How the CIA created and promoted Modernism
Kerouac, a Beat writer of "On the Road" fame, attended Horace Mann Preparatory school, the "ritziest prep school in the nation". Tuition there cost $40,000 in 2013. He also went to Columbia, the notorious spook Uni in Manhattan, New York. So hardly a beaten down outsider, more a privileged little rich kid.
Ginsberg also went to Columbia Uni in rich mans Manhattan. His father was a published poet. Allen was a famous Beat "poet". The worst thing that Allen had to put up with at home was his fathers recitation of Longfellow. A beaten down outsider? Really?
Burroughs, another Beat writer, came from a very wealthy family whose fortune was based on adding machines. ie. the Burroughs Corporation, a large US multinational. He graduated from Harvard university and attended medical school in Vienna. His uncle was an advertising guru who worked as a publicist for the Rockefellers. Millionaire family, Harvard, Vienna and the Rockefellers then - not the bio of a beaten down outsider, that's for sure.
So what is the real story?
It was all propaganda. They were draft dodging, privileged, elite connected, rich kids.
They were probably government intelligence operatives too, ie.spooks. Part of the bad guys relentless drive to manipulate and control the culture.
Could you believe that?
Well you might if you read this carefully.
From 2013, by the rabbit hole maestro, Miles Mathis.
The paper in fact covers a lot more than just the Beats.
http://mileswmathis.com/beat.pdf
Sample quotations:
On the Beats promotion by the moneybags:
"In the 60-odd years since the Beat writers emerged from Columbia University, they have been the
beneficiaries of extravagant praise and the recipients of almost no serious analysis. Not everyone has
liked them, of course, but even those who disliked the most have never thought to analyze them closely.
About the worst they have been accused of is Modernism or anti-Americanism......
Again, none of this takes much research, since anyone with a good eye can see it hiding it plain sight.
The first red flag is Columbia University, which has been a prime playground for military intelligence
since the Second World War. Real subversives come from the margins, not from wealthy universities
in uptown Manhattan. The second red flag is the timing: the CIA was formed in 1947, and the
intelligence community began its great expansion at that time, moving strongly into the media, the
universities, and everywhere else. It is therefore no coincidence to see these major manufactured
events erupting in the early 1950s. The third red flag is the promoters of these supposedly subversive
writers: the New York Times, Viking Press, The Rockefeller Foundation, The Ford Foundation, the
Carnegie Foundation, and the other mouthpieces and moneybags of Intelligence. The fourth red flag is
the works themselves, which despite being devoid of all art and being amateurishly crammed with
every piece of bald propaganda imaginable have still been sold as progressive if not revolutionary."
So covert fascists posing as progressives then. A familiar theme that continues right up to the present day. Our fascist owners always create their own "opposition". To divert, sideline and/or control real opposition. We will see more of the same when we look at Modernism later in the piece.
On Kerouac
"That is Kerouac's enlistment photo for the Navy, 1943. We are told he was honorably discharged after
two days on psychiatric grounds for requesting an aspirin. Right. (Compare that to Burroughs'
enlistment story below). That is curious considering that he was sane enough to be in the Merchant
Marine. Are we to believe that the Navy thinks aspirin are grounds for dismissal while the Merchant
Marine doesn't?
The other tasty morsel is the Horace Mann Preparatory School, which Kerouac attended for a year
before Columbia. Although we only get a link there—and they pray you won't take that link—if you
take it you will find that the Horace Mann school is the ritziest prep school in the nation. Tuition for
2013 is $40,000, if you want to attend. If Kerouac were the semi-literate football running back who
could only afford to attend Columbia on a sports scholarship, how did he get into Horace Mann, much
less pay for it? I guess we are supposed to believe he was brought in as a senior ringer for the football
team."
Aside: Columbia is also the place that Barry Soetoro [aka Barak Hussein Obama] was talent spotted by Zbigniew Brezezinski in the 1980's. The psychopathic Brezezinski recruited the young, ethically challenged, ambitious, opportunistic, Obummer at Columbia it seems. Obummer has sealed all the records of his time there, they are not available to any current researchers. He must have something interesting to hide, wouldn't you say?
