Secret Socieities: The Point?

MY OPINION: Secret societies are for the weak. What has to be secret or private about knowledge, if in fact that is the aim of the socieities. I wonder what the motivation is for people who feel compelled to join an organization that is "secret"; thus, they really don't know that much about it before they join. Obviously, one reason that almost deductively derives from the latter is that they are curious, so they join. But is that it?

And please no personal attacks because I think people are weak who join.

Secret Societys are established to gain financial, and spiritually. They can be used to provoke revolutions, and enlighten many people. They are a good sources of information on what is really going on with the world.

Why do you claim that those societys are for the weak? These organized societys do alot of good, these people who stick together often have great success in life, whats wrong with wanting to succeed or gain knowledge?

Originally posted by freudling
MY OPINION: Secret societies are for the weak. What has to be secret or private about knowledge, if in fact that is the aim of the socieities. I wonder what the motivation is for people who feel compelled to join an organization that is "secret"; thus, they really don't know that much about it before they join. Obviously, one reason that almost deductively derives from the latter is that they are curious, so they join. But is that it?

And please no personal attacks because I think people are weak who join.

Assuming that by "secret societies" you're talking about fraternal societies and not true "secret societies" (which do not publish their membership records, place and time of meetings, etc...like fraternal groups do) then, why would you say the members are weak. Some of the most outstanding people have been members of fraternal groups like Freemasonry, Odd Fellowship, Knights of Columbus, etc. Presidents and CEO's of major corporations, Presidents of Universities, Presidents of the U.S.A for that matter (14 of them according to Paul Bessel's web-site)

www.bessel.org...

...Statesmen, Writers, etc. etc. What's weak about people who are leaders in their fields?

Now if you're talking about true "secret societies" (the ones that hide their membership, their places and time of meeting, etc.) Then you could be right. Those could be just lousy with weak people....but then again, who knows since no one's sure who belongs?

Regards

My comments are focussed more so on true "Secret Socities." However, I wonder how much even a society like the Masons can give to a person. I have found that after living in Europe (Central and Eastern), the people have really banded together, creating a "big club" of like-minded people. They balk at their Governments and are far removed from Patriotism; they resembe Nationalists. Personally, from my experience in both North America and Europe, the most defining statement in terms of the differences between the two people are that Europeans are much closer to being Nationalists than North Americans are. Thus, I feel that NA's are more politically malleable, following their Government - more ignorantly - with a much higher investment in the State, and I mean $investment$ (tax)

Of course, Europeans invest in their country in other ways, but they have a fuxx you attitude to their Government since they believe absolutely nothing they say. In fact, the front cover of a popular publication out here recently ran an issue showing young xxxxx fingering their countries flag. Well, they have been around much longer than us. My point is that perhaps our Governments have got us fighting each other so much that people resort to having to join a club to associate with people that feel the same as them - a brotherhood like the Masons; societies that fill the void within our young cultures (Canada and the US) Over here, I just have to walk on the Street and everybody seems to have an interest in staying out of your business and trying to survive in a place where corruption runs perhaps deeper than NA.

One situation that makes me laugh now is when some American middle-aged man saw a kid budge in front of a restaraunt line we were all standing in. He confronted the kid and said to the people in the line up that he intended to write a letter to the kids Football coach, since the kid had on his Football jacket, telling of the incident. You do that out here and you will be laughed at: nobody cares.

I used to be a Patriotic and after living out here, I am no longer. I have an attitude similiar to theirs, and believe the rich just get richer, so why pay them? although I aknowledge the worth of reasonable taxes. When I told someone out here that my theory as to why people don't have as good teeth as back home is because our Government puts flouride in the water, and the Governments out here primarily don't. Then the girl looked at me and said, "How do you know it is not poisoning you?" At first I laughed, then I researched it and it turns out that flouride is a constituent of Rat Poision. Then I thought some more and said, "It is probably the fact that they are so dang poor that they have bad teeth because they can't afford the dentist, since minimum wage where I live is $200 USD per month net."

My point: perhaps the day will come when we don't need underground societies and we can just be a brotherhood within our first tier of society.

[edit on 29-1-2005 by freudling]

Originally posted by freudling
MY OPINION: Secret societies are for the weak. What has to be secret or private about knowledge, if in fact that is the aim of the socieities. I wonder what the motivation is for people who feel compelled to join an organization that is "secret"; thus, they really don't know that much about it before they join. Obviously, one reason that almost deductively derives from the latter is that they are curious, so they join. But is that it?

And please no personal attacks because I think people are weak who join.

MY humble opinion:

The "secret societies" you speak of (no doubt Freemasonry, Rosicrucians and the like), while outwardly (and genuinely) are fraternities dedicated to Truth (Honesty, Morality, and the Universal Truths of this world), Relief (helping people (even non-members) when they need it) and Brotherly Love (can't get any more self-explanatory than that), also are a means (not all of them, mind you) of communicating ancient esoteric Knowledge that throughout history has been reserved for those who have the desire and capacity (both inelectually and spiritually) to learn them, and who, through trials and tests of a sort, prove themselves to be worthy of posessing such Profound Knowledge. Weak? I hardly think so. You think living you life by that kind of standard is something a "weak" individual would be able to do?

Yeah, I'll give you that there are certain to be "joiners", who only want to be in a club because they feel the need to belong, but that is not the purpose of these groups. The point (in my mind) is ENLIGHTENMENT. If people want to remain ignorant that is their right, but those who wish to be enlightened and become privy to the Truths of the Ages have the right to do so as well without some twerp labeling them "weak" for desiring to better themselves.

Axeman, I think you could have made your point without "twerp", don't you.

Axeman:

Ya, you make some vaild points. But I still have trouble with it. What makes a group of people in a position to decide whether I am worthy of being given certain pieces of knowledge? I strongly believe knowledge should be shared in a free and open manor, and not subject to such things as being selected and only then being privy to that knowledge.

As for enlightenment, that can mean different things to different people. Not an easy word to define, kinda like morality and life itself. Why should I believe that a secret society could give me such knowledge? It sounds to me like a cheap imitation of the path to being a Monk. And please man, no attacks, since I respect what you have said, since it furthers my understanding of the secret society campaign in North America and abroad.

Originally posted by intrepid
Axeman, I think you could have made your point without "twerp", don't you.

Indeed. My fault.

Originally posted by freudling
Axeman:

Ya, you make some vaild points. But I still have trouble with it. What makes a group of people in a position to decide whether I am worthy of being given certain pieces of knowledge? I strongly believe knowledge should be shared in a free and open manor, and not subject to such things as being selected and only then being privy to that knowledge.

As for enlightenment, that can mean different things to different people. Not an easy word to define, kinda like morality and life itself. Why should I believe that a secret society could give me such knowledge? It sounds to me like a cheap imitation of the path to being a Monk. And please man, no attacks, since I respect what you have said, since it furthers my understanding of the secret society campaign in North America and abroad.

Apologies guy, sometimes I get a little perturbed, that's all. Sorry.

As to your comment, I don't think it's the group of people in posession of the Knowledge that decide whether you are worthy or not. It's something that the individual decides for himself. I know that sounds a little strange but really it makes sense if you think about it. There are things in this world that some people just wouldn't understand or accept. I think the degrees and the paths that are laid out for initiates in these groups is so that the individual himself can decide if he can handle what is being taught. Not everyone can know everything, you follow?

Enlightenment and Morality? I don't think the terms lend themselves too well to duplicitous interpretations. I mean, good people have a feel for what's right and wrong, it's inherently programmed into our souls. You know it's wrong to murder a man. You know it's wrong to beat women, or kill babies as you mentioned before. Those things are not open to interpretation. Enlightenment, well yeah, I suppose that can mean different things but to me it means awakening from the spiritual slumber that we are all in at one time or another, and stepping into the Light that comes from the Great One. You don't have to be Christian, Muslim, Jew, Bhuddist or anything else to live by these principles. They are universal. THAT, I think is what the Great Truth is, and I think the groups that teach these Truths have a daunting task because people in general are followers and for someone to break free from the indoctrination that runs rampant in this world is something beautiful, and those few are the ones left to pass on the Knowledge; Not willy nilly to anyone that will listen, but to those who can't help but feel that there is something more, who would seek to find out what that something is, and then put it to use to help his fellow man, however he can.

I think I digressed a little but oh well...


[edit on 1/29/05 by The Axeman]

Originally posted by freudling
Ya, you make some vaild points. But I still have trouble with it. What makes a group of people in a position to decide whether I am worthy of being given certain pieces of knowledge?

Axeman's response to this is right on the money. You, yourself, make this decision. Not a society that tries to impart such knowledge.

I strongly believe knowledge should be shared in a free and open manor, and not subject to such things as being selected and only then being privy to that knowledge.

Freemasonry will share her knowledge with anyone worth to obtain it. A man must petition for membership and if found to be moral & upright, will be admitted. But then, it's up to him. Freemasonry doesn't force knowledge upon any of her members and sadly, there are many ignorant Freemasons. Good people (most of them) but not seekers of knowledge. ...and, sadly there are some who, by the standards of the Order, shouldn't be members, but it is a human institution, after all.

As for enlightenment, that can mean different things to different people. Not an easy word to define, kinda like morality and life itself.

Absolutely right.

Why should I believe that a secret society could give me such knowledge?

Well...that choice is up to you. A secret society might not be a good thing for you. That doesn't make you weak or strong..and it doesn't make a member of that society weak or strong. Different people want and need different things. Freemasonry, for example, isn't for everyone.

It sounds to me like a cheap imitation of the path to being a Monk.

Well...in some ways, perhaps. I'm not sure how cheap it is, when dues-time comes around, but on the other hand, being a Monk is a true "religious" Order and Freemasonry is a philosophy but not a religion.

And please man, no attacks, since I respect what you have said, since it furthers my understanding of the secret society campaign in North America and abroad.

Not sure what you mean by "campaign"

Regards

Well, I almost find secret societies to be a bit of a phenomena, in the context of Sociology, that is why I compared Euro society to NA society. Of course I aknowledge that secret societies have been around Europe for centuries and centuries. But the people that make up the actual society in Europe seem to understand, more so, the "brotherhood", if indeed you know what I mean by that - we need to ban together, like Plato promoted in his Republic. I wonder if people in Europe join for different reasons, perhaps more driven by money and power dreams over gaining knowledge than NA's.

Quick example about what I mean out here (sorry if you live in Eastern or Central Europe) There I am in the gym, and guy after guy who I do not know, neither have I ever seen, come up to me on an exercise bike and shake my hand - daily occurance. That has never happened to me in NA, and that is an example of the attitude they have with each other on a daily basis.

Originally posted by freudling
Well, I almost find secret societies to be a bit of a phenomena, in the context of Sociology, that is why I compared Euro society to NA society. Of course I aknowledge that secret societies have been around Europe for centuries and centuries. But the people that make up the actual society in Europe seem to understand, more so, the "brotherhood", if indeed you know what I mean by that - we need to ban together, like Plato promoted in his Republic. I wonder if people in Europe join for different reasons, perhaps more driven by money and power dreams over gaining knowledge than NA's.

Not sure I follow your point. Most folks (sadly) don't give a flip about their fellow man, they only look out for #1, or immediate family members and friends. How many people do you know that will go out of their way to help a complete stranger? Not just in Europe but anywhere?

Quick example about what I mean out here (sorry if you live in Eastern or Central Europe) There I am in the gym, and guy after guy who I do not know, neither have I ever seen, come up to me on an exercise bike and shake my hand - daily occurance. That has never happened to me in NA, and that is an example of the attitude they have with each other on a daily basis.

I have found that it all comes down to how you present yourself. If you look like you are into what you are doing and can't be bothered, people will walk by. If you're like me and you smile and greet practically everyone you see, then you're bound to get more handshakes and whatnot. In the gym or anywhere else for that matter.

I really don't see what that has to do with what we are discussing, please clarify.

[edit on 1/29/05 by The Axeman]

OK. My point is my hypothesis is (shortly after posting this thread) that secret societies appeal to some people because there is a void in society. I assert, in my opinion, that NA has more of a void to fill than does Europe (Central and Eastern). As an extension to this, I hypothesis that people that belong to secret societies in Euro are primarily the very wealthy and powerful, with not much else. In some countries out here, their societies are 95% Catholic and it is very much a part of their daily lives. I teach and many students I ask actually get up at 9:30 and go to church on sunday, both teenagers and older adults. I am saying that there is more tradition and more Religion naturally prevelant in Euro society which perhaps is why I feel there is less of a void to fill out here. When I ask my new students who goes to church, almost always about 75% say they go.

And as for my attitude, it is still quite cold compared to theirs, and I do not appear to want people to shake my hand. In fact, sometimes I am looking down at a mag and see a hand approach my view.

And you're right Axeman, I don't know many people who give a flip about others, but I know more out here than back home. One main reason is that there is much poverty out here, so it is about survival, and there is not much to smile about in such conditions.

[edit on 29-1-2005 by freudling]

Originally posted by freudling
OK. My point is my hypothesis is (shortly after posting this thread) that secret societies appeal to some people because there is a void in society. I assert, in my opinion, that NA has more of a void to fill than does Europe (Central and Eastern). As an extension to this, I hypothesis that people that belong to secret societies in Euro are primarily the very wealthy and powerful, with not much else. In some countries out here, their societies are 95% Catholic and it is very much a part of their daily lives. I teach and many students I ask actually get up at 9:30 and go to church on sunday, both teenagers and older adults. I am saying that there is more tradition and more Religion naturally prevelant in Euro society which perhaps is why I feel there is less of a void to fill out here. When I ask my new students who goes to church, almost always about 75% say they go.

OK so let's look at this void. Is it a void in traditional observations as you have asserted? People just need to have a routine? That they feel by belonging to a "secret society" they can somehow fill some emptiness within them by attending meetings once or twice a month? I have a hard time with that because the fact is that most of these societies we're talking about don't want "weekend warriors", they want members who share the same philosophies and wish to learn and contribute to the group. People who join for mercenary or social purposes are usually weeded out, and from what I understand (and I have been looking into this type of thing for quite a while, here and elsewhere), there are tried and true methods of doing so. The people who are looking for that type of thing will surely be disappointed, so even if they do get in, they realize it's not what they thought and go on their way.

As for "rich and powerful? Well, OK, certainly there are some, but there are several Masons here, some from Europe, some from North America and I'm pretty sure none of them are rich and powerful. Good men, yes, but rich and powerful? I don't think so. We've got teachers, a pub owner, retirees, contractors, real estate agents, are those powerful positions? Alot of these guys are members of SEVERAL groups. Financial and social status has no place in these organizations because they are FOUNDED on the principle that all men are equal, hence Brotherhood of Man, Fatherhood of God. The enlightened man knows that there is no value in money and power; All the wealth of this world can be found in your own self if you look hard enough for it.

And as for my attitude, it is still quite cold compared to theirs, and I do not appear to want people to shake my hand. In fact, sometimes I am looking down at a mag and see a hand approach my view.

Well then I guess you've just got some friendly outgoing guys hanging around.

And you're right Axeman, I don't know many people who give a flip about others, but I know more out here than back home. One main reason is that there is much poverty out here, so it is about survival, and there is not much to smile about in such conditions.

I'm pretty close to poverty stricken myself but I still manage to do what I can when I can. I might not have much but I'll be one of the first to help someone, regardless if they deserve it or whether would help me or not.

Even the poorest man can find a reason to smile if his heart is in the right place. I do it all the time. See?

LOL (at you're smiley guy). Good points. But remember, my main distinction in my HYPOTHESIS is that the rich a powerful members make up membership more so in EUROPE rather than the US, where I think there is more of a variety. In poverty people aren't thinking about Freemasons, they are thinking about their next meal.

Originally posted by freudling
LOL (at you're smiley guy). Good points. But remember, my main distinction in my HYPOTHESIS is that the rich a powerful members make up membership more so in EUROPE rather than the US, where I think there is more of a variety. In poverty people aren't thinking about Freemasons, they are thinking about their next meal.

Well OK I don't know about that, I'm in the US so I have no idea what goes on in Europe. Never been there, but I hear it's nice.

You may be right, there may be more affluent individuals per capita that are members of these types of organizations in Europe. I honestly don't know.

People in poverty may not be thinking about Freemasons, but I'd be willing to bet that a Freemason, no matter how much (or little) money he had, would be thinking about how to get that poor guy fed. I would, anyway.

In my opinion, the whole concept of "secret Societies" along the lines of the Iluminati, the Bilderbergs, S.P.E.C.T.R.E, KAOS, etc. is bunk.

No group formed along those lines would survive long against the most basic human instincts. i.e. greed, avarice, self preservation. pride, etc (the seven deadly sins?)

As an example, consider the Mafia, Costa Nosta, or whatever you want to call it. This group dose exist, and while their day to day activities are generally secret from outsiders, the existence of the group is hardly in question, furthermore, the inner workings of the group are repeatedly exposed by insiders for personal motivations.

The same is true for almost any major criminal syndicate. Few such groups can hold together for any real length of time without significant infighting, betrayals, power struggles, etc.

As far as I am concerned, the Evil, NWO type secret society, elites, iluminati, or whatever you want to call it is nothing more than a cheap plot device used in third rate potboilers by hack authors.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
In my opinion, the whole concept of "secret Societies" along the lines of the Iluminati, the Bilderbergs, S.P.E.C.T.R.E, KAOS, etc. is bunk.

No group formed along those lines would survive long against the most basic human instincts. i.e. greed, avarice, self preservation. pride, etc (the seven deadly sins?)

As an example, consider the Mafia, Costa Nosta, or whatever you want to call it. This group dose exist, and while their day to day activities are generally secret from outsiders, the existence of the group is hardly in question, furthermore, the inner workings of the group are repeatedly exposed by insiders for personal motivations.

The same is true for almost any major criminal syndicate. Few such groups can hold together for any real length of time without significant infighting, betrayals, power struggles, etc.

As far as I am concerned, the Evil, NWO type secret society, elites, iluminati, or whatever you want to call it is nothing more than a cheap plot device used in third rate potboilers by hack authors.

I would tend to agree with you there. Most of the societies people refer to as "secret societies" today are less so than say, "societies with secrets" (cliche, I know... sue me. )

Originally posted by freudling
And please no personal attacks because I think people are weak who join.

That's a bit hypocritical isn't it? You seem to have no problems making personal attacks yourself with that statement.

But anyway. I can only give you my impression of Freemasonry from my viewpoint. Your comparison between poverty and rich Western societies may actually be pertinent to this issue.
In the West, society revolves around money. We are always chasing it and rarely do anything else - even leisure time is spent in pursuits that involve it. This has a knock on effect in the way that people look at themselves and look at their surroundings. They tend to concentrate purely on the physical and neglect the spiritual. That's not a weakness in the way that you describe - just the way of life that has evolved. I was discussing this phenomena with my local vicar a couple of months ago and he illustrated the point by stating that this was probably the reason why a lot of people turn to religion when they retire from their careers - it's not only the fact that they are getting older and death is nearer or that they may have less disposable income, but also that they have more time to concentrate on the issue.

