[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)