• About
  • Documentary Films
  • Index
  • Nota bene
  • Protect and Serve
  • Readings

Lumpenproletariat

~ free speech

Lumpenproletariat

Tag Archives: white supremacy

Welcome to Leith (2015) directed by Michael Beach Nichols and Christopher K. Walker

01 Wed Feb 2017

Posted by ztnh in Anti-Fascism, Anti-Totalitarianism, Civic Engagement (Activism), Documentary Film, Free Speech, Mindfulness, Political Science, Racism (phenotype), Sociology, Underclass Debate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Christopher K. Walker, Craig Cobb (b. 1951), Leith (North Dakota), Michael Beach Nichols, Welcome to Leith (2015), white supremacy

welcome_to_leith_posterLUMPENPROLETARIAT—Not long ago, free speech radio’s Davey D delivered a set of remarks, which cited a cringe-worthy documentary about neo-Nazis and white supremacists in the midwest and their attempts to propagate bigoted and racist white nationalism.  (Of course, one is hard pressed to think of any other kind.)  Although he didn’t name the documentary film he was referencing, he did say it was about ten years old and featured Tom Metzger.  Or, perhaps, he could’ve meant a 2015 documentary film, which is currently available on Netflix.  It’s entitled Welcome to Leith. [1]  The film was first released at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2015, before being screened at the SXSW Film Festival in March 2015.  The film was then given a limited theatrical release in September 2015.  Welcome to Leith was later broadcast on PBS‘ series Independent Lens on April 4, 2016.  Screen this important documentary film on YouTube or Netflix or other formats; and stay up-to-date with the state of the nation.

Perhaps, screen it for friends, family, or community.  A film screening would be a small victory for humanity.  An even greater victory would occur, if a screening of Welcome to Leith inspires postmortem analyses and reflection, giving us opportunities to learn and grow.  Even greater victory would follow, should the bare and naked face of white supremacist ideology move people of conscience into actions of resistance or into Kingian non-violent civil disobedience coupled with an ongoing programme of grassroots political and socioeconomic education capable of promoting critical media literacy and galvanising political agency and working class solidarity.  Then, a swelling majority of the American working class would see through the veil of racism and identity politics, which divides and conquers and distracts from the true levers of power and the true causes of economic misery, which are perpetually blamed on the ethnic other, as the real criminals, criminogenic economic elites, get away with the people’s resources.

Messina

***

Welcome to Leith (trailer, 2015)

***

“State of the Nation” [2] by New Order

You can walk, or you can run
You don’t have to be someone
I went on a summer cruise
Upon an ocean, born to lose
My brother said that he was dead
I saw his face and shook my head
Can you see where we can’t be?
We’re losing our blood in the sea
‘Cos it’s the state of the nation
That’s holding our salvation
Yes, it’s the state of the nation
That’s holding our salvation
Oh, the state of the nation
Is causing deprivation
Oh, the state of the nation
Is causing deprivation

From my home I traveled far
I drove in my stolen car
When it broke down, I kissed the ground
‘Cos I don’t kiss when you’re around
I don’t find that I have been
The portrait of an only son
If that’s the case, then who could tell
Where my story had begun?
‘Cos it’s the state of the nation
That’s holding our salvation
Yes, it’s the state of the nation
That’s holding our salvation
Yes, the state of the nation
That’s causing deprivation
Oh, the state of the nation
That’s causing deprivation

Even now, I’m all alone
Behind a wall that’s made of stone
I think about where we have been
And all the sights that could be seen
I know it all could be worthwhile
If only I could force a smile
Now, we turn our backs to the sea
The shame of a nation we’ll never be
‘Cos it’s the state of the nation
That’s holding our salvation
Yes, it’s the state of the nation
That’s holding our salvation
Oh, the state of the nation
Is causing deprivation
Yes, the state of the nation
Is causing deprivation

Songwriters:  HOOK, PETER / GILBERT, GILLIAN / MORRIS, STEPHEN / SUMNER, BERNARD

“State of the Nation” lyrics © Reverb Music, In A Bunch Music Ltd., Warner/Chappell Music Ltd., Broadley Music (International), Grow Your Own Music, Reverb Music Ltd., Associated Music International Ltd., Edition Kella Sound

***

[1]  Welcome to Leith is a 2015 American documentary film directed by Michael Beach Nichols and Christopher K. Walker about white supremacist Craig Cobb‘s attempt to take over the North Dakota town Leith.  The film premiered on January 26, 2015 at the 2015 Sundance Film Festival and, after a limited theatrical release on September 9, was broadcast on PBS‘ series Independent Lens on April 4, 2016.[3]

Leith is a town which had a population of 16 in 2010.[4] In May 2012, Craig Cobb, an American Canadian white nationalist Neo-Nazi, moved to Leith with the intention of building a community of people sharing his white nationalist ideology and gaining the electoral majority.[5] He purchased 12 plots of land.[6]

Nichols and Walker, who are based in New York, flew to North Dakota two months after they read an August 2013 New York Times article about Craig Cobb’s scheme to transform Leith into a white-supremacist town.[7] They made three trips to Leith within an 8-month period, each around 3 weeks long, for the production of the film.[8] 90 days were spent editing the film.[9] In June 2014 Nichols and Walker launched a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds for the production of the film. They surpassed their $60,000 goal, raising $64,751.[10] The directors cited Errol Morris as an influence for how they shot the film.[7]

Welcome to Leith received largely positive reviews from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes, it holds a 97% score based on 34 reviews, with an average rating of 7.7/10. The site’s consensus states: “As disturbing as it is thought-provoking, Welcome to Leith offers an uncomfortable — and essential — glimpse into a part of society many Americans would much rather ignore.”[11] Metacritic reports an 80 out of 100 rating based on 15 critics, indicating “generally favorable reviews”.[12]

Indiewire critic Kate Erbland gave the documentary a B grade, described it as “terrifying and insightful”.[13]

Perhaps, Welcome to Leith would have been strengthened by the inclusion of perspectives from relevant experts in the fields of sociology, political science, and political economy.  Or, at the very least, it would’ve been refreshing to see the documentary film acknowledge the reality that racism and white supremacy is not merely an aberration in American society, but central to its foundational core.  Nevertheless, the documentary film provides an important micro view of the ways white supremacy and white nationalism proliferates through society.

[2]  “State of the Nation” is described as a protest song in the popular literature.  It’s an interesting song, indeed.  Bernard Sumner has always been one of our favourite singer-songwriters.  And, notably, he’s always shown a strong solidarity with his working class background, which includes people of colour but also a certain sympathy for the white working class and underclass, which is often pulled down into the bog of racism and xenophobia.  Sumner sings:

Can you see where we can’t be?
We’re losing our blood in the sea
‘Cos it’s the state of the nation
That’s holding our salvation

White nationalist neo-Nazi Craig Cobb and his supporters argued in the documentary film Welcome to Leith that his race was being “genocided” in their own country, meaning that miscegenation and multiculturalism is diluting or destroying the Aryan lineal descent and racial purity or racial hygiene.  But of course, we can’t say Sumner is singing sympathetically to the sentiments of fears of a browning of white ethnicities.  But, supposing the song was taking a sympathetic stance toward the downtrodden individual, if not his ideology, who can find nowhere else to take refuge or find solace but in the bowels of white nationalist groupings, then we observe the song concludes with an admission of shame:

Even now, I’m all alone
Behind a wall that’s made of stone
I think about where we have been
And all the sights that could be seen
I know it all could be worthwhile
If only I could force a smile
Now, we turn our backs to the sea
The shame of a nation we’ll never be

The sea, of course, being the great sea of ethnic and racial noise, which must be barricaded and shielded away from the pure Aryan race.  It’s sad, to some extent, the ignorance, which is involved in the minds of the rank and file of American white supremacist groups.  As race (conflating phenotype with genotype) has been established as an arbitrary social construct with no scientific basis, we still have people going around with illusory notions of racial purity in their minds.  Large segments of economically vulnerable white working class Americans are woefully under-educated and subject to dogma and demagoguery.  In a bungled attempt to build his cultural cache and celebrity profile, Neo-Nazi separatist American-Canadian Craig Cobb agreed to undergo DNA testing, which he, in his apparent ignorance of anthropology and biology, was certain would confirm to the world his Aryan purity.  Instead, the DNA testing revealed his ancestry consisted of 86% European and 14% Sub-Saharan African, echoing the famous Dave Chapelle comedy skit, and rendering Craig Cobb a real-life Clayton Bigsby.  Mr. Cobb attempted to dismiss his Sub-Saharan African ancestry as “statistical noise”.  But now he has come under scrutiny from his fellow White supremacists.  Imagine, suddenly, that all albinos decided that efforts toward scientific progress were making albinism extinct, that rates of albinism were dropping.  It would be absurd to us, if suddenly they rose up in a hateful separatist albino nationalism, because we wouldn’t be expecting it.  But white nationalism is not surprising because we know it has historical roots in economic and social privileges being bestowed upon ethnic whites at the expense of slavery, American apartheid, racism, Jim Crow, and so on and so forth.  White supremacists, such as Craig Cobb, argue that their white nationalist groups deserve the same public tolerance, which is afforded to civil rights groups, such as the NAACP.  What they fail to observe, however, is the fact that civil rights groups are not like white supremacist groups because civil rights groups grew out of a direct response against racism and white supremacy.  The very existence of white nationalism in a nation necessitates its direct opposition by the people because it represents a permanently hostile and divisive political position with only one possible endgame: ethnic separation buttressed by economic and legal privileges for the so-called Aryan race, whatever that means.

***

[Image of Welcome to Leith film poster by source, used via fair use licensure.]

[NEW ORDER lyrics are property and copyright of their owners.  “State of the Nation” lyrics are provided here for educational and personal use only.]

[1 FEB 2017]

[Last modified at 11:02 PST on 1 FEB 2017]

Save

Save

Save

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Dr. Laurence Schoup: Wall Street’s Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2014

22 Mon Feb 2016

Posted by ztnh in Anti-Capitalism, Anti-Fascism, Anti-Imperialism, Global Labour Movement

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

AFL-CIO, Berkshire Hathaway, Bilderberg Group, Bohemian Club, Bohemian Grove, business unionism, Chase (bank), Chase Manhattan, Coca-Cola, Council On Foreign Relations, David Rockefeller (b. 1915), Davos, Dennis Bernstein, Dr. Laurence Schoup, Dr. Noam Chomsky, Fidel Castro, Henry Kissinger, Joe Biden, Koch Brothers, KPFA, Mellon Family, Mickey Huff M.A., Nazism, neoliberalism, Pacifica Radio Network, Project Censored, TPP, Trans-Pacific Partnership, transcript, Trilateral Commission, Vanderbilt Family, Warren Buffet, white supremacy, World Economic Forum, Zbigniew Brzezinski (b. 1928)

larry_shoup-150x230LUMPENPROLETARIAT—One of the most pressing issues facing world peace and prosperity for humanity the world over is the persistent scourge of imperialism.  Just as capitalist modes of production manage to shape-shift over time in order to survive, zombie-like, repeated economic crashes and crises, the imperialist mode of geopolitics continues to shape-shift to perpetuate its aims, often white-supremacist aims, of geopolitical hegemony and conquest.

Imperialism may be viewed through an economist’s lens, revealing monetary and productive forces, which demonstrate the power to subjugate sovereign nations through sheer concentration of capital and, thus, power.  [1]  But imperialism may be viewed through a political scientist’s lens as well, revealing the political and governmental forces, which have historically subjugated popular desire for democracy by capturing the ship of state through political, intelligence, and military power.  A few groups, or think tanks, have been predominantly influential in these spheres, including the Council On Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bohemian Club, which meets yearly at Bohemian Grove, a 2,700 acre campground sheltered within old-growth redwood trees in northern California.

Here is where the scholarship of one Dr. Laurence Schoup comes in.  Dr. Laurence Schoup decided to focus his Ph.D. dissertation on the power elite behind the USA’s foreign policy, i.e., behind the USA’s imperialism, namely the Council On Foreign Relations.  Adding to his canon of work, Dr. Schoup has now published a new book entitled, Wall Street’s Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2014.  In support of his new book, as well as the liberating and enlightening work of free speech radio KPFA, Dr. Schoup has given one of 2016’s most interesting lectures (we’ve encountered).  Listen to (or download) excerpts of that lecture here. [2]

Messina

***

[Transcription by Messina for Lumpenproletariat, Project Censored, and Flashpoints]

FLASHPOINTS—[22 FEB 2016]  “Today on Flashpoints, Wall Street’s Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2014.  That’s Henry Kissinger’s group.  That’s the guy Hillary Clinton loves.  I’m Dennis Bernstein, all this ahead on Flashpoints.  Stay tuned.

