CIA Manufactured Modern US Literature
August 24, 2019
Miles Mathis says that modern culture is essentially
mental programming by the CIA, an arm of the Illuminati
banking cartel. The systemic destruction of traditional art
is intended to promote "alienation," the satanic view
that human life is inherently meaningless, incoherent, trivial and ugly.
Satanism is the inversion of all spiritual ideals-
Mathis: "By a constant stream of top-down propaganda, writers were convinced that being solipsistic, quotidian, and creatively modest were artistic virtues. As with painting, science, politics, and every other category, the inversion of the thing was sold as the thing itself."
Makow comment- Mathis is a brilliant and prolific writer. Although his claims that many sensational murders were faked seem outlandish, his assertions about modern culture are credible. As a Ph.D. in literature, I always felt modern culture was fraudulent. This confirms it. I feel betrayed by the education system and society. A highly organized satanic cult has re-cast Western society in its image. Contrary views are not funded or publicized. Sometimes you lose your livelihood. Another example of de facto Communism, and how we have been unwittingly inducted into a satanic cult.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
from May 26, 2017
by Miles Mathis
From Theosophy to the Beat Generation
(excerpt by henrymakow.com)
A reader alerted me to an article just published at the Chronicle of Higher Education by an English professor at Providence College, Eric Bennett. This article is about the Iowa Writer's Workshop, at which he was a student from 1998 to 2000.
He admits that the writing programs at the University of Iowa have long been underwritten by the CIA, via the Farfield Foundation, the ACCF, [The Artists and Community Collaboration Fund] and the Rockefellers.
The sentence in the article that is most useful here is this one: Creative-writing pedagogues in the aftermath of World War II, without exception, read Partisan Review, The Kenyon Review, The Hudson Review, and The Sewanee Review .
They breathed the intellectual air of New Critics, on the one hand, and New York intellectuals on the other. These camps, formerly enemy camps--Southern reactionaries and Northern socialists at each other's throats in the 1930s--had by the 50s merged into a liberal consensus that published highly intellectual, but at the time only newly "academic," essays in those four journals, all of which, like Iowa, were subsidized by the Rockefeller Foundation.
As we have seen and will see, they were also subsidized by many other CIA front organizations. The government used the purse-strings to exert control over these programs, keeping them in little pens that Bennett says serve "to venerate and fortify the particular, the individual, the situated, the embedded, the irreducible."
Or, in other words, to keep them small and disempowered. By a constant stream of top-down propaganda, writers were convinced that being solipsistic, quotidian, and creatively modest were artistic virtues. As with painting, science, politics, and every other category, the inversion of the thing was sold as the thing itself.
A 2012 Salon article by Joel Whitney tells us the Partisan Review and the Paris Review [were linked to the CIA] as well.
Peter Matthiessen, the magazine's founder, has now admitted that in interviews, such as this one ... that he was recruited by the CIA right out of Yale in 1953, and that the Paris Review was his "cover." That information has been added to the Paris Review page at Wikipedia, but it is a bald admission with no commentary as to how it must affect everything to do with the magazine.
Both Matthiessen and George Plimpton, left, have tried to maintain that Matthiessen was the only one who knew, but--given what we now know from the CIA itself (see Tom Braden)--that isn't believable in the least. When various writers were pleading ignorance back in the 1960's and 70's, Braden flipped the leak, outing them .
He said that all these writers and artists knew exactly what was going on, and [Francis Storer] Saunders' book [The Cultural Cold War] confirms that over and over. So does the article at Salon , which outs both Plimpton and Nelson Aldrich as members of the [CIA-front] ACCF.
Salon also tells us the CIA backing was a problem: "By funding a magazine with a New York office that was distributed in the U.S., it was engaged in propagandizing to the American public, which was illegal ."
Unfortunately, Joel Whitney at Salon unmasks himself at the end--if not long before--by saying this: None of which is fair to attach to the Paris Review , if not for Matthiessen's claims that the Review 's ties ended before the ugly stuff, or for Plimpton's failure to disclose the ties that remained.
So in his summation, Whitney is telling you to your face that the greatest crime here is failure to disclose and other white lies? You have to be kidding me! What about the fact that all this was illegal? What about the fact that nothing was what we were told it was?
William Styron said in the first issue, "I think The Paris Review should welcome these people into its pages: the good writers and good poets, the non-drumbeaters and non-ax-grinders. So long as they're good."
We now know that was total, malicious misdirection since the whole point of all these magazines was drum-beating.
What about the fact that, all told, at least 9/10ths of 20th century American literature and criticism should now be suspected of being manufactured?
If all these people were working for Intelligence, what is to prevent us from assuming everything they did was Intelligence work, including the novels, poems, and essays?
What is to prevent us from re-reading everything published in that time period, combing it for covert propaganda? You may not think that is necessary, but I for one do.
As you will see in upcoming papers, I have found evidence that is exactly what has happened. It is not just the Beats that are fake, it is almost everyone.
Thanks to Bill for the tip!
Related: The Satanic Theology Behind Cultural Marxism
Mathew- "Catcher in the Rye" a CIA PsyOp
Makow- How University Betrays Students
--------- How the Illuminati Control Culture
First Comment by Dan Butler (1955-2018):
The fact that 20th Century American "Literature" had a hidden agenda explains the cognitive dissonance most young readers felt while reading it. This website reviewed the mysterious J.D.Salinger's 'Catcher in the Rye' , one of the most disappointing reading experiences of all American high students that were forced to read it. That's one of the most obvious cases of a crappy novel with no redeeming qualities at all remaining the 'Best Sellers' list for decades, lauded by reviewers. Evidently, the only students who couldn't put it down were the twin assassins of 1980, John Hinkley and Mark David Chapman.
I read Miles Mathis' The Stolen Century this morning. I give it A+. 'Modernism' was concocted by Marxists. Marx wrote that 'cultural hegemony'(dominance) is the key to taking over. Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) developed strategies for unseating the 'traditional' intelligentsia and replacing them with "organic" (subversives). This is when the arts became strictly political vehicles of cultural subversion. Trotsky became the grandmaster of what Marxists later termed the "Long March" through the society's institutions, in order to flip cultural hegemony from the 'old world order' to the 'new'. It's called the Long March because it takes time - a long time. They've been at it for over century, and now they've moved on from Modernism into "Postmodernism".
I understood the fact that the publishing industry has this hidden agenda far too late in life. 30 years ago I read the New York Times Book Review every Sunday - religiously. With retrospect, it's plain as day how the 'best sellers' all my quasi-intellectual friends regurgitating over quiche and Chardonnay corralled our worldview, our opinions, and even our self-image.
We all read the same books, saw the same movies, listened to the same bands and singers, watched CBS news and listened to National Public Radio and thought we were oh so smart. The whole thing was sold on "snob appeal". That's how these things were marketed.
It took the 911 stunt to finally crumble that worldview they constructed in my "open mind" for forty years. I had to go through a year of dealing with "everything I knew was WRONG", but when you can throw off all that conditioning, you get to reconstruct a worldview based on observation of everything as a mature, objective person.
One learns to discern. Eventually. I quit going to Hollywood movies about ten years ago, threw the TV out of my house seven years ago, and now most of the books I read were published before Modernism took over.
 Illuminati Dust Off the J.D. Salinger PsyOp
Decrypting The Catcher in the Rye