I think "intelligence" agencies are dynamical entities that currently find opposition only from other entities of their type.
A combination of nearly unbounded public funds, a definite impunity and presumptuousness, and a solid position to feed the monster of the military industrial complex has led to a situation where their actions seem to be directly opposed with what would benefit the average citizen, of either their respective countries or the world.
>"I think "intelligence" agencies are dynamical entities that currently find opposition only from other entities of their type."
What does that mean? Aside from the scare quotes are you saying that intelligence agencies only work against counter-intelligence, or are you saying they're all collaborating. What does 'dynamical' mean?
>"A combination of nearly unbounded public funds, a definite impunity and presumptuousness, and a solid position to feed the monster of the military industrial complex has led to a situation where their actions seem to be directly opposed with what would benefit the average citizen, of either their respective countries or the world."
I think you need to read a little more about public opinion, and about how government works. The intelligence agencies are often working against their military (navy, army, etc.) counterparts, as competitors. In addition, most people believe their government is working to further truth and justice, so they actually support the espionage agencies.
Your comment seems to imply that your anti-expionage/military/industry views are common and righteous, yet unspoken or unacknowledged. I think you're totally wrong; there's no conspiracy, and people have widely disparate (often inconsistent) goals.
>most people believe their government is working to further truth and justice, so they actually support the espionage agencies
The article mentions how citizens are manipulated with media and false flag operations and the end result is the only winners are the big industry(the article gives some examples at the end)
He also wrote books about the CIA in Europe (similar to Ganser's classic Gladio book "Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe") and Africa.
Not specifically about the CIA, but Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988, revised 2002) also examines the propaganda campaigns on Vietnam, Latin America, etc. in detail.
While the CIA has done a lot of awful things, one should be careful about quoting Chomsky, who talked out of all four sides of his mouth from both of his faces on the subject of the wars in Southeast Asia. Please see: Chomsky Lies: Denial of the Khmer Rouge Holocaust in Cambodia [0].
Is it time we question whether or not we actually need these groups? Or at least whether they should have this much power? The CIA, the NSA, even the FBI sometimes, I feel they all have horrific stories attached to them and it's questionable whether they need government backing, military power, incredible finances, formiddable spying tools, and incredible secrecy to protect people.
It’s a simple game of competition. If your competitors have them, then you must have them too. The situation is not dissimilar to nuclear weapons.
In 2020, people seem to forget that the Cold War happened and that the KGB, GRU, etc. existed. Most of these outrageous CIA actions were done in the context of combating the Soviets.
In short, you will probably never be able to remove the role of intelligence from geopolitics.
But this logic doesn't explain why we need the NSA to spy on its own citizens? I mean, sure if someone else is spying on you, you need to spy on them. But if someone else is spying on you, you definitely don't need to spy on yourself.
Well I also questioned whether they should be given as much power, since it can lead to abuse. Would be as simple as changing a law so they can no longer abuse their power. And if it's not that simple, maybe you have to question why.
>Most of these outrageous CIA actions were done in the context of combating the Soviets.
"In the context of combatting the Soviets" isn't a good excuse. If these acts were done to combat the Soviets it may have been worthwhile, but using the Communist scape goat to force your will on the world, which is what the article is claiming happened, should not be common foreign policy.
With that logic, you can cover for any thinkable activity 'because soviets'. We don't like european politicians? Bam, because soviets. Cause millions of deaths around the world? Worth the cause, 'coz soviets. Anybody does anything but exactly what we need them to (which in many cases would mean self-harm)? Commie ruskie, bam!
The article details numerous situations where the Soviets were not the rationale, merely the scapegoat. That's what led me to respond, I don't see how the fake rationale changes anything.
>>"In 2020, people seem to forget that the Cold War happened and that the KGB, GRU, etc. existed. Most of these outrageous CIA actions were done in the context of combating the Soviet"
If this article have a message is that those dirty wars were against the poor people living in those countries, not against the KGB.
And what is the excuse after the cold war? Because nothing has really changed.
I find it absolutely ridiculous that the news uses headlines such as "sources from FBI say" (or any other US spy agencies) as though they are the real source of truth, whereas reports such as these show that they should be treated with a greater amount of suspicion. But you know what, people still fall for it all the time!
Yup, it's amazing how intelligence sources get passes 100% of the time. "High ranking CIA source says..." is assumed to be 100% true.
That's a pretty big assumption that is no doubt abused.
I love Matt Taibbi's example where the FBI got a search warrant, based on a news article that they were the source on. Talk about compromised incentives.
>Yup, it's amazing how intelligence sources get passes 100% of the time. "High ranking CIA source says..." is assumed to be 100% true.
That 100% are just not true, every respectable paper and or journalist know that there is quite a big chance that your are being used, not just from Services but also from Company's, just have a look at Elon's Hyperloop and the massive Fan-hype (even in the University Space (which is kind of super-sad))
If you look at the people who started the CIA & FBI, and the sorts of things they got up to in the orgs' early days, it becomes pretty clear that their purpose is not their publicly stated ones. Of course, that's also why it will be next-to-impossible to get rid of them.
Stomach churning torture, abuse and mass murder of humans in the Phoenix Program, Abu Ghraib, MKUltra; overthrows of democratic governments; support of terrorist death squads; helping to facilitate the crack epidemic in the US and destroying the life of the man who exposed it, via a compliant 'free press'. Just some of the things the CIA is notorious for.
Imagine if the Soviet Union had made endless TV series and movies about the heroic deeds of the KGB. It would be quite rightly laughed out of sight as the most absurd, batshit propaganda.
And yet that is what's pumped out in the US year in, year out, about the CIA. And it works.
Edit: Pretty sinister that since posting this HN is now preventing me from posting and replying. Note to others: don't question the CIA.
Edit 2: Since I can't reply to the post asking about which shows are CIA propaganda, shows like Covert Affairs, The Agency, Burn Notice, Homeland, Alias, and others, which AIUI have current or former CIA advisors and guided tours of Langley for the producers and cast.
Pretty much every TV series or movie about the CIA makes them seem morally questionable, or at least operating in a morally questionable world. Entire big budget franchises with Hollywood actors, like the Bourne series for example, make the CIA look outright evil.
Tv and Movies are not really propaganda in US jurisdiction. They have a major bias sometimes because of propaganda, and this can make them seem like it, but... Propaganda takes roots in more serious media, like news and schooling.
There is an entire department in the DoD who’s task is making sure the “good” US services in films get access to funds, vehicles, bases and military extras. The films where the US are the baddies are shot in neutral countries like Malta and South Africa.
I have a hard time naming any series that doesn’t make the CIA seem morally questionable. Even offhandedly, e.g in the recent James Bond films.
What are your examples of it being portrayed as heroically good?
If you had said the military, maybe you’d have a point, but even then we’ve got films like Apocalypse Now, Jarhead, and so on that are clearly critical.
I agree and to your point, I’m not sure there’s a legitimate way to make a movie/show without having them seem morally questionable. Their work operates in an inherently gray (and sometimes black) moral area, usually with the belief that the ends justify the means, or that the alternatives are far worse.
> usually with the belief that the ends justify the means
This is exactly how the vast majority of the purportedly CIA-ambivalent media franchises ultimately come out in The Agency's favor. If they depict agents doing bad things, it's always made pretty clear that the world would be even worse if they hadn't.
While I don’t disagree with you, I think there’s a bit more nuance to that. Please don’t take my comments below as critical of your point, just thinking through it out loud a bit.
What you’re describing is a very utilitarian perspective towards ethics/morality and I’m not sure everyone would walk away with that conclusion. There are plenty of people who do not believe the ends justify the means, or at least, don’t always. Others may think it is immoral, but necessary in some circumstances. This includes people that do or have worked in this line of work, to include me. It is also complicated, because there is no way of knowing if the outcome would be worse had they not done the “bad” thing. It also assumes we all agree as to what is “bad” versus what is “good”, or even somewhere in between.
Maybe a better way of looking at it is as though they are portrayed as flawed heroes? Or even good people that sometimes have to/choose to do bad things?
I don’t know the answers to those questions and it is very likely I am way off, but I appreciate you bringing up your thoughts on the matter!
Appreciate your thoughts as well! Without getting into the weeds too much on it, I would draw a contrast between a few perspectives:
a.) "The intelligence community are the good guys and mostly do the right thing, minus one or two foibles here and there." In this category you've got your Marvel movies, your James Bonds, your Tom Clancys, etc
b.) "The IC is fighting the good fight, but sometimes has to do morally questionable things to get it done." This is stuff like Zero Dark Thirty and encompasses most of what you might call "serious" cinema that depicts the CIA.
c.) "The IC is deeply morally flawed, serving the interests of an elite few at the expense of the vast majority both at home & abroad, and often undertakes actions where this must be clear to anyone involved who has a conscience." This is very rare. There are a few paranoid conspiracy films from the 70s, there's American Made, there's Kill the Messenger, there's JFK, but I'm already struggling to come up with more names.
Intelligence work is so compartmentalized that I believe it's possible for the vast majority of those who work in it to believe they are fighting a good (or at least neutral) fight without allowing for too much cognitive dissonance at all. I don't think this is true of, say, the FBI agents who buried the allegations against the Epstein & Franklin pedophile rings, or the CIA agents who ran drugs into Mena airport to supply funds to child murdering contras in Nicaragua. These are the characters which tend to be assiduously avoided in Western media.
The CIA assists in many/most productions, which it simply wouldn't do if the overall depiction of the CIA was anything but positive.
I've just always found it interesting that an organization with such a terrible real-world reputation is routinely depicted in positive, whitewashed terms in American productions. And if that was happening in an 'enemy' state we'd have no problem seeing it for what it is.
And now I find that simply expressing this opinion on HN, even under a 10,000+ word criticism of the CIA, results in:
a) account [pmachinery] being banned from posting, and (even more sinister):
b) being presented with Google tracking/captcha on login
FWIW, I post tons of unrelenting criticism of the CIA and the Western establishment and haven't encountered anything like this. The worst I've seen from mods was back in 2019 when they would constantly flag links about ties between Jeffrey Epstein and leading tech industry figures.
The "posting too fast" limit is just a brake which as far as I have seen is applied fairly and helps keep HN discussions on the rails (my own posting emphatically included). I think it's possible mods reacted harshly to your criticizing it.
That said, I think pretty much every forum or venue is subject to some of this kind of manipulation. I certainly get an immediate torrent of downvotes whenever one of my comments is particularly pointed or "conspiratorial."
I think there's plenty examples on the entire spectrum. Though I'd also say the ones that are seen as "too positive" like Jack Ryan, get criticism from the media even when they try to please both sides by talking of "fixing it from the inside"). Anyway, other examples of negative depictions:
In "2 guns" Bill Paxton played a psychopathic CIA agent who ran a contra-stye operation by squeezing drug lords for a cut. Awesome performance by the way.
In the recent version of "Dirk Gently" TV series, the CIA operation kidnaps psychics to experiment on them, and eliminates people who know too much or get in the way. Whenever the leader of the operation has a change of heart, he gets replaced with a new one with less scruples. "Mr. Priest" (another awesome character) is the CIA's psychopathic fixer brought in "for protocol violations".
>Entire big budget franchises with Hollywood actors, like the Bourne series for example, make the CIA look outright evil.
They look like a realpolitik organization that is extremely capable, creating numerous super spies, ultimately full of people with integrity like Bourne who quits when his conscience tells him to.
>I’m not sure we watched the same films, because the CIA certainly doesn’t look capable in the Bourne series.
Bourne is the hero and is also CIA, and at every turn they are able to keep up with him. You leave with the impression that good guys can join the CIA and curb the necessary evil the CIA is involved with.
Do you think more people leave thinking Bourne and thus the CIA are badass or that the CIA are evil and need to be destroyed?
Not particularly. I don't disagree with the assessment, I just doubt most people use that to draw the conclusion that the CIA is bad. While they may not identify with Bourne as they would have Bond, they won't argue Bourne shouldn't have been developed by the CIA.
You replied with something that has absolutely nothing to do with:
a) the Soviet Union
b) TV shows and movies from the Soviet Union
c) the KGB
What is it you seem to think you got right?
[Apparently my post about the CIA is so important/controversial I am now "posting to fast" AKA banned or at least prevented from replying with my account. What a fucking joke.]
I am not doubting you being an CIA shill, in fact, I'd give everyone the shadow of a doubt that they are NOT shill. But my point is more towards the fact that I find these boards to be very much influencing people to one specific type of ideology, rather than to provide evidence and have other people having a greater understanding of the matter (which I always assume is what HN is supposed to be).
Incidentally, I find it funny that while on US platforms, people call themselves Brit, whereas no one in the UK calls themselves that.
There are shills for various nationalities, chinese, us, russian and (probably a few) brit as well.
> I find these boards to be very much influencing people to one specific type of ideology,
I find the opposite, a few biased ones and a decent number of independent thinkers.
> I find it funny that while on US platforms, people call themselves Brit, whereas no one in the UK calls themselves that.
Are you implying I'm not actually a brit but faking one? Londoner, mate, sarf lahndan, though not born & bred.
When abroad one will identify onesself appropriately, I am 'abroad' on a US website where my nationality mattered WRT my comment, I don't know what you expect me to say.
Please don't post like this here unless you have specific evidence. A Wikipedia link does not count as evidence.
It's not that there are no CIA shills. It's that it's impossible to distinguish them from internet user imagination about spies and shillage, which is an extremely prolific and low-quality activity. There's tons of past explanation here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
Edit: Separately but importantly, could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines also.
You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Soviet union no longer exists as such so let's talk of current russia. Hence my link.
From my link: A CBS News story on the launch of Russia Today quoted Boris Kagarlitsky as saying it was "very much a continuation of the old Soviet propaganda services".[10]
Please don't create accounts to circumvent moderation limitations like rate limits. Your main account is rate-limited because political and ideological flamewar is not what this site is for. If you don't want to be rate-limited, you're always welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll use the site as intended in the future.
As another commenter mentioned, the US was all too happy to get involved later on. However, France certainly deserves its share of the blame, as do the British for their "traps" in Iran, Iraq, etc. It's especially unfortunate that in recent decades the US has moved from condemning to supporting to taking over their role as resource (and especially oil) kingpins by continuing their exploitation of these resources through governmental interference.
Innocent US stumbled into the Vietnam War after evil France meticulously trapped the US into the war, reports US government. French fries will hereafter be known as Freedom fries, declares US government in ensuing report.
The pattern of using farmer/women/student/x-liberation groups to approach villagers and promise redistributed land in exchange for insurgency support is basically venture banditry or chartered theft. Wrap it in an ideology and the rest is just sales. Their internsectionalist approach is what establishes a foothold in the community and the radicalism of a converted now-intolerant minority neutralizes opposition and essentially flips the population. The result around the world has predictably been a regional kleptocracy, because that's literally what the plan was from the beginning - to take other peoples stuff instead of producing it.
Hard to defend the CIA, but the cold war was a response to a country that had metastasized from that initial venture bandit play of 1918 by learning the ropes of totalitarianism from Dutch colonies, and then Germany. Suppressing communism failed in China, and that played out as well as expected, with the same metastastacizing producing the dystopia they have today.
The hardcover and paperback versions, that the post is based on, are selling for 430 and 967 respectively. [1] Another fun example of crazy Amazon pricing - looks like a price gouging individual/algorithm who is riding a wave of scarcity.
72 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadA combination of nearly unbounded public funds, a definite impunity and presumptuousness, and a solid position to feed the monster of the military industrial complex has led to a situation where their actions seem to be directly opposed with what would benefit the average citizen, of either their respective countries or the world.
What does that mean? Aside from the scare quotes are you saying that intelligence agencies only work against counter-intelligence, or are you saying they're all collaborating. What does 'dynamical' mean?
>"A combination of nearly unbounded public funds, a definite impunity and presumptuousness, and a solid position to feed the monster of the military industrial complex has led to a situation where their actions seem to be directly opposed with what would benefit the average citizen, of either their respective countries or the world."
I think you need to read a little more about public opinion, and about how government works. The intelligence agencies are often working against their military (navy, army, etc.) counterparts, as competitors. In addition, most people believe their government is working to further truth and justice, so they actually support the espionage agencies.
Your comment seems to imply that your anti-expionage/military/industry views are common and righteous, yet unspoken or unacknowledged. I think you're totally wrong; there's no conspiracy, and people have widely disparate (often inconsistent) goals.
The article mentions how citizens are manipulated with media and false flag operations and the end result is the only winners are the big industry(the article gives some examples at the end)
https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/18/books/how-the-cia-played-...
Can be read with a denigrating undertone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Agee#Leaving_the_CIA
He also wrote books about the CIA in Europe (similar to Ganser's classic Gladio book "Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe") and Africa.
[0]: https://jim.com/chomsdis.htm
In 2020, people seem to forget that the Cold War happened and that the KGB, GRU, etc. existed. Most of these outrageous CIA actions were done in the context of combating the Soviets.
In short, you will probably never be able to remove the role of intelligence from geopolitics.
"In the context of combatting the Soviets" isn't a good excuse. If these acts were done to combat the Soviets it may have been worthwhile, but using the Communist scape goat to force your will on the world, which is what the article is claiming happened, should not be common foreign policy.
Change soviets with terrorists for 21st century.
Take your low-effort outrage elsewhere, please.
If this article have a message is that those dirty wars were against the poor people living in those countries, not against the KGB.
And what is the excuse after the cold war? Because nothing has really changed.
That's a pretty big assumption that is no doubt abused.
I love Matt Taibbi's example where the FBI got a search warrant, based on a news article that they were the source on. Talk about compromised incentives.
That 100% are just not true, every respectable paper and or journalist know that there is quite a big chance that your are being used, not just from Services but also from Company's, just have a look at Elon's Hyperloop and the massive Fan-hype (even in the University Space (which is kind of super-sad))
Complex obstacles require a complex approach towards solutions so it makes sense to have multiple communities working together.
And sure, horrors occur but we don't get to know what horrors are avoided.
Imagine if the Soviet Union had made endless TV series and movies about the heroic deeds of the KGB. It would be quite rightly laughed out of sight as the most absurd, batshit propaganda.
And yet that is what's pumped out in the US year in, year out, about the CIA. And it works.
Edit: Pretty sinister that since posting this HN is now preventing me from posting and replying. Note to others: don't question the CIA.
Edit 2: Since I can't reply to the post asking about which shows are CIA propaganda, shows like Covert Affairs, The Agency, Burn Notice, Homeland, Alias, and others, which AIUI have current or former CIA advisors and guided tours of Langley for the producers and cast.
They are the very definition of propaganda
What are your examples of it being portrayed as heroically good?
If you had said the military, maybe you’d have a point, but even then we’ve got films like Apocalypse Now, Jarhead, and so on that are clearly critical.
This is exactly how the vast majority of the purportedly CIA-ambivalent media franchises ultimately come out in The Agency's favor. If they depict agents doing bad things, it's always made pretty clear that the world would be even worse if they hadn't.
What you’re describing is a very utilitarian perspective towards ethics/morality and I’m not sure everyone would walk away with that conclusion. There are plenty of people who do not believe the ends justify the means, or at least, don’t always. Others may think it is immoral, but necessary in some circumstances. This includes people that do or have worked in this line of work, to include me. It is also complicated, because there is no way of knowing if the outcome would be worse had they not done the “bad” thing. It also assumes we all agree as to what is “bad” versus what is “good”, or even somewhere in between.
Maybe a better way of looking at it is as though they are portrayed as flawed heroes? Or even good people that sometimes have to/choose to do bad things?
I don’t know the answers to those questions and it is very likely I am way off, but I appreciate you bringing up your thoughts on the matter!
a.) "The intelligence community are the good guys and mostly do the right thing, minus one or two foibles here and there." In this category you've got your Marvel movies, your James Bonds, your Tom Clancys, etc
b.) "The IC is fighting the good fight, but sometimes has to do morally questionable things to get it done." This is stuff like Zero Dark Thirty and encompasses most of what you might call "serious" cinema that depicts the CIA.
c.) "The IC is deeply morally flawed, serving the interests of an elite few at the expense of the vast majority both at home & abroad, and often undertakes actions where this must be clear to anyone involved who has a conscience." This is very rare. There are a few paranoid conspiracy films from the 70s, there's American Made, there's Kill the Messenger, there's JFK, but I'm already struggling to come up with more names.
Intelligence work is so compartmentalized that I believe it's possible for the vast majority of those who work in it to believe they are fighting a good (or at least neutral) fight without allowing for too much cognitive dissonance at all. I don't think this is true of, say, the FBI agents who buried the allegations against the Epstein & Franklin pedophile rings, or the CIA agents who ran drugs into Mena airport to supply funds to child murdering contras in Nicaragua. These are the characters which tend to be assiduously avoided in Western media.
I've just always found it interesting that an organization with such a terrible real-world reputation is routinely depicted in positive, whitewashed terms in American productions. And if that was happening in an 'enemy' state we'd have no problem seeing it for what it is.
And now I find that simply expressing this opinion on HN, even under a 10,000+ word criticism of the CIA, results in:
a) account [pmachinery] being banned from posting, and (even more sinister):
b) being presented with Google tracking/captcha on login
This has all been very illuminating at least.
The "posting too fast" limit is just a brake which as far as I have seen is applied fairly and helps keep HN discussions on the rails (my own posting emphatically included). I think it's possible mods reacted harshly to your criticizing it.
That said, I think pretty much every forum or venue is subject to some of this kind of manipulation. I certainly get an immediate torrent of downvotes whenever one of my comments is particularly pointed or "conspiratorial."
In "2 guns" Bill Paxton played a psychopathic CIA agent who ran a contra-stye operation by squeezing drug lords for a cut. Awesome performance by the way.
In the recent version of "Dirk Gently" TV series, the CIA operation kidnaps psychics to experiment on them, and eliminates people who know too much or get in the way. Whenever the leader of the operation has a change of heart, he gets replaced with a new one with less scruples. "Mr. Priest" (another awesome character) is the CIA's psychopathic fixer brought in "for protocol violations".
They look like a realpolitik organization that is extremely capable, creating numerous super spies, ultimately full of people with integrity like Bourne who quits when his conscience tells him to.
The original point was that propaganda makes the CIA look like heroes, which is a far cry from realpolitik.
Bourne is the hero and is also CIA, and at every turn they are able to keep up with him. You leave with the impression that good guys can join the CIA and curb the necessary evil the CIA is involved with.
Do you think more people leave thinking Bourne and thus the CIA are badass or that the CIA are evil and need to be destroyed?
http://exple.tive.org/blarg/2015/09/20/bourne-aesthetic/
If you're unaware of soviet/russian propaganda, that's quite an achievement. Really something.
> Imagine if the Soviet Union had made endless TV series and movies about the heroic deeds of the KGB
OK, where did I get it wrong.
a) the Soviet Union
b) TV shows and movies from the Soviet Union
c) the KGB
What is it you seem to think you got right?
[Apparently my post about the CIA is so important/controversial I am now "posting to fast" AKA banned or at least prevented from replying with my account. What a fucking joke.]
(and btw no chance of russians doing the same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolls_from_Olgino thing is there. Or those these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot doing it for them)
I am not doubting you being an CIA shill, in fact, I'd give everyone the shadow of a doubt that they are NOT shill. But my point is more towards the fact that I find these boards to be very much influencing people to one specific type of ideology, rather than to provide evidence and have other people having a greater understanding of the matter (which I always assume is what HN is supposed to be).
Incidentally, I find it funny that while on US platforms, people call themselves Brit, whereas no one in the UK calls themselves that.
> I find these boards to be very much influencing people to one specific type of ideology,
I find the opposite, a few biased ones and a decent number of independent thinkers.
> I find it funny that while on US platforms, people call themselves Brit, whereas no one in the UK calls themselves that.
Are you implying I'm not actually a brit but faking one? Londoner, mate, sarf lahndan, though not born & bred.
When abroad one will identify onesself appropriately, I am 'abroad' on a US website where my nationality mattered WRT my comment, I don't know what you expect me to say.
It's not that there are no CIA shills. It's that it's impossible to distinguish them from internet user imagination about spies and shillage, which is an extremely prolific and low-quality activity. There's tons of past explanation here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: Separately but importantly, could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines also.
You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
From my link: A CBS News story on the launch of Russia Today quoted Boris Kagarlitsky as saying it was "very much a continuation of the old Soviet propaganda services".[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_Soviet_Union...
But no mention of the gulags then.
My comment was that we see Soviet propaganda for what it is, so how do you think you're contradicting or correcting me?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Hard to defend the CIA, but the cold war was a response to a country that had metastasized from that initial venture bandit play of 1918 by learning the ropes of totalitarianism from Dutch colonies, and then Germany. Suppressing communism failed in China, and that played out as well as expected, with the same metastastacizing producing the dystopia they have today.
[1]: https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Deceits-McGehee-12-Dec-1984-Pa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_McGehee#Controversies
http://www.pinknoiz.com/covert/protect.html