Before he was a journalist and a novelist, before he was a globe-trotting war correspondent and a historian with an eye for ordinary people that led extraordinary lives, Scott Anderson was a child of the Cold War. His father worked for the State Department, which took the Anderson family to South Korea, Taiwan, and Indonesia. All three countries were located on the new fault lines of the geopolitical struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union, anti-communism and communism, the “Yanks” and the “Reds.”

[Find the Book]

More from Rolling Stone

As a kid, Anderson watched his father grow disillusioned with his country’s crusade against communism and the folly of the Vietnam War. But Anderson himself didn’t fully grasp the contradictions, hubris, and stupidity of the American empire’s obsession with anti-communism until the spring of 1984, when he watched a young woman’s body dumped and retrieved with grim efficiency by a group of soldiers on a side street in San Salvador, the capital of El Salvador. At the time, the Reagan administration was backing the right-wing Salvadoran government in its war against leftist rebels, yet another front in the anti-communism campaign. The incident planted a simple question in Anderson’s mind: How had it come to this?

In his absorbing new book The Quiet Americans: Four CIA Spies at the Dawn of the Cold War — A Tragedy in Three Acts, Anderson answers that question by zeroing in on a critical juncture in time, the dawn of the Cold War from 1944 to 1956, and on four spooks who not just witnessed but shaped history during that period of time. It would be too on the nose to say Anderson’s book reads like Graham Greene’s classic The Quiet American, but Anderson masterfully weaves together the lives of Frank Wisner, a genteel Southerner who climbs the ranks of the CIA only to fall into despair and take his own life after the U.S.’s betrayal of revolutionaries in eastern Europe; Ed Lansdale, a CIA legend who has been called “the American James Bond” and the “T.E. Lawrence of Asia”; Peter Sichel, a German Jewish refugee who traded currency on the black market to fund covert U.S. operations across Europe; and Michael Burke, a black-ops specialist who directed commando operations behind the Iron Curtain. Each man would meet a different fate, but taken together they capture in vivid detail the early days of the CIA and the origins of the Cold War.

But The Quiet Americans book is more than a real-life le Carré tale. By focusing on the post-World War II period and the critical early days of the Cold War, Anderson’s story raises questions about the rise of American empire and how the trajectory of the 20th and 21st century could have looked so much differently. “If FDR had lived even another year, probably what happened in Eastern Europe would have looked quite a bit different,” Anderson tells Rolling Stone, referring to the upheaval on the European continent after World War II. “I think that Stalin would have responded to FDR. Again, this is a great what if?”

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Rolling Stone: I’ve read so many end-of-the-Cold-War stories and end-of-World-War-Two stories. But with this time period from 1944 to 1956, I found myself absorbing the history as much as the characters and their stories. How did you come to zero in on this period in not just American history but world history?
Scott Anderson: As I say at the beginning of the book, I’m very much a product of the Cold War. It was something I spent a lot of time thinking about growing up. And then seeing the residue of it in war reporting in the ’80s and ’90s. When did it all start to go south? When did all this get locked into place where there was this stalemate that went on forever and that I think is currently damaging to an American standing around the world?

I was reading some books about FDR while World War II was going and this idea that this was going to be the end of the age of empires, the dismantling of the British and the French empires, and that America was going to be this this kind of beacon of freedom and the spreader of democracy around the world. And then by the early ’50s, with the CIA knocking over the regimes in Guatemala and in Iran, there was an incredible turnaround in this 12-year period.

Did you have any of these globe-trotting larger than life characters in mind when you picked this time period?
I always want to write history that focuses on people who are at the front lines or the players in the field rather than the generals or diplomats. When you’re talking about the Cold War, the people on the front lines were spies, which kind of works out. I’d rather write about spies than accountants. I’d heard of Wisner and I’d heard of Ed Lansdale. If you read much at all about Vietnam stuff, Lansdale is pretty prominent. But the other two [Sichel and Burke] I’d never heard of. I looked at, I don’t know, 20, 25 different CIA agents through this period. And invariably there were a lot of guys who did cool stuff for a while, but then went to the State Department or were sitting in the embassy somewhere. Or I couldn’t find any paper trail for them. And I really needed that.

And so out of all these people I looked at, I ended up with exactly these four. With Peter Sichel, he’s kind of like finding the proverbial chest of letters in the attic sort of thing. He’s still alive, still incredibly sharp, the last surviving member of this generation of the early CIA guys. And had been very prominent. In fact, I probably did eight or nine interviews with him. So he was a real find. It was kind of a treasure hunt.

What I found so fascinating about Frank Wisner is his evolution over the course of the book, from a true believer and early CIA booster to, in the case of Eisenhower and the “new look” policy, a cautionary voice or a skeptic. The guy asked, “Is this right policy? What are we getting ourselves into?”
I don’t think you could put Wisner in a novel. He starts out as this gung ho guy, the Mighty Wurlitzer he creates, and he just wants to start fires everywhere. He’s this deeply emotional guy and he really takes this stuff personally. And I think he just sees coming over his desk the endless list of disasters and agents disappearing and being executed, he really did change.

The incredible irony with the Hungarian Revolution is here, finally, is the thing that he’s been fighting for the last 10 years. And just the irony that he’s in Europe when it happens, he goes down to the border. He sees all the refugees pouring across the border. And has a complete emotional collapse that he never really recovers from.

Along with Lansdale, he is probably the best known because he was so prominent in the early CIA. And most people think of him as just like I said earlier, this is rabid right wing anti-communist, but the Eisenhower people scared him. And by then he had seen all these operations just fail. And I think he started thinking we have to approach this in a different way. And, of course, he wasn’t listened to.

You bring an interesting background and experience to in this case a work of history, being a journalist, foreign correspondent, war correspondent who has written extensively from the places that you also write about decades, generations earlier in this book and obviously in your book Lawrence in Arabia. How do those things interplay?
I suspect that even more than the war reporting the fact I grew up overseas and I didn’t spend any time in the States until I was a teenager, in a funny way, gave me not an outsider’s perspective but a semi-outsider’s perspective on this country.

In thinking of war, I can think back to the very first war I went to, which was in 1983 in Beirut, and it was just before the Marine barracks there got blown up. I was there about a month before that. The American troops on the ground were getting shot at already. A few had been killed. And I remember standing out in front of the American embassy in Beirut that had been destroyed a few months earlier with a massive truck bomb. There was a 19 year old soldier — about my age — sitting on top of a tank in front of the American embassy. We just got talking and he said, “Can I ask you a question? Why are we here?”

He had no clue why they were there or what in fact their mission was. Not to take anything away from him but I doubt he could have found Beirut on a map. He was just some kid out of Kansas or something. And I’ve seen that again and again with American troops around the world that they really don’t understand why they’re where they are or what they’re supposed to be doing. Again, it goes back to this notion that we’re coming in to liberate people. And I think these poor bastards in the field are constantly surprised why the locals are putting IEDs on them or shooting at them. That’s not true with the British and the French and former imperialists. They seem to have a much better sense of well, we’re here, if the French go in to Indonesia to knock some heads because of an insurgency or a guerrilla war going on, they kind of know they’re doing it for their own self-interest or their country’s self-interest and they have this kind of imperial mandate to do it. And I think British likewise. But Americans, they just don’t think that way. The rest of the world thinks of them that way. But they don’t.

You write about the Red Scare and the very profound effect it had on U.S. foreign policy and on the institutions and people in The Quiet Americans. We all know who Roy Cohn is, Joe McCarthy, the black lists in Hollywood. But how did the Red Scare seep into America’s actions abroad?
Out of the four people I write about, two of them were direct victims of the Red Scare. Frank Wisner and Peter Sichel were both at different times investigated for their possible leftist connections. And in Frank Wisner’s case, because of a relationship he’d had with this Romanian woman during the war and who then maybe had gone on to pass information to the Soviets afterwards. J. Edgar Hoover hated Frank Wisner. At one point, right when Eisenhower was coming to the presidency, it looked like Wisner was probably going to be chosen to be the next CIA director like clockwork right after the election, Hoover reopened investigation into Wisner, something that had been going on now for seven years. Until Wisner died in ’65, it was always hanging over his head. McCarthy gets all the credit because they named the era after him, but he was by and large J. Edgar Hoover’s front man.

So what you saw was the Red Scare play out on an international level or the level of foreign policy in two really significant ways. One was obvious: When you are in the height of the Red Scare, there’s no downside to if you in the CIA to launch an operation that was going to fail or that or that would overthrow a democratic regime. You can only run into trouble if it looks like you’re obstructing the American advance against the communists.

The great irony of the CIA’s covert operations around the world in the ’40s and ’50s was that the most successful aspects of it were the soft power ones — Radio Free Europe, Voice of America. This kind of battle for hearts and minds started in Europe as this kind of intellectual counter movement against the communists overseas. There was a program where we’d sent hundreds of thousands of books overseas and had these open libraries. They were sponsoring Langston Hughes and putting on Porgy and Bess in Berlin. It actually had a huge cultural effect. And all that disappeared during the Red Scare.

When I finished the book, I feel like there are many ways to describe it, but on one sort of more abstract level, I almost came away feeling like it was sort of counterintuitive in the history of American empire or at least a sort of American interventionism and meddling overseas. And that there was a moment, a sort of a crossroads, where the U.S. didn’t go down this path that it did. Did you set out to do that?
I felt it kind of came about pretty organically. To my mind, there are two great turning points or potential turning points that where things could have gone the other way. One being FDR dying like three weeks before the end of the war. I do think that if FDR had lived even another year, probably what happened in Eastern Europe would have looked quite a bit different. I think that Stalin would have responded to FDR. Again, this is a great what if? I think he would have been more equipped to deal with what was happening in Eastern Europe. Where I think Truman was just like a deer in headlights. So for about two years, he still seemed to labor under this idea that Oh, maybe we can deal with the Soviets. Maybe our wartime alliance can still be repaired until finally in 1947, he comes out with the Truman Doctrine, he starts the CIA, but at that point it’s too late. All of Eastern Europe is essentially sewn up at that point.

I think the other great turning point is around the time of Stalin’s death and the Hungarian Revolution. There are probably three or four times, culminating in the Hungarian Revolution, when the Kremlin was sending out peace feelers to the West. They were the ones who started talking about peaceful coexistence. And every time, the Eisenhower administration, led by John Foster Dulles, spurned them. And so I think that’s the second great turning point to me, and you really see it in the Hungarian Revolution where, on one day, Khrushchev decides, We have to let Hungary go. We can’t fight back. We’re going to liberalize all of Eastern Europe. Basically, he was talking about what Gorbachev did 33 years later. And then in one day, he flips around and thinks to himself, “Well, if the Americans were going to do anything about Hungary, they would have done it by now.” Then from that time, you see Khrushchev changing and he becomes more and more hard line. And so the Cold War goes on for another 33 years.

Another key turning point in the future course of Middle Eastern history is the overthrow of Mosadegh in Iran, which you write about. I always come back to the what if with Iran. If we had not done that, what would Iran look like today?
The astonishing thing to me is I’ve spent a lot of time in the Middle East is, you know, you look at old pictures of Iran or Egypt or, you know, anywhere in the Middle East, Iraq from the 1950s and they’re very westernized. America had huge influence in the 1950s in that region, as it did in a lot of other regions around the world.

All of that was squandered by the overthrow of Mosadegh, and the fact that for a number of years after the coup there the CIA bragged about their role. You know, this is a great triumph. And it was really probably not until like the mid-’70s when they said Oh, you know what? Maybe we shouldn’t be bragging about this so much. And then, of course, the shah is overthrown, you have a Islamic fundamentalist regime come in, and now, throughout that part of the world, though this is complicated by Israel, of course, you’ve seen this incredible swing back to this Islamic fundamentalism everywhere. Even in American satellites like Egypt, you would never have seen a woman in a burqa in Cairo 15, 20 years ago. You see it all the time now.

These things tend to have a second life and it’s a bad life from the standpoint of American power and prestige. History is weird, how a certain event comes along and how, only in hindsight, you can see what a crucial turning point it probably was.

On 16 September 1620, 102 passengers and 30 crew set sail on the Mayflower from Plymouth, England, heading for the New World.  Making the hazardous journey were the Pilgrim Fathers, a group of separatists who were dreaming of a new life, one in which they could live according to their religious beliefs without interference. 

But for historian Stephen Tomkins, the most interesting journey isn’t the 66 days they spent onboard the Mayflower crossing the Atlantic; it’s what came before that – hence the name of his new book on the subject, The Journey to the Mayflower.

He speaks to Christian Today about the struggle of the separatists and what drove them to risk life and limb by leaving not only the Church of England, but England itself, and heading out to the New World. 