I see some groups as a way of kickstarting the spiritual process without forcing the individual to leave the physical or having to wait until he naturally leaves the ratrace. By joining certain groups, people are opening up a new avenue of discovery. These groups could accept everyone, but by doing so they run the risk of turning into the very thing that they are trying to escape from - a concentration on the purely physical. They may become watered down and useless.
In the East, poverty actually leads to soul searching. People don't live in a ratrace and they have more time to analyse themselves. Much of Eastern philosophy was bred from poverty. It is the misery that is a catalyst. People analyse to try to overcome that misery and this can involve the study of the spiritual.

But when you compare the two societies, there isn't necessarily an overall scenario where one is stronger than the other. Although one may be weaker in the physical, the other is weaker in the spiritual and there is a lack of balance in both.

By the way. It should be noted that Freemasonry is a worldwide Fraternity. It exists in the East, just as it does in the West. This tends to be in the more democratic societies based on Capitalism where there needs to be a balance between physical and spiritual. I can also tell you that Freemasonry in Europe is not exclusively made up of the rich and powerful - it includes people from all walks of life. I personally know people who live in poverty in the West and are Freemasons of good standing. Money and personal finance is not an issue within Freemasonry. It is true that there are people who are financially powerful within it, but it should be remembered that they could be attracted to the Order because it gives them the chance to forget about money and concentrate on something else. Again, this is not a weakness - it is a device that offers balance.

You say that everyone has a right to knowledge. I disagree. Everyone has a right to look for knowledge, but it should never just be handed to anyone on a plate as, in the wrong hands, it can be a recipe for disaster. And it's not even a case of wether or not you are "worthy" as you state. It's wether or not you want to even look in the first place. But that is neither here nor there where Freemasonry is concerned. It does not bestow some "quick fix" of knowledge, nor is any man who expects to have it fall in front of him ever likely to receive it. Knowledge has to be earned. This is not the sole preserve of a "secret society" - it is a fundamental fact of life that can be found in any group of human beings which is based on education. One may attend school or college, but if one doesn't enrol in the first place or doesn't attend the lessons there can be no repercussion for failiure except upon the individual. Religions work the same way too. One can attend church or read the Bible, but if the brain isn't actually put into gear, the whole exercise is pointless.

Sure, the individual may be able to search for answers on his own. But it's much healthier to look with others. That's not a weakeness, but a basic human trait - ever since the days of the caveman, human beings have huddled together for warmth, safety, education and the sense of wellbeing that only contact with another person can give you.

Finally, I would have to utterly disagree that religion is more prevalent in European society than it is in the US. Maybe in the poorer Eastern nations of Europe, religion plays a large part, but certainly in the West it is often sidelined and church attendances are at a record low. This again would illustrate how poverty leads to a search for the spiritual and how wealth serves to fuel it's neglect.

What is the membership list, if not to keep track of who has 'dangerous' information...

A good conspiracy is an unprovable one. Now tell me, why would any semi-secret society want a conspiracy traced back to it? Better to not involve paperwork, and make people swear blood oaths (as *meaningless* as they are, if you are going to keep the secrets of Masonry).

Edit: As a side note, did everyone hear about the head of the Mafia family that went informant? This happened very recently in the NE United States. They said it was the first time its happened, but to me it indicates that all along Mafia leaders could have been the inside men, carrying out their superiors orders, while pretending to be those superiors to their minions.

Also, anyone notice the similarities between when this guy asked Masons not to make personal attacks, and when I pointed out past Masons that had occult dominated lives? He asked for no personal attacks, and yet there they are.

I asked that Masons not say these Occult Masons did not affect Masonry's teachings despite their individual teachings, on the basis that these Occultist figures were not KICKED OUT of Masonry, rather they were abided, while stories were made public that they were not welcome, and did not attend Meetings, and that they had made enemies with high ranking figues within the Brotherhood (for eg. Alister Crowley).

To me, that is a perfect front, and any one looking to deceive would use a perfect front. It doesn't mean all perfect fronts are conspiracies (eg. Child Abuse Center at a Catholic Church is a perfect front for covering up child abuse by saying the therapist impanted the ideas in the children's head), it just means when something can be identified as a perfect front (Disney Land) it must be scrutinized more closely.

[edit on 31-1-2005 by akilles]