It turns out there are 4 levels to this particular issue, and there's one level deeper than where this paper is at. To quickly summarize:
"Who cares? I've got to get the kids to school and get to work."
"The CIA is involved in intelligence gathering, not modern art."
(this paper) "The CIA fought a secret and brave battle against the Commies as part of the Cold War using Modern Art as a weapon." Seriously, though, does anyone still believe the CIA fought bravely against Communism or anything else bad in this world?
"The CIA fought against the uplift and inspiration of humanity by destroying art itself." Sounds more like it, right? You can read all the detail here:
All the caveats for "Miles Mathis" apply. Here's a bonus note for advanced students of how we're all being fucked:
The mainstream admitted the CIA's involvement in Modern Art long ago. Mathis' paper focuses on Frances Stonor Saunders and her 1995 article in the London Independent and her 1999 book "Who Paid the Piper? The Cultural Cold War". Fast-forward to 2020 and the JStor article never mentions Saunders.
To quote a work with which I'm sure we're all familiar:
Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.
Seriously, though, does anyone still believe the CIA fought bravely against Communism or anything else bad in this world?
What do you make of Operation Gladio, which the CIA was behind? I sometimes wonder about this. It seems that opposition to communism wasn't just part of the exoteric narrative, but it was present inside the US deep state and they were willing to kill people in Europe in order to stop it. They orchestrated coups in Italy to prevent it from becoming communist, complete with false-flag bombings blamed on the communists.
I would back up and start from the proposition that the entire Cold War was staged. I mean, real events and even struggles went on, but it was all managed from a higher level. (Just think of two NFL teams beating the shit out of each other on Sunday, but all managed by a cartel of 32 owners with tax breaks from the government.)
It sounds like a tall, conspiratorial claim, but it's one of those open conspiracies no one seems to be aware of. You can see it stated plainly on the wiki of mainstream academic and researcher Antony C. Sutton:
At the Hoover Institution, he wrote the study Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (in three volumes), arguing that the West played a major role in developing the Soviet Union from its beginnings until the then-present year of 1970. Sutton argued that the Soviet Union's technological and manufacturing base, which was then engaged in supplying North Vietnam during the Vietnam War, was built by United States corporations and largely funded by US taxpayers.
Wow, some Cold War, huh? I recall one of his findings was that the entire Soviet Union would have collapsed just a few years after inception without Western support.
So fast-forward to Gladio and I would say that what we have is a "wheels within wheels" situation. First, what is Gladio really? A covert network of money, trained men, armaments, and support. Who cares what it's supposed to be for, because the CIA is going to use it for it's own ends. So yeah, they did a lot of (what was on the surface at least) anti-Commie stuff.
But it looks to me like they played the other side too, particularly through an organization called the Red Brigades. But remember that Gladio was essentially a network, and the only thing that made it different than the RB was what it's supposed goals were. So take this article, for instance:
The communist group Red Brigades was originally blamed until, in 1984, Vincenzo Vinciguerra – a fascist terrorist who claimed to have been supported by the GLADIO network – confessed. It is suspected that the Red Brigades’ assassination of Christian Democrat Prime Minister Aldo Moro in 1978 was also a “false flag”....
And remember Steve Pieczenik? He was wrapped up in the Moro Incident, and you can try to unsnarl this: Role of Steve Pieczenik
I mean, it's insane! The Red Brigades (CIA?) also kidnapped US Army Brigadier General James L. Dozier, NATO Deputy Chief of Staff. Even that looks like it might have been staged, because he was miraculously "rescued" without anyone firing a shot, including the kidnapper specifically assigned to kill him: Kidnapping of Brigadier General Dozier.
So I guess this is all a long way of saying that my bias is that if the CIA did something good, it was accidental, unavoidable, or the only cover they could come up with... lol
a) particular implies each ONE part of whole ONEness. Others suggest counting to tempt ONE from discerning to be.
b) by choosing to count to four one ignores level (balance) aka balancing as choice within the momentum of motion. Each ONE represents the center (choice) of surrounding (balance); hence adaptation representing re-calibration aka finding level. Oneself choosing to count others implies being tempted from center outwards, hence balancing self.
Who cares?
That represents ones (1) ignorance of everything perceivable (1) for suggested nothing (0). Others exploit ones ignorance by using zero as the foundation for math; for counting, which when consented to, gives others the power of ones consent to shape ones foundation; level; balance. A zero-sum game...
intelligence gathering
Those who consent to stand under (understanding; intelligence) others are willing gathering under whatever is being suggested to them. The many are amassing themselves; while the few are suggesting collectivism and progressivism to keep them distracted from perceivable apartheid (being partial within whole) and need to resist (life) being progressed (inception towards death).
From a different perspective...the world wide web gathers whoever chooses to willingly log (locking oneself) into it. Suggestion ensnares ignorance.
fighting communism
Ones consent to any suggested -ism implies a) a many choosing to commune under a chosen few, and b) fighting each other within the conflict of reason over the meaning of the suggested -ism.
Reason represents the mental state of war the many are willingly choosing sides within with each one of their choices. The few suggest endless labels for both sides to keep distracting from the origin...reason aka logic aka logos aka words (suggested information) over sound (perceivable inspiration).
advanced students
Aka ones consent to stand under (as a student) suggested information by others (teachers), while following along suggested progressivism (advancing)...repression and self destruction.
the Party
Another sleigh of hand for those with eyes to see...a party is being suggested as a collective; a gathering, yet it perceptibly implies partial; apart from one another. Ones consent to the former; while ignoring the latter is based upon suggested THE-ism, hence ones willing submission to the authority of others, who shape suggestions in THE name of THE suggested.
a) psycho (animating spirit) represents natural; logic (word) represents artificial. Ones consent to the latter tempts one to ignore the former.
b) modern (existing now) tempts one to assume being able to exist outside now. Suggested ancient (distant in place) exists now within ones mind/memory as upheld memories.
c) within reality...perceivable represents value, while each ones perception thereof represents evaluation. Within fiction...artificial suggestions are utilized to hide perceivable value and devalue ones evaluation by suggesting artificial values for one to reason among others against.
By consent to suggested values one ignores being reacting center (evaluation) of enacting surrounding (value), which in return allows others to become the "central agency" one consents to stand under (understanding aka Latin intelligo; intelligence).
It turns out there are 4 levels to this particular issue, and there's one level deeper than where this paper is at. To quickly summarize:
"Who cares? I've got to get the kids to school and get to work."
"The CIA is involved in intelligence gathering, not modern art."
(this paper) "The CIA fought a secret and brave battle against the Commies as part of the Cold War using Modern Art as a weapon." Seriously, though, does anyone still believe the CIA fought bravely against Communism or anything else bad in this world?
"The CIA fought against the uplift and inspiration of humanity by destroying art itself." Sounds more like it, right? You can read all the detail here:
The Cultural Cold War (15-page PDF)
All the caveats for "Miles Mathis" apply. Here's a bonus note for advanced students of how we're all being fucked:
The mainstream admitted the CIA's involvement in Modern Art long ago. Mathis' paper focuses on Frances Stonor Saunders and her 1995 article in the London Independent and her 1999 book "Who Paid the Piper? The Cultural Cold War". Fast-forward to 2020 and the JStor article never mentions Saunders.
To quote a work with which I'm sure we're all familiar:
What do you make of Operation Gladio, which the CIA was behind? I sometimes wonder about this. It seems that opposition to communism wasn't just part of the exoteric narrative, but it was present inside the US deep state and they were willing to kill people in Europe in order to stop it. They orchestrated coups in Italy to prevent it from becoming communist, complete with false-flag bombings blamed on the communists.
I would back up and start from the proposition that the entire Cold War was staged. I mean, real events and even struggles went on, but it was all managed from a higher level. (Just think of two NFL teams beating the shit out of each other on Sunday, but all managed by a cartel of 32 owners with tax breaks from the government.)
It sounds like a tall, conspiratorial claim, but it's one of those open conspiracies no one seems to be aware of. You can see it stated plainly on the wiki of mainstream academic and researcher Antony C. Sutton:
Wow, some Cold War, huh? I recall one of his findings was that the entire Soviet Union would have collapsed just a few years after inception without Western support.
So fast-forward to Gladio and I would say that what we have is a "wheels within wheels" situation. First, what is Gladio really? A covert network of money, trained men, armaments, and support. Who cares what it's supposed to be for, because the CIA is going to use it for it's own ends. So yeah, they did a lot of (what was on the surface at least) anti-Commie stuff.
But it looks to me like they played the other side too, particularly through an organization called the Red Brigades. But remember that Gladio was essentially a network, and the only thing that made it different than the RB was what it's supposed goals were. So take this article, for instance:
The Italian Job: Operation GLADIO (4/24/2014)
And remember Steve Pieczenik? He was wrapped up in the Moro Incident, and you can try to unsnarl this: Role of Steve Pieczenik
I mean, it's insane! The Red Brigades (CIA?) also kidnapped US Army Brigadier General James L. Dozier, NATO Deputy Chief of Staff. Even that looks like it might have been staged, because he was miraculously "rescued" without anyone firing a shot, including the kidnapper specifically assigned to kill him: Kidnapping of Brigadier General Dozier.
So I guess this is all a long way of saying that my bias is that if the CIA did something good, it was accidental, unavoidable, or the only cover they could come up with... lol
Re vietnam. According to Stockwell, the vietnam war era cia station chief was passing secrets to the local communist rep from hungary.
And from there..on to russia.
'It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words"
i could never get that line out of my head the first time i read it... long ago
a) motion generates (inception) and destroys (life) those living within.
b) ongoing sound destroys temporary words held onto...
c) the construction of suggestible words represents ones veil of ignorance over perceivable sound.
Modern art museum school.
Harvard Fogg run by a Forbes and a Sachs in the 1920s.
Moma started by rockefeller. 1929.
Good sources pry mate. Thnx.
The usual suss pects.
a) particular implies each ONE part of whole ONEness. Others suggest counting to tempt ONE from discerning to be.
b) by choosing to count to four one ignores level (balance) aka balancing as choice within the momentum of motion. Each ONE represents the center (choice) of surrounding (balance); hence adaptation representing re-calibration aka finding level. Oneself choosing to count others implies being tempted from center outwards, hence balancing self.
That represents ones (1) ignorance of everything perceivable (1) for suggested nothing (0). Others exploit ones ignorance by using zero as the foundation for math; for counting, which when consented to, gives others the power of ones consent to shape ones foundation; level; balance. A zero-sum game...
Those who consent to stand under (understanding; intelligence) others are willing gathering under whatever is being suggested to them. The many are amassing themselves; while the few are suggesting collectivism and progressivism to keep them distracted from perceivable apartheid (being partial within whole) and need to resist (life) being progressed (inception towards death).
From a different perspective...the world wide web gathers whoever chooses to willingly log (locking oneself) into it. Suggestion ensnares ignorance.
Ones consent to any suggested -ism implies a) a many choosing to commune under a chosen few, and b) fighting each other within the conflict of reason over the meaning of the suggested -ism.
Reason represents the mental state of war the many are willingly choosing sides within with each one of their choices. The few suggest endless labels for both sides to keep distracting from the origin...reason aka logic aka logos aka words (suggested information) over sound (perceivable inspiration).
Aka ones consent to stand under (as a student) suggested information by others (teachers), while following along suggested progressivism (advancing)...repression and self destruction.
Another sleigh of hand for those with eyes to see...a party is being suggested as a collective; a gathering, yet it perceptibly implies partial; apart from one another. Ones consent to the former; while ignoring the latter is based upon suggested THE-ism, hence ones willing submission to the authority of others, who shape suggestions in THE name of THE suggested.
That's why art stinks.
a) psycho (animating spirit) represents natural; logic (word) represents artificial. Ones consent to the latter tempts one to ignore the former.
b) modern (existing now) tempts one to assume being able to exist outside now. Suggested ancient (distant in place) exists now within ones mind/memory as upheld memories.
c) within reality...perceivable represents value, while each ones perception thereof represents evaluation. Within fiction...artificial suggestions are utilized to hide perceivable value and devalue ones evaluation by suggesting artificial values for one to reason among others against.
By consent to suggested values one ignores being reacting center (evaluation) of enacting surrounding (value), which in return allows others to become the "central agency" one consents to stand under (understanding aka Latin intelligo; intelligence).