babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
How so many big name Western intellectuals worked for the CIA
January 3, 2017 - 3:08pm
The source of this piece is fascinating: The New Republic.(associated with all sorts of neocon and rightist causes)
Quote:
What if the prominence of midcentury intellectuals, the sense that they were engaged in important political and artistic projects, is inseparable from the fact that they were useful to America’s Cold War empire?
Joel Whitney’s Finks: How the CIA Tricked the World’s Best Writers insists that past glory and present disappointment are inextricably linked. He wants to show that the distinction some make between a “good,” literary CIA and a “bad” one that toppled leftists and subverted democracy around the globe is an artificial one. Whitney argues that the government “weaponized” culture and helped create a compromised media that still serves, “in part, to encourage support for our interventions.” The term he uses in the title—“finks”—implies that the book’s subjects are disreputable actors, complicit in the crimes of the agency that supported their work...
"An era of heroic thinkers now looks instead like a grubby assortment of operatives, writers who appeared to challenge the establishment without actually being dangerous to it. Jason Epstein was right. The CIA created conditions that subverted the essential task of an intellectual: to cast a critical eye on orthodoxy and received wisdom."
Very odd syntax in the title...
Of course the CIA had very sophisticated "front" operations, including publishers of high-quality art books. And attracted a more "urbane" membership than the FBI.
But the fundamental problem was that it was very difficult indeed in those days to be such an intellectual, especially a radical or revolutionary intellectual, and not fall into one of the Cold War "camps". It meant marginalisation and often facing repression.
Modern Art Was CIA 'Weapon'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-157880...
“Modern Art” is considerably older than the CIA, so it is a very poor title. Certainly it goes back as far as the Expressionism and other currents the Nazis denounced as “Degenerate” (Entarte) Art. It would be more accurate to say that the CIA used certain currents of modern art (especially the USian variety of Abstract Expressionism) as weapons.
As I pointed out upthread:
Quite a few people have known this for decades. It doesn’t mean that “Modern Art” is a creation of the CIA, but that the sophisticated operatives of this spy agency were able to use it as propaganda. Pity that the Soviet Union no longer allowed the many forms of art, whether avant-garde or more traditional, which had flowered in the early days of the revolution.
I guess Glenn Gould was an agent too.
In case anyone needs a refresher:
http://www.robertfulford.com/gould.html
Why are you trying to derail this thread. It is interesting and fact filled. Is it that you have nothing but sarcasm and cynicism left in you? In the past you occasionally rose above those tendencies and actually posted opinions.
When one talks about prominent intellectuals Ewen Cameron needs including and highlighting. The whole field of psychiatry was influenced by his work on mind control on behalf of the CIA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Ewen_Cameron
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/sep/08/naomiklein1
What are you talking about?
Are you familiar with Gould's Moscow concerts? Or did you read the article?
I seriously doubt he was an agent for anything but great music, but the fact is, the pieces he featured in that performance were by artists who had been banned by a 1948 decree.That was part of the reason why his performances were a sensation.
I posted it in all seriousness, and both the timing of his visit, and the effect he had on Russian music make it completely relevant to this thread.
Here is another take on it:
https://bcheritagefairsalumni.wordpress.com/2016/07/29/glenn-gould-and-h...
Seriously. Read it.
I read the article before I commented and since I also seriously doubt that he was a CIA agent how is naming him relevant to a thread about CIA backed intellectuals.
Because what he did in the honest pursuit of music certainly did far more to challenge the system of artistic suppression than any of the CIA's dishonest attempts.
And he did it in a far more direct way, right in the heart of Moscow.
That is how I consider it relevant, kropotkin.
Got it.The Soviets were worse and instead of talking about the CIA let's talk about Moscow. You and Ikosmos deserve each other.
Mmmmm... not what I said or meant, but if that's the way you want to spin it, feel free.
As for "derailing" the thread by allegedly turning it onto the subject of the Soviet Union, the very first post is about the cold war, and at least two other posters brought up the Soviet Union directly up before me. Do I need to ask if you read NDPP's article too?
So unless you have a problem with me joining the conversation at all (and I don't care what you think about that) perhaps you should go bark up some other tree about this "don't talk about the Soviets" nonsense.
The article makes clear, I think, that, since the liberal intellectual warriors were no longer useful, or necessary to fight the Cold War, their services were no longer required and would not be ... for the forseeable future. So this alleged "golden age" will never return.
It certainly fits with the general dumbing down of intellectual life in the USA - the hegemon, the Empire - the hollowing out of the so-called middle class, and the evisceration of the universities, a free press, and so on. A dominant regime in its time .... produces idiots the like of Dubya, and now Trump, to "lead them" into the future.
A rotting civilizational model, truly. It's paradoxical that the Soviet regime, long gone for 25 years now, had an intellectual culture that constantly predicted the collapse, sometimes imminent, of the blood-soaked Western regimes and their vomit-inducing cultural life.
Their predictions were way ahead of schedule. But not, perhaps, wrong at all.
This American civilization is going to end with a babbling infant on all the channels, uttering nonsense, to a bewildered public that no longer even knows how to use the remote.
"And that's the way it is, this Wednesday, January 4th, 2017. I'm Walter Cronkite. Good night and God bless."
Don't you understand that the US is not the only imperialist power?
As for the inflated overblown language, that serves no purpose whatsoever in mobilising people to resist.
I don't think we can take it as a given that he does.
On the contrary, i shall never tire of endlessly mocking the enormous evil that is the US Empire, of savagly kicking it when it's down, and deriving enormous satisfaction from doing so. And I encourage other, like-minded people, to share their own "overblown" language, and mockery, and savage kicks to the Empire, that we might share our enthusiasm for its death - which shall inevitably come, one way or another - and encourage each other, and laugh at its banal evil, and its gross stupidity, and spit in its face, and so on.
How can you inflate or overblow the reality of the millions of people that have been displaced and the hundreds of thousands that have been killed because of US lead machinations to control the planets resources. Russia and China are the only countries capable of standing up to the US hegemony so while I dislike many things about those countries I am thankful that not all countries have fallen under Pax Americana.
IMO lumping them in with the US diminishes the evil that is the Western oligarchy and its NATO enforcement arm. We live in the belly of the beast and to me it is not seemly to point fingers at other regimes while living the privileged lifestyle made possible by the theft of others people's resources. Diminishing the extent of the current Western imperialism by comparing it to second tier national states will certainly not help to mobilize anyone. It seems to be a useful argument for people who want a no-fly zone in Syria and more intervention because as we all know here not only the US but all of Western civilization is exceptional and others should just submit to our oligarchies control over their resources.
Ikosmos may be rude and crude and prone to posting ridiculous articles but that does not mean his overall assessment of imperialism is wrong.
Perhaps China and Russia can stand up to the US...but should we really see either of those nations as anti-imperialistic? And would it in any way be a victory for the anti-imperialist cause if either became the dominant global force?
Some of us see the defeat of imperialism as requiring a world in which there are no longer ANY "suiperpowers"...because let's face it, it's not possible to be a superpower without being an empire. There can't be a superpower whose organizing principle is human liberation.
The Myth of "Russian Imperialism': In Defense of Lenin's Analyses
http://rogerannis.com/the-myth-of-russian-imperialism-in-defense-of-leni...
"Is Russia an imperialist power, part of the 'centre' of global capitalism? Or, do its economic, social and politico-military characteristics mark it as part of the global 'periphery' or semi periphery - that is, as one of the majority of countries that to one degree or another are the targets of imperialist bullying and plunder?"
Clearly and obviously, especially now, the latter.
Who the fuck has ever said that we need a new dominant global force. Indeed the only way to defeat imperialism is to defeat militarism. In the transition to a none imperialist world it would seem that the only target for a free citizen of a first world democracy would be reducing the US/NATO war machine. After all aren't we the countries that are driven by the public will? Given that the US outspends every other country on the planet I think there is a long way for them to go to reduce their imperial military without having to worry about being invaded. Bring US/NATO troops home to within their own borders and see what happens. The nuclear deterrent would still be in play.
The Duran (English-language Russian media) has an interesting recent piece that covers some of the history of the actions of the various UN Secretary-Generals. The bar has been set, according to the author, by Dag Hammarskjold, who addressed the importance of the independence of the office.
The most recent UN Sec Gen hired two former US State Department ideologues for his key staff positions and was, in all respects, an obsequious boot-licker of the barbarous US regime, and a transmission belt for its wishes. Good riddance to him.
The new guy could not, therefore, be worse. But we'll see.
The part of the article that I found interesting, and relevant to the topic of this thread - especially after all the pro-US regime wailing here - is what a former UN Sec Gen said about the diplomatic efforts of the stinking US regime.
The repulsive US regime is truly in a class by itself. No other country will ever spend the amount of stolen wealth on arms, and killing, and making war on the rest of the planet like that regime does and continues to do. On the basis of wealth alone, other countries simply can't afford it, much less WANT to play that role on Planet Earth. The jackboot US regime actually, e.g., as the quote from Boutros-Ghali noted, doesn't bother to train their mouthpieces - their "voice of Sauron" to use the delicious and very appropriate LOTR expression - in diplomacy; they simply expect the rest of the planet to obey their orders.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (former UN Secretary General):
"But the Roman Empire had no need of diplomacy. Neither does the United States."
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (former UN Secretary General):
"But the Roman Empire had no need of diplomacy. Neither does the United States."
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (former UN Secretary General):
"But the Roman Empire had no need of diplomacy. Neither does the United States."
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (former UN Secretary General):
"But the Roman Empire had no need of diplomacy. Neither does the United States."
Boutros Boutros-Ghali (former UN Secretary General):
"But the Roman Empire had no need of diplomacy. Neither does the United States."
The Zhdanov Doctrine died with Stalin, in 1953, four years before Gould had his concerts. A question you might ask yourself is 'Who arranged for the Gould concerts in the Soviet Union?' Or did they just spring up spontaneously?
Certainly the Soviet authorities, knowing of Gould's interest in the 'anti-Soviet' composers must have tried to prevent his trip, right?
For your information, compiled from the SIPRI database
SIPRI
Of a world total of roughly 1.6 trillion dollars (USD), NATO countries spend just under a trillion, or roughly 2/3rds of the world total.
Bearing in mind that the two largest countries in the world, as well as Russia, are not in NATO, and that NATO includes only 28 countries out of a total of roughly 180 countries in the world, there is no doubt who the military aggressor is.
The USA alone spends more than a third of the total world expenditure on the military. If one adds USA client states which are not in NATO, the total becomes even more pronounced. Israel and Saudi Arabia between them spend close to 100 billion.
Bottom line rev, some fuddy duddys left the hall, and for the rest it was a sensation. But if you seriously think there were covert machinations on either side kropotkin might be more interested. I already said (a tangent or so ago now) it was a joke.
Seriously for a moment, if some music academics (not the ones who stormed out) suspected that might be the outcome and put in a good word, that's a good thing, right? Things like that did happen. More plausible than the idea that the all knowing authorities orchestrated it knowing exactly what Gould was going to do. It might have been a tighter ship than ours, but the idea they must have either done it or known it would happen kind of plays into western myths.
Speaking of which, I have an old DDR cassette of T Rex's Cosmic Dancer - the one with Children of the Revolution on it. Now was that co opting western music to serve the revolution, someones secret plan to subvert it with western values, or just popular tunes? Conspiratorial minds want to know.
The strange thing about culture is it can be used by anyone to propagandize any viewpoint they want. So what do you think about this bizarre take on Back in the USSR?
https://vimeo.com/10338995
Neat.
More on the CIA. This time FROM the CIA.
France: Defeat of the Leftist Intellectuals.
This is the url for the above link, fyi. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86S00588R000300380001-5.pdf
Sanitized Copy approved for release in 2011. From ~ 1985.
Although you really can`t list McCain as part of any intellectual class, what is instructive is the way that he has been blackmailed to do the bidding of the CIA (Wayne Madsen)...like so many others...blackmail must be considered a key element along with payouts and threats, in the operations of the CIA in USA and Europe to control the outputs of the political and media and intellectual classes...a total process of corruption...how to transform this is beyond my capacity to suggest...but serious attempts to charge such intellectuals and politicals for complicity in war crimes is essential...what is the charge when someone submits to the threats of blackmail to commit crimes of falsification with criminal, war criminal consequences?
submitted by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,
TechDirt writer Mike Masnick is so disgusted with fake-patriot politicians that he stopped writing about tech dirt and instead wrote about human dirt: Senator John McCain.
Masnick took McCain’s statement “President Obama’s commutation of Chelsea Manning’s sentence is a grave mistake that I fear will encourage further acts of espionage and undermine military discipline.” and ripped to shreds.
Almost Every Word Of John McCain’s Response To Chelsea Manning’s Sentence Commutation Is Flat Out Wrong says Mike Masnick.
What follows is Masnick’s entire article because every point he makes is an important one.
From the Hypocrites-in-Congress Dept
It’s hardly a surprise that a bunch of people who have been fed a load of bullshit about what Chelsea Manning did years ago are now quite angry over President Obama’s decision to commute Manning’s sentence. But I don’t think any are quite as painstakingly wrong as Senator John McCain. Someone should call up the Guinness World Record folks, because the wrong-per-sentence ratio of McCain’s angry statement might just set a new world record. Let’s dig in.
You think John McCain has been blackmailed by the CIA?
For what? And on what evidence?
They have a very compromising photo of him wincing during a Viet Cong torture session.