Reasons for this hermetically guarded level of secrecy may vary from
organization to organization, but generally one thing in common is that their
interests generally extend to widespread global geopolitical infiltration and
influence, and at times, highly organized and systemic criminal and terrorist
organizations. The secrecy of the
covert
society is not motivated by tradition or
even influence over lower-level members, but
necessity
.
Both the much dreaded
spectre of the Illuminati and the vow of silence practiced by the
La Cosa Nostra
syndicate are glaring examples of the occult operations of a
covert
secret society.
Other times, the revelation of the
covert
society’s existence could cause so
much damage to well-established institutions—such as the Priory of Sion or the
Bilderberg Group—that their very foundations could crumble, a moment such
groups may indeed be hoping to seize upon. Instead, they bide their time,
weaving their way into a highly complex web of intrigue and legend, fact and
fiction, both insisting upon their non-existence and alternately placing public
reminders of their “alleged existence” in such a way that the idle observer is
caught up in a wave of subterfuge and confusion.
One such glaring example of this misinformation campaign was the
COINTELPRO operation directed by the FBI under Director J. Edgar Hoover
between the mid 1950s and early 1970s which aimed at surveying, infiltrating,
discrediting and disrupting domestic political organizations that allegedly posed
a threat to “national
security, and existing social and political order” and was
explicitly denied by the organization and its director until official documentation
of the program was exposed and made public in 1971, prompting an official
investigation into its tactics.
Leadership in
covert
societies are sometimes hereditary, being passed down
in generational lines akin to monarchism—the reinstitution of which is, in fact,
an alleged goal of some of these cliques. Other times,
a feigned leadership has
been attributed to noted historical and cultural figures through an elaborate
campaign of misinformation and well-constructed lore, granting a lineal if
seemingly improbable succession of historical validity to the machinations of a
society.
When attempting to endeavor a work of this scope, it’s important to take
into consideration all sources, no matter how outlandish they may seem.
Inevitably, one comes to classify these sources under one of three potential
categories I will dub the three “S”s: the speculative, the spurious and the
skeptical.
As the adage says, where there’s smoke, there’s often fire. The
speculative helps enable a critical and subjective eye towards the potential
veracity of claims, ensuring both detachment and an open eye towards viewing
possible connections. The spurious—often the result of tenuous connections and
credulity towards unsubstantiated accounts—can often reveal hidden aspects that
you had never in your wildest dreams thought possible, and aspects that upon
closer examination reveal a definite claim towards historical validity. It is in the
realm of the skeptical that we are confronted with a whole new dilemma,
however. Unwilling to entertain the possibility that the vast web of intrigue and
deceit is much vaster than his understanding allows it to be, the skeptic casts
doubt upon anything that does not conform into his or her preset conclusions.
His bias becomes all too apparent and unbending in its stubborn refusal of
anything that doesn’t remotely connect to its predisposed parameters—and
sometimes, his or her own vested interests. In this book, I have strived to
separate legend from reality, fact from fiction, and examine how both seemingly
opposite sides can be weaved into a highly complex series of associations, and
ones that can often influence one another in the most unexpected ways. It is
likely that some readers will see aspects of all three “S”s throughout the book.
The most I can ask for is an open mind.
It is also likely that some readers, particularly younger ones, will find
material that has been well recounted elsewhere.
I mentioned younger ones
specifically because, having been brought up under the auspices of the
information age, they’ve had a wider berth of both information as well as
misinformation to absorb, reflect and mull over. Younger ones also seem more
conducive to the act of critical thinking and incredulity to firmly established
disavowals of the existence of these groups from conventional quarters,
something which as time passes grows more and more assailable. I’m grateful
for the open minds and quick wits I see from younger generations, and
encourage them solely to draw their own conclusions—as much as I would any
other generation. I can only hope this work will
help encourage you to do so,
regardless of your age.
This work is meant as both introductory and cautionary. I do not intend it to
be the final say on the matter of secret societies, my own or anyone else’s; far
from it, I believe that as more information is made readily available to the
