Is Bohemian Grove real?

Here’s a great article by Alex Cockburn

The Truth About Bohemian Grove

The way Domhoff described it, the effigy represents “Dull Care.” IOW, let all us hard-working CEOs and moguls and statesmen shed our Dull Care and have fun for a few days.

Forgive me for whooshing you without being obvious.
My comment of Who? was in reference to the post above mine which mentions the giant owl.

But, these guys all have each other’s phone numbers and e-mail addresses. They went to the same schools. They don’t need this kind of social occasion to talk/plot shop/evil. They can communicate with each other at any time.

Here’s a pretty good pic of the stage and owl. I hosted it on imageshack as the site I found it on may give people in work a problem.

BrainGlutton it’s called networking. You may meet someone who you normally wouldn’t and find that you can do something together… LIKE DESTROY THE WORLD MWAAAAHHAAAHHAAHHAAA!!!

They didn’t have it when it stared. Besides, how many of them ever learned how to e mail ? That’s for commoners.

When it started. Preview, preview, preview. Sigh.

When I was in high school, I worked one summer as a stagehand for a men’s club (not a gentlemen’s club, mind you!) that had a roughly similar sort of deal, but much less, uh, “faggy.” It, too, had outdoor theaters, some slightly strange traditions, and a weird membership of powerful men. This one was just outside of Stanford University… and I can’t remember the name of it for the life of me.

Anyways, there was lots of talk about Bohemian Grove among the staff when I was there. It didn’t really hit me till much later how strange the whole deal was.

My cousin grew up in Monte Rio and earned pin money in the summers waitressing at the Bohemian Grove. It’s real, and she did meet several bigwigs.

She waitressed all summer? She must have been quite the avid bowler.

I remember it from one of the Tales of the City books, as well as its (fictitious?) female equivalent ‘Pinus’.

I’m awfully curious about the psychology of all this. I mean, what does it tell us that men like Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney, John Kerry, and Bob Novak all enjoy dressing up in togas and pretending to worship an big owl? Is this sort of thing corellated with success and leadership? Should we be sending our highschoolers to Burning Man for leadership training? Like Steve MB said (quoting William Poundstone), these guys already run the world. It’s not a secret shadow government, just the regular boring one. The fact that they nevertheless indulge in all sorts of Stonecutter, Scull-and-Bones, secret handshake, white-sheet-wearing nonsense is…well…fascinating.

In his book Them: Adventures with Extremists, Jon Ronson snuck in to get the dirt on this place/event. The most shocking thing about it was how easy it was to get in; one of the guards helped him find a parking space.

Thanks, Krokodil! I just read most of the chapter about Bohemian Grove on Amazon. It really is facinating! Especially to the point was Ronson’s observation that despite being the leaders of bussiness, finance, accademia, and politics, these men “emotionally seemed to be trapped in their college years.” I suppose it shouldn’t surprise us. John Landis and Harold Ramis, et al. made the point 28 years ago that the people most likely to become senators are the ones who start off peeking into womens’ dorms and downing fifths of booze at toga parties. After all, how can you fail to rule the world when you go through life telling yourself, “Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!”

Oddly enough, the denizens there like to boast that the Manhattan Project was conceived on its grounds.

“Conceived” is completely the wrong word to use, but there is a well-documented connection, a result of E.O. Lawrence being a member and him occasionally using the Grove as a convenient location for hosting leisurely high-level meetings.

Lawrence had become a member of the Bohemian Club in 1932 as the rising star of Berkeley science, being nominated by the university president Robert Sproul. He early on began to use the club and its Grove as locations to invite rich businessmen to in order to sound them out as potential donors to his research.
It’s thus neither surprising nor suspicious that he hosted a meeting of senior scientists at the Grove on 15-16 September 1942, which is the meeting that’s presumably being referred to. But the context is that the US government has already committed to building a nuclear weapon during the war and the Manhattan Engineering District (i.e. the “Manhattan Project”) has already been set up and is functioning. The transfer from laboratory research to industry is already well under way. What is about to change, and what is probably known to the meeting participants, is that the Army is in the process of replacing Colonel James Marshall as the head of the project. James Conant, as chairman of the S-1 committee on the subject, wanted to have a consensus set of recommendations from the scientists ready to put before the incoming head.
Conant, Lawrence, Lyman Briggs, Arthur Compton, Eger Murphree and Harold Urey of the S-1 committee were present at the Grove meeting, along with Oppenheimer, Donald Cooksey, R.L. Thornton, Colonel Kenneth Nichols and Major Thomas Crenshaw. (It’s been suggested that Oppenheimer was invited into this inner circle meeting by Conant as part of a manoeuvre to promote him as a suitable figure to formally lead the scientific aspects of the new project; however, it’s just as plausible to see him as the coming man anyway by this stage. Note that Oppenheimer himself couldn’t have been a member of the Club in this period, being Jewish. He could be invited as a guest.) The main recommendation was that enough was already known for full-scale production plants for uranium and plutonium to be authorised. On the other hand, they wanted to retain the bomb design in the hands of the scientists.
Both recommendations were accepted by Leslie Groves, who was appointed to replace Marshall on the 17th. (Whether they had wind that the replacement was specifically to be Groves when they met at Bohemian Grove is unclear; Compton was later to suggest that Conant knew, but I’m not entirely inclined to trust him on this detail.) However, the first recommendation was more-or-less a no-brainer in September 1942 and part of the reason why Groves was being appointed was precisely to do exactly this. The second - which leads to the formation of Los Alamos within the overall project - would have been slightly less obvious and was an issue that was argued over, in one form or another, for some time later. In neither case was the crucial decision being taken at Bohemian Grove: the meeting was Conant assembling pressure to steer the actual decisions in his preferred directions.

I don’t remember any specific occasions offhand, but I’m fairly sure that there were then several other wartime meetings Lawrence hosted at the Grove as part of the project. Though these were more informal and I’d don’t think they were of any significance.
There is another significant Bohemian Grove meeting in US nuclear history, but that was in August 1947. Lawrence again acted as host at a summit between the AEC commissioners and scientists and officials from the University of California. The main issues on the agenda were the university’s contract to run Los Alamos and whether the AEC would fund basic research at Berkeley, i.e. pay for Lawrence’s big accelerator toys. Agreement was reached on both issues, a significant policy commitment by the AEC.
Incidentally, at least two of the other participants on that occasion - Alfred Loomis and Rowan Gaither - were members of the club. Another, Lewis Strauss, had been a social guest of Herbert Hoover at the Grove back in 1946 when he received the summons to the White House to be told that Truman wanted him as an AEC commissioner.

Most of these meeting were at Bohemian Grove merely because Lawrence was a member and thought the site relaxing and convenient for such discreet get-togethers. In each case, most of the participants were non-members who were formally there as his guests. Members without connections to the matter at hand were presumably not privy to the discussions.
Nor was there any particular reticence amongst the participants about the choice of location. Compton gave a detailed account of the 1942 meeting in his 1956 memoir Atomic Quest and my source for Strauss’s 1946 visit is his 1962 autobiography. Both seemed to have regarded the site as merely an idyllic location and their visits as merely a perk to it of having well-connected colleagues.