Talk:Skull and Bones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details on this process, and possible ideas on how you can further improve this article!

Contents 1 Materials Needing Inclusion 2 Numerical symbolism "322" and "911" (Partial Inanity) 3 Jolly Roger 4 Bones and U.S. Education 5 Women in Bones? 6 Proper place for conspiracy theories 7 Removal of excessive skepticism 8 Removal of documented quotes about a 'Nazi shrine room' in 1979 break-in quote? 9 POV bollocks 10 Old, Untitled Talk 11 by no means void 12 Satanism? 13 Removal of info 14 Delta Kappa Epsilon 15 For people who get their writings edited out here 16 Factual dispute 17 Hitler's china? 18 Removal of rosters comment 19 Slightly POV? 20 in defence of the Smith, Brown, White, Johnson, Jones and Thompson "families" 21 Warning! Government or Skull and Bones agents may be vandalizing this article 22 Aliens 23 NIcknames? 24 Unverified tag 24.1 * 25 Cheney 26 Pacifica House 27 Seperate list? 28 Irrelevant comment 29 ROTFL: Bones Importing the Prussian Social Control Model 30 I must confess, I can keep this secret no longer 31 Too much opium stuff 32 RfC 33 Totally disputed tag 34 Be Prepared for Government Agents to disrupt and falsify this topic 35 Skull and Bones origins 36 Major editing 37 Subarticles to be nominated for deletion 38 No Censorship 39 The US Branch of a German secret society? 40 Article has been sanitized and censored 41 VCU Chapter? 42 NPOV issues due to omission 43 Great work creating a completely bland and uninformative article 44 2006's "Conspiracy Theory" is 1955's "Communist Propaganda" 45 New World Order? 46 Current event? 47 Section removed 47.1 Bonesmen companies confiscated in WW2 for "Trading With the Enemy" 48 Control of CIA 49 Other Chapters 50 AMERICAN DEMOCRACY AND THE BONES INFLUENCE. 51 "Secret" society?

[edit] Materials Needing Inclusion

There ought at least be links to articles and/or Wikipedia entries concerning the surmised affiliations and involvements of this sodality.

[edit] Numerical symbolism "322" and "911" (Partial Inanity)

Is it just me or does the paragraph "With the number 322 can be developed the number 911: 3 by 3 = 9 + 2 = 11. So Porsche 911, the WTC blast on 9-11 and the emergency telephone number "911" in the "USA" are no coincidence but the work of political groups coming from Skull and Bones which feel like students also when they are in power." make absolutely no sense at all? This article has some problems anyway but this is definately a poorly worded section that seems to be conspiracy theory listed as fact.

Modifier, minor title edit ^ (unrel. user):

"...which feel like students also when they are in power."

Such a fragmented phrasing stands here as the issue behind lacking logicality in this article's segment. Anyone capable of isolating the editor who made such an appendage (for potential resolution and/or identification of such significance)?

Hi, first time poster on Wikipedia. Does anyone find this 322 and 911 connection illogical? I'm for keeping the 322 symbolism, however the 911 doesn't make any sense, it doesn't state where the other three notation comes from, nor does it account for the other number two notation within the number 322. It also doesn't provide sources and I cannot find anything on google about it. I went back through the history and it was a one-time poster with an IP address who put the information on the article. Is it possible to delete this part of article? Essveem 10:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok I deleted it. Essveem 10:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

CORRECTION The 322 is from this logic: 32 is the year 1832 that The Order (SB) was founded. The last 2 is a symbol meaning this is the 2nd chapter of The Order. If and where other chapters exists is unknown. This number mumbo jumbo towards 911 is just silly.

I recall that the first hypothesis on the meaning of 322 probably derived from my friend, Anthony Sutton. The first chapter - if there is, or more probably was one - was deemed to be in Germany. Steranko 15:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

CORRECTION The 322 logic makes complete sense when relating to 911. 32 (the first two symbolizing a square of the three) plus two. Very simple math problem, three to the second power plus two. If it directly relates to 322, I will leave for you to decide, I'm just putting my "two cents" in because I was showing the relation of 322 and 911.

[edit] Jolly Roger

Quote from wiki: One theory is that it comes from the French term "joli rouge," ("pretty red") which the English corrupted into "Jolly Roger". This may be likely as there were a series of "red flags" that were feared as much, or more, than "black flags". The origin of the red flag is likely that English privateers flew the red jack by order of the Admiralty in 1694. When the War of Spanish Succession ended in 1714, many privateers turned to piracy and some retained the red flag, as red symbolized blood. No matter how much seamen dreaded the black pirate standard, all prayed they never encountered the joli rouge. This red flag boldly declared the pirates' intentions: no life would be spared. No quarter given, none asked[citation needed].

The term was subsequently used for the black flag with skull and bones which appeared in use around 1700. ORP Sokół returning from a World War II patrol flying her Jolly Roger (which traditionally signifies a successful combat mission); and a kill indicated by the swastika flag flown Enlarge ORP Sokół returning from a World War II patrol flying her Jolly Roger (which traditionally signifies a successful combat mission); and a kill indicated by the swastika flag flown

There is another theory, also using "joli rouge" as the origin for the name. Apparently a Catholic order of fierce warrior monks, known as the "Poor Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon", or Knights Templar, first used the "joli rouge", the red flag[citation needed]. The link between the monks and pirates is provided by the fact that they were fighting for their cause on the open seas, effectively becoming pirates. In combat practice many merchants were surprised when a fast ship changed a fellow national flag for the more portentous Jolly Roger, which was the desired effect[citation needed].

Another theory proposes that the leader of a group of Asian pirates was entitled Ali Raja, "king of sea", English pirates appropriated and corrupted the term[citation needed]. A further theory is that the name may derive from the English word "roger", whence "rogue", meaning a wandering vagabond: "Old Roger" was a term for the devil[citation needed].

In his book "Pirates & The Lost Templar Fleet," David Hatcher Childress claims that the term was coined after the first man to fly the flag, King Roger II of Sicily (c.1095-1154). Roger was a famed Templar who had a public spat with the Pope over his conquests of Apulia and Salerno in 1127. Childress claims that, many years later after the Templars were disbanded by the church, at least one Templar fleet split into four independent fleets that dedicated themselves to pirating ships of any country sympathetic to Rome. The flag was thus an inheritance, and its crossed bones are an obvious reference to the original Templar logo of a red cross with blunted ends.;

back to daVinci code stuff? Seig heil? [edit]

[edit] Bones and U.S. Education

had to share this little gem about the U.S. edu curricula [1].--ReSearcher 09:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women in Bones?

Anyone know if women are allowed into Skull and Bones? I recall having heard that they amended the rules a while back. --KrJnX 03:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They are now. Supposedly the 2000 cohort even had more women Boodle Girls than Boodle Boys. I read that from Kris Millegan, which he didn't source, though he did write a hunk of a book about them. By the mid 1990s, there were some changes, though decide on that 2000 info for yourself until we see a 2000 cohort list. --ReSearcher 04:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper place for conspiracy theories

with a topic like this i think its important to address that, yes conspiracy theories do exist, but it is more important that one can trust the content to be factual. I think all conspiracy related or unverifiable infor be laid out in its own section (or its own page if necessary - probably will be for this article) that way the main body is fact and another can be all the widley circulated or published conspiracy theories. Lets face it it is INFORMATION and someone with perfectly normal reasoning may be interested in reading it. I dont like the idea of dis respecting conspiracy theories (or even credible info that pertains to them) simply because its more scholarly to do so. There is nothing wrong with informing others of the existance of a theory only with trying to disguise it to look more factual than it is. We just have to keep these ideas from from running together like on this page.--Olsdude 04:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of excessive skepticism

Thanks, "Jolly Roger"; a specially created account, I see :-) I realised after I'd rewritten and submitted the article that the society actually existed. Sorry for the bother. I was too tired to amend the article and haven't got round to fixing it. I've got some interesting information to add when I have the time.

Mr. Jones 20:48, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dude, the sun is on the horizon. Get up and drink some coffee already.

[edit] Removal of documented quotes about a 'Nazi shrine room' in 1979 break-in quote?

Someone took the quote about it from the Fame magazine excerpt, and then cut out the Nazi bit. This page is increasingly worthless. Best to read the books associated because it is being censored by someone who doesn't want you to know about the Nazi room in the Skull and Bones 'tomb.'

Wikipedia, as my friends say, and I didn't really want to believe, I think is perhaps a poor method of dealing with some very real issues of our world because of reactionaries or disinfo people deleting such real things.

--ReSearcher 06:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV bollocks

seriously, this article is more about disrespecting conspiracy theories than it is about skull and bones. what the ?@#$? show me the facts. show me the arguments. dont spend half the article saying 'conspiracy theories suck'

The main problem with skull and bones is that it is a closed secret society. Therefore one can only speculate about that for which they stand. The symbol they use has been used in the past by pirates (theives). This does not enhance their image. They are so secretive that even presidential candidates give their allegence to the society before the american people; therefore they will not discuss what they society stands for or what ideologies they embody. Our country makes a big deal about being an open, transparant society, but how open and transparent can it be, if our leaders pledge their allegence to secret societies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BmikeSci (talk • contribs) date.

[edit] Old, Untitled Talk

The speculation as I understood was that the S&B society allowed and encouraged members to cooperativly scheme for money & power, without any moral considerations. From selling guns to Indians, to selling munitions to Germany in WW-1 or doing the banking for the Nazi party during WW-II; whatever it takes to make themselves and the country more profitable is promoted as the ultimate good. Have to kill off a few thousand citizens so the US can stabilise its long term oil industry arrangements?, that would be seen a good in the eyes of the S&B society. A belief in black magic wouldn't concern me one bit; but, if its members do use fiscal profit as their measure of 'success', then that would be a worry.

---

From edit comment: accusation was made; evidence is absent. S&B is as "Satanist" as Harry Potter. would be better to attribute the allegation, but I don't know named persons who allege it

I wasn't making an accusation; I was reporting that allegations have been made. That is why I bracketed the claim with the fact that most of the "well-known" S&B, such as the Bushes, profess Christianity. I consider the allegation kind of silly, actually -- but then, I'm not a Christian or any other sort of religious practitioner.

To insert "baseless", however, causes the article to make the theological claim that S&B rituals are -not- Satanic, for which there is -also- no evidence provided. Funny, that! Wikipedia is not a catechism. --FOo

No, to insert "baseless" is to say that the claim is made without evidence, not that it is false. I agree with you that the allegation is silly, and I object to putting unattributed silly allegations in the Wikipedia. The fact that some people will call any ritual but their own "Satanic" makes their calling any particular ritual Satanic somewhat less important to report. -- Someone else 05:00 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Charges of Satanism are, in fact, "baseless"... at least if one demands a basis be rational. On what basis are you asserting the charges were made? Please add them in, if you can locate them. In fact, the supposed basis is most often that the rites are not Christian, and use skulls.... a 'basis' from which you cannot reasonably reach "Satanism" with a large pole. -- Someone else 08:03 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

If charges of Satanism have indeed been made, then we need to attribute these views properly instead of simply dismissing them as baseless. To do so would violate NPOV, since the people making the charges would probably not agree with our assessment. Regardless, I agree that claims of Satanism seem far-fetched. While the documented S&B rituals have a lot in common with Satanic rites, that does not mean that the ideological background is the same -- just that the people doing it are equally brainfucked. --Eloquence 08:18 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

"Liken", I like that, it's much better. I put purported in front of the video. Rituals occur in the tomb, not in the "courtyard" so what's he's video'd is not a standard ritual. -- Someone else

I would argue that excluding ridiculous claims is not a violation of POV policy. One can make no statement with which everyone would agree, and an accusation should be either [1] Rational or [2] made by a lot of people to merit includsion. -- Someone else 08:22 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

I agree -- if it's only on some personal website and without evidence it does not merit inclusion. --Eloquence 08:24 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

have led some to liken them to Satanic practices

Who is some here? Can we have some references and/or named advocates, please? And were they comparing the rituals with ones that form part of satanic ritual abuse, the church of Satan, or the Temple of Set? Martin 11:27 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

The Black Lodge, as their name suggests, engage in Black Magick, as opposed to White. This means that their magickal endeavours are directed at Material Wealth, rather than Gnostic Attainment. They sell their souls to demonic entities for power, knowing not the profound stupidity of such a decision, blinded severely by their greed. They mete out havoc and death in the name of these entities, spreading their hatred and avarice until the Darkness within their hearts consumes them completely, sealing up their Minds in the Endless Tomb of Yaldabaoth.

---

Unsupported Conspiracy Theory, the Bohemian Grove issue? Excuse me?

Thank God for Fundamentalist Christians. I don't generally like them, but they come in handy when it comes to being incredibly fiesty at getting video footage of things like this. ;)

Video Footage of Bohemian Grove Ritual

---

Link not dead. Works fine. Don't delete it again. Khranus

---

'Speculation regarding' is slightly more acceptable, but this article seems like yet another where the notion of NPOV fails... It's a failed concept from the beginning, because it assumes that the majority of people can settle on one 'neutral' intepretation of phenomena. Clearly this is not the case. Khranus

You're missing the point of NPOV -- the aim is not to agree on a single viewpoint, but to report on the diversity of viewpoints. Where a viewpoint is generally accepted and unopposed, it may be reported as such. Where there is controversy, both sides' opinions should be mentioned. If one set of opinions are a minority opinion, this should also be stated. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV to see more. NPOV has been described as "the one non-negotiable rule" on Wikipedia. -- Karada 00:57, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, you're missing the point. Don't you see the impracticality of such a philosophy? The only way for all viewpoints to be expressed is to leave them in their most natural state--allow them to flow with the Tao, as it were. Which would require that one central article no longer be the norm, but a series of different articles dedicated to different viewpoints--separated from one another and titled. People continue to cling to the failed notion of 'NPOV', and though it might appear to work in theory (which I don't think it does), it fails in practise. It's been used as nothing but a method for the furtherment of popular, accepted opinions, and is unfair to less popular memes. Simply put, NPOV denies humans the right to honest expression of their opinions--and that is, frankly, impractical and destined to fail. Khranus

You are free to believe that, but NPOV is a non-negotiable part of Wikipedia policy, and those who repeatedly violate it will be banned.—Eloquence

But true NPOV is impossible. You can't seperate a piece of writing from it's author and try to give it impartiality, there is no priviledged position from which to describe reality. We are all ultimately subjective beings, thus we cannot have NPOV as that implies an objective viewpoint. The idea of NPOV can't be interpreted as a hardline ban on any kind of interpretation; it is a necessary artifact of language. NPOV is intended to keep the debates on wikipedia centered on facts rather than affiliations, but NPOV also functions in an essentially norm-reinforcing manner, whereby the most commonly accepted notions are the ones perpetuated.

Hello post-modernism. Watch much Fox News? —Daelin

[edit] by no means void

this article is missing an essential element that i find is common in entries of a similar nature. whenever discussing controversial topics which are the subject of conspiracy theory, at least some lip service is given to the more commonly held (and/or more or less empirically justifiable if not totally substantiable) theories. i feel that this is prudent, considering the social implications of the effect the legend has on popular culture... especially so in this case because we are dealing with a society that is, by the admission of none other than the next president of the united states, a big fat 'secret'.

i would love an exposition on the theories surrounding the known history and more substantial of the evidence. i came here hoping to learn more about the supposed roots of the group in the opium trade, but found no mention whatsoever... i know that that isnt exactly an obscure part of the lore of S&B... what gives? PopeFauveXXIII, 6/24/04

Satanism as practiced by knights Templar, Normans in Bagdad at the time of Roman Xtian totalitarianism? Bogomil Gnostic, and Cathar exterminations. Corporations roots in viking 'joint venture' projects. Trade and raiding brought the Brits to the greatest empire before USA. Cecil Rhodes and the English Speakers Union. Your God is my Satan? Sog Zod? Creative Chaos. Umberto Ecco. Too much more.

[edit] Satanism?

Satanism in many contexts is a pejorative term. If someone profits from nuclear war, threatens nuclear war, engages in nuclear war, subjugates entire populations with opium and/or economic blackmail, misleads entire populations through controlled media, and invades harmless countries without justification, does that make him or her a Satanist? User:Tammie [sig added after by Sam]

I think Satanism = Nihilism = Atheism = Rejection of God = Bad person, but maybe thats just me. Sam [Spade] 14:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's just you, I'd hardly call myself a 'bad person' :/ -Das BooT-

Review amalek. [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 23:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Atheism=Satanism? That's the dumbest thing I've heard since Bush said "I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." Atheism is not believing in anything. Satanism isn't. If you vorship the devil, you're not an atheist, you're a satanist, because you do believe in something (satan in that case). Atheism is simply not believing in anything. I'm an atheist, and I'm proud of it. I don't see how by any logic, one can think that satanism=atheism. It's like saying you can use water instead of diesel in a car. Dumbass...

Don't pay attention to Sam. He's seems to enjoy baiting atheists for his own amusement. Kaldari 16:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of info

A much less common view is that Skull and Bones members are Dinosauroids or space aliens, often with ties to Nazi mysticism.

Why does this keep getting removed? It is a verifiable, (altho ridiculous) pov. [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 23:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Probably because there is no source listed, nor does "skull and bones" show up as a link from the D. or s.a. articles. Please verify with a link before reinserting that paragraph. +sj+ 01:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I listed a source, which is now deleted. I'll list more tho, since you seem to take issue with it.Sam Spade Arb Com election 13:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything citable, so I agree it should stay out unless someone can verify it. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election 13:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Delta Kappa Epsilon

Delta Kappa Epsilon (George W. Bush's fraternity) incorporates Druidic rituals in its intiation and pledgeship rites, including the uses of hooded black robes and candles. Many former Dekes were also members of Skull and Bones and hold many powerful and influential positions in government, business and other affairs. Their membership includes: George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, Rutherford B. Hayes, Sidney Souers (first director of the CIA,) J.P. Morgan, Dean Witter, Irving Chase of Chase Manhattan, George Pataki, George Steinbrenner, A. Bartlett Giamatti, William Wrigley, and William Randolph Hearst, among countless others.

Deke involves utmost secrecy, the use of mystics and horrific pledgeship rituals involving brutality and humiliation. Branding of the buttocks with an iron "delta" is common among chapters.

It is rumored that many young Dekes frequent George W. Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch and are allowed to do so simply because of their affiliation with Delta Kappa Epsilon.

That's interesting. Thanks. I didn't know that. --ReSearcher 03:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Um...there was a secret ritualistic ceremony with hooded robes and candles when I pledged a fraternity also. And I'm as normal as the next guy....move on people...*sigh* Jeravicious 00:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hate to burst your conspiratorial bubble, but just about all fraternities have ritual ceremonies and robes, regalia, and props. My fraternity has a statue of a Greek godess in its ritual ceremony. My wife's sorority makes its pledges lay in a coffin and recount their sexual history. This is all silly pageantry, folks. Get a grip.

Is all of that unwikified text copied from somewhere? RickK 10:00, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] For people who get their writings edited out here

Hello I have created a new mediawiki site to house conspiratorial viewpoints and other information that gets edited out of wikipedia due to lack of encyclopedic nature. If you would like to contribute the link is on my user page at User:Conwiki April 18, 2005.

