RSS
I have long nursed a keen interest in the Cold War’s corruptions on the cultural side — who the perpetrators and who the victims and what they did in each case.
I was riveted, then, when OR Books brought out Joel Whitney’s first book, Finks: How the C.I.A. Tricked the World’s Best Writers , in 2017. As the story of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, that now-infamous deception op, it satisfied, if temporarily, my bottomless contempt for that cowardly congregation known as Cold War liberals.
I rushed to publish a Q & A interview with Whitney in The Nation after reading the book. I gave him 10,000 words and he deserved all of them. Our exchange, still worth reading, is here and here in two parts.
Whitney now gives us Flights: Radicals on the Run , a title that describes well enough what the author is after this time.
These are tributes to a dozen and a half exemplars of the honorable tradition of dissent — in America and elsewhere. Whitney tells their stories with care, choosing — if I don’t oversimplify — the passages in their lives that mattered most, their moments of truth.
It is a feat to get Graham Greene and Malcolm X between the same book covers, I have to say. The sense of this lies in what these people did, the sacrifices they made, in the cause of … in the cause of the human cause.
“I read until I caught them fleeing, escaping, regrouping, crossing the border — in some cases noting what they thought about before they died, what they were fighting for,” Whitney says in the exchange that follows.
“I wanted to silhouette, across my lifetime and that of my parents, the tireless persecution of the Left — the U.S.’ main political obsession — and to offer glimpses of what it may have felt like, this constant. What was exemplary in their lives, across all the subjects, was their stubbornness above all.”
Patrick Lawrence: Joel, your new book is impressively imaginative. You’ve put pieces on a vast variety of people — Graham Greene, Paul Robeson, Diego Rivera, et al. — between the same covers. I found myself repeatedly somewhere between fascinated and amazed. Please tell me, what was the very first thought you had when you began considering this project? What was the original intent? What were you after and why did you decide to go after it?
Joel Whitney: Thanks! The trigger for Flights as a book was probably the George and Mary Oppen essay. The Oppens were young American poets who fell in love in college, traveled the world, returned during the Depression and worked with the United Front to stop evictions in New York City and to organize dairy workers upstate.
When McCarthyism visited the United States with the conservative-liberal backlash — the McCarthy–Nixon cohort on the right and President Truman in the center — the work the Oppens had done legally was effectively made illegal. I published the essay years after my book, Finks, was published, and this was because it took so long for my F.O.I.A., or Freedom of Information Act request to the government, to be fulfilled. But that essay set the tone for those that followed.
Many of the essays were written during Trump’s first term, when liberals seemed to partially reenact this maneuver of Cold War suspicion of foreignness.
Trump was xenophobic toward Mexicans and Muslims, among others, and the liberals matched him to some degree on Russians and China. Suddenly Russian and Chinese media were being forced to register in the U.S.
Dueling McCarthyisms, I worried. A progressive is sensitive to war drums because they signal a flood of lies and dehumanization that sustain that war.
So I looked for these parallels in stories like the Oppens’. Once I had the Oppens’ F.B.I. file, I worked out that essay and was captivated by this frame. The essays that followed are likewise framed by American figures — with “American” used broadly for North, Central and South Turtle Island — who were persecuted by the U.S. state.
As I started to formulate, research and draft more of them, I understood this book to be about critics, artists and truth-tellers, flaws and all, who were chased across a border, out of print, or into an early grave.
Black Lives Matter influenced the essays, as did the Standing Rock protests. The action takes place in this hemisphere (other essays were saved for other collections).
I tapped into the archive, reading and annotating documentaries, to see who were the acrobats of the American Century, the high-wire artists who told the truth despite enormous and sometimes casually authoritarian American pressures to clam up, shaking the wire under them.
Lawrence: It’s more than curious to read the book now, given things as they are in the America of 2024, and to put my questions in, let’s say, my state of expatriation. But I will get to these matters later on.
I read the book one figure or pair of figures at a time, daily for however many chapters there are[17]. I liked the effect as a reading experience. Even the table of contents gave the delight of anticipation. And then one met the people you write about, one a day, and thought about them until meeting the next.
Can you talk about how you selected your subjects?. There was by definition a process, even if it was merely happy happenstance, given that you had written previously about some or many of these figures. What went into your choices? Did you choose each person so as to convey some truth that goes to your theme? What went on, so to say, at the auditions?
Whitney: I like the idea of auditions. I was writing into a broad frame that united these characters with those of Finks, around the question of persecution. The Gabriel García Marquez essay is an excerpt from Finks. (There were only two others, I think, that I wrote about in Finks: Frances Stonor Saunders and Paul Robeson.)
In that book, I wondered what it felt like to have the weight, betrayal and hypocrisy of secrecy and spying come down on you. The book was about a secret publishing program set up by the C.I.A. to put a leash on intellectuals, to create an acceptable level of criticism that could be leveled at the U.S. during the Cold War, beyond which you were warned not to go.
Methodologically, I read until I found key witnesses (James Baldwin, Ernest Hemingway, Harold Doc Humes, Boris Pasternak) crying or breaking down. But in Flights, I read until I caught them fleeing, escaping, regrouping, crossing the border — in some cases noting what they thought about before they died, what they were fighting for.
When the Oppens drove across the Sonoran desert in their Dodge with their friend and daughter in the car, their parakeet fainting in the heat, I saw it as a kind of provocation to American assumptions. I wanted to reproduce this cartoon-like repetition — Roadrunner versus Coyote-style — of the American state’s constant chasing of the Left.
As I wrote new essays, gradually I foresaw them as variations on that movement. Some lived, some were killed, some barely knew they were censored or spied upon. If Finks was an “emo” history, since I read until I found a tearful breakdown, Flights is an action history on subjects who had to improvise or revise plans during flight.
Lawrence: And then the pieces themselves. Full-dress biographies were out of the question and obviously not what you were after. So: More decisions to make.
In the chapter on Robeson, you began by describing a concert he gave in Peekskill [in the Hudson Valley] in 1949 — nothing like the epicenter of his story. You then went through various events in his life — his early role in an O’Neill play, the films in London, the appearances in the Soviet Union — and then returned to the Peekskill concert and the racist violence it prompted.
You seem to select small moments — in the way of vignettes, even — to suggest a larger whole, theme, truth, however I ought to put it.
With Paz [Octavio Paz, the Mexican poet and diplomat], you opened with his ambassadorship in India during the events of 1968, then considered his complex relationship with Mexico, and then wrote in some autobiography.
It is different but the same: I saw you choose moments of telling clarity to convey something beyond themselves. I thought of the Japanese aesthetic principle called mie gakure. It means one should see what is implied in the picture but isn’t in the picture.
I am looking for your aesthetic strategy. Can you talk about this?
Whitney: I enjoy a structure in which you turn back from an opening scene then catch up with it to depict the catharsis or crisis play-by-play, in a way that imitates time’s passing. But as these essays came together with a one-subject-at-time frame, I began thinking about curation, of their “being numerous.” F.B.I. versus C.I.A. persecution, or some other agency; what decade were they censored during and so on.
But in the back of my mind was a Tzvetan Todorov essay called “Narrative-Men.” In this essay, Todorov distinguished between psychological fiction like that of, let’s say, Henry James, and “apsychological” fiction like 1001 Nights.
In the former, the protagonist’s psychology is built up before a resolution and denouement. But so-called narrative men (and women) show up in this other narrative simply to move the story forward, as in 1001 Nights: Think of all the characters who turn that story of collective punishment and storytelling into a marvel, some who were added by Western translators.
Likewise, Naguib Mahfouz, the Egyptian Nobel laureate, also has a novel in which each chapter is a pharaoh “before the throne” justifying his legacy to the gods. Narrative-men, like pages in Alice in Wonderland.
This frame flattens the distance between what happens and who it happens to. It’s a procession of characters who bear witness to the particulars of the tale, as in epics depicting generations, reincarnations, a family tree. The tale here was the real America.
I was thinking about this alongside a chronological frame of Truman–McCarthy–Johnsonian persecution, onto Nixonian persecution and into our own time with Carter–Reaganite and Clinton–Bush–Obama–Trump persecution. I wanted to silhouette, across my lifetime and that of my parents, the tireless persecution of the Left—the U.S.’s main political obsession—and to offer glimpses of what it may have felt like, this constant.
Lawrence: Staying with this, did you intend the book to work in the same way — in a sort of mosaic fashion? A reader looking for biography would pass the judgment, “Too spotty.” This would be poor reading, poor judgment, and miss your point entirely. Have you given the world a mosaic, little shards of mirror glass in words?
Whitney: Yes, shards and tiles for a reader to piece together. The ideal reader of this may be someone trusting and empathic, open to reading a book that enacts a grieving ritual for our institutions and illusions — not unlike the Ghost Dance enacted in the late 19th century, as the onslaught of “progress” finally made its way to the Western tribes. I write about this in two of the essays, that of novelist N. Scott Momaday and another about Leonard Peltier and Anna May Aquash.
An ideal reader might be curious about how these are Todorov’s “Narrative Men and Women,” reenacting in their own moment a Groundhog Day of brutal American anticommunism, which mirrors fascism, defying and contradicting democratic norms we supposedly swear by. We cannot proceed (proa, the root of prose, means forward) without turning back (as in virare, the root of verse), crying a little, perhaps, dancing with our families and ancestors, and holding up our glasses (magnifying and with drinks inside) to their courage.
Lawrence: And then to hold the book in your hand and consider it as one thing, a literary work called Flights. I thought of something Bertolt Brecht once said — Brecht who favored episodic dramatic structure: “In reality, only a fragment carries the mark of authenticity.” Jean-Luc Godard quoted this in a film he made in 2018 called The Image Book — Godard, who was nothing if not given to fragments.
Does this go to, or anywhere near, what you were trying to do? Were you after something new in nonfiction writing — some innovation in form? Or did the material you had simply tell you what to do? I am addressing Joel Whitney the writer here.
Whitney: I tend to be maximalist, wanting to relive, rehearse, rehash the confluence of fragmentary moments from lives I read or watch in letters, images or recreated in forms biographical and literary. My editors often had to make these fit in their magazines, and I tended to follow their edits. Mostly.
But yes, on this question you raise, I think a lot about Borges and his games to depict infinitely divisible moments, his forms suggesting or making each narrative potentially infinite.
These aforementioned loops imply this: We live, then re-live, re-call with nostalgia or curiosity, like Lot’s Wife. Borges wanted to use metaphorical and structural innovations to suggest that each life or fiction is an infinite labyrinth.
He posited that on Night 602 of the 1001 Nights something magical happens: The narrator, Scheherazade, who tells stories to delay her execution by a brutal king enacting collective punishment (not unlike that going on in Gaza), finds a way to prolong her story, therefore her death, infinitely. She does so by pausing her story until the next night, then starting another as soon as she resolves it.
Borges reworks and deepens this on Night 602 by returning to the night of her first story told to the dictator-king, and retelling the story she told him, and so on, ad infinitum. Borges also wrote on why these infinite loops fascinate:
“Why does it disturb us that the map be included in the map and the thousand and one nights in the book of the Thousand and One Nights? … I believe I have found the reason: These inversions suggest that if the characters of a fictional work can be readers or spectators, we, its readers or spectators, can be fictitious.”
Nothing as drastic as this in these essays — they are literally true, only fictions in the sense of being shaped — but the characters of prior essays reappear later, and this approximates the 602 Effect, if lightly so.
Lawrence: Asturias! I exclaimed as I read along [Miguel Ángel Asturias, the Guatemalan novelist, diplomat, and Nobelist]. My mind went back to Men of maíz, El señor presidente, The eyes of the interred — classics of their time and place, a writer and his books I admire but hadn’t thought about for years.
Lorraine Hansberry [playwright and activist] and Raisin in the Sun. You bring honor to these people — an honor, if I can put it this way, that is somewhat lost amid our declining culture.
This is part of the book’s appeal, at least for me. Was it your intent to give our present a past —the present as some of us understand it, I mean. Did you want to say, “History is full of dissidents, and here are a few. This is how they dissented, these are the prices they were willing to pay. Let us not forget them”?
Whitney: Yes. Asturias the novelist was chased out of his country multiple times by U.S.–backed fascists but he invented a way of telling stories that influenced many others, from García Marquez to Toni Morrison and Salman Rushdie: Let us not forget him. They chased him over a border.
They confiscated Hansberry’s passport, spied on her as her breakthrough play was coming out, and censored her great speech about theater and radicalism, about how the working class needs to be at the center of the movement, about how American liberals need to be convinced to become American radicals.
Which means something exciting: A mere writer can be a great threat. What was exemplary in their lives, across all the subjects, was their stubbornness above all.
Across the chapters these figures meditate on the primacy of the working class, a fact the Democrats forgot in 2024 (losing the White House in something of a landslide as a result). Most of the figures in this book are tethered to the working class, know it is the root of their political gift.
They are persecuted for adhering in their art to a kind of social realism and at the same time, adding surrealism to invent — in Asturias and García Marquez’s case — magical realism, forms derived from communists, anti-colonialists, Marxists.
But we teach history and art history and literary history as if this censorship that happened to all of these figures only happened outside the U.S., as if the limits on aesthetics was spontaneous and consensus-based rather than state-curated and coerced.
It was rampant and here we go doing it, making the same mistakes as when the earliest of these essays takes place, perhaps 1940, Diego Rivera. “Whatever is allowed to remain unconscious returns later as fate,” is the clearest thing Carl Jung ever said, if he said it. It’s very newsy and very tired to say, “This is unprecedented.”
Nothing is truly new. If we can spend so much energy, blood, and treasure on getting it wrong, forgetting deliberately, betraying our principles, it should be clear how easy it would be to get it right. Nothing matters but that, even if the essays are (hopefully) not didactic.
Lawrence: So many Latin Americans in the book. I count seven, eight if we include Jennifer Harbury. Is there a reason for this related to the book’s theme? You’ve done a lot of travelling in Latin America. Does it come simply to that?
Whitney: I took part in a Habitat for Humanity trip to Guatemala during my final year of college. It was eye opening. But I chose to live and teach in Costa Rica for two years, two years after the first trip, because, as U.S. Americans we can rarely imagine what citizenship divorced from military service or war can be, and I was fascinated by Costa Rica’s decision to abolish its military.
The shorter trip made an immediate impression, while the longer was richer in day-to-day experience, a conglomeration of unforgettable, almost infinite details, and the mystery of living in a second language.
Between the two and afterward, I read Rigoberta Menchú, Jorge Luis Borges, Octavio Paz, Gabriel García Marquez, Claribel Alegría, Pablo Neruda, and so on. I delved into the political history of figures like Neruda and Che Guevara and Fidel. I learned about Jennifer Harbury months before she launched her famous hunger strike; people were already talking about her when I was there in early 1994.
Later, when I traveled to Antigua, I got into an argument with a Guatemalan elite who worked for U.S.A.I.D. and regurgitated the propaganda that Harbury never really married Efraín Bámaca Velázquez, her guerrilla husband, whom the Guatemalan army tortured to death; she was a spy, and so on.
All told, these readings and experiences established that when it comes to certain issues, certain regions, certain inherited enemies, certain tax-funded American massacres, coups and crimes, you cannot trust your government or media, since they are the perpetrators—they are the ones before the throne pretending to deserve entry — and you can never forget where you really learned this skepticism.
Lawrence: Between Finks and Flights you seem to be developing a certain set of preoccupations. Can you talk about these, if I have it right? A writer’s past, and one can go all the way back, determines not only his or her character but what he chooses to write about. I invite you to speak as personally or autobiographically as you like.
Whitney: Finks deals with the secret uses of literary magazines, which I discovered in my tenure as a founder of one. It was mostly about a C.I.A. program, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, well before my time, but not my parents’ time.
Flights is in some ways an extension of that, in the sense that I saw writing its predecessor how an institutional history can only come to life through characters intertwined in that institution. So for that purpose, the Flights characters have no specific Cold War institution to encircle, with staff, etc., whom we have to keep up with.
In Finks, some of the heroes or victims start the book as collaborators and come to their senses, or not. Where Flights is entirely told from the point of view of the victims, victims who on some level we might call heroic—and many were survivors, to say the least.
I also wanted to bring the F.B.I. and client militaries like the Guatemalan army into the story. But what threads I used in Finks, I applied in Flights.
I think I inherited some of the writerly obsessions you suggest from my father. On his mother’s side, we’re from Quaker abolitionist stock, and therefore are used to standing athwart history not to stop its progress, as William F. Buckley wanted to do, but to stop its reaction. American history is the history of the counterrevolution.
The Quakers were certainly used to persecution and my family members in Rhode Island, named Buffum, harbored people on the run from capitalist enslavement. One relative visited John Brown in prison, heard his testimony, and gave him a recently translated Hans Christian Andersen story of Arctic explorers who freeze to death. At its end the Angel of History gently closes their eyelids like a curtain.
And when I was 9 or so, my stepfather brutally attacked my mother and we fled in the middle of the night from Duchess County, New York, to my grandmother’s in Connecticut — across a border, if you like. My earliest efforts as a writer were attempts to understand and depict the before and after of this traumatic event, fleeing, and everything changing for us afterward: psychologically, financially, socially, and so on.
Yet, though I cite the abolitionist relatives, I also have relatives who resorted to violence, including one who went into flight for using violence in Ireland to end British occupation — an assassination, in fact — and I have relatives who violently sent Miwoks into flight in Point Reyes, California.
Lawrence: As I suggested earlier, it is interesting to read Flights just now. I assume this was not by design — or maybe I am wrong about this — but the book arrives as an increasing number of Americans are saying Basta! I’ve had enough! and expatriating — taking flight. I am not talking about fully-vested retirees buying seven-figure houses in Portugal or the Costa del Sol.
I am talking about the descendants of people you know very well — those honorable souls who, during the Cold War, were either forced into exile or exiled on their own. I fit the profile well enough, I suppose.
Can you address these people, this moment?
Whitney: Most U.S. Americans came here in a program not unlike Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, built on slow then fast waves pushing indigenous folks out, violently and catastrophically and immorally and, today, illegally.
So even with sympathy for the economic and political refugees of our moment (Edward Snowden being one of the latter), it helps to remember what order of sympathy and relief we must reserve for those like, say, poet Mosab Abu Toha and other Palestinians who have been chased across borders, out of print, or into their early graves under American bombs ordered up, paid for and rationalized by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, whose legacies will be haunted by these atrocities forever.
Our precarity in the neoliberal Squid Game is not equal — some fear for their lives, some that their Social Security checks won’t stretch. But the system that sends us into flight is mostly unconcerned which of us it has to trample or disenfranchise next, to fill its pockets. So it seems.
As we speak, as a result of Kamala Harris’ historic defeat in the presidential election, I’ve been hearing the old saw about moving to Canada. In Flights, I show how much of that impetus during the Cold War was in the other direction: to Mexico, where the undesirables pass through and come from.
Yet I heard it, too, in 2000, when George W. Bush “won:” Canada. But quite a number of runaway slaves went the other way, south to Mexico to get out of this American nightmare. All sympathy. The U.S. economy and political culture definitely push people out.
If we’re white we get to be called ex-pats. If we’re indigenous Americans from Guatemala or some place where the U.S. was doing anticommunist murder through proxies, we are “illegals” — “undocumented” in its liberal lingo.
When I was an expat in Buxup, a tiny village of Guatemala, in 1994, I lost nearly 20 pounds with something like amebic dysentery. Rachel, the Habitat for Humanity liaison from Michigan, fed me crackers and electrolytes and told me the story of Ursula LeGuin’s short masterpiece on political self-exiles, The Ones Who Walked Away from Omelas.”
Something about hearing it in that tiny village where the US–funded massacres had barely stopped — there were several massacres just a stone’s throw in several directions — 526 Mayan villages supposedly decimated beyond recognition — something in that site and story together goaded me with the promise that, as Arundhati Roy said,
“Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. Maybe many of us won’t be here to greet her, but on a quiet day, if I listen very carefully, I can hear her breathing.”
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Not sure what you guys are blathering on about. E.g., comparing the colonization of America to the crimes that Israel is committing… Nonsense.
The Americans are victims as much, if not more than, the victims of, e.g., regime change wars in the Middle East are. White Americans are currently being driven into minority status – into becoming hated minorities in their own country – even as their sons are being sent off to die in Israel’s wars in the Middle East. The U.S. is occupied by a foreign power which uses their blood and treasure for its own sole benefit. They are its greatest victims. Iraq is still over 95% Iraqi last I checked. America, on the other hand, isn’t.
One of the greatest crimes against the American people comes from the popularization of the notion that it is a “proposition nation,” and “just an idea.” This idea has been propounded in bad faith principally by Jews like, e.g., Israel Zangwill, the creator of the dangerous “melting pot” “mind virus,” to use Elon’s lingo.
Unfortunately, one of the victims of the “America is just an idea” mind virus that’s been wafted about by the Jews is, ironically, Elon Musk himself who seems to have bought it hook, line and sinker.
Some reasons why it’s wrong:
A nation is not just the sum of its parts any more than a multi-cellular organism is just a random clump of cells sourced from whatever donor organisms happen to be laying around.
If you inject individually robust, efficient, “hard-working” cancer cells into an otherwise healthy but slothful host you will not create a new organism which is, on net, more efficient and hard-working. Similarly, the efficiency of a nation is not merely the sum of the efficiency of the individual cells inside it, and importing individually “hard-working” Indians does not necessarily create a nation which is, on the whole, more healthy and hard-working.
This is the kind of simplistic “reductionist” thinking that was that debunked in The Mythical Man-Month – i.e., it’s dangerously flawed thinking even on the one-off engineering projects where one might guess it would work.
Furthermore, what works in the lab or on a small scale often fails on a large scale. Communists conjectured that because communism worked on the scale of a convent or monastery that it should work on the scale of a nation also. A monastery is a non-reproductive entity. It is composed of a highly-selected group of atypical individuals which must be continually sourced from the much larger surrounding population. There’s little reason to believe that what works there should also work in the context of a nation composed of reproductive families – and experience shows that it doesn’t.
What works in the microcosm of a group of asexual ascetics who eschew material things doesn’t work in the context of a nation which intends to achieve a high standard of living while also having enough kids to reproduce itself? Who would have thought?
Similarly, a corporation, and esp. a start-up, is a collection of highly-selected individuals. Elon seems to be generalizing from his experience in start-up businesses to the nation as a whole. In his experience, diversity seems to work fine among a group of highly-selected mission-oriented spergs who want to “go to Mars.”
(Oh, and Elon rather likes his sycophantic Indian employees who treat him like a God and lay the smarm on thick – what’s not to like?)
The type of person who is sufficiently disinterested in having a girlfriend or kids to be willing to work 80 hours a week to “get to Mars” is a highly neuro-atypical person regardless of whatever their background is. Generalizing from what made SpaceX or Tesla successful to what would supposedly make the nation as a whole successful is fucking retarded. It’s the same error that the communists made but just the techno-libertarian version thereof.
It’s perhaps noteworthy that diversity is good for corporations insofar as it tends to disrupt unionization – you know, when employees ask for enough time off and pay to be able to afford to have children: i.e., it’s good for the corporation but bad for the country. The negative externality of a subreplacement birth rate is born by the nation as a whole even as the shareholders grow richer, and when they run out of people in the host population they import … Indians. The nation is sacrificed on the altar of higher stock prices but in the end the stocks also go to zero because the values and norms which created the high-trust nations in which the companies were built cannot be maintained by Indians. For evidence, just look at India.
Diversity might work in the corporate environment in the short run, and it may make Elon personally richer, but insofar as making for a healthy country, it will fail just as communism did.
Btw, I wonder how the CCP would treat a foreign businessman oligarch who migrated to their country and then started demanding that they bring in foreign scab labour to replace his Chinese workers at his car factories. I wonder how they would respond when, upon receiving popular pushback, he vowed: “Take a big step back and F*** YOURSELF in the face. I will go to war on this issue the likes of which you cannot possibly comprehend.” How would the CCP respond to that?
Russian Federation Council member Alexei Pushkov said that the US and the UK are experiencing a “sudden increase in the number of cancer patients in all age groups.”
According to this senior official of the upper house of the Russian parliament, “the reason is obvious – the mRNA vaccine of the American pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, which “suppresses the immune system.”
“After vaccination, in most cases, cancer develops very quickly,” Pushkov said, “because the vaccinated person’s body is not able to fight it.”
He added: “They are already calling such cases turbo-cancer. Many scientists and medical specialists are talking about it.”
WOW ! I was gifted a copy of a FOIA which shows a codename LOTSMAN(HENRY WALLACE-VP of FDR) being part of the network which saw only the Rosenbergs punished. Is the meat grinder what leads to Vonnegut, Orwell(Blair), Barr writing of otherworldly beings and experiences to provide a psychological rubber bite block? Shocking.
Thanks Mr. Unz for having some REAL ‘left wing’ (not so-called ‘Democratic Party left-wing’) discourse on your site.
I’m happy to hear some names I’ve never heard and some I have heard and to made aware of Mr. Whitney’s body of work.
Hai, so desu.
Reminds me of the writing of the ultra-pretentious, name-dropping Colin Wilson. At least this gentleman didn’t mention Sartre, Kirkegard, Dostoevsky, or Nerida. Always a plus for me.
Good to see the name of Paul Robeson in the cast of heroes, my favorite Stalinist toady. But no mention of Pinochet?
Oh, the poor persecuted left.
And what self respecting writer of tone poems struggling to make each narrative potentially infinite would fail to mention mie gakure? Seeing what isn’t there is high on my list of skills I want to acquire. I shall live in the darkness of my eternal dolthood.
“We are the folk song army,
Every one of us cares,
We all hate poverty war and injustice,
Unlike the rest of you squares”
– Tom Lehrer
Why was the left so hated, feared, and persecuted throughout the 20th Century? It had something to do with its being a threat to powerful interests, yes. It also might have had something to do with the fact that the first socialist/communist party to rule over a large country, the Bolsheviks, killed more of their own citizens in their first months in power than the previous, supposedly brutal autocracy, had in centuries. This blood-letting has seared itself into the cultural memory down to the present day. It far exceeded even the worst numbers ascribed to their pupils, the Nazis. And unlike the death toll of the Maoists it can’t be chalked up to economic incompetence. It was quite purposeful and unrelenting. And all the while there was a class of American shitheads who strove with all their intellect to justify, excuse, and deny these atrocities and to destroy the relatively just and free (if deeply flawed) society that nurtured them. Oh, so-and-so was denied work as a screenwriter for a few years! This, we are to believe is worse than what went on in the gulags or in the basement of the Lubyanka Prison. For the inmates of such a places there was no packing up the station wagon and heading over the border. Compared to the enormity of the suffering imposed by the regime so beloved by Paul Robeson and friends, the trials of poor persecuted American leftists and their fainting parakeets😂 come off as kitsch, like so many sad clown paintings.
I would never have read this interview transcript if it had not been republished on TUR. Thanks Mr. Unz.
Liberal media is frequently (and justly) referred to as an ‘echo chamber,’ a liberal ‘echo chamber.’ Mr. Lawrence’s interview with Joel Whitney is a literary echo chamber, two liberals patting each other on the back.
Do I feel nauseated? Or frightened? Reading this interview is like eavesdropping on a private conversation between hostile, alien beings, like the ‘tuners’ of Dark City, or the ‘they’ of They Live.
Have I left anyone out?
Name dropping. Liberal name dropping. I’m reminded of Sam Houston exchanging a Masonic handsake with Santa Anna after the battle of San Jacinto.
Joel Whitney is a Brooklynite. Here’s his website:
https://www.joelwhitney.net/
“Joel”
All roads lead back to Jewish emancipation/immigration in the 19th century.
“Hey, I got an idea! Let’s break open this sealed vat of poisonous snakes, and let them all loose in the countryside! How poisonous can they really be? What could possibly go wrong?”
America was a bad joke like most anglosaxon sht dumps. What is worth “saving”? The whole pie is rotten.
Rule from the Shadows – The Psychology of Power – Part 1 Time to look behind the curtain!
Video Link
Project for the New American Century
David Swanson: PNAC calls for the assertion of American military might around the globe.
Video Link
Amen
Awesome Negress
Excellent comment. Quibble only with “deeply flawed.”
Go Donald, Go!!
Video Link
Video Link
Today, no need for such blood-letting especially when you’ve got control of critical infrastructure.
Video Link
“Good to see the name of Paul Robeson in the cast of heroes, my favorite Stalinist toady. But no mention of Pinochet?”
And don’t forget about Ezra Pound. Unlike Paul Robeson, Pound spent time in prison, as well as a psyche hospital. Paul had it easier in that respect than Pound. Oh well, that was probably an oversight, assuming he’s well familiar with Ezra Pound to begin with.
Another typical boomer leftist who never entirely left the ’60’s. Also is proud to be a part of John Brown/extreme Abolitionist strain. He’d make a real FINE supporter of BLM & Antifa today.
He must not have strong roots in the US, or feel much connected to the US for him to go up and leave and live in South America. A bit surprised he didn’t renounce his US citizenship, since it’s oh so bad a place to live.
“We are the folk song army,
Every one of us cares,
We all hate poverty war and injustice,
Unlike the rest of you squares”
– Tom Lehrer
So then,…you don’t mind if we listen to your work for free, right? Power to the people, and most folks are broke, so you don’t mind if we “borrow” your songs and share them with the fellow people?
Is that right?
“Have I left anyone out?”
Ezra Pound
Appreciated this article. Though I suppose that most of the radicals/dissidents mentioned would be on opposite sides of a circle with me on every issue save one.
Their deep observations of hypocrisy and the need to repair it. Not to ignore it. To meet hypocrisy square in the face. I have times of hatred for the US. One cannot see the county’s sins against others and her own and not be deeply pained. It can cause one to simply despair. I am a conservative. I like being a conservative. And anyone who has not struggled with a conservative foundation — which demands a standard of truthfulness that cannot possibly be, is probably not a conservative. Because truthfulness, fair play, adhering to the spirit of the law , not merely the law are cornerstone principles.
It is very very hard reality to read or listen to the liberal radical and hear a truth and feel bound by process. It is clear that Israel is going way beyond the pale. It is physically gut wrenching, but be bound by principle, one cannot ignore the incident that launched this new round of over the top conduct. I can see Israeli misconduct to the beginning of its founding (bombings, murder, kidnappings, acts of terror, etc), it’s not a secret. It’s clear and out in the open. But I cannot condone outrageous conduct by the “victim”.
I am disappointed that the author seems to have chosen a kaleidoscope model, because radicals are not alike. It is an odd to choice to lump Che ‘cuevera with the likes of : Paul Robeson, Lorraine Hansbery, Frances Stonor Saunders, the Oppens (totally unfamiliar to me) none of the afformentioned men and women despite their intense passion for truth and justice would launch a raid into a a rom full of peole having lunch killing an maiming as many as they could.
By not distinguishing them one from the other muddy’s the case.
The world is made of human honor and mendacity. And there is no shortage of mendacity. Anyone who thinks another world war is unlikely, muchless possible – is simply not living in the real world. And no amount of appeasing such conduct will stave the matter. Take the example of the Cherokee Nation, fully upended their previous existence in nearly every way to adapt and in the end — only to be betrayed by the very people they emulated.
Hamas made it exceedingly difficult to defend Palestinian legitimate complaints because of the tactics they employed. The immediacy of their violence outweighs that of israel’s past history.
Across the chapters these figures meditate on the primacy of the working class, a fact the Democrats forgot in 2024 (losing the White House in something of a landslide as a result). Most of the figures in this book are tethered to the working class, know it is the root of their political gift.
I say:
Orwell’s workhorse called Boxer from Animal Farm as a stand in for White Working Class — Whites Without College Degrees(WWCDs).
I know what happened to Boxer — Russian working class — the work horse in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. Boxer busted his arse building the farm back up to snuff after it had undergone the revolution and other problems. The pigs — Stalinists — rewarded Boxer by carting him away to the glue factory. Poor Boxer finally realized he was going to the glue factory while in the truck, but he was so exhausted from his labors in working on the farm that he didn’t have enough strength to kick the truck to pieces to escape.
Whites Without College Degrees(WWCDs) are the new Boxer of the present day. The Stalinists are now the Globalizers. The Globalizers have decided that all the hard work and all the soldiering over generations by the WWCDs will be rewarded with deliberate attacks and sneaky ways to harm them. From mass immigration to de-industrialization to hooking the WWCDs on drugs, the Globalizer pigs have used every trick in the book to destroy Whites Without College Degrees. Two academics have described this demographic phenomenon as the WHITE DEATH.
Mass legal immigration, mass illegal immigration, REFUGEE OVERLOAD and ASYLUM SEEKER INUNDATION increases housing costs, lowers wages, swamps schools, overwhelms hospitals, destroys habitat for wildlife, causes urban and suburban sprawl, creates multicultural mayhem and brings infectious diseases, crime and terrorism to the United States of America.
Tweet from 2015:
the article is communist propaganda. Pure and simple. Jew fingerprints all over it. Not worth commenting on. Bolshevism embedded in liberal cant
Joe Webb
“one cannot ignore the incident that launched this new round of over the top conduct”
What one cannot really ignore is the glaring evidence that the events of Oct 7th were allowed to succeed in order to get to where we are now. Hamas was openly practicing virtually everything they ended up doing including even the paragliders. Egypt had also warned the Israelis. The M.O. fits very well with the 9/11 attacks as well and there they were calling the Oct 7th attack “Israel’s Pearl Harbor” just like the PNAC group stated in 1999 that a “new Pearl Harbor” was needed in order to repurpose the US military and begin a new path. The “new Pearl Harbor” would be the motivating force both for the US gov as well as the American public. Not sure what is so difficult to comprehend in all of this and why there is so much resistance even among more alt. media sources. The only alt media source I have heard pointing these things out has been Doug Macgregor and he has done it more than once.
I like how EliteCommInc tries so hard to come off as Mister Big Technical Expertise Man but he can only keep it up for so long till he kikes out and whines Hamas Hamas Hamas! stuffing it totally OT into unrelated shit.
Because his Jew supremacist genocide is OK because Hamas. You stupid 92-IQ primitive devil-worshipper, if Hamas nuked you it would not justify your Jew supremacist genocide. Because nothing justifies your Jew supremacist genocide. Read the convention, you stupid 92-IQ fuck. Once your concentration camp inmates busted out and kicked your pussy coward ass and you responded with jew supremacist Genocide, nothing else matters till we stop your Jew supremacist genocide.
EliteCommInc illustrates why Izzies and their wannakikes are the most despised vermin on earth.
Now, Yojimbo! No joking around. You know know perfectly well Ezra is persona non grata in that crowd.
( I admire Pound, and his acolyte, Eustace Mullins, too, but I can’t make heads or tails out of Pound’s poetry.)
How come Barnheisel had such a hard-on for Finks? Is it just ego, he wants to be the undisputed world champeen spy-interpreter? Or is he buffing the CIA turd like it looks? For a middle-of-the-pack hopeless humanities academic he sure got a lot of foundation baksheesh and junkets and shit. Is Barnheisel yet another of CIA’s fake professors like germwar mad scientist Bob Garry?
this just in:
https://www.rt.com/news/610383-pfizer-covid-vaccine-contamination-dna/
Yes, but technically speaking, the government directly went after and persecuted Pound, throwing him in jail, unlike most of the limousine liberal/leftists that this Whitney seems to be so enthralled with.
So for him to be consistent, he would have to include Pound on his list of artists who were persecuted by the US government. In point of fact, many of these liberals (e.g. Paul Robeson) had their reputations rehabilitated and today are lionized. Robeson for instance has a US stamp after him in his honor.
When’s Pound gonna get his US postage stamp, so he can then have his critical/public reputation rehabilitated?
Suppose I leave he door open to my house. My opem door does not excuse the theives who rob it.
My point is not to defend srael The point is that Palestinians who engage in this type of behavior will find it self defeating.
PNAC is not responsible for Russia’s invasion.
It is quite apparent you haven’t read my comments regarding Israel.
Go play your intentionally nonsensical word games with someone else.
Here is more unknown to the masses of the world.
May 10, 2018 BlackRock – The company that owns the world?
In less than 30 years, this American financial firm has grown from nothing to becoming the world’s largest and most trusted manager of other people’s money. The assets left in their care are worth a staggering 6.3 trillion US dollars – a figure with 12 zeroes.
Video Link
Sorry to tell you this but you have no right to complain. You fed the troll
More LLs (Lawrence leavings)… so soon again…
Educated beyond his intelligence, he drops names like a leaky gut, putting in the same pot Borges and… Toni Morrison, Garcia Marquez and Paul Robeson, 1001 Nights and Alice in Wonderland and BLM…
and he gives those of us with masochistic tendencies (or until the gag reflex kicks in) the privilege of reading his interview with a Joel Whitney who, I didn’t check, but could be a recognized little eminence gris of WSW. org.
These are the representatives of the extinct species of real or opportunistic, agenda-driven Lenin worshippers who call themselves “the Left” or “socialists,” or a anti-imperialists” or whatever name they feel would play in Paducah, a species that refuses to die in the West.
They still recite the same old slogans about “owners of the means of production” versus “the proletariat,” blind to reality of the deindustrialization of the highly financialized Western economies and their transformation into service economies. The progeny of the proletarians are flipping burgers, working as security guards or nurse aids. There is one thriving industry: weapons manufacturing. It is not contributing to the GDP except on paper.
