39
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Daddogofdasink@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 15 hours ago

i actually have no idea what this is about but my interest is piqued, can i see some like evidence? i would like to learn more ^^

[-] Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml 43 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

This book talks about it thoroughly.

Basically, the CIA secretly funded and promoted Abstract Expressionism during the Cold War as a cultural weapon against the Soviet Union. This program, active primarily from the 1950s to 1967, aimed to showcase American intellectual and creative freedom in contrast to the Socialist Realism mandated by the USSR.

They used the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) and front organizations like the Farfield Foundation to fund exhibitions and magazines, maintaining a "long leash" distance to keep artists unaware of the government backing.

The agency sponsored major touring exhibitions, such as "The New American Painting" (1958–1959), which toured Europe to establish New York as the center of the modern art world and delegitimize Soviet cultural dominance.

Prominent figures like Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, Willem de Kooning, and Robert Motherwell benefited from this support.

Liberals, to this day, cope after the evidence of these activities came to light because they made fun of the Communists of making up 'conspiracy theories' and 'pop-history' for a long time.

[-] Geektragedy@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

It's changed the title:

The cultural cold war : the CIA and the world of arts and letters / Frances Stonor Saunders. by:Saunders, Frances Stonor. Publisher: New York : New Press, 2000. Description: ix, 509 pages ; 24 cm.

ISBN: 156584596X; 1565846648; 9781565846647.

Note: Originally published as: Who paid the piper? London : Granta, 1999.

[-] culpritus@hexbear.net 25 points 15 hours ago

They also worked to make the Iowa Writer's Workshop a tool of cultural hegemony that focused on individualized experiences and perspectives in literature.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-iowa-flattened-literature/

https://www.openculture.com/2018/12/cia-helped-shaped-american-creative-writing-famous-iowa-writers-workshop.html

https://uipress.uiowa.edu/books/workshops-empire

Workshops of Empire explores this history via the careers of Paul Engle at the University of Iowa and Wallace Stegner at Stanford. In the story of these founding fathers of the discipline, Eric Bennett discovers the cultural, political, literary, intellectual, and institutional underpinnings of creative writing programs within the university. He shows how the model of literary technique championed by the first writing programs—a model that values the interior and private life of the individual, whose experiences are not determined by any community, ideology, or political system—was born out of this Cold War context and continues to influence the way creative writing is taught, studied, read, and written into the twenty-first century.

[-] amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 11 hours ago

I'm glad I came across this, though it is sad to read. I have a vague memory of reading something about this in the past, but couldn't remember any of the details.

In particular, this part from the second article jars something for me:

“Good literature, students learned, contains ‘sensations, not doctrines; experiences, not dogmas; memories, not philosophies.’” These rules have become so embedded in the aesthetic canons that govern literary fiction that they almost go without question, even if we encounter thousands of examples in history that break them and still manage to meet the bar of “good literature.”

It reminds me of the pushing/proliferation of the "show, don't tell" dogma, which is a thing people cling to today. You can easily draw a line of eerie similarity between these elements as existing on opposite poles, within the "show, don't tell" framework. Sensations, experiences, and memories as showing. Doctrine, dogma, and philosophy as telling.

It makes so much more sense that the nonsensical dichotomy of showing and telling could have derived from CIA meddling, rather than from organic literary criticism. Because as serious literary analysis, it makes no fucking sense and people pretzel themselves trying to justify it. It's maddening to think about because I can tell there's something wrong with English literary conventions, have been able to for a while, but this gives a direct reason as to why. The CIA fucked up the tutelage of a whole medium for a little more propaganda. They basically nurtured a form of illiteracy of a medium. Taught people wrong. So they wouldn't write the "wrong" stuff.

[-] dazaroo@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 11 hours ago

i like metal gear's storytelling style and all those games do is tell lol

[-] davel@lemmygrad.ml 18 points 14 hours ago

Sci-fi during the cold war was also captured. No publisher would touch luxury gay space communism with a 10 meter pole.

[-] CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

As the prime hegemonic power, everything the US gov can capture they will capture. Every time a new revelation comes to light, what surprises me is not so much that they used X or Y for propaganda purposes but just how far they're willing to go. Video games like Call of Duty are financed by the US Army, and so are hollywood movies - and we've known this for a long time. They will provide props, locations, and actual soldiers to perform on the condition that they can revise the script.

edit: and Wikipedia too. There's 'a guy' that makes pro-war edits every day of the week, from 7AM to 7PM without ever taking a day off, not even on the weekends or for Christmas or other holidays. Let's be real, this isn't a guy, it's an organization behind the account (some suspect MI6, I have no idea personally). Wikimedia foundation gets money from Congress. They have the money to do so, quite frankly, they would be fools not to do it. I think liberals can understand as much lol. If you have all this money, you can just throw it at things to reinforce people's opinion that you deserve to have all this money.

Journalism and NGOs are not spared either; the concept of brainwashing was coined by Edward Hunter, a journalist who was... actually a CIA agent. He wrote about it for a now defunct newspaper and propelled it into the collective consciousness. They still do this; there was a scandal a few years ago of CIA freelance journalists: journalists who were given a ready-made story, ready to publish, by some shady handlers. All they had to do was sign off on it. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the exact information and always forget who broke the story, but it can be found.

NGOs are basically all linked together and financed by Congress at the end of the chain. It's always the same few names coming up, and some of them don't even hide it - they wear proudly on their sleeve that an Act of Congress is financing them. Freedom House, for whom Proton (of protonmail and protonVPN) fundraised for and called a 'non-partisan' org, receives millions from Congress. Then FH goes on to fund and finance other NGOs of various sizes.

I looked into the Pulitzer Prize once, and it's the same 5 anti-communists on the board of it - Anne Applebaum (who makes up so-bad-it's-funny anti-soviet propaganda) and another was the Columbia U chairwoman who sent the cops to beat up her students during the encampments for Gaza. And we're supposed to think the Pulitzer Prize means anything.

It's a very incestuous system, and basically gives them plausible deniability. The Buzzfeed story that broke the 'uyghur concentration camps' story received a Pulitzer - and then you look at who is behind it, who funds the Politzer board (surprise: more Congress), and you realize oh, yeah, that makes sense. State Department, with all its capabilities to actually find the information, gives 'independent' media a story to break -> media happily publishes because $$$ -> they get a prize to cement the legitimacy of the story -> State Department then uses the "totally legitimate grassroots story" to say see? that independent media you trust says it's true, so it's true. Now let's bomb China.

Of course, it's not like they always need to get their hands in there.

So to my understanding, the 1950s is around the time UFO/alien stories got really big. The original 'abductees' (all white men from middle America of course) spoke of 'Space Brothers' at the time - a well-meaning race of blonde, handsome human-like aliens from Venus who were concerned about where humanity was heading. He called them Nordics, which you might still see pop up sometimes, and basically they were a paternalistic, authoritative figure. The Nordic alien was not a comrade, he was like a displeased father in the nuclear family unit.

The tones were overtly anti-communist and if your fascism radar may have gone off, it's because it was basically fascist propaganda lol. They were concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons (by which I mean the soviet union was not allowed to defend itself), and the loss of 'spirituality' in humanity (returning to church). It was very individualistic: change yourself and you'll change the world. And also overtly fascist, like I said.

By the 1980s though, the narrative got reversed: instead of concerned, mentor-like figures, we got the Greys. Suddenly aliens were machine-like, concerned with cold, surgical efficiency. They started probing you in weird places, all of them looked alike and they surrounded you like a swarm. It was basically a victim fantasy of being turned into a cog in a machine, stripped of humanity - exactly what people still say about communism.

I don't even care about aliens and abductions (it's vastly white people from rural america larping as victims; minorities in the US don't need to make up stories of experiments and body violations, they lived them), so that's about as far as I got into it.

To my knowledge none of this was paid by the CIA, but who knows. We already know the gov releases UFO stories any time they're embroiled in a new scandal. So who knows, maybe in 10 years a document will be leaked that shows they paid people to spread their 'abduction' stories.

[-] eldavi@lemmy.ml 9 points 12 hours ago

edit: and Wikipedia too. There’s ‘a guy’ that makes pro-war edits every day of the week, from 7AM to 7PM without ever taking a day off, not even on the weekends or for Christmas or other holidays. Let’s be real, this isn’t a guy, it’s an organization behind the account (some suspect MI6, I have no idea personally). Wikimedia foundation gets money from Congress. They have the money to do so, quite frankly, they would be fools not to do it. I think liberals can understand as much lol. If you have all this money, you can just throw it at things to reinforce people’s opinion that you deserve to have all this money.

i present to you the response you get when you point out that wikipedia is filled w intentional misinformation that liberals should be able to understand: https://lemmy.ml/post/47923818/25908481

[-] Daddogofdasink@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 15 hours ago

oh shit i had no idea, i'll get the book

this post was submitted on 29 May 2026
39 points (95.3% liked)

Comradeship // Freechat

2799 readers
127 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS