|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
some of these criminal gangs who have been cooperating with CIA are Daniel Pipes ,Joules fulishman and others Jews ..
Assassinations by car aceidenc,Arson ,Poison ,Sabotag even on Bus,Train,
Air Plane,home and also using biological material like that one which media say russian used it, and
Andrax light powder and in long term poison by bacteria etc...A Look To Book Called The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters
By Madam: Frances Stonor Saunders
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters
Frances Stonor Saunders
The Cultural Cold War
(2000), Frances Stonor Saunders
Questia
The Internet's Largest Library
The Cold War was such an utterly unique historical period that it's likely the next hundred years will be filtered through its prism. One has only to witness the Elian Gonzalez farce to realize that for some people, it is forever 1962, and the world is forever divided into twin empires, eternally opposed. The truth, of course, is that there is only one remaining empire, and now is the time for reflection, for a reasoned and lengthy analysis of what the Cold War cost the world, in bodies lost in battle, and in spirits crushed by McCarthyism and Stalinist purges.
Frances Stonor Saunders attempts analysis of one facet of America's Cold War lunacies in The Cultural Cold War. She details the efforts the CIA made through its front group, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, and various shadow-funded foundations, to influence the artistic, literary and philosophical environments of postwar Europe towards the American ideal and away from the beckonings of Communism. In so doing, she manages to make the US government look thoroughly foolish and ham-fisted, and while that may not be any astonishing achievement, it provides entertaining reading.
Much of this material, while factually unfamiliar (though the list of folks who took government checks is pretty astonishing: Jackson Pollock, Irving Kristol, Andre Malraux, Reinhold Neibuhr, George Orwell, Bertrand Russell, Stephen Spender, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and many, many others), is nevertheless ideologically unsurprising, and will dovetail nicely with the previously existing assumptions of the book's intended audience. Those who reflexively distrust government will find plenty here to confirm their suspicions, and those who continue to place blind faith in their leaders will likely dismiss the book out of hand and unread.
It would have been easy to make The Cultural Cold War a broad satiric swipe at the mythical "Ugly American" attempting to foist his jazz and his abstract expressionist painters, and, most importantly, his lofty pronouncements on democracy and capitalism, on the shivering refugees of Europe who, like bums at a Salvation Army soup kitchen, resigned themselves to sitting through the sermon if they wanted the sandwich afterwards. This is why it is to Saunders's credit that she does not attempt to make light of any of the material she presents. She treats the CIA's insistence that the work of Jackson Pollock represented some sort of insurgent Americanism that would in some undefinable way trump realism and Stalinism at once with utter deadpan dignity. And she treats the men of the CCF and the CIA, and their various efforts, with respect as well, recognizing that they felt grave import weighing upon their actions, that to them this was no whim, it was the Final Battle, fought day by day, heart and mind by heart and mind. And so, though at the end The Cultural Cold War indicts those it describes, it does so fairly, and does not whitewash the enemy they believed so dangerous then.
Times were different then. Today, the idea that the CIA would found a literary and cultural journal (Encounter) and would fund touring art exhibits (mostly through the New York Museum Of Modern Art, which was intimately linked to the agency) seems absurdist. The belief that this might foster a general freedom of thought, which would somehow magically evolve into anti-Communist thinking, could almost be the basis for a Pynchonesque satire, were it not for the knowledge that many readers of this book will already likely possess about just how insane things really got in the Fifties and Sixties. There's not much room for satire when the unvarnished truth, analyzed in sufficient depth, induces jibbering, lunatic laughter. As William Fulbright is quoted here:The effect of the anti-Communist ideology was to spare us the task of taking cognizance of the specific facts of specific situations. Our "faith" liberated us, like the believers of old, from the requirements of empirical thinking...Like medieval theologians, we had a philosophy that explained everything to us in advance, and everything that did not fit could be readily identified as a fraud or a lie or an illusion...The perniciousness of [anti-Communist orthodoxy] arises not from any patent falsehood but from its distortion and simplification of reality, from its universalization and its elevation to the status of a revealed truth.
The Cultural Cold War is fascinating because it reveals yet another shadow of the Cold War. It may be all the more captivating for those who did not live through the times it describes. For those (like this reviewer) who are too young to have any but the vaguest idea what the world was like when there really was a worldwide - and on some level viable and threatening - Communism, this book may come as a harsh history lesson indeed.
http://www.culturevulture.net/Books/CulturalColdWar.htm
========================
The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters (Hardcover)
by Frances Stonor Saunders (Author)
(4 customer reviews)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Availability: Available from these sellers.
29 used & new available from $3.04
‹ Return to Product Overview
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
It is well known that the CIA funded right-wing intellectuals after World War II; fewer know that it also courted individuals from the center and the left in an effort to turn the intelligentsia away from communism and toward an acceptance of "the American way." Frances Stonor Saunders sifts through the history of the covert Congress for Cultural Freedom in The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. The book centers on the career of Michael Josselson, the principal intellectual figure in the operation, and his eventual betrayal by people who scapegoated him. Sanders demonstrates that, in the early days, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the emergent CIA were less dominated by the far right than they later became, and that the idea of helping out progressive moderates--rather than being Machiavellian--actually appealed to the men at the top.
Many intellectuals were still drawn to Stalin's Russia. Saunders superbly traces the crisis of conscience that McCarthyism and its associated book-burning caused, and the subsequent rise of more moderate ideals. This exhaustive account, despite neglecting some important side issues, is an essential book. --Roz Kaveney, Amazon.co.ukThe New York Times Book Review, Josef Joffe
...her cultural history is entertaining, even witty.... She has spent years wading through the files and interviewing both protagonists and critics.The Independent on Sunday
Painstakingly researched...and jauntily written, alive to the ironies of a campaign for cultural freedom whose boundaries were circumscribed by its shady sponsors.The Times [London]
Saunders is right. This really is a crucial story, about the dangerous, compromising energies and manipulation of an entire and very recent age.The Wall Street Journal
A real contribution to popular understanding of the postwar period. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.The New York Times
[T]he most comprehensive account yet of the [CIA's] activities between 1947 and 1967. --This text refers to the Paperback edition.Lewis Lapham, Los Angeles Times Book Review
[Saunders] writes with a sense of humor and an appreciation of the historical circumstances... --This text refers to the Paperback edition.Washington Post Book World, Michael Dirda, 2 April 2000
Perfectly right... consistently fascinating.From Kirkus Reviews
An impressively detailed, eye-opening study by film producer Saunders of the CIAs clandestine sponsorship of artists and intellectuals during the Cold War. Using interviews and archival data (taken mostly from sources outside the CIA, who routinely ignored her requests under the Freedom of Information Act), Saunders pieces together an elaborate network of CIA money-laundering schemes that funded cultural organizations opposed to communism. Starting with black accounts siphoned off from the Marshall Plan in the late 1940s, Saunders details how the CIA created or used nonprofit organizations such as the Ford Foundation to funnel millions of dollars to institutions like the Congress for Cultural Freedom and its affiliated programs. While few will be shocked that conservatives like Irving Kristol participated in CIA-backed projects, laymen will be surprised at how the Boston Symphony Orchestra and various abstract expressionist painters (via the Museum of Modern Art under Nelson Rockefeller, its president and an adviser to Eisenhower) benefitted from this largesse. At times the high volume of data and personalities muddies the story, and one would expect more cloak-and-dagger spy stories in such an exhaustive study, but thankfully Saunders does address the crucial issue her subject raisesnamely, the consequences of intellectuals accepting money (consciously or unconsciously) from political sources. She pays considerable attention to old controversies, such as (CIA-backed) Encounters refusal to publish an article by its former editor Dwight Macdonald, and Conor Cruise OBriens attack on the same journal for its disavowed but evident American boosterism. She can also make the CIA appear enlightened, as when she describes how the Ivy Leaguers of the Agency supported leftist artists over the objections of Senator Joseph McCarthy. In the end, however, Saunders has little tolerance for state-sponsored thinkers. She concludes that when, in the late 1960s, the artists and writers involved in CIA projects began denying rumors of their patrons background, they were (in words taken from an interview) crummy liars. An illuminating investigation that will surprise general readers and aid scholars and students.-- Copyright © 2000 Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.The Literary Review
A marvelously readable account of how the free world's thirty-year-long cultural Cold War against Communism was both materially strengthened and morally weakened by the practical necessity for it to be funded covertly by the CIA....There is a gem on almost every page.Observer
An absorbing, distressing and, at times, uproariously funny history of this war of delusionary images, a battle for hearts and minds which was conducted by mobilising culture.The Scotsman
Were the events in Saunders's book not true it would take a comic genius of Evelyn Waugh's caliber to have invented them.The New York Times, Laurence Zuckerman, 18 March 2000
The most comprehensive account yet.The Irish Times
A standard work and a springboard for further investigation.Philadelphia Inquirer, Leonard W. Boasberg, 16 April 2000
New details and a cast of colorful characters.New York Post, Tom O'Brien, 4 May 2000
Richly ironic insights.Book Description
The "rivetingly told" (Times Literary Supplement) story of the CIA's Cold War cultural operations, short-listed for the Guardian First Book Award. In The Cultural Cold War, Frances Stonor Saunders presents for the first time the shocking evidence that the CIA infiltrated every niche of the cultural sphere during the postwar years. In a "hammer-blow of a book" (The Spectator, London) drawing together recently declassified documents and exclusive interviews, the author narrates the extraordinary story of a secret campaign in which some of the most vocal exponents of intellectual freedom in the West were instruments of America's secret service. The CIA's front organizations and the philanthropic foundations that channeled its money organized conferences, founded magazines, ran congresses, mounted exhibitions, arranged concerts, and flew symphony orchestras around the world. Many of the period's foremost intellectuals, artists, and philanthropists appear in the book: Isaiah Berlin, Clement Greenberg, Sidney Hook, Arthur Koestler, Irving Kristol, Robert Lowell, Henry Luce, Andr Malraux, Mary McCarthy, Reinhold Neibuhr, George Orwell, Jackson Pollock, Nelson Rockefeller, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., and Stephen Spender, among others. While many were unwitting participants in the CIA's cultural operation, others were willing collaborators. In this expose of covert patronage unprecedented in modern history, recently short-listed for the Guardian First Book Award, Saunders has created "a crucial story" (The Times, London) that is "quite unputdownable" (Literary Review).About the Author
Frances Stonor Saunders has worked as an independent film producer on such documentaries as the four-hour Hidden Hands: A Different History of Modernism. Her short story, "Big Things," was published in New Writing. She lives in London.‹ Return to Product Overview
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===
Academics and Spies: The Silence That Roars. By DAVID N. GIBBS. Sunday, January 28, 2001TUCSON--An academic controversy has revealed a most interesting fact: A significant number of social scientists, especially political scientists, regularly work with the Central Intelligence Agency.
It has long been known that the academia-CIA connection was a staple of the early Cold War. During the 1940s and '50s, the CIA and military intelligence were among the major sources of financial support for America's social scientists. In Europe, the agency covertly supported some of the leading writers and scholars through the Congress for Cultural Freedom, as Frances Stonor Saunders recently documented in her book "The Cultural Cold War."
Such ties supposedly withered during the 1970s, in the aftermath of Vietnam and hearings by the U.S. Senate select committee on intelligence, which revealed extensive CIA misdeeds, including fomenting coups against democratically elected governments, plotting assassinations of foreign leaders and disseminating propaganda. After these revelations, it seemed that no self-respecting academic would go anywhere near the agency.
A recent article in the magazine Lingua Franca, however, reveals that this perception is inaccurate and that the "cloak and gown" connection has flourished in the aftermath of the Cold War. The article states that since 1996, the CIA has made public outreach a "top priority and targets academia in particular. According to experts on U.S. intelligence, the strategy has worked," it says. The article quotes esteemed academics, including Columbia's Robert Jervis, former president-elect of the American Political Science Assn., and Harvard's Joseph S. Nye. Both acknowledge having worked for the CIA. Yale's H. Bradford Westerfield is quoted as saying: "There's a great deal of actually open consultation and there's a lot more semi-open, broadly acknowledged consultation."
What is interesting about the above quote is that it is offered so casually, as if no reasonable person could find fault with the activity. Something is seriously wrong here.
The CIA is not an ordinary government agency; it is an espionage agency and the practices of espionage--which include secrecy, propaganda and deception--are diametrically opposed to those of scholarship. Scholarship is supposed to favor objective analysis and open discussion. The close relationship between intelligence agencies and scholars thus poses a conflict of interest. After all, the CIA has been a key party to many of the international conflicts that academics must study. If political scientists are working for the CIA, how can they function as objective and disinterested scholars?
This problem of objectivity is essentially the same one that scientists are addressing with regard to biomedical research funded by drug companies. Biomedical scientists increasingly are expected to reveal financial support that might bias their findings. It is regrettable that political science, which has no expectation of full disclosure relating to work for the CIA, holds itself to a lower standard.
The CIA likes to advertise that it has "reformed" since the end of the Cold War and no longer engages in many of the secretive practices that resulted in so much congressional and public disapproval. Indeed, several academic defenders of the CIA, including Westerfield, emphasize CIA "reform." This is mostly a public-relations gambit. People who think the agency has reformed should try requesting documents through the Freedom of Information Act; they probably will find it impossible.
Secrecy poses a special problem for scholars. Research undertaken for the CIA often is classified, so that academics who have performed the research are legally barred from revealing much of what they may find. Scholars thus are prevented from doing their jobs, which must include disseminating the fruits of their research through publication. In undertaking classified work, researchers have become complicit in the practice of secrecy, one of the most undemocratic characteristics of the intelligence services.
Jervis, Nye and Westerfield seem to discount any suggestion that academic-intelligence ties might bias scholarship. But consider covert operations undertaken by the CIA. These operations resulted in some of the most controversial actions during the Cold War, including U.S. support for overthrowing governments in Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Zaire in 1961, Indonesia in 1965 and Chile in 1973. These operations have been extensively documented in Senate hearings and by other reliable sources. How does political science treat these issues? I reviewed all the articles published during the past 10 years in five of the most prestigious journals in the field. Apart from a rare paragraph or perhaps a sentence or two, they contain no mention of CIA covert operations. Covert actions have been effectively expunged from the record.
This failure of political science to discuss covert operations is troubling. The Los Angeles Times and other news media run articles on covert operations, such as the recent revelation that the CIA had close links to Gen. Manuel Contreras, Chile's dreaded secret police chief during the Pinochet dictatorship. The U.S. government has acknowledged some of these operations. This past March, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright publicly acknowledged to the Iranian government, in light of evidence, that the CIA had supported the 1953 coup in that country. Nevertheless, political science journals remain virtually silent on such issues. Can anybody explain this?
David N. Gibbs, an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Arizona, Is the Author of "The Political Economy of Third World Intervention."
http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/articles/rushdie/01-01-28lat.htm