The sons of the “owners of the means of production” operate now on Wall Street and in the banking system. They do not invest in “means of production.”
There is no “American imperialism.” No empire has ever plundered the world and also eviscerated itself in the service of one of its colonies and its foreign elite.
There is only a global cabal which is not “left,” or “right” but judaic in spirit, goals and with hatred of everything and everyone that stands in its way to domination.
I am unclear what you fail to understand
Thanks, Yojimbo. I see where you’re coming from now and totally agree.
One small point: St. Elizabeths wasn’t a jail but an insane asylum. They kept him there for years—for giving talks on Italian radio against the war and naming the jews.
When he was arrested in Italy at war’s end he was kept in a cage in the open air.
Can you imagine what they’ll do to Anglin if they ever get their hands on him? I fully expect that to happen some day. St. Elizabeths will have been a five star hotel in comparison.
You’re right. I had no experience with that one until now.
Would this even be possible if we had a REAL, vital and non-financialized economy?
In my experience, these people from rich countries who come to do charity projects in South America are totally insensitive to the real culture, the real problems people face, to their way of lives, and world-feeling. They look for experiences that confirm their worldview which is almost exclusively related to money and imperialism.
Regular Latin Americans who make between 250 to 700 usd per month are materially fine. Sure they want more money but so do extremely wealthy American with insanely high median incomes of something like 40k per year. That’s totally enough to provide basic necessities. Even millionaires and billionaires can’t help but consider themselves to poor. In our world, dissatisfaction, despair are caused by cultural, spiritual problems. But these old school leftists keep harping on about money, maybe cause they’re ideologically rigid or maybe cause they are very greedy people who were never able to make good money relative to their peers.
Imperialism is not even on the common people’s radars, nor are right-wing militaries. Only power hungry factions and socialites care about that suuff. Crime is a big concern to ordinary people.
I’m basically in line with leftists in terms of being anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist but these don’t have the influence on the regular people that these leftists pretend to represent.
You need to read more carefully; he does mention Neruda.
People who haven’t should read of the CIA’s kulturkampf. Everything from literary and opinion magazines with Trotskyite origins through Jewish-American abstract-expressionism to the hippy ‘counter-culture’ and the social engineering related to GRIDS. What on earth was the plan?
Plenty that I intend to but haven’t yet read or finished. Wouldn’t bother with more leftist hagiography.
Interesting article ….but too Left of Center for me! More Ron Paul libertarian insights please!
Thanks. I assume some of the unz commenters were also exposed. I noticed the absence of the emerging majority (who is 80 years old and I miss his comments about Old Testicles) and I hope that this absence has nothing to do with the previous one.
I don’t doubt that Robeson would be an ardent supporter of BLM now. He knew what Stalin was like and preposterously declard that the could walk as a free man in Moscow whereas he couldn’t back home. He was willfully blind to the defects of communism and took every opportunity to see everything from a leftist point of view with a dash of uncritical anti-colonialism. White man bad, black man good. He learned nothing from his extensive travels.
I didn’t see in Wikipedia that either Robeson or Pound went to live in S. America. Pound returned to Italy eventually after being released from St. Elizabeth’s. Were you perhaps referring to someone else as a likely BLM supporter?
How oppressed they are. McCarthy hounds them to this day.
Up to the early 1990’s, so-called folk singers were a bellwether for what the Commie left subversives were planning.
Now, of course, it is only necessary to listen to the White House press secretary.
If that were to happen, I wonder if this Whitney would go to bat and defend Andrew Anglin as being a martyr for being unjustly persecuted by the government. Would he include Anglin in his lengthy list of persecuted intellectual peoples?
Just askin’.
No actually, I was observing that this Whitney himself would probably openly support BLM, and possibly Antifa as well. He seems to regurgitate the typical 60’s onward Leftist talking points to such an extreme that he comes across not so much as a free thinker but as a cliche.
The inner controversy, or turmoil inside him might be: Which side he would he support overall: Israel or the Palestinians? Because people of his generation, while they might publicly state that they feel for the Palestinian people as a whole, when it comes down to it, they bite the bullet and back Israel. So that might be slightly interesting.
Aside from that, he does appear to be quite the cliche. Go down the list of issues of the day, and its very apparent which side he would take.
I don’t necessarily think he gung ho supported Hillary. Most likely he supported Bernie whole heartedly, and when he lost in the primaries, he bit the bullet and supported Hillary, because, you know, Trump is Hitler. Or something along those lines.
The most sickening example of liberal hypocrisy was Amnesty International’s refusal to demand the release of David Irving when he was arrested in Germany. My blood pressure skyrockets every time I think about it.
The speeches against the war would have been forgiven (Jane Fonda was never sent to an insane asylum) but not his speeches and writing about Jews and USURY.
“Hamas made it exceedingly difficult to defend Palestinian legitimate complaints because of the tactics they employed. The immediacy of their violence outweighs that of israel’s past history.”
You would be a more successful troll, mewling about how “conservative” you are and all that jazz, if you were not so obvious in your propaganda trying to wipe out “israel’s past history,” having the chutzpah to talk about Hams “tactics” of violence, and all that kletzmer music.
Yes! Thanks for the reminder. David has suffered quite a bit in the service of academic freedom. A true scholar of the first rank.
If there’s ever an apt example of Nicholson’s “You can’t HANDLE the truth!” when discussing and writing about controversial topics, David Irving is the perfect example.
You really tell it like it is, don’t you?
Keep up the good work.
You are certainly willing to present evidence that I am engaged in scrubbing usraelu history.
Hamas does that everytime they engage in such behavior.
ooopss You are certainly unvited to provide evidence that I engage in scrubbing Israeli history.
The CIA may have funneled some money towards the Ab-Ex people, but they didn’t invent it. And certainly not on purpose. They just noticed what was going on and decided, in their ham-fisted and oafish way, to try and use it for their own retarded purposes. And Ab-Ex wasn’t a Jewish movement either, it just was a movement with a kind of Modernistic art-history momentum and inevitability that had some Jews in it and supporting it. Peggy Guggenheim wasn’t CIA, she was just a rich horse-faced woman who decided to use her $$ to get dashing young painters into her bed who otherwise wouldn’t touch her with a fly swatter.
Non-painter Jews like Clement Greenberg didn’t know jack shit about art or art history, they just, as typical Jews, wanted to sink their fangs into it and slap their Jewish by-line onto something, anything, and try to manipulate and control it, get in on the ground floor and make a pile through speculation and nepotistic self-promotion: Jewish art critics ignorantly but loudly praise weird art bought by cynical Jewish collectors who bought it cheap and flipped to the Whitney for a fortune simply because it’s what they always *do*.
Greenberg’s willful and pig-ignorant misunderstandings of Jackson Pollock while pretending to be an expert interpreter are textbook hilarious. Same thing with all the Jewish jazz critics of the period (Nat Hentoff, Stanley Edgar Hyman): they weren’t musicians and had no idea what they were hearing, they just, as Jews, felt the genetic urge to glom onto it and control it and profit from it. Same thing with rock n roll, they just saw an opportunity to cheat some financially illiterate R&B negroes out of their work and make a fortune for doing nothing.
The CIA part was just a clumsy embarrassing side-show. CIA also funded stupid obscure literary magazines for insanely bad literary movements that you never even heard of, because they fizzled out at birth. (Nobody reads Cid Corman any more.) And annoying early rock n roll bands who went nowhere. They were just a bunch of imbecilic bozos rooting around and trying anything, throwing shit and $$ money at the wall to please their even stupider and more cynical honchos back in DC.
Almost all of the big names in U.S. abstract expressionism are Jewish.
The C.I.A. angle was that it was part of a conscious and declared push to shift the centre of ‘art’ markets from Paris to Noo Yawk.
I don’t dislike all abstract expressionism. It seems to have started with the CoBrA (Copenhagen, Brussels, Amsterdam) group in Europe. Some of their work is interesting, although I’ve only ever seen photographs.
Korean artists in the ’90s and 00s did some great work, and I’ve seen that both at a gallery in Seoul, and in a collection in a museum in Japan. Very intricate, thought out, and great care with the brush work.
Then I think of crap like holy Rothko.
It’s real Emperor’s New Clothes territory.
Unlike in U.S. pop art (as opposed to, say, British or Japanese pop art, where the big names are 100% goy), almost all of the ‘big names’ in U.S. ab-ex were Jewish.
“… you are unvited [sic] to present evidence that I am engaged in scrubbing usraelu history.”
This is not a dialog, Troll. I am only mocking you. Can’t have a dialog with a dumb troll who says:
“The immediacy of their [Hams] violence outweighs that of israel’s past history.”
and then pretends he didn’t and asks for… “evidence.”
Nevertheless, you should not take this as an encouragement to continue what in your mind passes for “arguing.” I usually just mark your shameless idiocies “Troll.”
I make an exception from time to time in the vain hope that being derided and mocked might suppress your will to post your scat.
Ahhhhh yes, the good work. Do tell, please note anywhere I this anything, at any time, I engaged in covering up Israel’s past.
Go ahead have it. Let’s se this supposed good work.
“Unlike in U.S. pop art (as opposed to, say, British or Japanese pop art, where the big names are 100% goy), almost all of the ‘big names’ in U.S. ab-ex were Jewish.
True. Regarding Pop Art, one notable strong exception would be Andy Warhol (who definitely was not Jewish).
““The immediacy of their [Hams] violence outweighs that of israel’s past history.”
Sadly you don’t know that outweigh does not mean the same thing as scrub. Here allow me. When something outweighs another, it does not remove the outher. It simply means that it carries more impact.
In this case, October 27 has so flooded the minds of the public that any complaints against Israel simply won’t wash. The standard press against Hamas is such that they cannot be successful when attacking civilians. That does mean that their conduct is without motivation. But if one is going to measure a sense of justice, for most people, it simply does not carry the weight they desire.
Now if they had attacked a military installation or some artifact of government, I am convinced the damage if any weighed against Isarael’s military and police conduct against civilians. And then history would have force, in my opinion.
Now, that you know the difference between scrub and impact or weight. I am still waiting for you to provide evidence that I have scrubbed israel’s history. Let’s see the “good work” in action.
You don’r have a clue what my views are on israel or if you have managed to have a look on the site are too embarrased to admit — that isn’t water dripping from your face — it’s lemon marange.
Ab-Ex Gentiles: Pollock (the only one who matters, really; actual name Paul McCoy), de Kooning, Motherwell, Joan Mitchell, Cy Twombly, Clifford Still, I think maybe Franz Kline even.
Ab-Ex Jews: Rothko, Ad Reinhardt, Helen Frankenthaler (both sort of minor), Mike Goldberg (*really* minor), Larry Rivers.
I think the goys have it.
Also Jasper Johns, Robert Rauschenberg, Joe Brainard.
And plus, add Arshile Gorky to the gentiles on the Ab-Ex list. Best. Suicide note. Ever.
You misread what I wrote. My implcation was that only a few or some of the big names in U.S. pop art were Jewish, all or just about all were in the case of ab-ex.
This is a silly as saying the US foreign policy is not driven by Jewish interests because the majority of the staff working on the Hill are Goyim. It shows a lack of understanding of how the art industry (word used advisedly) works, who owns the galleries and who are “taste makers” (the art critics before whom the media bows).
You would benefit from reading Tom Wolfe.
“You would benefit from reading Tom Wolfe.”
So in other words, you stopped reading and thinking way back in high school?
Does that pass for a rebuttal in your neighborhood bar?
That’s not a rebuttal, that’s a dismissal. You can’t afford a rebuttal from me. You also can’t afford my neighborhood bar.
Buddhism, which is dominant in Japan even though its founder came from India (now Nepal), disproves the idea that a religion is perceived as alien just because it is geographically distant from the area in which it is practiced. However, Buddhism manages without a “monotheistic” God.
The alien nature of Judaism in relation to Europeans, and in particular North and Northwest Europeans, lies more in its devastating internal orientation, with the Jewish people (whatever that actually is, as the Jews themselves still argue about this to this day) as the only people of God.
The American Wykoff, who died a few years ago at the age of 70, had apparently spent his last decades uncovering what is being systematically concealed and obscured.
The (supposedly) first book that laid a false trail, which has since become an entire genre called “Nazi occultism”, was written 15 years after WW2 by a half-Jew and a “Frenchman” with a Dutch name who was close to communism, at least in his youth.
https://linkmix.co/32930194
Some of your comments are worth reading, others, like this one, are the kind a sore loser makes.
Straighten up and fly right
So you read Tom Wolf in high school?