I don't think formalized secret societies (such as the Freemasons or historical Illuminati) are likely to hold much power. However, private groups between business associates or politicians with similar interests probably wield tremendous power. These aren't exactly cloak-and-dagger secret societies, but their "membership" would be exclusive and their dealings would be not open to scrutiny.
Thanks for sharing this. This part in particular reminded me of the idea of how class systems work as outlined by Pierre Bourdieu:
> "[The rulebook of an influential network] is not printed anywhere. Nor is it even a formally organised secret society with officers and rules which you would be told after you had been admitted. You are never formally and explicitly admitted by anyone. You discover gradually, in almost indefinable ways, that it exists and that you are outside it; and then later, perhaps, that you are inside it.
>
> "There are what correspond to passwords, but they are too spontaneous and informal. A particular slang, the use of particular nicknames, an allusive manner of conversation, are the marks. But it is not so constant. It is not easy, even at a given moment, to say who is inside and who is outside. Some people are obviously in and some are obviously out, but there are always several on the borderline."
The main work by Bourdieu - [Distinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_(book)) - is excessively verbose and convoluted as books from French philosophers and intellectuals often are. But the idea is that people in different classes (or networks, societies, groups) mark their membership by collecting and displaying particular forms of economic, social and cultural capital. As an example from Britain (as that's where I'm from, so can give an example), the Conservative political elite typically accrue or inherit wealth, they become members at particular clubs or societies (such as the [Carlton Club](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Club)), and in most cases are educated at Oxford where they join the [Oxford Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Union) and [OUCA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Conservative_Association). These almost then become pre-requisites for being part of the influential group - meaning you don't have to have all of them, but having a good mix will mean that you are identified as part of an unwritten group or at least have potential to be in the group.
Interesting. One credit to the US is that in some ways elites come from a wider mould.
The UK's past five Prime Ministers:
- All studied at Oxford - and throughout history, 30 of the 57 PMs also studied at Oxford.
- Three studied the same course, ([PPE](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy,_politics_and_economics&diffonly=true)).
- Two studied at the same high school (Eton) and were simultaneously members of the same infamous Oxford dining club, ([The Bullingdon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club) - which also had the former chancellor George Osborn in at the time when Cameron and Johnson were there). Eton alone counts 20 of the 57 Prime Ministers as alumni.
- One was President of the Oxford Union (Johnson) while another (May) ended up marrying a former President who she met while a member there.
- Many senior Conservative MPs and cabinet members follow exactly the same mould.
Fun fact, Bill Clinton studied PPE for a bit, but didn't finish. (He already had a BA though, don't know the details.) But yeah, I would assume your situation is owing to the whole class system thing.
Curiously enough, the "class system thing" doesn't quite account for the over-representation of Eton and Oxford alumni among UK prime ministers.
For example, since ~WWII there is only one UK prime minister who attended the equally prestigious Cambridge University, Stanley Baldwin (PM in 1935-1937). (Cambridge on the the other hand, has many more Nobel prize winners than Oxford)
It's almost certainly accountable by network effects, in that influential people
are more likely to assist the rise of people they know than those they don't, rather than any kind of "secret society" collusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_education
Ha, I haven't seen this many capitalized "Rings" since reading Tolkien.
I didn't find the article very relatable, I feel I largely outgrew this desire Lewis is talking about at around the age of 15. So his claims as to the phenomenon's universality look like hyperbole to my eyes.
I did appreciate the speculation on people being sexually promiscuous to appear "initiated" as part of an argument that these "Rings" are actually a deeper desire than the reproductive impulse. Still it doesn't feel at all descriptive of my experience, at least as an adult.
"it was not uncommon to hear that the mafia didn’t exist". In this sense the mafia was a powerful secret society.
https://blogs.bl.uk/european/2018/10/the-mafia-doesnt-exist.html
Secret societies are usually organizations of the powerless. They’re secret because they’re afraid the real power in society will squash them if they were discovered; and they generally prey on the even less powerful. Criminal gangs, cults and so on comprise most secret societies. The super rich are not a secret society per se. The rich band together in their self interest and exercise power through their wallet.
Yeah, organizations such as the Freemasons originally had to be secret so the aristocracy wouldn't crack down on them - they often started out as illegal trade guilds. It was the overall transfer of power away from the landlord (slash warlord) class and toward the merchant/business class that gave members of "secret societies" power to begin with. Their original role is now taken by organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce.
> Secret societies are usually organizations of the powerless.
This is like saying Ted Bundy's use of a sling to feign injury in an attempt to lower the guard of the women he would rape and kill, was a function of his powerlessness. The exact opposite is true: Secrecy, and camouflage are a function of power, not of weakness.
> By definition, if one cannot overpower someone’s guard, they are not powerful enough.
The whole point of the secrecy *is* to overpower someone's guard. Secrecy is a function of power, not weakness. You seem to think power is something overt or minimalist. If you can't win the tennis match without resorting to drop-shots or misdirecting your opponent, then you're just not a very good tennis player who wouldn't have to resort to these things, according to what you're trying to say.
That's right. When you play hide and seek for fun, you're expressing something that meaningfully represents power, yes. These are power dynamics.
That fact that we can create the most superficial or virtual expressions of these things, does not diminish them. Secrets are forms of power because it says on some level, "Sorry pal, need to know basis, and I'm the one who decides if you need to know". This is true in the most literal sense of simply withholding information, and true in some scenario like a Navy Seal in the most sophisticated camouflage that exists in 2024, waiting to murder someone from behind who has absolutely no idea they're about to die. They are the same fundamental power function.
No, dude, no matter how hard you pomo, having a private conversation is not "power dynamics". It's an ordinary human interaction, perhaps the most ordinary. You're starting with the conclusion and then biting even the most ridiculous bullets.
For a simple illustration: who has more power, me or the US government? It would be totally trivial for me to hide more information from the US government than the other way around, and it can't go both ways.
A lot of groupings operate openly but are coded 'secret society' as you have to be in the know to understand them and their influence. Think of the networks that develop at Davos. A great example of this is the Fabian Society in the UK pushing for social democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society
These groups create networks of soft social influence that can reshape the way politics works. Having a distant politician's personal number after having drinks at a society speaking event can change how you make decisions and enact policy with regard to that politician.
The secret aspects are shady but again work not a lot different than the open, except for the influence of blackmail. Organisations use hazing rituals to control who joins, and can release damaging stories about these rituals if displeased, e.g. David Cameron's famous Piers Gaveston Society ritual of sticking his genitals into a dead pig's head. That's what the Epstein case suggests, that child sex abuse videos and imagery can be used even more damagingly. Willingly giving over blackmail material creates strong in-group trust and again greases the gears of soft social influencing.
For what it's worth... the pig's head rumour is almost certainly false. The authors of that tale, Michael Ashcroft and Isabel Oakeshott, are known to publish slanderous material on political opponents. [No corroborating evidence has been produced to support the anecdote.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggate)
Similarly, the known examples in the Epstein case are of "procurement" and trafficking, rather than child sex abuse, etc. The wiki page is stuffed full of "allegedly", and similarly weasel-worded accusations.
So while it is true that there are groups with a strong informal influence on national and international finance politics unavailable to most, and as detailed in other responses in this thread, they do not require lurid Qanon-type scenarios to operate.
The Epstein case is defined by the conspicuous absence of evidence. The missing CCTV footage is the key to understanding the nature and scope of what Epstein was doing at his houses and on his islands. It's kompromat, a famous tool of intelligence services.
The idea that the Epstein case might be over hyped or not as important/influential as assumed is the true extraordinary claim. We know many of the people who were on the island. We know he filmed everything that happened on every square inch of his property, including the bathrooms. We know he trafficked underage girls to engage in prostitution.
The idea that without the CCTV footage we have to treat Gates and Clinton as innocent is not logical. Legally, sure, but as rational human beings we have to acknowledge that the evidence is overwhelming. We now have a window into the clandestine underbelly of high-level business and international affairs.
> conspicuous absence of evidence.
That is, there's no evidence. Calling it "conspicuous" is merely innuendo, not evidence in itself.
I'm not attempting to exonerate Epstein, who was clearing guilty of pimping, at the least. I'm pointing out that the allegations of videos or other evidence containing influential people in compromising (or worse) positions, and which might be used for blackmail, is not supported by the known evidence. It's not a legal position, but a factual one.
Your motivated reasoning is showing. Extensive CCTV systems with all the recordings removed is evidence of absence.
You have to explain what type of evidence would confirm to you that Epstein was collecting kompromat using the CCTV on his properties. Would you need to see the tapes? Would mainstream media sources need to review the tapes and confirm their contents? Would government officials need to confirm that they had seized the tapes and reviewed their contents?
For example, we know that the government have sealed the investigation files and not made the information public. We have numerous witnesses confirming the existence of the security cameras. Including the victims' lawyer: “I can tell you one thing,” he told Fox 11 LA’s TMZ Live. “I personally walked through Jeffrey Epstein’s home after the search warrant was executed and I identified numerous cameras and computer hard drives that were missing and a lot of that information was seized by the FBI not only in Palm Beach but also in Virgin Islands and Manhattan." [https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fbi-must-release-epstein-videos-130025127.html](https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fbi-must-release-epstein-videos-130025127.html)
You give several examples of what could count as evidence. The existence of security camera is not exceptional in properties as large as the ones in question.
To paraphrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of conspiracy....
Further, informal influential groups do not generally thrive if their members start blackmailing each other; blackmail and kompromat is for antagonistic entities.
I forgot to mention that you'd also have to call multiple witnesses liars. They said there were cameras even in the bathrooms. The CCTV system isn't unusual, what's unusual is the scale of criminality on the properties with long lists of famous names in attendance without any public information about the contents of the CCTV footage or confirmation of the tapes having been seized.
You're right about kompromat being antagonistic, but it's also a core aspect of hazing rituals for the development of strong in-group identity.
I would suggest that the influence of secret societies is between insignificant and nonexistent for the following reasons:
* Why bother? The fact that the name of one of the main sources of information about money in politics is [OpenSecrets.org](http://OpenSecrets.org) is telling: even when the information is openly available, most people still won't bother looking into it. There's not too much reason to worry about keeping the information secret at large; you'd have to have some specific group of people you're trying to keep it secret from.
* Logistics. Centers of power are diverse enough that even purely financial aspects are going to involve things ranging from political donations to funding research. And an academic crediting anonymous funding is not a common thing that happens. Outside of a narrow band of politics, this kind of shadowy benefactor thing is just viewed as weird, and so it would be very difficult to keep secret. (See also "why bother?": companies are more than happy to publicly fund research that they expect to be beneficial to their viewpoint.)
* Definitional. At a meta level, if we know about it, it no longer counts as secret. I don't see how anyone could give a positive answer to this question without immediately contradicting themselves about it being a secret.
But, to argue the other side:
* It's recently come out that the Chinese government is using TikTok to censor views they don't like through shadow-banning and refusing to let certain topics trend, mostly related to things like Tiananmen Square and positive portrayals of U.S. allies (especially Israel), and it seems likely that this has successfully influenced the viewpoints of the people most likely to use this platform, such as the campus left. (I say "recently come out" in the sense of confirmation, although it's been suspected for quite a while.) I wouldn't really call this a secret society, but if you want to then I'm willing to call it a terminological distinction.
* The NSA pushed through the inclusion of the algorithm Dual\_EC\_DRBG for random number generation in NIST standards, but security experts widely believe that it contains a backdoor that allows them to undermine the randomness. They then paid RSA to use the algorithm in RSA BSAFE (while RSA just publicly said they were a NIST approved algorithm without saying which one). Again, it's up to you whether this counts as a secret society.
I can imagine leaders of companies in a market with only a few major players conspiring to keep prices artificially high. That seems both logistically possible and profitable. Does it count as a "secret society"? maybe not, but I think OP would want to hear about it.
I recall that being in essence a prisoners' dilemma with a very high upside of a successful defection . Instead we have the rise of the discounters in the last 70 years.
If you mean a "deBeers and diamonds" sort of thing, then that's a special case. I don't consider diamonds a necessary good but more of a marker of "this person has more money than sense."
I'm not sure I agree that their is very high upside to deflection. When you defect you sell more volume at lower margin which may be more profitable... Until your competition all inevitably lower their prices too and now you'll have similar volume as before but lower margins
I should have said "potential upside".
The reason I say that is that there's more to it than just slashing prices. Presumably, you need to reconfigure systems and process to a lower price regime. That puts you in the lead and possibly raises the barrier to entry. That's WalMart in a nutshell.
It could well be that a static equilibrium amenable to price fixing is preferable but that is less likely. If you're simply wanting to milk the good then it makes more sense but that won't last, usually.
I'm not really taking into account the tendency towards higher price supporting external signalling , something that happens more and more with lifestyle goods. Something something Nike something.
Much depends on the nature of the good in question.
You should read Under the Eyes of Power, or the several chapters of Revolutionary Spring (well worth a read in its own right) that consider the role of secret societies in the revolutions of 1848.
The upshot of both is that:
- Contemporary conspiracy theories are rooted in, and modern elaborations, on the actual practices of a wide variety of secret societies that actually operated across Europe in the aftermath of the French Revolution.
- The actual effect those societies was, insofar as we can tell, extremely marginal except in three ways: they seized popular imagination and created a new genre of popular literature; they justified the development and rapid growth of a pseudo-pan-European secret police apparatus dedicated to rooting them out; they occasionally killed someone or otherwise directed or inspired a radical act that, if it produced any concrete results, they were of such a nature that they could not have predicted and had no control over.
A couple other comments:
- It's telling that the most successful ideological and political successors to the 19th century secret societies were, in fact, not secret. Groups like the Bolsheviks went to great pains to protect their leadership, but they were essentially public facing, having recognized that popular mobilization was crucial.
- There are actually existing parallels to hypothetical contemporary secret societies. Putschist governments, for instance, are neither able nor willing to operate in the way conspiracy theories would predict. They are too eager to legitimize the power, wealth, and status that they've seized. Likewise, the actual development of military dictatorships makes clear that the operation of power (even for notionally autocratic states) requires frequent, and often public or semi-public, bargaining of the sort that would make governance in any meaningful sense antithetical to a covert operation. Also, intra-elite competition is *very* real.
- The contemporary examples that most closely resemble these conspiratorial groups (CIA interference in foreign governments, the emergence of the current Russian kleptocracy, the Panama Papers, modern international gangs) make clear that, while it is possible obtain and move vast sums of money covertly, the tradeoffs between actual governance and any sort of secrecy is extremely sharp.
I know you want people to take this question seriously but what you're asking about is the fantastical expression of anxiety about modernization.
I get a kick out of the anxiety around freemasons. My dad is a freemason. My next door neighbour is a freemason lodge leader. Both in their 80s. It used to be pretty common club for middle-class men to belong to, back when belonging to clubs was normal. Mostly just dudes getting together and playing cards, doing charitable work for the community. My grandpa was a Shriner. Same thing.
I think it’s because participation in these sorts of civic organizations has fallen off a cliff that it’s easier for younger generations to regard them as dubious or sinister. We might say they were exclusionary or unrepresentative. Which is probably true. But the problem is we’ve abandoned them, but not replaced them with anything else. Unless you count posting to sub-reddits. Which is a pretty sad replacement for real-world civic engagement.
The masons are still extraordinary well represented in the US Army. “Masons looking out for masons” has helped countless promotions etc. if you look through DOD pictures (a formal part of a resume) you’ll see many mason rings prominently pictured. Recently they got rid of the DOD picture as a race-blind initiative and they dropped that policy in part because of pressure from masons who wanted to show off their rings. Check out r/army for double checking
Freemasonry today is a country club, but historically they wielded great power. Read about Muhammad Abduh and freemasonry in Egypt. Or even [freemasonry in liberia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_Order_of_Liberia), before 1980 they ran the country.
Because your dad is in the larp side of freemasonry. Ask [this guy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licio_Gelli?wprov=sfti1) whether freemasons don’t have any power. He might have a different response:
> Every morning I speak to my conscience and the dialogue calms me down. I look at the country, read the newspaper, and think: "All is becoming a reality little by little, piece by piece. To be truthful, I should have had the copyright to it. Justice, TV, public order. I wrote about this thirty years ago ... Berlusconi is an extraordinary man, a man of action. This is what Italy needs: not a man of words, but a man of action.
Berlusconi was in his lodge.
The Davos class does wield inordinate power, absolutely. But we aren't talking about secret societies, exactly, just highly exclusive groups of the wealthiest, most connected and powerful people in the world. It is true that the world tends to move in the direction they want, against the will of the electorate. But it's not exactly the illuminati
The tone of most of these posts is laughably wrong in my opinion. As an objective historical fact, a secret society started World War One.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_(Serbia)
As an objective historical fact, secret societies dictated the culture of most of Western Europe in the Cold War (explicitly Italy and Belgium but implicitly many others)
https://www.amazon.com/NATOs-Secret-Armies-Operation-Contemporary/dp/0714685003
As an objective historical fact, the US 2004 presidential election had both options members of
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones
Currently today there are many secret societies that have large and numerous positions of advocation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Old_Crows
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society
>The tone of most of these posts is laughably wrong in my opinion. As an objective historical fact, a secret society started World War One.
Agreed. Unfortunately this topic is undesirably coded, so I'm not surprised. I tried to pre-empt it in the description.
To demonstrate a significant influence of "secret" societies you mention, you would have to balance these "objective historical facts" against other historical influences at the time.
For one of your examples, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, it is widely accepted that WWI was caused by the culmination of geopolitical stresses between European powers at the time, not the singular act of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Broadly speaking, I believe in the [Iron Law of Oligarchy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy) Even in the absence of any coordinated, covert conspiracy, even in ostensibly democratic systems, power concentrates upwards.
That being said, fraternal secret societies (Masonic and otherwise) are experiencing an unprecedented waning in their manpower, clout, and capital. People under the age of 50 are rare, the leadership is reluctant to adapt, members are at a loss for how to appeal to modern young adults. Post-war social safety nets, the internet, and hobby subcultures have largely replaced the benefits of being a committed Mason.
If you're a Mason, you're surrounded by people who're fuzzy at best on how to operate a smartphone and whose political ambitions are mostly about who'll keep things personally comfortable for them as they retire. The exception are groups like the Knights of Columbus who draw from a demographic with pre-existing moral/cultural solidarity. Of course, they're not secret societies anymore than Boy Scouts of America.
Power isn't wielded by secret societies as much as institutions with converging interests, perverse incentives, and limited to no ability to be perceived/recalled by the public.
On the topic of resources, Todd McGowan [has a video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBBmQvztX-w) about how both secret societies and conspiracy theorists interact with the larger process of liberalism and how such systems tend towards totalitarianism. I also recommend *The Tyranny of Structurelessness* by Jo Freeman. Outside the scope of pure literature, Alan Moore's work is fixated on secret societies, but with a more investigative (or at least contemplative) lens.
secret societies a just clubs for (generally) rich white (WASPs) men as a hold over from the emerging bougoise class in enlightenment societies and salons that were forced underground by political (monarchal) or religious persecution in various contexts or moments (though it certainly isn't always the case that they were persecuted) e.g. the bavarian illuminati, free masons, various other groups in the french revolution etc. In China it is believe the Triads began in a similar context as a political group opposed to various dynasties.
Insofar as they are a force of political power (which is extremely rarely and largely marginal) it is as a vector for communication and organisation among elite classes from various sectors with coinciding interests (e.g. bildeberg group for post war neoliberalism or if you want to feel very conspiracy pilled, the P2 masonic lodge and the role the CIA played in drawing together the vatican, various Mafia and organised crime groups, and far-right and fascist political parties and extremists to counter the spread of labour and communist groups throughout europe during the cold war).
Politics and history is largely shaped by good old historical materialism, economic and social contigencies and so on. Connecting the dots between a mish mash of conspiracies without understanding the underlying economic mechanism that drives the union of interests within some classes and against others will end up leaving you with a paranoid and fraught understanding of the world.
Way more than most realize.
Take a look at the masonic lodge P2 in Italy, it wasn’t your mainstream freemason lodge (that would be the GOI, which is not secret) and it was precisely why it managed to be so influential.
For reference, Berlusconi was a P2 member and most of P2 “policies” are now law thanks to him and subsequent center-right or center-left governments. Even the party structure of the country almost shifted to what P2 wanted. In fact Gelli’s on record gloating from prison about how he basically won.
Not bad for a secret masonic lodge in a relatively small Mediterranean country who ultimately got caught. Now consider all the not-secret-but-actually-secret societies (think of the Bildenberg Group and plenty of others) or the ones we know nothing about which are presumably run by more powerful and more competent people than Gelli and co. Presumably some lobby groups also fall inside this category and they seem extremely effective to me.
Secret societies were a big deal during pre-ww2 'WASP denominated' America; nowadays, not as much. The Cold War and mass immigration and the rise of the meritocracy diluted the exclusivity and opened up the societies. Big tech is the closest thing to secret societies. Not only is it hard to get hired and those companies are very exclusive, but they also impart a lot of power politically and economically and also enforce secrecy with NDAs and other restrictions disallowing employees from talking to the public. This is why you never see current 'big tech' employees give interviews on youtube or podcasts.
As a member of the Trilateral Commission, I assure you it’s more LARP than bite. Mostly we argue about what to argue about. It’s been years since there was any serious attempt to impact world events. Supposedly it used to be that way but like so many institutions we’ve become paralyzed by obsessing over how paralyzed we are. Not sure it’s the same everywhere but friends in the Illuminati say much the same.
Probably they’re not in the right lodge. Take a look at the lodge P2 in Italy, it wasn’t your mainstream freemason lodge (that would be the GOI) and it was precisely why it managed to be so influential.
For reference, Berlusconi was a P2 member and most of P2 “policies” are now law thanks to him and subsequent center-right or center-left governments. Even the party structure of the country almost shifted to what P2 wanted. In fact Gelli’s on record gloating from prison about he basically won.
As a 'member' of the Trilateral Commission, you must have some great stories from the last meeting, right? Or were you busy that day... pretending to be in it? By the way, my job there is advocating for stay-at-home mothers.
Well, a lot of the Founding Fathers of the US did happen to be Freemasons. But I think most of the "secret" part of "secret society" these days is mostly just a version of LARPing for rich white guys. Private country clubs with golf courses sometimes end up doing much the same thing.
There are organizations that aren't particularly secret, but kind of are: Rockbridge and the [Council for National Policy](https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cnp_redacted_final.pdf), to name two GOP-linked ones.
So you and your friends chat, go to parties, and have group messages. Super rich people do the same thing but when they do it can change global politics, economy, etc… because they are so powerful.
Its also worth not over-assigning their significance. Think about how you interact at parties and group messages. Its less like a shadow council and more like like-minded people who occasionally agree on some things but are mostly dramatic and jealous of each other and concerned with if their outfit is embarrassing. There is a mental trap that some people fall into seeing the global bourgeoise, CIA spies, Jewish conspiracy, the climate communists, etc… as being responsible for all the bad things an turning everyone against you. The actual effectiveness of things like the Rothschild family are more narrow and less effective than most conspiracy theorists give credit. And when rich powerful people do things its usually not secret because they hire other people to do like with the Gates Foundation. The things a cabal of rich people can get away with doing secretly are usually limited in scope to coups and drafting laws.
Clandestine LSD labs and distribution networks have a lot of impact on society. They make millions of doses of a chemical that can cause people to deeply question the existing power structures. There are some interesting documentaries on this subject such as Orange Sunshine.
I also think there are hidden subsets of existing public societies that wield a lot of power. For instance, you could have a fraternity that has a secret small group that is hidden from the other members. Then you have things like the Varsity Blues college admission scandal where people secretly conspired to influence admissions decisions (so people that appear to be just university employees were also part of a hidden society).
The historical Illuminati were liberals and feminists in a Catholic monarchy where liberalism and feminism were illegal.
Since the 19th century or so, Freemasonry has been more influential in Mexican politics than US politics; especially around anticlericalism.
I think useful knowledge of the power of secret societies is some of the most inaccessible and inscrutable knowledge one could pursue. The more conspiratorial the secret society, the more obfuscated their role would likely be.
considering how often the smartest of us get wrong much more accessible knowledge, I doubt if anything productive can come of this.
I wonder if powerful secret societies have have declined alongside public societies, clubs, and associations. Those were very big in the late 1800s, and my vibes are they steadily fell away beginning in the 1940's.
Secret societies serve as a way for elites to meet with each other and coordinate their plans. There are many but since most only contain a fragment of the elite population, it would be hard to say which one is the most influential. The most significant gathering of elites is probably something like the yearly World Economic Forum gathering in Switzerland.
Some rarely mentioned influential groups that come to mind:
-the mega group (Jewish businessmen)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_Group_(Jewish_group)
-the fellowship (American Christian politicians)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization)
-kappa beta phi (Wall Street businessmen)
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/02/i-crashed-a-wall-street-secret-society.html
I think the belief is secret societies is a facet of the basic cognitive failure of human beings. We seek explanations for everything, and the easiest, least informed form of explanation is that there is some cabal or rational order behind events. It replaces the need for thought or understanding about how the world actually operates.
Tom Stoppard and the Cohen Bros are among the best artists when it comes to depicting human delusions about there being rational plans behind human events. Four people can't usually keep a secret; three are often unable to implement a conspiracy.
Ben Franklin was a Freemason. It appears it worked as a networking group (thus influential) during the relevant time period. Proving any actual planned conspiracies or that they happened ... seems difficult. However, I think any political conspiracies with masonic elements were of similar scale than any regular corrupt political dealings (appointments of government officers, bribes, whatnot), nothingburgers in the flow of history.
Of course, there are the rare cases that were not nothingburgers, but more like a secret society involving a foreign military intelligence agent [organizing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand) an assassination of a political leader. But I presume most of the truly important conspiracies get revealed because people talk and get arrested and then talk, if they do something truly important.
But I am thinking 19th/20th/early 21th century here. Recently, who knows. It requires time for conspiracies to be become unveiled. Modern communications technology gives more possibilities for conspiracies to happen, but also unveil them (think of Snowden or Panama papers). But it makes it easier to delete paper trail that could reveal a past conspiracy to historians because someone forgot to burn important papers before they died.
Update: I think [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1drfqrb/the_role_of_secret_societies_in_the_world_of_power/lavfo6a/) and [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1drfqrb/the_role_of_secret_societies_in_the_world_of_power/lawa94f/) are notable comments.
[this](https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1drfqrb/the_role_of_secret_societies_in_the_world_of_power/law3g7d/) comment about P2 was interesting, and (of course) Italy is famous for its organized crime networks and Operation Gladio and such. On the other hand, [Licio Gelli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licio_Gelli) sounds like a guy who would like to ham it up, especially after they got caught. Also, it is Italy. By law of narrative karma I would not be surprised that Italy is "ruled" by nefarious secret societies fighting it out meanwhile Sweden used to be ruled by official top of the state apparatus, prime minister and social democrat party officials occasionally drinking kaffe with Wallenbergs and not telling state secrets in public (like successfully setting up, running and then shutting down a [nuclear weapons programme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program) .)
Any actual answer to this question is, of course, secret, but there are several points to consider:
- Organized minorities have an enormous advantage over disorganized majorities.
- Power accrues where it is most firmly pulled, which only imperfectly maps to where it is formally granted.
- Formal processes largely exist to ratify informal negotiations; nothing important is left to public scrutiny.
- It is easy to keep an open secret, but harder to hide a conspiracy.
- Power that no-one recognizes is not power. He who must say “I am the King” is no king.
The above points suggest the following: that the world of power is dominated by small groups of elites working outside the view of the public; that these groups mainly operate informally, but are in close proximity to formal decisionmakers at all times; that they have existed in some form for a very long time, and the formal and informal governing systems have been increasingly bending their way for as long as they’ve existed; and that these organizations and individuals are likely hidden in plain sight.
To me, this suggests that if secret societies influence world affairs, it is not as autonomous organizations with their own interests, but as vehicles for existing and aspiring elites to congregate and network. This is because power aims to keep its operations and deliberations secret, but wants its authority recognized; a secret society with this much power would therefore no longer aim to remain secret, but would want to make its presence felt. The men controlling such a society would also be unlikely to remain hidden; they may not actively seek the spotlight, but they would want it known that they are men of authority who ought to be listened to. It is also extremely unlikely that elites powerful enough to control a society of this nature would only exert influence through it - it is far more likely that they would use their informal influence to gain formal power and wealth, and that they would prioritize their most wealth and power generating enterprises over the society itself. Thus, if the society remained secret, it would decline in importance; if it remained important, then it would not be secret, but would seek to entrench itself in formal and visible ways.
Another corollary of the above list is that formal structures are vehicles for informal powers, which means that a secret society will only be secret and important for as long as its elites primarily gain from it. If its leaders truly control domestic and international affairs, then the organization itself becomes superfluous, since they will already have considerable formal power, an existing network of relationships they can call on to exercise it, their own methods to keep their activities secret, and the ability to devise their own rules and institutions should they require it. Informal conversations between allies will benefit them, but a hierarchical organization will not; think tanks, industry events, and yearly gatherings will serve their interests in inter-elite networking, and the institutions under their direct control will serve their interests in the generation of wealth and power, leaving little room for such an intrusive conspiracy to capture their interest for long. Given the fact that the public at large is already highly suspicious of secret societies, these men would also incur needless reputational liabilities by emphasizing their formal association with an organization of this kind; elites close enough to conspire will therefore have every reason to either keep this collusion informal and ad hoc, or to hide it in plain sight and formally legitimize it.
Finally, much is made of the fact that conspiracies which grow too large cannot be hidden; while this is true, open secrets exist in all industries and mid sized groups. It is certainly possible that organizations of this kind could exist, be widely known among a select group of elites, but not known to the public except by rumor and speculation. However, it is unlikely that the organizations themselves would usurp the power and influence of their most prominent members, meaning that the secret society hypothesis simply collapses into an influential oligarch hypothesis, which is an obvious fact and not a secret at all.
the role of secret societies are in origin for initiations of novices within the society through different stages of sexuality, individuation and most importantly spirituality. rest are just reflections of this original ordeal.
I don't think formalized secret societies (such as the Freemasons or historical Illuminati) are likely to hold much power. However, private groups between business associates or politicians with similar interests probably wield tremendous power. These aren't exactly cloak-and-dagger secret societies, but their "membership" would be exclusive and their dealings would be not open to scrutiny.
Yeah the big conspiracies are wrong but there is a ton of power in less exciting things like a WhatsApp hedge fund manager group chat.
How are you supposed to make an Eyes Wide Shut sort of movie out of that? Very discourteous of them to give us so little to dramatize.
Similar is the [phenomenon outlined by C. S. Lewis](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Y8rEA4e4DxafmeAbW/the-inner-ring-by-c-s-lewis).
Thanks for sharing this. This part in particular reminded me of the idea of how class systems work as outlined by Pierre Bourdieu: > "[The rulebook of an influential network] is not printed anywhere. Nor is it even a formally organised secret society with officers and rules which you would be told after you had been admitted. You are never formally and explicitly admitted by anyone. You discover gradually, in almost indefinable ways, that it exists and that you are outside it; and then later, perhaps, that you are inside it. > > "There are what correspond to passwords, but they are too spontaneous and informal. A particular slang, the use of particular nicknames, an allusive manner of conversation, are the marks. But it is not so constant. It is not easy, even at a given moment, to say who is inside and who is outside. Some people are obviously in and some are obviously out, but there are always several on the borderline." The main work by Bourdieu - [Distinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_(book)) - is excessively verbose and convoluted as books from French philosophers and intellectuals often are. But the idea is that people in different classes (or networks, societies, groups) mark their membership by collecting and displaying particular forms of economic, social and cultural capital. As an example from Britain (as that's where I'm from, so can give an example), the Conservative political elite typically accrue or inherit wealth, they become members at particular clubs or societies (such as the [Carlton Club](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlton_Club)), and in most cases are educated at Oxford where they join the [Oxford Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Union) and [OUCA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Conservative_Association). These almost then become pre-requisites for being part of the influential group - meaning you don't have to have all of them, but having a good mix will mean that you are identified as part of an unwritten group or at least have potential to be in the group.
Another example from the US, for conservative jurists, is the Federalist Society.
Interesting. One credit to the US is that in some ways elites come from a wider mould. The UK's past five Prime Ministers: - All studied at Oxford - and throughout history, 30 of the 57 PMs also studied at Oxford. - Three studied the same course, ([PPE](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy,_politics_and_economics&diffonly=true)). - Two studied at the same high school (Eton) and were simultaneously members of the same infamous Oxford dining club, ([The Bullingdon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club) - which also had the former chancellor George Osborn in at the time when Cameron and Johnson were there). Eton alone counts 20 of the 57 Prime Ministers as alumni. - One was President of the Oxford Union (Johnson) while another (May) ended up marrying a former President who she met while a member there. - Many senior Conservative MPs and cabinet members follow exactly the same mould.
Fun fact, Bill Clinton studied PPE for a bit, but didn't finish. (He already had a BA though, don't know the details.) But yeah, I would assume your situation is owing to the whole class system thing.
Curiously enough, the "class system thing" doesn't quite account for the over-representation of Eton and Oxford alumni among UK prime ministers. For example, since ~WWII there is only one UK prime minister who attended the equally prestigious Cambridge University, Stanley Baldwin (PM in 1935-1937). (Cambridge on the the other hand, has many more Nobel prize winners than Oxford) It's almost certainly accountable by network effects, in that influential people are more likely to assist the rise of people they know than those they don't, rather than any kind of "secret society" collusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_education
Ha, I haven't seen this many capitalized "Rings" since reading Tolkien. I didn't find the article very relatable, I feel I largely outgrew this desire Lewis is talking about at around the age of 15. So his claims as to the phenomenon's universality look like hyperbole to my eyes. I did appreciate the speculation on people being sexually promiscuous to appear "initiated" as part of an argument that these "Rings" are actually a deeper desire than the reproductive impulse. Still it doesn't feel at all descriptive of my experience, at least as an adult.
Yup. It’s not the Illuminati, it’s the Harvard Business School class of X.
"it was not uncommon to hear that the mafia didn’t exist". In this sense the mafia was a powerful secret society. https://blogs.bl.uk/european/2018/10/the-mafia-doesnt-exist.html
Secret societies are usually organizations of the powerless. They’re secret because they’re afraid the real power in society will squash them if they were discovered; and they generally prey on the even less powerful. Criminal gangs, cults and so on comprise most secret societies. The super rich are not a secret society per se. The rich band together in their self interest and exercise power through their wallet.
Yeah, organizations such as the Freemasons originally had to be secret so the aristocracy wouldn't crack down on them - they often started out as illegal trade guilds. It was the overall transfer of power away from the landlord (slash warlord) class and toward the merchant/business class that gave members of "secret societies" power to begin with. Their original role is now taken by organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce.
> Secret societies are usually organizations of the powerless. This is like saying Ted Bundy's use of a sling to feign injury in an attempt to lower the guard of the women he would rape and kill, was a function of his powerlessness. The exact opposite is true: Secrecy, and camouflage are a function of power, not of weakness.
Your analogy is incorrect. By definition, if one cannot overpower someone’s guard, they are not powerful enough.
> By definition, if one cannot overpower someone’s guard, they are not powerful enough. The whole point of the secrecy *is* to overpower someone's guard. Secrecy is a function of power, not weakness. You seem to think power is something overt or minimalist. If you can't win the tennis match without resorting to drop-shots or misdirecting your opponent, then you're just not a very good tennis player who wouldn't have to resort to these things, according to what you're trying to say.
>Secrecy, and camouflage are a function of power, not of weakness. So when I have a secret conversation with my buddy, that's a function of my power?
That's right. When you play hide and seek for fun, you're expressing something that meaningfully represents power, yes. These are power dynamics. That fact that we can create the most superficial or virtual expressions of these things, does not diminish them. Secrets are forms of power because it says on some level, "Sorry pal, need to know basis, and I'm the one who decides if you need to know". This is true in the most literal sense of simply withholding information, and true in some scenario like a Navy Seal in the most sophisticated camouflage that exists in 2024, waiting to murder someone from behind who has absolutely no idea they're about to die. They are the same fundamental power function.
No, dude, no matter how hard you pomo, having a private conversation is not "power dynamics". It's an ordinary human interaction, perhaps the most ordinary. You're starting with the conclusion and then biting even the most ridiculous bullets. For a simple illustration: who has more power, me or the US government? It would be totally trivial for me to hide more information from the US government than the other way around, and it can't go both ways.
Things are not static and some built-up secret societies might be near parity but haven’t opened the curtains yet.
A lot of groupings operate openly but are coded 'secret society' as you have to be in the know to understand them and their influence. Think of the networks that develop at Davos. A great example of this is the Fabian Society in the UK pushing for social democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society These groups create networks of soft social influence that can reshape the way politics works. Having a distant politician's personal number after having drinks at a society speaking event can change how you make decisions and enact policy with regard to that politician. The secret aspects are shady but again work not a lot different than the open, except for the influence of blackmail. Organisations use hazing rituals to control who joins, and can release damaging stories about these rituals if displeased, e.g. David Cameron's famous Piers Gaveston Society ritual of sticking his genitals into a dead pig's head. That's what the Epstein case suggests, that child sex abuse videos and imagery can be used even more damagingly. Willingly giving over blackmail material creates strong in-group trust and again greases the gears of soft social influencing.
For what it's worth... the pig's head rumour is almost certainly false. The authors of that tale, Michael Ashcroft and Isabel Oakeshott, are known to publish slanderous material on political opponents. [No corroborating evidence has been produced to support the anecdote.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggate) Similarly, the known examples in the Epstein case are of "procurement" and trafficking, rather than child sex abuse, etc. The wiki page is stuffed full of "allegedly", and similarly weasel-worded accusations. So while it is true that there are groups with a strong informal influence on national and international finance politics unavailable to most, and as detailed in other responses in this thread, they do not require lurid Qanon-type scenarios to operate.
The Epstein case is defined by the conspicuous absence of evidence. The missing CCTV footage is the key to understanding the nature and scope of what Epstein was doing at his houses and on his islands. It's kompromat, a famous tool of intelligence services. The idea that the Epstein case might be over hyped or not as important/influential as assumed is the true extraordinary claim. We know many of the people who were on the island. We know he filmed everything that happened on every square inch of his property, including the bathrooms. We know he trafficked underage girls to engage in prostitution. The idea that without the CCTV footage we have to treat Gates and Clinton as innocent is not logical. Legally, sure, but as rational human beings we have to acknowledge that the evidence is overwhelming. We now have a window into the clandestine underbelly of high-level business and international affairs.
> conspicuous absence of evidence. That is, there's no evidence. Calling it "conspicuous" is merely innuendo, not evidence in itself. I'm not attempting to exonerate Epstein, who was clearing guilty of pimping, at the least. I'm pointing out that the allegations of videos or other evidence containing influential people in compromising (or worse) positions, and which might be used for blackmail, is not supported by the known evidence. It's not a legal position, but a factual one.
Your motivated reasoning is showing. Extensive CCTV systems with all the recordings removed is evidence of absence. You have to explain what type of evidence would confirm to you that Epstein was collecting kompromat using the CCTV on his properties. Would you need to see the tapes? Would mainstream media sources need to review the tapes and confirm their contents? Would government officials need to confirm that they had seized the tapes and reviewed their contents? For example, we know that the government have sealed the investigation files and not made the information public. We have numerous witnesses confirming the existence of the security cameras. Including the victims' lawyer: “I can tell you one thing,” he told Fox 11 LA’s TMZ Live. “I personally walked through Jeffrey Epstein’s home after the search warrant was executed and I identified numerous cameras and computer hard drives that were missing and a lot of that information was seized by the FBI not only in Palm Beach but also in Virgin Islands and Manhattan." [https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fbi-must-release-epstein-videos-130025127.html](https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fbi-must-release-epstein-videos-130025127.html)
You give several examples of what could count as evidence. The existence of security camera is not exceptional in properties as large as the ones in question. To paraphrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of conspiracy.... Further, informal influential groups do not generally thrive if their members start blackmailing each other; blackmail and kompromat is for antagonistic entities.
I forgot to mention that you'd also have to call multiple witnesses liars. They said there were cameras even in the bathrooms. The CCTV system isn't unusual, what's unusual is the scale of criminality on the properties with long lists of famous names in attendance without any public information about the contents of the CCTV footage or confirmation of the tapes having been seized. You're right about kompromat being antagonistic, but it's also a core aspect of hazing rituals for the development of strong in-group identity.
I would suggest that the influence of secret societies is between insignificant and nonexistent for the following reasons: * Why bother? The fact that the name of one of the main sources of information about money in politics is [OpenSecrets.org](http://OpenSecrets.org) is telling: even when the information is openly available, most people still won't bother looking into it. There's not too much reason to worry about keeping the information secret at large; you'd have to have some specific group of people you're trying to keep it secret from. * Logistics. Centers of power are diverse enough that even purely financial aspects are going to involve things ranging from political donations to funding research. And an academic crediting anonymous funding is not a common thing that happens. Outside of a narrow band of politics, this kind of shadowy benefactor thing is just viewed as weird, and so it would be very difficult to keep secret. (See also "why bother?": companies are more than happy to publicly fund research that they expect to be beneficial to their viewpoint.) * Definitional. At a meta level, if we know about it, it no longer counts as secret. I don't see how anyone could give a positive answer to this question without immediately contradicting themselves about it being a secret. But, to argue the other side: * It's recently come out that the Chinese government is using TikTok to censor views they don't like through shadow-banning and refusing to let certain topics trend, mostly related to things like Tiananmen Square and positive portrayals of U.S. allies (especially Israel), and it seems likely that this has successfully influenced the viewpoints of the people most likely to use this platform, such as the campus left. (I say "recently come out" in the sense of confirmation, although it's been suspected for quite a while.) I wouldn't really call this a secret society, but if you want to then I'm willing to call it a terminological distinction. * The NSA pushed through the inclusion of the algorithm Dual\_EC\_DRBG for random number generation in NIST standards, but security experts widely believe that it contains a backdoor that allows them to undermine the randomness. They then paid RSA to use the algorithm in RSA BSAFE (while RSA just publicly said they were a NIST approved algorithm without saying which one). Again, it's up to you whether this counts as a secret society.
I can imagine leaders of companies in a market with only a few major players conspiring to keep prices artificially high. That seems both logistically possible and profitable. Does it count as a "secret society"? maybe not, but I think OP would want to hear about it.
I recall that being in essence a prisoners' dilemma with a very high upside of a successful defection . Instead we have the rise of the discounters in the last 70 years. If you mean a "deBeers and diamonds" sort of thing, then that's a special case. I don't consider diamonds a necessary good but more of a marker of "this person has more money than sense."
I'm not sure I agree that their is very high upside to deflection. When you defect you sell more volume at lower margin which may be more profitable... Until your competition all inevitably lower their prices too and now you'll have similar volume as before but lower margins
I should have said "potential upside". The reason I say that is that there's more to it than just slashing prices. Presumably, you need to reconfigure systems and process to a lower price regime. That puts you in the lead and possibly raises the barrier to entry. That's WalMart in a nutshell. It could well be that a static equilibrium amenable to price fixing is preferable but that is less likely. If you're simply wanting to milk the good then it makes more sense but that won't last, usually. I'm not really taking into account the tendency towards higher price supporting external signalling , something that happens more and more with lifestyle goods. Something something Nike something. Much depends on the nature of the good in question.
You should read Under the Eyes of Power, or the several chapters of Revolutionary Spring (well worth a read in its own right) that consider the role of secret societies in the revolutions of 1848. The upshot of both is that: - Contemporary conspiracy theories are rooted in, and modern elaborations, on the actual practices of a wide variety of secret societies that actually operated across Europe in the aftermath of the French Revolution. - The actual effect those societies was, insofar as we can tell, extremely marginal except in three ways: they seized popular imagination and created a new genre of popular literature; they justified the development and rapid growth of a pseudo-pan-European secret police apparatus dedicated to rooting them out; they occasionally killed someone or otherwise directed or inspired a radical act that, if it produced any concrete results, they were of such a nature that they could not have predicted and had no control over. A couple other comments: - It's telling that the most successful ideological and political successors to the 19th century secret societies were, in fact, not secret. Groups like the Bolsheviks went to great pains to protect their leadership, but they were essentially public facing, having recognized that popular mobilization was crucial. - There are actually existing parallels to hypothetical contemporary secret societies. Putschist governments, for instance, are neither able nor willing to operate in the way conspiracy theories would predict. They are too eager to legitimize the power, wealth, and status that they've seized. Likewise, the actual development of military dictatorships makes clear that the operation of power (even for notionally autocratic states) requires frequent, and often public or semi-public, bargaining of the sort that would make governance in any meaningful sense antithetical to a covert operation. Also, intra-elite competition is *very* real. - The contemporary examples that most closely resemble these conspiratorial groups (CIA interference in foreign governments, the emergence of the current Russian kleptocracy, the Panama Papers, modern international gangs) make clear that, while it is possible obtain and move vast sums of money covertly, the tradeoffs between actual governance and any sort of secrecy is extremely sharp. I know you want people to take this question seriously but what you're asking about is the fantastical expression of anxiety about modernization.
I get a kick out of the anxiety around freemasons. My dad is a freemason. My next door neighbour is a freemason lodge leader. Both in their 80s. It used to be pretty common club for middle-class men to belong to, back when belonging to clubs was normal. Mostly just dudes getting together and playing cards, doing charitable work for the community. My grandpa was a Shriner. Same thing. I think it’s because participation in these sorts of civic organizations has fallen off a cliff that it’s easier for younger generations to regard them as dubious or sinister. We might say they were exclusionary or unrepresentative. Which is probably true. But the problem is we’ve abandoned them, but not replaced them with anything else. Unless you count posting to sub-reddits. Which is a pretty sad replacement for real-world civic engagement.
The masons are still extraordinary well represented in the US Army. “Masons looking out for masons” has helped countless promotions etc. if you look through DOD pictures (a formal part of a resume) you’ll see many mason rings prominently pictured. Recently they got rid of the DOD picture as a race-blind initiative and they dropped that policy in part because of pressure from masons who wanted to show off their rings. Check out r/army for double checking
Freemasonry today is a country club, but historically they wielded great power. Read about Muhammad Abduh and freemasonry in Egypt. Or even [freemasonry in liberia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masonic_Order_of_Liberia), before 1980 they ran the country.
Both were from within power vacuums, right? In the absence of strong institutions, an informal institution may take on aspects of formal institutions.
Because your dad is in the larp side of freemasonry. Ask [this guy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licio_Gelli?wprov=sfti1) whether freemasons don’t have any power. He might have a different response: > Every morning I speak to my conscience and the dialogue calms me down. I look at the country, read the newspaper, and think: "All is becoming a reality little by little, piece by piece. To be truthful, I should have had the copyright to it. Justice, TV, public order. I wrote about this thirty years ago ... Berlusconi is an extraordinary man, a man of action. This is what Italy needs: not a man of words, but a man of action. Berlusconi was in his lodge.
The Davos class does wield inordinate power, absolutely. But we aren't talking about secret societies, exactly, just highly exclusive groups of the wealthiest, most connected and powerful people in the world. It is true that the world tends to move in the direction they want, against the will of the electorate. But it's not exactly the illuminati
The tone of most of these posts is laughably wrong in my opinion. As an objective historical fact, a secret society started World War One. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hand_(Serbia) As an objective historical fact, secret societies dictated the culture of most of Western Europe in the Cold War (explicitly Italy and Belgium but implicitly many others) https://www.amazon.com/NATOs-Secret-Armies-Operation-Contemporary/dp/0714685003 As an objective historical fact, the US 2004 presidential election had both options members of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skull_and_Bones Currently today there are many secret societies that have large and numerous positions of advocation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Old_Crows https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society
I'm curious what your argument is for the Federalist Society being a "secret" society since pretty much everyone knows exactly what it is.
>The tone of most of these posts is laughably wrong in my opinion. As an objective historical fact, a secret society started World War One. Agreed. Unfortunately this topic is undesirably coded, so I'm not surprised. I tried to pre-empt it in the description.
Joel van der Riejden is the man. https://isgp-studies.com/pilgrims-society-us-uk
To demonstrate a significant influence of "secret" societies you mention, you would have to balance these "objective historical facts" against other historical influences at the time. For one of your examples, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, it is widely accepted that WWI was caused by the culmination of geopolitical stresses between European powers at the time, not the singular act of the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Broadly speaking, I believe in the [Iron Law of Oligarchy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy) Even in the absence of any coordinated, covert conspiracy, even in ostensibly democratic systems, power concentrates upwards. That being said, fraternal secret societies (Masonic and otherwise) are experiencing an unprecedented waning in their manpower, clout, and capital. People under the age of 50 are rare, the leadership is reluctant to adapt, members are at a loss for how to appeal to modern young adults. Post-war social safety nets, the internet, and hobby subcultures have largely replaced the benefits of being a committed Mason. If you're a Mason, you're surrounded by people who're fuzzy at best on how to operate a smartphone and whose political ambitions are mostly about who'll keep things personally comfortable for them as they retire. The exception are groups like the Knights of Columbus who draw from a demographic with pre-existing moral/cultural solidarity. Of course, they're not secret societies anymore than Boy Scouts of America. Power isn't wielded by secret societies as much as institutions with converging interests, perverse incentives, and limited to no ability to be perceived/recalled by the public. On the topic of resources, Todd McGowan [has a video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBBmQvztX-w) about how both secret societies and conspiracy theorists interact with the larger process of liberalism and how such systems tend towards totalitarianism. I also recommend *The Tyranny of Structurelessness* by Jo Freeman. Outside the scope of pure literature, Alan Moore's work is fixated on secret societies, but with a more investigative (or at least contemplative) lens.
secret societies a just clubs for (generally) rich white (WASPs) men as a hold over from the emerging bougoise class in enlightenment societies and salons that were forced underground by political (monarchal) or religious persecution in various contexts or moments (though it certainly isn't always the case that they were persecuted) e.g. the bavarian illuminati, free masons, various other groups in the french revolution etc. In China it is believe the Triads began in a similar context as a political group opposed to various dynasties. Insofar as they are a force of political power (which is extremely rarely and largely marginal) it is as a vector for communication and organisation among elite classes from various sectors with coinciding interests (e.g. bildeberg group for post war neoliberalism or if you want to feel very conspiracy pilled, the P2 masonic lodge and the role the CIA played in drawing together the vatican, various Mafia and organised crime groups, and far-right and fascist political parties and extremists to counter the spread of labour and communist groups throughout europe during the cold war). Politics and history is largely shaped by good old historical materialism, economic and social contigencies and so on. Connecting the dots between a mish mash of conspiracies without understanding the underlying economic mechanism that drives the union of interests within some classes and against others will end up leaving you with a paranoid and fraught understanding of the world.
Said paranoid fraughtery can be remedied, or at least made vastly more tolerable, by consuming the works of Robert Anton Wilson.
Way more than most realize. Take a look at the masonic lodge P2 in Italy, it wasn’t your mainstream freemason lodge (that would be the GOI, which is not secret) and it was precisely why it managed to be so influential. For reference, Berlusconi was a P2 member and most of P2 “policies” are now law thanks to him and subsequent center-right or center-left governments. Even the party structure of the country almost shifted to what P2 wanted. In fact Gelli’s on record gloating from prison about how he basically won. Not bad for a secret masonic lodge in a relatively small Mediterranean country who ultimately got caught. Now consider all the not-secret-but-actually-secret societies (think of the Bildenberg Group and plenty of others) or the ones we know nothing about which are presumably run by more powerful and more competent people than Gelli and co. Presumably some lobby groups also fall inside this category and they seem extremely effective to me.
Secret societies were a big deal during pre-ww2 'WASP denominated' America; nowadays, not as much. The Cold War and mass immigration and the rise of the meritocracy diluted the exclusivity and opened up the societies. Big tech is the closest thing to secret societies. Not only is it hard to get hired and those companies are very exclusive, but they also impart a lot of power politically and economically and also enforce secrecy with NDAs and other restrictions disallowing employees from talking to the public. This is why you never see current 'big tech' employees give interviews on youtube or podcasts.
As a member of the Trilateral Commission, I assure you it’s more LARP than bite. Mostly we argue about what to argue about. It’s been years since there was any serious attempt to impact world events. Supposedly it used to be that way but like so many institutions we’ve become paralyzed by obsessing over how paralyzed we are. Not sure it’s the same everywhere but friends in the Illuminati say much the same.
Friends in the freemasons tell me the same. All LARP and helping out a mate here and there with small stuff (no more than in normal networking).
Is it silly to think that higher level people help each other out with higher level problems, in this or other secret societies?
Probably they’re not in the right lodge. Take a look at the lodge P2 in Italy, it wasn’t your mainstream freemason lodge (that would be the GOI) and it was precisely why it managed to be so influential. For reference, Berlusconi was a P2 member and most of P2 “policies” are now law thanks to him and subsequent center-right or center-left governments. Even the party structure of the country almost shifted to what P2 wanted. In fact Gelli’s on record gloating from prison about he basically won.
As a 'member' of the Trilateral Commission, you must have some great stories from the last meeting, right? Or were you busy that day... pretending to be in it? By the way, my job there is advocating for stay-at-home mothers.
Well, a lot of the Founding Fathers of the US did happen to be Freemasons. But I think most of the "secret" part of "secret society" these days is mostly just a version of LARPing for rich white guys. Private country clubs with golf courses sometimes end up doing much the same thing.
Perhaps the secret societies of yesteryear. But are there different secret societies today that are the equivalent of what the freemasons were?
If there were, I probably wouldn't know about them. ;)
I don't think such secret societies were "unknown", but the extent of their power was.
There are organizations that aren't particularly secret, but kind of are: Rockbridge and the [Council for National Policy](https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cnp_redacted_final.pdf), to name two GOP-linked ones.
