Any F-----g Questions?

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Any F-----g Questions?

Postby proldic » Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:04 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> Indeed, for the CIA, the strategy of promoting the Non-Communist Left was to become 'the theoretical foundation of the Agency's political operations against Communism...' <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>- Michael Warner, Official CIA Historian<br><br>"Origins of the Congress for Cultural Freedom" <br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Studies In Intelligence</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> volume 38 issue 5, Summer 1995<br><br>from:<br> <br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts & Letters</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br>by Frances Stonor Saunders [New Press '99]<br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=proldic@rigorousintuition>proldic</A> at: 11/19/05 2:19 pm<br></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Any F-----g Questions?

Postby sunny » Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:51 pm

Well, yeah. What are you saying exactly? That any and all progressives in the arts during the 20th century were co-opted? All progressives, period? I don't buy that. King and both Kennedy's, for starters, had their heads blown off because they were trying to behave like humans instead of animals.<br><br>I can believe that Chomsky and his ilk were co-opted. Look at his refusal to look at the realities of the 60's assassinations and 9/11 truths. Those kinds of "progressives", I steer clear of. . But you cannot tell me that none have been authentic, angry/passionate crusaders for truth and justice; it just isn't so. Did CIA and others try to neutralize, by blackmail and assassination, true progressives? Most assuredly.<br><br>This is not accusatory, just asking for clarification. <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Any F-----g Questions?

Postby proldic » Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:08 pm

Well, then we agree.<br><br>My understanding behind my posting this quote I think would tend to indict the overall history of the modern US-Euro anti-establishment counter-culture, the arts, the sciences, yeah, much of the "left". <br><br>While also placing the historical and human characters of <br>King [different breathe] and Kennedy<br>into an entirely different -- more relevant -- perspective for me. <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

more examples

Postby maggrwaggr » Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:26 pm

more examples of "the strategy of promoting the Non-Communist Left " would be appreciated.<br><br>I'm not sure what you're getting at, but it seems very interesting <p></p><i></i>
maggrwaggr
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 4:59 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Any F-----g Questions?

Postby anotherdrew » Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:50 pm

here's some stuff I've located quickly related to this:<br><br>=====<br>"To those of its beneficiaries well enough informed to know who was paying the piper, the agency came to be known as "<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The Chocolate Factory</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->" and "The Good Ship Lollipop." Four cartons of American cigarettes hired the Berlin orchestra for a three-hour concert in the winter of 1947, and the corresponding prices for intellectuals in all denominations remained gratifyingly low during the decade of the 1950s. On what Arthur Koestler once described as "the international academic call-girl circuit," the great democratic truths revealed themselves more clearly in dialogues backed up with oysters and champagne, and throughout the whole of its twenty-year advertising campaign the CIA's hidden but munificent hand was never slow to pay the check."<br><br>CIA's Congress of Cultural Freedom funneled CIA cold war money through dummy and actual foundations during the 1950's and 60's. Could it have been such funding that also financed Ralph Nader's research groups, and even allowed "volunteers" to work for him while on the payroll of clandestine services?<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1111/1800_300/61856248/p1/article.jhtml">www.findarticles.com/cf_d...icle.jhtml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>NOTEBOOK.(Central Intelligence Agency's cultural activities during Cold War) Harper's Magazine, May, 2000, by Lewis H. Lapham<br><br>Among the many cautionary tales told by Frances Stonor Saunders in her new book, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, the one about the canonization of Jackson Pollock I found the most instructive. At Yale University in the 1950s (the period of Ms. Saunders's primary concern) I was introduced to Pollock's genius in a sophomore course explicating the enigmatic texts of abstract expressionism. Although I thought the paintings meaningless, I dutifully took the required notes ("rhapsodies in blue," "triumph of American art," "answer to Picasso") and attributed my ignorance to the low status of an underclassman not yet initiated into the mysteries of the modernist aesthetic. Had I known that Pollock's Blue Poles was meant to be appreciated as an instrument of Cold War foreign policy, like a nuclear arms treaty or an aircraft carrier, I might have better understood the course.<br><br>Elsewhere in the university at the time I had come across professors acting as CIA recruiting officers, and I was familiar with the suddenly clandestine tone of the conversation at Mory's when the topic shifted from the Elizabethan playwrights to the weather in Berlin. The professor paused to fill his favorite pipe--the one given to him by an RAF pilot when he was with the OSS in London during World War II--and the rest us at the table knew that the time had come to talk about career opportunities in what was then known as "The Company." Not directly, not so that anybody would know where to send the resume, but in a circuitous sort of way, with oblique references to the Finland Station and the Fulda Gap.<br><br>Nobody ever mentioned Pollock or the paramilitary deployment of Richard Diebenkorn and Georgia O'Keeffe. Before reading Saunders's well-informed and often humorous book, I had known about the CIA's funding of the magazine Encounter (also about its penetrations into the Ivy League universities and the pages of the Washington Post), but I hadn't guessed at the extent to which the agency had set itself up as a national endowment for the arts. Saunders supplies the historical context never fully illuminated by the professors with the pipes. Although the Allies had won the war against Hitler (won it in the name of democratic freedom and Western civilization), they appeared to be losing the peace to Stalin and the systems of totalitarian repression. What was afoot in the 1950s was a contest for the good opinion of mankind, and the evil Russian empire didn't play by the Marquess of Queensberry rules--all forms of literary or artistic expression locked in the dungeons of state policy, the open market in ideas subject to the stamps of government inspection.<br><continued at above link><br>==========================<br><br>All that being the case though, they have a lot harder time dominating the conversation anymore, and I'm not convinced it's a possibility greatly worth considering in this modern world of today. <p></p><i></i>
anotherdrew
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 6:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: more examples

Postby Dreams End » Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:53 pm

You don't have to control them completely...sometimes a little "nudge" is all that's needed. Grab some "leftist" journalists and intellectuals, infiltrate a few influential groups or start your own and rip the "hard left" groups to shreds with COINTELPRO. The rest is done through the whole foundation/grantmaking process.<br><br>Please note...proldic's angry..and should be, but this is not to say that all who work in a "charity" with, Ford Foundation money, say are secretly fascists or agents. In fact, the point is the opposite. ALL OF US, and I include myself, have been sucked into spending time, energy and money in pursuits that, more or less, were laid out there for us to keep us from making real trouble! <br><br>I'm not going to try to make that case here...no time. But proldic's quote at least PROVES that this is the agenda. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: The satanic congress for sexual freedom

Postby Gouda » Sat Nov 19, 2005 7:55 pm

Last year, my brother sent me one of LaRouche's campaign newsletters, kind of as a joke, because at the time he was working for Nader's campaign and he told me the zomboid LaRouchies would stick to them like parasites, hounding them, arguing (no baseball bats this time) ...anyway, the newsletter if I recall was dedicated to exposing the roots and results of the "Satanic Congress for Sexual Freedom" or something like that. It is almost impossible to read LaRouche, but I think he was saying that everyone from Huxley, Bertrand Russell, Henry Luce, Stephen Spender, Jackson Pollack, Hannah Arendt, Adorno, Koestler, and many others were linked in a satanic chain right up to Chip Berlet and Dick Cheney in their CIA/British Crown-backed promotion of the perverted agenda behind the Congress' inception and work and legacy, which has undermined Plato's FDR republic. <br><br>Is this LaRouche’s attempt at trying to discredit, disorient and corrupt legitimate thought into the realities behind the Congress? <br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: more examples

Postby anotherdrew » Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:02 pm

one thing is for sure is that it really seem, to an extent that would surprise most cynics even, american culture has been tightly controled for 50 years or more. Like, "paint whatever you want.... but here are the only colors you can have to workwith" I think we are finally comming out of the cultural control era and are starting to find that there's a wide range of "colors" that have been kept off our national pallet for too long. <p></p><i></i>
anotherdrew
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 6:06 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The satanic congress for sexual freedom

Postby Dreams End » Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:09 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Is this LaRouche’s attempt at trying to discredit, disorient and corrupt legitimate thought into the realities behind the Congress?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Yes.<br><br>I also think that when and if they can succesfully infiltrate other movements (which they spend a lot of time doing) they may very well be old fashioned spies. Maybe they only provide the info to Larouche, but he, himself, bragged of having provided intel to Reagan officials. Personally, I think that a coalition in L.A. I was part of for Gulf War 1 was completely shredded by Larouchians...or at least such tactics. A core group of kinda crazy thugs with no real politics joined forces with the Christic types and really just made all the meetings almost completely unworkable. <br><br>When I first got to LA and wanted to help this coalition, no one knew what to have me do so they gave me the number of the main thug (thuggess??). I didn't understand it at the time, but what was she having me do? Write down all the information possible on every member of the coalition!!! She said it was for a "speaker's bureau" but come on...and, of course, there never was a speakers' bureau, but there sure was a nice list of coalition members (sorry to those of you whose FBI files I naively helped start.).<br><br>I'm not sure they are Larouche, but their tactics and other elements from those days suggest to me they were. New Alliance Party, same deal. Cult, but also info gathering and targeted disruption. <br><br>Bah...I feel so USED!!!<br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Promoting is not the same as coopting

Postby starroute » Sat Nov 19, 2005 8:34 pm

When I was a kid, my father belonged to the American Veterans Committee, the only liberal veterans organization of that day. In the late 50's and early 60's, when I was 10-14, I got taken along to a few of the national conventions and got to sit in on their discussions of civil rights and other hot topics.<br><br>A couple of years ago, I was curious enough to try to find out what was said about AVC online. It turned out, not much. The history of the left in America is generally slim to nonexistent online, while the history of the right is copious and detailed. However, what I did find was enough to make me go WTF.<br><br>AVC's strongest period was immediately after World War II -- but it was also heavily infiltrated by communists, who tried to take over the New York chapter. The communists were ejected in 1948 after an epic internal battle, but the organization had lost members and influence that it never regained. The country as a whole was growing more conservative, veterans who had been young firebrands while they were going to college on the G.I. Bill were graduating and moving to the suburbs, and there was no longer a niche for a veterans organization that would press for genuine social change. By the late 50's, AVC was just one very minor voice in the liberal spectrum.<br><br>But what I found that so surprised me was this: The person who headed the purge of the communists from AVC was Cord Meyer. Yeah, that Cord Meyer. He joined the CIA in 1950 as the head of a division to give covert support to non-communist left-wing groups. Meyer's wife Mary was the sister of Ben Bradlee's wife, and both of them were college pals of James Jesus Angleton's wife. Mary divorced Cord in 1960 and became John Kennedy's mistress. She was murdered in 1964 and Angleton made off with her diary.<br><br>Ben Bradlee had also been a member of AVC in the early days. So was Timothy Leary, who met Meyer at the AVC national convention in 1948. (Then again, so was Ronald Reagan -- but he was out on the West Coast where things were different.)<br><br>So putting all this together, is it likely that Cord Meyer was funneling CIA support to AVC in the early 50's? Probably. But if he was, the upshot was to keep any real radicals out and make sure the organization remained a bunch of earnest do-gooders with no political power. (The <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>mot juste</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> here is probably "lame.") The real weirdness was off with people like Ben Bradlee and Tim Leary, and AVC had been left far, far behind.<br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=starroute>starroute</A> at: 11/19/05 5:39 pm<br></i>
starroute
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:01 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Consider the Soviet Union...

Postby robertdreed » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:13 pm

...not content to funnel government money to artistic movements they supported, they sought to destroy the careers of any artist they didn't support. At its worst, this included pretty much any artistic movement that didn't toe the line of Socialist Realism.<br><br> <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla64/067-101e.htm">www.ifla.org/IV/ifla64/067-101e.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Censorship in the Soviet Union and its Cultural and Professional Results for Arts and Art Libraries<br>Olga Sinitsyna <br><br>Arts and Children's Literature Department,<br>M. I. Rudomino All Russia State Library for Foreign Literature<br>Moscow, Russia<br><br><br><br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Abstract:<br>Although official censorship ceased 10 years ago, the effects of censorship in the Soviet Union in art and art libraries are still felt. The focus of this paper is on censored library materials, and on the censorship of art. The censored books were marked with a hexagon, and relegated to the "spets-hran" or special stacks which for many years were off limits to the public and library staff alike. The author takes a look at materials from the All Russia State Library for Foreign Literature that had been censored, and examines the rules of the censors to determine why certain items were censored. In art, only certain themes were sanctioned. Because art can be abstract and difficult to interpret figuratively, it was determined that the only allowable style of art was that of social realism... <br><br><br>...Within the country it became vital for the sake of «the mental health» of the Soviet people to intrude in the very process of creation of an art object regardless to its media. This task was articulated shortly after the Revolution on the earliest days of the Soviet state, but it was not an easy one. Perception of the art works is more a sensation than a rational understanding. For example, the Russian avant-garde art of that period was predominantly non-figurative and the subjects could hardly be guessed or were too abstract. In this regard the decision of the Soviet cultural authorities was as simple as brilliant: To avoid any kind of double or hidden meaning, equivoques, misunderstanding of the contents of the art works the socialist realism was declared the one and only acceptable style and method of all arts in the Soviet Union. <br><br>After the Revolution the foremost Russian artists were forced to emigrate. It was a great tragedy of the national art. Those who for various reasons refused to leave the country had either to accept the communist dictatorship in art or to give up working. It took about 10 years (1922-1932) for the final break down and to put an end to «the art of the bourgeois past». Every -ism of the early 20th century art became the synonyms of the rudest words, generalised in the worst two terms: «formalism» and «modernism». Thus a great man-made gap had been generated in the evolution of Russian art. Every single attempt to change the direction of the main trend was suppressed and the guilty artist badly prosecuted. <br><br>Architecture, being the most social and the least personal art, was put under the total state control. The only accepted official architectural image was that of the imperial greatness of the Soviet state, which could have been produced only by the classical forms and language of masses and space borrowed from the Roman architecture. Few exceptions, presented by Melnikov for instance, were merely experiments. Demolition of the historical buildings was another form of censorship in the architectural environment. Even some architectural forms were considered to be associated with the «hatred past» and therefore banned. That was the church dome - symbol of the heaven. Thousands of churches had been demolished in the country during that battle with the symbols of the past. The same was the fate of numerous manor estates, palaces, and private houses. Some of them, however, were successfully used by the new Soviet «aristocracy» or converted into the residential blocks, museums, warehouses, garages, etc. <br><br>In fact the Soviet sculpture had suffered the similar fatal violence. Immediately after the Revolution it had been worked out a special Plan of Monumental Propaganda, under which all the statues to the tsars had to be demolished or taken away, with the few exceptions. They were to be replaced by the new monuments to the progressive leaders of all times according to the special approved list. Strangely, some really good monuments were erected in the first years of that «pilot-project», like the one to Timiryazev by Merkurov in Moscow. In general the Soviet sculpture was aimed to glorify the formal party leaders in the basic forms of the socialist realism. Only the II World War monuments bare the true emotions of their authors and express the total grief and glory of the nation. <br><br>The recognition of the powerof art in promotion of the state ideas to the masses was well demonstrated by the emerging of «agit-farfor» (propaganda pottery) - a unique type of Soviet pottery design. The painters on their part were highly recommended to learn from the works of Repine and to follow the tradition of Russian critical realists of the 19th century. The language of Soviet painting should be strictly realistic and the themes chosen should depict and praise the delights of the life in the Soviet Union. <br><br>As the result of such a violent «weeding» during a substantial period of time a certain generation of the obedient artists had been brought up. They knew the rules of the play they were all playing. The censors had done a good job offering the public well-selected information concerning the national cultural and historical heritage. There appeared some blank periods in the pre-Revolutionary history, some cultural epochs were totally neglected, some important names crossed out for decades (at that time it seemed forever). The Soviet art criticism suffered the same pressure of censorship. The only accepted approach for an art critic was that from the ideological position «of the class struggle», which was regarded more important than consideration of the aesthetic values. From that point of view the world art had been divided into two parts: progressive and regressive (often called reactionary). <br><br>The quoting of classics of Marxism-Leninism in any work on any subject was required. Selection of appropriate citations became a sort of a new art. Those were the requirements for every publication and public speech. The Bibliographies were to start with the works of «classics», even though none of them had ever written anything on the subject. The best scholars, like Lazarev, Grabar, Bakushinski, Vipper, Zavadskaya, Kaptereva, Nekrasova somehow managed to publish their works in the history of art paying only a little fee to that set of rules. The less prominent scholars had to pay a bigger tribute. Those, who refused to accept the rules were prosecuted and «taught» in the Stalin camps <br><br>The criteria for division of art of the past into two categories was quite simple: the work of art should bare or not some peculiar signs of progressiveness, such as themes of labour, struggle for justice, protest against the bourgeois society, pity for suffering, depiction of poor people, social and class struggle. For obvious reasons the mediaeval art, being the art which served the religion, was not worth studying. Some excellent surveys on Byzantine and Ancient Russian art were published, because the art works had been taken only as the cultural, not religious objects and certainly because of the highest prominence of the authors (Grabar, Lazarev, Alpatov). Strangely, the art-nouveau was badly criticized in spite of the obvious socialist ideas of the improvement of the society by means of art. The attitude towards this style has gradually changed only in the late 70s. The same was true about the historicism (eclectic style) of the mid-second half of the 19th century. <br><br>In fact it had been only one book called «Modernism: Analysis and criticism of the major trends in art of the 20-th century» (the last edition of which was published in the late 1980-es) in which one could get an information on the art movements and key-figures of the 20-th century and even to look at the poor black and white plates. Along with the rude criticism of the bourgeois art, presented by the obedient authors some good art critics managed to present just a brief review of facts, names and events avoiding any judgment at all. But even that limited information had been invaluable to the researchers and reading public. <br><br>By the mid 1970s the protest against that total brain-control couldn't have been concealed any more and it burst out...</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><br><br><br> <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/world/russia/kgb/su0519.htm">www.fas.org/irp/world/rus...su0519.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>...Another important facet of KGB preventive work was censorship of literature and other media, which it exercised at both an informal and a formal level. The KGB censored informally by harassing writers and artists, arranging for their expulsion from professional organizations or from their jobs, and threatening them with prosecution for their unorthodox views. Such forms of intimidation forced many writers and artists to exercise selfcensorship by producing only what they thought would be acceptable. The KGB maintained strong surveillance over the Union of Writers, as well as over the journalists' and artists' unions, where KGB representatives occupied top administrative posts. <br><br>The KGB played an important role in the system of formal censorship by taking part in the work of the Main Administration for Safeguarding State Secrets in the Press (Glavnoe upravlenie po okhrane gosudarstvennykh tain v pechati--Glavlit). Some Western specialists believe that at least one of Glavlit's deputy chiefs was a KGB official and that the KGB assisted in Glavlit's compilation of its Censor's Index, a thick volume, updated frequently, listing all military, technical, statistical, and other subjects that could not be publicized without special permission from the Central Committee...</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br>Any questions? <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Consider the Soviet Union...

Postby Dreams End » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:21 pm

God damn Soviets! How do I sign up to bring down the USSR?<br><br>Hey, this gets fun.<br><br>Here's the author of the article posted by robertdreed (hope your move was smooth and as stress free as these things can be.)<br><br>Olga Sinitsyna<br><br>Guess where she went to school? Well, you'll have to have been following the "Catherine Austin Fitts" thread (long since off topic) to appreciate the irony, but she went to Central European University.<br><br>CEU of course, was founded by George Soros:<br><br> What is Central European University?<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Established by George Soros in Budapest, Hungary in 1991, Central European University (CEU) is an internationally recognized institution of post-graduate education in social sciences and humanities. CEU seeks to contribute to the development of open societies in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union by promoting a system of education in which ideas are creatively, critically, and comparatively examined.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.soros.org/about/faq">www.soros.org/about/faq</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>The whole thing is part of Soros's "Open Society Initiative". (the archives of which are actually housed at CEU.) <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.soros.org/">www.soros.org/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Now, I don't mean to say that this makes all this woman's observations false. I just found it interesting. Soros portrays himself as someone who has simply been victimized by both Soviet and Nazi totalitarian states and dedicated himself to preventing such totalitarianism. However, my feeling is that when the truly megarich talk about open societies, it has more to do with open to their investment. <br><br>Soros is a MAJOR PLAYER as far as I can tell, in reshaping central europe into....<br><br>we'll see... <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 11/19/05 7:03 pm<br></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Consider the Soviet Union...

Postby robertdreed » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:43 pm

I suppose that you're being sarcastic, and that your implication is that relative historical comparisons of policies between the USA and the USSR during the same era are irrelevant and off the table of serious discussion.<br><br>Or perhaps you're being sincere, in which case I should inform you that the Soviet Union no longer exists, and that cultural freedom won that round. <br><br>Cultural freedom is poised to win more rounds, as well, due to new technologies such as pod-casting and the increasing availability of satellite radio broadcasting. <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 11/19/05 6:52 pm<br></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Government Funding of the Arts considered as a plot

Postby robertdreed » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:50 pm

Idly wondering what other commentators might think of Karen Finley and the "NEA Four" ultimately winning their struggle to receive NEA grant money...could it have been...<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>CIA</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->?<br><br> <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/finley.html">www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/...inley.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Government Funding of the Arts considered as a plot

Postby Dreams End » Sat Nov 19, 2005 10:04 pm

rdr...I added to my post. kinda got off topic but claims of supporting "cultural freedom" should always be taken with NaCl. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Next

Return to Deep Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest