My title here—which would be le siècle volé in French—is a double nudge of la génération perdue of
Hemingway: the “lost generation.” It is now not only a generation we have lost, but more than a
century; and, as I will show, it was not lost but stolen.
Before we get to who stole it, I will give you a hint. In my last paper we saw John Irving attacking
Tom Wolfe. Irving has also recently attacked Ernest Hemingway. Although there would seem to be
no connection between Wolfe and Hemingway, there is. It appears Irving may know something we
don't.
My readers may think my last two papers have read like a whirlwind, and they will find the wind
gusting even harder here.
You may want to sit down, because here comes the clincher. You will say we have no evidence
Hemingway ever worked for Intelligence, so this whole paper is push to a conclusion. But we do. It is
now known that Hemingway worked for Intelligence in WW2. He not only worked for OSS (the
precursor to the CIA), he worked for Navy Intelligence ONI, the FBI, and even worked with the
Russian Intelligence agency NKVD (the precursor to the KGB). How do I know? The CIA admits it
on their own website.
2
Of course they try to spin it in their own way, but for my thesis here it doesn't
much matter how they spin it. The admission by itself is fatal to Hemingway, since I can now ask you
this $64,000 question: if you can believe Hemingway was with Intelligence in WW2, what is keeping
you from believing he was with Intelligence during and after WW1? The time period in question in
this paper (the peak of the Stein salon) was only about 15 years earlier than 1941. I have just shown
you a lot of evidence that Hemingway was always in Intelligence, and since I have just proved it
beyond any doubt for the period after 1941, you may wish to look again at the evidence before 1941.
Supposing you weren't already convinced, I recommend you re-read everything above in light of this
admission from cia.gov.
We also have firm evidence of T. S. Eliot's connections to British Intelligence during and after WW2.
What got me started on this whole line of research, remember, is tripping across that article at the
Independent, written by Frances Saunders in 1995, which I have referenced in all three recent papers.
Well, Saunders published a book† a couple of years later, expanding the research she did for that
article. I ordered that book and am now padding out this paper with her research. It turns out Eliot
worked with the British Society for Cultural Freedom, which was the British counterpart of Tom
Braden's Congress for Cultural Freedom, which as we have seen was a CIA organization to promote
certain Modern artists. Allen Ginsberg, of all people, admitted this in 1978 in a sketch titled “T. S.
Eliot Entered my Dreams.” Here is an excerpt:..................
(Full text at link below)
The role of Intelligence in the rise of Modernism has been missed by most people for the same reason I
missed it for so long: we forget how far back the Agencies go. Most people know the CIA wasn't
created until 1947, and since it came out of the Office of Strategic Service—which was an agency of
the Second World War, we then take Intelligence only back to 1938 or so. But there was Intelligence
in the Civil War and the Revolutionary War. There was Intelligence in Caesar's armies and in the
armies of Alexander. Like prostitution, it is as old as the race itself. Cain and Abel were spying on one
another, and plotting, and before that the snake—the first agent—was watching Eve from the tree,
trying to insert himself in the place given to Adam.
Although the evidence for the central role of Intelligence has always been there, it of course hasn't been
promoted, and it has retreated into the shadows. The evidence can even be found in the works of the
Moderns themselves, as I showed previously with Burrough's Naked Lunch. The same is easy to show
with Ulysses and Portrait of the Artist, in which Joyce talks about the British spies in Dublin Castle.
And in Dubliners (p. 96), Mr. Henchy “knows for a fact” that half the Radical Nationalists in Dublin
are “in the pay of the Castle.” Who would have thought that Joyce himself was among them, or soon
would be? I haven't (yet) found any evidence Joyce was subverting the Irish causes, but since he was
certainly promoting the Modernist causes, he was in the service of one of the main Intelligence
programs of his time. Since this program served the rich families at the expense of art history, we see
that Joyce is an anti-hero in a different way that you have thought. Although he showed real early
talent in both poetry and novel writing, he chose instead to sell out his birthright as a real artist for the
money and fame of a bought one. Ulysses is the public record of that sell-out.
As you come down from this paper. . . No, I should say, as you crawl out of the Matrix on your hands
and knees, pulling the plugs from your neck and limbs and shaking the cytoplasmic fluid from your
hairless body, consider this last problem. Since we are seeing that large parts of history have been
manufactured, faked, pushed, and invented, we should ask if anyone is keeping track of what actually
happened. What I mean is, since all the mainstream histories you read appear to be false, have the
governments at least thought to write down what they have done? Is there some great archive
somewhere containing the real history?
Of course the agents will know what they have done recently, but what if we go a couple of generations
back, when memories fade? Has the manufactured history simply become the real history, with no one
left to tell us the difference? I only ask because at some point in the future, society may decide to go
straight, as it were, swearing off the lying and the spying. At that point, our descendants might wish to
know what really happened in these centuries. Will they be able to? Or will it require a total recreation
from old evidence and logic, like I have done here? If we aren't keeping this correct record, I suggest
we do so immediately. We will look a lot less stupid in the future if they know that the top art of the
20th century was not the best we could do, but only an invention of Intelligence.
Which brings us to another question. Is all of history as corrupted as the last century? How far back
could we take my method, and what would we find?
*This requires a footnote, since it will assuredly be taken down from Wikipedia at some point. Spence, Richard B.
(2008). Secret Agent 666: Aleister Crowley, British Intelligence and the Occult. Port Townsend: Feral House. pp. 54–
57, 60–61. ISBN 978-1-932595-33-8. Already, someone has added a sentence to Wiki saying that there is no
evidence Quinn was in British Intelligence. But Spence did not make it up. See The Letters of T. S. Eliot, Volume 1,
Revised Edition, Yale University Press, p. 829, where it is confirmed.
**Kennedy, J. Gerald. "Hemingway's Gender Trouble", American Literature, Vol. 63, No. 2, Jun 1991.
†Saunders, Frances Stonor. The Cultural Cold War. See p. 103 for just one example. Although I think Saunders'
book is more misdirection, it does contain some good information. To spin information, Intelligence has to give you
some, which is bad for them, good for me.
‡City Lights Journal, Spring 1978.
1Saunders, Frances Stonor. The Cultural Cold War. pp. 34, 250.
2 Reynolds, Nicholas. “Ernest Hemingway, Wartime Spy.” Studies in Intelligence, volume 52, number 2 (June 2012).
3 http://www.nypl.org/blog/2013/12/05/john-quinn-1913-armory-show. New York Public Library Archives, 2013.
4 McBride began his 36 years at the New York Sun in 1913. That is not a coincidence. He was installed at age 45 in
that position with the connivance of Quinn and U.S. Intelligence. One of his first assignments was not only the
promotion of the avant garde painters of the Armory Show, but the anti-promotion of the Eight and the Ashcan
School. Robert Henri was a prominent member of both.
5Directory of Directors, City of Chicago, Audit Company of New York, 1902. p. 69.