• I agree. we need a seperate database for seperate bodies of knowledge. i posted this proposal http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiconspiracy. its very under developed. but im the only one who seems interested. any help getting it up would be sweet (pretty amature here)--Matt D 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual dispute

207.200.116.13 has disputed the existence of the Skull & Bones and wishes to edit the article in a fashion consistent with this belief. Will anyone defend their existence or prove that they don't exist? I personally believe they do exist and will look into proof. — oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 01:27, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

They don't, there's all these conspiracy nuts that think they do exist because they want to think that America is dictatorship and there's a one-world government...Well I'll tell you now this is all not true.--207.200.116.13 02:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well thats fine, is there any way you can debunk the volumes that have been written to prove their existence? I welcome any kind of proof that this is indeed over a century of delusion.— oo64eva (AJ) ^{(U | T | C)} @ 03:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

If you believe it doesn't exist have a look at the videos floating around the internet of George Bush and John Kerry admitting membership. Also see the hierarchypedia page at the bootom with many photos of the Skull and Bones classes. Then try going to Yale and looking in the year book for father Bush's year and it tells you he is a mebmer. Any suggestion that it doesn't exist is ridiculous --Hierarchypedia 12:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The anon's claim is ridiculous. And we shouldn't be tagging this article as disputed because of it. It has also now gone almost 5 days since Oo64eva asked him to come up with any documentation, and he hasn't. So I'm removing the disputed tag. Shanes 12:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can understand that someone coming anew to the subject might initially wonder if S & B exist. Of course they do. A few personal and objective bits of data: (1) Their membership list or nearly all of it back to 1832 is housed in the Yale Library under the name "Russell Trust", the financial wing of the university-based part of S & B (as opposed to S & b among alumni); (2) I've met them and their relatives in the real world; (3) Many of them may not speak about detail, but admit to being members. I'd have to locate the East Coast paper and edition anew, but Bush Snr was pressed into public admission in a major newspaper by a letter-writing campaign, in the mid-1980s. And so forth. There are many ways of objectively proving the reality of S & B, but the admission of membership by members should be sufficient. Steranko 16:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler's china?

I was thoroughly enjoying the article until I came across this little nugget: "In the tomb with each other for one year, members dine off Hitler's china set and silverware consuming expensive gourmet meals cooked for them by their own private maid/chef." In the tomb for one year? Hitler's china set? Is this factual, a typo, or what? Mr Bound 23:52, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This whole paragraph is suspect at best:

There are innumerable human skulls and bones in the 'tomb,' which of course is illegal under Connecticut law. Bones members are reported to be forced to reveal their innermost secrets and their "sexual biography" to one another. It has been suggested that this may be used for blackmailing. In the tomb with each other for one year, members dine off Hitler's china set and silverware consuming expensive gourmet meals cooked for them by their own private maid/chef. Members are given new code names. Plus, the members call themselves "Knights," and simultaneously call everyone else in the world at large "barbarians." The Order encourages members to view the world outside of Skull and Bones in a desensitized fashion and in a dissimulating fashion. Another dissociation is that clocks in the Bones 'tomb' run intentionally five minutes fast from the rest of the world, to give the members an ongoing sense that the Bonesmen's space is a totally separate world--and a world just a bit ahead of the curve of the rest of the "barbarians" outside. --SVTCobra 7 July 2005 03:06 (UTC)

Agreed. Beyond suspect, it is incoherent. "innumerable" skulls? Why are they not numerable? "I has been suggested" ??? It has been suggested the moon is made of green cheese -- somebody probably ought to include that, too. What is the source for this nonsense? There is none. This speaks volumes about the credibility of Wikipedia. Could someone please file a libel suit against Jim Wales and the Wikipedia Foundation. Oh fay? 16:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That paragraph is uncited and unbelievable. Can someone give me a reason why it hasn't been removed? -- SCZenz 20:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

It is quite simple to see why it hasn't beeen removed. People read about things like the skulls because they want to be entertained. Like the movie. How much of that was really fact or not? Without statements that seem strange and weird this would probably be an article that was never read. People want conspiricy so they can hate it. -- User:Fiyero554

Or love it. -- User:OneRyt

[edit] Removal of rosters comment

I'm going to remove the part of the article that states "its membership rosters are a secret" because later in the article an extensive list of members is provided and then later it says "However the membership for each year is held in the Yale University archives." Dismas 10:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think their current rosters actually are secret though. Only the older ones are in the archives. Kaldari 17:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I only know the story up to 1985 on this. I was working on the subject as a friend of Anthony Sutton, and a friend of mine lived in Boston. On my behalf she went on several occasions to Yale Library and piecemeal was able to xerox the entire membership up to 1985 of S & B, with short biographies. This list is called The Russell Trust, as this is the financial wing or sponsor of the university (undergraduate) part of S & B. All the Yale 'secret societies' at least up to 1985 had their lists in the Library at Yale in similar fashion. (Our purpose was simply to help Sutton confirm his own leaked list, which we could.) So my salient points are - yes the list was/is in the library; and it's called The Russell Trust. It's in alphabetical, not initiation-date, order. Steranko 16:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slightly POV?

"The movie received horrible reviews and the fictitious nature of the film hardly needs to be disputed." --Joewithajay 00:22, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

"The fictitious nature of the film hardly needs to be disputed." shouldn't be in an enclyipedia, as it's not back up by evidence posted. Bayerischermann 03:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Now it says it received poor reviews. What's with it receiving poor reviews when it had a sequel? This is a sad portion of Wikipedia that needs immediate nonbiased revision with facts. Including facts like why the hell the police haven't received a search warrant if it is known that sculls are down there. Isn't the presence of such things subject to investigation for murder? (Youngidealist 19:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] in defence of the Smith, Brown, White, Johnson, Jones and Thompson "families"

This second category of core families covers such names as Smith, Allen, Brown, Clark, White, Day, Johnson, Jones, Miller, Stewart, Thompson, Cheney, Taft, Williams.

Ummm, IMHO, or rather in wikipedia's NPOV humble opinion, many of these are extremely common names in the United States:

List_of_most_common_surnames#United_States:

1. Smith (1.006%) - 3 million US citizens
2. Johnson (0.810%) - 2.4 million
3. (Williams (0.699%))
4. Jones (0.621%) - 1.8 million
5. Brown (0.621%) - 1.8 million
6. ...
7. White (0.279%)- 0.9 million
8. ...
9. Thompson (0.269%) - 0.8 million

Having frequent occurrence of these names is rather an argument in favour of random sampling (well, the total Smith+Johnson+Jones+Brown+White+Thompson is about 3.6% - someone could check if the fraction in Skull+Bones is 3.6% within Poisson error) rather than a bias in favour of certain families. IMHO only Cheney and Taft have any chance of being rare names here.

In fact, to see if S+B represents the present mix of family names in the US, and to see whether or not it has an anti-hispanic bias, it might be useful to check (date again from the same wikipedia page) whether the fractions of family names

1. Garcia (0.254%)
2. Martinez (0.234%)

are present among e.g. the last decade of S+B members, to within Poisson error. Of course, there are probably more useful things you could be doing with your time... Boud 22:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

'Tis true some are statistically common names, though tis not true that these individuals in the Skull and Bones rosters are unrelated to each other. These 'versions' of their common names are indeed intergenerational versions of their 'common' names. You are using the wrong sample and assumping individuals as the beans you are counting, when it is family nodes that are being counted. That means knowing more about these family nodes than number crunchable statistics. Interesting statistics you have there nevertheless, as I have often thought about the question you raised.

A chart will be uploaded soon describing the family nodes of these names in more detail based on actual intermarriage networks of these people to help visualize them as a group. Thanks. --ReSearcher 03:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm ReSearcher's words. Knowledge of the individuals is needed, and their family ties. 'Smith' may be a common name, but researchers such as Anthony Sutton knew the family histories in great depth and knew of the family relationships going back generations. Steranko 16:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning! Government or Skull and Bones agents may be vandalizing this article

Socora threw on 2 tags recently with no comment at all. Socora has made no other contributions to Wikipedia at all. [[2]] 64.229.31.95 13:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

So? That doesn't mean anything. Suggesting that someone is a government agent just because they posted 2 tags is complete conjecture. I'd like to see REAL proof, not just conspiracy theories. Government agents are limited in number, they wouldn't waste time tagging a wikipedia article. It's probably someone who thinks that the insane conspiracy theories in this article shouldn't be in wikipedia. If this happened in any other article, it would have gone unnoticed. Lay off the drugs, you're becoming paranoid.

---

Not to mention, that IP is in canada.

 whois 64.229.31.95            
 Bell Canada BELLCANADA-5 (NET-64-228-0-0-1) 
                                 64.228.0.0 - 64.231.255.255
 HSE HSE6921-CA (NET-64-229-28-0-1) 
                                 64.229.28.0 - 64.229.31.255

TheJackal 10:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but he didn't say which government they were working for, did he? :)--Sean|Black 20:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

All known information in these issues must be stated for the sake of eliminating human disillusionment. Check JFK's assassination and 9/11 and you will find listed conspiracy theories on those topics with even the slightest supporting facts to base them on listed. This is mentioned under 9/11 conspiracies too so it's important to be clear and honest when describing the fraternity. The author of this article however is clearly being heavily biased in his attitude. (Youngidealist 19:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Aliens

Yeah, hey crazy brothers, I think ALIENS formed this society to turn humans into canned goods. Word. And... THE GOVERNMENT IS EDITING THIS ENTRY! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

Take your meds --Acebrock 20:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NIcknames?

Is this a joke or what?

Bones names of selected Bonesmen

   * William Howard Taft: Darth Sidius
   * F. O. Matthiessen: Darth Maul
   * Averell Harriman: Darth Tyranus
   * Henry Luce: Darth Vader
   * Briton Hadden: Galactus
   * Archibald MacLeish: Skeletor
   * McGeorge Bundy: Beast Man
   * Potter Stewart: El Crappo Magnifico
   * William F. Buckley: Cheeky Boy
   * Anson Phelps Stokes: Lassie
   * Reuben Holden: McGyver
   * Charles Seymour: Wild Fire
   * Donald Ogden Stewart: Monty

It's been like that for days, so I guess it's accurate. I guess these guys were like "magiculis miraculis" a type of alien that can see the pop culture OF THE FUTURE! 209.124.115.101

It's a joke, though it sure is funny. --ReSearcher 03:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified tag

Ok, this article contains a lot of rather dubious statements. These need to be cited, every last sentence of them, from reputable published works as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. See also Wikipedia:Citations. Eventually, if there are no citations, I'll start getting rid of the really preposterous stuff, like the coffin masturbation and Hitler's china. (It's not that I think it's not true, necessarily, it's that I can't believe it's been documented!) -- SCZenz 19:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] *

The nicknames come from a book by Scroll and Key member Alexandra Robbins. She also cites the Nazi materials in the Tomb. Also in "Fleshing Out Skull and Bones" testiomny is given by people who have been in the tomb that there is NAzi materials in there.

You shouldn't go deleteing things because there is no referance to them when you do a google or yahoo search. There is a lot of information that is not on search engines!

I have also removed the referance "so-called secret society" and replaced it with "secret society." You can look at material from Yale that refers to it as a secret society. Also, the membership lists for the societies used to be printed in various newspapers to keep old boys informed. Quoting an article from the Chicago Daily Tribune, on May 26, 1899:

Yale's annual senior elections capping the supreme hope of the indergraduated for secret society honors, occurred this afternoon.

Thus secret society is encyclopedic; so-called secret society is an uninformed statement.

--81.155.49.224 17:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I can delete things that are not linked in reputable sources, and so can anyone else, if I request they be cited first and nobody cites them. We're writing an encyclopedia, which means our articles must indicate where the information comes from, especially if it appears dubious! For example, the source you list here is potentially biased, and all the facts that come from her should note that it came from her book in the text. Please refer to:

• WP:RS#Unattributed material
• WP:RS#Evaluating sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability

Please cite your sources appropriately in the text according to Wikipedia:Cite sources.

You're absolutely right, of course, about the word "so-called"—us knowing if it exists or not isn't what makes it secret. -- SCZenz 22:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheney

As in Dick Cheney?

I believe so, yes.--Sean|Black 02:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

OMG, you mean they have jews too? We're boned.

...no punn intended

[edit] Pacifica House

I removed the reference to Pacifica house as uncited. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society of the Pacifica House. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate list?

Anyone have an opinion on breaking out List of known Skull and Bones members into its own page? Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea particularly if it was set up like the following link. Since webpages are easy to search through with browser search modules, pehaps it could be organized something like this [3]--both in rank scale as well as by cohort year, two versions? Then people can add the tidbits that are gathering on the very incomplete section of the main article, as well as notice where the gaps are for others to fill it in somewhat. It's hardly that extreme or distracting so far, though it might be in the future. Perhaps keeping the section per se in the main article, though when people click on it in the headings to get to that section, they see the section though with a link for another page as you suggest. --ReSearcher 03:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Copied out, see List_of_Skull_and_Bones_Members Ronabop 05:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ronabop shabop! I'll add the forwarding link somewhere in the article, because you left it out? (If you didn't, tell me where it was?) I was puzzled because your edit note said clearly you were making the link though I didn't see where it was in reference to the article or how people could find it. --ReSearcher 10:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We had two sections in the article listing members, one at the top and one at the bottom. The top section now has the list linked to, as well as some of the more prominent figures. See [4]. Ronabop 07:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant comment

I removed a paragraph about George H.W. Bush and William Taft because it had absolutely nothing to do with Skull and Bones. --Garcilaso alighieri 02:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ROTFL: Bones Importing the Prussian Social Control Model

This paragraph must be a joke. The comedian, who wrote this stuff, has given us a hint: "'Right-Hegelian' Fichte." More nonsense within three words is not possible. (At least, he didn't write "Fitche", as Millegan followers are used to do.)
-- 84.190.59.240 23:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I must confess, I can keep this secret no longer

I must confess, I can keep this secret no longer. I too was part of a secret organization during my years in college. We had ritualistic initiations and secret exclusive activities. We would not allow women to join our organization. There were many secrets which we were not allowed to discuss with any "outsiders". The name of this organization was called the Kappa Sigma fraternity. In fact, it now appears as though there are similar fraternity (and even sorority) organizations operating in colleges all over the country...OUTRAGEOUS!!! Jeravicious 20:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you eat the cookie? Ewlyahoocom 01:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think are more appropriate question would be "what are you smoking?" Coconuteire 16:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too much opium stuff

Some of that opium stuff needs to be moved to another article. That section is way too long.

69.137.220.179 01:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, what kind of suggestions do you have? It's not about opium, and it's not about anything else except how all the major intergenerational families of skull and Bones were opium smugglers. Thus, it is about Skull and Bones. I think you see the conundrum. It is very much a Skull and Bones interweaving we are talking about here. --ReSearcher 09:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The article has swollen to 312k. That is far too long. Information about the club's members hould be placed in their respective biographies. Original theories about opium trade should be placed in other websites. -Will Beback 23:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, in defense of it, opium is central in the history of Skull and Bones, money laundering networks, and where all that money comes from for them to play with: the drug trades.

If you want to know about Skull and Bones in the real world, stretch your mental "reality box" a bit bigger and your browse cache. The Russells were indeed the internationalist contraband monopolistists of the opium trade, they are indeed a major family of Skull and Bones, and the international opium trade and Skull and Bones indeed have been called upon in an ongoing way [1] to support artificial international prohibitions and [2] sourcing the opium families (as documented). It ain't ancient history: it's they way they are working now. Encouraging people to read prose for information is important, particularly given these dismal U.S. figures. [5] Besides, I'm sure 96% of the world (you know the people outside the U.S. cloistered mediasphere) wants to know the scale of Bones operations and how it has affected them. Bones families are international from the start. Besides given the three separate troll attacks, which I frankly take as a vote of confidence that it should be here, shows it's doing its job of informing people. :-)

Particulary keep this above quote in mind: people are indeed coming here looking for the opium connection, -- from the above:

"i would love an exposition on the theories surrounding the known history and more substantial of the evidence. i came here hoping to learn more about the supposed roots of the group in the opium trade, but found no mention whatsoever... i know that that isnt exactly an obscure part of the lore of S&B... what gives? PopeFauveXXIII, 6/24/04"

--so I think you would allow that your suggestion is more debilitative than constructive of the article. People come here for information on this and to learn. --ReSearcher 03:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is too long. It appears to have been overtaken by a conspiracy theory which is interesting, but which goes well beyond an encyclopedia article on a well-known and barely secret "secret society". We're going to have to pare this article down, either by moving the material to other articles or by deleting it. Please make sure that all assertions are sourced so that we'll which is appropriate. -Will Beback 05:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is this "we" thing you keep referring to? Your link says you are on the "mediation committee" or something, though I am unaware that anyone is really mediating here, you are attacking. How many of you are there? I say once more, I don't think you have the right to dumb down this information, particluarly without having any additions to the article yourself and only suggestions for removals which seems to be your intention instead of "mediation." Skull and Bones is a global phenomena, and very intimiately connected to the real world that has barely changed for 200 years. It's personnel are clearly documented in both drug running and setting up and running prohibition beneficaries worldwide. That's no theory. It is. I don't think you are seriously contemplating what being tied into a criminal network pulling 400 billion dollars a year means in terms of political power. It may be "too long" for weak intellects, though words like "too" are entirely subjective. A clarification on your status, interest, and expertise in this would be appreciated. I don't think you know very much about Skull and Bones at all, and are a poor person to come along to suggest purges. The drug trades and its money are everywhere you turn in this issue. If you think the opium section is unrelated, you are fooling yourself and attempting to fool others instea of help them learn about the intracacies of the real world. --ReSearcher 09:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the worse Wikipedia article I have read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.12.200.132 (talk • contribs) .

Sign your comments, so we at least know its the same person causing all this artificial hullabaloo (when you are unsigned in, signed in, and then not signing your quote)! Actually more people have helped to edit it positively from the record here.... Don't be a Wiki-basher. Don't be a bully. --ReSearcher 21:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"We" are the editors of Wikipedia. The mediation committee has nothing to do with this. 47,000 words is enough for a short book. This is an encyclopedia, the articles should be easily readable. In addition, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The lengthy material on the supposed German/Austrian connection appears to be a product of your own research, as do the section on Prohibition and others. The language does not have an encyclopedic tone, and the article now makes careless assertions that are unverifiable. This is not an acceptable article in its present form. -Will Beback 00:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Will. Please see Wikipedia:Article size for recommended article length. Olessi 16:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The article, as it stands, is filled with rubbish that is at best tangentially related to the topic. I don't think I have time to cut it mercilessly, but I thought I'd make it clear that I fully support whoever does. -- SCZenz 17:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked though so far I would tentatively agree with the acts of splitting out, which I have nothing against as long as it isn't "code" for a form of vandalism of documentable content particularly in this obviously politically sensitive area. My comments and complaints elsewhere about Will Beback's very questionable biased application and cherrypicking use of his administrator power still stands however. I don't think that can be questioned. As long as "splitting up the article" is not a code for destroying verifiable content as "official vandalism", I don't see any issue yet with me and this article. Others are encouraged to watch for and report ongoing vandalism in the article, since this article is rife with attempts: not limited to those such as [1] the user:Rotten who was warned by admin Jossi to cease and desist or be banned from Wikipedia for his wholesale purgings of the "Bones and Opium" section, or [2] anonymous purgings of the middle of documentary quotes removing Nazi-Bones connects (see other notes above), or [3] hostile disbelief that the Hitler's silverware issue was coming from Bonesmembers themselves, as reported to Alexandria Robbin's (pseudo)exposure book on p.5. Cheers, --ReSearcher 14:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Per WP:OWN: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV also apply here. Also WP:NOT#Not a soapbox. I recommend the editors who requested mediation edit mercilessly. Durova 06:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. My Lord. This article sucks on so many levels. Gonna start fixing it. Ronabop 00:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! -- SCZenz 01:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio problems..... Google: [6][7] [8][9] An editor (or a few?) appear to be bulk dumping text in. This is not good. Ronabop 02:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have to go back at *least* a month to get rid of all the copyvios (Feb 5th, 02:49, is the last one I found, by ReSearcher, lifted word for word from [10]). Ugh. I start with that user's history and seen when his first copyvio was. Ronabop 04:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Totally disputed tag

Just to make it blindingly, painfully clear: the article is full of uncited and only vaguely related material, which it implies is related to the subject of the article for reasons that I can't begin to fathom. It needs a major overhaul, as we've been discussing above. Please don't remove the {{totallydisputed}} tag until major changes are made. -- SCZenz 02:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest a rollback all the way to the first mention of Antony_C._Sutton, who was (IMO) quite clearly a crank, and appears to be the sole original source for a great deal of the chaff in this article... barring that, considering the amount of blatant copyvio issues (we'd have to roll back at least a month), maybe a better solution is to tag it and start fresh? Ronabop 06:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree- a rollback to a previous version may be the best solution. -Will Beback 06:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The January 11 version seems reasonable. -Will Beback 09:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't want to lose too much... lots of anons. Went for a split, with original article text. Copyvios in those articles should be looked at. Harshly. :) Ronabop 13:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

That looks good. Thanks for figuring it out. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be Prepared for Government Agents to disrupt and falsify this topic

With Bush and Kerry both in the cult....and with Dan Brown's new book going to be about the cult [11]; this item is in the cult's censorship/sabotage bullseye; at least if I were them I would be wanting to discredit the hell out of it. 67.71.122.243 05:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Won't they just use their mind-control rays on us to force us to discredit the article? Ronabop 06:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My dog once told me, "If you deny the conspiracy, then you're part of the conspiracy." Jeravicious 22:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that many powerful people are Skull and Bones members opens up the door for extreme suspicion. Ridiculing such suspicion as insane conspiracy theory is, in my opinion, nothing more than ignorance. Coconuteire 16:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg Group... this is a real-life horror movie. Where the hell are we?Laikalynx 04:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skull and Bones origins

...Wasn't the order's first name (under Taft) "The Order of the Scull and Bones"? Perhaps someone would have a valid source for this - I don't, so just mention it here. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 16:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major editing

As part of the Cleanup Taskforce, I just did some major league editing. I took out a bunch of links to start with. We do not need 20 links for this. 5-8 is sufficient. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Nor are we a gossip publication. I removed several very speculative comments from the article. If people want to edit it more, go ahead, but please don't undo my work unless it's absolutely necessary. What was here was a nightmare. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed the nicknames portion as it was an exact repeat of the material listed under the Names section. - Livingston 23:26 28 April, 2006 (UTC)

Whitewash and censorship self-appointed taskforce, did you say? How about a restore the material with verifiable sources taskforce?Edison 16:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subarticles to be nominated for deletion

The subarticles currently linked form this article are abysmal. They are far too long, the writing style is innappropriate for an encyclopedia, there are numerous copyright issues, and they are not well referenced. Unless they are dramatically improved in the near future, I will nominating all of them for deletion. Kaldari 21:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

They are also copyright violations. I'm going to remove them from this article until this matter is settled. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Censorship

please stop trhe pseudointellectual censorship. 65.95.148.15 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

And please don't yell "censorship". Just a difference of opinion. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The US Branch of a German secret society?

I removed this section, as it entirely lacked sources. Claims such as

Some people say that Skull and Bones is a U.S. chapter of an early 1800s German secret society. Those who have broken into the Bones "Tomb" (or those members who are disaffected from the Bones experience and wanted to report on them), describe many German-language pictures and themes on the walls and in daily use--from pictures of skulls, to swastikas, to the use of Hitler's silverware and table settings, obviously pilfered out of Germany after WWII.

require HEAVY verification. Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article has been sanitized and censored

More verification for this article pre-sanitizing than most articles. Please do not revert without HEAVY consensus. 64.229.186.197 19:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice job of censorship and whitewashing. A great deal of well-referenced material has been deleted if it is in any way embarassing to the organization. Some of it needs to be restored.Edison 16:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's Verifiability Policy. Then feel free to add as much cited information about Skull and Bones as you wish. Cited, verifiable information about Skull and Bones will not be removed (or "censored" if you prefer). Kaldari 15:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No.Edison is right on. This "clean up" is nothing but sanitizing political correctness. There was nop consensus for this article hijacking by a "committee"; I am reverting to the pre-whitewash version. 64.229.30.63 03:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, actually, all editing on Wikipedia is done by committee. Stop reverting the article to an unverified and, frankly, nonsensical state. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you care so much about this article, why don't you do some legitimate work to improve it with cited information? Kaldari 05:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VCU Chapter?

I'm from Richmond, VA, went to VCU, and never heard of Skull & Bones having a chapter at the university. There was an old restaurant on the medical college campus called "Skull & Bones" but I think that's hardly reason to suspect that there's an actual chapter of the society here. Is there some other proof or documentation of this anywhere else on the Internet?

--Dino213aa 16:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that information pending some sort of citation, and tagged the rest as unverified. Good catch. Zetawoof^(ζ) 20:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV issues due to omission

I added the NPOV tag due to the fact that this article lacks hardly any mention of the various conspiracy theories relating to Skull and Bones. I find very hard to believe that reputable sources can't be located mentioning the various conspiracy theories. Until such sources can be located and such info be added back this article I think the NPOV tag should remain. --Cab88 09:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cab88. Feel free to add sources! In the mean time, I feel the NPOV tag is inappropriate given the information included does contain sources. If you find anything that doesn't, you are within wikipedia policy to delete them on sight. (Although I don't agree with this action personally). --Rebroad 20:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great work creating a completely bland and uninformative article

I don't have anything to add to this article because it's not something I know much about. However, this talk page is full of much more interesting tidbits than the article, which is now so bland, you wouldn't even know that there *are* wide-ranging conspiracy theories about S&B in the popular culture.

Sorry, and wish I could help edit, but this is an excellent example of an article that has been edited into uselessness. It tells us nothing about the significance of S&B to the general American culture, or why there is such a strong interest in the society.

Objectivity is a useful fiction, and an ideal to aspire towards, but if taken too seriously, it prevents the discussion of social or cultural phenomenae, which are always matters of interpretation. You can't have an article on a cultural phenomenon that fails to describe its significance. To me, this article is an excellent example of why Wikipedia often fails with social, cultural or historical entries, whereas its usually fairly on par with scientific, mathematical or engineering articles.

Don't bother flaming, because I don't care. I say this only in the spirit of constructive criticism. StrangeAttractor 06:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with StrangeAttractor. I researched S & B to a degree in the 1980s though I'm somewhat rusty on the subject now. The article is incredibly bland as compared to the conspiracy 'theories' S & B alumni are related to by researchers. S & B, for example, was intimately involved in the early CIA and OSS - it's the very reason spies have the nickname 'spooks'. Volumes by Anthony Sutton deeply connected S & B with the direction of American education, the Manhattan Project, financing the Bolshevik Revolution - please, to the uninformed, no need to laugh, as Sutton's works are meticulously researched - and so forth. On the very cusp of the Bolshevik Revlution a "Red Cross" mission journeyed from the USA to Russia. Almost every member of that "Red Cross" mission was a member of S & B (let's remember there are only about 2-300 active members in the world at any given time, so what are the odds?) and a banker, industrialist or other form of financier: they hardly knew how to tie a bandage, and financed no medical supplies. But in short, 'conspiracy theories' are real AS THEORIES. In other words, it's a fact that some believe in the theories (the theories are the existing fact), and I feel the more substantiated ones require a section. Sutton's books would be a principle source for this. S & B members have also had a big hand not only in owning but in creating mainstream US news media outlets e.g. Time and Life magazines. Steranko 16:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006's "Conspiracy Theory" is 1955's "Communist Propaganda"

I agree with Steranko and StrangeAttractor ; there is no doubt that the political importance of this cult (by any definition it is a cult) is under-reported in the current Wikipedia article; e.g.[12]USA Today;Sep.25,2002 "Bush, a loyal and particularly active member of Skull and Bones, a mysterious secret society, seems to have done almost all he can to promote a level of secrecy in government.One of President Bush's first social gatherings at the White House was a Skull and Bones reunion."

The overriding issue,imo,is that people who do not wish disturbing facts about western government leadership groups to be examined have successfully imbedded a slur term -"conspiracy theory"- in the public (and particularly media) mentality which serves to readily dismiss the facts of such matters. The same namecalling approach has worked throughout history to stifle certain bodies of thought and information; e.g. early suggestions of social programs such as minimum wage laws and universal health care were commonly referred to as "communist propaganda". These type of broadly and often misapplied slurs aimed at certain paths of thought are especially effective in a group discussion as they tend to isolate the target and prevent otherwise thinking people from giving the words/facts targeted the level of consideration they would if the slur had not been fired; this because noone wants to be seen as being stupid enough to fall for a "conspiracy theory" (or in the analogy, no patriot wanted to be seen as subscribing to "communist propaganda").

Conversely, have you ever heard of any theory emanating from the White House or even from the Pat Buchanan types described as a "conspiracy theory"; regardless of how far fetched or conspiratorial it might be? No! The "conspiracy theory" slur is reserved for thought censorship application.

Western government leaders are allowed to come up with totally unfounded theories like the "Iraq has WMD" theory or even theories involving alleged conspiracies like "Saddam might sell WMD to al-Queda" or "Saddam is trying to get uranium cake from Niger" and those theories were considered by vitually everyone to be worth an assumption of validity; but if an academic/economist like Antony C. Sutton accumulates fact based research which is negative towards sections of western government leadership; that's called a "conspiracy theory" and usually censored.

Occam's Razor is a good tool for looking at the facts of the Skull and Bones matter. These facts below should be in the article,imo, but I fear there is no way to include them without attracting the "conspiracy theory" labelers .

9 Bonesmen were factually involved in creating,financing and supplying america's enemies and other types of war promotion/profiteering as well as the secretization of american government with the 1947 National Security Act and subsequent amendments. Those 9 men are/were

• Averell Harriman,Prescott Bush, Robert Lovett, George Walker, Roland Harriman, George H.W. Bush, William Bundy, George W. Bush, McGeorge Bundy.

Had none of these men been born, the world may have been spared WW2, Korean war, the "cold" war with the USSR, the Vietnam War, and the current War on Terror. All 9 have/had sworn allegiance to the Order of Skull and Bones; and the S&B allegiance does,in fact, transcend,by oath, all their other personal,commercial,spiritual and national allegiances;

Prescott Bush, George Walker and Roland Harriman(all members of the skull and bones cult) financed and supplied Hitler's rise to power and the nazi war machine for 16 years up until 10 months after pearl harbor when their companies were confiscated by the US government under our Trading with the Enemy Act. The foundation for the Bush family fortune was made by financing and supplying "puppet enemy" Hitler.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/27/finance_nazis/index_np.html

http://washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20031017-110534-8149r

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0421,indiana,53767,1.html

These 2 Sutton books show how Bonesmen financed and supplied the USSR empire;

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/index.html

http://www.nwowatcher.com/ebooks/The%20Best%20Enemy%20Money%20Can%20Buy%20-%20By%20Antony%20Sutton.pdf

Averell Harriman, William Bundy and McGeorge Bundy were S&B members and they were the architects of the Vietnam War.

Robert Lovett(S&B) engineered the Korean War and also the National Security Act of 1947 which sanctioned secrecy(even from congress)within US government operations.

If there is a consensus on including any of these facts I'd like to do so? Iq135 15:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New World Order?

Is it just me, or does the New World Order seciton seem a little illogical and conspirital? Is there any reasonable backing for that assumption, or is it just a byproduct of personal research from a conspiritol theorist? -71.107.254.235 02:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"conspiritol theorist"? Lewlz, there's a new one. Coconuteire 16:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current event?

Sorry for being,perhaps, ignorant as to methods here; I am a newbie. I notice some other Wikipedia topics are labeled "current events". Imo there is active Skull and Bones influence on the US government regularly; for example, William Donaldson (S&B 1952) was brought out of retirement to run the SEC a few years ago and just yesterday Fred Smith (S&B 1966) CEO and founder of Fedex was at the WhiteHouse working on US energy policy.[13]. Would it be appropriate to add content as Bonesmen make news? Iq135 16:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section removed

This section was removed with the claim that it was riddled with errors and has nothing to do with the society, only its members. Being riddled with errors deserves a rewrite rather than removal, but the other reason carries a little weight. Perhaps it deserves its own article. Umeboshi 17:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonesmen companies confiscated in WW2 for "Trading With the Enemy"

Prescott Bush, George Walker and Roland Harriman (all members of Skull and Bones) financed and supplied Hitler's rise to power and the nazi war machine for 16 years up until 10 months after Pearl Harbor when their companies were confiscated by the US government under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The foundation for the Bush family fortune was made by financing and supplying Hitler and some Holocaust survivors claim in a lawsuit that the Bush/Harriman companies used concentration camp labour.[14][15][16][17][18]

[edit] Control of CIA

In the just out new movie The Good Shephard, a Skill & Bones member (Matt Damon) becomes head of the CIA. This is after showing repeated fetes at Deer Island where the entire existing Skull & Bones membership conrvort in skits and doings making them appearing completely silly and foppish. This brings great discredit on the serious Intell work by the USA not conducted by such truly dip shytty, silly people. But you do get the comboinations as in GHW Bush who was CIA director and both apparently serious but at same time a fop.

[edit] Other Chapters

Skull & Bones spread across the USA supposedly being e.g. the Blue Key groups at the differing US Universities called in some locations - the Machine.

Others claim the only branch chapter was begun by Skull & Bones at Wesleyan Univ as Theta Nu Epsilon. And that chapter later spread across the USA- see wiki for "The Machine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machine

[edit] AMERICAN DEMOCRACY AND THE BONES INFLUENCE.

What does it say about the lie that is American Democracy when 2 members of the same secret society stand for the president? How many more Bonesmen are actually in congress? What is the point in voting for either party when they are awash with Bonesmen? What this story tells us is that democracy in America has been compromised. There needs to be a independent 3rd candidate for the presidency who wont be compromised by this secret society bullshit.

[edit] "Secret" society?

"The Order of Skull and Bones is a secret society based at Yale University..."

How secret can a society be that has its own Wikipedia page? Nat 11:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)