The Most Revolutionary Act

Uncensored Updates on World Events, Economics, the Environment and Medicine
Posts Tagged ‘bob feldman’

15
Apr
The Nation Magazine and the CIA
by stuartbramhall in Challenging the Corporate Media, Things That Aren't What They Seem
5 Comments Comments

Bob Feldman’s unraveling of the indirect CIA funding received by the Nation and Radio Nation is the most instructive in demonstrating how “pass-through” funding works (see http://www.questionsquestions.net/feldman/nation_ned_1.html). According to their tax returns, the Nation Institute receives major funding from the MacArthur Foundation and the J. M. Kaplan Family Foundation. Both, according to Frances Stoner Saunders (Who Paid the Piper?: the CIA and the Cultural Cold War), have a history of accepting CIA “pass-through” funding and collaborating with them on cold war projects. The Nation also also has an interesting relationship with a third left gatekeeping foundation the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute (FERI), in that publisher, editor and part owner Katrina van den Heuvel serves on the FERI governing board and her father, William vanden Heuvel, on the board of directors. FERI, like its namesake Eleanor Roosevelt has always pursued a clear mandate of supporting the development of anti-communist “parallel left” political groups.
Nation editor Katrina van den Heuvel

Nation editor Katrina van den Heuvel

Moreover William van den Heuvel himself has well-established intelligence credentials, as a protege and executive assistant to “Wild Bill” Donovan, the founder and director of OSS (Office of Strategic Services). The OSS, which oversaw intelligence operations during World War II, became the CIA in 1947. In 1953-54 van den Heuvel accompanied Donovan to Thailand, where he served as ambassador (and lead CIA agent) to Thailand. Later as executive assistant to Robert Kennedy, van den Heuvel was the architect of the Kennedy administration’s staunch anti-Castro policy.

Other Left Gatekeepers Funding Alternative Media

Here is a brief summary of “alternative” media outlets that Feldman has linked to foundations the Church Committee identified as receiving CIA pass-through funding (see http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/legacy/research/edu20/moments/1976church.html?cms_page=edu20/moments/1976church.html). It is also of note that they all systematically marginalize journalistic and academic research into 911 and CIA-linked political assassinations.

Feldman’s co-author Eric Salter has drawn up a more detailed flow sheet demonstrating these complex inter-relationships at http://www.questionsquestions.net/gatekeepers.html

MacArthur Foundation

FAIR
The Progressive
Working Assets Radio

Rockefeller Foundation

FAIR
The Progressive
Working Assets Radio

Carnegie Foundation

Democracy Now!

J. M. Kaplan Family Foundation

Democracy Now!

Soros Family Foundation

Pacifica Radio
The Nation

Although Soros himself has no known CIA connections, he’s strongly linked to the military industrial complex as a major stockholder in Bush senior’s Carlyle Group and through his direct funding of “color” revolutions in Eastern Europe.

Schumann Foundation

Mother Jones
Alternet
Fair
Z Magazine

Run for many years by “progressive-lite” Bill Moyers, the Schuman Foundation (as evidenced by the projects it funds) has a rabidly pro-capitalist agenda. According to Feldman, Moyers himself, has engaged in some pretty anti-progressive behavior, such as orchestrating (as Lyndon Johnson’s press secretary) the wiretapping of Martin Luther King and leaking the transcripts to the media. And his heavy promotion of the rabid anti-Semite and Holocaust denier Joseph Campbell on PBS (see http://www.undueinfluence.com/schumann_foundation.htm, http://www.undueinfluence.com/bill_moyers.htm, http://constantineinstitute.blogspot.com/2009/06/profiles-of-americas-beloved-tv.html and http://mindbodypolitic.com/2010/06/17/barry-zwicker-noam-chomsky-and-the-left-gatekeepers/)

Feldman notes that the alternative magazine Counterpunch receives no direct left gatekeeper funding, although one of their editors is on the Nation payroll (which does).

To be continued.
13
Apr
The Ford Foundation and the CIA
by stuartbramhall in Challenging the Corporate Media, Things That Aren't What They Seem
2 Comments Comments

Attorney General Robert Kennedy was the first, in 1967, to investigate the use of the Ford Foundation and other foundations as “conduits,” “pass-throughs,” and “fronts” to disguise CIA funding for domestic operations (it’s technically illegal for the CIA to operate on US soil under federal law). The investigation ended with Bobby Kennedy’s assassination in 1968 but in 1976 was taken up by the Church Committee, a Senate Select Committee formed in the aftermath of Watergate. The Church Committee found that between 1963-1966, 164 foundations gave out 700 grants over $10,000. Of these, 108 involved partial or complete funding by the CIA (Frances Stoner Saunders, Who Paid the Piper?: the CIA and the Cultural Cold War)

Saunder’s work was the first, in an impressive body of research by progressive academics and investigative journalists:

Who Paid the Piper?: the CIA and the Cultural Cold War (1999) by British historian and journalist Frances Stonor Saunders
Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (2003) by New Hampshire political science professor Joan Roelof
The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex (2007) by Incite! Women of Color Against Violence
The Shock Doctrine (2007) by Canadian author and social activist Naomi Klein
Towers of Deception: the Media Cover-up of 911 (2006) by Canadian journalist, documentary producer and political activist Barry Zwicker
Barack H. Obama: the Unauthorized Biography (2008) by historian and journalist Webster Tarpley

CIA Funding of Alternative Media

Most of the research into left gatekeeping foundations involves the funding of so-called alternative media outlets, largely based on information derived from tax returns. The most prolific writer in this area is Massachusetts-based investigative journalist Bob Feldman. Feldman published the bulk of his research in a paper in Critical Sociology “Report from the Field: Left Media and Left Think Tanks – Foundation-Managed Protest?” Although Critical Sociology charges a fee to download this paper, Feldman and others have republished excerpts elsewhere on the Internet. Edward Ulrich published a helpful digest of Feldman’s work in March 2011 at his blog “News of Interest” at http://www.newsofinterest.tv/politics/media_issues/demnow_npr_controlled.php

The History of CIA/Ford Foundation Collaboration

Feldman starts (http://www.questionsquestions.net/gatekeepers.html) by recapping the history Frances Sanders lays out in Who Paid the Piper?: the CIA and the Cultural Cold War).

The Ford Foundation was created in 1936 from the immense Ford family fortune. Historically its governance and mission has been conservative and pro-corporate, in line with its namesake Henry Ford, a rabid anti-Semite who admired Adolph Hitler and helped finance his rise to power.

The Internation Jew by Henry Ford

The International Jew by Henry Ford

***

The CIA-Ford Foundation collaboration began in 1953, when John McCloy, another Nazi sympathizer, because the director of the Ford Foundation. McCloy’s corporate credentials include serving as chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, Westinghouse, AT&T, Allied Chemical and United Fruit Company. As a lawyer, he served as chief counsel to Standard Oil of New Jersey, Mobil, Texaco and Gulf I.G. Farben (German chemical company that was Hitler’s primary German sponsor and which developed the nerve gas used in the mass executive of European Jews). Mcloy watched the 1936 Berlin Olympics from Hitler’s box seat and as the Assistant Secretary of War, blocked Jewish immigration to the US, as well as the bombing of railroads leading to Nazi concentration camps. As High Commissioner of Germany following the war, he pardoned a large majority of Nazi war criminals and assisted in their secret repatriation in the US and South America. Finally in 1963-64 he served on the Warren Commission, which like the 911 Commission, played a critical role covering up FBI, CIA and Pentagon involvement in the JFK assassination.

McCloy publicly advocated for the Ford Foundation to cooperate with the CIA. He argued that open collaboration was a better alternative than having the Agency secretly infiltrate the Foundation’s lower echelons and subvert their work. McCloy also chaired a three man committee that had to be consulted every time the CIA wanted to use the Foundation as a pass-through.

Ford Foundation archives reveal a raft of joint Foundation-CIA projects. The most prominent of these CIA fronts are the Eastern European Fund, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, and International Rescue Committee (where William van den Heuvel, father of Nation editor and publisher Katrina van den Heuvel, was a long time board member). The Ford Foundation has also been the primary funder of two secret elite planning groups, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

Alternative Media Outlets Funded by the Ford Foundation

According to Feldman, the so-called alternative media outlets receiving Ford Foundation funding (based on their tax returns) include:

Democracy Now!
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and their radio program Counterspin
Working Assets Radio
The Progressive
Mother Jones
South End Press (Z Magazine)
Alternative Radio
Ms. Magazine
Political Research Associates (run by rabid anti-conspiracist Chip Berlet)

As Feldman points out, each of these outlets has systematically marginalized independent researchers who have systematically studied 9-11 and the JFK and other political assassinations. Feldman currently blogs at “Where’s the Change?” http://wherechangeobama.blogspot.com/

To be continued.
Search

Secrecy and Deception

CIA front foundations Who funds the official left?

Selected Moments of the 20th Century

A work in progress edited by Daniel Schugurensky
Department of Adult Education and Counselling Psychology,
The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto (OISE/UT)

1976
Church Committee reveals CIA operations in universities

This year, a special Committee set up by the U.S. Senate reported the findings of an investigation on alleged links between academia and the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency). The 'Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations With Respect To Intelligence Activities' was also known as the 'Church Committee' because it was led by Senator Frank Church (A Democrat from Idaho). For over a year, the Church Committee investigated more than 100 universities that were purported to have CIA officials on staff.

At that time, it was suspected that the CIA had departed from its original mission of gathering intelligence and was conducting secret operations of various kinds. This included plots to destabilize foreign governments and to assassinate foreign leaders, and conducting unethical and illegal activities like the administration of LSD to unsuspecting citizens to tests it effects or the Watergate scandal (Zinn 1980). The Senate Church Committee investigation reported that in some years the CIA spent about 80 percent of its budget for covert operations - while at the same time claiming an improbable small covert action budget (McGehee 1983).

The fact that the CIA had developed secret relationships with academics was already well known in some social sciences circles of developing countries as a result of Project Camelot. This project, which operated since the mid-1960s, was basically organized espionage under the disguise of sociological research (Herman 1998). Horowitz (1967) described it as a military counterinsurgency project funded by the CIA with a first year budget of eight million dollars that envisioned an alliance of the Pentagon and the academic community. The Camelot Project was active in Africa (especially Senegal and Nigeria) in Asia (mainly in India, Vietnam, and Laos) and in Latin America (particularly in Chile, Uruguay, Colombia, and Venezuela).

The Church Report to the US Senate clearly showed that the clandestine connections between the CIA and the academic community were not only occurring in faraway countries, but also in US universities. On Book I of document, dated April 1976, the Church Commission stated the following:

The Central Intelligence Agency has long-developed clandestine relationships with the American academic community, which range from academics making introductions for intelligence purposes to intelligence collection while abroad, to academic research and writing where CIA sponsorship is hidden.

The Central Intelligence Agency is now using several hundred American academics ("academics" includes administrators, faculty members and graduate students engaged in teaching), who in addition to providing leads and, on occasion, making introductions for intelligence purposes, occasionally write books and other material to be used for propaganda purposes abroad. Beyond these, an additional few are used in an unwitting manner for minor activities.

These academics are located in over 100 American colleges, universities, and related institutes. At the majority of institutions, no one other than the individual concerned is aware of the CIA link. At the others, at least one university official is aware of the operational use made of academics on his campus. In addition, there are several American academics abroad who serve operational purposes, primarily the collection of intelligence.

Although the numbers are not as great today as in 1966, there are no prohibitions to prevent an increase in the operational use of academics. The size of these operations is determined by the CIA…

…The Committee is disturbed both by the present practices of operationally using American academics and by the awareness that the restraints on expanding this practice are primarily those of sensitivity to the risks of disclosure and not an appreciation of dangers to the integrity of individuals and institutions. The Committee believes that it is the responsibility of private institutions and particularly the American academic community to set the professional and ethical standards of its members.

Although not much is known yet about the real extent of CIA involvement in academia during the late 20th century because many documents are still classified, the evidence provided by the Church Report is alarming enough. It is now known that the CIA funded centers at higher education institutions like MIT, Harvard, and Columbia. It is also known that there was a heavy CIA presence, usually through Foundations like Ford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller, in the development of international studies and area studies on many U.S. campuses (Simpson 1998). Furthermore, some documents recently released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) reveal that in the 1950s the American Anthropological Association (AAA) entered into covert relationships with the CIA. Anthropologist David Pierce (2000) notes that such relationships included establishing a liaison position between the Association and the CIA, and secretly providing the CIA with a detailed list of the Association's membership detailing individuals' backgrounds and areas of expertise.

As the members of the Church Commission pointed out, these practices are deeply disturbing and alarming, and it is the responsibility of the academic community to set the professional and ethical standards of its members. The problem is that it is very difficult -if not impossible- to ensure such standards if these secret practices are unknown to the academic community, as no one other than the individual concerned is aware of the link.

Sources:

Herman, Hellen. "Project Camelot and the Career of Cold War Psychology." In Christopher Simpson (ed.) Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences during the Cold War, (New York: The New Press, 1998, pp. 97-133.

Horowitz, Irving (ed.)., The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot. M.I.T. Press, 1967.

Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri. The CIA and American Democracy. New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1989.

McGehee, Ralph. Deadly Deceits. Sheridan Square Press,1983.

Price, David. The American Anthropological Association and the CIA? Anthropology News, November 2000, pp. 13-14

Simpson, Christopher, ed. Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences During the Cold War. New York: The New Press, 1998.

The Church Committee on the CIA in Academia http://www.cia-on-campus.org/church.html

Zinn, Howard (1980). A People's History of the United States. Harper, pp. 543-544.

Prepared by DS

How to cite a moment

DS Home Page Back to Index Suggest or Submit a Moment

© 1996-2004 Daniel Schugurensky. All Rights Reserved. Design and maintenance by LMS.
Last updated on September 07, 2004.

Web Statistics and Counters

This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
Maoist Internationalist Movement

CIA and the role of the left-wing of parasitism in the 1950s and 1960s

*See also, "China Quarterly editor admits CIA funding"
*See also, "Alfred G Meyer, a proud creator of revisionism"
*See also, "The Connection among Trotsky's theories of uneven development, imperialism and the Comintern"
*See also, "MIMers, you are lucky to live in a free country."
*Return to our page on the so-called left in general

Frances Stonor Saunders has provided some historical details on the CIA's intervention into academia in the 1950s and 1960s that we review here. On the whole, our difficulty with the account is that it can become part of a recruiting war for the CIA. It mentions interventions in Iran and Chile in passing and because of the adept focus of the book, readers may get the wrong idea about the CIA as just some self- deluded intellectuals.

In some instances of details, we are also not certain--as in the suggestion that CIA managed to infiltrate the writers' organization PEN successfully. It might be good to ask who has not infiltrated PEN. We have to watch out for situations where a slight CIA association has been manufactured in order to discredit someone--disinformation. We have seen not just PEN, but people such as Kwame Nkrumah mentioned by others, through a loose sort of approach. For that matter, CIA has met Al-Qaeda, which is relevant when Bush & Cheney claim that Saddam Hussein's regime met with Al-Qaeda. The CIA ties to Al-Qaeda were much deeper than Saddam Hussein's. Beyond that, relevance depends on timing and depth of contacts. MIM looks for evidence of willing service or change of political line from what we would otherwise expect without CIA intervention. Anyone in the united $tates who deals seriously in international issues is going to bump into spies. This cannot tarnish everyone. MIM is also infiltrated by spies. The question is whether they have altered the line against the interests of the exploited. Much of what has been acknowledged below has been touched on at least tangentially by other sources.

As the Cold War recedes, writers get a chance to catch up with how the united $tates conducted purges in the political and cultural fields to oppose communism. Frances Stonor Saunders's book de-emphasizes all the CIA-sponsored bloody coups against majority-supported governments to talk about CIA as a propaganda organ. Although the McCarthyite purges were long well- known, it is now clear that after McCarthyism, the CIA functioned as a mirror-image of the global party it imagined to exist centered at the Soviet Union. The CIA ended up owning several academic journals including "Partisan Review," "Kenyon Review," "Hudson Review," "Sewanee Review," "Poetry," "The Journal of the History of Ideas" and "Daedalus," running several well-known publishing houses, editing Hollywood movies for propaganda impact and censoring anti- Amerikkkan articles at its flagship British asset "Encounter." In all of this, the role of what MIM calls the left-wing of parasitism was pivotal. CIA consciously pursued those called "left of center" or "non- Communist left." In practice, this meant anyone who did not support Stalin was a target of CIA alliance. This point is now in denial by self-interested writers at "The Nation" and other milquetoast organizations who went along with the CIA all the while issuing denials of communist "paranoia."

After World War II, Frances Stonor Saunders informs readers that British intelligence was the first to come up with the general strategy: "One of IRD's most important early advisers was the Hungarian-born writer Arthur Koestler. Under his tutelage, the department realized the usefulness of accommodating those people and institutions, who, in the tradition of left-wing politics, broadly perceived themselves to be in opposition to the centre of power. The purpose of such accommodation was twofold: first, to acquire a proximity to 'progressive' groups in order to monitor their activities; secondly, to dilute the impact of these groups by achieving influence from within, or by drawing its members into a parallel--and subtly less radical--forum."(1)

Writers with a similar temperament as Koestler played a pivotal role in the CIA's work. Those youth who have already read Koestler, Lasky, Raymond Aron and Sidney Hook should now know they were reading the official CIA line, supported with CIA money through the purchase of periodicals and books and the running of lavish conferences and social events. The most famous polemics one could read against communism had the CIA behind them. Those of us innoculated against this disease founded the MIM in the 1980s.

The facts about the CIA's functioning as a virtual anti-communist party gradually became exposed starting in the mid-1960s. The CIA even instructed people on how to lie regarding ties to the secret party that was the CIA. Among the liars are famous neo-conservative founder of today Irving Kristol who along with Lasky sent a letter to the New York Times denying what is today undisputed truth about the Congress for Cultural Freedom--that it was a large CIA front into the mid- 1960s.(2) In Irving Kristol we have one persyn encapsulating much of what MIM says-- a Trotskyist in 1940, a CIA agent in the 1950s and then the founder of neo-conservatism today. Underlying it all was the consistent belief that U.$.-exported capitalism brings progress to the Third World, and denial of Lenin's theses on parasitism and uneven development.

While fighting for "freedom," the U.S. Government did everything it said its enemies did. Had it stopped at funding conferences and social events, CIA intervention would have been no different than the Soviet social- imperialist interventions, but of course, the U.S. Government had power to go further. Here is just a short list of the most stunning items MIM encountered:

FBI Director Hoover told Little, Brown not to publish Howard Fast's "Spartacus," and they backed out. CIA had extensive ties to publishers including famous textbook publishers and none of Little, Brown's competitors published it.(3) Of course it helps when CIA is also a major purchaser that cannot be ignored.

The US Information Agency came under instructions to remove all pro-communist and "fellow traveller" books from its foreign libraries--30,000 different books total.(4)

The State Department ordered that all communist and "fellow traveller" art not be shown at State Department sponsored art exhibitions.(5)

A CIA agent producer at Paramount in Hollywood edited and changed countless scenes in movies to make Amerika look better.(6) Of special concern was the portrayal of Blacks that Stalin had made hay on.

For that matter, FBI long ago started creating its own Hollywood films.(7)

In other words, in fighting genuine communism, the imperialists marketed "freedom" and did not deliver. We communists did not deliver it either, but we did deliver guaranteed health-care, shelter, food and jobs--to double life expectancies in China and the USSR. We followers of Stalin and Mao carried out open dictatorship, while the rich people of Amerika settled for false phrases about freedom.

The Marxist theory says that while there is a state there will be repression, because various social groups will seize it to oppress other social groups. So the only way to stop that and achieve freedom is by eliminating classes and similar social groups. By giving everyone a job, shelter etc., the USSR and Mao's China made steps toward a situation where people would have no profit motivations for political repression of others. In sum, the communist movement delivered freedom for some who did not have it before and also repressed others, but what the communist movement did that its opponents did not do is make steps toward the removal of the underlying causes and motivations for repression.

The CIA and other imperialists really only succeeded by spreading money around. It bought grass-tips leaders with salaries and purchases of books and periodicals in runs of the tens of thousands. In some thousands of cases, CIA paid for publication of a book. Roderick MacFarquhar's 1960 book at Praeger about Mao's China titled One Hundred Flowers was a case in point.(8) MacFarquhar became an oft- cited authority in the media and chair of Harvard's "Government Department"--an example of a worthwhile CIA investment.

So CIA success in the 1950s and 1960s stemmed not so much from "freedom" but selective purchasing and also the ease of showing off Amerika as the richest country in the world. The CIA strategy is not a winner for the world as a whole. It cannot make everyone an anti- communist by giving every citizen of the world a CIA-funded journal to run to oppose communism. Quite the contrary, the U.$. wealth that CIA was showing off and using depended on exploitation of the Third World, kept down by CIA-supported death squads that attacked labor unions and created coups against governments not deemed to aid U.$. exploitation sufficiently.

Even in their own internal politics, CIA had those they purged, not to mention files CIA people kept on other CIA people. The CIA originally fell out with Melvin Lasky. The CIA's own story also goes that it drove a poet stir-crazy, as in running around Latin America standing on statues naked and proclaiming Hitler. He had to be tossed as a CCF leader. When the CIA entered the "culture war," it found it had all the same problems as the vanguard parties it was criticizing.

Like vanguard parties, CIA also had its persuasion failures. CCF's nominal leader Bertrand Russell resigned in disgust. Richard Wright bolted for the communist side and when CIA intervened to deny Pablo Neruda a Nobel Prize for Literature because of his "Stalin Prize," CIA nemesis #1 Sartre got the prize instead. Fortunately for CIA, by the time these two received their Nobel prizes, the political ground had shifted anyway.

For that matter, according to Frances Stonor Saunders, President Lyndon Johnson himself ordered the whole lot of the center- left to be tossed--"liberals, intellectuals and communists." He was not going to get the reliable help he needed on Vietnam, so one interpretation goes that CIA eventually purged the left-wing of parasitism too, spit it out after using it against Stalin era communism and Stalin's immediate aftermath.

Nonetheless, special attention needs to go to the dupes of the CIA in the left-wing of parasitism. In the most liberal periods of CIA work it bribed and worked with anyone who was not pro-Stalin. For the rewards of their work in uniting everyone to the right of Stalin in anti-communism, the CIA got the Vietnam War and all politics ended up being remade. The imperialist leaders wanted to get out, but they could not, because no politician could explain to the labor aristocracy why U.$. imperialism should back down in the face of communism.

The non-communist so-called "left" also got the blood of half a million Indonesians in 1965 on its hands. CIA expanded from the hundreds into the thousands. Now there are a total of over 100,000 international spies. What has to be understood by many who only yesterday were talking about the "totalitarianism" of political movements with smaller parties than the CIA, is that the U.$. intelligence community dwarfs civilian politics in the united $tates. This is the new element for our day. The people of the early CIA are often still around among us, people like Irving Kristol, but what is really different today is size. As MIM has explained, the parasitic strata in the economy grow in an imperialist society--especially prison guarding, spying, soldiering and weapons manufacturing.

Frances Stonor Saunders described the thinking of JFK cabinet member Schlesinger and the line of the CIA:

"In what Arthur Schlesinger described as a 'quiet revolution', elements of the government had come increasingly to understand and support the ideas of those intellectuals who were disillusioned with Communism but still faithful to the ideals of socialism. . . . 'the theoretical foundation of the Agency's political operations against Communism over the next two decades'."(9)

It is not a coincidence that MIM moved forward in the 1980s, because MIM bashed Trotskyism and put forward the line against parasitism. Blunting advance everywhere was CIA in the background, but where the MIM line was the angle of attack, there was at least a contrast with the CIA line.

Famous Trotskyists were having their misdeeds covered for by CIA. Max Eastman shown in the "Reds" movie ended up a supporter of Joe McCarthy.(10)

CIA agent of Nixon fame, a real sick puppy, Howard Hunt said of his compatriot James Burnham, "'he had extensive contacts in Europe and, by virtue of his Trotskyite background, was something of an authority on domestic and foreign Communist parties and front organizations.'"(11)

The kind of ex-pseudo-communists that wrote the Black Book of Communism are a favorite of CIA. When the CIA mounted its equivalent of D-Day to try to find someone to compete with Sartre in France, it ended up with anti-Stalin trash:

"Having failed to attract a French editor, the Executive Committee decided to give the job to Francois Bondy, a Swiss writer of German mother tongue who had been a Communist Party activist until the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939."(12)

The original impetus of U.S. government cooperation with the left-wing of white nationalism and the pro-Stalin communists was WWII. When WWII ended, cooperation with pro-Stalin people ended.

CIA apologist David Engerman says that federal involvement in Soviet Studies brought money to the humynities fields in universities. He also says that the Marx-influenced Frankfurt School found itself co- opted into the CIA predecessor organization.(13)

On the other hand, CIA fronts called Russian Research Centers at Harvard and Columbia would not accept members of the genuine communist parties.(14) So it is that the CIA, Harvard and Columbia handed us at MIM an easy tactical retort: the ONLY people to oppose the U.$. government are pro-Stalin communists. All the rest are fatuous intellectuals accepted even into the CIA. That should make it pretty easy for any young communist activist to decide who to side with. MIM is the antidote to CIA-run politics.

Notes:
1. Frances Stonor Saunders (hereafter FSS), The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters NY: The New Press, 1999, p. 609.
2. FSS, op. cit., p. 378.
3. FSS, op. cit., p. 53.
4. FSS, op. cit., p. 193.
5. FSS, op. cit., p. 257.
6. FSS, op. cit., p. 290.
7. FSS, op. cit., p. 287.
8. FSS, op. cit., p. 245.
9. FSS, op. cit., p. 63.
10. FSS, op. cit., p. 200.
11. FSS, op. cit., p. 87.
12. FSS, op. cit., p. 101.
13. DAVID C. ENGERMAN, "The Ironies of the Iron Curtain: The Cold War and the Rise of Russian Studies in the US."
14. DAVID C. ENGERMAN, "The Ironies of the Iron Curtain: The Cold War and the Rise of Russian Studies in the US."

[About] [Contact] [Home] [Art] [Agitation Home] [Black Panthers] [News] [RAIL]