A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress(publicbooks.org)
publicbooks.org
A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress
https://www.publicbooks.org/a-novel-the-cia-spent-a-fortune-to-suppress/
253 comments
The novel is "El Señor Presidente" by Miguel Ángel Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Se%C3%B1or_Presidente is pretty detailed
Ha, Streisand effect. I'm going to buy that book now.
Hopefully on topic: a good English language book on the CIA origin story is “The Devil’s Chessboard” that was a fascinating read. While most of my reading is technical and science fiction, I also really enjoy reading history. It is difficult to understand the world ‘in real time’ but looking back into history more things make sense.
In a democracy, it is important to really understand history, what we got right and what we got wrong. If we want a better world, we need to learn from history.
In a democracy, it is important to really understand history, what we got right and what we got wrong. If we want a better world, we need to learn from history.
On the shorter side, there is a very good article from the New Yorker which was published last October for the 75th birthday of the CIA entitled "Has the C.I.A. done more harm than good?" [1]
The journalist is clearly verging on the side of more harm.
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/10/10/has-the-cia-do...
The journalist is clearly verging on the side of more harm.
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/10/10/has-the-cia-do...
asah(3)
>It is difficult to understand the world ‘in real time’ but looking back into history more things make sense.
Gotta be careful with this though, as when it comes to reading history, it really depends on what sources you are reading. The old saying "history is written by the winners" which leads to the opposing side's views being suppressed if not outright omitted. So hopefully, when it comes to "real time" views or historical views, the sources are from more than one viewpoint and are more than one.
Gotta be careful with this though, as when it comes to reading history, it really depends on what sources you are reading. The old saying "history is written by the winners" which leads to the opposing side's views being suppressed if not outright omitted. So hopefully, when it comes to "real time" views or historical views, the sources are from more than one viewpoint and are more than one.
This is largely why the academic study of history has become historiography, the study of how history is written, and by whom, and understood in which contexts. Academic history books, from university presses, are usually pretty different than the pop-history books or books aimed at general audiences for a similar topic. They are much more skeptical and questioning of narrative and are usually very willing to bring up counter-arguments or competing claims.
A really good example, one of my favorite academic history books, is When Champagne Became French by Kolleen Guy [1]. It's really more a history of how the story of champagne was integrated into the ongoing narrative of French national history and identity, and how this integration obscured the sometimes violent disagreements over the identity of champagne and who ultimately "owned" it.
[1]: https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/3029/when-champagne-be...
A really good example, one of my favorite academic history books, is When Champagne Became French by Kolleen Guy [1]. It's really more a history of how the story of champagne was integrated into the ongoing narrative of French national history and identity, and how this integration obscured the sometimes violent disagreements over the identity of champagne and who ultimately "owned" it.
[1]: https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/3029/when-champagne-be...
And, historical accounts can be revised both to correct issues and to spread false narratives[1]. So, when and not just by whom a history was written, and the context the writer was operating in is important too e.g., sources of funding.
[1] "[NELA in the United States] recruited academics to rewrite textbooks with pro-market, anti-government messages and pressured schools and libraries to adopt these rewritten textbooks. They funded academics to create new programs in high schools, colleges, and universities..."
https://nextbigideaclub.com/magazine/big-myth-american-busin...
random linkable source that quotes the book: "The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market" by Naomi Oreskes (professor of the history of science at Harvard University)
[1] "[NELA in the United States] recruited academics to rewrite textbooks with pro-market, anti-government messages and pressured schools and libraries to adopt these rewritten textbooks. They funded academics to create new programs in high schools, colleges, and universities..."
https://nextbigideaclub.com/magazine/big-myth-american-busin...
random linkable source that quotes the book: "The Big Myth: How American Business Taught Us to Loathe Government and Love the Free Market" by Naomi Oreskes (professor of the history of science at Harvard University)
There isn't much need to suppress novels anymore. People no longer have sufficient attention span to even finish a 5 minute video and need to be fed bite-sized shorts. No need to kill the producer, consumers have been killed.
The role of censorship that the government used to have has shifted to companies like Visa, Mastercard, Amazon, etc. If you try and sell a spicy enough book, they will make sure nobody reads it, and the government can be completely "hands-off".
They can fail to process the customer's payment, remove your book from the marketplace, and ban your account. If you try to build your own marketplace, you won't be able to use any major payment processors.
Modern dissidents are building alternatives, but still there are roadblocks. All this to say, books are still very much being suppressed.
They can fail to process the customer's payment, remove your book from the marketplace, and ban your account. If you try to build your own marketplace, you won't be able to use any major payment processors.
Modern dissidents are building alternatives, but still there are roadblocks. All this to say, books are still very much being suppressed.
Do you have any examples of books where this is the case?
I can believe that there are books that Amazon won't carry but I don't believe that there are books that Credit Card networks won't deal with.
I can believe that there are books that Amazon won't carry but I don't believe that there are books that Credit Card networks won't deal with.
For a short while the book "The Citizen's Guide to Fifth Generation Warfare" was being suppressed on Amazon.
People complained and it was quickly made available again.
People complained and it was quickly made available again.
Some quick googling also brought up a couple more examples:
A book critical of COVID lockdowns was pulled in 2020: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/04/amazon-... (https://archive.is/2hZ1o).
A book critical of the transgender movement was pulled in 2021: https://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-senators-send-letter... (https://archive.is/6u6ES)
A book critical of COVID lockdowns was pulled in 2020: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/04/amazon-... (https://archive.is/2hZ1o).
A book critical of the transgender movement was pulled in 2021: https://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-senators-send-letter... (https://archive.is/6u6ES)
I think he was referencing building your own marketplace, they will blacklist you so you won't be able to accept CC payments.
not books but related: last year PayPal shut down the accounts of Consortium News and MintPress News
https://jacobin.com/2022/05/paypal-independent-media-journal...
https://jacobin.com/2022/05/paypal-independent-media-journal...
Refuting adopted positions on complex issues usually requires more than the five minutes allotted either in video programming format or in the conditioned mind you describe. Concision reinforces the conventional narrative as explained in this 5 minute video https://youtu.be/xIbfl7OQ0y4.
> this 5 minute video
TLDR?
EDIT: I posted this as a joke, but the video is very interesting. Chomsky says that a need for concision favors conventional thoughts, because needing concision means you can only say things that don't need elaboration (ie only things everyone already agrees with).
TLDR?
EDIT: I posted this as a joke, but the video is very interesting. Chomsky says that a need for concision favors conventional thoughts, because needing concision means you can only say things that don't need elaboration (ie only things everyone already agrees with).
Is that true? Last I heard (I just looked it up) over half of people in the US read at least one book per year.
If what you heard is true, close to half of people read no books.
This, plus: reading one book in a year can absolutely be done in less than 5 minutes of reading a day. I've seen books written exactly for this consumption pattern: very short, 1-3 page long chapters, with half being a recap of relevant chapters that came before.
Not to mention, "at least 1 book a year" is so peculiar a cut-off point that it sounds like it's deliberately constructed to obscure something. For example (possibly, I'm just guessing), the fact that choosing "at least 10 books a year" would see it going from "more than half" to "less than 5%"...
Not to mention, "at least 1 book a year" is so peculiar a cut-off point that it sounds like it's deliberately constructed to obscure something. For example (possibly, I'm just guessing), the fact that choosing "at least 10 books a year" would see it going from "more than half" to "less than 5%"...
At least one whole book doesn't mean no reading otherwise, everyone could read part of a book and the statement isn't untrue.
[deleted]
I don't know about your source but if it is true, then I'm very happy to be mistaken.
I love the irony here.
You had so little attention span you made an unsourced old-man-shouting-at-clouds comment that people have little in the way of attention spans...
...and then couldn't be bothered to investigate, out of intellectual curiosity, an easily verified statement by someone replying to you.
You had so little attention span you made an unsourced old-man-shouting-at-clouds comment that people have little in the way of attention spans...
...and then couldn't be bothered to investigate, out of intellectual curiosity, an easily verified statement by someone replying to you.
There are plentiful sources, which might not agree on the data that they have. Actually investigating that might take more effort than most people are willing to put in, few would care enough to sit down for the better part of the day and go through numerous studies.
https://www.statista.com/topics/3928/reading-habits-in-the-u... and https://www.statista.com/statistics/222754/book-format-used-...
> Book reading remains a popular pastime, with the most recent data showing that three quarters of all adults had read at least one book in any format in the past year.
https://testprepinsight.com/resources/us-book-reading-statis...
> Almost half of the respondents haven’t read any books in over a year: 48.5%
> According to the Pew Research Center, about 64% of American adults say they have read a book in the past 12 months. This is a similar share to the previous year, and is consistent with the findings from 2020.
> The National Endowment for the Arts released a report in 2015 that showed literary reading among Americans had declined significantly over the previous 20 years. In 1992, 56% of Americans had read at least one work of literature in the previous year. By 2014, that number had fallen to 46%.
> The NEA report also found that literary reading was more common among older adults than younger ones. In 2014, 53% of adults age 65 and older reported reading literature, compared with just 36% of adults ages 18-24.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/09/21/who-doesn...
> Roughly a quarter of American adults (23%) say they haven’t read a book in whole or in part in the past year, whether in print, electronic or audio form, according to a Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults conducted Jan. 25-Feb. 8, 2021.
https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/public-life/boo...
> The percentage of Americans adults who read at least one book of fiction or nonfiction in the previous 12 months (outside of work or school requirements) fell to the lowest level on record in 2017 (Indicator V-04a). In 1992, 61% of Americans had read a book for pleasure during the previous year, but by 2017 less than 53% had done so.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/388541/americans-reading-fewer-...
> Americans say they read an average of 12.6 books during the past year, a smaller number than Gallup has measured in any prior survey dating back to 1990. U.S. adults are reading roughly two or three fewer books per year than they did between 2001 and 2016.
So I guess there's a decline of sorts, but the exact figures vary a bit, probably depending on the particular polls and their audiences, the risks of self reporting biases and so on. That said, people are still definitely readings books, for the most part. Of course, some also include stuff like audiobooks, which is also an interesting format. I don't think that verifying everything is very easy, though, since a meta study that explores the methodology and so on might be more useful for that, rather than just taking everything at face value.
I would still unironically enjoy a SummarizeGoogleGPT or something, to not have to dig through various articles, each with a different layout and formatting.
https://www.statista.com/topics/3928/reading-habits-in-the-u... and https://www.statista.com/statistics/222754/book-format-used-...
> Book reading remains a popular pastime, with the most recent data showing that three quarters of all adults had read at least one book in any format in the past year.
https://testprepinsight.com/resources/us-book-reading-statis...
> Almost half of the respondents haven’t read any books in over a year: 48.5%
> According to the Pew Research Center, about 64% of American adults say they have read a book in the past 12 months. This is a similar share to the previous year, and is consistent with the findings from 2020.
> The National Endowment for the Arts released a report in 2015 that showed literary reading among Americans had declined significantly over the previous 20 years. In 1992, 56% of Americans had read at least one work of literature in the previous year. By 2014, that number had fallen to 46%.
> The NEA report also found that literary reading was more common among older adults than younger ones. In 2014, 53% of adults age 65 and older reported reading literature, compared with just 36% of adults ages 18-24.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/09/21/who-doesn...
> Roughly a quarter of American adults (23%) say they haven’t read a book in whole or in part in the past year, whether in print, electronic or audio form, according to a Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults conducted Jan. 25-Feb. 8, 2021.
https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/public-life/boo...
> The percentage of Americans adults who read at least one book of fiction or nonfiction in the previous 12 months (outside of work or school requirements) fell to the lowest level on record in 2017 (Indicator V-04a). In 1992, 61% of Americans had read a book for pleasure during the previous year, but by 2017 less than 53% had done so.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/388541/americans-reading-fewer-...
> Americans say they read an average of 12.6 books during the past year, a smaller number than Gallup has measured in any prior survey dating back to 1990. U.S. adults are reading roughly two or three fewer books per year than they did between 2001 and 2016.
So I guess there's a decline of sorts, but the exact figures vary a bit, probably depending on the particular polls and their audiences, the risks of self reporting biases and so on. That said, people are still definitely readings books, for the most part. Of course, some also include stuff like audiobooks, which is also an interesting format. I don't think that verifying everything is very easy, though, since a meta study that explores the methodology and so on might be more useful for that, rather than just taking everything at face value.
I would still unironically enjoy a SummarizeGoogleGPT or something, to not have to dig through various articles, each with a different layout and formatting.
When these stats say "read a book", do they mean "read a whole book" or "read something from a book"? Big difference between those two.
is it easily verified ?
Sign up reqd but https://you.com/search?q=who+are+you&tbm=youchat&cfr=chat&ch...
I heard that over half of people in the US read at least one book per year, is that true?
I am not sure of the most current statistics, but according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in 2019, about 74% of American adults said they had read at least one book in the previous year. This means that a majority of people in the US do indeed read at least one book per year, which is positive news for lovers of literature. It's worth noting, however, that the definition of a "book" in this context includes e-books and audiobooks in addition to print books, so it's possible that some of those respondents did not read a print book specifically.
I heard that over half of people in the US read at least one book per year, is that true?
I am not sure of the most current statistics, but according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in 2019, about 74% of American adults said they had read at least one book in the previous year. This means that a majority of people in the US do indeed read at least one book per year, which is positive news for lovers of literature. It's worth noting, however, that the definition of a "book" in this context includes e-books and audiobooks in addition to print books, so it's possible that some of those respondents did not read a print book specifically.
How many have read a non-fiction book? Watch the stats plummet to nearly nothing. Non-fiction is where you get in depth information and historical context for current events. Half the country is unread and easily mislead.
[deleted]
That's an unjustified stretch. You're reaching for a non-existent "ironic switcheroo".
One book per year? Woah someone stop those voracious readers.
Is that the truth, what they say they do, or what they would like to do?
The truth is that few American voters really give a shit if the CIA blows up a bunch of foreigners in Arabistan.
Consent of the governed.
They have been playing the long game, clearly!
But someone probably will read those books and make a TikTok about it
[deleted]
The article writes about this new translation, linking to from the side, which I've overlooked at first, believing it's an ad, irrelevant to the article:
https://bookshop.org/p/books/mr-president-miguel-angel-astur...
"Mr. President"
Miguel Ángel Asturias (Author) (the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1967)
David Unger (Translator)
Mario Vargas Llosa (Foreword by)
Gerald Martin (Introduction by) (cited often in the article)
----
The New Yorker 2022 coverage of the translation:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-timely-retu...
-------
Related:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pgp53z/how-the-cia-infiltrat...
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Guatemala
and (a "part-time hack with a political off switch"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emir_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Monegal
"a scholar, literary critic, and editor of Latin American literature. From 1969 to 1985" .. "a professor of Latin American contemporary literature at Yale University".
https://bookshop.org/p/books/mr-president-miguel-angel-astur...
"Mr. President"
Miguel Ángel Asturias (Author) (the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1967)
David Unger (Translator)
Mario Vargas Llosa (Foreword by)
Gerald Martin (Introduction by) (cited often in the article)
----
The New Yorker 2022 coverage of the translation:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-timely-retu...
-------
Related:
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pgp53z/how-the-cia-infiltrat...
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Guatemala
and (a "part-time hack with a political off switch"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emir_Rodr%C3%ADguez_Monegal
"a scholar, literary critic, and editor of Latin American literature. From 1969 to 1985" .. "a professor of Latin American contemporary literature at Yale University".
For those thinking this is some sort of banned book, it's not. Asturias won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1967. This book is almost definitely available in your language in your nearest book store. And it's a great book, exhilarating and expertly written.
It's still interesting that the CIA _tried_ to suppress it (and news to me!), but it certainly didn't work.
It's still interesting that the CIA _tried_ to suppress it (and news to me!), but it certainly didn't work.
And it hasn't been translated into English yet? This is a viral marketing campaign if ever I saw one; it should be a publisher's wet dream.
"The nobel-prize winning novel that the CIA doesn't want you to read!"
"The nobel-prize winning novel that the CIA doesn't want you to read!"
Wikipedia has a list of selected editions.
The first english edition was in 1963, the first american one in 1964.
The first english edition was in 1963, the first american one in 1964.
FTA: "Mr. President—out last summer in David Unger’s lucid new translation"
I assumed that was a translation into English.
I assumed that was a translation into English.
My mistake! The translator name helped me locate the novel:
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/mr-president-18
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/mr-president-18
It's been translated and is widely available in English. It's an excellent book and one of the most important Latin American novels of the mid-1900s.
Something I do not understand ...
From the link:
> But its 1946 debut reflected a delay of more than a decade by the country’s real dictators, who disrupted the novel’s genesis and sent its author into exile. And in this act of suppression, Asturias’s censors and exilers were aided by the US, specifically the CIA.
From Wikipedia: the CIA was founded September 18, 1947.
How did the CIA "specifically" helped delay the publication of this book from 1936 to 1946 if it didn't even exist in that time frame ?
From the link:
> But its 1946 debut reflected a delay of more than a decade by the country’s real dictators, who disrupted the novel’s genesis and sent its author into exile. And in this act of suppression, Asturias’s censors and exilers were aided by the US, specifically the CIA.
From Wikipedia: the CIA was founded September 18, 1947.
How did the CIA "specifically" helped delay the publication of this book from 1936 to 1946 if it didn't even exist in that time frame ?
The official formation of the CIA was also only a formality, it essentially already existed in its components and other forms, e.g., the OSS. You can’t get so fixated on the official title, it’s the underlying people and their motivations that are the thing. It’s why people have such a hard time understanding and believing the “deep state” and why it hates even being called that because it identifies them.
What the worst people hate the most is being identified and named and associated with their nefarious actions. It’s why they like “classifying” to keep their evil deeds covered and hidden behind an vail of authority. It is how a minority of evil people control the majority of the world, often while claiming to be the good guys.
What the worst people hate the most is being identified and named and associated with their nefarious actions. It’s why they like “classifying” to keep their evil deeds covered and hidden behind an vail of authority. It is how a minority of evil people control the majority of the world, often while claiming to be the good guys.
“deep state” is insanely vague. Does it mean the part of the government that has lots of secrets it fights tooth and nail to make sure is never revealed and even potentially engages in illegal acts? Or does it mean bureaucracy?
From what I’ve heard most people complaining about the “deep state” they always seem to express their complaint about the bounds of normal bureaucracy and less about secret/covert/illegal activities.
From what I’ve heard most people complaining about the “deep state” they always seem to express their complaint about the bounds of normal bureaucracy and less about secret/covert/illegal activities.
prior to appx 2016, it meant the intelligence apparatus and the constellation of orgs and ngo's around it; after that it meant the unelected permanent bureaucracy that persists across administrations
One thing I would add to the accurate description that responded to you, is that it is by its very nature very amorphous and evasive. It’s not really all that unique or special, it is the same entropy that the tech community is far more aware of than the government/politics community is. The reason for that difference is that there is immediate benefit that comes from the deconstruction and corruption of structure in government/politics, which is generally not only not the case in tech but the opposite is true.
There are no benefits or advantages I can think of that come from sloppiness and deconstruction. In politics/government there are not only immediate but ever growing benefits from corruption and reconstruction of the processes and structures that come to the people at the top and the apparatchiks/aristocracy/bureaucracy they bring along as bolster and shielding.
People call it different things, but what is clearly emerging in all western societies simultaneously is not at all what the ruling class claims, but rather the authoritarian default that the American Revolution in particular has been a thorn in the eye of for a few centuries now. It is why these duplicitous forces have been attacking and undermining the Constitution of the USA for so long, because it is the only document/philosophy in history that has determined the limits the people place on government rather than government determining the limits on the people.
In many ways, the US Constitution was the only real revolution in human history, one that turns the power dynamic on its head. That is being destroyed right now and I guarantee when (if?) that dam breaks, it will be far worse for the rest of humanity than America. The world takes for granted that everything we enjoy is a function of the US Constitution that is being destroyed right now.
It may all end super well for the elevated privileged classes in this community in particular, but at best it will end horribly for most everyone else. Another possibility is that it all goes sideways as things are wont to and many here end up a head shorter.
There are no benefits or advantages I can think of that come from sloppiness and deconstruction. In politics/government there are not only immediate but ever growing benefits from corruption and reconstruction of the processes and structures that come to the people at the top and the apparatchiks/aristocracy/bureaucracy they bring along as bolster and shielding.
People call it different things, but what is clearly emerging in all western societies simultaneously is not at all what the ruling class claims, but rather the authoritarian default that the American Revolution in particular has been a thorn in the eye of for a few centuries now. It is why these duplicitous forces have been attacking and undermining the Constitution of the USA for so long, because it is the only document/philosophy in history that has determined the limits the people place on government rather than government determining the limits on the people.
In many ways, the US Constitution was the only real revolution in human history, one that turns the power dynamic on its head. That is being destroyed right now and I guarantee when (if?) that dam breaks, it will be far worse for the rest of humanity than America. The world takes for granted that everything we enjoy is a function of the US Constitution that is being destroyed right now.
It may all end super well for the elevated privileged classes in this community in particular, but at best it will end horribly for most everyone else. Another possibility is that it all goes sideways as things are wont to and many here end up a head shorter.
> because it is the only document/philosophy in history that has determined the limits the people place on government rather than government determining the limits on the people
Really? The only document in history?
Really? The only document in history?
What would you like to call it? That's the only logical response to that complaint. The deep state has a meaning. It's a useful meaning. And the term is used based on that meaning by many political scientist and historians.
The deep state is simply unelected governmental authority. And it's specifically useful because of the mainstream tendency to inaccurately attribute more power to elected authority than it really has.
And this inaccuracy often has to do with industrial bias, as the deep state is beholden to industry before any public good. The CIA, for example, was established very specifically to support US industry and support global economic ambitions.
Those people are not elected and collectively have a great deal more power than most of those we elect. So we have a name for that.
You can choose another name if you wish. But we already have one we use.
The deep state is simply unelected governmental authority. And it's specifically useful because of the mainstream tendency to inaccurately attribute more power to elected authority than it really has.
And this inaccuracy often has to do with industrial bias, as the deep state is beholden to industry before any public good. The CIA, for example, was established very specifically to support US industry and support global economic ambitions.
Those people are not elected and collectively have a great deal more power than most of those we elect. So we have a name for that.
You can choose another name if you wish. But we already have one we use.
I've heard it first hand from a former head of a national agency of another country, say "the C... became a monster" due to the concentration of power it had/has.
It's the entrenched bureaucracy of all flavors.
It's the entrenched bureaucracy of all flavors.
[deleted]
Maybe people have a hard time with the “deep state” because every claim is so unfalsifiable. It’s the new “wake up sheeple”.
Presumably 1000s of executive appointments and senior civil servants across generations of administrations all collectively conspire on odd Tuesdays and think exactly alike like all complex organizations do.
Reductionism provides all truth, the world is black and white.
Presumably 1000s of executive appointments and senior civil servants across generations of administrations all collectively conspire on odd Tuesdays and think exactly alike like all complex organizations do.
Reductionism provides all truth, the world is black and white.
> It’s why they like “classifying” to keep their evil deeds covered and hidden behind an vail of authority.
I found classified docs pretty boring. Most of them remained classified because the information presented had limited distribution, which could identify sources. I never worked at the CIA though, so maybe you're right, the entire CIA is just a Ton Clancy novel.
I found classified docs pretty boring. Most of them remained classified because the information presented had limited distribution, which could identify sources. I never worked at the CIA though, so maybe you're right, the entire CIA is just a Ton Clancy novel.
They declassify the boring ones.
Not making a judgment on the JFK assassination, but I'm sure that one would be interesting and still has not been fully declassified.
one very odd thing is that they brought Allen Dulles in to investigate after he had been fired by JFK, and ended up running a decent portion of the investigation out of his home.
Not making a judgment on the JFK assassination, but I'm sure that one would be interesting and still has not been fully declassified.
one very odd thing is that they brought Allen Dulles in to investigate after he had been fired by JFK, and ended up running a decent portion of the investigation out of his home.
It's not me that is fixated on the name, it is the article that goes out of its way to assign responsibility "specifically" to the CIA - it's right in the title and in the first paragraph!
And this produce what is objectively an historical howler right at the start. As the other commenter said, maybe it's just sloppy editing. But seems pretty click baity to me.
And this produce what is objectively an historical howler right at the start. As the other commenter said, maybe it's just sloppy editing. But seems pretty click baity to me.
> And this produce what is objectively an historical howler right at the start.
What howler? You quote it ascribing actions to the Guatemalan dictatorship in the 1930s which is accurate. Then you claim the piece says the CIA was active in the 1930s, which it does not say anywhere.
What howler? You quote it ascribing actions to the Guatemalan dictatorship in the 1930s which is accurate. Then you claim the piece says the CIA was active in the 1930s, which it does not say anywhere.
I've posted an excerpt from the start of the article at the start of this thread, you could check it.
As it is written, it clearly seems to give the responsibility of the delay in publication to the CIA.
The most charitable interpretation is "poor editing".
As it is written, it clearly seems to give the responsibility of the delay in publication to the CIA.
The most charitable interpretation is "poor editing".
They didn’t. They helped with suppressing its notoriety after Asturias was exiled. This part of the article should probably have seen better editing.
It didn't. Nor do the sentences you quote say that.
[deleted]
Reminds me of "Behold a Pale Horse" which was suppressed domestically by the CIA, for what reason I have no idea as it is obviously outlandish. The version that was finally published is missing 37 pages from the original, I believe you can find a version with those pages on Library Genesis.
I highly recommend "Inside the Company: CIA Diary" by Philip Agee. Agee, a former South American CIA Station Chief, lost heart in the CIA after witnessing years of similar abuses by the U.S.
What discredits a piece should be its accuracy, not its political leaning.
That the CIA was not created till 1947, as already pointed out by serallak, will, not stop me from adding the novel to my reading list.
What saddens is the willingness of the community to defend inaccuracy when they agree with the underlying point the inaccuracy is supporting. The author of the article could have said US Intelligence Assets, and forgone the clickbait of CIA. Putting SEO requirements ahead of factual accuracy, particularly when the fact is so easily fact checked, is not how the world gets changed for the better.
That the CIA was not created till 1947, as already pointed out by serallak, will, not stop me from adding the novel to my reading list.
What saddens is the willingness of the community to defend inaccuracy when they agree with the underlying point the inaccuracy is supporting. The author of the article could have said US Intelligence Assets, and forgone the clickbait of CIA. Putting SEO requirements ahead of factual accuracy, particularly when the fact is so easily fact checked, is not how the world gets changed for the better.
This piece covers a period of time from the 1930s into the 1960s.
What is actually inaccurate? The CIA was doing the things the piece mentions from its inception onward.
What is actually inaccurate? The CIA was doing the things the piece mentions from its inception onward.
> The author of the article could have said US Intelligence Assets, and forgone the clickbait of CIA.
The author makes specific claims about the exact ways that the CIA tried to suppress the novel and author. Do you dispute any of them?
It's pretty rich to talk about "easily fact checked" when you don't engage at all with the factual basis for the claims your are disputing.
The author makes specific claims about the exact ways that the CIA tried to suppress the novel and author. Do you dispute any of them?
It's pretty rich to talk about "easily fact checked" when you don't engage at all with the factual basis for the claims your are disputing.
dragonwriter(3)
The title is correct: the CIA spent a significant amount of money to suppress the book. That the CIA was founded shortly after the book was published doesn't make that impossible.
1946 the book was published, 1947 the CIA was created. Complaining that is an “inaccuracy” is pedantic.
> 1946 the book was published, 1947 the CIA was created.
Right. So what is inaccurate in the piece? I don't see anything that contradicts this.
Right. So what is inaccurate in the piece? I don't see anything that contradicts this.
I’m not disagreeing with you, just adding to your argument so everyone is clear just how close the two events were.
