GOOFY SNOB SOCIETIES: THE INVISIBLE ARCHITECTURE OF ELITE POWER
While clubs provide physical spaces for elite gathering and secret societies offer ritualized bonding, professional and philanthropic societies create the infrastructure through which power actually flows. These organizations—less dramatic than Skull and Bones, less exclusive than the Bohemian Club—quietly shape policy, distribute resources, and maintain networks that span generations.
The genius of these societies lies in their apparent legitimacy. They present as professional organizations, think tanks, or charitable foundations. They host conferences, publish research, and fund worthy causes. Yet beneath this respectable surface, they function as gatekeeping mechanisms that determine who rises to positions of influence and who remains outside the corridors of power.
THE FOREIGN POLICY ESTABLISHMENT
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR, Established 1921)
The Council on Foreign Relations represents the American foreign policy establishment in institutional form. Founded in the aftermath of World War I by bankers, lawyers, and academics who believed American foreign policy required expert guidance, the CFR has shaped U.S. international relations for a century.
The CFR's membership of approximately 5,000 includes current and former presidents, secretaries of state, CIA directors, military leaders, corporate CEOs, and media executives. Its journal, Foreign Affairs, sets the agenda for foreign policy debates. Its task forces and study groups produce reports that influence government policy. Its members rotate between government service, corporate leadership, and academic positions, creating a permanent foreign policy class.
The CFR's power lies not in conspiracy but in consensus-building. By bringing together elites from different sectors—government, business, academia, media—it creates shared assumptions about America's role in the world. These assumptions, once established, become the boundaries of acceptable foreign policy debate. Ideas outside this consensus are dismissed as unrealistic or dangerous, regardless of merit.
Critics from both left and right have attacked the CFR as a shadow government or tool of corporate interests. These criticisms miss the point. The CFR doesn't control policy; it shapes the worldview of people who make policy. By determining what questions are asked and what answers are considered legitimate, it exercises power more subtle and durable than direct control.
Membership in the CFR signals arrival in the foreign policy establishment. It provides access to current and former officials, opportunities to publish in Foreign Affairs, and invitations to closed-door discussions where policy is debated before it becomes public. For ambitious diplomats, military officers, and academics, CFR membership is essential for career advancement.
Trilateral Commission (Established 1973)
Founded by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Trilateral Commission extends the CFR model internationally, bringing together elites from North America, Europe, and Asia. Its purpose is to foster cooperation among these regions and manage the challenges of global interdependence.
The Trilateral Commission's membership of approximately 400 includes heads of state, central bankers, corporate CEOs, and academic leaders. Its annual meetings provide venues for informal discussions among people who shape global economic and political policy. Like the CFR, its power lies in consensus-building rather than direct control.
The Commission has been a target of conspiracy theories, accused of plotting world government or serving corporate interests. These theories, while exaggerated, contain a kernel of truth: the Trilateral Commission does represent an attempt by global elites to coordinate policy across national boundaries. Whether this coordination serves the public interest or elite interests is a question the Commission's members would argue is a false dichotomy—they believe global elite interests and public interests align.
Membership in the Trilateral Commission signals participation in global governance at the highest levels. It provides access to leaders from multiple countries and opportunities to shape international economic policy. For corporate executives and government officials, it's a credential that announces global elite status.
Aspen Institute (Established 1949)
The Aspen Institute began as a venue for business leaders to study humanities and philosophy, inspired by the belief that corporate executives needed broader education beyond business skills. It has evolved into a think tank and convening organization that brings together leaders from business, government, and civil society to address major challenges.
The Aspen Institute's programs cover everything from education reform to climate change to cybersecurity. Its Ideas Festival attracts tech CEOs, politicians, media executives, and intellectuals for discussions that blend policy analysis with networking. Its various initiatives provide platforms for rising leaders to gain visibility and establish credentials.
The Institute's power lies in its role as a legitimizing institution. To be invited to speak at Aspen, to participate in its programs, or to join its leadership is to be recognized as a serious thinker and leader. This recognition opens doors to other opportunities—board positions, government appointments, media appearances.
Aspen's funding comes from corporations, foundations, and wealthy individuals, creating potential conflicts of interest. Critics argue that its agenda reflects donor interests rather than public needs. Supporters counter that it provides a rare venue for sustained, thoughtful discussion of complex issues. Both perspectives have merit.
THE ECONOMIC POLICY NETWORKS
World Economic Forum (Established 1971)
The World Economic Forum's annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, has become synonymous with global elite gatherings. Founded by Klaus Schwab, a German economist, the Forum brings together political leaders, corporate CEOs, intellectuals, and celebrities to discuss global challenges and opportunities.
Davos attendance is by invitation only, with strict criteria for membership. Corporate executives must lead companies with significant revenue; politicians must hold high office; academics must have achieved prominence. The result is a gathering of approximately 3,000 people who collectively control trillions of dollars and shape policy for billions.
The Forum's stated mission—"improving the state of the world"—is simultaneously sincere and self-serving. Participants genuinely believe their discussions can address global challenges. They also use Davos for networking, deal-making, and status competition. The two purposes coexist comfortably.
Critics attack Davos as a gathering of out-of-touch elites who caused the problems they claim to solve. The criticism has merit—many Davos attendees profited from globalization while ordinary workers suffered. Yet dismissing Davos as irrelevant misses its significance. The relationships formed there, the consensus built there, and the ideas legitimized there shape global economic policy.
For corporate executives and government officials, Davos attendance signals arrival at the global elite level. It provides opportunities to meet peers from other countries, to be seen by media covering the event, and to participate in discussions that shape the global agenda.
Peterson Institute for International Economics (Established 1981)
Named after private equity billionaire Pete Peterson, the Peterson Institute is Washington's most influential think tank on international economic policy. Its research on trade, currency, and financial regulation shapes policy debates and influences government decisions.
The Institute's funding comes from corporations, foundations, and individuals with stakes in international economic policy. This creates potential bias toward free trade and financial deregulation, though the Institute maintains that its research is objective. Critics argue that its policy recommendations consistently favor corporate interests; supporters counter that its analysis is rigorous and its conclusions follow from evidence.
The Institute's influence operates through multiple channels. Its scholars testify before Congress, advise government officials, and publish op-eds in major newspapers. Its conferences bring together policymakers and business leaders to discuss trade agreements, currency policy, and financial regulation. Its research provides intellectual ammunition for policy positions that serve elite interests.
For economists and policy analysts, affiliation with the Peterson Institute signals credibility and influence. It provides platforms to shape policy debates and opportunities to move between academia, government, and private sector positions.
THE PHILANTHROPIC NETWORKS
Giving Pledge (Established 2010)
Created by Warren Buffett and Bill and Melinda Gates, the Giving Pledge commits billionaires to donate at least half their wealth to philanthropy. As of 2024, over 200 billionaires from multiple countries have signed the pledge, committing hundreds of billions of dollars to charitable causes.
The Giving Pledge is simultaneously admirable and problematic. On one hand, it directs enormous resources toward addressing social problems. On the other hand, it allows billionaires to shape society according to their preferences rather than democratic processes. Philanthropic funding for education, health, and other areas gives donors influence over policy that bypasses elected officials.
The Pledge creates a network of ultra-wealthy philanthropists who share information, coordinate strategies, and collectively shape charitable giving. This network exercises power through resource allocation—deciding which causes receive funding and which are neglected. These decisions, made by unelected billionaires, have profound social consequences.
For billionaires, signing the Giving Pledge signals social responsibility and provides access to a network of peers. It offers opportunities to collaborate on philanthropic initiatives and to be recognized as a leader in charitable giving. It also provides some defense against criticism of wealth concentration—signers can point to their charitable commitments as evidence of social contribution.
The Philanthropy Roundtable (Established 1987)
The Philanthropy Roundtable brings together conservative donors to coordinate charitable giving and advocate for policies that support private philanthropy. Its members include foundations, corporations, and individual donors who collectively give billions annually.
The Roundtable's agenda includes defending the charitable tax deduction, promoting school choice, and supporting free-market policies. It provides research, networking opportunities, and strategic advice to conservative donors. Its annual meetings allow members to coordinate giving strategies and identify promising organizations to fund.
Critics argue that the Roundtable allows wealthy donors to pursue political agendas through tax-deductible charitable giving. Supporters counter that it helps donors give more effectively and protects philanthropic freedom from government interference. Both perspectives have merit.
For conservative donors, Roundtable membership provides access to a network of like-minded philanthropists and opportunities to maximize the impact of charitable giving. It signals commitment to conservative principles and provides platforms to influence policy debates.
THE PROFESSIONAL ELITE ORGANIZATIONS
American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Established 1780)
Founded during the American Revolution, the Academy is one of the nation's oldest honorary societies. Its approximately 5,000 members include Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, Supreme Court justices, and leaders from business, government, and civil society.
Election to the Academy signals recognition as a leader in one's field. It provides opportunities to collaborate with distinguished peers on projects addressing major challenges. The Academy's studies and reports on education, science policy, and other topics influence government policy and public debate.
The Academy's power lies in its role as a credentializing institution. Election signals that one has achieved the highest levels of professional accomplishment. This recognition opens doors to other opportunities—board positions, advisory roles, media appearances. It also provides a network of accomplished peers who can offer advice, collaboration, and support.
National Academy of Sciences (Established 1863)
Created by Congress during the Civil War to advise the government on scientific matters, the National Academy of Sciences is the nation's most prestigious scientific organization. Its approximately 2,400 members include Nobel laureates and other distinguished scientists.
Election to the NAS is the highest honor in American science. It signals recognition by one's peers as having made fundamental contributions to scientific knowledge. It also provides opportunities to shape science policy through the Academy's advisory role to government.
The NAS's power lies in its credibility. When the Academy issues reports on climate change, nuclear policy, or other technical matters, policymakers and the public take them seriously. This credibility gives Academy members influence over policy debates on issues where scientific expertise matters.
For scientists, NAS election is the pinnacle of professional achievement. It provides recognition, influence, and opportunities to shape science policy. It also signals to the public that one's work has been validated by the scientific community's highest authority.
THE LEGAL AND JUDICIAL NETWORKS
American Law Institute (Established 1923)
The American Law Institute brings together judges, lawyers, and legal scholars to clarify and improve American law. Its Restatements of the Law—systematic compilations of common law principles—are cited by courts nationwide and shape legal doctrine.
ALI membership of approximately 4,000 includes Supreme Court justices, federal judges, law school deans, and prominent practitioners. Election to the ALI signals recognition as a leader in the legal profession. It provides opportunities to participate in projects that shape legal doctrine and to network with distinguished peers.
The ALI's power lies in its influence over legal development. Its Restatements, Model Codes, and other projects shape how courts interpret law and how legislatures draft statutes. This influence operates quietly, through the gradual adoption of ALI recommendations by courts and legislatures.
For lawyers and judges, ALI membership signals professional distinction and provides opportunities to shape legal doctrine. It also offers networking opportunities with peers from across the legal profession.
Federalist Society (Established 1982)
The Federalist Society has transformed American law by creating a network of conservative and libertarian lawyers, judges, and law students. Its approximately 70,000 members include Supreme Court justices, federal judges, law professors, and practicing attorneys.
The Society's influence on judicial appointments has been profound. Every Republican Supreme Court nominee since 2005 has been a Federalist Society member. The Society's recommended judges lists have shaped lower court appointments. Its network provides career support for conservative lawyers seeking judicial appointments or other positions.
Critics argue that the Federalist Society has politicized the judiciary and promoted an ideological agenda. Supporters counter that it provides intellectual rigor and principled jurisprudence as alternatives to liberal legal orthodoxy. Both perspectives have merit.
For conservative lawyers, Federalist Society membership signals ideological commitment and provides access to a powerful network. It offers opportunities for career advancement, particularly for those seeking judicial appointments or positions in Republican administrations.
THE MEDIA AND INTELLECTUAL NETWORKS
The Century Association (Established 1847)
The Century Association is a New York club for artists, writers, and intellectuals, though its membership has expanded to include business leaders and professionals. Its approximately 2,000 members include Pulitzer Prize winners, MacArthur Fellows, and leaders from various fields.
The Century's power lies in its role as a venue where intellectual and business elites interact. Its lunches, dinners, and events provide opportunities for writers to meet publishers, artists to meet collectors, and intellectuals to meet potential funders. These interactions shape cultural production and intellectual discourse.
For writers, artists, and intellectuals, Century membership signals recognition and provides access to a network that can advance careers. It offers opportunities to meet peers, find collaborators, and connect with people who can support one's work.
The Athenaeum (London, Established 1824)
London's Athenaeum Club brings together distinguished figures from literature, science, arts, and public service. Its approximately 1,300 members have included Charles Darwin, Charles Dickens, and numerous prime ministers, bishops, and scientists.
The Athenaeum's power lies in its role as a venue where Britain's intellectual and political elites interact. Its library, dining rooms, and lounges provide settings for conversations that shape British cultural and political life. Its membership represents the British establishment in concentrated form.
For British intellectuals and public figures, Athenaeum membership signals recognition by the establishment. It provides access to a network of distinguished peers and opportunities to participate in conversations that shape British society.
THE RULES OF ELITE SOCIETIES
Across all these organizations, certain patterns emerge:
Membership Signals Arrival - Joining these societies announces that one has achieved elite status in one's field. The credential opens doors to other opportunities.
Networks Matter More Than Meetings - The formal activities of these societies—conferences, publications, research—matter less than the informal networks they create. Relationships formed through society membership shape careers and policy.
Legitimacy is the Product - These societies provide legitimacy to ideas, policies, and people. To be endorsed by the CFR, elected to the NAS, or invited to Davos is to be recognized as serious and credible.
Access is Carefully Controlled - Membership criteria ensure that only people who have already achieved significant success can join. This creates homogeneous networks that reinforce existing power structures.
Influence Operates Quietly - These societies shape policy and culture through gradual consensus-building rather than direct control. Their influence is difficult to measure but profound.
THE FUTURE OF ELITE SOCIETIES
As wealth and power become more global and diverse, traditional elite societies face pressure to adapt. Tech billionaires create new networks (Y Combinator, Founders Fund network) that bypass traditional institutions. International elites demand representation in organizations historically dominated by Americans and Europeans. Younger generations question whether these societies serve public interests or perpetuate inequality.
Yet the fundamental dynamic persists: every elite group creates institutions to coordinate action, build consensus, and maintain power. The specific organizations may change, but the function remains constant. Today's tech elite creating new networks are doing exactly what bankers and lawyers did when they founded the CFR in 1921—building infrastructure to shape society according to their interests and values.
For the aspiring Goofy Snob, these societies represent both opportunity and barrier. They provide pathways to elite status for those with talent and ambition. They also reinforce existing hierarchies by granting access primarily to people who have already succeeded. Understanding how these societies function—what they do, how they select members, what benefits they provide—is essential for anyone seeking to navigate elite networks.
The invisible architecture of elite power isn't invisible because it's hidden. It's invisible because it operates through institutions that appear legitimate, even admirable. Professional societies, think tanks, and philanthropic organizations seem like natural features of a complex society. Yet they also function as gatekeeping mechanisms that determine who rises to positions of influence and who remains outside the corridors of power. Recognizing this dual nature—simultaneously legitimate and exclusionary—is essential for understanding how elite power actually works.
The Marlowe Keynes Society
The Marlowe Keynes Society stands as one of the most exclusive and enigmatic private societies in existence. Operating under strict Chatham House rules, this New York-based organization maintains a level of discretion that borders on the legendary. With an acceptance rate hovering around three percent—approximately three members admitted for every one hundred applicants—gaining entry to Marlowe Keynes is statistically more difficult than admission to the world's most selective universities.
Named for the towering economist John Maynard Keynes, whose ideas reshaped modern civilization, the Society embodies a philosophy of rigorous thought, principled judgment, and imaginative action. The organization's mission centers on equipping young people with the ideas, examples, and role models that define humanity's most important progress. Members engage in confidential discussions and intellectual exchange, though the specific nature of these gatherings remains closely guarded.
The Society's headquarters at 915 Broadway in Manhattan serves as the nexus for what insiders describe as transformative discourse on markets, science, human welfare, and institutional design. While the organization has historically operated in near-total secrecy, recent years have seen a gradual shift toward transparency, with the Society establishing a public web presence and articulating its values more openly.
Perhaps most intriguing is the Marlowe Keynes Prize, an award that some have dubbed an "underground Nobel." Unlike the Nobel Prizes, which recognize achievements across multiple categories, the Marlowe Keynes Prize is singular—one prize for everything. Awarded annually (though it may be withheld if no candidate meets the exacting standard), the Prize honors a living individual whose work has left "an eternal mark upon humanity." The laureate receives a bust of John Maynard Keynes, the Marlowe Keynes Medallion engraved with the motto "Vestigium Humanitatis Aeternum, a Iuventute Futura Memorandum" (An eternal mark upon humanity, remembered by the youth of the future), and a place in the living canon studied by every future cohort of the Society.
The selection process for the Prize is itself remarkable: each year's laureate is chosen jointly by the Head of the Marlowe Keynes Society and the most recent Prize laureate, forming a Prize Council whose deliberations remain confidential. The Prize seeks contributions that transform what humanity is capable of, deepen human understanding, and advance the condition of our species in a lasting, structural way. Winners are announced on the last day of January at the annual Marlowe Keynes Symposium, with the inaugural winner's comments preserved in video for posterity.
For those seeking membership, the Society maintains formal application channels through its website, though the long waitlist and brutal selectivity ensure that admission remains a rare achievement. The organization prioritizes candidates who demonstrate not merely intelligence or accomplishment, but a capacity for the kind of transformative thinking that defines its namesake and its mission.
In an era of ubiquitous information and diminishing privacy, the Marlowe Keynes Society represents something increasingly rare: a space where serious minds can engage in confidential, consequential dialogue about the ideas that will shape humanity's future. Whether this model of elite intellectual exchange will endure as the Society moves toward greater transparency remains an open question—one that future generations of Goofy Snobs will no doubt debate with characteristic irreverence.