“And you’re listening to Flashpoints on Pacifica Radio.  And I am delighted to be able to present to you a brand new speech by Laurence Schoup.  Laurence Schoup has just authored Wall Street’s Think Tank.  This is an extraordinary book.  Let me tell you what some people have said about it.  Here’s what [Noam] Chomsky has to say about it:

“‘A revealing account of how a small group of planners drawn from sectors of concentrated private and state power, closely linked, along with experts, whose commitments are congenial to their ends have set the contours for much of recent history, not least the neoliberal assault, that has had a generally destructive impact on populations, while serving as an effective instrument of a class war.  A welcome and very valuable contribution.’

“And Michael Parenti says:

“‘Lucidly written and deeply informed, a treasury of insights, that seldom gets the attention it very much needs.‘

“Well, it’s gonna get a lot of attention now because we are delighted and proud to present to you a recent speech by Laurence Schoup, who was really speaking for KPFA/Pacifica Radio.  Listen to this.”  (c. 2:05)

[Audio from Laurence Schoup speech presented by KPFA and Project Censored on 20 JAN 2016 at The Hillside Club in Berkeley, California]

DR. LAURENCE SCHOUP:  “Thank you, Bob, and thank you KPFA, the progressive left voice in the [SF] Bay Area here for 67 years, for organising this event tonight.  Thank you all for coming.

“The Council On Foreign Relations is a behemoth. And it took, I took, 352 pages and 798 footnotes to document it.  And it could’ve been a lot bigger book.  I will endeavor, tonight, to cover it in one hour.  My talk will have five parts.

“The first part is some anecdotes, impressionistic statements by people, or information about the Council On Foreign Relations, its importance and some aspects of the Council On Foreign Relations.  So, first, just kind of anecdotal information.

“The second part will be a portrait on the Council On Foreign Relations, its organisational history, its network, its funding, its activities.  So, you know about the organisation itself.

“Thirdly, I’ll go into the Council On Foreign Relations’ worldviews, which I call Neoliberal Geopolitics, by way of three examples:  the Iraq War, US-China Policy, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

“Fourth, I’ll go into the world, that’s been created, by this world-view and the Council On Foreign Relations’ power, how what kind of world we have is developed out of this.

“Fifth, my opinion on the world we need to strive for and create.  (c. 3:29)

“So, first the anecdotes:  When I was a graduate student in 1972, I had decided to write a dissertation on the Council On Foreign Relations.  So, I was at Northwestern University.  And I was having dinner one night with a French student, who had just arrived from France.  He phoned in just a few days before.  And we had mutual friends.  And he came to dinner.

“And, so, we had casual conversation around the dinner table.  And this French student said, ‘Larry, what are you writing your dissertation on?‘  I said, ‘Well, I’m interested in the ruling class forces behind American foreign policy.’  And this French guy says, ‘Oh, you mean the Council On Foreign Relations?‘ [laughs]  And I said, ‘Yes, you’re right.  But I didn’t say anything about the Council On Foreign Relations.  No one around this table said anything about the Council On Foreign Relations.  How do you know?‘  He said, Oh, my uncle is the head of the French CIA.’ [laughs; audience laughter]  And he said, ‘I worked for my uncle.  And I was in the official French CIA archives.  And I was looking to—because I was coming to the United States to study at Northwestern.  I wanted to see what they had said about the power structure of the United States.  I looked there.  And it says the shadow government of the United States is the Council On Foreign Relations.‘  The official French government analysis, according to this guy.

“Now, how can I prove that?  No, I can’t prove it.  But it’s an interesting anecdote.  And, together with other anecdotes, it shows that the power structures of other countries know that the Council On Foreign Relations is important.  And that’s reflected, if you look at the Council On Foreign Relations annual report and you see who has come to visit the Council On Foreign Relations, you’ll right away see:  Wait, a minute.  They seem to know something, that maybe us, we, don’t know so well.  An example of that—the foreign governments being aware of the Council On Foreign Relations’ importance—when the Iranian president, [Hassan] Rouhani, was elected he came to the United States.  He spoke with Obama on the phone.  He met with the Council On Foreign Relations. [chuckles]  He went to speak before them; and he met with the president of the Council On Foreign Relations.  He didn’t meet with the president of the United States.  He met with the president of the Council On Foreign Relations.  It’s interesting, huh?

“Then, when Fidel—even revolutionaries are aware of this.  When Fidel Castro came to power in late 1959, and he came to speak to the UN, he was invited to speak to the Council On Foreign Relations, and, apparently, he knew it was important to go there.

“So, Fidel Castro went to speak before the Council On Foreign Relations.  And, after his speech, they began to ask him questions about: What was gonna be the result of my property ownership with your revolution?  I own a lot of sugar plantations in Cuba.  I own the nickel factory.  I own some oil facilities.  What happened?

“Fidel said:  Well, if you took a poor man, which does he care about?  Legal technicalities or a plate of beans?

“And, then, they kept asking him the same kind of questions.  Finally, they said, one of the CFR people said:  Fidel, how much does Cuba want?  And Fidel took a deep breath and said:  We don’t want your money.  We want your respect.

“And, then, the same kind of questions continued.  And Fidel walked out of the Council On Foreign Relations.  He said:  I can see I’m not among friends.  And he walked out.

“Now, this story came from someone who was there, but interestingly enough didn’t wanna say that they were reporting on it because an aspect of the Council On Foreign Relations is secrecy.

“It can be overstated.  You can find out a lot.  And I have learned a lot about the Council On Foreign Relations.  But they have an annual report, for example.  And they have a website, that has a lot of information available.  If you’re interested, CFR.org is where you can find out a lot more information about the Council On Foreign Relations, current things.  (c. 6:53)

“So, anyway, these other countries, the leaders of these other countries, know that the Council On Foreign Relations is important.

“The Council On Foreign Relations likes to downplay its own importance.  And, here, I have a little anecdote from the co-author of my first book, Imperial Brain Trust, on the Council On Foreign Relations. [3]  It came out in 1977.  Bill Minter was able to interview the ex-president of the Council On Foreign Relations, Henry Wriston.  And he asked the ex-president of the Council On Foreign Relations:  Well, isn’t the Council On Foreign Relations a very powerful organization?  And this ex-president said:  Oh, no.  We’re not powerful.  We’re not powerful at all.  I’ll give you an example of how we have no power.  This is an example from the president of the Council On Foreign Relations of how they have no power.  Okay; let’s see what he said.

“He said:  Well, when Eisenhower was president of Columbia University in the late ’40s, he became active in the Council On Foreign Relations.  And he was at a—he came to a study group—and I’ll talk about the study groups at the Council in a minute—he came to the study group at the Council and he was very angry.  And he started cursing like only an army general can curse.  He was swearing a blue streak.  And Allen Dulles saw him in the corner swearing.  Allen Dulles was there at the meeting and went over and said, Ike, what’s the problem?  He said, well, Truman just appointed me to be the Supreme Commander in Europe.  But he put on limitations, that I don’t like.  I’m really angry about these limitations, no political contact, other limitations.  The President of the United States has appointed me.  I have to take the job.  I’m an ex-general.  But I don’t like the conditions.  And Dulles said, look, we have a nice group here at the Council, important people, no problem.  Sit down and write out what your conditions are.  We’ll go over it.  I’ll take the night train to Washington, D.C..  And we’ll see what can be done.

“So, Allen Dulles did that.  They wrote another—Eisenhower wrote out his conditions.  The group modified them.  It was typed up.  Allen Dulles took the night train; and had breakfast with W. Averell Harriman, a director of the Council On Foreign Relations, who was also Harry Truman’s Chief of Staff. [4]  Gee, what a coincidence.  [chuckles]  This is how the system works:  In and out.  You know?  W. Averell Harriman was a big businessman.  He went into the government.  Then went out of the government, and so on.  This time, he was in the government as Harry Truman’s Chief of Staff.  So, Dulles gave him the memo.  The memo was the first thing on President Truman’s desk in the morning.  And W. Averell Harriman says, you should sign this.  Truman says, you think so, W?  Okay.  He signs it.

“That’s an example of the presidents of the Council On Foreign Relations’ having no power.  The presidents of the Council On Foreign Relations saying they have no power.  [laughs] 

“So, my co-author, Bill Minter said:  Wait a minute.  That looks like a lot of power to me.  You get right to the president.  And he makes a decision in your favour.  Isn’t that a lot of power?  [Harriman replies:] No, no.  That’s not power.  It’s the people at the Council, that have a lot of power, not the Council.  The Council doesn’t have any power.  It’s the people at the Council.  That’s what this ex-president [of the Council On Foreign Relations] said.  Of course, the Council organises these people, brings them to the same table.  They work as a network.  And this is how it works.  So, that’s an example of how they have no power, according to the ex-president of the Council.  (c. 10:02)  [SNIP]

(c. 21:04) “Another aspect is they have meetings, the continuous Conference On International Affairs, they call it.  And I mentioned previously examples, where Fidel [Castro] came and so on.  They have [Hassan] Rouhani of Iran.  Whenever a big, foreign dignitary comes to the United States they almost invariably go speak before the Council On Foreign Relations.  So, they have many hundreds of meetings every year talking to important people from other countries.

“Then, they have a vast network.  I have a whole chapter on their network.  It’s incredible, their network.  Of course, it’s starts with the corporations, as I’ve already alluded to; they have corporate members.  But, beyond that, they have corporations, that have board of directors, that are also members of the Council On Foreign Relations.  Some corporations, of course, are closer to the Council.  The Wall Street ones, of course, are the closest.  And also some other ones, you know, Berkshire Hathaway, for example, Warren Buffet; his son is also a member of the Council On Foreign Relations, another director is a member of the Council On Foreign Relations.  Berkshire Hathaway has a big stake in a lot of corporations.  And a lot of them are big on the Council, like Coca-Cola.  Coca-Cola has a lot of interests abroad, so they’re interested in being in the Council.

“Then, I go into, in the book—oh, I should mention a couple of other things, I guess, before I do that:  The foundations are important in donating to the Council.  There is [sic] risk advisory groups of different kinds heavily interlocked in the Council, like [Henry] Kissinger or the Albright Stonebridge Group, other groups, that do risk assessments for corporations.  They get paid big money to assess risks.  They’re heavily interlocked with the Council On Foreign Relations.  Unions, some unions, are interlocked with the Council, including the AFL-CIO are interlocked with the council. [5]  The AFL-CIO head was a director of the Council.  This was true for a number of years.  And, of course, this is business unionism.  And I think that is a corruption.  Unions should be organisations by, and for, working people, fighting for working people, fighting for the entire working class, not cooperating as junior partners to imperialism, junior partners to the corporations.  So, that’s something—[scant applause].  Thank you.

“So, we need to fight business unionism.  I’ve been a union member, every chance I’ve got my whole life.  I’m a member of the United Auto Workers, 1981, retired, the writers union.  I’ve been a member of two other unions.  I’ve always fought for industrial unionism.  (c. 23:25)

“The universities, of course, I already mentioned.  There were a lot of interconnections with the universities.

“In the book, I cover the international side because it’s very interesting, the international side of the Council On Foreign Relations.  Now, you’ve heard, probably, the Bilderberg Group.  And that’s—you know—right wingers are always talking about this as an international conspiracy of socialists or something.  It’s ridiculous.  It’s actually a group—and you can go on their website and you’ll find—because Bilderberg have a website now.  So, you can look at and see who the leaders are.  And you’ll find that they’re European nobles. [laughs]  That’s who the leaders of the Bilderb—along with the CFR.  92% of the U.S. members of the Bilderberger meet—people that meet at the Bilderberger, 92% are members of the Council On Foreign Relations.  So, it’s an alliance between the Council On Foreign Relations and the European Nobles.  And, unless you define socialism as, you know, roads, or schools, or, you know, water systems or something, if you define socialism as that, well, then, I guess the Bilderbergers and the Council, in general, wants the big state.  They want the big state for their, for corporate benefits, for corporate welfare, to protect themselves, to conquer other countries, so they can get markets there.  You know, that’s—they like the big state.  So, they’re in counter-distinction to the Koch Brothers approach or a more Libertarian part of the capitalist class, that doesn’t like the big state.  The Koch Brothers are not in the Council On Foreign Relations.  They don’t have very many connections.  There may be.  A few of their advisors might be; but it’s very small.

“So, the Bilderbergs is one group.  And it’s interesting that [David] Rockefeller was one of the main Bilderberg people that started meeting.  It started in 1954.  It’s named after the hotel where they had their first meeting.  And it’s a policy group, that meets and talks about policy.  But they don’t have ongoing study groups.  It’s not the same as the Council On Foreign Relations, of course.

“But, at one meeting in the early 1970s, Rockefeller, who was a director and was the chairman of the Council On Foreign Relations by then, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was a director of the Council, went to the Bilderberger.  And they said—you know.  They said:  You know, the Japanese are becoming important.  So, we should really bring them into the Bilderberg dialogue, don’t you think?  And these European nobles:  No.  We don’t want Japanese in our group, not at all.  We’re against it.  So, Rockefeller’s memoirs said:  We raised it.  We tried to persuade them. But we were politely, and firmly, told: No, we’re not gonna have Japanese in the Bilderberg Group, period.

“So, Brzezinski and Rockefeller went on to form another group, that would include the Japanese.  It’s called the Trilateral Commission.  So, the Trilateral refers to the Japanese, Western Europe, and North America.  So, that’s the Trilateral Group.  And it was more like the Council On Foreign Relations, in terms of planning policy, etcetera.  That’s what the Trilateral Commission does.  And, of course, they got some unwelcome publicity early on because they, uh—the Trilateral Commission had a report that said there was an excess of democracy in the west, in the United States and other countries.  It was too much democracy.  We oughta take care of that. [chuckles]  Well, neoliberalism has worked pretty hard to take care of the democracy in the United States and other places.  So, that’s what they’re doing.

“So, anyway, now you see Davos, of course.  Davos [i.e., the World Economic Forum] is now going on in Switzerland.  Of course, that’s a meeting of big businessmen.  You have to pay something like $500,000 dollars to your group—you know, maybe five people or something like that, that go there.  But, still, you gotta pay vast amounts of money to go to Davos.  I saw [current U.S. Vice President under Obama] Joe Biden is there; I guess he’s paying to go to Davos.  Or, maybe, they’re giving him a free pass.  But, anyway, that’s where the big businessmen network and plan policy and think about policy.  Well, there’s no list of all the people that have gone to Davos.  It’s way too big.  But if you look at the report that they did have one year, almost all of them were from the Council On Foreign Relations.  It’s amazing, the overlap, the Council Directors, Council Members, all kinds of ’em. (c. 27:41)

“Then, finally, there’s some other things, of course, in that chapter of the international.  But, moving on, the Council has an International Advisory Board of about 40 people.  And, if you look at this International Advisory Board—it started in 1995; it had a different name then—but, anyway, if you look at it over time—and I’ve been collecting Council On Foreign Relations’ annual reports since the early ’70s, so I can look at all these things and analyse ’em.  It’s very interesting that there’s a number of fascists, actual fascists, for example, that have been on this International Advisory Board.  Giovanni Agnelli, fought with the Italian Blue Division against the Russians on the Eastern Front in World War II. [6]  And he was a fascist.  And he killed, you know, Russians, who were fighting for Russian ind—you know, not being defeated by the Nazis.  He was fighting for the Nazis.  And he was on the International Advisory Board.  He was a very good friend of David Rockefeller.  And he was on the Chase Manhattan International Advisory Board, too.

“And there’s a lot of billionaires on this International Advisory Board in the Council.  One of them, just to cite an example—and I could go on and on about these billionaires.  One of them is pretty interesting because he has the biggest private home on Earth.  It cost a billion dollars to build his private home.  It’s in Mumbai.  It’s, uh, was it 40 stories high?  I forget all the details.  But it’s just an amazing place.  It’s got hanging gardens, you know, three different gyms.  It’s got three helicopter pads, you know, so they can fly in.  So, they have to have their own, uh, you know—what do you call those, to make sure—air traffic control.  They have their own air traffic control.  They have 600 servants.  He’s on the International [Advisory Board].  The guy who owns that is on the International Advisory Board of the Council.

“So, in terms of funding, I could go on on the Council’s funding.  But it’s a plutocracy.  I have on my website.  I also have a lot of information on my website, that I didn’t wanna put into the book because it seemed to be overkill.  So, if you go to my website, LaurenceSchoup.org you’ll see the listing of all the plutocratic donors. [7]  And it’s the typical, you know, the Vanderbilts, the Rockefellers, the Mellons, the Du Ponts, you know, I could go on and on and on.  It’s the old plutocracy that’s funded. (c. 30:12) [SNIP]  (c. 30:46) Okay.  So, there’s the plutocracy.

