A point-by-point breakdown of the first half of that book I was telling you about.

Tue Mar 8 15:39:17 CST 2016

I have never really known what the word civilization means.  Gandhi said western civilization would be a good idea, but widespread violence against non -hindus that prevails in India today is prety fucking shitty too. East asian cultures could be called a civilization and I wouln’t argue. They tend to absorb diverse influences and roughly embody taoist/ buddhist goals. But my issue is that there is nothing in his summary that is particuar to Western Civilization They are universals of human aspiration which are systemetized in various forms  but so far have not become  normative practices.  They can be and are often used as an excuse for monstrous cruelty. Don’t want to go into a lengthy discussion, just saying Quigley’s stuff doesn’t work for me, though I think you make some valid points about positive values/ long term goals. His influence on Clinton makes sense, and Clinton was smart and kept us out of stupid wars but Clinton’s legacy is deeply marred by several things. 

I find Carl Oglesby to be a far more grounded writer with a far mor important thesis about what went down in the last century. He enters riskier territory, but also more important in its implications. Read late up through chapter 4 last night.

> On Mar 8, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> From what little we have here, it seems to me that Quigley is talking about the development of Western Civilization--says that--vs the growth of other civilizations (as we know--knew them). I do not think the systems of thought of such as Taoism, Buddhism are the proper contrasts. His thrust IS to find, as he sez, certain values inherent in the civilization. To not be unique values does not refute them. We do not know from such think stuff very much of what he thinks about a lot of other civilizations. 
> 
> When I read his list of positive values and felt the undertow of negative happenings, I was reminded, among other things, of Pynchon seemingly accepting the founding values of the USA yet writing in lots of ways of the ways it 'diverged' from them. 
> 
> I would think, without reading him, that he must deal with the ways the ideals were betrayed yet keep popping up, no? History is conflict from  a certain height or he has no values to proclaim. 
> 
> And, what do you think of his supposed change of mind re the elite's benign effect in history? I was tangentially reminded, in my perverse obsessed way, with P's build-up of all of the airborne families thru the 20s.....then we know what was to come. 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> Quigley's statement about the ‘the West’ makes a claim that is really about the aspirations of many systems of thought /belief/practical governance  I see it in Taoism, Buddhism,   many tribal values and in individual national  and local regional or community aspirations.  It is also a summary that almost precisely characterizes the mode of the right hemisphere of the brain(Iain McGilchrist).They are good values but hardly unique to ’the West’.  It also appears to dismiss or gloss the competing roles of violence and concentrated power which constantly throughout Western history turns pluralism into dualism, the spread of ’Truth’ into colonial exploitation, and democracy into oligarchy or tyranny.
> 
> When you combine this self flattering definition with his careful endorsement of the benign influence of the Round Tablers I personally become extremely wary of Quigley. Whether he is influential or influenced, his is the prevailing justification for a global program that is in a delusional state of self-created crisis and decline through violent overreach, economic bullying and environmental insanity(I don’t know if other p-listers followed up on the Kirpatrick Sale reference but it looks like he will win his bet) .
> 
> Part of my personal attraction to the first Pynchon novel I read(VL) was that it was an hilariously inventive satire of the patent bullshit (Quigleyish bullshit) surrounding us and a tonic to the self congratulation and fascistic aspirations of the 80s. That untutored first reading is still at the core of my interest in his work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On Mar 8, 2016, at 5:44 AM, John Bailey <sundayjb at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've never read about Quigley before but man, the Wiki page paints him
> > as one of the archetypal American philosophers, and the following
> > quote certainly is pertinent to our man P:
> >
> > "it is clear that the West believes in diversity rather than in
> > uniformity, in pluralism rather than in monism or dualism, in
> > inclusion rather than exclusion, in liberty rather than in authority,
> > in truth rather than in power, in conversion rather than in
> > annihilation, in the individual rather than in the organization, in
> > reconciliation rather than in triumph, in heterogeneity rather than in
> > homogeneity, in relativisms rather than in absolutes, and in
> > approximations rather than in final answers."
> >
> > A loooong sentence that contains many internal inconsistencies, but
> > which is symptomatic at least of certain tendencies in US rhetoric,
> > yes? Though the same wiki suggests Quigley makes this claim, too:
> >
> > "Democracy tends to emerge only when the best weapons available are
> > easy for individuals to buy and use."
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The overarching conspiracy theorizing historian who wrote Tragedy and Hope.
> >> Originally 1966. Who claimed to be in touch
> >> with members of the innermost circle.
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_Quigley
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The interest in this is a bit surprising considering the general aversion
> >>> on the list to conspiracy theories, though admittedly not by all p-listers.
> >>> Am I wrong in wondering if that aversion is less settled than it seemed.  I
> >>> knew nothing of this book until this week’s mention here; but just started
> >>> reading the introduction via Monte’s reference, and find it interesting that
> >>> Oglesby was unhindered by cultural restraint in talking about conspiracies:
> >>>
> >>>   "This book proposes to show that Dallas and Watergate are intrinsically
> >>> linked conspiracies in a hidden drama of coup and countercoup     which
> >>> represents the life of an inner oligarchic power sphere, and "invisible
> >>> government," capable of any act in the pursuit of its objectives, that sets
> >>> itself above the law and beyond the moral rule: a clandestine American
> >>> state, perhaps an embryonic police state.”
> >>>
> >>> I am just started but does he connect the Bretton Woods conference to the
> >>> Yankees?
> >>>> On Mar 7, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Also online for some years at
> >>>> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?9223-The-Yankee-and-Cowboy-War#.Vt3xjDgrKhc
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Not self-published. Real publisher. Usually OP now means a rights
> >>>> problem. Whoever owns the rights is in dispute or is saying No.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:41 PM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't quite follow all of this, maybe because I don't know all of the
> >>>> backstory. I'm deep into the book now, and it is fascinating, as gripping as
> >>>> any thriller. Not being in the publishing industry, I wanted to ask if the
> >>>> reason it's out of print is possibly because it needs a lot of work? Lots of
> >>>> typos and maybe some editing, as well. Has the feel of being
> >>>> self-published...
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Oglesby
> >>>>
> >>>> Jerky throws us a VERY anarchic curve ball. Looking to refresh myself
> >>>> and learn more
> >>>> about Carl Oglesby, I go to wikipedia. Then it gets interesting.
> >>>>
> >>>> Notice that Kirkpatrick Sale, TRP's old buddy is quoted about Carl's
> >>>> famous anti-
> >>>> war speech in late November 1965. Means he was there. We know TRP later
> >>>> has a letter about not attending another one but one wonders if he was
> >>>> at this one.
> >>>> Close to Sales then, publishing recently in mainstream stuff--SEPost and
> >>>> NYTimes Mag soon after because Sales. And writing and publishing Lot 49.
> >>>>
> >>>> But even more interesting to me. Look at the way Carl's blend of
> >>>> political ideas
> >>>> differs from standard SDS, new Left thinking. (He was to be driven out
> >>>> of a
> >>>> leadership position because he would not track standard
> >>>> Marxist--Leninist
> >>>> Left notions, this sez.) ...Now, a PS first: who else's social critiques
> >>>> as we pick
> >>>> them out in our reading aren't standard Marxist?-- as we've said here.
> >>>> (This is only associative non-logic I know but keep following the
> >>>> bouncing ball).
> >>>>
> >>>> Speculate with me more: as outlined here, Carl's eclectic mix of ideas--
> >>>> might remind of emblematic scenes from Lot 49??...the Young Americans
> >>>> for Freedom,
> >>>> Oedipa's present; libertarianism = cousin of anarchism in that work; the
> >>>> scene
> >>>> about having one's ideas corporatized in Lot 49; Carl's strong
> >>>> anti-bureaucracy strain,--
> >>>> (Heavy in GR, of course) The John Birch Society nod in Lot 49-as nod to
> >>>> freedom.
> >>>> And more.
> >>>> "in a strong sense, the Old Right and the New Left are morally and
> >>>> politically coordinate":[5]
> >>>> I suggest there is OLD RIGHT in Lot 49 under political lensing.
> >>>>
> >>>> And remember decades later in the Slow Learner introduction how TRP said
> >>>> the New Left
> >>>> failed to connect with real worker's concerns so failed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Bet they all thought it out together, separately, TRP and Kirkpatrick
> >>>> closest thinking partners
> >>>> then....
> >>>>
> >>>> Why is this book OP?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Mark Thibodeau <jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> KONSPIRACY KLASSICS CORNER!
> >>>> THE YANKEE AND COWBOY WAR
> >>>> The Astonishing Link between the JFK Assassination and the deposing of
> >>>> Nixon
> >>>> Conspiracies from Dallas to Watergate and Beyond
> >>>> by Carl Oglesby
> >>>>
> >>>> A few years back, a friend loaned me his copy of Carl Oglesby's The
> >>>> Yankee and Cowboy War, and after reading it I was stunned that I had
> >>>> previously neither read it nor even heard about it. I found it both moving
> >>>> and profoundly impressive. In his masterful dissection of the mid-70's
> >>>> American political milieu, Oglesby gives us nothing less than an absolutely
> >>>> convincing operating model of the forces clashing behind the scenes in
> >>>> post-World War II America, as well as a detailed diagnosis of exactly where
> >>>> and why things went terribly wrong. He presents valuable ideas that have
> >>>> found their way into the works of later authors, most notably Sidney
> >>>> Blumenthal, whose 1986 best-seller The Rise of the Counter-Establishment
> >>>> reads almost like a sequel.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe The Yankee Cowboy War is essential reading for anyone
> >>>> searching for honest answers about the origins of our current condition.
> >>>> Unfortunately, the book is long out of print. I also understand that most of
> >>>> you reading this are busy people who don't have time to read every worthy
> >>>> book that there is to read. Therefore, I have decided to use this space to
> >>>> publish my "reading notes", taken during my second reading, so that
> >>>> interested parties can get the gist of the book's main theses, the numerous
> >>>> topics it covers, as well as the individuals and events discussed in it.
> >>>>
> >>>> I will be posting these reading notes periodically over the next few
> >>>> days. Obviously, this is a poor substitute for reading the book, itself, but
> >>>> it's a decent primer, and for the researcher in a hurry, it should do in a
> >>>> pinch. Watch for further installments, coming soon!
> >>>>
> >>>> PART ONE: THE CLANDESTINE ELITES
> >>>>
> >>>> · Watergate and the JFK assassination were not isolated incidents, but
> >>>> linked parts of a secret war between two American Elites: the Yankees
> >>>> (Eastern Establishment) and the Cowboys (Sunbelt, New Money,
> >>>> Counter-Establishment).
> >>>>
> >>>> · A hidden drama of coup and counter-coup, intrinsically linked
> >>>> conspiracies, inner oligarchic power sphere, invisible gov’t, above the law,
> >>>> beyond moral rule… a clandestine American state, embryonic police state.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> · Operation Garden Plot, COINTELPRO, Operation Chaos.
> >>>>
> >>>> · CIA contracting ITT to oust Allende in Chile is an example of
> >>>> ruthlessness, just like crimes and cover-up at Dealy Plaza and the
> >>>> Watergate.
> >>>>
> >>>> · What are the origins of these internal government divisions?
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. CIA intel division vs. CIA operational division.
> >>>> 2. Pentagon vs. FBI
> >>>> 3. CIA vs. Pentagon
> >>>> 4. CIA vs. FBI
> >>>> 5. POTUS and all of the above
> >>>>
> >>>> · Destabilization of the post-Reconstruction unity, which, in turn, was
> >>>> made stronger by FDR in the WWII period (post-war consensus). 60’s, 70’s
> >>>> tumult.
> >>>>
> >>>> · The intensification of clandestine, illicit measures against racial
> >>>> and anti-war dissent coincided with the use of these methods within the
> >>>> state as post-war consensus failed.
> >>>>
> >>>> · Dallas/Watergate: breakdown of the incumbent national coalition…
> >>>> Greater Northeast powers with the greater Southwest powers, the post-Civil
> >>>> War, post-Reconstruction coalition, the New Deal, the Yankees and Cowboys.
> >>>>
> >>>> · Cold War tensions between two separate and distinct and contradictory
> >>>> domains of World Historical Truth: Northeast “détente” and Southwest
> >>>> “militarism”.
> >>>>
> >>>> · In Europe, we could evidently live with communism, whereas in the
> >>>> Third World, we evidently could not. “Spheres of “détente and violence”… an
> >>>> untenable paradox.
> >>>>
> >>>> · When it became clear that the USA couldn’t win militarily in the Third
> >>>> World without risking war in the North Atlantic, consensus dissolved.
> >>>>
> >>>> · Dallas, Nov 22, was an elite power collision, both sensed and real.
> >>>>
> >>>> · Dichotomous Disunity: The Southwest was pro-escalation, on balance,
> >>>> Frontierist, taking the China-lobby position.
> >>>>
> >>>> · Dichotomous Disunity: The Northeast was pro-pullback, on balance,
> >>>> Atlanticist, CFR, NATO-conscious position.
> >>>>
> >>>> · YANKEES:
> >>>> 1. David Rockefeller
> >>>> 2. Ivy League
> >>>> 3. Exclusive clubs of Manhattan, Boston and Georgetown
> >>>> 4. CFR, Round Table
> >>>> 5. Eleanor Roosevelt
> >>>> 6. The Dulles Brothers
> >>>> 7. Massive Retaliation Doctrine
> >>>> 8. The Kennedys
> >>>>
> >>>> · COWBOYS:
> >>>> 1. Howard Hughes
> >>>> 2. NFL
> >>>> 3. Exclusive clubs of New Orleans, Dallas and Orange County (both sides)
> >>>> 4. LBJ
> >>>> 5. Conally and Hunt
> >>>> 6. Bay of Pigs team
> >>>> 7. Nixon
> >>>>
> >>>> · The persistence of Civil War splits in the current situation.
> >>>>
> >>>> · Carroll Quigley had already talked of these themes before Oglesby in
> >>>> his Tragedy and Hope.
> >>>>
> >>>> · Disintegration of Wall Street influence as the Southwest and Far West
> >>>> influence increase, commensurate with a dissolving of the Middle Class and a
> >>>> rise in bourgeoisie.
> >>>>
> >>>> · Northeast Establishment: Semi-aristocratic.
> >>>>
> >>>> · Southwest Counter-Establishment: Petit Bourgeois.
> >>>>
> >>>> · Southwestern money was dependent on government investment: oil,
> >>>> military, aviation, space, natural resources. This is a paradox.
> >>>>
> >>>> · Oglesby argues that the Atlanticist / Frontierist split is primal, and
> >>>> that it runs under everything… 1960.
> >>>>
> >>>> · YANKEE:
> >>>> 1. Global Scope
> >>>> 2. At home in the Great World
> >>>> 3. Regards it as a whole, in context
> >>>> 4. Good World Order = Relations with allies
> >>>> 5. Relations with Western Democracies
> >>>> 6. USA seen as a continuation of Europe’s culture
> >>>> 7. Europe as key world theater
> >>>> 8. Fate of USA linked with Europe
> >>>> 9. White cultural destiny transcending boundaries of nation
> >>>> 10. The West = One World
> >>>> 11. Monopolists who broke faith with the Vietnam project because of the
> >>>> high probability of failure
> >>>> 12. Monopolist East Coast Establishment
> >>>>
> >>>> · COWBOY:
> >>>> 1. Ties to Europe NOT obvious
> >>>> 2. Old World vs. New World
> >>>> 3. Rejects Atlanticism in favor of Frontierism
> >>>> 4. Expanding wilderness frontier and “Pacific strategy”
> >>>> 5. Cowboy entrepreneurs fought to keep faith alive because of the
> >>>> necessity of success
> >>>> 6. Tycoon (Western)
> >>>> 7. They supported Johnson and Nixon all the way towards a final military
> >>>> solution
> >>>> 8. “Only the strong survive”
> >>>>
> >>>> · What were the roots of the union in the first place? The frontier
> >>>> which allowed for the continued emergence of  entrepreneurs long after the
> >>>> establishment of the first monopolies.
> >>>>
> >>>> · Marx never studied states that had so much frontier.
> >>>>
> >>>> · The frontier was a reprieve for democracy… and capitalism! All it took
> >>>> was genocide.
> >>>>
> >>>> · Energies of expansion took two centuries… finally taking Alaska and
> >>>> Hawaii. We have no way of knowing how important this expansionism was in
> >>>> keeping the natural American Cowboy/Yankee divide under control.
> >>>>
> >>>> · The success of various Asian revolutionary movements proved a
> >>>> perplexing dilemma to the USA. With Asians successfully defending themselves
> >>>> as self-modernizing, post-colonial entities against American influence,
> >>>> America had run out of frontier.
> >>>>
> >>>> · To comprehend the assassination of JFK (as with Lincoln) is to
> >>>> understand a basic event in modern government. It’s a necessity to
> >>>> understand… an “absolute pre-condition” to self-government, the first step
> >>>> towards the restoration of a legitimate state.
> >>>>
> >>>> · Today’s frontier is the fact that there is no more frontier.
> >>>>
> >>>> PART TWO COMING SOON!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> www.innergroovemusic.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> >>
> >>
> > -
> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list
> 
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> 

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l