181–190 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The title is correct: the CIA spent a significant amount of money to suppress the book. That the CIA was founded shortly after the book was published doesn't make that impossible.
1946 the book was published, 1947 the CIA was created. Complaining that is an “inaccuracy” is pedantic.
Right. So what is inaccurate in the piece? I don't see anything that contradicts this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The author of the article could have said US Intelligence Assets, and forgone the clickbait of CIA. The author makes specific claims about the exact ways that the CIA tried to suppress the novel and author. Do you dispute any of them? It's pretty rich to talk about "easily fact checked" when you don't engage at all with the factual basis for the claims your are disputing.
[flagged]
The CIA did not exist prior to its establishment in 1947, to use your nomenclature. So what is false? Everything it says the CIA did from 1947 to the 1960s is true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Since the CIA did not, in fact, exist, any claims of what the CIA tried to do are self-evidently false, and need no more rebuttal than the date the CIA came into being. The CIA did not exist prior to its establishment in 1947, to use your nomenclature. So what is false? Everything it says the CIA did from 1947 to the 1960s is true.
The claim specifically made in the article that the delay in publication from 1936 to 1946 was due to CIA action through a front group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Since the CIA did not, in fact, exist, any claims of what the CIA tried to do are self-evidently false, and need no more rebuttal than the date the CIA came into being. The CIA did not exist prior to its establishment in 1947, to use your nomenclature. So what is false? Everything it says the CIA did from 1947 to the 1960s is true.
> The CIA did not exist prior to its establishment in 1947, to use your nomenclature. So what is false? The claim specifically made in the article that the delay in publication from 1936 to 1946 was due to CIA action through a front group.
It doesn't say that anywhere in the article. You've created a conditional in your head that is found nowhere in the article.
There isn't much need to suppress novels anymore. People no longer have sufficient attention span to even finish a 5 minute video and need to be fed bite-sized shorts. No need to kill the producer, consumers have been killed.
The role of censorship that the government used to have has shifted to companies like Visa, Mastercard, Amazon, etc. If you try and sell a spicy enough book, they will make sure nobody reads it, and the government can be completely "hands-off". They can fail to process the customer's payment, remove your book from the marketplace, and ban your account. If you try to build your own marketplace, you won't be able to us…
I can believe that there are books that Amazon won't carry but I don't believe that there are books that Credit Card networks won't deal with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The author of the article could have said US Intelligence Assets, and forgone the clickbait of CIA. The author makes specific claims about the exact ways that the CIA tried to suppress the novel and author. Do you dispute any of them? It's pretty rich to talk about "easily fact checked" when you don't engage at all with the factual basis for the claims your are disputing.
[flagged]
This is false. The CIA didn't exist when the book was written, but its suppression activities of the author and its book by the CIA and its front started after the CIA was funded, and the article gives dates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Since the CIA did not, in fact, exist, any claims of what the CIA tried to do are self-evidently false, and need no more rebuttal than the date the CIA came into being. The CIA did not exist prior to its establishment in 1947, to use your nomenclature. So what is false? Everything it says the CIA did from 1947 to the 1960s is true.
> The CIA did not exist prior to its establishment in 1947, to use your nomenclature. So what is false? The claim specifically made in the article that the delay in publication from 1936 to 1946 was due to CIA action through a front group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The CIA did not exist prior to its establishment in 1947, to use your nomenclature. So what is false? The claim specifically made in the article that the delay in publication from 1936 to 1946 was due to CIA action through a front group.
> The claim specifically made in the article that the delay in publication from 1936 to 1946 was due to CIA action through a front group. It doesn't say that anywhere in the article. You've created a conditional in your head that is found nowhere in the article.
> Frank Snepp’s Decent Interval: An Insider’s Account of Saigon’s Indecent End Told by the CIA’s Chief Strategy Analyst in Vietnam, which was published in late 1977.
> At the very least Snepp had written the definitive history of the final days of the American imperium—in Vietnam anyway—in a gripping, page-turning style. The rooftop escape defined so much about the blundering American experience in Vietnam, and Snepp was the only witness to the tawdry retreat who wrote it all down as if a modern-day Xenophon, on the payroll of the CIA, retreating from the Asian wars.
> In 1981, the CIA had dragged him into the Supreme Court, to block his earnings from the book and to teach other agents in the field that there were costs associated with tell-all books about the failings within agency. I remember being shocked that Snepp lost his appeal to the Supreme Court and that he had been forced to pay $300,000 in book royalties to his former CIA handlers.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/09/why-vietnam-still-ma...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The claim specifically made in the article that the delay in publication from 1936 to 1946 was due to CIA action through a front group. It doesn't say that anywhere in the article. You've created a conditional in your head that is found nowhere in the article.
It claims the suppression was “specifically” by the CIA, and the first example of this suppression by the CIA it gives is the publication delay, ascribed to actions of a group, which it ties into the thesis by saying was later identified as a CIA front group.
> But its 1946 debut reflected a delay of more than a decade by the country’s real dictators, who disrupted the novel’s genesis and sent its author into exile. And in this act of suppression, Asturias’s censors and exilers were aided by the US, specifically the CIA.
I think it's clumsily worded. There was suppression of the novel and the author was exiled (the novel was self-published in Mexico in 1946, out of the author's own pockets). Guatemala's dictatorship was behind this and the US helped them. But the international discrediting of the author was orchestrated by the CIA through a front, and this took place many years after.
So "this" suppression that the CIA aided is not just 1946 -- that's poorly worded -- but in the ensuing years, after the CIA was already formed.