new alliance party: newmanites

[ROSAPHIL YAMADA]

From no...@igc.org Fri Aug 23 18:29:50 1996
Received: from igc7.igc.org (igc7.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.35]) by escape.com (8.7.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id SAA03988 for <rug...@escape.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 18:29:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cdp.igc.apc.org (cdp.igc.apc.org [192.82.108.1]) by igc7.igc.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA08672; Fri, 23 Aug 1996 13:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 23 Aug 1996 13:21:36
Reply-To: Conference "iww.news" <iww-...@igc.apc.org>
From: tri...@iww.org
Subject: Re: fred newman et al?
To: Recipients of conference <iww-...@igc.apc.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.9608230906...@fletcher.iww.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.91.96082...@escape.com>
X-Gateway: conf...@igc.apc.org
Errors-To: owner-i...@igc.apc.org
Precedence: bulk
Lines: 25
Status: RO
X-Status: A

From: Flora Tristan X334260 <tri...@iww.org>

On 23 Aug 1996 rug...@escape.com wrote:

> From: ROSAPHILIA <rug...@escape.com>
>
> could someone send me info on fred newman, the institute for
> social therapy, and lenore fulani?
>
> they are nowadayze both with the reform party, the patriot party,
> and the wobblies.
>
> kinda disparate.

Newman and his followers split from Lyndon LaRouche's "Nation Caucus of
Labor Committees" back in the 70's. They are NOT Wobblies. They are a
group dedicated to gaining political power OVER people by attaching
themselves to already existing political parties. (They tried and failed
to sell their New Alliance Party to a majority of voters). In the last
presidential election, for instance, they attempted to take over the
Peace & Freedom Party in California. They are now attempting to present
themselves as a black voice in Perot's Reform Party. Watch out for
these nuts. They are dangerous, opportunistic political hacks, who
use a combination of psychology and paranoid inspirations in order to
to feed on the body-politic.

re.
* Differentiation between internal in-group and external out-group
reality, use of propaganda, and implementation of a
"secretsociety" style--all markedly similar to that of a
totalitarian movement.



These similarities do not change the fact that LaRouchite philosophy
is apparently neofascist while Newmanite philosophy is apparently
left-progressive, but it does mean that internally both groups have an
authoritarian hierarchy whose existence is denied, and both groups
rely on psychologically-manipulative theories to control core members.
Both groups match a cult paradigm and are far from democratic, despite
outward claims and appearances.

It is crucial to note the relationship of LaRouche, Parente, and
Newman during the early 1970's in light of their subsequent
activities. All three white male political leaders saw Marxist
revolution through the prism of ego-mania, and used psychologically
manipulative techniques to enforce obedience in the institutions they
have built-institutions which sought political hegemony over other
groups.

All three groups share many elements of a totalitarian movement as
outlined by Hanna Arendt in <The Origins of Totalitarianism>. In
recent years there has been a revisionist interpretation of Arendt's
work, linking nazism and communism as two sides of the same
ideological coin, or claiming that all communist or Marxist movements
are totalitarian, or that only nazi and communist ideologies can
become totalitarian. Arendt specifically repudiates this simplistic
interpretation of her work when she writes "...ideologies of the
nineteenth century are not in themselves totalitarian," and that
although fascism and communism became "the decisive ideologies of the
twentieth century they were not, in principle, any `more totalitarian'
than others." According to

Arendt, the ideological victory of fascism and communism over other
twentieth century belief structures was "decided before the
totalitarian movements took hold of precisely these ideologies" as a
vehicle for seizing and holding state power.

A totalitarian movement is correctly defined by its style, structure
and methods not by its stated or apparent ideology.

The Intellectual Vanguard

The early theoretical writings of LaRouche and the early and current
theoretical writings of Newman reflect a derivative (and heretical)
form of Trotskyist Marxism that is both unusual and virtually unique
on the American Left. This shared theory is best described as an
aberrant "Messianic" form of Trotskyism with an ego-centric view of
the importance of the individual leader in shaping history, coupled
with a patronizing "noblesse oblige" approach to organizing the
working class and people of color that reflects a political
colonialist mentality.

Journalist Dennis King has studied numerous internal documents from
the Newmanites and concluded that in terms of their political theory
of organizing, they make a crucial distinction between the core cadre
(primarily white intellectuals) and the "organic" members (primarily
people of color). According to King, the primarily-white intellectual
vanguard trained by Newman through "therapy" is in the process of
using "therapy" to raise the consciousness of the primarily Black and
Latino recruits so that some day in the future they will have the
wherewithal to actually lead the organization...but not yet. King has
described this as "paternalistic racism."

Institutes for Social Therapy and Totalitarian Cultism

Dr. Fred Newman's doctorate is not in a health-related field, but in
the philosophy of science and foundations of mathematics. For several
years psychologists and groups concerned about cults have questioned
the ethics of the process used by the Institutes for Social Therapy.
These criticisms are crystallized in the following statement by an
East Coast Latina activist working in the area of support for Central
Americans:

"I first came into contact with the Social Therapy Institutes through
a friend who...said there was a group that offered therapy for people
with progressive views, so I went to see what they offered."

"I was told everybody has problems, which is true everyone does, but
they use that as an excuse to recruit people. People with emotional
problems think they are going to be

helped but they don't help people."

"Before or after the therapy session, they would say `why not sell the
newspaper', or `maybe you could do us a favor and hand out these
leaflets.' The therapy offices are full of their political propaganda.
In the group therapy sometimes we discussed politics and their
political party. They want people to get involved in their political
activities, but they don't really give any treatment. This was
something I didn't like."

"Some people get involved because they think the political work will
help them get better emotionally. They told us societal problems are
making people ill and the New Alliance Party is going to change things
so people will get better."

"They got angry with me when I asked for individual therapy. `You need
group therapy not individual therapy', I was told, so I left. Then
they started sending me literature about their political
organizations."

"In the literature and in the therapy sessions they try to destroy any
other left organization by saying bad things about it. They also
destroy a progressive organization by recruiting away its members."

"They call themselves Leftists but they use the dialectic method just
to recruit people. When you get involved there is no dialectic, it is
static, they don't progress beyond the criticism of the other group.
They have no real program, they just say `if you are not with NAP you
are the enemy'. They raise a lot of money by saying they are doing all
these things, but they are a fraud."

"It is not true that there is no pressure to work with the New
Alliance Party when you are in the therapy. They tell you if you are
working with them you will feel good. I said `I need help, I need
individual therapy'. Instead they had me assisting them in the group
therapy sessions."

"They don't like it if you pay a low fee and don't work for them
politically, such as doing propaganda work for the New Alliance Party.
If you pay more, you get a better work position in the organization.
If you can afford a lot, you can get individual therapy. Everything is
money or power."

"Some people are fooled, especially the uneducated or emotionally ill,
they use them. It is disgusting. They don't care about people--they
want numbers: more money, more people, more power. The social therapy
is just an excuse to recruit members. It is just like their many other
activities, concerts, rallies, they are active in many areas, but they
accomplish nothing."

Certainly it is legitimate as part of psychological counseling to
recommend that a person become involved directly in the
community--even to the extent of becoming part of a political
movement. But for a patient to know the therapist is involved in a
particular political movement is to consciously or unconsciously steer
the patient, who is in a dependent and fragile relationship with the
therapist, toward that political movement. This error is compounded by
the fact that, according to several Therapy Institute staff members, a
portion of the fees for the therapy go to support the work of the New
Alliance Party.

Therapy centers with ties to the New Alliance Party include the
following locations listed in the November 27, 1987 issue of the
<National Alliance>:

New York: Harlem Institute for Social Therapy and Research; Bronx
Institute for Social Therapy and Research; South Bronx Annex; West
Side Social Therapy Network; East Side Center for Short Term Therapy;
Brooklyn Institute for Social Therapy and Research; Long Island
Institute for Social Therapy and Research.

Massachusetts: Boston Institute for Social Therapy and Research.

Illinois: Chicago Center for Crisis Normalization.

California: Los Angeles Center for Crisis Normalization.

Pennsylvania: Social Therapy Associates.

Washington, D.C.: Washington Center for Crisis Normalization.

Mississippi: Jackson Center for Crisis Normalization.

New Jersey: New Jersey Center for Crisis Normalization.

Social Therapy & Totalitarian Cultism

Chicago-based political consultant Don Rose summed up the feelings of
some NAP critics when he told <Chicago Sun-Times> columnist Basil
Talbot that NAP "is a left group with the modus of a cult." Talbot
noted that critics call NAP the "LaRouchies of the Left." Several cult
watchdog groups list the Newmanites as a cult, other critics say the
core of the cult is the Therapy Institute, while a few critics think
the entire NAP movement displays cult aspects. Those that say the
Newmanite movement is totalitarian in style feel the word cult is
superfluous, since totalitarian groups by definition enforce a high
level of blind loyalty and unquestioning obedience.

As early as 1977, journalist Dennis King was writing of the cult-like
nature of the Newmanites, and interviewed Frank Touchet, a New York
professional psychotherapist who studies therapy cults such as the
Reichians and the Sullivanians. After studying the therapy group which
forms the core of Newman's followers, Touchet concluded:

"What you are dealing with is people who have been criminally tampered
with in the deepest fibers of their being, and who have descended into
a strange childlike world of dependency, in which the rational
functions of the ego are relinquished completely to Fred Newman--who
regulates their lives on the most intimate level."

It is difficult to resolve the issue of psychological manipulation
because there are undoubtedly NAP supporters who are sincere and
genuine in their beliefs and have no connection to the Newmanites, the
IWP nor the Social Therapy Institutes. Still, most of the functional
core leadership of NAP has a connection to the Therapy Institutes and
the Newmanite political philosophy. Ultimately the question of
psychological manipulation, cultism and cult of personality can only
be resolved by each person who comes into contact with NAP on the
basis of the individual practice and process observed, and within the
framework of one's own sensitivity to and wariness about cultism.

Loren's Story

Loren Redwood felt isolated and confused after leaving the New
Alliance Party. Then she read letters about NAP in <Coming Up!> a
now-defunct newspaper serving the gay and lesbian community in San
Francisco, CA. She sat down and wrote the following letter published
in the January 1989 issue of <Coming Up!>:

I can't tell you how much it meant to me to open your newspaper for
the first time and find letters from people denouncing the New
Alliance Party (Dec. 88 issue). I knew that I wasn't alone in my
feelings about NAP, I just didn't know where to find the others.

My experience with NAP was a nig htmlare. I am a white, working
class lesbian and met NAP in Indiana where I was living at the time.
NAP was in Indiana petitioning to put Fulani's name on the ballot
there. I was so excited and so moved to find that a black woman was
running for president that I immediately began working for the
campaign. I also fell in love with a woman working on the campaign.
When it came time for NAP to leave Indiana, she asked me to go with
them, and I did. I wanted to be apart of putting Fulani on the
ballot in every state in this country; it felt like a very decent
thing to do. Once I made the decision to go with the campaign I
asked for two weeks to make preparations to leave. When instructions
came back from the national office in New York, I was given 48 hours
to prepare. I quit my job, left my home, my friends, put my
belongings in storage, found a home for my pet, and gave the use of
my car to NAP in exchange for their taking over payments.

I traveled with the campaign for two and a half months, first
petitioning and later fund raising. It was one of the most difficult
experiences of my life.

NAP claims to be a multi-racial, black led, woman led, pro gay,
political party, an organization which recognizes and fights against
racism, sexism, classism and homophobia-but NAP is a lie. NAP is
always using the slogan: "the personal is political" and emphasizing
the importance of enacting one's politics into daily life. But this
vision and the way their politics are enacted within the
organization and life of those working for them is very much in
conflict. As a working class lesbian, I thought I had finally found
a political movement which included me. What I found instead was an
oppressive, disempowering, misogynistic machine. All my decisions
were made for me by someone else. I was told where to go, and who to
go with. I worked seven days a week-16 to 20 hours a day (I had two
days off in 2.5 months). There was an incredible urgency which
overrode any personal needs or considerations, an urgency that meant
complete self-sacrifice. I realize now how sexist that is. As a
woman, I have always been taught that self-sacrifice is good and
that I must be willing to give up everything for the greater good
for all. Traditionally, this has come in the form of a husband and
children; NAP is simply a substitute. I felt totally powerless over
my life, forced into a very submissive role where all control of my
life belonged to someone else. I felt more oppressed by NAP than I
have ever felt in the outside world.. I had given up everything for
the campaign, my job, my home and my support system, I felt
desperate. My lover who has dedicated her life to NAP, tried very
hard to be supportive, though I was never able to tell her how I
really felt. In her eyes, she was the work she did and the work was
first. Human relationships were second and stifling to political
growth. I knew that my differences with NAP would destroy our
relationship, so I tried to ignore my feelings.

There are many conflicting things about NAP. The most obvious is the
way NAP is organized. NAP is structured hierarchically, with a few
people in control making decisions for a lot of people-not so
different from the way our country is organized and we know how
oppressive that is. That's why feminists have been working on
organizing in a collective manner-hierarchies oppress and exclude
they don't contribute to empowerment. The rhetoric of NAP claims to
recognize that everyone is socialized to be racist, sexist,
classist, antisemetic, homophobic, etc. And yet their hierarchy
leaves NAP workers at the assumed benevolence of their leaders.

Another strange aspect of NAP is what they call social therapy. This
is political therapy founded by Fred Newman (straight white male,
former chair of NAP!) in collaboration with Lenora Fulani. While
fund raising in Washington, DC, it was expected that I enter social
therapy and I did attend a few sessions. Social therapy was another
vehicle where NAP organizers propagandized its workers to the
politics and lifestyle of NAP. NAP claims to be radical and
progressive when in fact, it is very conformist and intolerant. The
longer I worked for NAP the more its members seemed the same.
Everyone thinks the same things about the same things. A prime
example of this is NAP's newspaper, the National Alliance. Its
slogans and propaganda doesn't encourage independent thought. My
position on political issues was dictated to me by NAP-independent
thought was discouraged. We were all part of something bigger than
ourselves and were of one mind. I felt personally threatened, like I
was being absorbed into something and was losing myself. The final
analysis of NAP's real politics, for me, rests in my own personal
experiences with NAP, which I know now is not an exception. Things
finally feel apart for me with NAP while campaigning in Washington,
DC this past September. The petitioning drive being finished,
everyone was now fund raising and doing surveys on the street. I was
on the street seven days a week, 10 hours a day, soliciting
donations and conducting surveys. I spent late evenings collating
survey results and preparing for the following day of street work.
After four weeks of this I was completely exhausted, so tired I was
unable to work well. Being unable to work I had no income, as I was
expected to raise my salary myself in addition to raising money for
the campaign. When I asked NAP for help, I was told that they would
allow me to continue to fund raise until I found a job. I was very
frightened. I was in a strange city, I knew no one really except my
lover, who couldn't help me: I had no job, no home and no money. At
this point I was feeling very suicidal. I finally decided I had to
get out; I contacted friends in California for help and I left.

It's been four months since I left the campaign and I am putting my
life back together piece by piece. I've been through a great deal
emotionally, feeling disappointed and disillusioned. The politics
NAP claims are also my own. I believe in the rainbow social vision
and I believe there should be a black woman running for president.
I've also felt very isolated, not having others to talk to who share
my experience. Finding your newspaper has helped me to feel much
more powerful and validated.

Loren Redwood
Chico, CA
January, 1989

Opportunism & Deception

One example of what critics call the political opportunism of the
Newmanites and the New Alliance Party is their continuing effort to
imply a connection with Rev. Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition.
For instance the Newmanites have established in Washington, D.C. the
"Rainbow Lobby" billed as "The Lobbying Office of the Rainbow
Alliance." The Rainbow Lobby has offices at 236 Massachusetts Avenue,
N.E., and lists Nancy Ross as Executive Director and Tamara Weinstein
as Assistant Director.

The Rainbow Lobby office has been frequently mistaken for the
Washington office of Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, a mistake that
in the past, NAP leadership seems to have gone out of its way not to
clarify. Newspaper articles have appeared about NAP's Rainbow Lobby in
which throughout, the reporter assumes the Rainbow Lobby represents
Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition--a circumstance NAP leadership could
have easily avoided by explaining upfront that the two groups are
unrelated.

