Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
The Last Secrets of Skull and Bones (1977) (longform.org)
76 points by wglb on Dec 21, 2018 | hide | past | favorite | 64 comments



I find it interesting that people have been talking about secret societies and occult for many many decades, yet its still a taboo area for people to speak about in the main stream...

I knew a guy who went to Yale and was tapped by the 322...

But there is so much more to all of the secret societies, occult and other aspects of conspiracy which I find fascinating.

This is a talk given in 1958 regarding the Illuminati: - Pawns in the Game - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1uem-RXmJU


> ...yet it’s still a taboo area for people to speak about in the main stream...

This would be a result of how many people immediately jump to absurd conclusions that something evil absolutely must somehow be at play. It’s bizarre how many otherwise rational and logical humans turn into full blown conspiracy theorists the moment they read “secret society” it’s like their own personal rationality offswitch.

Until we can calm down the mass hysteria surrounding this topic, it will almost certainly remain taboo, and honestly, considering how weird the topics always turn, I’d rather it stay taboo than watch a panicky hysterical mass attack innocent people who just want a bit of privacy. History is full of paranoid mass hysteria instances where the masses go absolutely bonkers and innocent people suffer—for somewhat recent examples, look at the satanic panics or Wenatchee WA where, in their hysteria, they issued 29,726 charges of child abuse... yes, that number is correct, 29,726 charges. A number of people’s lives were ruined as they were publicly dragged through the ordeal, yet not a single charge stuck. Not one.

Mass hysteria is a very real phenomena and these topics of secret societies and the occult are probably better left as taboo, just reference any forum about the subject to see clear examples as to how much of our population are incredibly ill-equipped to discuss them rationally.


You're wondering why groups with names like "Skull and Bones" have an occult reputation? They cultivate it deliberately because it's cool. Yes, the public takes this cosplay too seriously, but they don't deserve all the blame.


Generally speaking, if a society isn't "evil" - and the situation doesn't really fit into any of the 'whistleblower' or 'opposition against an oppressive regime' scenarios - then why does it have to operate in secret?

It's typical of mafia-like, criminal organizations. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_Due


I'm a member of several initiatory groups that practice secrecy. The secrecy bonds initiates together and makes the lessons imparted more powerful. Such practices have antecedents dating to antiquity. If it's not for you, that's fine.


I've known several people associated with masonry. One got kicked out after doing a 'mason in distress' sign at a judge to get his drug trial stopped. Another, who has held several senior positions within lodges, has a second secret life that he has to keep hidden from them. Is just all borrowed power games and as far as I can tell the deal isn't worth it, the last secret has got to be an empty box, the power being in the idea of the secret itself. Then you get to stand around and look all enlightened and stuff. Then you go home and the car still has a squeaky noise that nobody can identify and the bath drain is mysteriously full of hair.


If you want to play power games in Freemasonry, you certainly can do so. That seems to me to be missing the point. I'm also not sure what kind of second secret life your friend has to hide from the craft.

I think most folks misunderstand the use of secrecy in initiatic orders. If someone joins an order to learn their secrets, they will be sorely disappointed. Signs, passwords, and grips can have symbolic meaning, but they convey nothing the initiate is unlikely to already know. Some of the secret legends can be entertaining, but they, by themselves, won't improve your life. Rather, all these things are tools that, when used in concert, can bring about a change in a person. Not everyone needs or wants that, and that's fine.


>I'm also not sure what kind of second secret life your friend has to hide from the craft.

Some people try to be experts in theoretical conspiracy. I think he is just more into the experimental side of the field.


>One got kicked out after doing a 'mason in distress' sign at a judge to get his drug trial stopped.

But has the signal worked for others?


It worked for him. He just then got kicked out.


From my perspective, this sounds far too much like “Why do you need privacy or cryptography if you have nothing to hide?”

Everyone here should be well aware by now that wanting privacy != nefarious behavior.


There's a difference between an individual and an organization that intends to have an impact on the society. The society can't, or shouldn't demand that I give up privacy of my inherently private matters.