Furthermore, in the early part of 20thC, Columbia was the US university most friendly to the fascist ideas of Benito Mussolini. So here is perhaps another clue to Obama's evident fascist proclivities.
[Hat tip: Servando Gonzalez book "Psychological Warfare and the NWO, page 69]
On Ginsberg:
"Let's look at only the first 15 lines of Howl.
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving
hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry
fix,
angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the
starry dynamo in the machinery of night,
who poverty and tatters and hollow-eyed and high sat up smoking in the
supernatural darkness of cold-water flats floating across the tops of
cities contemplating jazz,
who bared their brains to Heaven under the El and saw Mohammedan angels
staggering on tenement roofs illuminated,
who passed through universities with radiant cool eyes hallucinating Arkan-
sas and Blake-light tragedy among the scholars of war,
who were expelled from the academies for crazy & publishing obscene odes
on the windows of the skull,
Leaving aside for the moment that this isn't poetry—being just text cut indiscriminately into lines—I
must admit I can't suspend disbelief enough to get past the first line. Why were these rich boys from
Columbia in such bad shape? Do you honestly believe that “the best minds of my generation” were
destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, etc.? If they were in fact dragging themselves
through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix, why were they doing it, who was to blame,
and how could they be considered the best minds of the generation if they were doing it?
Remember,
although the time period we are talking about was the early 1940s, these “best minds” had apparently
been rewarded deferments for some reason. In other words, they weren't fighting in Normandy or the
Pacific. In 1943 and 1945, Kerouac and Ginsberg are said to be in the Merchant Marine, and even then
they apparently only stayed in it for a few months, “to earn money.” In other words, they weren't
drafted. They didn't experience the horrors of combat, which might have explained the passages above.
They also don't talk about losing friends in the war, and that is because their friends were other
privileged boys who stayed home and went to Columbia, or at worst found themselves in the Merchant
Marine. So Howl should be suspect from the first word."
I always thought that he was a twat, without realising why. I do realise why now.
ps. Ginsberg was a paedophile and a pornographer too. See here for copious detail:
http://fourhorsesasses.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/ginsberg-punker.html
On Modernism:
"We also find the Rockefellers behind Modernism, and the Independent admits it.
Pre-eminent among these was Nelson Rockefeller, whose mother had co-founded the Museum of Modern Art
[MOMA] in New York. As president of what he called "Mummy's museum", Rockefeller was one of the biggest
backers of Abstract Expressionism (which he called "free enterprise painting"). His museum was contracted to the
Congress for Cultural Freedom to organise and curate most of its important art shows.
There you have it. Remember, the Congress of Cultural Freedom is the CIA (see two quotes above).
So we have published proof from a mainstream London newspaper that Rockefeller conspired with the
CIA to promote Modernism, and he did it prior to the Cold War. If Abstract Expressionism were only
being promoted as part of the Cold War, then why were the Rockefellers supporting Modernism as far
back as 1929? MOMA was founded in 1929, and there was no Cold War in 1929. Russia wasn't even
an enemy in 1929. Russia was an ally up until the end of WW2. The Independent contradicts itself in
its own article, which is indication it is trying to spin the story even as it “leaks” it.
Also notice that Rockefeller calls Abstract Expressionism “free enterprise painting.” This is classic
Newspeak. Since Abstract Expressionism is being promoted by the CIA, it is the opposite of free
enterprise painting. It is contracted propaganda. Abstract Expressionism is CIA painting, and there is
nothing “free enterprise” about the CIA. The CIA is and always has been about control.
And we get more astonishing information, poorly spun:
William Paley, the president of CBS broadcasting and a founding father of the CIA, sat on the members' board of
the museum's [MOMA's] International Programme. John Hay Whitney, who had served in the agency's wartime
predecessor, the OSS, was its chairman. And Tom Braden, first chief of the CIA's International Organisations
Division, was executive secretary of the museum in 1949.
Wow, so MOMA is really the CIA's museum. We are never told that over here in the States, are we?"
The Museum of Modern Art is a CIA museum! Wow indeed. That explains a lot to me.
There is more:
"It
is also worth looking at Tom Braden's quote in this article:
We wanted to unite all the people who were writers, who were musicians, who were artists, to demonstrate that
the West and the United States was devoted to freedom of expression and to intellectual achievement, without any
rigid barriers as to what you must write, and what you must say, and what you must do, and what you must paint,
which was what was going on in the Soviet Union. I think it was the most important division that the agency had,
and I think that it played an enormous role in the Cold War.
Again, very poorly spun. Let me unwind it for you. Braden wants you to think that his promotion of
Modernism was really a promotion of artistic freedom. But what if you were an artist in 1950 who
didn't fit the CIA mold, either as agent or artist, do you think you would be a beneficiary of this
“freedom”? No, you would probably see the CIA's co-option of the arts as a rigid barrier, wouldn't
you? And you would be right. The contradiction lurking here is that Braden is defining the Soviet
Union's artistic rules as fascism, and the CIA's artistic rules as freedom. Braden is pretending that the
CIA didn't create Modern dogma in its promotion of Modernism, but of course it did. The Theory
surrounding Modernism has been the most dogmatic, vicious, proselytizing, and propagandized that
has ever existed in the history of the arts. Because the CIA had almost infinite wealth from the
beginning (both from the treasury and from private wealth like the Rockefellers), it could hire a vast
army of academics, historians, and critics to inundate and control the field. Anyone who disagreed
with any pronouncement handed down from high could be denounced as a philistine and permanently
drummed from the field. This was the state of the arts in 1950 and it is still the state of the arts. It is an
artistic fascism far beyond anything the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany ever dreamed of."
So, Mathis demonstrates that the CIA have admitted that they created, funded and promoted Modernism!
According to the CIA's Braden, the Soviet art projects were hard nosed propaganda. But the CIA's Modernism projects were not propaganda at all, they were all about freedom!
Just like the CIA always was......... Ha ha ha ha ha. Pull the other one.
Who would have guessed it? Many did of course but most just were not interested enough to think much about it.
At root the "free market" in art is like all the other "free" markets in the West. In reality they are monopolies controlled by the rich oligarchs and their place-men/women. There is nothing "free" about them at all.
http://mileswmathis.com/beat.pdf
Flowing from the above paper Mathis then delivered a further series of papers on similar, and linked, themes, viz:
Hemingway the spook. Plus more detailed analysis on how the spooks created Modernism for their elite masters:
http://mileswmathis.com/papa.pdf
More source material about the spooks creation and promotion of modern art. Including lots of detail from a 1999 book, "Who Paid the Piper/The Cultural Cold War". This book provides masses of detail about the CIA's creation of its Modernism project:
http://mileswmathis.com/stoner.pdf
Even more source material about the CIA and it's modern art projects. Plus more covert fascists posing as progressives, Chomsky and chums. You guessed it - yet more spooks. Chomsky was outed ages ago in the alternative media, as a fraudulent left wing gatekeeper. Essentially he was exposed by 9/11 for which he had an entirely inadequate response. Mathis confirms the Chomsky outing:
http://mileswmathis.com/ramp.pdf
Of course all of these pieces are just informed opinion, with plenty of "connecting the dots". Well what do you expect? That is realistically the best that you can expect. You've just got to use your common sense because nobody in their controlled media, or their on-the-payroll academia, is going to lay any of this out for you definitively.
If you do read to the end of that lot then, I expect that you will reach the same conclusion that I did.
Also from 2013, a decoding of Rosicrucianism and Freemasonry. It indirectly sets the scene for the later pieces that I have linked above. It is very interesting in its own right too:
http://mileswmathis.com/rosi.pdf
If nothing else then you should read the conclusions starting on page 10 [of 12]. If you do then you will receive a very different perspective on "science".
If you have any interest at all in the history of "science", both overt and esoteric, then you should read the whole paper.
Finally, from Mathis's science site, here is his overview of the deeply flawed physics science of the 20th Century.
Bohr and his famous Copenhagen Interpretation which has effectively hamstrung physics since the 1920's.
Heisenberg with his famous Uncertainty Principle which introduced woo woo into physics. Heisenberg became so untouchable that they even whitewashed his role as a nazi atomic bomb scientist!
http://milesmathis.com/20c.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment