Drifting Northward - Page 2

On November 02 2023 21:00 RiKD wrote: Also: Speaking of the CIA: Reminder that modern art was a CIA psy-op. Former CIA officials came clean on this during the '90s, confirming that the agency used abstract art by Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning and others to promote American culture during the Cold War. The intent was to portray America as a bastion of intellectual and creative freedom. This was to rebut Soviet assertions that the U.S. was "culturally barren", and to contrast the cultural confinement of the Soviet empire, where artists had been restricted to painting Soviet realism since the 1930s. Abstract Expressionism was seen as the most free and extreme form of artistic expression - the antithesis of Soviet rigidity. Modern art therefore became a weapon in the cultural war against communism. Beginning in the 1950s, the CIA secretly funded a group called the Congress for Cultural Freedom, through which it funnelled money to international art shows, literary magazines and operated dozens of offices around the globe - all with the explicit goal of promoting American Abstract Expressionism. These efforts, coined operation "long leash", were meant to demonstrate to disaffected Soviets and European intellectuals that American painters were free to invent, and offend; unlike under tyranny, where "artists are made the slaves and tools of the state", as Eisenhower once said. Paradoxically, at the time the works of Pollock and de Kooning were not even broadly popular with the American public, and earlier, more open attempts to promote new American art by the State Department had been widely mocked. Even President Truman famously said, 'If that's art, I'm a Hottentot'', when visiting an exhibit purchased by the DOS. Because of this, and because it would have been impossible to attain support for such a project through Congress, the CIA's covert operation was necessary to push Abstract Expressionism in secret. Do you think this had a meaningful impact establishing abstract art as a legitimate movement, or would it have flourished anyway on its own merits? (CultureCritic @ twitter)

Amusing. I dont know anything about this kind of art nor do I understand it. I think America is by far the most powerful empire in history when it comes to cultural imperialism. It's been easy to subjugate Eastern Intellectuals as well. I think that's mainly because most of them were bootlickers, so cannot think for themselves and are easily manpuIated by whatever system is in charge. I don't think the CIA is really a big player here compared to hollywood. Though they are all tied together. The CIA has always had an interest in writing their own version of history into hollywood movies. Zero Dark Thirty is a good example.

The reason freedom of expression is always discussed and praised is because its something most rich people and most poor people agree on. Rich people don't want the state to interfere in their ability to buy speech. That includes buying shills, greenwashing, or w/e it is. This is something early propagandists such as Bernays pointed out, in his essay engineering consent. Yet at the same time rich people support libel laws, which are an attack on free speech. You can ruin journalists with those kinds of laws, and it happens.

On the UN charter there's this article on freedom of thought, and its considered a human right. There's basically no discussion on freedom of thought in our society, and that's basically rich people and poor people disagree on society having such a right. That's mainly because you cannot have free thought in a society where the cultural institutions are heavily influenced or controlled by capital.

You can pretty easily make people in pakistan obsessed with KFC, Coca Cola and game of thrones tho. You know the mujihadeen went on shopping mall trips when they were bought over to America by white house officials in the 1980's?

On November 02 2023 23:24 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On November 02 2023 19:39 RiKD wrote: I don't see how JP Morgan / Chase magically pulls out the staggering amount of money they have in fossil fuels and re-invest it in clean energy? How does Donald Trump back policy change? Well they are going to switch to clean energy and invest more in it in the coming decade. There was a well known leaked report a couple years ago where JP Morgan said this. What is the most likely scenario is that the fossil fuel industry will start investing more and more into plastics in the coming decades as clean energy becomes cheaper. Their new goal is to put a large chunk of it into petrochemicals and 10x the amount of plastic in the world. Presumably, this will help kill more of whatever fishes still remain in the oceans, and possibly have some negative health effects on people that eat them. So, there is a bit of an illusion that the fossil fuel industry will go out of business once their energy is too expensive. Realistically they will just keep using it make other things. It's quite simple. Everything is down to political power. So whether banks choose to invest in fossil fuels or not in the next two decades, while they still profit off them, is down to public policy, which is down to political power and whoever exerts it. Do you remember the universities divesting their investments in fossil fuels? That was less than 1% of the investments that the banks have in them, which was around a few trillion last i looked. It really boggles my mind that people aim for such small goals when it comes to divestments.

I remember that leaked report. It talked about the incoming climate change but as far as I knew they tried to cover it up and didn't touch their investments. I don't doubt that they will slowly move over to clean energy in the next decade though.

More plastic eh? Good thing I don't eat fish really.

The USA government is not going to do shit.

On November 02 2023 23:52 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On November 02 2023 21:00 RiKD wrote: Also: Speaking of the CIA: Reminder that modern art was a CIA psy-op. Former CIA officials came clean on this during the '90s, confirming that the agency used abstract art by Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning and others to promote American culture during the Cold War. The intent was to portray America as a bastion of intellectual and creative freedom. This was to rebut Soviet assertions that the U.S. was "culturally barren", and to contrast the cultural confinement of the Soviet empire, where artists had been restricted to painting Soviet realism since the 1930s. Abstract Expressionism was seen as the most free and extreme form of artistic expression - the antithesis of Soviet rigidity. Modern art therefore became a weapon in the cultural war against communism. Beginning in the 1950s, the CIA secretly funded a group called the Congress for Cultural Freedom, through which it funnelled money to international art shows, literary magazines and operated dozens of offices around the globe - all with the explicit goal of promoting American Abstract Expressionism. These efforts, coined operation "long leash", were meant to demonstrate to disaffected Soviets and European intellectuals that American painters were free to invent, and offend; unlike under tyranny, where "artists are made the slaves and tools of the state", as Eisenhower once said. Paradoxically, at the time the works of Pollock and de Kooning were not even broadly popular with the American public, and earlier, more open attempts to promote new American art by the State Department had been widely mocked. Even President Truman famously said, 'If that's art, I'm a Hottentot'', when visiting an exhibit purchased by the DOS. Because of this, and because it would have been impossible to attain support for such a project through Congress, the CIA's covert operation was necessary to push Abstract Expressionism in secret. Do you think this had a meaningful impact establishing abstract art as a legitimate movement, or would it have flourished anyway on its own merits? (CultureCritic @ twitter) Amusing. I dont know anything about this kind of art nor do I understand it. I think America is by far the most powerful empire in history when it comes to cultural imperialism. It's been easy to subjugate Eastern Intellectuals as well. I think that's mainly because most of them were bootlickers, so cannot think for themselves and are easily manpuIated by whatever system is in charge. I don't think the CIA is really a big player here compared to hollywood. Though they are all tied together. The CIA has always had an interest in writing their own version of history into hollywood movies. Zero Dark Thirty is a good example. The reason freedom of expression is always discussed and praised is because its something most rich people and most poor people agree on. Rich people don't want the state to interfere in their ability to buy speech. That includes buying shills, greenwashing, or w/e it is. This is something early propagandists such as Bernays pointed out, in his essay engineering consent. Yet at the same time rich people support libel laws, which are an attack on free speech. You can ruin journalists with those kinds of laws, and it happens. On the UN charter there's this article on freedom of thought, and its considered a human right. There's basically no discussion on freedom of thought in our society, and that's basically rich people and poor people disagree on society having such a right. That's mainly because you cannot have free thought in a society where the cultural institutions are heavily influenced or controlled by capital. You can pretty easily make people in pakistan obsessed with KFC, Coca Cola and game of thrones tho. You know the mujihadeen went on shopping mall trips when they were bought over to America by white house officials in the 1980's?

What is culture?

Meaning are cultural institutions controlled by capital, KFC, Coca Cola, GoT, etc. culture?

Baudrillard has a good bit in America where he talks about how America has no culture from the (understandably) barren deserts up to the (perhaps surprisingly) barren New York City. MoMA is not culture. Coca Cola is not culture. CIA controlled Hollywood / American cinema is what we got? What is culture?

Yes, most of our culture is controlled by capitalists. The media is privitized and most of it is owned and controlled by capitalist overlords like bezos and musk and holywood producers and rupert murdoch, the tech industry, and the other major networks. Universities are heavily influenced by research grants and private endowments but they arn't really directly controlled the same way the media is. It is extremely easy to control how people think. If you want people to be climate deniers, make that the news. Or if you want people to complain about shopping mall thefts, make that the news. Just look to Blackjack for a good example of the power that cultural control can have over someone. If you get someone to care about pronouns more than, idk, the fact that their income is 50% less than what it could be, is an extreme demonstration of power that is only rivaled by Jedi mind tricks.

Murdoch recently retired and apparently there is a pretty noticeable difference in the news that his network produces now. So apparently, it really is not that much different from a tyranny in some cases. I've always thought that Murdoch's existence proves that Australia undermines American democracy more than the other way around lol.

If Baudrillard said then maybe he should actually use the definition of what culture is as given by anthropologists. It's impossible for any civilization to not have a culture. The languages people speak are a good approximation for defining a given culture imo. Maybe he meant it in the sense that he doesn't like American culture. In which case maybe he should talk literally and stop confusing people. Culture is whatever anthropoligists define it to be. And you can look that definition up.

For some reason culture is a word with positive connotations, like its a good thing. But it shouldn't mean that. It's just a description of a set of views, norms, morals, and so on that a group or society accepts. Those morals can be good or bad. Those beleifs can be stupid or smart. Why does culture have positive connotations to people, particularly when most cultures have at least a few views that are barbaric? (to me at least)

I shan't add anything to that!

We need something else to talk about.

It is a little strange being on vacation when everyone is working during the day. I read and I go for walks but that is a lot of reading and walking and when I am with my siblings it feels different. They all have their own lives now with kids. In general, I feel a bit out of place. It's not like I have a great life and surplus of friends to go home to either. It does not make me want to have kids though. Nope. I am growing tired of Baudrillard too. Everything is the hyper-real, the simulation, a paradox. I'm just growing tired of it is all. I'm growing tired of this vacation.

Going out for sushi with the fam tonight though! The day is redeemed.......

or my expectations of a great time will fall short and I will be cold and grey. I just want to be charming and funny. Oh well, after another walk I think I am re-charged for some more Baudrillard.