6 ms·

What most biographies forget to mention is that Franklin was also member of the Hellfire club, which is described as [1], > Members would drink vast quantities

by huijzer 18d ago

What most biographies forget to mention is that Franklin was also member of the Hellfire club, which is described as [1], > Members would drink vast quantities of alcohol and gorge themselves on food. Drunkenness was a prerequisite of The Hellfire Club. They’d dabble in most of the seven deadly sins to be honest – with gluttony, greed and lust being regular activities. Add in a smattering of gambling, fornicating and blasphemy, and you get the idea of a night at the Hellfire Club. And, > When we say ‘poking fun’, they were all about dressing as monks, performing parodies of religious ceremonies and making mock sacrifices to Bacchus and Venus. Along with that there was huge amounts of boozing, feasting, entertaining prostitutes and sharing pornographic materials. [1]: https://www.walks.com/blog/hellfire-club-london/ https://www.walks.com/blog/hellfire-club-london/

deleted 18d ago
[deleted]
arjie 18d ago
Fascinating. TIL. One wonders what we common folk would think of such activities. Would we treat Benjamin Franklin as some kind of modern Thiel-adjacent debauch who thinks himself far too smart? Or would canceling old Benjy actually have created a better world? Perhaps a man moderated by a society more observant and inclined to police might have been even more influential? I suppose we will never know but it is entertaining to consider the counterfactual.
- watwut 18d ago
  Thiel has completely different philosophy and believes. So, no, absolutely not.
  - kodoman 18d ago
    I feel like everything I have seen of Thiel is not as well thought out as people claim, I feel he came to lots of his positions from a sort of contrarian attitude and simply the limited things he has been exposed to (that of course is true of everyone but to me it seems striking how little the things actually fit together are are sort of all just mushed together), Take for example The Straussian Moment, though quotes Strauss not actually very Straussian does not really use ancient wisdom and I think he adopted it because of the connection that the left made (incorrectly I think) to the neo-cons and Leo Strauss. His use of Girard does not actually fit at all and his whole Anti-christ prophesy thing is a kind of inversion of Girard and actually identifies the anti-christ with the katechon the opposite to tertuilian, Girard himself (I think) and Schmitt. I don't think his views are all that meaningful or held with real conviction other then they are views that allow him to behave how he wants for now. If his views came into conflict with his desired behavior he would adopt new ideas no doubt.
    - smolder 18d ago
      I agree that Thiels ideas are on weak foundations. The idea of "the antichrist" is especially silly when you go back to historical sources. Scholars have said it's not a person, but a category. "The antichrist" is just people against Christ. At some point it got misinterpreted into some kind of reverse-Jesus.
      - krapp 18d ago
        >At some point it got misinterpreted into some kind of reverse-Jesus. That's from the Book of Revelations, which is probably talking about Nero Caesar anyway.
        kodoman 18d ago
        One possibility that does accord very well with the events, but no fixed interpretation and no church dogma on positions of antichrist(s), man of sin, whore of Babylon. One should read the Apocalypse of John/revelation and be amazed by the imagery and strangeness that is conjured up, as well as it's highly vengeful nature. Another great way to read it is with a word in mind hupopodion/ὑποπόδιον, and to think of this as god putting the world under his feed and conquering the world and look at it's accordance in Hebrews.
        huijzer 18d ago
        > That's from the Book of Revelations, which is probably talking about Nero Caesar anyway. It’s “Book of Revelation”. Singular. Probably because it talks about Jesus being revealed to the whole world. He will be revealed once and for all, so singular. Regarding Revelation being behind us. It will be as clear as thunder visible from the east to the west and many cities will be destroyed etc what didn’t happen yet I’m sure. Bible warned that people will try to convince us that it has passed already. Quoting KJV from 1611 because I like the used language and find it a clear text. 2 Thess 2, “That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”
- inigyou 18d ago
  If you've never been to a party like that, I dare to say you've missed out. These days they'd be open to the public but not well advertised. They also wouldn't do all of those things at the same party.
rootsudo 18d ago
Yes, and? These activities are still around today with all members of society.
- Thanemate 18d ago
  But not all members of society are treated like a symbol whose behavior and manners we ought to revere and draw inspiration from. In such scenarios, pointing out that they were flawed is to humanize them. It's clear that there was something that compelled you to write "yeah, so what?" as a rebuttal. But I can't tell if that came from a need to protect Franklin's public image, and to what end. Throughout human history, there has been sparse evidence of historical figures which we draw (correctly) inspiration and admiration. I'll never forget reading Marcus Aurelius' Meditations where he was writing down in his journal how he was struggling to keep his sexual attraction to young boys at bay, who were also probably slaves. And he's still considered one of the five good emperors of Rome. I'm not writing this to say whether any of them deserve it. I'm just pointing out that abuse of power isn't something new, and its expression isn't always known. For those people, the difference wasn't in their desires but that they had the power to act on them with no one batting an eye, and if they noticed they'd just walked it off. Not that far from what we have today.
delis-thumbs-7e 18d ago
Biographies forget to mention it since there’s no evidence of him belonging to any such club. Also those clubs reputation is probably highly exaggerated. Your main source is some London tourist guide -site, so doesn’t seem you did exactly stellar research here. If you are interested in rich elites of the time doing strange and sordid festivitoes, I recommend studying the life of Peter the Great of Russia, who really was not very great at all as a person, but his drinking parties were literally insane and deadly. Empire and Rest is Hostory has great podcasts on him and there’s several good biographies available in English.
- huijzer 18d ago
  If you want to rebuke me, then come with arguments. Just questioning the source is no counter argument. “Bad” sources can provide accurate information and “good” sources can provide inaccurate information. We need to go beyond mere categorization by source and use logic instead (which computer scientists know) to find what is true and what is not. Also that some other person was possibly wicked doesn’t counter my point either. Both can be wicked at the same time according to basic logic since the one doesn’t exclude the other.
  - delis-thumbs-7e 18d ago
    What logic supports that Franklin was a member of Hellfire Club? From what premises can we deduct that it is unquestionably true? Or perhaps we inductively come into that conclusion based on the fact that he knew the founder, and some site on the internet - with plenty of reason to exaggerate - says so? If any source is equally valid, I can just quickly write an html-file that says Franklin was an alien from other planet, and then it is up to you to prove it wrong. Where’s the logic in that? When discussing a historic figure, we usually base our claim on primary sources (such as Franklin or other people at the time either directly saying he was member of the club, or there being a member register or other such clear evidence) or at least on primary sources that we can trust to base their research on primary sources and strong evidence. Otherwise we could just say anything about anything. Maybe Abraham Lincoln was part of Hell’s Angels. And my example of Peter The Not-So-Great’s debauchery of course is not rebuke, rather it is an example that real history gives far more interesting examples of behaviour you describe and is a million times crazier that anything anyone can fantasise. Therefore we don’t need to make up stories.
deleted 18d ago
[deleted]
bovermyer 18d ago
Franklin corresponded from time to time with Sir Francis Dashwood, the founder of the Order of the Friars of St Francis of Wycombe, the most infamous of the hellfire clubs. There is no evidence that Franklin actually was a member of the club or partook of its activities. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1972/02/27/archives/the-hellfire-club-visions-of-debauchery-danced-in-their-heads.html https://www.nytimes.com/1972/02/27/archives/the-hellfire-clu... [2] Ashe, Geoffrey. The Hell-Fire Clubs: A History of Anti-Morality. Great Britain: Sutton Publishing, 2005, p. 121

