Secret Societies?

[Cruentus]

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]

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]

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]

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

:asian:

 

[michaeledward]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Blatent Hegelian Dialectic.

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

 

[Cruentus]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

Thought police...nice.

 

[Cruentus]

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.

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]

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.