If this book interests you, here are a couple additional books to add to your reading list with similar subject matter:
Bitter Fruit: The Untold Story of the American Coup in Guatemala - Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer
Las venas abiertas de América Latina - Eduardo Galeano
The English translation is titled, Open Veins of Latin America
(Isabel Allende said she carried a copy of Galeano's book with her as she fled the 1973 US backed coup that overthrew the democratic government in Chile and installed the brutal far-right murderous dictator Pinochet)
Bitter Fruit: The Untold Story of the American Coup in Guatemala - Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer
Las venas abiertas de América Latina - Eduardo Galeano
The English translation is titled, Open Veins of Latin America
(Isabel Allende said she carried a copy of Galeano's book with her as she fled the 1973 US backed coup that overthrew the democratic government in Chile and installed the brutal far-right murderous dictator Pinochet)
A magazine that was funded by a non-profit that was partially influenced by CIA officials wrote a bad review. There is not a lot of evidence that either a fortune was spent, or the goal of the CIA was over suppression of the book.
Did you not read the article or are you disputing the facts of it?
The facts presented in the article do not support the assertion of the clickbait title.
What do you dispute? I don't know if running dozens of literary magazines for decades costs more or less than launching dozens of cruise missiles, but it's still a "fortune" in terms of money being thrown around in literary criticism circles.
They did not fund the literary magazine, they just exerted influence on who was the editor.
They did not do it to suppress a single book.
A bad review is not the same as suppression in any way.
So every piece of the headline is wrong. This book achieved widespread success and notoriety in every part of the world after it was published and the book was not really on the CIA's radar at all.
They did not do it to suppress a single book.
A bad review is not the same as suppression in any way.
So every piece of the headline is wrong. This book achieved widespread success and notoriety in every part of the world after it was published and the book was not really on the CIA's radar at all.
> They did not fund the literary magazine, they just exerted influence on who was the editor.
I'm not an expert on this topic but I think that this is incorrect
> The Congress for Cultural Freedom is widely considered one of the CIA’s more daring and effective Cold War covert operations. It published literary and political journals such as Encounter, hosted dozens of conferences bringing together some of the most eminent Western thinkers, and even did what it could to help intellectuals behind the Iron Curtain[1]
> A bad review is not the same as suppression in any way.
Receiving negative reviews from critics sponsored by the CIA is not the same as having publication of your book blocked by a CIA backed dictatorship, experiencing one after the other could warrant the use of such a term.
[1] https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/19...
I'm not an expert on this topic but I think that this is incorrect
> The Congress for Cultural Freedom is widely considered one of the CIA’s more daring and effective Cold War covert operations. It published literary and political journals such as Encounter, hosted dozens of conferences bringing together some of the most eminent Western thinkers, and even did what it could to help intellectuals behind the Iron Curtain[1]
> A bad review is not the same as suppression in any way.
Receiving negative reviews from critics sponsored by the CIA is not the same as having publication of your book blocked by a CIA backed dictatorship, experiencing one after the other could warrant the use of such a term.
[1] https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/19...
I've been thinking a lot about these kind of scenarios lately:
Autocratic regime holds power over a territory with a long history of violent instability. The regime is guilty of corruption, nepotism, human rights violations, suppressing dissidents, etc. This is I think a requirement for it to hold power given the conditions. If the regime collapses even greater violence and general horrible stuff happens. There are plenty of examples in recent history. The Arab Spring comes to mind.
You have some leverage on the situation. You have reliable information about the bad stuff the regime is doing and you are a member of the press, a public figure, whatever. What do you do? What is the right thing to do?
And one step further and closer to the scenario in the article: suppressing the release of that information to protect the fragile stability and prevent a possible greater evil. Is that necessarily a bad thing?
Autocratic regime holds power over a territory with a long history of violent instability. The regime is guilty of corruption, nepotism, human rights violations, suppressing dissidents, etc. This is I think a requirement for it to hold power given the conditions. If the regime collapses even greater violence and general horrible stuff happens. There are plenty of examples in recent history. The Arab Spring comes to mind.
You have some leverage on the situation. You have reliable information about the bad stuff the regime is doing and you are a member of the press, a public figure, whatever. What do you do? What is the right thing to do?
And one step further and closer to the scenario in the article: suppressing the release of that information to protect the fragile stability and prevent a possible greater evil. Is that necessarily a bad thing?
In this scenario, the CIA is not protecting against greater evil for the people of the country. They are just protecting the interests of the US. Now, the CIA's mission is to protect the US interests, there is nothing wrong. However, the means they use to do so may have something wrong with that. Installing and protecting dictators that are favorable to the US is unethical. Also the CIA does not furter "American values" in these interventions, for instance when suppressing weak democracies with strong dictators (Think Chile's Pinochet).
This kind of intervention can easily go wrong, and will often do go wrong (Chile's case was but one example, the Guatemalan novel discusses another).
To play devils advocate, I would posit that so-called "American values" don't actually matter much to real Americans (source: red-blooded American here). What matters is living in comfort, and wielding fiscal power.
When you speak of our "values" then you start sounding like the propaganda that quite frankly, American's are tired of hearing about. We aren't all one-trick ponies here, just like any other place, we have a wide diversity of skills, talents, and values.
When you speak of our "values" then you start sounding like the propaganda that quite frankly, American's are tired of hearing about. We aren't all one-trick ponies here, just like any other place, we have a wide diversity of skills, talents, and values.
You're criticizing someone's use of the term "American values" when they both put scare quotes around it and said that the CIA was not interested in them. You're ignoring the actual comment and replying to the term "American values" in isolation with a response you've probably given many times before.
> You're ignoring the actual comment and replying to the term "American values" in isolation with a response you've probably given many times before.
It is fair to respond to an isolated point within an argument. If an argument contains a point that cannot withstand scrutiny, then the argument is unsound.
Furthermore, you should be ashamed of yourself for saying "with a response you've probably given many times before."
Such an accusation is easily verifiable if it were true. To make such a claim without even looking is immature and disrespectful.
It is fair to respond to an isolated point within an argument. If an argument contains a point that cannot withstand scrutiny, then the argument is unsound.
Furthermore, you should be ashamed of yourself for saying "with a response you've probably given many times before."
Such an accusation is easily verifiable if it were true. To make such a claim without even looking is immature and disrespectful.
I mean, I care about values. But you’re right most people don’t and only care about short term comfort and safety.
It’s a big problem and the only solutions I’ve come across are inherently unpopular.
It’s a big problem and the only solutions I’ve come across are inherently unpopular.
uh,,, gaddafi, saddam come to the top of my mind.
The iraq war was based on lies and financial interest. Do you really want to pretend, Saddam was the primary goal? And that nation building was accomplished, sir!
And gaddafi was toppled over french/sarcozy interest.
One who doesn't know history is doomed to repeat it. Post hoc justification of own atrocities is exactly the sort of cognitive failure that patriotic delusion (and thus the future of such) can cause.
And gaddafi was toppled over french/sarcozy interest.
One who doesn't know history is doomed to repeat it. Post hoc justification of own atrocities is exactly the sort of cognitive failure that patriotic delusion (and thus the future of such) can cause.
Plus neither Iraq nor Libya ended up well. So they are examples of what not to inflict upon a country.
The loss of Gaddafi basically put the slave markets into overdrive, destroyed the power grids and water infrastructure, and generally did far more harm than good. Compared to other dictators that the US put in place, Gaddafi was far from the worst.
jasmer(3)
"Possible" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
This is essentially a version of the colonialist argument - the natives are brutal, uncivilised, and unable to govern themselves properly. So even though our methods are sometimes violent and result in significant death and suffering, we are reluctantly compelled to exercise our civilising influence on this unfortunate situation.
It's just rhetoric. What's really going on is the "civilising" empire is plundering the smaller nation of resources, and is quite happy to act through local despots, dictators, and torturers to further that - until they stop being useful.
This is essentially a version of the colonialist argument - the natives are brutal, uncivilised, and unable to govern themselves properly. So even though our methods are sometimes violent and result in significant death and suffering, we are reluctantly compelled to exercise our civilising influence on this unfortunate situation.
It's just rhetoric. What's really going on is the "civilising" empire is plundering the smaller nation of resources, and is quite happy to act through local despots, dictators, and torturers to further that - until they stop being useful.
Even in democratic countries you have a milder version of this: the most successful politicians are usually those that can get the backing of the political class. Acting against the interests of the political class means you're without the bureaucratic apparatus that would have allowed you to make meaningful and lasting change.
There really does seem to be an "optimal amount of corruption" in absolutely any sufficiently complex society.
There really does seem to be an "optimal amount of corruption" in absolutely any sufficiently complex society.
That there is optimal corruption, in a static system, makes sense to me.
Changing the system for the better (I.e. start requiring US Supreme Court justices to actually avoid conflicts of interest, or forbid coordinated out of state money for state’s senate races) could incrementally reduce the corruption stable point.
—
What strikes me as a missed opportunity, is that democracies haven’t institutionalized a response to the inevitability of corruption. Despite most sources of corruption being out in the open.
Scientists don’t reinvent all the math for thermodynamics every time they stumble on some new context with disorder.
But currently, eliminating corruption is systemically difficult to change because of the corruption! There is no Constitutional responsibility to respond to it.
“Eliminating corruption”, including power centralization (which both requires, incentivizes and enables more corruption) should be right up there with “passing laws”, “implementing laws”, and “interpreting laws”, as an ongoing Constitutionally organized effort.
So many things, including the effectively two-party system that drives so much partisanship, are a result of corruption and the door left open for power centralizations like single party rule. (Seat limits on parties would completely upend that dynamic.)
Changing the system for the better (I.e. start requiring US Supreme Court justices to actually avoid conflicts of interest, or forbid coordinated out of state money for state’s senate races) could incrementally reduce the corruption stable point.
—
What strikes me as a missed opportunity, is that democracies haven’t institutionalized a response to the inevitability of corruption. Despite most sources of corruption being out in the open.
Scientists don’t reinvent all the math for thermodynamics every time they stumble on some new context with disorder.
But currently, eliminating corruption is systemically difficult to change because of the corruption! There is no Constitutional responsibility to respond to it.
“Eliminating corruption”, including power centralization (which both requires, incentivizes and enables more corruption) should be right up there with “passing laws”, “implementing laws”, and “interpreting laws”, as an ongoing Constitutionally organized effort.
So many things, including the effectively two-party system that drives so much partisanship, are a result of corruption and the door left open for power centralizations like single party rule. (Seat limits on parties would completely upend that dynamic.)
Corruption is a pretty fuzzy concept, and most people aren't very good to handle gray areas. I think it's an issue of there not being incentives for any successful group to keep corruption as primary topic in the Overton window, since it's equivalent to marking yourself as an outsider to the political class.
From time to time you'd have waves of populism that can be ridden, and outsiders can get in power, but those never really last.
In my Eastern-European backwards nation that's affected by endemic corruption I was actually thinking of founding at one point a suicide-party, that is basically unelectable but who's main purpose would be to bring the necessary ideas in the Overton window, so that the successful parties at least have to address them.
It's definitely not an easy problem, as most of those that actually understand social processes and can do something have mostly become wealthy and indifferent to the greater good.
From time to time you'd have waves of populism that can be ridden, and outsiders can get in power, but those never really last.
In my Eastern-European backwards nation that's affected by endemic corruption I was actually thinking of founding at one point a suicide-party, that is basically unelectable but who's main purpose would be to bring the necessary ideas in the Overton window, so that the successful parties at least have to address them.
It's definitely not an easy problem, as most of those that actually understand social processes and can do something have mostly become wealthy and indifferent to the greater good.
Suicide party sounds like a great idea. However, there is a danger. If population is polarized (like US-style) and this new party will seem to be taking a side, party's image would be ruined for people who take the other side. That creates a risk that ideas you bring will immediately look bad for people on the other side because these ideas come from your party i.e. their opponent. But maybe it's not important, as long as ideas are now being discussed.
I was born in a country so corrupt and backwards that such a party would not make a difference.
I was born in a country so corrupt and backwards that such a party would not make a difference.
I think most of the response needed to suppress bad behaviour is cultural and peer pressure. Rules and regulations just externalise that problem into an administrative function. People can demonstrate compliance without having to worry about the actual purpose of the rule. And that technical compliance can be used to protect them from any consequences.
Yes, there will always be power mongers and corrupt individuals. So why have a system of rules & regulation?
Why have a democracy, a constitution, laws?
Because separation of powers, regular mandated elections, and other rules that make power harder to centralize, reduce the chance of autocracy from nearly 100% to something much lower.
And debugging that system when obvious in-the-open systematic corruption occurs also has great impact.
I.e. the bill of rights, equal rights amendments, etc
Rules & regulations are a program running on squishy human “hardware”, of course, but fixing clear bugs makes a difference.
—
Which is why my question isn’t whether fixing government system flaws is worth doing, but whether there is a way to make that activity more regular, more incentivized, more likely.
For instance, the simple rule of requiring elections on a calendar makes elections much much likely.
Maybe some rules that ensured party dominance resulted in an extended period of party handicap would do it? Less incentives and outright necessity for corruption when it isn’t going to extend your hold on power anyway.
I am sure that if a country was writing a new constitution, they could learn something from all the different corrupt vs. less corrupt behaviors of existing democracies.
Surely the best constitution isn’t a solved problem, and constitution innovation hasn’t run into some final optimization limit.
—
Stockholm syndrome might reduce our awareness of these opportunities, but they exist, despite the difficulty implementing even simple reforms today.
That makes asking how reforms that reduce corruption, and power consolidation, could be made more likely even more important.
Why have a democracy, a constitution, laws?
Because separation of powers, regular mandated elections, and other rules that make power harder to centralize, reduce the chance of autocracy from nearly 100% to something much lower.
And debugging that system when obvious in-the-open systematic corruption occurs also has great impact.
I.e. the bill of rights, equal rights amendments, etc
Rules & regulations are a program running on squishy human “hardware”, of course, but fixing clear bugs makes a difference.
—
Which is why my question isn’t whether fixing government system flaws is worth doing, but whether there is a way to make that activity more regular, more incentivized, more likely.
For instance, the simple rule of requiring elections on a calendar makes elections much much likely.
Maybe some rules that ensured party dominance resulted in an extended period of party handicap would do it? Less incentives and outright necessity for corruption when it isn’t going to extend your hold on power anyway.
I am sure that if a country was writing a new constitution, they could learn something from all the different corrupt vs. less corrupt behaviors of existing democracies.