CT: Looking back to the time of the Protestant Reformation, Elizabeth I is not often thought of as one of the ‘bad guys’ – that title often goes to Bloody Mary! But is it more nuanced than that, because under Elizabeth, the Puritans were persecuted.

Stephen: Queen Elizabeth does emerge as one of the ‘bad guys’ in my book because she persecuted this movement, but to be fair to her, she was a world away from Bloody Mary in that she had absolutely no interest in persecuting people just because of what they believed.

Mary rounded up Protestants and had them killed just because they wouldn’t give up their Protestant faith. There’s no way Elizabeth was going to do that to Catholics, and she wasn’t even interested in what the radical Puritans believed. She wasn’t going to try to change their minds, and she certainly wasn’t going to kill them just for their beliefs.

Her problem was that the Church of England was a state Church, and England was a church state. The idea that almost all Protestants in England at this time had was that the Church was a whole Christian nation. That, I think, is key to understanding Elizabeth’s attitude towards the Puritans, and it is where the separatists differed: they believed that the Church was a voluntary community.

Elizabeth, like everybody else, thought that the Church should include the entire nation, every person in England, so that when the separatists left the Church of England and started their own churches, Elizabeth – like many others – would have seen this as almost the end of the world!

The separatists were feared much like Islamist fundamentalists or communists in later times, because by leaving the state Church, the separatists were tugging at a lose thread on the fabric of England and it looked like they were threatening to pull the whole thing apart.

CT: Did the Queen feel threatened by the separatists or was it about control?

Stephen: It was absolutely a question of power. In a sense, Elizabeth had two arms of government. There was the political system and there was the Church, and so through a hierarchy of bishops and the English parish system, she had some measure of control over what happened in every single village in England. In many ways, this network of local churches and bishops spread out across the country was essential to government.

When the separatists said ‘we’re not going to be part of your church’, that’s not simply about freedom of belief; it’s putting yourself outside the system. In a way, it was like saying: ‘we’re not going to be part of your government; you’re not going to govern us anymore.’ Almost as if they were setting up their own little country.

CT: This period in our history doesn’t cast the Church of England in a very positive light!

Stephen: Yes, it was the Church of England that these people were escaping from! Four hundred years ago, the Church of England was a bit of a monster in many ways – in this story at least. But to be fair, it is a completely different entity now. It doesn’t behave in the same way, it doesn’t think in the same way – certainly not about people that are outside of its fold. We’ve all had to get our heads around the fact that we have to agree to disagree on a lot of things!

CT: What was the attitude of Church leaders at the time towards the separatists? Were Church of England clergy preaching against them in the pulpit?

Stephen: Yes, they were preaching against them and at this time, bishops employed constables – a kind of police force of their own – that they would send out to arrest the separatists, raid their meetings and even their houses, and take them to prison.

The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London personally tried the separatists but they didn’t have the power to execute them. They could keep them in prison as long as they wanted to and they did this, causing many separatists to die in prison. Eventually the Archbishop of Canterbury persuaded the government to pass a law making separatism a felony and that was how he got the three leaders of the movement executed in 1593. That was very much the work of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so he is another ‘villain’ of my book!

CT: What was it about the Church of England that the separatists just couldn’t accept?

Stephen: The original reason they left was because of the great complaint that Puritans had in general with the Church of England – that it wasn’t reformed enough. The focal point for that was the fact that the ministers were still supposed to wear the priestly robes of Catholic tradition and they thought that the Reformation got rid of all that. They viewed it like going back to the old ways.

Their thinking was: there are no priestly robes in the Bible, our Church should be more biblical than that. The separatists were the ones among the Puritans who felt so strongly about this that they left the Church of England and set up their own churches. They were prepared to go through all that just because of the clothes the ministers were wearing.

There were other complaints of course, like kneeling, the sign of the cross, and stained glass – basically anything that wasn’t mentioned in the Bible. I imagine a lot of Christians today not having a lot of sympathy for these attitudes, but on the other hand, once they had left the Church of England over the matter of the priestly robes, that then become much less of a focus for them.

What they started to realise was that the true difference between them and the Church of England was that for them the Church was a voluntary community, a people of God. It was for Christians, true believers, people who lived out their faith, and the Church had no business forcing people to join who didn’t want to, and no business punishing people who didn’t go to church.

They also thought the Church should be democratic; not ruled by a monarch who could determine what happened in every church in the country. They believed the Church was the people of God and they should listen to God for themselves, and decide among themselves how God was calling them to be.

To my mind, at least, although they did not start out for the best of reasons, who they ended up being, what they ended up advocating for and why they couldn’t go back to the Church of England are, I think, something quite prophetic.

CT: If we were to put ourselves back into the shoes of a separitist in England at that time, what would it have been like?

Stephen: The separatists were an underground movement so they would meet in their houses, caves, woods, fields, ships, pubs, and they worshipped in prison as well. They had an underground printing concern and wrote books in prison. They weren’t supposed to have pen or paper in prison but they still managed to write maybe a few in a year.

One of their books has survived actually written in the margins of someone else’s book. These manuscripts were smuggled out of prison and then taken to the Netherlands where they could be printed and then smuggled back into England again. Maybe 3,000 books a year were being smuggled by the separatists into England at this time.

So it was a serious resistance movement and underground operation. It reminds me of (Open Doors founder) Brother Andrew, ‘God’s smuggler’ smuggling Bibles into Eastern Europe in his VW Beetle.

For the separatists too, it was a very dangerous underground operation, except that it wasn’t the Bible they were smuggling but their own theological works.

And you have to remember that Elizabethan prisons were outlandishly unhealthy places. A lot of the separatists suffered and got ill in prison, and sadly died there.

CT: So it wasn’t an easy choice to become a separatist?

Stephen: No, and that’s why a lot of them ended up leaving the country and going to the Netherlands, where they enjoyed religious freedom. They weren’t persecuted there and so it was an improvement in many ways, but obviously they were migrants in another country with all the problems that entailed. They lived in poverty and had to learn new ways of making a living. It was a serious decision and not everyone managed to pursue it to the end. Some saw it through to the end and died for their faith; others did give up and go home.

CT: Was there a single event that prompted the Puritans to decide that they just couldn’t stay in England any more?

Stephen: People went at different times and for different reasons, but in terms of a single event, when separatism became a felony and the three separatist leaders were executed, it brought being an outlaw – which is what the separatists were – to a whole new level.

That was the point, really, when en masse a lot of them left the country. Their first attempt at settling North America was Newfoundland in Canada, but it didn’t work out and so they settled in the Netherlands instead. The Mayflower was actually their fourth attempt to colonise North America.

CT: By the time of the Mayflower, James I is on the throne. Had there been no improvement since the days of Elizabeth I?

Stephen: Sadly, there was no improvement. They had hoped for that when James I came to the throne but almost as soon as he became king, the Archbishop of Canterbury died and he replaced him with Richard Bancroft. This new Archbishop led the campaign not so much against the separatists but against Puritans remaining in the Church of England and drove them out. That led to a whole new wave of the separatist movement because they were literally driven out of the Church. Many of them went over to the Netherlands and then eventually to New England.

CT: We often focus on the journey of the Mayflower, but your book is called the Journey to the Mayflower. Why is that?

Stephen: For me, the real story is this underground movement in England that was driven eventually to the Mayflower, the ship that sailed to New England. But it was an awful lot of work just to get to that point and, as I said earlier, the Mayflower was actually their fourth attempt at settling in North America.

You have to remember that they were based in the Netherlands and so they had to send people to England to try and sort all these things out, like getting permission, getting land etc. There was all the paperwork to sort out and of course they had to be very subtle about it; they wanted to be honest in their witness but at the same time not let on how radical they were, because they wanted the government’s support in joining the settlement in Virginia. This settlement was already established; if they had landed there as originally intended, they would have been joining an officially recognised colonial enterprise.

It was by accident and bad weather that they ended up in New England, where there was no English settlement at all and they just had to work it out for themselves. That’s why they were so independent and have gone down in American history, because it wasn’t an English government enterprise; it was the real Puritan spirit. They were out there on their own.

CT: In order to sail to the New World, they needed the help of investors. Why was that?

Stephen: These were not people who could afford to buy their own ship. It was just too expensive. Of course, to settle in North America, you’ve got to take a lot of stuff with you that you’re not going to find waiting for you on your arrival, like tools and weapons. That all costs money, so they needed the investment bankers of their day to put money into the enterprise.

