If you listened to the last episode of Citations Needed, you heard that the CIA funneled money into into cultural institutions like the Iowa Writers Workshop and the Paris Review to win the cultural war against communism. Much of this led to the emphasis on first-person writing and a focus on individual experience.
I don't know about you comrades, but I got Ds throughout secondary (high school) in English. I fucking hated 20th century lit. Are there any pretentious and overly individualistic writers that you blame on the CIA?
There's an anti communist writer who celebrated the fall of USSR as "victory for socialism" while never giving another alternative. But yall know who he is.
:cia: Noooooam, it's 4 o'clock, time for your consent manufacturing!
:chomsky-yes-honey: Yes, honey.
https://hyperallergic.com/313435/an-illustrated-guide-to-guy-debords-the-society-of-the-spectacle/
Debord is one of the theorists everyone should read because he's doing what Citations Needed does but in a cohesive referential text. The 20th century saw the developments of psychoanalysis and mass/social media. Consumerism, especially with the 1960s onward, became a form of offloading hyper-alienation through commodity fetishism. Authenticity was replaced by imagery and imagery is controlled by its producers. When you've got a decent grasp of spectacle, how power structures use imagery to manipulate reality for their own ends, it's a lot easier to process what you're being sold and why.
His idea about concentrated, diffuse, and integrated spectacle really make a lot of sense.
Concentrated: Great Man, a charismatic leader, a direct and obvious propaganda department that tells you what it is (easy to ignore, not particularly effective)
Diffuse: Old American Advertising, pervasive and inescapable marketing saturating all of society with indirect imagery meant to manipulate thought patterns and enforce capitalist cultural norms.
Integrated: Modern American Advertising, Steve Jobs, Musk, Bezos etc. The combination of diffuse marketing with concentrated great man propaganda. Much more effective than either. He also predicted this before the complete adoption of it in the mid 90's/early 00's
If you listened to the ep the you'd understand that the CIA didn't "mold" anyone. They found existing writers that they liked and helped then found major writing workshops and review papers and promoted them. You can either say anyone who went to the Iowa school or was inspired by it or followed its trends or no one.
I mean, fair enough. But certain people were funded and given important positions, and they influenced generations of students with the institutional power they had.
Like, I wonder if the Field of Dreams guy, Kinsella, would have taken off if there wasn't a push for that sorta cheesy white writing. Ya, the CIA didn't tell people what to write. But it has a definite cultural effect.
My point is who the CIA promoted are clearly known and there's no need to speculate. The question frames the topic in a conspiratorial manner, to say "oh artist X is a CIA plant".
In regards to the CCF and the Iowa Writers Workshop, the CIA didn't support individuals but rather certain styles.
Anyhow, this post isn't meant to be educational, but rather an entertaining gripe at awful writers that were poured down our throats as children.
I think it's interesting they chose Stegner. While his collected short stories focus on small scale evocative experiences, The Big Rock Candy Mountain is a scathing critique of America and the frontier mentality. Whether Stegner meant it to be a critique, however, is another story.
There are mostly likely very many, the Information Research Department (secret foreign office branch, still exists under a different name) did the same thing in the UK too, eg probably Orwell, probably lots of authors published by Penguin. Honestly any writer in the last 60 years whose work is more famous than it should be and whose work contains anti-communism on some level was probably intelligence funded/boosted.
I remember reading that Orwell was the early stage of anti communism propoganda. But it was too obvious. The CIA literally dropped copies of the book from CIA aircraft over Soviet block countries.
The Congress for Cultural Freedom was supposed to launder CIA money behind not for profit foundations and academic institutions. And people wonder why leftists are paranoid.
it was too obvious
Right? It's hilarious for this supposed socialist to spend all his time parroting his capitalist government's line to criticize a socialist country, yet everyone bought it (including me a lil when I read it at school)
I almost bought it until the part about sociologists and teachers taking over the government. I grew up around sociologists and teachers, they have neither the time nor the energy to create a fascist state.
Orwell Apologists: "Nooo you don't get it 1984 is just against authoritarianism its equally dismissive of capitalism and socialist dictatorships"
Every single living normal person who has read 1984: "Oh this is obviously all about the Soviet Union and how awful it is compared to us"
CIA: "Hehe airdrops go brrr"
hot take: the marxist fixation on the CIA as the source of all that one detests is an indication that the kind of so-called materialist analysis which only recognizes state power is not applicable to all areas of society. it's the dark reflection of the belief that people in the soviet union were only communists because they had been brainwashed by the gubmint.
On the flipside, capitalism shapes culture on its own just fine, even before the CIA does get involved.
No, their production budget was whatever they could find in between Ted Turner's couch cushions.
That seems like it could be a huge budget. Ted Turner strikes me as someone who would keep a lot of cash in couch cushions.
I mean, they did have enough money to reveal to the world what cutting edge special effects you could generate on an Amiga 2000 with a Video Toaster in glorious 320x240 resolution.
It's pretty good overall, if you're into gritty space opera. The low-budget production quality adds kind of a "space capitalism in decay" aesthetic, if you can get past the CGI. Like every damn sci-fi show, it starts to hit its stride more in the second season. And yeah, that pilot episode is freaking rough.
I have no proof whatsoever but I smell so much stink on John and Hank Green. Incredibly banal writing, milquetoast lib stances, and yet massively famous "education" outlet.
They're probably just corporately sponsored libs though, like a lib version of PragerU.
yeah I'm probably overreacting, they're just standard popular liberals and I don't like them
F Scott Fitzgerald because his "great Gatsby" book is supposedly a criticism of being materialistic and American attitudes and stuff but like....
it sucks and isn't really like no shit money didn't make these losers happy
long before the CIA
i think it has nice imagery like T J Ecklebergs Eyes
I had to read The Pearl and Grapes of Wrath in elementary school and even then I remember thinking the stories seemed out of place. Most of the time in school we were learning about what rich or powerful people were up to, now here are suddenly these stories about the crushing weight of poverty. Felt weird.
they pumped expressionism to counter realism in the height of soviet realism
https://daily.jstor.org/was-modern-art-really-a-cia-psy-op/
theres also the more prominent example of french intellectual infiltration. this is more complex i think. i havent read these but ill take a synopsis if someone cares:
https://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/international/200417/cias-highbrow-operation-dismantle-frances-intellectual-left?_locale=en&onglet=full
http://thephilosophicalsalon.com/the-cia-reads-french-theory-on-the-intellectual-labor-of-dismantling-the-cultural-left/
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=36345
cia report: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP86S00588R000300380001-5.pdf
Tbh funding new and weird kinds of art is pretty cool if it wasnt for the propaganda angle, Socialist Realism is neat and all but its kind of a dull style IMO and the political reasoning behind it feels really patronising and dismissive of art aside from as a tool.
Constructivism is badass though and who really cares what art there state sanctions for propaganda? The WPA had a similar style guide, doesn't mean all other forms of art were banned or anything.
I mean yeah its not an all out ban or anything but I just think its inappropriate for a state to make and spread statements of what art should be and what is proper art in accordance with the ideals of the country/people, in terms of shit like art should be realistic or be immediately relevant to the workers and stuff like that.
I mean, the statues and stuff remained in the socialist realist style, but Soviet propaganda artwork was absolutely not limited to that style. Just look at the Cold War era stuff they were putting out, it's more intriguing than anything I've seen coming out of the west.
Stuff like this that looks like it could be a Pink Floyd album cover.
Thats fair, I'm probably being at least a bit unfair in this. I assume it also wasnt like a 100% constant pressure to do art in that style, and there definitely is really interesting art that came out of the Soviet Union in the later parts.
Jane Austen was CIA special ops
Sorry for the tangent but, not writers but supposed green architects like Frank lloyd Wright, even author of Cradle to Cradle, Mcdonough (who I mildly respect). Shit man, all the modernist ‘greats‘ Le Corbusier, Mies Van der Rohe, Groiphus....you honestly can’t tell me the Barcelona pavillion is a fucking beautiful architectural masterpiece when it’ s just a glass shitbox responsible for the most wasteful aspects of building aesthetics that we see today.
Norman Foster is a heralded green architect...he designed this shit: https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.admagazine.com%2Farquitectura%2Fnorman-foster-el-arquitecto-de-los-grandes-proyectos-20200217-6484-articulos.html&psig=AOvVaw2mL9InbY8uYWCqshC7Xs8G&ust=1632669605176000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAgQjRxqFwoTCOCkhbK2mvMCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAI
Dude, how in the fuckkk.....is it not CIA propaganda to call that ‘green’ architecture? The entire field has been overtaken by covert ops and needs to be purged. Then there’s the architects who make no pretense about their wastefulness.
Hadid https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.archdaily.com%2F922310%2Fopus-hotel-zaha-hadid-architects&psig=AOvVaw2MZ3q7pfQT65FTIrh5q6Ne&ust=1632669916157000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAgQjRxqFwoTCLDzosi3mvMCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD
And of course the progeny of the beastly mindpalace inside Frank Ghery’s skull: Bilbao guggenheim
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcms.guggenheim-bilbao.eus%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F05%2Fel-edificio-guggenheim-bilbao-1.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.guggenheim-bilbao.eus%2Fen%2Fthe-building&tbnid=-qb_lYeBox8grM&vet=12ahUKEwiHvPauuJrzAhUMLN8KHVEoByYQMygAegUIARDQAQ..i&docid=_DQlfJeg6I6nZM&w=1920&h=1080&q=bilbao%20guggenheim&hl=en-US&client=safari&ved=2ahUKEwiHvPauuJrzAhUMLN8KHVEoByYQMygAegUIARDQAQ
that’s CIA funding at work, no doubt in my mind.
responsible for the most wasteful aspects of building aesthetics that we see today.
Would you mind going a bit more into that/link to some interesting articles if it's not too much of a hassle? It sounds very interesting. I am someone who has taken a casual interest in architecture and I would like too know more.
Sure, I’ll look up some links for you later but a really straightforward answer is the use/overuse of glass that modernist architecture is often characterized by. Glass sucks for several reasons because it ramps up the energy consumption used by buildings and prevents passive cooling/ventilation through wind. A glass building is pretty much required to use artificial cooling whereas louver’d windows for example will allow air and a really efficient, well designed building might not even any sort of electrical or HVAC apparatus to cool the insides of a building.
It’s also a pretty bad insulator (at least compared to non metals).
Cradle to Cradle is a pretty good introductory book on a materialist approach to ‘green design’, although it has its problems and is getting kind of date. It talks a lot about the reuse of materials, and the necessity of locally sourced, inexpensive materials.
I think good, eco friendly architects, at least by today’s low standards, are skilled at using passive cooling and natural lighting in their designs to create the most energy efficient buildings possible. A good book for learning how to use these tools in your designs is ‘Sun, Wind, and Light’.
There’s other aspects of energy consumption that are determined by design such as building envelope(ie the geometry of the building can have an effect, complex shapes can be more inefficient that just squarish or round buildings, low ceilings are infinitely less energy consuming, individual homes are more wasteful than housing complexes). Less total square footage of a building is better. Materials, as mentioned earlier, can make a big difference.
Designs that really change our working relationship to homes and climates hold the key. Let me rephrase that, rather than ‘change’, I think it’s necessary to return to the vernacular architecutre of history and of indigenous peoples. Just that term ‘vernacular architecture’ is a great rabbit hole to go down.
examples include these saddleback roofed houses of Indonesia (Tongkonan): https://factsofindonesia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Tana_Toraja_20180621_021-e1570021063162-1280x720.jpg
These are perfectly built for their environments in the tropics of Indonesia
The granaries in Scandinavia have a unique construction of stone and wood in high altitude that keeps perfect interior temperature for food holdings.
Yurts used in the steppes of Central Asia provided perfect heating and a place for ceremonial activities
https://simplydifferently.org/Present/Pics/nativeyurt-karakalpak-yurt11.jpg
.
David Ignatius is a WaPo "journalist" but he's got to be a CIA plant and he's written fiction.
Are there any pretentious and overly individualistic writers that you blame on the CIA?
I don't know a thing about his novels but if you ever want to know the official military-industrial complex and CIA line on important geopolitical topical news - Ignatius will be on Morning Joe many days that week spouting it.
Ignatius's coverage of the CIA has been criticized as being defensive and overly positive. Melvin A. Goodman, a 42-year CIA veteran, Johns Hopkins professor, and senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, has called Ignatius "the mainstream media's apologist for the Central Intelligence Agency," citing as examples Ignatius's criticism of the Obama administration for investigating the CIA's role in the use of torture in interrogations during the Iraq War and his charitable defense of the agency's motivations for outsourcing such activities to private contractors.[9][10][11] Columnist Glenn Greenwald has leveled similar criticism against Ignatius.[12]
Reading his Wikipedia page, you'd swear he's on the CIA payroll
I'll leave this here: David Ignatius.
on the CIA payroll
Well, if he's not on their payroll - he's a fool. Also - his dad...
Paul Robert Ignatius, a former Secretary of the Navy (1967–69), president of The Washington Post, and former president of the Air Transport Association.
Just scanning the page I found some odd stuff...
Opera
In May 2015, MSNBC's Morning Joe announced that Ignatius would be teaming up with composer Mohammed Fairouz to create a political opera called The New Prince, based on the teachings of Niccolò Machiavelli. The opera was commissioned by the Dutch National Opera. Speaking with The Washington Post, Ignatius described the broad themes of the opera in terms of three chapters:
The first chapter is about revolution and disorder. Revolutions, like children, are lovable when young, and they become much less lovable as they age. The second lesson Machiavelli tells us is about sexual obsession, among leaders. And then the final chapter is basically is the story of Dick Cheney [and] bin Laden, the way in which those two ideas of what we're obliged to do as leaders converged in such a destructive way.
———
In 2011 Ignatius held a contest for The Washington Post readers to write a spy novel. Ignatius wrote the first chapter and challenged fans to continue the story. Over eight weeks, readers sent in their versions of what befalls CIA agents Alex Kassem and Sarah Mancini and voted for their favorite entries. Ignatius chose the winning entry for each round, resulting in a six-chapter Web serial. Winners of the subsequent chapters included Chapter 2, "Sweets for the Sweet," by Colin Flaherty; Chapter 3, "Abu Talib," by Jill Borak; Chapter 4, "Go Hard or Go Home," by Vineet Daga; Chapter 5, "Inside Out," by Colin Flaherty; and Chapter 6, "Onward!," by Gina 'Miel' Ard.
Ts Elliot
JD Salinger
Donald Justice - his poetry is pretentious and his Wikipedia page makes him look like a spook
It's not that he was talking fed money. It's that his style and success is (maybe) influenced by the very individualist, first person narrative that the CIA was pushing.
Anyhow, it's all speculation from me. I hated A Catcher in the Rye, but I'm not going to call the guy a spook.