But it is very reasonable for the society to expect a basic degree of transparency from an NGO or a political party - insofar as the actions in question are meant to have public impact. It's a two-way street, to me.

Note that I'm not even entering the subject of legal obligations here. Whether or how to enforce this approach is a separate discussion (quite a few democratic constitutions do forbid political organizations of clandestine structures and membership). I'm only referring to common sense, and what feels justified.

Is it a private matter if someone held on trial is the judge's boss in a secret organization they both belong to?


These kinds of organizations generally don't exist to have a public impact. They exist to transform individuals.

> Is it a private matter if someone held on trial is the judge's boss in a secret organization they both belong to?

A judge has an obligation to recuse where there's a conflict of interest, regardless of the nature of that conflict. This is not a good argument against private societies, unless you want to start banning any situation that could at some point lead to a conflict of interest.


I’ve always thought, without any real evidence, that these societies are a way for the upper class to collect dirt on each other before they enter power.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenatchee_child_abuse_prosecut... says people were convicted, contrary to your claim


From your link: “Those who were convicted were freed by higher courts and had their convictions overturned or pleaded guilty on lesser charges. Five served their full sentences before their cases were overturned. Some lost parental rights. By 2000, the last person in custody, Michael Rose, was released, after a judge vacated his March 1995 convictions.”


And? That doesn't say all charges were overturned - it says some pled guilty


Unfortunately the source link on that wiki is dead, but a different source:

”Many witnesses and defendants later said they were pressured into making false confessions and accusations by caseworkers from the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and by Wenatchee Police Department Lieutenant Bob Perez.

All who confessed later recanted. Some defendants said that when threatened with life imprisonment, they pled guilty to lesser charges. Some said they were told that if they confessed they wouldn't go to jail but would be treated in the community. Many were told they would never see their children again unless they signed a confession. Those questioned also said they were told that their children wouldn't be placed in foster care or put up for adoption if they signed confessions.” [0]

Considering the entire contextual insanity of this case, the obvious and absolute hysteria which surrounded the entire case, the biased and careless ways the cases were handled, the decision making processes which happen when someone must choose between life in prison or lesser charges, the literal thousands of charges which were dropped/overturned, and perhaps most disturbing of all—the way that dissenters were suddenly brought up on charges, I have no problem sticking by my original statement:

This was mass hysteria.

[0] http://www.historylink.org/File/7065


Your claim was the charges didn't stick, which doesn't seem accurate


Well, if we insist on being pedantic rather than charitable, from your link:

> Those who were convicted were freed by higher courts and had their convictions overturned or pleaded guilty on lesser charges

It would seem they plead guilty to lesser charges. If it would make you feel better, I can amend my original post to say “...none of the original charges stuck...” Would this make you feel better?


Given that, as you quoted, a shockingly high number of charges was applied to a small number of people, it's quite likely whatever charges they pled to were part of what they were originally charged with.

I don't think your characterization captures what happened given people ended up serving reasonably long sentences. When I hear "no charges stuck" I think nobody got convicted - even a conviction later overturned isn't quite consistent with that.

If you want to make the point that the charges were baseless, sure - but that's not the only thing you're saying and implying. I think the original post is misleading.

Charitability is something to be applied to arguments where reasonable interpretations may be stronger. It's not something to be used to defend misleading factual claims, which are properly pushed back against.


re: the satanic panic, the tunnels (under the school) reported by the children were verified years later. At the time, the inability to find the tunnels was key in discrediting the childrens' testimony.

re: Wenatchee WA. The justice system not providing enough proof for a guilty verdict does not mean the events did not happen. It only means there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt according to the courts. However, it does seem like law enforcement did not act ethically & it's more likely they created false testimony from their witness badgering (of children) & dubious theories. In this case, members of law enforcement conspired to create a false case.

Sometimes people act on incomplete information and are correct. When organizations act in secret, a rational person ought not to trust these organizations. In the realm of politics, where warfare is fought in many domains, it is beneficial to be critical of such organizations. Otherwise, instead of being a "conspiracy theorist", one becomes a "coincidence theorist", when creating models of how & why related events occur.


> re: the satanic panic, the tunnels (under the school) reported by the children were verified years later.

Some true believer found an anomaly with ground penetrating radar and called it a tunnel. It's more likely a buried garbage pile.

https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/bsi/article/viewFile/...


It's inconclusive at this point. If there were tunnels, they could have been filled in with "trash" by the time the ground penetrating radar reading was done.

One possible avenue is to look up land permits & to create a case as to why the trash was filled in (if that's the case). However, this study is somebody's opinion of the readings, so it may not even be a trash pit. Further physical examination would probably be necessary to confirm one way or another, but at this point, it's a cold case.

However, the childrens' testimonies of some sort of underground anomaly is a strange "coincidence". How would they know that there was something out of the ordinary underground, whether it's tunnels or buried trash?

At this point, there are mysteries in this case & a number of possible truths. However, there are known cases of Satanism & ritual abuse. There's even more cases of testimony from different sources. I don't see this as a panic at all, but an acknowledgement of a possibility.


In the case of the satanic panic though, we can be pretty sure that not only was it bad faith policing, but also hysteria, because there have been other examples of baseless satanic ritual abuse hysteria. I believe we had one in the UK.


There's also been ritual abuse cases that have been proven. For example, Jimmy Savile. To write them all off as "baseless" is disingenuous.

Note that the alleged purpose of ritual abuse is twofold. Trauma based mind control & blackmail to keep the practitioners in line. You can't deny it's effectiveness as a political strategy for criminal syndicates. For example, the "mafia" blackmailed politicians by recording them in compromising sexual encounters. If it's done using prostitutes, why not take it a step further & use children? Children are easier to control, are more "expendable" since they do not have full adult legal status, and the crime is far more heinous. It's been done before...


Conflating group-hysterical episodes like those around "Satanic Ritual Abuse" with the long and disturbing career of a predator hiding in plain site is really rather disingenuous. They are very different phenomena. Further to that, the associated hysteria in the 1980s may well have obscured real issues and perpetrators, and helped the likes of Jimmy Savile continue to get away with his crimes. Crimes where there is no suggestion of ritual, or satanistic aspect, just a long career of awful abuse.

I'm not sure what the rest of your conjecture is about at all.


The thing is you are using a subjective pseudo-scientific conjecture ("group-hysterical episode") narrated to us by the media to describe the situation. I would not blame anybody for believing there was ritual abuse based on the testimony & the peculiarities of the case. I see the parents' reaction as being rational (not hysterical) given the information they were presented with. Even today, the case does not seem conclusive.

Maybe what was labeled as "hysteria" was really awareness to this type of criminal. It was the discrediting, pathologization of potential victims, general lack of empathy by the media, & conspiracy by law enforcement which caused the likes of Jimmy Savile (who was in royal circles) to get away with his crimes for so long. Also child sex trafficking being a widespread phenomenon deeply embedded in influential circles (otherwise, how would it be so widespread & networked around the world).

I agree in keeping the analysis open-ended by not committing to a particular narrative, however there's plenty of possibilities given the information that we know & what we don't know. Secret societies with influential members do not help the analysis since it's plausible that they would be involved with criminal activity & conspiracy.

---

edit: I did more research & found then former FBI Agent Ted Gunderson's account (with photos) of the tunnels which lead to a ritual site. Also there were photos of satanic symbology found on plates & murals. Maybe I missed something in research or something else is amiss...

https://youtu.be/8TsQxzOkgMY?t=1348


I'm sorry but these incidents are widely understood to be a combination of moral panic, poor policing, investigators leading children, bad psychology ("recovered memory") with crank psychologists trying to make a name for themselves and a variety of other factors.

