Finks: How the CIA Tricked the World's Best Writers

by Joel Whitney

When news broke that the CIA had colluded with literary magazines to produce cultural propaganda throughout the Cold War, a debate began that has never been resolved. The story continues to unfold, with the reputations of some of America’s best-loved literary figures—including Peter Matthiessen, George Plimpton, and Richard Wright—tarnished as their work for the intelligence agency has come to light.

Finks is a tale of two CIAs, and how they blurred the line between propaganda and literature. One CIA created literary magazines that promoted American and European writers and cultural freedom, while the other toppled governments, using assassination and censorship as political tools. Defenders of the “cultural” CIA argue that it should have been lauded for boosting interest in the arts and freedom of thought, but the two CIAs had the same undercover goals, and shared many of the same methods: deception, subterfuge and intimidation.

Finks demonstrates how the good-versus-bad CIA is a false divide, and that the cultural Cold Warriors again and again used anti-Communism as a lever to spy relentlessly on leftists, and indeed writers of all political inclinations, and thereby pushed U.S. democracy a little closer to the Soviet model of the surveillance state.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, American History, Espionage, Literature, Art

348 pages, Paperback

First published January 10, 2017

About the author

Joel Whitney is the author of Finks: How the CIA Tricked the World’s Best Writers (OR Books) and a cofounder of Guernica: A Magazine of Art & Politics, for which he is a recipient of the 2017 PEN/Nora Magid award for magazine editing. Finks has been called "riveting" (Kirkus), "ingeniously researched..." (Pankaj Mishra in The Guardian's Best of the Year Roundup), “a fascinating mix of political history [and] literary history” (New York Times), “an essential book” (Los Angeles Review of Books) and “a powerful warning” (The New Republic). His essays in Dissent and Salon were Notables in Best American Essays 2015 and 2013. Other work has appeared in The New York Times, The New Republic and The Paris Review. More here: joelwhitney.net.

Reviews

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book on how the CIA was running Paris Review (in part via third-party funding) and other "culture" magazines like Encounter, most of them more directly, as a string of polo ponies to push forward the idea of American culture as a counterweight to Soviet culture (and the Soviets pointing out things such as racism).

Those on the take, as far as individuals included George Plimpton (known today by a fair number) and Peter Matthiessen (known by fewer). Whitney shows just how defensive Matthiessen was about this, claiming the CIA wasn't that bad back then, and citing his later support for American Indians as exculpation.

Beyond that, the CIA's "if you're not for us, you're against us" was applied to non-communist socialist writers like Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Mario Vargas Llosa. And, used to hound and spy on Papa Hemingway.

Must read, with the additional irony that Whitley has had poetry published in Paris Review!

[Elizabeth Burton · Rating 4 out of 5]

These days, as the corporate media and, sadly, a fair share of the independent media are behaving as if the allegations of Russian state interference in the 2016 presidential elections are established fact (they aren't), suggesting otherwise can earn the lone voice in the propaganda wilderness the label of Trump follower, Russian stooge, conspiracy nut or all of the above. I have literally had people who are shocked that I refuse to accept the word of that great patriotic organization the Central Intelligence Agency.

I was already aware of the CIA's dirty fingers stirring the literary pot, not to mention journalism, film and TV. What this well-researched history provides is an in-depth review of one aspect of their meddling—their support in the creation of The Paris Review and its sister publications worldwide under the aegis of the Congress for Cultural Freedom.

Once one accepts the premise that anything we see or hear in the media or on our screens may have as its underlying agenda the propagation of the message the government—or whichever agency feels the need to tweak the national mindset—wants us to embrace, it's all but impossible not to see how the sausage is made. Indeed, sometimes, as with the CBS-TV series Salvation, the presentation is so ham-handed any decent writer would refuse to have their name attached.

There is a belief among us in the United States that the CIA was, until last year, prohibited from acting within the country's boundaries. Mr. Whitney, however, notes that in fact the act of Congress that established the CIA never actually put that prohibition in writing. It was nothing more than a "gentlemen's agreement." Of course, anyone able to apply the term "gentlemen" to the CIA is in serious need of therapy.

Another myth dispelled in these pages is the accepted history that Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda evolved from the mujahideen armed and trained by the CIA during the Reagan administration to combat the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. In point of fact, Mr. Whitney reveals, there was a CIA-sponsored cell of "academics" in the country at least by the mid-1960s.

If you're tired of being lied to, if you're exhausted by the stress of being told there are enemies from all over the globe lurking in the shadows ready to pounce, I recommend you read this book. It won't help much with the stress, but at least you'll be looking at the right enemy.

[Lee Bob Black · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finks — The CIA’s literary charm offensive, intellectual warfare, and propaganda sh!tstorm

The CIA is no stranger to sticking it’s nose into the affairs of other countries. Assassinations. Coups. National building. You name it. But cultural propaganda in the form of poems and book reviews? Who knew?

In Joel Whitney’s Finks, apparently numerous literary powerhouses — from The Paris Review to Quest magazine (India) to Combate (Costa Rica) to Hiwar (Lebanon) and many others — had been infiltrated by spooks.

But why? To promulgate anti-communist sentiment? To uphold American values? To help win the Cold War? To each of these questions, it seems the answer was a resounding yes, at least in the beginning. In the end, it didn’t take long for it all to go off the rails, civil rights be damned.

In my opinion, one particularly cogent quote will prepare a reader for the broad scope of this important book. Mr. Whitney writes that Finks is his “attempt to look through a keyhole into the vast engine room of the cultural Cold War, to see if this ideology—one favoring paranoid intervention into the media over adherence to democratic principle—remains with us. If so, what do we lose by accepting that our media exist, in part, to encourage support for our interventions? And if we’re ok with it during one administration, are we still ok with our tax dollars fostering the nexus of CIA contractors, military propagandists, and journalists even when the opposition runs the government?”

[Arif Abdurahman · Rating 4 out of 5]

CIA emang jagonya ngurusin negara orang: pembunuhan, kudeta dan pembentukan pemerintahan boneka. Tapi propaganda budaya dalam bentuk puisi dan review buku, siapa yg tau? Seperti judulnya, menceritakan bagaimana CIA mengelabui para sastrawan besar dunia. CCF menjadi fokus utama, dan Paris Review sebagai majalah susastera pendosa.

[Ursula · Rating 4 out of 5]

“When journalism is silenced, literature must speak. Because while journalism speaks with facts, literature speaks with truth.”
―Seno Gumira Ajidarma, Ketika Jurnalisme Dibungkam Sastra Harus Bicara

I have always believed in Ajidarma, a renowned Indonesian writer, and his conviction in literature as a means to expose concealed truth. But what happens when the line between literature and propaganda is blurred? Joel Whitney attempted to find out the answer through this book.

CIA messed up many countries through various channels, from espionage to assassination. Their operation knew no boundaries. Even the art world was never safe from their toxic tendrils, namely the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF). It started a series of operations often called the "cultural Cold War" by British journalist and historian Frances Stonor Saunders. Writers, painters, even musicians unknowingly became soldiers while their arts and words were weaponised.

I first learnt about the institution's covert cultural propaganda in Wijaya Herlambang's Kekerasan Budaya Pasca 1965: Bagaimana Orde Baru Melegitimasi Anti-Komunisme Melalui Sastra dan Film. He dissected CCF's involvement in ramping up the anti-communist campaign through literature, theatre, and films in Indonesia.

It never occurred to me that what happened in Indonesia is part of a global operation spanning over 35 countries. Whitney used the quarterly English-language literary magazine The Paris Review as his starting point. Two of the magazine's founder trio, Peter Matthiessen and George Plimpton, were secretly involved with the CIA. Later, documents revealed that the magazine was funded by one of the CIA's many fronts.

Whitney displayed the thread connecting each front, from The Paris Review targeting American readers, Encounter for those in the United Kingdom, then the Japanese Jiyuu, Mundo Nuevo for Spanish and Latin American readers, to similar publications in India and Afghanistan. We get to see how these magazines share content, ensuring they all sing the same tunes praising the United States.

Meanwhile, the editorial teams were dancing to the CIA's beat. Despite claiming to champion "freedom of speech", unlike their sworn enemy Soviets, the agents actively censored and killed drafts that didn't reflect anti-communism or criticise USA's policies. Furthermore, they blatantly ignored racism and subdued the voices of artists of colour like James Baldwin as they shone a bad light on the USA.

With the heavy censorship, one can look "from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

In uncovering the cultural war method, Whitney did his due diligence by perusing letters and documents, interviewing the people involved, and those who investigated this story years before him. It gave an air of credibility and weight to his punchy sentences.

This book is a thrilling read, although slightly confusing. Whitney occasionally switched between first and last names. Considering that he listed heaps of names in one chapter, it could get confusing. Who is George, again?

[Kit · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was shocking to read just how far the CIA's tendrils reached into the literary world, or it would have been if I'd never heard of the CIA before. Still, this is an impressive book of research. If you come into it without much of a background in the Cold War or the literary history of the twentieth century you will, like I was, be treading water to stay afloat. The index is seven pages in two columns, mostly names, the bulk of which only appear once. After a few chapters I stopped trying to keep the 'minor' people straight and just let the facts wash over me.

I came away from this book with a newfound respect for a handful of authors who resisted being roped into Cold War games, like John Berger and James Baldwin.

I doubt Joel Whitney is a communist, but whatever he is he keeps his politics out of the book and tries to cleave to the facts. That is not to say that 'Finks' is a mere record of facts. There is sympathy offered as well as judgment imposed on the various finks in these histories.

A memorable quote from the closing chapter on Afghanistan:
"The [Congress for Cultural Freedom] was comfortable with intervention; indeed, it at times appeared to treat intervention as its religion, though articulated through a seemingly apolitical theory of development called modernization[...] But if you looked at the details with some skepticism and could keep straight what the paper trail truly looked like across the constellation of archives and cover stories, modernization theory was jihad. Even if it was American Jihad."

[Matěj · Rating 3 out of 5]

The single most impressive thing about Whitney's book is the amount of research needed for this book. It is merely 270 pages of text sans notes but it is apparent that it took a lot of time. There is an interesting contradiction - at first glance Finks seems almost scholarly with up to a hundred notes per chapter but then Whitney drops words like shitstorm and snitch which seem curiously out of place in a book of this nature. Maybe I'm being too conservative but it hits you. Overall it is a good read but there are way too many names and organizations mentioned - at least include a list of rudimentary connections or something. David Simon had a short list of "main players" in his Homicide and it sure helped.

[Julia Allen · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very enlightening book. If you a) have any interest in American or international literary history, b) would like to know more about the details of Cold War American behavior, or c) still entertain warm & fuzzy feelings about the CIA, this book is a must-read.

I'm not sure I agree with the way the subtitle is worded, because clearly not all the writers involved were tricked. But some were--and it helps to know which were bamboozled and which were happily working for the CIA, doing the bamboozling.

[Ari · Rating 4 out of 5]

More than a surface level look at the nuts and bolts of a certain type of propaganda. Finks shows how prestige is built and backed, how creative writing is linked to foreign aid, war, and imperialism, all to maintain US hegemony. Lots of revolutionary names we're all familiar with, and lots of literary names we're all familiar with, but with political connections between them that I wasn't deeply aware of. What motivated me to pick it up in the first place is my experience in the creative writing MFA workshop, and the knowledge that the CIA created the Iowa Writers Program and the creative writing MFA in order to develop and bolster American literature and the Great American Novel, so I was a little disappointed that the book didn't include info about this. But there was still plenty here, and it was thorough. Sometimes the book felt academic and was harder for me to get through (which is why it took so long), but I got something out of each chapter.

[Jeannine]

Fascinating book on the ties of the CIA to The Paris Review, the world of television and movie Westerns, book prizes and the publication of Dr. Zhivago, and much more.

[Twain · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book that looks at how the CIA used the American Committee, the Congress of Cultural Freedom, and various non-profits as conduits to promote pro-American propaganda and attempt to co-opt famous writers in third world countries in their anti-communist propaganda campaign. The general premise was a mixture of intelligence agents and useful idiots (typically liberals) to censor any stories that were too un-American, and soft peddle liberal ideas to the readership and attempt to get prominent people like Pablo Neruda into their pages to help bolster their credibility.

There was a lot going on here, the magazines were in effect something of a network or syndicate where they reprinted each other’s work and imposed blanket bans on the publication of certain stories their handlers did not like. The book is centered around The Paris Review and its founders ties to the CIA and the Reviews ongoing collaboration with the CCF and its other publications. It was really a sophisticated propaganda network and its ties were eventually broken by the New York Times, causing quite a stir.

“Intellectuals debated all spring and summer over who knew that Encounter and the other CCF magazines were CIA-funded and whether they ever censored content. But they missed the more important story. The CCF had been created to fund magazines that were largely responsible for disseminating pro-American cultural creations and polemics and the fact of editorial interference, however common, was an exception, restricted largely to controversial articles that rode on the back, as it were, of masses of uncontroversial cultural pieces. But Chaos was a scheme to spy on and destroy a large, independent strain of the American free press, bluntly quashing all homespun editorial opposition and preemptively striking against embarrassing stories. The exception, in other words, became the rule. As the CIA turned twenty, it “had moved from forswearing internal security functions to assigning domestic political espionage the highest level of priority.”6 The battle over control of magazines and independent newspapers was the vehicle that got the CIA here.” (76%)

“the proposal notes that the American Committee wants to play the role of an editorial command center—a patriotic literary agency—for such CCF magazines as Preuves, Encounter, Cuadernos, Der Monat, and Forum (the CCF magazine in Austria). It also lists non-CCF magazines in the United States and overseas for whom it has performed this “clearinghouse” service, including The Twentieth Century in England, and The New Leader44, Partisan Review, and Commentary in the United States. The American Committee was essentially offering literary agency services at large, telling members that if you write pieces that fit with our broader aims of fending off critiques of the United States, and if you are a member or friend of the American Committee, we can help you get published in multiple markets. With this, the quid pro quo was revealed. For if the American Committee helped these magazines on the business side, the Committee assumed that the magazines’ editorial lines would reflect this help.” (12%)

“The article certainly touched a nerve in the halls of both the CCF on Boulevard Haussmann in Paris, and at CIA headquarters in Washington. It was a dispiriting portrayal of American ugliness, and something so critical of the morality of American soldiers could not be tolerated. We know from the clearinghouse that the main responsibility of the little magazines was to push back against anti-Americanism; here was a celebration of the worst aspects of American culture. The CCF and the CIA both ordered the editors to kill the piece. Kristol believed that because Spender had initially accepted it they would be forced to run it. He told an interviewer that he “was easily moved not to run it, since I hadn’t liked it in the first place.”4 He and Spender were told that the key funding channel, Julius Fleischmann, had said it would hurt the magazine’s funding prospects. ‘Stephen was a little more recalcitrant. But in the end we said … if it’s really going to make life that much more difficult for you, we can do without the article. …Spender, tasked with killing the essay, informed Macdonald that he had read it too quickly—and that he now felt it was one-sided and harsh—Spender added a damning fact. Nicolas Nabokov of the CCF had read it and it had made him “very upset.” This in turn upset Macdonald, who was made aware that officers of the CCF were pressuring editors on strictly editorial matters. Typically in journalism, there is a wall of separation—akin to checks and balances in government—that protects editors’ judgments from the interests of investors, advertisers, funders, donors, and in the case of public media, government bureaucrats. If buying an ad in a magazine could get the magazine to stop covering the abuses of a prospective advertiser, then it would amount to a form of buying off magazines (or newspapers, or TV, or radio) and defanging the Fourth Estate. Publishers would be like lobbyists telling their editors which advertisers were to be effectively immune from editorial scrutiny. The same would go for elected and appointed officials who could pull the plug on funding. At Encounter, the editorial protection wall was down. Aware that his piece was read “upstairs,” Macdonald suggested sarcastically that maybe every piece ought to go right to them first, in order to avoid a lag in response time. Little did he know that this was already happening. Spender later insisted that this was the only piece the CCF/CIA ever vetoed. He would also remark that he wished he’d published it anyway, so that his record at Encounter could be completely without blemishes, rather than mostly.6 Spender of course was mistaken. The record shows that Josselson at the CCF would never have allowed it. Josselson himself wrote to Macdonald to explain. “You must understand that Irving and Stephen must eat, that you must be paid for your articles, that Encounter must be able to say the things it is best qualified to say without jeopardizing its future.”7 This special pleading couldn’t be more clear. If they published pieces that government funders did not approve of, the editors might be fired, or the enterprise might be terminated. … Josselson often sent orders to editors. Citing friends of the Congress, he wrote to insist that Encounter cover the Asian conference of 1955. “It is essential that this conference be written up in Encounter. Many of our friends … have the same wish.” Josselson was known to tell his editors, “I think it is quite important that this book9 be reviewed in Encounter by one of ‘our’ people.” (27%)

[Bablu · Rating 3 out of 5]

why mao said "there is in fact no such thing as art for art's sake, art that stands above classes, art that is detached from or independent of politics" and malcolm x said "if you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing"

all the detail laid out about the cia, congress for cultural freedom, and american committee setting up a network of content providers in a lot of strategic countries to push a pro amerikan viewpoint makes a good case for reading freely and not ever being bound by the parameters of the published debate on whatever topic to form one's own opinion

has some nice inside baseball material on the publishing of the dreadful dr zhivago, che's last diary entries before his murder, hemingway during the cuban revolution etc. interesting chapter on jayaprakash narayan's try for land reform in india and some background about the latin american boom authors, the rapist neruda, and gabriel garcia marquez i didn't know before. made me interested in reading spy hunter and alt mags from the sixties and seventies more

the quality of the writing is pretty good, it flows well and is conducive to reading in one big gulp. where it's not perfect is all the focus on the biographies and personalities of the paris review founders like train, matthiesen, plimpton etc who just seem pretty run of the mill cold war hacks for the u$ intelligence establishment. mao: "in other words, reactionaries have money, and though they can produce nothing good, they can go all out and produce in quantity"

[Rick Goff · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good topic, well researched and clearly written. I am a little puzzled by the subtitle. I think I would suggest “How the CIA Has Applied Money and Collusion to To Influence Public Opinion, Especially Among Intellectuals”. Too long, right? I’m just saying that most of the writers and editors discussed in these pages were collaborators rather than dupes.

[Hal Schrieve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Glanced at this at the used bookstore in my neighborhood and then was quickly absorbed--while not a comprehensive history of CIA operations in the mid-century period, this is an effective sketch-- complete with interviews of some of the figures involved-- of what has been revealed, over decades, of the secretive world of CIA cultural propaganda, shell organizations funding literary ventures, copyright-violating translations of dissidents, and editor moles who sat on boards, worked in newsrooms, and generally made sure that the US company line was toed by intellectuals. Whitney focuses in on a few areas: the creation of the Paris Review with definite CIA ownership and ongoing denial of/questions about its continued influence there, the production of translations of Soviet dissident literature in English to advance an anticommunist agenda, even without the permission of the authors (like Pasternak) concerned, and without regard for their safety, the selection/encouragement of anticommunist "left" voices, and the reaction when authors seen as mouthpieces broke the standard line. Then there's: Arabic-language magazines, magazines about "east" meeting "west", like Encounter, CIA attempts to depoliticize American literature with projects like the Iowa Writers Workshop. Racial discourse as a blind spot of CIA cultural publications is focused on, with WEB DuBois, Richard Wright, and Baldwin at the center; Baldwin's rebellion against his CIA-collaborator editor Sol Stein's attempt to control him is one chapter. Che Guevara and his assassination, in the wake of fruit company massacres and indigenous/working class uprisings, is a chapter. The larger picture of regime change generally hovers in the background, but references abound throughout. The CIA propaganda wing, meanwhile, is given massive amounts of money to hand out with no oversight to organizations that the CIA's directors believe will serve american ends.

What comes across is that most of these guys are Yale guys, most of them don't care about the wellbeing of their allies, and they're all bumbling idiots whose actions have world-defining consequences that they're never forced to recognize. They set things in motion without having the foresight or understanding to see the end game. What's frustrating is that the Soviet side seems just as inept, though with less secretive power. It would have been so easy for them to have the upper hand, but denial of Stalin's massacres and excesses makes this a story of one empire of outsize evil facing off against a corrupt Communist bloc increasingly losing the moral authority and trust of its denizens as the global South paid the price for everyone's stupidity in rivers of blood.

Towards the end of the book, the view broadens to briefly include information about the CIA's support for Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan.

[Douglas Kim · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Cold War was filled with coups, assassinations and attempted assassinations, payments to dictators assisting with genocidal actions or kickbacks for being friendly to the United States. But while the CIA was operating all over the world, it still valued the other side of the Cold War, winning over the left's hearts and minds, and creating an anti-communist left ideology in order to do so.

The early days of the CIA were dominated by people who came from Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Whitney tells of a professor at Yale for literature that actively recruited from his students for the CIA. Most people's conceptions of the CIA probably go back to the more military action that I described, but in actuality, it was comprised of many of the academic elite, connected to investment banks and corporate law, but also with the prestige of literary academia. With that in mind, it was easy for the CIA to control the cultural landscape of America, since they controlled the tastemakers at the top, and to spin any narrative how they wanted, by promising prestige and money for going along and banishment, prison or worse, for not. (Hemingway committed suicide suspecting FBI surveillance when he returned to America)

Whitney makes the Paris Review the focal point of his case study of the CIA, one of the CIA's former publication fronts in Europe, many of which began right in the beginning of the post-war era. The Paris Review had access to not only academics, but world famous writers, including having interviewed Ernest Hemingway in his home in Cuba during the Cuban Revolution. From the Paris Review and other publications, the CIA shaped the entire cultural and literary discourse of the 1950s-1970s, from influencing Nobel Prize decisions to quickly getting Soviet writer's Pasternak's Dr. Zhivago published riddled with mistakes to release anti-Soviet propaganda.

I would say this is up there in important revelations about the CIA as the Jakarta Method. While probably not as dramatic as the Indonesian genocide, the way America's Nazism manifests is much more complex than Germany's, as they clearly learned from their mistakes and knew how to manipulate the left with fake empathy and obfuscated ideals.

[Stftrns · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sebuah buku yang akhirnya dapat membuka mata kita semua bahwa apa yang selama ini dianggap apolitis namun sebenarnya memegang andil penuh dalam politik dunia. Sebut saja beberapa penulis terkenal seperti Gabriel Marquez, Ernest Hemingway, dan Pablo Neruda yang hidup dan karyanya dijadikan sebagai jejak propaganda Amerika Serikat yang dimuat dalam beberapa majalah terbitan CCF di berbagai belahan dunia. Rupanya, sastra ikut andil dalam propaganda Amerika Serikat melalui jaringan CIA dengan cara mengelabui para sastrawan terkenal dunia. Lantas, sebuah pertanyaan kembali muncul, "Apakah kemerdekaan bisa diraih jika pemikiran suatu bangsa masih terus dijajah?". Belum lagi dengan standar sastra yang dipaksakan. Kenapa sastra yang dianggap "baik" adalah yang berkiblat di Barat? Mengapa bukan sebaliknya? Kelicikan dan kepicikan Amerika terangkum jelas di dalam buku ini. Maka, hanya dengan cara membaca bukunya kita dapat mengetahui kebenarannya.

tapi sastra bukan sekadar kedok; sastra adalah senjata itu sendiri. Kebutuhan akan propaganda budaya Perang Dingin yang penuh gairah - kurang lebih seperti kajian Amerika di kancah Internasional - muncul sebagai reaksi atas program budaya soviet pasca Perang Dunia II di Eropa Barat
— Finks, Halaman 45

[Ron S · Rating 2 out of 5]

A fascinating "say it ain't so, Joe!" (say it ain't so Peter M, and George P?) story about CIA involvement with the cultural Cold War. My quibbles with the book were perfectly articulated in a review by Publishers Weekly that I'll quote here: "The book's subject matter is fascinating and complex, but Whitney's writing is dry and unengaging; what might work for a lecture comes across as dispassionate, even dull, in print. Teasing apart the myriad lists of magazines and personalities grows tedious after a while, but for those willing to slog through, a rich tapestry of material awaits."

It's difficult accepting that one's literary heroes have feet of clay, but my high regard for Matthiessen's books remains undiminished, as does my respect for Plimpton's place in the New Journalism.

[Metin Celâl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Joel Whitney “CIA Dünya'nın En İyi Yazarlarını Nasıl Kandırdı?” adlı kitabında dünyanın en prestijli edebiyat dergilerinden The Paris Review’in kuruluşunu ve daha sonraki yıllardaki yayınlarını ve yayıncılarının faaliyetlerini araştırarak CIA’in kültür ve edebiyat dergilerini kullanarak neler yaptığını anlatıyor. Sadece Peter Matthiessen’in değil, diğer ortak George Plimpton’ın CIA ilişkisini tespit etmiş. Üç ıortaktan ikisi CIA ile bağlantılı ve diğer ortak Harold L. Humes durumu ancak yıllar sonra anlıyor.
Joel Whitney işin sadece finansal destekle, “kültürel propaganda” yapmakla sınırlı kalmadığını, siyasi niteliği olduğunu, hükümetleri devirmek, darbeler yapmak için de kullanıldığını, bazı yazar ve yayıncıların birer CIA ajanı gibi yetiştirildiğini ortaya koyuyor. Amerika'nın ve Dünya’nın en sevilen edebiyatçılarından bazılarının istihbarat teşkilatı için bilerek ya da bilmeyerek çalıştıklarını kanıtlarıyla, çarpıcı örneklerle belgeliyor. Bilerek çalışanlar bunun bir vatan hizmeti olduğunu düşünenler ya da Amerikan yanlısı ve anti-komünist olduklarında üne ve büyük paraya kavuşacaklarını anlayanlar.
Bu işler CIA tarafından kurulan Kültürel Özgürlük Kongresi'nin (CCF) aracılığıyla yapıyormuş. Dünyanın her yerindeki edebiyat dergilerine gizlice, zenginleri, ünlü vakıfları, fonları kullanarak dolaylı yollardan sponsor olup finansal destek sağlamışlar. Kendilerine bağımlı hale getirdikleri dergileri CIA’dan aldığı direktiflerle kendi politikaları için kullanan, denetleyen, hatta bazı yazıları sansürleyen, yayınını engelleyen Kültürel Özgürlük Kongresi (CCF), 26 Haziran 1950'de Batı Berlin'de kurulmuş. Anti-komünist bir kültür örgütü olarak otuz beş ülkede faaliyet gösteriyormuş. Çeşitli sanat dallarında faaliyetler ve desteklediği dergilerin yanında çeşitli ülkelerde ve farklı dillerde yirmiden fazla dergi yayınlıyormuş. 1966'da CIA'nın örgütün yönetiminde ve finansmanında etkili olduğu ortaya çıkmış.
Desteklenen dergiler arasında belki bizim için en ünlüsü The Paris Review ama çok bilinen Encounter, Partisan Review gibi birçok dergi var. Listede ünlü Sur dergisini de görüyorsunuz. Bu dergileri çıkaranlar çeşitli fonlardan ya da vakıflardan aldıkları desteklerin esas kaynağının CIA olduğunu bilmiyormuş çoğu zaman. Ama özellikle önemli dergilerde mutlaka istihbarat örgütü ile bağlantılı bir editör bulunuyormuş.
Boris Pasternak’ın ikna edilip Doktor Jivago romanının Sovyetler’den çıkarılıp yayınlanması, Pasternak’ın Nobel Edebiyat Ödülünü alması için kulis çalışmaları yapılması gibi operasyonların yanında Pablo Neruda gibi Nobel adayı olan muhaliflerin ödülü alamaması için karalama kampanyaları da düzenlenmiş. Muhalif yazarların eserlerini yayınlatamaması, telif gelirleri elde edememesi, fonlardan, vakıflardan destek alamaması için de çalışılmış.
CIA'in "bizden yana değilseniz bize karşısınız" politikası ile Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Mario Vargas Llosa ve Ernest Hemingway gibi yazarları takip edip bunaltırken bir yandan da bu dergilerin itibar kazanması için onlardan eserler alınıp yayınlanmaktan da çekinilmemiş. Toplumcu bakış açısında olan ama Sovyetler Birliği’ni eleştiren dergi, kuruluş ve yazarlar da desteklenmiş. Dünyanın en itibarlı yazar örgütlerinden PEN’e de sızılmış. Arthur Miller’in başkan seçilmesini sağlamak için çalışılmış. John Berger’in ilk romanının satıştan çekilmesinin sağlanması, James Baldwin ve Asturias gibi büyük yazarlarla kurulan ve değişen ilişkiler de ilginç.
Guetemala gibi Latin Amerika ülkelerinde darbelerin tezgahlanması, darbeleri ve darbecileri destekleyen yayınlar yapılmasında bu dergi ve yayınlarda yönetici olan birçok yazar ve yayıncının da görev aldığı anlaşılıyor. Vietnam savaşına karşı çıkanlar ve Küba’yı destekleyen tüm yazarlar en büyük hedeflerden biri olmuş. Joel Whitney, Che Guevara’nın Bolivya’da öldürülmesi ve ölümünün ardından bulunan günlüğünün CIA destekli yayınevlerinden çarpıtılarak yayınlanması amacıyla bu yazar ve yayıncıların nasıl çalıştığını da anlatıyor. Dünyanın en büyük yayınevlerinde de CIA bağlantılı editörler, çalışanlar var. Joel Whitney sanıldığı gibi 70’li yıllarda bu örgütlerin ve dergilerin çalışmalarının bitmediğini, son bir örnek olarak Afganistan’da da görevlerine devam ettiklerinin belgelerini sunuyor.
Joel Whitney’in “CIA Dünya'nın En İyi Yazarlarını Nasıl Kandırdı?” (Turkuvaz Kitap, 2024) adlı kitabını okurken CIA’nin ve Kültürel Özgürlük Kongresi'nin (CCF) özellikle 50’li, 60’lı yıllarda Türkiye’de nasıl bir faaliyet yürüttüğünü hangi kültürel ve sanatsal girişimleri, hangi yazarları, dergi ve yayınevlerini fonlar ve burslarla, kitap satın almalarla desteklediğini merak etmemek elde değil.

[Dayna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thoroughly researched & paced like a good novel, Finks is a book you will not want to put down. Mr. Whitney did an impressive job of fitting together what may have once seemed unrelated pieces and showed that controlling the world's perception of other nations' culture can be as great a threat as traditional weapons of war. It also seemed to suggest that writers seeking publication & good PR should toady up to the CIA; what's their commission?

[Matthew Meade · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an absolutely fascinating look at the ways in which the CIA has infiltrated literary communities, created literary magazines, stifled speech and signal boosted books that were useful for the Empire.

This book certainly stands on the shoulders of the giant that preceded it, Frances Stonor Saunders (Who Paid the Piper / The Cultural Cold War), but Finks is a nice summation of Saunders' work and is a great introduction to the history of CIA propaganda efforts

[Keith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Origins of the Deep State

This is another treatment of the now-known influences of the secret efforts of organizations from a cultural approach, i.e. Literature and publishing. Looking at the Cold War and the U.S., it shows behavior by our government, past and present, of illegal acts in the name of national security. It is continuing to this day.

[Fiona · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't know why I put this on my tbr but I got it from the library out of curiosity and it really seems like a non-event despite the author's attempts to make it sound scandalous. The CIA engaged in propaganda and subterfuge is just business as usual, isn't it? The writing's not atrocious but DNF because the print is far too small and there's nothing to see here, folks.

[Matthew Webber · Rating 5 out of 5]

Liberals need to read this history. So do radicals, communists and socialists. The CIA/western intelligences penetration into the left/progressive forces is on going. This book does a great deal to uncover the extent of soft power anti-communism's history amoung leftist writers and thinkers.

[مجید اسطیری · Rating 5 out of 5]

از بس کتاب فوق العاده ای بود نمیدانم چطور درباره اش بنویسم.
یک پژوهش مفصل است درباره تلاش های کنگره آزادی فرهنگی وابسته به سازمان سیا ، برای جذب، خریدن یا متمایل کردن نویسندگان بزرگ جهان
کتاب با مقدمه خواندنی نویسنده برای ترجمه فارسی آغاز میشود و با اشارات جالبش درباره چگونگی کودتا علیه مصدق
سپس ایده اصلی کتاب مطرح میشود: فرهنگ به مثابه سلاح
ایالات متحده از جنگ سرد به این سو همیشه از فرهنگ به مثابه سلاح استفاده کرده حتی هنگام ترویج هنر انتزاعی
"فرهنگ به مثابه سلاح: سازمان سیا بود که گروه ارکستر سمفونی بوستون را عازم اولین تور اروپایی اش کرد و به صورت مخفیانه از اولین نمایشگاه اروپایی اکسپرسیونیسم انتزاعی حمایت کرد. درست مانند رویکرد غیر تاریخی نقد نو به متون، رنگ پاشیده شده در آثار جکسون پولاک هم برخلاف نقاشیهای دیواری عظیم دیگو ریورا، مناسب روایت های مارکسیست یا ضدامپریالیست نبود. اکسپرسیونیسم آمریکایی، در واقع کمپینی علیه جنبش هنری واقع گرایی اجتماعی بود."
بعد وادر ماجرا میشویم تا ببینیم چطور کنگره آزادی فرهنگی میخواست صدای اعتراض سیاهپوستان امریکا را خاموش کند، میراث ادبی پاسترناک را مصادره کند، همینگوی را وادار به ترک کوبا کند، خاطرات چگوارا را مخدوش کند، یک رمان برای سرپوش گذاشتن بر کودتای امریکا در گواتمالا سفارش بدهد و هزار و یک کار دیگر

[Ronaboyd · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whitney memberikan sebuah perspektif/data baru mengenai perang dingin pada gelanggang sastra.

[lakinyaminami · Rating 3 out of 5]

Spionase CIA melalui sastra itu nyata adanya

[Carl · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent synthesis of the pernicious history of the CIA's attempts to win the cultural cold war through creating pro-American literary magazines to supporting other institutions through 3rd party payouts to outright censorship and suppression.

Whitney chops through letters, unclassified documents and interviews to expose the agency sad record of coercion murder espionage and back dealings to win a Culture war with the Soviet Union by any means necessary. What unfolds is a tragic run towards the bottom of the moral abyss between two superpowers where innocents are used as fodder to push the soviets to react with brutal affect as well as influence peddling coercion and corruption to affect nearly every developing country to fit our "Democratic" ideals usually by backing a brutal autocrat who will once in power will kill vast numbers of those in opposition to his views.

A cogent all too necessary reminder that our government agencies will thwart any law to achieve their aims and how we must always resist.

[Mills College Library]

327.1273 W619 2016