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.
Turkey as well. The wolfs. Nice reading list. I would add. 'Waking in Tehran'. If you can find a copy. It explores the Anglo side of such. The ideas that Suez must stay open and straight of Hormuez because most of the worlds high gdp regimes are import dependents whose trade can be disrupted with simple low cost asymmetric warfare (demand destruction theaters).
The UK having zero resources like local energy or enough arable land has to promote the 'morality of the free market/ open market'. But if we are rational about things it is their only option in surviving as well as having access to the captive client markets from Singapore to Hong Kong. TDLR. Shia Islam is a entropic deflationary system that benefits the Anglosphere open market order because an actual Persian revival under secular/civic empire would mean expansion, and that expansion would lead to Suez and Straight of Hormuz.
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.
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.
"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.
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
The very term “decolonisation” is gross. Yet there's nothing near enough that so many people's could offer, even in chains, that id be willing to suffer the long term dangers to my own group in return for short term gain by colonisation.
The risk is too big. Easier just to go the lebensraum route right from the start.
The left mindset that took over post-war US foreign policy including the intelligence services is a legacy of Roosevelt. Trump’s actions to punish South Africa signal it’s over.
You are right about the JFK administration. They also talked the German government into accepting 'guest workers' from Turkey after the German government had initially refused the Turkish offer. It is not an exaggeration to say that it was JFK who introduced 'diversity' to Germany.
My only background to this stuff is when Yarvin years ago in an interview with Malice brought up Henry Regnery as a great publisher back then. I have since bought every Regnery book I've come across and what do ya know, Yarvin was right. Although these books have a different focus (WW2) they often show how instrumental "Red" ideology was in the institutions and bureaucracies that were large back then. This has been a kind of continuation of my learning on this stuff. Onto part 3.
Politics agitates the hoi polloi. But it takes infrastructure to agitate the hoi polloi. The hoi polloi do not really think about any of this unless agitated. Marxism goal is to agitate the hoi polloi as to groom them into their political system. The kosher right talumdic network is doing everything they can to brand the civil rights movement as something downstream of white Protestants in America, because Zionist have no other choice when 80% of American Jews vote left wing and the entire world is tired of the American left. If people connect the dots, it does not look good for the Suez canal staying neo liberal and open and managed by the global order. But instead falling into the hands of Ottoman, Arab, or Persian revivalism. If people connect the dots that the modern world and its garbage such as 'civil rights' and massive migrant issues in Europe or America are directly correlated to the left and the left is secular Jewish infrastructure than the kosher right, Zionism looses a lot of nominal/face value. People are going to say "why do you keep talking about migrants, civil rights as 'bad' when it was your people who created all of that.
So what is the left? The left is infrastructure organized largely by reformed Jews who reacted to their grotesque religious life to adopt a secular religious life called 'the left/marxism'. 10% of the left may be composed of WASP/ Protestants and some Vatican II Catholics but the majority of the left since the late 1800s has always been Jewish. So how does Zionism survive if its foreign diaspora are self hating Jewish Marxist? It has to give a new history to Jewish men raised to be scared of white men and to think like Anne Frank. This is an effeminate way to grow up. Its really embarrassing to be honest. Especially when you juxtapose the life style of young American men raised to shoot guns, play sports such as boxing, football, and wresting as well as becoming engineers that end up designing weapons for Lockheed. Not raised into effeminate pacifism. It is not much different than the black population being taught learned helplessness by their left wing Jewish over lords. BAP is trying to hide Kevin Mcdonalds work (so is Yarvin): that the left is Jewish, and global communism could not exist with out a particular genetic set constantly advocating and working for these goals. Even Thedor Herzel brought all this up. He observed the modern Jewish population of Europe being weak, and effeminate, and lazy. Marx wrote about the same thing in the Jewish question. That such behavior does not create a 'state' and if Jews want a state they need to act more 'Prussian'. The irony. I do hope that BAP can groom enough of the left wing Jewish men to become more Bronze, which is a sly way of saying you really want to rejoice in the European aesthetic and epigenetic behavior. But so far it looks like it has failed and the only people groomed into the BAP dialectic are gentiles raised secular who wasted their youth on video games and anime. All though it was smart to see these ingroups as a demographic to agitate and weaponize into the BAP fold. But it only goes so far. State crafting takes immense work from skilled men. These ingroups are starting to lack real utility in creating the future overtone. They are now 37 year old men with out children, with out careers, and have spend 2-3 decades looking at a screen. The best thing BAP/Zionism can do is acknowledge that everything they claim to stand against was created by their own blood and ingroup. The modern era is just the blow back and synthesis of almost 100 years of predominately secular Jewish Marxist state crafting. The BAP movement seems to be faltering on this. To many people have observed that you can't remove left from Jewish and vis versa. Its like discussing Islam but pretending Arabs are not behind it. Everyone is aware who crafted the left and for what reasons. Its 2025
Ever since reading du Berrier’s archive on this period, I’ve often wondered what to make of de Gaulle during all these turmoils; certainly seemed to be the only western leader who saw clearly what was going on but as du Berrier repeatedly and exasperatedly commented, the path he chose was a strange, confusing and dangerous one; excellent work as always
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)
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.
Turkey as well. The wolfs. Nice reading list. I would add. 'Waking in Tehran'. If you can find a copy. It explores the Anglo side of such. The ideas that Suez must stay open and straight of Hormuez because most of the worlds high gdp regimes are import dependents whose trade can be disrupted with simple low cost asymmetric warfare (demand destruction theaters).
The UK having zero resources like local energy or enough arable land has to promote the 'morality of the free market/ open market'. But if we are rational about things it is their only option in surviving as well as having access to the captive client markets from Singapore to Hong Kong. TDLR. Shia Islam is a entropic deflationary system that benefits the Anglosphere open market order because an actual Persian revival under secular/civic empire would mean expansion, and that expansion would lead to Suez and Straight of Hormuz.
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.
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.
"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.
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
So, if we hear about bombs going off in the State Department building, it means Trump is serious about cutting out the rot?
The very term “decolonisation” is gross. Yet there's nothing near enough that so many people's could offer, even in chains, that id be willing to suffer the long term dangers to my own group in return for short term gain by colonisation.
The risk is too big. Easier just to go the lebensraum route right from the start.
The left mindset that took over post-war US foreign policy including the intelligence services is a legacy of Roosevelt. Trump’s actions to punish South Africa signal it’s over.
You are right about the JFK administration. They also talked the German government into accepting 'guest workers' from Turkey after the German government had initially refused the Turkish offer. It is not an exaggeration to say that it was JFK who introduced 'diversity' to Germany.
My only background to this stuff is when Yarvin years ago in an interview with Malice brought up Henry Regnery as a great publisher back then. I have since bought every Regnery book I've come across and what do ya know, Yarvin was right. Although these books have a different focus (WW2) they often show how instrumental "Red" ideology was in the institutions and bureaucracies that were large back then. This has been a kind of continuation of my learning on this stuff. Onto part 3.
Politics agitates the hoi polloi. But it takes infrastructure to agitate the hoi polloi. The hoi polloi do not really think about any of this unless agitated. Marxism goal is to agitate the hoi polloi as to groom them into their political system. The kosher right talumdic network is doing everything they can to brand the civil rights movement as something downstream of white Protestants in America, because Zionist have no other choice when 80% of American Jews vote left wing and the entire world is tired of the American left. If people connect the dots, it does not look good for the Suez canal staying neo liberal and open and managed by the global order. But instead falling into the hands of Ottoman, Arab, or Persian revivalism. If people connect the dots that the modern world and its garbage such as 'civil rights' and massive migrant issues in Europe or America are directly correlated to the left and the left is secular Jewish infrastructure than the kosher right, Zionism looses a lot of nominal/face value. People are going to say "why do you keep talking about migrants, civil rights as 'bad' when it was your people who created all of that.
So what is the left? The left is infrastructure organized largely by reformed Jews who reacted to their grotesque religious life to adopt a secular religious life called 'the left/marxism'. 10% of the left may be composed of WASP/ Protestants and some Vatican II Catholics but the majority of the left since the late 1800s has always been Jewish. So how does Zionism survive if its foreign diaspora are self hating Jewish Marxist? It has to give a new history to Jewish men raised to be scared of white men and to think like Anne Frank. This is an effeminate way to grow up. Its really embarrassing to be honest. Especially when you juxtapose the life style of young American men raised to shoot guns, play sports such as boxing, football, and wresting as well as becoming engineers that end up designing weapons for Lockheed. Not raised into effeminate pacifism. It is not much different than the black population being taught learned helplessness by their left wing Jewish over lords. BAP is trying to hide Kevin Mcdonalds work (so is Yarvin): that the left is Jewish, and global communism could not exist with out a particular genetic set constantly advocating and working for these goals. Even Thedor Herzel brought all this up. He observed the modern Jewish population of Europe being weak, and effeminate, and lazy. Marx wrote about the same thing in the Jewish question. That such behavior does not create a 'state' and if Jews want a state they need to act more 'Prussian'. The irony. I do hope that BAP can groom enough of the left wing Jewish men to become more Bronze, which is a sly way of saying you really want to rejoice in the European aesthetic and epigenetic behavior. But so far it looks like it has failed and the only people groomed into the BAP dialectic are gentiles raised secular who wasted their youth on video games and anime. All though it was smart to see these ingroups as a demographic to agitate and weaponize into the BAP fold. But it only goes so far. State crafting takes immense work from skilled men. These ingroups are starting to lack real utility in creating the future overtone. They are now 37 year old men with out children, with out careers, and have spend 2-3 decades looking at a screen. The best thing BAP/Zionism can do is acknowledge that everything they claim to stand against was created by their own blood and ingroup. The modern era is just the blow back and synthesis of almost 100 years of predominately secular Jewish Marxist state crafting. The BAP movement seems to be faltering on this. To many people have observed that you can't remove left from Jewish and vis versa. Its like discussing Islam but pretending Arabs are not behind it. Everyone is aware who crafted the left and for what reasons. Its 2025
Ever since reading du Berrier’s archive on this period, I’ve often wondered what to make of de Gaulle during all these turmoils; certainly seemed to be the only western leader who saw clearly what was going on but as du Berrier repeatedly and exasperatedly commented, the path he chose was a strange, confusing and dangerous one; excellent work as always
Pimlico Journal on the post-colonial changes in Morocco:
https://www.pimlicojournal.co.uk/p/the-strait-of-gibraltar-britain-between-080
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.
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