Comment by krapp
3 years ago
I don't think the CIA needs to clandestinely fund an entire art movement as a cover for money laundering, though. That seems a bit outlandish.
I'm as paranoid as the next guy but in this case I think the premise that the CIA funded artistic expression as a form of propaganda in its own right makes the most sense.
It's more like it's one way to funnel money to an asset or network without raising suspicions.
But you're right, it was mostly about the propaganda. And not even particularly covert. The bit that did it has since been carved out into other agencies (eg National Endowment for Democracy).
> I don't think the CIA needs to clandestinely fund an entire art movement as a cover for money laundering, though. That seems a bit outlandish.
Besides...the CIA makes more money running illegal drugs.