by huijzer 18d ago

deleted 18d ago

[deleted]

arjie 18d ago

Fascinating. TIL. One wonders what we common folk would think of such activities. Would we treat Benjamin Franklin as some kind of modern Thiel-adjacent debauch who thinks himself far too smart? Or would canceling old Benjy actually have created a better world? Perhaps a man moderated by a society more observant and inclined to police might have been even more influential? I suppose we will never know but it is entertaining to consider the counterfactual.

watwut 18d ago
Thiel has completely different philosophy and believes. So, no, absolutely not.
- kodoman 18d ago
  I feel like everything I have seen of Thiel is not as well thought out as people claim, I feel he came to lots of his positions from a sort of contrarian attitude and simply the limited things he has been exposed to (that of course is true of everyone but to me it seems striking how little the things actually fit together are are sort of all just mushed together), Take for example The Straussian Moment, though quotes Strauss not actually very Straussian does not really use ancient wisdom and I think he adopted it because of the connection that the left made (incorrectly I think) to the neo-cons and Leo Strauss. His use of Girard does not actually fit at all and his whole Anti-christ prophesy thing is a kind of inversion of Girard and actually identifies the anti-christ with the katechon the opposite to tertuilian, Girard himself (I think) and Schmitt. I don't think his views are all that meaningful or held with real conviction other then they are views that allow him to behave how he wants for now. If his views came into conflict with his desired behavior he would adopt new ideas no doubt.
  - smolder 18d ago
    I agree that Thiels ideas are on weak foundations. The idea of "the antichrist" is especially silly when you go back to historical sources. Scholars have said it's not a person, but a category. "The antichrist" is just people against Christ. At some point it got misinterpreted into some kind of reverse-Jesus.
    - krapp 18d ago
      >At some point it got misinterpreted into some kind of reverse-Jesus. That's from the Book of Revelations, which is probably talking about Nero Caesar anyway.
      - kodoman 18d ago
        One possibility that does accord very well with the events, but no fixed interpretation and no church dogma on positions of antichrist(s), man of sin, whore of Babylon. One should read the Apocalypse of John/revelation and be amazed by the imagery and strangeness that is conjured up, as well as it's highly vengeful nature. Another great way to read it is with a word in mind hupopodion/ὑποπόδιον, and to think of this as god putting the world under his feed and conquering the world and look at it's accordance in Hebrews.
      - huijzer 18d ago
        > That's from the Book of Revelations, which is probably talking about Nero Caesar anyway. It’s “Book of Revelation”. Singular. Probably because it talks about Jesus being revealed to the whole world. He will be revealed once and for all, so singular. Regarding Revelation being behind us. It will be as clear as thunder visible from the east to the west and many cities will be destroyed etc what didn’t happen yet I’m sure. Bible warned that people will try to convince us that it has passed already. Quoting KJV from 1611 because I like the used language and find it a clear text. 2 Thess 2, “That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”
inigyou 18d ago
If you've never been to a party like that, I dare to say you've missed out. These days they'd be open to the public but not well advertised. They also wouldn't do all of those things at the same party.

rootsudo 18d ago

Yes, and? These activities are still around today with all members of society.

Thanemate 18d ago
But not all members of society are treated like a symbol whose behavior and manners we ought to revere and draw inspiration from. In such scenarios, pointing out that they were flawed is to humanize them. It's clear that there was something that compelled you to write "yeah, so what?" as a rebuttal. But I can't tell if that came from a need to protect Franklin's public image, and to what end. Throughout human history, there has been sparse evidence of historical figures which we draw (correctly) inspiration and admiration. I'll never forget reading Marcus Aurelius' Meditations where he was writing down in his journal how he was struggling to keep his sexual attraction to young boys at bay, who were also probably slaves. And he's still considered one of the five good emperors of Rome. I'm not writing this to say whether any of them deserve it. I'm just pointing out that abuse of power isn't something new, and its expression isn't always known. For those people, the difference wasn't in their desires but that they had the power to act on them with no one batting an eye, and if they noticed they'd just walked it off. Not that far from what we have today.

delis-thumbs-7e 18d ago

Biographies forget to mention it since there’s no evidence of him belonging to any such club. Also those clubs reputation is probably highly exaggerated. Your main source is some London tourist guide -site, so doesn’t seem you did exactly stellar research here. If you are interested in rich elites of the time doing strange and sordid festivitoes, I recommend studying the life of Peter the Great of Russia, who really was not very great at all as a person, but his drinking parties were literally insane and deadly. Empire and Rest is Hostory has great podcasts on him and there’s several good biographies available in English.

huijzer 18d ago
If you want to rebuke me, then come with arguments. Just questioning the source is no counter argument. “Bad” sources can provide accurate information and “good” sources can provide inaccurate information. We need to go beyond mere categorization by source and use logic instead (which computer scientists know) to find what is true and what is not. Also that some other person was possibly wicked doesn’t counter my point either. Both can be wicked at the same time according to basic logic since the one doesn’t exclude the other.
- delis-thumbs-7e 18d ago
  What logic supports that Franklin was a member of Hellfire Club? From what premises can we deduct that it is unquestionably true? Or perhaps we inductively come into that conclusion based on the fact that he knew the founder, and some site on the internet - with plenty of reason to exaggerate - says so? If any source is equally valid, I can just quickly write an html-file that says Franklin was an alien from other planet, and then it is up to you to prove it wrong. Where’s the logic in that? When discussing a historic figure, we usually base our claim on primary sources (such as Franklin or other people at the time either directly saying he was member of the club, or there being a member register or other such clear evidence) or at least on primary sources that we can trust to base their research on primary sources and strong evidence. Otherwise we could just say anything about anything. Maybe Abraham Lincoln was part of Hell’s Angels. And my example of Peter The Not-So-Great’s debauchery of course is not rebuke, rather it is an example that real history gives far more interesting examples of behaviour you describe and is a million times crazier that anything anyone can fantasise. Therefore we don’t need to make up stories.

deleted 18d ago

[deleted]

bovermyer 18d ago

Franklin corresponded from time to time with Sir Francis Dashwood, the founder of the Order of the Friars of St Francis of Wycombe, the most infamous of the hellfire clubs. There is no evidence that Franklin actually was a member of the club or partook of its activities. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1972/02/27/archives/the-hellfire-club-visions-of-debauchery-danced-in-their-heads.html https://www.nytimes.com/1972/02/27/archives/the-hellfire-clu... [2] Ashe, Geoffrey. The Hell-Fire Clubs: A History of Anti-Morality. Great Britain: Sutton Publishing, 2005, p. 121