Notes on “Imperial Brain Trust” (Shoup & Minter)

The following is a list of excerpts from the book Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and United States Foreign Policy (Shoup & Minter, Monthly Review Press, 1977):

pp. 4-5:

[…] in 1919 the United States was not yet adequately prepared for world leadership, as was well illustrated by the confusion surrounding the issue of United States membership in the League of Nations. Even the leaders of opinion had been unable to arrive at a common understanding of the part the United States should take in world affairs. The Council on Foreign Relations would help remedy this defect. By keeping “its members in touch with the international situation” and devoting itself to a continuous study of the “international aspects of America’s political, economic and financial problems,” it would develop a “reasoned American foreign policy.” As one early statement of aims ambitiously noted, the Council on Foreign Relations “plans to cooperate with the Government and all existing international agencies, and to bring all of them into constructive accord.” The Council on Foreign Relations still exists today, more than half a century later. Yet it is hardly a household word. Even many of those Americans who are relatively well informed about foreign policy recognize it, if at all, only as the organization which publishes Foreign Affairs magazine. The Council is rarely mentioned in the press or on television. The number of articles, scholarly or otherwise, devoted to its activities is minuscule, even if one adds together the output of over fifty years. The lack of public attention might suggest that the Council’s importance does not match its original ambitious goals. One might conclude that it had become simply another discussion group, or a specialized research organization, of little interest except to its own members, and not particularly important to the overall picture of United States foreign policy formation. But such a conclusion would be profoundly mistaken. […] just the names of members give an impressive picture of Council importance. The current Council chairman is David Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan Bank, a man with incredible personal wealth and financial power. Wall Street lawyer Allen W. Dulles, a Council director for over forty years, helped establish the CIA and directed it while his brother John Foster (also a Council member) ran the Department of State. Diplomatic superstar Henry A. Kissinger was a Council protege who began his career in foreign affairs as a rapporteur for a Council study group. Kissinger later told Council leader Hamilton Fish Armstrong, who had played a key role in Kissinger’s rise to power, “You invented me.” The list could easily be prolonged with eminent financiers, Wall Street lawyers, Ivy League scholars, and high government officials — in short, a galaxy of “establishment” figures. It is such intriguing indications of the Council’s significance that led us to a more detailed investigation of this little-known organization. Our results show that the Council on Foreign Relations, despite its relative public obscurity, plays a key part in molding United States foreign policy. In the Council, the leading sectors of big business get together with the corporate world’s academic experts to work out a general framework for foreign policy.


p. 6:

That the Council is little known is thus not a sign of insignificance, but rather points to its mode of operation. The men at the top meet and work out together the general direction of policy — the limits of respectable debate. Through a complex network of channels, the content and tone of their discussion reach the policymakers and the leaders of opinion. Eventually they may reach those of us who take an interest in what our country is doing in the world, but we may have little idea that what comes to be a natural “climate of opinion” was carefully fostered and guided. For the process is not public. Council members are selected by the Council’s leadership and the meetings are confidential. As the New York Times expressed it, “Except for its annual public Elihu Root Lectures, the Council’s talks and seminars are strictly off the record. An indiscretion can be grounds for termination or suspension of membership.”

Despite this conscious secrecy, it is possible to find out something about what the Council is and does. Putting together bits and pieces from many sources and searching out references to Council activities in government archives, we have put together a picture of the inner workings and significance of the Council. Our conclusions challenge the conventional interpretations of policy formation as dispersed among a wide variety of groups or elites. In contrast to this view, we will show, in the pages to follow, the leading role played by the Council on Foreign Relations and the sector of society it represents, the corporate upper class.


pp. 12-13:

[…] on May 30, 1919, at the Majestic Hotel in Paris, a group of Americans and British agreed to form an Anglo- American organization. It was officially named the Institute of International Affairs and was to have branches in the United Kingdom and the United States.

While the idea for such an organization seems to have been “in the air” in Paris, the conception of the scheme was primarily that of British historian Lionel Curtis, formerly a colonial official in South Africa. For the previous nine years Curtis had been in charge of setting up a network of semi-secret organizations in the British Dominions and the United States. These bodies, called the Round Table Groups, were established by Lord Milner, a former British secretary of state for war, and his associates in 1908-1911. “The original purpose of the groups was to seek to federate the English-speaking world along lines laid down by Cecil Rhodes and William T. Stead, and the money for the organizational work came originally from the Rhodes Trust.”

Rhodes was an extremely wealthy imperialist whose will to power is illustrated by a statement he once made to a friend: “The world is nearly all parcelled out, and what there is left of it is being divided up, conquered, and colonized. To think of these stars that you see overhead at night, these vast worlds which we can never reach. I would annex the planets if I could; I often think of that.” Rhodes declared that his life ambition was “the furtherance of the British Empire, the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under its rule the recovery of the United States of America, the making of the Anglo-Saxon race into one Empire.” To achieve this grandiose end in 1891 Rhodes proposed the founding of a worldwide organization for the preservation and extension of the British Empire. The original purpose of the Round Table was thus to establish an “organic union” for the entire British Empire with one imperial government, and to try to associate other nations with the empire. Curtis and Philip Kerr (later Lord Lothian) were the two full-time activists in this scheme, which was backed by money from Milner, who had access to large funds as a Rhodes trustee.

The Round Table Groups kept in touch by visits and correspondence, and published, beginning in 1910, the magazine The Round Table, with anonymous contributors and even an anonymous editorial board. During the First World War, Round Table leaders were important in the formulation of British war aims, and many came to Paris as part of the British delegation.


p. 15

Honorary chairman of the Council was Elihu Root, Wall Street lawyer and former secretary of state and secretary of war. The chairman was another New York lawyer, Lindsay Russell, and the chairman of the Finance Committee was Alexander Hemphill, chairman of the Guaranty Trust bank. The organization was composed almost entirely of “high-ranking officers of banking, manufacturing, trading and finance companies, together with many lawyers . . . concerned primarily with the effect that the war and the treaty of peace might have on post-war business.”


p.  16:

The background of its officers also gives some clue as to the early direction of the Council. Elihu Root, the honorary president, was the prototype of the Wall Street lawyer and the elder statesman of the period. As one of his proteges and later secretary of state and secretary of war, Henry L. Stimson, observed: “He was the unchallenged leader of our bar, both in the state and in the nation.” Root was an early leader in America’s imperial expansion, being responsible fo organizing the administration of the overseas territories won by the United States in the Spanish-American War. He acted as counsel for several leading American corporations and banks of the time. In addition he advised Andrew Carnegie on his philanthropies, and served as first president of th Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.


Whose Constitution?

It is widely known that the U.S. political system today is dominated by a relatively small group of extremely wealthy individuals, who further their own interests at the expense of the vast majority of the population. But I believe it is a mistake to say that this situation has arisen because the original system has been “corrupted”, and that we just need to go back to the “good old days” when the founding fathers were in charge of the country and the Constitution was the law of the land …

The Constitution was designed by rich and powerful men to serve their own minority interests

Slavers, bankers, and other rich scum at the Constitutional convention
The Constitutional Convention of 1787, where a bunch of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the Americas met together in secret and planned out a form of government that would perpetually maintain oligarchical rule in the United States.

Who were the Founding Fathers, and what did they intend to create at the Constitutional Convention? The story we’re told in our high-school history books is that this group, composed of the wealthiest and most influential men in post-Revolutionary America, had temporarily set aside their own economic interests (including their ownership of slaves and war debt) and together designed a brilliant democratic political system that guaranteed “liberty and justice for all”. This system is enshrined in the most holy of US political documents, the United States Constitution.

Of course, today, if I were to suggest that a bunch of billionaires should be allowed to call a secret meeting and design a system of government, without consulting the public, and that they could be trusted to set aside their own interests while doing so, I would be considered naive at best. Yet for some reason, people happily accept that this is what happened at the Constitutional Convention.

In reality these slave-owning aristocrats were facing a nationwide upsurge of democratic “leveling” sentiment that aimed to redistribute wealth and political power, and felt that the Articles of Confederation weren’t doing an adequate job at combating this tendency. Thus they came together to design a system that they felt would better protect their position of privilege. If you doubt that this was their intention, take a look at what the Founding Fathers themselves were saying:

Alexander Hamilton:

“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. Can a democratic assembly, who annually revolve in the mass of the people, be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and uncontroling disposition requires checks.”

James Madison:

“The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. … In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.”

” It ought finally to occur to a people deliberating on a Government for themselves, that as different interests necessarily result from the liberty meant to be secured, the major interest might under sudden impulses be tempted to commit injustice on the minority. In all civilized Countries the people fall into different classes having a real or supposed difference of interests. There will be creditors & debtors, farmers, merchants & manufacturers. There will be particularly the distinction of rich & poor. … In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce. An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labour under all the hardships of life, & secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in in this Country, but symtoms, of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarters to give notice of the future danger. How is this danger to be guarded against on republican principles? How is the danger in all cases of interested coalitions to oppress the minority to be guarded against?”

Edmund Randolph:

“Our chief danger arises from the democratic parts of our constitutions. It is a maxim which I hold incontrovertible, that the powers of government exercised by the people swallows up the other branches. None of the constitutions have provided sufficient checks against the democracy.”

Or, most succinctly, John Jay:

“The people who own the country ought to govern it.”

This type of anti-democratic, oligarchic sentiment permeated the Convention. Unwilling to accept what the majority of the population wanted — democracy and economic equality — they decided instead to design a system of government which would enable the “minority of the opulent” to impose their wishes upon the people — exactly the type of system we live under today.

America’s Illegal Drug Complex: Another Capitalist Racket

via David Rosen (Counterpunch):

American capitalism consists of a constellation of rackets.  The Occupy Wall Street movement has focused a spotlight on the banking and financial-services racket.  Others have exposed the military-industrial complex, the extraction industries, the insurance, pharmaceutical and healthcare system, the agriculture and food combine and the communications trust.

Each racket is distinguished by the self-serving, intimate interrelation of private corporate interests and the public government, whether at the federal, state or local level.  Each racket consist of a host of distinct businesses elements, organized through both vertical and horizontal operations, no matter whether the business is conducted “legally” or not.  Each is charged with maximizing profit.

Rackets succeed by enabling private corporations to exploit the power and wealth of the public trough, the state.  Rackets do this in different ways, combining direct contracts, subsidies and tax breaks that further engorge the corporate bottom line.

One racket involves direct federal contracts to private companies, often with cost-plus agreements; in 2010, an estimated $180 billion went to the top 20 contractors.  This is the model of the military-industrial complex.

A second racket is characterized by the transfer or “externalization” of the social costs associated with a company’s product to consumers and taxpayers.  This is most evident in role of government subsidies and lax breaks associated with the (indirect) health-related costs that underwrite the extraction (e.g., air & water pollution) and food (e.g., obesity) industries.

A third type of racket involves the use of the legal system to maximize private gain and exemplified by the prison-industrial complex.  The criminalization of “illegal” drug taking as an unacceptable practice, like alcohol during Prohibition, has enabled many third parties, including government agencies, banks and private contractors, to profit from other people’s suffering.

Shedding moral pretenses, one needs to look at the illegal drug business in America as just another capitalist racket.   No better, no worse.  The street dope dealer is just another version of the day stock trader, the only difference is their legal status, although their social status, clothing and marketing message might be the same.



Read the rest of the article at: