'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' author John le Carré has died at 89

Vcore89

Bionic Poster
John le Carré, Best-Selling Author of Cold War Thrillers, Dies at 89
Dec. 13, 2020
6669f986-3d9e-11eb-be63-b2d34bb06b66_image_hires_102031.jpg


The cause was pneumonia, his publisher, Penguin Random House, said on Sunday.

Before Mr. le Carré [born David John Moore Cornwell] published his best-selling 1963 novel “The Spy Who Came in From the Cold,” which Graham Greene called “the best spy story I have ever read,” the fictional model for the modern British spy was Ian Fleming’s James Bond — suave, urbane, devoted to queen and country. With his impeccable talent for getting out of trouble while getting women into bed, Bond fed the myth of spying as a glamorous, exciting romp.

Mr. Le Carré upended that notion with books that portrayed British intelligence operations as cesspools of ambiguity in which right and wrong are too close to call and in which it is rarely obvious whether the ends, even if the ends are clear, justify the means.

Led by his greatest creation, the plump, ill-dressed, unhappy, brilliant, relentless George Smiley, Mr. le Carré’s spies are lonely, disillusioned men whose work is driven by budget troubles, bureaucratic power plays and the opaque machinations of politicians — men who are as likely to be betrayed by colleagues and lovers as by the enemy.
 
Upper and middle-ranking spies aka intelligence officers are simply bureaucrats, after all, so their lives are meant to be boring.

And Cornwell always insisted that his version of the Cold War was a work of imagination, just not an escapist imagination like Fleming.
 
RIP. Not interested in debates about the accuracy of what were works of fiction but they were brilliantly written, unlike anything else in the spy thriller genre. Thriller in fact would be a misnomer applied to his work. His stories moved at a glacial pace but with beautiful detail, brilliantly etched characters. Only Le Carre could have made such a bland spy like George Smiley so memorable.
 
The Bond franchise has indelibly stamped what the spy should be like but usually isn’t. That bigger than life identity has only survived a few changes of role players and they for the most part are stamped from the same die.

Smiley portrayals are vast and incredibly diverse, beginning with the first by Rupert Davies as a supporting role to Richard Burton’s protagonist in The Spy Who Came In From The Cold.

James Mason also never reached being mistaken for Smiley due to doing just one film as Charles Dobbs (contract terms dictated the name change).

Nerdy, bespectacled Alec Guinness probably made the biggest impression on me as to what Smiley might be like.

I’m also fond of Gary Oldman’s version in the most recent Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy film but we lost the chance for the quintessential portrayal of Smiley when Philip Seymour Hoffman died shortly after charming Le Carre on the set of the movie version of the author’s A Most Wanted Man. There was much anticipation that the author was intent on doing the first of many works with PSH as his less than dapper secret agent.
 
Nerdy, bespectacled Alec Guinness probably made the biggest impression on me as to what Smiley might be like.

I’m also fond of Gary Oldman’s version in the most recent Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy film but we lost the chance for the quintessential portrayal of Smiley when Philip Seymour Hoffman died shortly after charming Le Carre on the set of the movie version of the author’s A Most Wanted Man. There was much anticipation that the author was intent on doing the first of many works with PSH as his less than dapper secret agent.

I haven't seen the other ones. Loved both these two giants of acting in the role. Obviously Alec was Smiley incarnate. There is a line in the book where he asks somebody, "What did he say, exactly?" The emphasis in Alec's delivery of it is just the way you would imagine Smiley saying it! The level of detail was incredible. Also, Ian Richardson was outstanding as Bill Haydon in the series.

Oldman doesn't look the part of Smiley though he tries by padding up his abdomen and there is also less width in a feature film length (compared to the sprawling series). But he was still brilliant.

Another disappointment in the movie was Ann doesn't figure at all. Alec brilliantly etches that look of discomfort on Smiley's face whenever her name is mentioned.
 
Had only caught a bit of the Alec Guinness miniseries. Not seen the 2011 Oldman film at all. Think I'd be tempted to check out the film first and then try to track down the miniseries again.

In the late 90s (1999, I believe), Star Trek Voyager paid homage to John le Carré's book with an episode entitled, Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy. It was one of the more creative and comedic (farce) episodes in the STV series. It centered around the daydreams of Voyager's holographic doctor. Hostile aliens had tapped into the doctor's program and took his fantasies to be reality.
 
Last edited:
Upper and middle-ranking spies aka intelligence officers are simply bureaucrats, after all, so their lives are meant to be boring.

And Cornwell always insisted that his version of the Cold War was a work of imagination, just not an escapist imagination like Fleming.
Operational CIA officers learn many cool tricks at "The Farm" which are not usually needed unless things go wrong.
 
Ah ****.

I've read everything he's written.

For fans, check out his audiobooks too. I heard one that was a kind of autobiographical thing. He is the actual narrator.
 
Last edited:
Had only caught a bit of the Alec Guinness miniseries. Not seen the 2011 Oldman film at all. Think I'd be tempted to check out the film first and then try to track down the miniseries again.

In the late 90s (1999, I believe), Star Trek Voyager paid homage to John le Carré's book with an episode entitled, Tinker Tenor Doctor Spy. It was one of the more creative and comedic (farce) episodes in the STV series. It centered around the daydreams of Voyager's holographic doctor. Hostile aliens had tapped into the doctor's program and took his fantasies to be reality.