Surely the best constitution isn’t a solved problem, and constitution innovation hasn’t run into some final optimization limit.
—
Stockholm syndrome might reduce our awareness of these opportunities, but they exist, despite the difficulty implementing even simple reforms today.
That makes asking how reforms that reduce corruption, and power consolidation, could be made more likely even more important.
What would that look like?
Citizen assemblies (juries)? Sortition? Modest, obvious reforms like passing For The People Act (HB1)?
(I'm very interested in the idea that there might be an optimum level of corruption. Counter intuitive and makes me uncomfortable; so it's probably meritorious.)
Citizen assemblies (juries)? Sortition? Modest, obvious reforms like passing For The People Act (HB1)?
(I'm very interested in the idea that there might be an optimum level of corruption. Counter intuitive and makes me uncomfortable; so it's probably meritorious.)
>Is that necessarily a bad thing?
One could argue that. I know an Egyptian that had to leave after critique of previous and current regime but now has some appreciation for the current one whilst still acknowledging it's terrible authoritarianism. Similarly I'm very close Saudi that recognizes how democracy protests were brutally suppressed with beheadings but considers them to have had no chance of success whilst also recognizing the presence of fundamentalists types that led to the grand mosque seizure and it's subsequent effects on the country and is thus somewhat of a monarchist despite supporting democracy in Europe. I imagine there's similar situations all over the world from Armenian views on Russian influence in the light of Azerbaijani threat to Africans choosing between resource extractors.
However those are locals seeing local nuance and not foreign interventionists with something to gain and I'd say the CIA has a horrid track record when it comes to choosing the lesser evil (Perhaps born from a cold war time when allowing non alignment and the like was sadly not considered an option.) to the point where you're better of looking at the interests they represent in a given scenario than any plainly stated claims about goodwill or lesser evils.
One could argue that. I know an Egyptian that had to leave after critique of previous and current regime but now has some appreciation for the current one whilst still acknowledging it's terrible authoritarianism. Similarly I'm very close Saudi that recognizes how democracy protests were brutally suppressed with beheadings but considers them to have had no chance of success whilst also recognizing the presence of fundamentalists types that led to the grand mosque seizure and it's subsequent effects on the country and is thus somewhat of a monarchist despite supporting democracy in Europe. I imagine there's similar situations all over the world from Armenian views on Russian influence in the light of Azerbaijani threat to Africans choosing between resource extractors.
However those are locals seeing local nuance and not foreign interventionists with something to gain and I'd say the CIA has a horrid track record when it comes to choosing the lesser evil (Perhaps born from a cold war time when allowing non alignment and the like was sadly not considered an option.) to the point where you're better of looking at the interests they represent in a given scenario than any plainly stated claims about goodwill or lesser evils.
Consider another view of the scenario:
A small group of dictators and their affiliates holds power in a small country with abundant natural resources, which a foreign entity harvests at relatively low costs - only having to pay and protect the dictatorship, while the vast majority of the population lives in squalor and poverty, only having access to low-wage menial labor.
Democratization of the economy would entail vast economic losses for the foreign power, due to a steep rise in the cost of the raw materials (see Arab oil crisis), or the conversion of the country to an industrial power that doesn't export raw materials or agricultural produce, but instead manufactured goods, causing it to become a global power (see China).
In this scenario, the role of the CIA is to sabotage all economic and political development in the country - much as the British throne and its affiliated Crown Corporations attempted to do in the American colonies for the 100 years preceding the American Revolution. When people say, "the USA acts as an economic imperialist in Latin and South America", this is the kind of thing they're talking about.
A small group of dictators and their affiliates holds power in a small country with abundant natural resources, which a foreign entity harvests at relatively low costs - only having to pay and protect the dictatorship, while the vast majority of the population lives in squalor and poverty, only having access to low-wage menial labor.
Democratization of the economy would entail vast economic losses for the foreign power, due to a steep rise in the cost of the raw materials (see Arab oil crisis), or the conversion of the country to an industrial power that doesn't export raw materials or agricultural produce, but instead manufactured goods, causing it to become a global power (see China).
In this scenario, the role of the CIA is to sabotage all economic and political development in the country - much as the British throne and its affiliated Crown Corporations attempted to do in the American colonies for the 100 years preceding the American Revolution. When people say, "the USA acts as an economic imperialist in Latin and South America", this is the kind of thing they're talking about.
This tradeoff makes much more sense from the outsider’s perspective.
Living in a stable democracy comes with a certain set of values and preferences. One of those is predictability. When stuff runs smoothly , interest rates are low and you can plan your life ten years in advance.
Now from insider’s perspective it’s a different type of a question. It’s increasing the risk of the violent things happening to you in near future vs long term benefits for your children. People value stability much less when they are on the receiving side of the status quo.
Living in a stable democracy comes with a certain set of values and preferences. One of those is predictability. When stuff runs smoothly , interest rates are low and you can plan your life ten years in advance.
Now from insider’s perspective it’s a different type of a question. It’s increasing the risk of the violent things happening to you in near future vs long term benefits for your children. People value stability much less when they are on the receiving side of the status quo.
Yes, it really is a bad thing. All dictatorships suck except for a narrow class of people favored by or directly benefiting from the regime. Period. Any other view is either cope or Orientalism (“maybe democracy doesn’t work for X people”).
Sometimes it takes the subjects of a dictatorship multiple generations to realize that dictatorships suck, especially if they are partisans and their dictator is a “hero” fighting their boogeyman (secular dictator fighting religious boogeyman, religious dictator fighting secular boogeyman, chauvinist dictator pretending to fight some other country like in 1984 but really the biggest enemy is him, a minority dictator pretending to protect the minorities as an excuse for carpet bombing and torturing members of the majority to hold onto power, etc…).
Keep in mind that for long lasting dictatorships, half the population or more was raised on their propaganda. They’re literally brainwashed, and the dictator ensures that no one becomes independently successful enough to challenge their authority, so people often have nothing better to do that sit around, smoke, and talk about the regime’s enemies as if they’re the proximate threat. So don’t blindly accept when someone from a country with a dictatorship says their dictatorship is good. Trust me, you have it beyond good in America , you truly have no idea how bad a bad government is.
Sometimes it takes the subjects of a dictatorship multiple generations to realize that dictatorships suck, especially if they are partisans and their dictator is a “hero” fighting their boogeyman (secular dictator fighting religious boogeyman, religious dictator fighting secular boogeyman, chauvinist dictator pretending to fight some other country like in 1984 but really the biggest enemy is him, a minority dictator pretending to protect the minorities as an excuse for carpet bombing and torturing members of the majority to hold onto power, etc…).
Keep in mind that for long lasting dictatorships, half the population or more was raised on their propaganda. They’re literally brainwashed, and the dictator ensures that no one becomes independently successful enough to challenge their authority, so people often have nothing better to do that sit around, smoke, and talk about the regime’s enemies as if they’re the proximate threat. So don’t blindly accept when someone from a country with a dictatorship says their dictatorship is good. Trust me, you have it beyond good in America , you truly have no idea how bad a bad government is.
> All dictatorships suck except for a narrow class of people favored by or directly benefiting from the regime
And even they can fall out of favor and become victims in an instant. You only need to say the wrong thing or have someone report that you said the wrong thing (whether or not you did) and the party's over.
And even they can fall out of favor and become victims in an instant. You only need to say the wrong thing or have someone report that you said the wrong thing (whether or not you did) and the party's over.
> If the regime collapses even greater violence and general horrible stuff happens.
There might be violence, but in general you can't know this. And in the end you end up arguing against democracy itself; the opposition cannot be allowed to win, even if they have the votes, because of the risk of rioting by pro-regime supporters. And in order to suppress them winning, you have to commit more crimes.
There might be violence, but in general you can't know this. And in the end you end up arguing against democracy itself; the opposition cannot be allowed to win, even if they have the votes, because of the risk of rioting by pro-regime supporters. And in order to suppress them winning, you have to commit more crimes.
> There might be violence, but in general you can't know this
Well, in general we do know this because that's what regularly has been observed to happen.
Well, in general we do know this because that's what regularly has been observed to happen.
>"suppressing the release of that information to protect the fragile stability and prevent a possible greater evil"
It is one thing to not start bloody revolution. Hiding information however is never good in my opinion. Rather criminal in my book,
It is one thing to not start bloody revolution. Hiding information however is never good in my opinion. Rather criminal in my book,
Bad/good is a subjective matter, but I would say it is a mistake to prioritize lesser evil over long term effects and sustainable solutions. You can get away with anything in the lesser evil mindset.
IMO information doesn't have the impact most people think it does. It seems to play much more of a role in shaping long-term views rather than driving immediate short-term responses. One would have expected the Snowden revelations to trigger a monumental response. They did not, and so a cynic might say people mostly didn't care. But that also seems wrong. Rather it seems to have played (and is playing) a significant role in shaping people's views of the world over the long-term. Instead of driving people to do some radical action, it instead drove things like a great anti-establishment type sentiment, and more people to acknowledge the role of realpolitik in the world.
Things like the Arab Spring weren't really driven by information such as by well organized Western trained individuals organizing efforts to overthrow their governments. Those groups were largely just waiting for some event to use as a justification for a planned action. And in any large country those events will inevitably happen. This [1] article from the times is quite amusing. In a nutshell, 'No we didn't fund them to start protests, we simply recruited people who despised their government, and trained them in organization, networking, and other forms of advocacy. And then we made sure the protests that did happen received 24/7 positive coverage. But really we played no role whatsoever in these completely organic movements.'
So the point I'd make with this is that information itself is something that should be free. Because it shapes views. Where things get dodgy is in 'inorganic' organizing and promotion. Inorganic is always tough to define both because we live in a global world, and because behind any revolution there are always genuine and real grievances. But I think everybody can agree that the Romanian people overthrowing Ceaușescu after he called everybody into a square for a propaganda rally was completely organic [2], and the CIA overthrowing Iran over oil in 1953 was completely inorganic [3]. Lots of things are going to fall in between those two extremes, but the more foreign involvement (and propaganda), the less organic something is.
But information? Information wants to, and should, be free.
---
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution#Revolution...
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat#...
Things like the Arab Spring weren't really driven by information such as by well organized Western trained individuals organizing efforts to overthrow their governments. Those groups were largely just waiting for some event to use as a justification for a planned action. And in any large country those events will inevitably happen. This [1] article from the times is quite amusing. In a nutshell, 'No we didn't fund them to start protests, we simply recruited people who despised their government, and trained them in organization, networking, and other forms of advocacy. And then we made sure the protests that did happen received 24/7 positive coverage. But really we played no role whatsoever in these completely organic movements.'
So the point I'd make with this is that information itself is something that should be free. Because it shapes views. Where things get dodgy is in 'inorganic' organizing and promotion. Inorganic is always tough to define both because we live in a global world, and because behind any revolution there are always genuine and real grievances. But I think everybody can agree that the Romanian people overthrowing Ceaușescu after he called everybody into a square for a propaganda rally was completely organic [2], and the CIA overthrowing Iran over oil in 1953 was completely inorganic [3]. Lots of things are going to fall in between those two extremes, but the more foreign involvement (and propaganda), the less organic something is.
But information? Information wants to, and should, be free.
---
[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution#Revolution...
[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat#...
Really nice insight:
> So the point I'd make with this is that information itself is something that should be free. Because it shapes views. Where things get dodgy is in 'inorganic' organizing and promotion.
It is this that I would like journalists and even states to protect the people against. Not censor but a nice little banner like Youtube and Twitter saying this media comes from <something> and is part of a campaign. In that banner then publish the analysis and criteria used.
Youtube does it for in-video advertising so the logic exists even in the commercial space. I find it plausible it would be valuable in the virtual agora.
It is this that I would like journalists and even states to protect the people against. Not censor but a nice little banner like Youtube and Twitter saying this media comes from <something> and is part of a campaign. In that banner then publish the analysis and criteria used.
Youtube does it for in-video advertising so the logic exists even in the commercial space. I find it plausible it would be valuable in the virtual agora.
The US employs the largest psyop operations investment in the world, why would you trust the government to manage info authenticity and integrity for the public?
I can see the allure of a parental figure where the state makes sure its citizens are protected from bad stuff but I think you’ve got it backwards, it’s the state itself which is not only bad but has all the power and leverage for that badness to materialize itself. Unfortunately it’s not so simple when you want to give all the power to a group to wield over you, you’ll find they’re more interested in that power than protecting you with it even if they’re peformative about it
I can see the allure of a parental figure where the state makes sure its citizens are protected from bad stuff but I think you’ve got it backwards, it’s the state itself which is not only bad but has all the power and leverage for that badness to materialize itself. Unfortunately it’s not so simple when you want to give all the power to a group to wield over you, you’ll find they’re more interested in that power than protecting you with it even if they’re peformative about it
[deleted]
nothing on zlib!
I'd call that a successful suppression
I'd call that a successful suppression
Not that I wanna encourage piracy or anything but here the book is in Spanish and English:
https://libgen.rs/fiction/46DAEF09199182E5928922587419E1F3
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=C8E7CC541E6855E0034FC6D0...
https://libgen.rs/fiction/46DAEF09199182E5928922587419E1F3
http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=C8E7CC541E6855E0034FC6D0...
I found two different translations easily available.
[deleted]
[deleted]
meghan_rain(13)
> Frank Snepp’s Decent Interval: An Insider’s Account of Saigon’s Indecent End Told by the CIA’s Chief Strategy Analyst in Vietnam, which was published in late 1977.
> At the very least Snepp had written the definitive history of the final days of the American imperium—in Vietnam anyway—in a gripping, page-turning style. The rooftop escape defined so much about the blundering American experience in Vietnam, and Snepp was the only witness to the tawdry retreat who wrote it all down as if a modern-day Xenophon, on the payroll of the CIA, retreating from the Asian wars.
> In 1981, the CIA had dragged him into the Supreme Court, to block his earnings from the book and to teach other agents in the field that there were costs associated with tell-all books about the failings within agency. I remember being shocked that Snepp lost his appeal to the Supreme Court and that he had been forced to pay $300,000 in book royalties to his former CIA handlers.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/09/why-vietnam-still-ma...