The Truth Shall Make You Free: Catholicism and the CIA
lareviewofbooks.org
lareviewofbooks.org
Central to the CIA’s use of Catholicism was a man named Tom Dooley. Though the name is largely obscure today, in 1961 he placed third in Gallup’s “Most Esteemed” man in the world poll. Dooley was a Navy doctor who provided care for South Vietnamese refugees fleeing the chaos after the French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. His 1956 best seller Deliver Us from Evil, as well as countless articles and media appearances afterward, “justified American intervention in Vietnam and presented Vietnamese Catholics as sympathetic subjects.” He was a central-casting missionary, and the persecuted Vietnamese were precisely the kinds of people Christ charged Catholics to serve. But he was writing CIA-sponsored propaganda to build domestic support for Vietnam, and his stories weren’t “strictly speaking, true.”
-
And the Edward Snowden of the CIA of that era Philip Agee:
But the Tlatelolco student massacre in Mexico City in 1968, in which he felt the CIA was complicit, was his Damascene moment. Agee had begun to immerse himself in the leftist Catholic liberation theology movement sweeping Latin America: “I became the servant of the capitalism I rejected. I became one of its secret policemen. The CIA, after all, is nothing more than the secret police of American capitalism.”
Agee didn’t just quit. He moved to Cuba for a time to do “research,” and then, from his residence in the United Kingdom, wrote and published Inside the Company (1975), one of the first books by a former officer to air the CIA’s dirty laundry. But, controversially, he went further: in the book, Agee actually revealed the names of hundreds of active CIA officers and agents. “One way to neutralize the CIA’s support to repression,” he wrote at the time, “is to expose its officers so that their presence in foreign countries becomes untenable.”
For instance, in Brazil, we went through a coup and elected a fascist because most people really believe the previous two governments were corrupt and would implement a communist dictatorship given time.
The fact they are not measurably more or less corrupt than their predecessors, that they formed a coalition with Center-right parties in order to govern, and that their platform is timidly social democratic were, and continue to be, largely ignored.
To the point that now, after more than 600 thousand avoidable deaths, unprecedented unemployment, countless corruption scandals directly connected to him, and the worst economic crisis since the 90’s, only 58% support his impeachment.
If you really want to know how to manufacture consent for war, you should study Goebbels works, or Russian propaganda (Putin likes Goebbels).
More than likely a literate person of European or Christian background. The phrase references a key moment from the New Testament.
[1]https://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023047912045764...
[2]https://www.city-journal.org/html/taking-catholic-out-cathol...
https://web.archive.org/web/20070317212930/https://www.count...
I heard Agee talk (not a lecture) to students for an hour at a college in 1987. Far from hyperbolic, he was a decent, square-shooter personality. I distinctly recall his saying (paraphrase) that 'they are planning to turn the US into another Latin America'. I remember that because it kept explaining a lot of what was going on. And still does.
Edit: A response to 'Drop of Treason' in Covert Action (May 25, 2021)
[https://covertactionmagazine.com/2021/05/25/new-book-that-tr...]
Daily reminder: the CIA directly and intentionally funded and fomented the rise of islamic fundamentalism in order to counter Soviet interests in Afghanistan through the Mujaheddin in 1976.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
to say the CIA just "misunderstood" religion is outright disinformation.
I thought this was a photoshop and wasn't actually in the film?
"What you see here, are the Mujahedin soldiers, holy warriors.
To us, this war is a holy war.
And there is no true death for a Mujahedin,
because we have taken our last nights, and because we consider us already dead.
To us, death for our land and God is an honor.
So, my friend, what we must do is to stop this killing of our women and children.
If getting this man free, so he can tell to the free world, and tell what happens here, is necessary then of course we will help."
I'm not sure if that's praising or exalting, but it wasn't damning in the context of the movie.
My favourite (and probably most prescient and ironic) quote from the movie is:
"You can't defeat a people like that. We tried. We already had our Vietnam! Now you're gonna have yours!"
As was The Living Daylights, in which the Mujaheddin led by an Oxford-educated Afghan help James Bond destroy a rogue Soviet drug-running operation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0
And the CIA weaponizes religion for it's purposes including using Uyghur extremists or Isis members. One of the experts on that is the retired Graham Fuller:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_E._Fuller
-
Graham Fuller's daughter used to be married to the uncle of the Boston marathon bombers and he had arranged their visas as well as the visa for the wanted "Islamic" fundamentalist cleric Gulen, who is the spiritual leader of the CIA's Islam and Enes Kanter.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21692069
https://www.mintpressnews.com/celtics-cia-gulenist-hoops-sta...
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-nwTCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&red...
They definitely understood it, and they also understood that the USSR had 45,000 nuclear weapons pointed at your backyard.
On the other hand CIA handled instigators killed far in excess of 45,000 people during the 'cold' war.
23 million is the loss of expect natality, not dead children. It's people that weren't born.
As with all famine as atrocities narratives, I wonder if you apply this standard fairly. Is every poor country that had a famine responsible or only those whose economic system you don't agree with? In that case isn't the West responsible for 2 million deaths every year by forcing Africa to adopt an economic system that leads to starvation? Of course you will say no but to me these are equivalent. It turns out there are no good guys
If you're really being hunted by the FSB then I am sorry that Russia is doing this to you. I suggest that you would not post about it here as this forum is monitored and this information would be identifying to the FSB. I truly wish you the best of luck.
The earliest intact document suggests that there was 81 million of Ukrainians before Holodomor and 31 million after.
Nationality for 20 million ethnic Ukrainians was forcefully changed from Ukrainian to Russian (direct evidence of that filmed in 199x, when victims were still alive, and is available at YouTube[1]). 7 million adults starved to death (official number by RF[2]), 23 million children were dead also, but nobody counted them back then. 30 millions of Holodomor victims are hidden as victims of WWW2 («total» number of WWW2 victims raised from 12 million to 42 million).
Famine and starvation is not equal to mass murdering by starvation. You are trying to downplay the murder to just «a death».
[0]: https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2021/05/14/7293521/
The assertion that Schukin was assasinated by the Russian Federation is unsupported. I cannot find any non-Ukrainian media that supports this thesis and I can find many that don't from third countries that are unfavourable to Russia. Therefore I conclude that the theory of assassination by a violent anti-semite is the most likely. I doubt that the Ukrainian prosecution would shy from suggesting a Russian assassination if they thought so.
I don't doubt that the nationality of Ukrainians was changed to Russians. A lot of persecution of Ukrainians happened, which is a historical fact. The question is whether the famine was intended or if it was a mistake, and it seems clear that this was not the case. Then the question becomes if it was murder on the side of the Soviet government not to redistribute food, which it would have been if they had known the extent of the famine, but as we know now the corruption and incompetence was so high that it is wholly believable that they actually thought the situation was far from as bad as it was. From then on the immigration bans make sense and so does the maintenance of exports.
Now was this on the the absolute fault of the Soviet government? Yes, it is. But so is every single famine from 1900 onwards. If you consider it to be murder, so is every single other famine since the invention of fertilizer. I only ask that one is consistent.
As for your estimates, even the Kyiv court of appeals cites a much lower figure of 3.9 million : https://lb.ua/news/2010/01/14/19793_nalivaychenko_nazval_kol... and I can find no credible source that even approaches your numbers.
If the famine was indeed due to sheer incompetence, it could be argued that they were victims of the revolution that set up that incredibly incompetent government.
It's reads like joke. You are completely incompetent, right? Can you murder just 1 million of people and cover it for decades? What level of incompetence is required for that? Can you kill 1 million by mistake?
Communists party has a goal: kill bourgeoisie as class. Why you are trying to label the MAIN GOAL of communists party as "incompetence" or "mistake"?
Leaders of USSR created secret police, to watch transition of USSR from bourgeoisie past to communist future. Secret police found that majority of Ukrainians prefer freedom and free market, so Politbureau decided to eliminate Ukrainians as traitor nation, like many other nations. They created a plan and then performed it.
> The assertion that Schukin was assasinated by the Russian Federation is unsupported.
Yeah, nor passport nor business card were left by killer to help us. Same situation was with his science director: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykola_Shytyuk , and many other scientists. Maybe, it's martians. What you think?
It doesn't look like a comment about nukes. It's more like "OMG, CIA killed 45,000 enemies during the war!" It's CIA job to kill mad Russians to protect USA. What's wrong with that?
> I suggest that you would not post about it here as this forum is monitored and this information would be identifying to the FSB.
They know that I know.
>They know that I know.
It doesn't matter. Any comment you make online that can be linked to your identity will bite you in the ass in ways you cannot even begin to imagine. I also have personal experience in that domain.
It's 13 years later, they can't have been trying very hard.
And USSR understood that immediately after WWII end, USA planned to finish what Nazis started. Using also nuclear bombs which USSR didn't have at the time.
That seems incomplete enough to be a misleading statement. Ghost Wars (Steve Coll) is as authoritative and well-sourced treatment as I've found.
It lays out the imperative as "confront the Soviets in Afghanistan." To that end, the State Department and CIA continually bickered over who to best fund and arm in Afghanistan.
Add in the added complexity that most funding was run through the Pakistani ISI, but paid for by the Saudis and Gulf states, all of whom generally had no compunctions and/or outright preference for Islamic fundamentalists (Pakistan due to India, Saudis due to portions of the royal family).
And on top of that, you had a constant realpolitik (arm who will fight, and who our allies will support) vs ideological (arm who believes more in democracy) debate going on. Generally speaking, the Islamists were willing the right, but the moderates tended to find reasons to avoid committing their forces, despite being paid to do exactly that.
So an accurate statement would be "the CIA helped funnel Saudi money to Afghani mujahideen, with Pakistan's ISI steering large portions of that towards Islamist groups, a practice which the US generally knew about but saw no way around."
The Mujahid group that was the least Islamist was led by the heir of a religious order and structured as such.
The OP's assertion are fully accurate. The CIA knowingly funded and fomented the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.
It is incorrect the relationship was fully indirect. The CIA directly met with militant Islamic fundamentalist groups, including inviting leaders to the USA, and directly funding them :
https://books.google.com/books?id=b95MAgAAQBAJ&q=cia%2C+bin+...
https://books.google.com/books?id=wcljXYTZVnUC&q=rABBANI,+re...
https://books.google.com/books?id=r3TLByMXsJkC&q=thatcher,+h...
https://books.google.com/books?id=N8Qxf-33dxMC&q=howard+hart...
https://books.google.com/books?id=-R13CgAAQBAJ&q=zalmay%2C+g...
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2008/07/11/afghan...
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/01/2012126145...
The evidence is absolutely crushing. The statement of the OP is not misleading at all - it is completely accurate.
And the primary reason the CIA met directly with groups was to cut the ISI out of the picture and give them more direct control over to whom and how aid was provided.
If you read the sources I linked, you will see that the CIA directly met with and financed Haqqani, which was one of the most extreme and who went on to be instrumental in the founding of Al Qaeda by greatly assisting Bin Laden in Afghanistan and allying with him.
That is to say, unequivocally, the CIA directly funded and abetted the rise of Islamist fundamentalism.
My impression was that effectively, their decision at the time was: (a) fund moderate elements who weren't gung-ho about actually risking their forces to kill Soviets vs (b) fund religious extremists who were a more militarily effective option.
And even given that calculus, they still spread the money around (or even skewed it towards moderates), because even at the time they were uncomfortable going all-in on someone who took his orders from God.
The CIA only ever directly financed the more extreme elements that I know of. The more moderate ones, ironically, got all of their funding through Pakistan, though Pakistan gave more to the extremists.
If the CIA gave them more money because they wore more effective, it doesn't change the fact that they directly fomented the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.
Indeed.
It is -not. that I am defending Trump.
It is that I dont particularly see the reason to give him more of the spotlight and the mindshare than he seeks and wants.
History does have its place and we should not forget. Nor should he be obsessed over.
This is one of the reasons I'm not a fan of personality politics and the increasingly presidential style of leadership in the UK. A person's ideas are what's important, and personality politics distracts people from the ideas in favour of what's effectively celebrity gossip.
That's why Johnson is doing it, and it's hugely effective.
Populism and media-centric politics is a Faustian pact in my opinion, the baying crowd that got you into power can easily turn on you in a heartbeat. Just look at Blair, once the people's champion and now his name is less than dirt among the very "Mondeo Men" he once courted to get into power. I'm not sure how we can make democracy less personality-based and more principle-based, but I think less centralised traditional and social media industries would be a good start.
It's important to remember that Johnson's Telegraph salary was about twice that of his PM salary: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/03/daily-teleg... (he was eventually forced to give this up)
He's a media man who has a second job as PM, not the other way round, and the conservative party has little will of its own other than what the rightwing press tell it to do.
Blair has a personal relationship with Rupert Murdoch, which he rode to power: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14785501 - and an even more personal relationship with his wife Wendi Deng.
B: Not at the moment but we could have C write something.
C: What about toothpaste and health?
B sighs: Now that is YOUR job, isn't it?
C: Ok, but do we know something new about toothpaste, have you seen any new study or ...
B: Find the damn studies! If there aren't any just suggest we don't really know how healthy it is, find something about the fluoride industry, there must be some dirt in there.
C: So you want me to suggest it isn't healthy?
B: Of course not! Just make sound like it's complicated.
C: Sorry B, I really need some help with this, I have no idea how to title it or introduce it since I don't know where I should be going with this.
A: Analytics still show a big interest in big T, surely big T brushes his teeth, doesn't he?
C: Thank you, I know how to start.
C leaves.
A: That's why they pay me the big bucks.
B: You just can't find competent people any more.
One of the more interesting episodes revolves around the Spanish Civil War, involving Franco and the Catholic Church and its strange little subgroup, Opus Dei. That story remains shrouded in mystery (the whole Franco-Pius-Hitler-Mussolini connection is probably why, see "Hitler's Pope" by John Cornwell, 1999).
Other investigations have revealed the following [1]:
> Since World War II, the CIA has:
> Subsidized a Catholic lay organization that served as the political slugging arm of the pope and the Vatican throughout the Cold War;
> Penetrated the American section of one of the wealthiest and most powerful Vatican orders;
> Passed money to a large number of priests and bishops — some of whom became witting agents in CIA covert operations;
> Employed undercover operatives to lobby members of the Curia (the Vatican government) and spy on liberal churchmen on the pope’s staff who challenged the political assumptions of the United States;
> Prepared intelligence briefings that accurately predicted the rise of liberation theology; and
> Collaborated with right-wing Catholic groups to counter the actions of progressive clerics in Latin America.
[1] Mother Jones 1983 Martin A. Lee "The CIA and the Vatican’s Intelligence Apparatus"
This all foreshadows (and is concurrent with) the CIA's dalliance with violent Islamic groups as a counter to the Godless Commies, from involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood as an anti-Nasser force in Egypt (1950s) onwards, most notably in Afghanistan in the 1980s, but it's a common theme. It's a pretty sordid history, with disastrous consequences (i.e. 9/11 etc.).
I feel these kind of articles are harder to sell (we step outside of the fact based approach, right into beliefs and opinions). There is also the issue of most of these call to action and opinions getting buried pretty fast by virtue of ours current media system, as more often than not the conclusion is pretty brutal and disturbing to a majority of people.
I see what you did there...
Trumpism was a reaction to perceived cultural nihilism, which the CIA has earned popular credit for producing in its role as the O.G. american "deep state." Catholicism has always been state religion, so the base rate of anyone in govt being Catholic was already pretty high in those earlier years and I'd probably not attribute much to it. If you wanted to look at peculiar religious influence on the U.S. intelligence community, I've been told by other contractors that Mormonism has an unusual representation cluster though. However, the interesting bit of Catholicism that lends itself to an organization like the CIA would be the Jesuits, who have been the butt of conspiracy theories since their founding, but also run an old network of elite schools and are considered the Vatican brain trust.
Do you have any evidence to back that up?
Why wouldn't they be relevant in a discussion involving persecution of other Christian groups?
To answer your question, obviously the ultimate authority on Popery would be Popes themselves. That link serves as a quick refresher on a) why Jesuits are the butt of so many conspiracy theories b) why they are "the interesting bit of Catholicism", for most content there is somehow related to them. Albeit one could also argue that clearly they aren't the only interesting bit, for all of it isn't related to them.
Edit: There's actually a category dedicated to Jesuits, but it has surprisingly few articles, presumably because they decided to give Alberto Rivera his own category. So multiple categories treat them nevertheless.
I don't know what Alinsky or "intersectionality" has to do with any of this. You didn't need the Soviets, or Marcuse, to get Alinsky's Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council, which predates not just the CIA but the OSS.
This is extremely funny.
If nothing else, he was defined by fixed, persistent, and permanent beliefs in direct reaction to progress and that's what supporters followed. There are some other comments on this thread that go into the weeds, but the essential point I was making was that the article missed the opportunity to provide a key insight about the cultural influence of the CIA by choosing to focus on rightist bugbears like Bannon instead of the one guy who planted the seeds of subversion in the minds of every campus activist of the last 50 years.
I'm saying the virus that that escaped from a weapons lab and derailed western civilization wasn't covid, it was Marcuse.
But just like every other kind of control mechanism it is easier in the present to focus on the visible symptoms than on the root cause, and some individuals are a bit of both. Bannon and Stone serve(d) as lightning rods but there were a lot more people active than just those two though much less visible.
The OSS and later the CIA did more damage to the world through their meddling than we will be able to fix in several generations, and it isn't over yet. I'm not quite clear on whether they really believed their motivations were pure or if they were just very cynical in the way they went about their business. They have set the stage for confrontations for many years to come, and that's the world over, not just in the United States.
The problem is that the world now needs a stable United States, one that is able to project power across the globe in a predictable and efficient manner. You can't have a policeman on the block for years and then suddenly have them abscond and leave a power vacuum. Such changes should be made gradual, not suddenly or chaos will ensue, there are a multitude of wanna-be dictators waiting in the wings to take over should the United States stumble or fall.
And I wished I would be confident that they would not fall but right now looking out across the next 25 years or so I would not put better than even money on that not happening, way too many things that should not have happened have already happened.