I don't know if the Guinness series is now available on one of the streaming platforms. But back in 2011, when we (my father and I, both JLC fans) wanted to see the series, the DVD wasn't available at all in India. So he actually got through to a Brit working for one of his company's overseas clients. And when he travelled to India, he handed over the DVD. The funny thing is he was himself not interested at all in stuff like this nor in watching either soccer or cricket. He was an interesting person who used his spare time to repair/remodel vehicles all of his own. I believe he once went biking in the Kazakh desert.
 
I don't know if the Guinness series is now available on one of the streaming platforms. But back in 2011, when we (my father and I, both JLC fans) wanted to see the series, the DVD wasn't available at all in India. So he actually got through to a Brit working for one of his company's overseas clients. And when he travelled to India, he handed over the DVD. The funny thing is he was himself not interested at all in stuff like this nor in watching either soccer or cricket. He was an interesting person who used his spare time to repair/remodel vehicles all of his own. I believe he once went biking in the Kazakh desert.
Ha! I was reading an article recently about how P G Wodehouse probably has bigger fans in India than in Britain. Rings a bell?
 
The U.S. eliminated all their human spies network when Jimmy Carter became President. Most of the CIA operatives went independent like that of the mailman and Swiss gentlemen in Night Of The Condor movie. It took a good 15 years for the CIA to recreate it back again. It is a very bad thing to get captured as a spy too.
 
You mean to say that Carter tried to eliminate certain forms of illegal activity.

The U.S. eliminated all their human spies network when Jimmy Carter became President. Most of the CIA operatives went independent like that of the mailman and Swiss gentlemen in Night Of The Condor movie. It took a good 15 years for the CIA to recreate it back again. It is a very bad thing to get captured as a spy too.
 
You mean to say that Carter tried to eliminate certain forms of illegal activity.
President Carter believe that electronic surveillance was all that would be needed in keep an eye on America’s enemies and that human spies where obsolete, not needed anymore!
 
President Carter believe that electronic surveillance was all that would be needed in keep an eye on America’s enemies and that human spies where obsolete, not needed anymore!
CIA took a huge public relations hit in the mid-1970s when the Senate Church Committee hearings exposed domestic operations, which included having women dosing businessmen with LSD and CIA filming their reactions at a safe house, and employing unsavory agents in foreign countries. Many people don't realize that CIA personnel are called officers, and agents are their informants/assets. What the FBI calls an agent, CIA calls an officer, and what the FBI calls an informant, CIA calls an agent. CIA agents are often bad people doing bad things, as are FBI informants. The problem arises when people hear a CIA agent did something horrible, but don't realize that the person was just a source, not an employee.

As a result, there was tremendous public and Congressional pressure to reform or possibly eliminate CIA. Carter brought in Stansfield Turner, who had a military background and didn't understand the world of intelligence gathering. He believed technology was more important than human assets, and was very unpopular in the agency.
You mean to say that Carter tried to eliminate certain forms of illegal activity.
Incidentally, your assessment of my background is misguided, which is surprising considering that you are a former KGB officer who studied at a Paris university, and now employed in Australia as SVR Chief of Station at the nude section of Masllin Beach.

The U.S. eliminated all their human spies network when Jimmy Carter became President. Most of the CIA operatives went independent like that of the mailman and Swiss gentlemen in Night Of The Condor movie. It took a good 15 years for the CIA to recreate it back again. It is a very bad thing to get captured as a spy too.
This is not true. The Directorate of Operations (DO) did eliminate many experienced officers under Turner, but it was still very active. They largely did so by offering generous early retirement packages. Reagan brought in William Casey, a devout Catholic with a Franco worldview. Casey quickly rebuilt the DO, and it retuned to its old ways. Due to the scandals, it became difficult to hire left-leaning officers, and the agency took on Casey's vision. Incidentally, William Barr (Opus Dei) was close to Casey and defended CIA during the Iran-Contra investigations. Barr was hired by CIA Directorate of Intelligence (DI) in the early 1970s. He was deemed unsuitable for operational work (DO), and was an analyst on matters regarding China.
Surveillance training to counter the "pink flamingo menace" at "The Farm":

Screenshot_4.jpeg
The U.S. Embassy in Beijing has found pigeons equipped with surveillance devices on window ledges.
 
Will never forget the 1979 televised version of 'Tinker, Taylor, Soldier, Spy' with Alec Guinness as George Smiley. One of the great televisual experiences of all time!

R I P John Le Carré.
 
CIA took a huge public relations hit in the mid-1970s when the Senate Church Committee hearings exposed domestic operations, which included having women dosing businessmen with LSD and CIA filming their reactions at a safe house, and employing unsavory agents in foreign countries. Many people don't realize that CIA personnel are called officers, and agents are their informants/assets. What the FBI calls an agent, CIA calls an officer, and what the FBI calls an informant, CIA calls an agent. CIA agents are often bad people doing bad things, as are FBI informants. The problem arises when people hear a CIA agent did something horrible, but don't realize that the person was just a source, not an employee.

As a result, there was tremendous public and Congressional pressure to reform or possibly eliminate CIA. Carter brought in Stansfield Turner, who had a military background and didn't understand the world of intelligence gathering. He believed technology was more important than human assets, and was very unpopular in the agency.

Incidentally, your assessment of my background is misguided, which is surprising considering that you are a former KGB officer who studied at a Paris university, and now employed in Australia as SVR Chief of Station at the nude section of Masllin Beach.
During Victoria’s strict lockdown your subject was not allowed to travel to Maslin Beach in the Adelaide area. My eyes on the ground found he instead stayed in the Melbourne area and visited Sunnyside North Beach quite frequently, even in the cooler season. He may or may not have had this type of embarrassing moments after a dip and a beachside nap:

 
When it comes to pedicabs you need to stop putting the horse's ass before the cart!

During Victoria’s strict lockdown your subject was not allowed to travel to Maslin Beach in the Adelaide area. My eyes on the ground found he instead stayed in the Melbourne area and visited Sunnyside North Beach quite frequently, even in the cooler season. He may or may not have had this type of embarrassing moments after a dip and a beachside nap:
 
Last edited:
CIA got to be happy about Hollywood and general worldwide public perception that all the CIA does now is go after it rogue case officers and try to kill them! CIA hunting CIA!
 
CIA got to be happy about Hollywood and general worldwide public perception that all the CIA does now is go after it rogue case officers and try to kill them! CIA hunting CIA!
It would please them if people thought that is ALL the CIA did, right?

They have infiltrated the politics and the media...and in plain sight. To quote S Wilson, "No one cares anymore".
 
It would please them if people thought that is ALL the CIA did, right?

They have infiltrated the politics and the media...and in plain sight. To quote S Wilson, "No one cares anymore".
CIA can only do operations outside of the U.S. It a big no, no to do anything domestically! CIA director go to federal penitentiary for a long, long time if he/she ordered or knew(and not stop) about a CIA domestic operation. Mostly, an independent contractor(s) would be the assigned by Homeland to take the CIA Director out!
 
But how would you know know if there were a big no no? They were also not supposed to do torture. They just called it something else and got a lawyer to define what they did legal.

CIA can do operations outside of the U.S. It a big no, no to do anything domestically! CIA director go to federal penitentiary for a long, ling time if he/she ordered a domestic operation.
 
But how would you know know if there were a big no no? They were also not supposed to do torture. They just called it something else and got a lawyer to define what they did legal.
I think it depends on the situation. If the person being integrated had info about a nuclear bomb that is going to go off in a major U.S. city, anyone in their right mind would throw the rule book away and do everything to get at it and prevent a major disaster from happening that would kill millions of citizens and injure many tens of millions more. This puts it in war time and in war, anything goes - kill or be killed!
 
CIA can only do operations outside of the U.S. It a big no, no to do anything domestically! CIA director go to federal penitentiary for a long, long time if he/she ordered or knew(and not stop) about a CIA domestic operation. Mostly, an independent contractor(s) would be the assigned by Homeland to take the CIA Director out!
I knew a CIA officer who had to teach a Russian defector (top scientist) to drive in San Francisco. Only a few people can know about safe houses and defectors.

CIA Is Expanding Domestic Operations
By Dana Priest
October 23, 2002


The Central Intelligence Agency is expanding its domestic presence, placing agents with nearly all of the FBI's 56 terrorism task forces in U.S. cities, a step that law enforcement and intelligence officials say will help overcome some of the communications obstacles between the two agencies that existed before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In many cities, according to local FBI special agents, the CIA employees help plan daily operations and set priorities, as well as share information about suspected foreigners and groups. They do not, however, take part in operations or make arrests.

The CIA's domestic field offices recruit foreigners living temporarily in the United States -- for example, scientists at universities, diplomats at embassies and business executives -- to work as agents for the CIA when they return home. They also conduct voluntary debriefings of Americans, mainly business executives and academics, who have recently returned from abroad. The division also is responsible for handling some defectors and for limited counterintelligence targeting.

The CIA's domestic division was created in 1963 to conduct clandestine operations within the United States against foreign targets, usually foreign spies and organizations. But the CIA no longer conducts clandestine operations at home, in part because of the 1973 intelligence overhaul that curbed spying on U.S. citizens and enacted stricter oversight of covert operations.

None of the growth in the CIA's domestic work has required changes in law. Under Executive Order 12333, signed by President Ronald Reagan, the CIA is permitted to secretly collect "significant" foreign intelligence within the United States if the collection effort is not aimed at the domestic activities of U.S. citizens and corporations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...rations/7e62ab9b-8c1c-4202-b7bd-44b3fb6931c0/

The Biggest Little CIA Shop You've Never Heard Of
BY JEFF STEIN ON 11/14/13

A few years ago, an American company placed a want ad for an aerospace engineering consultant in an Asian newspaper. It quickly drew a flurry of applicants - one of whom was just the kind of person the company was looking for: someone who worked in that country's missile program, someone who was a little sleazy, someone looking to make a little cash on the side.

This was a CIA front operation, and soon that eager applicant was supplying the spy agency with details on his country's ballistic missile program.
That kind of covert activity is a specialty of the CIA's National Resources Division, a little-known, U.S.-based component of the agency's National Clandestine Service.

Today, according to knowledgeable sources, NR has offices in about a dozen cities, down from about three times that two decades ago because of cost-cutting, sources said. Naturally, they're located in places where foreign officials, military officers, scientists and students - as well as Americans who travel abroad on business - congregate, cities like New York, Boston, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit (where there's a large Arab population nearby) and Denver, which is such a hotbed of U.S. military and intelligence activity that the CIA considered moving NR there entirely in 2005. After much criticism, it stayed put.

The FBI is said to despise the CIA's domestic recruiting operations. According to a 2005 account by The Washington Post's Dana Priest, the two sides had "highly contentious" negotiations over who could do what, "with the FBI saying that it should control and approve the CIA's domestic activities.... " That wasn't going to happen, so in the end, the two sides just promised to play nice.
https://www.newsweek.com/2013/11/15/biggest-little-cia-shop-youve-never-heard-243964.html
 
As is clear from the above, there are plenty of ways around the law blocking CIA domestic activities.

And as for torture, hard cases make bad law. And this example is completely fanciful. And 'anything goes in war' is a novel legal doctrine.

I think it depends on the situation. If the person being integrated had info about a nuclear bomb that is going to go off in a major U.S. city, anyone in their right mind would throw the rule book away and do everything to get at it and prevent a major disaster from happening that would kill millions of citizens and injure many tens of millions more. This puts it in war time and in war, anything goes - kill or be killed!
 
I knew a CIA officer who had to teach a Russian defector (top scientist) to drive in San Francisco. Only a few people can know about safe houses and defectors.

CIA Is Expanding Domestic Operations
By Dana Priest
October 23, 2002


The Central Intelligence Agency is expanding its domestic presence, placing agents with nearly all of the FBI's 56 terrorism task forces in U.S. cities, a step that law enforcement and intelligence officials say will help overcome some of the communications obstacles between the two agencies that existed before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In many cities, according to local FBI special agents, the CIA employees help plan daily operations and set priorities, as well as share information about suspected foreigners and groups. They do not, however, take part in operations or make arrests.

The CIA's domestic field offices recruit foreigners living temporarily in the United States -- for example, scientists at universities, diplomats at embassies and business executives -- to work as agents for the CIA when they return home. They also conduct voluntary debriefings of Americans, mainly business executives and academics, who have recently returned from abroad. The division also is responsible for handling some defectors and for limited counterintelligence targeting.

The CIA's domestic division was created in 1963 to conduct clandestine operations within the United States against foreign targets, usually foreign spies and organizations. But the CIA no longer conducts clandestine operations at home, in part because of the 1973 intelligence overhaul that curbed spying on U.S. citizens and enacted stricter oversight of covert operations.

None of the growth in the CIA's domestic work has required changes in law. Under Executive Order 12333, signed by President Ronald Reagan, the CIA is permitted to secretly collect "significant" foreign intelligence within the United States if the collection effort is not aimed at the domestic activities of U.S. citizens and corporations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...rations/7e62ab9b-8c1c-4202-b7bd-44b3fb6931c0/

The Biggest Little CIA Shop You've Never Heard Of
BY JEFF STEIN ON 11/14/13

A few years ago, an American company placed a want ad for an aerospace engineering consultant in an Asian newspaper. It quickly drew a flurry of applicants - one of whom was just the kind of person the company was looking for: someone who worked in that country's missile program, someone who was a little sleazy, someone looking to make a little cash on the side.

This was a CIA front operation, and soon that eager applicant was supplying the spy agency with details on his country's ballistic missile program.
That kind of covert activity is a specialty of the CIA's National Resources Division, a little-known, U.S.-based component of the agency's National Clandestine Service.

Today, according to knowledgeable sources, NR has offices in about a dozen cities, down from about three times that two decades ago because of cost-cutting, sources said. Naturally, they're located in places where foreign officials, military officers, scientists and students - as well as Americans who travel abroad on business - congregate, cities like New York, Boston, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit (where there's a large Arab population nearby) and Denver, which is such a hotbed of U.S. military and intelligence activity that the CIA considered moving NR there entirely in 2005. After much criticism, it stayed put.

The FBI is said to despise the CIA's domestic recruiting operations. According to a 2005 account by The Washington Post's Dana Priest, the two sides had "highly contentious" negotiations over who could do what, "with the FBI saying that it should control and approve the CIA's domestic activities.... " That wasn't going to happen, so in the end, the two sides just promised to play nice.
https://www.newsweek.com/2013/11/15/biggest-little-cia-shop-youve-never-heard-243964.html
Exactly, they can spy and arrange/recruit foreigners living in the U.S.. CIA cannot spy on U.S citizens unless those citizens become double agents. Those foreigners that come from overseas that might be spies and/or terrorists, the CIA and FBI have the authority.
 
CIA can only do operations outside of the U.S. It a big no, no to do anything domestically! CIA director go to federal penitentiary for a long, long time if he/she ordered or knew(and not stop) about a CIA domestic operation. Mostly, an independent contractor(s) would be the assigned by Homeland to take the CIA Director out!

Well, that's why they have things like MockingBird. They get around it as Bartelby or Mike Bugalov mentioned. And it's really something when they agree on a topic!

Here's an example. Anderson Cooper interned at CIA before becoming a journalist...without a degree in it. They make it sound like he was such a hero for breaking through without formal qualifications in the field. But note he is a Vanderbilt.

Do we really know he does not carry out errands for the CIA in his highly influential position at CNN? And how do we know if we know? He can always sign on the requisite declarations and simply help move the narrative to where the CIA needs it to be. It's called manufacturing consensus.

CIA doesn't only rely on hardcore espionage. Their agenda is broad and they utilize soft power adroitly.

Read Dave McGowan's Inside Laurel Canyon sometime. There was no rock scene at all in Laurel Canyon before 1966. It somehow, magically became the epicenter of the Summer of Love...with more than a little help from people with a CIA background. Yeah.
 
Well, that's why they have things like MockingBird. They get around it as Bartelby or Mike Bugalov mentioned. And it's really something when they agree on a topic!

Here's an example. Anderson Cooper interned at CIA before becoming a journalist...without a degree in it. They make it sound like he was such a hero for breaking through without formal qualifications in the field. But note he is a Vanderbilt.

Do we really know he does not carry out errands for the CIA in his highly influential position at CNN? And how do we know if we know? He can always sign on the requisite declarations and simply help move the narrative to where the CIA needs it to be. It's called manufacturing consensus.
Being an openly acknowledged intern at CIA would make Cooper a bad candidate for being a CIA asset. He received no training in his internship, and you are just engaging in random speculation based on the internship.

Here is something more plausible:

xDvbRZE.png


Murdoch, Scaife and CIA Propaganda
December 31, 2014

Special Report: The rapid expansion of America’s right-wing media began in the 1980s as the Reagan administration coordinated foreign policy initiatives with conservative media executives, including Rupert Murdoch, and then cleared away regulatory hurdles, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry

The Reagan administration pulled right-wing media executives Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife into a CIA-organized “perception management” operation which aimed Cold War-style propaganda at the American people in the 1980s, according to declassified U.S. government records.

President Reagan meets with publisher Rupert Murdoch, U.S. Information Agency Director Charles Wick, lawyer Roy Cohn and his law partner Thomas Bolan in the Oval Office on Jan. 18, 1983. (Photo credit: Reagan presidential library)

Although some records relating to Murdoch remain classified, several documents that have been released indicate that he and billionaire Scaife were considered sources of financial and other support for President Ronald Reagan’s hard-line Central American policies, including the CIA’s covert war in Nicaragua.

A driving force behind creation of Reagan’s extraordinary propaganda bureaucracy was CIA Director William Casey who dispatched one of the CIA’s top covert action specialists, Walter Raymond Jr., to the National Security Council to oversee the project. According to the documents, Murdoch was brought into the operation in 1983 when he was still an Australian citizen and his media empire was much smaller than it is today.

Charles Wick, director of the U.S. Information Agency, arranged at least two face-to-face meetings between Murdoch and Reagan, the first on Jan. 18, 1983, when the administration was lining up private financing for its propaganda campaign, according to records at the Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley, California. That meeting also included lawyer and political operative Roy Cohn and his law partner Thomas Bolan.

The Oval Office meeting between Reagan and Murdoch came just five days after NSC Advisor William Clark noted in a Jan. 13, 1983 memo to Reagan the need for non-governmental money to advance the project. “We will develop a scenario for obtaining private funding,” Clark wrote, as cited in an unpublished draft chapter of the congressional Iran-Contra investigation.

Clark then told the President that “Charlie Wick has offered to take the lead. We may have to call on you to meet with a group of potential donors.”

The documents suggest that Murdoch was soon viewed as a source for that funding. In an Aug. 9, 1983 memo summing up the results of a Casey-organized meeting with five leading ad executives regarding how to “sell” Reagan’s aggressive policies in Central America, Raymond referred to Murdoch as if he already were helping out.
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/31/murdoch-scaife-and-cia-propaganda/

How Roy Cohn Helped Rupert Murdoch
June 19, 2016
Save

From the Archive: The Washington Post’s takeout on Donald Trump’s ties to notorious McCarthyite Roy Cohn mentioned Cohn’s links to Ronald Reagan and Rupert Murdoch, but there is much more to that, reported Robert Parry in 2015.
By Robert Parry (Originally published Jan. 28, 2015)

Rupert Murdoch, the global media mogul who is now a kingmaker in American politics, was brought into those power circles by the infamous lawyer/activist Roy Cohn who arranged Murdoch’s first Oval Office meeting with President Ronald Reagan in 1983, according to documents released by Reagan’s presidential library.

“I had one interest when Tom [Bolan] and I first brought Rupert Murdoch and Governor Reagan together and that was that at least one major publisher in this country would become and remain pro-Reagan,” Cohn wrote in a Jan. 27, 1983 letter to senior White House aides Edwin Meese, James Baker and Michael Deaver. “Mr. Murdoch has performed to the limit up through and including today.”

V7lsfsU.png

President Reagan meets with publisher Rupert Murdoch, U.S. Information Agency Director Charles Wick, lawyers Roy Cohn and Thomas Bolan in the Oval Office on Jan. 18, 1983. (Photo credit: Reagan presidential library)

The letter noted that Murdoch then owned the “New York Post over one million, third largest and largest afternoon; New York Magazine; Village Voice; San Antonio Express; Houston Ring papers; and now the Boston Herald; and internationally influential London Times, etc.” Cohn sent the letter nine days after Murdoch met Reagan in the Oval Office along with Cohn, his legal partner Thomas Bolan, and U.S. Information Agency Director Charles Wick.

In a photograph of the Jan. 18, 1983 meeting, Cohn is shown standing and leaning toward Reagan who is seated next to Murdoch. Following that meeting, Murdoch became involved in a privately funded propaganda project to help sell Reagan’s hard-line Central American policies, according to other documents. That PR operation was overseen by senior CIA propaganda specialist Walter Raymond Jr. and CIA Director William Casey.

At my request, the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, released a batch of documents about Roy Cohn’s contacts with the Reagan White House. Most of the documents revealed a warm personal relationship between Cohn and Reagan, with exchanges of effusive compliments, handwritten thank-you notes and birthday greetings.

Murdoch’s Rise
Meanwhile, with the close ties to the Reagan White House that Cohn helped nurture, Murdoch’s media empire continued to grow. To meet a regulatory requirement that U.S. TV stations must be owned by Americans, Murdoch became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1985.

Murdoch benefited from the Reagan administration’s relaxation of media ownership rules which enabled him to buy more TV stations, which he then molded into the Fox Broadcasting Company, which was founded on Oct. 9, 1986.

In 1987, the “Fairness Doctrine,” which required political balance in broadcasting, was eliminated, which let Murdoch pioneer a more aggressive conservatism on his TV network. In the mid-1990s, Murdoch expanded his political reach by founding the neoconservative Weekly Standard in 1995 and Fox News on cable in 1996. At Fox News, Murdoch hired scores of prominent politicians, mostly Republicans, putting them on his payroll as commentators.

Last decade, Murdoch continued to expand his reach into U.S. mass media, acquiring DirecTV and the financial news giant Dow Jones, including The Wall Street Journal, America’s leading business news journal.

Murdoch parlayed his extraordinary media power into the ability to make or break political leaders, especially in the United States and the United Kingdom. In December 2014, the UK’s Independent reported that Ed Richards, the retiring head of the British media regulatory agency Ofcom, accused British government representatives of showing favoritism to Murdoch’s companies.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/19/how-roy-cohn-helped-rupert-murdoch-2/
 
Last edited:
Well, that's why they have things like MockingBird. They get around it as Bartelby or Mike Bugalov mentioned. And it's really something when they agree on a topic!
The is some truth to this. I knew a guy who worked with Tom Braden in Paris.

Worldwide Propaganda Network Built by the C.I.A.
Dec. 26, 1977

Although the network was known officially as the “Propaganda Assets Inventory,” to those inside the C.I.A. it was “Wisner's Wurlitzer.” Frank G. Wisner, who is now dead, was the first chief of the agency's covert action staff.

Almost at the push of a button, or so Mr. Wisner liked to think, the “Wur‐1 litzer” became the means for orches‐1 tracing, in almost any language anywhere in the world, whatever tune the C.I.A.; was in a mood to hear.

Much of the Wurlitzer is now dismantled. Disclosures in 1967 of some of the C.I.A.'s financial ties to academic, cultural and publishing organizations resulted in some cutbacks, and more recent disclosures of the agency's employment of American and foreign journalists have led to a phasing out of relationships with many of the individuals and news organizations overseas.

A smaller network of foreign journalists remains, and some undercover C.I.A. men may still roam the world, disguised as correspondents for obscure trade journals or business newsletters.

The C.I.A.'s propaganda operation was first headed by Tom Braden, who is now a syndicated columnist, and was run for many years by Cord Meyer Jr., a popular campus leader at Yale before he joined. the C.I.A.

Mr. Braden said in an interview that he had never really been sure that “there was anybody in charge” of the operation and that “Frank Wisner kind of handled it off the top of his head.” Mr. Meyer declined to talk about the operation.

However, several other former C.I.A. officers said that, while the agency was wary of telling its American journalistagents what to write, it never hesitated to manipulate the output of its foreignbased “assets.” Among those were number of English‐language publications read regularly by American correspondents abroad and by reporters and editors in the United States.

Most of the former officers said they had been concerned about but helpless to avoid the potential “blow‐back'—the possibility that the C.I.A. propaganda filtered through these assets, some of it purposely misleading or downright false,’ might be picked up by American reporters overseas and included in their dispatches to their publications at home.

The thread that linked the C.I.A. and its propaganda assets was money, and the money frequently bought a measure of editorial control, often complete control. In some instances the C.I.A. simply created a newspaper or news service and paid the bills through a bogus corporation. In other instances, directly or indirectly, the agency supplied capital to an entrepreneur or appeared at the right moment to bail out a financially troubled organization.
https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/...ork-built-by-the-cia-a-worldwide-network.html
 
I posted this in the "Lets talk some Art, who else love classic paintings?" thread.

Revealed: how the spy agency used unwitting artists such as Pollock and de Kooning in a cultural Cold War

For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art - including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko - as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince - except that it acted secretly - the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.

The connection is improbable. This was a period, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the great majority of Americans disliked or even despised modern art - President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: "If that's art, then I'm a Hottentot." As for the artists themselves, many were ex- communists barely acceptable in the America of the McCarthyite era, and certainly not the sort of people normally likely to receive US government backing.

Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete.


The existence of this policy, rumoured and disputed for many years, has now been confirmed for the first time by former CIA officials. Unknown to the artists, the new American art was secretly promoted under a policy known as the "long leash" - arrangements similar in some ways to the indirect CIA backing of the journal Encounter, edited by Stephen Spender.

The decision to include culture and art in the US Cold War arsenal was taken as soon as the CIA was founded in 1947. Dismayed at the appeal communism still had for many intellectuals and artists in the West, the new agency set up a division, the Propaganda Assets Inventory, which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organisations. They joked that it was like a Wurlitzer jukebox: when the CIA pushed a button it could hear whatever tune it wanted playing across the world.

The next key step came in 1950, when the International Organisations Division (IOD) was set up under Tom Braden. It was this office which subsidised the animated version of George Orwell's Animal Farm, which sponsored American jazz artists, opera recitals, the Boston Symphony Orchestra's international touring programme. Its agents were placed in the film industry, in publishing houses, even as travel writers for the celebrated Fodor guides. And, we now know, it promoted America's anarchic avant-garde movement, Abstract Expressionism.

Initially, more open attempts were made to support the new American art. In 1947 the State Department organised and paid for a touring international exhibition entitled "Advancing American Art", with the aim of rebutting Soviet suggestions that America was a cultural desert. But the show caused outrage at home, prompting Truman to make his Hottentot remark and one bitter congressman to declare: "I am just a dumb American who pays taxes for this kind of trash." The tour had to be cancelled.

The US government now faced a dilemma. This philistinism, combined with Joseph McCarthy's hysterical denunciations of all that was avant-garde or unorthodox, was deeply embarrassing. It discredited the idea that America was a sophisticated, culturally rich democracy. It also prevented the US government from consolidating the shift in cultural supremacy from Paris to New York since the 1930s. To resolve this dilemma, the CIA was brought in.

The connection is not quite as odd as it might appear. At this time the new agency, staffed mainly by Yale and Harvard graduates, many of whom collected art and wrote novels in their spare time, was a haven of liberalism when compared with a political world dominated by McCarthy or with J Edgar Hoover's FBI. If any official institution was in a position to celebrate the collection of Leninists, Trotskyites and heavy drinkers that made up the New York School, it was the CIA.

Until now there has been no first-hand evidence to prove that this connection was made, but for the first time a former case officer, Donald Jameson, has broken the silence. Yes, he says, the agency saw Abstract Expressionism as an opportunity, and yes, it ran with it.

"Regarding Abstract Expressionism, I'd love to be able to say that the CIA invented it just to see what happens in New York and downtown SoHo tomorrow!" he joked. "But I think that what we did really was to recognise the difference. It was recognised that Abstract Expression- ism was the kind of art that made Socialist Realism look even more stylised and more rigid and confined than it was. And that relationship was exploited in some of the exhibitions.

"In a way our understanding was helped because Moscow in those days was very vicious in its denunciation of any kind of non-conformity to its own very rigid patterns. And so one could quite adequately and accurately reason that anything they criticised that much and that heavy- handedly was worth support one way or another."

To pursue its underground interest in America's lefty avant-garde, the CIA had to be sure its patronage could not be discovered. "Matters of this sort could only have been done at two or three removes," Mr Jameson explained, "so that there wouldn't be any question of having to clear Jackson Pollock, for example, or do anything that would involve these people in the organisation. And it couldn't have been any closer, because most of them were people who had very little respect for the government, in particular, and certainly none for the CIA. If you had to use people who considered themselves one way or another to be closer to Moscow than to Washington, well, so much the better perhaps."

This was the "long leash". The centrepiece of the CIA campaign became the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a vast jamboree of intellectuals, writers, historians, poets, and artists which was set up with CIA funds in 1950 and run by a CIA agent. It was the beach-head from which culture could be defended against the attacks of Moscow and its "fellow travellers" in the West. At its height, it had offices in 35 countries and published more than two dozen magazines, including Encounter.

The Congress for Cultural Freedom also gave the CIA the ideal front to promote its covert interest in Abstract Expressionism. It would be the official sponsor of touring exhibitions; its magazines would provide useful platforms for critics favourable to the new American painting; and no one, the artists included, would be any the wiser.

This organisation put together several exhibitions of Abstract Expressionism during the 1950s. One of the most significant, "The New American Painting", visited every big European city in 1958-59. Other influential shows included "Modern Art in the United States" (1955) and "Masterpieces of the Twentieth Century" (1952).

Because Abstract Expressionism was expensive to move around and exhibit, millionaires and museums were called into play. Pre-eminent among these was Nelson Rockefeller, whose mother had co-founded the Museum of Modern Art in New York. As president of what he called "Mummy's museum", Rockefeller was one of the biggest backers of Abstract Expressionism (which he called "free enterprise painting"). His museum was contracted to the Congress for Cultural Freedom to organise and curate most of its important art shows.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html
 
Last edited:
Continued:

The museum was also linked to the CIA by several other bridges. William Paley, the president of CBS broadcasting and a founding father of the CIA, sat on the members' board of the museum's International Programme. John Hay Whitney, who had served in the agency's wartime predecessor, the OSS, was its chairman. And Tom Braden, first chief of the CIA's International Organisations Division, was executive secretary of the museum in 1949.

Now in his eighties, Mr Braden lives in Woodbridge, Virginia, in a house packed with Abstract Expressionist works and guarded by enormous Alsatians. He explained the purpose of the IOD.

"We wanted to unite all the people who were writers, who were musicians, who were artists, to demonstrate that the West and the United States was devoted to freedom of expression and to intellectual achievement, without any rigid barriers as to what you must write, and what you must say, and what you must do, and what you must paint, which was what was going on in the Soviet Union. I think it was the most important division that the agency had, and I think that it played an enormous role in the Cold War."

He confirmed that his division had acted secretly because of the public hostility to the avant-garde: "It was very difficult to get Congress to go along with some of the things we wanted to do - send art abroad, send symphonies abroad, publish magazines abroad. That's one of the reasons it had to be done covertly. It had to be a secret. In order to encourage openness we had to be secret."

If this meant playing pope to this century's Michelangelos, well, all the better: "It takes a pope or somebody with a lot of money to recognise art and to support it," Mr Braden said. "And after many centuries people say, 'Oh look! the Sistine Chapel, the most beautiful creation on Earth!' It's a problem that civilisation has faced ever since the first artist and the first millionaire or pope who supported him. And yet if it hadn't been for the multi-millionaires or the popes, we wouldn't have had the art."

Would Abstract Expressionism have been the dominant art movement of the post-war years without this patronage? The answer is probably yes. Equally, it would be wrong to suggest that when you look at an Abstract Expressionist painting you are being duped by the CIA.

But look where this art ended up: in the marble halls of banks, in airports, in city halls, boardrooms and great galleries. For the Cold Warriors who promoted them, these paintings were a logo, a signature for their culture and system which they wanted to display everywhere that counted. They succeeded.

* The full story of the CIA and modern art is told in 'Hidden Hands' on Channel 4 next Sunday at 8pm. The first programme in the series is screened tonight. Frances Stonor Saunders is writing a book on the cultural Cold War.

Covert Operation
In 1958 the touring exhibition "The New American Painting", including works by Pollock, de Kooning, Motherwell and others, was on show in Paris. The Tate Gallery was keen to have it next, but could not afford to bring it over. Late in the day, an American millionaire and art lover, Julius Fleischmann, stepped in with the cash and the show was brought to London.

The money that Fleischmann provided, however, was not his but the CIA's. It came through a body called the Farfield Foundation, of which Fleischmann was president, but far from being a millionaire's charitable arm, the foundation was a secret conduit for CIA funds.

So, unknown to the Tate, the public or the artists, the exhibition was transferred to London at American taxpayers' expense to serve subtle Cold War propaganda purposes. A former CIA man, Tom Braden, described how such conduits as the Farfield Foundation were set up. "We would go to somebody in New York who was a well-known rich person and we would say, 'We want to set up a foundation.' We would tell him what we were trying to do and pledge him to secrecy, and he would say, 'Of course I'll do it,' and then you would publish a letterhead and his name would be on it and there would be a foundation. It was really a pretty simple device."

Julius Fleischmann was well placed for such a role. He sat on the board of the International Programme of the Museum of Modern Art in New York - as did several powerful figures close to the CIA.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html


Tom Braden, Who Fathered ‘Eight Is Enough,’ Dies at 92

Tom Braden, a newspaper columnist whose 1975 book about his eight children, “Eight Is Enough,” inspired the ABC television series, died at his home in Denver on Friday. He was 92.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/arts/television/06braden.html

Tom Braden was connected to CIA officers in Paris. The American television show "Eight Is Enough" was based on him.
 
Read Dave McGowan's Inside Laurel Canyon sometime. There was no rock scene at all in Laurel Canyon before 1966. It somehow, magically became the epicenter of the Summer of Love...with more than a little help from people with a CIA background. Yeah.
I just looked up this book, and it draws random and absurd conclusion by trying to connect the dots between disparate facts.

First of all, the fact that there was a military base near Laurel Canyon is irrelevant. Musicians originally moved there because it was near thei clubs and recording studios, rustic, and much cheaper than other nearby neighborhoods. The parts about Jim Morrison are laughable and factually wrong on so many levels.

If there is anything in the book that make sense to you, I'd like to hear it, because the brief excerpts I saw on the internet are delusional.
 
The museum was also linked to the CIA by several other bridges. William Paley, the president of CBS broadcasting and a founding father of the CIA,
Major General Donovan is a member of the Military Intelligence Hall of Fame. He is also known as the "Father of American Intelligence" and the "Father of Central Intelligence". "The Central Intelligence Agency regards Donovan as its founding father".

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...g-fathers-of-american-intelligence/art-1.html
 
o_O:-DMike,

I never of such stuff about the C.I.A.! The authors Tom Brady, Frances S. Saunders must have been on LSD when writing theses pieces. This is the real unintelligences for sure!
 
o_O:-DMike,

I never of such stuff about the C.I.A.! The authors Tom Brady, Frances S. Saunders must have been on LSD when writing theses pieces. This is the real unintelligences for sure!
I knew a guy who worked for Braden. It is no longer a secret operation and has been openly acknowledged by CIA officials.
 
I knew a guy who worked for Braden. It is no longer a secret operation and has been openly acknowledged by CIA officials.
I guess anything is possible in the cloak and dagger profession. This is just a joke: “Look at what is happening to James Bond 007! 007 going to be a lady in the future and they have not worked it out for future Bond character is the rumor. MI6 will never be the same!”
 
Last edited:
I just looked up this book, and it draws random and absurd conclusion by trying to connect the dots between disparate facts.

First of all, the fact that there was a military base near Laurel Canyon is irrelevant. Musicians originally moved there because it was near thei clubs and recording studios, rustic, and much cheaper than other nearby neighborhoods. The parts about Jim Morrison are laughable and factually wrong on so many levels.

If there is anything in the book that make sense to you, I'd like to hear it, because the brief excerpts I saw on the internet are delusional.

I don't agree with the way he connected the dots because, yes, he simply leaped to conclusions unsupported by facts. But the facts about the musicians themselves are not in dispute. I had had them verified on the internet and in most if not all cases, the CIA links were there. Whether they are tenuous or not is not the point. The point is there was too much of a coincidence in how LC came about.
 
I don't agree with the way he connected the dots because, yes, he simply leaped to conclusions unsupported by facts. But the facts about the musicians themselves are not in dispute. I had had them verified on the internet and in most if not all cases, the CIA links were there. Whether they are tenuous or not is not the point. The point is there was too much of a coincidence in how LC came about.
Why would they possibly gather these musicians in one community? To do what? What do you believe anyone gained? Do you believe that the musicians knew about this?

I dated a girl in college whose Mom lived in Laurel Canyon around this time, and she would have laughed at this book. People like Jim Morrison barely spent anytime there at all.

Heroin is a dangerous depressant and took down many musicians. No need for a big conspiracy. The human mind looks for connections and narratives to explain events, which makes it easy to sell conspiracies.

Please explain why any agency would gather musicians into one area? Please share some evidence from your research.
 
Back
Top