WHEN GIANTS WALKED THE LAND

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 46
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 15, 2004
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: May 28, 1977
• Content Type: MAGAZINE

SATURDAY REVIEW
Approved For ReleA M41P17/81 : CIA-RDP88-0131
Reviewed by Bruce Cook
LTIIOUGH her work has appeared
over a period of four decades, Diana
ALTrilling is hardly a writer with a
large public. To a certain readership, so
loyal and intense one is almost tempted to
call it a constituency, she is very well
known indeed. These readers are the sur-
vivors and enthusiasts of the late great
literary wars of New York, in which bat-
ties were fought across Marxist sectarian
lines and the opposing armies were often
divided not so much by the degree of their
sympathy for the Communist party as by
the specifics of when and to what degree
individual combatants had broken with it.
This was a time, as we all 'know, when
giants walked the land-that is, when they
were not pounding away on their giant
typewriters, knocking out giant pieces for
the Partisan Review. In time these writers
for PR, most of whom were independent
Marxist or Trotskyist in political orienta-
yicn and had gradually softened into so-
called liberal anti-'Communists, came to
dominate the New York literary scene
completely. They were tough, demanding,
rigorous. critics who set such high intellec-
tual standards that together they may well
have made the most significant contribu-
tion to American culture of any group
since Emerson's Concord circle in the
1850s. .
The Partisan Review crowd included
such illustrious names as Philip R.ahv,
the magazine's cofounder, Alfred Kazin,
Dwight Macdonald, Mary McCarthy, Irv-
ing Howe, and of course the most illustri-
ous, of them all, Lionel Trilling. Diana
Trilling was his wife and is now his widow.
Her association with the rest, even when
Bruce Cook is the author of The Beat
Generation and Dalton Trumbo.
When Giants
Walked the Land
We Must March illy Darlings
by Diana Trilling
Harcourt Bracr Jovanovich, 320 pp., $ 10
most active, scents` always to have been
through him. She was more or less an
auxiliary member of the group, one re-
lated to the Family (as it cants to be
known) by marriage-an in-law. as it were.
She gained a reputation as a literary critic
from her reviews in The Nation d;iring and
just after the war. Subsequently, she con-
timed to write reviews and literary essays
Those who hope to find in this new book
by Mrs. Trilling some especially juicy bits
on Lillian Hellman, or perhaps the inside
story on the attempt by Little, Brown to
suppress passages in the text [see the box
below], are probably going to be disap-
pointed. She does deal with this contro-
versy, but only in a brief introduction and
assorted footnotes to a revised essay origi-
nally written or a 1967 Corr mentary sym-
occasionally, and edited two D. H. Law- p
osiurn, "Liberal Anti-Communism Re-
rence anthologies.,By the time her earlier visited." The Little, Brown atiair was given
collection, Clarr.nont Essays, was issued, more extensive treatment in The New
however, she h, ,d begun to turn away from York Times, and, judging from IvIrs. `['rill-
literature in fay, r cal social subjects, though ine s version, it was reported quite ~accu-
sele!c~m with yen successful results. She lately. The important additions-supplied
had it stay of a ccpting ollicial reports and here, of course, are the passages that the
approved versions quite unquestioningly, publisher' tried to censor. They are mild
for me at least, made worthless her
which
,
essays on the Profumo, Hiss, and Oppen- enough and only .?:riously in error in their
d
'
-
heimer cases in that collection. I may he
gifted with hindsight. in this, for I read
them long after they were-first published,
but it certainly seems they would have
been improved, if ,,read} altered, by a
little healthy skepticism. The social critic's
job is to challenge, not to accept.
Social concerns so dominate this second
s short an
nan
assumption that. Ni iss I lelh
very personal bo+,k would be taken as a
definitive history of the McCarthy period.
How could Mrs. 'frilling think that? Best-
seller envy, I suppose.
in truly startling thing that conics
.A the CIA's international support of
collection, We Must March ,1iy Darlings, anti-Communist intellectuals through its
that drily three short pieces in it could be front organization, the Congress for Cul-
considcrctl literary; and they, only margin- tur-Il Freedom. 'Mrs. Trilling was on the
ally. The rest h.r-c to do Witt such deter- board of the American Committeefor Cul-
minedly large si:lbiects as the assassination tural Freedom, an affiliate of the congress.
of President Kennedy, women's liberation. fit a passage added to the original 1967
and the youth revolution of the Sixties. _, essay, she says very plainly, "Even before
She worries away at them in the humorless, I came onto the executive board of the
somewhat imperious style of a woman who American Committee, I was, aware, and it
is.used to holding forth at dinner parties,' was my clear impression that everyone
going on and on, never using a sentence else on the board was aware, that the in-
whc e a paragraph might possibly do. ternational body with which we were as-
sociated was probably funded by the gov
SAJIFITIMPM
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
crnment," She goes on to say what nobody
until now has admitted: ?-"We strongly
suspected that the Farfield Foundation,
which we were told supported the con-
gress, was a filter for State Department or
CIA money." On one occasio,i, when the
committee found itself in a financial crisis,
Norman Thomas. also a board member,
announced at a meeting that he would
"call Allen" .(Dulles, presumably). He
returned a fetiA minutes later and told them
their problems had been solved.
I find this shocking. Did the American
.Committee really think that cultural free-
dom could be bought and paid ? for with.
CIA money? Were people as intelligent
as Norman Thomas and Diana Trifling so
ignorant of the quid pro quo of politics
that they believed money was given by the
government with no strings attached? The
fact that no pressure was brought to hear
on the committee or the Congress for Cul-
tural Freedom does not prove, as Mrs.
Trilling seems to think it does, that the
government in gernoral and the CIA in
particular were more disposed to benign-
ity and openhandedness "in the mid-
Fifties and into the Kennedy years." It
simply means that during those years the
anti-Communist liberal. intellectuals who
made up the membership of the Ameri-
can Committee did nothing at all to dis-
,please their benefactors.
In fact, this attitude of accommodation
toward institutional authority, this steady
identification with'the established order,.
is the one quality that runs most consis-
tently through the essays in this book.
What you get from Diana Trilling is sel-
dom a fresh point of view on a subject, or
?a radical interpretation of an objective set
of facts, but rather a vigorous statement
of the predictable neoeonservative re-
sponse. She has a way of casting herself
in the role of one of the older generation
sitting in judgment on the younger. That,
certainly, is what ,he is up to in such es-
says as "Celeb sting with Dr. Leary," in
which she examines the religious preten-
sions of the druc culture. "On the Steps
(it Low Library," her report on the stu-
dent take-over of Columbia; and "We
Must March My Darting,," her look at
Radcliffe following its merger with I-lar-
vard. Although in the title ...;ay she makes
a great display of open-mindedness in her
interviews and shows restraint in her com-
ments, there is little doubt from the start
what sort of verdict she will hand down.
As for the others, well, what chance would
you give Timothy Leary and Mark Rudd
before such a hanging judge? Exactly.
The only occasions on which she shows
a degree of sympathy with the forces of
social revolt occur when she writes of
women's liberation. In fact, she speaks of
herself as "an 'old-line feminist." Well,
perhaps. She certainly takes Freud to task
for his condescension toward women. And
Norman Mailer's The Prisoner of Sex is
given stern treatment in a symposium
speech for its obtuse, if poetic, endorse-
ment of biological determinism. However,
her attitude-and she communicates it
most clearly in "We Must March My Dar-
lings"-seems to he that the real battles of
liberation and sexual independence were
fought, after all, by her generation, and
specifically by women such as herself.
This decade's feminists are mere pygmies
standing on the shoulders of giants.
Isn't that the way it seems to each suc-
cessive older generation: if it weren't for
us, where would you he? Thus Diana frill-
ing once again lines up against the young,
undercutting them as she offers her sup--
port. - As in all the rest of- these essays,
.what is most clearly in evidence here is
the hectoring tone, the purse-lipped dis-
approval, the mother-in-law sensibility.
Nobody really expects social critics to
solve the problems they address. They
should, however. do more than nag at
them. - @,
conflriueJ .
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
Talking with Ptina Triln9
SINCE the recent death 4,1 her
husband. Lionel, Diana Trilling has
continued to live in the spacious,
comfortable apartment just around the
corner from Columbia Unix, ersity, where
at one terrible time, as she recounts in
We Must March My Darlings, she
anxiously awaited an onslaught f10111
neighboring Harlem that would never
conic. But as she freely admits, "I've never
been in the business of prophecy," atnd at
the time of the event, the student take-over
of Columbia in the spring of 1968. it
seemed certain that the center could not
hold, and that the world of liberal culture
must be coming apart.
Mrs. Trilling's latest collection of
essays-ranging as they do .from a
panegyric to Kennedy ("It's always
astonishing to me how abruptly the
attitudes in the intellectual community
change; one minute The New York
Review of Books was devoting a
memorial issue to him, a year later
he was anathema") to the social and sexual
adjustments of the students at Radcliffe,
her alma mater, at the beginning of the
1970s-spans a decade of bewildering
transformations. It was a time, she says,
when what she calls "the movements of
the culture" were so rapid and fleeting
that they seemed to far outpace the
normal progression by which a society
,,rows and changes. And although the
campuses, and the American political
scene in general, seem now to have
settled into a mood of deep quietism, "it
wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to
hear this minute that a new large-scale
anarchic sit-in was under way around the
corner." Contemporary historical
developments, as she stresses in the
introduction to her book, "don't last for
two minutes," nor do human attitudes. "In
my long lifetime I've-been fascinated t,.,
the process by which peo;7ic seem able
to completely', alter their political views
overnight, from left-wing radical to
Republican, say, without ever seeming to
feel called upon to explain the process by
which they got from point A to point B."
As a prime example she cites Garry Wills,
a former writer for the National Revirnv,
who more recently wrote an introduction
to Lillian Ilellinan's Scoundrel Time in
which, she says, he castigated the very
Mgrs. Trilling is still faintly bemused by
the extent of the brouhaha set o(l.when
Little, Brown, the original publisher., of
tt'r Most Alarch Afy Darlings, declined
to publish the hook because of critical
references in it to Miss Hellman. Those
references are tisctc, unexpurgated, in the.
present edition, and seem hardly strong
cnouh to justify such action. "Lillian said
at the time she didn't know what was in
the book," Mrs. Trilling comments
sharply, "and I believe her. But I didn't
hear any protest from her when the
publishers decided to ce:tsor my book, all
the same." One more unhappy aftermath
of that story that Mrs. 'frilling would like
to clear up: she had almost agreed to
appear on William Buckicy's television
show, Firing Line, to discuss not any
individual, but liberal anti-Communism
in general, provided she had a chance to
see the questions in advance. She heard
nothing more about it for a time. Then,
after Buckley had published his long and
scathing review of Miss Hellman's book,
titled "Who Is the Ugliest of Theist All?"
his TV people, having apparently
accepted Mrs. Trilling's terms, phoned to
arrange for her appearance. "But-this
time I refused because I felt that in
titling his review as he had, Mr. Buckley
had reduced political polemic to personal
insult."
1IIL' Trillings' position of liberal
anti-Communism, she finds, is harder and
harder to maintain today. "A v, riter like
George Orwell, who to my mind was one
of the greatest and most clear-sighted of
this century, is completely out of
intellectual favor no.v." Writers and
artists who were once only too glad of
(and, she avers, well aware of) clandestine
support from CIA funds are now
vociferous in their disapproval of it.
Many of Mrs. Trilling's attitudes, she
fully realizes, are far from fashionable,
though once they seemed humane and
eminently reasonable to many. She feels,
for instance, that "militant lesbianism"
has taken over the feminist movement,
and blames Masters and Johnson and
their teaching,in considerable part for it.
"No one can begin to say the harm they
have done, and I don't sec anyone even
trying." As for making a college like %
Radcliffe coeducational, "It once seemed
to many of its a proud thing to have a
great women's college."
She finds she does not read much
contemporary fiction anymore, though
for ten years (1940 to 1950) she was fiction
editor of"T/te Nation. "I still, rend Mailer.
Bellow, and Nabokov, but that's about
all. I'm not really a literary person: I'm a
political and sociological person. I haven't
done a literary essay in ten years. and I
don't think I'd even know where to
publish one anymore. Where would one
publish an essay today on George Eliot,
Stendhal, Madame !Jovar_v, or Anna
Karenina'?" she asks. "I've always
wanted to write about Jane Welch
Carlyle-hut who would want that?"
She is working on a new book--not a
further essay collection-about which she
will say nothing more. "But there's such
an enormous amount to do after Lionel's
death-putting his papers in order, looking
at the unpublished material, writing
letters...." The Seventies, compared
with the Sixties, seem barren of interest to
her as material on which to think and
write. "What would I write about now? I
suppose you could look at these big new
sections in The New York Times, what
they mean in terms of an obsession with
consumption; you could talk about the
passion for British class dramas on TV,
about the cultural influence of women's
clothes, perhaps about the strange
reactions of audiences at movies. But
none of these things seems to be central to
the decade in the way that the
assassinations, the university riots, the,
drug scene, were in the Sixties."
But as an old-style liberal convinced,
despite frequent evidence to the
contrary, of the possibilities for human
progress, Mrs. Trilling has a line from her
new book that she would be pleased to
see taken as the essence of herthinking:
"How to activate decency and teach it to
stop feeling deficient because of its low
quotient of drama is obviously one of the
urgent problems of modern society."
positions he had once Stoutly A '~O jl eJlfor Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
 8 APR I- A3 (,ion. It is true that the critics have
not put ;,-r end to the war in Vietnam; but what did they
expcct? "uhhc discuss;.;n for years had taken for granted
that "f'.7minunist aggresion" had to be resisted, even at
t t,e: r;,k of nuclear war. I t had taken. for granted that "frec-
v w;:s en-!: in . global struggle against Communist
%tn,, ,e from which moral men could not hold
r,.,nseivc, :. Intellectuals, who might have objected
..I hcsc i .~ r'....., lions of the issue, far from objecting to
cars hL ... give them general currency. Are we to
onclude .,?k>;r; . is experience that thought has no effect
.t histor %'? 0 : ,re contrary, it has a radical and immediate
feet. It is wet known -that an interpretation of history,
-tarcd by a whole generation, becomes a historical fact
in its own right. In the fifties, an Interpretation of history
that defined the cold war as a struggle for cultural free-
dom deeply i::flucnccd events that followed.
Our today derives in part from the bankruptcy
of ,..:a+ 4 political thought over the last five or six dec-
ad, .,rci nt,:.'e specifically [it derives from the bankrupt-
Cy ?~...a and political thought) during the fifties. Amer-
- :tr,liectuals, on, a scale that is only now beginning to
to tic understood, lent themselves in that time to. purposes
having nothing to do with the values they professed-pur-
poses, indeed, that were diametrically opposed to them.
This defection of the intellectuals goes a long way toward
explaining the poverty of public discussion today.
Press and. Academy
There are two kinds of intellectuals in the United
States, journalists and academicians. The journalist, strict.
ly conceived, is engaged ip an imaginative act: he
keeps a.journal of contemporary events. Most daily jour-
nalism is now mass produced and has become, with hon-
orable exceptions, nothing more than a job. Journalism in
the strict sense survives for the most part In periodicals,
politico-literary reviews addressed to a limited readership
but capable, nevertheless, of exercising a good deal of in-
fluence ovcl'. the ways in which issues are formulated.
acadcmiclan is nowadays a specialist alm
initi incapable of addressing himself
tions ex ah ... expert, in which
C apher, Lasch - Galley 2
The sponsors of the meeting included Eleanor Roose-?
-velt, Upton Sinclair, the philosophers G. A. Borgese and
A. J. Ayer, Walter Reuther, the French writer Suzanne
Labia and Dr. Hans Thirring, a Viennese atomic scien-
tist. Delegates attended from twenty-one countries, 'but
the most conspicuous among them were militant anti-Com-
munists (some of them also ex-Communists) from the
European continent and from the United States: Arthur
Koestler, Franz Borkenau, Lasky, Sidney Hook. Jams
Burnham, James T. Farrell. Arthur Schlesinger. Jr. .-%
number .of the themes that emerged from their speeches
would bcome polemical staples in the following decaJ
One was the end of ideologry, the assertion that cons ~ n-
tional political distinctions had become irrelevant in the
face of the need for a united front ..:.:nst Rolshevi%rtt.
Arthur Kocstlcr announced that "the %,ords 'Socialism'
anti 'Capitalism,' *Left' and 'Right' : toJ.t 11ce'n:e
virtually empty of meaning." Sidne% 'look ? ;.i f'r
ward "to the era when references to Right.'
'Center' will vanish from common usage as
Franz Borkcnau made the saute point and wcnt on
explain the deeper sense in which idcolog could rte
said to have died. "We are living," he salt. in "the
last phase of an ebbing revolutionary epoch" in whici'.
"the absurdity of the belief in perfect and logical social
constructions" had been exposed for all to see. For
more than a century . utopian "extremes"-visions , of
total freedom competing' with ,visions of total security
-had. ";increasingly turned the history of the occident
into a tragic bedlam." But having observed at first
hand the devastating effects of utopianism, particularly in
Russia, reasonable men had at last learned the impor-
tance of a more modest and pragmatic view of politics.
(References to Borkenau in the following ciscussion
are based on a translation of his prepared ac:Jress by
G. L. Arnold which appeared in The Nineteenth Cen.
tury for November,, 1950. Borkenau also delivered an
extemporaneous speech which was described by Trevor-
Roper in the Manchester Guardian Weekly (July 20,
1950) as follows: "Pouring out his German sentences
with hysterical speed and gestures, he screamed that he
was a Convert from communism and proud of it; that
pint guilt must be atoned for; that the ex-Communists
alone .understand communism and the means of resisting
it; that communism could only mean perpetual war and
civil war; and that it must be destroyed at once by un-
compromising frontal attack. And yet, terrible though
It was, this fanatical speech was less .frightening than
the hysterical German applause which greeted it. It was
different from any other applause at that congress. It
was an echo of Hitler's Nuremberg.", Arnold charged
that Trevor-Roper's account created "misleading impres-
sions." "No one would have guessed from Mr. Trevor-
Roper's report . . , that one of the calmest and weight-
iest contributions was made by Dr. Borkenau-in writ-
ing." In dealing with this latter speech, therefore, we are
dc.Lling with what passed for calm and weighty political
analysis in 1950.) a
Approved For . Release 2004/11/0.1: CIA-RDP88-01315R00.02002700016_/
 quence -off-" .
iniv-, incapable of addressing himself to public ques-
tions cx -,pt as an expert, to which capacity his services
are cap. ?'y sought b% overnment. (Those who are un-
willln* to i"ecomc experts either do not address themselves
to public questions at all or become part-time journalists.)
The university is so deeply enmeshed with government that
the won.!er is not that it has furnished so little criticism of
official attitudes but that it has furnished any criticism at
all. If the university has emerged as a focus of protest, that
is not so much because some teachers (particularly in the
arts and humanities), still retain a critical perspective, as
because the same universities which function so well as
branches of Industry and government have proved inca-
capable, by reason of their heavy investment in "research"
and their bureaucratized structure,' of providing a human
environment for their students. The students' dissatisfac-
tion with 'heir own conditions spills over into politics;
they see a connection, for instance, between the multi-
versity and the technological war.in Vietnam. Student
protest, in turn, may waken a belated response in some
of their teachers.
The other group of intellectuals-the journalists writ-
Ing for magazines of opinion-live in an environment that
has no built-in Institutional links with national power; none
at least. that are immediately obvious. It was from this
quarter. in the fifties, that criticism of the cold war and
its effects might have been expected. The defection of the
1::e:ary intellectuals is not something which the condition
of working lives would have led one to expect; it is
thus hard" to account for than the defection of the aca-
demicans. 7n order to understand it, one must recon-
struct in some detail the events of the early fifties, the
d during which the anti-Communist mentality came
ninate the intellectual community; and there is no
.er way of getting into the pathology of that decade
than by investigating the activities of the Congress for
Cultural Freedom and its affiliate, the American Com-
mittee for Cultural Freedom. Both as symptom and as
source, the campaign for "cultural freedom" revealed the
degree to which the values held by intellectuals had be-
come indistinguishable from the interests of the modern
state-interests which intellectuals now served even while
they maintained the illusion of detachment.
Politics of Freedom
From t )c beginning the Congress for Cultural Freedom
had a quasi-official character, even to outward appear-
ances. It was organized in 1950 by Michael Josselson,
formerly an officer in the Office of Strategic Services, and
Melvin J. Lasky, who had earlier served in the American
Information Services and as editor of Der Monat, a maga-
zine sponsored by the United States High Commission in
Germany. The decision to hold the first meeting of the
congress in West Berlin, an outpost of Western power in
Communist East Europe and one of the principal foci
and symbols of the cold war, fitted very well the official
American policy of making Berlin a showcase of "free-
dom," The United Press reported in advance that "the
five-day meeting will challenge the alleged freedoms of
Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe and attempt to unmask
the Soviet Union's and Soviet-sponsored 'peace' demon-
strations as purely political maneuvers." H. R. Trevor-
Roper, one of the British delegates, noted that "a political
tone was set and maintained throughout the congress."
Nobody would have objected to a political demonstration,
he observed, if it had been avowed as such. The question
was whether "it would have obtained all its sponsors or
--n1waxwomew mwm ow--, --
sions " "No one would have guessed from Mr. Trevor-
701 :11 r0'13i15Rf110Q+~i?0ar'710QO&fn ' ht-
iest contribu s was ma . orkenau-in writ-
ing." In dealin is latter speech, therefore, we are
deali what pas.. for calm and weighty. political
At the same time, the pragm s who met at Berliri
announced that in the present crisis oral man could
not remain aloof from the struggle of competing ideologies.
Robert Montgomery, the American film actor, declared
that "no artist who has the right to bear that title can he
neutral in the battles of our time." Koestler said: "pian
stands at a crossroads which only leaves the choice of this
way or that." At such moments "the difference between the
very clever and the simple in mind narrows almost to the
vanishing point"; and only the "professional disease" of
the intellectual, his fascination with logical subtleties and
his "estrangement from reality," keeps him from seeing
the need to choose between slavery and freedom.
An attack on liberal intellectualism, and on liberalism
in general, ran through a number of speeches. Borkcnau
argued that totalitarianism grew dialectically out of liberal-
ism. "The liberal utopia of absolute individual freedom
found Its counterpart in the Socialist utopia of complete
individual security." With liberalism in decline, intellec-
tuals looking for "a ready-made doctrine of salvation and
a prefabricated paradise" turned in the twenties and thir-
ties to communism and "permitted themselves to be led
by' the nose through Russia without noticing anything of
the, reality." During the Second World Wax-which Bor-
kenau called "a second edition of the Popular Front"-
even experienced politicians allowed themselves to be de-
ceived by Stalin's professions of good faith. "Thus in the
course of a quarter century communism ran a course
which brought it in contact with every stratum of soci-t ,
from extreme revolutionaries to ultra-conservatives." B'::
this very pervasiveness, by another turn of Borkenau's d?"-
lectic, meant that "the entire body of Occidental society
has received an increasingly strong protective inoculating
against communism. Every new wave of Communist cz-
pansion led to a deepening of the anti-Communist cur-
rent: from the ineffective opposition of sm,-" ro c to
the rise of an intellectual countercurrent. am.' finall,. to
the struggle in the arena of world politics."
The attack on liberalism, together wi::i he c::r'ous ar-
gument that exposure to communism was the oily ef-
fective form of "inoculation" against it. points to another
feature of the anti-Communist mentality as resealed at
Berlin: 'a strong undercurrent of ex-communism, which
led Trevor-Roper to describe the whole conference as "an
alliance between . . . the ex-Communists among the dele-
gates . . . and the German nationalists in the audience."
Borkenau, Koestler, Burnham. Hook, '.,city and Far-el'
had all been Communists during the thirties, and it -:-
quires no special powers of discernment to see that thk -
attack on communism in the fifties expressed 'tselt in
mutations that were themselves derived fro-i crasser
sort of Marxist cant. Borkenau's defense "t ;r:cdor.-
for? instance, rested not on a concern for ^sti .. anal safe-
guards of free thought, let alone for the inde ::?dence of
critical thought from national power, but rather on an
assertion of man's capacity to transcend the "narrow ma-
terialism" posited, according to Borkcnau. by liberalism
and socialism alike. The defense of freedom merged im-
perceptibly with a dogmatic attack on historical determin-
ism. It is significant that Borkenau still regarded Leninism
as a "great achievement"; not, however, because Lenin
had contributed to the materialist interpretation of society
but because Lenin rejected Marx's "fatalism" and con-
verted socialism "into the free act of a determined, ruth-
less and opportunist elite." Elitism was one of the thins
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
 ' ? . -- RTN!~1N~Al Sbs YRa.??YSfR~:aY!e'.< :.~+ii'._
;ost no time in esta ' its point
v O 3l: Larch - Galley 3
(more than to orthodox Marxism); and even after they
had dissociated themselves from its materialist content,
they clung to the congenial view of Intellectuals as the van-
guard of history and to the crude and simplified dialectic
(of which Borkenau's speech is an excellent example, and
James lBurnham's The Managerial Revolution another)
which passed for Marxism in left-wing circles of the thir-
ties.
I icse things no; only demonstrate the amazing persist
?nee and tenacity of the Bolshevik habit of mind even
among those who now rejected whatever was radical and
liberating in Bolshevism; they also suggest the way in
which :,;rtidn type of anti-Communist intellectual con-
tinu: ", _ ak from a point of view "alienated" from
hour? pis lt1,,ralism. Anti-communism, for such men as
i.-i,,tl,r Borkenau, represented a new stage in their
rennin;,, .Irntic against bourgeois sentimentality and
wcakn. ,urgeois *'utopianism" and bourgeois material-
ikni. In ,.: .,;uting "twenty years of treason" to an alliance
helm,!-, . als and Communists, the anti-Communist
in- put forth their own version of the right-wing
idcolog. that was gaining adherents, in a popular and still
cruder ore:. in all the countries of the West, particularly
in Germany and the United States. In the fifties, this high-
level McCarthyism (as we shall see) sometimes served as
a defense of McCarthyism proper. More often it was as-
sociated with official efforts to pre-empt a modified Mc-
Carthvvism while denouncing McCarthy as a demagogue.
In both capacities it contributed measurably to the cold
First Aid for Britain
The Berlin meetings, meanwhile, broke up in a spirit of
ancor which must have alarmed those who'had hoped for
a "united front" against Bolshevism. A resolution exclud-
ing totalitarian sympathizers "from the Republic of the
Spirit" w,,, withdrawn ("Professor, Hook and Mr. Burn-
h:,m," according to Trcvor-Roper, "protesting to the
end"). That the opposition came largely from the Eng-
lish and Scandinavian delegates was significant for two
reasons. In the first place, it showed how closely the
division of opinion among intellectuals coincided with,
the distribution of power in the world. In the second
place, the reluctance of the British delegates to join
a rhetorical crusade against communism seems to have
sugges,:d io the officers of the Congress for Cultural
Frecu.::,t zhac British intellectuals needed to be ap-
proached more energetically than before; if they were
not to lapse: completely into the heresy of neutralism.
The. founding of Encounter .magazine in 1953, with,
Lasky ane Stephen Spender at its head, Was the official
answer t,', tc "anti-Americanism," as it was now called,
which disri,auredthe english cultural scene. The editors of
Encounter addressed 'themselves with zeal to its desttuc-
tion.
Rosenberg case b
guagg
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
A 0') U 8 H U k D V_
~~WlDiiisw:yliulJ
icr, whose uncanny instinct
ions, combined a gift for racy Ian
me Back to the Raft Ag, ck Honey").,'
C I topher Larch - CaHay 4
the Congress for Cultural Freedom (except perhaps for
Censorship, which recently expired), consistently ap-
proved the broad lines and even the details of American
policy, until the war in Vietnam shattered the cold-war
coalition and . introduced a new phase of American poli-
tics.
Writers in Encounter denounced the Soviet intervention
in Hungary without drawing the same conclusions about
the Bay of Pigs. The magazine published Theodore Dra-
per's diatribes against Castro, which laid a theoretical ba-
sis for American intervention by depicting Castro as a
Soviet puppet and a menace to the Western Hemisphere.
Writers in Encounter had little if anything to say about the
American coup in Guatemala, the CIA's intervention in
Iran, its role in the creation of Diem, or the American
support of Trujillo; but these same writers regarded Com-
munist "colonialism" with horror. The plight of the Com-
munist satellites wrung their hearts; that of South Korea
and South Vietnam left them unmoved. They denounced
racism in the Soviet Union while ignoring i; in South Af-
rica and the United States until it was no longer possible
to ignore it, at which time (1962) Encounter published
an issue on the "Negro Crisis," the general tone of which
was quite consistent with the optimism then being pur-
veyed by the Kennedy administration.
In 1958, Dwight Macdonald submitted an article to
Encounter-"America! America!"-in which he won-
dered whether the intellectuals' rush to red. -:over their
native land (one of the obsessive concerns ;t- the fifties,
at almost every level of cultural life) had no, ;)roducod a
somewhat uncritical acquiesence in the Am.. riean intperi-
um. A magazine devoted to the defense of intellectual
freedom might have welcomed a piece of criticism on so
timely a subject, all the more' timely inasmuch as sonic of
the more prominent of the rcdiscoverers of America (Les-
lie Fiedler, for example) had also written for Encounter.
Instead, the editors asked Macdonald to publish his article
elsewhere. In .the correspondence that followed; according
to Macdonald, "the note sounded more than once ,
[was] that publication of my article might embarrass the
congress in its relations with the American' foundations
which support it," When the incident became public,
Nicholas Nabokov, secretary general of the c.;t ;-ass,
pointed in triumph to the fact that Macdonald's article nad
eventually appeared in Tempo Presente, an Italian peri-
odical sponsored by the congress. That proved, he said,
that the Paris headquarters of the congress did not dictate
editorial policy to the magazines it ~ supported. But the
question was not whether the Paris office dictated to the
editors; the question was whether the editors took it upon
themselves to avoid displeasing the sponsors, whoever they
were, standing behind the Congress for Cultural Freedom.
The reference to "American' foundations," in their rorre-
-- -- spondence. with Macdonald, deemed to suggest that the
editors exercised a degree of self-censorship, partly con-
scious and partly unconscious, that made any other, form
of censorship unnecessary. It was !possible that they had
o completely assimilated the official point of view that
~tUoy ,,gx ,_
yr
ups tad ' me to seirve as "t. n izat Ali
ns o Hatt
world power.
c him.a suitable spokesman for cultural om in
k
the fifties. ( >dter i :jet already, in "Hiss. Chambers, and
Approved For Release 2004/1'1/pi : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
 h their writ-
/~~,y ~i .,
?~++? x {!~7 gl
ee
rinceof
the lamb that is
be
tween the wolf and the shep-
herd," one of the Indian delegates drew from the fab,c a
moral quite different from the one intended. He pointed
out that the shepherd, having saved the lamb from the
wolf, "sltcars the lamb and possibly eats it." Many Indir,ns
wide-
boycotted the congress because it had been "branded
ice.' The Indian Government
took pains to withhold official sanction from the
meet- held, not as intended in the
capital, New Delhi, but to Bombay.
It seemed at times that the Indians-did not want to be
Moe. Robert Trumbull,-fit correspondent of the Ti,nrc,
tried to reassure his readers about their "peculiar" poet
of view. The Indian. speakers weren't really neutralists.
they were only "manifesting the common Indian oratorial
tendency to stray from the real point of the issue in
hand." A dispassionate observer might have conclucc
that they understood the point all too well.
The congress, having in any case suffered a
made no more direct attacks on neutralism in the
World. In 1958 it held a conference on the pmb"
developing nations, but the tone of this meetin; iGcrc
noticeably from the one in Bombay. (,t, was on tic -.cc.
and of these occasions, Incidentally, that Richard Rc rc
wrote the memorable description of the Congress for
organization, anti-Communist
total Freedom as "a worthy
and generally libertarian. in outlook and associated with
erence, meeting on the We o
no government."). The:..canf not expected to NO a any.
Rhodes, produced no ,notable results. Probable it was
Already the global strn,,ic
cultural to have entered a new pha,c.
k6t
1 -.
Which riply propagandist flavor of the Berlin .m(?
is~ycr is anu!r? mC as it was now calico, apOQd
with Macdonal
tvh h disfiguted ltilrai stei e~ The:editbn of editors eye de
it, gree
Enc~u~i the`
T/61 E~Fr-RQF1115
of oenstorship unnoc ssary
Tlic new magaz#ne lost tta[ time its asta lksbing} is point so completely ass[mila
of view and Its characteristic tone of ultra sophistication they were nee to watt#
The very first issue contained` a spirited polemic on the #ags
to
Rosenberg case by; Leslie;Fkdler, whose uncanny instinct had serve
for cultural fashions, combined with a gift for racy In
gunge , ("Come Eack to the Raft` Ag'in,; Huck Honey"),
made him a suitable spokesman for cultural freedom in Mission to India .
the fifties. Fiedler had already,in "Hiss, Chambers, and
the Age of Innocence,,' exhorted intellectuals to accept
their common guilt in, the crimes of Alger, Hiss. With, an
equal disregard for the disputed facts of the case, he now
went on. to berate sentimentalists who still believed the
Rosenbergs to be innocent. "As far as I am concerned, the
legal guilt of the Rosenbergs was clearly established at
their trial." From the fact of thelf guilt, Fiedler spun an
intricate web of theory intended to show, once again,
what ;a pervasive and deplorable influence Stalinism hits
exercised, faro ewe n +~~yetut fvcr the life, of the mind' In
Ameriyca, T en yeairs a t to ned out that the central
yyd,o~c~tt`inentw[ hie haw to convict site Rosenbergs ? o0
was a ihf~.{udeforge ?a '. ~ ~. ; ;; t ?5 'txP +.rL:.
Eveid while pt la t ttg;z eiiuiEeif Innocence," Flediee
was performing feats ofgullibility that rivaled and even ez- i
celled' the otitis he. attached. Again and again, the profes-
sional cold warriors were taken in by just such "ova"
,as that which convicted the Rosenberga--evidence brought
forward to prove a Communist conspiracy In the United
States and a Communist conspiracy to take over -tho
world; or on the other hand, to prove that, whereas So-
viet intellectuals lived under bureaucratic control, Amer-
ican intellectuals arrived at their judgments quite indh
pendently of official interference. In the latter context, "in-
nocence," the end of which Fiedler somewhat premature
ly celebrated, could hardly go further than that of certain
YJ" 6
d
, seemed to suggest. that the
of self-centursh! y con-
form
aible that they ha(+
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
r
? Vier Lascli - Galley
new "sophistication"-about neutralism, for example-
that heralded the coming of the New Frontier. A new
official style was emerging, faithfully reflected in the
Congress for Cultural Freedom-urbane, cool and bureau-
The old slogans had become passe (even as the
old policies continued). The union of intellect and power
deceptively presented itself as an apparent liberalization
of official attitudes, an apparent relaxation of American
anti-communism. McCarthyism was dead and civilized
conversation in great demand. The Congress for Cul-
tural Freedom no longer proselytized; to everyone's de-
li3ht, it sponsored conversation--bounded, of course, by
i.-,c limits of rational discourse, the agreed-upon end of
.,colo-,v but with no other visible strings attached. The
%v people to Rhodes (a pleasant place to find
011c's-, to the middle of an American winter) and en-
.ouragcu them to participate in 'a highly civilized, non-
ideological discussion of economic development-a grat-
ifying experience for everybody concerned, all the more
so since it made so few demands on the participants. Ex-
pansive and tolerant, the congress asked only that intel-
lectuals avail themselves of the increasing opportunities
for travel and enlightenment that the defense of freedom
made possible.
Home Frog., .Concors
Shortly after the founding of the Congress for Cultural
Freedom, its more active members set up subsidiaries in
various Countries. The American Committee for Cultural
Freedom was founded in 1951 by Burnham, Farrell,
Schlesin;,4; )k and others, to hold annual forums on
such to :....,, ...l'he Ex-Communist: His Role in a Democ-
racy" Anti-Americanism in Europe"; to "counteract
the in....ence of mendacious Communist propaganda" (for
instance, "the Communist assertion that the Rosenbergs
were victimized innocents"); to defend academic free-
dom; and in general "to resist the lengthening shadow of
thought-control." The committee had a limited though
illustrious membership, never exceeding 600, and it sub-
sisted on grants from the congress and on public contri-
butions. It repeatedly made public appeals for money,
even announcing, in- 1957, that it was going out of busi-
ness for lack of funds. It survived; but ever since that
time it has been semi-moribund, for reasons that will
become clearer in a moment.
Sidney Hook was the first chairman of the ACCF. He
was succeeded in 1952 by George S. Counts of Teachers
College, Columbia, who was followed in 1954 by Robert
Gorham Davis of Smith. James T. Farrell, who took
Davi
'
l
s
p
ace in thei
same year, resgned in 1956 after a
quarrel with other members of the committee. Traveling
in the Third World, he had come to the conclusion that
foreign aid was a waste of money and that the Indians,
for instance, believed that their best policy was "to flirt
with Communists, insul us and perhaps get more money
out o(us. In a'letter w Itten from Turkey and published
}'" Iu1:II:till~tl~.lL~it7it~dtr:[~c'J?rt6...h r__~_..,. ... _w. ........ .. _
old should be .,, I'M o, ,,t condition that the recipients
join the United states . "a truly honest partnership in
freedom"; otherwise Americans "should retire to our own
shores" and "go it alone."
Diana Trilling, chairman of the exccutlye and of
the.?~merican ~:ommittce for Cultural Free , attacked
,n o ~ lug ioug rec-
ord as a chainp., rstanding ' ng the free peoples
of the world." Anyone expr ..' such opinions, she said,
t Su;:.!" for th lairn hip
"no of the ACCF.
1 . r ,ell, i : ling, d that "his tray ad convinced
him that ;;c and er members had been 'w ng' in ear-
lier struggles ainst Paris office policies." His statement,
incident , suggests that the Paris office sometimes tried
rn a rd-t-. ltc nwn virwc nn s,rh~eidiarv nroani.atinnt_ in
Christopher La'id' - Gailksy 6
phasizing military aid in favor of "development," -drain-
ing from attacks on neutralism, and presenting itself as
the champion of democratic revolution in the undeveloped
world.
The practical result of the change was a partial detente,
with communism in Europe and a decidedly more aggres-
sive policy in the rest of the world (made possible by
that detente), of which the most notable products were
the Bay of Pigs, the Dominican intervention and the war
in Vietnam. The particular brand of anti-communism
that flourished in the fifties grew out of the postwar
power struggles in Europe and out of traumas of 20th-
century history-fascism, Stalinism, the crisis of liberal
democracy--all of which had concerned Europe, not
Asia. The anti-communism of the sixties focused on the.
Third World and demanded another kind of rhetoric.
Heresy or Conspiracy
eDuring its active years, however, the ACCF, represent.
d a coalition of liberals and reactionaries who shared .+
conspiratorial view of communism and who agreed,
moreover, that the Communist conspiracy had spread
through practically every level of American society. (It is
the adherence of liberals to these do(.nas that shows how
much they had conceded to the right-wing view of his-
tory.) Sidney Hook's "Heresy, Yes-Conspiracy, No!,"
published in The New York Times Magazine in 1950-51
and distributed as a pamphlet by the ACCF, set orth the
orthodox position and tried to distinguish it (not very
successfully) from that of the Right, as well as from "rit-
ualistic liberalism." Heresy-the open expression of dis-
senting opinions-had to be distinguished, according to
Hook, from secret movements seeking to attain their
ends "not by normal political or edyrcational processes but
by playing outside the rules of the game." This dis-
tinction did not lead Hook to conclude that communism,
insofar as it was a heresy as opposed to a conspiracy, was
entitled to constitutional protection. On the contrary, hc
argued that communism was a conspiracy by its very na-
ture-a point he sought to establish by quotations from
Lenin and Stalir, which purportedly revealed a grand di--
sign for world conquest. Since they were members of an
international conspiracy-servants of a foreign power
Communists could not expect to enjoy the same liberties:
enjoyed by other Americans.
The A
i
mer
can Committ'ffi
ees ocial position on acadcal-
ic freedom started from the same premise. "A member of
the Communist Party has transgressed the canons of aca-
demic responsibility, has engaged his intellect to servility.
and is therefore professionally disqualified from perform-
ing his functions as scholar and teacher." The committee
on academic freedom (Counts, Hook, Arthur O. Lovejoy
and Paul R. Hays) characteristically went: on to argue
that the matter of Communists should be left "in the hands
of the colleges, and their faculties" "Th
i
ere
s no jtt5tifi
.ca_
Lion for a Congressional committee to concern itself with
for the acadculic community. -~??`id prmrna-;n.,
u
The fLli
l
i
p
ll
l
,il:-.,.11Uf 1,{'
position will be explored in due time.
to "weak the moral case of Western demo , against
Communist
'
Hook, like manyy'rats inth r:~ b wl Hunts.
dorsed James v 4y CF, essennti tially en-
.
.
.........as? diversion, Iu 'Tp u to divide the force of
anti-communism. of u,;r,' , ,_ -
ilc arguco, gave
the unfortun impression that Ame ' was on the
verge off ss
"
m
needed that some demago
ues-
g
e to Ely
rev
nod from naming them-sou
ht t
di
g
o
scredit un l
ar
reefnrm.e by flnfairly lahrlina them at_ Rut ih.
Approved For Release 2004/11/01.: -CIA-RDP88-013151000200270001-6
 for instar?:c
with Communist
in the Chica
aid should
join the
silo
and perhaps get more money of the colle their
tApfYria
given only on
nited States in "
"; otherwise Amcric
s" and "go it alone."
OMllilr1dO1 : CIA4RDR&r8aOt1&I '
ted that A t' ican the questior3,;
that the recipients for th
)nest partnership in
Diana Trilling, chairman of the executive board of
the American Committee for Cultural Freedom, attacked
Farrell's letter on the ground that it "sullied his long rec-
ord as a champion of understanding among the free peoples
of the world." Anyone expressing such opinions, she said,
was "not suited" for the chairmanship of the ACCF.
Farrell, in resigning, said that "his travels had convinced
him that he and other members had been 'wrong' in ear-
lier struggles against Paris office policies." His statement,
incidentally, suggests that the Paris office sometimes tried
to enforce its own views on subsidiary organizations, in
spite of its disclaimers. It also shows-what should al-
ready be apparent-that the congress in its early period
took an exceptionally hard line on neutralism.
Farrell's resignation, along with other events, signaled
the breakdown of the coalition on which the American
Committee was based, a coalition of moderate liberals
and reactionaries (both groups including a large number
of ex-Communists) held together by their mutual obses-
sion with the Communist conspiracy. James Burnham was
ousted from the ACCF at about the same time. Earlier
Burnham had resigned as a member of the advisory board
of Partisan Review (which was then and still is sponsored
by the committee) in a dispute with the editors over
McCarthyism. Burnham approved of McCarthy's actions
and held that the attack upon him was a "diversionary"
issue created by Communists. William Phillips and Philip
Rahv, adopting a favorite slogan of the cold war to their
own purposes, announced that there was no room on
Partisan Review for "neutralism" about McCarthy.
Originally, the ACCF took quite literally the assertion,
advanced by Koestler and others at Berlin, that the Com-
munist issue overrode conventional 'distinctions between
Left and Right. Right-wingers likq Burnham, Farrell,
Ralph de Toledano, John Chamberlain, John Dos Passos,
and even Whittaker Chambers consorted with Schlesinger,
Hook, Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell and other liberals. In
the early fifties, this uneasy alliance worked because the
liberals generally took positlons that conceded a good
deal of ground to the Right, if they were not indistin-
guishe4 from those of the Right. But the end of the Korean
War and the censure of McCarthy in 1954 created a
slightly less oppresseve air in which the right-wing rhet-
oric of the early seemed increasingly inappropriate
to political realities. Now that McCarthy was dead as a
political force, the liberals courageously attacked him,
thereby driving the Right out of the Committee for Cul-
tural Freedom.
The ACCF and its parent, the Congress for Cultural
Freedom, had taken shape in a period of the cold war
when official anti-communism had not clearly distin-
tuished itself, rhetorically, from the anti-communism of
the Right. In a later period official liberalism, having taken
over essential features of the rightist world-view, belatedly
dissociated itself from the cruder and blatantly reactionary
type of anti-communism, and now pursued the same anti-
Communist policies in the name of anti-imperialism and
progressive change. Once again, the Kennedy administra-
tion contributed decisively to the change of style, placing
noun;tc '._surgcncv", thaq, pn .military
iidemic community.
Ton will be explored in du
itself wi?h
self-deter: .. ':~,n
"Ritualistic liberals," according to hook, not only failed
to distinguish between heresy and conspiracy, they helped
to "weaken the moral case of Western democracy against
Communist totalitarianism" by deploring witch hunts.
Hook, like many liberals in the ACCF, essentially en-
dorsed James Burnham's contention that this issue was a
Communist diversion, conjured up to divide the forces of
anti-communism. Talk of witch hunts, he argued,, gave
the unfortunate impression that America was "on the
verge of fascism."
He conceded that some demagogues-he tactfully re-
frained from naming them-sought to discredit unpopular
reforms by unfairly labeling them Communist. But the
important point was that these activities were not the offi-
cial policy of "our government," they were the actions
untutored individuals' concerning themselves with mat.
education, for example, or the federal withholding tax,
as evidence of Communist subversion-an absurdity
which suggested to Hook, not the inherent absurdity of
the anti-Communist ideology but the absurdity of
of untutored individuals' concerning themselves with mat-
ters best left to experts. "A community has a. right to de-
cide whether it wishes to support a medical system or a
school system. But it would be absurd to try to settle, by
the pressures of the market place, what medical theories
should guide medical practice or what educational theories
should guide educational practice." Likewise it was ab-
surd to argue that a withholding tax on wages. was "a sign
of a police state." "There may be relevant arguments
against any general or specific form of tax withholding,
but they arc of a technical economic nature and have ab-
solutely nothing to do with a police state."
Once again, the student of these events is Struck by the
way in which ex-Communists seem always to retained
the worst of Marx and Lenin and to have 'iscarded Or
best. The elitism which once glorified intellectuals as a rev-
olutionary avante-garde now glorifies them as experts and
social technicians. On the other hand, Marx's insistence
that political issue be seen in their social context-his in-
sistence, for example, that questions of taxation are not
"technical" questions but political questions the solutions
.to which reflect the type of social organization :n which
they arise-this social determinism. which makes Marx's
ideas potentially so useful as a me-hod of social analysis,
has been sloughed off by Hook without a These
reflections lead one to the conclusion, once that in-
tellectuals were more attracted to Marxisri in the fist
place as an elitist and anti-democratic ideology than as a
means of analysis which provided, not answers, but
beginnings of a critical theory of society.
Hook's whole line of argument, with its glorification of
experts and its attack on amateurs, reflected one of the
dominant values of the modern intellectual -his acute
sense of himself as a professional with a ve?.'ed interest in
technical solutions to political problems. Leave educati'
to the educators add taxation to the tax lawyers.: icok's
attack on "cultural vigilantism" paralleled the academic
interpretation of McCarthyism as a form of populism and
a form of anti-intellectualism, except that it did not even
go so far as to condemn McCarthyism itself; instead, it fo-
cused attention on peripheral issues like progressive edu-
cation and ,the withholding tax.
Lh~jjca defended McCarthy.
ApprovedFor.Release 2004/11/01 CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
left "in the bane?~
"There is no
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
L - &a, Ll i i.1 >l a Id u Ln ~, 7 I
sj cr L $ -Gallo. ?d
Irving hri.1w 's notorious article in Commentary ("Civil
Liberties: A Study in Confusion") has been quoted many
times to show how scandalously the anti-Communist Left
allied itself with the Right. Kristol's article was a scandal,
but it was no more a scandal than the apparently more
moderate position which condemned unauthorized anti-
eornmuni'?nh while endorsing the official variety. By de-
fining the issue as "cultural vigilantism," the anti-Conh-
munist intellectuals lent themselves to the dominant drive
of the modern state-not only to eliminate the private
use of violence (vigilantism) but to discredit. all crit-
icism which does not come from officially recognized
experts ("cultural vigilantism"). The attack of vigilant-
i.m played directly into the state's hands. The govern-
ment had a positive interest in suppressing McCarthy,
not because of any solicitude for civil liberties but be-
cause ,N cCarthy's unauthorized anti-communisnh com-
pctcd with and disrupted official anti-Communist activ-
ides like the Voice of America. This point was made
again a.,u again during the Army-McCarthy hearings.
(Irueed the fact that it was the Army that emerged
as NlcCarthy's most powertul antagonist is itself
eslive.) The same point dominated the propaganda
c,; ?h;. ACCF: unofficial anti-communism actually weak-
ereu the nation in its struggle With COnhrrrt11115111. "Govern-
rr,ent agencies," .aid 1-look, "find their work hampered by
the private levers of cultural vigilantism which have arisen
like a rash from the anti-Communist mood," "Constant
vigilance," he added, "does not require private citizens to
usurp the functions of agencies entrusted with the task of
detection and exposure."
In effect-thougn they would have denied it-the in-
tellectuals of the ACCF defined cultural freedom as what-
ever best served the interests of the United States Govern-
ment. Vigilantism was had because it competed with.the
experts; also because it blackened the image of the
United States abroad. When James Wechsler was dropped
from a television program, The New Leader (a magazine
which' consistently took the same positions as the ACCF)
wrote: "This lends substance to the Communist charge
that America is hysteria-ridden." After McCarthy's at-
tack on the Voice of America, even Sidney Hook criti-
cized McCarthy because of "the incalculable harm he is
doing to the reputation of the United States abroad." The
ACCF officially condemned McCarthy's investigation of
the Voice of America. "The net effect, at this crucial nio-
nient, has been to frustrate the very possibility of the Unit-
ed States embarking on a program of psychological war-
against world Cornrhlunlsnl." A few months later, the
ACCT' announced the appointill ent of Sol Stein as its ex-
ecutive director. Stein had been a writer and political af-
fairs analyst for the Voice of America. He was succeded'
in 1956 by Norman Jacobs, chief political, commentator of
the Voice of America and head of its Central Radio
Features Branch from 1948 to 1955.
i he Sincerity Test
While avoiding a principled attack on McCart
the ACCF kept up a running fire on "anti-anti
ism." (1t` as characteristic of the period
positions were for tw,41ated not with
stance of a question
1953, the ACCF
o,ht .. - grounds on w
the Rosenberg,
fore any a
ists
tn,
mmun-
issues so
to an attitude or
desirable to hold.) In
own a directive setting
it was p1
rg case. "[The] pi
uilt must be openly acknoo'Nedged be-
for clemency can be regarded as having
in good faith. Those who allow the Commun-
make use of tlhclr nnr,1e in silch a way as to permit
t(~j rt?}r ~~yr ,~'1 (
1 LVi~ral
ACCF denied their right to take them. Arthur Miller in
195? wrote a statement condemning political interference
with art- in the Soviet Union. T:1e ACCT7 did not con-
gratulate him; it asked why he had not taken the same
position in 1949. The committee also noted that Miller, in
any case, had made an unforgivable mistake: he had criti-
cized political interference with art not only in the Soviet
Union but in the United States, thereby implying that the
two situations were comparable. American incidents,. the
committee declared, were "episodic violations of the
tradition of political and cultural freedom in the United
States," whereas "the official government policy" of the
USSR was to "impose a `party line' in all fields of art,
culture and science, and enforcing such a line with sanc-
tions ranging from imprisonment to exile to loss of job."
Having dutifully rapped Miller's knuckles, the ACCF then
went on to make use of his statement by challenging the
Soviet Government to circulate it in Russia.
Where the Chips Fell
In 1955 a New York Times editorial praised the ACCF
for playing a vital role in "the struggle for the loyalty of the
world's intellectuals"-in itself a curious way of describing
the defense of cultural freedom. The Times went on to
make the same claim that was so frequently made by the
committee itself. "The group's authority to, speak for
freedom against Communist slavery has been enhanced
by its courageous fight against those threatening our own
civil liberties from the Right." We have already noted
that the committee's quarrel with the Right, even though
it finally led to the departure of the right-wing members
of the committee, was far from "courageous." Even when
it found itself confronted with cultural vigilantism in
its most obvious forms, the committee stopped short of an
unambiguous defense of intellectua: freedom. In 1955, for
instance, Muhlenberg College canceled a Charlie Chaplin
film festival under pressure from a local post of the Ameri-
can Legion. The ACCF protested that "while it, is perfect-
ly clear that Chaplin tends to be pro-Soviet and anti-Amer-
ican in his political attitudes, there is no reason why we
should not enjoy his excellent movies, which have nothing
to do with Communist totalitarianism." This '.tatement left
the disturbing implication that if Chaplin's f.lms could be
regarded as political, the ban would have been justified.
The assertion that art had nothing to do with politics was
the poorest possible ground on which to defend cultural
freedom.
But whatever the nature of the ACCF's critique of vigi-
lantism, a better test of its "authority to speak for free-
dom" would have been its willingness to criticize official
activities in the United States-the real parallel to Soviet
repression. (In the Soviet Union attacks of vigilantism are
doubtless not only not proscribed but encouraged. It is
attacks on Soviet officials that are not permitted.) It is
worth examining, therefore, the feW occasions on which
the ACCF expressed even the slightest disapproval of
ban on Pravda and Izvestia as "unreasonable
fective in dealing with the Communist conspirackY'A year
later th ommittee deplored the Treasur apartment's
raid on the of The Daily Work . 'However much
we abominate The ' Worker. , we must protest even
this much interference wt democratic right to pub-
lish freely," The ACCF c ' ciz he Agriculture Depart-
ment's dismissal of If Ladejins and the Atomic
Energy Commiss' s persecution of enheimcr, in
both cases a ng that the victims had esta shed them-
selves in cent years as impeccably anti-Comn4 t. On
one casion the ACCF attacked the U.S. Inform tion
,cncy because it had canceled an art show in response
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
 ti 1o 171
Approved For Rele
'inccrity Tcst
doubtless n'o
attacks on Soviet
%11/01: CIA-RUR881*15 0ft7Qm l lty
the AC pressed even the slightest disapprc
While avoiding a principled attack on McCarthyism,
ncc ACCF kept up a running fire on "anti-anti-comrnun-
ism." (It was characteristic of the period that issues so
often presented themselves in this sterile form and that
positions were formulated not with regard to the sub-
stance of a question but with regard to an attitude or
"posture which it was deemed desirable to hold.) In
January, 1953, the ACCF handed down a directive setting
out the grounds on which it was permissible to involve
oneself in the Rosenberg case. "[The] pre-eminent fact of
the Rosenbcrgs' guilt must be openly acknowledged be-
fore any appeal for clemency can be regarded as having
been made in good faith. Those who allow the Commun-
ists to make use of their name in such a way as to permit
any doubt to arise about the Rosenbcrgs' guilt are doing
a grave disservice to the cause of justice-and of mercy,
too."
In 1954, the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee
sponsored a conference at Princeton, at which Albert
Einstein, along with Corliss Lamont, I. F. Stone, Dirk
Struik, and others, urged intellectuals not to cooperate
with "witch-hunting" Congressional committees. Sol
Stein immediately announced that the ACCF op-
posed any "exploitation" of academic freedom and civil
liberties "by persons who are at this late date still sympa-
thetic to the cause of the Soviet Union." Following its
usual practice the ACCF proceeded to lay down a stand-
ard to which any "sincere" criticism of American life,
even of McCarthyism, had to conform. "The test of any
group's sincerity is whether it is opposed to threats of
freedom anywhere in the world and whether it is con-
cerned about the gross suppression of civil liberties and
academic freedom behind the Iron Curtain. The Emer-
gency Civil Liberties Committee has not met that test."
The validity of criticism, in other words, depended not so
much on its substance as on its adherence to a prescribed
ritual of dissent-a ritual, one can see, which had a spe-
cial significance for ex-Communists because it required
the critic first of all to purge himself by denouncing the
crimes,of Stalinism, but which invariably served to blunt
criticism of the United States.
On another occasion, the ACCF tried to plant with the
New York World Telegram and Sun a story, already cir-
culated by The New Leader, that a certain liberal journal-
ist was- a "Soviet espionage agent." Sol Stein called the
city desk with what he described as a "Junior Alger Hiss",
story. The reporter who took the call asked whether the
proper place to determine the truth of these charges was
not a court of law. Stein replied, in this reporter's words,
that "libel suits were a Communist trick to destroy oppo-
sition by forcing it to bear the expense of trial." The
reporter then asked whether the ACCF was "upholding
the right of people to call anyone a Communist without
being subject to libel suits." Stein said: "You misunder-
stand the context of the times. Many reckless charges are
being made today. But when the charges are documented,
the committee believes you have the right to say someone
is following the Communist line without being brought into
court." The reporter asked if Stein had any proof that the
journalist in .question was a Soviet spy. Stein said no, "but
an policy.
In March, 1955, the committee criticized a post offio:.
ban on Pravda and Izvestia as "unreasonable and inef-
fective in dealing with the Communist conspiracy." A year
later the committee deplored the Treasury Department',
raid on the office of The Daily Worker. "However much
we abominate The Daily Worker ... we must protest even
this much interference with the democratic right to pub-
lish freely." The ACCF criticized the Agriculture Depart.
ment's dismissal of Wolf Ladejinsky and the Atomic
Energy Commission's persecution of Oppenheimer, ir,
both cases arguing that the victims had established them-
selves in recent years as impeccably anti-Communist. On
one occasion the ACCF attacked the U.S. Information
Agency because it had. canceled an art show in response
to charges that four of the artists represented were subver-
sive. Diana Trilling insisted that "actions of this kind hold
us up to derision abroad." She went on to question the
judgment of government officials "who mix politics and
art to the detriment of both."
On the other hand, when 360 citizens petitioned the
Supreme,Court to repeal the 1950 Internal Security Act
(which created the Subversive Activities Control Board).
James T. Farrell issued a statement for the ACCF calling
the petitions "naive," accusing them of a "whitewash" of
the Communist Party, and declarinz freedom were lcf;
in their hands "it would have no fu
The infrequency of complaints against American offi-
cials, together with the triviality of the issues that called
them forth-as contrasted with the issues against which
other protested out of their "naivete"--show that the
anti-Communist liberals cannot claim to have defended
cultural freedom in the United States with the same con-
sistency and vigor with which they defended it in Russia.
In the first place, they concerned themselves v'ith .ie
actions of vigilantes at a time when the gravest threat
to freedom came from the state. In the second place, ever
the attack on vigilantism was halfhearted; it was only
when McCarthy moved against the Voice of Americ e
that the ACCF criticized him at all, and most of the
criticism came after McCarthy had already been cen-
sured by the Senate. Claiming to be the vanguard of the
struggle for cultural freedom, the anti-Communist intel-
lectuals in reality brought up the rear.
Finally, they based their positions (such positions n,
they took) on grounds that had nothing to do with cut
tural freedom. They condemned vigilantism on th,
grounds that it embarrassed the United States abrt .
and interfered with the governments efforts to ro'1t on
the Communist conspiracy at home. They criticized inter-
ference with art not because they thought that the best
art inevitably subverts conventions (including r !;heal
ones) and is valuable for that very reap :. n but :fuse
they believed, on the contrary, that art and Politics - t:c
be "divorced."* They defended acaden, 'recdoni for
*The popularity of the "new criticism," with its insistence that
a work of art can be understood without any reference to the
author's life, was symptomatic of the cultural climate of the
fifties.
non-Communists only, and even for non-Communists they
defended it on the ground that educators, as experts it
a complicated technique,. ought to be left 'alone to nran-
Ap roved.For Release 2004/11/01,: CIAO RDP88-0131.5 O0O20Q27O001-6
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
J, it Yaw a-
7 7 .7,
r
' `lam L L L La
her Lasch - Gooey C .
not alto-.;ether surprising, years later, to find that the
relation o intellectuals to power was even closer than
it hwJ seemed at the time.
The Profcs_ional and the State
As a g:.)up. intellectuals had achieved a semi-official
status which assigned them professional responsibility for
the machinery of education and for cultural affairs in
general. Within this sphere-within the schools, the uni-
versities. the theatre, the concert hall and the politico-
literary magazines-they had achieved both autonomy and
affluence, as the social value of their services became
apparent to the govcrnment, to corporations and to the
four,,. loons. a
Professional intellectuals ha?I b7 ?'""e indispensable to
;y and to the state (in ways which neither the intel-
lectuals nor even the state always perceived), partly be-
c:,use of the increasing importance of education--especial-
ly the necu for trained experts-and partly because the
cok, war seemed to demand that the United States cotn-
pete with communism in the -cultural sphere as well, as
in every other. The modern state,, among other things,
is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing
crises and claiming to be the only instrument which can
effectively deal with them. This propaganda, in order
to be successful, demands the cooperation of writers,
teachers and artists not as paid propagandists or state-
censored time servers but as "free" intellectuals capable
of policing their own jurisdictions and of enforcing ac-
ceptable standards of responsibility within 'the various
intellectual professions.
A system like this presupposes two things: ?a high
degree of professional consciousness among intellectuals,
and general economic affluence which frees the patrons
of intellectual life from the need to account for the
money they spend on culture. Once these conditions
exist, as they have existed in the United States for some
time, intellectuals can be trusted to censor themselves,
and crude "political" influence. over intellectual life
comes to seem passe.
Only when they win acceptance for pure research do
intellectuals establish themselves as masters in their
own house, free from the nagging public scrutiny that
naively expects to see the value of. intellectual activity
measured in immediate practical applications. This battle
having been won, the achievement of "academic free-
dom" is comparatively easy, since academic freedom
presents itself (as we have seen) not as a defense of
the necessarily subversive character of good intellectual
work but as a prey ..uisite for pure research. Moreover,
the more intellectual purity identifies itself with "value-
free" investigations, the more it empties itself of political
content and the easier it is for public officials to tolerate
it. The "scientific" spirit, spreading from the natural
sciences. to social studies, tends. to drain the latter of
enti~kT~ Why.
In the vict Union, intellectuals are ins ciently
professionalized to be able effectively to st political
control. As one would expect in a eloping society,
a strot commitment to applied owledge mitigates
against the vclopment of " e" standards which is
one of the c rcre ' rtes of professionalization.
The high status c ' cd by American intellectuals
depends on their aving nvinced their backers in
govcrnmcr: an ? ndustry that ' 'c research" produces
better res in the long run than - - less empiricism.
But in rdc, for intellectuals to win this battle it was
ne sary ..ut only to convince themselves of these
-
I
.,
I...,
to knowledge. The advancement of pure learning on a
Newspa l d, the America lends of the Mia01e
-c National Council of Churc ' nd many other
Approved For Release 2004/11/01': CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
t
P~ UOU, 0 [F
(I I ,
Christc ter
university is free, but it has purged itself of subversive
elements. The literary intellectuals are free, but they use
their freedom to propagandize for the state.
The freedom of American intellectuals as a profes-
sional class blinds them to their freedom. It leads them
to confuse the political interests of intellectuals as an
official minority with the progress of intellect. Their
freedom from overt political control (particularly from
vigilantes") blinds them to the way in which the
"knowledge industry" has been incorporated into the
state and the military-industrial complex. Since the state
exerts so little censorship over the cultural enterprises
it subsidizes-since on the. contrary it supports basic
research, congresses for cultural freedom, and various
liberal organizations-intellectuals do not see that these
activities serve the interests of the state, not the interests
c.l the intellect. All they can see is the absence of exter-
nal censorship; that and that alone proves to their satis-
faction that Soviet intellectuals are slaves and American
intellectuals free men. Meanwhile their own self-censor-
ship makes them eligible for the official recognition and
support that sustain the illusion that the American
Government, unlike the Soviet Government, greatly values
the life of the mind. The circle of illusion is thus com-
plete; and even the revelation that the campaign for
"cultural freedom" was itself the creation and tool of
the state has not yet torn away the veil.
The Intellectual Front
That there is no necessary contradiction between the
interests of organized intellectuals and the intc.csts of
American world power, that the intellectual community
can be trusted to police itself and should be left free
from annoying pressures from outside, that dissenting
opinion within the framework of agreement on cold-war
fundamentals not only should be tolerated but can be
turned to effective propaganda use abroad-all these
things were apparent, in the early fifties, to the more
enlightened members of the governmental bureaucracy;
but they were far from being universally acknowledged
even in the bureaucracy, much less in Congress or in the
country as a whole. "Back in the early 1950s," says
Thomas W. Braden, the 'man who supervised the cul-
tural activities of the CIA, " ... the idea that Congress
would have approved many of our projects was about
as likely as the John Birch Society's approving Medi-
care." There was resistance to these projects in the CIA
itself. To a man -of Braden's backgrouna and inclina-
tions, the idea of supporting liberal and Socialist "fronts"
grew naturally out of the logic of the cold war. During
the Second World War Braden served with the OSS-
next to the Communist movement itself, :'.?v most fruit-
ful source, it would appear, of postwar at,,:-.ommunism
(the same people often having served in After
joining the CIA in 1950, Braden served as ,president
e a.., fed
6"A" It%
tnent and in academic circles; but when in 1950 he
,.proposed that "the CIA ought to take on the Russians
by penetrating -a battery of International fronts," his
more conventional colleagues made the quaint objection
that "this is just another one of those goddamnci pro-
posals for getting into everybody's hair." All-w. Dulles
intervened to save the project after it had been voted
down by the division chiefs. "Thus began the first
centralized effort to combat Communist fronts."
Before they ' had finished, the directors of the CIA
 ,4 tits 4,n t emiities lt5e1[ o! political 11V At tv tit ' . viluu?+u~t It 'IV l 11
., . V fi lop P e t .' w nrf~v fir nllh =ttffiri,te to migrate ful source, it would ati3scarr.e ptxstwar, anti-t17m_ ilia
V!" J
otrbf F~1tt~~?Q a ssstden
ttdi
i
e
c
a
s
tcl
?.ayi
ni w. Cline nt. i
of, the Cali 'Tbpsnla Board of 'Cdttculion. represente
g
titcnt iC trumcnts of bureaucratic control. 1 a new type of uul:[ut, equally itvlue iu go-. n-
ntl
ffi i
e
--? --
"iri. tae Soviet union, intellectuals are a su
be M. effectively to resist political proposed that "the CIA ou o take on the.'Russians.
r f
...,..I*-
a t
ess
-
o
a
ect
ould ex
A
socie t
...
p
om'
s one ,?
t;V:JUV1,
--- o
'strong commitment to nnnlied knowledge mitigates more conventional cagues made the lint objection
on of hose
h
hi
i
"
e
b+.... 1--??
s anot
s
standards which is, that t
a~~;finst the development of "pure
:..v . ever
bod
's hair " Allan Du la4
y
y
b
i
ccri t, ,wt
t haft
The high status enjoyed by American intellectuals interv a to save the project after
depends on their having convinced their backers in by the division chiefs. "Thus began th
..- __ a-..1:-...! _rr,.-s ...- ....ml.o? r''..mm.,nic* frnnfc"
sic
du
1.y ? ,.,? ....
go Yt.InI111411t "114 +11
Letter results in the long run than mindless empiricism. Before they had finished, the directors of the CIA
But in order for intellectuals to win this battle it was had infiltrated the National Student Association, the
necessary not only to convince themselves of these Institute of International Labor Research, the American
things but to overcome. a narrowly utilitarian approach Newspaper Guild, the American Friends of the Middle
to knowledge. The advancement of pure learning. on a East, the National Council of Churches and many other
large scale demands that the 'sponsors of learning be worthy organizations. "We . . . placed one agent in a
willing to spend large. sums of money without hope of Europe-based organization of intellectuals called the
immediate, return. In advanced capitalism, this require- -f . Congress for Cultural Freedom.- Braden notes. This
ment happily coincides with the capitalists' 'need to : en-- "a ept" was. Michael Josselson, who was born in Russia
gage' In conspicuous expenditure; Hence the dominant . in 1908, educated in, rmany, represented American
role played by "captains of industry in the profession., department stores in Paris in the mid-thirties, came to
alization of higher education (with the results described the United States just before the war, and was naturalized
by Veblen in The Higher Learning in America), in 1941. During the war Josselson, like Braden, served
At a still later stage of development, the same. role is in the OSS. Afterwards he was sent to Berlin as an
played by the foundations and directly by government, officer for cultural affairs in Patton's army. There he
both of which need to engage in a'form of expenditure met Melvin J. Lasky. In 1947 he and Lasky led a
(not nccessa-ily conspicuous in all its details) that shares walkout of anti-Communists from a cultural meeting
with the conspicuous expenditure of the capitalist a in the Russian sector of Berlin. When they organized
marked indifference to results. Modern bureaucracies the Congress for Cultural Freedom in 1950, Josselson
are money-spending agencies. The more money a bu- became its executive director-a position he still holds,
reaucracy can spend, the larger the budget it can claim. in spite of the exposure of his connection with the CIA.
Si-,cc the bureaucracy is more interested in its own "Another agent"-Lasky-"became an editor of En-
aggrandizement than in doing a job, the bureaucrat is counter." The usefulness of these agents, Braden says,
restrained in his expenditure only by the need to account was that they "could not only propose anti-Communist
to sonic superior and ultimately, perhaps, to the public; programs to the official leaders of the organizations but
but in complicated bureaucracies it is hard for anyone they could also suggest ways and means to solve the
to account for the money, particularly since a state of inevitable budgetary problems. Why not see if the needed
continual emergency can be invoked to justify secrecy money could be obtained from 'American foundations?' "
in all the important operations of government. This state Note that he does not describe the role of the CIA as
of perfect nonaccountability, which is the goal toward ' having been restricted 'to financing these fronts; its
which bureaucracies ceaselessly strive, works to the agents were also to promote "anti-Communist pro-
indirect advantage of pure research and of the profes- grams." When it became public that the Congress for
sionalized intellectuals. Cultural Freedom had been financed for sixteen years
In Soviet Russia, a comparatively undeveloped econ- by the CIA, the editors of Encounter made a gre=tt point
emy cannot sustain the luxury of unaccounted expendi- of the fact that the congress had never dictated policy
ture, and the bureaucracy is still infected, therefore, by to the magazine; but the whole question takes on a dif-
a penny-pinching mentality that begrudges expenditures ferent Color in light of Braden's disclosure that Lask
unless they can be justified in utilitarian terms. This himself worked for the CIA. Under thc'. circumstances,
attitude, together with the lack of professional conscious- it was unnecessary for the congress to dictate' policy to
ness among intellectuals themselves (many of whom Encounter; nor would the other editors, ignorant of
share the belief that knowledge is valuable not for itself Lasky's connections, have been aware of any direct inter-
but for the social and political uses to which it can be ' vention by the CIA.
put), is the source of the political interference with On April 27, 1966, The New York Times. in a
knowledge that is so widely deplored in the West. It is long article on the CIA, reported that the CIA had
obvious that the critical spirit cannot thrive under these supported the Congress for Cultural Freedom and other
conditions. Even art is judged in narrowly utilitarian organizations through a system of dummy foundations
terms and subjected to autocratic regulation by ignorant and that "Encounter magazine . . . was for a long
bureaucrats. time-though it is not now---one of the indirect bene-
What needs to be emphasized, however, it that the ficiaries of CIA funds." (Rumors to this effect had
triumph of academic freedom in the United States, under circulated for years.) .The editors of Encounter--Stephen
Lasky and Irving Kristot--wr~'tc an extremely
ender
S
b
"
p
out,
cial 1 conditions which have brought it a
this -.e$
, detiefssttiiiv lead ?wto .intellectual Independence disingenuous letter to the Times in ..tich they tried to
.~_... a,....... :e outri
ht They
g
have undermined their capacity for indcpendcnt'thought.
The American press is fret, but it censors itself. The
Ford and Rocketetter Foundations to the s1-%'.0tcr
publicly listed in the ofliciul directories."
 Approved For Release 2004/11101 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
R L LZ ~ a bn
I ~~ J, 00.
C r opt g L sch- fi r I I
hubliely Iistcd was the fact that some of these "smaller
ones" tee i%ed tu'ucy from the CIA for the express
purpose of suppo; tint; the Congress for Cultural Free-
dom. Thus hetwuen 1961 and 1966,, the CIA through
some of its phony foundations (in this case the Tower
Fund, the Borden Trust, the Beacon Fund, the Price
Fund, the Heights Fund and the Monroe Fund) gave
S430,700 to the Hoblitzcllc Foundation, a philanthropical
enterprise established by the Dallas millionaire Karl
Hoblitzclle, and the Hoblitzellc Foundation obligingly
passed along these funds' to the Congress for Cultural
Freedom. Needless to say, no hint of these transactions
ap: ^arcd in the Lasky-Spcnder-Kristol letter to the
Times.
Privately, Lasky went much further and declared
categorically that Encounter had never received funds
from the CIA. (Later he admitted that he had been
"insufficiently frank" with his colleagues and friends.)
In public. however. the magazine's defense was con-
ducted in language of deliberate ambiguity. Another
letter to the Times, signed by John K. Galbraith, George
Kennan, Robert Oppenheimer and Arthur Schlesinger,
Jr., completely avoided the question of Encounter's
financing ;:nd argued merely that the magazine's edi-
torial independence proved that it had never been "used"
by the CIA. One must ask why these men felt it neces-
sary to make such a guarded statement; and why, since
they had to state their position so cautiously, they felt
it necessary to make any statement at all. The matter
is even more puzzling in view of Galbraith's statement
in the New York World Journal Tribune (March 13,
1 967 ) that "some years ago," while attending a meeting
of the congress in Berlin (he probably refers to a confer-
eutce held there in 1960), he had been told by a "knowl-
,I~; ,~hlr Ii iromi" that the Ct-ttgre.'s t'oi C'uhurul Freedom
nn ht l'c tcectving support from the CIA. (ittlbraith says
that he "subjected, its treasurer to interrogation and
found that the poor fellow had been trained in ambiguity
but not dissemblance." "I was disturbed," he says, "and
I don't think I would have attended any more meetings"
if his entrance into government service had not ended
his participation. In another interview Galbraith told
Ivan Yates of the London Observer (May 14, 1967),
that he "made a mental note to attend no more meetings
of the Congress." Yates asked "how in that case he
could possibly have signed the letter to The New York
1Imes. He replied that at the time, he had 'very strong
suspicions' that the CIA had been financing the Con-
gress. 'I was writing really with reference to Encounter,
but you could easily persuade me that the letter was
much too fulsome.'
Whereas Lasky. believes that he was "insufficiently
frank," Galbraith allows ,that he may have been "too
tulsontc. w
tq WI1at rigorous standards
iemar able
~
.
o lrit : t:~ ~a c arts lobs of cultural freedom
h td rll I rturbable
congress has had no loyalty except an unswerving com-
mitment to cultural freedom. . " Yet one of the
signers of this statement was sufficiently skeptical td
have "made a mental note" not to attend any more
meetings of he Congress! And he was assuring the
still unsuspecting public of the congress, unimpeachable
independence long after he had privately reached the
conclusion that it was probably being supported by
t: "!, ,,
W a Out tit V "
thnt is Runnc secl to have been created Ty the Johnson
...,:..$ .n. `4kG ual Gr'i.:vr. .:.4 rrS gee. Fa:a:.,,,,.
Christopher Lascb-Gall y 12
inability to conceive any reason for opposition to com-
munism except bribery by the CIA." When pressed, he
said that "so long as I have been a member of the
Encounter Trust, Encounter has not been the beneficiary,
direct or indirect, of CIA funds." (The subsidies to
Encounter, it is now known, ran from 1953 to 1964,
although the congress's connection with the CIA, accord-
ing to Galbraith, continued until 1966.) Moreover,
Schlesinger said, Spender, Lasky and Kristol had re-
vealed "the past sources of Encounter's support" and
documented "its editorial and political independence."
They had, of course, done nothing of the kind. The
magazine's editorial. independence was not to be taken
on the editors' word, and the question of its financing
was an issue they had studiously avoided. Why did
Schlesinger go out of his way to endorse their evasions?
Presumably he knew as much about Encounter's rela-
tions with the CIA as Galbraith-probably it good deal
more. How was cultural freedom served by lending one-
self to a deliberate deception?
In its August issue, Encounter published a scurrilous
attack on O'Brien by "It" (Godonwy Rees). Karl Miller
of The New Statesman offered O'Brien space to reply,
but when Frank Kcrmode of Encounter (who has since
resigned as editor, saying that he knew nothing of Lasky's
connections) learned of this, he. called Miller and
threatened to sue The New Statesman for libel if
O'Brien's piece contained any reference to Encounter's
relations with the CIA. O'Brien then sued Encounter
for libel and won a judgment in Ireland.
Throughout this controversy, the editors of Encounter
have repeatedly pointed to their editorial independence,
first in order to deny (by implication) any connection
with the CIA. and then when it was impossible any
longer tai deny that, in order to prove that the CIA,
although supporting the magazine, had not tried to dic-
tate its editorial policy-or in Josselson's words, that
the money had "never, never" been used "for propaganda
and intelligence purposes." Spender, Kristol and Lasky,
vt their letter to the Times, claimed that ."we are our
own masters and are part of nobody's propaganda."
The letter signed by Galbraith and Schlesinger declared
that Encounter maintained "no loyalty except an. un-
swerving commitment to cultural freedom" and that it
had "freely criticized actions and policies of all nations,
including the United States." These statements, however,
need, to be set against Thomas Braden 's account of the
rules that guided the International Organ ion tof the
CIA; "Use legitimate, existing organizations; disguise
the extent of American interest; protect the integrity of
the organization by not. requiring It to support every
aspect of official American policy."
These rules do more than shed light on the pature
and extent of Encounter's editorial 'freedom. .0.. pub- .
lishing t;~iem at a time when they must surel embrrass
the Write oncerncd, Braden reveals the ex~rfit of bile con-
sense of freedom. a
Thomas, for insta
Relations we
Thomas B
a worth
end.
used and that o ie's
illusion. Ndrman
e, admits that he
for hls'Institute of Ini
uld have, known
coming from, but (like d
with, like
en himself) what he chiefly regr`e
tale work has had to come pretnaturelyy`1
e. Kaplan Fund, Thomas insists, "ri4ver; ;,ink
an
in any way".!-which, Merely means that hie was
er aware of its' interference. He does not see that
elea 20b4/11/01 CIA-F DP88-01315R1100 0t `l00O f-ti
 y: Schla y~
?? um ?tvic u uan sncu iignt on the nature
and extent of Encounters editorial freedom. By pub-
lishin
th
g
em at a time when thtlb
ey us surey emarrass
CI/~1~1~+$t13 tc in ee NP
ogress for
ally dealt with the'
With Ell ('01111 It' r
that
name. The letter 'rates
of the -ongress, its maN
congress has had no 1
mitmcnt to cultur
signers of this
have "made
meetings p
indc
con
of inteliectual honesty the champions of c,
s assuring the
nimpeachable
tad privately
ably being sup
rted by
We have heard a great deal about the "credibility gap"
that is supposed to have been created-by the Johnson
Administration; but what about the credibility of our
most eminent intellectuals? As a further indication of
the values that prevail among them, when the Encounter
affair finally became public, Galbraith's principal concern
was that a valuable public enterprise was in danger of
being discredited. The whole wretched business seemed
inescapably to point to the conclusion that cultural free-
dom had been consistently confused with American
propaganda, and that "cultural freedom," as defined
by its leading defenders, was-to put it bluntly-a hoax.
Yet at precisely the moment when the dimensions of
the hoax were fully revealed, Galbraith joined the con.,
gress' bond of (!irectors; and "I intend," he says, "to
put some extra effort into its activities. I think this is
the right course and I would urge similar effort on behalf
of other afflicted but reformed organizations."
Wha! should a "free thinker" do, asks the Sunday
Times of London, when he finds out that his free thought
has been subsidized by a ruthlessly aggressive intelli-
gence agency as part of the international cold 'war?
According to the curious values that prevail in American
society, he should make a redoubled effort to salvage
the reputation of organizations that have been compro-
mised, it would seem, beyond redemption. Far from
"reforming" themselves---even assuming that this was
possible-Encounter and the Congress for Cultural Free-
dom have vindicated the very men who led them into
disaster. At theirneeting in Paris last month, officials
of the congress voted to keep Josselson 'in his post.
Lasky's resignation, 'was likewise rejected by the man-
a "ernent of Encounter.
Ever since The New York Times asserted that En-
counter had ' been subsidized by the CIA, the - congress
and its defenders have tried to brazen out the crisis
by intimidating their critics-the same tactics that
worked so well in the days of the cold war. Arthur
Schlesinger leaped into the breach by attacking one of
Encounter's principal critics, Conor Cruise O'Brien. Fol-
lowing the Times's initial disclosures, O'Brien delivered
a lecture at New York University, subsequently pub-
lished in Book Week, in which he referred to the Times
story and went on to observe that "the beauty of the
[CIA-Encounter] operation , was that writers of the
first rank, who had no interest at all in serving the
power structure, were induced, to do so unwittingly,"
"
while "the;; writing specifically required by the power
"
tructure
s cpuld be done by writers of lesser ability,
alty ec
freedom. ;
rural freedom
gwffJU )VV1A1
rcover, it specific-
'ultural Freedom, not
not even mention by
xamination of the record
c most skeptical that the
ept an unswerving corn-
mental note" not It
the Congress! And he
iciently skeptical td
attend any more
ecting public of the congress
q ,otnbe,,comprehen-
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
live in -slavery. Now it appears that the very men who
were most active in spreading this gospel were them-
selves the servants ("witting" in some cases, unsuspsct
mg in others) of the secret police. The whole show-the
youth congresses, the cultural congresses, the trips
abroad, the great glamorous display of American freedom
and American civilization and the American standard
of living--was all arranged behind the scenes by men
who believed, with Thomas Braden, that "the cold war
was and is a war, fought with ideas instead of bombs."
Men who have never been able ?to conceive of Ideas ' as
anything but instruments of national . power were the
sponsors of "cultural freedom..
The revelations about the intellectuals and the CLA
should also make it easier to understand a point about
the relation of intellectuals to power that has been widely
misunderstood. In associating themselves with the state
in the hope of influencing it, intellectuals deprive 'them..
selves of the real influence they could have as men who
refuse to judge the validity of ideas by the requirements.
of national power or any other entrenched interest. Time
after time in this century it has been shown that the
dream of influencing the state is a delusion. Instead the
state corrupts the intellectuals. The state cannot be
influenced by the advice of well-meaning intellectuals in
the inner councils of government; it can only be resisted.
The way to resist it is simply to refuse to put oneself
? at its service. For intellectuals that does not mean play.
ing at revolution; it does not mean putting on blackface
and adopting the speech of the ghetto; it does not mean
turning on, tuning in .and dropping out; It does not even
mean engaging in desperate acts of conscience which
show one's willingness to take risks and to undergo
physical danger. Masked as a higher selflessness, these
acts become self-serving, having' as. their object not truth
or even social change but the : pt otlon of the iadir:
vidual's self-esteem. Moreover they betray, at a deeper
level, the same loss of faith, which drives ?others into the
service of the men in power--ra haunting suspicion that
histo'rybelongs' to men of action and that men of Ideas
are powerless int a world that has tin. use for.philosophy.
It is precisely this belief ' that has enabled the same
men in One lifetime to serve both the Communist party
and the CIA in t}te delusion that they were helping to
make history-only to find, in both .cases, that; all they
had made was, a lie. But. these.defeats--the. revelue,
that the man of action,' revolutionist or bureaucrat, scorns
the philosopher whom he is able :: to use --have, not led
the philosopher to conclude that he should not,allow
himself to be used; they merely reinforce. his self-contempt
and make him the ready ;victim of a new political cause,
The despair. of intellect is closely related to the despair
of democracy. In our time intellectuals arc fascinated
conspire and intrigue, even as they celebrate the "f
m
k
f
ar
et p ace o
ideas" (Its if a ex cion thatldy-
ess area
.tot` lip,
?
t'
, snotte:
pl td
~-- i ot!?er. The hyper-Am
intellectuals' disc chat:$rnen
phenomena, however,
aver,
themselves wi
I because It
mg front"
cct itself in
fc American Govert:ment :-- m
presents America. as b use it
wet 'and conspiracy am
tiill
a `
t
c
{ easier because the govern t "
Ma s "?s.:talksiatw
 snare rha secrets ordiaar no of tted to
near. The attractA q alai ~ s1 /M
inside-docesterism stronger, in our so the
pull of any'ular position.
r +,, t twenty years, the elitism of l tee
has expressed itself. as a celebration of American life, '
and this fact makes it hard to see the continuity bet eea .
the thirties and forties, on the one hand, and the fifties
and sixties on the other. The hyper-Americanism of the
latter petiod'seems to,be a reaction against the anti- .
Americanism . of the depression years. Both of these
intellectuals' disenchantment with democracy and their
phenomena, however, spring from the same source, the
alienation from . intellect itself. Intellectuals associate
themselves with the American Government not so much
because It represents America as because it represents
action, power and conspiracy; and the identification- Is
even easier because the government is Itself "alienated"
from the people It governs. The defense intellectuals,
"cool"- and ."arrogant," pursue their obscure calculations
in a little world bounded by the walls of the Pentagon,
waled off from the : difficult reality outside which, does
not always respond to their, formulas and which there-
fore has to be ignored in' arriving at correct solutions to
the "problems" of government.. At Langley, Va. the
CIA turns its back on America. and busies Itself with
Its ern ire abroa ; but this omit which the CIA tries
to police, has no relation-to the real lives of the people
of the world-it is a fantasy of the CIA, in which con-
spirac.y and counter-conspiracy, freedom and Communist
slavery, the forces of light and the forces of darkness,
are locked in timeless combat. The concrete embodi-
ments of these abstractions have long since ceased to
matter. The processes of government have been Intellec-
tualized. Albert D. Bidorman,, the prophet of "social
accounting," speaks for the dominant ethos: "With .the
growth of the complexity of society, 'Immediate exper-
ience with its events plays an increasingly smaller role
as a source of information and basis of judgment in
contrast to symbolically ? mediated information about
these events.... Numerical indexes of phenomena am
peculiarly fitted to. these needs.
Washington belongs to the "fnttti -ptaiusen ', then Who
believe. that "social accounting"' will solve socGrl Oprob-
lems." Government is a "think tank," an ivoly` tower,
a community. of scholars. A , member of the . RAND
Corporation speaks of: Its. "academic .freedom"' which
"allows you to think 'about- what :you want,, o.". A civil
servant praises the, democratic tolerarsoe, the respect for
r
ideas, that prevails in the Dcfcnsa"`Tlapartitient. Norman
Kahn, .jolly and avuncular, encourages "intellectual di-
versity"; on his staff at Hudson Institute, a center of
stematic AAatrnMem
learning devoted to A. science of s
y
he retains 'a dedicated pacifist who doubtless thinks of
himself aye convening the Hudson Institute to universal
brotherhood:
Never before have th6 ruling classes been, to soae now
of cultural freedom; but since this freedom no 1os er has
events," it exists in a deconta fitted, veluelltsx adL .
DP88-O131.`5RQ( 0.2Qb27b001 6
 Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
 STAT Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
Next 3 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
 is nothinc to indicate tli m ?ffttco?fdF%Va n? t11/01 t I~ QF1y$ }3s1 Q0ga@Q2a1Q0p,1 concedes that
than North American, hut' Wcbb's conflicting stories do he may have been "insufficiently frank" in briefing his
not inspire confidence. Nor do his antecedents-his earlier colleagues about the relationship with the CIA.
connections with the late Sen. Robert S. Kerr, for example Indeed, a lack of frankness colors every aspect of what
-make him an ideal leader for the balance.of the Apollo The Observer has called ."The Encounter Affair." Michael
program, Josselson, who apparently will stay on as executive director
Worse than anything Webb has done in the past is of the Congress, admits that he was placed in a position
his commitment to land on the moon before 1970. He of having to deceive "the people I most respected, ad-
seenis oblivious to the pleas of responsible scientists and mired and liked, and who gave me their trust whole-
journalists to abandon a fixed deadline and allow future heartedly:" Last year, when The Nation (May 16. 1966)
experience to set the pace. Rep. William F. Ryan's sug-' commented on the fact-well known even then, although
gestion that a high-level Presidential commission be Cs- ' apparently not to the editors of Encounter-that the
tablished to review NASA's work, `and the- schedule, to magazine for some years had been indirectly financed by
be followed, seems very much in order.' the CIA, we were promptly taken to task by Stephen
o2 r, wanl.cnes3
V
The latest disclosures about how the CIA bankrolled
the Congress for Cultural Freedom-which-in turn bank-
rolled Encounter, the Anglo-American monthly-have
precipitated a heavy and extensive fallout. Stephen Spender
has resigned as a contributing editor of Encounter, on the
ground that he had been kept in total darkness about the
covert CIA connection. Frank, Kermode, the co-editor,
has also resigned. "I was always assured,", he writes,
"that there was no truth in the allegations about the CIA
funds. On several occasions I gave false assurances about
the facts on which I had been led astray." Irving Kristol,
a former co-editor, deposes that he, too, was innocent of
any knowledge about CIA ,largess duting, his stay with
the magazine.
Melvin Lasky, the present editor, is, . of course; in a
somewhat different', position. He was one of the three,
Spender,. Melvin Lasky and Irving Kristol in a letter pub-.
lisped in our is?ue of June 13, 1966, which strongly im-
plied (though on close reading it did not actually charge)
that our editorial was defamatory. The tone of the letter
was belligerent and threatening.
At the. same time,. we also received, and published, a
similar, protestation of innocence and virtue from the
Congress'for Cultural. Freedom, signed by Denis de Rouge-
'inont, as chairman of the Executive Committee; and
formally attested-no doubt for added emphasis-by
'Nicholas Nabokov. But to date we have received no let-
ters apologizing for the attempt to, mislead us. This per-
vading insufficiency of frankness tends, as the Congress
itself now concedes, "to poison the wells of intellectual
discourse." Examining the acrimony which the Braden
disclosures in The Saturday Evening,Post precipitated, we
strongly sympathize with Mr. Spender who points out
that the revelations of past CIA support have created "a
tangle in which one doesn't know what the past is." Per-
haps it never happened.. Perhaps Tom Braden, who set
up the "front" program for the CIA, is mistaken in say-
ing that he named one agent for the Congress and another
founders of the Congress for Cultural .Freedom (Arthur
Koestler and Michael Josselson were, the others), with
funds provided by David Dubinsky's International Ladies`
Garment Workers Union (at least that was the immediate
source of the initial funds). : Mr.- Lasky, ,faced with ,the
to edit Encotnter. Perhaps' it was all . a multimillion-
dollar misunderstanding:,',
,i ,'N2 T ELoJi~'!
A/r. Blum is a ,New York financial writer
working in Latin America.
For almost two years. Time-Lifo, Inc., has been the,
chic/ target in Brazil of an increasingly-vehement protest
against the prc::,:ncc of U.S. money and influence in key
sectors of the ":azilian press. The legal basis for the in-
has since 1962 pumped more than $6 million into Rio de
Janeiro's leading television station, TV Globo, which is
associated with Rio's leading newspaper, 0 Globo. Upon
,receiving this flood of Time-Life dollars, TV Globo sud-
denly embarked on an expansionary course, buying up TV
and radio stations in the key industrial city of Sao Paulo
and in the politically brittle Northeast.
-With an eye to further growth, TV Globo has pending
dignation rests on Brazil's constitution, which-in both applications to set up a thirty-six-station TV and radio
the 1946 and 1967 versions-strictly forbids foreign own- chain extending' to all the major cities of Brazil and
crship,, even partial ownership, of the nation's commu- ' covering 95 per cent of the population. The expansion-
::ications media. Despite. this clear . prohibition, ,Time-Life ary program was termed. by the head of. a Presidential
67S
'C18 NATION./May 29, J967
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 CIA-RDP86-01a15RO00200270O01-6 .~ .
 STAT Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
 ESQUI7
Approved For Release H04l11/01 :CIA-RDP88-01315R00&62700'
I[-~O~IIQ~~~C 1~YIt~.~~;Q~T~.~Il~
confess that from August, 1956, 'volved. Iii t reaction was not
j to June, 1957, I was on the payroll reassuring After an attempt
, __-, - at bluff' evasion--"Come on, I
they used to say in the National FLU- , -he burst into what seemed
dents Association, unwittily. Never- to me rather forced, laughter
it is a fact that the C.I.A. and denied the charge, but
theless
,
paid some and perhaps all of my with so ambiguous a nuance
,/Encounter, an Anglo-American co- was being serious or whether
production published in London and he was making a disclaimer
then financed by another interna- that any sophisticated person
h
e
/Cultural Freedom, whose headquar-' , forma. Still, no pruvf, in t
elt -bourgeois sense. Then
--_
..A,i
h --A
d
c
p
.grants from what seemed to be pri- in April of 19uiu The New
vate American foundations to sup- York Times ran a series of
port a number of intellectual journals articles on the C.I.A., one of
like Encounter in France, Italy, In- which contained a sentence
dia, Mexico and other foreign coun- stating, without elaboration,
d
SUP-
tries and also to underwrite interna- that C.I.A. funds ha
-_- congresses and ported the Con) ress and En-
tist
h
m
olars, ar
festivals of sc
,
? ter to The Times signed by
sicians, writers and other producers such liberal notables :cq J.K.
of Culture. I further confess that
hl
i
-
h
S
es
ng
ur
c
Art
when I took the Encounter job, some Galbraith,
d the late Robert
of my more radical and less temperate er, Jr., Oppenheimer the
endorsing Robert
r
friends, to be tautologous, warned me
rious once
Conf,ress as a se
the foundations were probably fronts
-or, as we now say, conduits-for honest enterprise that had al-,
U.B. Government money and that I ways been politically inde-
h ?oohed their warnings pendent. Although I agreed-;
r
oo
nothing more substantial than . Daniel Bell later asked me to
a ~1VL
am I. I confess, V s, , finally, that I question, raised by The Times:
my blindness to what has ! not whether the policy of the
i
d
'
epen-
n
been
lately been established was Congress had
due to a petty-bourgeois prej- dent of the C.I.A. but whether
ideological -evidence. The nanced by it. The Times print-
rumors persisted and I con- ' ed a "correction" that was
timed to resist them for the also evasive, agreeing that the
prosaic reason just given. i Congress was indeed a splen-.~
i
e
z
-
Paul Goodman kept insisting 1 did and independent organ
. ? . -- ' . _:: -. ti
the Congress was subsidized
State Department, and urging
me to do an expose, which I
refused since like the others
he seemed to be arguing from
logical extrapolation rather
than factual knowledge. It
wasn't his fault-how could
he or any of us uncover the
truth about the operations of
a top-secret outfit like the
C.I.A.? Suspicions continued
to be rife, however, and never
rifer than when I chanced to
meet at a party several years
ago the executive secretary of
a small, obscure foundation
which I'd always been given
to understand was the chief
underwriter of the Congress.
With Paul's prodding in mind,"
I asked him point-blank if
Government money was in-
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
-co*f nuet
 C, ? /4 u,+ X? " -"
MAY 2 2 1967 - o~`U cryrc~
Kv Relt see2Q04/1a~flt11'41~CI P3P8~'~~I F#~D00 0(~LtfOUII' account had been
Approved -For
THE CIA: unions were sabotaging U.S. aid ship- an "unwitting agent who was editorially
meats to Europe and threatening to top- independent but served U.S. ends Sim-
What Was So Wrong? ple friendly governments. The U.S., by ply by doing what came naturally.)
contrast, was squeamish about fighting Lovestone and Brown, too, insisted they
For Thomas Braden(it was roughl~?l' back. covertly-and too paralyzed by Mc- I never took CIA money, and their boss,
like sitting through a James Bond movie, Carthyism to navigate overt subsidies for AFL-CIO president George Mieany, .
with everyone else in the audience root- left-democratic groups through Congress. blasted Braden's story as "a damn lie . - -
ing for SMERSII. He had suffered in si:I So Braden sold his plan to CIA chief Al- Not one penny of CIA money has ever
lence through mounting attacks on the len Dulles: secret subsidies to private ii come in to the AFL or the AFL-CIO to
Central Intelligence Agency for secretly organizations-even if they did not "sup-. my knowledge over the last twenty
bankrolling a wide assoru Tent of private port every aspect of official American vears." Only Walter Reuther, of all the ;
American groups abroad-a scheme Bra- policy." His argument: "When an adver- t 'principals involved, admitted knowingly
den himself hatched during a 1950-54 nary attacks with his weapons disguised taking CIA money-and then only once,
hitch with the CIA. "I asked myself what as good works, to choose innocence is to in an "emergency situation;" to his sub-
was so wrong with what we did," he choose defeat." sequent regret. Reuther added his own
said last week. So Braden published his Some entries in the Braden casebook: postscript-that Braden had tried recruit-
case for the defense-and succeeded . ^ The CIA funneled money into sOme ing brother Victor as a CIA agent and
mainly in reopening the whole messy anti-Communist union organizing enter- that Victor had "emphatically rejected"
.scaudale all over again. prises run by onetime (1927-29) U.S the bid. Braden denied that.
Braden, 49, a sometime spymaster, ed- Communist Party boss Jay Lovestonef~ "New Flap': And so the attorney for
ucator, museum executive, newspaper then an International Ladies Garment the defense became an exhibit for the
publisher (of The Oceanside [Calif.] Workers Union staffer, now the AFL- 1 prosecution. The CIA was unhappy. (Ile-
Blade tribune) and liberal Democratic CIO's Director of International Affairs. fore publication, said Braden, they
politician, ;napped his strategy carefully. Braden said he still has a pseudonymous called me to express their sorrow.") So.
A 1 CIA i Abor
III, wanted maximum impact, so ae receipt for $15,000 he once since ove- were the newspapers. (T is - ?
placed his piece ("I'm Clad the CIA Is' (as "Warren C. Haskins") to one "Nor- link-up, said The New York Tunes,
'Immoral' ") in The Saturday Evening ris A. Grambo," a cover name for Love- "merely underscores the mischief in Tier-
Post, and lie tried to limit himself to, stone lieutenant Irving Brown. Brown, eat in clandestine ties between unions
cases already mentioned in the press. says Braden, had to have the money "to and an espionage agency, no matter how
His choice of it mass magazine height- i pay off his strong-arm squads in Medi- virtuous the purposes of the relation-
ened the splash, all right-but his in, terranean ports, so that American sup- ship.") And so, in the end, was Tom
skier's standing seemed to confirm links plies could be unloaded against _the op-. Braden. "I wanted to get across the mes-
. ,
patriotic duty, "defending the U.S.; anonymous reference to an agent edi-
against a new and extraordinarily sufor-each denied l.aaving known for sure
`,_~ ? ..-_?_ A ( long-rumored ties with the CIA. "Victor
self" for attacking Lovestone, said
?.~ce2euce
. Braden, since both men were only per-i .30C7,4-01.1
forming a patriotic service. And, Braden.
"less than perfect wisdom," banking the
$50,000 in some West German unions
that had cash enough and were already
anti-Communist.
o As long rumored, the CIA had fun-
1 d Fl rou 3, the European-
a
beneficiaries were simply doing their; editors-each suspect under Braden's'
j /
,Walter Reuther for international opera-
tions run by his brother Victor-a panic- dz
-C T
? ne c money
b
~- - "j based Congress for Cultural Freedom',
to support the Anglo-American intel-
d
en not
.1 - lectual monthly icounter. i3ra
only confirmed the t:ue but embellished
Braden: One for our side "agent" in the Congress, while another
"became an editor of .a :counter.
that had only been rumored between the The over-,ill program was essential to
CIA and a variety of clients ranging from turn back Coign-wo'sm, Braden insisted-
11 little magazine in London to big labori but the people he implicated, anti-Con-'
in the U.S. munists all, a(Aecl nonetheless scandal-!
Braden's point was that the CIA and its; izcd. Encounter's four past and present
years, by his accounting, the Russians
,critic Frank ICermodc) quit as a gesture
were socking $250 million a year into a, to disown it. (Braden later explained,
miscellany of cultural, labor, student,
Communist front." In the early cold-war; two of them (poet Stephen Spender and
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
 STAT Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
Next 3 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
 NSW STATLSM0
Approved For Release 2004AA/64Y. di ADP88-01315R~OR~0~2~r~0~-6 C~~~Cct.Ltt~
.London' Di Ir
FRANCIS HOPE'S
will not run. For further evidences compare batsman, was not admitted. Vorster has nov
^ Six years ago I ent to work as an edi-,," the style of two European heads of state withdrawn the ban on d'Olivcira (who ha
torial assistant onrEncounter. I asked two,'.' refusing their countries' leading phlloso-. yet to be selected), allowed his Olympi
Oxford professors, both contributors and - pliers any help for the War Crimes Tribunal., Committee to promise a racially mixed tear
friends of the editors, whether there was Wilson to Russell is classic bureaucratese, for the Mexico City Games, and even an
any truth in the rumours that it was financed Many other Governments share the view of nounced that mixed tennis teams could pi
by the CIA. None at all, said one; the Con- IIcr? Majesty's Government about the damage in the the Republic. So do we encourage thi
' gress for Cultural Freedom gets its money your 'I r ibamral could do to the cause of movement towards sanity' by re-admittint
from a Middle Western distillery million- neuce, Accurding,ly J Wish to take' this opi the South Africans to the international sport
afire. It's not so simple, said the other; some i: portunity to inform you that Hcr. Majesty'a;'c, r?tng arena, or do we keep them out unti
of the money does come from sources who Government have decided in principle. to`. something nearer real justice prevails it
in turn get sonic of their money from the;';, deny facilities to visit Britain to all foreigners.'..::'their.internal sporting scene? Just how clear
US government, and once the US govern- who may seek to take part in the 'Interna- ts clean? The International Olympic Corn
went is involved tional War Crimes Tribunal'. mittce is to send a commission of in uir
, you can never be sure q Y
'that the CIA isn't somewhere, around. Fear- De Gaulle to Sartre, as published last week +7 hey will probably rule that not enoug ing unemployment more than contamina- in'N`Ouvel Observareur, is headier stuff.. has been done; they will probably be right
lion, I took the job. Nobody ever gavm te_;~`; :~,...Ce nest pas s'vous que i'apprendrai que ~!0 One shouldn't beef all the time, I sup,
any orders from Washington; indeed harryl`y douse justice, dans son principe comme daps
anybody gave me any orders, or even anyauj!;t Sorr'Cxecution, n'appartient qu'd l'Etat. Sane pose. Unlike some of my colleagues, I do It
a -inetrre en cruse les mobiles qui inspirent least approve in principle of the goverrr-
work, at all. The atmosphere of the Con-. , . ;ord ment's application for of
gress was always conspiratorial: it re L?Russc(1 et'ses a,nis, it inc farts constater membership the
minded me strongly of the organisations re- Iqu'ils tie sons investis d'amrgsn: pduvoir, ttl'. EEC; and although the Prime Mini ster's
'charges d'aucun maudat -inir.rnational, 'et. 1i style may lease something to be desired, the
described in Kocstler's autobiography, qu'ils ne sauraient done accop/r aucun aete 'i substance of his speeches on Europe is more
with commanders at the centre being Judi- ? de justice ... )I.realistic than it was three months ago. In a
crously secretive when there was no need It just sounds better in French? Get away1 1, thin week for good news, I was also glad to
'for it, and auxiliaries studiedly not looking.. read that Lord Gardiner has stirred from
LOO closely at whatever might nave emoar.
~,^ Department of escalating headlines: his silence to make the right kind of speech
sassed them. Since many of the Congress's 'Faisal's Unwelcome Visit' (NEW -STATESMAN, on divorce - perhaps the government will
luminaries spent the Thirties in just such, 5 May), 'A Qualified Welcome for. King now at least allow a little more ..r1r'
am
n
p.
c
-,
groups, the continuation of the pattern is Faisal' (Guardian,.8 May), 'Welcome. Guest I tary time for discussion of this problem, if
' 1 dl Th 1
d
h
h
'
iar y surprsmg. e o
c
c
fs that no- .: from a Changing Land
(The Tunes, 9 May). its too much to ask for a positive attitude.'
body is so communist as the ex-communist The Tinies's article was - peculiarly The ITA's inquiries on the new contracts
CIA control. Anti-communists don't have ` pull - out -.and .'throw away supplements was expected. One. company, confidently'
to be bribed to -produce militant liberalism.. where', the difference` between, text and awaiting an easy ride since nobody else had!
,,{ advertisement', is hard to find. But applied for its franchise, arrived' with so'
^ The claim that 'an agent' was made an then some of the advertisements were out- !junior a delegation and so thin a brief that
editor of Encounter is another, and far more, standingly fatuous.too. 'Only Saudi Arabian it was sent home without being heard. The:
startling matter. Unfortunately, being an Airlines fly direct to Jeddah.' Wake. up, El ITA might actually justify being called an:
agent can mean- many things, from a master-. !Al. The Saudi Arabian government has a Ali thority before the day is over.
plan and ?5,000 a year to the odd lunch and 'l sharp sense. of publicity and offered one "? i
? an encouragement to keep up the good . national magazine facilities fora visiting re- ^ Television is, as they say, a great edu
work. Would it always be reprehensible fot' , porter in exchange for some free advertising. cator. There are all sorts of boring books;
a magazine to accept government help on space to surround his story. Unfortunately that I would never have looked at if they'
the second basis, if it was anyway 'travelling`;: the story,' when it arrived, was too full of, were not made into gripping soap-operas. I
the same road' as that government? Not-! liberal claptrap (such as accounts of women have just ploughed my way through the f
everyone can find virtuous private million-,`;being stoned to death) for the deal to go' first volume of The Forsyte Saga, and am
aires, distillers or real-estate tycoons to sub- .through. The British Government seems re- amazed that anyone could endure it off
;'`sidise them. If Encounter has been a biased !-; solved, as Brian Rix would say, to stand by the small screen. As the little boy in the
magazine, as Conor Cruise O'Brien has its. Bedouin. I don't see why the press need New Yorker cartoon said, confronted with
argued in these pages, it deserves censurea,' follow suit. It's not as if we were controlled a hand-wound gramophone: 'Boy, they must:
whether it was doing so at the CIA's orders, by the CIA, or anything.' have been keen on music in those days!',
? with the CIA's unrecognised support, or on As a forerunner of C. P. Snow, Galsworthy
?o, a private overdraft. Lying is more, straight-, ^ 'Don't bring politics into sport' is a commands a dim attention: that mixture of
forwardly shocking. The magazine:, will.''favourite thought-avoidance formula of the' left-wing goodwill, sensitive clubman's
surely survive this storm; but not all of its Right.. Unfortunately the case of South philosophising and schoolgirlish fascination'
reputation. Africa makes it painfully clear just who is with visible success must be an infallible'
dragging in politics in the first place. What' drug for readers who know they have gained
^ I sec that Wilson's Strasbourg speech, is less clear is how much retreat one should a good slice of the world and want to be
(the embroidery effort) is'now being hailed demand before one will play with them: reassured that they have hung on to their
as a significant milestone along his Euro again. The South Africans were barred from soul. But If I 'went any further, the saga
pear path. I thought then, and think now.,': the last Olympic Games but may not have I would join the formidable list of half-scaled
that it was a thoroughly second-rate piece' felt' it too deeply, When the New Zealand !'literary hills which sometimes haunt my
of rhetoric. His handling of questions was rugby?,tourwas cancelled because'the Maori' dreams. I have got stuck three times on the
another matter; as Monday's - Panorama ?' players were', 'unacceptable'; Nationalist;- same page (133) of The Ambassadors. -Will
confirmed, this sort of verbal slip-practice t "'Afrika'ners began to worry. since' rugby' is' someone at least tell me how the story
is the Prime Ministig1r~',~, ~;w peR r te1'Q I ~he 1 e 9hl 1 266170,001=6
Harold the European 6ha or is a horse that 1j canoe next years crre et' tour if a6266170,00,1_6
d'Oliveira. the Cape Coloured Worcestershire
 STAT Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
 ? 7y r r , ~. ?a~~ 'ter , - . -r ; L,.---." --"- t j t'
MAY . 8 1967. C -3 11 L rt' c L s or ' fie magazine, not. I~JIt'd
ganization from 1951 to 1954; q The C.I.A. gave cash "along ! wo' ld he t1c'scribe what kind of ~::??? I "
f
e
The publisher, Thomas ..WJ and arranged for agency suhsi- y as
Braden, who headed the C.LA1,I dies that n. were , channeled , Mr, Braden refused to name; -2Q[+, 4?, Qf, / {~QQ(LCC ~kJ
th?'1 CIA t " i th
Communist activities. grams and projects to the C.I.A. i were in anyrL way influenced by ill tegrlty of
'i fl d t9ts.bf `
I ' tl9e CIA? 11 the k
el'
cas
ese agen s sugges
u
upon
e
pro- . r
s
l
had tri@d to recruit his brother ', Congress ' and 'the rest of the .
t United States Government they ?
.ae, ......?y ,.v..~u ?r?a.. ,.,,a.,.-,,
After Mr. Braden's assertions ens allegations..
were distributed to newspapers) The exocutiv,': c'ircctout'of tiled
lunion all recently links tothe denounced or denied A co-editor of Encounter, In! 1".11
London and two former ditor5;i;;01j
_? ??_ 4.. *T???r,, .,
well as their leader, George
tea siiid he doubted that anyone .,:
Meany, who heads the A.F.L-' connected with it ever knew of
Victor, as a C.I.A. agent but, C.I.A. secretly financed some
was turned down. Mr. Brade '. quite innocent ' cultural,, activi-
later denied that he had tried. ties, including a visit to France
to recruit Victor Reuther as ann by the Boston Symphony, or-
agent: chestra in 1952. 1.
foaii?1 by 10:,lifnra -
Mr. Lovestonc, s,1y1ns .that..ha. Coiizress for Cultiual,Ficedom;.i
1 ""' ; DT B A Mliehacl Josselsiin, said ill,
spore .?.>r r. rows, c Geneva that he was "aware of
scriber'',thcin as "completely, the matter"--apparently mean-
t union." I ing the Bradch statements---buts
Victor Reuther, reached by 'could make no comment. The
The New York Tines in Tokyn{ general 'assembly of, the coma
?wcstrrday, said he found it dif ress is htectin next week in'
fictllt to comment before lies discuss all questions Yelaiing to'
saw. the entire Braden state-i }6e (! T A he ..id . n?rl will I
Approved For Release 2004411/A1 GIA-RDPo$-01:3158000200270001.-6 iUonTw,)1Ued
II'91.'f ,PT, p',r" ~L'" T541 ~:~:'~ uu~~~r?N~19L~~rNPMAW914~t ..R~w'w~RRRI~*"!T'~
 C. /_4 0/- f Q C rccu.c / t L.'/
A -_-_-__--__, r_-- r1_,_ - - - '11 . IA w,nw - PSIA Fr%rlnd nw nw rr~nnnnn~ m^^^ A A ??,... Jn ~..- ,
Whr're is Lvov? Any schoolboy will
tell ynii. Yet the West-German judiciary
doesn't seem to know.
It has spent quite some time prepar-
ing in try 15 SS-men on charges of
massacring civilians, notably Jews, In
the Soviet city of Lvov during the war.
The West-German press has given quite
a bit of publicity to this trial and espe-
cially to the hard work put in by the
judges and the prosecution. To find
witnesses of nazi atrocities in Lvov, It
turns out, the Stuttgart court sent a
special mission to the United States and
is planning to send another to Israel.
Ther?, Is nothing wrong of course in
looking for witnesses across the ocean.
But the obvious place to look for them
is surety on the scene of the crime, in
other words-in Lvov. That Idea, It ap-
pears. has never occurred to the Stutt-
gart judges.
The U.S.S.R. Attorney-General's Office
has received no request from Stuttgart.
for any evidence of nazi atrocities in
Lvov. New Times learns. And there is
plenty of such evidence there. Especial-
ly after, the Lvov trial last year. of a
T40 L L ~.; t..~- . .
group of traitors who had helped the SS,
massacre civilians in that city.
Why haven't the Stuttgart judges
made such a request? Perhaps they've
.forgotten where Lvov is?
The Angle-Spanish dispute over Gib-'
raltar has taken a new turn. On April 12,
Madrid announced the prohibitio,yi of
all flights over the zone in the imme-
diate vicinity of Gibraltar. And so in
addition to the virtual land blockade
instituted last year, there is now an
air blockade.
has caused an outburst of indignation in
Britain. The London Daily Telegraph,
for instance, writes that "short of break-
ing off diplomatic relations with Spain
there is no suitable or dignified reply."
In the meantime the British govern-
ment has announced the postponement
of the talks with Spain which were
scheduled to begin on April 18, as
decided by the United Nations.'
Spain, It may be recalled, Iis demand-
Ing the return of Gibraltar which she
ceded to Britain .early in the 113th cen-
ty y following the War of the Spanish
Succession. And Britain is doing her
very best to keep this highly Important
strategic base.
The Spanish government's latest step,..
says the London Times, has brought.
Anglo-Spanish relations to a breaking
that no plane can take off or land with-
out flying over Spanish territory. Alt
communication with this British;; colony
has thus to all intents and purposes been
disrupted. The Spanish government ap
HUNGARY
pears to be quite determined about the i
whole thing and has declared that "if
we have to use material means to ac- In the CIA's Servias
complish this purpose they will be h
as The Budapest Nepszabadsaa pub-'
use torte it the oriusn wsregaru mu the ties between the U.S. intelligence
ban.
The Spanish government's, decision services and Hungarian emigre organi?
zations.
Every cloud-has a silver lining. ,
Fred Wright in the
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
There is an institution In West Berlin
masquerading under the name of the.
Congress for Cultural Freedom. Found-
Central Intelligence Agency and the
Ford and Rockefeller foundations, , it
specializes In' Ideological, subversion of
socialist countries.
In 1957 the Congress financed the
Its Literary Journal. "Besides editing,"
Nepszabadsag writes, "the editors of
the Literary Journal collect information.
They get hold of Hungarian citizens
visiting Western countries and try to
get their answers to subtly contrived
questionnaitep, and pass on the infor-
mation to the Americans. The Congress
.for Cultural Freedom. takes great pains
to establish contact witi Hungarian .
Intellectuals.` Visiting. specialists are
given 'any books they may choose free
Canadian Tribune of charge. But the" booksellers, in the
 V
'1' u,1.1 xur.;c ri;v t~- w ur tsuUr.S
r
Approved For Release 200411 t ~: I 'WDP88-01315R00o24Q2 AP1
~.. Eho
eign policy in the US.veryone, w went abroad for an American. organiza-
lion was, in one way or
the .world %Jas ,
Hess to the theory torn between communism and, demos-.
racy, and anything in between was atrrea
gro-
son. That such an ideology was
tesque abstraction from the realities of
world politics is just now becoming clear.
History will show' that the* origins ? and
the conduct of the Cold War were in-
finitely complex; there are dirty handsalll Bt the CIA's p ' rY
around the tabe.u
"wittin -
the Fifties it was, as one g
.l3, e a Ty student said, "a haven from I`1cCarthy
i. . ism." The "agency's" policies - were
AuJretir Kopkind often quite opposed to official State Dc-
There are still many people-perhaps': . partmc;;i policy, The CIA hilc tPushed an
e he of-
th majority of the politically sophisti- Opcnin to the left in Italy ~~'
hef
cated-who can rationalize ct+'s in- ficial line was all for closing. C o-
volvement with private organizations as ...~ crativcs N~?orkc i fur anti colonialists in
a necessary nastiness of democracy, Africa (twor once promoted Patrice?Lu-
and even a responsibility of patriotism. = mi'mba, of all people) while State was.
It all began in the early days of the Supporting the colonial powers. Admin-
eold war. Anti-communist "democrats" istrations in Washington smiled on Lat-.
the CIA
Party, the Congress of ria- n lotted their assassination: that ideology. And it did 90
ganizations, and the American ican Veterans p of course, there was another cu.' net by ? the show of tyranny but by .the
for Democratic Action and the Liberal ,~nat u- gress for Cultural Free- up a_ a_ ,3
Party (in New York) as alternatives to ais (in the Cono
Azlo?
dom, among other groups) and the left-
communism for the Left. The National O rr >
wing labor leaders Diver s I
Student Association (NSA) served the? inGuate- //fee
same function. busy overthrowing - _{
....,,?, and Mossadeth in Iran. discredit-
students' foreign operations. It set up _ _ `mot
1) l
cil, devised strategies for attacking the i '
periodic pro-communist - youth fcsti-
:
part the foreign activities were inept .1 :-o":
or insignificant, and their return for
American "security" practically noocx
istent. What was more important was. !.
what the habit of complicity did for
dents were. trained in international. re-'
Hier by NSA alumni and CIA agents (the
who learned their lessons well were j.' .
then maneuvered into the top places i
in the student organization at the annu-
service, :Ind the aint .,. high -- - - r.
if they accepted the values of pragma- !1 ing - (and occasionally bumping off) in-
i. ._ ____ _, - :,:,.. _nd the enid war. dependent labor officials in Latin Amer-
They would all have golden careers, 1; ernments here and there, and supporting
V t2 __......1 They were Spi.S ,. right-wing groups discreetly isolated
,,,who came in for the. gold. from the liberals' playthings. But the 1
Once complicit, they' found to their American Left-the wise and , wit:
surprise that the CIA' 'Was not the dirty ting ones-had a feeling that there was
bomb.planting, wine-poison- S' a friend in the Bureau of Public Roads
right-wing, coup-staging operation they expected..:' (the CIA cover building) in Langley,1. 1",
ing, r Cu yeas Clean; all during Virginia. '
At least their
,. ., ., ..._ ...__ ._ a_.~.,...'-u'
options for independent positions on for
Approved For Release 2004/11/01: CIA-RDP88-013158000200270001-0.
ContirMed
 'VASI'U :G ON POST
ANTT) -;'t\i, S T-T' AT
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 CIA-RDP88-01315R0002,00270001.-6
cormment from Jol n^W.~Gard
;;dueation and Welfare, He is
n
member of the three-ma
panel a.;.cu.tcd by President
Johnson and headed by Underi
Secreta,y o: State Nicholas`
1 daB, Iiatzenbach which is 1001:-1
. inr into CIA activities. Tihe
third member is CIA Director.!
Yiopes La es. i 4r or
~V J,i ,yJ11Ai~ a l]ll'r
-
Less llC llaa a+~..., -.---
l o ti Gi G: r, e Cy I critics, who give themselves
in;
airs of moral superiority
By J. Y. Smith .1 attacking an activity they'
Wash1nctmi Post staff Wr:tcr 1 -k-now to be necessary." he.
V i C e President Hum' addeat it was a mistake fort
phrey declared yesterday the CIA ever to entangle it-,
that he was "not at a l~, self y in covert activities close'
happy" about the Centralj to he field of education orl
i scholarship or the ' Universi-
Tntelligence Agency s se-,ties."
cret involvement in stu'I _rilcre were these other de-
dent organizations. velopments:
He said he hoped the furoq - In Ottawa, the Canadian.
union of Students wrote'
arising from disclosure that;,
Prime Minister Lester B.,
the Agency has spent millions..) _ ? n that it had twice re-
ears0
of dollars in secret subsidies ~ ccived money .. f r o in ? the
,to the National Student Asso- (Foundation for. Youth' and.
~ciation and other groups Student Affairs in New York.
tighter Gov !City, The' foundation is be-.
swoula lead to r licvcd to be a CIA conduit.
ernmeit control over the CIA. kearson told the House ofl
In the' strongest statement Commons that he would con-
yet made by a high Adrrlin-Isider whether there was
.?istration official on the situa
?iton, Humphrey told a student!)cause :or a diplomatic pro-
ties to ,he U.S. Government.
and faculty meeting at Stan
Palo A1to,SI ? Michael Josselson, the ex-
ford University at
Calif.: "This is one of the sad-` ecut.ve director of the Con?
dest times our Governrlent; gress for Cultural freedom,
has had in relation to public i,told Bernard D. Nossiter of
T:.e Washington Post Foreign
O. Service in a telephone inter
policyut of this," he co rhtinued,j
"
"I hope will come an agree view from1?Geneva that "in'no
~1 'iway has anybody tried to ira-?
meat to the CIA out of rose a policy on us." The,
student affairs."' Con`ress has been listed as a;
Recalls Own --fforts 1,recipiert of ;inar.cial support"
He recalled that he had tried from the Hoblitzell and Farb
without success to help the field Foundations, both. . fie;
NSA raise money from. private lieved_ to' be CIA, conduits. ;.?;
;sources. He said the associa-
t.ion had accepted the CIA;
money only after it found it.;
could not Tina ice from pri
vale means its efforts to con.-s
bat Cornmunist propaganda in
international youth forums.
Humphrey did not say
whether he had informed
President Johnson of the'
NS,:'s financial problems or
of the CIA's role in p,:cvidin;
A-pq r d. For-Release 2004/11/01: CIA-RDP88-01315R000,200270001-6
 STAT Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
 AND TIMES HERALD `L CrJ(4`it~t,~
0- UG ? n_~____ nnnJ i.4~~.`f~~nr~noo n~ o~ ~nnn~-n~riAe~3~ lr_/4"v6a41&t
n? patri'k. Seale
BEIRUT, June 11-A chill York imes thi spring in
wind blows this week over the `in which it was als leged, among
'Arab intellectual scene: Hi-'many other charges, that the
war, perhaps the most rode- Congress for Cultural Free-
1 iodi-wis financed by Ameri-
er
01.
pendent and fear ess p
has suffered!
cal in the Arab world, has 'can foundations which in turn Awad himself
as fronts for! greatly from rumors and
;been, banned from entry in sometimes acted i
Egypt on the charge that it is the CIA. slanders in'. the Egyptian
financed by the CIA. This wasl enough' for thel press. Ile has, been accused of
if other Arab countries fol- Egyptian press. "Iiiwar bc` being Western=educated -- in
low the Egyptian line-as theyllongs to. the CIA,'' screamerlisome quarters a crime in it-
,are 'being urged to do-. hel a headline in Rose al-Youssef,l self=?and of working to un-
magazine will be in real trou-I a prominent state-controlled' clermine A he cultural valu,:s?
Me and may have to close weekly. of Islam.
'down. - No regard was paid to the In many Arab countries to-!
The bureaucratic tho'ught-t many letters to the New York clay. intellectuals stand do-1
controllers-the all'powerful Times denying any connection, fenseless against the great
"ministries of guidance" between the Congress and the; power of the state., To dis-
which in so many Arab cowl-.CIA; The Egyptian censor please the authorities is to go
tries have contributed to the. seized the May issue of Hiwar!hungry when, as ' in Egypt,
degradation of'. intellectual before it was put on sale, newspapers, pub 1 i s h i n g
life--will have claimed an was, The window-cressin+ r, was theaters
other victim. then provided by Egyptian houses, magazines, ,
iwar, (dialogue) is an Arabl pundit Louis A.wad-critic, the radio and television are'in'
sister-6f the British magazincl poet and Shakespearian schol-!the hands of the state..,
ncoun Published by the ff ar who, as literary editor of But in compensation of cx
Congress for Cultural Free-I the Cairo daily, Ai-Abram, crcising self-censorship, top i
do writers are pam
it.is edited in.:Bcirut..byl'acts as a semiofficial arbiter;Egylitian
-m, _ I ff
They
Pales-
id
h
.
, a young
of the cultural scene. 1pered and well-pa
Tewfiq pyig
tinian poet who in four years In a statement late. lash earn more than doctoral
,Of uphill work has created month he invited all Arab lawyer or engineers.
,forum for some of the mostl'writers and readers to boy
vigorous . a n d, wide-ranging
writing to come ? out of the cott Iliwar. Iie, called on Tew-
Middle'East. But hardly a~ilfiq Sayigh.:to quit his post aslof a university professor:
issue appearrd without'' him i,editor, and he demanded the just why the Egyptian au*-
bcii~g , exposed to savage. at- "liquidation" of all centers of ! thoritics should have chosen
tack, c I the Congress in the Arab' this 'moment to move- against.
The Arab lcft,\ accused III- world.. Hiwar is uncertain. The Con
war-rand its sponsor the Con- Last week Muha;mmed hIa?) gross for Cultural ; Freedom
gross-of imperialism and tom, Egypt's vice Premier for ill is. well known to be financed
Zionism, w h i l e the right Information and Guidance; is-
'charged it with "Bolshevism," sued an order banning Hiwar! by the Ford and other founda-
In S a u,d i Arabia it was from entry into Egypt on the I Lions, but so are many Egyp-,
thought dangerously radical; grounds that it was subsidized,tian development projects,
in Egypt, suspiciously bour-. by the CIA. The ban is probably due to
geois. . ' p, Very much disturbed, Tew-`,
IC also suffered Iron! the an-l,fiq :Sayigh flew to Europe to. the. random convergence of c
cient rivalry between Cairo-I put the ggestion bluntly to. number of forces: the current,
!the self-styled cultural cap the directors of the Congress: "anti- America to mpe in ht-
Hal of the world"- and Bei-'Was there a CIA connection? Egyptian
rut. ~He' was,. given a categorical ency of leftists in the press,
the cultural chauvinism of
The roots of Hiwar's p'res?tdenial. Egyptian intellectuals
ent more serious trouble.may What is distressing about! the erivalries of Beirut and
'Cairo and possibly, too. the
greater nervousness which
overtakes the Arab world in
the heat of summer.
should he -liberal , thinkers
like Awad, himself a con
tributor cto iliwar, who now
(call for its boycott,,
Victim of Slanders ?
At 300, or 400 LgyP 'all
pounds a month, they are paid
Approved For Release 2004/11/01 : CIA-RDP88-01315R000200270001-6
 NEW 1'Ut U i
n'raved For Release 2004/11/01 : CI - D~1315R0002002 001-6
tte1$161he Editor of Thp_--)!Vi
*nAs
To the Editor:
We note with concern the as-
~sertion in The Times of April
teince, it has drawn financial
support. from a variety ; of
,? ars. an
scientists determined to affirm.
,'rthe freedom of intellectual in-
quiry and the ,autonomy of ar-
#tlAtic freation. In.. the years i,
European, Asian and American
-writers artists ' schol
Freedom was founded in West ,
Berlin in 1950 by a group of 1
rjtributions to a number of cul-
- tural activities, among them the
Congress for Cultural Freedom.,'
U. . The Congress for Cultural
At no point in the history of
Fsought to interfere -with or
Aape its actions, . policies or
p programs. Howeber, to leave no
integrity, individuals and ?or-'4
' 'anizations who . contribute " to
our activities will be asked to
~let~es?and hope of ,.ou
:b 1 I 9 r age.
rconfirni' the non-governmental
icharacter of their support.
The' Implications of The ,
Times's suggestion that the Con-:
gress has been an instrument of
the. ;d.I?A. 'are. deeply unfair to `
1ntcllectuals around the world
ivyho,have found in the Congress
jand. its-associated 'activities a
chance to write and talk with. (.out 'constraint on the urgent'
arai. ~a 'Z PA'UUY,MUJN r'y
Chairman t
is