Twitter: Where “Experts” On Everything Take Pride In What They Don’t Know, So Long As There’s Company
Here I summarize all the most important information I know of from reputable sources on the CIA’s promotion and funding of Gloria Steinem from 1959 to at least 1972, and more. For those most curious about whether the CIA funded Ms. magazine specifically after the recent twitter debate, you can click here to go directly to the sections of the blog that offer verifiable proof of that. But if you want the whole story (“whole” so far as I know it and reputable sources have reported on it), read the whole blog.
This post is the most troubling I’ve ever written. But this needs saying. Luckily, I do have the answers, so unless you, like some on the twitter machine, can’t handle the truth, I invite you to take ten minutes to learn something even more important than my opinion on Joe Thornton. Trust me, it’s a better option than whining on twitter about something you didn’t even read and looking like a misinformed dunce in the process. Enjoy!
Twitter is a lot like pre-school, where everyone makes fun of the one kid who learned to read before everyone else because none of them want to feel inferior. If you re-tweet what your friends say and never stray from popular opinion, your reward is inclusion in the circle-jerk of ego massaging.
Yeah, so my pre-school was a little weird. I admit it.
On twitter, no one cares about the truth because the truth usually doesn’t fit in 140 characters anyway. That is, until you tell someone they don’t know something. Then they’ll go look it up on wikipedia, copy a sentence into a tweet that will fit in 140 characters, and pretend they do. We wouldn’t want to look like we don’t already know everything anyone from any walk of life brings up. It’s twitter, where everyone knows everything. Can’t afford to look out-of-place. Have to keep up appearances.
Not me, whether you agree with everything I say or not. I knew people would lash out after reading my blog about the Ice Girls, but I published it anyway in all its unapproachable glory. I put “Prepare Your Pitchforks” in the title as a wink to the readers because I knew what was coming. I even egged some Ice Girls‘ critics on indirectly by ending the title saying, “the Ice Girls aren’t sexist, but some of you are.” Because I was trying to make them even angrier? No. Because I’m not going to sugar coat to the truth for the sake of appeasing a mob that can’t even agree among themselves on what the truth is.
Much of modern-day feminism is so contradictory and make-it-up-as-you-go-along that recently one of the biggest blogs on feminism, Jezebel, promoted an interview with porn star Asa Akira, in which Akira communicated the attitude that in feminism, we need to support all women, because freedom means being able to do whatever makes you happy, and everyone is different. Meanwhile at Fear the Fin, one of the critics of my Ice Girls blog, a moderator had to put a disclaimer near the top of the comment section explaining how it wasn’t okay to call women who perform the job “sexist epithets” even though he said with certainty that the Ice Girls were sexist, as if there was no subjectivity at all involved in that determination. But we’ve already seen them called “puck sluts” and plenty else. The response to my blog was the same, minus the word “sluts,” with people commenting and tweeting that just because some women enjoy the job doesn’t mean it’s not sexist. So feminists are supporting porn stars now, but not Ice Girls?
Even more perplexing than that contradiction, today I watched a DVR’d Real Sports episode where I saw how even the NFL cheerleaders who are suing the NFL for failure to pay minimum wage admitted that signing the cheerleader contract was a dream come true and a huge adrenaline rush. They just feel they’re underpaid and asked to do some unfair things outside of the cheering itself, but those are specific circumstances that need to be looked into. As for the actual cheering from NFL sidelines, even they said they loved it and made no allusions to sexism.
But many Ice Girls critics say the very act of paying women (no matter how much) to be ogled by men for their looks is sexist. And yet NFL cheerleaders love that job description so much they’ll even sign a contract to do it for unfair pay. Where does this leave us?? Porn isn’t sexist, but the Ice Girls are? Cheering at NFL games isn’t sexist, but the Ice Girls near-equivalent NHL job is? Clearly feminists can’t even decide what constitutes sexism and what doesn’t, so even if I wanted to pander to them, it would be impossible because they change their beliefs constantly. I can’t go out of my way to sugar-coat the truth just because their coin-flip feminism might complain if the coin in their heads lands a certain way.
I refuse to censor the truth, and an example of that was a tweet I sent out a few days ago. Someone facetious over my Ice Girls blog asked me my definition of sexism, so I started responding in the long-winded way I’ve been known to do, starting with this tweet (which will be 100% proven fact by the end of the blog, so if you questioned it you have no excuse to bow out).
Before I could continue on explaining my definition of sexism, my twitter feed was bombarded with people acting like laughing buffoons.
No one seemed to have the faintest idea what I was talking about. It was the funniest thing in the world to them. CIA? Feminism? What? Conspiracy theory! Someone even made a Benghazi joke, as you can see, which is sad because now that’s two subjects he doesn’t know anything about outside of what he’s heard from CNN.
But as many of you know, even if, unfortunately, it’s mostly those of you who don’t spend your life on twitter, Gloria Steinem admitted multiple times to not just being funded by the CIA, but in fact to doing the work of a CIA asset serving as director of the Independent Research Service subverting young communists abroad, which was, of course, not independent at all. Sounds crazy, right? That’s because it is. Welcome to the real world, Neo, where sequels suck and things aren’t automatically untrue just because they’re crazy.
So I tweeted back to the laughing-gas crew the link to the youtube video where Steinem admits she was funded by the CIA, expecting some reasonable replies like, “Oh wow, I didn’t know. That’s very interesting. This changes a lot. My bad!” But instead, I got silence. The tweets stopped coming in. Some time passed. Nothing.
And then the excuses came. In one exchange below, I received a tweet back six minutes later, just enough time to watch the three-minute video and look it up on wikipedia. And we all know what that means. Experts! But if they had even the faintest knowledge of the subject, they wouldn’t have needed to watch the video, which really only has the most basic information on the subject and mostly just serves as video-proof of her admission.
The CIA funded her, but I’m sure none of the funds ended up going to Ms. magazine!
It’s entirely possible the CIA funded Ms. magazine, but why would I focus on how I just learned that the leader of the second-wave feminist movement may have been funded and manipulated by the CIA to nefarious means when I can focus on your wording instead!
She worked for the CIA in her youth, but there is no evidence that it continued!
Because what’s more common than a part-time CIA asset? Suddenly everyone was correcting me and debating the wording of one tweet I sent that was never even meant to stand alone about something most of them, if not all, had never even heard of five minutes before. In politics, there is character-assassination. On twitter, apparently it’s semantics-assassination. At least that’s not quite as bad as the one time someone complained that I misspelled a word on twitter.
But what if they’re right?” You might ask. Maybe Steinem was just funded to go abroad to help set up mosquito nets to protect the people over there when she was in college. Maybe I got the facts wrong somehow.
Well, let’s look at the full story to see if I was right, and if these twitter experts were right about anything, even the semantics of my tweet.
Let’s start with Vienna. The CIA money Steinem references in the youtube video was paid so Steinem could form a group called the Independent Research Service, of which she would be the director. The group would send her and other students to a communist festival in Vienna called the World Youth Festival during the cold war. Kai Bird explains in his book, The Chairman: John J. McCloy and the Making of the American Establishment.
“Working through C.D. Jackson and Cord Meyer (both CIA officers), Steinem then set up [what would soon be named the Independent Research Service] … Among other individuals, Jackson and Meyer hired Gloria Steinem to work with them … She obtained tax-exempt status, and Jackson helped her raise contributions from various American corporations … But most of the money came from the CIA.” (Emphasis and parentheticals mine).
As you can see, Steinem wasn’t just funded by the CIA, she worked with them at every step of the way. They helped her get tax-exempt status, helped her raise money from other corporations, funded her themselves, and worked with her. Later on she would claim that the CIA only gave her money, but that she wasn’t really working with them. This shows that to be a complete lie.
Now the general purpose of Steinem’s group at the communist festival was to “subvert” communist-minded youths there and turn them away from communism. This required her to get close to people on false pretenses, to trick them and find ways to make them trust her, then manipulate their political beliefs away from communism, all without revealing her true purpose. Her work couldn’t have been further from setting up nets or helping starving children.
There was also one other tool Steinem used to subvert communists at the festival. She ran a “propaganda operation” on the CIA’s behalf in the form of a “student newspaper,” all with the CIA’s direct involvement.
“Steinem ended up working closely with Samuel S. Walker, Jr., vice-president of the CIA-funded Free Europe Committee … His job was to supervise the book-and-newspaper operation at the Youth Festival.” (Emphasis mine).
Even John J. McCloy, who was involved in the creation of the Independent Research Service along with the CIA (it’s unclear from the link if he was CIA himself or if he just worked with them), contributed to the “newspaper.”
“McCloy’s connection to Steinem went beyond contributing an article to the propaganda operation of which she was an editor in Vienna.”
How do you run a propaganda operation for the CIA, for a group funded by the CIA that you lead, whose purpose is to subvert foreign communist youths, working with and under the supervision of the CIA, without being a CIA asset? How do you work for the CIA without working with the CIA, basically? You don’t. She was a CIA asset, period. Even simple logic would tell you that there is no way she could have written for and run a CIA-funded propaganda “newspaper” without working hand-in-hand with the CIA to include their viewpoints in ways that would persuade readers without them knowing that they were actually being brainwashed by CIA propaganda. Which, by the way, is exactly the skill set she would later exploit as a Women’s Lib writer.
Even if most Americans agree that steering youths away from communism is a good thing, these are not the talents of a normal person, and given that this was during the cold war, if her CIA connection had been found out while abroad, she could have been at risk. She must have had training to avoid being identified as CIA by the enemy while abroad. She must have had training on how to subvert and manipulate people’s beliefs discretely. She must have had CIA handlers, and I probably just named them (unless there were others, too). She wasn’t just funded by the CIA, she was working as an actual CIA asset. In the movies, that means James Bond (even though he’s an agent and “works for” MI6), but in real life, this is much of what they do. You don’t wake up one morning with the desire or the skill set to do that. And since she did such a great job manipulating people’s beliefs with her propaganda, is it any surprise they funded and promoted her high up in the U.S. media later on to do the exact same job, this time in shaping feminism to the CIA’s purpose?
Really the only piece of the equation that’s missing from what you’d expect out of a full CIA intelligence asset is that Steinem denies she ever assed and gathered intel on other Americans and foreign nationals at the festival. But as it turns out, she lied to us all about that just like she lied to us all about her brand of feminism.
“[Steinem] told the Times in 1967, ‘I was never asked to report on other Americans or assess foreign nationals I had met.’ But in fact, in response to a query from C.D. Jackson, Steinem wrote Jackson in great detail on the left-wing affiliations of various Americans associated with the allegedly Soviet-backed U.S. Festival Committee. (Gloria Steinem to C.D. Jackson, 3/19/59, DDE; NYT, Feb. 21, 1967.)“
And there you have it. CIA sponsored subversion abroad, CIA sponsored and supervised propaganda, and CIA directed intelligence gathering; outside of the guns you see in movies, this was in every way an intelligence operation involving CIA assets, and she was not just one of those assets, but their leader. She worked so closely with them that Samuel Walker even wrote about her personality traits which he’d come to know well from all the time they must have spent together, while also alluding to the fact that Jackson also worked closely with her, which in both cases we already know.
“In Vienna, [Samuel Walker] and Steinem worked well together … Their propaganda machine pumped out four hundred thousand copies of a daily newspaper for three weeks … Walker praised Steinem’s ‘female intuition’ and wrote, ‘Gloria is all you said she was, and then some. She is operating on 16 synchronized cylinders and has charmed the natives.‘” (Emphasis mine).
Female intuition? I guess they only want us peasants to buy the lie that innate gender differences don’t exist. In any case, simply from the information posted so far you can see that Steinem was a full-on CIA asset, as well as a liar who made it a point to keep one aspect of her job, intelligence gathering, a secret, even when she was asked about it point blank. You can not separate Steinem from her time, training, indoctrination, and field work with the CIA, as well as the talents she acquired in the arts of deception and propaganda, which, again, appears more and more to be precisely what she used to build her CIA brand of second-wave feminism. And just like those “natives” in Vienna who were “charmed by her” despite the fact she was working for the CIA to brainwash them, it seems many here at home were swindled by the same tactics, at least based on the way some responded to my Ice Girls blog.
But this is not nearly the full or greatest extent of the CIA’s funding and promotion of Steinem. My singled-out tweet said the CIA funded Steinem to publish Ms. magazine, as all the experts diligently pointed out. Is that true (with proof!) or not???
Enter Clay Felker. Felker and Steinem go way back to the Helsinki Youth Festival three years after Vienna, in 1962, where Steinem was back at yet another communist youth festival, still leading the CIA-created Indepedent Research Center. Felker and Steinem worked together funding the aforementioned English language propaganda paper financed by the CIA. At this point Steinem had gotten three years of practice working undercover for the CIA. It was only a year later, 1963, that she used those skills to infiltrate the Playboy Mansion for an exposé. Clearly her time with the CIA played a role in at least the start of her career in Women’s Lib, even if you ignore how she still had those contacts and all the direct, traceable help that was to come.
But come it did. Felker, who also worked with the CIA in Helsinki with Steimen, would give Steinem, in her words, her first “serious assignment” on a freelance basis at Esquire, where Felker was the editor, that same year in 1962, before making her famous when he hired her as contributing editor at New York Magazine and booked publicity spots for her on radio and TV talk shows.
And then, the elephant in the room, Ms. magazine. After giving Steinem her first “serious assignment,” and after promoting her to prominence at New York Magazine, Felker even put up money for the preview issue of… Ms. magazine! He lifted her up and funded her at every step of her career coming up, and then he put up money for Ms. magazine before even seeing the preview issue.
And that’s not even the worst example of the CIA funding Ms. mag. Enter Katharine Graham. Felker’s only work with the CIA that I could verify came in Helsinki, even though the fact he rose up through the media even faster than Steinem suggests it didn’t end there. But Graham, who bought $20,000 worth of stock in Ms. before the first issue was ever published, has an entire book, Katharine the Great by Deborah Davis, written about her time as a major CIA asset in the press for an operation called Operation Mockingbird, which was a secret campaign by the CIA to influence the media. She was as big as they got. Oh, I didn’t mention that all this CIA funding of Steinem and astronomical ascension through the journalism ranks guided by her former CIA colleague just happened to be taking place at a time when the CIA was executing the greatest campaign in U.S. history to fund and control journalism and the media at large? Connect meet dots.
“By the early 1950s, (Director of CIA Office of Special Projects) Frank Wisner ‘owned’ respected members of The New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles,” according to Deborah Davis in Katharine the Great. It wasn’t until 1976 that the U.S. Congress investigated and reported on Mockingbird. Ms. magazine was funded four years before that, with the promotion and help of two CIA assets, including one of the biggest ones they had in the media, Katharine Graham.
So yes, Ms. magazine was funded by the CIA, and not just anyone involved with the CIA, but, in Graham’s case, one of their most prominent assets responsible for planting stories in the press to sway public opinion, which is exactly what Steinem sought to do in Women’s Lib, the same as she did under the CIA with the Independent Research Service at the very start. And in October 1974, Graham was featured on Ms.‘s cover with the headline, “The Most Powerful Woman in America.” That’s the type of big fish we’re talking about here. Graham even played a role in Watergate.
There you have it. Everything I said in my tweet, and more, detailed and proven. Thanks for having confidence in me, twitter! Really there are so many suspicious stories about Steinem’s associations back then that claim she had many more CIA associations, if you were inclined to trust those (dated Henry Kissinger, I mean she was surrounded by them), but I’m just sticking with the verifiable, indisputable facts here. Just following the money, really. Steinem was not only a CIA asset herself subverting and propagandizing communist-minded youths abroad, she was funded early and often by the CIA and CIA assets, as well as promoted to fame by someone else with CIA affiliations in Cory Felker. Ms. magazine itself was funded by him and Katharine Graham.
Another very strange fact is that Warner provided an even bigger investment than Felker and Graham, the majority share, but only asked for 25% of the stock. Even the Ms. editors commented how unusual that was.
“We are especially impressed that they took the unusual position of becoming a major investor but minority stockholder, thus providing all the money without demanding the decision vote in return.”
It all stinks to high heaven. And of course Warner was linked to the CIA too, along with Steinem, Felker, Graham, Warner, and others, by the book Feminist Revolution, written, in fact, by another feminist group called the Redstockings. However, the publisher, Random House, was pressured by Steinem and the others not to publish it. But since the book had already passed an initial libel reading by Random House’s lawyers, publishing was slated to go forward anyway, for the planned 20,000 copies. That is until Steinem met with the president of Random House, Robert Bernstein, privately. No one knows what went on in that meeting, but the book’s publication ended up being delayed for almost three years, and when it finally was published, the printing order had been reduced to 12,500 copies, and the chapter tying Steinem and the others to the CIA had been removed.
The Redstockings ended up printing a press release in which they claimed that Steinem had covered up a ten-year association with the CIA and that Ms. magazine was endangering the Women’s Liberation movement.
Even the other prominent feminists of the time knew the truth about Steinem and disliked her. In Feminist Revolution the Redstockings even called her a “celebrity journalist-turned-feminist” and the primary thesis of the book sought to point out “some serious mistakes by the Women’s Liberation branch.” The only reason so many out there love Steinem, but haven’t even heard of the Redstockings, is because the media (and in this case the CIA was the media) only promotes who they want you want to see. Total manipulation, and it keeps fooling people even to this day.
The Redstockings had fought to keep the book intact, but eventually conceded that after “a three year struggle to retain the book’s section critiquing Gloria Steinem and Ms. in the Random House edition,” the struggle had “[culminated] in the traumatic experience of censorship.”
In true CIA form, Steinem was even able to censor her critics and suppress the truth. No wonder many of you out there didn’t know the truth until now.
Lastly, ask yourself this. What are the odds, without CIA help, that the editor of Esquire and New York magazine, and the face of Women’s Liberation and Ms. mag, both come out of the same “student group”? What are the odds that two different people achieve such success in journalism, after starting out in a CIA operation, during a time when the CIA controlled the mainstream media, but without the help of the CIA? That’s pretty damning. The Redstockings believed she was working with the CIA even in 1975, the year before congress issued their report on Operation Mockingbird. I’d be inclined to think she still works for the CIA if we didn’t already have photographic proof that she now works for Jay-Z.
Don’t even ask me to explain why Jay-Z, Lebron James, and Gloria Steinem all throw up the same gang sign. All of these celebrities throwing up the same triangle sign with their hands in photos has gotten really weird.
In any case, every single person who made fun of my assertion on twitter that the CIA funded Ms. magazine was wrong. And that’s okay. It’s impossible to be schooled in every subject known to humanity. Due to the discussion surrounding the Ice Girls controversy, I brought up a fact that not everyone knew about, Steinem’s ties to the CIA. I was trying to share the truth about second-wave feminism. While Steinem’s time as a CIA asset and her ties throughout the entirety of her rise in Women’s Lib does not expose the entire idea of feminism, since we all support equal rights, it certainly does expose the mainstream, often psychological feminism many of those twitter users no doubt ascribe to, along with many others. She was trained, funded, and led by CIA assets, who surely had ulterior motives. There’s no getting around it. If the experts from twitter want to focus on something important, rather than the wording of my tweets, they should ask themselves what those motives were, exactly, and how they’ve manifested in modern society now over thirty years later.
But it’s okay if you didn’t know about this history before I brought it up, as long as you’re open to learning about it when you come into contact with it. However, what is shameless is to actually have pride in your own ignorance. To celebrate and laugh over it with everyone else, to encourage ignorance around you, and to willfully ignore the truth so you’re guaranteed to remain ignorant, as is exemplified by tweets like these:
She didn’t even read the blog outside of a small “snippet,” but re-tweeted the blog attached to unflattering comments (a different tweet), despite not even reading it, all so she could stoke and watch the “fun.” She purposefully kept her knowledge about the subject to a minimum so she could better laugh about it in ignorance, rather than actually consider any of the arguments I made. And she’s not alone. A majority of the negative feedback I’ve gotten has been from people who admitted to not even reading my blog.
And so we have a situation where the opinion of these feminists criticizing my analysis of the Ice Girls and feminism/sexism in general was always predetermined due to their ignorance. Most the people calling my Ice Girls blog “wrong” didn’t even read it, while the people calling my tweet about Gloria Steinem wrong it’s been proven here were wrong themselves, which would have also led them to be wrong about the Ice Girls blog whether they read it or not because they didn’t know the history (and may never have had I not come along). The two are interconnected. You can’t say someone is wrong about everything, then find out they actually know something you didn’t, but then continue to try to claw and cling onto the notion that they were still wrong about everything and that this doesn’t change anything. It changes everything. Most the ideas modern feminists preach, like calling the Ice Girls sexist and citing “objectification,” were influenced or developed by Steinem, who was influenced by the CIA. Outside of the basics like equal voting rights, which everyone was right to support CIA or not, in most cases modern feminists are really just repeating specious CIA social programming that was promoted through Steinem.
If you didn’t know that a week ago, that’s okay. It’s not your fault. Steinem and company did a great job covering it up. It’s when someone tells you and you still purposefully avoid facing the truth, because you care more about staying in the fallacy where your beliefs are right than anything else, that ignorance becomes unacceptable, because now you no longer have an excuse for not knowing, and you’re actually making a conscious effort to deny reality. It’s when you start laughing about it, and lean on the shared ignorance of your friends to support your fallacy, and the fact that your ignorance happens to be in the majority on the issue at hand, that you’re really acting like an imbecile. Not knowing something, in certain circumstances, in nothing to be ashamed of. But it’s definitely not something to be proud of or to aspire to purposefully.
Now, that doesn’t mean I’m surprised. If you knew people like the ones who tweeted me, you’d know how I was able to predict the reaction from the start. For example, I’ve explained PDO to people like Fear The Fin many times, and he still blatantly misunderstands it and spreads his PDO fallacy instead. I mention Fear The Fin because a good percentage of the critical tweets sent my way were from people who only contacted me because they saw him frame my blog negatively on his twitter account, which I believe he was actually given, along with the built-in readers of an SB Nation blog, some of whom make for very convenient sheep, apparently.
I remember there was someone else who started that blog, I think Snark D. or something, although come to think of it the person I’m thinking of was just as much of a stats co-dependent as this guy so maybe he just changed his username. And now I’m remembering there might have actually been someone else. In any case, I’m not interested in being a shepherd who uses followers to try to snuff out different opinions. I’d rather look for the truth, even when most people aren’t ready to hear it at first, and even if it means getting derided by big corporate blogs like that.
I mean I’m sure that blog pretends to be a trendy, tight-knit community with its ear to the grindstone, but remember that its parent company, Vox Media, has raised $70,000,000 in funding. The fact that Fear The Fin needs to be corrected about anything by me is crazy, but it’s not just PDO. A fair percentage of the fifteen or so stats blogs I’ve read of his over the last two years have been rife with miscalculations too, which I’ve pointed out here, but he just keeps trudging on publishing more. I never even saw him correct that one. And those things are the simplest things in the world. It comes to a point where you have to wonder, even though I’ve no doubt a good percentage of his miscalculations are unintentional, if at least when it comes to something blatant like PDO, he’s not misrepresenting things on purpose to exaggerate the accuracy of shot-quantity based stats for monetary purposes.
Whether he is or not, obviously if people like that can’t even understand when I explain their errors on simple subjects like hockey stats, then there’s no way they were ever going to understand something this complicated over twitter. It’s harsh, but it’s a harsh truth. Compare those harsh truths that will actually serve these people in their lives going forward (if they accept them), even if they don’t like the fact that I’m the one who opened their stubborn eyes to them, with the harsh lies many of them posted about my analysis, and I’m actually being much kinder than they were. Instead of welcoming the truth, these guys were just tweeting each other empty jokes and forcing laughter in an attempt to drown out the sound of a truth they didn’t want to believe because it clashed with their CIA brainwashing. It wouldn’t even surprise me to see a bunch of “well I guess we’re brainwashed hahahaha” tweets after this, trying to seek comfort in humor and the fact they at least have company in their ignorance. There’s comfort in numbers. But when the government funds and controls the media to push forth the social change that benefits them, that’s called social programming. Yes there’s even a term for this. And the people who fall for it are therefore, obviously, “programmed.” Or brainwashed.
If they want to keep laughing the truth off and stay that way, it’s their prerogative. Maybe ignorance is bliss. But at least I tried to do them a favor by at least trying to open their eyes to something significant, despite knowing there were probably some buffoons out there somewhere who might insult me for it. Maybe as adults now, we could try not making fun of the people who learned how to read first, especially when they stick their necks out trying to teach you what they know. Just a thought.
If you wish to verify any of the information in this blog yourself, check out the Gloria Steinem In Excelsis series, and read through the other links I posted in this blog.
Written by Shark Circle
Subscribe to Shark Circle by entering your email and clicking the SUBSCRIBE! button in the top right corner! Your readership is appreciated!
RELATED POSTS – Diverging Realities Series