From Part 4 of the history of the neocons at The Saker:
As historian Christopher Lasch wrote in 1969 of the CIA’s cooptation of the American left, “The modern state… is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing crises and claiming to be the only instrument that 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 acceptable standards of responsibility within the various intellectual professions.”
Key to turning these “free” intellectuals against their own interests was the CIA’s doctrinal program for Western cultural transformation contained in the document PSB D-33/2. PSB D-33/2 foretells of a “long-term intellectual movement, to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns” while “creating confusion, doubt and loss of confidence” in order to “weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West;” to “predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners,” while employing local elites “would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development.”
While declaring itself as an antidote to Communist totalitarianism, one internal critic of the Program, PSB officer Charles Burton Marshall, viewed PSB D-33/2 itself as frighteningly totalitarian, interposing “a wide doctrinal system” that “accepts uniformity as a substitute for diversity,” embracing “all fields of human thought – all fields of intellectual interests, from anthropology and artistic creations to sociology and scientific methodology;” concluding, “That is just about as totalitarian as one can get.”
Burnham’s Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document. As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder’s The Cultural Cold War, “Marshall also took issue with the PSB’s reliance on ‘non-rational social theories’ which emphasized the role of an elite ‘in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel, Mussolini and so on.’ Weren’t these the models used by James Burnham in his book the Machiavellians? Perhaps there was a copy usefully to hand when PSB D-33/2 was being drafted. More likely, James Burnham himself was usefully to hand.”
From the comments:
The cia was subjected politicization from it’s inception and it’s “intelligence” results were always heavily corrupted by political engineering. “You tell us the political objective, we will provide the false flags and all the rest of the horseshit needed to make it fly’s would be an honest motto for the cia…
Trotsies were known to be unrepentant double-dealers and opportunists but even the vilest of them would baulk at working for a corporate new world order ruled by the US empire. Unless they were all like Burnham – amoral demagogues for hire, in other words, lower than common prostitutes…
They populated the official transitory postings and the many layers of permanent postings. They filled all the surrounding think tanks, and they controlled all the academic posts. They owned the news media and the entertainment industry. They bought the Congress and controlled the polls and election process (including the TV debate system). They filled the courts at all levels. And by now, they had control of most of the largest populated states. Similarly, in Britain, the same processes occurred in that society.
Neoconservatism comes in two flavors in the US. Right wing and Liberal wing versions are different only by external labels. On all critical issues, they are unified…
The Burnamites use of cell organizing tactics is pure Leninism which grew out of Lenin’s pragmatic need to keep his working class cadres out of the hands of the Chekha and the lessons he drew from the defeat of the 1905 uprisings against the Czar.