[HN Gopher] Eight Secret Societies You Might Not Know
___________________________________________________________________
Eight Secret Societies You Might Not Know
Author : galaxyLogic
Score : 58 points
Date : 2022-09-08 20:02 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
| IncRnd wrote:
| > Eight Secret Societies You Might Not Know
|
| They aren't secret anymore - not when they are in the
| Smithsonian!
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| Yeah - the real Secret Societies are actually Secret and
| probably operating in our world all the time without displaying
| it. There's no evidence, just because you don't see Secret
| Societies much anymore, that they don't exist. There was a lack
| of evidence at the time for all the societies on the list.
| riffic wrote:
| btw the password to their secret ceremonies is 'fidelio'
| kirbys-memeteam wrote:
| That is the reference password, yes. What is the secret
| password?
| IncRnd wrote:
| It's a secret, but I'll tell you if you keep it between
| the two of us. The secret password is "Leonore" without
| quotes - so don't do any air quotes when you offer the
| secret password for most illustrious entrances.
| riffic wrote:
| Didn't see _The Ancient Order of Free Gardeners_ listed:
|
| > Although the Free Gardeners have always remained independent of
| Freemasonry, the history and organisation of the two orders show
| numerous similarities. Some commentators have pointed to possible
| mutual influences in the ancient history of the two organisations
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Free_Gardeners
| oq_computer wrote:
| 'The Power of Ritual in Prehistory: Secret Societies and Origins
| of Social Complexity' by Brian Hayden is a super interesting read
| on the origin of secret societies. Apparently there has always
| been a dynamic in communities that whenever there is a production
| surplus (according to the author happens in 'transegalitarian
| societies'), there tends to be a very small number of individuals
| that feel entitled to the surplus so they start to create
| multiple secret society startups with rituals and initiation
| practices often involving a high initiation cost to eventually
| centralize power (and publicly punish skeptics when possible).
|
| Another characteristic about secret societies is that actually
| they need to be very public (to get new members), and what is a
| secret instead is the reason why the society exists, that part is
| not revealed unless becoming part of the group.
| JeremiahSand wrote:
| Came here to post about Hayden's thesis and you had beaten me
| to it. If anyone's interested in a podcast intro there's a good
| one here: https://auticulture.com/the-liminalist-223-the-
| arrival-of-th...
| leephillips wrote:
| No Turtles? Lame.
| westcort wrote:
| I was once tapped to be part of a secret society. It was an
| interesting experience, but in the end I did not join.
| chris_wot wrote:
| This is an interesting headline. I would imagine there are quite
| a few secret societies we don't know about because they are,
| well, _secret_.
| c7b wrote:
| Nice that they found a mix, I expected >90% of them to be
| religious or semi-religious (what you hear about the freemasons
| sounds quite cult-ish too, eg).
|
| But not sure why they decided to include the Molly Maguires.
| Sounds like a plain mob to me, the Yakuzas and the Cosa Nostra
| probably have more rituals than those, and both are still very
| much in existence.
| silisili wrote:
| I think there's a strong correlation. For example, there was an
| Oddfellows chapter near me I checked out a few times. They
| turned out to be some weird sect of Wiccans. I mean, it's nice
| that they do good works, and I guess alls as well if they keep
| them separate, but I didn't intend spending time with people
| who pray to antlers and host nude religious gatherings. And it
| felt to me, perhaps in a way, they were using a known
| organization to 'recruit', even if they didn't see it that way.
| RutgerHauer wrote:
| Where is this? Are they still recruiting?
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Some good ones to be sure, but they are leaving out a lot of the
| really juicy ones.
| TakeBlaster16 wrote:
| I had the same thought. I guess you and I are talking about the
| same Order? If so, I'll see you tomorrow evening!
| [deleted]
| dhosek wrote:
| Last month, I had that moment every parent1 dreams of. My
| daughter asked me, "what's 'the Illuminati'?"
|
| It was fun explaining the whole concept of secret societies and
| conspiracy theories in terms that would be intelligible to an
| 8-year-old. My kids (her brother is her twin) had a hard idea
| with the whole concept of secretly coercing somebody to do
| something that's not in their interests.
| ttctciyf wrote:
| Wait till they find out about the parental concept of secretly
| coercing somebody to do something that _is_ in their interests!
| pyinstallwoes wrote:
| Then how anytime you feel you made a decision it was actually
| the Illuminati that coerced you into that decision making you
| believe you came up with it yourself.
| smm11 wrote:
| There's 9.
|
| I'm "blood brothers" with some kid who was five when I was, and
| his name escaped me decades ago. Nobody is to ever know this, so
| I guess I just broke that oath.
| IncRnd wrote:
| Hey! That was me, you oathbreaker - your infidelity against the
| Art of Sworn Secrets contained in the Ark of Secrets will not
| go unpunished!
|
| By the powers invested in me as the Head Inquisitor of Occult
| Secrets I banish you from the Secret Society of Occult Blood
| Brothers of Hidden Blood Secrets which shall not be named!
|
| FOREVERMORE you are banished and may never enter the Secret
| Santorum of the Holy Lodge!
| ankaAr wrote:
| I will add the Lautaro Lodge, known before as Lodge of Rational
| Knights, from where the revolutionary movements to free Latin
| American territory from Spain started.
| criddell wrote:
| The article mentions how in the past, the Patriotic Order Sons of
| America didn't allow black people to join. They eventually
| changed but I'm wondering if the change was forced. Is it legal
| to discriminate on the basis of race or sex today?
| hprotagonist wrote:
| It Depends (tm) but generally a private club can admit, or not,
| whoever they please, or don't.
| OJFord wrote:
| In the UK (& I believe EU) that's true to the extent that you
| could have an even more personal ('I don't like your face')
| objection, but your reasoning can't be on the basis of a
| 'protected characteristic', such as race.
|
| Though actually maybe private members' clubs have some kind
| of exception to that - gender is also a protected
| characteristic under that act, but there are gentlemen's
| (only) clubs still (ladies' too perhaps, I'm not sure).
| moritonal wrote:
| There are male-only clubs (The Garrack, Savage Club), and
| more modern female and non-binary only clubs (such as the
| marguerite).
|
| They are all, by definition sexist, but you are allowed
| under UK law to be such when deciding who to invite to a
| party.
|
| What would be interesting, is if one became a monopoly in
| its niche (often clubs have a _thing_), whether one could
| argue they missed out on serious opportunities in work
| because they were not allowed to join, but I don't know of
| such a case being risen.
| jl6 wrote:
| Indeed it was The Garrick about which Baroness Hale made
| something rather like that argument, noting that many of
| her male colleagues were members, perhaps implying that
| they enjoyed a networking opportunity that she had been
| denied:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/06/garrick-
| club-v...
| tarentel wrote:
| If a club is truly private they can. ianal but I believe they
| have to be very specific about their membership criteria. Like
| you couldn't have criteria that permits anyone who isn't black
| it would have to be a lot more specific than just that.
| leephillips wrote:
| You can legally exclude on any basis if you're running an
| actual private club. But if it smells like a public
| accommodation (a restaurant that you can patronize without
| being a member of the club, for example), then the
| prohibitions against exclusion on the basis of race,
| religion, etc. kick in.
| jayofdoom wrote:
| I am a former Mason. I left the lodge due to no longer
| complying with their requirement to believe in a higher power
| (God). To be explicit: Masonry used to be segregated into
| "Prince Hall" masonic halls (for non-white folks) and "normal"
| masonic halls. This split was ended, and now Prince Hall
| masonic halls are full masonic lodges, and membership is
| recognized in both directions. In practice; every lodge I ever
| attended was integrated even if it was a significant white
| majority.
|
| When we were voting on new members, it was a silent vote with
| unanimous consent required. Any vote could be retaken at the
| order of the master. This means that if someone is eligible and
| should be a mason, and the vote comes up with a negative vote,
| the master can say a few words suggesting people reconsider and
| take the vote up again.
|
| There was only once that I saw someone not pass the first
| ballot to become a mason. The master said that we should
| reconsider, and most of the brothers in the room chose not to
| vote the second time (as a symbol they were not the negative
| vote), and many of those who did showed their ballot before
| casting it. The second vote passed.
|
| This as a process indicates there's plenty of room for abuse:
| any single master mason can anonymously vote to exclude someone
| for any reason they want. It's up to the folks around them to
| set them square if they are out of line. I can easily see an
| lodge existing where there wouldn't be any members willing to
| speak up in someone's defense.
|
| It's my belief that none of what I've posted here is exposing
| any of the secrets of a master mason; but if any fraternal
| members disagree I'll happily edit and delete this post, and I
| don't intend to expose anything; but instead demonstrate that
| masonry (as well as, I'd assume, most other 'secret'
| societies), is as good as the members in the lodge.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| You dont have to believe in God. Segregation (PHL) is a US
| only thing. You were correct to leave. That voting system was
| not Masonic and I've never seen it anywhere else, and nor do
| i believe it would be tolerated anywhere else. Please dont
| edit or delete your post.
| throwaway_4ever wrote:
| Don't universities and workplaces have particular sex and race
| only clubs?
| vulcan01 wrote:
| Kind of, but that's why (most of) them have a disclaimer
| similar to "We welcome people of all races/genders/[whatever
| characteristic the group is organized around." on their
| flyers.
| carabiner wrote:
| Sounds like you never went to college. Those clubs aren't
| allowed to discriminate, so you'll see a Jewish girl as an
| officer in an Asian students society, or a woman engineers
| club admitting men.
| billybuckwheat wrote:
| Isn't the whole idea behind a secret society that the general
| public doesn't know about it? I thought that's what _secret_
| meant.
| gjsman-1000 wrote:
| One of the most fundamental characteristics of evil is that the
| evil person cannot help but desire to gain fame for their
| crimes. (Just look up how many criminals have been arrested by
| their social media posts.)
|
| A Secret Society might be completely secretive, and yet be
| unable to resist helping themselves to claiming _some_ credit.
| Kind of like the Anonymous hacker group in their day. Or Ross
| Ulbricht adopting the name "Dread Pirate Roberts" on all of
| his work which really hurt him when he was caught.
| IncRnd wrote:
| It's a real jump to go from "secret society" to "evil
| criminals".
| RutgerHauer wrote:
| it's a real jump to go from "criminal" to "evil"
| IncRnd wrote:
| Someone didn't read before commenting.
| pessimizer wrote:
| This is almost a paraphrase of the definition of survivorship
| bias. You would expect a preponderance of bigmouths amongst
| people who are widely known to have been caught for crimes.
| It would be bad to assume that this is because people who do
| crimes love to talk about them, rather than that people who
| talk about crimes get caught.
| nkzd wrote:
| That's very interesting. Makes you wonder how many criminals
| escaped justice because they had a willpower to resist
| temptation of fame.
| bombcar wrote:
| I've heard multiple people who would know say that if
| someone plans a crime well and singly, there's often a very
| good chance they'll never be caught.
|
| It's repeat action that gets them.
| more_corn wrote:
| There's no such thing as evil. It therefore has no
| fundamental traits.
|
| You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks of himself as
| evil. Everyone is the hero of his own story.
|
| Take "the dread pirate roberts" you know it's a reference to
| The Princess Bride right? The hero of The Princess Bride?
|
| Now Ross ram a high drug site on the dark web. Was Ross evil?
| He certainly didn't think so. He philosophically disagreed
| with drug laws. The Silk Road didn't trade in things Ross
| thought were evil (I seem to recall from the write up in
| wires that he banned human trafficking etc). He simply
| thought everyone should have the right to choose for
| themselves. I bet he thought he was providing a service.
|
| Was he evil? Not in his own mind. Did he seek fame with his
| name? Err, no? He was choosing a handle to specifically mask
| his name (he always planned to play the "it was the other
| dread pirate roberts the whole time" card)
|
| I don't think you can point to a single person who thinks of
| themselves as evil. (Even psychopaths don't think of
| themselves as evil, they just don't think other people are
| worthy of consideration. --I seem to recall that hitler was a
| vegetarian. If you asked him he'd say he was a hero of his
| people.)
|
| And as for criminals seeking fame... probably no more or less
| than any human seeks fame. Or maybe to say it another way,
| everyone probably seeks recognition of skill.
| pyinstallwoes wrote:
| Evil exists. You're rationalizing pure logic. If I stalked
| you, terrorized you, did the most irrationally consistently
| irrational things to anything in your world and those near
| you, you'd be hard pressed to call me anything other than
| driven by evil.
|
| There is meticulous, introspective, malicious, terrible
| intent that reads its head. Luckily it seems rare but sadly
| I've come across it.
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| Believe it or not, a "secret" society refers to the secrets
| they _hold_ , not that the society itself is secret. The Masons
| are public about their existence (if quiet) but their inner
| "rites and rituals" are secret.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| IIRC Freemasons describe themselves as a society with
| secrets, rather than a secret society.
| runjake wrote:
| However, there are secret societies within Freemasonry,
| such as the Jesters, which is an unofficial offshoot from
| the Shriners.
| golover721 wrote:
| While I'm sure that used to the case, that is no longer
| really the case with the Masons. You can find out and read
| through all the different ceremonies and rites online.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| Masons [have been known to] occasionally change certain
| things to keep known secrets to stay secret: 'letter and
| begin', for example.
|
| Duncans Ceremonies is the most famous revelation of Masonic
| secrets, but no dues-card and not being 'in the book',
| ultimately counts for nothing, as you won't even be able to
| properly converse with a mason, nor enter a lodge, without
| either.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Not by their intention, but by an accumulation of opsec
| failures over the last 700 years.
| dmix wrote:
| Membership, what goes on there, and specific
| processes/rituals/documentation being secret is more important
| than the existence and purpose.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| I can't tell you that until you demonstrate that you know the
| secret handshake.
| charles_kaw wrote:
| Secret societies have an air of mystique around them, but often
| they're just social clubs with extra steps. People are social
| creatures, and having something to belong to is healthy for most!
| hammock wrote:
| The concerning part is when a secret social club crosses the
| line into being a cabal.
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| Those are the fake secret societies the _real_ ones make in
| order to make you think they're all just glorified social
| clubs. /s
| colordrops wrote:
| Why the sarcasm marker? Powerful secret societies have
| existed throughout history and there's no reason to believe
| they've stopped now.
| ss108 wrote:
| Well, they're not that secret apparently
| bena wrote:
| I get the joke, but I don't think the existence of the society
| itself is supposed to be a secret, but what happens within the
| confines is held to secrecy.
| wl wrote:
| The secret society vs. society with secrets distinction is
| what Anglo-American Freemasonry has historically highlighted
| to disclaim the label "secret society." Agree with it or not,
| that usage does have some currency.
| dan-robertson wrote:
| I think it's the existence / private activities that are secret
| rather than the mere existence. But perhaps it's just another
| meaning of secret, eg the 'secret archives' at the Vatican
| would better be described as 'private archives' as laypeople
| may enter and be given access to (some) records.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-08 23:00 UTC)