So you and your friends chat, go to parties, and have group messages. Super rich people do the same thing but when they do it can change global politics, economy, etc… because they are so powerful. Its also worth not over-assigning their significance. Think about how you interact at parties and group messages. Its less like a shadow council and more like like-minded people who occasionally agree on some things but are mostly dramatic and jealous of each other and concerned with if their outfit is embarrassing. There is a mental trap that some people fall into seeing the global bourgeoise, CIA spies, Jewish conspiracy, the climate communists, etc… as being responsible for all the bad things an turning everyone against you. The actual effectiveness of things like the Rothschild family are more narrow and less effective than most conspiracy theorists give credit. And when rich powerful people do things its usually not secret because they hire other people to do like with the Gates Foundation. The things a cabal of rich people can get away with doing secretly are usually limited in scope to coups and drafting laws.
Clandestine LSD labs and distribution networks have a lot of impact on society. They make millions of doses of a chemical that can cause people to deeply question the existing power structures. There are some interesting documentaries on this subject such as Orange Sunshine. I also think there are hidden subsets of existing public societies that wield a lot of power. For instance, you could have a fraternity that has a secret small group that is hidden from the other members. Then you have things like the Varsity Blues college admission scandal where people secretly conspired to influence admissions decisions (so people that appear to be just university employees were also part of a hidden society).
The historical Illuminati were liberals and feminists in a Catholic monarchy where liberalism and feminism were illegal. Since the 19th century or so, Freemasonry has been more influential in Mexican politics than US politics; especially around anticlericalism.
I think useful knowledge of the power of secret societies is some of the most inaccessible and inscrutable knowledge one could pursue. The more conspiratorial the secret society, the more obfuscated their role would likely be. considering how often the smartest of us get wrong much more accessible knowledge, I doubt if anything productive can come of this.
That figures, but felt it was worth a try.
I wonder if powerful secret societies have have declined alongside public societies, clubs, and associations. Those were very big in the late 1800s, and my vibes are they steadily fell away beginning in the 1940's.
I believe the Freemasons held a lot of power in the immediately-post-independence U.S., but are nothing like that anymore nowadays.
Secret societies serve as a way for elites to meet with each other and coordinate their plans. There are many but since most only contain a fragment of the elite population, it would be hard to say which one is the most influential. The most significant gathering of elites is probably something like the yearly World Economic Forum gathering in Switzerland. Some rarely mentioned influential groups that come to mind: -the mega group (Jewish businessmen) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_Group_(Jewish_group) -the fellowship (American Christian politicians) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_(Christian_organization) -kappa beta phi (Wall Street businessmen) https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2014/02/i-crashed-a-wall-street-secret-society.html
I think the belief is secret societies is a facet of the basic cognitive failure of human beings. We seek explanations for everything, and the easiest, least informed form of explanation is that there is some cabal or rational order behind events. It replaces the need for thought or understanding about how the world actually operates. Tom Stoppard and the Cohen Bros are among the best artists when it comes to depicting human delusions about there being rational plans behind human events. Four people can't usually keep a secret; three are often unable to implement a conspiracy.
Ben Franklin was a Freemason. It appears it worked as a networking group (thus influential) during the relevant time period. Proving any actual planned conspiracies or that they happened ... seems difficult. However, I think any political conspiracies with masonic elements were of similar scale than any regular corrupt political dealings (appointments of government officers, bribes, whatnot), nothingburgers in the flow of history. Of course, there are the rare cases that were not nothingburgers, but more like a secret society involving a foreign military intelligence agent [organizing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand) an assassination of a political leader. But I presume most of the truly important conspiracies get revealed because people talk and get arrested and then talk, if they do something truly important. But I am thinking 19th/20th/early 21th century here. Recently, who knows. It requires time for conspiracies to be become unveiled. Modern communications technology gives more possibilities for conspiracies to happen, but also unveil them (think of Snowden or Panama papers). But it makes it easier to delete paper trail that could reveal a past conspiracy to historians because someone forgot to burn important papers before they died.
Update: I think [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1drfqrb/the_role_of_secret_societies_in_the_world_of_power/lavfo6a/) and [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1drfqrb/the_role_of_secret_societies_in_the_world_of_power/lawa94f/) are notable comments. [this](https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1drfqrb/the_role_of_secret_societies_in_the_world_of_power/law3g7d/) comment about P2 was interesting, and (of course) Italy is famous for its organized crime networks and Operation Gladio and such. On the other hand, [Licio Gelli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licio_Gelli) sounds like a guy who would like to ham it up, especially after they got caught. Also, it is Italy. By law of narrative karma I would not be surprised that Italy is "ruled" by nefarious secret societies fighting it out meanwhile Sweden used to be ruled by official top of the state apparatus, prime minister and social democrat party officials occasionally drinking kaffe with Wallenbergs and not telling state secrets in public (like successfully setting up, running and then shutting down a [nuclear weapons programme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_nuclear_weapons_program) .)
Any actual answer to this question is, of course, secret, but there are several points to consider: - Organized minorities have an enormous advantage over disorganized majorities. - Power accrues where it is most firmly pulled, which only imperfectly maps to where it is formally granted. - Formal processes largely exist to ratify informal negotiations; nothing important is left to public scrutiny. - It is easy to keep an open secret, but harder to hide a conspiracy. - Power that no-one recognizes is not power. He who must say “I am the King” is no king. The above points suggest the following: that the world of power is dominated by small groups of elites working outside the view of the public; that these groups mainly operate informally, but are in close proximity to formal decisionmakers at all times; that they have existed in some form for a very long time, and the formal and informal governing systems have been increasingly bending their way for as long as they’ve existed; and that these organizations and individuals are likely hidden in plain sight. To me, this suggests that if secret societies influence world affairs, it is not as autonomous organizations with their own interests, but as vehicles for existing and aspiring elites to congregate and network. This is because power aims to keep its operations and deliberations secret, but wants its authority recognized; a secret society with this much power would therefore no longer aim to remain secret, but would want to make its presence felt. The men controlling such a society would also be unlikely to remain hidden; they may not actively seek the spotlight, but they would want it known that they are men of authority who ought to be listened to. It is also extremely unlikely that elites powerful enough to control a society of this nature would only exert influence through it - it is far more likely that they would use their informal influence to gain formal power and wealth, and that they would prioritize their most wealth and power generating enterprises over the society itself. Thus, if the society remained secret, it would decline in importance; if it remained important, then it would not be secret, but would seek to entrench itself in formal and visible ways. Another corollary of the above list is that formal structures are vehicles for informal powers, which means that a secret society will only be secret and important for as long as its elites primarily gain from it. If its leaders truly control domestic and international affairs, then the organization itself becomes superfluous, since they will already have considerable formal power, an existing network of relationships they can call on to exercise it, their own methods to keep their activities secret, and the ability to devise their own rules and institutions should they require it. Informal conversations between allies will benefit them, but a hierarchical organization will not; think tanks, industry events, and yearly gatherings will serve their interests in inter-elite networking, and the institutions under their direct control will serve their interests in the generation of wealth and power, leaving little room for such an intrusive conspiracy to capture their interest for long. Given the fact that the public at large is already highly suspicious of secret societies, these men would also incur needless reputational liabilities by emphasizing their formal association with an organization of this kind; elites close enough to conspire will therefore have every reason to either keep this collusion informal and ad hoc, or to hide it in plain sight and formally legitimize it. Finally, much is made of the fact that conspiracies which grow too large cannot be hidden; while this is true, open secrets exist in all industries and mid sized groups. It is certainly possible that organizations of this kind could exist, be widely known among a select group of elites, but not known to the public except by rumor and speculation. However, it is unlikely that the organizations themselves would usurp the power and influence of their most prominent members, meaning that the secret society hypothesis simply collapses into an influential oligarch hypothesis, which is an obvious fact and not a secret at all.
the role of secret societies are in origin for initiations of novices within the society through different stages of sexuality, individuation and most importantly spirituality. rest are just reflections of this original ordeal.
[удалено]