Jackson has had to publicly distance himself and the Rainbow Coalition
from NAP and its Rainbow Alliance and Rainbow Lobby on several
occasions. Most recently Jackson told <Chicago Sun-Times> reporter
Basil Talbot that "we have no relationship at all."

In the June 21, 1985 issue of the <National Alliance>, an article on
the Rainbow Alliance shows how artfully the question of a relationship
has been dodged in the past: "Hostile critics and curious allies are
forever saying to Nancy Ross, `Does Jesse Jackson support what you're
doing?'"

"Ross, who heads the Washington office of the Rainbow Alliance
Confederation's lobbying arm, has learned how to respond to such
inquiries." "`The point is not whether Jesse Jackson supports me, but
whether I support Jesse Jackson,' says Ross, a founder of the
sixyear-old independent New Alliance Party, and candidate for Jackson
delegate in Harlem in 1984. `And I support Jesse completely because of
the social vision he has articulated on behalf of the Rainbow
movement. Yes, I have real differences with Jesse--he thinks
independent politics is "prophetic" whereas I believe its time has
come right now--but I won't allow anyone to sever the historic ties
between Jesse and myself, because I am committed to see that his
vision of a just society be brought about today.'"

While admittedly clever, the above explanation is essentially a
dishonest misrepresentation of the facts, designed to confuse the
issue and suggest a connection where none exists. The confusion over
support from Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition is exacerbated by
how the New Alliance Party describes itself. The February 13, 1987
edition of the <National Alliance> newspaper contained a centerfold
spread with the multi-color slogan "The Real Rainbow" spanning the two
pages. A letter on New Alliance Party stationery to gay activists on
the west coast had the slogan "The Party of the Rainbow." A petition
calling for an independent Black Presidential campaign was titled "An
Open Letter To Reverend Jesse Jackson."

Ironically, in a 1983 issue of the Newmanite theoretical journal
<Practice>, Newman attacked Jesse Jackson and Jackson's progressive
supporters in strong terms:

"The U.S. ultra-Left has traditionally suffered very badly from a
mental disorder perhaps best identified as premature vanguardulation.
There has, over the past few years, been a positive attempt by some to
rectify this problem (called by some friendly left critics
`wrecktification') which, however, has dealt mainly with the symptoms
of the disease by essentially helping the `client' to feel more
comfortable masturbating. Hence, some of the rectified ultra-left--for
example supporters of `Jesse Jackson, Democrat'--are smilingly
convincing themselves these days that it is alright to unite with
Jackson's `progressive aspects'. Many have raised questions as to
which part of Jackson's political anatomy embodies his `progressive
aspects.' "

At the end of 1987 the <National Alliance> newspaper column by Rainbow
Lobby Executive Director Nancy Ross began to include a disclaimer
which reads:

"The Rainbow Lobby is an independent citizens' lobby based in
Washington, D.C. which supports important legislation that affects
civil, human, voting and democratic rights at home and abroad. For
more information on the Lobby, please contact Nancy Ross at 236
Massachusetts Ave., N.E., Suite 409, Washington, D.C. 20002 (202)
543-8324."

"The Rainbow Lobby, Inc. is an independent lobby, not affiliated with
the Rainbow Coalition, Inc."

The disclaimer began appearing during the same time period that NAP
launched the campaign of Lenora Fulani for President. During 1987 the
NAP began to publicly attack the Rainbow Coalition and in the
<National Alliance> Lenora Fulani was quoted as saying "With all due
respect to Brother Jesse Jackson, almost everyone knows he hasn't
built a real Rainbow. He might have incorporated something called the
National Rainbow Coalition, Inc., but he hasn't built a Rainbow.
<We've built a real Rainbow.>"

Despite the criticisms and disclaimers, there is still much public
confusion concerning the relationship of NAP to the Rainbow Coalition,
and Jackson's Presidential candidacy. This confusion is not alleviated
by NAP public statements. For instance in the November 20, 1987 issue
of the <National Alliance>, William Pleasant attacks the Rainbow
Coalition as "the Democratic Party's <phony> left wing", but then
writes that "Fulani, under her `Two Roads Are Better Than One' plan,
backs Reverend Jesse Jackson in the Democratic Party primaries. But
she has done everything possible to ensure that the progressive
Rainbow agenda will be carried through to the general election in
November...."

Smearing Critics

Among the most persistent critics of the New Alliance Party are
freelance writer Dennis King of New York, the author of this study,
Chip Berlet (and other members of the Public Eye Network), and two
researchers who often work closely together, Ken Lawrence of
Mississippi and Dan Stern of Illinois. In 1985 Ken Lawrence and Dan
Stern provided information on NAP to Charles Tisdale, publisher of the
<Jackson Advocate> newspaper in Mississippi. Tisdale ran a series of
articles critical of Newman and NAP in the <Advocate>, which for many
years has served as a voice for Black residents in the area.

In response to the <Advocate> articles, NAP embarked on a smear
campaign against its critics--a tactic it frequently employs. An
article by William Pleasant in NAP's <National Alliance> newspaper
attacked Tisdale, Lawrence, Stern and Berlet. A photograph of Tisdale
(who is Black) is accompanied by a bold headline which reads: "Jackson
Advocate publisher Charles Tisdale: The Advocate has come to play the
role of a Black front for a national network that is a nesting place
for agents."

The same article claims that Dennis King and Chip Berlet have shown "a
willingness to relent on their earlier false and sectarian charges of
LaRouche affiliation or cultism." (In fact, both Berlet and King still
stand by their earlier charges.) Ken Lawrence and Dan Stern are
described as "absorbed in another agenda, beyond sectarianism,
bordering on straight out provocateurism." NAP organizers also began
circulating charges that Ken Lawrence was a government agent.

When Tisdale refused to back down from his criticisms of NAP, and
continued to detail the charges of other NAP critics, NAP chairwoman
Emily Carter responded by filing a defamation lawsuit against Tisdale,
the <Jackson Advocate> and Ken Lawrence. (A judge subsequently ordered
Lawrence dropped from the lawsuit). After the lawsuit was filed, when
well-known organizer Flo Kennedy accepted an invitation to speak at a
banquet sponsored by the <Jackson Advocate>, a self-described NAP
member disrupted a press conference with her by shouting "You're a
very stupid woman." Other critics of NAP are frequently ridiculed or
attacked in an unprincipled manner.

Penetration and Disruption of Rival Groups

Critics of the Newmanites claim one of the tactics used by the group
is to penetrate a progressive organization and seek to take it over or
recruit away its membership. One of the themes in the <Jackson
Advocate> series on NAP was the frequency with which NAP engaged in
what critics considered disruptive tactics. Lily Mae Irwin, a
well-known welfare rights activist told the <Advocate> how, in 1985,
NAP tried to merge with the group she was leading, the Mississippi
Welfare Rights Organization. After she refused the merger idea, she
soon discovered NAP was scheduling their meetings with her key
organizers opposite the regular monthly Welfare Rights Organization
meetings. "Yes Siree," said Irwin, "they were trying to hold meetings
at the same time we were; they were trying to mess us up."

Eddie Sandifer, a well-known Mississippi Gay rights activist, told the
<Advocate> he resented the claim by NAP that it is the party of gays,
lesbians, Blacks and dispossessed people in general. In particular,
Sandifer was angry that NAP contacted several members of the
Mississippi Gay Alliance and invited them to NAP meetings, but did not
contact him, the group's leader." I think their purpose is to divide
and conquer," said Sandifer." I'm very suspicious of them....I'm
worried about what they are doing in Mississippi."

A long-time gay activist in California voiced similar concerns to the
author after NAP sponsored a gay rights conference in that state. He
feared the NAP wanted to duplicate the work of existing gay
organizations as a way to build credibility and recruit new members
for the NAP.

A woman activist in New York told the author of a call she received
from a friend in England complaining of disruptive activities by a NAP
organizer who attended functions of a women's peace group. Disruption
has been a hallmark of NAP organizing for years, and reports of this
nature have been consistently surfaced over the years from a wide
variety of sources.

One early example of a Newmanite attempt to penetrate and manipulate a
progressive organization involved the now-defunct People's Party, a
multi-racial progressive electoral party which once ran Dr. Benjamin
Spock for President. In early 1978, according to a former People's
Party organizer, the People's Party "expelled the Newmanites when it
was uncovered that they were operating within the party as a secret
faction with an undisclosed agenda as to their intentions and plans."

The Newmanites had told members of the People's Party that Newman's
International Workers Party had been disbanded, but the People's Party
stumbled across a secret Newmanite newsletter marked "confidential
internal bulletin" and bearing the name <Party Building>. According to
<Party Building>, the Newmanites were recruiting inside the People's
Party and other progressive groups to build a secret "pre-party
formation." The confidential Newmanite newsletter explained it was
being published to function as intelligence and communications
networks, reporting on the social movement of various strata in
particular areas.

Even though the IWP was supposed to have dissolved, plans were
sketched out in <Party Building> for its "Fourth Party Plenary" held
in Gary, Indiana in early 1977. The meeting brought together
representatives from various Newmanite front groups organized under
the public banner of the "Council of Independent Organizers."

Depth of Black Leadership

The New Alliance Party does engage in activities which support Black
candidates, as the following excerpt from a letter by NAP supporters
points out:

"In 1984, after campaigning for Reverend Jesse Jackson and witnessing
his public rejection at the Democratic National Convention in San
Francisco, NAP moved ahead with its independent Presidential campaign
for the Afro-American candidate Dennis L. Serrette in a
record-breaking 33 states where the party had managed to secure access
to the ballot."

What the letter fails to mention is that Serrette left the New
Alliance Party after unsuccessfully struggling for a meaningful
leadership role for Black NAP officials who he felt had organizational
titles but no real influence or control. At first, Serrette, as a
point of personal and political principle, refused to openly criticize
NAP, but when it became obvious NAP leaders were characterizing his
reasons for leaving as primarily personal, and implying that Serrette
continued to support NAP, Serrette went public with his charges in
Mississippi's <Jackson Advocate> newspaper.

"I left the party because it continued to claim it was Black-led--I
knew better," Serrette is quoted as saying in the <Jackson Advocate>."
I mean no harm to these powerful Black women, Emily Carter, Lenora
Fulani and Barbara Taylor, when I say that....I knew from being there
that they were not leading Fred Newman--he was leading them--that's
why I left....I don't feel they can use `Black-led' continuously
without falling on their faces-falsehoods just won't hold up under
close scrutiny."

According to Serrette, NAP had no real commitment to Black-led
independent politics." I had to think about my reputation then--of
people who continue to believe in me." After raising his criticisms
internally, Serrette said he was cut off from the flow of information
within the party." It got so I didn't know when they were holding
meetings or anything," said Serrette.

In the course of the lawsuit by Emily Carter against the <Jackson
Advocate>, Dennis Serrette was called by Carter's attorney to answer
questions in a deposition. Serrette thoroughly denounced Newman and
his followers as running a racist, sexist "therapy cult" that put
people of color in public leadership positions merely as window
dressing. Regarding the New Alliance Party, Serrette said:

"...I don't believe that it's organic...in terms of it being a
working-class movement...Black, white and Latino. I think it's an
elitist organization. It certainly serves the purposes of its
leader....it was a lie, it was clearly a tactical ...a racist scheme
of using Black and Latino and Asian people to do the bidding of one
man, namely Fred Newman, that's my opinion, and to use other whites as
well, you know through the therapy practices."

"No one challenges Fred Newman. I have seen people maybe raise a few
polite questions in...planning sessions...but Fred Newman's word is
the word. There is no such thing as opposition within that
organization, or principled opposition, that in my opinion could
demonstrate a different will or challenge to power, a different
political position of a major order, unless he agreed with it in some
way."

Serrette said he came to believe the promise that the organization
would eventually be turned over to Black people was a lie, and he
challenged Newman on the point:

"And I stated to him, "turned over" means, you know, resources, it
means making policy, it means running personnel...that's Black control
to me. I don't understand it as just having a Black face in a high
place. That's nothing more than racism and nothing more than window
dressing."

"It's no different from the system we seem to fight in this case. So I
raised those questions to Fred and we had ... a very heated meeting.
It was a meeting in which many of the Black leadership was there."

"It was very intense. We had Lenora [Fulani] making criticisms...Emily
[Carter] making criticisms, there was a lot of folks making criticisms
of some of the racism that they heretofore hadn't mentioned to Fred,
but had told me and told other Blacks in a whisper type kind of way,
the times that we were together...and they came forward."

Shortly after that meeting, according to Serrette, his stature and
treatment by other NAP leaders changed dramatically. Serrette said he
was not opposed to therapy on principle since he believed many people
are helped by other forms of therapy. But therapy played a different
role inside NAP according to Serrette:

"...therapy was a way of getting people to not only operate in an
organizational way, but also a way of controlling every aspect of
their lives...you certainly couldn't straighten anybody out. But it
was certainly effective in terms of controlling a lot of people to do
the kinds of things that were asked of them...they would do anything,
just about, that he would ask them to do."

"I wouldn't even be surprised if they'd turn from a so-called left
organization to a rightwing organization with a blink of an eye. I
think that the ideological question that is supposedly the thrust of
who they call themselves, International Workers' Party, there's
nothing more than a front itself."

"I certainly believe that [of] the New Alliance Party, and when I say
"front," I just mean it's the cover to cover, possibly the ego of Fred
Newman and the control of so many individuals in terms of power."

Serrette also said the therapy was not voluntary and that one Newman
associate made this clear:

"She said that it was an order that if you wanted to be part of this
organization, you will have to take therapy because it is the backbone
of our tendency...she says that comes as an order...from the governing
body."

Introduction

Progressive activists in the US should have celebrated a political
party with a 1988 platform calling for peace, social justice,
multi-racial harmony, and an end to discrimination against gay men and
lesbians. Instead, the ruthless organizing style of the New Alliance
Party was so consistently disruptive, that across the country, gay men
and lesbians, African Americans, civil libertarians, community
organizers and progressive activists denounced the New Alliance Party
and its tactics.

The New Alliance Party (NAP) sponsored the presidential bids of Dr.
Lenora Fulani an African-American woman who gained ballot status in
all 50 states in the 1988 elections. Fulani ran in the Democratic
Party primaries and then as an independent presidential candidate. The
issues Fulani and her political party raised deserved more attention,
not only in mainstream political circles, but also within the US
progressive movement, where too often the reality fails to match the
ideal when it comes to issues of gender, race, class, disabilities,
and sexual identity.

Internally NAP mirrored its anti-democratic outreach. At the core of
the New Alliance Party was a hierarchical group of organizers who
devised a manipulative and totalitarian method of seeking political
power. NAP described itself as a Black-led, women-led, multi-racial,
pro-gay independent political organization. However the New Alliance
Party was controlled by a secretive cadre whose white male guru, Dr.
Fred Newman, once led his followers into an affiliation with
neo-fascist cult leader Lyndon LaRouche.

Dr. Newman has been Dr. Fulani's campaign manager, therapist, mentor,
chair of the political tendency to which Dr. Fulani owes allegiance,
and creator of the form of therapy practiced by Dr. Fulani. There are
two interlocking control mechanisms that create a totalitarian
structure: a secret core cadre organization that enforces a distorted
form of democratic centralism, and a manipulative type of
psychological therapy in which all members of the inner cadre must
participate.

Since the names of the various levels of governance within the
formations controlled by Newman, Fulani, and their inner circle have
changed repeatedly over time, this study will use a specific set of
names to describe the three principle levels of participation,
regardless of whether or not these names are in current use.
* "Steering Committee" will refer to the inner core cadre leadership
including Newman and Fulani.
* "International Workers Party" will refer to all persons who are
cadre in the Leninist party and who place themselves under the
authority of the group in a relationship know as "democratic
centralism."
* "Newmanites" will refer to all persons who follow the political
leadership of the formations created by Fred Newman, whether or
not they are members of the IWP or its Steering Committee.



Newman and Fulani and a handful of others are leaders of the Steering
Committee. This core cadre has been known variously as the
"Organization," the "Tendency," the "Fraction," the "Steering
Committee" and is in fact the inner leadership of a Leninist cadre
party known as the "International Workers Party." Not every member of
the International Workers Party is part of the core cadre, but this
core cadre controls the IWP, which in turns controls the front groups
such as the New Alliance Party and the Castillo Cultural Center. While
Lenora Fulani has more visibility than Fred Newman, there is little
debate that both the political ideology and theories of social therapy
embraced by Fulani were originated by Fred Newman.

Wherever the Newmanites have a major organizing effort underway, there
is a related "therapy" group reaching out to persons with progressive
politics who are also seeking emotional or psychological counseling.
The therapy groups use a technique they call "Social Therapy" invented
by Dr. Newman. According to former members, including several former
therapists, the Social Therapy is consciously used as a recruitment
tool for the NAP and related organizations such as the Rainbow Lobby.

The actual nature and history of the Newmanites is complex,
controversial, and ultimately a matter of individual perspective and
judgment.

This report attempts to seriously analyze the history, activities and
internal dimensions of NAP in the context of its work in the US
progressive political community. This analysis is highly critical of
the role of the Newmanites within that community, but is not an
attempt to bait the organization on the basis of its publicly-espoused
political views. To discuss the Newmanites without reference to the
political milieu in which it operates is impossible.

The slogans of the Newmanite groups seem to reflect a progressive
political framework, but the organizing practices and internal
structure do not reflect the outward claims of Newman, Fulani and
other leaders. When the New Alliance Party was disbanded and the
Newmanites merged with the fledgling Patriot Party and began courting
Ross Perot and the Reform Party, any former claim to represent a left
political formation was abandoned as Newman and Fulani followed the
same trail blazed by previous left-wing groups that embraced rightwing
populism and joined proto-fascist revolts.

This is a story of how a group can be so rich in the rhetoric of
democracy and yet so poor in its implementation; so full of promise
yet so empty in practice.

Marina Ortiz Explains Why She Resigned from the NAP

Marina Ortiz was a leading organizer for the New Alliance Party and
served as a publicist for NAP's 1988 presidential candidate, Lenora
Fulani. Ortiz left the organization in 1990.

Ortiz, a young Puerto Rican women with a working class background, was
once singled out for praise in NAP's <New Alliance> newspaper by NAP
strategist Fred Newman. Newman called Ortiz brilliant and passionate,
and wrote, "There is an honesty about this woman that is shockingly
pure; an uncompromising honesty that sniffs out even a hint of
disingenuousness." Newman also wrote:

"We have built our love within...the struggle to re-organize her anger
on behalf of her people rather than against herself. I love our love
affair, Marina Ortiz."

Two years after the article appeared Ortiz sat in a Manhattan coffee
shop discussing NAP.

There was no "love affair" she snorts. The article was Newman's
attempt to manipulate her sexually, a form of sexual blackmail, they
never had a relationship, Newman was her therapist and her political
leader, not her lover. Newman did try to tear apart her family, says
Ortiz, but she was stronger than Fred, and walked away from NAP to
rebuild her life. She is devoted to helping the Puerto Rican community
gain equality and justice, but she now knows that NAP was not the way
that's going to happen. NAP lied to her. Marina Ortiz is indeed
brilliant and passionate...and now she was angry. Fred Newman had
struck a rock.

Marina Ortiz decided to go public with her criticisms of NAP in 1992.
According to Ortiz, NAP did not live up to its claims of promoting
democracy, and championing the rights of women, persons of color, and
gay men and lesbians. Instead, Ortiz says NAP "perfected the art of
psychopolitical cultism and deception under the auspices of Lyndon
LaRouche" and uses these manipulative techniques to engage in the
"obstruction of minority empowerment."

While NAP calls itself "progressive," Ortiz points to a "two-decade
history of cooptation and infiltration efforts, legal suits, and
sectarian smear campaigns and petition challenges against progressives
and insurgents such as Edward Wallace in 1983, Jesse Jackson in 1984,
David Dinkins in 1989, Jitu Weusi and Timothy Evans in 1990, and Ron
Daniels and Jerry Brown in 1992."

Ortiz also is troubled that "Gerald Horne, chair of the Black Studies
Department at the University of California and a Peace and Freedom
Party Senate Candidate [and] independent presidential candidate Ron
Daniels" failed NAP's "litmus test" for being real progressives after
they and others on the left questioned NAP's embrace of H. Ross
Perot's brief 1992 presidential bid. Ortiz felt NAP's promotion of
Perot was opportunistic and highly troubling, and indicated a
willingness by NAP to abandon gay men and lesbians as allies in order
to suggest a Perot/Fulani ticket. Ortiz says that rather than honestly
dealing with its critics, NAP frequently resorts to nasty attacks, and
has "viciously vilified" other former NAP leaders who have resigned
such as former NAP presidential candidate Dennis Serrette and former
NAP Georgia state chair Alvin Munson. Ortiz charges that while she was
in the New Alliance Party she was inducted into the secret
International Workers Party where she learned that she was expected to
follow the orders of party chairman Fred Newman, as were other members
of IWP including NAP presidential candidate Fulani. Ortiz says that as
an IWP member she was told to attend therapy sessions run by persons
trained in the "Social Therapy" technique invented by Newman.

The net result of these overlapping affiliations and commitments,
according to Ortiz, was the creation of an organizational control
mechanism that derailed criticism and enforced obedience. Ortiz
finally decided that NAP's pronouncements championing democracy were a
sham given the way the internal NAP hierarchy actually functioned.
After resigning, Ortiz spent many months putting her energies into
rebuilding her family which had been torn apart during her time within
NAP. She eventually decided to write a book about her experiences in
what she now calls a cult run by Newman.

Ortiz decided to break her self-imposed silence when in 1992 NAP sued
two African-American women in Maryland who were "challenging the
party's internal hierarchy." That incident involves an NAP lawsuit
against a Baltimore African-American environmentalist and community
organizer named Morning Sunday and another former NAP activist, Annie
Chambers. Ms. Sunday became active in NAP in 1988 and originally
chaired NAP's 1992 Maryland campaign organization for Lenora Fulani's
presidential race.

Sunday became disillusioned after NAP ignored her requests that NAP
support local campaigns, increase local participation and
responsibility, and provide a mechanism for input into decisions.
Instead NAP repeatedly demanded more money be raised in fundraising
for NAP headquarters. "The bottom line was always signatures and money
for national," Sunday told Ortiz in an interview Ortiz conducted for
her book on NAP. Ortiz quickly became a supporter of Sunday and

Chambers for their attempts to make NAP live up to the democratic
values it claimed to promote. Sunday told Ortiz she believed NAP's
local Maryland operations were in fact part of a "dictatorial
hierarchy" controlled by NAP's New York office staff, characterized by
Sunday as "mostly white elitists." After a series of frustrating and
alienating experiences, which Sunday alleged included a local
art-gallery fundraiser where all $3,000 was whisked away to NAP in New
York, and an episode where NAP sent her a volunteer who trashed her
house and took her husband's car, Sunday contacted the two former NAP
Maryland State chairs, Doug Ross and Annie Chambers. Both shared
similar sentiments regarding NAP's lack of internal democratic
procedures.

In March 1992 Chambers contacted New York NAP headquarters and
suggested a meeting between the Maryland NAP committee and Fulani to
iron out a dispute arising from NAP's contention that Sunday was
refusing to file Fulani's nominating petitions, even though the
petitions were not due for over five months. Instead of seeking to
resolve the matter internally, NAP threatend a civil lawsuit, and then
had an NAP staffer file criminal charges against Sunday and Chambers.

In an April 21, <Baltimore Sun> article on the dispute, Sunday
revealed she had been threatened by NAP, and said the same treatment
had been accorded others "who have bucked the national leadership" of
NAP. Sunday said NAP had a "distinct class system" and was "no
different than the Democrats and Republicans." NAP would send
"marching orders" with no input from local activists, according to
Sunday, and "when we tried to question their authority, all hell broke
loose. They went into severe attack phase."

A judge found Sunday and Chambers guilty of theft on June 9, 1992.
Even though Sunday turned over the petitions to NAP through a neutral
mediator from the community, both Sunday and Chambers were punished
with suspended jail sentences, placed on probation, and ordered to
perform community service. Ortiz was moved by Sunday's argument prior
to sentencing. Sunday told the judge her actions had been dictated by
her conscience, that she had been seeking to prevent the maltreatment
of Baltimore's Black community by a flim-flam campaign, that NAP was
motivated strictly by greed, that NAP engaged in the political process
for the sole purpose of raising money. Ortiz said when she heard those
statements she recognized them as true, and she decided as a matter of
conscience to speak out before waiting to complete her book.

Ortiz had cautiously granted several background interviews and
provided a written statement to be included in this revised study of
NAP. Ortiz agreed to be interviewed on the condition that any
discussion of her charges include the fact that she believes there are
many sincere people who have been pulled into NAP, and that her
criticisms not be used to hurt serious efforts to fight for social
change and equal rights. Ortiz thought that this would allow her to
focus on her book yet still assist in exposing the real nature of NAP.


But Ortiz became convinced that she had an obligation to air her
charges in a way that would encourage a thorough public debate in the
Latino and African-American communities where NAP candidates were
running for public office in the late summer of 1992. So Ortiz wrote
an article about the experiences of Sunday and Chambers, but for a
variety of reasons she could find no publisher.

So on August 9, 1992 Ortiz appeared on the Latino Journal program on
New York's progressive radio station WBAI to make her charges public.
She knew she risked the type of vicious personal attack for which NAP
has become infamous, but she also knew that it was time for her to
speak out. It was something her people needed to hear. It was
something Marina Ortiz could no longer hold inside. And Ortiz said
what she had to say with the spirit and intellect that Fred Newman
could recognize, but could never control.

Since her first radio appearance, Ortiz has published several articles
critical of the Newmanites, and appeared on other radio programs where
she and other former members have challenged Newman and Fulani to
reveal the inner workings of the IWP and the secret Steering
Committee.

NAP Activities in the Mid 1980's



In May of 1985 the New Alliance Party held a national founding
convention in Chicago. The significance of the event is blurred by the
fact that its own history dates the original founding of the New
Alliance Party as 1979. The chairperson elected at the 1985 Chicago
meeting was Emily Carter, an organizer from Jackson, Mississippi who
joined the New Alliance Party in New York in 1981. She calls herself a
"former organizer, now therapist."

When the New Alliance Party moved its national headquarters to
Chicago, it came with a related "medical and therapeutic center." In
fact, wherever the New Alliance Party has a major organizing effort
underway, there is a related "therapy" group reaching out to persons
with progressive politics who are also seeking emotional or
psychological counseling. The therapy groups use a technique they call
"Social Therapy" or "Crisis Normalization" designed to provide
"immediate help for the everyday crisis situations that happen to
everyone." Both the political organization and the therapy institutes
make a point to involve persons of color, gay men and lesbians, and
political radicals.

Closely allied with the New Alliance Party is the Rainbow Alliance and
the Rainbow Lobby. That the slogans of the New Alliance Party, Rainbow
Alliance and the Rainbow Lobby tend to reflect a progressive political
framework is not questioned. Here for example are some of their
slogans and issues:

*** Put teeth back into Civil Rights laws *** Repeal Gramm-Rudman

*** Support the Fair Elections bill introduced by Rep. John Conyers
(D., Mich.)

*** Seek legislation that would "protect the democratic rights of gays
and all Americans."

One flyer explains:

"The Rainbow Lobby is fighting for grand jury reform, affordable
public housing and Congolese liberation from the human rights abuses
of the Mobutu dictatorship....The Rainbow Lobby is fighting against
the death penalty, against aid for the C.I.A. supported contra
terrorists and against arming South African supported mercenaries in
Angola. And the Rainbow Lobby is exposing the Right's misuse of
federal funds for AIDS."

The New Alliance Party moved its national headquarters to Chicago to
be closer to Minister Louis Farrakhan, The Rev. Jesse Jackson and
Mayor Harold Washington, according to NAP chairwoman Emily Carter. The
office is located on Chicago's north side (in the 44th Ward), and
fundraisers are already soliciting support for the "Rainbow." The
NAP-related Chicago Center for Crisis Normalization is open and
another therapy center is planned for the west side. NAP organizers
have been recruiting in some sectors of the Black and progressive
political community for almost five years, and have a presence in
several Chicago colleges.

In New York the New Alliance Party offers a free legal clinic in
Harlem, sponsors lectures, and publishes its newspaper, the <National
Alliance>. <National Alliance> discusion groups are held in Chicago,
Illinois; Jackson, Mississippi; Long Island, New York; Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Washington, D.C. and Boston, Massachusetts.

The New Alliance Party maintained regional and state offices in:
Alaska, Arizona, California (Oakland and Los Angeles), Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan (Ann Arbor and Detroit), Mississippi, Montana,
Nebraska, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York (Albany, New York City
and Buffalo), North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont and Washington, D.C.

After the 1992 elections, The New Alliance Party was submerged and
many of its activists joined the fledgling Reform Party.

Fred Newman and the Historical Roots of the Newmanites

The history of the Newmanites starts with a history of its primary
theoretician, Dr. Fred Newman. In 1968 Newman and several followers
formed "IF....THEN", a political collective in New York City."
IF....THEN" prided itself on its anarchistic and confrontational
approach to organizing and consciousnessraising. During the early
1970's Newman and his followers established a group called Centers for
Change in New York City. Centers for Change (CFC) was characterized by
a more introspective approach to political organizing. CFC described
itself as:

"...a collective of liberation centers including; a school for
children, ages 3 to 7; a community oriented therapeutic and dental
clinic located in the Bronx; and a press (CFC Press) operating out of
the CFC offices....Also, the Community Media Project; (an) information
service for the people of the upper west side...."

While involved with CFC, Newman and others in his circle began
developing a unique perspective within the evolving theory of radical
psychology. This movement attracted attention and debate in
progressive circles; Newman, however, soon branched off from the
mainstream of the radical psychology movement and eventually developed
a theory of "social therapy". By 1973 CFC was offering therapy and
counseling at its drop-in center.

At the same time, another New York political organizer, Lyndon H.
LaRouche, Jr., was also espousing controversial psychological
theories, and Newman began to examine LaRouche's writings on
psychology and economics which were appearing in published collections
of Marxist analysis.

Lyndon LaRouche in 1973 was the leader of the National Caucus of Labor
Committees (NCLC), a Marxist political organization based in New York
City. LaRouche, using the name Lyn Marcus, had led the Labor Caucus of
the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) until SDS voted to expel
LaRouche and his followers in 1969. The controversy inside SDS arose
when the SDS Labor Caucus under LaRouche called for support of
striking members of New York City's teacher's union. A key union issue
was opposition to community control of schools in New York City--a
demand of community leaders which had the support of many Black
parents. The union's opposition to community control of schools was
widely perceived in the progressive political community as having
racist overtones. After being expelled from SDS, LaRouche created the
National Caucus of Labor Comittees, which in 1973 had at least 1,000
members nationwide.

Newman says he first made contact with Lyndon LaRouche's forces within
the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC) in October of 1973. In
January of 1974 Newman's organization, Centers for Change (CFC),
published a newsletter <Right On Time> which called for the
organization of leftist political cadres and relied heavily on
psychoanalytic terminology. LaRouche's theories were in many ways
similar to those espoused by Newman, and in June of 1974, Newman led
almost 40 CFC members into an official political alliance with
LaRouche and the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC).

Newman's Alliance with LaRouche

Even NAP supporters concede that Newman and some of his followers
worked for a time under the political leadership of LaRouche. What
keeps this aspect of the controversy alive is what critics feel are
misrepresentations regarding the character of the relationship and the
nature of the LaRouche organization at the time of the alliance. NAP's
position is stated in a letter circulated by its supporters under the
name "The Committee to Set the Record Straight:"

"Five years prior to NAP's founding, a handful of activists, five of
whom now sit on NAP's 40-member national Executive Board, joined the
National Caucus of Labor Committees, then a left organization founded
by LaRouche. At the time, it was attracting many organic progressive
leaders from the welfare, trade union, and electoral arenas. Dr.
Newman was one of those who joined. He and his colleagues' membership
in the NCLC lasted approximately two months."

"Following their departure in the summer of 1974, they began an
extensive political and methodological critique of LaRouche and the
NCLC and by 1975 became among the first on the Left to explicitly
identify LaRouche as a neo-fascist."

This characterization of the Newman/LaRouche relationship is at best
self-serving and at worst largely fictional. With some ten percent of
the current NAP executive board comprised of persons who at one time
chose to put themselves under the political leadership of Lyndon
LaRouche, it becomes crucial to examine the relationship carefully.

During most of 1974, the NCLC under LaRouche was primarily attracting
middleclass and upper-class white intellectual students from
prestigious eastern and mid-western college campuses--hardly a core of
trade unionists and welfare recipients as characterized by Newman's
supporters.

A former member of LaRouche's NCLC remembers the arrival in 1974 of
what were called the "Newmanites:"

"They put themselves under the actual political leadership of LaRouche
for a few months, and we came to believe that what Newman really
wanted during that period was to act as an understudy to LaRouche--to
learn his methods and techniques of controlling persons in an
organization."

"The individuals in Newman's group seemed to lack clarity and
political focus and were obsessed with psychology and sexuality.
Newman was clearly the leader and it was obvious that LaRouche's ego
and Newman's ego were too big to allow them to work together in the
same organization for long."

While actual membership by New Alliance Party executive board members
in LaRouche's NCLC may have lasted only a few months, the working
alliance between groups led by LaRouche, Newman and a third New York
political leader named Gino Parente lasted far longer. Some activists
from New York remember the three groups working in a loose alliance
around issues such as welfare reform, farm labor, and organizing the
working class for a period as long as one year. One internal NCLC
discussion of the Newmanites describes "ten months of serious
political discussion" before several months of actual membership."
Joint forums" between the Newmanites and the LaRouchites were held in
November and December, 1973, and the Newmanite split took place in
late August, 1974.

Even after officially leaving NCLC in August, 1974, Newman and his
followers continued to debate and criticize LaRouche and the NCLC over
issues of shared political ideology as if it represented legitimate
leftist theory long after the rest of the American Left had denounced
NCLC as either proto-Nazi Brownshirts, a sick political cult, or
outright police agents.

Fred Newman insists his group was not sophisticated about the American
Left when it joined with LaRouche, yet when the Newmanites split from
NCLC, they announced the formation of a "vanguard" Marxist-Leninist
political party. In the resignation letter signed by Newman and 38 of
his followers, there is a significant use of Marxist-Leninist
terminology which suggests a far greater degree of political
sophistication than admitted. Announcing that Newman's International
Workers Party (IWP) had "now become the vanguard party of the working
class," the letter went on to say:

"The organization of the vanguard party is, as Marx makes clear, the
organization of the class. The formation of the IWP has grown from our
attempt to organize the [NCLC] from within that it might move from a
position of left hegemony to a position of leadership of the class."

When joining the NCLC, Newman announced he was putting himself and his
followers under the political "hegemony" of LaRouche. After leading
his followers out of the NCLC, Newman continued to struggle with
LaRouche over theory within the principles of criticism among friends.
None of this indicates a casual, naive or short-lived relationship.

The Nature of NCLC During the Newmanite Alliance

Still, Newman's merger and split with LaRouche would have little merit
as a criticism of NAP (after all it is a sign of political maturity to
recognize mistakes) were it not for how supporters of Newman
relentlessly misrepresent the nature of LaRouche and the NCLC in late
1973 and 1974--the period when Newman grew close to NCLC and then put
himself and his followers under the political leadership of
LaRouche.In 1974 NCLC was not attracting "organic progressive leaders
" from the welfare rights movement, as claimed by the Newmanites. In
fact, it was having trouble attracting significant Black support at
all, since it was leading a successful attempt to destroy the
Black-led National Welfare Rights Organization and defame its popular
leader, the late George Wiley.

During the same period, LaRouche also propounded ideas which were
widely perceived to represent outright racism. LaRouche, for instance,
offended the Hispanic community in a November, 1973 essay (published
in both English and Spanish) titled "The Male Impotence of the
Puerto-Rican Socialist Party." An internal memo by LaRouche asked "Can
we imagine anything more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto
mother?" He described the majority of the Chinese people as
"approximating the lower animal species" by manifesting a "paranoid
personality....a parallel general form of fundamental distinction from
actual human personalities."

As early as the spring of 1973 LaRouche had begun to articulate a
psychosexual theory of political organizing and began descending into
a paranoid style of historical analysis that stressed not Marxist
dialectical materialism and class analysis, but macabre conspiracy
theories and a subjective egocentric analysis. LaRouche warned of a
global plot by the CIA/KGB to kidnap and program his membership to
assassinate him. His homophobia became a central theme of the
organization's conspiracy theories. He said women's feelings of
degradation in modern society could be traced to the physical
placement of sexual organs near the anus which caused them to confuse
sex with excretion.

A September, 1973 editorial in the NCLC ideological journal
<Campaigner> charged that "Concretely, all across the USA., there are
workers who are prepared to fight. They are held back, most
immediately, by pressure from their wives...." Writing in an August,
1973 memo, LaRouche propounded the startling and sexist psychological
theory that "the principle source of impotence, both male and female,
is the mother." LaRouche claimed only he could cure the political and
sexual impotence of his followers. NCLC members were forced into what
was called psychological therapy and "deprogramming" but were what
former members call "brainwashing" and "egostripping" sessions. The
NCLC rapidly became totalitarian in style, with a peculiar obsession
with sexuality and homophobia used as a weapon against internal
dissent." To the extent that my physical powers do not prevent me,"
LaRouche told his followers in August, 1973, "I am now confident and
capable of ending your political--and sexual-impotence; the two are
interconnected aspects of the same problem."

By 1974 LaRouche had started his swing toward fascist economic and
political principles--well before Newman and his followers joined NCLC
and announced that they would place themselves under LaRouche's
political leadership and "hegemony." It was during this period that
LaRouche began talking of the need for rapid industrialization to
build the working class. He talked of a historic tactical alliance
between revolutionaries, the working class and the forces of
industrial capital against the forces of finance capital. He began
developing an authoritarian world view with a glorification of
historic mission, metaphysical commitment and physical confrontation.
He told reporters that only he was capable of bringing revolution and
socialism to the United States, and his speeches began to take on the
tone and style of a demagogue. LaRouche, in short, began to adopt the
same ideas and styles which had formed the basis of National
Socialism, a political tendency that historically became part of the
European fascist movement and eventually played a key role in Hitler's
rise to power in Nazi Germany. In fact, LaRouche was denounced as a
Nazi by U.S. Communists following physical attacks on them in 1973 by
NCLC members who were likened to Hitler's violent Brownshirts.

From May to September of 1973, LaRouche followers engaged in
"Operation Mop-up" which consisted of NCLC members brutally assaulting
rivals such as members of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and the
Socialist Workers Party (SWP). NCLC thugs used bats, chains, and
martial arts weapons (<numchukas>) in their campaign to control and
establish "hegemony" over the American revolutionary movement. There
were many injuries and some persons required hospitalization.

"Operation Mop-up" was front-page news in virtually every American
progressive newspaper during 1973, and it is difficult to believe it
was not known to Newman and his followers when they first contacted
NCLC a few weeks after Operation Mop-Up was declared a success by
LaRouche. Furthermore, physical assaults by NCLC members against
critics were reported regularly well into 1976, and periodic assaults
by LaRouche fundraisers still occur. In 1974, many former NCLC members
report, they were still required to take paramilitary training classes
led by fellow members.

The trigger for Operation Mop Up was a March, 1973 warning by NCLC to
the Communist Party, USA. to stop opposing the creation by LaRouche of
an alternative to the Black-led National Welfare Rights Organization
(NWRO) which LaRouche denounced as being part of a "union-busting
slave-labor" alliance. LaRouche set up an alternative, the National
Unemployed and Welfare Rights Organization (NUWRO), and, according to
LaRouche, NCLC then sent delegations into public Communist Party
meetings, "demanding that this criminal behavior of the CP
leadership"--that is, support for the original NWRO--"be openly
discussed and voted down by the body assembled."

Eyewitnesses recall this "discussion" usually consisted of
primarily-white and young NCLC members standing up and disrupting
meetings of the primarilyBlack and older NWRO with calls for a debate
on LaRouche's charges against NWRO leaders until members of the
audience were forced to physically drag the NCLC members out of the
meeting. These confrontations became formalized under Operation
Mop-Up.

When the Socialist Workers Party joined in supporting the original
Black-led NWRO, they too were attacked by the predominantly white NCLC
supporters. While the Operation Mop-Up attacks were officially ended
in late 1973 or early 1974, another campaign of assaults was launched
in 1974 against local rank-andfile leaders of the United Autoworkers
and other industrial unions. Reports of these assaults continued
through 1976, and NCLC members have continued until recently to assist
in assaults on members of Teamsters for a Democratic Union and another
rank-and-file Teamster reform group, PROD.

In 1974, according to former NCLC members, LaRouche first began to
seek contact with extremist and anti-Semitic right-wing groups and
individuals around the idea of tactical unity in opposing imperialism
and the ruling class in general, and the Rockefellers in particular.
LaRouche's obsession with conspiracy theories blossomed in 1974, and
during this period he began expounding a view linking certain Jewish
institutions to a plot to destroy Western civilization and usher in a
"New Dark Age".

This is the character of the NCLC that attracted Newman and his
followers in early 1974. In his 1974 book <Power and Authority>,
Newman wrote that his followers would "organize in the spirit
outlined" by LaRouche. The question is not how long the Newmanites
worked under the political leadership of Lyndon LaRouche, but how they
can explain what attracted Newman and his followers to LaRouche in the
first place. To this day NAP leadership has refused to renounce or to
deal candidly or accurately with the fact that the Newmanites at one
time joined an organization which was at best a collection of paranoid
sexist homophobic thugs and at worst a nascent fascist political
movement.

Using the FBI to Harass Dissidents

It was during the period that the Newmanites were involved with NCLC
that NCLC began to collect and disseminate intelligence on progressive
groups. It is well documented that NCLC went on to provide
intelligence to domestic and foreign government agencies. While
documents released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that
U.S. government agencies frequently dismissed the material provided by
the NCLC, it was provided nonetheless. As early as February, 1974,
NCLC representatives met with an official in the U.S. Department of
Commerce to "provide substantial evidence which would exonerate
President Nixon from Watergate charges," according to a Commerce
Department memorandum released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Newmanites were at the center of the first documented instance of
NCLC collaboration with U.S. intelligence agencies. In 1974, several
Newmanites in NCLC attempted to use the FBI to locate and spy on a
former Newmanite who had left at the time of the NCLC/Newmanite merger
and taken his child with him. Jim Retherford had left the Newmanites
citing psychological manipulation among other reasons. His spouse, Ann
Green, remained in the organization and quite reasonably sought access
to their child. Green and Newmanite Harry Kresky, an attorney,
contacted the FBI and suggested that Retherford was a former member of
the Weatherman faction of SDS, had harbored Weather Underground
fugitives, and was in contact with Jane Alpert, a fugitive the FBI was
particularly keen on locating.

Supporters of Newman claim he was unaware of the contact with the FBI.
However, a former member of Newman's Centers for Change who joined and
left NCLC with Newman, and then later split with the Newmanites,
recalls the FBI incident was widely known within NCLC and the
Newmanite faction." The CFC [Centers for Change/Newmanite] people for
the most part stuck together while in the NCLC....denying Fred Newman
knew about the communications with the FBI is utterly absurd."

Support for Minister Farrakhan

When Minister Louis Farrakhan addressed a New York City rally of his
supporters in 1985, he was greeted with a telegram of support from the
then NAP mayoral candidate Dr. Lenora Fulani:

"It is with deep respect and the most profound commitment to the
liberation of our people that I welcome you to New York City, hopeful
that your visit will bring us, as Black people, the leadership of all
this country's oppressed, a step closer to our freedom."

NAP at the time was seeking "a working relationship with Farrakhan's
Nation of Islam," and members of both groups had attended each others'
conferences. Fulani was not unaware of the controversial nature of
some of Farrakhan's remarks regarding Jewish people and other groups."
I remain concerned that Minister Farrakhan's language can be
interpreted as anti-Semitic or anti-gay. But I know, as do my Jewish
friends and followers, that the Jewish people have nothing to fear
from the Nation of Islam."

Minister Farrakhan's language is indeed a cause for concern, as are
the actions of his organization. In Chicago, representatives of the
Nation of Islam invited the author of a book calling the Nazi
Holocaust a hoax to share their stage with other special guests.
Members of anti-Jewish white racialist groups have been invited to
attend Nation of Islam events. Representatives of the Nation of Islam
have made speeches where white racial characteristics have been held
up for ridicule.

It is true that many critics of Minister Farrakhan treat him in a
racist manner. Further, many of Farrakhan's statements against
political Zionism and the actions of the state of Israel in the Middle
East are, for whatever reason, incorrectly labeled "anti-Semitic."
However there is ample documentation that Farrakhan regularly makes
references about the Jewish people that reflect a bigoted and
stereotyped bias. This is not a question of semantics, but a question
of prejudice.

--
+********** Snail me yer rosehips if you liked this post! ************
+ GABRIELLI WINERY (Mendocino,CA): Zinfandel, Ascenza (White-Blend), +
+ Pinot-Noir, Sangiovenese Grapes--Yummy! +
*Better Living Thru Better Living!* http://www.interport.net/~rugosa *

[Allen Adler]

Your history of Newman starts in 1968. I'm not sure but
I think that Newman might have been involved in the
group Aesthetic Realism before that. The reason I think
so is that my aunt, much to the regret of the rest of
my family, became a member of Aesthetic Realism a long
time ago and I happened to visit her around 1966 or 67
and she brought me along to one or two meetings of
Aesthetic Realism. At that that time, Aesthetic Realism
was a kind of personality cult centering around the
writings of Eli Siegel and, while they thought that
Eli Siegel was right up there with Christ and Buddha,
they were nevertheless tolerant of people who weren't
into it.

There was someone named Newman who had joined
the group, actually, he and his brother, described, as
I vaguely recall, as a recovering drug addict. They
had started some kind of purge within the group over
the issue of "contempt for Mr.Siegel" and had gained
a lot of influence as a result. In this connection,
it is important to explain that the Aesthetic Realists
had evolved their own specialized vocabulary as a
result if determining what they regarded as the true
meanings of certain words, such as "respect". These meanings
were in general at variance with the meanings used in
common parlance by people outside the group but the Aesthetic
Realists would use their own meanings even when talking
to outsiders and without explanation. As a result, the
group tended to isolate itself through its language.
They held their meetings on saturday nights but they
meetings were staged events. They would rehearse their
meetings on thursday nights ("I think there ought to be
more laughter after that item.") You paid to get into to the
meeting and you paid to get into the rehearsal.

At a certain level, the ideology had to do with the aesthetics inherent
in opposites. For example, one of the pamphlets of Eli Siegel that
I read expressed the view that the way to deal with one's own
conflicts was to learn to view them as aesthetic. Somehow, this
notion of the aesthetics of contradiction got elevated to
a political position as well.

When I visited my aunt a few years later, the tolerance for outsiders had
vanished. They were outraged that major newspapers don't carry
information about Aesthetic Realism and picketed in front of
the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which which was across the street
from the apartment of Sulzberger from the New York Times and wore
buttons saying, Victim of the Press.

A friend of mine worked for a while in the New York City Board
of Education and told me that the office he worked in was
completely dominated by Aesthetic Realists. They took him
out to lunch the first day and tried to get him interested
in Aesthetic Realism. When he indicated that he wasn't interested,
they accepted that, but from then on, it was hello in the morning
and goodbye in the afternoon and none of them talked to him
except about the job. My friend says that his boss actually
did some good and creative things, in terms of the work he did there,
but I won't describe them now. Accordingly, I'm not suggesting that
Aesthetic Realism is in the same category as the Larouchians or the
Newmanites. I'm only asking whether the changes I observed in them
were perhaps the influence of this same Newman before he went onto
bigger things.

Allan Adler
ad...@pulsar.cs.wku.edu