Joel Whitney has done a lot of research on the CIA's remarkable involvement with writers and artists. His book on it is https://www.amazon.com/Finks-C-I-Tricked-Worlds-Writers/dp/1.... There are good interviews with him about it online. It's amazing how extensive these involvements were and how major the writers were.
In the 40s was intense and widespread hands-on war time patriotism that involved almost everyone at every level: draft of most men of age; rationing including melting silverware etc; companies diverted to war materiel; even citizens financing the whole thing with war bonds.
Then the Stalinist Russians, with some 5 million people in the gulags, became nuclear in 49. The Rosenbergs were executed in 53. This was some scary, tangible stuff. All that red scare whipped into a frenzy by Hoover and McCarthy built on all that wartime patriotism.
So I don't find it surprising that a few celebrities visiting abroad might write up a few trip reports or befriend diplomats, doing their part to keep the red menace at bay.
I always find the posthumous vindication of Hemingway to be interesting because people want to say justified paranoia, or ironically accurate paranoia
But shouldn’t we just change the word to describe Hemingway? Paranoia means unjustified suspicion/distrust and encroaches on mental health issues. It should say people thought he was paranoid about a thing that turned out to be true. So in reality Hemingway was suspicious of shitty spies.
Right, yeah I agree paranoia isn't the right word. I don't know what the right word would be though. While he must have been aware of being monitored by his government, I suspect it would still have come off as paranoia to the people who knew him or knew of him, justified or not.
I agree, it was not paranoia. Hemingway was recruited by the KGB and was eager to offer his services. The only reason he didn't last long as a Russian agent is that they ended up not finding him very useful. [1]
He thought the FBI was following him because he knew they had good reasons to.
Geller probably told them "Why, yes, I can spy on enemy bases with my psychic powers" whereas Randi was a consultant who advised them "That guy is full of shit, and so is anyone else who tells you they have psychic powers. To take them seriously is to waste taxpayer money."
Exactly, spy networks are about aggregating information from many people about many people.
Fundamentally, spying is very good for the world. It allows for nation states to understand each other’s thinking and reasoning. The most dangerous situations come from misunderstanding, as we are now experiencing with North Korea.
No, its the quintessential example of fail-deadly systems, and nations misunderstanding the strategic and tactical environment. Every major power bought into the myth of offense dominance (which WWI proved fairly decisively was a myth), and so developed mobilization plans that were essentially designed to preempt any enemy attack and put those mobilization plans on hair trigger since being slow to deploy to an offensive posture was viewed as guaranteeing defeat should war erupt.
Germany's mobilization plans against France actually involving occupying Belgium are a fairly extreme example, but the trend was universal among the major European powers.
It wasn't that they misunderstood each other, it was that they misunderstood the context.
Well said. It's incredibly healthy for friends to know each others standpoints beyond nonsense press conferences and public statements mainly intended for domestic audiences. Even better to understand our "enemies" in the most peaceful period in human history.
We all spy, it's not some evil to be purged.
I do draw the line at corporate stuff though, if only the world treated industrial espionage as highly as cheating in the Olympics. Sadly we all do that too, with varying degrees of effectiveness, some are brash about it, some will go to great lengths pretending they don't do it. Not sure what's worse.
Our economic system is literally designed for companies to compete with one another. The less fair the competition, the more collusion and corruption, the less stable the market is.
> Fundamentally, spying is very good for the world.
'Spying' is not a well-defined term. I think you mean 'information gathering' but also under the rubric of spying fall subversion, sabotage, political interference, propaganda and disinformation, etc.
Even in the realm of information gathering the techniques used are often unacceptable - such as deliberately putting someone in a compromising position and then extorting them to provide access to information they posses.
I don't think the assertion that those things are good for the world would be widely accepted.
As part of Edward Snowden's explanation of his radicalization he relates an anecdote of his work for the CIA in Switzerland.
From the wiki page:
Snowden described his CIA experience in Geneva as formative, stating that the CIA deliberately got a Swiss banker drunk and encouraged him to drive home. Snowden said that when the latter was arrested, a CIA operative offered to help in exchange for the banker becoming an informant.
Ueli Maurer, President of the Swiss Confederation for the year 2013, in June of that year publicly disputed Snowden's claims. "This would mean that the CIA successfully bribed the Geneva police and judiciary. With all due respect, I just can't imagine it
Everyone should feel free to apply their own judgement about the value of this anecdote.
Edit: I would regard kidnapping, rendition, and waterboarding as a "negative inducement", myself.
Joel Whitney has done a lot of research on the CIA's remarkable involvement with writers and artists. His book on it is https://www.amazon.com/Finks-C-I-Tricked-Worlds-Writers/dp/1.... There are good interviews with him about it online. It's amazing how extensive these involvements were and how major the writers were.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10116113 from 2015 is on this topic, but not that great a thread.
Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA as well.
It becomes very difficult to understand what happened during the 50s and 60s, the more you look into it.
It used to be a conspiracy theory.
Now the only question is the extent to which she did that.
There is good evidence that the magazine was also paid for by the 3 letter agency.
> There is good evidence that the magazine was also paid for by the 3 letter agency.
Do you mean New York or Ms.? I'm not familiar with this theory; can you link to more info?
They even pay some people to comment on Hacker News
The only question now really is how much they influence the comment section here
In the 40s was intense and widespread hands-on war time patriotism that involved almost everyone at every level: draft of most men of age; rationing including melting silverware etc; companies diverted to war materiel; even citizens financing the whole thing with war bonds.
Then the Stalinist Russians, with some 5 million people in the gulags, became nuclear in 49. The Rosenbergs were executed in 53. This was some scary, tangible stuff. All that red scare whipped into a frenzy by Hoover and McCarthy built on all that wartime patriotism.
So I don't find it surprising that a few celebrities visiting abroad might write up a few trip reports or befriend diplomats, doing their part to keep the red menace at bay.
I think it was both more pervasive and subtle than that. This (by no means the only research on the topic) gives a bit of the flavour:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pgp53z/how-the-cia-infilt...
I can't imagine this helped with Hemingway's late (and justified) paranoia.
I always find the posthumous vindication of Hemingway to be interesting because people want to say justified paranoia, or ironically accurate paranoia
But shouldn’t we just change the word to describe Hemingway? Paranoia means unjustified suspicion/distrust and encroaches on mental health issues. It should say people thought he was paranoid about a thing that turned out to be true. So in reality Hemingway was suspicious of shitty spies.
Right, yeah I agree paranoia isn't the right word. I don't know what the right word would be though. While he must have been aware of being monitored by his government, I suspect it would still have come off as paranoia to the people who knew him or knew of him, justified or not.
> Right, yeah I agree paranoia isn't the right word. I don't know what the right word would be though.
The word for thing that is like paranoia but instead of being irrational and pathological its entirely rational and grounded in fact?
"Justified concern"?
I agree, it was not paranoia. Hemingway was recruited by the KGB and was eager to offer his services. The only reason he didn't last long as a Russian agent is that they ended up not finding him very useful. [1]
He thought the FBI was following him because he knew they had good reasons to.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/jul/09/hemingway-fail...
Hemingway was being followed by the FBI:
https://www.history101.com/hemingway-fbi-declassified/
Wow. I read a biography on Hemingway a while ago and don't remember it talking about any of this.
Both Geller and Randi worked for the CIA. Is there any way we can tell at this point what the "truth" was?
Geller probably told them "Why, yes, I can spy on enemy bases with my psychic powers" whereas Randi was a consultant who advised them "That guy is full of shit, and so is anyone else who tells you they have psychic powers. To take them seriously is to waste taxpayer money."
no, that's the whole point
So effectively he probabbly just provided tidbits of observations about people he met?
That's spying at its fundamentals. Don't let the movies fool you.
Exactly, spy networks are about aggregating information from many people about many people.
Fundamentally, spying is very good for the world. It allows for nation states to understand each other’s thinking and reasoning. The most dangerous situations come from misunderstanding, as we are now experiencing with North Korea.
"They're mobilizing their army, they clearly mean to invade us"
WW1 is the quintessential example of nation states misunderstanding each other.
No, its the quintessential example of fail-deadly systems, and nations misunderstanding the strategic and tactical environment. Every major power bought into the myth of offense dominance (which WWI proved fairly decisively was a myth), and so developed mobilization plans that were essentially designed to preempt any enemy attack and put those mobilization plans on hair trigger since being slow to deploy to an offensive posture was viewed as guaranteeing defeat should war erupt.
Germany's mobilization plans against France actually involving occupying Belgium are a fairly extreme example, but the trend was universal among the major European powers.
It wasn't that they misunderstood each other, it was that they misunderstood the context.
Well said. It's incredibly healthy for friends to know each others standpoints beyond nonsense press conferences and public statements mainly intended for domestic audiences. Even better to understand our "enemies" in the most peaceful period in human history.
We all spy, it's not some evil to be purged.
I do draw the line at corporate stuff though, if only the world treated industrial espionage as highly as cheating in the Olympics. Sadly we all do that too, with varying degrees of effectiveness, some are brash about it, some will go to great lengths pretending they don't do it. Not sure what's worse.
I'm curious why you think it's healthy for nations and friends to spy on each other, but not companies.
Just piling on with similar sentiment. Corporations aren’t people, people are corporations.
Saying friends shouldn’t discuss their life’s work is weird, but of course benefits profits and nation state power structures.
Our economic system is literally designed for companies to compete with one another. The less fair the competition, the more collusion and corruption, the less stable the market is.
> Fundamentally, spying is very good for the world.
'Spying' is not a well-defined term. I think you mean 'information gathering' but also under the rubric of spying fall subversion, sabotage, political interference, propaganda and disinformation, etc.
Even in the realm of information gathering the techniques used are often unacceptable - such as deliberately putting someone in a compromising position and then extorting them to provide access to information they posses.
I don't think the assertion that those things are good for the world would be widely accepted.
Publicly, the CIA claims that they don’t use negative inducements.
As part of Edward Snowden's explanation of his radicalization he relates an anecdote of his work for the CIA in Switzerland.
From the wiki page:
Snowden described his CIA experience in Geneva as formative, stating that the CIA deliberately got a Swiss banker drunk and encouraged him to drive home. Snowden said that when the latter was arrested, a CIA operative offered to help in exchange for the banker becoming an informant.
Ueli Maurer, President of the Swiss Confederation for the year 2013, in June of that year publicly disputed Snowden's claims. "This would mean that the CIA successfully bribed the Geneva police and judiciary. With all due respect, I just can't imagine it
Everyone should feel free to apply their own judgement about the value of this anecdote.
Edit: I would regard kidnapping, rendition, and waterboarding as a "negative inducement", myself.
Yes, documented.
(Exception to Betteridges Law of Headlines)
Tangentially related, but isn’t the rule that when a headline ask a question, the answer is generally yes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
The answer is generally "no".
If the answer was yes, it wouldn’t be a question. In fact there’s a “law” stating the exact opposite: Betteridge's Law of Headlines.