They've been well studied, and far from turning up an international network of demonic ritual abusers, baby murderers and cannibals, they've turned up good evidence of a clusterfuck that damaged children by removing them from parents, damaged relationships and even entire towns with widespread false allegations.

With "Satanic Ritual Abuse" there is no "this type of criminal". There is no crime.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to be a true believer on this one.


I'm sorry, but 9 of the jurors were convinced that these children were abused; however they could not finger a perpetrator. There is photographic evidence of the tunnels with the testimony of the children & law enforcement. A suspect, Robert Winkler, died before his court examination. Winkler who in Torrence, CA was "charged with running a baby-sitting service out of the Coco Palms Motel that authorities described as a front for a sexual abuse ring". Mother Judy Johnson also died before testifying, after receiving death threats. More coincidences, always more coincidences.

There's nothing that substantiates a "satanic panic" other than appeal to emotion and tautology; and there's plenty of effort to convince the public of the narrative.

I don't need to convince you of anything, however, I also don't buy the demonization of law enforcement & possible victims for unsubstantiated reasons. Have you considered that you have been fed a story? Have you done any meaningful research into this from a variety of sources that don't confirm your bias?

Your attempt to convince me of your beliefs with poor logic only makes me question your narrative & motivated to look more into the case.

I found this podcast to be interesting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVa7730omIk


And there were plenty of guilty verdicts. The comment you're replying to is misrepresenting the outcomes.


An interesting factoid illustrating power begetting power is that in 2004, the two major candidates for US President were both members of Skull and Bones, which admits 15 college juniors per year.


I bet that made for some interesting discussions at S&B gatherings. Which to support?


Yeah, it sure did.

Whoops, sorry, forget I said that...


Fun fact: secret societies — and the resultant woes of society — is a central theme in the Book of Mormon.

> ...And it came to pass that they formed a secret combination, even as they of old; which combination is most abominable and wicked above all, in the sight of God...

> ...And it came to pass that there arose a rebellion among the people, because of that secret combination which was built up to get power and gain...

> ...And the regulations of the government were destroyed, because of the secret combination of the friends and kindreds of those who murdered the prophets...


And in the ultimate ironic twist, years after the Book of Mormon was published, Mormons adopted a version of the very Masonic rituals likely referenced in their own book. [0]

[0] http://packham.n4m.org/temples.htm#ENDOWMENT


Wasn’t it written in the 1800s? That seems like the heyday of secret societies in the USA.


Opposition to secret societies was common in rural American religion at that time. It's survived among Primitive Baptists, some conservative Methodists, and others. There's a general feeling that Christian brotherhood is inhibited by that sort of secret-keeping.


>“Who was the fool, who the wise man, beggar or king? Whether poor or rich, all’s the same in death.”

As much as being fans of the Illuminati (and who isn't?) they might also be fans of Diogenes of Sinope.

>"I am searching for the bones of your father, but could not distinguish them from those of a slave."

Diogenes of Sinope trolling Alexander the Great (again) ~300BC

One thing about these secret societies is that they give the political hegemony some resistance to the Rasputin problem. People who are addicted to power have a peculiar weakness to woo merchants promising further power over supernatural realms, which if the power addict even slightly entertains as a possibility of existing, they will feel compelled to follow, even on the off chance of more power. If they already feel they have the inside track on the occult, they are far more likely to rely on the resident court woo merchants, rather than following the latest wild eyed cosmic debris that just wandered in.

As an aside, a friend of mine has the theory that Trump is conclusive proof of the non-existence, or at least lack of real power, of the Illuminati or equivalent. On the basis that there is no sane over-arching conspiracy of total control where you would choose to end up with Donald Trump. He only makes sense from a world of many groups that have varying power and competency, where one of them is currently trying to fuck the other up.


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


Going down the rabbit hole of looking at the alleged evidence puts one in the same bucket. I'm from the UK and know for a fact the msm have covered for the establishment crimes for decades/centuries. Then you look at who owns the msm and it is clear why.

There literally is no point trying to defend this position to people who have not spent a great deal of time investigating it, because it takes a lot of time to investigate.... and the MSM is not the source of the truth. Yet, it is entrenched in UK political life, either by being involved, or turning a blind eye.

A search for Cyril Smith, for example, will begin to open the eyes of the most logical and rational of thinkers.

An example from the US of lies (that dragged UK and others into the war) is the testimony of a 15 year old girl to make up a fake eyewitness account to justify the first Iraq war: https://old.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/a4mx0m/american_gov_g...


Fyi the girl is the daughter of then Kuwaiti ambassador to the US.

>Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by an American public relations firm Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony


> Yet to speak of anything even remotely similar gets you labeled a crackpot conspiracy theorist

This is likely due to how it is being discussed.

Too often, when secret societies are brought up, many people have convinced themselves that secrecy must mean something nefarious is at play, and many of these people are absolutely unwavering in this belief.

Considering that the HN community is privacy centric and generally rejects the notion of “You don’t need privacy if you’ve got nothing to hide.” it doesn’t surprise me that many people discussing secret societies are downvoted because many of the people discussing this turn into blithering crackpots the minute secret is brought up.

If a society wishes to have privacy, this privacy does not make it axiomatically evil. Some people, yes, even groups of good people, just like to be left alone.


> Too often, when secret societies are brought up, many people have convinced themselves that secrecy must mean something nefarious is at play

"Must" is an exaggeration, but it is certainly a red flag.

> Considering that the HN community is privacy centric and generally rejects the notion of “You don’t need privacy if you’ve got nothing to hide.”

A society by definition isn't private in the sense used here. Noone complains about book clubs not listing all their members on the front door. A society, however, is an organization with the purpose of playing some role in the public life. You can't have it both ways.


I understand where you’re coming from, but I’m not sure I agree that we can’t have it both ways. A book club can play just as much of a role in public life as the next club.

We absolutely should be able to have it both ways, to choose whether or not we wish to list our book club members on the front door. This should be our choice. Maybe one week we wish to list attendees and another week choose not to list, why can’t we have it both ways? Why is it some random stranger’s business who attends my gatherings or what happens at my gatherings? Whether it’s a book club or a group of classmates drinking in my living room, why would random people feel like they’re entitled to invade my private space and dictate what I can and cannot do?

I understand the very real concerns with power concentrating in the hands of a few, but I’m not sure attacking our ability to have private gatherings is the appropriate way to address power concentration. This type of attack is also very concerning when we consider how much off-base speculation, wild paranoia and hysteria tends to come along once people start speculating what’s happening behind my book club’s closed doors.


> A book club can play just as much of a role in public life as the next club.

Ultimately, everything does - butterfly effect and all that. But it doesn't always take the form of openly intending to make it happen - eg. lobbying for a specific law.

If your organization is lobbying for something, but you don't want to disclose who exactly you are, people are perfectly within their rights to be sceptical, suspect conflicts of interest etc.

It's the same as speaking out in public wearing a mask. You can, but sooner or later someone will question your reasons, at least if the subject you're on about makes it seem pertinent.

> We absolutely should be able to have it both ways, to choose whether or not we wish to list our book club members on the front door. This should be our choice.

It is. And it's also people's free (and understandable) choice to be suspicious of secret societies which define their purpose in terms of seeking power and influence.


I think the HN crowd would be baffled by the shit we had to do for pledging. Not at S&B mind you, another ivy equivalent.


I never underestimate humanity's ability to come up with shit that is as weird as it is ridiculous, especially when it comes to tribal initiations. We get bungee jumping from the tribal initiation of the Bunlap people of Vanatu, so unless your pledge involves something as dangerous as attaching a liana to your ankles and jumping off a tree with the intention being to actually hit the ground with your face, while naked except for a belt and a strategically placed leaf, then frankly you aren't even trying.


Well, do tell. And why do these society rituals seem so infused with homoeroticism and other sexual elements?


supposed to be a bonding experience where you get to show your true commitment. the whole paraphernalia is usually lost on everyone


Panics about secret societies and fraternal organizations are a useful leading indicator of an authoritarian political tide. When you look at who worries about them, and governments that make pronouncements about them, looking back on who the good guys were, it usually wasn't the ones threatened by what happens when good men find a way to connect with one another.


Yale needs to take a clear stand against this "secret society" nonsense. It patently has no place at a global research university. To be sure, a significant amount of all the talk about it is likely grossly exaggerated and unfounded. But the core fact of a respected institute of education having any relationship with organizations rooted in sociopolitical elitism (with an attendant history of discrimination) that serve no benefit to the institution or the public remains.

In practice, the system may or may not be harmless. But to keep it alive serves zero useful purposes and degrades the reputation of the institution.


>But the core fact of a respected institute of education having any relationship with organizations rooted in sociopolitical elitism (with an attendant history of discrimination) that serve no benefit to the institution or the public remains

Isn't the very notion of an Ivy league university "rooted in sociopolitical elitism"?

And doesn't it serve major "benefit to the institution"? That's its target group, and they want prospective students to know they can enter that elite themselves.

And if there's a secret society you can aspire to get in of students and alumni promoting each other and handing out favors, even better.

They should write it in their ads!


Fairly certain the notion of an Ivy League University has to do with college football; the elitism came more from being "college boys" at a time when most folks didn't go to university.


True, the Ivy League is an NCAA Division I FCS conference that dates back to 1954. Wikipedia has the first use of the phrase at 1933.


I'm not trying to be dismissive and don't know much about these colleges but...

Couldn't the description "organizations rooted in sociopolitical elitism (with an attendant history of discrimination)" be applied to elite universities or the "ivy league" generally? Exclusivity, a taste of the old upper class traditions, a bit of mystique..


I don't think a homogeneous collection of "global research universities" is an ideal outcome and would even be ironic. Universities should reflect their independent and unique cultures and histories. Female universities (Wellesley), Black southern universities, "elite" universities (ivies), liberal arts universities, engineering universities, online universities... are all part of a patchwork of free and independent thought. All should be welcome.


> that serve no benefit to the institution

What makes you think such an affiliation serves no benefit to the institution? Exclusivity can be enticing unto itself. People want to have a shot of being elite.


The real question is what is Yale doing for the 322!


Yale University isn't responsible for these societies and has no control over them. They occupy private property and by their very nature lack any formal institutional affiliation with the school. They're simply private clubs where current and former students can hang out and plot the next global financial collapse, have orgies, or whatever exactly it is they do. In any case, not Yale's problem - except an image problem, maybe.

As an alumnus, I find the hand-wringing over these societies weird, because they're completely irrelevant to most students and have been for a long time. (No, I wasn't invited to join one. I don't even think I knew anybody in one of the name-brand societies, at least not well.) The fact that Bush and Kerry were both Bonesmen was amusing, but hardly surprising - the societies are exactly where you'd expect ambitious, privileged social climbers to end up by senior year. They're not even very secret, since the membership lists inevitably leaked. The only time the rest of campus noticed is when they walk past one of the "tombs" - windowless clubhouses - or when a really terrible movie about S&B ("The Skulls") came out while I was an undergrad.

Are they creepy and elitist? Of course. Are they a sinister conspiracy? No more than Goldman Sachs or McKinsey.


In the UK, we have had a government filled with people from the Bullingdon Club, an Oxford society that initiated members by having them burn money in front of the homeless. Homelessness has then rocketed under these people's reign, something they unfortunately cannot take seriously by the initiative act of their club. This society's association with government had the amusing high point where our sitting prime minister was accused of having oral sex with a cooked pig by another secret society member from within his own party.

This stuff might not affect the colleges that much, the fallout happens later when these people go off and get jobs.


I'm sure lots of people wish the authorities would disband Goldman, too, for similar reasons.


Are we judging every institution by its history now? The United States has a history of discrimination.


Aren’t they similar to dining clubs at Princeton?




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: