Blog | A Forensic History

Brandeis: The Social Justice

by Diego Garcia | Apr 3, 2025 | Uncategorized

Prophets of Regulation (1); front cover;

Since their onset, the railroad and corporation have been expansionist in worldview, left to themselves they grew beyond control, we see the formation of giant corporate Trusts in railroads, tobacco, sugar, finance, oil as the advancements of industry far outpace regulation. Born is the era of “Morganization”, and the first questioning of ‘too-big-to-fail’ corporative power.

For those who’ve been following along, the Progressive Era set the foundations for a bureaucratic, scientifically governed society, formerly known as the Administrative State or, derogatorily, as the Welfare or Nanny State. And, as we’ve shown most specifically in Brandeis Part 6: The Science of Law, regulatory and legislative law-making are two very effective yet underappreciated forms of social control. Here’s a short story on the most impressive four regulators in American history.

In his telling of the making of the modern US administrative state, Thomas K. McGraw, professor Emeritus (Business History) at Harvard Business School, names four historical figures most integral to its creation and who’s collective regulatory influence spans well over a century: Charles Francis Adams Jr., Louis D. Brandeis, James M. Landis, and Alfred E Kahn.

And what a century to be a regulator, McGraw’s Pulitzer winning story of the four Prophets, spins a contiguous thread through some of America’s most tumultuous eras: William Henry Vanderbilt and the early 19th century robber barons (cartoon below), American Civil War reconstruction, the Mexican and Spanish-American Wars, 20th century Progressive Era reform, the First and Second World Wars, the New Deal, the Cold War policies of the 50’s and beyond. These are the four men most responsible for first cracking the whip on the American Horse, taming a once unfettered spirit into one of domesticated servitude.

Adams, John Quincy; president, Secretary of State under James Monroe; coauthor of Monroe Doctrine;

John Quincy Adams.

McGraw mentions firstly, Charles Francis Adams Jr., from the famous old-English Bostonian Adams family, and a graduate of Harvard Law School. He was a Colonel and Brigadier General in the Union Army, a direct descendant of two US presidents, and son of Abraham Lincoln’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom.

As chairman of the Massachusetts Railroad Commission and later president of Union Pacific Railway, Adams’ regulatory career focused as one would expect, mainly on the railroads. He was a nationally recognized authority of regulation instigating the Massachusetts Railway Commission in 1869.

Adams was prominent during the Reconstruction period right after the Civil war in the regulation of railroads. His grandfather John Quincy Adams was a Federalist fan of centralized, administrative (scientific) government and Secretary of State under who else but, James Monroe, and together the two were the very authors of, you guessed it, the Monroe Doctrine.

To Adams, “the industrialization of America had gained a momentum independent of human will“, technological determinism was shaping society and the government was falling behind, “a serious institutional lag had opened up between corporate development and public response to it. As a consequence, private and public interests were out of balance.” What was needed was “an expert, a permanent, apolitical body – in brief, a regulatory commission … progress at any price is the watchword of the present.” Pg. 8 Prophets of Regulation.

The entire Adams clan have Progress written all over them, and Charles Francis Adams Jr., already fitting right in with the rest of Lincoln’s key men of Progress: Gilpin, Grant, Sherman, Alphonso Taft, et al. As all Union army members did, Adams literally fought for, and in the very name of Progress – but more on the connections between Brandeis and Lincoln later.

Background image is:

THE MODERN COLOSSUS OF (RAIL) ROADS, 1879 political cartoon in PUCK MAGAZINE. A giant William Henry Vanderbilt (son of Cornelius), President of the New York Central Railroad, stands straddling US railroads. Smaller figures of Cyrus West Field(founder American Telegraph Co.), of the New York Elevated Railroad Company, and Jay Gould, of the Union Pacific Railroad, stand at his feet. J. Keppler artist. These captains of industry the inspiration for regulation and Adams’ career spent regulating interstate railroad travel and communication.

*this cartoon a reference to the Greek sun god Helios and a former Wonder of the World, the Colossus of Rhodes. There is another famous cartoon called the Colossus of Rhodes in which is depicted Cecil Rhodes’ dream of a north-south continental railroad in Africa. Rhodes is seen in a similar fashion to Vanderbilt but straddling the continent of Africa, from the Mediterranean Sea to its southern tip.

“The Peoples Attorney”, “The Sage Advisor to All”, “Isaiah”, “The Greatest Jew Since Jesus Christ”: Louis Dembitz Brandeis

Second on McGraw’s list is our star protagonist, Louis D. Brandeis. (Loo – uhs Bran-dise. Here to the left, on his way to screw somebody). Not only was Brandeis named by McGraw as one of the most influential figures in the regulation of America, naming him, “a patron saint of the whole regulatory tradition”, but McGraw also names Brandeis’ personal law clerk and protege, James M. Landis as one of the four main prophets of regulation. This is significant in that it displays an influence beyond that of one man, and an interest by Brandeis in not only the continuation into perpetuity of his own precedent-setting legislation and regulation, but also the insulating of his own reputation long into the future, hidden behind the wall of scholasticism.

Today the spell is wearing off, and history shows Landis to be one of Brandeis’ primary cover agents, but he was only one of at least twenty other Harvard law students personally groomed under Brandeis and at least ten others under Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. through a triangular relationship with Felix Frankfurter at Harvard Law School.

James M. Landis is the designer and creator of another regulatory body independent of government you may have heard of, the Securities and Exchange Commission. Landis, a protege of both Felix Frankfurter and Brandeis, later writing of his year as clerk under Brandeis as, “one of the best years of my life”. Landis would later be selected Dean of Harvard Law School and second chairman of the SEC. The SEC best known for it’s supervision of Wall Street, but also has jurisdiction over much that people generally don’t appreciate: “regional stock exchanges, over-the-counter markets, corporate reporting activities, accounting practices, bankruptcies and public-utility holding companies” etc.

“Landis’ greatest contribution to regulation came during the 1930’s, in his design and administration of the Securities and Exchange Commission.” Pg. 53, Prophets of Regulation.

“In the history of liberalism, Landis embodied the generational links from Brandeis the old progressive, through Roosevelt and the New Deal, down to John F. Kennedy and the New Frontier. He served all three men.” [emphasis added] Pg. 53, Prophets of Regulation.

“James M. Landis ’24—scholar, administrator, advocate and political adviser—is known for his seminal contribution to the creation of the modern system of market regulation in the United States. As a highly influential participant in the policies of the New Deal, he drafted the statute that was to become the foundation for securities regulation in the U.S., and, by extension, the founding principle of financial market regulation across the world.” Harvard Law School.

Fourth on the list of most prominent American regulators, according to McGraw, was Alfred E. Kahn, a later disciple of the same regulatory philosophy as Brandeis, Landis and Adams. Kahn graduating Harvard with a masters degree in the Liberal Arts before he was 20, summa cum laude. Kahn an economics graduate of Yale, from the Institutionalist school-of-thought, his contemporaries were Progressive founder Richard T. Ely, New School for Social Research co-founder Wesley Clair Mitchell, and Kahn was influenced by economist, sociologist and leading Progressive intellectual, Thorstein Veblen.

Kahn took his cues from Veblen, “they studied the sociological and anthropological aspects of such institutions as the leisure class, the business cycle, the capitalist legal system, the labor union, the business corporation, and the regulatory agency. This last ‘institution’ proved especially important, and many institutional economists interested themselves in regulation.” As any economist or shopper knows, price within an economic model is a major influencer of behaviour.

And this maybe a window into why we see in The First American Fascists, why the one area Brandeis was consulted most by the Council on National Defense and the War Industries Board was “pricing”.

Now we address how Brandeis’ influence specifically was able to create such wide spread and long-lasting systemic change through legislation and regulation with two very important case studies: first Brandeis’ work with Harvard Law School in creating the modern clerkship model and, secondly, the influence his Brandeis Brief had on, not only the world of case law but social activist civil rights organizations like the NAACP and the ACLU into the 21st century.

James M. Landis, founder of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Brandeis protege.

Alfred E. Kahn. Master of Arts, summa cum laude, Harvard Law School

Felix Frankfurter.

The Brandeis Law Clerk System

“…. history has not fully recognized the important and lasting contribution that Brandeis made to the development of the institutional rules and norms surrounding the Supreme Court law clerk …” Isaiah and His Young Disciples. Justice Brandeis and His Law Clerks, Todd C. Peppers.

While studying directly under Horace Gray, Brandeis was one the first ever ‘clerks’ in US law history. Brandeis also learning from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who had also studied under Gray. But more than anyone, it was Brandeis who was the first clerk and the founder of the clerkship model still followed today. Profound in that we already recognize Brandeis for not only being the founder of the ‘Brandeis Brief’, the main proselytizer of ‘sociological jurisprudence’, the founder of the Harvard Law Review and Harvard Law School Association (advising school curriculum and management), but we now find out Brandeis is also the one who establishes Horace Gray’s clerkship model, ‘professionalizing’ the clerk into the institution we all living today assume was just old tradition.

Incredible when you know Brandeis also famously not-so-famously was, the “architect” of Woodrow Wilson’s 1912 New Freedom campaign, setting the regulatory foundations for modern America by creating the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, refitting the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Brandeis personally put Frankfurter in position as professor of Law at Harvard Law School and made him editor of the Harvard Law Review. Frankfurter would eventually be named Byrne professor of Administrative Law in 1924. Brandeis also funded Frankfurter for at least the first years, other financial help for Frankfurter coming from some other names you may have heard before: Jacob Schiff, Julian Mack, Paul and Felix Warburg, Julius Rosenwald, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Learned Hand.

So, Frankfurter’s role is to identify the law students most well-suited to their plans and create and maintain a feeder system for both Holmes and Brandeis. This relationship would span from when Frankfurter left the House of Truth for his Harvard professorship in 1914 until his leaving Harvard for a seat on the US Supreme Court on January 5, 1939(!) Brandeis and Frankfurter overlap at the Supreme Court for one year and Frankfurter would eventually retire from the Supreme Court on August 29, 1962 due to a heart attack.

“…. after his [Brandeis’] death his clerks honored the memory and service of their former employer in a variety of ways. Several of them published ‘tribute’ pieces in law reviews and legal journals in the decades following the Justice’s passing, arguably becoming the originators of a literary tradition now followed by scores of former law clerks from all levels of federal and state courts.” pg.88 Isaiah and His Young Disciples.

“Frankfurter is certain to be ranked with two of his friends, Justices Holmes and Brandeis, as a giant figure in the shaping of American constitutional law.” Felix Frankfurter Dies, Retired Judge Was 82, Harvard Crimson, February 23, 1965, no author attributed.

His apologists say, “shaping American constitutional law’ as if it’s supposed to be shaped, altered, or moved.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

For those wondering about the clerks that worked for Holmes: Thomas Corcoran, Alger and Donald Hiss, Skull and Bonesmen George L. Harrison and Harvey Hollister Bundy (father of William and McGeorge Bundy), we see when combining the clerks of Holmes and Brandeis the makings of FDR’s ‘Braintrust’ and an ominous continuity of Progressive government well into the 20th century.

Brandeis Louis Dembitz painting transparent

Founder of the Harvard Law Review, Justice Louis D. Brandeis.

Brandeis deliberately steered his disciples away from private law practice, instead wanting more, urging each of his 21 clerks to become “missionaries” for the Progressive cause and the advancement of sociological jurisprudence, to pursue larger ideals, Brandeis wanted them to become influential members of the management class, educators, teachers in the continued advancement throughout the century of Brandeisian law, and to protect the Brandeis legacy.

“If one pores through the biographical materials on Brandeis and Holmes, it quickly becomes apparent, that these clerks are the chief defendants of their respective judge’s place in the judicial pantheon.” pg. 93, Isaiah and His Young Disciples.

Eighteen of the twenty-one were either president, editor, or a member of the very institution Brandeis founded himself, the Harvard Law Review and according to Brandeis biographer, Philippa Strum, the “overwhelming majority” of his clerks were Jewish. Brandeis wanted them in the halls of influential universities, “a great service could be done generally to American law and to the Jews by placing desirable ones in the law school faculties” believing “in the Jew [there is] a certain potential spirituality and sense of public service which can be more easily aroused and directed, than at present is discernable in American non-Jews.” Brandeis: Beyond Progressivism, Philippa Strum.

To his disciples Brandeis was generally very distant and indifferent, their relationship strictly professional, Brandeis spoke frankly, for many it would be months before they felt entirely comfortable in his presence, and his clerks were kept in the dark, receiving very little advice from Frankfurter before being fed to the wolf.

Brandeis’ list of disciples an impressive one including future Secretary of State (War) Dean Acheson; Dean of Harvard Law School and Chairman of the SEC John Landis; Chief Judge, US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Attorney, William Sutherland; Judge, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Henry Friendly; Dean Georgetown University Law Center, arms-control negotiator, Adrian Sanford Fisher; Dean Yale Law School, Harry Shulman; Deans of Harvard Law School Louis Jaffe, Paul Freund, and Henry Hart Jr; Wisconsin School of Law professors William Rice Jr. and James Hurst; professor Harvard Law School William McCurdy; president of AMTRAK and chairman of the FTC William Claytor Jr.; president of Phelps Dodge Corporation Robert Page; and others who went on to private practice. We see an interesting array of careers not so surprising when knowing Brandeis’ immense influence on American case and Constitutional law, the Supreme Court, Harvard Law School, railroads, industry and labor, security and privacy, and US secretaries of State (War). We see them all represented in his clerks.

We see in Acheson (Skull and Bones), and Benjamin V. Cohen (both lead attorneys for the National Consumers’ League during the New Deal) how Brandeis’ clerks continued to reform society with his method of using sociological facts and data collected in a brief.

“Justice Louis Brandeis left the Supreme Court in 1939, but in many ways his clerkship model has become the standard for the clerkship institution.” Conclusion, Isaiah and his Disciples.

DARPA in 2015 named their domestic surveillance program after Brandeis. Brandeis even predicting in his famous warrantless ‘wiretapping’ case, Olmstead V. the United States (1928) that television would one day be able to watch, listen and record people in their own homes, Brandeis amazingly revealing the actual intent of television technology. He forsaw a time of Total Information Awareness or, Full Spectrum Dominance and it shouldn’t come as a surprise, Brandeis started it all with many precedent cases in: surveillance, personal privacy, sterilization, sedition, censorship, anti-trust, labour, law, and so on and so on. In 2015, DARPA named their domestic surveillance program after Brandeis.

President Abraham Lincoln and Louis D. Brandeis.

Isaiah and His Young Disciples pg 77; Brandeis looks and acts like Lincoln;

Isaiah and His Young Disciples pg 81; Brandeis claims televisions will one day be able to watch people in their homes

Dean Acheson, like so many others, was stricken by Brandeis’ physical similarity to Abraham Lincoln, writing in his memoirs, “his head of Lincolnian cast and grandeur, the same boldness and ruggedness of features, the same untamed hair, the eyes of infinite depth under bushy eyebrows, which in moments of emotion seemed to jut out.”

Another disciple, H. Thomas Austern saw his mentor as a combination between, “Jesus Christ and a Hebrew prophet”, while Fisher stated, “[Brandeis] seemed to be a combination of Isaiah the prophet and Abraham Lincoln. A raw-boned characteristic. He had a rough-hewn look, [and] a grave, almost diffident courtesy.”

Isaiah and His Young Disciples pg 90; all 21 clerks for Brandeis; all Harvard Law; mostly Jewish;

So, now that we’ve established Brandeis as one of the founding fathers of American regulation and influential figure at Harvard, how exactly did he do it? What was his method of operation?

Legislation is the act of creating laws, while regulation is the process of creating rules that define how laws are applied. Here’s how Brandeis, an expert at both legislation and regulation on the local, state, and federal level set precedent in how to both create and then define the application of law with his revolutionary Brandeis Brief.

Brandeis and the NAACP

“Although Brandeis himself would forgo public activism on behalf of American blacks, his signature approach to lawyering and legal analysis would later provide sympathetic lawyers and judges with the tools and inspiration they would need to bring the national policy of segregation to its knees. For instance, the NAACP would build upon the role of lawyer-as-public-advocate pioneered by Brandeis when it established a legal defense fund to finance litigation efforts aimed at dismantling the segregation system. Civil rights lawyers also would adopt Brandeis’ signature style of brief writing (the so-called ‘Brandeis Brief’), which made generous use of sociological data to support legal arguments.” Pg. 846, Alabama Law Review, Louis Brandeis and the Race Question, Christopher A. Bracey, Vol. 52, George Washington Law, Social Science Research Network.

Bracey claiming herein that, after considerable investigation of his own, he had failed to find any public record of Brandeis advocating for the black American at all. So, he asks, if his record shows an absence of actual opinion, what exactly did Brandeis do for the civil rights movement? Bracey’s paper caused friction in academic circles yet Brandeis’s record is there for all to see, Bracey’s argument is valid, and this further substantiates our thought that Brandeis’ main interest throughout, like that of Lincoln and Roosevelt, wasn’t about civil rights as we think of them, but the standardization of an all inclusive new model of wage slavery.

“In short, Brandeis is considered an icon in American legal culture because we purport to understand his public-spirited approach to the law as having elevated our expectations of lawyers and judges and transformed our perceptions of the purpose of law in civilized society …. Yet, there is an aspect of Brandeis’ life – one that routinely escapes mention in the historical literature – that gives rise to a far more powerful critique of his celebrated image: namely, his conspicuous evasion of public issues that dealt with inter-ethnic relations between African Americans and Euro-Americans.” Pg. 861, Brandeis and the Race Question

And while Bracey does rightly identify a very historically significant void in Brandeis’ humanitarian record, and suggests in fairness we may need to look deeper into the lives of other justices, he doesn’t delve any deeper into Brandeis. Bracey perhaps being blinded by the same “revelatory light” cast upon the rest of his historiographer friends fails to put the entire mosaic together.

“Given Brandeis’ familiarity with the issues facing blacks in American society, his reputation for public vanguardism and social responsibility, and his purportedly strong predisposition toward vindicating the rights of common people, one naturally would assume he was among the first to confront such obvious and rampant public injustices”. Yet Brandeis failed to “author a single opinion in any of the race cases heard by the Court. More importantly, Brandeis voted with the majority of the Court in every one of these cases, some of which served to reinforce the core principles of racial stratification and subordination of blacks in American society.” Brandeis and the race Question.

of these cases, some of which served to reinforce the core principles of racial stratification and subordination of blacks in American society.”

NAACP pg. 204; Brandeis advises petition for relief as the most effective way; Florence Kelley, the NCL;

Here we see the main argument against Brandeis, that much of what Brandeis set in place actually worked against the interests of the minorities he claimed to support, he further deepened harmful stereotypes and racial stratifications. Instead of freeing the blacks he helped to undermine their cause by attaching a persecution complex forever subjugating the negro with a sense of futility in his own mind. The Civil Rights movement itself has served to exploit the black race, to further entrench the thought of victimhood and enhance the thought of systemic disparity.

In an example of how Brandeis skirted the racial question we and example offered by Bracey in the personal letters of Brandeis himself.

Brandeis’ largely unknown role of counsel for the NAACP another strangely under reported aspect of his life in that Brandeis advised the NAACP’s early moves, giving advice to Florence Kelley and other NAACP founders on how best to initiate social change. In an example of how Brandeis skirted the racial question Bracey points to a case the NAACP was taking up against the Interstate Commerce Commission for failing to eliminate discrimination in railroad facilities. Brandeis received a letter from the NAACP’s secretary of the board of directors, Miss May Childs Nerney dated, September 10, 1914, asking for his assistance and pay particular attention to how Brandeis interacts, firstly on September 18th:

“So far as I know, I shall be in the city on next Wednesday, and could see you at 11:00 o’clock on that day. I have great doubt, however, that it would be worth your while to come to Boston for that purpose alone, as it does not seem possible that I should give you any advice of value in regard to the Jim Crow car situation …”

In a later letter of the same thread, on September 29 Brandeis reiterated to NAACP board attorney, Chapin Brinsmade and another NAACP founder Oswald Garrison Villard, that the best approach was to file a “formal petition …. with the Commission seeking redress for failure to provide reasonable accommodations on such railroads as appeared to be particularly serious offenders, and be prepared to make full proof in those cases.” Pg. 297,298,305, The Letters of Louis Brandeis Papers, Volume 3, Melvin Urofsky and David Levy.

Brandeis’ answer was to involve a necessary social justice aspect. To not just wait for bureaucracy to get around to an investigation but to provide the evidence to put the ICC in a position where they have little choice but to expediate the process or face public backlash. Here Brandeis creating circumstances using critical theory. And the Brandeis Brief became the working model and most effective tool of change for, not only the NAACP, but all social activist organizations across the board forever after:

“Thereupon the NAACP board dispatched Montgomery Gregory of Howard University to collect evidence and take pictures of Jim Crow car conditions in the deep south …. By the end of 1915, Arthur Springarn and the legal committee had “almost perfected” the cases, which were to have been presented by Brandeis. Brandeis was appointed to the United States Supreme Court in January, 1916, however, and Albert Pillsbury agreed to make the presentation.” Pg. 204,205, NAACP: A History of the National Association of Colored People, Volume 1: 1909-1920, by Charles Flint Kellogg.

“Florence Kelley sought the help of Louis Brandeis, who was at that time counsel for the Consumers’ League. Brandeis advised the Association that the best approach was to petition the Commission for relief, citing definite cases in support of their contention.” pg. 205, 205, NAACP: A History

The NAACP adopting and then, “building upon the role of lawyer-as-public-advocate pioneered by Brandeis when it established a legal defense fund to finance litigation efforts aimed at dismantling the segregation system. Civil rights lawyers also would adopt Brandeis’ signature style of brief writing (the so-called “Brandeis Brief”), which made generous use of sociological data to support legal arguments.” Pg. 864, Alabama Law Review.

Conclusion:

“Progressive legislation during the first Wilson administration exceeded that passed in nearly twelve years under Roosevelt and Taft. These new measures embodied many of Brandeis’s suggestion, yet were far from being all that he thought necessary. Before the anti-trust and other acts he had fathered were through the mill, he was urging legislation on more fronts. Here he was too early; it was not until twenty years later that his theories came alive in such New Deal measures as the Securities Axt of 1933.” pg. 408, Brandeis: A Free Man’s Life

Brandeis and his form of regulation largely formed from the Brandeis Brief, first used in law legislation and adopted as tradition, then we see him using it with the National Consumers’ League, the NAACP and the ACLU. His influence emanating from Harvard Law School still to this day.

Brandeis never once during his entire time on the Supreme Court dissented in a racial discrimination case of blacks. He voted with the majority every time. When it came to the prosecution of communists during and after the First World War, Brandeis wasn’t afraid of risking his reputation in defending their rights to speak freely and then spoke in terms of everyone being deserving of foundational concepts such as liberty and the democratic process.

“In the coming years, the use of social science data to quantify the harms of racial prejudice would become the ‘bread and butter’ of civil rights brief writing, culminating in tremendous sociological data-driven victories in Shelley v. Kraemer and Brown v Board of Education.” Pg. 900, Alabama Law Review.

Bracey, like everyone else looking into the life of Brandeis finds contradiction yet fails to put the puzzle picture together in its entirety; instead, choosing to stay with the easier border pieces.

Interesting to note Bracey contends four possible reasons for Brandeis’ absence while in such a position to help the plight of the African-American, but finds all four insufficient explanations in themselves. Left to speculate, he never finds the true reason. Moorfield Storey, the president of the NAACP from its beginning until his death argued that racial mixing was desirable and segregation laws worked directly against this desired “racial amalgamation”. Here again we see, they weren’t emancipating the black slave, they were just releasing him from solitary confinement, allowing him to congregate ‘freely’ with the white prison population, and sole purpose of emancipation was efficiency of governance. Here we claim the same conspiracy many did then, of a plan being executed through the NAACP of race amalgamation. Rather than freeing the black from enslavement they were merely making a business decision to standardize the slave trade and mix the different coloured chattel.

Brandeis’ dominant role in American legislation and then regulation is certainly celebrated among the intelligentsia today, his work first with Brandeis & Warren and then Brandeis, Dunbar & Nutter in Boston and New York, then his state work in Washington, have made the Brandeis name and regulation nearly synonymous (Brandeis coining the term, ‘regulated competition’, preferred shop, and scientific management); however, among the plebs, the Brandeis name remains ignotum notem. A noteworthy absence.

Brandeis’ early role in the regulation of the Boston and Washington Street Subway systems set the trail, and much national and state regulation followed: the Boston & Maine/New Haven Railroad Merger, the 1902 Anthracite Case, the 1910 Collier’s Ballinger Investigation, the 1910 New York Garment Workers Strike, the Advanced Rate Case (1910-1913), and the Boston & Maine/New Haven Merger.

In a similar fashion to how Edward Filene would bring Brandeis into the negotiations during the 1910 Triangle Shirt Waist Strike that resulted in the Protocol of Peace, we see Brandeis being suggested to labor attorney Clarence Darrow by muckraker Henry Demarest Lloyd. Together they gathered all the sociological data needed and then applied the Brandeis Brief in one of the most famous strike cases in American history. This pattern we see repeated several times throughout the Rise of the Expert series, where Brandeis would enter a room of high level attorney’s and leave their undisputed leader. His attachment to the State and the National Consumers’ League an influential elixir.

“The partnership of Louis D. Brandeis and the National Consumers’ League in the preparation of sociological briefs for the defense of labor legislation was by no means accidental. Brandeis has an enormous reputation among reformers of the century’s first decade, for he early applied his brilliant legal mind to solving specific labor relations problems. In 1902 he provided advice for Clarence Darrow, who presented the mine workers’ case before the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission created by Theodore Roosevelt.” The National Consumers’ League and the Brandeis Brief.

As we learned in Brandeis Part 6: The Science of Law, there is no form of social control more specialized or efficient than law, the legislative and regulatory process ensures long term compliance among the vast majority of people. Brandeis, the nationally known man-of-the-people, was spearheading the movement as “preeminent counsel” of the National Consumers’ League. And, by training a generation of the leading social activists and lawyers in the Brandeis Brief method, Brandeis again ensuring a legacy. A legacy upheld for generations by his progressive enablers is hard to penetrate and despite articles like Bracey’s, and investigations like ours, Brandeis’ life and afterlife remain a riddle wrapped in scholasticism hidden inside academia.

“After Muller v. Oregon, in which the assistance of Louis Bran-
deis was obtained for the state by the National Consumers’
League, there were more calls for help than could be answered …. Soon afterwards Attorney General Timothy Hogan sought the assistance of Brandeis for the defense of the Ohio Workmen’s Compensation Act.” pg. 284, The National Consumers’ League and the Brandeis Brief.

Attorney Charles Henry Butler, who’s family had been on the Supreme Court for a century said, “That fellow Brandeis has got the impudence of the Devil to bring his socialism into the Supreme Court.” pg. 280, The National Consumers’ League and the Brandeis Brief.

Uncle Same magnifying glass; preparedness;

The First American Fascists

by Diego Garcia | Mar 25, 2025 | Uncategorized

The First American Fascists: The Advisory Committee of The Council of National Defense founded August 29,1916. Army Appropriations Act.

Left to right seated: David F. Houston (Sec. of Agriculture), Josephus Daniels (Sec. of Navy), Newton D. Baker (Sec. of War), Franklin K. Lane (Sec. of Interior), William B. Wilson (Sec. of Labor). Left to right standing: Grosvenor Clarkson (Secretary), Julius Rosenwald (Sears Roebuck), Bernard Baruch (Wall Street financier), Daniel Willard (Baltimore and Ohio Railroad), Franklin H. Martin (American College of Surgeons), Hollis Godfrey (president Drexel Institute), Howard E. Coffin (Hudson Motor Company), and W.S. Gifford (President AT&T).

“… selective draft of industry is the logical twin of the selective draft of men. In the next war all industry – the whole economic life of the Nation – as well as human life should be conscripted.” Pg 483, Industrial America in the World War, Grosvenor Clarkson.

Clarkson replaced Gifford as Director of the CND, 1918-1920.

While researching US preparation for the Great War, it surprised me to learn of two things, 1) how involved private-corporations and manufactories were, and, 2) how the military-industrial-complex was actually founded long before we thought, during the Progressive Era. It’s a little unnerving to learn that Eisenhower’s iconic warning came nearly a half-century late, and this seldom discussed era of progress I’d previously thought was filled with non-interventionalists, pacifists, and anti-war activism, was actually the birthplace of American sponsored neo-imperialism. Yet, the historical evidence cannot be more convincing.

When Woodrow Wilson announced US involvement in the Great War on April 2, 1916, he sparked an unprecedented mobilization of both American private-industry and government administration, and he did so under the Progressive banner of Preparedness – To Make the World Safe for Democracy!

So, while many Progressives may scoff at the idea of being founders of world war or supporters of American fascism, the forensic history clearly shows the Progressive Era to be the birthplace, and it’s driven then just as today, by it’s three main tenets: Preparedness, Efficiency, and the Scientific Expert.

When knowing Mussolini’s definition of fascism: corporatism; the totalitarian control of the whole economic life of a nation by a State and large corporate interest groups like: military, agricultural, labour, business, scientific, and guild associations, together shaping society through the negotiation of policy (collective bargaining) on the basis of common interests; it shouldn’t then, come as any surprise at all, that the Progressive of today has so much in common with, and is in so much support of, the very institutions they’ve traditionally protested: corporate monopoly, unregulated capitalist banking, expansionist US foreign policy, the war munitions maker. These still the very cornerstones of modern Imperialism.

Already we see, just in the Council of National Defense Advisory Board above, giants of early American industry: AT&T, Sears Roebuck, Bell Telephones, Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, sitting right next to government departments of: agriculture, military, labor; and all them centered around the Lone Wolf of Wall Street, Bernard Baruch. And what are these men doing if not, “together negotiating contracts and policy (collective bargaining) on the basis of a common interest”? The only thing missing is the totalitarian control aspect.

According to his quote above, CND secretary/director Grosvenor Clarkson, the whole economic life of the nation, and even human life itself, was now to be conscripted into a “second line of defense”. The United States was the “last reservoir” of both men and resources, and, in the opinion of the CND Advisory Commission, the single largest challenge during this never-before-seen call to national preparedness wasn’t military inefficiency but the inefficiency of labor. A viewpoint certainly voiced by their not-so-secret advisor and face of Efficiency, Justice Brandeis,

.
.

Clarkson’s, Industrial America in the World War, his own, personal, post-war, telling of how American private-industry mobilized to the national call of war. Clarkson’s only regret was not doing it earlier, “had we been better prepared for war, victory would have come sooner and cost less. As to military preparedness, our army was magnificent and admirably trained. But there was another kind of preparedness which had everywhere been neglected”. The type that “demands that the blood of the soldier must be mingled with from three to five parts of sweat of the man in the factories, mills, mines, and fields of the nation in arms.” Introduction, Industrial America in the World War.

ROOSEVELT, Theodore_ Grand Lodge of Ohio (4); cropped;_

Theodore Roosevelt, The Master Mason here adorned in Masonic paraphernalia. Member at Matinecock Lodge 806, Oyster Bay, New York. Roosevelt laying the cornerstone for the Pilgrim’s Memorial Monument and the House of Representatives. Roosevelt was the guest of many Masonic Lodges around the world.

Bernard Baruch, Chairman, War Industries Board. Graduated City College of New York, Phi Beta Kappa.

Baruch’s red-brick Washington home was located at 1520 18th Street, NW, one block east and four blocks south of the House of Truth. Interestingly, if Baruch were to walk his poodle to the House of Truth today, there is no way the two couldn’t walk right past the National Headquarters of The Phi Beta Kappa Society, located directly in between.

The call for preparedness wasn’t just in the halls of Washington either, it was everywhere. One week after congress gave the go ahead for war, Progressive president Woodrow Wilson signed Executive Order 2594 on April 13, 1917, creating the Committee on Public Information (the first propaganda division of the US government), and now, almost as if coordinated, a massive push for national preparedness, through all available mediums of the day. Here we see even the consolidation of communication, from the many into one, and the birth of modern media: the spoken word, the painting, the poster, the book, the magazine, the musical melody, and the motion picture – all mediums into one mass media. Us today were born here in this era.

The newspaper, the movie theater and the radio broadcast were awash with the promise of preparedness and efficiency. It was the most aggressive propaganda campaign ever attempted, successfully moving the average American from pacifist to pro-war in less than six months. So successful was the campaign during times of war, they decided to adopt the same techniques post-war, during peace time, here at home – and have never stopped propagandizing the American public since. Wilson had won his second term on the promise of, He Kept Us Out of War, but once in, he was all in, as if hell-be-damned, fueled by an Atlanticist idealism and directed by those around him, especially Brandeis, Wilson soon after election plunged America head first into the cataclysm.

Progressive founder Theodore Roosevelt had long called for a prepared military, and his defeat in the 1912 election wasn’t enough to stop the great evangelizer of Preparedness, with the winds of war swirling Roosevelt, forever the man of action, didn’t hesitate in fanning the flames, publishing two books on the cusp of war back-to-back: America in the World War (1915), and, Fear God and Take Your Own Part (1916), both many months before official American declaration of war, and both leaning heavily on preparedness.

In, America and the World War, the word ‘preparedness’ shows up 58 times and ‘prepared’ another 27, while, as if needing to beat the pacifist out of the American people, he one year later publishes, Fear God and Take Your Own Part, in which he cites ‘preparedness’ 90 more times, ‘prepared’ another 33 times, and ‘God’ innumerably.

And who was to govern this national war machine to the needs of a nation in arms? Well, Bernard Baruch of course. After all, he’s a close Phi Beta Kappa fraternal brother of not just: Louis D. Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Walter Lippmann and Woodrow Wilson; but the very founders of Preparedness too: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Henry Stimson, and Elihu Root. The last three all Skull and Bones.

Baruch elected chairman of the War Industries Board in 1917 by executive order. Known as the “Lone Wolf of Wall Street“, the unabashed speculator, now at the helm of the most supreme instrument of military power inside the worlds most powerful nation. Baruch acting as the dictator, choosing priority among the Allied contracts, directing the raw copper from Bisbee and coal from Ludlow to manufactories and refineries in Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and abroad. Baruch at the helm of what they themselves even called “a war machine”, a “growing brain of the whole body of war enterprise, deriving power from the user of power, it came to be the head center of the entire economic activity of the Nation”. pg. 482, Industrial America in the World War.

“Wild horses had been tamed” by “an efficient team”, and for the first time in modern history, we see a nation as an army. Pg. 9, Industrial America in the World War.

“A military and industrial partnership which is the sine qua non of the integration of the full military power of the Nation. Such progress, however, will inevitably be restricted …. unless qualified industrial experts from civilian life are allowed to mould the programme of whatever industrial preparedness may be ours …. It was the civilian experts of the War Industries Board who saved this situation from actual tragedy.” Pg. 484,485, Industrial America in the World War.

sine qua non: an essential condition; a thing that is absolutely necessary.

The Earliest Beginnings of the Military Industrial Complex

Now that we’ve established preparedness as a Progressive tenet, what about the origins of the Preparedness movement itself? Where do we get the idea of preparedness from?

Well, the idea of being ready to defend oneself against an existential threat is largely attributed to Theodore Roosevelt*, but many may once again be as surprised as I was to learn that the origins of the Preparedness movement can be traced back to a single New York Times interview published May 30, 1915 with, of all people, Thomas Edison.

Edison’s Plan for Preparedness: The Inventor Tells How We Could Be Made Invincible Without Overburdening Ourselves with Taxes:

“I consider it a reasonable certainty that some day we shall have a war; and I consider it a probability that when that day comes we shall find ourselves unprepared to meet it. I believe it to be the duty of every American patriot to do what he can to see that this does not occur …” Thomas Edison, New York Times. May 30, 1915.

Abracadabra Alakazam! The Industrial Preparedness Committee of the Naval Consulting Board! Founded from a spell and manifested into this realm by the Secretary of Navy Josephus Daniels in September of 1915, nearly two years before official US involvement in the Great War, and, of course, Edison was named president. Officially called the US Naval Consulting Board’s Committee on Production, Organization, Manufacturing, and Standardization (better known as Committee on Initial Preparedness). Thomas Edison presiding over, Howard E. Coffin, the chairman and the Supervising Director, W.S. Gifford; along with two experts chosen from eleven leading scientific and experimental laboratories in the United States.

*Roosevelt’s ‘walk softly and carry a big stick’ policy was an harkening to the older historical idea of ‘might is right’, or even the Monroe Doctrine of 1823.

New York Times article, Edisons Plan for Preparedness (1); May 30. 1915;

Naval Consulting Board marching in Preparedness Parade; May 13, 1916; 22 members marching behind; Hudson Maxim over Edison's left shoulder;

May 13, 1916, Edison (4) marches in the Preparedness Parade with his Naval Consulting Board. Two members each, representatives from the 11 chosen scientific, engineering companies. Hudson Maxim, the silver bearded man over Edison’s left shoulder is the inventor of smokeless gunpowder, he is the brother of Hiram Stevens Maxim, the inventor of the Maxim gun (the first fully automatic machine gun) and the nephew of Hiram Percy Maxim, inventor of the silencer. Among those walking with and behind Edison are: the president of Ingersoll Rand, the president of Anaconda Steel, the president of Carnegie Institute, the president of Hudson Motor Company, the “father of plastics“, the founder of the GE research laboratory and the field of industrial research, the inventor of the efficient induction motor, the inventor of electrical traction (allowing for electric rail, electric motors, and elevators), the inventor of the phonometer, the developers of the gyroscope, the inventor of the conveyor belt, the inventor of mercury vapor lighting (the fluorescent light bulb), the “father of standardization“, the inventor of retractable landing gear, the “father of modern navigation“, the inventor of the high speed printing press, and so on ….

On June 3, 1916, three weeks after the parade, the National Defense Act is signed, authorizing the massive expansion of the US Army, Navy, the creation of the National Guard all in the name of US national defense planning. The birth of Naval R & D, the first steps of DARPA, and our world has never been the same since. Fear of existential threats now, five generations later, baked into the apple pie.

The signing on August 29, 1916 of the Military Appropriations Act of 1916 (39 Stat. 649), signaled the creation of both the Council of National Defense and the War Industries Board. The two organizing bodies found necessary to coordinate the many divisions of manufacture, transportation, and trade of war. The CND and WIB were, like the newly signed FTC and the Federal Reserve, independent of the government, the CND with it’s Advisory Commission and the WIB the central “clearing house” from inside where the many divisions were coordinated and managed. Baruch, as chairman of the WIB and a member of the Advisory Board, had absolute authority over nearly every aspect from Priorities to the Finished Products Division. The only division Baruch didn’t have iron fisted complete control of, was cost and pricing – and as the records show, its this specific area the Advisory Commission sought Louis D. Brandeis’ counsel the most. How about that? Brandeis advising the Advisors of the CND and WIB. Overseeing the first steps of the military-industrial-complex.

Brandeis School of Law Reel 59; Brandeis counseling the Council on National Defense; Brandeis advisor to House;

Brandeis School of Law Reel 60; Shipping Board War Industries Board; Lippmann, Frankfurter, Herbert Croly. Learned Hand, Hapgood, Charles Sueblen;

Council of National Defense

And it’s not like there isn’t sufficient evidence, we just can’t get to it without a visit or phone call. At the Brandeis School of Law Library we find being kept, Reel 59 World War 1917-1918, showing much meta-data correspondence between Brandeis and the Advisory Commission of the Council of National Defense during its formative years – especially in the areas of production costs. Meaning Brandeis is advising from the shadows just like he always does, only this time in the creation of US foreign policy and a new economic model, American Fascism.

Reel 60 World War 1918, reveals even more correspondence withheld behind paywalls, the words of wartime agencies like the Shipping Board and the War Industries Board. It also shows Brandeis even being considered for “peace commissioner” at the Paris Peace Conference(!) A position ultimately filled by the president of the United States.

Brandeis’ massive influence in the efficiency movement, his having coined the term ‘scientific management’, and with his recent foundational work affecting the entire nation on trade unionism, collective bargaining, and regulated competition, along with other, earlier, precedent-setting, national headline attracting, legislation and regulation in labour, common, corporate and constitutional law, he more than seems to be the most qualified here. Frankfurter referred to Brandeis as the “sage advisor to all”, Brandeis setting both his sights on Palestine and the stage for war, 1915. From the embers of war, this is how our modern social contract was first forged in fire.

Remember, Wilson “wanted Brandeis everywhere”, offering Brandeis the position of Attorney General, Secretary of Commerce, the head of Indian Affairs, chair of the Committee on Industrial Relations, first director of the Inquiry, and the ‘peace commissioner’ at Paris – all of which Brandeis officially turned down. Brandeis was, let’s not forget, the very “architect” of Wilson’s successful 1912 New Freedom campaign founding the Federal Reserve and Federal Trade Commission, two giant agencies, independent of government control. pg. 48, Arthur S. Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era.

It was Brandeis’, “opinions on economic questions that he [Wilson] respected above all others”, The only official position Brandeis accepted was his most contentiously fought, confirmed the first Jewish US supreme court justice in 1916. pg. 48, Arthur S. Link, Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era.

And it bears repeating, Brandeis’ close PBK fraternal friendships with Wilson, Baruch, Frankfurter, Lippmann, and the other primary “fathers of preparedness”: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Henry Stimson, and Elihu Root make Brandeis a central figure in not only the initial set-up and coordination of the CND and the WIB, but their direction in the future (just like Harvard Law School and Harvard Law Review), and speak to shadowy special interests observing from above steering the actions of all of these men from an historical and progressive long-view.

War of the Nations pg. 17; Organizers of Financial and Economic Activities

Baruch, Bernard, chairman War Industries Board;master-pnp-hec-02800-02810u

“Occasionally, on a Saturday morning in the summer of 1912, Bernard Baruch would walk into the Democratic Headquarters with Woodrow Wilson in tow, ‘leading him like one would a poodle on a string.” Pg. 97, FDR My Exploited Father-In-Law, Curtis B. Dall

The War Industries Board

Officially the War Industries Board was led by a Cabinet committee of prominent private citizens working without pay that included Louis D. Brandeis. Dollar-a-year men made up of several divisions: War Labor Policies Board, the Shipping Board, Emergency Fleet, Price-Fixing, Priorities Committees, and other bureaus all working under cooperation of war. The WIB’s main focus was the coordination and execution of the largest expansion of the US military ever before or since. They went to war to end all war by creating the military-industrial-complex as the ultimate preparation – might is right.

The 1916 War Appropriations Act set in motion for the first time in America, a public/private partnership bringing rail, road, and water transport together with mining companies and industrial manufacturers in the national commandeering of American industry for war time purposes. Many then just as today mark this moment of nationalization as the beginning of the Great Apocalypse as depicted in the Book of Revelation.

Lifting the cover off the WIB, inside we find the War Labor Policies Board. As one might guess, the WLPB was in charge of labor coordination and just like before, we see a bees nest of Brandeisians: Felix Frankfurter as chairman this time, his assistant – a young Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Mary von Kleek (the president of Russell Sage), and Brandeis’ protege Florence Kelley. All intimate with Brandeis, (FDR eventually nicknaming the quiet but effective little Jew, “Isaiah”). Other members of the WLPB: Max Lowenthal (a student of the Talmud), Julian Mack, Robert Szold, and Benjamin V. Cohen, all hard core Zionists supporters under Brandeis.

Price-Fixing Committee of the War Industries Board. Seated left to right: William Byron Colver (Dir. FTC), Bernard Baruch (chairman), Robert Brookings (Brookings Institution), Hugh Fayne (Labor), F.W. Taussig (modern trade theory). Standing left to right: unknown, John M Hancock, unknown, Lt. Col. Robert H. Montgomery (PricewaterhouseCooper), H.C. Stuart, Harry Augustus Garfield.

Mussolini, National Syndicalism, and the National Fascist Party

The modern definition of fascism, according to its founders, Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini centers on the century of the State, a corporatism through national syndicalism, the trade union, and collective bargaining, a never-ending progress of society under totalitarian rule directly opposed to classic liberalism. Mussolini postulates a total subservience of the individual in the name of the State. A ‘new’ individual is to be forged, one embracing nationalism and being of good utility for the greater good. His/her meaning and purpose found in their devotion to the State.

Leader of the National Fascist Party of Italy, Benito Mussolini. El Duce.

Mussolini: “…. it is right that a large part of the attention of the world should be concentrated upon the activity of [the United States] …. economists of real wisdom and scholars that are outlining the basis of a new science and a new culture. I admire the discipline of the America people and their sense of organization …. The United States is now in the golden age. It is necessary to study these tendencies and their results, and this is not only in the interest of America but in the interest of the world.” Pg. 26, My Autobiography, By Benito Mussolini.

Mussolini admired Taylorism, derived from the book, The Principles of Scientific Management, famously implementing efficiency at the Fiat factory in Turin where it became a symbol of the regime’s industrial focus. Mussolini’s corporatist model which aimed to integrate labour and capital under state control and American Taylorism were a perfect marriage. There is no mistaking an appreciation bordering on a love affair that existed at the time between United States industry and Mussolini in much the same way they would a decade later with Hitler.

American Progressive and US Ambassador to Italy

Richard Washburn Child, was not only the US Ambassador to Italy, he was a close, personal advisor and friend to Benito Mussolini. Child the author of, A Diplomat Looks at Europe, states below the similarities between the Council of National Defense and Mussolini’s model of Corporatism(!):

“Everyone remembers our own National Council of Defense in Washington during the war, with its experts and research bureaus. Mussolini has erected a somewhat similar organization for the purposes of peace …. These groups are made up of the best men to be found as experts and advisers, whether they be laborers, professors, capitalists. The creation of this system is based on the idea that in the modern world the realities of technical, economic and social problems are so complex that their solution cannot be carried on by politicians and orators. Therefore, the state, as well as local administrations, has followed to a marked degree the advice of these nonpolitical unprejudiced Groups of Competence in matters which range from technical army and industrial problems to colonial policy, constitutional reform and educational system.” Pg. 217, 218, A Diplomat Looks At Europe, from the chapter, The New State, Richard Washburn Child.

“favorable comparison of the male students who joined the squadristi [Black Shirts] with Theodore Roosevelt’s Rough Riders and the American Legion, who had glorified wartime patriotism ….”
Katy Hull, The Machine Has a Soul: American Sympathy with Italian Fascism, Princeton University Press.

Richard Washburn Child, also Harvard Law School alum, and a propagandist during World War I, was later the editor of the progressive magazine, Collier’s and, The Saturday Evening Post. He was a great facilitator in bringing JP Morgan investment to Italy. He dropped ten million on El Duce right when he needed it most. Child also writing the preface to Mussolini’s autobiography, My Autobiography by Benito Mussolini (1928), after first convincing Mussolini to ‘write’ it; and it was Child’s assurances of US support that led directly to Mussolini’s famous March on Rome in 1922.

Richard Washburn Child, founder, along with Robert LaFollette of the National Republican Progressive Party, the predecessor to Roosevelt’s 1912 Bull Moose Party. Child a staunch American advocate of fascism.

“Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity …. It is opposed to classical liberalism, which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. [Classical] Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual.” Pg. 10, 11, The Doctrine of Fascism, Benito Mussolini

Syndicalism: a movement for transferring the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution to industrial unionism or workers’ unions advancing their interests through actions like strikes. A social ownership where nothing is owned by the individual. Centralism favoring a federal economic organization of society with trade unions being the foundations for a post-capitalist world. What does Fascism mean if not literally trade unionism? Same as Soviet means: a worker’s council, or an advisory board; we see the advance of the expert into the vacancy left behind by the classically liberated individual.

Panunzio, Sergio; major theorist of both synidcalism and fascism; Sorel school-of-thought; power of myth and militant trade unionism;

Sergio Panunzio, great theoretician of national syndicalism and Fascism.

Corridoni, Filippo 1914; dietro_Benito_Mussolini

Filippo Corridoni speaking at a rally with Mussolini just over his shoulder in white hat.

A newer brand of trade unionists, born from Sorel, were the National Syndicalists, they added a nationalistic, patriotic, and radical fervor to trade unionism (conveniently just in time for war too) and many members were prominent within Mussolini’s cabinet and important in the establishment of his Fascist idealogy.

Sergio Panunzio developed the earliest theories of both national syndicalism and fascism, and stated its importance as a historical development of Marx. Although their beliefs diverged over time, Mussolini largely based his brand on Panunzio’s writings and thoughts.

Angelo Oliviero Olivetti and Alceste De Ambris published the manifesto Facio Rivoluzionario d’Azione Internazionalista (League of Revolutionary International Action), in 1914 from which Mussolini would found his Fasci d’Azione Rivoluzionaria (Leagues of Revolutionary Action).

Agostino Lanzillo, graduating with a law degree from University of Rome, was an outspoken member of Mussolini’s Fascist Party and is considered a founder of Fascism. He was a member of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, one half of a bicameral Italian parliament.

Filippo Corridoni, a founder of fascism was a close personal friend of Mussolini. This the organization that went into the Great War on the side of the Allied armies.

Black Eagle clutching a fasces. Symbol of Italian Fascism.

A nationalistic, patriotic fervor led by the trade union being introduced in Italy at the same time, and in an unsettlingly similar fashion to, how military preparedness and shop efficiency were being introduced under trade unionism in America all inspired by their Progressive Manifesto, Herbert Croly’s, The Promise of American Life (1909). The word, patriotic mentioned 50 times, efficiency 114, prepared 22.

The first strikes in Italy starting in 1904 led to the formation of the General Confederation of Labour in 1906, (Confederazione Generale del Lavoro).This leading to an unprecedented period of massive industrial growth in Italy by first bringing labor and capital together. This happening at nearly the same time Brandeis is passing his own legislation with the National Consumers League, authoring the Protocol of Peace, and settling national labor tension across the board, clearing the way in America for a patriotically driven manufacture of war machines in defense of national interests.

It turns out, under all the plenary talk of “making the world safe for democracy”, has all along been hidden the economic model of the Progressive, a not-so-subtle fascism based on predatory corporate global expansion, aided by the very same system of military intervention discussed by Smedley Butler in War is a Racket. The military arrives to first clear a path in the region of interest, and once authority has been established the corporations arrive like leaches to reconstruct the landscape from their own will and in their own imagination. All with the goal of world domination.

principles of scientific management alternative cover (2)

Fasces on the cover of, The Principles of Scientific Management (1911). Brandeis coins the term, ‘scientific management’.

Fasces on 1916 American dime.

Now we see why it was necessary here in the West to flip the definition of Liberalism from Classic to a New Liberalism* advocating for a larger, even more centralized government. Brandeis’ industrial democracy the same as Mussolini’s fascist State. This also opening a crack, the window into why whenever someone speaks of ‘fascism’, they rarely if ever mention Mussolini. It’s for exactly the same reason Marxists never mention J.P. Morgan when critiquing capitalism. It’s a degree of separation within which they can claim plausible deniability if ever anyone caught on. And here we find the answer to why both myths still dominate today, just like Progressivism itself, standing over it all, acting as an umbrella in the rain.

We’ve shown clearly in previous work how the US supreme court justice trifecta: Brandeis, Frankfurter, and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., all openly experimented on the U.S. Constitution, they all openly opposed natural law and detested in more ways than one the classic definition of Liberalism. The method everyone in law would adopt, that by its very nature supersedes Constitutional law and tradition is named after Brandeis, the “Brandeis Brief”. We’ve also shown how they used the House of Truth to deliberately alter Liberalism.

A nationalistic, patriotic fervor led by trade unionism coincidentally introduced in Italy at the same time, and in an unsettlingly similar fashion to that of how military preparedness and shop efficiency were being introduced in America, all brought together under the union shop.

An unprecedented period of massive industrial growth coincided in America with similar movements in Britain, France, Germany, Russia and Italy (and China) by first bringing labor and capital together under one roof inside a workers union. This happening at exactly the same time Brandeis was passing his own legislation with Florence Kelley and the National Consumers League and authoring the Protocol of Peace, bringing labour and capital together himself, and clearing the way in America for a patriotic and proud labour force ready and willing to manufacture war machines.

Under all the plenary talk of “making the world safe for democracy”, has all along been hidden the economic model of the Progressive, a not-so-subtle fascism based on predatory corporate global expansion, aided by the very same system of military intervention discussed by Smedley Butler in War is a Racket. The military arrives to first clear a path in the region of interest, and then the corporations arrive like leaches to reconstruct the landscape from their own will and in their own imagination. All with the goal of global domination of resources.

It turns out, in these cases at least, the corporate owner isn’t much different than the dictator. This scheme only made possible through the subjugation of a nation of people into a nation of workers, we were moulded through the amalgamation of trade unionism and national syndicalism into patriotic and prepared, militaristic-minded men and women with materialistic urges and to always be of good utility for the greater good.

This unspoken quid pro quo the spirit of our Western social contract. They removed our reasonable mind and braided the Western heart and soul with the very dendrite of the Pentagon brain making us proudly militaristic.

Washington statue; fasces partly hidden;

Just one of several statues of George Washington with fasces hidden under his coat.

In conclusion, as we see, when flipping through the pages of history, Brandeis institutes all the necessary elements of fascism: a patriotism through trade unionism, a public-private partnership between industry and government, an anti-Classic Liberal sentiment, the support of global war in the name of progress, and the creation of the Welfare State. Syndicalism also known as Integralism lining with Fabian gradualism. The only thing left keeping American Fascism from fitting the definition of Mussolini’s Fascism is the totalitarian aspect. A type of societal control that is total in its authority, governing all aspects: economic, social, military, intellectual etc.

Well, just five years ago we all witnessed the type of totalitarianism our government is capable of, and we’ve seen throughout history, emergency wartime measures are the way to temporarily impose such totalitarianism but, and here is the ruse, each time the government does impose themselves, there always remains behind some aspect of that control, usually legislative, meant “for our security and welfare”. And after a century of these events now, from the USS Maine to ‘Covid’, you would have to ask yourself, just how far have these life altering moments that split history into a before and after moved us all from natural law and the definition of Classic liberalism? Well about as far away as possible, we are a total inversion even, a near total opposite. From independent to dependent we’ve become in just over one hundred years.

And as it turns out, just as we still today attribute the origins of propaganda to Goebbels instead who he learned from, American “father of propaganda”, Edward Bernays, we also may have mistaken Mussolini as the founder of Fascism, instead of the man he learned from, the “father of Progressivism”, Louis D. Brandeis.

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

George_Washington_by_Gorham_after_Houdon,_Valley_Forge,_PA

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content set You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings.

You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.

fasces USCapitol_-_Apotheosis_of_Washington,_Science

Part 10: The Rise of the Expert

by Diego Garcia | Mar 25, 2024 | Uncategorized

Winged Father Time unveils Truth, who is dressed in white and rests her foot on a globe, symbolising the Earth from which she has sprung. With her left hand, Truth unmasks Deceit, while with her right she gestures to the four cardinal virtues: Prudence, holding a snake; Temperance, carrying a water jug; Justice, with sword and scales; and Fortitude, who rests her elbow on a lion. The subject is based on the classical motto, ‘Truth is the daughter of Time’, meaning that truth becomes apparent through the passage of time.

How did our society become so dependent on the opinion of the expert?

This one of the most important question of our time and the previous nine articles in the Rise of the Expert series, have been an attempt to answer that question. To better understand how an idea seemingly so antagonistic to a democratic society can be so prevalent today Bulletproof Publishers went back to ‘the experts’ modern beginnings. Our historical study starts in the Progressive Era with Graham Wallas’ The Great Society, Sidney Webb’s, Industrial Democracy, and Herbert Croly’s, The Promise of American Life, and of course, Frederick Winslow Taylor’s, The Principles of Scientific Management. And at the center there was one man, who also happened to be a member of the US supreme court, a man so dominant in the rise of the expert, so comprehensive in his authority, that we have now declared him nothing less than “the maker of our modern-day social contract”. Our society today largely governed by the technical expert and yet, Louis Dembitz Brandeis, remains completely unknown to the public-at-large.

Louis’ father, Adolph Brandeis.

Jacob Frank

In Brandeis Part 1: The Architect of the New Freedom, we showed how Louis Brandeis’ father Adolph arrived in America with a Rothschild agent riding shotgun with deliberate designs on opening up the Midwest of America. We also showed how Louis was born into a long familial line of radical, antinomian, social behaviour. His family were followers of Sabbatean Frankism, centered on the leadership of the Jewish Messiah claimant Jacob Frank, where religious norms were rejected and the transgression of as many moral boundaries as possible was encouraged.

Needless to say, we were stopped in our tracks, in the first steps into his life. How can a US Supreme Court justice be trusted when coming from such extremely immoral beginnings? We then showed how a very young Louis graduated Harvard Law School with a mark so high it wasn’t bettered for eighty years and how even early in his life, Louis was considered among his Harvard Law classmates, as the possessor of an extraordinarily analytical mind and a charismatic organizer of the people.

We learned that Brandeis founded the Harvard Law School Association and one of the western world’s most influential periodicals of expert opinion, the Harvard Law Review. As the title of part one suggested, Brandeis was considered, “the architect of the New Freedom”, setting president Wilson’s entire presidential platform in perhaps the most curious of all presidential campaigns, 1912. Brandeis writing speeches for Wilson and persuading the president, through the promise of regulated competition, into founding the ultimate scientific, technical experts, the Administrative State. The Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Trade Commission the two centerpieces to this “new freedom”, Brandeis creating many government bureaucratic agencies and each headed by its own expert resembling what Lippmann described in his Great Society as intelligence bureaus directed by entering wedges. To be a sort of expertise between the ordinary citizen and the vast environment in which he is entangled.

The departmentalization of civilian interests not much different in its meaning and purpose than military compartmentalization. An entire society told to stand at ease and put on a need-to-know basis.

We were once again blown away while researching parts 2 and 5, when finding out that Brandeis was known in his day as the “people’s lawyer” and not only did he coin the term ‘scientific management’ but he set the standard for our modern eight-hours-per-day, five-days-a-week work schedule. Brandeis, inspired by the Fabian idea of Industrial Democracy, helped establish common ground between capital and labour through “democratizing” the shop floor, creating the preferred shop, funneling everyone into the union, and the entire nation’s industry followed.

Brandeis primary in bringing together two burgeoning technologies, industrial relations and scientific management, and bringing together the worker and boss by authoring the standard-setting, Protocol of Peace, and in doing so, initiating everyone into a life on the plantation, inserting the labour union leader as the plantation manager, entering wedge. The scientific expert between man and his labour. Brandeis coining perhaps the most accurately descriptive term of our modern, scientifically-governed society and Taylorism, as it is known today, while not widely known, is considered one of the most influential ‘isms’ of the 20th century(!) (See the fasces?)

Newspaper; Zionism and Patriotism by Brandeis; The American Jewish World; August 14, 1917; cropped headline

Brandeis instrumental in the popularizing of cultural plurality, or, dual loyalty, and establishing a correlation between Americanism and Zionism. He was also involved in the founding of Zionist secret societies on the campus of Harvard, the Parushim and the Menorah Societies. Brandeis’ daughter marrying

We fell clear to the ground, nearly losing all feeling in our legs when finding out while researching parts 3 and 4, that, on top of everything else already said, Brandeis became the leader of the entire international Zionist movement by being elected chairman in 1914 of the Provisional Executive Committee on General Zionist Affairs. Brandeis masterfully parlaying his Zionist influence on the US president, American Jewry, and Christian Dispensationalists into support for the founding of Israel. And there wasn’t enough voltage in the world to electroshock us back to coherence when finding out Brandeis was central to both the drafting of the Balfour Declaration and the construction of the earliest settlements in Palestine, founding the very country of Israel(!)

Amazing to learn that it was through the hands of Brandeis, that passed the many drafts of the Declaration and it was only upon Brandeis’ final approval that the Balfour Declaration was finally made official – while in the presence of only British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, his secretary Eustace Percy, and Brandeis’ lieutenant, Felix Frankfurter.

The sounds of truth bombs dropping were heard upon the discovery that three of the four in the room at the consummation of the document most responsible for creation of Israel were actually House of Truth residents(!) Our brains simply melted when finding out Brandeis was also closely working with the House of Rothschild in the actual construction of infrastructure for early Jewish settlements in Palestine through Brandeis’, Palestine Economic Corporation, and Baron Rothschild’s, Palestine Jewish Colonization Association(!)

In parts 6 and 7 we were toe-tagged and left for dead labelled invalids, when finding out Brandeis was central to the founding of our entire modern system of law, something called, sociological jurisprudence. Brandeis identified as its main practitioner through the creation of his landmark way of arguing a case, not on legal merit, but on social science facts and statistics revered even today as the, “Brandeis Brief”. Brandeis, along with Dean of Harvard Law School and 33rd degree Master Mason of Massachusetts Lodge, Nathan Roscoe Pound, establish an entirely new, socially scientific way to argue law, what Pound called a, “wholly new creed”, law through social activism. This idea to apply the social scientist to law, we learned was borrowed directly from Prussian reform thinkers of the German Historical School and brought back to America by her very first PhD’s, the very founders of field of sociology, established first at the University of Nebraska, then the University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins University by: Edward Alsworth Ross, George Elliott Howard, Albion Woodbury Small, Frank Giddings, William Graham Sumner, Lester Frank Ward and others.

In part 8, we discussed how the rise of the university system established the academic expert by, first commandeering Indian land through seizure and violence, as part of the infamous but still glorified Morrill Land Grant Acts of 1862 and 1890 and then secondly, by founding the Association of American Universities, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the American Association of University Professors. We showed how our institutions of higher learning have been from the beginning meant to create a two-tiered caste society, fostering the rise of a network of peer-reviewed, tenured academic experts stretching across the nation, acting as one giant governing hand of scholasticism, an idea once again borrowed from 18th and early 19th century Prussian radical social reform. This then revealing that our entire system of higher learning and our entire K-12 compulsory system were schemes adopted from the Prussian Reformation(!)

It is in this article we pointed to the coordinated shifting of the seven liberal arts from the compulsory common school level, where everyone was introduced to it, to the highest levels of education where only those meant for management were to see it. The corporatization of education. What we learned was the liberal arts themselves were the defining characteristic of the university. This shift placing the most effective and personally empowering knowledge just beyond the reach of normal K-12 schooling. Creating a split society of conscious and unconscious.

Nathan Roscoe Pound

Morrill Justin Smith; whig and founder of The Republican Party; chaired Ways and Means; served on JCR drating 14th Amend; most litigated; desegregation, RoeWade, same sex, Bush v Gore

Justin Smith Morrill

In Part 9, The Rise of Internationalism, Brandeis makes an astounding reappearance as the first initiate of the Inquiry, the precursor to the Council on Foreign Relations, Brandeis given the responsibility by Wilson in establishing the scholar, academic expert as the leading voice of American foreign policy(!) Our research showing both Brandeis and Lippmann, and to a considerably lesser degree Col. Edward House, considered predecessors to Kissinger and Brzezinski.

And once again, the House of Truth playing a considerable role as, Herbert Croly, Walter Lippmann, Felix Frankfurter all assisted Brandeis, each played primary leading roles. Further research since, from the Louisville University Brandeis School of Law, has confirmed without question what we’ve been revealing all along, that Brandeis was counsel to the Advisory Commission of the Council on National Defense, helping establish the future of U.S. foreign policy and was the “informal advisor to Col. E. M. House.” Brandeis created Israel while founding modern U.S. foreign policy, setting the stage for the American Century of neverending war.

This also placing the man once thought of as the leading advisor to Wilson, Colonel Edward Mandell House, is now considered a lesser influential player than once thought, his presence here acting more as a blind to the entire Brandeisian charade.

In our research for part 10, we further investigated the knowledge removed from common compulsory education asking, what makes this knowledge so important? And if its removal has been determined by the social engineers so important in our collective subjugation, wouldn’t it then make sense that its regaining popularity would be most helpful in our present state of great awakening?

Charlotte Iserbyt wrote extensively in her over 700 page, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America (1999) of the importance of the liberal arts and discusses at length how they were purposely removed. Iserbyt served as a senior policy advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement under Reagan. She too identified Wundtian experimental psychology, the Rockefeller founded General Education Board and Carnegie’s Foundation for the Advancement of Education as major contributing factors.

John Taylor Gatto, author of Dumbing Us Down (1992) and the Underground History of American Education (2000), also exposes the Prussian reformation and rightly cites Johann Gottlieb Fichte and his, Addresses to the German Nation(1806), as the origins of our Western education system.

The little North German state of Prussia had been described as “an army with a country,” “a perpetual armed camp,” “a gigantic penal institution.” The Underground History of American Education, Gatto.

“Scientific management, or Taylorism, had four characteristics designed to make the worker ‘an interchangeable part of an interchangeable machine making interchangeable parts’ … 1) A mechanically controlled work pace; 2) The repetition of simple motions; 3) Tools and technique selected for the worker; 4) Only superficial attention is asked from the worker, just enough to keep up with the moving line. The connection of all to school procedure is apparent.” The Underground History of American Education, John Taylor Gatto; see also By the Sweat of Thy Brow, Melvin Kranzberg and Joseph Gies.

“Anyone interested in the truth will be shocked by the way American social engineers have systematically gone about destroying the intellect of millions of America children for the purpose of leading the American people into a socialist world government controlled by behavioural and social scientists.” Pg. 2, Foreword, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America.

Writing in Iserbyt’s Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, Thomas A. Kelly, PhD, states:
“The Effective School Report twenty-first century will, for the majority of youth, be workforce training. Thus, the need for Pavlovian/ Skinnerian methodology based on operant conditioning which, in essence, is at the heart of the above dehumanizing definition of education. This “sowing of the seeds” through redefinition will reap the death of traditional, liberal arts education through the advent of mastery learning, outcome-based education, and direct instruction—all of which will be performance-based and behaviorist.”

“Kinsey and Bloom, as scientists, were involved in the breaking down of man (taxonomizing) into units of behavior which Skinner, as a behaviorist, could identify, measure and change. This breaking down or “deconstructing of Man” was intended to separate man from his God-given, freedom-providing identity. This opened the door to the study of methods to control man and society: enter Skinner, representing the Behaviorist School of the non-science “science” of psychology …

Bloom changed the focus of education from a general, liberal arts education which benefited man as a whole to a narrow training which would be based on the behavioral psychologists’ determination of what changes in “thoughts, feelings, and actions” would be desirable and, perhaps, necessary for the benefit of society as a whole.” Pg. 29, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, Charlotte Iserbyt.

“The first reason we study the liberal arts has to do with freedom. That freedom is an integral part of the liberal arts is borne out of [C.S.] Lewis’s observation that ‘liberal comes of course from the Latin, liber, and means free’ …

… Such an education makes one free, according to Lewis, because it transforms the pupil from ‘an unregenerate little bundle of appetites’ into ‘the good man and the good citizen’ …

… We act most human when we are reasonable, both in thought and deed. Animals, on the other hand, act wholly out of appetite. When hungry, they eat; when tired, they rest. Man is different. Rather than follow our appetites blindly we can be deliberate about what we do and when we do it. The ability to rule ourselves frees us from the tyranny of our appetites, and the liberal arts disciplines this self-rule. In other words, this sort of education teaches us to be most fully human and thereby, to fulfill our human duties, both public and private …

… Lewis contrasts liberal arts education with what he calls ‘vocational training,’ the sort that prepares one for employment. Such training, he writes, ‘aims at making not a good man but a good banker, a good electrician. . . or a good surgeon.’ Lewis does admit the importance of such training — for we cannot do without bankers and electricians and surgeons — but the danger, as he sees it, is the pursuit of training at the expense of education. ‘If education is beaten by training, civilization dies,’ he writes, for the ‘lesson of history’ is that ‘civilization is a rarity, attained with difficulty and easily lost’ …

… It is the liberal arts, not vocational training, that preserves civilization by producing reasonable men and responsible citizens….

A third reason we study the liberal arts is because it is simply our nature and duty. Man has a natural thirst for knowledge of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful, and men and women of the past have made great sacrifices to pursue it ….”… Truly, we ignore the liberal arts only at our peril. Without them we will find ourselves increasingly unable to preserve a civilized society, to escape from the errors and prejudices of our day, and to struggle in the arena of ideas” pg. 140, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, Iserbyt.

“Traditional liberal arts being replaced by vocational training, school to work programs … The bottom line is this: ‘apprenticeship’ is ‘workforce training.’ Skipping over traditional academic high school and college subjects, or watering down a liberal arts college education to accommodate its ‘application’ to a workplace setting, constitute the “deliberate dumbing down” of homeschoolers.” Pg. 437, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, Iserbyt

The Seven Liberal Arts

The Trivium, meaning ‘the meeting place of three roads” and is made up of three sources of knowledge: grammar: the art of combining symbols; logic: the art of thinking; and rhetoric: the art of communication.

The Trivium along with the Quadrivium: arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy form the seven liberal arts. Arithmetic considered in itself a whole, and music a study of the harmony between numbers, geometry and astronomy explore magnitude without motion and with motion respectively.

Hortus Deliciarum; seven liberal arts and philosophy; magi and sophists outside the circle

Each liberal art constitutes both a field of knowledge and a technique to acquire that knowledge. This is not a separation of arts and sciences but each liberal art is both a science and an art in that there is both something to do(art) and something to know(science). The Trivium is the organon or tool of all knowledge on all levels because grammar, logic, and rhetoric are tools of communication. It is used when reading, writing, speaking or listening. A liberal arts education is the act of working productively within the tension of theory and practice.

The liberal arts differs from servitude or utilitarian(carpentry, masonry, plumbing, printing, banking) and the seven fine arts( architecture, instrumental music, sculpture, painting, literature, drama, and dance) in that liberal arts don’t necessarily need a tool, they are within, or intransitive. Meaning that the art begins and ends within the individual. Whereas servitude arts such as carpentry and fine arts are transitive. The art flows from the individual to an object and the individual can be paid for what is created. The liberal arts remain the best preparation for work in the professional schools of medicine, law, engineering and is the basis.

The Trivium identifies Classes of Goods and their various values and its not hard to see why it is this knowledge was problematic to the social engineers. The first class of goods are the valuable, those that are not only valued for their own sake but which increase the intrinsic value of their possessor, like: virtue, knowledge, health, grace. Useful goods are those in which one can use to acquire other valuable goods like food, medicine, money, books. The third class of goods, the least valuable to the sovereignty of the rugged individual are the pleasurable goods, valued for their own sake because of the pleasure they bring their possessor. In this class we find most of modern society lost within their materialistic cleavages and Bentham inspired hedonistic pursuits of pleasure and the strict avoidance of pain.

The Trivium breaks the process of learning down into an interesting list of categories and again, its not hard to see why its removal was a must. The first level of communication, that of phonetics prescribes how to combine sounds so as to form spoken words correctly. Not much different than the grunts and groans of animals. Second aspect to communication is spelling, the knowledge of how to combine letters so as to form words correctly. Grammar prescribes how to combine words so as to form sentences correctly while rhetoric prescribes how to combine sentences into paragraphs, paragraphs into compositions having unity, coherence and the desired emphasis as well as clarity, force and beauty. Logic prescribes how to form concepts into judgements and judgements into syllogisms and chains of reasoning into the Truth.

Logic is the master art of the arts because it directs the very art of reasoning which directs all other acts. Correctness is the norm of spelling, phonetics and grammar. Effectiveness is the norm of rhetoric. Without these skills we aren’t able to ask the who, what, why, where, when, and how. We are unable to deductively form correct thoughts and then effectively communicate them into the minds of others.

The last thing the engineers want you doing is forming judgements through chains of reasoning and putting together two thoughts to form definite conclusions.

They want you hooked on phonics, the lowest form of communication, so you aren’t getting hooked on spelling, grammar, rhetoric and logic, because soon enough you’ll get hooked on knowledge and then power. They don’t want you understanding concepts and bigger pictures for obvious reasons. They don’t want you recognizing symbols and identifying errors in their spelling. They certainly don’t want you acting on your gut instinct or using your five senses, they don’t want you trusting your own eyes, ears, and thoughts, they don’t want you even knowing there was a knowledge taken from you because if you did they wouldn’t be able to use it for themselves against you and continue the status quo.

According to the Trivium, truth is the norm of logic. Correctness in thinking is the normal means to reach the truth, which is the conformity of thought with things as they are – in reality. This process of knowing things as they are apparently the best antidote against psychosis.

The intellect is perfected by five intellectual virtues: Understanding is the intuitive grasp of first principles. Wisdom is knowledge of ultimate causes. Prudence is right reason of something to be done. Science is knowledge of proximate causes. Art is right reason about something to be made. The combination of these five virtues of knowledge leads us directly to taking our power back. With no army, no violence. The well-developed individual is a perfect antidote to the tyrannical government.

The Trivium method emphasizes the proper function of language and the means of communication. It recognizes that words are symbols. The true nature of language to communicate ‘volition, emotion, and thoughts through the proper construction of symbols’. And while Skinner, Pavlov, Bloom, Thorndike, Kinsey, and Albert Bourla today, study us as if we are animals, the Trivium notes the distinctive difference between human and animal, it celebrates our ability to articulate through the human voice more than the rudimentary grunts and groans of an irrational animal.

The Trivium teaches us to first gain a precept through the collective senses that then forms the proper image within our mind that we then turn into a concept and correctly translate from one mind to the other. A more important skill to obtain today, within this political environment, there may not be.

A concept an abstraction created by intellect through our sensuous memory, the common or central or synthesizing sense, forming intuitiveness and instinct.

This type of conceptual learning obviously problematic to the social engineers, our ability to comprehend concepts, to see things in more clearer resolution, to see the big picture, are all natural traits of the human they want removed as Fichte admitted human in the soil, before it even had a chance to sprout, flourish and eventually bloom. This a large reason for the disappearance of Greek and Latin in that they both allow us to gain conceptual knowledge through the Classics, we see through allegory, metaphor, and analogy, and gain knowledge of the etymological origins of our symbols.

We are told Latin is as dead as the Truth is as dead as the free-market is as dead as freewill. The disappearance of Greek, has led ones mind to conjure up far different images of Homer than that of the epics, The Odyssey or, The Iliad.

Many today aware of the spells being cast by our authorities and this is how they do it, in the literal spelling and grammar. As the Trivium teaches, the origins of all conflict begin in the definition of terms.

We can only come to terms with each other when both parties have clearly defined the meanings of the words being transferred. Why most people are fooled by today’s definitions of liberalism, capitalism, global warming, and climate change. What defines a super storm? What is your definition of liberalism? Do you mean capitalism or monopoly capitalism or laissez-faire free market?

Do you mean the natural course of changing weather on earth over millennia or are you talking about the theory that humans are irresponsibly heating up the planet so fast that only more tax money will stop the already inevitable cataclysmic ending of humanity?

Conveniently, the Trivium also informs us of the logical fallacy.

Who knew there were categories of lies? I’d heard of the ad hominem and the red herring and was already well aware of the mistake one can make following the bandwagon, but to know there was an entire catalog of lies and they were mostly used by politicians and lawyers was a significant moment in the authors life.

As it turns out, the main purpose of logical fallacy is to distract, to keep one from staying focused on the subject at hand. Interesting to remember that a sentence is made up of a subject and logical fallacy is often employed by literally ‘changing the subject.’

The world at large nearly completely ignorant of the varied ways our politicians and authorities lie and distract through the argumentum ad hominem, the argumentum ad populum or the red herring. Name calling, ridicule, and appeals to popularity and celebrity the method operandi of all mainstream authority and none of it adequate criteria when determining the truth from fiction.

This knowledge found in the Kabbalah and Freemasonry and essential in the creation of the Association of American Universities. When used properly, like any technology, it works to liberate the human soul of all suffering, but when used to control others, to use others as a means to an ends, it always ends badly. Followers of Kabbalah and Freemasonry alike adhere to the ‘secret’ principles of the liberal arts firstly because it raises a well-developed individual. Freemasons, nearly always, are well-spoken, well-dressed, well-behaved, contributing members of society, they are social influencers and organizers, just as you’ll find in academia. Freemasonry has coopted well-meaning men and women just as the university system has. In many ways, as we’ve shown, they are one and the same, synonymous of one another.

These international organizations driven by the same occulted technology have conspired to create a pseudo world that has blinded the general public. The engineers creating our society today largely devoid of such empowering knowledge as found in the liberal arts, choosing instead to reserve it for themselves to create our modern day knowledge gap in not just society, but secret society, and high society.

“Masonic teaching enthusiastically encourages its students to contemplate and learn from the seven Liberal Arts” Richardson Masonic Lodge #1214.

Far from our intended image of man we have been taken off course, set off on a tangent, we as a human race have been completely distracted by pleasurable goods not the valuable ones. Those occulting knowledge have been able to pull a world of lies over us to blind us from the truth … we now have a chance to turn the tide.

The grand strategists do not want, under any circumstances, you knowing when you are being lied to, that is the last thing they want. By creating a degree of disinterestedness, or apathy, or blissful ignorance, in the general public today, they by default create a degree of vulnerability within the masses directly proportionate to how trustworthy that authority is. Within that disproportionately large degree of vulnerability we find much of our modern world. Instead of this empowering knowledge being the starting line (K-12 compulsory school system), they made it the finish line (highest of higher education Master of Arts) of a race nearly no one ever even knows they are in.

Most of the world lost between the two horns of a false dilemma with no idea they are even caught, as comfortable as livestock, happy with their binary thoughts of black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, blurping animalistic phonetic grunts and groans of: fake news, debunked, safe and effective, tin foil hat, meh, and laughing emoticons. They are stricken with a disability to discern for themselves, they lack a sophistication of argument, and often possess a cartoon worldview, for they, as generations prior, have grown fat and lazy, having only stood up for the right to sit down – a demographic of television watchers far too reliant for far too long on one of the most overused yet effective logical fallacies of all, the opinion of the expert.

In the center Philosophy is enthroned as queen, ethics, logic, and physics adorn her golden crown. Socrates and Plato are seated at her feet. All wisdom comes from God, Only the wise can do what they will. Seven streams of water flow from philosophy, representing the seven liberal arts, three representing the Trivium and four representing the Quadrivium. the divine Philosophy, govern all things wisely; I lay out seven arts which are subordinate to me. At the top we have grammar, armed with a rod to signify the strict discipline found within the study of grammar and a book adorned with jewels. To the right rhetoric, equipped with a stylus and tablets covered in wax signifying the care taken in preparing discourse. Dialectic holds the head of a barking dog indicating the unending shouts provoked during disputation. Music plays a cithara, and a lira lay close. Arithmetic counting on a threaded rope, Geometry standing with compass and a surveying rod, and Astronomy studies the stars. The wide circle states, “What it discovers is remembered · Philosophy investigates the secrets of the elements and all things”, and, “Philosophy teaches arts by seven branches · It puts it in writing, in order to convey it to the students.”

Outside the philosophical circle of women, beyond the realm of the seven liberal arts muses and their Queen Philosophy sit four men. Poets, mage, or magicians, the men work at desks writing words beyond the influence of philosophy and the seven liberal arts. Echoing Socrates (Plato) from the Republic, Herrad regards their work as dangerous, frivolous, and impure. The black birdlike creatures seem to be whispering ideas into their ears. Taken by their fantasies some of the mage can no longer write and appear lost in their dreams.
“The poets and magicians who are moved by the impure spirit. Those moved by impure spirits teach magic and write poems, that is, lying fictions.”

Part 9: The Rise of Internationalism

by Diego Garcia | Mar 18, 2024 | Uncategorized

“… A larger opportunity to exercise his influence came in October of 1917 when President Wilson publicly appointed Brandeis to collate the material on which the eventual peace should be established.” Pg. 79, Louis D. Brandeis, A Biographical Sketch, Jacob DeHaas.

The Inquiry officially began with an August 1917 memorandum from Felix Frankfurter while he was in Europe, “stimulated by knowledge acquired in Paris of French efforts in the field of diplomatic planning”. Frankfurter called for the formation of a group of experts in preparation of an upcoming peace conference. This group of experts, as we know from previous research, was headed by Walter Lippmann, the Inquiry’s first Secretary, beginning out of a small backroom at the New York Public Library.

And we see from the above quote from Jacob DeHaas, that Brandeis was given the initial responsibility by president Wilson of creating this group of experts. The Inquiry very much looking like the predecessor to the Council on Foreign Relations, boasting within its early ranks an eclectic mix of Ivy League academic scholars and professors, professional diplomats, politicians, advisors, members of military intelligence and the media.

Here we show Brandeis, Lippmann, and Frankfurter, are all essential in the founding of the Inquiry. In fact, the main founders of the Inquiry, look a lot like the founders of the New Republic. Croly, Walter Weyl, and Alvin Saunders Johnson also considered founders of both. Croly and Weyl also House of Truth residents.

Interesting to note the timeline here in that Brandeis was also in deep negotiations with the US and British governments regarding the drafting of the Balfour Declaration, dated November 2, 1917. Both the Inquiry and Israel created during the fall of 1917 and Brandeis can very easily be considered the directing influence in both. As discovered previously, the many drafts of the Declaration passed through the hands of Brandeis for final approval. His involvement with the founding of the Inquiry now means Brandeis is central to the founding of the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the very first ever 501C, not-for-profit, think-tanks, Brandeis counseling and directing the first foreign policy experts, the first political philosophers, the founding path setters for Henry Kissinger, Brzezinski and the coming American Century.

In fact Lippmann, trained by George Santayana and William James while at Harvard to be the political philosopher, is considered today a forefather to both Kissinger and Brzezinski, Lippmann setting the tone in the promotion of strong nationalist foreign policy through preparedness and efficiency. The correcting of backwards races from a good, safe distance. The Inquiry the first modern technical advisors, made independent of the government, a camera if you will. This also making Brandeis a pioneer in the shaping of American foreign policy for the next one hundred years, establishing the expert inside the administration of a sitting US president. With the help of Lippmann, Frankfurter. One cannot deny America goes from non-interventionalist to warmonger under Brandeis’ ‘sage’ guidance. These deeper details being brought to light helping make sense of the famous Wilson volte face, from ‘He Kept U Out of War’ to the ‘War to End All War’, in four months.

Inquiry founder James T. Shotwell, Columbia History Professor, and Carnegie Endowment historian, was assigned with the task of recruiting professors and scholars specifically from the political and social sciences. Shotwell one of the very first members of the Inquiry, along with Colonel House, Walter Lippmann and Archibald Cary Coolidge, three lifetime founding members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Shotwell himself recruited by none other than Herbert Croly. Croly important for three reasons, 1) his 1909 publication, The Promise of American Life, served as the inspiration for Roosevelt’s 1912 Bull Moose Party campaign and was the very manifesto to the Progressive movement, 2) he was a resident at the House of Truth and, 3) a co-founder of the New Republic. Croly a close intimate of Brandeis, Frankfurter, Lippmann. (put a picture of Roosevelt Outlook book review in article here)

“’Progressive Democracy,’ by Herbert Croly, and ‘Drift and Master,’ by Walter Lippmann … No man who wishes seriously to study our present social, industrial, and political life with the view of guiding his thought and action so as to work for national betterment in the future can afford not to read these books through and through and to ponder and digest them. They worthily carry forward the argument contained in the authors’ previous works – “The Promise of American Life,’ by Mr. Croly, and ‘A Preface to Politics,’ by Mr. Lippmann.” Pg. 232, Theodore Roosevelt, Progressive Democracy (1926). Find Outlook magazine source

msu.31293008911731-seq_680; two noteworthy books on democracy Theodore Roosevelt promotes Croly and Lippmann

APPC pg 3 (2); highlighted; The Inquiry's role; Shotwell meets House and Mezes; collected group of scholars and intellects not the State Department

“One day in September, 1917, there was a telephone message from Mr. Herbert Croly, Editor of the New Republic, that Colonel House wanted to see me. I had spent the late spring and most of the summer in Washington, from the first weeks of America’s entry into the World War, as chairman of the National Board for Historical Service, the war-time organization of the historians of the country … ‘the Colonel’ wanted to see me in connection with preparation for the Peace Conference which would sooner or later have to be called at the end of the World War.” Pg. 3, At the Paris Peace Conference, James T. Shotwell.

Shotwell mentioning his work with the National Board for Historical Service, but failed to mention that it was a part of the Committee on Public Information – America’s first propaganda division. That puts Shotwell in charge of the official historical narrative inside the propaganda organization that was most responsible with turning Americans from pacifists to interventionalists in four months.

Shotwell and the International Labour Organization

James T. Shotwell, professor of History at Columbia and Director, Division of Economics and History and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and is considered the main author of the International Labor Organization, established during the peace talks in Paris as a necessary attachment to the League of Nations. The League of Nations and the ILO both aspects within the eventual Treaty of Versailles. And, according to Shotwell the major obstacle for the formation of both the ILO and the League of Nations was the US Constitution.

“The problem here is the most delicate of all. Can international action go so far as to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state … That would be the recognition of a World State in the most sensitive part of government machinery – the power to enforce law. Its purpose would be to bring up the backward states to as near the standards of progressive countries as possible, in order that progressive states themselves should not be kept behind … Yet nothing can run more counter to the principles of national sovereignty as understood and applied throughout the world than this interference with the enforcement of law”. pg. 59, APPC

Shotwell’s plan for an international labour organization called for the employment of men and women independent of governments, social science experts superseding all national authority. “It is the first creation of an institution, participated in by workers, capital, and governments to deal with the problems that are most real to most people the world over, those that have to do with the day’s work … It might more accurately have been termed the International Industrial Conference or, better still, the International Organization for Social Justice.” According to Shotwell, the ILO could “be established only if it is based upon social justice” which enabled them to tie the ILO “into the structure of that new world order which the League of Nations symbolized”, through their shared means of social justice. Pg. 54, APPC

The ILO meant to be “the beginning of a continuous co-operation on the part of Labour, Society, and Governments.” Not just a “one-time Charter, but a series of them”. A “living” international law that changed with society. The recognition of “non-official representation in an official international body” was the expert entering wedge gaining a foothold on the international stage. And it was the first of its kind. Shotwell stating in the chapter entitled, Social Justice in the Peace Treaties, “It was clear that some device would have to be found for the limitation of the powers of these non-official representatives, and yet it was necessary that that limitation should not be carried to the point of endangering in any way the reality of their work.”

A fine line was to be drawn between giving unelected officials omniscient powers over nations and still allowing these social scientists to apply their expertise unfettered, the consequence of which could be the creation of what Shotwell rightly called a Super-State. Shotwell admitting the delicate nature of negotiations when attempting to jam a square peg into a round hole. The entire idea of an international authority is in direct contrast to that of a sovereign Nation State.

The Western countries each with their constitutions, and more importantly, each with a population that believed in them. Eventually, Shotwell, with the help of none other than Felix Frankfurter, created the necessary text to skirt around the Constitutional issues involved with the drafting of the International Labor Organization:

APPC pg 54; Social Justice and a NWO underlined

APPC pg 210; Slosson Gompers JTS as Robinson replacement, Headlam-Morley; Beer Hornbeck Colonel Mason, Shepardson labor agreement; brilliant Beer suggestion;

“After dinner, worked all evening in my room on the text of the labor agreement, with [George Louis] Beer, Frankfurter and [Whitney] Shepardson. A brilliant suggestion from Beer solved the first main difficulty and we came to agreement on a second point and Frankfurter did the drafting, so that I had little share in the actual manipulation of the text, but it would never have been done if I had not started the compromise.” Pg. 210, 211, APPC.

Here we see Frankfurter, a member, not of the American Delegation, but of the Zionist Delegation, penning the text of the first ever international labor organization. Fulfilling Marx’s dream. Frankfurter famously having a toe in every delegation in Paris was there in Brandeis’ behalf, the kochleffel cooking spoon. Lippmann leading the Inquiry, the first expert entering wedge driven into executive branch of the US government. The State Department authority was commandeered openly, on the Atlantic, and then in Paris, their superiority overshadowed by a collection of “amateurish” social science professors. The State Department and especially Robert Lansing were understandably concerned. While everyone speaks of modern deep state takeovers, we see Brandeis, Lippmann, and Frankfurter coordinating a soft coup d’etat within the US government, under crisis government, over one hundred years ago, a Progressive revolutionary takeover that made itself at home and has never left.

“Mr. Lippmann’s unique gift for clarifying the issues of politics, so widely known in the post-war period, explains the importance of the role he played in interpreting and phrasing policy. Professor Seymour’s summary of the trend of Mr. Lippmann’s contribution is correct when he says, ‘It is my impression that Lippmann furnished the abstract ideas which found their way into a good many of the memoranda of the American Delegation and ultimately into some of President Wilson’s public speeches’ … [Mr. Lippmann’s] method of work at once called for an extended organization with technical experts competent to deal with each phase of the vast field that would have to be covered by the Peace Conference …

My first task, therefore, was to help secure the acceptance of a group of associates in the fields of history, geography, and economics who would be able to concentrate upon specific questions and have the results of their research ready when these issues came up for decision at the Peace Conference … a task that called for the co-operation of university men – for never before had universities been mobilized for such service – The researchers in this instance were to be drawn from the highest academic capacity in the country” Pg. 4, APPC.

“there were those in the State Department who were by no means happy at the way in which the preparations for the Peace Conference were being made. This was not only natural under the circumstances but, from the standpoint of public law, had apparent justification. If the State Department did not have full control of the preparation for negotiations, how could it play any effective part in their actual conduct? Men whose lives had been spent in diplomatic service could hardly be expected to regard favourably the creation of a temporary body of so-called experts as the President’s advisers in so many important aspects of the negotiation of peace, nor to look forward with equanimity to the prospect of having this improvised organization take any formal part in the work for the Peace Conference …

…the State Department properly felt that the problem in this particular case covered practically the whole field of our foreign relations at the most critical, and even revolutionary, turning point in the history of American diplomacy. In their eyes it was one thing for the President to have a personal adviser in Colonel House, but quite a different thing for the Colonel ‘s staff to develop to the point of displacing the established governmental organ for foreign affairs.” Pg. 12, APPC

Shotwell James Thomson professor of medieval Europe; creation of ILO; pres Carnegie Endowment 1945-50

First Inquiry map.

APPC pg 4; abstract ideas general principles; experts; Walter Lippmann Military Intelligence author of many US memos; David Hunter Miller one of Wilsons most trusted advisors

APPC pg 12 In their eyes it was one thing for the President to have a personal advisor in House but quite another for House's staff to displace established government organ

From this coordination of public and private sectors Shotwell admits is the catalyst to similarly set up organizations like the War Industries Board, the War Trade Board, the United States Shipping Board etc., “forming a war-time government by itself, separate from the permanent government departments.” All of it realized under executive order. Shotwell calling it then the philosophy of “crisis government”, knowing “crisis must be met by organs free from bureaucratic impediments and act directly with or under the chief executive.” Emergency committees created out of the crisis of war proved very effective in getting things accomplished and after Paris this philosophy of fear was brought back to the States and used ever since during times of peace.

“The Peace Treaty was not to be a return to the old diplomacy, but the establishment of a new world order.” The Inquiry the American answer to similar war-time inspired organizations by the English under George W. Prothero and the French under Jean Morel and the Comite d’Etudes. The Inquiry was thought by the State Department as “amateurish.”

“Some day the Inquiry will find its historian, and this strange experiment in the mobilization of social sciences to help in shaping the outlines of the new world structure which had to be built out of the ruins of the war will offer a subject with unique possibilities” pg. 11, APPC

League of Nations

The League of Nations was the culmination of decades of coordinated work towards an international governing body. Nothing less than the scientific, technical expert gone international. The path can be clearly traced back from the Leagues official inception in 1919 through several international meetings spanning seventy years and attended by the worlds most prominent thinkers in international law. Including perhaps its most influential, Karl Marx. The true history shows Internationalism as a critical aspect to both Marxist socialist, and radical liberal thought.

The final words in Marx’s Manifesto, “Working men of all countries, unite!”

Marx listed as a journalist, was the leader of the First International in 1864, otherwise known as the International Workingmen’s Association, that officially started this most modern movement towards internationalism(!) Both internationalism and Marx promised victory for labour through a collective security, the uniting of all within one universal community, just like the American leaders of the Progressive Era led by Brandeis promised American labour.

Leading ethical Fabian socialists continued to build on the Marxist inspired international tradition. Fabians like J.A. Hobson, Ramsay MacDonald, George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, Graham Wallas gaining major influence for their socialist mission by establishing the British Labour Party, a legitimate and still very influential political party within the British parliament. Webb a member of the executive board and drafted the Labour Party’s first policy statement. Influential Fabian John Maynard Keynes also incredibly important in setting the predominant Western economic philosophy of the 20th century with Keynesian economics, a belief in the government taking a more active role in their countries’ economies by borrowing during times of recession, as an answer to the free-market, laissez-faire. Internationalism pushed into the new century by the Fabians assisted by their very close friends, the American Progressives.

British members of the Round Table Group. Lord Milner, Robert Cecil, two ministers without portfolio within the British government, were very involved in the creation of the League of Nations, and beside them, their secretaries, House of Truth residents, Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian), and Eustace Percy (1st Baron of Percy Newcastle). Despite no official title, Cecil was the acting secretary for foreign affairs.

Subsequent congresses at Geneva, Lausanne, Brussels, the Hague and many others, led to the Theodore Roosevelt inspired 1907 Hague Conference where they codified the Lieber Code. Leiber for those who have been following along a Prussian professor, author of the Lieber Code, the first international code of law. The Copenhagen Congress of 1910 where labour legislation was enacted limiting work days to eight hours, minimum age to fourteen, the prohibition of night work, uninterrupted rest of 36 hours per week, inspection of working conditions. All around the same time Brandeis and the National Consumers League is establishing the same legislation inside the United States.

This long historical chain of meetings culminating with the Inter-Allied Conferences (1914-1918) that authored the final drafts of the League of Nations months prior to the Paris Peace Conference. Sidney Webb a chairman and member of the Commission on War Aims at these Conferences, labelled as the Inter Allied Labour and Socialist Conferences. This same movement meant as a global overseer and the precursor to the United Nations. Walter Lippmann the primary author of the League of Nations through his authoring of the Fourteen Points. Isaiah Bowman and David Hunter Miller to a much lesser degree than Lippmann, the other contributors of the Fourteen Points. All three founding members of the Inquiry.

It was at the final Inter-Allied Conference in London in September of 1918 (four months prior to the American Delegations arrival in Paris), that the American scheme, headed by Wilson’s Fourteen Points was adopted. Calling for the free navigation of the sea, the removal of economic barriers and an equity of trade worldwide, a reduction in national armaments, a restoration of all French territory lost to Germany during the Franco Prussian War of 1871, and the Fourteenth and final point, the creation of “a general association of nations” to be formed for the purpose of collective security. Pg. 11, The Proceedings of the Inter-Allied Labour and Socialist Conferences; see also, Report on International Action and Machinery Regulating Labor and International Labor Opinion as to Peace Terms (1919)

As we have discussed at length in Brandeis Part 5: Industrial Democracy and the Protocol of Peace, the democratization of the shop floor was the first steps towards a democratized national workforce, and an eventual Industrial Democracy, Sidney Webb writing the book in 1896. Here is where their plan went international, the industrial democratization of the world.

The aforementioned Lord Robert Cecil, one of the primary founders of the League of Nations called the entire idea of an international order of law, The Great Experiment in 1941 writing, “That any ambitious Power, dominated by a tyrannical Government, should be able to plunge the nations into war and inflict incalculable suffering on mankind, is intolerable. It was to prevent this that the Great Experiment of the League of Nations was carried out.” Foreword, The Great Experiment, Lord Robert Cecil, Viscount Cecil.

Cecil writing in 1944 on the cusp of the UN, “The Report of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference is the first blue print of the future machine for the maintenance of Peace. The L.N.U. had already one the same thing a few months ago, and, to speak frankly, I do not think the official effort is any improvement on ours. But there is not much difference between the two. Both provide for a body representing the whole of the States-Members of the new Organisation called the Assembly …

… In both there is a smaller body called the Council, consisting partly of permanent and partly of elective members. There is to be a Secretary General and a Secretariat in each case, as well as a Court of Justice like the existing one. Social and Economic questions are to be dealt with by Committees, who are to report to the Assembly.” The Dumbarton Oaks Plan, by Viscount Cecil, November 1944, Headway in War-Time, The Journal of the League of Nations Union

Shotwell and others recognizing the “dangerous dilemma” of allowing power to be taken from government and given to unelected officials, “for if the power to make labour treaties were to be taken over by a body containing so large an element of unofficial representatives, what about the power to enforce the treaties? Should the governments be held responsible for carrying out proposition arrived at and agreed upon in the formulation of which they had been partly shut out?

The result would be to make a government little more than a police force for the administration of regulations arrived at by these Industrial Parliaments; in short, there would have arisen something like a World State under the aegis of Industrial Democracy.” This is exactly what we are arguing happened. The expert official, given unfettered international authority over national state governments, stretched over one hundred years, has greatly exploited the vulnerability of nation states and created our modern Industrial democracy. Fascism.

“On May 30, 1919, a little group of diplomats and scholars from Britain and the United States convened at the Hotel Majestic to discuss how their fellowship could be sustained after the peace. They proposed a permanent Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs, with on branch in London, the other in New York.” Pg. 5, Continuing the Inquiry, Peter Grose.

The Inquiry’s work much like that of Brandeis, based on a quantitative collection of scientific information, heavily influenced the proceedings in Paris as they redefined borders, deleting countries while bringing new ones to life. A total restructuring of Central European relationships that is still going on in the same place today.

“Progressive ideals have placed a heavy premium of social planning. Experts, specialist of all kinds, were often credited with possession both the particular skills and personal disinterestedness considered desired requisites for social planning. Reform of the world’s society to prevent future international warfare became the assignment for the Inquiry’s engineers. According to the plan, the Wilsonian peace was to be a scientifically arranged settlement .. The many Inquiry reports heavily charged with statistical tables and ‘facts,’ often with no interpretation, no recommendation, and no obvious frame fo reference, bear ample testimony to the ‘scientific’ spirit which permeated much of the Inquiry’s work.” Pg. 330, The Inquiry: American Preparation for Peace, Lawrence Gelfand.

“Breakfast with Young, Westermann and Bowman in Bowman’s room. Young troubled over what may happen to his Division of Economics now, after the arrival of John Foster Dulles and the men who worked with Gay at the various ‘controls,’ War Trade Board, War Industries Board, etc.”

These connections to Bernard Baruch, the Dulles brothers and the pioneers of the CIA before the OSS tells the real story, the problems being worked out at the Paris Peace Conference had little to do with peace, and more to do with economic questions of an immanent and imposing system of internationalism. This now leading our research directly to the creation of the military industrial complex twenty-five years before Truman and over forty years before Eisenhower warned us of, not only the military industrial complex, but the technological, scientific, elite. The origins of Fascism in America and the rise of the Bush dynasty emerge from the War Industries Board, all created out of ‘crisis government’, from the embers of war, and here we see all of the familiar names looking not for peace, but the end of competition, the free market and sovereignty: Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, the House of Rothschild, the Lazard Brothers and all the international banking families.

“Moreover the purely documentary contribution of my division was supplemented by a series of meetings with the representatives of European governments or factions, held for the most part in the evenings and in a private dining room at the Columbia University Club. Not the least interesting of these occasions were those when Professor Masaryk expounded the philosophy of self-determination for Eastern Europe, with the map which he had prepared hanging on the wall and the members of the Inquiry gathered like a class in a seminar”. pg. 10, APPC.

Following professor Masaryk being named president of the new country of Czechoslovakia, he gifted a full-length portrait of himself to Shotwell and the University Club at Columbia. The map was also gifted to the Inquiry as indicated in the margins of the original maps.

Map 646-b Gift from Masaryk Czechoslovakian president(2) cropped

Quid pro quo.

American Delegation to Negotiate Peace photo (3) cropped; 111-SC-61179_001

The American Delegation at Paris taken inside the Eagle Room at the Palace of Versailles. Inquiry at the back, Allen and John Foster Dulles present along with the Lone Wolf of Wall Street and the chairman of the War Industries Board, Bernard Baruch. Also Phi Beta Kappa. The Rise of the Expert on International Affairs begins here. These are the authors of the Second World War through their creation of the Treaty of Versailles. A complete demoralization of the German people we today in the West are only too familiar with.

“It is impossible to tell yet whether peace is being drafted by the international bankers or the munition-makers … economic forces moved the conference, like players about a chess-board. Boundary-lines were shifted to include harbors, copper, oil, mineral resources. Races were split, natural demarcations ignored. The imperialist interests that had kept the world on edge for thirty years before the war were making a killing … The British Admiralty wanted oil; it had talked oil for years. British maritime prescience saw that oil was the fuel of to-morrow. The French steel trust wanted a grip on coal and iron oar, to gain command of the Continent and strip Germany of her war-making power. Munition-makers were busy. They were getting ready for the next war.”(5) Confessions of a Reformer, Frederic C. Howe pg. 290,291.

Part 8: The Rise of the University

by Diego Garcia | Mar 12, 2024 | Uncategorized

universitas: a number of persons associated into one body, a society, company, community, guild, or corporation. (The Harvard and Yale Corporations are the heart of the university system and, as we’ve shown, they fund explorers like the ‘real life Indiana Jones’ and founding lifetime member of the CFR, Isaiah Bowman to rediscover Macchu Piccu in 1911.)

Previously we discussed how the entire Western K-12 education model, and then the social sciences at large, were introduced to American higher learning through Prussian technology given to the founders of American sociology, economics, history, experimental psychology and philosophy. These Prussian founded social sciences were ‘grafted’ onto the American university model at the same time traditional curriculum consisting mostly of Latin, Greek, the Classics, the hard sciences, and especially liberal arts, were being removed from common education and placed only at institutions of the highest education. This movement part of the broader establishment of a network of American universities during the second half of the 19^th century we call today, the Association of American Universities.

There is an accompanying Association of American State Colleges and Universities; and, the Association of American University Professors. Why was that created you ask? To protect against the dismissal of men like John Dewey, Edward Alsworth Ross, Richard T. Ely, Charles Beard, and James Harvey Robinson. These are all fathers of Progressivism, all were dismissed from universities due to their highly controversial teachings. John Dewey a founder of this professors union and, not by coincidence, one of the men who’s reputation was and still is even today, immersed in controversy.

As early as the 1840’s we see evidence of a move towards the creation of a network of higher learning centered around the liberal arts. In Illinois we see the first legislature to petition congress for federal land grants, Michigan, Massachusetts and many states then followed. Final resolutions in the State of Illinois stated, “Whereas, the spirit and progress of this age and country demand the culture of the highest order of intellectual attainment in theoretical and industrial science.

“The basis of education in the early Middle Ages consisted, as we have seen, of the so-called seven liberal arts. Three of these, grammar, rhetoric, and logic, were grouped as the trivium; the remaining four, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music, made up the quadrivium.” pg. 27, The Rise of the Universities, Charles Homer Haskins.

“The occasion for the rise of universities was a great revival of learning, not that revival of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries to which the term is usually applied, but an earlier revival, less known though in its way quite as significant, which historians now call the renaissance of the twelfth century. So long as knowledge was limited to the seven liberal arts of the early Middle Ages, there could be no universities, for there was nothing to teach beyond the bare elements of grammar, rhetoric, logic, and the still barer notions of arithmetic, astronomy, geometry, and music, which did duty for an academic Curriculum.” pg. 4, The Rise of the Universities.

riseofuniversiti0000hask_v9g5_0041; Trivium highlighted;

The Medieval University

“Universities, like cathedrals and parliaments, are a product of the Middle Ages. The Greeks and the Romans, strange as it may seem, had no universities in the sense in which the word has been used for the past seven or eight centuries. They had higher education, but the terms are not synonymous. Much of their instruction in law, rhetoric, and philosophy it would be hard to surpass, but it was not organized into the form of permanent institutions of learning.

Only in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries do there emerge in the world those features of organized education with which we are most familiar, all that machinery of instruction represented by faculties and colleges and courses of study, examinations and commencements and academic degrees. In all these matters we are the heirs and successors, not of Athens and Alexandria, but of Paris and Bologna.” Pg 3,4, Rise of the Universities, Charles Homer Haskins,

The contrast between these earliest universities and those of today is of course broad and striking. Throughout the period of its origins the mediaeval university had no libraries, laboratories, or museums, no endowment or buildings of its own; it could not possibly have met the requirements of the Carnegie Foundation!” pg. 4, The Rise of the University, Charles Homer Haskins.

Atlas de Paris au Moyen Age_ Philippe Lorentz_ Danny Sandron_ Map (1)_

Atlas de Paris au Moyen Age_ Philippe Lorentz_ Danny Sandron_ Map (2)_

“The mediaeval university was, in the fine old phrase of Pasquier, “built of men” — batie en hommes. Such a university had no board of trustees and published no catalogue; it had no student societies — except so far as the university itself was fundamentally a society of students — no college journalism, no dramatics, no athletics, none of those “ outside activities ” which are the chief excuse for inside inactivity in the American college.

And yet, great as these differences are, the fact remains that the university of the twentieth century is the lineal descendant of mediaeval Paris and Bologna. They are the rock whence we were hewn, the hole of the pit whence we were digged. The fundamental organization is the same, the historic continuity is unbroken. They created the university tradition of the modern world, that common tradition which belongs to all our institutions of higher learning, the newest as well as the oldest.” Pg. 5, The Rise of the University.

The university was a necessary aspect to early Paris. An economic provider for the city. This idea of building an urban center around the university intelligentsia system was adopted in America as indicated in the literature of the founders of sociology in our previous article, Brandeis Part 6: The Science of Law.

The first universities created as a security measure, a student collective organized against the townspeople, for “the prices of rooms and necessaries rose rapidly with the crowd of new tenants and consumers, and the individual student was helpless against such profiteering. United, the students could bring the town to terms by the threat of departure as a body … and there are many historical examples of such migrations. Better rent one’s rooms for less than not rent them at all, and so the student organizations secured the power to fix the prices of lodgings and books through their representatives.”

Again, through nice sounding words, they instituted a giant network of mind control, a system of standardization directly opposed to human betterment. Behind a scholastic paywall goes key intellectual technology once taught in our common schools. The Common Senses you could say. The system first founded in Bologne and Paris still today the predominant system, but the direction of teaching has drastically changed with the inclusion of the social sciences. Today, when it comes to the university at least, tradition is embraced and the oldest universities carrying with them the most prestige (to trick or fool). A system of academic freedom and institutional autonomy still the prevalent characteristics of a university mission statement. In 1988, to mark the 900th anniversary of the founding of the first modern university in Bologna, the Magna Charta Universitatum was created and is signed by over 975 universities from 94 countries around the world and stands still today as the final text in the spirit behind the university.

“The aims of this document is to celebrate the deepest values of University traditions and to encourage strong bonds among European Universities.” European Higher Learning Education.

The university itself the entering wedge, similar to the labour union, only in the intellectual form, between us and the most empowering, freeing information. Both used to create a two class society of the conscious and the unconscious. Our ability to communicate with each other, our ability to discern through the development of our own senses, to know when others are being dishonest, disingenuous, or straight-up lying to us, all learned skills of logic and deduction and all were systematically removed in the name of standardization. Just as there was proclaimed a death of God, and then the Truth, Latin, the liberal arts, our free will, the free market; our gut feelings (in other words our common senses), were pronounced dead too. These, not by coincidence, are some of the most empowering aspects to the sovereignty of an individual.

Hard, measurable sciences replaced by soft sciences once thought to be pseudo science. The domination of the natural world and our human nature the goal. These social engineers strangely embodying the same message found in the Bible, when God gave Adam and Eve permission, to “go forth and be fruitful, replenish the earth and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon earth.” Genesis 1:28, The Scofield Reference Bible, KJV.

The Morrill Land Grants of 1862 and 1890

“Probably more than any other single factor, the land-grant college idea … has brought about the tremendous advance in agricultural efficiency. Great agricultural efficiency has made possible the industrialization of the United States through the release of agricultural workers to industry, and therefore our highly diversified, and productive and powerful economy.” Roland R. Renne, Montana State College, Phi Beta Kappa, American Economic Association, American Academy of Political and Social Science.

“At mid-nineteenth century approximately 80 percent of the United States’ work force were farmers and artisans. Dissatisfied with the classical education offered at liberal arts colleges, educational and political reformers determined that colleges should provide practical learning for the agricultural and mechanical/industrial arts.” Land Grant Universities, Oklahoma Historical Society

The Morrill Land Grant Acts of 1862 and 1890 were a response to the industrial revolution and their mission was to provide “for the more liberal and practical education of our industrial classes and their teachers.” It’s mandate also focused on agriculture science, military science, and the mechanical arts (engineering). This is what the A & M means in Texas A & M (Agriculture and Mechanical Arts). This an historical moment in that it marked the first federal funding of institutions of higher learning. Sponsored by Senator Justin Morrill, serving on the House Committee of Agriculture and Committee on Territories. Morrill “became convinced that more should be done to place the nation’s farming on a scientific basis.” Land was taken from Native American tribes, ceded through treaties, agreements, seizures, and under threat of violence and in many of these agreements “the federal government did not uphold its end of these treaties … It was a movement in complete contrast to the traditional education practiced up until this point centered on liberal arts curriculum.” National Archives, Milestone Documents, Morrill Act (1862).

Within the Act of 1862 it states:

An ACT Donating Public Lands to the several States and Territories … that there be granted to the several States … an amount of public land … equal to thirty thousand acres … that all the expenses of management, superintendence, and taxes from date of selection of said lands, previous to their sales, and all expenses incurred in the management and disbursement of the moneys which may be received therefrom, shall be paid … out of the Treasury of States … where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts … in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life … If any portion of the fund invested … be diminished or lost, it shall be replaced by the State to which it belongs, so that the capital of the fund shall remain forever undiminished.”

Subsequent related acts allocated more federal funding for each state: the Hatch Act (March, 1887), fifteen thousand per year, the Morrill College Aid Act of (1890) twenty-five thousand dollars per year, the Adams Act (1906) thirty thousand dollars per year, and fifty thousand dollars per year from the Nelson Act (1907). This income on top of the proceeds each university made from the original land grant of 1862. The total value of property held for the benefit of these institutions amounts to $113, 291, 998 in 1862. Around half a billion in todays dollars.

The federal gifts for expenses, buildings and “other special purposes … amounted to eight times the value of the income from the proceeds of the original land grant of 1862. If we compare the total income of all these institutions from all sources with the income direct and indirect from federal sources, the disproportion is still more striking.. The federal grant for this purpose has clearly proved a great stimulus to the individual states and to private citizens.”

The university becomes a federally funded perpetual profit machine, fueled forever by benefits accrued from dispossessed Native land.

“Whereas a system of Industrial Universities, liberally endowed in each state of the union, co-operative with each other, and with the Smithsonian Institute at Washington, would develop a more liberal and practical education among the people, tend to more intellectualize the rising generation and eminently conduce to the virtue, intelligence and true glory of our common country; therefore be it Resolved “the passage of a law of Congress donating each state in the Union an amount of public lands not less in value than five hundred thousand dollars, for the liberal endowment of a system of Industrial Universities, one in each state in the Union, to co-operate with each other … for the more liberal and practical education of our industrial classes and their teachers.“

The Association of American Universities

“The Association of American Universities (AAU) was founded in February 1900, at a two-day conference that 14 of the nation’s leading Ph.D.-granting institutions held at the University of Chicago.

The idea for the conference came from University of California President Benjamin Ide Wheeler, who had been proposing the formation of something like AAU in correspondence with Harvard President Charles Eliot and others. The purpose of the organization, in the words of the constitution that was adopted at the Chicago conference, was to consider “matters of common interest relating to graduate study.”

“The founders had quite specific matters in mind. In the quarter-century before 1900, American higher education had begun transforming itself using the German university model, which emphasized advanced study and laboratory research. Starting with the Johns Hopkins University in 1876, American universities had grafted the German structure onto the American college model, providing in a single institution both undergraduate education and advanced graduate study and research. Thus was born the American research university.” Association of American Universities website, history.

David Starr Jordan was a eugenicist, a member of the Bohemian Club, and the University Club in San Francisco. He was president of both Indiana (1885) and Stanford(1891) Universities. He was a member of the American Philosophical Society. He was an initial board member of the Human Betterment Foundation, advocating mandatory sterilization.

Five learned societies came into existence in the 100 years following the founding of the first—the American Philosophical Society in 1743—and an additional six appeared before 1880. Then the pace picked up and 16 such societies came into existence from 1880 to 1899. Another 28 followed in the next 20 years, from 1900 2 Five learned societies came into existence in the 100 years following the founding of the first—the American Philosophical Society in 1743—and an additional six appeared before 1880. Then the pace picked up and 16 such societies came into existence from 1880 to 1899. Another 28 followed in the next 20 years, from 1900 … The expansion is evident in the social sciences. Economists formed their society in 1885 and the rest quickly followed: psychologists in 1892, anthropologists in 1902, political scientists in 1903, and sociologists in 1905.” Pg. 39, 40, The Shaping of Higher Education: The Formative Years in the United States 1890-1940, Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz.

By 1910 the university as an institution had taken shape. The idea of the research university was being widely accepted by 1910, the lecture method was adopted and the specialization of the entire university system was the goal.

“The era of the division of labor in higher learning had arrived.” Pg. 40, Goldin, Katz.

“Enrollment tripled from 1910 to 1940 … five-fold from 1890 to 1940 … quadrupled between 1940 and 1970 … From 1638 to 1819, only 49 institutions of higher education (40 of them private ones) were established in the United States. Then the pace began to step up. From 1820 to 1859, 240 more institutions (225 private) were established. The next 40 years witnessed the greatest expansion in the pre-1940 period with 432 colleges and universities (348 private ones) established from 1860 to 1899. In particular, there were 186 institutions (151 private_ opened from 1860 to 1879 and 246 more (197 private) from 1880 to 1899. Then the number of new institutions being established began to fall off. From 1900 to 1934, only 200 institutions opened (165 private). The closing decades of the 19th century, therefore, were the high point in the founding of four-year institutions of higher education before World War II. Pg. 42, The Shaping of Higher Education: The Formative Years in the United States 1890-1940, Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz.

The reason for that peak in the founding of colleges and universities might be thought to be the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. The 1862 act granted funds to existing and future states to endow universities and colleges that specialized in agriculture and the mechanical arts. The 1890 act set up many of today’s historically-black universities and also provided income to the institutions set up by the first act. But overall, about five times as many private institutions as public ones were founded during the entire period, and private institutions, more so than the public ones, were disproportionately founded in the closing years of the 19th century …

Not only were relatively few institutions founded after the turn of the 20th century, but those that were founded in the 20th century have tended not to be as prestigious. The 1890s, for example, saw the establishment of Stanford, Chicago and the California Institute of Technology. But among the 35 private institutions in the top 50 universities in the 1999 rankings by U.S. News and World Report only three began college-level instruction in the 20th century and just one was founded after 1900.

The three are the Carnegie Institute of Technology (later Carnegie Mellon University), established in 1900 with instruction beginning in 1905; Rice Institute (later Rice University), founded in 1891 with college-level instruction beginning 1912; and Brandeis University, founded in 1948. Brandeis is a special case. It was established, in large measure, because Jewish academics and students had long been discriminated against, because large numbers of Jewish scholars took refuge in the United States during the war, and because the Jewish community had amassed funds to found a great university …

“The formative years of American higher education from about 1890 to 1940 saw some major changes in the scope of institutions, including the emergence of the research university, the demise of independent professional institutions, and the decline of independent schools of theology and denominational institutions in general. For most of the 19th century, American institutions of higher education were centers of learning, not research.

That began to change in the latter part of the nineteenth century with the founding of the Johns Hopkins University (1876), the first dedicated research center in the United States, followed by Clark University (1889), the first U.S. institution with only a graduate program, and the University of Chicago (1892) (Veysey, 1965).

The American research university was to become a melding of all the components of higher education, serving a multitude of functions simultaneously.” Pg. 42, The Shaping of Higher Education: The Formative Years in the United States 1890-1940, Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz.

“The U.S. Office of Education offered the definition that universities are ‘institutions in which there is considerable stress on graduate instruction, which confer advanced degrees in a variety of liberal arts fields, and which have at least two professional schools that are not exclusively technological’ … A ‘university,’ then, would appear to be a department store of higher education, combining the specialized disciplines with the broader ones of the past and adding the various professional subjects like law, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, theology, and even business.” The Shaping of Higher Education: The Formative Years in the United States 1890-1940, Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz.

“Medical schools were increasingly vulnerable in the late nineteenth century with the advent of stricter state licensing, designed in part to replace the ‘art of healing’ with science. Their numbers thinned further in the wake of a 1910 Carnegie commission report known as the ‘Flexner Report’ after its author Abraham Flexner which severely criticized many of the 155 medical colleges in the United States and Canada (Starr, 1982). Thus, the university came to combine the features of a department store, an integrated knowledge-production factory, and a brand name …

As universities emerged as major research centers and as the classical curriculum of liberal arts colleges gave way to a more modern one, higher education became secularized …

The change took place in a variety of ways. Many transformed themselves into non-sectarian, liberal arts colleges … Others merged with universities to become non-denominational divinity schools. Many simply vanished. The demise in denominational institutions that trained ministers was furthered by the decreased relative demand for their services. The ratio of the average salary of Methodist and Congregational ministers to that of all wage earners in manufacturing fell from 1.81 in 1890, to 1.68 in 1900, 1.44 in 1910, and 1.38 in 1925 (Historical Statistics, 1975, series D 781, 793). But another part of the secularization of colleges was due to the triumph of the scientific method and other aspects of secular thought that were incompatible with religious doctrine …

Teacher-training institutions, which before 1940 were often normal schools with a two-year curriculum, later became part of state universities … the share of total enrollments accounted for by publicly controlled institutions reaches 78 percent by 1994 (U.S. Department of Education, 1996) … the application of the scientific method and the increased division of labor and specialization in higher education disproportionately benefited certain types of institutions. Those that had access to research funds, were initially large and diverse, were non-sectarian, and had reputation and a long purse were in the best position to prosper from the changes. More public sector institutions than private sector ones were so situated and thus flourished and expanded in the wake of the changes to the structure of knowledge that shook higher education from around 1880 to 1910 …

Of course, certain private institutions also gained from the technological changes that affected higher education at the start of the formative period. Some were research and graduate institutions prior to the changes at the turn of the century, like Johns Hopkins and Chicago ” pg. 47, 48, 49, The Shaping of Higher Education

“Between 1909 and today, AAU has grown slowly but steadily, to the point where it now comprises 62 universities, still roughly half public and half private. Among the members are the two Canadian universities added in 1926: McGill University and the University of Toronto … Starting in 1914 and for many years afterwards, the association functioned in no small part as an accreditation agency. Almost as soon as AAU was founded, German universities began using membership in AAU as their measure of quality for graduate school admissions …

This era from 1890 to 1910 is considered by many historians as the New Manifest Destiny. Those who guided AAU in these early years included future US president Woodrow Wilson, then president of Princeton, who presided over the association’s 1910 conference … starting in the late 1930s, and ever since, the association has been increasingly focused on the relationship between higher education and the federal government.”

The university system subsidized by the federal government starting with Lyndon B. Johnson’s Higher Education Act of 1965. As part of Johnson’s, The Great Society domestic agenda. It was reauthorized in 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1986, 1992, 1998, 2008.

Morrill Act 1862 Land Grants for University start up;

A liberal arts department and the awarding of Bachelor and Masters of Arts degrees a necessary to university designation. Meaning the liberal arts are the key difference between the definition of a university, and a college. To be clear there were, and still are, liberal arts colleges, but most were either subsumed into the local university or disappeared altogether on purpose. If any exist today they are generally private institutions and within the Association of American State Colleges and Universities, an affiliated organization.

Up until the Prussian Historical Schools influence, universities taught hard sciences, the classics, Greek and Latin, and it was all based around the seven liberal arts (grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy).

Brandeis Part 7: The Philosophy of Law

by Diego Garcia | Mar 5, 2024 | Uncategorized

Brandeis Part 7: The Philosophy of Law

Functionalism and Structuralism were the first two main fields of early psychology. Functionalism the study of our purpose, between the action and the resulting output. William James’ Functionalism, based in Darwinism, approaches the mind as a functional tool adaptive to external stimulus inherent to our survival instincts. Structuralism, founded by Wilhelm Wundt as a modern academic discipline, was the first attempt at experimental, research-based study of the human being. Large numbers of American students, inspired by Prussian wissenschaft, travelled to Prussia, and the most popular were the social sciences: economics, history, sociology, psychology etc. Wundt’s “new psychology” an important aspect to the German Historical School, which served as a tool to “transfer culture from the Old to the New World” and was made up of three groups divided only by time. German Historical School in American Scholarship: A Study in the Transfer of Culture, Jurgen Herbst, Professor Emeritus of Educational Policy Studies and History, University of Wisconsin Madison, and Wesleyan University. Educated at Harvard.

The Older School, of the early to mid 1800’s dominated by the pioneering founders of the historical philosophy, including Karl Knies, Wilhelm Roscher, and Hugo Hildebrand.

The Younger School was the second group, influential during the mid to late 1800’s, key leaders were Gustav von Schmoller and Adolph Wagner.

The Youngest School, of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, were the more modern German Historical thinkers, Werner Sombart and Max Weber. Weber central in the development of the social sciences during the last century and a direct descendent of German Historical School philosophy. (2)

Professors of all three eras considered strong supporters of Staatssoziolismus, or State Socialism. They were Sozialpollitikers, concerned mainly with Prussian “national social policy reform”. This philosophy emanating from much heralded and respected at the time German universities at Gottingen, Berlin, Leipzig, Heidelberg, Freiburg, Halle, Tubingen, Bonn, and Munich. Professors of all three schools considered strong supporters of Staatssoziolismus, or State Socialism.

As revealed in Brandeis Part 6: The Science of Law, the founders of sociology (Ross, Small, Ward, Howard et al.), nearly to a man: following the completion of a Liberal Arts degree in the US, attended prestigious German universities receiving PhD’s under eminent German liberal professors (progressives), in the latter half of the 19th century, and then, returned to America to pioneer the founding of the entire academic field of sociology, or what they called then, the social sciences. We showed how these founders then joined with Nathan Roscoe Pound, (Phi Beta Kappa, Dean of the Harvard Law School, 33rd degree Master Mason), in combining their social science with a new philosophy of law, founding our modern sociological jurisprudence.

Hugo Hildebrand, of the Older School.

von Schmoller, Gustav; by_Nicola_Perscheid_c1908; German Historical School; taught Albion Small;

Gustav von Schmoller, of the Younger School.

In this study, we consider the philosophical influences of Prussian/German intellectuals, mostly from the German Historical School, on the founding of not just our Western K-12 education system, but the fields of American sociology, psychology, psychiatry, economics, and history, and in doing so, forming the general philosophy of social science in America.

“The case investigated here is the rise and decline of the German historical school of social science in the United States between the founding of The Johns Hopkins University in 1876 and the outbreak of war in Europe in 1914. By the German historical school of social science in America I mean those men in university departments of history, political science, economics, and sociology who had been trained in Germany and who regarded themselves as disciples of the German historical school. My concern has been with what these scholars discovered in Germany that they deemed worthy of introduction into American higher education.” (3)

The founders of nothing less than the entire western education system itself. Edward Everett, Phi Beta Kappa, the very first American PhD, president of Harvard and Secretary of State, along with the very “father of American education”, Horace Mann, were both instrumental in implementing the Prussian model into the US through Massachusetts, New York, and Michigan in the 1830’s. Mann through his appointment as Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education in 1837 began adoption of the Prussian model into America. An underlying fundamental framework of general education needed to be laid down first before the application of the many layers of social sciences. Mann making mandatory ‘universal education for all’ with the admitted intention of creating a universal group mind.

We can see it in the timeline, there was needed, before anything else, an underlying, fundamental framework of general education for all no matter sex, creed, or character, before they could then apply the many layered social sciences. Mann making mandatory ‘universal education for all’ starting in Massachusetts in 1852, exactly fifty years before John D. Rockefeller’s General Education Board established the Prussian model across the United States.

Edward Everett, 15th Governor of Massachusetts when Mann was head of Massachusetts School Board. He was an expert in Roman Law, met with Wilhelm von Humboldt, the founder of the University of Berlin. The Humboltian Education Ideal is the Prussian education model borrowed into America. In 1817, Everett graduated Gottingen, becoming the first American to receive a PhD.

Knies, Karl Gustav Adolf; professor; Historical School of economics; taught and awarded PhD to Richard T Ely;

Karl Knies

Karl Knies is a founder of the German Historical School and author of the “most consequent methodological reflection in the German Historical School, Political Economy From the Viewpoint of Historical Method (1853).”

Knies taught at Freiburg in 1855 before moving to Heidelberg in 1865 to teach General Economic Theory, Public Finance, and Applied Economics and Economic Policy.

Knies heavily influenced by Bruno Hildebrand, another founder of the Historical School, who also, as fits the pattern, founded the first Statistical Office in Bern and Thuringia, and the necessary concomitant, the Journal of Economics and Statistics. (4)

Johann Kaspar Bluntschli, along with Francis Leiber and Eduard Rene de Laboulaye codified the very first modern standards of international law and war. Bluntschli writing A General Theory of State in 1851. Bluntschli was a Freemason Master of Lodge Ruprecht zu den funf Rosen. Bluntchli also one of the founders of the Institute of International Law, today the organization is considered the most authoritative world academy of international law.

Gustav Ratzenhofer was the president of the high military court in Vienna, wrote on military law and advocated the philosophies of Herbert Spencer, Charles Darwin, and Auguste Comte as created what he described as a ‘positive monism’. His works centered on the evolutionary aspects of human associations, reduced social phenomena to the physical, chemical, and biological, and located man’s fundamental drives in his biological nature.” Gustav Ratzenhofer, Encyclopedia.com

Gustav von Schmoller known in Germany primarily as a social reformer, taught both pioneering American economists Richard T. Ely and Edwin Seligman and founding American sociologist Albion Woodbury Small as well as the outspoken American socialist, W. E. B. DuBois. Seligman a founder of the American Economic Association and the American Association of University Professors. Seligman, with the assistance of E. A. Ross were responsible for America’s very first progressive income tax.

Bluntschli, Johann Caspar; professor of constitutional law; taught Richard T. Ely;

Gustav Ratzenhofer, Austrian sociologist

Wundt, Wilhelm; father of experimental psychology; major influencer in American cutlure; Illuminati;

Wilhelm Wundt

William James

The vast majority of the men on the facing page eugenicists, followers of Herbert Spencer’s ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘social Darwinism’. Followers of experimental psychology as a general industry-wide philosophy. Jastrow’s wife the sister of the founder of Hadassah Henrietta Szold. His father a Talmud scholar. Terman’s son invents Silicon Valley. Thorndike inspires Watson, Pavlov, and B.F. Skinner.

Wilhelm Wundt is considered the “father of experimental psychology”, or “scientific psychology”. A leader in the “new psychology” of Prussia, he founded the first experimental psychology laboratory at Leipzig around the time William James was doing the same thing at Harvard. Wundt awarding the first ever PhD’s to foreigners to a number of American pioneers of Western education and the social sciences.

Both Richard T. Ely and James McKeen Cattell, pioneers in psychology and economics respectively, were taught by Wilhelm Wundt. Other notable students of Wundt’s experimental laboratories include pioneers in psychology, psychiatry, and sociology: James Mark Baldwin, Emile Durkheim, G. Stanley Hall, Walter Dill Scott, Lightner Witmer, Charles Hubbard Judd, August Kirschmann, George Herbert Mead, Hugo Munsterberg, Edward Titchener, and Wilhelm Wirth. In all Wundt awarded 18 PhD’s to American educators.

Hall Granville Stanley; founder of Western normal school education;

Granville Stanley Hall

Ely-Richard-T leader of Progressive Movement; father of land economics

Richard T. Ely

The biological sociologies largely beginning with Darwin’s theory of evolution as it relates to the animal kingdom and the Herbert Spencer’s appropriation of Darwin’s theories upon that of the human being and to the larger idea of society in general. Because “human relations are bound together in marvelous complexity” parallels were being drawn to the similarly complex biological relations being presented in Darwin’s theory of evolution. “What if these biological relations should turn out to be the pattern of human relations?” (5)

The social sciences brought into unity once abstract and disconnected studies of the human experience into a cohesive interdisciplinary nearly living organism. Small stating that “a network of causes and effects weaves the life of men through the ages and around the world into a connected whole. That is, human experience throughout its length and breadth is a unity.”

And, according to Small, this new knowledge did not deserve to be ranked as a science of human experience unless it mirrored the interconnectedness and “reciprocal influences of which we find real life to be composed.” Here we see the very earliest conceptions later expanded upon during the Macy Conferences. The early thoughts of interdisciplinary cross over of knowledge between the sciences to better understand the human condition.

“More than any other American sociologist, Albion W. Small has mediated to us the results of European scholarship. The intellectual world is now one society. No nation would have had anything approaching its present scientific development without the collaboration of the scientists of different nations. Indeed, science as a national phenomenon is unthinkable. It is a part of the life of “the great society.” (6)

“while sociology as developed by men like Small and Ward and Giddings and Ross was largely a protest against individualism of the type suggested by the phrases “laissez faire” and “every man for himself. IT has been said that the meeting of the American Economic Association held in Philadelphia in 1917, including a joint session with the American Sociological Society, celebrated the funeral obsequies of the doctrine of laissez faire. But it would hardly be too much to say that during the first decades of Professor Small’s connection with the University of Chicago that doctrine was the summary and conclusion of economic teaching as presented by the majority of its professors in the United States.” (7)

The Cameralists were practitioners of the German science of public administration of the 18th and early 19th century Prussia and Sweden. They were the pioneers in economic, environmental, and administrative knowledge and technology. The centralization of the State through the collection and interpretation of statistical and quantitative data (meta data) for long term economic State planning. Camera in this definition meaning a private legislative or judicial chamber. As in, a room full of advisors, behind closed doors making decisions. The rise of the expert. Interesting also to note here that camera in the Latin root means ‘private’ while to us camera and ‘private’ have a very opposite definition, the two nearly antonyms.

It was the science of good government born out of the Renaissance. Combining the utilitarian agenda of enlightened absolutism with these new ideas in the social sciences. Cameralism consisted of three subfields: camera, oeconomie, and Polizei (Policey). An overall Oeconomie consisting of everything that makes up the relationship between the State and society (social sciences). It’s primary concern was the management of the finances of the State with a goal of certain social outcomes. To make efficient the State’s ability to draw from its labour. The idea of Statecraft is born. Efficiency of State. Preparedness against threats of neighbouring countries. To make everyone a utility of the State. To use each and every citizen in a pragmatic means to an end. The ultimate in disrespect. The very definition of using someone.

First experimental Normal School; Simon_W_Robinson_Masonic_Lodge,_Lexington_MA

Horace Mann’s First Normal School. Masonic square and compass on front window.

James McKeen Cattell

John Dewey, one of the most well-known Progressive reformers of the era, and one of the most prominent members of the experimental school of psychology of the 20th Century, and founder of pragmatism. After graduating Phi Beta Kappa at Vermont, he attended Johns Hopkins University, learning the progressive ways of Prussian intellectuals. Dewey founds the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, where he was able to experiment on means and method. Dewey’s progressive education ideas combined with Horace Mann’s Masonic developed Normal School system, and the Whole Language approach, while highly contentious when implemented still very much around today and found in State standard initiatives like Common Core or products like Hooked on Phonics.

The masses motivated by nice sounding catchphrases and the promised improvement of education through increased standardization, and as of 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act the next No Child Left Behind as the progressive standard of education in America continues to move forward. No matter who is president, the progressive wheel turns unabated because, while it may not be living up to the expectations of the general public, to these admitted social engineers, this progressive perpetual motion machine has been running just fine thank-you-very-much, for well over one hundred years now.

The_Public_and_its_Problems,_1927,_Cover

So, you can see how they travel to Prussia post-grad, where they are then taught the methods used during the Prussian reformation to then change American society upon return by creating their own laboratories and establishing the first networks with each other they become the political philosopher, the thought leader, the entering wedge, their primary goal is persuasion, and this is the delicate dark art, using their position, their influence, their authority to fan the radical winds of social change, with each positioned at their assigned node within the larger distributive network connecting the nation.

The invention of the social sciences absolutely critical, in that it enabled these social engineers to study, gather and compute information and then from that derive their next steps and enacting change in behaviours through applied science and more observation. The giant feedback loop acting as the social engine to a larger progressive wheel turning.

The Metaphysical Club: Oliver Wendell Holmes, William James, Charles Pierce, John Dewey. The introduction into America of Prussian philosophy, The transformation of soft sciences once thought illegitimate now commonplace may be one of the largest philosophical operations in human history. The book written by Louis Menand, who just so happens to make an another appearance in our series, he was the keynote speaker at the 2022 Walter Lippmann Conference in which the main topic of discussion was ‘the crisis of the expert’. The rise of the university system a critical component to a universal education, and many of these same men involved in the creation of the American Association of American Universities and the Association of American Professors, and the campus a place where all of the social sciences cohabitate, blended interdisciplinarily, and the university, particularly the research university becomes the center for intelligence gathering and application.

Auguste Comte’s Positivism

“early attempts to interpret the unique unity of human experience may be reduced to three species: the sentimental, the mathematical, and the biological … The sentimental species of sociologists … range from Fourier, with his harmony of the human passions and his scheme of standardizing human society in blocks of sixteen hundred persons, and Robert Owen, with his co-operative factories … The mathematical sociologists typified by Auguste Comte.” (8)

“Comte thought of the universe and all it contained as a unity of two complementary systems of mechanism: namely, celestial physics and terrestrial physics … Human life in his rendering was a vast machine … social sciences [to Comte] was a technology of social machinery, a handbook of the soulless forces which turned the wheels of the ages.” (9)

“The universal reciprocity between the parts of human experience, which makes life some sort of a system of interconnections.” (10)

“In common with sociology, sociological jurisprudence has its origin in the positivist philosophers in the sense that each subject has a continuous development from Comte’s positive philosophy.” (11)

Isidore Auguste Marie François Xavier Comte

Auguste Comte considered today “the father of sociology”. Comte studied directly under founding Utopian socialist, Henry Saint-Simon. Positivism, or the scientific study of society, was what Comte referred to as, ‘the Religion of Humanity’. He names sociology the ‘Queen’ of all sciences and its practitioners ‘scientist-priests’. Roscoe Pound describing Comte’s social philosophy as a “technology of social machinery”, a “handbook” representing “the wheels of ages” being turned “by soulless forces”.

Comte’s positivism, developed as an answer to the social disorder resulting from the French Revolution, also found fertile ground with the founders of pragmatism William James and Charles Sanders Pierce, and with progressive, federal government administrators like Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Croly, and Lester Frank Ward. It’s here we begin to see now the first signs of real social transformation, away from the farm and homestead to the steel cityscapes of our industrial modern world. Factories and machines turning wheels forging guns and swords from ploughshares and the stainless steel promise of a new American dream.

The wheels of progress that turn our world being fired up deliberately, like magnets being spun inside a matrix of copper wire and the rotation of society so necessary to Comte’s vision. Comte believed that social control would be made possible only after Darwins idea of human evolution was first established. The natural world must be comprehended before they could study and apply workable solutions. Whether it was natural law or laws of nature, they were here to master all things natural.

The background image drawn by Joseph Ramee, a depiction of Union College in Schenectady, New Jersey. The Union College a liberal arts institution and it is generally said that it is the second oldest institution of higher learning in the United States behind King’s College (Columbia University). Although Harvard (1636), William & Mary (1693), and Yale (1701), not only predate both King’s and Union Colleges, but predate the founding of American itself.

“It has been said that Comte’s sociology was a ‘technology of social machinery’, a handbook of the soulless forces which turned the wheels of the ages.” (12)

Comte most remembered as a mathematician, which should help one better understand how law operates in society today. Our modern times defined by mathematical modelling, artificial intelligence, and facial recognition concepts first conceived nearly two hundred years ago in the wildest dreams of men like Comte, Bentham, Saint-Simon, Sidney and Beatrice Webb. A plan of social control now well into the 21st century nearing completion. Into the foreground steps nothing less than the fullest realization of the welfare state. And we living today have been afforded the hind sight necessary for a critical judgement of actions taken over one hundred years ago. We agree with Josephine Goldmark, those who have come after are those who do bear truest witness, we are those with the final say.

“But the days that come after bear truest witness” – Josephine Goldmark, foreword, Pilgrims of 48’.

“Men’s minds were fascinated by the idea of laws, mathematically demonstrable, which control the operations of nature, and for a season they took, as it were, a mathematical view; they sought to find mathematical or mechanical laws according to which all things came into existence and were governed in their course of existence. This type of thinking is to be seen in the first positive philosophies of law and in the first stage of sociological jurisprudence.” (13)

“Turning next to the sociological components of Pound’s jurisprudence, it is widely recognized that they were derived largely from the writings of Lester F. Ward, Albion W. Small, and most especially E. A. Ross, who was a colleague of Pound’s at the University of Nebraska during 1901-1906. Ward was an ardent advocate of government control and social planning who believed that legislation would contribute to the organization of human experience. Similarly, Small assumed that social reform could be carried out through legal means. Due to the influence of these two men Pound approached the law as a form of ‘social engineering.’ Indeed, the idea of law as an instrument of engineering and social control at all levels of government is an integral part of Pound’s sociological jurisprudence.” (14)

socialcontrolsur00ross_0118; law most specialized form of social co

A close friend of Pound’s, fellow Harvard Law professor Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr was an advocate of legal positivism. Holmes’ prediction of law theory was a key component to his jurisprudential philosophy, Holmes carrying on Comte’s tradition, believing law should be predictive. Holmes Jr. opposed to natural law stated that, “men make their own laws; that these laws do not flow from some mysterious omnipresence in the sky, and that judges are not independent mouthpieces of the infinite.”

Comte stating the same in French, “savior pour prevoir et prevoir pour pouvoir”, or to “know in order to predict and foresee in order to be able”. Comte studied directly under Utopian socialist, Henri Saint-Simon.

The Sociological movement “remembered for the crucial ideological support it gave the progressive criticism of the courts and to the expansion of state intervention in the economy.” (15)

“law reigns supreme as ‘the most specialized and highly finished engine of control employed by society.’” Pg 98, Social Control; A Survey of the Foundations of Order.

Bentham, Jeremy; by Henry William Pickersgill;

Jeremy Bentham’s Utilitarianism

Just as Pound’s sociological jurisprudence was the next step within a long line of “continuous development” emerging from Comte’s positivism, so too we can say that Comte’s study of society was largely derived from Jeremy Bentham and the larger and longer historical philosophy of utilitarianism – a pragmatic theory of society that determines right from wrong from outcomes, and holds that the most ethical, moral choice is the one that will produce the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people.

Here again we have large philosophical ideas asking us to focus on the ends and to ignore the means. To look over here, rather than over there. To look at an image, a pseudo reality, rather than the real thing. Like many of the others in this study, Bentham referred to natural law as, “nonsense”, claiming that there existed no rights without the existence of government and that, since natural rights do not emanate from government itself, they are by definition, illegitimate.

“How the conception of politics changed in England can be traced through the lives and work of four writers – David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Beatrice Webb. Each represents a distinctive way of looking at politics, which has become intertwined with others and obscured in political practice, and yet remains a vital part of the political traditions in England. Nevertheless, each writer contributed to a transformed outlook on the nature of politics. It was first suggested by Jeremy Bentham; its shape was defined by John Stuart Mill; and the finished product appears in the work of Beatrice Webb …

What makes the differences among the four writers especially impressive is that in a way they all owe allegiance to the same intellectual tradition. The name, utilitarian, most readily comes to mind. They have all been called utilitarians, and they themselves have claimed some such kinship with one another. Bentham said he had discovered the idea of utility in Hume; Mill, who first made utilitarianism a popular name, was tutored by Bentham himself, as well as by Bentham’s chief disciple, James Mill; and the Webbs often liked to describe themselves and other Fabians as latter-day utilitarians. In fact the name is misleading because it suggests that they all shared a common philosophy. But it does point to certain common sympathies. All these writers praised a common sense, matter-of-fact, concrete, experimental approach to human affairs.”

Pg. 2, The Pursuit of Certainty, Shirley Robin Letwin, University of Chicago, London School of Economics, student of Friedrich Hayek.

Bentham today considered the father of utilitarianism, and we see his philosophy of law as the main underlying foundational girders of our modern-day society. There is an undeniable continuity of form and function connecting Bentham to Comte, Henri Saint-Simon and the utopian socialists in the early 19th century to the ethical socialist movement led by the British Fabians and American Progressives. History shows Roscoe Pound, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis D. Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter as an extension of Bentham’s panopticon and his utilitarian approach to social control. The early answers to recidivism were mechanical and crude, paralleling the early structuralist attempts at experimental psychology both under William James at Harvard and Wilhelm Wundt at Leipzig. Their only answer, given the resources at hand, was to remove the offenders from society and have as a main exercise of their detainment, rehabilitation with possibility of reintegration.

“The problem is not merely how law-making and law-administering functions are exercised, but also how they may be exercised so as best to achieve their purpose, and what conception of these functions by those who perform them will conduce best thereto. Here, certainly, the pragmatic criterion is sound. The true juristic theory, the true juristic method, is the one that brings forth good works.” (emphasis added), pg. 598, Harvard Law Review, Sociological Jurisprudence, Its Scope and Purpose, Roscoe Pound.

Bentham’s pleasyre quotient

The Hedonic Calculator:

“By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness … or to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered: if that party be the community in general, then the happiness of the community : if a particular individual, then the happiness of that individual.” Jeremy Bentham, pg. 2, An Introduction to Principles of Morals and Legislation

introductiontoth033476mbp_0040; highlighted;

PLEASURES then, and the avoidance of pains, are the ends which the legislator has in view : it behoves him therefore to understand their value. Pleasures and pains are the instruments he has to work with : it behoves him therefore to understand their force, which is again, in other words, their value.

II. To a person considered by himself, the value of a pleasure or pain considered itself will be greater or less, according to the four following circumstances :

1. Its intensity.

2. Its duration.

3. Its certainty or uncertainty.

4. Its propinquity or remoteness.

IV. To a number of persons, with reference to each of whom the value of a pleasure or a pain is considered, it will be greater or less, according to seven circumstances :

1. Its intensity.

2. Its duration.

3. Its certainty or uncertainty.

4. Its propinquity or remoteness.

5. Us fecundity. (fertility, propagation)

6. Its purity.

7. Its extent ; that is, the number of persons to whom … are affected by it.

The Bentham pleasure quotient.

Bentham’s pleasure calculator leading to hedonism and a society largely immersed in instant gratification while science shows delaying gratification is a prominent personality trait of the successful.

And Bentham didn’t stop at the designing utility into the penitentiary, he looked to the brutalist design of the panopticon as ideal for the housing of the poor, hospitals, schools, factories, asylums, and sanitariums.

As I have hopefully demonstrated here, the theory of predictive criminology isn’t just a modern-day dystopian Hollywood plotline, there has been a move towards crime prediction for longer than any of us have been alive, in fact, it has been the primary motivation of men searching for the perfected modes of social control for well over two hundred years and more. It’s really their holy grail, to prevent crime before it happens. I ask the reader, are we not looking at reasons behind the plot of Philip K. Dick’s psychic precogs laying in a vegetative state inside the heart of the special Precrime Division, fused by flesh to the omniscient black universe of negative human intention? Minority Report was preconditioning us to an idea once thought ridiculous yet an idea that has spanned the millennia and is setting roots today. Was Orwell created to precondition us to our inevitable future? Today there may not be a more referenced book when pointing out the oppressive nature of Western society. Orwell’s thought police investigating thought crimes are a thing of the present and newspeak relentless today in their subordination of nations through the creation of a wildly fantastical pseudo environment.

How is what we’ve uncovered here not our social contract? How is what we are talking about not exactly what Morpheus talked about when first meeting Neo?

“Let me tell you why you’re here. You are here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You felt it your entire life. You don’t know what it is but it’s there. Like a splinter in your mind. Driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I am talking about?

Neo: The Matrix.

Morpheus: Do you want to know what it is?

Morpheus: The matrix is everywhere, it is all around us. Even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can, feel it, when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Morpheus: That you are a slave Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage. Born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind … Unfortunately no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.”

Footnotes:

1. Preface, German Historical School in American Scholarship: A Study in the Transfer of Culture, Jurgen Herbst, Professor Emeritus of Educational Policy Studies and History, University of Wisconsin Madison, and Wesleyan University. Educated at Harvard.

2. Preface, German Historical School in American Scholarship: A Study in the Transfer of Culture, Jurgen Herbst,

3. Preface, German Historical School in American Scholarship: A Study in the Transfer of Culture, Jurgen Herbst,

4. Karl Knies’s Heidelberg Lecture on Economics: An Introduction, Kiichiro YAGI, The Kyoto University Economic Review, Volume LXIX, No 1/2 April October 2000.

5. Pg. 79, Meaning of Social Science, Albion Woodbury Small.

6. Pg. 669, Masters of Social Science: Albion Woodbury SmallVolume IV, Number 4, Social Forces, June, 1926, , Edward Cary Hayes.

7. Pg. 4, Masters of Social Science: Albion Woodbury SmallVolume IV, Number 4, Social Forces, June, 1926, , E C Hayes.

8. Pg. 71, Meaning of Social Science, Albion Woodbury Small

9. Pg. 73, 74, Meaning of Social Sciences, Albion Woodbury Small

10. Pg. 74, 75, The Meaning of Social Sciences, Small

11. Pg. 489, Harvard Law Review, Volume XXV, No. 6, April 12, Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence III, Roscoe Pound.

12. Pg. 491, Harvard Law Review, Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence, Roscoe Pound

13. Pg. 491, Harvard Law Review, Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence, Roscoe Pound.

14. Pg. xx, Social Control Through Law, Roscoe Pound.

15. pg. 104, City of Courts.

Brandeis Part 6: The Science of Law

by Diego Garcia | Feb 25, 2024 | Uncategorized

Brandeis: Sociological Jurisprudence and the Harvard Law School

At the close of the 19th century, experts in written law (jurists), were of three general schools of thought: philosophical, historical, and analytical. According to Nathan Roscoe Pound, the Dean of Harvard Law School, the failure of these three schools was twofold. For Pound, the previous forms of jurisprudence were either too reliant on the past or treading too haphazardly and experimentally into the future, a “trial-and-error and ad hoc approach.” The answer according to Pound, was a clearly defined sociological legal policy that would eliminate these previously harmful “retrospective” and “prospective-accidental” models.

According to Pound, the path to the most efficient form of law would not be formally realized by following the historical, analytical or philosophical schools of thought, but by forming a necessary synthesis of the three into a type of ‘legal progressivism’ wholly based around the principles of sociology, the scientific study of human beings.

Pound stating:

“a wholly new creed is framing … to bring these formerly divergent schools into something like accord … We should expect a new school to arise from this breakdown of the older schools, and there are many signs that such an event has taken place. Jurists are coming together upon a new ground from different starting points … The rising and still formative school to which we may look chiefly henceforth for advance in juristic thought, may be styled the Sociological School.” (1)

“Holmes and later Roscoe Pound would be the great theorists of sociological jurisprudence, but Louis Brandeis would be its great practitioner. In 1908, when he submitted his pathbreaking brief in Muller v Oregon, he put into practice the theory he had heard Holmes talk about more than a quarter century earlier.” (2)

Brandeis lectured law at Harvard after graduation, and founded both the Harvard Law School Association in 1886, and the Harvard Law Review in 1887, naming himself secretary and treasurer. The HLSA is considered today “the oldest association of its kind”, and the Harvard Law Review one of the largest circulated law journals in the world. Brandeis influential in steering curriculum as a member of the Advising Committee, of which his trusty Zionist lieutenant Julian Mack was business manager.

“Brandeis regularly corresponded with the dean and faculty members offering suggestions for courses and advice on the school’s management. He provided both advice towards the creation of the Harvard Law Review, served as its first treasurer, and was a trustee until his appointment to the Supreme Court. Brandeis also served as a member of the Law School’s Visiting Committee (appointed by the Board of Overseers) from 1889-1890 and 1891-1919.” Brandeis Papers, Harvard Law School, Box 114, Folder 17, HLS Historical & Special Collections.

Above artifact from, Justice Louis D. Brandeis: Celebrating the 100th Anniversary of his Confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, Harvard Law Today, Harvard Law School Association, Carolyn Kelley

“Frankfurter had become Brandeis’s surrogate, fulfilling the
jurist’s urge to be an activist, a need thwarted by the restraints of the black robe. It was Frankfurter who had picked up the burden of defending wages and hours legislation, and who furthered the use of the Brandeis brief.” pg. 200, The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 22, No., 3.

Brandeis, Holmes, Frankfurter, Pound all Phi Beta Kappa, Harvard Law School with honours.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Holmes Jr., being assisted by Brandeis.

“He [Brandeis] was a key player in both the creation of the Harvard Law School Association and the Harvard Law Review, a member of the Visiting Committee, and an adviser on the school’s management and curriculum, regularly corresponding with deans and faculty members to offer suggestions.” Harvard Law Today, Harvard Law School Association. (3)

“When I went to Chicago in 1907 I met Albion W Small and to Ross and Small, …. I owe a decisive impetus at a critical point in my study.” pg. xxi, Social Control Through Law.

Nathan Roscoe Pound is the one most attributed with founding sociological jurisprudence in America. Pound studied Roman law, receiving his BA in 1888 and his MA in 1889 at Nebraska University. In 1903 Pound became the Dean of the University of Nebraska College of Law.

In 1908 he was a founding editor of the Annual Bulletin of the American Bar Association. In 1909 he taught at University of Chicago Law School and in 1911 Pound moved to Harvard, first as a professor of law, and then from 1916 until 1936, Pound was the Dean of the Harvard Law School. Pound stating in his foundational Harvard Law Review article, Sociological Jurisprudence: Its Scope and Purpose, that lawyers are nothing less than social engineers who use their knowledge and experience of the law to deliberately create the framework for a better society.

The other great theorist of sociological jurisprudence mentioned in the above quote was Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., nominated Supreme Court Justice in 1902 Holmes held that position for the next thirty years. One of the most cited justices in American history. Holmes, Harvard Law alum, stood defiantly against natural law and was famous for his prediction theory, believing that crime, especially recidivism, or the repeating of criminal offenses, can be predicted and then prevented.

“Pound defines law as a ‘highly specialized form of social control” pg. xxi, Social Control Through Law.

Pound was the “Grand Representative of Nebraska”, and made the, “Orator of the Nebraska Grand Lodge” in 1907. (4) He was crowned 33rd degree in 1913 as the Past Master of Lancaster Lodge No. 54 Ancient Free & Accepted Masons in Lincoln Nebraska. When he left the cornfields for Boston he didn’t leave his apron behind, Pound was made Deputy Grand Master for the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, almost as if his promotion as a Mason was the main catalyst for his move to Harvard. Either way they happened simultaneously. And according to Gould’s History of Freemasonry Throughout the World:

“The Grand Lodge of Masons in Massachusetts is not only the senior Grand Lodge but, also, the senior Masonic Body of any kind now functioning in the Western hemisphere.”(5)

After completing post graduate work in Germany the founders of sociology all returned directly to America by design, where each would make significant pioneering contributions to the burgeoning field of sociology. The three professors of sociology demonstrating a profound collective influence on Pound while at Nebraska, Pound becoming a member of the American Sociological Society, serving on several of their committees, even contributing several articles. It’s here, at the University of Nebraska, surrounded by sociologists of the Prussian historical school, that Pound first formulates his revolutionary sociological approach to law.

Pound the founder of the Harvard Lodge AF & AM and was a prolific contributor to the Harvard Chapter of the Acacia Fraternity, giving lectures on “masonic jurisprudence”. The Acacia Fraternity one of several Masonic clubs on campus (the Harvard Masonic Club and The Square and Compass Club to name two others). This completely true, yet far less mainstream view, revealing significant connections to both the Phi Beta Kappa Society and Freemasonry. Pound not only a Grand Master, but his being chosen to pioneer new expansion into Ivy League academia, while in charge of the most influential Masonic body in the Western hemisphere, reveals a type of long-view entrusted only to a 33rd degree Master Mason.

The sociological school theorized by Pound and Holmes Jr, and practiced by Brandeis was first brought to America through the sociological department of the University of Nebraska while Pound was professor of law (professor from 1899 to 1907; Dean of Nebraska University College of Law from 1903 until 1911).

Roscoe Pound was close friends with the founders of sociology in America through their shared leadership of the American Sociological Association: Edward Alsworth Ross, George Elliot Howard, and Albion Woodbury Small all served as presidents.

Not coincidentally, after graduating from American state colleges, all three men travelled abroad for at least a two-year post-graduate program involving a newly forming, more specialized, social science based education not found in America. (See Knies, Bluntschi, Ratzenhofer, Wundt et al.)

Pound’s theory of a functional society stated that there must be, “social interest in general progress; the claim or want or demand of society that the development of human powers and of human control over nature for the satisfaction of human wants go forward; the demand that social engineering be increasingly and continually improved; as it were, the self-assertion of the group toward higher and more complete development of human powers. This interest appears in three main forms, an interest in economic progress, an interest in political progress, and an interest in cultural progress.” (6)

Nathan Roscoe Pound

Edward Alsworth Ross married the niece of his personal and professional mentor, Lester Frank Ward.

Edward Alsworth Ross, sociologist professor at NU from 1901 until 1906, first studied theology and liberal arts at Coe College in the US and before attending the University of Berlin. Ross returns to the States landing at Johns Hopkins University where he gained a doctorate degree under Richard T. Ely. Ross is said to be the most responsible for introducing Roscoe Pound to a sociological jurisprudence and a major influence in the development of early criminology authoring, Social Control: A Survey of the Foundations of Order in 1901, and founding the first professional association of sociologists in the United States, the American Sociological Society in 1905.

In 1912 Ross writes Changing America: Studies in Contemporary History, The Old World in the New in 1914, and What is America in 1919. Ross was influenced by Marx economic theory of class conflict and both JHU and University of Chicago are, more than any other American universities, connected directly to German intellectualism and idealism.

“Law, the most formidable engine of control employed by society.” Pg 93, Edward Alsworth Ross, Social Control.

“The law the most specialized and highly finished engine of control employed by society” pg. 106, Edward Alsworth Ross, Social Control.

“Largely due to the work of Roscoe Pound, the concept of social engineering through law has been popular in the jurisprudence, sociology of law, and political science of the Western countries.” (7)

“For a few golden years, Nebraska laid full-time claim to the intellectual skills of three of the nation’s most talented social scientists: Ross, Howard, and Pound.” (8)

“Turning next to the sociological components of Pound’s jurisprudence, it is widely recognized that they were derived largely from the writings of Lester F. Ward, Albion Small, and most especially E. A. Ross, who was a colleague of Pound’s at the University of Nebraska.” pg. xx, Social Control Through Law.

George Eliott Howard graduated Peru State College with a BA. The founder of institutional sociology and the author of the groundbreaking, A History of Matrimonial Institutions in 1876. Howard went to Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat in Munich where he studied political science, history, and Roman law. Howard returned to the States two years later earning his MA in 1879. Howard was appointed Professor of Political Science and Sociology and was the very first Professor of History while also teaching Public Law with Pound at the University of Nebraska. In 1894 Howard received his PhD and in 1901 travelled to Stanford and was one of their original faculty members before resigning under controversy. For two years he lectured at Chicago University before returning to NU in 1903, named the head of the Department of Political Science and Sociology and professor of Institutional History. Howard remained at NU until his death nearly twenty years later.

Pound, Howard, and Ross all were members of the University of Nebraska Graduate Club and met regularly at each other’s home to present and discuss papers and direction. They were members of a smaller more intimate group, a dinner club known as ‘the congenial ten’. There they discussed the pressing sociological issues of society and both “Ross and Pound were social and intellectual spark-plugs who drew people together and got them talking.” (9)

changingamericas00rossrich_0007 (2); with highlight;

socialcontrolsur00ross_0011; highlights;

Pound was an active member of the American Sociological Society and Ross, Howard, and Small were all presidents of ASS. As president, Howard “organized the 1917 meeting on the topic of “Social Control”, his address titled, “Ideals as a Factor in the Future Control of International Society.”

“As president, he [E.A. Ross] sponsored ASS sessions on freedom of expression and appointed his friend Roscoe Pound, then of the Harvard Law School, to represent ASS on an interdisciplinary committee that became the mechanism
for founding the American Association of University Professors.” The larger, decentralized network across America.

While the US was entering the war, academia was already preparing for a future international peace conference, aroused by the thought of ideals (largely seen then and today as unattainable), being used as catalysts for social change. Other lectures of that day were titled: ‘War as a Crisis in Social Control’, ‘Social Control in a Democracy’, and “Social Control in International Relations’.

Albion Woodbury Small was born to Reverend Keith Parris Small and Thankful Lincoln Woodbury Small. Albion studied as a young boy at the Newton Theological Institute but was never ordained, instead choosing to focus on the social sciences being taught out of the German Historical School. A centralized, bureaucratic, administrative progressive government increasingly more reliant on quantitative data with an aspect of social responsibility. Small “clung tightly to the tenets” of “especially the Social Gospel”. Small credited with founding the first sociology department at Chicago University, after studying under the founder and long time chair of the German Economic Association, Gustav con Schmoller. Schmoller an early teacher of the social sciences and was a major influence in the Progressive movement in the United States.

Small wrote his dissertation at JHU upon returning from Germany entitled, The Beginnings of American Nationality. Woodrow Wilson and Richard T. Ely, two key Progressive founders, were members of his PhD committee.

“Small explained his conception of sociology, rooted in evolutionism. Its goal should be to determine “social forces” by studying the global dynamics of society—its “social process”—in order to control social change in accordance with ethical principles for the good of society in general.” ASA website, Albion Woodbury Small.

“… William G. Sumner, Lester F. Ward, Franklin H. Giddings, Albion W. Small, Charles H. Cooley and Edward A. Ross. These individuals are generally considered to be the founders of American academic sociology … Their writings can tell a great deal about the development of Marxian sociology in the United States. The present study supports the theory that those founders working at universities in the Midwest were more likely to discuss Marx than the founders from the East Coast because those in the Midwest were at institutions which were more progressive … The founders often addressed Marx’s concepts which related to his discussions of class, surplus value, capital, capitalism, historical materialism, class consciousness, and property.” (10)

George Eliott Howard

Albion Woodbury Small

Sumner, William Graham; Skull and Bones; Phi Beta Kappa;

William Graham Sumner

William Graham Sumner was named first president of the burgeoning sociological society and we now see undeniably, the entire modern fields of sociology and law, as were so many other fields of American academic study, first formed overseas in Prussia, schools of thought brought forward from the Prussian Reformation and imprinted onto the minds of these distinguished men of letters and numbers. Sociology and law, looked at from the perspective of these social engineers all of a sudden become major tools of social control, “the most specialized engine of social control” in fact, and it was all invented by men we’ve never heard of during times we never lived.

Sumner, Phi Beta Kappa, Skull and Bones, attended Gottengen in Germany post grad. In 1867, he was ordained a deacon in the Protestant Episcopal church at Trinity Church in New Haven. He was the Chair of Political and Social Sciences at Yale and remained there until his death. President of ASS 1908-1909. Sumner was inspired by Herbert Spencer and Auguste Comte. Taught first ever course called sociology, setting the groundwork for formal academic sociology by Durkheim and Max Weber. Weber another very influential figure in the development of the social sciences.

Albion Woodbury Small showing a similar pattern, after graduating from Colby College in 1876, and studying theology at the Andover Newton Theological School in Massachusetts, as did all the other main founders of sociology, travelled to Germany for two years post-grad work, Small studying German history, social economics and politics from the leading professors at Leipzig and Berlin University.

In 1889 Small then travels back to America, gaining his PhD at Johns Hopkins University and founded the very first sociological department at the University of Chicago in 1892. There he would remain the acting chairman for over thirty years. Small revealing another familiar pattern by harnessing the two main pillars of propaganda (institution and information). By establishing a brick and mortar research department with a faculty, while also creating from out of nowhere the foundational literature for a burgeoning new specialty science they moved to legitimize soft sciences.

Small writing the first sociology textbook, An Introduction to the Study of Society in 1894. He authors the first sociological journal, the American Journal of Sociology and was elected Dean of the University of Chicago Graduate School of Arts and Literature. Small influencing the entire field of sociology during its most formative years through establishing both a place to congregate and a way to spread their message influencing both the political class (the most important group of society to indoctrinate), and the general public, largely made up of the remaining 80 percent of the population, through broad dissemination of their literary writings, periodicals, and professional journals.

Lester Frank Ward is considered the “father of the Welfare State”, and was the very first president of ASS in 1906-1907. He remained at Brown University (Ivy League) until his death.

“His book Dynamic Sociology was revolutionary, arguing that progress depended on a planned society led and controlled by a benevolent government, that provided universal education, freedom from poverty and happiness for all. When this book was first published, courses in sociology were nonexistent in American universities, and by the time the second edition was published in 1896, sociology was being taught in all colleges.” Lester Frank Ward Papers

“In his [Lester Frank Ward] early works, there is little doubt that he was largely influenced by Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, and many other evolutionists.” (11)

“His belief in the role of government in changing the environment and promoting reform led historian Henry Steele Commager to describe Ward as the “philosophical architect” of the modern welfare state.” (12)

Ward is best remembered for his pioneering work in sociology. Between 1883 and his death in 1913, he completed several important works including Dynamic Sociology (1883), Outlines of Sociology (1898), Pure Sociology (1903), and Applied Sociology (1906).

Ward, Lester Frank; father of the Welfare State;

Lester Frank Ward

Giddings, Franklin Henry; founder of sociology;

Franklin Henry Giddings was the son of a very prominent Congregational reverend, a professor of Political Science at Bryn Mawr College beginning in 1888 and would leave to become the chair of Sociology at Columbia University in 1894. Also considered a founder of sociology, Giddings wrote, The Principles of Sociology (1896), The Theory of Socialization (1897), The Elements of Sociology (1898). He was the president of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, a member of the Century Club, the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, the vice president of the American Economic Association (1896-1897). and founder of ASS.

“The following men were elected officers of the new society: Lester Ward (President), William Sumner (First Vice President), Franklin Giddings (Second Vice President), C.W.A. Veditz (Secretary and Treasurer). Council members were: E. A. Ross, W.F. Wilcox, Albion Small, Samuel Lindsay, D. C. Wells, and William Davenport.

When they left Baltimore, the birth of the American Sociological Society was complete, a Constitution had been adopted, officers were elected, and plans were made for the second Annual Meeting of the new Society.” ASA website, History of the American Sociological Association.

City of Courts pg. 105; Roscoe Pound photo; founder of sociological jurisprudence;

Together, Ward, Small, Howard, Ross, and Pound established sociology as a legit science and set the future course for both sociology and sociological jurisprudence in America for the rest of the Twentieth Century.

Other interesting past presidents of ASS include George Edgar Vincent, 1916. Vincent was the president of the Chautauqua Institution funded by Rockefeller and cowriter with Albion W. Small, of, An Introduction to the Study of Society. Other past presidents include the two main contributors to the Princeton Radio Research Project and the famous Invasion from Mars, War of the Worlds broadcast, Robert K Merton (Meyer Robert Schkolnick), Paul Felix Lazarsfeld. These two were also funded heavily in their work by the Rockefeller Foundation.

Lazarsfeld and Merton famously wrote Mass Communication: Popular Taste and Organized Social Action in 1948, and are the very coiners of the term ‘narcotizing dysfunction’, and the ‘One and Two Step Flow of Communication Models’. For obvious reasons, the society changed its name to the American Sociological Association (ASA), and today remains very relevant publishing over a dozen sociology journals and magazines.

“The mass media prove most effective when they operate in a situation of virtual “psychological monopoly,” or when the objective is one of canalizing rather than modifying basic attitudes or when they operate in conjunction with face-to-face contacts … But these three conditions are rarely satisfied conjointly in propaganda for social objectives. To the degree that monopolization of attention is rare, opposing propagandas have free play in a democracy …Finally, for the most obvious of reasons, the close collaboration of mass media and locally organized centers for face-to-face con tact has seldom been achieved in groups striving for planned social change. Such programs are expensive … in view of the present organization of business ownership and control of the mass media, they have served to cement the structure of our society. Organized business does approach a virtual “psychological monopoly” of the mass media … Face-to-face contacts with those who have been socialized in our culture serve primarily to reinforce the prevailing culture patterns. Thus the very conditions which make for the maximum effectiveness of the mass media of communication operate toward the maintenance of the going social and cultural structure.” pg. 248,249, Mass Communication: Popular Taste and Organized Social Action.

canalize: too convey something through a channel or duct; “a narrow straight can so canalyze the tide that a powerful current is developed”. Television the ultimate in persuasive social machinery in that it combines, written word, spoken word, music, and motion picture all into the most dangerously potent form of propaganda on the planet.

By introducing the West to sociology, Ross, Small, Howard, were following a similar pattern observed when researching the parallel creations of psychology, psychiatry, and philosophy departments that helped establish the Association of American Universities. Our Western K-12 education system too, adopted directly from Prussian PhD system. People become cogs in the wheel of something bigger turning. The founders of sociology establishing the two main pillars of propaganda (institution and information), by being the first to establish brick and mortar research departments with their own faculty and authoring the foundational literature necessary for the propagation of a burgeoning soft science. We see the inner workings of Manifest Destiny. The chart below, A Chart Designed to Show the Distribution of Functions at Various Stages of Social Organization speaks like the blueprint for the Seven Functions of Society so important to the Changing Images of Man Study at Stanford Research Institute published one hundred years later. The development of the individual within society being driven by his basic values to act according to the stimulus applied by way of feedback loop some forty years before Norbert Weiner’s famous discovery and the onset of the cybernetic age. Subtly and slowly steering our interests away from the natural agrarian farm life to that of a stainless steel metropolitan, or more accurately, cosmopolitan, lifestyle.

“The functional many-sidedness of the primary social combination, the family, is of great significance … the family displays in microcosm all the activities of the village, city, or nation. This is not to be construed into an assertion that the nation is merely a larger structure of the family type, or that modem government corresponds to parental authority … In conditions generally recognized as normal, propagation is exclusively a function of the family, which therefore serves as a connecting link between physical life and that of the social organism. It is the peculiar service of the family to produce the new individuals who take the places of those that perish … In order that a society may attain a high degree of organization and stability, it is necessary that its individual members should be brought into orderly relations with the land …. The functions exclusively or largely performed by the family are : (a) propagation, (b) location or settlement, (c) defense, (d) production, (e) apportionment and transmission, (f) communication, (g) intellectual training, (h) socialization. All these activities combine in the one general function of preserving the physical and psychical continuity of society.” pg. 250, The Study of Society, An Introduction, Albion Woodbury Small.

Footnotes:

pg. 594 Harvard Law Review, Vol. XXIV, No. 8. June 1911, The Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence.
pg. 76, Brandeis: A Life, Urofsky,
https://hls.harvard.edu/today/celebrating-louis-d-brandeis/
Brandeis personal letter to Felix Warburg Esq., Treasurer, American Jewish Relief Committee, July 21, 1916.
Pg 414, 415, Gould’s History of Freemasonry Throughout the World, Volume 5, 1936, 1st Volume.
pg. 39, Publications of the American Sociological Society, Theory of Social Interests, Roscoe Pound.
Pg 177, Human Organization, Law and Social Engineering, Adam Podgorecki, University of Poland; Human Organization is the journal of the Society for Applied Anthropology.
Pg 6, Roscoe Pound and Academic Community on the Great Plains: The Interactional Origins of American Sociological Jurisprudence at the University of Nebraska, 1900-1907, Michael R. Hill(1991).
Pg 8, Roscoe Pound and Academic Community on the Great Plains: The Interactional Origins of American Sociological Jurisprudence at the University of Nebraska, 1900-1907, Michael R. Hill (1991).
Pg. 2, Regional Differences in the Treatment of Karl Marx by the Founders of American Academic Sociology, Rich Alan Wallace.
Pg. 45 Regional Differences in the Treatment of Karl Marx by the Founders of American Academic Sociology, Rich Alan Wallace.
Rhode Island Heritage Hall of Fame; https://riheritagehalloffame.com/Lester-Ward/

Brandeis Part 5: Industrial Democracy and the Protocol of Peace

by Diego Garcia | Feb 20, 2024 | Uncategorized

“Sidney Webb is often represented as a descendent of the utilitarians. Social democracy and the welfare state thus stand as the continuing development of Enlightenment rationalism. Alternatively, Webb appears as the representative of a new managerial and administrative class. Social democracy and the welfare state here stand as the elitist and bureaucratic expressions of the power of this class.” Abstract, Sidney Webb: Utilitarianism, Positivism, and Social Democracy, Mark Bevir. Bevir is Director of the Center for British Studies, and professor in the Department of Political Science, University of California at Berkeley.

It was through his early legislative career as ‘the people’s lawyer’ that Louis D. Brandeis established much of what he even called himself an industrial democracy. From even before his earliest precedent-setting cases working with the National Consumer’s League in 1906, we see an early career obsessed with labor law adopted directly from Sidney and Beatrice Webb’s famous book, Industrial Democracy (1897). The purpose of this paper is to first map out for the reader, the important personal connections between Brandeis and the Fabian bred idea of industrial democracy, and then secondly, show how Brandeis used the Fabian method of Industrial Democracy: trade unionism, collective bargaining, combined with labour relations and scientific management, to impose lasting socialism and even fascism in America as early as 1912.

First and foremost, both Brandeis and the Webb’s held an identical appreciation for trade unionism and collective bargaining, while Brandeis was the great American practitioner, Beatrice Webb coined the term, ‘collective bargaining’, and they both looked to the union labour leader as a necessary expert, placed deliberately between labour and capital, as a spokesperson for the worker. This introduction of small arbitration boards or councils to settle labour grievances is a common pattern evident in both the work of Brandeis and the Webbs. Secondly, both Brandeis and the Fabians shared an important common friend, Walter Lippmann, who wrote of “intelligence bureaus” led by expert “entering wedges” in his famous, Public Opinion. Lippmann both a founding American Progressive and Fabian Society member, was very close friends with Brandeis and Graham Wallas, another famous founding Fabian. Wallas actually dedicates his most famous book, The Great Society to Lippmann. And Brandeis is a very much honoured guest at Lippmann’s own political salon, the House of Truth. Both the Fabians and Progressives knew it was far easier to manipulate an arbitration board, with its few members, than it was to manipulate or attempt to leverage the thousands, or even millions of independent workers. They were able to shift or commandeer the nature of labour dispute by introducing collective bargaining, placing debate into a framework they could more easily manipulate almost always in the favour of the factory owner.

“Collective bargaining, a term and idea the Webbs pioneered, was therefore central to industrial democracy. These trade agreements would, in the best of all possible worlds, have the status of law because they would have government sanction as legally enforceable contracts. Ultimately, the Webbs believed that unions would bargain directly with the state in industry-wide agreements, thereby ensuring the betterment of society as awhole.” Triangle Shirt Waist Fire, the Protocols of Peace, and Industrial Democracy in Progressive Era New York, Richard A. Greenwald.

As Mark Bevin states above in the introductory quote, from times long predating both Brandeis and Webb, men have attempted to resolve the human condition through experimental social reform. A century prior to Brandeis and Webb for example, Robert Owen and the early 19th century cooperative movements were foundational to Henri de Saint Simon, Auguste Comte and the rise of utopian socialism of the mid 19th century in France. The more modern, Fabian led ethical socialist movement of the early 20th century a direct outgrowth of Robert Owen and those same utopians. In fact, when we fully trace back-to-source the modern ideas found within the Webbs’ very socially pivotal Industrial Democracy we see, as Bevin does, a continuity of thought of deeper historical importance and value, as all of these men, Brandeis and the Webbs included, find brotherhood with the even earlier utilitarian philosophy of 17th and 18th century thinkers like Jeremy Bentham and David Hume. To be of good utility for society and to always be mindful of the ‘greater good’ as suggested by Bentham.

“even those who regard our facts as accurate, and accept our economic theory as scientific, will only agree in our judgment of Trade Unionism, and in our conception of its permanent but limited function in the Industrial Democracy of the future.” ix, Preface, Industrial Democracy, Sidney and Beatrice Webb.“

“He [Brandeis] spoke before citizen’s groups and legislative bodies, wrote articles for popular magazines, put his ideas about industrial democracy in the briefs he submitted as a lawyer and later in the opinions he wrote as a Supreme Court justice (1916-1938), and advised presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.” KU Scholar Works, Kansas University.

Conventional history places George Bernard Shaw as a prominent playwright, political activist and social critic but few will mention his membership as founder of the Fabian Society, and even fewer will tell you of his most deepest wishes:

“There is an extraordinary number of people of whom I want to kill.”

It is critical to know here, and certainly worth the digression, that by being identified as descendants of the utilitarians, both Brandeis and the Webb’s are immediately associated with the thoughts of Jeremy Bentham, “the father of utilitarianism” – or the pragmatic determining of correct action by focusing on ‘hedonic’ outcomes (pleasure versus pain), for the greater good. Like neoliberal movements who today preach of ‘the greater good’ and social justice outcomes, with very little thought as to where the philosophy originated. A slight but profound shifting of the goalposts from ‘equality of opportunity’ to ‘equality of outcome’. Two very different approaches to social theory, one concerned with the beginning, one concerned with the end result. Here again we see the pragmatic approach of ends justifying the means.

According to Bentham and the utilitarians, the best public utility – the ultimate ends to which any individual within the State could pursue – is that which brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. An end all-of-a-sudden starting to sound a lot more like the future perfect promise of the utopian and ethical socialist crowd, or the expansionist manufactory owner, or the labour union leader, or the modern day head of Pfizer.

Certainly the subservience of the individual was what was being instituted, an industrial democracy directly contradictory to the idea of personal sovereignty. The scientific management of the human being now revealing a longview worth consideration.

Auguste Comte is widely considered the first philosopher of science, the father of social science, or sociology, and founder of modern positivism. Positivism a great rejection of all ideas that aren’t gathered through experience. Intuition, introspection considered meaningless through the positivist verification principle. Intuition, or the collective perception of all your senses formed into a gut feeling are no longer accepted. These personally empowering ideas “burned as if sophistry”, our ability to consider or contemplate reality using our own faculties. No longer acceptable is the ability to look within ourselves for answers, to evaluate our own spirit and soul. This rejection of anything outside the realm of acceptable sources sounding a lot like today’s claims of fake news and this blind belief in the scientific expert, or the belief that only the opinions of those experienced in whatever matter being discussed should be considered. At it’s very basis, it amounts to nothing more than an appeal to authority or the argumentum ad auctoritatum. A logical fallacy. We see reality being built on a knowable, observable, and provable lie. Walter Lippmann’s “pseudo-environment”. The result, a blissfully ignorant population of television watchers who trust the science, advocate for radical social reform, and support military intervention around the world.

“In the Anglo-Saxon world of to-day we find that Trade Unions are democracies: that is to say, their internal constitutions are all based on the principle of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Pg. v, vi, Preface, Industrial Democracy.

Sidney and Beatrice Webb wrote in their ‘scientific’ analysis of British industrial relations, The History of Trade Unionism in 1894, that “sociology, like all other sciences, can advance only upon the basis of a precise observation of actual facts.”

“For the Webbs and their American counterparts, ‘the professional expert, whether civil servant or representative, was of decisive importance’ in bringing about industrial democracy. Americans quickly noticed the idea, as it appealed to their newly found sense of rational or objective science as a means to solve social and economic problems. American adherents to industrial democracy, including future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, saw in it a vehicle to rationalize American industry within a democratic framework.” Pg. 11, Triangle Shirt Waist, Richard A. Greenwald.

“Many American progressives were keenly aware of European experiences with labor problems. They studied Europe for guidance or a model. Industrial democracy, one such import, is most often associated with Sidney and Beatrice Webb and their circle of British Fabian socialists. The Webbs, in their seminal 1897 book Industrial Democracy, called for a reinvigorated democracy, one where unions played a central role. For the Webbs, modern capitalist industry had put an undue strain on democratic society. Unions could bring democracy to industry because they were (or at least could be) representational bodies for workers. As democratic institutions themselves, they offered the best hope of bringing democracy to industry by providing a countermeasure to unchecked industry.” Pg. 10, Triangle Shirt Waist.

Brandeis was very familiar with the work of the Fabian Society since as early as the Haymarket Affair on May 4, 1886. His close friends at the House of Truth included Fabian Society members, the aforementioned Walter Lippmann, and Harold Laski. Laski a very well known Marxist lecturer at Harvard and Yale, and professor at the Webb founded, London School of Economics (1926-1950). Laski also associated closely with The New School for Social Research before it was the New University at Columbia, and a devout supporter of Zionism who cultivated close relationships with many Progressive founders: Lippmann, Brandeis, Frankfurter, Charles Beard, serving as a conduit between American and British social reformers. A marriage of Cultural Marxism and Progressivism.

Lippmann close, personal friends with another Fabian founder, Graham Wallas. Wallas dedicating his, The Great Society to Lippmann in 1914. The Great Society and Industrial Democracy here being nearly synonymous sharing the opinion that society had grown too complex and the only answer was the scientific expert. Brandeis chose industrial democracy as the future model of America and then manifested it into reality through his nearly omniscient authority in the legislative, executive, and eventually, the judiciary branches of the US government.

Fabian Society Lippmann Wallas Laski 1920

From the top: Walter Lippmann, Graham Wallas, unknown woman, Harold Laski sitting under a tree.

A young Sidney Webb. Founder of the Fabian Society and London School of Economics. Funder of the National Consumers League.

Sidney and Beatrice ‘bone rack’ Webb, authors of Industrial Democracy, 1897.

greatsocietypsyc00walluoft_0009; Lippmann; highighted;

The famous Fabian Society stained glass window known as the Shaw Window created by George Bernard Shaw himself. It depicts, in the upper half, left to right, Fabian founders, Edward R. Pease stoking while Sidney Webb and George Bernard Shaw remould the world “nearer to the hearts desire” with alternating sledgehammer blows upon an anvil. In the lower half, we see their books, The History of Trade Unionism, Industrial Democracy, and Minority Report, serving as the base of their prayers. left to right: H. G. Wells, Charles Charrington, Aylmer Maude, G.R. Sterling Taylor, F. Lawson Dodd, Maud Pender Reeves, Mary Hankinson, Mabel Atkinson, Lilian Augustus Dawson, Caroline Townshend (maker of window). The H.G. Wells authored, New World for Old also shown being read by G.R. Sterling Taylor.

So, now that we’ve made a substantial enough connection between Progressive Brandeis and the Fabians, how exactly did Brandeis institute industrial democracy in the United States. Brandeis made himself the chairman of the Arbitration Board of all grievances along with two expert assistants, Walter Weyl and Hamilton Holt. Weyl the author of, The New Democracy (1913), fellow founder of the New Republic progressive magazine, and resident of the House of Truth. A look through the minutes shows Brandeis very much the star witness, or the headliner of the entire proceedings. The last to speak after a role call of progressive efficiency experts. The owner of the House of Truth and primary inventor of industrial relations, Robert Grosvenor Valentine testifies, as does all of Brandeis’ Taylor Society friends: Frederick Winslow Taylor(founder of scientific management), Henry L. Gantt, Carl G. Barth, and Harrington Emerson. As we know from Brandeis Part 2: Scientific Management, every single one of these men already under the control of Brandeis. Below are important excerpts taken from Brandeis testimony:

“If they should fail to agree, then there was recourse to this board of arbitration with Mr. Brandeis as chairman.

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN. Who were the others?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Hamilton Holt and Mr. Walter Weyl of New York.

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN. Not in the industry?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No; I think they were all outside of the industry … I am told that the board of grievances – the commission – did not dispose of the cases fast enough, and it was charged, on the part of the union, that they were allowed to accumulate … and the union became more and more dissatisfied; they demanded there be an umpire, that there should be somebody to cast the deciding vote on that board. That led to a fierce controversy in which several good men went down, and it very nearly ruptured the protocol and cause a general strike; … it was then changed to this plan that I have suggested, and the employers consented to have an impartial man, but with this change, that instead of this impartial man being at the head of the board of grievances that he was only to be one of three, and two clerks and himself, who should act as this committee, so that the board of grievances becomes a consultative body now and is now in active use for the adjustment of grievances.”

So we have Brandeis acting chairman with two clerks having complete say in all grievances nationwide. Not members of the industry but labor experts. And one of the experts is Yale graduate and Columbia social scientist Hamilton Holt. Holt editor of the ‘liberal’ magazine, The Independent, and on the executive committee of William Howard Taft’s, the League to Enforce Peace. Holt a founder of the NAACP, along with: Zionist, Stephen Wise, muckraker’s Lincoln Steffens, Ray Stannard Baker, women’s activists Jane Addams and Florence Kelley, all founders of the NAACP. Frankfurter giving decades of counsel to the NAACP as a member of its National Legal Committee. The NAACP founded in 1910, the same year as the Protocol of Peace. Here it is important to note the same cast of characters unveiled in our two part, Future Perfect articles and throughout our Rise of the Expert series are never more than one degree separated from Brandeis. We see nearly the same list of people who later founded the League of Nations (the precursor to the UN) as are here legislating labour (1908-1916).

Walter Weyl an intellectual leader of the Progressive Era, and as a resident of the House of Truth and fellow founder of the New Republic magazine, a close confidente of Louis D. Brandeis. Weyl acting as Brandeis’ clerk here showing just how close they were.

The Testimony of Mr. Louis D. Brandeis:

“Mr. CHAIRMAN, my special interest in this subject arises from a conviction that in the first place the workingmen, and in the second the members of the community generally, can attain the ideals of our American democracy only through an immediate increase and perhaps a constant increase in the productivity of man …. when that introduction of a method of increasing the productivity of man was made labor did not get the share to which it was entitled. With the advent of the new science of management has come the next great opportunity for increasing labor’s share in production; and it seems to me, therefore, of the utmost importance not only that the science should be developed and should be applied as far as possible, but that it should be applied in cooperation with the representatives of organized labor in order that labor may now in this new movement get its proper share.” Pg. 991, Efficiency Systems and Labor, Commission on Industrial Relations.

You can see the making of the social contract built right in Brandeis’ testimony:

“science of management is nothing more than an organized effort, pursued intensively, to eliminate waste … it is absolutely essential that the unions be represented in the process … In the next place – the first bears, of course, upon the adopting of what is the standard – but the next thing comes in applying some matter, some incentive, as you may call it, or a reward of a fair division of the profits resulting from the introduction of the new system. Now what is fair? What is the amount which ought to go to labor is a subject which can not be determined by any scientific investigation.”

“It is a matter for the exercise of judgment, judgment as to what not only shall be the best and the proper incentive but judgment as to what is just, what is consistent with the interests of the community, all of the conditions which surround introduction, and all of the conditions which concern the pursuit of business under these new conditions, just as those concern the conduct of business under the old conditions, demand that labor should have its representatives in the solution of these problems.”

Now we see Brandeis talking in the exact same manner as Webb, advocating for trade unionism, expert guiding hands. And summoning George Bernard Shaw as ‘eliminating waste’ can have more than one meaning in much the same way ‘ameliorating the poor and needy’ can.

Seems strange that these social science engineers, despite advocating scientific management as the solution for every problem of labor and capital, when faced with solving the question of fair compensation for labour, it becomes all-of-a-sudden a problem that, “can not be determined by any scientific investigation”. All of a sudden, all the science in the world couldn’t be trusted to find an equitable division of profit as easily as it had, or as readily as it was being used by capital to increase the productivity of the labourer and nearly everything else? No, it would be judgment of some single authority that would determine how much the worker would partake in the profit in labor and leisure. And upon who’s judgment were they to rely, if not the workers?

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Brandeis, I would like to ask whether in your study of this subject you have placed or fixed any time at which labor should cooperate with the employer as to the setting of a time standard and the initiation of a standard?

Mr. BRANDEIS. Yes – all the time … It seems to me it should begin at the time when the plans are being made to introduce the system.

Mr. THOMPSON. Some of the advocates of scientific management, Mr. Brandeis, who have appeared here as witnesses before the commission, while agreeing to the proposition that it would perhaps be beneficial for labor to cooperate or have a voice in cooperating with the employer in the running of the system, felt that at the introduction there should be no cooperation ; that there is so much difficulty in the selection of the system and in the installation of it, that the added element of labor would make it impossible. Do you so conceive it?

Mr. BRANDEIS. I should say quite the contrary. It seems to me that the elements of difficulty in introduction are largely due to the fact that there is hostility to the introduction, and that if organized labor or the representatives of labor should welcome and cooperate in the introduction a greater part of these difficulties would be removed … The whole of the work, it seems to me, would be greatly aided by a spirit of helpfulness instead of the reverse.” Pg. 992, 993, Report of Commission on Industrial Relations.

Mr. ROSENBERG – … the agreement says explicitly there shall be no strikes and lockout, and possibly during that time we had a few misunderstandings with shops which did not call strikes, but a stoppage of work; but those stoppages of work have never been ordered by the union or by any official of the union … those stoppages of work have always been ended by the union, as far as my knowledge goes. Of course, in many cases stoppages are avoided for more than an hour or two. To my memory we had only serious stoppages of work where the union had all sorts of trouble before sending the people back to work, in possibly half a dozen shops; those stoppages in half a dozen shops lasted for a day, or possibly two days, or say a week. Even in the independent shops — with those shops we do not have any individual agreement with — we have very few strikes, because the union, as well as the employers, are always trying to get together on some basis to prevent strikes. In other words, as far as strikes are concerned, I believe for the last three years and a half they have been out of existence.

The CHAIRMAN. What has been the result of your adjustment of grievances under this protocol?

Mr. ROSENBERG. We will come to that … For the first couple of months we had no machinery, and we did not know how to set about it. The protocol provided for a board of grievances; the board of grievances was composed of 5 representatives of the union and 5 representatives of the manufacturers’ association; those 10 people used to come together whenever there was any grievance, and we tried to adjust them in the best way we knew how and with the best machinery we had at our disposal. On many occasions, when it was necessary to make an investigation, the board of grievances used to employ one representative of the employers and one representative of the union, and those two used to go up to the shop and investigate, and if they could adjust they did adjust it, and if they could not they brought it to the grievance board, to the board of the grievance committee, and the grievance board acted on the merits of the case, and some decision was made somewhere. But that arrangement was not satisfactory. The board of grievances offhand could not handle so many cases as they had on hand, so there was a whole lot of friction and trouble in the shops, and we finally called upon the board of arbitration to devise ways and means how to adjust grievances in the future quicker than they had been doing, and the board of arbitration got together.

Mr. ROSENBERG … the board of arbitration decided to establish a system of clerks, deputy clerks, and whenever each side should have a sufficient number of complaints, one clerk and one general clerk — the general clerk should appoint the number of deputy clerks, as many as the occasion required; and so they did. That was understood — that whenever the two clerks, one clerk representing the association and the other clerk representing the union, go upon a case and make an investigation, if those two clerks agreed upon some proposition how this case should be disposed of, it is final, and each side must obey the order of the clerks — the manufacturer as well as the union must obey the order of the clerks.

But whenever those two deputy clerks disagreed and could not come to a conclusion, then it was submitted to chief clerks on each side ; each side has a so-called chief clerk — the manufacturers’ association employed one and the union employed one … But whenever those two chief clerks disagreed on a case, then it was brought before the board of grievances, and the board of grievances, sitting as a court, used to hear the case; and whenever necessary they called witnesses to testify, and it was the custom that each side had an equal number of members on that grievance committee, so it required one of each side to decide the case one way or the other; for instance, if the union had a complaint against a certain manufacturer, it required one manufacturer to vote with us; and, on the other hand, whenever the manufacturers brought up one…

The Protocol of Peace

“Industrial Democracy provides an important lens through which to view IR [Industrial Relations], during the Progressive Era. Industrial democracy was one of the handful of ideas that defined Progressive Era reformers. It signaled a new scientific approach to labor in America as well as a fundamental recommitment to democratic principles.” pg. 23, Triangle Shirtwaist, the Protocols of Peace, and Industrial Democracy in Progressive Era New York, Richard A. Greenwald.

“It was the purpose of the Protocol to introduce into the relations of the employer and the employee a whole new element; that is the element of industrial democracy.” Louis Brandeis.

Brandeis was foremost among all in the creation of the Protocol of Peace and it was largely through his efforts that the strike was ended on September 2, 1910. The Protocol provided legislation for a 50 hour, 6 day work week, 10 paid legal holidays a year, time-and-a-half for overtime, an increase in the minimum wage, a regular and prompt cash pay-day, all in shop subcontracting abolished, but most importantly, the agreement was the official acceptance of the union shop. The Protocol stipulated, “Each member of the Manufacturers is to maintain a union shop”, and when hiring, “union men are preferred”, and health care only for union men, “the Manufacturers declare their belief in the Union”. The union as the scientific expert, an absolute necessity for the future international system they would begin constructing a mere two years later under Woodrow Wilson. The alignment first of America, to be compatible to the future international model a must. But that story concludes this series, so much more on that later.

One notes how the Protocol is “an arrangement entered into” between the “CLOAK, SUIT AND SKIRT MANUFACTURERS’ PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, hereinafter called the Manufacturer”, and the “INTERNATIONAL LADIES’ GARMENT WORKERS’ UNION.” The workers here not named, only their representative, the union. Note the lack of presence throughout the entire process of the actual worker. The entire system built upon the back of labour yet where is his voice being heard? Certainly not in the testimony of Brandeis or his industrial friends.

Brandeis named chairman of the Arbitration Board to enforce the Protocol, Brandeis, holding the tiebreaker, having final say in all grievance settlements.

New York Times, September 3, 1910:

CLOAK STRIKE ENDS; AGREEMENT SIGNED; Men Win All Their Demands Except That for the “Closed Shop.” “The strike of 70,000 cloakmakers which began early in last July ended yesterday with the acceptance by both the strikers and the employers of a peace protocol, based principally upon the agreement suggested by Louis D. Brandeis of Boston in the last days of July, when he conducted a series of conferences between employers and strikers.”

“SCHIFF COMMITTEE STOPS LABOR WAR; Cloak Manufacturers Agree to Its Proposal to Arbitrate Differences with union. SETTLEMENT NOW IN SIGHT 50,000 Workers Were Ready to Strike – Brandeis or Mayor Mitchel May Head Board.” July 3, 1915

“In New York City’s garment industry, reformers found what was arguably the nation’s most primitive industry. Cutthroat competition, layers of subcontracting, and a poorly paid mass of immigrant workers, among other things, locked garment manufacturing in a nineteenth century production model. It therefore offered a perfect laboratory for people such as Louis Brandeis. The ladies’ garment industry had an established, but weak, new union. It had a core of willing industrial democrats within the industry led by Julius Henry Cohen, a noted corporate lawyer. The result, Brandeis’s creation, the Protocol of Peace, was one of the most significant labor-management cooperation schemes of the Pre-New Deal Era. So impressive was the Protocol that when the Wilson Administration created the U.S. Commission on Industrial Relations in 1913, Brandeis was the president’s first choice to chair it. New York also was the site of the terrible Triangle Factory Fire of March 25, 1911, when 146 mainly young, immigrant women garment workers died. The fire sparked a reform effort that in four years remade New York into the model of a progressive state.” pg. 14, Triangle Shirt Waist.

“Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Brandeis, some of the representatives of organized labor who have appeared here to testify have concurred in the idea of scientific management which you have elaborated. That is to say, if by studies and by analysis and selection better methods for doing the work could be brought about which would be beneficial to the community and to the worker as well as to the employer, it was a good thing. But they have objected to the stopwatch method of making time studies. People who have represented systems, such as Mr. Taylor and others, have said that the stop-watch method of making time studies is one of the first laws of scientific management. In your opinion, what reasonable objection can there be to the introduction of the stop-watch method of making time studies?

Mr. BRANDEIS. It seems to me there can be no objection except the one as to the way in which it is introduced … But if it is done in the right way, the stop watch can not, it seems to me, be objected to by labor, because it is the greatest possible protection to labor … What labor has suffered from in the past and is constantly suffering from now is the ignoring of facts … There is nothing, as I view it, in the situation, the whole social industrial structure, that labor wants so much as knowledge. It wants not only to know itself but it wants others to know it ; and any means that may be adopted, whether it be the stop watch or the photograph or any other means, that could absolutely establish the fact as to what is being done, how long it takes to do it, what the unit is of doing the particular thing — all those are in the interest of labor, because they are in the interest of truth.”

Mr. THOMPSON. In your study of this subject have you considered ways and means? In other words, have you considered the kind of machinery that might be used in the cooperation of the employer and employee in putting into operation their joint cooperation in the introduction of this system?

Mr. BRANDEIS. Not machinery — and I doubt very much whether there is any machinery, except the tactful and sympathetic man, some one’ who realizes, in the first place, that the greatest gain we are to get from scientific management is advancing the interests of the workingman, and who, recognizing that as a fact, has the tact to bring the workingman and his employer together in the adoption of the means by which the various steps should be taken.

Mr. THOMPSON. Have you considered whether or not it is feasible at the beginning for a representative of the workers and the firm to have a joint voice in the selection of the expert who shall install a system, or would that be impracticable?

Mr. BRANDEIS. Certainly.

Mr. THOMPSON. In such a selection, Mr. Brandeis, of the kind of man you mention, a tactful, diplomatic man, he would then be in a sense the instrument or medium by which this principle of cooperation in scientific management might be brought about?

Mr. BRANDEIS. Certainly.

The following, a conversation between the chairman, Frank Walsh and Mr. A Rosenberg.

Testimony of Mr. Rosenberg, New York City, January 15, 1914, Volume 2.

The CHAIRMAN. How has it [the protocol of peace] affected the shop’s work?

Mr. ROSENBERG. After the signing of the protocol?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, compared with what it was before?

“The father of the Protocol, Louis Brandeis came to the labor question in 1892. It was then that the young MIT law professor, fresh from Harvard Law School, was transformed by the violence of the Homestead Strike at the Carnegie Steelworks in Pennsylvania. “It was the affair at Homestead,” Brandeis later recalled, “which first set me to thinking seriously about the labor problem …. It took the shock of battle … to turn my mind definitely toward a searching study of the relations of labor to industry” pg. 16, Triangle Shirt Waist.

“In 1910, while New York was in the heat of the second in a series of general strikes in the garment industry, Brandeis came to the city to bring labor and management together in a novel agreement that became known as the Protocol of Peace.” Pg. 16, Triangle Shirt Waist.

“They decided that if ‘a big man’ made a call for a settlement conference, and if the union and Cohen could set certain preconditions, talks could begin. It was clear to all concerned that they meant a big Jewish man. Both sides were concerned that ‘their’ matters be settled within their community. They did not want an outsider meddling in their affairs. In a July 21 letter to Louis Brandeis, Bloomfield explained how he laid the foundations for talks:

‘there was only one open door – to take a big man like Brandeis and empower him … to confer with both sides and draw up a fair basis of negotiations. Both responded heartily and suggested that I invite Mr. B. and come with him for a private talk’ … That initial meeting set in motion a process that eventually led to the Protocol. On July 22, Brandeis left for New York, taking with him a draft of a proposed labor agreement … After a preliminary meeting between the principal negotiators, Meyer London, noted socialist lawyer who advised the union, and Cohen, a later conference was scheduled with Brandeis as chair. At this first meeting were ten representatives from each side plus Brandeis and his staff. In writing about this meeting, McClure’s Magazine’s Edith Wyatt was struck by similarities on both sides. Both groups were almost identical. They were overwhelmingly Jewish. The union delegation included middle-aged unionists, radical workers, East Side intellectuals, and socialists. And, so did the management group. The mood at that first meeting was hopeful, according to McClure’s. Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), who was an observer at the first meeting was so confident that he returned to Washington on the 29th, telling the New York Times he was sure “that the garment workers’ strike would be settled speedily.” Brandeis set the mood for the conference. He told the twenty men assembled that they were witnessing an important moment in history, the birth of a new system of industrial relations. They would help shape the future:

“Gentlemen,” Brandeis stated “we have come together in a matter which we must all recognize is very serious, and an important business, not only to settle this strike, but to create a relation which will prevent similar strikes in the future. That work is one which it seems to me is approached in a spirit which makes the situation a very hopeful one and I am sure from my conferences with council of both parties, and with individual members whom they represent, that those who are here are all here with that desire. It seems to me … that aid could be effectively and properly given by providing that the manufacturers should, in the employment of labor hereafter, give the preference to union men, where the union men are equal in efficiency to any non-union applicants …” Brandeis opening remarks, Mason, 1946, pp 296, 297.

In summary, we see Brandeis advocating the setting of time standards, employing Robert Grosvenor Valentine’s groundbreaking approach to industrial relations in camouflaging their true intentions in the subtlety of their delivery, or how it was presented to the worker. Valentine saying it far easier to persuade the worker when speaking of the advantages due him, not the advantages to be enjoyed by the manufacturer. Brandeis sounding very much like Mr. Jones, the middle manager persuading the slaves back to the plantation, advocating on moral grounds the advantages the labourer has in not only knowing himself but using time-study standards as a protection. Brandeis then blaming the difficulty in establishing a slave labour system on “hostility” from labour itself, blaming the worker for not having a “spirit of cooperation” and “helpfulness” in embracing their own servitude.

Note also how the representatives are chosen for either side in this new system, one for the manufacturer, one for the union. Nothing for the labourer. Despite the entire concept of industrial democracy being based on cooperation, we see their idea of cooperation involves submission of one party by the other two. This slight altering of perspective all the toe-hold the Progressive vampires needed, Brandeis, Holt, and Weyl, holding ultimate authority had become the “entering wedge” experts of a national arbitration board. And manufacture’s relationship with the union, built on a common interest in scientific management, now allows the exploitation of the labourer and, if there was any doubt, that is exactly what we’ve seen play out over the 20th century. The labourer was to have no say early and it appears he isn’t getting one late. In the time since, wages, or more importantly the buying power of the working class, and our leisure time, have diminished significantly or remained stagnant when an increase of both was promised through scientific management. Today, decent people from decent backgrounds now need more than one job to make ends meet, and despite several more major advances in productivity throughout the century, the working class is far worse off now than then.

For over one hundred years the labour union leader has existed, “a tactful, diplomatic man …. an instrument or medium by which this principle of cooperation in scientific management might be brought about”. With the application of scientific management, labour relations, trade unionism, collective bargaining, the union leader, and the standardizing of the factory floor Brandeis wasn’t establishing his industrial democracy to liberate the American worker from his dreadful human condition, Brandeis was very clearly authoring the blueprint for a new, progressive national policy of industry centered on war production. The Women’s Garment Strikes of 1910-11, resulted in nationwide regulatory changes in labour relations, while Brandeis’ other cases standardized interstate commerce, regulated competition, and streamlined the railroad. With part five now in the rearview mirror, it sure looks as though Brandeis was laying the necessary groundwork for an efficient and patriotic American workforce to build war machines, artillery and materiel for a coming world war some four years before British entry and six years before American involvement. In any event, Louis D. Brandeis’ scope of work now getting larger in several surprising ways and maybe the reader now is beginning to see why we say Louis D. Brandeis is the maker of our modern day social contract.

Brandeis Part 4: Dispensationalism and the Social Gospel

by Diego Garcia | Feb 13, 2024 | Uncategorized

“Socialism offered not only a radical critique of American political and economic institutions; it also offered the seal, symbols, and sense of participation in a world-transforming cause often associated with Christianity itself.” The Social Gospel and Socialism: A Comparison of the Thought of Francis Greenwood Peabody, Washington Gladden, and Walter Rauschenbusch, by Jacob H. Dorn (1)

Blackstone and the Dispensationalists

William Eugene Blackstone was a very well-known evangelical minister of his day and is considered a founder of dispensationalism. Along with John Nelson Darby, James Inglis, James Hall Brookes, Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, and Dwight D. Moody.

Christian Dispensationalism, simply put, is a literal interpretation of the Bible, dispensationalists preach of an approaching cataclysmic global event as described in the Book of Revelations.

This group of men, more than any other, popularized the biblical stories of the tribulation, the rapture, millennialism, otherwise broadly known as the second coming of Christ. More important to this story, dispensationalists were also greatly influential in the promotion and eventual creation of a Jewish national homeland in Palestine in 1917. Christian dispensationalism recognizing the rightful return of God’s chosen people to Israel.

“And I [God] will make of thee [Israelites] a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee all families of earth be blessed.” – Scofield Bible, Genesis 12:2,3.

These biblical concepts, much to our surprise weren’t established tens of thousands of years ago, but a little more than a century ago. These men were instrumental in spreading the gospel of a future end times where world wars and social upheavals would lead to a new world order, a new kingdom of God, or a new heaven on earth. We already begin to see parallels between the future promises of Christianity and both socialism and the Progressive movement. A subtle form of modernism entering the Church. The idea of a utopia. Today this strain of Christianity more popularly known as Progressive Dispensationalism.

Dwight Lyman Moody was the most popular evangelical of the day and is considered the predecessor to televangelism and the likes of Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, Joel Osteen, and Oral Roberts. The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago was the inspired model for many Bible Colleges around America forming a theological network helping propagate faith in a literal translation of the Bible. These men all having one thing in common even today in that they all preach end times through a literal translation of the Bible and support the followers of Judaism as God’s chosen people and support emphatically their right to a homeland in Palestine.

John Nelson Darby is considered the father of dispensationalism, futurism, and pre-millennial tribulation rapture and was much older than the rest, born in 1800. Darby a pioneer within the Plymouth Brethren and founder of the Exclusive Brethren. The Brethren a network of like-minded Protestant churches. Darby promoted sola scriptura, common to nearly all Protestant denominations, believing the word of the Bible as the one true infallible authority. Darby’s eschatology was then popularized through the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. Today, thanks to Darby and C.I. Scofield we have well over one hundred million American Christians interpreting the Bible literally, fearing the future and believing it is all in God’s hands.

Note: Aleister Crowley’s parents were members of the Exclusive Brethren, his father an evangelist. After attending Eastbourne College under the supervision of a Brethren brother named Lambert, Aleister would leave to pursue a well documented life immersed in mysticism and the occult.

Blackstone William E; founder author of Blackstone Memorial Petition 1891;

William Eugene Blackstone,

Dwight Lyman Moody.

Darby, John Nelson; founder dispensationalism;

John Nelson Darby

James Hall Brookes

Brookes studied briefly at the Princeton Seminary before moving to Miami University at Oxford Ohio. He was the driving force behind the Niagara Bible Conferences (1875-1897) that introduced Protestants from all over to the fundamental ideas of dispensationalism including the restoration of Israel and a distinction between the saved and the damned.

Cyrus Ingerson Scofield

Wilson Papers; Congregationalists; New Religion; New Bible; American Magazine;

Cyrus Ingerson Scofield was a Southern Presbyterian and very influential author of the first modern Bible with “chain references”, The Scofield Reference/Study Bible. Published in 1909, (the same year as Herbert Croly’s Promise of American Life), it was to be the first definitive, scientific interpretation of the word of God, complete with commentary and explanatory notes written in the margins, by Scofield and his team of Consulting Editors (Barrellet, Sayce and Maroliouth of Oxford, Weston, Gray, Erdman of Princeton, Pierson, Moorehead, Harris, Gaebelein, Pettingill). In 1917 it was revised by Scofield in an attempt to attribute exact dates to biblical verse.

“This edition of the Bible had its origin in the increasing conviction of the Editor through thirty years’ study and use of the Scriptures as pastor, teacher, writer, and lecturer upon biblical themes, that all of the many excellent and useful editions of the Word of God left much to be desired.” iii, Introduction

Scofield’s version, containing the entire text of the King James version originally published in 1611, becomes the modern day theological entering wedge, acting as the ultimate authority, impressing both a sense of fear of the future and a state of helplessness into its hundreds of millions of followers. Scofield an early proponent of gap theory and progressive creationism, the belief in a gradual “unfolding” of life as determined by God, a recognition of intelligent design, and gap theory, a new beginning put between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Gap theory as advocated by Scofield expands Biblical history to millions of years rather than the previously taught thousands of years. A theistic evolution opening the door to Darwinism.

“The Bible is a progressive unfolding of truth.” v, Introduction (emphasis not added)

On page 2 of the 100th Anniversary Edition of the 1917 Scofield Bible, Scofield states the Pentateuch (otherwise known as the Torah), tells “undeniably the order of the experience of the people of God in all ages”, a “revelation of the true history,” and such a history “we find in words of matchless grandeur, and in an order which, rightly understood, is absolutely scientific. In the Pentateuch, therefore, we have a true and logical introduction to the entire Bible.” (emphasis added)

One further note: Woodrow Wilson’s father created the Southern Presbyterian Church and served as its leader for nearly forty years. He was central in organizing the break up of the Presbyterian Church into a north and south.

Also in 1909, Harvard University president Charles W. Eliot (author of the New Education), lectures to the Harvard Summer School of Theology speaking repeatedly of “a new Bible” … “resulting from historical study of its books in the light of recent researches and of new knowledge of the development of the world and mankind.” Eliot stating the importance of this “new religion” in outlining the intellectual progress of the last century.

“The religion of a multitude of humane persons in the twentieth century may, therefore, be called without inexcusable exaggeration a ‘new religion’ – not that a single one of its doctrines and practices is really new in essence, but only that the wider acceptance and better actual application of truths … on a large scale, are new.” pg. 430, The Congregationalist and Christian World, Event and Comment, President Eliot’s New Religion; see also, Harvard Theological Review October 1909.

Today dispensationalism has morphed into a Progressive version that differs slightly from its classic definition, although the main adherents are still widely shared among them including: separation between the fates of the Christian Church and that of Israel, a future pre-tribulation rapture and an eventual kingdom of peace lasting for a thousand years. The Kingdom of Heaven sounding very much like the mid 1800’s vision promised by Henri de Saint-Simon and the utopian socialists, and almost verbatim to Marx’s own theory of the withering away of the capitalist State. An ominous continuity then from Marx and Simon to the early 1900’s ethical socialist movement where we see a natural coming together of the American Progressives, Fabian socialists and the Christian Social Gospel movement.

William Eugene Blackstone wrote the very popular, Jesus is Coming: God’s Hope for a Restless World, in 1878 and it became a sort of manifesto for all dispensationalist thought. The book was the movements first bestseller, selling millions of copies over the next fifty years and has been translated into over 40 other languages.

Blackstone travelled to Palestine in 1890-1891 and witnessed Leon Pinsker’s new movement, a Rothschild sponsored development programme of agricultural communities in Rishon LeZion and Nahalat Yehudah. It was during this visit Blackstone had the idea of organizing the first conference between Christian and Jews. Historians regard The Conference of Christians and Jews on the Past, Present, and Future of Israel to be the first interfaith conference between Christians and Jews held in the United States.

In 1891 Blackstone famously published the Blackstone Memorial Petition in response to what he had apparently witnessed in Palestine. The petition was presented to US President Benjamin Harrison, in an effort to gain American support for the Jewish situation in central Europe and “to secure the holding, at an early date, of an international conference to consider the condition of the Israelites and their claims to Palestine as their ancient home”. (41)

This is a full five years before Theodore Herzl’s Der Judenstaat, and six years before Herzl is named president of the Zionist Organization at the First Zionist Congress in Basel. Harrison acknowledged Blackstone and the memorial but chose not to involve himself and there the petition remained until it was revived in 1916, by Zionist leader Louis Brandeis nearly thirty years later, and presented to US president Woodrow Wilson. This time it gained the necessary traction.

Introduced to the petition through his personal confidente Nathan Strauss, Louis Brandeis would then formulate a plan to have the petition presented to Wilson and was adamant that he wasn’t mentioned at all. By influencing the president strictly from the perspective of a fellow Christian (Wilson himself a devout Presbyterian), Brandeis hoped Blackstone’s appeal for Jewish aid in central Europe would hold more wait.

Blackstone had sent letters to Wilson as early as November 4^th 1914 asking for his assistance in “the coming redemption of Israel”. He attached a copy of Jesus is Coming.

On November 10th, Wilson thanked Blackstone for his book through his personal secretary, Joseph Tumulty.

On April 5^th, 1916, Blackstone sent Wilson his brochure, The Times of the Gentiles and the War in the Light of Prophecy, in which he predicted a return of the Jews to Palestine in 1917 or 1918.

A letter from Nathan Straus to William Eugene Blackstone dated May 8, 1916 reads: “It would have done your heart good to have heard (Mr. Brandeis) assert what a valuable contribution to the cause your document is. In fact he agrees with me that you are the Father of Zionism, as your work antedates Herzl.”

Wilson was presented with the 1916 Blackstone Memorial on May 5, 1916, attached was the original Memorial with its 413 signatures including: John D. Rockefeller, William Rockefeller, J. Pierpont Morgan, Russell Sage (Skull and Bones), Chauncey Depew, and nearly four hundred others. Below we once again see parallels being drawn between the Dispensational movement and American Progressives.

“The principles laid out by Blackstone were remarkably similar to those of the Balfour Declaration and League of Nation’s Mandate for Palestine three decades later. This is why Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, leader of the American Zionist Movement, asked William Blackstone to reissue his Memorial Petition in 1916, believing it incorporated the principles upon which a just and humanitarian Jewish homeland movement could be founded. Brandeis believed that Blackstone’s Petition, ‘ante-dating as it did Theodore Herzl’s own participation in the Zionist movement, [was] destined to become of historical signiﬁcance’ and called Blackstone ‘the true founder of Zionism’.” (40)

“May 22, 1916 My Dear Mr. Blackstone: I am very glad to know from your letter of the 15th of the Memorial which you are preparing to present to President Wilson, reviving the Memorial which you presented to President Harrison twenty-five years ago. That document, ante-dating as it did Theodore Herzl’s own participation in the Zionist movement, is destined to become of historical significance: and I trust that you may be as successful in securing support for this new Memorial as you were a quarter of a century ago. In view of the work being directly undertaken by the Jewish Zionist organization, your memorial would presumably be most effective if it derives its support from non-Jews. I hope you will keep me fully informed of the progress that you are making, and will advise me in advance when you are purposing to present the Memorial, so that we may give such aid as may be possible in rendering it effective. With best wishes, Very cordially yours, Louis D. Brandeis.” (75)

Stephen S. Wise, one of Brandeis’ inner core lieutenants communicated often with Blackstone on several matters concerning the Jew. Wise, the Rabbi of the Free Synagogue in New York, was an original member and vice-chairman of the Brandeis led, Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs. (Herzl’s headquarters).

State Department responds to letter from WEB; June 16, 1916;

Brandeis had Blackstone address the Zionist General Congress in Philadelphia (July 2nd – 5^th, 1916). Blackstone spoke in front of four thousand at the Metropolitan Opera House. Brandeis introduced Blackstone as “the most important ally Zionism has outside of its own ranks.” (77)

“William Blackstone made a central contribution to American evangelical Judeo-centrism by offering a nationalist adaptation of Darby’s premillennial dispensationalism. Blackstone crafted a middle path between futurist and historicist prophecy interpretation. His efforts to shape political discourse generated a great deal of intra-Jewish debate.” (74)

There are within the Brandeis papers 47 pages of personal documents regarding the Blackstone Memorial Petition.

Today Blackstone, like the rest of the dispensationalists, occupy an obscure area of history seldom considered. Blackstone helped found Biola University in Los Angeles and was its very first Dean, yet in 2013, during a commemoration of another Biola founder, Reuben A. Torrey, where a bronze plaque was presented upon which it stated Torrey, and not Blackstone, was the first Dean of Biola. Blackstone seemingly erased from the history of the very university he helped found. As of 2015 they’ve named a students residence after him and on the website they do finally acknowledge Blackstone’s importance to the university as it’s first Dean.

“Unfortunately, the plaque included the statement “Biola’s first Dean.” At the time, many old-timers commented, “That’s not correct, William Blackstone was the first dean!” Written communication subsequently corrected this error, but the bronze plaque remains unaltered. Thus, nearly everyone today is unaware that William Blackstone, not R.A. Torrey, was Biola’s first dean.” (73)

The Social Gospel Movement

“The name of Walter Rauschenbusch is synonymous with the Social Gospel.”

“Socialism offered not only a radical critique of American political and economic institutions; it also offered the seal, symbols, and sense of participation in a world-transforming cause often associated with Christianity itself.” The Social Gospel and Socialism: A Comparison of the Thought of Francis Greenwood Peabody, Washington Gladden, and Walter Rauschenbusch, Jacob H. Dorn (1)

Walter Rauschenbusch was born in Rochester New York in 1861 to Karl Augustus Heinrich Rauschenbusch and Caroline Rump. Walter’s father a German Lutheran turned Baptist clergyman, arriving in the US in 1846 after studying at Berlin and Bonn universities. Once arriving in New York he entered the Baptist communion, and in 1858 was head of the German department of the Rochester Theological Seminary where he would remain for thirty years.

Following high school Walter travelled to Germany with his father where he studied for four years (1878-1883) at an Evangelical German prep school in Gutersloh and Berlin University, near where his father was born, and upon returning to the United States, would follow his father to the Rochester Theological Seminary, where he gained a doctorate in divinity in 1886. Walter, the sixth in a succession of ministers, began his pastorate at the Second German Baptist Church in Hell’s Kitchen New York. (3)

Rauschenbusch felt it the responsibility of the Church to improve the deplorable urban conditions in the tenements brought on by industrialization, and along with several others, founded the entire Social Gospel movement through the creation of The Brotherhood of the Kingdom. The Social Gospel movement “was an outgrowth of Christian Socialism” and Christian Socialism a “new religion” first put forth by utopian socialist Henri de Saint-Simon to serve as an authority over the realm of industry and trade.

The Brotherhood of the Kingdom movement started by Rauschenbusch representing to the Christian denominations, what Walter Lippmann proposed to the secular as the Great Society. Christian Socialism looking very much like the religious complement to Progressivism. Louis Brandeis’ daughter Elizabeth married Walter Rauschenbusch’s son Paul in 1925 literally combining the two movements, through their founders, by marriage.

Rauschenbusch, Walter; founder of the Social Gospel;

Walter Rauschenbusch

August Heinrich Rauschenbusch. One of the earliest Baptist leaders in North America. “No one man exerted a larger influence on the life of our churches than he did through his classroom, preaching, newspaper writing, and books.” (1)

Walter Rauschenbusch pg 92; Christian Socialist Society; Christianity and socialism no different;

Rauschenbusch’s own shortly lived periodical magazine, For the Right, was created “in the interests of the working people”. “For the Right set out the Declaration of Principles for the Christian Socialist Society of New York City.” Rauschenbusch’s stated goal was, “To apply the ethical principles of Jesus Christ so that our industrial relationships may be humanized, our economic system be moralized – we band together as Christian Socialists.” Pg. 91, Walter Rauschenbusch by Dores Robinson Sharpe.

Rauschenbusch much like Brandeis was bringing together capital and labour. The Social Gospel movement an extension of the efficiency movement Brandeis was spearheading at the same time. Just as the Taylor Society was preaching ‘scientific management’ of society, so too were the leaders of the Social Gospel.

“The Christian socialism that Rauschenbusch embraced stood aloof not only from Marxian doctrine, but also from any socialist party. We are concerned with principles, not with methods … We are evolutionists, not revolutionists … In this sense we are Socialist, Socialist in the spirit rather than the letter.” pg. 91, Walter Rauschenbusch, Dores Sharpe.

“The motivation for this distinctly religious movement was supplied chiefly by the ethical impulses flowing from a progressive theology. Of the many perplexing issues growing out of industrialism those that concerned the relations of labor and capital and their interpretation by socialism so largely dominated the interests of socially minded clergymen in this decade that the social gospel may without question be described historically as the response of Protestantism to those specific situations. The centrality of the labor problem in all realistic discussions of urban religious conditions adds further weight to this definition. The problems of an industrial civilization remained the central interest of social Christianity.” Pg. 117, Rise of Social Gospel Within American Protestantism.

Francis Greenwood Peabody, professor of ethics and theology at Harvard from 1880 until his retirement in 1913, the Unitarian studied at Heidelberg, and then Leipzig and Halle universities.

Charles Richmond Henderson, Baptist minister, BA and MA, Bachelor of Divinity. In 1892, he was asked by William Rainey Harper, president of University of Chicago, a devout Baptist himself, to join the newly formed faculty of “social science” at the University of Chicago as a professor of sociology. This the first independent sociology department in the United States founded the same year Henderson arrived by Albion Woodbury Small. Small one of the very founders of sociology also studied at Leipzig and Berlin and then Johns Hopkins before moving to Chicago University, but more on him in Brandeis Part 6: The Science of Law. Henderson a member of the American Economic Association and the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

William Rainey Harper also a Professor of Semitic Languages at Yale in 1886, and named Woolsey Professorship of Biblical Literature in 1889, “principal of the Chautauqua College of Liberal Arts and later of the entire Chautauqua movement.” He was a key member of the organizational committee that created the University of Chicago, and was elected its first president. The American Baptist Education Society donated $400,000 to the university’s founding, and John D. Rockefeller donated $600,000. The land was donated by Jekyll Island Club member Marshall Field.(2)

Washington Gladden, pastor of the First Congregational Church of Columbus, Ohio. Pragmatist.

William Newton Clark also an ordained Baptist minister (1856). He received a BA (1861) and BD (1863) at Colgate Seminary (Hamilton Theological Seminary), lectured at Johns Hopkins (1899), Oberlin (1901), Harvard (1903), and Yale (1905). He wrote, An Outline of Christian Theology: For the Use of Students in Hamilton Theological Seminary in 1894, which was then published in 1898 by Charles Scribner’s Sons. In 1903 he wrote Huxley and Phillips Brooks.

Samuel Zane Batten wrote, The New Citizenship, and The New World Order. Established the Commission on Social Service of the American Baptist Association.

Francis Greenwood Peabody

Charles Richmond Henderson

Samuel Zane Batten

William Newton Clark

Thomas Nixon Carver

“Salvation was expressed in social-ethical terms by these leaders of Protestant social thought … A social salvation was really included within the broad universalism of the kingdom of heaven on earth, a conception now beginning to emerge definitely as the ideal of a perfected human society.” Emphasis added. Pg. 109 Rise of Social Gospel Within the American Protestantism.

Thomas Nixon Carver studying under Progressive father Richard T. Ely and John Bates Clark at Johns Hopkins. Making him the next wave of disciples of Knies and the German Historical School. Carver the treasurer secretary of the American Economic Association. Ely a world-renowned economist, founder and first secretary of the American Economic Association, and leader of the Progressive movement. Ely also just happens to be the founder of the Christian Social Union and wrote extensively on organized labour movements. His father a devout Presbyterian. Both Ely and Clark studying directly under Karl Knies at the University of Heidelberg. Ely also studying under Johann Kaspar Bluntschli, the man who created one of the first codes of international law and war and is a cofounder of the Institute of International Law. Bluntschli heavily influenced by Hegelian ethical social theory we see popularized in both Germany and the United States.

“Professor Ely, who was perhaps the leading spirit in the group, found generous support for his new historical school of economics among the clergy who as we know had joined the ‘revolt against laissez-faire theory’ – in which attitude the Association found its chief raison d’etre.” Pg. 116, The Rise of the Social Gospel Within American Protestantism, Hopkins.

“the expert, the social scientist in the middle, emerges in much of Henderson’s work as the arbiter of social life.” Pg. , Social Science History, Volume 34, No. 3, pg. 337-371, Pragmatic Sociology and the Public Sphere, The Case of Charles Richmond Henderson, Andrew Abbott.

“He [Charles Richmond Henderson] closed Citizens in Industry with a note that churches – like the great trusts – were amalgamating and that Protestant ecumenical was beginning to echo Roman Catholicism, which he called “an international trust of religious forces.” Pg. , Social Science History, Volume 34, No. 3, pg. 337-371, Pragmatic Sociology and the Public Sphere, The Case of Charles Richmond Henderson, Andrew Abbott.

“A ‘social policy’ implies and assumes a certain philosophy of life and … a certain religious faith. This faith proves its worth and reasonableness by its works. It is living and it is prophetic and creative. To us who believe in a progressive social policy, the world is not merely pushed forward by blind physical forces; it moves onward toward aims clearly set before the human will and realized gradually by concerted labours directed by science. This policy is, root and branch, ethical; it is morality organized, vivified, guided by growing knowledge, and inspired by faith.” Pg. 15, Programmes in Economic Facts and In Ideals.

“in late nineteenth century America the new science of sociology … suddenly found itself the handmaiden and ready instrument of a somewhat distinct strain of ideas; ideas which, begin religious and to an extent liberally progressive, were acceptable to the entrenched powers of university governors and presidents.” Pg. 42, The Development of Sociology and the Social Gospel in America, J. Graham Morgan, Sociological Analysis Volume 30, No. 1 (Spring 1969). Pp. 42-53.

“it is virtually impossible to extricate sociology and the Social Gospel in many instances, and to a large extent sociology in America may be seen as an outgrowth of the Social Gospel.” Pg. 42, The Development of Sociology and the Social Gospel in America.

The fellowship’s wide range of interests was well exemplified in the program for the conference of 1898, at which three series of papers were presented. “The Prophets of Israel as Social Leaders,” “The Rural Population and the Social Movement,” trade unions in New York, the social work of the church, a review of Sidney and Beatrice Webb’s Industrial Democracy” pg. 7 Walter Rauschenbusch and the Brotherhood of the Kingdom, C. Howard Hopkins, Mount Hermon School, Mount Hermon, Mass.

“No aspect of the thought of social gospellers as a whole more effectively describes them as children of their age than does the word ‘progressive. Applied first to advancing theological views, … ‘progressive’ later became a political catch-word representative of a particular reform philosophy popularized by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. That the kingdom should be progressively realized – by evolution – indicates the close relation of social gospel thought to the intellectual and social ideology of the times.” Pg. 150, Church History, Vol. 7, No. 2 (June, 1938) pp. 138-156; see also pg. 13, Walter Rauschenbausch and the Brotherhood of the Kingdom; see also Batten, op. cit., pp. 129-130.

Pragmatic Sociology and the Public Sphere (1);

Washington Post UW Faculty who helped create unemployment insurance (1);

Washington Post UW Faculty who helped create unemployment insurance (2);

“But by all odds the most important writings by members of the Brotherhood were those of Walter Rauschenbusch, whose epochal book, Christianity and the Social Crisis, appearing in 1907, made its author at once the acknowledged leader of the American social Christianity and soon acquainted the Protestant world with the basic tenets for which the Brotherhood had long labored.” Pg. 153, Walter Rauschenbusch and the Brotherhood of the Kingdom.

“A Theology for the Social Gospel, regarded by many as his greatest, set the doctrine of the kingdom of God at the heart of social Christianity.” Pg. 156, Walter Rauschenbusch and the Brotherhood of the Kingdom.

As stated earlier, Walter’s son Paul Arthur Raushenbush would marry Louis D. Brandeis’ daughter Elizabeth in 1925 and boxes of correspondence between the three found at the Wisconsin Historical Society within the UW Madison digital archives indicate quite clearly that the same interests in labour, social justice, and reform that stirred Louis in the first third of the 20th century also stirred his daughter and son-in-law a generation later. The “husband and wife team of economists … best known for their work with Harold Groves … developing and securing the passage of Wisconsin’s unemployment compensation legislation, the first such legislation in the nation.”

A rich collection of communication exists in those archives between Paul and Felix Frankfurter, Tom Corcoran, Thomas H. Eliot and other federal officials that shows an important involvement within Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s brain trust. Brandeis and Frankfurter most influential here again, consulting and advising US presidents in the completion of much of the progressive work started under Woodrow Wilson.

Interfaith Alliance president; Paul Brandeis Raushenbush;

Brandeis Part 3: American Zionism and the Making of Israel

by Diego Garcia | Jan 28, 2024 | Uncategorized

Brandeis and the American Zionist Movement

“A nonpracticing Jew who did not believe in religion, he became head of the American Zionist movement in his sixth decade and transformed it from a moribund sideshow into a powerful component of American Jewish life.” (1)

Brandeis met with Woodrow Wilson for the very first time on August 28, 1912, at Sea Girt, New Jersey, to discuss Brandeis’ reform ideas. meaning Brandeis met both Wilson and de Haas in the same month just prior to Wilson’s election to president. Seemingly coordinated, both the rise of Wilson to the White House and Brandeis to the head of the Zionist Organization of America. DeHaas proves to be a very able director and executive secretary for Brandeis interests moving forward.

Brandeis’ sudden interest in Zionism, according to the mainstream, was sparked by his first meeting with Jacob DeHaas August 13, 1912. DeHaas was personal secretary to the man mainstream will tell you is the father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl. DeHaas moving to America on Herzl’s suggestion, eventually settling in Boston near Brandeis around 1902.

And while it is true that De Haas, the editor of the Boston Jewish Advocate and the Boston Jewish Chronicle newspapers, did inspire Brandeis with heroing tales of both Louis’ Zionist uncle (Lewis Naphtali Dembitz) and Theodore Herzl, Brandeis had long before been introduced to the Jewish problem. As early as November 28th 1905, five years before his meeting with DeHaas, we see Brandeis expressing sympathy for Zionism in a speech he made at the New Century Club in Boston commemorating the 250th anniversary of Jewish settlement entitled What Loyalty Demands. (2)

Brandeis had also publicly announced his sympathy for Zionism at least two years prior to his train station conversation with DeHaas, in an interview with The American Hebrew on December 2, 1910, and a similar one on December 9 in DeHaas’ own, the Jewish Chronicle, and when asked whether he had interest in those working for a Jewish revival in Palestine, Brandeis replied, “I have a great deal of sympathy with the Zionists. The movement is an exceedingly deserving one. These so-called dreamers are entitled to the respect and appreciation of the entire Jewish people.” (3)

Brandeis joined the Federation of American Zionism (FAZ) and it’s also here during this time, while he was nearing his sixties, that Brandeis changes his middle name, in honour of his Zionist uncle, from David to Dembitz.

On July 18, 1913 Brandeis joined the executive committee of the Federation of American Zionists (FAZ), the predecessor to the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). pg. 7 Brandeis and America, Nelson Dawson.

Jacob DeHaas

Wise Stephen Rabbi; global Zionist leader; member of the Zionist Delegation at Paris 1919

Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise

In August of 1914, Brandeis was elected chairman of the Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs (worldwide Zionism), and attends the first meeting of the American Jewish Congress. In March of 1915, Brandeis, along with Stephen Wise and Julian Mack would establish the Jewish Congress Organization Committee. On April 25, 1915 Brandeis addresses the Eastern Council of Reform Rabbi’s, The Jewish Problem and How to Solve It. In January of 1916, four days before his nomination to the supreme court, he speaks at Carnegie Hall in New York, Jewish Rights and the Congress. On April 23 he meets with Arthur Balfour to discuss British mandate in Palestine, and in 1917, two months after America enters the World War I, Brandeis is elected honourary chairman of the National Executive Committee of the AJC.

Brandeis and his lieutenants willingly involved themselves in many other lesser known, but no less important Jewish organizations like the Jewish Agricultural Experiment Station. Brandeis, along with Mack, Marshall, Schiff, and Wise were all members of the Advisory Board of the Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society. To raise funding for the creation of Israel, Brandeis, Bernard Flexner and Robert Szold brought together the Palestine Cooperative Company Inc., with the Reconstruction Committee of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee to form the Palestine Economic Corporation.

Jews of the U.S. painting insertion of globe and Louis Marshall

July 10, 1918 meeting of the Joint Distribution Committee and the executives of the American Jewish Relief Committee at 52 William Street, New York. First is the actual photograph, the second a painting commemorating the moment with the key addition of Louis Marshall (behind Warburg) and a globe for some reason now prominently displayed in the immediate foreground. Along with several other alterations. Brandeis resigned from both of these committees by personal letter to Warburg once confirmed as Supreme Court associate justice.

From left to right: Felix M. Warburg, Chairman; Aaron Teitelbaum; Albert Lucas, Secretary; F. Friedman, official stenographer; Boris D. Bogen, Executive Director; Leon J. Sanders; Harry Fischel; Scholem Asch; Alexander Kahn; Jacob Milch; Harriet B. Lowenstein, controller, Moses Schoenberg; M.S. Margolies; Israel Friedlander; Paul Baerwald, Associate Treasurer; Julius Levy; Peter Wiernik; Meyer Gillis; Harry Cutler; Cyrus Adler; Arthur Lehman, Treasurer; Jacob H. Schiff. Standing: A. Zucker; Isidore Hershfield; Meyer Berlin; Stanley Berow; Lewis Topkis; Morris Engelman.

“The JDC distributed tens of millions to the early construction efforts in Palestine through the war time donations of three distinct communities to “supply capital and credit, assuming a credit structure where none had existed before. Its first prospectus stated that the company ‘recognized that the extension of credit facilities was a first vital necessity in Palestine and of the utmost consequence in its economic up building.'”(4)

The American Jewish Committee targeted for funds already settled American Jews while the Central Relief Committee looked to the new Jewish immigrant and the Union of Jewish Orthodox Congregations for funding, and the People’s Relief Committee solicited Jewish Labour and Socialist groups like the Amalgamated Clothing Workers or the Federation of Jewish Farmers etc. (5)

Brandeis created the Palestine Economic Corporation with Bernard Flexner, Julius Simon, Robert Szold, Jacob Schiff, Felix M. Warburg and other wealthy New York German Jews. Within that corporation were formed the necessary institutions and utilities to begin establishing the necessary infrastructure for a working Jewish community in Palestine: the Central Bank of Cooperative Institutions in Palestine Ltd.; the Economic Board for Palestine of London; the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association; and Palestine Mortgage and Credit Bank Ltd. The PEC working in conjunction with both Baron de Rothschild’s PICA and the Weizmann’s Jewish Agency constructed modern methods of agriculture at a time when industry was largely non-existent in the area. The PEC grew their “pioneering country, in such fields as credit for agricultural and industrial enterprise, housing provision, town planning, and water supply.” (6)

Through their various subsidiaries the PEC facilitated growth through credit programs, “loans for low-cost housing in rural and urban areas”, the PEC was “deeply involved in questions regarding the country’s water supply” making significant contributions to the supply problem by implementing “improved technical methods, and the establishment of centralized and systematic irrigation plants.” (7)

“The colony had been carefully planned by PICA in cooperation with the Palestine Economic Corporation (PEC) and the Jewish Agency”. (emphasis added)pg. 284, Two Rothschilds and the Land of Palestine, Simon Shama

“the historiography of American Zionism until 1930 may well be called ‘Brandeiscentric.’ Brandeis – the man his ideas, and his achievements – are presented as the pinnacle of American Zionist realization during the first part of its history. It is generally accepted that there was no organized Zionism in the United States until Brandeis assumed leadership in 1914 and that his hold on the movement continued at least until the beginning of 1921.” (8)

After being nominated to the US Supreme Court in 1916, Brandeis wrote to Felix Warburg at the New York offices of the American Jewish Relief Committee, “I regret that I feel compelled to resign from the Executive Committee of the American Jewish Relief Committee, and of course also from the Joint Distribution Committee”, to avoid negative public perception yet Brandeis still very much wielded authority from ‘behind-the-scenes’, with an ‘invisible leadership’. (9)

“Through his closest lieutenants, Julian W. Mack, Stephen S. Wise, Bernard Flexner, Jacob de Haas, Felix Frankfurter, and Robert Szold, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Brandeis Group’, this inner ‘hard core’ group were all, “American-educated, a majority being also American-born. All were university educated, most were lawyers, and most of the lawyers had attended Harvard. A majority also became Zionists after 1914.” (10):

Brandeis at least officially, “stepped down from all of his positions in Zionist and Jewish organizations to avoid embarrassing the Supreme Court, of which he had just become a member. He continued however, to serve in an honorary capacity and henceforward exercised overall authority from behind-the-scenes.” (11)

“As head of the American Zionist movement, Brandeis did not and could not act alone, especially after his nomination to the Supreme Court in 1916, when for technical reasons as well as matters of principle his personal participation in the movement was limited.” (12)

Brandeis' Role in American Zionism Historically Reconsidered Evyatar Friesel pg 34 American Zionism until 1930 may well be called Brandeiscentric; highlighted;

“The Brandeis group led the American Zionist movement and made the major decisions, always in contact with Brandeis.” (13)

British Delegation Balfour Arthur James Foreign Secretary; 1st-Earl-of-Balfour; Balfour Declaration; former PM of UK (1902-1905)

Arthur Balfour

“Through his associates, Brandeis held the Zionist organization in a tight grip.” (14)

“From Louis Brandeis around World War I to Abba Hillel Silver after World War II, Zionism has been defined as a form of American liberalism.”(15)

Balfour met with Brandeis on at least two occasions during his Washington visit (May 7th and 11th), and a large stack of contemporary scholarship concurs, as substantiated above by Ben Halpern, professor of Near East Studies at Brandeis University itself, that these meetings between Brandeis and Balfour were critical, and served as a major coming together of Anglo-American relations. Brandeis and Balfour were careful not to debate first rights to self-determination between the Jew and Arab on numerical grounds, as the Hebrew then, as now, grossly outnumbered in the region by his fellow Arab Semite. This centuries old tradition of calling anyone critical of Israel or Zionism anti-Semitic a tired misnomer in that there are over 70 languages associated on the Semitic branch, the largest spoken language Arabic, Amharic, Tigrinya, and then Hebrew.

Brandeis also one of the earliest to actively promote dual loyalty between Israel and the United States through a shared nationalism. and was very influential on Balfour, wielding all the authority vested within him Brandeis an essential figure in the conception, promotion, and especially the consummation of the document most responsible for securing a final homeland for the Jew, the Balfour Declaration.

Brandeis to Warburg July 21, 1916; letter of resignation from JDC;

By the time Brandeis was confirmed US Supreme Court Justice in the summer of 1916, he had been the leader of the American Zionist movement for two years and a longtime intimate adviser to US president Woodrow Wilson. As you would expect Brandeis’ words carried much weight in many influential circles, Brandeis inside a three circle Venn diagram uniquely positioned to press for a Jewish homeland.

“It is social justice which Zionism represents, and every bit of that is the American ideals of the twentieth century.” Louis Brandeis, (16)

Immediately following Wilson’s declaration of war on April 6, 1917, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour led a diplomatic mission to Washington, landing on April 22, 1917.

Officially the Balfour Mission was to ‘promote wartime cooperation’, but Balfour’s visit was primarily financial. The true intentions of Balfour and the rest of his entourage, including the governor of the Bank of England, Walter Cunliffe, was to bring the Americans up-to-speed on the lucrative past of British imperialism. With the United States now a committed belligerent in the Great War, previous treaties and agreements made by the French and British in Italy, Africa, the Near East, and other areas around the world, had to be laid on the table. And it is in this light we see the depth to Brandeis’ influence.

Chaim Weizmann

Studies in Zionism Origins of Balfour Declaration Ben Halpern Louis Brandeis doubly important influence as Jewish Zionist leader and personal advisor friend of WW

Brandeis the eminent insider while Chaim Weizmann was very much considered the outsider to Wilson’s circle. Where Weizmann struggled to get access (even by repeated cable), Brandeis arrived as an invited and eminent guest. Where Weizmann, because of his personality hit serious diplomatic roadblocks, “the peoples attorney” smoothed political and personal tensions.

Clearly, it is because of Brandeis’ influence on the American Zionist movement and American Jewry in general, groups whos blessings Weizmann desperately needed, that Brandeis became an integral figure, “the sage adviser to all”, even more so than Weizmann, in the final drafting of the Declaration.

“Brandeis’s personal influence was doubly important, for he combined the roles of a Jewish leader and a close adviser of President Wilson. When Balfour came to the United States to consult his new allies shortly after America entered the war, the new British Foreign Minister made a point of meeting Brandeis. All contemporaries agree in regarding these meetings as being critical in opening up the last phase of the negotiations for a British pro-Zionist policy declaration.” pg. 71, Brandeis and the Origins of the Balfour Declaration, Ben Halpern.

“Dr. Weizmann gladly assented to the Brandeis project. He expressed his gratitude by impulsively kissing Brandeis’ hand.” Pg. 133, Brandeis: A Biographical Sketch, DeHaas.

“Weizmann launched a series of urgent pleas to his American contacts, and to Brandeis in particular, for their aid in a situation in which the future prospects of Zionism were critically involved … Weizmann pinned his hopes on Louis Brandeis as the person most capable of influencing President Wilson.” (17)

“When Balfour came to the United States to consult his new allies shortly after America entered the war, the new British Foreign Minister made a point of meeting Brandeis. All contemporaries agree in regarding these meetings as being critical in opening up the last phase of the negotiations for a British pro-Zionist policy declaration.” (18)

Brandeis and Balfour were careful not to debate first rights to self-determination between the Jew and Arab, especially on numerical grounds, as the Hebrew then as now grossly outnumbered by his fellow Arab Semite. Brandeis, one of the first to actively promote dual loyalty between the US and a Jewish homeland was very influential on Balfour, wielding all the authority vested within him Brandeis an essential figure in the conception, promotion, and especially the consummation of the document most responsible for securing a final homeland for the Jew:

“Balfour and Louis Brandeis, a Supreme Court justice and the leading American Zionist, came up with an ingenious solution. It was wrong to use mere ‘numerical self-determination’: a great many potential inhabitants of the Jewish home in Palestine still lived outside its borders. ‘And Zionism,’ said Balfour, ‘be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.’” (19)

The many drafts of the Balfour Declaration were made in London and passed back and forth between the British and American War office channels and Brandeis was central to its final drafting.

“The draft cabled from government to government, was handed to the Brandeis regime for its approval. After a most necessary revision, President Wilson, acting through Colonel House who was in full sympathy with the Zionist aims, authorized cabling to the British government the version that was published, and to which all the allied governments in turn gave their approval.” (20)

Paris 1919 (1); front cover; author Margaret MacMillan David Lloyd George's great-grand daughter;

Paris 1919 pg 422; Louis Brandeis Balfour underlined;

louisdbrandeis006005mbp_0106 govt to govt was handed to the Brandeis regime for its approval;

Below is Felix Frankfurter’s alleged written account of the draft meeting that became Israel’s founding document. From pages 1276-1278, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939. Brandeis and Balfour, Eustace Percy and Felix Frankfurter are the only four in attendance.

The three essential conditions set out by ‘the Justice’ show the same disregard then as we see today for the “existing, non-Jewish communities in Palestine”. Brandeis’ first essential condition was that Palestine be the Jewish homeland and not just a Jewish homeland. He also claimed the need for “economic elbow room” to help establish a “healthy social life” and “not merely a small garden.” That meant “control of the waters” to the North and all territory east to the Hedjaz rail line. His third essential condition was “that the future Jewish Palestine must have control of the land and natural resources which are at the heart of a sound economic life. And Mr. Balfour expressed entire agreement with the three conditions which the Justice laid down.” Balfour stating, “We are dealing not with the wishes of an existing community but are consciously seeking to re-constitute a new community and definitely building for a numerical majority in the future.”

Balfour listens with much respect, giving the Justice reassurances that he wouldn’t screw it up while Brandeis continued on his European trip to Palestine.

“he [Balfour] understood Justice Brandeis’ request that no decision be taken as to the boundaries and the extent of control over the land in any way counter to his views until his return in about four or five weeks.”

Brandeis, perhaps because of his standing as a most trusted personal advisor to the US president, or perhaps because he was the leader of international Zionism at the time, or maybe because he was a supreme court justice, or maybe because Brandeis was an agent of the House of Rothschild, Balfour was subservient. At least that is how Frankfurter would have us believe.

*Note, Percy and Frankfurter residents of the House of Truth and Brandeis it’s most honoured guest make up three of the four in the room when Israel was founded.

Brandeis Balfour Percy Frankfurter (1) meet at Balfour apartment, Paris 1919; DocBritForeignPolicy; highlighted;1SV4_1388

Brandeis A Life (4); frontispiece and title page; cropped;

The night before Brandeis’ election to the chair of the Provisional Executive Committee on General Zionist affairs, he travels by boat with Horace W. Kallen who introduces Brandeis to the idea of ‘cultural pluralism’, or ‘dual loyalty’. Brandeis previously wrote disparagingly of “hyphenated Americans” who chose not to assimilate completely to American life, but now, realizing their usefulness in supporting a Jewish homeland in Israel, completely flipped his viewpoint.

Brandeis immediately began writing about how every American Jew must become a Zionist:

“Let no American imagine that Zionism is inconsistent with Patriotism.” – Brandeis.

“there is no inconsistency between loyalty to America and loyalty to Jewry.” – Brandeis.

Kallen and Brandeis together establish the Parushim and Menorah Societies at Harvard. Brandeis here prominent in the creation of two Zionist secret societies on the university campus(!) A US Supreme Court justice? As odd as it sounds, its true. In Kallen, we see one of the main influencers of Brandeis. Kallen the one who introduced Brandeis to dual loyalty on a boat trip from Boston to New York the night before Brandeis was elected chairman of the Executive Provisional Committee on General Zionist Affairs.

We conclude here that Louis D. Brandeis is the most influential historical figure in the creation of the country of Israel. His influence in both drafting the Balfour Declaration and founding the Palestine Economic Corporation, show Brandeis as the planet around which everyone else orbited. Brandeis, according to Frankfurter was, “the sage advisor to all”.

Brandeis’ ability to 1) establish the necessary ‘official’ documents (the Balfour Declaration), while, 2) applying the real, tangible, brick-and-mortar infrastructure for the early settlements, while 3) leading the FAZ/ZOA, the AJC and the Provisional Executive Committee on General Zionist Affairs, to gather massive support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, all while being the 4) most trusted advisor to a US president, places Brandeis’ influence almost beyond that of the House of Rothschild.

Brandeis’ use of dual loyalty as a persuasion tactic still thrives today, and in our follow-up article, Brandeis Part 4: Christian Dispensationalism and the Social Gospel, we show how Brandeis successfully inspires American Christians, and Christians around the world, to support the Zionist movement. We introduce the reader to who both Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Netanyahu call the real, ‘father of Zionism’, a Christian, William Eugene Blackstone. And the article ends, somewhat amazingly, showing how Brandeis further influences the Christian movement through his son-in-law, who just happens to be “the father of the Social Gospel”, Walter Rauschenbusch(!)

Brandeis, A Biographical Skectch pg. 159; Weizmann impulsviely kisses Brandeis; hand

Footnotes:

1. xi, Brandeis: A Life, Urofsky.

2. In Search of a New Zion: New Light on Brandeis’ Road to Zionism, Allon Gal. Gal Professor Emeritus, Ben-Gurion Institute for the Study of Israel and Zionism, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Sede Boquer Campus; see also, Justice Brandeis and Civic Duty In a Pluralistic State, Joel K. Goldstein, Symposium: Justice Brandeis, An Interdisciplinary Retrospective, pg. 112, Tauro Law, Volume 33, Number 1. https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2800&context=lawreview

3. pg. 443, Brandeis: A Free Mans Life.

4. New York Public Library Archives and Manuscripts, Palestine Economic Corporation records 1921-1944, https://archives.nypl.org/mss/2326#:~:text=The%20records%20of%20the%20Palestine,and%20resettlement%20of%20Jewish%20Palestine; see also https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/american-jewish-joint-distribution-committee-and-refugee-aid

5. New York Public Library Archives and Manuscripts, Palestine Economic Corporation records 1921-1944, https://archives.nypl.org/mss/2326#:~:text=The%20records%20of%20the%20Palestine,and%20resettlement%20of%20Jewish%20Palestine6. Two Rothschilds and the Land of Israel.

7. Two Rothschilds and the Land of Israel.

8. pg. 34 American Jewish History Volume 69 No. 1 September 1979, pg. 34-59 Johns Hopkins University Press; Brandeis’ Role in American Zionism, Historically Reconsidered, Evyatar Friesel. Friesel professor Emeritus of Modern Jewish History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He’s previously held academic positions at Ben Gurion University Department of Jewish History and Department of History, Friedrich Schiller University Jena Germany.

9. Brandeis personal letter to Felix Warburg Esq., Treasurer, American Jewish Relief Committee, July 21, 1916.

10. pg. 46,47 Brandeis’ Role in Zionism Reconsidered.

11. pg. 23, Louis D Brandeis Zionist Leader, Jonathan D. Sarna.

12. pg. 46, Brandeis’ Role in Zionism Reconsidered.

13. Ibid pg. 46.

14. Ibid pg. 46, 47.

15. pg. 35 The Crisis of Zionism, Peter Beinart.

16. Ibid pg. 34.

17. pg. 471, The Journal of Modern History, Volume 64. No 3, September 1992, pg. 455-499, The Balfour Declaration and Its Maker: A Reassessment, Jehuda Reinharz, Brandeis University.

18. Studies in Zionism, No. 7, 1983, Ben Halpern, Brandeis and the Origins of the Balfour Declaration; Ben Halpern was a professor of Near Eastern studies at Brandeis University, retiring in 1981 and a member of the Jewish Agency Executive from 1968 to 1972. His numerous publications, many of which were published in Jewish Frontier and Midstream magazines, deal chiefly with problems of Zionism, Israeli society, and the role of the Jews in U.S. society. Halpern’s publications include The Idea of the Jewish State(1969) and a Clash of Heroes: Brandeis, Weizmann, and American Zionism (1987).

19. pg. 422, Paris 1919, Six Months That Changed the World, Margaret McMillan.

20. pg. 92, Louis D. Brandeis, A Biographical Sketch, Jacob DeHaas; see also, pg. 1276, Documents on British Foreign Policy, First Series, Volume 4, 1919. Edited by E.L. Woodward.

Appendix, Additional, Supplementary Content:

Two Rothschilds and the Land of Israel by Simon Schama_0045; The Rothschild Settlements in Israel;

Two Rothschilds and the Land of Israel pg 374, 375 highlighted; Brandeis Group quits ZOA continues work through Palestine Economic Corporation;

« Older Entries

“Through his associates, Brandeis held the Zionist organization in a tight grip.” (14)

Recent Posts