“Okay.  Let’s go on to Section II: The Council’s Worldview.  What’s the Council’s worldview?  Now, the Council’s worldview is neoliberal geopolitics.  And those are two distinct things.  One is an economic idea—neoliberalism.  The other is world politics—geopolitics.  So, the Council focuses on the richest and most powerful three sections of the world in their neoliberal geopolitical framework, or worldview:  North America, Western Europe, and East Asia, including China. (c. 31:23)  [SNIP] (c. 31:49)

“So, neoliberal geopolitics is dedicated to promoting the expansion of US economic power abroad and trying to create pro-capitalist utopias around the world where free market capitalist fundamentalism can dominate, resulting in high profits due to low labour costs and low costs to resources.  And the best way to explain it is to give a couple of examples.  And I’ll give three brief ones:  Iraq, China, and the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. (c. 32:26)  [SNIP]

Learn more at FLASHPOINTS.

[This transcript will be expanded as time constraints allow.]

***

[1]  Of course, those of us trained in economics at a high quality heterodox economics department, such as the University of Missouri-Kansas City, understand the importance of taking an interdisciplinary approach to adequately address economics.  Other notable heterodox economics departments in the USA include:  the New School for Social Research (New York City), UC Riverside (Riverside, California), University of Massachusetts-Boston, University of Utah, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, and the University of Denver’s Josef Korbel School of International Studies, among others.  Unfortunately, most economics departments throughout the USA, and much of the world, model their economics departments after neoclassical orthodoxy, as exemplified by the Chicago School of Economics, which seeks to constrain the discipline of economics within narrow mathematised boundaries, completely divorced from the real world and real human behaviour, so as to serve the interests of capital, those who horde capital, and the ruling classes.

[2]  This particular radio broadcast is entitled, “Laurence Schoup: Wall Street’s Think Tank” and broadcast by Flashpoints (KPFA, 94.1 FM, Berkeley, CA).  But, perhaps, this speech was originally broadcast by KPFA’s Project Censored radio show.  Excerpts of this lecture were also broadcast on:

  • “Laurence Schoup Special“, 24 FEB 2016, 11:00 PDT, 94.1 FM, KPFA (Berkeley, CA).

Also see the docudrama The American Ruling Class (2005) for more information and somewhat of an insider’s view of the Council On Foreign Relations.

[3]  For a PDF file of Dr. Schoup’s book, co-authored with William Minter, Imperial Brain Trust, see here:  http://goodtimesweb.org/overseas-war/0595324266_ImperialBrain.pdf

[4]  W. Averell Harriman (1891-1986) was also a core member of the group of foreign policy elders known as “The Wise Men“.  Notably, after attending Groton School in Massachusetts he went on to Yale where he joined the American ruling class elite’s secretive Skull and Bones society.  Ater graduating in 1913, Harriman inherited the largest fortune in America at the time and became Yale’s youngest Crew coach.  Harriman took his fortune to expand into various business ventures, including dealing with Nazis.  Harriman’s banking business was the main Wall Street connection for German companies and the varied U.S. financial interests of Fritz Thyssen; who was a financial backer of the Nazi party until 1938. The Trading With the Enemy Act (enacted on October 6, 1917) classified any business transactions for profit with enemy nations as illegal, and any funds or assets involved were subject to seizure by the USA’s government.  The declaration of war on the U.S. by Hitler led to the U.S. government order on October 20, 1942 to seize German interests in the USA, which included Harriman’s operations in New York City.

[5]  Perhaps, deservedly, the AFL-CIO is also known as the AFL-CIA.

[6]  Perhaps, Dr. Schoup meant a descendant of Giovanni Agnelli, as Giovanni Agnelli died in 1945.  Yet, Dr. Schoup says that the International Advisory Board of the Council On Foreign Relations “started in 1995, although it had a different name then.”  So, perhaps the International Advisory Board was named differently prior to 1995 and after the founding of the Council On Foreign Relations circa 1918-1921.

[7]  Perhaps, Dr. Schoup meant LaurenceSchoup.com because LaurenceSchoup.org doesn’t seem to exist.

***

[25 FEB 2016]

[Last modified  13 APR 2016  13:58 PDT]

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
%d bloggers like this: