So a while back I heard about something that came up in the WikiLeaks

The only reason that one paints is that one can't help it. It's a function like any of the other functions of the body, only comparatively few people have got it. One paints for oneself: otherwise one would commit suicide. Just think of it, you spend God knows how long trying to get something on to canvas, putting the sweat of your soul into it, and what is the result? Ten to one it will be refused at the Salon; if it's accepted , people glance at it for ten seconds as they pass; if you're lucky some ignorant fool will buy it and put it on his walls and look at it as little as he looks at his dining-room table. Criticism has nothing to do with the artist. It judges objectively, but the objective doesn't concern the artist. The artist gets a peculiar sensation from something he sees, and is impelled to express it and, he doesn't know why, he can only express his feeling by lines and colours. It's like a musician; he'll read a line or two, and a certain combination of notes presents itself to him: he doesn't know why such and such words call forth in him such and such notes ; they just do. And I'll tell you another reason why criticism is meaningless: a great painter forces the world to see nature as he sees it; but in the next generation another painter sees the world in another way, and then the public judges him not by himself but by his predecessor. So the Barbizon people taught our fathers to look at trees in a certain manner, and when Monet came along and painted differently, people said: But trees aren't like that. It never struck them that trees are exactly how a painter chooses to see them. We paint from within outwards— if we force our vision on the world it calls us great painters; if we don't it ignores us; but we are the same. We don't attach any meaning to greatness or to smallness. What happens to our work afterwards is unimportant; we have got all we could out of it while we were doing it.

>>129557188
It's a good read, but it doesn't answer my question on whether the CIA meme division was real or not.

File: old-internet-comments-appear-to-show-edward-snowden-was-angry-about-the-nsa-in-2006.jpg (43KB, 833x625px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 833x625px

>>129557385
Well, now that we got that out of the way, the question really is why do you want to know?

>>129557688
Because if it was real, that would mean that its purpose was to counter memes from 4chan and the alt-right in an attempt to help Hillary Clinton win the election. Meaning that if it was real the CIA couldn't out-meme 4chan.

File: 160302005451-trump-and-hillary-exlarge-169.jpg (69KB, 780x438px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 780x438px

>>129557936
Let's look back a little bit. Let's see if we can work this out together. First of all, do you recall there being a great attempt toward helping Hillary win on this site? Would you say that attempt offered an equal counterbalance to the attempts made to promote Alex Jones and Donald Trump?

https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/Lists/National_Catalogues/DispForm.aspx?ID=2638

>>129556233
AY-O hollup

>>129556233
Google it, im fairly sure it's real

All I've seen is a CIA doc that was a study of 4chan, including some example Pepe memes.

File: cia meme.jpg (148KB, 882x767px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 882x767px

here u go

File: 1p91tx.jpg (75KB, 669x500px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 669x500px

>>129556233
Who do you think directed anonymous in other countries causing the arab spring.

>>129557936
>its purpose was to counter memes from 4chan and the alt-right in an attempt to help Hillary Clinton win the election
what would give you this impression? read up on the cia