CIA Manufactued Modern US Literature
March 28, 2015Left. Ernest Hemingway himself was a CIA agent. The CIA admits this on their own website . See Mathis' full espose .
Miles Mathis says that what passes for modern culture is essentially
mental programming by the CIA, which is an arm of the Illuminati central
banking cartel. Culture is designed to inculcate an essentially satanic ("alienated")
view that human life is meaningless, vulgar and trivial.
"By a constant stream of top- down propaganda, writers were convinced that being solipsistic, quotidian, and creatively modest were artistic virtues. As with painting, science, politics, and every other category, the inversion of the thing was sold as the thing itself."
Makow comment- Mathis is a brilliant and prolific writer. Although his claims that many sensational murders were faked seem outlandish, his assertions about modern culture are credible. As a Ph.D. in literature, I always felt modern culture was fraudulent. This confirms it.
I feel betrayed. A powerful and highly organized satanic cult has cast Western society in its image.
by Miles Mathis
From Theosophy to the Beat Generation
(excerpt by henrymakow.com)
A reader alerted me to an article just published at the Chronicle of Higher Education by an English professor at Providence College, Eric Bennett. This article is about the Iowa Writer's Workshop, at which he was a student from 1998 to 2000.
He admits that the writing programs at the University of Iowa have long been underwritten by the CIA, via the Farfield Foundation, the ACCF, [The Artists and Community Collaboration Fund] and the Rockefellers.
The sentence in the article that is most useful here is this one: Creative-writing pedagogues in the aftermath of World War II, without exception, read Partisan Review, The Kenyon Review, The Hudson Review, and The Sewanee Review .
They breathed the intellectual air of New Critics, on the one hand, and New York intellectuals on the other. These camps, formerly enemy camps--Southern reactionaries and Northern socialists at each other's throats in the 1930s--had by the 50s merged into a liberal consensus that published highly intellectual, but at the time only newly "academic," essays in those four journals, all of which, like Iowa, were subsidized by the Rockefeller Foundation.
As we have seen and will see, they were also subsidized by many other CIA front organizations. The government used the purse-strings to exert control over these programs, keeping them in little pens that Bennett says serve "to venerate and fortify the particular, the individual, the situated, the embedded, the irreducible."
Or, in other words, to keep them small and disempowered. By a constant stream of top- down propaganda, writers were convinced that being solipsistic, quotidian, and creatively modest were artistic virtues. As with painting, science, politics, and every other category, the inversion of the thing was sold as the thing itself.
A 2012 Salon article by Joel Whitney tells us the Partisan Review and the Paris Review [were linked to the CIA] as well.
Peter Matthiessen, the magazine's founder, has now admitted that in interviews, such as this one ... that he was recruited by the CIA right out of Yale in 1953, and that the Paris Review was his "cover." That information has been added to the Paris Review page at Wikipedia, but it is a bald admission with no commentary as to how it must affect everything to do with the magazine.
Both Matthiessen and George Plimpton, left, have tried to maintain that Matthiessen was the only one who knew, but--given what we now know from the CIA itself (see Tom Braden)--that isn't believable in the least. When various writers were pleading ignorance back in the 1960's and 70's, Braden flipped the leak, outing them .
He said that all these writers and artists knew exactly what was going on, and [Francis Storer] Saunders' book [The Cultural Cold War] confirms that over and over. So does the article at Salon , which outs both Plimpton and Nelson Aldrich as members of the [CIA-front] ACCF.
Salon also tells us the CIA backing was a problem: "By funding a magazine with a New York office that was distributed in the U.S., it was engaged in propagandizing to the American public, which was illegal ."
Unfortunately, Joel Whitney at Salon unmasks himself at the end--if not long before--by saying this: None of which is fair to attach to the Paris Review , if not for Matthiessen's claims that the Review 's ties ended before the ugly stuff, or for Plimpton's failure to disclose the ties that remained.
So in his summation, Whitney is telling you to your face that the greatest crime here is failure to disclose and other white lies? You have to be kidding me! What about the fact that all this was illegal? What about the fact that nothing was what we were told it was?
William Styron said in the first issue, "I think The Paris Review should welcome these people into its pages: the good writers and good poets, the non-drumbeaters and non-axe-grinders. So long as they're good."
We now know that was total, malicious misdirection, since the whole point of all these magazine was drum-beating.
What about the fact that, all told, at least 9/10ths of 20th century American literature and criticism should now be suspected of being manufactured?
If all these people were working for Intelligence, what is to prevent us from assuming everything they did was Intelligence work, including the novels, poems, and essays?
What is to prevent us from re-reading everything published in that time period, combing it for covert propaganda? You may not think that is necessary, but I for one do.
As you will see in upcoming papers, I have found evidence that is exactly what has happened. It is not just the Beats that are fake, it is almost everyone.
Thanks to Bill for the tip!
Mathew- "Catcher in the Rye" a CIA Psy Op
Makow- How University Betrays Students
--------- How the Illuminati Control Culture
You can find this article permanently at http://henrymakow.com/2015/03/CIA-Manufactued-Modern-US-Literature .html
Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at