A novel the CIA spent a fortune to suppress

Post by jjk166 » Wed, May 24, 2023, 5:55 PM UTC

Convolutional wrote: post #196

jjk166 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it does say that.

You would think if it was inaccurate, the inaccuracy could be quoted from and pointed to. You do not do so. I see claims there is an inaccuracy there. I see people doing paraphrases and inventing conditionals and saying they are inaccurate. Which they are. But they're not the original text. It's pretty simple, quote some text and say why it is inaccurate. As there are no inaccuracies of the type mentioned, this does…

Post by jjk166 » Wed, May 24, 2023, 6:04 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #190

dragonwriter wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I assume you mean this paragraph from TFA: > 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…

Post by jjk166 » Wed, May 24, 2023, 6:13 PM UTC

the_af wrote: post #214

jjk166 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, in context "this suppression" is clearly referring to the disruption of the novel's genesis and the sending of its author into exile performed by the dictators in that period prior to 1946. The dictators are the censors and exilers being referenced in the next sentence. It would have been easy to say that those actions were part of a broader suppression, or even just aiding in suppression with no qualifier, but s…

I think if you take the full article as context, where they mention specific incidents in the 50's onwards, the context is not the period prior to 1946. I think it's just this specific paragraph that's clumsily worded.

Post by tinix » Wed, May 24, 2023, 6:19 PM UTC

kornhole wrote: post #140

zeroego wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that true? Last I heard (I just looked it up) over half of people in the US read at least one book per year.

If what you heard is true, close to half of people read no books.

Post by shadowfox » Wed, May 24, 2023, 6:21 PM UTC

frankfrankfrank wrote: post #164

vlovich123 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“deep state” is insanely vague. Does it mean the part of the government that has lots of secrets it fights tooth and nail to make sure is never revealed and even potentially engages in illegal acts? Or does it mean bureaucracy? From what I’ve heard most people complaining about the “deep state” they always seem to express their complaint about the bounds of normal bureaucracy and less about secret/covert/illegal acti…

One thing I would add to the accurate description that responded to you, is that it is by its very nature very amorphous and evasive. It’s not really all that unique or special, it is the same entropy that the tech community is far more aware of than the government/politics community is. The reason for that difference is that there is immediate benefit that comes from the deconstruction and corruption of structure in…