That meant in theory being tied to these investors and working for them for however many years so that they would see a return on their investment, so sending back things like furs, skins, wood and any crops they could grow. That was supposed to be how it worked but, as I said, they ended up in New England sort of doing their own thing and having to start everything from scratch.

CT: Every step of the way, being a Puritan seems to have come at enormous personal cost. They seem to have been an incredibly determined group of people.

Stephen: Yes, and I think it’s really important to understand something that’s often missed out in this story: absolutely central to understanding what they did is that they believed they were called by God and were being led to the promised land.

They believed they, as the people of God, were the new children of Israel. They looked to the Bible to see the patterns in how God dealt with Israel in order to understand their own lives, and that was why they left England for the Netherlands. They did that in the belief that God was calling them out of Egypt – out of England, this land of cruelty and slavery – across the sea to a new life.

In the end, the Netherlands didn’t turn out to be much of a promised land for them; life was really hard there. That’s when they thought about the Exodus story a bit more and how after Israel came out of Egypt, they had the 40 years in the wilderness. They decided that was where they were now in their own lives. They had left England – Egypt – and were in the wilderness, and that meant God still had another journey in store for them. So they crossed the Atlantic in the conviction that God was leading them on.

It’s hard to overstate just how crushing it would have been for them to go back to England because in the Exodus story the people who want to go back to Egypt were the ones who were turning their backs on God and his deliverance. They would have viewed returning to England like turning their back on their faith. They knew they had not reached the place God had in store for them; they couldn’t go back and yet they couldn’t stay where they were. 

So everything about their faith told them that God was leading them on, forwards, and even though it was a terrifying, dangerous, daunting journey to cross the Atlantic, they were convinced that it was God who was calling them to do it, to reach the promised land that God had in store for them.

                <div class="shareline">
<span class="btn-fblike"><iframe class="iframe-fblike" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FChristianTodayInternational&amp;width=62&amp;layout=button&amp;action=like&amp;size=large&amp;show_faces=false&amp;share=false&amp;height=65&amp;appId=805996846250933" width="62" height="28" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allow="encrypted-media">[embedded content]</iframe></span>
<a class="icon facebook" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=https://www.christiantoday.com/article/400-years-after-the-sailing-of-the-mayflower/135547.htm" aria-label="Share on Facebook" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span class="i-wp"><svg xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24" viewbox="0 0 800 800"><path fill="currentColor" d="M445 643h-90V419h-75v-87h75v-64q0-55 32-86 30-29 80-29 28 0 67 3v78h-47q-42 0-42 38v60h86l-11 87h-75v224z"/></svg></span></a>
<a class="icon twitter" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https://www.christiantoday.com/article/400-years-after-the-sailing-of-the-mayflower/135547.htm&amp;text=Mayflower400: why the Puritans had to leave England" aria-label="Share on Twitter" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span class="i-wp"><svg xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24" viewbox="0 0 800 800"><path fill="currentColor" d="M679 239s-21 34-55 57c7 156-107 329-314 329-103 0-169-50-169-50s81 17 163-45c-83-5-103-77-103-77s23 6 50-2c-93-23-89-110-89-110s23 14 50 14c-84-65-34-148-34-148s76 107 228 116c-22-121 117-177 188-101 37-6 71-27 71-27s-12 41-49 61c30-2 63-17 63-17z"/></svg></span></a>
<a class="icon pinterest" href="https://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://www.christiantoday.com/article/400-years-after-the-sailing-of-the-mayflower/135547.htm" aria-label="Share on Pinterest" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><span class="i-wp"><svg xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="24" height="24" viewbox="0 0 800 800"><path fill="currentColor" d="M287 681c-9-3-15-77-6-115l38-163s-9-20-9-49c0-46 26-80 59-80 28 0 42 21 42 46 0 28-19 71-28 110-8 33 17 59 49 59 58 0 104-61 104-150 0-79-57-134-138-134-94 0-148 69-148 142 0 28 9.7 57.4 23 74 4 5 5 6 2 17l-8 31s-2 9.5-14 3c-41-22.3-63-78-63-126 0-104 75-199 217-199 114 0 203 81 203 190 0 113-72 205-171 205-55 0-75-38-75-38l-21 78c-11 41-47 102-56 99z"/></svg></span></a>