the American declaration of independence: 1776. 

1 + 7 + 7 + 6 = 21, the age of reason and maturity. Many of the founding father believed they were creating a country based on reason and the principle of rationality (they were Deists, after all).

I'm sure your familiar with the symbolism of the eagle, laurel leaves, and the arrows. What you may not know is that it is originally a Hindu symbol. The eagle was regarded as the patron bird of Zeus, the highest God.

Much of this is very symbolic and allegorical, and point to spiritual mysteries and experiences that only a handful of moderns have any clue about. Joseph Cambell explains much of this in more detail in his books, particularly in 'The Power of Myth'.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Sure, and I really don't think its a big deal. I doubt anyone in that club really understands the true meaning of the symbology (such as with the rather shallow "it means life is short" interpretation that was given to the articles' author), and its probably just a neat little social group for them..



I wouldn't say that.  Not when you are dealing with money and power and manipulation and the accoutrements of evil (good) deities.  This sounds more like a mystery school, or at least an initiate level to a true Mystery School.  These people are obsessed with bloodlines.  Take a look at the list of people in the Society.  They are all interelated.  Bush and Kerry and related...besides standing around drinking red liquid from skulls and bowing down to a 30 foot effigy of Molloch sounds nothing like a neat little social club.  



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The pyramid and the All Seeing Eye are Egyptian symbols, originating in the the Mystery Schools of Osiris. They symbolize transcendence of the finite self (in Greek referred to as the 'eidolon', which in English became 'ego') and union with Divinity and the timeless, spaceless Spirit (symbolized by Osiris in olden times).
> 
> You'll notice about the pryamid on the dollar bill, among other things, that it is four-sided, as juxtaposed to the more common three-sided pyraminds we see throughout Egypt. The four sides symbolize the four elements, with the point indicating transcendence in the Source (there are similar ideas in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Greek philosophy).
> 
> ...



I've heard that the eagle represents the pheonix and the immortality after destruction.

Also, Kucinich wasn't too far off with his explanation.  His understanding is not perfect, but, I'm sure he believed he was speaking to a crowd of the clueless.  It had to be simplified.  What shocked me was the way he emphasized what happened when you lost trust (or lost the trust) of the Eye.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 23, 2004)

Why is Skull and Bones as well as other secret societies that contain our political leaders so obsessed with Bloodlines?  Check this article...

Kerry will be king, says royal poll theory

The Advertiser (Australia) | March 8 2004

IF ROYAL genes have any influence, John Kerry looks destined to dethrone George W. Bush in November's US presidential election.

According to a theory its British proponents say has proved surprisingly accurate over the past century, the candidate with the bluest blood in his veins will win the White House. 

In 2000 it was Bush. This time, it's Kerry. "Our research is not yet complete, but my bet is that Kerry has more royal connections and that he is more noble than President Bush," said Harold Brooks-Baker, publishing director of Burke's Peerage, a guide to the British aristocracy. 

"But both candidates have a remarkable number of royal connections and both are related to Queen Elizabeth." 

Yale-educated war veteran Kerry, 60, can trace his roots via the first Massachusetts governor, John Winthrop, to every great family in Boston and a host of royals in Europe. 

"Kerry can almost certainly be traced back to King James I and to the bloodlines straight through the Windsor and Hanover families," Brooks-Baker said. 

James I, the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, ruled England from 1603-1625 and is best remembered for commissioning a new translation of the Bible. Much of Kerry's royal heritage comes through his mother's side. Kerry, a Catholic, recently learned that his paternal grandfather was an ethnic German Jew born in a former mining town near the Polish border. 

Although Kerry's family tree might have more royal branches than Mr Bush's, the President himself is no commoner. 

Mr Bush was more royal than Al Gore, his opponent four years ago, and also boasts a direct descent from Henry III and from Henry VIII's sister Mary Tudor, who was also the wife of Louis XI of France. He is also descended from Charles II of England. 

Brooks-Baker said there has always been a significant "royalty factor" in those who aspired to the White House, with Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan among those who had strong blue blood links.


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 23, 2004)

The problem is as I stated before.

By allowing powerful people in business and government to gather in secret to discuss how to make policy to suit their own agenda's first not only is damaging to the democratic process, but it negated the capitalistic ideal of "fair competition" in regards to business interests.


----------

