The dominant institutions of 20th century American literature, and culture in general, where created by the CIA in order to wage subliminal warfare on behalf of the american ruling class, given the US victory in the cold war and the universalisation of american culture, is it possible to create meaningful art or have our minds already been bent in such a way that what we think is creativity will always be a reproduction of the american ideology?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_for_Cultural_Freedom
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/27/exclusive_the_paris_review_the_cold_war_and_the_cia/
http://chronicle.com/article/How-Iowa-Flattened-Literature/144531/
>>8183864
Everything in the culture argues against the novel, particularly the novel that tries to be equal to the complexities and excesses of the culture. This is why books such as JR and Harlot’s Ghost and Gravity’s Rainbow and The Public Burning are important—to name just four. They offer many pleasures without making concessions to the middle-range reader, and they absorb and incorporate the culture instead of catering to it.
These books and writers show us that the novel is still spacious enough and brave enough to encompass enormous areas of experience. We have a rich literature. But sometimes it’s a literature too ready to be neutralized, to be incorporated into the ambient noise. This is why we need the writer in opposition, the novelist who writes against power, who writes against the corporation or the state or the whole apparatus of assimilation. We’re all one beat away from becoming elevator music.
>>8183864
>where created
>salon as a legitimate source
The CIA is a bureaucracy that is given far too much credit, based purely off of its bumbling handling of some muddled assassinations in the 70s and its shitty handling of MKULTRA. It is a denuded organization that has been usurped by the NSA and has not and does not greatly effect American culture, except for a mythology propagated by tinfoilers.
>>8183864
>Salon
>>8184163
nothing wrong with it
>>8185411
TOP 10 REASONS IF YOU ARE A WHITE MALE THAT OWNS A CAT YOU SHOULD KILL YOURESELF
>>8184110
Good shilling is an art form like any other, and witnessing it can be a powerful aesthetic experience.
WE'RE BREAKING THE CONDITIONING
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqUk28OwHs
>>8185411
Is this nigga serious? It's one of the most heavyhanded, partial, biased media outslets out there. You might as well have posted Gawker, Vox, or the guardian
Also they're sympathetic to pedophiles
http://www.salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/
Alex jones is national treasure and any real conspiracy theorist worth his salt knows he is controlled opposition
>your body on ideology
>your body on aesthetics
>>8184110
>>8184163
I didn't read the article (not OP) but it is a well known fact that the Paris Review was created in part as a cover for Peter Matthiessen's infiltration of fringe left movements among American expats in Paris. It almost tore the review and a whole lot of literary circles apart when he told George Plimpton that one.
Funny how that backfired though, as he became one of the fiercest critics of the American government that I can think of.
>>8185481
The cia had its hands in manipulating all kinds of culture during the cold war.
They sent Jackson pollock checks and promoted his terrible art.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
They most likely still do this kind of shit.
>>8185492
pollock has decent work, it was definitely bolstered by cia ops but the work is not bad.
>>8185502
he was a garbage person who made garbage art
>>8185502
wow, that is actually surprisingly good
>>8185448
Hillarious how these right wing muh freedum types support trump now
>>8185516
wow so impressed by your nuanced & well informed opinion
>>8183864
>>8185527
That's a guy,,right?
>>8185535
>>8185502
nope, it's shit
So have involved do you think the CIA are in curating conspiracy culture?
A good way of hiding the things the US state does without resorting to open censorship is to bury the facts under a mound of bullshit, so people searching for info on MKULTRA end up reading about shape shifting reptaloids from the fourth dimension. Jones for one always talks about his "insider sources".
>>8183864
Alex Jones fascinates me. He's just a fat, uneducated blowhard with edgy opinions. He's not even charismatic, humorous, or articulate--which would help him sell or at cleverly obfuscate his rhetoric to make it more appealing.
How did he become a national fixture? You can find doofuses like him in every blue collar watering hole in America.
>>8185555
**at least cleverly obfuscate
>>8185555
>not even charismatic, humorous
This is just wrong, the man is hilarious.
>>8185555
He's hilarious
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GInZ4oQhhzE
>>8185550
What nuance do you want? It's awful, full stop
I'll occasionally glance into the toilet after I'm done shitting and find more aesthetic work than Pollock's finest
>>8185577
>being this deluded
Pollack is the sum on the shoe of guys like edward hopper and andrew wyeth.
Dude isnt even top 20 american painters.
As for alex jones, CIA psy op to make conspiracy people look stupider.
>>8185595
those guys are talented painters, but they're not playing the same game as pollock and judging them on the same criteria (realism, handling of light, portrayal of contemporary living) is myopic
>>8185604
Pollack was a garbage person who dripped paint onto a canvas then art critics got tricked by the CIA into thinking that was somehow deep.
Wyeth lived through all that crap and stuck by his guns even though pretentious art faggots never liked him
>>8185613
you sound pretty butthurt friend, what's wrong, gf got fucked by an abstract expressionist?
>>8185619
whats wrong?
Cant think of an argument so resort to an insult?
Friend.
>>8185631
pollock did his own thing and he did it well, not sure why you're so mad about it that you'd call him garbage, other than perhaps your being a cuck.
>>8185653
he was shit and that's it
>you're a cuck
this entire conversation you've been gargling on pollock's balls, cuckboy
>>8183864
all of these institutions were actually barely relevant
t. fuck you
>>8185572
>that
>hilarious
Just cringed and shook my head desu.
>>8185662
not him but care to explain to us what makes Pollock bad and what makes another artist of your choosing good?
>>8185735
>what makes Pollock bad
If you can't see you're a fool. They've made a fool of you.
>>8185662
I literally said he's not bad, you're a child.
I wonder what you think of other abstract expressionists, like willem de kooning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WEYKoJTIHcE
>>8185604
>they're not playing the same game
no they *are* playing the game. it's pollack who's on the sidelines drunk, making loud incoherent rants, while shitting himself.
>>8185878
good comeback m16
