The plight and tragedy of Pied Noir of French Algeria is nothing short of significant, millions of people who lived there or had family there, their whole livelihoods undone in the span of a decade because the gods of powers in Langley wanted to back insignificant, snivelling, incompetent third world warriors so they could commit: genocide, steal land, destroy landmarks and end a whole ethno-cultural group.
Bravery of French Legions and their dashing attempts to inject lifeblood into french nation defined the French Far Right for a generation just as the movie 'Battle Of Algiers' and illusory sphere of french leftist cinema came to define french intellectualism for the next generation.
lol, some of the military leaders and spies ended up running more heroin than the Sinaloa Cartel. They were part of the French Connection, all the way from Marseilles to Buenos Aires to Montreal. Read Henrik Kruger's book The Great Heroin Coup. https://archive.org/details/greatheroincoupd0000krug/page/n3/mode/2up
analyses of the CIA in the Cold War era suffer from a common flaw: they view the CIA as a monolithic enterprise, instead of a massive compartmentalized bureaucracy. Compartmentalization and cross-purposes are common in bureaucracies. But they're nowhere more of a factor than CIA, where people don't know what their co-workers down the hall are doing, by design. If you read In Search Of Enemies by John Stockwell, a disillusioned ex-CIA officer formerly assigned to Angola in the 1970s, and you'll see what a mess it often is. And all the 10%ers, the middle operators. Milking Uncle Sam's cow, just like Afghanistan. https://archive.org/details/in-search-of-enemies-a-cia-story-john-stockwell/page/n55/mode/2up?view=theater&q=arms
It's bizarre to claim that the CIA was running some monolithic Left-Liberal project in Cold War era. The support for non-Communist pro-Western liberal cultural projects in the 1960s was primarily directed at Europe, particularly the Eastern bloc and USSR. It was their least cloak and dagger effort, and the one of the most effective at undermining the rigidly narrow ideological control of the Soviets, by providing a pluralist alternative to Socialist Realism, where all art was forced to conform to Marxist-Leninist ideological dictates. The CIA having already failed spectacularly in the 1950s with the hard line of paramilitary covert ops, trying to put together armed subversive groups behind the Iron Curtain and getting owned every time--because Kim Philby was giving advance notice on every CIA infiltration attempt to the KGB. The real story of the Cold War is not that the CIA was run from the top by a bunch of bien pensant liberals; it's that KGB was scarily successful at doubling so many Americans who ended up maneuvering themselves into key nodes of US national security: Aldrich Ames, CIA. Robert Hanssen, FBI counterintelligence. The Walker spy ring, ONI. The Americans just got outplayed.
CIA in Latin America ran a much more right-wing oriented game in the Cold War era. Read Cry Of The People and In Banks We Trust, by Penny Lernoux. Or They Will Be Done, by Gerard Colby. Inside The League, by John Lee Anderson. The Real Terror Network, by Bernard Herman. Iran-Contra Connection, by Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall. The US, Argentina, and the Anti-Communist Crusade in Latin America, by Ariel Armony. The CIA funded and nurtured international neofascist extremist groups--including a lot of operatives from European countries like Italy and France--throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s.
"The fact that all these governments were divided throughout this period, including the American government, and that there was no unitary coordination to any of the events I'm talking about is important to impress on the reader."
Yes, that is so true and has been my experience when I worked in government. There are so many factions with so many goals, sometimes these factions will unite towards a common goal and other times they will fracture and attempt to sabotage each others operations, such as the CIA and DEA in Afghanistan or US intelligence and US Border Patrol at the southern border. There is never any permanent unified front.
Also, it was Robert Hanssen (FBI) who was the wholesome chungus Opus Dei Soviet spy not Aldrich Ames, the Soviet mole at the CIA.
I just don’t have broad enough context to understand this article. Who were George Houser, Bill Scheinman and Irving Brown? What were their backgrounds and goals? What was Hubert Humphrey’s involvement? Did the CIA’s strategy originate with Allen Dulles or was it being pushed by young and mid-level CIA echelons as seems to have been the case with Cuba? What was the interest of US organized labor in countries with no industry? So many questions. The vignettes about Delarue and Mondlane are tantalising and suggestive but don’t sufficiently explain the larger forces at play or the key decision makers. What was the role and goals of the IRC and WCC? They’re affiliated with the Rockefellers, aren’t they? What were the objectives of the Ford Foundation and the Rockefellers? So many questions . . .
BAP's problem is his incessant left/right ideological focus serves to obfuscate the accrual of money, power and influence that underlies his subject. He always talks of historical bloody left wing events but never those of the right. The right was always merely trying to save lives or some such nonsense.
Of course there are factions within the power elite. It's not some grand unified theory of power we saw during the Cold War. Though he is correct to mock those who refuse to acknowledge this. That said, over the last four or five decades there has been an almost miraculously unified character to the grand neoliberal revolution. Oligarchs, intelligence agencies, academia and media have worked in lockstep to push the globalist "liberal" world order. The spiritual needs of humanity never suffer more than when the powerful unite.
Communism, as practiced in the Soviet era, is long dead. In that sense US victory in the Cold War is very real. He is right to ask what was really won but to paint it as a simple communist loss (as opposed to actual capitalist victory) is at best partly true.
The globalist capitalist system is not communism. It's just another flavor of totalitarian power-mongering. It is evil and borg-like in its destruction of local and regional self-determination and self-direction of nations but the left/right distinction, always muddy, is no longer operative.
You can call the rejection of globalism "right wing" if you like. I think it's more useful to understand it as human cultural-determination or regionalist/nationalist. Otherwise you risk falling into the very real trap of thinking "capitalism" is in some way opposed to globalism and eventually end up in the dead-end libertarian morass.
one needs to remember Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy - The god that got fucked in the ass, to understand the 20th century. there was a hostile takeover both in the USA and in Russia in the 1910s. all monarchies in Europe was overthrown after WW1.. the world bank was created in the 50’s so one doesn’t necessarily have to look for evil forces in iPhone to understand the motives behind the operations in Africa. sorry BAP.
Where's BAP's memoir: of his childhood training stray dogs to attack neighbors in the Eastern Bloc, of the wretched Boston suburbs, of his political awakening and wanderings around the world? Millions would read
In fact, this is disastrous for Africans. De facto, they lost relatively conscientious, stable, promising leadership, white qualified people with high IQs, and for many years they fell under the rule of socialist lunatics.
In this regard, I recall how in the 1990s, Western governments called on Russia to negotiate peace with Chechen separatists, and the "president of Chechnya" visited the UK in 1998 (the article is in Russian, unfortunately I do not have a translation)
The plight and tragedy of Pied Noir of French Algeria is nothing short of significant, millions of people who lived there or had family there, their whole livelihoods undone in the span of a decade because the gods of powers in Langley wanted to back insignificant, snivelling, incompetent third world warriors so they could commit: genocide, steal land, destroy landmarks and end a whole ethno-cultural group.
Bravery of French Legions and their dashing attempts to inject lifeblood into french nation defined the French Far Right for a generation just as the movie 'Battle Of Algiers' and illusory sphere of french leftist cinema came to define french intellectualism for the next generation.
lol, some of the military leaders and spies ended up running more heroin than the Sinaloa Cartel. They were part of the French Connection, all the way from Marseilles to Buenos Aires to Montreal. Read Henrik Kruger's book The Great Heroin Coup. https://archive.org/details/greatheroincoupd0000krug/page/n3/mode/2up
analyses of the CIA in the Cold War era suffer from a common flaw: they view the CIA as a monolithic enterprise, instead of a massive compartmentalized bureaucracy. Compartmentalization and cross-purposes are common in bureaucracies. But they're nowhere more of a factor than CIA, where people don't know what their co-workers down the hall are doing, by design. If you read In Search Of Enemies by John Stockwell, a disillusioned ex-CIA officer formerly assigned to Angola in the 1970s, and you'll see what a mess it often is. And all the 10%ers, the middle operators. Milking Uncle Sam's cow, just like Afghanistan. https://archive.org/details/in-search-of-enemies-a-cia-story-john-stockwell/page/n55/mode/2up?view=theater&q=arms
It's bizarre to claim that the CIA was running some monolithic Left-Liberal project in Cold War era. The support for non-Communist pro-Western liberal cultural projects in the 1960s was primarily directed at Europe, particularly the Eastern bloc and USSR. It was their least cloak and dagger effort, and the one of the most effective at undermining the rigidly narrow ideological control of the Soviets, by providing a pluralist alternative to Socialist Realism, where all art was forced to conform to Marxist-Leninist ideological dictates. The CIA having already failed spectacularly in the 1950s with the hard line of paramilitary covert ops, trying to put together armed subversive groups behind the Iron Curtain and getting owned every time--because Kim Philby was giving advance notice on every CIA infiltration attempt to the KGB. The real story of the Cold War is not that the CIA was run from the top by a bunch of bien pensant liberals; it's that KGB was scarily successful at doubling so many Americans who ended up maneuvering themselves into key nodes of US national security: Aldrich Ames, CIA. Robert Hanssen, FBI counterintelligence. The Walker spy ring, ONI. The Americans just got outplayed.
CIA in Latin America ran a much more right-wing oriented game in the Cold War era. Read Cry Of The People and In Banks We Trust, by Penny Lernoux. Or They Will Be Done, by Gerard Colby. Inside The League, by John Lee Anderson. The Real Terror Network, by Bernard Herman. Iran-Contra Connection, by Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall. The US, Argentina, and the Anti-Communist Crusade in Latin America, by Ariel Armony. The CIA funded and nurtured international neofascist extremist groups--including a lot of operatives from European countries like Italy and France--throughout the 1970s and into the 1980s.
"The fact that all these governments were divided throughout this period, including the American government, and that there was no unitary coordination to any of the events I'm talking about is important to impress on the reader."
Yes, that is so true and has been my experience when I worked in government. There are so many factions with so many goals, sometimes these factions will unite towards a common goal and other times they will fracture and attempt to sabotage each others operations, such as the CIA and DEA in Afghanistan or US intelligence and US Border Patrol at the southern border. There is never any permanent unified front.
Also, it was Robert Hanssen (FBI) who was the wholesome chungus Opus Dei Soviet spy not Aldrich Ames, the Soviet mole at the CIA.
Soviets didn't lose, KGB bombed the project from the inside to integrate Russia into the global Trotskyist project with its center in Washington.
I just don’t have broad enough context to understand this article. Who were George Houser, Bill Scheinman and Irving Brown? What were their backgrounds and goals? What was Hubert Humphrey’s involvement? Did the CIA’s strategy originate with Allen Dulles or was it being pushed by young and mid-level CIA echelons as seems to have been the case with Cuba? What was the interest of US organized labor in countries with no industry? So many questions. The vignettes about Delarue and Mondlane are tantalising and suggestive but don’t sufficiently explain the larger forces at play or the key decision makers. What was the role and goals of the IRC and WCC? They’re affiliated with the Rockefellers, aren’t they? What were the objectives of the Ford Foundation and the Rockefellers? So many questions . . .
BAP's problem is his incessant left/right ideological focus serves to obfuscate the accrual of money, power and influence that underlies his subject. He always talks of historical bloody left wing events but never those of the right. The right was always merely trying to save lives or some such nonsense.
Of course there are factions within the power elite. It's not some grand unified theory of power we saw during the Cold War. Though he is correct to mock those who refuse to acknowledge this. That said, over the last four or five decades there has been an almost miraculously unified character to the grand neoliberal revolution. Oligarchs, intelligence agencies, academia and media have worked in lockstep to push the globalist "liberal" world order. The spiritual needs of humanity never suffer more than when the powerful unite.
Communism, as practiced in the Soviet era, is long dead. In that sense US victory in the Cold War is very real. He is right to ask what was really won but to paint it as a simple communist loss (as opposed to actual capitalist victory) is at best partly true.
The globalist capitalist system is not communism. It's just another flavor of totalitarian power-mongering. It is evil and borg-like in its destruction of local and regional self-determination and self-direction of nations but the left/right distinction, always muddy, is no longer operative.
You can call the rejection of globalism "right wing" if you like. I think it's more useful to understand it as human cultural-determination or regionalist/nationalist. Otherwise you risk falling into the very real trap of thinking "capitalism" is in some way opposed to globalism and eventually end up in the dead-end libertarian morass.
Agreed.
one needs to remember Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy - The god that got fucked in the ass, to understand the 20th century. there was a hostile takeover both in the USA and in Russia in the 1910s. all monarchies in Europe was overthrown after WW1.. the world bank was created in the 50’s so one doesn’t necessarily have to look for evil forces in iPhone to understand the motives behind the operations in Africa. sorry BAP.
So, if we hear about bombs going off in the State Department building, it means Trump is serious about cutting out the rot?
Pimlico Journal on the post-colonial changes in Morocco:
https://www.pimlicojournal.co.uk/p/the-strait-of-gibraltar-britain-between-080
Where's BAP's memoir: of his childhood training stray dogs to attack neighbors in the Eastern Bloc, of the wretched Boston suburbs, of his political awakening and wanderings around the world? Millions would read
In fact, this is disastrous for Africans. De facto, they lost relatively conscientious, stable, promising leadership, white qualified people with high IQs, and for many years they fell under the rule of socialist lunatics.
In this regard, I recall how in the 1990s, Western governments called on Russia to negotiate peace with Chechen separatists, and the "president of Chechnya" visited the UK in 1998 (the article is in Russian, unfortunately I do not have a translation)
https://sputnikipogrom.com/politics/19948/crocodile-tears/
Sputnik i pogrom mentioned. Do you know where if anywhere they are publishing now? Thank you.