Webmaster Introduction: Both fascism and communist ideologies produce despotic, totalitarian governments anathema to human values and are therefore to be abhorred and rejected. Certainly, based on the “track record” of communist nations in the 20th century, communist ideology produces the most dangerous and hideous forms of government tyranny. That said, despite the fact that the authors of the following papers apparently embrace communist idealology, their critique of the Rockefeller-CIA-Tavistock Fascist power structure has considerable merit and should be taken seriously.
From The Campaigner, Vol. 7, No. 6, April, 1974
p. 5- I. THE REAL CIA – THE ROCKEFELLERS’ FASCIST ESTABLISHMENT by L. Marcus
p. 37- II. LOW INTENSITY OPERATIONS: THE REESIAN THEORY OF WAR by M. Minnicino
The Campaigner is the English—language journal of the National Caucus of Labor Committees. Current
policies of the committees are stated in editorials; views expressed in signed articles are not necessarily
those of either the committees of editorial board.
Editorial Board: K. Ghandl, L. Marcus, E. Spannaus, C. White.
Managing Editor: S. Cohen
Production Editor: D. Goldberg
Subscription Rates: 1 year (11 Issues) — U.S.A. $8.00; Europe (airmail) $14.00. Back issues, at single
copy price for each issue (as available).
Correspondence: all correspondence to The Campaigner, Box 1972, GPO, New York, New York, 10001
Copyright © 1974 by The Campaigner
The Tavistock Grin is a term coined to connote the knowing
grin — the smile of John Rawlings Rees. This is the grin of men
who engage in the most vicious forms of psychological warfare.
These same men with that same grin commit crimes against
humanity which make Hitler look like an amateur. With this issue
we exhume the corpse of John Rawlings Rees, tracing the living
trail of his followers and financiers. The Reesian method of
fascist control is analyzed in The Real CIA —• The Rockefellers’
Fascist Establishment, a polemic by L. Marcus. The history of
Rees, the animal, the Tavistock Institute and the Reesians is
documented in Low Intensity Operations: The Reesian Theory of
War by M. Minnicino.
In the May issue The Tavistock Grin will be concluded with two
articles completing the overview of the Tavistock network.
Rockefellers’ Fascist Labor Policies by R. Freeman presents an
extensive history of the Rockefeller control of the labor
movement. P. Cuskie in The Shaping of An Angio-American SS
by War exposes the Reesian brand plan with which Rockefeller’s
cabal plan to run the world.
Future Issues will include: an all-Latin American issue
featuring an analysis and programmatic recommendation for
socialist organizing under the shadow of the Brazilian “miracle,”
The Miracles and Martyrdom of St. Antonio Gramsci, Part li, The
Doctrine of L’Academie, the beginning of a series on the French
Ideology.
I) The Real CIA — The Rockefellers’ Fascist Establishment
by L. Marcus
Beginning with a rash of early January “red scares,”
each staged and “discovered” by the U.S. Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) [1], the Rockefeller-
dominated faction of international finance [2] and
political machines [3] rapidly committed its forces to the
establishment of fascist regimes in North America and
Western Europe by no later than early 1975. This
present issue of the Campaigner is devoted to presenting
the reader with an essential background briefing on both
the conspiracy and the far-flung interlocking financial,
political, professional and military “establishment”
variously participating in the leadership and support of
the Rockefeller family’s fascist plot.
There should be some preliminary identification of our
special competence in offering such an exposure.
Following remarks to that effect, we shall review the
principal questions to be examined in this present
article, and thereafter proceed to each of those points in
turn.
LABOR COMMITTEE INTELLIGENCE
Following the traumatic vindication of our unique
economic analyses and predictions by the mid-August
1971 collapse of the Bretton Woods monetary system [4],
several major organizational advances were immediately
initiated in anticipation of the Labor Committees’
inevitable rapid growth and rise to hegemony on the U.S.
Left. [5] One of the several notable such resolutions was
the immediate formation of an intelligence department.
In the first stages, the new department was
deliberately designed to parallel the organization and
functioning of the research staff of a major national
newsweekly. This corresponded to its initial role as
“vendor” to and virtually appendage of the New
Solidarity editorial staff. Approximately in November-
December 1972, the basis for a second major intelli¬
gence activity emerged out of the need for massive
counter-intelligence concerning the imminent
liquidation of the old National Welfare Rights
Organization by counterinsurgency agents working out
of (principally) the U.S. Department of Health, Edu¬
cation and Welfare. Similar counter-intelligence needs
emerged from our work in opposing the crushing of the
AFL-CIO under Phase Two and Phase Three.
Following the August 1, 1973 breakthrough in de¬
programming brainwash victim Konstantin George, the
work was amplified in two ultimately interconnected
ways. We immediately undertook a substantial
investigation of Soviet and “Western” modes of
brainwashing and, parallel to this, studies of CIA-NATO
and KGB operations generally.
Hence, the events of Dec. 31, 1973 found us with over
two years’ af cumulated preparatory work and experience
in intelligence work generally, and the potential for
creating a coordinated, professional-quality full-time
department, exceptionally skilled in political economy,
labor, counterinsurgency research and psychological
warfare research.
Two additional practical features of the organization
have been of extraordinary importance during the past
three months. In North America itself, we have
maintained a twice-daily overview of the ghetto, labor,
and other key developments, through telephone links
with regional centers, which in turn keep an overview of
information gathered from local organizations and other
localities in which significant Labor Committee,
NUWRO [6] and RYM [7] organizing are occurring. We
also have daily briefings in detail from Western Europe
and a flow (although less immediate) of information
frorh various parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
This provides fine-grained coverage of the world’s
leading publications in addition to information from a
considerable number of primary sources.
As a result, as most readers of New Solidarity may
have noted, our coverage of the most important breaking
news developments in Europe, North America, and the
Middle East has been consistently better informed and
far more accurate than that usually received by most
elected government officials or available from leading
press sources. It is principally our intelligence
department which has made New Solidarity the most
authoritative news source on key developments in North
America. Admittedly, some of this favorable distinction
of New Solidarity over such papers as the New York
Times or Washington Post is the result of those
competitors’ frequent falsification of accounts, or their
habit of reporting a CIA-engineered leak without even
rudimentary checking for facts. [8] Certainly, mo5^ofthe
information on which the reports in this issue are based
was readily available to any team of reporters who had
made the effort to pull facts together. Whatever such
conditional observations might be warranted, the fact of
the quality of our intelligence output remains.
The critical, dynamic feature which gives our
intelligence work its superior quality is that principle
emphasized in this writer’s earlier Campaigner coverage
of the Rockefeller plot. [9] The application of geometry,
heuristically, to the question of “what is real’’ indicates
the essential principle upon which interpretation of any
isolated sequence of events must be properly premised.
Any significant sequence of events implies the kind of
universe in which such a sequence could occur. It is the
ability to determine the “geometry’’ of an evolving
universe of developments as a whole which uniquely [10]
enables the investigator of a particular chain of
occurrences to judge which of the apparent facts are real
and which represent illusion.
The world in which events presently occur is
predominantly a capitalist world flanked by the
continuing existence of the Soviet bloc. Peoples’
Republic of China, North Korea, North Vietnam, and
Cuba. It is not a capitalist world in merely the broad,
general significance of those terms. It is a particular
phase of capitalist development, and presently involves a
very specific form of conjunctural transition from a
collapsing post-war phase of its metagenetical evolution.
The dominant and secondary capitalist interests of this
conjunctural phase are rather precisely, narrowly
defined, to the extent that at the top the dominant
section of the capitalist class is identified by a handful of
controlling personalities.
The way in which the capitalist world-economy can
evolve, as an economy, is more or less exactly delimited,
to the effect that a narrow range of alternative sequelae,
as consequences and alternatives presented, can be
exactly predicted as the outcome of any attempted shift
in policy or practice by any significant force of self-
interest. [11]
Consequently, the ability to judge the course of events
from day to day depends fundamentally upon com¬
petence in economic analysis, a quality of unique
competence which has been shown by the Labor
Committee tendency during more than a decade of
recent studies in political economy.
Economics by itself would not suffice. Although it is
indispensable to abstract from economic processes to
determine what is essential, actual economic forces are
not mere abstractions. (The assumption that the
universe is governed by fixed, merely abstract principles
of lawfulness is a clinical expression of the kind of
metaphysical epiphenomenalism arising from
reductionism.[12]) The actuality of economic process is
expressed in the form of specific institutions and
persons. Broad economic analysis permits one to
determine the necessary potential order of reality; the
distinction between what is merely potential and which
potentialities are actual influences is resolved, and
uniquely so, by the determination of which potentialities
are expressed or imminently to be expressed by concrete
human beings organized in more or less clearly-defined
organized forms.
The Labor Committees’ intelligence department
represents the activity of discovering which of the wide
range of potentialities, as determined by political
economic analysis, are or are becoming concrete
actualities. The quality of research into various aspects
of the current process is indispensable, but remains no
more than the indispensable expression of that more
fundamental theoretical competence upon which
foundation the organization as a whole was built.
I. THE READER’S PROBLEMS WITH THE SUBJECT
Before we summarize the reader’s characteristic
difficulties in interpreting the facts of the conspiracy
itself, we should dispense with an extremely significant
but more easily resolved problem: Why do we describe
the plot as one launched at the first of the present year?
On the surface, the point appears eminently arguable.
The effort to discredit the U.S. presidency and congress
(a classic fascist precondition for takeover) is directly
traced to such preparations as Daniel Ellsberg’s role in
perpetrating the “Pentagon Papers” hoax, and more
immediately to the Spring 1972 “plumbers” operations.
On the British end of the current plot, the qualifications
of the British military service and MIS for present “low
intensity” police-state operations in England, Wales and
Scotland were developed by deliberate manipulation of a
civil rights struggle in Northern Ireland into a protracted
dress rehearsal for fascist rule throughout the United
Kingdom. [13]
The U.S. war in Vietnam, initiated and essentially
directed for most of its term by the CIA [14] will turn out
to be more of a preparation for fascism in the U.S.A.
than any objective in Southeast Asia. The Peace Corps
and Office of Economic Opportunity were also
essentially preparations for creating the infrastructure
for fascist organization (i.e., the Reesian fascist principle
of “local community control’’). The 1966 birth of the
Gestapo-like force legalized later as the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA),
through Rockefeller agent and leading CIA operative,
McGeorge Bundy, was similarly an essential
preparation of the nation for fascist police-state rule.
The organization of the “ecology movement’’ and
“quality of life’’ campaigns as conditioning for John D.
Rockefeller III’s genocidal Zero Growth project are also
fascist preparations. The spreading of the “rock-drug
counterculture’’ and the spread of marijuana and LSD-
25 in particular as “radical” causes were well-designed
preparations for fascist movements (as well as an easier
cover for introducing significant use of “brainwashing”).
There are numerous — almost innumerable — preparations
in the direction of fascism through the 1960’s and beyond.
Why, then, one asks, is January, 1974 so particularly
significant?
More immediately, we might consider the relationship
of Rockefeller rigging of the October Arab-Israeli war to
the “energy shortage” hoax aspects of 1974’s plot.
Cert^ly, artificially created “oil shortages” began to be
experienced during November and December, only
becoming more viciously acute during the January-
March 1974 period.
The immediate function of the staged Arab-Israeli
War was to provide a cover for the formal endorsement
of major price-rise agreements negotiated prior to the
outbreak of that war. This had the accompanying effect
of increasing the revenues of the Rockefeller-dominated
“Seven Sisters” (the major oil cartels) at the expense of
especially Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New
Zealand, while also squeezing harder on the
industrialization of the “developing countries.” The
point is: the oil hoax did not have to. be extended into the
form it assumed after the first of the year.
December 31-January 1 essentially represented an
implementation of the previously developed capabilities
and preparatory deployments in the form of a direct
attack on the democratic institutions of North America,
Western Europe and Japan. Of special significance in
this was the increasing difficulty the Rockefeller faction
would experience in attempting to call off this fascist plot
in motion without exposing itself to massive reprisals.
The CIA scare in the United Kingdom is exemplary.
Unless genuine terror were applied to the non-Tavistock-
linked sections of the Labour Party [15], the effrontery of
Cord Meyer et al. provided more than ample provocation
for a Labour-provoked British “nationalist” hullabaloo,
a tumult which would not have subsided without first
getting to the identity of the forces responsible for this
insult. Once the CIA scare was unleashed, the next step
had to be taken by the Rockefeller forces, lest the first
step backfire.
The distinction between developments prior to Dec.
31, 1973 and the process unleashed in steps beginning
that date is essentially that which would be made
between, on the one hand, deployments in anticipation
of a possible war, and, on the other hand, the
subsequent tactical moves which committed deployed
forces in skirmishes leading directly into an active state
of warfare.
The conceptual difficulty which some might
experience in grasping such a distinction would generally
take the hysterical form of considering only isolated
details one by one, evading the distinctions which emerge
once all the data in the respective fields are assimilated
in the forms of Gestalts.
Otherwise, we have the following more substantial
objections and other difficulties to treat, each requiring
significantly more elaboration than sufficed for the
minor problem whose form we have just reviewed.
The most rudimentary of these more significant
concerns is the typically encountered resistance of
individuals to facing the obvious facts of the matter. Fear
is the principal obstacle to recognizing an overt, massive
CIA-centered plot against all existing governments and
populations of North America and Western Europe.
That properly emphasized, it is/ear that prompts certain
formal arguments of skepticism. Although those
arguments are merely rationalizations, they do warrant
consideration here — if only to expose th^ fear which
must be faced and overcome head-on.
There is more complexity in analysis of a second main
difficulty.
The wishful skeptic who recognizes our abundant
command of evidence to support the judgement of
conspiracy, characteristically resorts to the ruse of
insisting that “This represents a conspiratorial view of
history.” Since the facts do add up to proof of
conspiracy, the hysteric’s most effective quibble against
the evidence is to discredit it on the very grounds that it
proves conspiracy. Since the implied consoling argument
proceeds, “Conspiratorial theories of history are
unsound,” in his opinion, it must follow on that premise
that all facts proving the existence of a conspiracy are
intrinsically false.
Acknowledging the psychoneurotic basis for such an
objection, it is useful and appropriate to settle the issue
of whether we are arguing for the sort of “conspiratorial
theory of history” which the wishful skeptic alleges to be
the case.
The most frightening — and therefore most strongly
resisted aspect of the report is the methodological basis
for Rockefeller’s Reesian fascist plot in an associated
theory and practice of interconnected “social control”
and “brainwashing” technology. Since the system of
social control and brainwashing developed by that gifted
reactionary psychopath. Brigadier Dr. John Rawlings
Rees of the Tavistock Institute and World Federation of
Mental Health, premises its fascist scheme on
pathological features of the victims’ existing belief
system, it follows that the individual will refuse to
assimilate the evidence on this point unless he is also
prepared to deal with those profound neurotic disorders
which render him so vulnerable to Reesian forms of
fascist manipulation.
Even after those objections have been confronted, the
wishful skeptic will turn up ever new arguments for
remaining just that until he has been shown that an
alternative exists. This represents the most important if
implicit objection, with whose treatment we shall
conclude this present article.
U. WHAT IS THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY?
According to Federal statute and other myths
concocted for the edifying deception of the credulous,
the CIA is merely a key constituent of the U.S.
“intelligence community,” a mere appendage of the
National Security Council, vying with various
intelligence services, the Defense Department, the
Treasury, the FBI, et al. In the view of wishful and other
credulous persons, the CIA may occasionally perform
“Mission Impossible” types of activities in dealing with
Soviet spies or in enterprising pursuit of the latest Soviet
missile development’s details…nothing more than this.
Only children and otherwise uninformed or hysterical
persons believe such fables.
All the published accounts of the CIA written by
various experts, including former “insiders” of the
“intelligence community,” may be challenged as
partially faulty by virtue of particular misrepresentations
or bias. Yet, sifting out such flaws, too much truth about
the CIA has been exposed, and too much of that truth
abundantly confirmed in other ways, to entertain a
reasonable denial of the fact that the CIA as it appears in
the Federal Budget is merely the legal cover for vast
encroachments on every branch of government and
enormous sectors of private institutions. [16]
In general, James Schlesinger’s takeover of the
Defense Department merely consolidates long-time and
rapidly growing takeover of all military branches to the
point of becoming virtually mere appendages of the CIA.
The Department of Health, Education and Welfare is
one of the several principal bastions of CIA operations
within the U.S. itself, nearing the completion of a
process begun with the establishment of the Office of
Economic Opportunity under President John F.
Kennedy. The Justice Department may have an inde¬
pendent Attorney General, but the FBI under new chief
Clarence Kelley has been taken over by the CIA at the
top, and the more fecently established Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration (LEAA) is nothing but the
principal domestic “covert operations” arm of the CIA.
Rockefeller’s CIA operative Henry Kissinger heads up a
State Department undergoing “reorganization” along
lines agreeable to Langley.
Most major universities are either entirely or substant¬
ially branches of the CIA. At the University of Michigan,
we have the most notorious example of the Institute for
Social Research (ISR), which is merely the focus for
general CIA infiltration and control of many
departments of the university at large. Harvard’s
“Russian” institute is obviously CIA, like Columbia’s,
but also Harvard’s so-called psychology department is a
nest of such overt CIA operatives as the pigeon-brained
B.F. Skinner and Reesian racist Richard Herrnstein,
while the Harvard Sociology Department’s counter¬
insurgency work merely updates overt fascist traditions
dating back to the 1920’s.[17]
Massachusetts Institute of Technology continues its
flourishing CIA activities as extension of its earlier role
as a base of OSS activities. In addition to its special¬
izations as an anti-Soviet “think-tank,” it possesses an
assortment of the most reactionary, CIA-linked social
sciences services in the nation. Its RLE division has been
a nesting place for specialized counterinsurgency
studies since the late 1940’s, while also including those
studies in so-called “Artificial Intelligence” which are
nothing but the development of the use of computers for
brainwashing.
The University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School
houses Eric Trist, a veteran Rockefeller-sponsored
Reesian fascist, who directs a vast network of fascist
social work projects (and actual brainwashing activities)
from his offices at that location. [18] Cornell, Berkeley,
Stanford are notorious CIA conduits.
In general, most of the social sciences and related
departments of major universities today are nothing but
CIA branch operations.
Given the time that has been used to effect such a
result, the outcome is hardly to be considered
astonishing. Through control of governmental and major
foundations, as well as corporate and wealthy-individual
funding, it has been no great matter to control not only
what programs are funded, but to control the selection of
instructors who move into controlling positions as the
older generation of honest academics are weeded out by
retirement (or, themselves corrupted into becoming CIA
establishment operatives or agents).
The CIA control of private foundations is ABC. The
first major foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, was
established by the family following the bloody Ludlow
Massacre of 1914. It was the Rockefeller family which
pressured ironpants Henry Ford into creating the Ford
Foundation, and the Rockefeller family which placed its
agent, CIA operative McGeorge Bundy (of the CIA
Bundy family), at the head of that institution.
As for governmental funding, brainwashing is funded
in part through the National Institute of Health or its
subsidiary, the National Institute of Mental Health. The
National Science Foundation, another conduit
controlled by representatives of the Rockefeller-CIA
establishment, helps out. Recently, the LEAA has been
acting as a CIA funding conduit on its own account. As
the Defense Department is taken over increasingly by the
CIA, its funding programs are slanted to the desired
general effect. Through the “leverage” principle of con¬
tributory (pro rata) funding which has become rampant
in Federal, state and local programs, the mass of
funding controlled directly by the Rockefeller-CIA
establishment, whether through the foundations or CIA-
controlled channels of government, increasingly
determines the direction of flow of fundings from even
non-CIA controlled sources.
A few examples are sufficient to identify some general
dimensions of CIA takeover throughout* the society
generally. [19]
The War in Vietnam — Outdoing private CIA war
against the nation of Indonesia, the U.S. war in Vietnam
began as entirely (1955-64) a CIA war against the
Vietnamese people, with the U.S. ambassador on
premises nothing but a highly-placed CIA operative.
Actual U.S. military units were not introduced into
Vietnam until 1964, and even after that, pseudo-Defense
Department personnel (CIA operatives wearing the
“cover” of military rank — e.g., “General” Ed
Lansdale) must be credited with directing most of the
operations in that theater.
For example, the notorious My Lai war crime
massacre was merely a tiny corner of the CIA’s ongoing
“Operation Phoenix,” whose function was to identify
and exterminate the men, women and children of the so-
called “Viet Cong infrastructure.” Unable to win over
the South Vietnamese populated by other assorted
counterinsurgency tactics (e.g., the “Village Hamlet”
program), the CIA opted for simply butchering those
families discovered to be political sympathizers of the
National Liberation Front. The “Pinkville” butchery was
merely one of many similar SS-type operations.
Equally instructive, the so-called investigation of the
“My Lai incident” was conducted by a CIA operative,
who produced the basis for the “official military” report
which whitewashed all of those actually responsible for
ordering the atrocity.
The Pentagon Papers Hoax — As of this date, no
secret really has been made of the general way in which
the so-called “Pentagon Papers” were “compiled.”
Firstly, the papers were not compiled by or for the
“Pentagon,” but on behalf of the CIA, with complicity of
such CIA adjuncts as the RAND Corporation, with the
selection and supplementary concoction of included
documents performed by such CIA operatives as author
Daniel Ellsberg.
The essential thrust of the project was the assembly of
selected actual documents (many initially created by the
CIA or based on CIA briefings) and supplementary
materials whose overall intended effect was to exonerate
the CIA from responsibility for a wide variety of
unpopular military and related developments which the
CIA itself had chiefly authored. In essence, the effect of
the “Pentagon Papers” was — for anyone credulous
enough to believe them — to whitewash the CIA for its
own activities!
Can it be believed that such an effort was undertaken
with the intended purpose of concealing the false report
under a “top secret” seal? The entire concoction is in the
fine old tradition of the Czarist Okhrana’s notorious
anti-semitic pioneering venture into modern “Black”
psychological warfare, the Czarist-authored “Protocols
of Zion.” Such “secret” documents are written for the
purpose of affording them the widest possible public
attention. The “top secret” classification is the fine hand
of the public relations specialist, who thereby assures
himself that his handiwork will receive the widest
circulation and simultaneously evoke the maximum awe
from among the credulous.
How are such hoaxes put across? Would the CIA
arrange Tor its publication in a way which would be
directly attributed to its sponsorship? Scarcely! A
devious confidence man’s procedure was indicated.
Through Ellsberg’s performance, the desired effect was
secured. An outright fraud was hallowed for a gullible
public by representing the concoction as “a most secret
document, filched from the most intimate files of the
most all-powerful agencies at unspeakable risk by an
astonishingly courageous, conscience-stricken”… Cl A
operative!
The manner in which the desired leak was effected is
only less “hairy” then the papers themselves.
To explain how and why a right-wing CIA operative,
Ellsberg, an associate of General Ed Lansdale, could be
converted, the public has been told that the convenient
“Damascus Road” transformation was accomplished
under the influence of Professor Noam Chomsky of MIT,
an individual with a credible standing as a leading anti¬
war activist. Chomsky’s role as the official dupe in the
affair grows murky when we note Chomsky’s
endorsement of the hoax after its publication. As a
leading anti-war activist, Chomsky had abundant access
to all the knowledge necessary to spot the whitewashing
of the CIA as a blatant fraud.
The publication effected through the usual CIA press
conduits, the New York Times et al., a Rockefeller CIA
operative, Henry Kissinger, allegedly ordered the CIA
unit from the White House basement to investigate
Ellsberg…beginning to set up an even bigger CIA
hoax.
The Watergate Hoax — On a dark and probably
foggy night of mid-1972, a scuttling gaggle of CIA
operatives crept into Washington’s Watergate Hotel,
accompanied by half a platoon of well-known CIA
gusanos, to plant “bugging devices” in a Democratic
headquarters located on the premises. Mysteriously, this
small invasion force was detected — with the aid of a
tip-off! Lo and Behold! The U-hire spooks were taken
with their pay-off money on their persons!
Curiously, for over a year and a half, no one troubled
to seriously investigate the CIA’s involvement in this
affair. CIA officials were politely asked if they had been
involved. Conforming to their statutory obligation to
deny everything under all circumstances, the CIA rep¬
resentatives insisted that they were not in any way
involved. Their perfunctory denial was therewith
promptly treated as gospel.
Once the 1972 election campaign had ended, a pair of
Washington Post reporters produced “strong evidence”
— through a CIA leak — leading not to CIA infil¬
tration of the White House, but to the Presidency
and the Presidency alone.
Undoubtedly, President Nixon has some significant
responsibility for the activities of the CIA. However, no
President since Harry Truman’s term of office has
exerted significant restraints on the Agency. President
Eisenhower checked the CIA significantly less than
Truman had. President Kennedy initially almost turned
the government over to the CIA (“Bay of Pigs,” Peace
Corps, Office of Economic Opportunity, the role of the
Bundy brothers, etc.), and was assassinated shortly after
he began placing preliminary checks in the way of
certain limited aspects of further CIA encroachments.
President Johnson placed no checks upon the CIA, and
i President Nixon, although breathing down their necks at
one point, allowed the Office of the Presidency to be held
captive to the CIA through Rockefeller-linked appoint¬
ments and CIA intrusions made possible through the
mediation of Rockefeller appointees.
By excluding almost axiomatically any effort to
seriously probe the massive evidence leading directly to
the CIA, the list of suspects for investigation was
arbitrarily narrowed to the Office of the Presidency
itself. Such an artificial restriction on investigations, an
hysterical fallacy of composition of all evidence and
argument, meant that the more “dirt,” the more
mystery, the more “cover-up” was turned up, the more
conclusive seemed the evidence against the only agency
permitted to be considered as a suspect.
This point is emphasized at the hysteria erupting from
notorious CIA conduits, such as Jack Anderson, at the
mere threat (e.g., Senator Baker’s low-keyed inquiry) of
investigating some of the more glaring points of hitherto
neglected evidence. The gigantic cover-up in the
Watergate investigations, a cover-up assisted by much of
the leading press, is the frantic suppression of all in¬
vestigations leading toward the CIA.
The investigations afoot are therefore themselves
extremely suspect. Behind the current prosecutions is a
Special Prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, who has a long
history of association with CIA front organizations and
with the CIA’s pet domestic project, the efforts to replace
lawful state and local police and prosecution agencies
with the Gestapo-like LEA A. Obviously, an attorney is
not necessarily prejudiced by his clients, but Jaworski’s
evasion of the lush CIA aspect of the case does justify
suspicion of prejudice.
The case against the attorney for the House Judiciary
Committee processing the impeachment hearings, John
Doar, is much stronger. Doar was an activist supporter
of CIA operative McGeorge Bundy’s New York City
“community control” counterinsurgency operations, and
continues as an official of a Brooklyn organization
known as the “East,” which is directly implicated in
various kinds of criminal activities in collaboration with
the CIA units (LEAA) planted in the Police Department
of the City of New York. Doar prosecuting President
Nixon is a case of the kettle calling the tumbler black.
Not surprisingly, Doar also omits serious consideration
of a CIA frame-up of the President.
HEW Takeover — The CIA’s infiltration of the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare is, next
to the bestial, fascist LEAA itself, the most hideous
aspect of the Agency’s U.S. domestic crimes.
HEW was inevitably a special prime target for John
Rawlings Rees and his followers. Apart from the mili¬
tary-police apparatus features of the CIA plot, the
essential distinguishing features of the Anglo-American
Political Intelligence operations teams is the calculated
use of coordinated sociological and psychiatric
techniques of insurgency, counterinsurgency and social
control generally. The armed features of Reesian fascism
are essentially just that; the essence of the Reesian
system, its fascist quality, is concentrated in its social
and psychological operations.
Rees himself was repeatedly specific and emphatic on
the point involved. The fascist society of the future, he
envisaged, must be made possible through local
“community health services,” including mass-appli¬
cation of psychiatric treatment to populations through
these centers, whether or not those victims required or
desired such services. Aided by diverse fascist agents
brought under his wing during OSS days, such as
Gordon Allport, Kurt Lewin, Kenneth Clark, and their
collaborators, and, using both the London Tavistock
Institute and World Federation of Mental Health as his
personal bases of operations, Rees moved in on U.S.,
Canadian and British governmental social services.
In Great Britain, this was accomplished chiefly with
the aid of British intelligence officers associated with
Brigadier Rees and General Strong, such as Richard
Crossman (Labour) and Powell (Tory), with direct, open
control of those services established under Powell’s
regime in the Tory MacMillan government of the early
1960’s. During this same period, under first President
Kennedy and then President Johnson, enterprises such
as the Peace Corps and Office of Economic Opportunity
were merely the most publicized CIA fronts.
More vicious are the National Institute of Health and
National Institute of Mental Health, which are nothing
but openly criminal organizations, openly sponsoring
Nuremburg crimes against humanity in defiance of the
U.S. Constitution and international law alike.[20]
Even the Left
Contrary to the most naive image of the CIA, which
obviously confuses the organization with the FBI, the
CIA establishment is predominantly “left-liberal” (but
no less passionately anti-communist) in its political
complexion. A few examples here indicate the nature
and extent of the CIA’s infiltration and takeover of what
are usually regarded as even “socialist” organizations.
“State Department Socialists” — One of the most
important of the traditional recruiting grounds for CIA
operatives and agents has been the Second International
and its trade-union bureaucratic component. During the
late 1930’s, together with the Lovestoneites, the Socialist
Party of America provided a significant complement of
operatives and agents for “Cold War” activities both
abroad and domestically. The appellation, “State
Department Socialist,” which they earned during that
period preceding the growth of the CIA’s power, has
stuck despite the prevalent transfer of loyalties to the
CIA itself.
Together with the ultra-liberals of the Americans for
Democratic Action stereotype (Joseph Rauh, et al.) and
the dupes of intelligence agent John Gardner (“Common
Cause”), these SP “Third Camp” types, trade-union
bureaucrats, and a strata of liberal academics provide
the overwhelming bulk of the CIA’s operatives and
agents outside military-type and “Mission Impossible”
specialities as such.
New Left Strata — Recent Labor Committee in¬
telligence studies have firmly identified the founding of
Students for a Democratic Society as a CIA
establishment project, designed as an updated “Zubatov
union” or “Father Gapon movement” [21] for
potentially radical campus strata. The origins in the
“Third Camp” student affiliate of the League for
Industrial Democracy are merely suggestive; the training
of initiating SDS activists in CIA-linked Alinsky or
Alinsky-type programs for operatives recruitment is,
almost conclusive. Certain features of the “programs”
pushed by those trainees are so uniquely counter¬
insurgency designs that the other circumstantial
evidence forms merely an essential part of what is,
aggregately a conclusive case. .
To one familiar with the general history of the Zubatov
unions and Gapon movement,, the analogy is;
exceptionally appropriate. Like the Czarist-police unions
of the pre-1905 period, the attempt to spread the or¬
ganization caused matters to get fairly well out of the
hands of the counterinsurgency agents operating
(chiefly) out of Alinsky’s home base in Chicago. The
Labor Committees’ intervention to organize the
Columbia University April 1968 strike, the 1969 Uni¬
versity of Pennsylvania sit-in, and various Progressive
Labor Party activities are the notable examples of some
degree of successful counter-counter-insurgency which
led to the CIA establishment’s orders for SDS’s self-
destruction in Spring, 1969. (However, how one. deals
variously with counterinsurgency formations is not the
topic immediately under consideration at this point of
our writing.)
The primary purpose for creating the New Left of the
early 1960’s was to preempt the radicalization of college
youth strata to two overlapping ends. Immediately, the
purpose was to prevent the established socialist parties
from effectively capturing the social ferment which had
erupted beginning 1958, which had come to. a focus
around the Cuban Revolution and Civil Rights move¬
ment up through mid-1961. At the same time, with such
enterprises as the Peace Corps, Office of Economic
Opportunity and sundry foundation-sponsored
“community action projects for radicals” in development
at that time, to drain off student radicalism into staffing
of an expanding counterinsurgency apparatus around
the Reesian fascist conception of “local community
control” or “community action projects.”
Not accidentally, therefore, the Reesian fascist social
control techniques of “leaderless group” (“participatory
democracy”) and “co-participation” (corporativism)
were the chief points on which the New Left’s designers
differentiated it from the so-called Old Left. “Post-in¬
dustrial society,” “quality of life” rather than “material
demands,” “community,” and “relevance” were key
phrases by which one could identify the conscious
pseudo-socialist fascist agents within the “movement.”
(Not everyone who was duped into regurgitating such
idiocy, of course, but those who played the role of
Alinsky-type organizers, had the “in” for funding and
other material goodies, and who invariably were among
the first to push each new version of the counter¬
insurgency policy.)
The New Left as such collapsed with the Columbia
Strike of 1968, its constituents later either dispersing out
of “politics,” moving directly into working-class oriented
socialist groups, moving into professional (regularly
employed) counterinsurgency jobs, or into one of three
main types of fascist to proto-fascist groupings: (1)
Weatherman or Weatherman-type groupings, an
outright proto-fascist. Ford Foundation-funding-created
organization; (2) “Maoist” freak groups; (3) counter-
culture-drug-rock cults.
The Weatherman — The break-up of the Columbia
Strike organization was accomplished entirely through
Ford Foundation intervention. Three successive actions
by CIA operative McGeorge Bundy’s organization were
used to isolate the Labor Committees’ hard-core leader¬
ship — in classic Kitson-type counterinsurgency
(“infrastructure”) mode. The first two were open
counterinsurgency moves; the third was covert. .
First, Dr. Kenneth Clark of the Ford Foundation-
funded MARC operation moved in to split off the black
student group from the strike. Clark, who trained under
black-hating racist Dr. John Rawlings Rees, during the
OSS period, is a Reesian psychologist, a member of
(then. Rockefeller’s) State Regents, and one of the
U.S.’s leading counterinsurgency agents “against the
black militant strata. Secondly, an open funding by Ford
was used to cause a significant split-off from the strike
organization, forming “Students for a Restructured
University.” The third, covert move, was the funding of
Mark Rudd et al. through a conduit created by a relative
of former CIA operative Dr. Herbert Marcuse. It was out
of this third, covert operation that the Weatherman
group developed, remaining a CIA “countergang” down
to the present day.
‘Maoist” Groups — The Chinese Communists’
emphasis on austerity, anti-intellectualism, and
“thought purification” lends itself very well to reifying
Maoist doctrine as a cover for the introduction of certain
principal features of Reesian fascism in a “radical”
disguise. It is not surprising that Chinese Communist
leaders’ psychological profiles and Chinese thought-
purification and other social practices have enjoyed such
disproportionate study-emphasis by such institutions as
the RAND Corporation and Reesian sociologists and
psychiatrists generally.
It is obvious that the mindlessness so passionately
embraced by most self-styled Maoist groups provides an
ideal opportunity for the police-agent infiltrator and
provocateur, and the proliferation of such little
groupings the ideal opportunity for creating a variety of
police-created pseudo-gangs in ultra-radical disguise.
What is perhaps only less immediately apparent,
outside the ranks of professionally qualified intelligence
personnel, is that with a slight perversion that sort of
“store-front Maoism” is an almost perfect cover for
outright Reesian fascist gangs (e.g., of the Revolutionary
Union type.)
“Black Nationalism” — The former LeRoi Jones,
recycled by Anglo-American Intelligence into the
zombie-form of Imamu Baraka, is a classic model of CIA
brainwashing and “countergangs” tactics combined into
a single model operation (under the immediate
supervision of “former” intelligence operative Gustav
Heningsburg). In fact, Jones’s conversion into Baraka
was done under the personal supervision of the top CIA
opeative, Dr. John Rawlings Rees himself!
Most of the so-called “black nationalist” organi¬
zations formed after the (conveniently timed) assasin-
ation of Malcolm X are creations of the CIA establish¬
ment. (We shall outline, below, how the Rf Asians see
“black nationalism” as a fascist counterinsurgency tool
against black working-class militancy.)
The Real Central Intelligence Agency
Those examples of the scope of CIA establishment
activities illustrates the broad sweep of the Agency’s
intervention into domestic life. Yet, unlike most
authoritative published CIA exposes, our account
points more or less directly to the principal flaw in the
accounts of such experts as Wise and Ross [22] or
Prouty.[23] The common, glaring fault in the better
exposes is the assertion or otherwise the pervasive
inference that the insidious and illegal encroachments
are essentially the outgrowth of rampant ambitions
within the Agency itself.
Without thereby descending into the bathos of
“dictionary nominalism,” it is most worthwhile to
inquire “Agency” for what or whom? Wise, Ross, and
Prouty border on asking the right questions insofar as
they show that the CIA establishment has acquired the
de facto power to act outside the legal channels and
overview of duly constituted Federal Government
agencies, most notably the Congress and the courts. The
fact that it exerts such power covertly suffices to show
that the CIA establishment has not yet become the
government, but rather represents the base of a kind of
dual power, an illegal, parallel government, continuing
its efforts to become imminently a virtually overt power.
An “Agency” for whom, and why!
The first hypothesis suggested by such evidence is that
the CIA is perhaps the instrument by which the
Presidency is attempting to encroach upon the powers of
courts and legislatures. A second, more credible
hypothesis would be the suggestion that perhaps the
“military-industrial complex,” acting through the
Pentagon, has created and uses the CIA as its secret
arm. Both of these hypotheses are discredited through
the sort of evidence which has appeared during the
1960’s and more recently. The CIA organization of the
“impeachment movement” against President Nixon, and
a pattern of encroachments against the regular military
eliminate everything but the “military-industrial
complex” from the array of probable suspects.
Returning our attention to the flaws in such writings
as those of Wise and Ross or Prouty, we would locate the
difficulty in the fact that they — in the vernacular
proverbial — “miss the forest for the trees.” Granting
the usefulness and probable expertise of most of the
details in their accounts, one would rightly conclude that
their point of view is ninety degrees out of phase.
Although concrete evidence is vital to the case to be
made, such evidence in itself provides only a behaviorist
account of the subject under investigation. Detail
enumerated by itself is mere “bad infinity,” analogous to
cataloguing many of the more important biochemical
constituents of an organism, missing the critical point:
What is the generative principle which makes the
entirety a whole, what determines its whole existence as a
single organism? This included fallacy of otherwise ex¬
cellent expert accounts is the fallacy of reductionism.
Prouty verges on the proper line of investigation in his
efforts to approximate an historical approach to
analyzing the creature. In addition to reviewing the well-
trodden matter of the connection between the OSS and
CIA, he goes so far in the right direction as to locate the
growth of the CIA from Truman through Kennedy in two
respects. On the conspiratorial side, he defines the CIA
as largely the creation of a conniving Allen Dulles, whose
way was eased by the role of brother John Foster Dulles
at State and as a chief confidant of President Eisen¬
hower. Functionally, he emphasizes, quite properly, that
the forces which created the “Cold War” cult thus
created the policy climate, the mystique absolutely
essential to cloaking illegal CIA encroachments in the
magical cloak of “national security.” (At the same time,
Prouty properly emphasizes that the CIA is effectively
more a conspiracy against the U.S.A. itself than the
U.S.S.R.)
The most glaring empirical flaw in Prouty’s history of
the CIA is his over-emphasis on the military side. He
omits that unbroken thread from OSS into CIA which,
not incidentally, has the most direct bearing on the role
of Winston Churchill’s organization of the “Cold War
cult.- He overlooks the essential fact that, from the
inception of the OSS, the modem CIA establishment was
a U.S. financier-promoted Anglo-American insurgency-
counter-insurgency project, and that the single keystone
figure emerging as dominant over the entirety of the
OSS-CIA development is that brilliant psychopath,
Rockefeller-sponsored Brigadier Dr. John Rawlings
Rees.
Once that essential clue is identified, the pre-history of
the OSS-CIA is properly located. On the U.S. side, the
world-outlook leading into the modern CIA
establishment emerges in its first institutionalized form
in the development of the Mark Hanna Civic Federation
movement, in a philosophy exemplified by Mark
Hanna’s famous (and warranted) praise for the old AFL
leaders as labor lieutenants of the capitalist class.”
After the Rockefellers’ bloody Ludlow Massacre of 1914,
the Rockefeller Foundation’s establishment performs an
increasingly prominent and influential role in continuing
and advancing upon the Civic Federation notions of
counterinsurgency, up to the point, today, that the
Rockefeller-controlled foundations, including the Ford
Foundation, express the family’s imminently dictatorial
hegemony among the ranks of giant finance;
The major components of insurgency-counter¬
insurgency technology originate with and continue to
flow from the British junior partner in the Anglo-
American political intelligence establishment. This is by
no means accidental. Since the last decade of the
eighteenth century, prompted by its defeat in the
American Revolution of 1776-1783 (note counter¬
insurgency beginnings in Quebec and India) the British
colonial services accumulated massive experience in
successful methods of social control of subject
populations. ’ <
Ironically, but by no means accidentally, successful
British imperialist political and social colonial tactics
have been premised on the nostrums advocated by the
U.S. Socialist Workers Party, playing upon the divisive
“nationalist” sentiments of the ruled and cooptation
through “local community” forms of “self-government.”
Similarly, from the middle of the nineteenth century,
beginning with its use of philistine “clean trade
unionism” as a counterinsurgency tactic against the
influence of the International Workingmen’s
Association, the British have learned how to exploit the
parochialist neuroses of the population in the industrial
homeland to much the same desired result as appeals to
“nationalist” and “community” sentiments have
effected continued imperialist rule of even so-called
“independent” African nations to the present day.
Despite the recent quarter century of U.S. and
Canadian contributions to the mechanics of insurgency
and counterinsurgency, it is the products of the public
schools of England who continue to provide the most
sophisticated basic concepts upon which the RAND
Corporation and kindred CIA establishment “think
tanks” work.
The Anglo-American (including Canadian) intell¬
igence establishment was, from its inception, the
merging of U.S. material resources and talent for en¬
gineering gimmickry with British counterinsurgency
conceptual leadership.
The British approach to military problems of
imperialist rule at home and abroad has traditionally
been that of solving the problem represented by limited
regular military forces in the effort to rule over
populations with the implicit capability of defeating
those military forces. This is expressed to the present
day, by current statements, from the Whitelaw-Kitson-
Chalfont cabal to the effect that the British Army, now
smaller than ever, is a more effective force than ever
before — largely in consequence of the recent training
experience in Northern Iceland.
The essential solution to this problem, from the
standpoint of the British political intelligence stratum, is
to employ an armamentarium of sociological and
psychiatric weaponry to the effect of so ‘ dividing the
subject population against itself that the military forces
are never confronted with more than the small material
force represented by a hard core resistant to a generally
effective combination of sociological and psychiatric
weapons of control.
The philosophy of the Anglo-American intelligence es¬
tablishment is to transform the regular military es¬
tablishment along what are now popularly known as
“special forces” lines of training, equipment, and
deployment, which the British call “low intensity
operations” and the U.S. often prefers to term “stability
operations.” At the same time, especially since the
studies completed during the late 1950’s, the essential
task of the CIA establishment is to lead the way to a
society of the future, a special kind of fascist regime in
which the military officers of the past have been weeded
out and replaced by a new type Of officer corps composed
of cadres trained in both regular and “low intensity”
military operations, but also trained through education
in economics, politics, etc., to become the government.
(The Greek military dictatorship and the present gov-
ernment of Peru are exemplary products of CIA training
programs of the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, programs
developed to prepare the way for a more or less uniform
array of such governments through the capitalist world.)
This is currently surfacing in the heated effort to
establish a NATO-run “Atlantic Community” to replace
the EEC (Common Market). The CIA scheme for fascist
world government (e.g., James Schlesinger et al.) is a
“Western” military establishment under direct CIA
control, which as a whole represents what is called a
“flexible response” force.
This “flexible response” military machine is to have a
two-fold capability. In its ostensibly purely military
features^ it is to be organized around the Schlesinger-
associated myth of a “first strike capability” against the
Soviet Union, with the U.S.A. controlling the U.S.-
NATO deployment of such military capabilities. [24] The
second capability will be directed against “secondary
targets,” which is a euphemism for the cities of one s
own nation. (It is most strongly suspected that even
nuclear-missile submarines of the U.S. fleet either
presently have or are intended to be given last-ditch,
Rockefeller-selected “secondary target” programs aimed
against the major cities of the U.S.A. itself.)
In addition to the reorientation of a significant part of
regular military units (including U.S. regular army and
national guard) to the special-forces tasks of conducting
My Lais against U.S. cities and towns, the CIA es¬
tablishment has prescribed the replacement of ordinary
state and local police forces by a national counter¬
insurgency police force modelled on Hitler’s S.D.-
Gestapo, such as the LEAA is already rapidly becoming
in the U.S.A. itself, and as the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police is becoming in Canada.
Significant as these military and paramilitary aspects
of the CIA establishment’s illegal efforts may be, the
main bulk of the establishment’s work is concentrated in
fascist forms of sociological and psychiatric programs, in
connection with which the names of such Nuremberg
criminals as Dr. John Rees, Dr. Kurt Lewin, Dr. Nathan
S. Kline [25] and similar psychopathic degenerates are
most prominently associated. It is this latter, pre¬
dominant feature of the CIA establishment which the
celebrated expert exposes omit to consider. Hence, by
such a fallacy of composition in their accounts, they omit
consideration of that vital, conclusive evidence which,
once considered, immediately answers all the important
questions of What, Who and Why?
In brief, then, the CIA establishment is a Rockefeller-
family-sponsored and essentially Rockefeller-family-
controlled fascist conspiracy, a conspiracy whose
military and paramilitary features are merely essential
adjuncts of the fascist sociological and psychiatric con¬
ceptions developed by a mass of academics and
professionals headed up by the late Dr. John Rawlings
Rees.
The Case of Nixon
It is of secondary importance that there is absolutely
no love lost between Governor Nelson Rockefeller and
President Nixon, or that Nixon has occasionally trodden
upon or has threatened to tread upon the toes of the
CIA establishment. Despite those not unimportant
secondary aspects of the matter, since his 1960
nomination, Nixon has functioned largely as a de facto
part of the larger CIA establishment and substantially as
a tool of the Rockefeller interests per se.
Certainly, Nixon knew in advance the Rockefeller-
faction backgrounds of so many of his key appointees,
and was sufficiently experienced to know that the
creation of the White House “plumbers” unit opened
the basement to direct infiltration by the CIA. He has an
excellent political (if probably poorer “biological”)
appreciation of what Henry Kissinger is.
Given the conditions which most of its citizens (and
foreigners) presume to be the continuing state of affairs
for the U.S.A., Rockefeller had no ordinary reason to
assume that the Nixon Administration would not carry
out CIA establishment policies to approximately the
extent that the political traffic would bear. Nixon is more
or less exactly what he appears to be — undoubtedly
with a bit more fight in him than some Rockefeller
supporters expected.
On such premises it would appear insane for the
Rockefellers to permit, let alone organize, the
impeachment movement unloosed through . the
Watergate hoax. Such an astonishing turn could occur
only if Nixon were sabotaging a vital policy, or if it were
of a high order of expediency to drastically discredit the
Presidency and the Congress.
We had foreseen the probability of Rockefeller’s
dumping Nixon at precisely the point that the crushing
of the organized labor movement had been accomplished
[26], although not then in terms of the specific type of
conspiracy which has become so abundantly manifest
during most recent months. Proof of Rockefeller control
of the CIA establishment, his essential complicity in
setting up the energy hoax, and the CIA responsibility
for setting up the “Pentagon Papers” and “Watergate”
hoaxes, as well as the CIA’s unleashing of the
impeachment movement (through leaks to the
Washington Post from a CIA conduit), indicates that the
general conditions for a calculated Rockefeller dumping
of Nixon had matured, as we had earlier foreseen, but in
a special fascist form we had not foreseen in that way
until recent months.
Abstractly, President Nixon could readily and
effectively counterattack, on almost any given morning,
to send Rockefeller and the CIA reeling back. However,
apart from such abstract possibilities, a counterattack
against Rockefeller would necessarily lead to massive
“anti-trust”-type reprisals against Rockefeller et al. by a
jointly-enraged general public and major elements of
leading political machines. Even in the second rank of
leading financial circles, the mass of wealth attached to
Rockefeller bones would make most enticing pickings for
the Wall Street vultures who either had been stung by the
Rockefellers or found it expedient to break from him to
join the pack. This “danger” to “free enterprise” and
not-unconnected other issues of Dixon’s conservative
philosophy and social base box him in, massively hinder¬
ing him from defending himself as an individual political
figure from a crushing attack on even his entire sense of
personal identity.
In essence, the CIA establishment has Nixon psycho¬
logically profiled to be defeated, as Well as surrounded by
a massive concentration of Rockefeller supporters in the
White House and Executive generally. They also control
him by controlling his briefings, which, on all critical
matters, depend substantially upon the CIA itself, Henry
Kissinger, or, otherwise, any number of Rockefeller es¬
tablishment stooges in Defense, Treasury, HEW,
Justice, as well as the Federal Reserve Board of
Governors.
“Dissolve the CIA”?
It is to be doubted that a Congressional Act virtually
liquidating the CIA itself would do much damage to the
CIA establishment at this point. It is too late— or,
perhaps only almost too late, for such remedies. That
should have been accomplished during the early 1960’s.
Typified by Schlesinger at Defense, Clarence Kelley as
head of the FBI, Gestapo chief Santorelli ensconsed in
Justice, McGeorge Bundy at the Ford Foundation, et al.,
the CIA establishment is not only deeply embedded
through domestic life, but perhaps the point is now
imminent that it no longer critically depends upon the
existence of the CIA proper for coordination of its
activities as a whole. In any case, a completed CIA
takeover of the military and LEA A takeover of police,
prisons, and Federal, state and local key prosecutors’
offices, and a q^uiet transition from democratic capi¬
talism to fascist terror will have been accomplished with
enough veneer of pseudo-legality to stop the few feeble
protests aroused by such events.
At the top levels of government, it is now only possible
to deter the CIA establishment. The CIA’s fascist
takeover this year can be stopped only by an enraged
mass of working people.
3. THE ROCKEFELLER CIA CONSPIRACY
The economic-theoretical background needed to
understand the most essential features of the Rocke¬
fellers’ manifest decision to institute fascism in the ad¬
vanced sector has been sufficiently outlined in Socialism
or Fascism? [27] and various other published treatments
of the current economic situation. [28] Not only is capi¬
talism “objectively” driven to select fascist alternatives
by processes underlying the deepening economic break¬
down which erupted over the March 1968-August 1971
period; the Rockefeller family has consciously adopted
fascist economic policy under the name of “Zero
Growth. ’’[29]
As early as the eighteenth century’s Physiocrats, it had
been formally acknowledged (in various ways) that the
available combined real absolute rent, debt-service
payments, and profit for a capitalist economy are limited
to the absolute margin of expansion of production of
useful wealth which occurs from one epoch to the next of
the totality of a society’s productive development. [30]
Consequently, a “Zero Growth” capitalist society is, by
definition, one in which the available absolute margin of
“earned” rent, debt-service payments, and profits must
be zero or less… unless those three forms of capitalists’
income are obtained by cannibalization of the essential
means of human existence and productive capacities
themselves.
Since such an economic form of capitalism prohibits
government through manipulative appeal by capitalists
to the improvement of the self-interests of the ruled, no
“Zero Growth” model of capitalist economy can tolerate
the persistence of traditional democratic institutions.
This means, as a corrollary, that not only must existing
forms of such democratic institutions be discredited and
destroyed, but that the subject population must be so
intimately policed and terrorized that the organic
tendency to reconstitute democratic institutions is
efficiently prevented. Consequently, whereas mere
police-state terror by itself is traditionally sufficient to
maintain capitalist looting by cannibalization in under¬
developed sectors of imperialist semi-colonial rule, the
organic tendency for democratic institutions in advanced
sectors renders mere police-state rule insufficient as
more than a brief transition to’ a more stable form of
such economic regime: fascism.
The most notable prior model for such a modern
“Zero Growth” economy is Nazi Germany.
Under Nazi financier Hjalmar Schacht, from 1933
through 1936, German capitalists’ prosperity was
obtained through a “chain letter” credit system of “Mefo
bills,” which was propped up, in turn, by canni¬
balization of the German working class (speedup,
drastically reduced wages, inflation, and depletion of the
quality of the diet) and existing productive capacities.
During the 1936-37 period, it became obvious to Schacht
and other Nazi leaders that this autarchic system of
cannibalization was rapidly approaching^ a point of
depletion. In response to that problem, the Nazi
economy obtained its stability through the looting of
Germany’s neighbors: Austria, Czechoslovakia,
Scandinavia, the Low Countries, Poland, France, the
Soviet Union, Italy, etc. Since Schacht was concerned for
the inflationary effects of massive military budgets, he
was eased out of portfolio positions, but his essential
economic cannibalization (“Zero Growth”) program was
extrapolated to its inevitable conclusions (slave
labor/death camps) by his successors.
The slave-labor and death-camp systems of the Nazis
are not quirks of Hitler and his associates, but an
intrinsic expression of the fundamental policies of any
“Zero Growth” capitalist economy, Rockefeller’s
included. It is impossible to have “Zero Growth” policies
beginning today without mass genocide tomorrow.
Rather than averaging out the rate of cannibalization
over the entire subject population, cadres of largely-
German skilled and semi-skilled labor were maintained
in a marginally functional state of productive well-being
through a policy of concentrating the thus-redoubled
rates of cannibalization upon the bodies of slave and
“guest” workers, with special emphasis on political
dissidents, Slavic peoples, gypsies and Jews. The con-
of the Italian, French and “Nordic” workers was inter¬
mediate between the German cadres and the slave-
workers.
The average rate of cannibalization of raw materials
and productive plant was similarly differentially dis¬
tributed to the relative enhancement of German
industries.
Contrary to the manifest wishful thinking of some
Soviet spokesmen, both those of 1939-41 and today, it is
impossible to separate the adoption of fascist “Zero
Growth” policies in the “West” from the imminence of
early attack on the Soviet bloc itself. 1 he pressures which
quickly build up within the fascist economy lead rapidly,
as was the case in Nazi Germany, toward an hysterical
impulse to relieve internal looting pressures through
looting foreign soil and populations.
It is also impossible to adopt a “Zero Growth” economic
policy today without a conscious policy among leading
financier circles to impose a fascist regime upon the
subject population of the advanced sector.
What is Fascism?
Neither the Soviet leadership nor its “Trotskyist”
critics have yet developed a scientific or even useful
definition of the term,/ascwm. (Liberal academic efforts
along these lines are too wretchedly incompetent to even
consider mention.) The analysis of this matter numbers
among the unique achievements of the Labor
Committees. [31]
Fascism has two ultimately interdependent aspects,
which should be considered separately at first, so that
the connection among these phases can then be properly
sorted out. As a mass-based movement, fascism is an
outgrowth of anarchosyndicalism and Papal ideology
[32] whose effect and intent is to counterpose to Marxian
or “Bolshevik” “centralization” and “collectivism” the
“natural” radical impulses of the fragmented
constituency group. The atomization of the population
by fascism renders it the suitable last resort for a political
base of support of the ruling financiers under those
conjunctural circumstances in which capitalists’ (either
conscious or de facto) “Zero Growth” policies destroy
the usefulness of democratic capitalist institutions.
Modern fascism unites these two interdependent
aspects of fascism in general. By “modern fascism” we
mean specifically Rockefeller’s fascism or the conscious
fascist model developed for the Rockefeller-dominated
interests by Brigadier Dr. John Rawlings Rees and his
collaborators. By conscious, we emphasize that Rees et
al. proceeded from Rees’s close, admiring studies of the
Mussolini and Nazi fascist movements and states, to find
there a starting-point whiclj coincided with similar
features of British colonial experience.
By the end of World War II, these studies had already
taken form of a long-range fascist plot. Although the
Rockefellers have not been reluctant to dabble in use of
such “independent” fascist organizations as the Italian
MSI, the main, distinctive thrust of the Rockefeller-Rees
plot was the directed imposition of sophisticated fascist
form of social organization from above — as distinct
from capitalist sponsorship of and collusion with a
fascist movement developing a mass base somewhat
independently of immediate financier direction of its
development and operations.
The emphasis contributed by Rees et al. to this effect
was the application of psychiatry to the refinement of
then-existing fascist schemata, supplemented by actual
brainwashing of even significant masses of the subject
population.
The object for Rees and his collaborators was to
discover the suspectibilities (specific psychoneurotic
tendencies) which caused populations to join and
support fascist organizations. On the basis of such
inquiries, packages were developed. These packages
included the training of (Saul Alinsky-type) government
and foundation-sponsored organizers. Such organizers
were disguised as “radicals,” under which cover they
would intervene in foci of social ferment, proposing
“radical solutions” and forms of organization of “radical
constituencies” which would draw the dupes gradually,
step by step, into the form of an actual fascist movement
around the fascist notions of “nationalism” and the
fascist principle of “radical” struggles for “local
community control.”
This radical counterinsurgency organizing (Saul
Alinsky and his emulators are the pure type of such CIA
operatives and agents) has been coupled with direct
counterinsurgency of the sort we can trace in
developments through CIA operations in the Phili-
pines, Greece and Vietnam, or British operations in
Malaysia, Aden, Kenya and Northern Ireland. The
“radical” Saul Alinsky-type organizer is the “soft cop”; ‘
the military or paramilitaiy counterinsurgent of
“Operation Phoenix” notoriety i^ the “hard cop.” The
quasi-supportive “radical organizer” and aversive
environment created by the military or para-military
boys thus represent the two essential social-control
elements of a brainwashing situation.
The New Left/“locar community control”/“ecology
movement”/“Naderism” in the recent U.S. experience
amply document the essential features of the “radical”
counterinsurgency facet of the conspiracy. “New Left”
versus “Old Left,” elaborated as the CIA counter¬
insurgency concept of “particpatory democracy” in
opposition to vigorous intellectual life in policy-making,
the concept of “participatory democracy” as wilful self¬
sabotage of any potential for coordinated tactical
deployment of masses against repressive forces. “Post¬
industrial society,” a Ford Foundation-sponsored bit of
nonsense whose practical point, as a counterinsurgency
weapon of ideology, introduced the proto-fascist notion
of “Zero Growth” as a “radical” ideology. Rejecting or
degrading “material demands” in favor of “non¬
material demands,” is another step in the “radical”
counterinsurgent’s attempt to brainwash the dupes he
influences. “Quality of life,” “co-participation,” etc.,
are further down the road, virtually reaching explicitly
fascist policies. The intensification of fascist “local
community control” ideology to the point that the dupes
accept such fascist police proposals as “blockwatchers,”
etc., represents the successful transformation of the
counterinsurgents’ dupes into an actual fascist
movement.
All the elements of the present plot — takeover of
government agencies, universities, “radical”
movements, the energy hoax set-up,’ the conversion of
military forces into “low intensity” operations forces, the
introduction of the Gestapo-like LEA A, and the massive
use of brainwashing — are not only all planned devel¬
opments, but the progress of this planning and its
implementation is ’ indantly documented in the
published writings of chief exponents and practitioners
involved! Any person who denies that a fascist plot is in
progress is either totally uninformed, illiterate, or sitnply
an hysterical fool.
The Conspiracy In General
The Reesians’ other principal addition to fascist
technology, “brainwashing,” is applied as an adjunct of
the military and paramilitary features of the Rockefeller
fascist conspiracy. Although the internal features of
brainwashing methods are “genetically” only an
intensification of fascist “radical organizing” projects,
their application is more appropriately situated, as we
have just noted, within the military/paramilitary
context.
The Rockefellers’ military/paramilitary counter¬
insurgency operations are typified by the blood};
“pacification” programs used in Malaysia, Aden,
Vietnam, etc., for which the bloody crime of My Lai
stands as the best-known example. The general point of
such efforts is to isolate and destroy the “hard core”
political base of support of the fascists’ opponents by the
general methods borrowed from the Eastern and
Southern European practices of the Nazi S.S.
The general principle expressed in “Operation
Phoenix” can be and has been adapted for application
in circumstances of political climate which do not yet
permit open deployment of Special Forces-type as¬
sassination teams against civilian populations gen¬
erally.
Provided that the courts, prosecutor’s offices and
police forces themselves are subverted by CIA-linked
agencies (e.g., LEAA), and that the leading capitalist
press condones such crimes, regular CIA-infiltrated law
enforcements units can be — and have been —
extensively deployed in illegal covert operations (frame-
ups, etc.) which have the same purpose and similar
general effect as My Lai-type operations.
It is in this context of covert CIA police operations that
“brainwashing” serves the fascists in a two-fold fashion.
The “brainwashed” dissident is mentally murdered in
fact; provided the Rockefeller forces control the majority
of the psychiatric profession, especially the state-
controlled psychiatric institutions, a fairly efficient form
of murder can be perpetrated without significant risk
that the fact of the crime can be exploited by the victim’s
former friends and associates. Such a “brainwashee”
can also be used to assist directly in staging frame-ups of
other dissidents, or used as members ot a zombie
“counter-gang” — such as the New Alternatives Group
(NAG) of brainwashed ex-Labor Committee members
and their supervising police operatives. The threatened
transition from current LEAA-FBI-NAG-linked
operations against the Labor Committees to outright My
Lai tactics against broader strata of the U.S. population
is one of degree, not involving any essential difference in
principles. The essential distinction between the two
degrees is summed up in the phrase, “what the present
political traffic will bear.”
In summary, the Rockefellers’ Reesian fascist plot is
identified by the following principal features.
(1) It is a classical fascist plot in the sense that
conjunctural economic-political developments of
aggravated monetary crisis have impelled the dominant
financiers’ faction to opt for fascist quasi-legal over¬
throw of existing democratic institutions.
(2) It is a classical fascist plot in the essential respect,
that like Nazi Germany, it is the inevitable consequence
of a conscious decision by financiers to institute a “Zero
Growth” economy.
(3) It is a consciously fascist plot in the respect that it
has been deliberately prepared during a period of over a
quarter century, and consciously premises all the
principal features of its designs on the fusion of the Nazi
and Mussolini models with the counterinsurgency
experiences of the British colonial office.
(4) Unlike earlier fascist movements, the Rockefeller
fascist movement is primarily initiated from above, thus
attempting to short-cut the traditional road of semi¬
independent evolution of ma^s-based fascist
organizations along the lines of the Mussolini and Nazi
models.
(5) The principal, consciously formulated features of
the intended fascist political superstructure are: (a) the
takeover of all regular military institutions by “the CIA”
(e.g., of U.S. Defense Department, NATO, etc.); (b) the
replacement of political parties by the CIA-controlled
military officer corps, an officer corps trained to serve
jointly or alternatively as regular military, paramilitary,
police, and “civilian government” operatives (if political
parties nominally exist under this arrangement, they will
exist only to the extent that their existence and
functioning is chartered by the CIA junta); (c) the
modelling of both military (“Waffen SS”) and
paramilitary police (e.g., S.D. or LEAA) on the Nazi
S.S.-system, inclusive (in the USA) of transforming the
FBI into a “Gestapo”;
(6) The integration of the paramilitary political police
force (e.g., S.D.-like LEAA) with the fascist
organization of the population (e.g., “local community
control,” “co-participation”) through such flagrant
imitations of the Nazi S.S.-system as the employment of
“townwatchers” and “block watchers” as Gestapo
operatives within the pores of the population;
(7) the integral role of large-scale brainwashing activ¬
ities as a routine police activity of “thought-control,”
with the majority of licensed psychiatrists and psychol¬
ogists already trained (e.g., in the U.S.A.) to function as
a criminal “thought-police” cadre force.
The development of the real CIA, the Anglo-American
political intelligence cabal, the CIA establishment,
has been essentially directed to a systematic infiltration
of all principal existing institutions, an infiltration which
is a deliberate, preparatory deployment aimed at the
establishment of a “quasi-tegal” fascist takeover through
which a “1984” model of capitalist society would be
imposed on all the countries of Western Europe, North
America, Japan, and Oceania.
‘^Conspiratorial Theory”? As we underlined earlier in
this article, the last resort of the muddle-headed
academic or journalist, when he can no longer deny the
massive factual evidence of Rockefellers’ fascist conspi¬
racy, is to insist that all such facts must be “bad,”
because to accept them would be tantamount to
adopting a “conspiratorial theory of history. ” This is the
point at which to treat that matter.
In the broadest permissible usage of the term conspi-
ratorial, nothing is implied but the qualitative
distinction of man over lower forms of animal life. It is
precisely the voluntary element of human existence
which determines and is all human history. [33] In that
restricted sense, the term history and conspiratorial are
only two different ways of expressing the same notion.
The academic historian who does not accept such a
^conspiratorial” notion is by definition no historian.
To summarize the related point we have developed at
length, repeatedly, in other writings, what distinguishes
man from the lower animals is his deliberate (i.e., volun¬
tary) alteration of his mode of reproduction of the mate¬
rial conditions of human life. For reasons developed in
our cited writings, human history is defined by those ten¬
dencies in successful human innovation (as distinct from
“blind alleys” of social evolution) which orders human
society as a whole according to the increase or decrease
of negentropy in its social-reproductive “Thermodyna¬
mics.” [34] From the standpoint of such an “ecological
thermodynamics” [35] man has willfully advanced, in
effect, from a poor Pleistocene species of animal to a
succession of higher species, in such a way that general
evolution’s main dynamic has been shifted in effect from
the biological domain (in the reductionist sense of
biological) [36] to the mental. It is not man’s mental
behavior as such which is so distinguished, but his wilful,
qualitative advancements in his conceptual powers to
wilfully determine whole ranges of mere behavior. It is
that aspect of human deliberate activity through which
the historian properly studies that progress of these
conceptual powers which is the proper subject of history.
It is in that restricted sense that the terms, history
and conspiracy, are precise equivalents.
The properly pejorative usage of the epithet “con¬
spiratorial theory of history” is limited to those forms of
childish adults’ fantasy in which the neurotic individual
expresses a belief in magic. He imagines that man can
will almost any arbitrary form of existence (utopia or
anti-utopia) into being without regard to those real
conditions which delimit both the undermining of
specific old institutions and the possibility of inducing
acceptance of one or more feasible alternative sets of new
institutions and modes of behavior. Man chooses: that is
the immediate content of all scientific notions of history.
Yet, man is not able to choose absolutely any alternative
arbitrarily, as if by magic, by witchcraft. Man can
only choose, on the one hand, to end the domination of
old institutions which have become vulnerable to
supersession, and man can choose to supersede those by
selections from a limited range of new alternatives.
The essential choices at any critical juncture in the life
of the individual or society are among two spectra of
choices, one representing effective social-reproductive
entropy and the other effective negentropy. Essentially,
in that way, man can choose among several delimited
types oif pathways leading variously toward extinction or
human progress.
That is Marx’s view of this problem. [37]
There is, in opposition to Marx’s view, a semi-
coherent criticism of “conspiratorial” analyses, a
criticism peculiar to capitalist ideology. The kernel of the
argument employed by its proponents is inevitably
cognate with the quack economists’ worship of the myth
of the “invisible hand.”[38] It is ironical, but not
accidental that such criticisms are advanced for the
stultification of the gullible chiefly by those same
academics whose appointments are directly or indirectly
determined by capitalists. Hence the irony of a denial of
the role of conniving by the de facto agents of persons
whose wealth has been amassed by the rawest conniving.
Clinically speaking, such academic criticisms have a
twofold aspect. As capitalist propaganda, these
criticisms rationalize the continued submission of the
ruled. In that respect we meet the academic apologist for
capitalism in his role as an agent of his employer. Yet, it
must not be denied that the propagandists for these
views frequently argue from the strongest “sincere”
personal convictions. This is the second clinical feature
of the matter: the passionately-convinced slave teaching
the ideology of s’lavery out of the need to morally justify
his own willful self-degradation.
The criticism offered is itself a far cruder absurdity
than “modern” attempts to trisect an angle with ruler
and compass.
This absurdity is most flagrantly manifest whenever
the critic of “conspiratorial” analyses angrily opposes
efforts to predict the course of history. It may seem
queer, and rightly so, that those same academics who
otherwise argue for the absence of anything but a strictly
lawful determination of historical processes should
couple that argument against “voluntarism” with
hysterical denunciation of the view that the course of
development is largely predictable. Why this queer
paradox? How do they attempt to reconcile this os¬
tensible absurdity of their views?
The motive for the fear of predicting become clear as
our attention progresses from the crude, academic
notion of prediction (i.e., “vulgarly squatting outside the
universe”), to a pracrica/outlook on the question. Since
the voluntary component of historical development is the
selection of willful courses of action to alter history, pre¬
dicting is clinically indistinguishable from schizophrenic
fantasies until the reality principle is incorporated in the
personal activity of predicting. For me to predict is a
meaningless gesture unless I include the requirement of
adducing what I am morally obliged to do. That locates
the essential distinction between magical (e.g., schizo¬
phrenic) “crystal ball” predicting, mere academic
divination, and a persisting outlook on life in which /
take responsibility for forseeing the ultimate outcome of
mjv own acts and omissions. Without such prediction
there is no personal morality. Without such personal
commitment, no sane predicting.
The person who disallows prediction on principle is
simply a wilfully immoral person. His opposition to pre¬
dicting is an hysterical effort to escape viewing his res-,
ponsible acts, to avoid knowledge of the consequences of
his chosen behavior. He is essentially analogous to the
“good Germans” under Hitler, who protected their con¬
science by not looking in the direction from which a cer¬
tain smokestack could be noted.
He is not simply an immoral person. Rather, he does
act to effect a result he deems predictable enough; he
acts to propitiate certain established peer-group or other
“authorities” as a means of securing what he regards as
personal security or gain. He reports his neighbors to the
local Gestapo to enhance his personal security, but
refuses to consider the predictable consequence of such
degenerate behavior upon his society and ultimately
himself. His fear of prediction is his fear of being con¬
fronted with. evidence of his own immoral nature.
Predicting is the characteristic concern of Spinozan or
Promethean man, who seeks and accepts personal res¬
ponsibility for the present and future well-being of
humanity as a whole. The fear of prediction is the
morality of Uriah Heep, the hallmark of the sycophant,
the schlemihl, who needs to rationalize his refusal to live
as a man, his refusal to accept personal responsibility to
act as history demands of him. The schlemihl prefers to
leave the making of history to “duly constituted, estab¬
lished authorities,” while he nonetheless retains his
philistine’s self-righteous prerogative to criticize the
result of this with characteristic personal detachment
from responsibility, for such outcome of his own
profession.
The academic who simultaneously derides prediction
and voluntarism may be logically absurd but is clinically
consistent. The consistent feature of his profession is his
principle that the willful determination of the course of
history is the exclusive prerogative of the capitalist es¬
tablishment. In denouncing voluntarism, he is merely
insisting that the subjects must regard the will of the
rulers as divine, as a virtual law of nature. His derision of
prediction in his sycophant’s defense against the im¬
position of any law upon his rulers, and corrollary to
this, his refusal to take personal responsibility for the
consequence of any act he wilfully performs on the in¬
structions of his master.
How, then, is it possible that such moral degenerates
of academia, etc., can regard themselves as truly
human? They are not; they are infantile.
This subhuman quality of such academics, et al., is
efficiently symptomized by the discovery that the ration¬
alizations they offer depend upon the implicit premises
of an infantile belief in magic. [39]
The “lawfulness” in which the infantile believes is the
permanence of the power of mother s magic to maintain
his personal world order within the bounds of cir¬
cumstances where favorable outcomes are never
hopelessly out of reach. In his fantasy, as in those soap-
operas which accordingly appeal to the most pitiful
forms of fantasy-life, he is the “hero,” for whom every¬
thing must ultimately turn out “beautiful” in a final
moment of tearful rejoicing. Danger, suffering, set¬
backs are for him akin thus to the “Perils of Pauline.”
“Something will turn up,” “Everything will work out
better in due time,” “Have faith.” To admit that ab¬
solute catastrophes must be prevented by acts of per-
sonal responsibility is to cease being that pathetic
pseudo-adult, to cease being that Macho, that Pap-
pagallo, that jock, whose ability to function is dependent
upon hearing the friendly, warm swish of his mother’s
skirts within his unconscious mental processes.
The academic disguise for such belief in magic is
generally cognate with Adam Smith’s notion of the
“invisible hand” and corresponding queer sorts of belief
in a “probabilistic determinism.” In such superstititious
forms of determinism, history is indeed represented as
ultimately subject to some sort of lawfulness, at worst a
collection of old wives’ maxims of the soft made popular
tty the “Chicago School” of quack economics. In the
more “sophisticated” classroom versions of such in¬
fantile superstitions the causal connection among
successive arrays of events is determined by factors
involving so-called randomness.{4(i\
According those views, it is morally wrong to attempt
to directly determine the course of events in the macro¬
realm. However, in the micro-realm each “molecule”
(each individual, each isolated event) can randomly
choose alternatives among the minutiae, each type of
such choice involving what is termed a “factor.” The ag¬
gregation of minute choices can then, sometimes, occur
as a coincidence of accumulated choices in the per¬
ceptible dimensions of the macro-realm.
To understand that world-outlook in something more ‘
usable than mere descriptive terms, it is indispensable to
locate such rationalizations in clinical terms, as ex¬
pressing a belief in witchcraft, a witch’s theology:
The world-order in macro can not be wiljtilly,
directly determined by any witch. Yet, each in¬
dividual witch may magically ordain an unlawful
occurrence in very small, personal matters [essen¬
tially the influence of the microscopic alternatives of
good luck or bad luck presumed to affect isolated in¬
dividuals]. If there chances to occur a cumulative co¬
incidence in the effect of microscopic interventions
by millions of such witches, then and only then could
a permissible wilful ordering of the macro-realm
fortuitously occur through witchcraft [e.g.,
voluntarism].
The world-outlook associated with the Friedman
school in economic quackery is exemplary of the general
method as encountered in all professions. Warlock
Friedman seizes upon every undesired occurrence in the
macro-s^ale as evidence of the immorality of attempted
direct interventions in management of the economy,
restricting the controlling role of government to its
peculiar God-given essence as a regulator of fiscal and
monetary aggregates. All good, he deems, must occur
through the miraculous interventions of the “invisible
hand.”
To the extent that the Friedmanites have occasionally
been successful in locating instances of mismanagement
by Federal “intervention,” it can be shown in fact that
the unhappy outcome is not intervention in itself, but
wrong-headedness, the countervailing consequence of
inherently misguided, because capitalist, efforts to act
against the inescapable principles of capitalist contra¬
dictions. Friedman’s own prescriptions represent the
very worst sort of option for the capitalists on just this
account. Friedman’s “libertarian” notions (which,
notably, do not extend to police matters) are simply
rampant infantilism in shoddy academic disguise.
One should properly insist that capitalism is and
always has been intrinsically conspiratorial, oX least in
the restricted sense in which we have applied that term.
The foundations of capitalism were situated in the
connivery by which episcopal and other feudal grants to
loot existing sources of wealth were secured by
Renaissance mercantilists. The organic development of
capitalism thereafter is located in the continuation of
such political means {primitive accumulation of profits
against existing wealth) and in investment and pro¬
duction decisions which, in turn, have been determined
largely by macro-circumstances themselves substantially
ordered by interventions of leading financial powers in
the policies of states. As financial power became more
immediately interdependent and concentrated, the
capricious decisions of a diminishing handful of
dominant financiers have intensified the susceptibility of
the course of events to the ukases of a tiny number of
chief conspirators.
That dismal aspect of current history is not lacking in
potentially positive features. The increased con¬
spiratorial powers of the Rockefeller family interests and
machines reflect the acceleration of immediate inter¬
dependency of the underlying, world-wide productive
forces, a trend which represents a successful develop¬
ment of society to over-ripeness for more directly wilfull
determination of the human condition. It represents an
over-ripen ess of society’s development for the control of
human history through a total, if open “conspiracy” of
the entire working class population.
The case for the development of thermonuclear fusion
power is dramatically illustrative of the theoretical issues
involved. For society as a whole, the development of such
alternative power sources (and accompanying new
technology in general) is the paradigm of continued
human development and existence itself. At present,
through a “Manhattan Project” scale of “brute force”
development effort, a successful breakthrough to imple¬
mentation could be obtained within five years. The
Rockefeller interests, through their hegemony in private
thermonuclear research and their indirect (CIA) control
of the Atomic Energy Commission, have the power to
either cause or suppress such an urgent effort. It hap¬
pens that such a breakthrough would be inimicable to
their financial interests, financial which are thus
counterposed to human interests in the most funda¬
mental fashion. The real, predictable outcome of the
choices thus defined — the absorbing chain of al¬
ternative choices — exemplifies the historical lawfulness
permeating and delimiting choice in the voluntary (e.g.,
“conspiratorial”) determination of history.
The issue before us is not whether or not the world
should be, is, controlled by conspiracy. In the sense we;
circumscribed the proper use of the term, modern
society is lawfully conspiratorial by nature. The only
sane practical question arising from that reality is:
Which conspiracy shall prevail? That of the CIA
establishment grouped around the fascist Rockefeller
family? Or the vast democratic institutions of the
world’s working-class population?
4. THE ROLE OF JOHN R. REES
The most striking experience for our specialists, as
they began to trace out the vast plot, was the persistence
with which every background study of leading fascist
agents led quickly to Rees. Even at this relatively ad¬
vanced stage of our investigations, the question has yet to
be adequately resolved: for what reason did the Rocke¬
feller establishment of three nations (the U.S.A.,
Canada and United Kingdom) elect to place such
enormous resources and authority at the ‘disposal of this
one, admittedly gifted British psychopath? We leave the
ultimate answer to such questions to one side; that
particular answer could not be of decisive importance to
the case under consideration. It is the question itself
which is most useful to us. There is no doubt of one
thing: for whatever mysterious reason behind his
selection for this role, the Rockefeller family did select
Rees,^ and in consequence he has been the principal
architect of the “1984” fascism which the CIA establish¬
ment is now engaged in constructing.
Rees’s personal life as such is of little importance to
us, barring our being presented with sufficient clinical
detail to adduce the circumstances which produced so
hideous a creatur6. His writings, his position in affairs,
his enormous and indeed monstrous itinerary, and his
manifest influence are sufficient resource for what is
important for us to consider here.
Like his most famous predecessor, Adolf Hitler, and
his most notorious patient, Rudolf Hess, Rees dates the
beginning of his political career as a fascist from the
anti-communist atrocities of the period immediately
following the October, 1917 Bolshevik Revolution —
when Rees served as a medical officer in Churchill’s
British expeditionary force invading the Caucusus
region. According to his own account, Rees spent the
overwhelming majority of his adult years as, first, a mili¬
tary psychiatrist, and later on as the most influential
operative of both the CIA and British Political In¬
telligence.
His known connection to the Rockefellers begins in
1934, in connection with the sponsorship of the then-
Tavistock Clinic. [41] After the transformation of that
clinic into one of the world’s leading fascist “think-
tanks,” the Tavistock Institute, at the end of the war,
Rees moved onward and upward, directing his Tar-flung
and expanding influence and operations through the
CIA cover known as the World Federation of Mental
Health.
^ The theme of all of Rees’s known work is the
development of the uses of psychiatry as a weapon of the
ruling class. There are three dominant features in this
approach. Firstly, Rees emphasized the value of the
militaiy both as a model for “improvements” in civil
affairs institutions and its admirable latent potential to
provide efficient government. Secondly, Rees em¬
phasized the importance of applying First and Second
World War military psychiatric experience as paradigm
for a system of community mental health clinics, through
which counterinsurgency psychiatrists could forcibly ad¬
minister “therapy” to large populations, free of existing
legal restrictions, and whether or not such populations
desired such “therapy.” Thirdly, Rees stressed the
importance of affording psychiatrists a consultative role
in designing various kinds of administrative and social
programs of government and industry. One should not_
be astonished that the late George Orwell conceived his
1984 novel after a period of exposure to a group of Rees’s
followers.
In general 4he appellation “brilliant psychopath”
aptly sums up the man and his work. Nonetheless,
something more exact is wanted on this point respecting
his work.
At the outset, it must seem difficult to gauge Rees’s
mental abilities directly from his limited literary output.
By his own emphatic admission, he was an omnivorous
plagiarist. It would be extremely difficult to isolate
Rees’s own formulations in the ordinary way of deter¬
mining such things. An indirect, but nonetheless ef¬
fective approach is wanted.
Rees’s role was that of part-activist, pre-eminent¬
ly administrator. As an activist, he consulted to gov¬
ernments. He shaped the Haitian dictatorship of “Papa
Doc” Duvalier, with assistance from Dr. Nathan S.
KlineT Toward the end of his life, in 1968, he per¬
sonally supervised the transformation of a battered,
broken, and terrified ex-poet, LeRoi Jones, into the
zombie Imamu Baraka. As an administrator, he advised
and guided the development of his collaborators and
subordinates, adding his personal touch in giving
direction to both the shaping of their contributions and
the coordination of wide-ranging efforts among a far-
fiung fascist establishment of sociologists and
psychologists.
The proper approach to our inquiry is implicit in the
use of the slogan “England has a Reesian mission ” by
Rees’s collaborator, Enoch Powell. Reesianism is
uniquely located in the pattern which unifies the varied
conceptions and activities of his innumerable collabor¬
ators. [42]
The dominant feature of Rees’s work is his con-
centration’on those features of Anglo-Canadian military
and British colonial experience which coincide with
fundamentals of the Nazi S.S. system. His approach to
such studies was always to locate in the potential fascist
subjects those psychoneurotic susceptibilities which
could be played upon by the ruling class to effect
“happy,” willing subjugation. The Nazi “Strength
Through Joy” and the hideous concentration-camp
slogan, “Work Makes Free,” are ideally Reesian catch-
phrases.
For those “purists” who must insist on finding racism
as the root of all fascist movements, Rees proves most
satisfactory. Like his crony, racist British Nuremburg
criminal. Dr. H.J. Eysenck, and like such U.S. Reesians
as Shockley, Herrnstein, et al., Rees was a raving anti¬
black racialist, whose entire fascist schema revolved
around “‘the theme of the “constitutional inferiority” of
blacks, their typical fitness only for “menial work,” the
happiness they would find only away from the strains of
literacy in happy reconciliation to intellectually un¬
challenging drudgery.
This is underlined rather than contradicted by the
work of Rees and Kline in Haiti or Rees’s own key role in
creating the public relations myth of Imamu Baraka. For
the “constitutionally inferior” blacks of Duvalier’s Haiti,
Rees’s subcontractor, Kline, prescribed drugs and
voodoo cults. The same triumphant racist sadism is
rampant in Rees’s personal creation of the zombie,
Baraka. “Kawaida” and the literally mind-damaging
Baraka-run elementary school are the sort of self¬
degrading “geek act” which only the most viciously
psychopathic anti-black racist could propose that blacks
ado|)t as an “ideology.”
Those are only isolated cases. Through his base in the
WFMH, Rees’s influence soon took over within the
National Institute of Health and National Institute of
Mental Health. Although the activities undertaken by
those U.S. government agencies were explicitly in¬
dictable as crimes against humanity under the
Nuremberg Law, Rees had little difficulty in extending
his influence in that way. Between the Rockefeller
family’s long-standing control over the American
Medical Association and American Psychiatric Associ¬
ation, and the encroachments of the CIA establishment
into all branches of government, various governmental,
including military funds, were used to push the develop¬
ment of brainwashing and to plant Rees proteges in key
locations. As Rees OSS student, B.F. Skinner’s position
at Harvard was established in this way. Another Rees
student. Dr. Kenneth Clark, moved into Rockefeller’s
New York State Board of Regents and also into the key
black counterinsurgency post (MARC) of the Rocke¬
feller-inspired and Rockefeller-controlled Ford Foun¬
dation. Dr. Nathan S. Kline, one of the worst Reesian
criminals, heads New York State’s Rockland State
Hospital and is in a key position at New York’s Columbia
Presbyterian Hospital, where a broad and old tradition
of brain-butchery thrives.
The list of his crimina] influences, mostly-Rockefeller-
linked, is enormous. [43] These are being reported in
detail elsewhere. We proceed here to the kernel of his
methodology.
5. THE KERNEL OF REESIAN FASCISM
Reesian fascism and Reesian brainwashing are inter¬
connected, criminal expressions of the identical method¬
ological approaches to the Rockefeller family’s problems
of maintaining control of their subjects under conditions
of “Zero Growth” or Schachtian economic policies. All
■^Rees’s techniques proceed on the sanie essential
premises as those of Rees’s most notable collaborator,
another Rockefeller protege. Dr. Kurt Lewin.
For related reasons, despite the elaborate reticulation
of hardware and software developed by the Anglo-
American CIA establishment, the central premises of all
those techniques are rudimentary and the repertoire of
specific techniques developed necessary permutations
of an essentially limited variety of basic types.
If the kernel of Reesian psychology and sociology is
studied from the vantage point offered in our “new psy¬
choanalysis” series, one soon appreciates why the CIA
was so acutely alarmed by the publication of those art¬
icles that it is currently spending millions of dollars
(characteristically, of other agencies’ funds!) each month
in the desperate effort to discredit our work on that
account alone. Given relatively modest means to do so,
we have the knowledge wanted to destroy what the
Rockefeller establishment has been developing over a
period of over a quarter century.
This point was made to us in the most striking way as
we pulled together so much of the Reesian output during
the first weeks of this year. Our analysis of the “mother-
itnage” problem, of anal phobias, of schizophrenia, etc.,
are — although Without being developed to those speci¬
fic purposes — explicit antidotes for the very kernel of
the Reesian’s professed psychiatric and sociological
techniques.
The essential premise of the work of John R. Rees
and Kurt Lewin is the premise that certain kinds of
“democratic” institutions represent far more efficient
instrumentalities for fascist dictatorship than the tradi¬
tional, straightforwardly “authoritarian” models. Their
work pervasively emphasizes the point that if the con¬
trollers can succeed in structuring a stressed individual’s
or group’s situation appropriately, the victim(s) can be
induced to develop for himself a special sort of “reaction
formation” through which he “democratically” arrives
precisely at the attitudes and decisions which the dicta¬
tors would wish to force upon him.
Proceeding from that point of reference, Reesian
forms of brainwashing (those practiced by the Anglo-
American CIA establishment) and the fascist slogan of
“local community control” are kindred products of the
identical “therapeutic ” approach: the former explicitly
in the domain of psychiatry, the latter explicitly in the
domain of sociology.
“Brainwashing”
To avoid confusion and groundless forms of objection
to what we have to outline in this section, it is useful and
undoubtedly necessary to define the proper usage of the
term, “brainwashing.”
Brainwashing is a state of induced psychosis, resem¬
bling paranoid schizophrenic psychosis, brought about
through procedures of so-called programmed behavioral
modification. In addition to being merely an induced
psychotic state, brainwashing is also what the layman
usually assumes it to be, a modification of the victim’s
state of mind to the effect that the brainwashee is under
the effective control of an agency on whose behalf he was
conditioned.
By adhering strictly to the qualification of control, our
use of the term brainwashing incurs only a few, minor
difficulties, but also eliminates very efficiently a wide
spectrum of avoidable fears and unnecessary confusion
which might occur in connection with that fearful term.
We repeat, our usage of the term, brainwashing, is re¬
stricted to the cases in which the psychotic state induced
by programmed behavioral modification is (or was) in¬
curred as a means of exerting control by an agency on
whose behalf the crime was perpetrated.
The only problem we incur by that restriction is the
need to provide a special category for victims who were
formerly brainwashed, but who have been freed from
control. It is essential to have such a clinical category be¬
cause of the permanent damage accomplished. The
victim out of control may nonetheless suffer continuous
or recurring psychiatric symptoms. The victim who has
been remitted from both control and psychotic effects
will require psychotherapeutic treatment for aggravated
neurotic difficulties as a result of the experience, inclu¬
ding possibly irreparable damage to those specific close
personal relationships (including marriage, relationships
to parents) against which the brainwashers necessarily
operated.
The advantage of the restriction in meaning is mainly
practical. Let us address ourselves to certain widespread
fears as a convenient way of approaching the key points
to be made.
It is technically possible for any trained operators to
brainwash almost anyone of about thirty or under given
appropriate circumstances. The most obvious of these
circumstances is provided by a prison or mental institu¬
tion, in which the selected victim is helplessly con¬
strained within a controlled environment twenty-four
hours a day, with hope of release psychologically distant
in terms of the stresses which can be applied by those
who control this environment. There are more restric¬
tions upon the possibility that a private agency or group
of persons could accomplish a similar result outside of a
special institutional setting.
Most important in the connection, in those instances
in which the victim were brainwashed by any agency but
the government itself, the victim would tend to, automa¬
tically remit from a controlled state within a relatively
brief period away from the institution or special private
group which had perpetrated the crime upon him. He
would suffer functional damage to his mental health as a
result of the experience, might even be driven to psycho¬
sis, but he would remit from control.
Therefore, if there are any nurhbers of brainwashed
persons walking the streets, they remain brainwashed
solely because they have been brainwashed on behalf of
the U.S. government itself. In the vernacular of the pro¬
fession, the diagnosis of brainwashing is inseparable
from the identification of controlled environment. As a
corollary, clinical demonstration that a person is brain¬
washed, under appropriate circumstances is sufficient
prima facie proof that the brainwashing was performed
on behalf of the U.S. government. Likewise publicly dis¬
band both the FBI and the LEA A, and virtually every
brainwash victim walking the streets in the U.S.A. will
automatically remit from a brainwashed state within
days.
We do not profess to know all the possibilities of “brain
surgery” and “electronic brain stimulation” as methods
of brainwashing, but, for functional states, whether or
not assisted by psychopharmaceuticals and ECT, the
decisive feature of brainwashing is fear or the virtual
omnipresence of an inhumanly aversive authority.
The other qualitative feature of brainwashing, the
induced psychotic state, is readily understood from the
standpoint of our writings on the “new psychoanalysis.’’
Essentially, the victim is first reduced
to a state of infantilism (e.g. as recommended by the
strange Doctor Janov of the “primal scream’’ cult), and
is then induced to form a psychotic pseudo-personality
on the basis of modified, mother-image-centered “ego-
ideals.”
While the pseudo-personality is operating in the
“safety” of a controlled environment (i.e., “protected”
by the police responsible for the brainwashing!), he or
she may not appear to brainwashed or particularly
disturbed to the untrained, uncritical observer, (Just as
victims of an LSD-25-induced state of psychosis some¬
times may outwardly appear to be rational to the casual
view of the layman.) However, competent clinical at¬
tention will invariably evoke conclusive evidence of a
paranoid schizophrenic state. Or, remove the victim
from the reach of the police for over twenty-four or
perhaps as much as forty-eight hours, and overt disasso-
ciation will erupt within that period or an even briefer
lapse of time.)
The schizophrenic symptoms are classical and unam¬
biguous, however masked they might appear to the un¬
critical layman. (If one has clues to the personality and
belief structure of the victim before brainwashing was in¬
duced, the tests are directly made.) The victim’s sense of
reality is turned inside-out. “He” or “she” (the pseudo¬
personality) becomes “I,” and the pseudo-I now attri¬
butes the value attached to former beliefs and activities
to present activities.
For example, in the near-dozen cases of NCLC, RYM,
and NUWRO members conclusively known to havfe been
brainwashed for either the CIA or LEA A, the victim
characteristically accused the Labor Committees of
“brainwashing” its members (a clinical impossibility),
and reflected his or her own personality by attributing a
profound personality reversal to me at approximately the
point in time they themselves underwent brainwashing!
Everything aversive done to them by their new “peer-
group,” the CIA-LEAA controllers, they attributed to
the Labor Committees.
The queer sort of inverted psychological truth to all
this is the fact that they were brainwashed because they
were NCLC, RYM, or NUWRO members; therefore
the NCLC, RYM, or NUWRO is responsible for their
brainwashing! It requires only a slight twist of tortured
schizoid “rationalization” to associate to the next for¬
mulation: “The Labor Committees brainwashed me,”
which is schizophrenic shorthand for the truth, “/
brainwashed by the police because I was a member of the
Labor Committees.**
In general, the reality principle is the basis for all the
appropriate clinical observations and tests. “What color
is this?” “What is this odor?” “What is the use of this
object?” “Who is this?” What happened on…?” It is
important to get beyond the sometimes speciously-
rational parsing of the schizoid’s prose utterances to exa¬
mine whether the statements make sense by simple tests
of the perception of sensory and social reality. The
brainwashee’s psychotic state will reveal itself quickly by
hysterical little ruses, intended to divert his own atten¬
tion away from reality in a controlled area of behavior.
(Or, as we indicated before, if there exists the possibility,
through legal powers of parents or spouse, to commit a
victim to clinical observation safely away from police
access for a term of several days, the result will be either
a tellingly prompt police intervention or an abundant
outpouring of the most blatant symptoms of paranoid
schizophrenic states.)
A Black Ghetto Case History
Although we do not presently know directly whether
or not LeRoi Jones (Imamu Baraka) is clinically brain¬
washed, a farly recent case of a brainwashed RYM mem¬
ber from Newark shows why the possibility of Jones’s
brainwashing is at least a moot question.
The victim, whom we shall identify as M_, was a
young black male ex-prisoner, continued on probation,
who had been a committed RYM organizer for five
months prior to his brainwashing. His setup began in
January, through collaboration among his probation
officer, the New York City FBI office, and the Newark
Gestapo, the literally fascist LEAA organization domin¬
ating the Newark that John R. Rees created for the Pru¬
dential Life Insurance Company. Whenever he visited
New York City, he was hound^ back to Newark by
threatening visits from the FBI. In Newark, he was sub¬
jected to intensive harassment by the LEAA, including a
series of beatings performed at random in the vicinity of
his home, threats to his family, etc.
This was the first step: terrorize the victim into re¬
garding the entire world as a police-controlled environ¬
ment (with the help of the FBI), constantly hounding
him back to Newark (from which the FBI ensured that
there would be no escape), where he was almost daily
subjected to illegal beatings, imprisonment, etc., by the
outlaw LEAA forces. The LEAA usually says to the
victim, as it did in this case, “See, nigger, we can get you
anywhere, any time, and do anything to you, and there’s
not a goddamn thing you can do about it.”)
During this period miraculously appeared the local
NAACP, which offered him educational opportunities
and subsidies — provided he get out of RYM. Suddenly,
“new friends” appeared from nowhere, offering parties,
inducing him to resume abandoned drug habits, etc.,
and slipped him drugs which were strange to him at
parties which turned out to be difficult-to-remember but
terrifying “rap” sessions.
Over a period of weeks of the new friends and their
drug-laced parties and strange “rap sessions,” the RYM
member underwent a pronounced personality change.
At first, it was his old rational self spiced with moments
of psychotic episodes of hilarity and rage alternately,
during which psychotic periods he became a kind of
combined “Holy Roller” and “black ultra-nationalist.”
Over a period of less than eight weeks, a solid RYM
cadre was degraded into a mindless zombie!
Terror, self-degradation assisted by psychotropic drugs,
with the victim’s mind taxed to find a way in which to
appease the aversive psychological pressures, the sheer
terror his exhausted psyche is enduring. The psychotic
episodes become more frequent; one day, his mind is
gone. He was brainwashed, an agent of the LEA A
fascists who have destroyed him.
Needless to say, when the criminals responsible come
to their Nuremburg trial, there will be an accounting, as
there will also be for every academic, every professional
social worker, psychologist, psychiatrist, any judge who
plays any part in maintaining any part of this network of
criminal behavioral modification practices.
… Especially the Rockefeller family and such fascist
degenerates as Jewish fascist Dr. Nathan S. Kline, men
whose committed and intended crimes should make the
ghost of Adolf Eichmann vomit.
Brainwashing in General
In effective Reesian “Pavlovian” or “Chinese” brain¬
washing, the controllers are usually obliged to avoid
directly informing the individual victim what he or she
must come to believe. Rather, the aversive situation is
intensified, the controller-operator maintains a sugges¬
tion of being won over in the future to help the victim
escape terrors, and the victim is essentially left to per¬
sistently “rework” his or her biography and belief-system
without ever being certain that he or she has finally hit
upon exactly the “answers” that will win over the con¬
troller and thus solve the problem of intensifying terror.
It’s all done by suggestion, a hideous caricature of psy¬
chotherapy.
Psychopharmaceuticals are important. Drugs to faci¬
litate the hypnosis used to bring the victim under con¬
trol. Drugs for the victim to use daily (“outpatient”) to
prevent breakout from controlled compulsion to return
to the next treatment-session. Drugs to induce various
degrees of dissociation (e.g, psychedelics) and sug¬
gestibility. ECT used either to destroy adjacent
memories, or employed short of massive convulsion to
cause other special effects. Prolixin for general control,
etc., etc. They are important to facilitate the crime’s
accomplishment, and important for the serious damage
they accomplish in the victim. Yet, it is not the drugs
that accomplish the brainwashing; they merely assist a
process which must be essentially understood in entirely
non-medical terms,
“Local Community Control”
In a broad sense, as we have already stated, all Rees¬
ian methods of social and psychiatric control of the
victims are premised on the same essential principles
directly encountered in brainwashing as such. Moreover,
any Reesian form of social organization will tend to
cause mass brainwashing in the members of such a
group if the stress applied is sufficient and sufficiently
prolonged — the members of the group will effectively
brainwash one another, using the term in its strict
clinical sense. However, in considering the following ex¬
amples of Reesian fascist forms of social control, it were
more to the point to regard the results achieved upon the
victims as merely in the general direction of brainwash¬
ing.
Rather than summarize the procedure itself at the out¬
set, and then illustrating the application, we shall de¬
velop two illustrations, introducing summary discussion
of the procedures along the way, and then summarize
general the general case at the conclusion.
First, we shall consider the example of neighborhood
“community organizing,” and then analyze the
example of Reesian use of “black nationalist” ideology.
Organize a group around the identification of a neigh¬
borhood group, and assign them the task of solving a
problem identified as peculiar to people of that neigh¬
borhood. Set up the composition of the group and its ad¬
visors or source of information such that the group can
remain united only if it adopts “actions” to solve
the problem within the constraints and techniques
available to forces represented by that neighborhood
“committee” constituted as such a narrow “interest
group.” The “community organizers”, assigned to this
counterinsurgency task must not tell the members of the
neighborhood group (the dupes) what solution they are
intended to adopt (e.g. by the Ford Foundation or the
HEW employers of the community organizer), but these
“organizers,” acting as controllers of the neighborhood
organization will accomplish the intended result by sug¬
gestion. Certain clues will be “placed” where they will be
noticed by the group.
The programmed behavioral modification of that
neighborhood group is effected by manipulation of city
hall, etc., to create a controlled environment. “Acci¬
dental” problems with refuse-collection, or some other
conveniently timed small stress will be applied. Mean¬
time, certain doors will be closed and certain other doors
will open at municipal offices. A certain friendly channel
of influence will turn up.
The problem has been solved. The group now believes
that it has discovered an efficient, “democratic” way to
solve local problems, totally unaware of the fact that
every part of the little drama was staged. They look at
the “community organizer,” vaguely “feeling” that he
has somehow contributed to the happy outcome, but un¬
able to see how his “non-directive” approach and re¬
peated emphasis on “participatory democracy” (or some
equivalent, hackneyed slogan) could have permitted him
to perform such an “elitist” role. He is the self-effacing
(“I’m only an outsider; you have to decide.”) friend who
“never interferes.” They do not suspect.that they are vir¬
tually zombies (at least in the terms of the present
arrangement) and he in fact is their controller.
Furthermore, they would absolutely deny that this
“friend” of theirs is actually a fascist. Yet, he is, even
though he might not yet have even suspected it himself.
(After all, fascism became a pejorative term after its
deeds became manifest. Until the new, Reesian fascism
becomes generally recognized as a specific ideology, etc.,
most of its dupes would be sincerely incredulous at the
suggestion of such a name.)
Now, the first little pilot experience completed,
ACTION proceeds to the next step. The heat is applied
to the neighborhood. The limited forces represented by
neighborhood residents participating in the ACTION
group are insufficient for this one. A quiet suggestion
from the “non-directive” controller, and passion is
applied to getting everyone in the neighborhood out. The
same process is repeated.
The LEAA arranges to have a few break-ins and mug¬
gings occur over a period of a week or so. By now, the
“grey rumor” network is organized in the apartment
buildings of the neighborhood, perhaps through the
leading floor activists of the LEAA-promoted “tenants’
patrol.” A minor panic is worked up, a march on the
local police precinct station arranged, where the LEAA
“police community relations” operative maintains a
sober expression (holding down his wish to let out a
belly-laugh at the sight of these stupid cattle who are
being so beautifully manipulated).
“Well, there is the “blockwatch’ program,” either he
or the ACTION community organizer makes known.
The neighborhood still hasn’t the slightest sense of
reality about the affair to date, and it has already taken
the first step to bringing fascism right up to its doorstep.
“Gestapo blockwatcher? Mrs. Jones? Nonsense!” Irish,
Black, Italian, Jewish, Puerto Rican, neighborhood after
neighborhood in New York, Philadelphia, etc., is being
transformed into a pack of “good Germans” through the
offices of ACTION and the fascist LEAA.
Little actual violence. Quiet. Slick. No “Nacht und
Nebel” yet — until the people on the block face a real
problem and try to move seriously against their actual
oppressors. “Nice Mrs. Jones” will then confide to the
“police community relations.” Mr. Black, who was
showing signs of becoming a leader is thus picked out
and brainwashed… Also, Mr. Williams, another activ¬
ist, “claims it’s a’ frame-up, but I heard that … You
never can tell, can you?” Fascism, hideous fascism,
creeps in on “democratic community ACTION” feet.
The Tactic Against the Left
Undoubtedly the most telling example of the potential
effectiveness of Reesian methods is the process by which
the bulk of today’s professedly socialist organizations in
the U.S.A. are either outrightly fascist groups or signifi¬
cantly influenced by Reesian fascist groups and ideology.
The so-called Revolutionary Union (R.U.) is the
largest and noisiest of the outrightly police-controlled
and altogether Reesian fascist groups calling themselves
“socialist.” The RU’s current activities are highlighted
by direct collusion with the Parkhurst “Overdrive”
organization, a professedly right-wing, union-busting
organization modeling its tactics on the right-wing
Chilean self-employed truckers, headed by an indivi¬
dual who has been actively engaged in union-busting
against Teamsters in particular since the early 1%0’s.
(Parkhurst’s activities are, not miraculously, partially
funded by the nation’s largest Teamster employers.) RU
meanwhile has acquired de facto control of the editorial
policies of a formerly pro-Soviet publication, the
Guardian (the erstwhile National Guardian).
The formerly “Trotskyist” Socialist Workers Party
(SWP) has been taken over by CIA-linked police agen¬
cies, to the point that its principal public activities are
currently exclusively supportive of counterinsurgency
projects, including several publicly linked to the LEAA.
A large faction of the mainland branch of the Puerto
Rican Socialist Party (the faction nominally headed by
Ramon Arbona) has been taken over totally by the
LEAA, to the point that the Arbon faction publicly
joined with the Hartford organization of the SWP in
defense of an overt LEAA police recruiter, Sengali.
Through opportunism (probably assisted by infiltra¬
ting agents and brainwashing of some YWLL members),
even the Communist Party has overtly allied itself with
several notorious CIA operatives since at least late
March 1973, the most flagrant and significant case being
that of Ed Schwartz, former leader of the National Stu¬
dent Association.
The largest of the classic sort of professedly socialist
“swamp” groups, the New American Movement
(NAM), is riddled with known counterinsurgency oper¬
atives, and devotes itself (not accidentally) to pushing
Alinsky-type “projects” focused upon orgainzed labor
and other targets.
Exemplary of this state of affairs, most of the profess¬
edly socialist organizations, including the more notable
cases listed, violently defend such open CIA-LEAA
“movements” as the Rees-designed Kawaida NewArk
organization of Rees-created zombie Imamu Baraka
(Leroi Jones). To leave no doubt who is behind them,
since the first of January there has been a most remark¬
able coincidence in timing and content in attacks on the
Labor Committees by these groups at the same time that
that exact new line and content of attack is being initi¬
ated by the LEAA and FBI!
This Reesian fascist takeover of most Left organiza¬
tions in the U.S.A. began with the New Left’s “radical
action projects,” as typified by the Tom Hayden-led
Alinsky-model organizing in Newark (pre-1967). In¬
creasing OEO and Ford Foundation penetration and
control of organized ferment among ghetto and student
strata confronted the existing socialist organizations of
the middle 1960’s with a Reesian-type controlled en¬
vironment. Their eagerness to recruit from such ferment
confronted them with strong pressures to adapt.
The SWP Case
The case of the SWP is the clearest illustration, an
especially appropriate one, since the SWP was, after the
CPUSA, the only significant so-called “Old Left”
organization left over from the 1930’s during the early
1960’s.
The collapse of the SWP’s attempted united fronts
with the CP (the 1957-59 “Regroupment” tactic), and
the ebb in the SWP’s recruiting prospects from the Civil
Rights and Cuban Revolution upsurges of the turn of the
decade, produced a cannibalistic orgy of cliquist frenzy
within the group over the Winter and Spring of 1961,
after which the organization slid into demoralization for
over a year.
Following that period, the SWP leadership entered
into support of a “reunification” between most of the
supporters of its international faction (the self-styled
International Committee) and the opposing faction (the
self-styled International Secretariat), the factions which
had split the old Fourth International during the 1953-54
period. This “unification,” accomplished over the 1962-
63 period (to the inevitable accompaniment of new splits
from each of the unifying factions), introduced the SWP
to its initial dosage of Reesian ideology through the
influence of Belgian La Gauche editor Ernest Mandel.
Mandel, spokesman for the reunification faction of the
International Secretariat, had adapted his politics to the
Reesian ideology through the influence of a notorious
figure, Renard. Renard, now happily deceased, a classic
counterinsurgency agent of the British type, attempted
(with modest success) to wreck the Belgian working-class
movement along communalist lines in the wake of the
1960 Belgian General Strike.
By the Summer of 1963, the SWP itself had adopted
the first dosage of Reesian ideology on its own account,
principally through the spokesmenship of a Detroit-
based, embittered old “proletarian” activist, George
Breitman.
Breitman, finding himself situated in the midst of a
massive counterinsurgency project figure-headed by the
Reverend Cleage, adapted to the extent one might have
expected had he been clinically brainwashed. That is, he
produced a psychoneurotic’s modification of the classic
“Trotskyist” belief-system, a profound attitude change
approximately 120 degrees away from the traditional
SWP policy on the class struggle. The core of this was his
proposing an almost wholly uncritical support of Rever¬
end Cleage’s counterinsurgency movement, and a
Reesian attitude toward “black nationalism. ” Speaking
generally, if an “old Trotskyist trade-union activist” had
been clinically brainwashed by present-day LEAA
methods to support Reesian counterinsurgency ghetto
projects, the victim would have produced more or less
exactly the result manifest in Breitman’s 1963 resolution.
It is fruitless to speculate now on the question whether
or not Breitman was or was not brainwashed over the
Winter of 1963. Given the identity-crisis and related
stresses upon him at that time, the situation itself would
have sufficed to produce such a fundamental modifi¬
cation in his “belief structure.” Brainwashing was
developed by Rees as a deliberate exploitation of the
kinds of psychopathological personality changes
classically associated with “battle neurosis.” In that
respect, brainwashing replicates among a larger number
of people what might have occurred “accidentally”
among a relatively tiny number of persons.
More the the same point is obtained from the fact that
Breitman’s proposal was adopted by the SWP’s 1963
convention. Certainly, the majority of those delegates
were not clinically brainwashed. Rather, as a small
group (the SWP had only several hundred members at
that time), the organization was being subjected to the
same sort of manipulation as a whole as we outlined for
the case of the ACTION-sponsored neighborhood group.
A small group, for which membership identity already
existed, which had been demoralized over the Winter*
Spring 1961 period, lacking the least perspective of
actual socialist or even mass-labor struggles, was con¬
fronted with the problem of obtaining the material
essentials of its existence per se (members, money,
prestige) within its tactical resources as a small group in
a manipulated environment. Breitman’s “de facto brain-
washee’s” profession of new attitudes corresponded to
the potential clinical disorientation of a majority of SWP
members.
During the 1963-64 period, the SWP and its youth
affiliate, the YSA, maintained its hand-to-mouth
organizational existence largely in a milieu controlled by
the Office of Economic Opportunity (e.g., Lower East
Side “Mobilization for Youth”). Its conditioning thus
proceeded, pushing it deeper into proto-Reesian ideology
from the starting-point articulated by Breitman.
The next qualitative degeneration of the SWP was
accomplished on the initiatives of agent Jack Barnes.
Barnes, who never showed the slightest inclination of
capacity for articulating a political or any other theoreti¬
cal conception[52], had been a fast-rising young
huckster within the YSA, attaining de facto leadership of
the youth group by late 1964. Over the Winter of 1964-
65, after almost six months of stagnation of SWP-YSA
gate-receipts[53], Barnes returned from a national tour
with a proposal to plunge into the SDS-sponsored anti¬
war protest project.
Barnes did not merely propose engagement in that
project, he proposed adaptation to the counter¬
insurgency aspects of SDS ideology, touring to indoctri¬
nate SWP and YSA members in employment of “non¬
directive” adaptations to the principles of “participatory
democracy,” etc.
The first anti-war project Barnes led was the calcu¬
lated splitting of the SDS anti-war formation, pandering
to New Left anti-CP ideology to accomplish this. There¬
after, appropriate doors magically becoming open to the
SWP-YSA during the ensuing period, Barnes et al.
performed a key role in policing the anti-war movement
— with an alternately hot and cold role in including and
excluding the CP forces. So, with the help of others, the
SWP made the anti-war movement what the CIA in¬
tended it to become: i.e., a ‘‘countergang” operation
against potential pro-socialist political ferment. Essenti¬
ally, this meant using the prospect of “new forces” to the
political right to become a lever of pulling the entire anti¬
war left itself to the right.
The principal sources of new recruits to the anti-war
movement and the SWP-YSA were “community-
action’’-oriented “constituency” movements and New
Left campus youth were thus reinforced in their
tendency to adapt to OEO and Ford Foundation-spon¬
sored “constituency” political movements.
(This is not the location in which to detail the various
counterinsurgency ins and outs of the anti-was move¬
ment as a whole — e.g., the interplay among the SWP-
linked right-wing, the anarchist factions, the CP forces
in between, and the small socialist grouplets scuttling
ineffectually around the fringes of each of these three.)
The measure and testing of this process of counter¬
insurgency conditioning of the SWP (and many other
Left groups) occurred throughout the Summer and Fall
of 1968. The 1968 New York City Teachers’ Strike was
the point of inflection at which the SWP-YSA rapidly
lost its vestigial connections to socialism, and proceeded,
rather rapidly, to become the fascist organization it is
today.
The collusion of the Ford Foundation, the Office of
Economic Opportunity, and New York’s Mayor John
Lindsay, in setting up the 1968 Teachers’ Strike can be
regarded as one of the decisive national events of the past
quarter century. In short, it represented the first of a
series of efforts to weaken and break the organized labor
movement with the aid of fascist organizations.. .with
most of the existing Left organizations in the city oppor¬
tunistically duping themselves into supporting such a
fascist action.
The NCLC Case
It does not follow from the SWP’s case that Reesian
methods necessarily succeed. The NCLC’s hegemony in
the U.S. socialist movement today proves the point to be
made. The Labor Committees, which were initiated in a
preliminary fashion in mid-1966 and founded on the eve
of the 1968 Columbia University strike, have had a rate
of growth in numbers and influence which is absolutely
spectacular when contrasted with the expansion of the
SWP-YSA or CPUSA-YWLL, or the collapse of the
Progressive Labor Party (PLP) over the same period. In
point of fact, the SWP had the same alternative mode of
success available to it as the NCLC has enjoyed, even a
decade before the Labor Committees themselves were
actually formed. There was therefore nothing in the
circumstances of the SWP or the limits of human
capacity which justifies the SWP degeneration into the
fascist organization it has become today.
The same particular point can be made emphatically
with respect to the 1968 Teachers’ Strike. The Labor
Committees led a counterattack against McGeorge
Bundy’s Reesian fascist organization which significantly
sabotaged certain intended gains of the Ford Founda¬
tion’s efforts (thereby becoming the only well-known
U.S. socialist organization which does not have an ugly
history of strike-breaking and union-busting on its
record). Our organization’s present moral strength and
consequent accomplishments flow rather directly from
the strengthening of the moral and intellectual qualities
of its cadres during the 1968 period.
In general, a parallel observation can be made with
respect to the February fascist atrocities of Parkhurst &
Company. The same Left organizations (and more
added) which supported the fascist strike-breaking effort
against the teachers in 1968 rallied around the rump of
counterinsurgency, union-busting operative Parkhurst.
(Even the fact that Parkhurst motivated the “strike” as
modelled upon the successful efforts to organize a bloody
counterrevolution against Chilean President Allende did
not deter some CPers from enthusiastically supporting
that known government, agent in a fascist action.)
The contrast between the Labor Committees and other
professedly socialist U.S. groups on such issues under¬
line the central principle of Reesian fascism and brain¬
washing. Rees and Lewin premised their model of Anglo-
American fascism not only upon studies of successful
Nazi models, but on the improvements in‘effectiveness of
those models which could be realized (in Rockefellers’
behalD through expert exploitation of the psycho¬
neurotic susceptibilities of the intended victim.
It is not necessary, Rees and Lewin emphasize, to
impose fascism essentially by police force. Gestapo terror
is only a necessary subordinate feature of the Rockefeller
program. By structuring the situation, chiefly by induc¬
ing the victims to base their self-interests and identities
in impotently small constituency groupings, the appli¬
cation of controlled aversive environments and “token
economy” rewards can induce the victims to develop self¬
policing fascist ideals and attitudes on the basis of their
own psychoneurotic ego-ideals.
The individuals and groups which reject the very
notion of constituency (e.g., “nationalism,” “commun¬
ity”) and locate their self-interests and identities as
world-historical members of a world-side working class,
have to that extent located their identity in a different
sort of non-neurotic ego-ideal. They can be individually
broken by sufficient terror, but they cannot be induced
to corrupt and betray themselves into fascist roles by
Reesian methods of group manipulation.
Black Nationalism
Objectively, the black American is far less “African”
than the third or fourth generation descendants of
French, Italian, German, or Irish immigrants are
“European.” The black American has four hundred
years of the development of an advanced industrial
society’s culture in his bones and blood, and thus is far,
far closer to Western Europe in his cultural tendencies
than to any sector of Black Africa.
Hence, any form of Black Nationalism represents the
product of social or psychological pathology. It makes no
sense either from the four-hundred year history of the
black American population or the tactical advantage of
those citizens.
However. . .
At the first blush of conscious counterinsurgency in
the ranks of the U.S. ruling class, a hideous social
pathology was imposed upon the black American: Jim
Crow. More or less* consciously adapting the implicit
fascism of the papal corporativist doctrine, through the
Democratic Party, the ruling circles intervened in the
Populist movement to block efforts to transform the
movement into a labor party, and simultaneously to
institute the racialist doctrine of Jim Crow. This was not
a product of unbroken slavery traditions, as some unin¬
formed people “explain,” nor was it an outgrowth of the
1877 counter-Reconstruction turn, as at least one loud¬
mouthed ignorant spokesman for the SWP alleges. It
was a specific counterinsurgency tactic of the 1890’s and
early 1900’s.
The chief agent of the racists within the black leader¬
ship of that period was the infamous Booker T.
Washington, the black-faced spokesman of the capital¬
ists’ plan to “keep the niggers in their place.” (As for
that other “hero” of Ford Foundation litur^, Marcus
Garvey, it is sufficient to directly compare his activities
with those of his Italian soul-brother, Ponzi of East
Boston, to properly place him among that special breed
of 1920’s confidence-men who gained money and
prestige by swindling the most oppressed masses of
urban culture in that period.)
However. . .
Retroactively, Jim Crow was a Reesian tactic. This is
not accidental or otherwise miraculous. Jim Crow was
invented by the British colonial office, set forth with a
considerable degree of refinement in British Quebec
policy of the 1790’s, and elaborated in appropriate
fashion in India during the immediately ensuing period.
Jim Crow, in all its “community action” equivalent
forms [54], was the essence of developing British policy
for its colonial subjects in Africa and Asia — and
reapplied, in the CIA-assisted sponsorship of Forbes
Burnham in Guyana, to eliminate the socialist-led
national independence of that small country.
Jim Crow placed the black citizens of the USA in a
Reesian-type controlled environment {segregation), with
the resulting de facto brainwashing symptomized by the
psychoneurosis of “shuffling.”
Within respect to the given segregation, black
nationalism was the furthest point of advance of the
resulting mass psychoneurotic reaction formation,
especially among those lumpenized strata upon which
the stress was most cruelly imposed by the three P’s of
poverty, police, and pimps.
To the revolutionary, black nationalism is not a formal
question but a practical question. In short, what does
one do about it?
The black nationalists, as victimized human beings,
must be practically approached as one would approach
any other group of workers suffering the neurotic’s reac¬
tion formations arising from the conditions imposed
upon them. One must support the personas) to the end of
freeing them from their neurosis. However, to rid the
mass of victims of a neurosis of the mental disorder, it is
necessary to remove the material conditions which cause
the sickness. To eliminate black nationalism it is
necessary to eliminate the ghetto. Not merely segregation
in housing and schools, etc., but segregation in terms of
human rights as expressed through organized move¬
ments of working people.
The cleverest and most vicious racist trick to play upon
black nationalists is to support black nationalisni» to
support the person on the condition that he self-perpetu¬
ate his segregation. That is precisely the trick proposed
by the viciously anti-black Rees. That is an example of
the Reesian methods of brainwashing and fascist social
control. Find the psychoneurotic weak points in the
intended victim and play upon those weaknesses to
produce the brainwashing. Situate the victim such that
those weaknesses will tend to be most activated, using
“token economy” methods of rewards (conditioning) to
make self-destructive neurotic impulses appear to be
methods of survival. (In one known case, the formulation
was used to the brainwash victim by his tormentors: See,
this is the way niggers know how to survive in the jungle.)
Historically, black nationalism has appeared as a
tendency among the most-oppressed strata of lumpen¬
ized black ghetto victims. For obvious reasons. Its
appearance from among those strata is hence more or
less “natural” and does represent (as against frag¬
mentation) a positive thrust within the context of segre¬
gation. On such premises, the revolutionary will properly
suppprt the working-class struggles of black nationalists
without supporting black nationalism as such. To the
extent that black nationalism is associated with mass-
organization (not “community” organization), with
literacy, and a general breaking-away from lumpenized
asocial and anti-social habits, the psychological aspect of
the positive side of the black nationalist reaction forma¬
tion is expressed. The revolutionary treats those positive
results as progress toward working-class unity among
specifically black and other formations of the class
struggle.
However, this does not mean that the revolutionary
therefore proposes that capitalism’s black victims pass
through the phase of black nationalism. The revolu¬
tionary is obliged to provide the potential black revolu¬
tionary with a direct, non-neurotic means for freedom
from the oppression (and oppressed personal state of
being). There is a qualitative difference between the two
approaches. The former, aptly termed Crow-Jim, is
poorly disguised racism.
Strangely — or, perhaps not so strangely, after all —
in the period following the assassination of Malcolm X,
black nationalism broke out among the petit-bourgeois
educated strata of the Civil Rights movement. In effect,
the petit-bourgeois spokesmen of those organizations
funded by counterinsurgency conduits entered the
process of herding black workers and lumpens into not
the Nation of Islam or a Malcolm X-type mass movement
scheme (i.e., not a Panther-type organization), but into
“projects” of an exactly counterinsurgency form.
The publication of the resolution of the Triple Revolu¬
tion Committee, and the adoption of its silly ideology by
the new rash of petit-bourgeois-led “black constituency”
groups confirmed suspicions concerning the actual
origins of the new rash of such converts to black
nationalism. The new CIA-conduit sponsored black
“nationalists” (more accurately, black small-communi¬
tarians) adopted a fascist economic policy (“ post-indus¬
trial society”), a social philosophy of recycling of
“resources” (e.g., Brazilian model). The kind of black
“nationalism” introduced by the Stokeley Carmichaels
and other subsidized petit-bourgeois “community
organizers” was nothing but — it is now retrospectively
clear — Reesian fascism, black ghetto version.
Since approximately 1967, the funded spread of the
fascist “black communitarianism” has coincided with
the rapid growth of clinical brainwashing directed chiefly
against black ghetto victims (other ethnic oppressed
minorities and radical youth generally a far second), with
the black community organizations themselves contri¬
buting an increasing portion of their resources and
efforts to this criminal practice. Using prisons as the
initial place of creating cadres of brainwashed zombies
to be released into black ghetto communities, and
working through local “community medical” and drug-
therapy facilities in particular, brainwashing today is
spreading through black ghettoes like a plague, each
new batch of victims making possible the establishment
of new “training” “attack therapy” groups to be used in
brainwashing new victims.
The massive brainwashing of black ghetto youth
occurs as a by-product of now-classical British models of
counterinsurgency operations, conducted principally by
the LEA A with assistance from the CIA-LEAA con¬
trolled FBI.
This operation began about 1966, with the initiation of
the Gestapo-like LEAA through CIA operative
McGeorge Bundy. To the present day, Bundy’s Ford
Foundation has continued as the chief private conduit
for direction and development of LEAA policies and
pilot operations. At about the same time, CIA control of
the Chicago super-gang, the Black P. Stone Rangers,
through Saul Alinsky and related “community
organizer” training and brainwashing conduits, was
converted rapidly into a base of operations for CIA-
controlled ghetto youth-gang organizing — a classical
British intelligence counterinsurgency tactic since the
immediate post-war Mountbatten-directed operations in
such places as Malaysia. [55]
Later, through Ford Foundation, Alinsky,. LEAA and
allied undercover operations, a “community control of
the police” demogogic project was pushed through
“radical organizer” agents at the same time that the
LEAA, pushing a model developed under’Rees’s per¬
sonal supervision (!), were proposing the Gestapo system
of “auxiliary police,” “townwatchers,” “blockwatch-
ers,” not accidentally along essentially the same lines of
design as the CIA’s “Vietnam Hamlet” and “Operation
Phoenix” models.
Through such a massive LEAA-controlled Gestapo-
imitating penetration of the ghettos, with the help of
some NAACP branches, the Socialist Workers Party,
etc., the ghettos were efficiently turned into a controlled
environment, in which there was no longer any possi¬
bility for a hiding-place from the massive system of
LEAA para-police forces and informers. Only the
Gestapo’s block informer system in Nazi Germany can
be directly compared with these features of the LEAA”s
“community relations” and “high impact crime area”
operations.
With illegal LEAA terror thus able to seize him (and
even capriciously murder him) with impunity in the
ghetto, and FBI assistance in herding the selected victim
of “black nationalism” back to his “native ghetto
jungle” if he attempts to move away from it, most black
ghetto youth today have no hope of escaping brain¬
washing — unless the criminals of the New York Times,
the criminals of the liberal community generally, and the
criminals of most of the U.S. left, stop covering up the
LEAA’s systematic terrorizing and brainwashing of
those victims in the name of “local community control.”
These Rockefeller-sponsored fascist methods of social
control and brainwashing are the outcome of Rees’s
World War II period proposal to mobilize the psychi¬
atric and psychologist professions to accomplish the
specific main purposes we have already cited. (1)
Generally place psychiatric skills and knowledge at the
disposal of governmental and industrial authorities for
the principal purpose of giving assistance in the control
of subject populations. (2) Massively concentrate on
discovering those psychoneurotic susceptibilities of the
subject populations by which they can be manipulated
into fascist forms of organization which are “improve¬
ments” upon the crude pragmatism of Mussolini and
Nazi models. (3) Increase the employment of psychia¬
trists in “community health” social services programs,
through which to administer “therapeutic” pacification
of the population in its communities, with or without the
consent of the victims.
The literature of the Reesians emphasizes three lines
of psychiatric knowledge deemed most useful to the
fascist ends Rockefeller desires. (1) The example of “war
neurosis” as a model for developing sophisticated
methods of inducing desired forms of neurotic and
psychotic states in both individuals (brainwashing) and
controlled groups. (2) The use of the basic neurotic
mechanism of mother-image domination and “mother’s
fears” as the key to the dynamic approach to stress-
induced neurotic or psychotic forms of “belief system”
modification and “attitude change.” (3) The concentra¬
tion of psychological terror in “attack therapy” itself
upon those particular forms of “anal fears” identified as
characteristic of each national-cultural grouping.
The general applicability of each of these aspects of
the approach to the fascist result can be summarily
described as follows.
‘”War Neurosis. ” Under the strain of what appears
to be “infinitely extended” pain or stress[56], the victim
tends to make the unendurable tolerable by what can be
broadly termed disassociation. The mind retreats, by one
trick or another, from knowledge of the stress or pain
which it regards as otherwise unendurable. (Psycho¬
tropic types of pain-ameliorating drugs work on this
principle.)
The primary neurotic mechanism for so disassociating
the victims’s self-awareness from the stress is reaction
formation. This is crudely illustrated for our present
purposes by reference to what might be termed the
“Bettelheim syndrome,” the common experience from
the inmate of the Nazi concentration camp in which the
victim of psychological stress identified with the SS
guards. For example, a brainwashed ex-socialist, whose
induced psychotic state has been brought on through
terror of illegal police action, will reflect this terror as a
psychotic’s reaction formation by telephoning the police
or FBI (or both) for rescue from the company of his or
her former comrades! (In fact, such appeals to police
agencies are among the most conclusive clinical proofs
that the induced psychotic state is — in the USA —
LEA A-performed or directed brainwashing.)
In this induced state, the individual’s developed sense
of identity is in effect “turned off,” and a pseudo¬
identity is tormed. The time required for brainwashing
an individual is determined by the lapsed time required,
in that particular case for the particular program used,
to accumulate a nest of individual reaction formations to
the point that a pseudo-identity based on such a nested
system leaps into being. Up to that point, the effect of
brainwashing will be essentially an increasing number of
reaction-formation-type disturbances. These may be
manifest or semi-repressed; as the brainwashed state
approaches, through successive treatments, the restive¬
ness of repressed reaction-formations bursts out as a
complete system of pseudo-identity.
In the use of “genetically-allied” methods for beha¬
vioral modification and attitude change among small
groups (all “small-group” sociologists are suspect until
proven otherwise for the strongest prima facie
reasons), it is the shared reaction formation trait among
the members of the group which makes the induced
behavioral response mutually reinforcing without the
need for individual brainwashing per se to accomplish
that control. In all instances, individual brainwashing or
Reesian “small group” control, the essential method
employed is measured use of the techniques adduced
from clinical studies of the inducing of “war neurosis”
among victims.
Mothers Fears. The essential psychoneurotic
susceptibility upon which all Reesian fascist methods
play most emphatically is the direct correspondence
between an infantile intensification of mother s fears [57]
and the victim’s increased proclivity to locate his social
identity in immediate small-group surrogates for a
mother-centered “family.”
Ironically, unless the victim’s actual mother is a
psychotic or vicious psychopath, the result of behavioral
modification brainwashing programs mu^t be to break
off active relations with the natural mother. The control
of the brainwashed individual’s personality (the pseudo¬
identity) is not located in the relationship to the natural
mother, but in the dependency upon a fictitious “mother
who is not a mother” — the Old Lady of Langley. This
pseudo-mother is a modified version of the mother-
image of the victim’s pre-brainwashed state, a witch-
figure made more horrible than that of the worst night¬
mare images of most ordinary mere neurotics.[58]
Anal Fears. The Tavistock studies of the Nazi SS by
Dicks and others [59] located the most important of the
operating neurotic fears unwittingly exploited by the SS
system as the type of anal fears most common in German
culture. The post-war British and U.S. administration of
occupied and post-occupation West Germany was in¬
creasingly premised upon the Tavistock designs for play¬
ing upon those neurotic susceptibilities of Germans.
Similar studies were made of the French ideology’s
preoccupations with anal fears. Etc.
There is no doubt of the clinical competence of the
Tavistock researches in this respect. Independent clin¬
ical work by the Labor Committees confirms both that
anal-related fears are among the most fundamental to be
overcome by the individual, and that the dynamic forms
of these fears to tend to vary significantly among so-
called national cultures and their sub-cultures. Anal
fears are not only explicably most intense among U.S.
blacks (who are certainly often enough treated like shit
by both the society generally and the black ghetto
community itself), but the inhuman monsters of U.S.
behavioral modification programs have spared no effect
to play upon those fears in the ‘‘nigger in the jungle”
themes of brainwashing directed against black ghetto
youth.
In short, it is the Tavistock fascists’ concentration
upon the fears associated with the pseudo-mother within
the neurotic victim, and playing upon anal psychological
fears most emphatically, which is the main thrust of the
brainwasher’s “attack therapy” within the police-created
aversive controlled environment. In this matter, there is
only a difference of degree between the specific quali¬
tative result known as brainwashing and the ideological
molding of the imminently or actually fascist “local
community control.”
6. THE CIA ESTABLISHMENT AS A NAZI S.S.
The Rockefeller-dominated CIA establishment we
have outlined here is a creation of the Tavistock Insti¬
tute, under the direction of Brigadier Dr. John Rawlings
Rees. It is not accidental that the emerging result of a
quarter-century’s development of this establishment
coincides so exactly with the shape of the Nazi SS was
assuming during the last years of the Hitler regime. Rees
et al. consciously adopted the SS as their reference model
for construction of the presently emerging Anglo-Ameri¬
can Rockefeller brand Mark II version.
The principle features to be noted for immediate
comparison of the two models, the Nazi Mark I and
Rockefeller Mark II, are as follows:
(1) Anti-collectivism: cultural relativist counterposi¬
tion of the distinct “natural” belief system and prop¬
erly autonomous self-interests of the small com-
munity group to any “elitist” effort to “super¬
impose” a common material and class interest upon
the masses. I.e., the fascist sociological practice and
ideology of “local community control.”
(2) “Back To Nature:” Rejection of an industrial
development-correlated expansion of the material
conditions of life in favor of a “Volksgemeinschaft”
return to the “natural, good way of life” of the small
village of our “urban stress-free” forefathers (e.g.,
the fascist ideology of “post-industrial society”).
(3) Replacement of the Wehrmacht by the Wajfen
SS: The “Special Forces” takeover of regular mili¬
tary operations and Organization.
(4) The SS As a Flexible Response Force {e.g.,
Waffen SS, SD Gestapo) subsuming the tasks of
political administration and economic management.
(5) Mobilization for Clean-Cut Disciplined, Elite
Force to Replace “Corruption-Ridden” Elective
Agencies {Presidency, Congress, etc.) and “Corrupt”
Traditional Police Forces: This is, of course, the
classical fascist rationale for police-state rule.
Most of the apparatus Rockefeller has developed to
accomplish this fascist takeover of the United Kingdom
and North America is in place, virtually prepared to take
over. In both the USA and Great Britain, the nominal
potential major force of resistance to fascism, the
organized labor movement, is not only demoralized by
such antics as Phases I, II, III, and IV, but the majority
of trade-union leaders is firmly entrenched inside Rocke¬
feller’s fascist establishment, as the result of the success¬
ful conduct of the “Cold War” witchhunt conducted in
this country.
Reality, as objectively expressed by the masses of
working people and their self-interests, and the fact that
the masses of others also do not wish to be subject to
EDITORS NOTE: Due to time and space
limitations the footnotes for THE REAL CIA —
THE ROCKEFELLERS’ FASCIST ESTABLISHMENT will be included In the May
Issue of The Campaigner, fascism, must be asserted. The Labor Committees, as the
only conscious force in North America thus far aware of
the truth of the situation, provide this objective, poten-
tial reality of the masses its only available means for con¬
scious self-organization and self-expression. If the Labor
Committees succeed in performing that role. Rocke¬
feller’s plot is doomed and humanity saved. If the Labor
Committees are crushed, that critical, if seemingly small
event, is the appropriate moment for the rest of
humanity to shoot itself: if we are crushed there will be
no human race during the remaining last decades of the
present century.
The Rockefeller fascist CIA establishment is no myth.
It is a hideous reality, which if faced as reality, can be
wiped off the face of the earth. If that reality is not faced,
and soon, everything else you do, everything you aspire
to, every hope of human happiness, every hope for your
children, is all stinking dishwater. It is the Rockefeller
family or you; there is no sane Third Camp.
It is not really to be considered remarkable that the
Labor Committees are the first, and so far the only
organization to either recognize the current world situa¬
tion or to competently assess the mechanisms and anti¬
dotes respecting Reesian psychodynamics. The essential
distinction between a psychoneurotic and sane individual
under capitalism is the distinction between the diseased
class-in-itself\deo\Qgy of the worker as a willing, if some¬
times militant capitalist subject, and the class-for-itself
outlook of the sane revolutionary. [60] It is the Labor
Committees’ self-organization around the class-for-itself
outlook, the location of personal identity in that outlook,
which has both given our organization the unusual power
to reject and resist Reesian tactics and to develop that
overview in the realm of sanity from which vantage-point
to analyze the Reesian outlook (and the general class-in-‘
itself outlook) for the insanity it represents in its victims.
Due to the speculation caused unavailability of
white offset paper we are forced to use newsprint
for most of this issue. We do not plan the change
to newsprint to be permanent.
II. LOW INTENSITY OPERATIONS: THE REESIAN THEORY OF WAR by M. Minnicino
I. INTRODUCTION
With the discovery and extensive de-programming of
Christopher White during the first week of this year, the
Labor Committees picked up the threads of a conspiracy
against the working class, led by the Rockefeller faction
of international capital and using the techniques
developed by Dr. John Rawlings Rees of the Tavistock
Clinic in Britain. Since that time, the Labor Committees
internationally have been primarily engaged in exposing
the capabilities and extent of this network, and in
building the working-class forces necessary for its syste¬
matic destruction. To refuse to completely neutralize this
network, which is in this period the conspiratorial
vanguard of capitalist fighting forces, is to ensure the
final defeat of the working class.
This network is designed, fundamentally, to maintain
class rule, to whatever level of viciousness demanded by
capitalist economic necessity, by means of mass persua¬
sive techniques capable of the irreversible destruction of
the creativity of the working class and the re-shaping of
workers’ behavior into the appropriate machine-like
patterns, without the development of new ideological
forms such as fascism. Since the 1930’s, John Rees and
the small circle of psychiatrists around him, with Rocke¬
feller money, had consciously developed that capability,
and, by 1946, had sold, literally, that capability and the
growing network to implement it to the Rockefeller
faction of American capital.
The Tavistock network and the Reesian method —
that the class war should be waged with “weapons [that]
affect morale more than they take life’’[l] — has
become, in the post-war period, the primary “weapons
system” of the Rockefeller forces, including their own
covert arm, the Central Intelligence Agency. With the
recognition of the beginning of a capitalist breakdown
cycle, the Rockefeller-CIA faction has mobilized the
Rees network along with all its other forces to implement
rates of accumulation, at least on the order of those
implemented by Nazi Finance Minister Hjalmar
Schacht, globally, under direct military rule.
That is the capitalist economic necessity. There will be
no ideological cover like Hitlerism to soften the horrors
of direct military takeover in the advanced capitalist
sector, for it is believed that if the psychological on¬
slaught that Rees has prescribed is successful, then none
will be necessary. It is in part for this reason, that the
Rockefeller-CIA and the Rees network have spent over
thirty years completely re-shaping capitalist armies to
make them capable of such naked rule, knowing that it
is, finally, “the armed body of men” upon which class
rule depends, and realizing that someday such armies
would have to exercise their true function openly.
The Rockefeller forces, because they have made the
Reesian method and network the major portion of their
arsenal, must now be fully committed to that method
and network if they are to survive in much the same way
a section of German capital had to move (with the un¬
pleasant contingency of Hitlerism) if it was to obtain
necessary economic measures proposed by the former
Weimar banker Schacht.
Unlike Hitlerism, Reesian methods rely, completely
and consciously, on the destruction of the mental life of
world society and a forced march into universal sadism.
And from this, there can be no further contingency.
Our purpose here is to expose the development of the
Reesian method, the formation of the Tavistock network
and its takeover of the British armed forces. The
complete deployment of the Tavistock network, and the
story of the full utilization of it by the Rockefeller forces
and their CIA is demonstrated elsewhere. [2] Since the
war, the British military, under the direction of the Tavi¬
stock network and the CIA, have been in the forefront of
refilling the Reesian theory of war, for years known as
“counter-insurgency,” and are now using those refine¬
ments to bring fascist military rule to England. As we
shall show, under Rees counter-insurgency became not a
fight against “insurgents,” but a testing ground for new
forms of institutionalized psychological control at the
behest of the Rockefellers. The most advanced of these
forms, now known by the more appropriate, more
positive title, “low intensity operations,” is now being
brought home to Western Europe and North America.
II. THE SHAPING OF JOHN REES
The genesis of John Rees’ ideas and his motivation for
building the Tavistock network was, like Hitler’s, not
profound. It would be an injustice to even say that such
ideas sprang from some perversion of the science of psy¬
chology, in spite of the fact that Rees would use the
psychological profession to build his conspiracy. Rees’
sociology never transcended the gutter variety peddled by;
the turn-of-the-century academic apologists for British
imperialism, who had gained a short period of hegemony
at universities like Cambridge where Rees had studied.
These men had sought to justify English colonialism with
weird mistures of scientific fact and inane eighteenth-
century stereotype, claiming, in short, that it was
“genetically” necessary that sturdy English stock rule
over the congenitally helpless, darker races. Such
theories, like eugenics, and the other so-called “race
seiences** hgd dropped out of academic prominence by
the 1930*s, hut were kept alive, somewhat artificially, by
the Nazi theoreticians and the numerous ruling class
qftnpathizersof the British fascist. Sir Oswald Moseley.
In 1945, in the fullest single statement of his world
view presented in his book. The Shaping of Psychiatry By
Wuft Rees indicates that he had not dropped this
pseudo-scientific racialism to which he had been ex¬
posed. Rather, he had made it fundamental. Society,
states Rees in 1945, is composed of layers, starting at the
bottom with a “psychopathological tenth” of the popula¬
tion which is “constitutionally inferior,” with the rest of
the layers differentiated functionally by increasing levels
of talent and lack of neurosis. This bottom, neurotic
^tenth is made up of what Rees calls, simply, “dullards,”
f^and includes, unfortunately, a large percentage of the
“coloured” population.[3]
“Aldous Huxley in his book The Brave New World was
planning to produce a section of subnormal men who
would do the dull jobs of the community: we really don’t
need to produce them for there are too many already.’’[4]
Obviously, such beliefs had nothing to do with the
psychiatric methods that Rees would study after his
service as a medical officer in the First World War. Our
problem is that Rees used his understanding of psychi¬
atric methods to formulate and implement an action
program based upon such beliefs. The task of psychi-
Katiy, if it is to be practical for Rees, is the “proper
I allocation of skills.” Psychiatrists, he suggests, are
I capable of determining the neurotic “map” of each
national sector, and, based on this study, can set up a
“filtering” mechanism to select out the various neurotic
I types and place them in their appropriate skill.
5 With such selection techniques, dullards, who are only
llrustrated because of their consistent failure, can be
diannelled into simple tasks and the happy fellowship of
; other dullards. Those who are capable of the highest
intellectual functions will be allowed to do so unen-
/ cumbered with inferior types — a truly happy mental life
^riftir society.
It should be noted that even Rees’ broad psycho-social
theories were not terribly new. Since the pre-World War
I period, capitalists, particularly the Americans, had
understood that if more profit was to be had from the
new modes production of the Twentieth Century, then
progressive reforms which capital could then afford had
to be used to upgrade the standard of living of the
working class. However, it was quickly realized that the
promise of such reforms could easily let loose revolu¬
tionary potential within the working class, and, there-
fore such initiatives would have to be tightly controlled.
The Rockefellers and the Fords, particularly, became
masters at the controlled development of the “new”
working class, ’mobilizing and funding a number of
scientific initiatives for their purposes. This process was
not unknown to many Marxist theorists of the period.
The Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci, reflecting on
the ravages against the American worker caused by the
methods of one of these Ford and Rockefeller-funded
“scientists,” the speed-up specialist Frederick Taylor,
claimed that the very purpose of American society had
become developing in the worker to the highest degree automatic
mechanical attitudes, breaking up the old psycho-physical
nexus of qualified professional work, which demands a
certain active participation of intelligence, fantasy, and
initiative on the part of the worker, and reducing produc¬
tive operations exclusively to the mechanical, physical
aspect. But these things, in reality, are not original nor
novel: they represent simply the most recent phase of a long
process which began with industrialism itself. This phase is
more intense than preceding phases, and manifests itself in
more brutal forms… A forced selection will ineluctably
take place; a part of the old working class will be pitilessly
eliminated from the world of labor, and perhaps from the
world. [Emphasis added] [5]
It has been demonstrated elsewhere that the Rocke¬
feller family took the lead in fostering the growth of such
selection procedures, particularly in the so-called child
guidance, and industrial health movements. There must
have been a fairly deep collaboration between Rees and
the Rockefeller Foundation in this area by the 1930’s.[6]
What Rees developed over and above the other scientific
collaborators of Rockefeller was the logical organi¬
zational correlative of his bestialized, psychological
practice.
“If we propose to come out into the open,” he said to a
group of U.S. Army psychiatrists in 1945, “and to attack
the social and national problems of our day, then we
must have shock troops and these cannot be provided by
psychiatry based wholly in institutions. We must have
mobile teams of psychiatrists who are free to move
around and make contacts with the local situation in
their particular area.”[7]
Rees’ logic is tortured but clear. For true mental
health, there must be a complete transformation of
society along the lines of rational selection. Unfortu¬
nately, many don’t see reality this way, including most
workers who believe that “any method of selection is a
mechanism by which the wicked capitalist aims to get
more work out of the worker, and that argument dies
hard.”[8] In the Reesian world-view, such nay-sayers,
along with anyone who engages in “strikes” or “Subver¬
sive activity,” are themselves neurotic, desperately in
need of treatment, but unfortunately unable to see that
they are ill. In such a world of unwitting neurotics,
psychiatry, the only arbiter of sanity, can be exercised
only by a cabal “in every country, groups of psychi¬
atrists, linked to each other” prepared to muster all their
weapons and influence for a move “into the political and
governmental field.”
Only a conspiracy of psychiatrists — as Rees meant
when he spoke of his “mission” — could build a society
“where it is possible for people of every social group to
have treatment when they need it, even when they do not
wish it, without the necessity to invoke the law [emphasis
added].”[9] The construction of that cabal became what
Rees himself would call his lifelong “mission.”
It should thus be clear that Rees’ view of psychiatry
is itself essentially uninvolved with actual psychiatric
method of therapy. The Reesian world-view is in fact no
different from that of the psychopathological bourgeois
desperately in need of a magical “handle” with which to
manipulate the terrifying forces of the outside world.
Rees’ not-so-fundamental discovery was, crudely put,
that psychiatric methods could be reversed, to the effect
that techniques used to liberate the mind from the para¬
site of psychosis could be used to induce controllable
forms of neurotic or psychotic behavior. [10]
The history of the Tavistock network details Rees’
overwhelming need to manipulate. Even before Rees had
fully articulated conspiratorial theory, the evidence of his
neurosis is rich. In the early 1930’s, he flexed his growing
powers in psychological manipulation to obtain his first
coup, the directorship of the Tavistock Clinic. Hugh
Critchton-Miller, the founder of the Tavistock Clinic in
1921, and the doctor who taught the young Rees psychi¬
atry, had, by 1931, become too resistent to Rees’ ideas
about “practical” psychiatry. In retaliation Rees started
a rumor campaign throughout the younger doctors at the
clinic about Critchton-Miller’s methods until the staff
was calling Critchton-Miller a “butcher” to his face. In
1932, the older doctor had a breakdown and was unani¬
mously replaced as Medical Director by John Rees.
To cement his hold over the Clinic in preparation for
the changes he would make, Rees introduced “collec¬
tivism,” demanding that publications by staff members
had to be collectively approved, and, at one point, that
the physicians actually pool their salaries. This from a
man who readily stated that his view of socialism had not
changed appreciably since his service as the chief
medical officer for the British Army anti-Bolshevik
expedition to Baku after the First World War!
By the second half of the 1930’s, Rees had put such
vicious parlor games on a rigorous basis. While we in¬
tend to explore Reesian psywar theories in depth in the
final section, it will be necessary to outline Rees’ tech¬
niques here to prelude the discussion of his wartime
activities. As one of Rees’ collaborators slyly put it: “If
J.R. Rees was not a giant in original contribution.. .he
was certainly a man keenly and generously interested in
applying the results of other peoples’ work.”[11] Under
Rees, the Tavistock Clinic pioneered work in abreaction
theory using electroconvulsive shock and barbiturates.
The clinical evidence from the de-programming of Chris
White indicated that the reversal of abreaction — the use
of shock, hypnosis, and drugs to induce new, perhaps
traumatic, memories — is the technique needed to
perform a first-class “Pavlovian” . brainwashing job.
Rees’ praise for abreactive techniques remained bound¬
less, and he later referred to abreaction with shock as
being as effective as “psychosurgery.”
This would also suggest why Rees recruited the young
Eric Trist to Tavistock and quickly catapulted him into
the highest echelons of that institution. Trist, presently
head of the Tavistock operation on the East Coast of the
U.S., was picked up by Rees in 1940 while the former
was researching drug and hypnosis-induced abreaction
at an English hospital as a Rockefeller Foundation
Medical Fellow.
The other work that “keenly and generously in¬
terested” Rees was the, then new, developments in group
therapy. It is clear that Rees exploited the work of W.R.
Bion, whom Rees brought to Tavistock to personally
supervise the group sessions that Rees made mandatory
for the staff, for all its potential for manipulation.
As a specialist in family welfare for the British govern¬
ment in the 1920’s and 1930’s, Rees had understood that
the family was the most powerful psycho-active agent
this side of electroshock. Indeed, in the so-called Rocke¬
feller Memorandum of 1946 in which Rees offered the
Tavistock network to Rockefeller as his psywar brain-
trust, Rees’ sales pitch revolves around the claim that the
network was able to determine “the relations of domestic
and nursery culture to later political and economic
behaviour on a large scale.”[12] Bion’s “therapeutic
groups” provided the opportunity to tap the power of the
family.
A skilled group leader (even in the so-called “leader¬
less” variety) can use the group to create a powerful,
albeit artificial, “family” environment. Once this en¬
vironment is induced, it is possible for the therapist, for
example, to manipulate a member of the group, not by a
direct attack, but by subtly manipulating (with “sugges¬
tions,” perhaps) the other members of the group. If the
victim has been sucked into thinking of the group as
something warm and helpful (motherly), then, when that
environment has been manipulated to turn against him,
it will tend to have the impact of deep motherly rejection.
Furthermore, if the victim is not completely aware of the
Chart A
TAVISTOCK CLINIC
V
C —M hlm PtycWitriit, LondM.
(1939) — H.V. Dicks
Dicks joins Military Intelligance (1940)
and de-briefs Rudolph Hess with Rees.
Dicks trains Sbaef Ptywar Divitiofl
under £. Shills (OSS), R. Crossmon, and
E. Paley.
Dicks sets up British Collecting Centre
for German POW’s (1944).
Collecting Centre personnel, methods,
used at Selection Centre in Bad
Oeyerhousen, Germany (1945- ).
Rees becomes CentuMiig PsycUotrist
to the Army At Heme (1938)
J.R. Rees (Director)
H.V. Dicks (Assistant)
M. Luff (Assistant)
G.R. Horgreoves becomes command psychiatrist to General Adorn.
Adam becomes Adjunct-General.
Tavistockers make up most of Staff of
41st Geaerol KespM (1939) — experiments in
pentothol and hypnosis.
Rees, Horgreoves, Adam form
Directorate of Army Psychiatry ^
( 1940 ) — H. Sandiford (Director), G.
Horgreoves (Assistant) ond T.F.
Rodger (Assistant).
41st General Hospital (1941-46) goes
abrood. Stays in Palestine after U-E
Day.
lotar-ANied Study Group advises
UNRRA and SHAEF on food control and
resettlement. Includes: Dicks, Shills,
E. Popper (advisor to Czech Army in
exile), J.M. Meerloo (advisor to Dutch
Armed Forces), E. Schrieder (advisor to
De (tulle’s Army) and 0. Klineberg
(U.S.).
D.A.P. forms Directorate of Personnel
Selection.
Few of Tavistockers from 41 st stay ot
Northfield Hos^ — experime^ in
group therapy by — Bion, Bridger,
Rickman, Doyle, Torrie, Main
Consulting Psychiottfst of Eastern
‘ Command — 1. Browne
li Ceosultteg Psychiatrltt of India
■^Command — E. Bennet
Which /treotes the Experimental War
Officeoelectien Board (1942) ~ R.
Roit-Kerr (Commander), R. Rendel-
(Deputy), Bion, Trist, J. Sutherlond,
and J. Bowiby.
Moin becomes psychiatrist to English
Poratreepms.
Uses group techniques developed by
‘ Bion.
Consulting Psychiotritt of Scotland
— Rodger
Which becomes the Research end
Traiidng Center for oil WOSB’s.
Consulting Psychiatrist to AH Land
Forces hi Seotheost Asia —
Mountbatten
Directorate of Bielegicd Research
(secret) — A.T. Wilson
VWiich is the basis for the CIvfl
Resettloment Scheme (1945-47) —
Trist, J. Kelnor, A. Wilson, A. Curie,
A. Murray, Main. ^
. Deployed to British Industry using
selKtion ond resettlement teclmiques.
German and European Colonial Ideologies
Ideologies
English Ideology
TAVISTOCK WARTIME
DEPLOYMENT
All medicol personnel named were or
became members of Tavistock Qinic.
All individuals, including civilians, wefo
mettAers of the “Invisible College.”
41
therapists’ chain of manipulations, he will tend to inter¬
nalize their result, thinking that he himself is responsible
for this new awareness about himself.
As we shall demonstrate later, the essence of Reesian
psywar techniques on a mass scale is to rely upon the sel¬
ective manipulation of key factors in the environment,
such that the individual tends to believe that the “whole
world is falling apart’’ and there is only himself to blame.
It will suffice for now to note that Rees understood
through his group work that manipulation based upon
bourgeois conception of the outside world as magical
(what Marcus identified as “mother’s fears”[13],) was
fundamental to mass control.
It should be noted, collaterally, that Rees deeply culti¬
vated his image as a warm, plump, smiling mother (as all
of his devoted biographers portray him), especially in the
mandatory group situations. Rees’ incessant use of these
techniques at all levels may explain the savage “team
spirit” (not unlike the present CIA’s) of Rees’ Tavistock
collaborators. In any case’, it is confirmed that Tavistock
used these group techniques as the basis for their work
against industrial workers. (See Freeman article next
issue.)
By 1938, Rees began to build his cabal in earnest,
realizing that England was being put on a military foot¬
ing and that the “army and the other fighting services
form rather unique experimental groups since they are
complete communities, and it is possible to arrange
experiments in a way that would be very difficult in
civilian life. ”[14] To seriously test its ideas in social
control, Rees proposed, Tavistock would simply have to
take over the British Army. Rees’ successful attempt at
this takeover was so methodical, that it is reproduceable
in schematic form (see Chart A).
Rees used his connections with certain “foremost
sound men of finance” whom he had studiously flattered
with Honorary Treasurerships at Tavistock, to obtain the
position of Consulting Psychiatrist to the Army at Home
in 1938, itself a somewhat honorific position with the
Army Medical College carrying little power. “It was no
good being based in the Army Medical College,” notes
Rees. “I had to be in the War Office itself, where I could
have readier access to key people and to the Adjutant-
General’s department, which was concerned with man¬
power and the other branches of the central organiza¬
tion.” [15] How Rees gained entrance to the Adjutant-
Generalcy is illustrative of his scientific method.
Knowing from the honorary Chairman of the Tavistock
Council, Lord Alness, then Emergency Regional
Commissioner for Scotland, that a certain Sir Ronald
Adam was soon to be posted as Adjutant-General, Rees
had a close Tavistock associate, G.R. Hargreaves, bone
up on military history sufficient for bantering with the
stodgy Adam. The impressed General Adam was then
persuaded to take Hargreaves on as his Command
Psychiatrist. Rees used his new leverage to have Adam
create the Directorate of Army Psychiatry, which Rees
ran through a transparent front man, Hugh Sandiford,
an old army buddy of Rees.
With one foot in the British General Staff, Rees began
recruiting the hand-picked, first squad of his cabal from
around the Commonwealth. Rees demanded that “the
team” meet regularly for informal sessions at which Rees
and Bion were usually present. In characteristic Tavi¬
stock cover-story style, a member of the “invisible
college” — as Rees dubbed the team — described the
course of the sessions:
It was remarkable how, without my design, our interest
seemed to shift from reporting on individual morbid condi¬
tions or cases to considering the larger problems of war and
of human relations, and nature of hostility, the state of
civilization.. .which were to be very much reflected in the
philosophy, first of the army psychiatric service, and later
on in our post-war planning and policies. [Emphasis
added] [16]
As our schematic shows, Rees deployed members of
the “invisible college” as Command Psychiatrists to the
Commanding Officers of every major British Army Unit.
Rees relates with undisguised glee how his men overcame
the “anxiety” of commanders who suddenly found
medical men assigned to their staffs and in charge of the
morale of their men. “I have no difficulties,” said a
Corps General in Burma who the Reesians had “over¬
come.” “If anything disturbing arises I send my psychi¬
atrist down there and he puts it all right. He is one of the
busiest men on my staff.”[17] The “morale” work of the
“college” was largely a cover for the initial work in the
areas to which they were assigned on the national
ideologies that Rees had demanded as a preliminary for
competent world selection.
Throughout the war, Rees and his team pushed in¬
cessantly for selection techniques, and through his influ¬
ence over General Adam and an increasing number of
General officers he was largely successful. By 1942, Rees
had induced the British General Staff and the War
Office to begin an Experimental War Office Selection
Board to screen a small number of officer candidates.
While the Board was nominally run by Regular Army
officers (both of whom, incidently, began to go to
“invisible college” meetings), Tavistockers held firm
control including Bion, a tank officer in the First War,
J.D. Sutherland, and young “Rocky” Trist.
By late that year, the Experimental Board became the
Research and Training Centre as War Office Selection
Boards proliferated throughout England and the rest of
the Commonwealth. Almost all the boards included
heavy Tavistock representation. By the end of the war,
42
most British officer candidates and many enlisted men
had their psychological profiles noted by Reesian psychi¬
atrists in the Boards.
In Canada, Rees’ selection techniques were made uni¬
versal under the Canadian Army Director of Personnel,
Brigadier Brock Chisholm, a close personal friend of
Rees. Chisholm, later to be the first Director-General of
the UN’s World Health Organization, was also the first
to implement Rees’ idea that infantry squads should be
grouped by intelligence. Chisholm’s and Rees’ work in
Canada was successful enough for Rees to later hope that
“perhaps the Canadian reception centres stand out as
the most interesting foretaste of what might be done in
civilian life.’’[18]
Rees used every possibility to extend and deepen the
hegemony of selection. As the war ground down after
1944, Rees began shifting personnel from the Selection
Boards to another of his projects, the Civil Resettlement
Scheme (sic). With the Resettlement Scheme, Rees
began testing what he hoped selection might lead to. All
English prisoners of war returning from liberated POW
camps in Europe were ordered to volunteer for a short
stay in centers staffed exclusively by Tavistockers before
being discharged. In addition to having their psycho¬
logical profiles typed, these men underwent Bion’s group
therapy, where suggestions were made as to where each
should live and what line of work each should take up.
Aftercare was provided to monitor if the suggestions were
followed.[19] Rees planned to have the Scheme ex¬
panded to all returning army personnel under the aegis
of the Ministry of Labour, but with the end of the war
and the new Labour Party government, his influence
waned — a lesson that Rees would not forget — and the
program was scrapped.
Rees’ British resettlement work, though mildly un¬
democratic, looks hardly ominous. The nature of
Reesian selection and resettlement as a control function
is more striking in Tavistock’s work on the German
ideology. Rees himself took up the German work in
earnest in 1940, when he was invited to head the psychi¬
atric examination of Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s Deputy
Fuehrer, for the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI-
6). Not without irony, Rees notes that his patient’s
ideology stemmed from his university study of the very
race science and geo-political theories that had so shaped
Rees himself. Hess, though definitely insane by this
time, was dimly aware of his doctor’s proclivities. The
ghost writer of Hitler’s theory book, Mein Kampf, Hess
pleaded that Brigadier Rees was the only psychiatrist
who understood him. [20]
The Special Operations Executive (SOE), the section
of British intelligence in charge of clandestine opera¬
tions, was sufficiently impressed with Rees’ work that
there began after 1940 a close working relationship
between the Tavistock crew and SOE H.V. Dicks, Rees’
aide^ de camp at Tavistock and assistant on the Hess
case, was seconded to the Directorate of Military Intelli¬
gence on a semi-permanent basis. It was through Dicks
that Reesian methods of selection and of psychological
warfare became hegemonic in the American Office of
Strategic Services (OSS), and eventually in all Allied
psychological warfare and intelligence planning
bodies. (See Cuskie article, next issue.)
What is of importance is that Rees used Military
Intelligence to further his selection techniques. Through
SOE Rees had units called British Collecting Centres
attached to German POW camps in Britain and Canada.
Using the original work done on Hess, Dicks, who
commanded the Centres, developed a set of psychiatric
criteria to screen incoming prisoners. While the Centres
did perform their nominal function of gathering data to
be later used in propaganda against German troops,
Dicks’ actual purpose was to test the control aspect of
the selection criteria. [21] Dicks used his system to select
out “weak ego” types, who were then subjected to Bion-
style group indoctrination. The best were parachuted
back into Germany as agents of the SOE, the rest were
used as informers and operators to maintain control of
the rest of the POW’s for the British.
The Collecting Centres were themselves only a test
phase for the work Military Intelligence would later
perform at the Selection Center in Bad Oeyenhausen in
the British Zone of Occupied Germany. Advised by
Dicks and commanded by Col. Dick Rendal, a long-time
member of the “invisible college” at Tavistock, the
Selection Centre used “De-nazification” as the cover to
“pick non-Nazi future leaders and administrators among
Germans.”[22] We must assume that by 1947, British
Intelligence and its American counterpart had Reesian
psychological profiles of most if not all potential political
and trade union leaders of the post-war generation of
Germans. What “shaping” went on at the Centre and
who the “informants” were is not yet known, but a major
Labor Committee research project has been launched in
this area which, when the details are clear, should make
for an interesting re-write of German post-war history.
The question whether the Rees nefwork controlled the
British Army is, by 1945, to a certain extent immaterial.
The subsuming features of the history of the Second
World War were determined by the interplay of class
forces, and this is brightly reflected in the manner in
which the decisions of the Allied policy-makers were
based overwhelmingly on their fear of the European and
American working class, and the energizing effect that
the Soviet Union might have on these workers. But it is
equally undeniable that John Rees was serious!’ organiz-
“If anything disturbing arises I send my
psychiatrist down there and he puts it
right. He is one of the busiest men on
imy staff.”
Dr. Nathan Kline pauses at the pyraniids during a 1962
Middle East “trip”.
ing a cabal to take over “the councils of those who are
attempting to re-establish the world” after the
war. [23] Rees organized his cabal according to his
public dictum: we are not large but well-placed.[24]
That is, Rees had a rudimentary understanding of the
organizing principle of “hegemony” — organizing key
individuals who will in turn spread ideas and influence.
The way in which Rees took complete hegemony over the
mental health profession after the war, without recruit¬
ing more than a handful of its many thousands of prac¬
titioners, is exemplary. We have also demonstrated,
especially in the case of the army, how Rees was not
bothered with scruples when he needed to capture a key
individual. Indeed, he rather thrived on manipulation,
and was not above actual clinical forms of psychosomatic
“brainwashing.”
We know from Cuskie’s work (next issue) that during
the same period a similar cabal formation was beginning
to coalesce around the Rockefeller faction of American
capital and that faction’s covert apparatus within the
OSS. What that faction and its OSS turned into is now
clear, as is the fact that they scrupulously used Rees’
ideas almost as soon as they were expostulated. Bluntly,
both the Rockefeller forces and the Rees network formu¬
lated plans during the war years to maximize their
control of the world. The former saw these plans as a
matter of capitalist necessity, and made ready to wage an
unceasing economic war capable of enthralling Europe
and the Third World to the post-war Dollar Empire.
Rees, as we have shown, was motivated by a more
vicious, neurotic ideological reflection of that capitalist
necessity, and approached the coming battles from a
slightly different angle.
“Fortunately,” says Rees in 1945, “the concepts of a
police war and of killing as an almost ‘surgical’ necessity
have been accepted very much more widely than in
earlier days.” And later: ‘‘Wars are not won by killing
one’s opponents but by undermining or destroying his
morale whilst maintaining one’s own.”[25]
While it is probable that the Rockefellers had a rudi¬
mentary understanding of psychological war which they
inherited from their wily father John, their modern
concept of it came from Rees by way of Tavistock’s
responsibility for training OSS and the Allied Psywar
Division. In 1946, this relationship was formalized in the
“Rockefeller Memorandum,” in which Rees exposed the
full depths of his cabal and offered it to the family. The
Rockefeller Foundation, which had been heavily funding
Tavistock and Tavistock members since 1934, readily
accepted, and the Tavistock Clinic was transformed into
the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. After he
accomplished a couple of purges at Tavistock to clear the
way for the Institute, Rees, in classic espionage style,
engineered a disagreement with the staff to have a pre¬
text for resigning.
By 1948, Rees had developed a new cover story as
president of the World Federation of Mental Health, a
United Nations pressure group which he built upon the
remains of an old Rockefeller front group, the Inter¬
national Committee for Mental Hygiene, and used it to
travel around the world setting up covert operations for
the Rockefellers and their CIA.[26]
It is possible for us to break off here the discussion of
the formal development of the Rees network. Its hideous
deployment at the hands of the Rockefellers and the
44
CIA in the subversion of the world labor movement is
adequately handled elsewhere (see Cuskie, Freeman), as
is the clinical brainwashing network which is its
“medical” corps. [27] We shall now confine ourselves to
key points of development of the Rees-Rockefeller theory
of psychological control.
As we have noted, Rees realized that war and other
crises easily provided him with both the leverage and the
opportunity to test, and in some cases, implement his
control mechanisms. Indeed, it was and is standard
operating procedure at post-war Tavistock to send
“flying squads” to war-torn areas and disaster sites, in
hopes of gleaning a little more knowledge of how people
can be manipulated while under stress. This cohered
quickly with the theory of the Rockefeller faction of the
American policy-makers and their CIA. Wherever class
forces made it feasible, they would attempt a military
solution short of world war to stop the Soviet Union and
“the spread of communism.”
During the war, under the direct influence of Rees,
these policy-makers were coming to understand that this
military solution should be of a covert type if possible.
(See Cuskie.) By the early post-war years, Rockefeller
and the CIA understood that this covert “uncon¬
ventional” or “counterinsurgency” warfare need not be
limited to countering communist “insurgency,” but
could be used positively to develop governments in
complete thralldom to the CIA, especially if Reesian
techniques were used.
In the post-war period, every major war and social
crisis has been used by the Rockefeller-CIA, to whatever
extent possible, to refine and implement Reesian control
methods. In the first twenty years after the war, the
British led this thrust on behalf of American capital.
They were placed in this position not only because of the
deep infiltration and hegemony of Rees in British mili¬
tary and ruling circles, but also because the debt-service
of their completely untenable colonial empire could not
be lost to communism — especially as the whole island
was already hopelessly in hock to the Americans. The
Rees and CIA sympathizers within the military provided
an acceptable solution. As we shall show, by the early
1960’s the locus of the development of psywar control
had shifted back to its ultimate target, the United States.
III. The Shaping oF War By Psychiatry
As the current war against the working class in the
Third World, particularly in Brazil, implies, Auschwitz
as an economic concept has never really been discarded.
In 1944, its utility as a means of accumulation was being
debated much more hotly in Allied circles than among
German capitalists and Nazis. The debate actually
provides us with evidence of the growing hegemony of
Reesian methods among Rockefeller planners, and how
those methods themselves were shaped by capitalist
circumstances.
By that year the sides were beginning to form around
the question of what would be done with the soon-to-be-
defeated Germany. Henry Morgenthau, Jr., the vora¬
ciously anti-communist Secretary of the Treasury under
FDR, was the first to articulate a position. The Morgen-
t)iau Plan, in outline, called for the expansion of the
concentration camp system to include the whole country!
Germany must be “pastoralized,” he demanded — its
industrial capacity in the Ruhr and Rhine regions must
be either dismantled or internationalized under the aegis
of the UN, and German workers must be forced to work
under starvation wages at light industry and agri¬
culture. [28] Only in this way, Morgenthau reasoned,
would the Allies .be able to stop the Soviet Union.
Germany, for Morgenthau, posed a two-fold problem:
if Germany was allowed to re-grow into a mighty indus¬
trial power not only would she be in competition for the
Dollar Empire, but she would also necessarily give rise to
an equally mighty industrial proletariat and a concomi¬
tantly high potential for socialist revolution. The former
meant that the Soviet Union might be able to break the
Dollar stranglehold that Morgenthau hoped would keep
the Russians in check, the latter’s significance is ob¬
vious. Certain that no capitalist could disagree with such
sentiments, Morgenthau convinced Roosevelt, and,
through him, Churchill, of the efficacy of the plan.
By 1947, poor Henry found his plan discarded and
himself in disgrace under a combined attack by the
Departments of War and State, the Supreme Head¬
quarters of the Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF),
and the Rockefeller faction in the Legislature. [29] As we
know from Marcus and Syvriotis [30], the Dollar Empire
that Henry envisioned was built, and the German
working class was devastated to the extent that Morgen¬
thau had thought necessary, so much so that there would
be no significant strike activity in Germany until well
into the second half of the 1960’s. While, admittedly,
there was no quarrel with Morgenthau’s anti¬
communism in capitalist circles, Henry’s view that
workers could only be beaten with crude, physical
weapons was myopic, given the developments of the war.
The Rockefeller forces exacted the price for that myopia
from Morgenthau.
As already notorious, the corporate men that Rocke¬
feller and Mellon had seconded to the government as
economic warfare specialists for the OSS and the Strate¬
gic Bombing Survey had scrupulously avoided the
destruction of Germany’s industrial capacity, in anxious
anticipation of post-war looting. At the same time they
45
had made quite sure that the port facilities and transport
network — that is, the food and materials supply system
— of both the Axis and German-occupied countries was
obliterated. It was clear that the purpose was to reduce
the population, not the plants, to rubble.
A significant part of the decision to dump Morgen-
thau’s plan was the understanding of enlightened
capitalist planners that if this abject condition of a
quarter of the world’s workers was maintained and
manipulated, then their revolutionary potential might be
broken in a few short years, and industrial capacity
could be maintained. Not only did Rees have input into
the monstrous bombing strategists through Kurt Lewin
(see Richard Freeman’s article m this issue), but Tavi¬
stock was also responsible for planning the psychological
manipulations that the European workers were forced to
endure.
The case of Germany is particularly telling. Ger¬
man workers who had for twelve years endured Nazi
propaganda about the inferiority of Eastern Europeans,
were treated to a barrage much more shrill than
Goebbels. “The conditions of living of these United
Nations nationals [Eastern European refugees] shall be
raised to a standard as high as resources allow, without
consideration of any adverse effect on the living condi¬
tions of the German people” (emphasis added), the
German people were incessantly told. “Arrangenients
for alternate accomodations at the earliest possible
moment, if necessary by transferring Germans from
neighboring villages to the concentration camps, should
be made.’’I311
To exacerbate the terror, SHAEF took these refugees
(most of them ex-slave laborers that Schacht’s successors
had imported), supplied them with rot-gut liquor, and
urged gangs of them to loot and murder Germans. When
this phase was sufficiently embedded in workers’ minds,
the refugees themselves were herded back into camps by
Occupation Forces, and told that they would be shot if
they tried to escape. After these ex-slaves were suffi¬
ciently re-broken, they were allowed to trickle back into
their homelands over the next ten years, though many,
particularly the Poles, were sent to French and Belgian
coal mines after they “willingly volunteered to work in
order to eat.’’[32]
It was under these conditions that the strike wave that
passed through Germany soon after the war — the last
for many years — was broken. Also contributory to the
upsurge’s defeat was the Occupation Forces’ manipu¬
lation of the food supply, such that workers’ caloric
intake dropped below the abysmal wartime levels.
Generous estimates state that most European workers
were receiving between 10()0-2()(X) calories per day. In
some cases, for instance, sections of Greece, an intake of
only 600 calories (the sentence of death within a couple
of weeks) was imposed.
After key sections of Europe had been reduced to this
status, military control over food and the resettlement of
refugees was handed over to the United Nations Relief
and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), Dangling
food in front of desperate workers, UNRRA in some
areas had more power than the military authorities, and
was able to set wages and prices, settle strikes, control
news media. Cabinet member Harriman gleefully
described UNRRA as “one of the most effective weapons
at our disposal to influence European political events in
the direction we desire and to avoid the development of a
The Tavistock Grin
Low intensity operations are
designed to drive the working
class of the advanced sector
down to the level of most of
the Third World, happy for its
ration of Food.
Sphere of influence of the Soviet Union over Eastern
Europe and the Balkans.”[42] It is unnecessary that we
go into UNRRA’s replacement, in essence, by the
Marshall Plan.
What is important to note is that the Rockefeller
forces that pushed UNRRA, and later the Marshall
Plan, had more than Harriman’s simplistic notion of
su^ programs. Much of UNRRA aid, for instance, was
going to countries that had already been ceded to the
Soviet Union at the Summit Conferences with Stalin,
and “influence” in the form of good will could not have
been the only goal. UNRRA’s activities in the so-called
‘‘Iron Curtain” countries were, to a large extent,
directed at gathering a psychological profile of those
countries under stress. Every bit of contextual evidence
suggests that wherever possible, UNRRA administrators
manipulated food supplies to select areas not simply for
“disciplinary” purposes, but to test stress factors as Rees
had prescribed.
Bees himself only mentions in 1945, that perhaps
UNRRA units were pre-eminently suited to gather
psychiatric material on national ideologies for later use
in^both selection and psychological warfare [34]. But we
are aware that he was in a position to do more than
suggest. By that time Rees had already sent two Tavi-
stockers onleave to the UNRRA psychological section.
Tte UNRRA executive was itself advised by the Inter-
Allied Study Group which Rees set up immediately after ‘
the war. The lASG was headed by Dicks, the ranking
psychiatrist in British Intelligence, and Ed Shils, the top
psywar specialist for the OSS and the OSS’s liason man
with the SHAEF Psychological Warfare Division. Not
coincidentally, Dicks was responsible for training Shils
and the rest of SHAEF Psywar in Reesian methods
during the war. [35]
iThat UNRRA was deeply involved in testing and
implementing Reesian control techniques is illustrated
readily by the case of Richard Hauser, UNRRA admini¬
strator in Italy in charge of Displaced Persons.
Hauser, though nominally unconnected with Rees and
the Tavistock network, set up a unit in 1945 for ex-fascist
anny officers modeled precisely on the selection and
resettlement camp that Rees had developed. Using
Bion’s “leaderless group” techniques, he was assigned
to convince the ex-fascists that democracy was an
inherently better system than fascism. He was so suc¬
cessful that by 1945, the officers were assigned to be
“instructors in democracy” for the Italian Army and
Civil Service! [36] For the incredulous, it might be noted,
anecdotally, that one of Hauser’s more recent pupils was
theKawaida hit-man, Ron Karenga, whom he trained at
Saul Alinsky’s Urban Training Center, where he is a
visiting instructor.
;,,With the experiences of the immediate post-war
period, the Reesian theory of war reached its mature
form. In addition to being able to perform psychological
profile experiments on a good part of the world —
especially in the cfucial Eastern Bloc, before those
countries would be closed to clinicians such as Rees —
the Tavistock network was able to make large-scale tests
of selection and resettlement methods of mass persua¬
sion. Rees hoped it would never end. “The resettlement
of the world and the constant flow of social problems will
provide us with unlimited opportunities for attempting
wiser direction [emphasis added].”[37] In fact, Rees
helped the CIA continue.to select agents out of the
refugee camps until as late as 1959. [38]
In addition, the German occupation experiments
under SHAEF and the UNRRA experience helped the
Tavistock and CIA planners add a new weapon to their
repertoire, food control. The weapon itself was not new.
As a historian of the post-war period has noted, “Food
had proven to be a critical political weapon after World
War I, and during the discussions leading to the forma¬
tion of UNRRA the obvious utility of its serving the same
function came up again.”[39] But it would take the
Reesian psywar specialists in SHAEF and the OSS-CIA,
who actually programmed the supply of food to exacer¬
bate psychological tensions of European workers, to put
food control on a rigorous basis.
^ The post-war European experience had proven to the
Rockefeller forces and their faction within the CIA, and
to most of the British Military Establishment, that eco¬
nomic warfare subsumed within a Reesian psywar profile
and concerted with other mass persuasion techniques
was likely the most effective, not to mention eco^
nomical, form of war. Unfortunately, for these planners,
such techniques could not be taken to their logical exten¬
sion in Europe at the time. Attempts at full control
would have undoubtedly met with serious resistance
from the working class, psychologically blasted as it was,
and probably from the Soviet Union. Thus, in the 1950*s
most of the Tavistock field agents returned to England
where they wrote up their reports of the psychological
capacities of the EasternBloc for the CIA think tank, the
RAND Corporation [40], and began testing their
“meth^s on the British labor movement. [41]
The dynamic of Reesian control techniques was in no
way blunted after the war, but the location of their area
of operations was shifted to an area more politically
suited to their implementation in full. War, even psywar,
is incompetent if it is not aiming for complete victoiy
over the enemy. While such victories could not be had in
Europe immediately, the weakness of the working class
and the indecisive position of the Soviets in Southeast
Asia and Africa provided ample opportunity for real
victories over the working class. Such victories
demanded not only the destruction of the morale of the
“The Reesians Post-War Play ground’\ —
Immediately after the war, UNRRA
occupied a large chunk of Europe for
large-scale psychological warfare testing
and to make profiles of the population for
later use. Thousands died or were
psychologically maimed in the Rees-
UNRRA food control studies. S /
/
■ N.
fN
f
S
/
1 = 4/5
ft –
€
J
1 ^
/
^ o
A F ft
C A
^ ftr
workers, but also the development of new forms capable
of sustaining that level of psychological manipulation for
the CIA and Rockefeller.
It is probable, that the decision to use Malaya as the
first test case for an advanced Reesian operation was
made during the last months of the war. By that point it
was obvious that nothing could stop the strike wave of
the overwhelmingly pro-communist Malayan labor
movement that did indeed sweep the peninsula after
1945. It was equally clear that any attempt to main¬
tain Malaya as a colony would drive the Malayan bour¬
geoisie into the popular front against the British, and
would hand the peninsula, and the militarily crucial
Straits of Malacca that it controlled, over to the Soviet
Union. The workers, not actually the Malayan CP armed
cadres, were the problem. These armed guerrillas were
already under the control of British Intelligence, so it
was more a matter of utilizing the CPM to unwittingly
blunt the strike wave and to build a CIA-controlled
Reesian government.
Malaya was actually an easy operation. The Colonial
Police’s intelligence section, the Special Branch (which
reported not only to the colonial commissioner but also
to the head of the Security Service, MI-5, in London),
had been highly active since the 1920’s. Special Branch
infiltration of the left was so successful by 1930 that the
Comintern representative to the area was picked up after
only a month of activity, along with all of his top trade
union contacts. [42] When the Japanese attacked in
December, 1941, it was the British Special Branch that
proposed to the CPM leadership that they prepare for
armed struggle. The entire military leadership of the
CPM’s Malayan Peoples’ Anti-Japanese Army was
trained at Special Training School No. 101, commanded
by two officers from the Special Operations Executive.
Many of the communist guerrilla units in the field were
also commanded by British officers of Force 136, the
Southeast Asian division of the SOE.[43]
In addition, the Japanese Occupation Forces con¬
tinued this process of infiltration. It was Standard Oper¬
ating procedure for the Special Techniques section of the
Security Operations division of the Japanese Army to set
up Hsueh‘Chu’Hui (Cooperation and Assistance Society)
in occupied zones. “The organizational and operational
principles of the society were very closely patterned after
the work of the Communist Party” [44], and the societies
were usually successful in penetrating the CP’s urban
underground apparatus. It is likely that, with the
capture of extensive documentation of the Japanese
network by the Allies, British Intelligence simply con¬
tinued to utilize the apparat, as the Allies did with Nazi
Intelligence officer Gehlen’s organization.
No historian has yet come up with a coherent analysis
of why or how the CPM decided upon the suicidal course
of guerrilla warfare in 1948, but we suggest that more
input into that decision came from Lord Mountbatten’s
intelligence division than from the Chinese or Soviet
CP’s. In addition to controlling the vast British Intelli¬
gence network, within the Malayan movement, Mount-
batten was responsible for making sure that the wartime
guerrilla units were hopelessly under-supplied. However,
in the last months of the war the units were deluged with
weapons supply drops, in spite of the fact that Japan was
about to surrender. The guerrillas, finally well-armed,
never were able to engage the Japanese significantly[45],
and found themselves confronting only the British.
After the post-war strike wave was brutally crushed by
British forces, the CPM was easily manipulated into
beginning guerrilla fighting. Though an official state of
emergency was declared in 1948, the British response to
the fighting was notoriously light until the High Com¬
missioner, Sir Henry Gurney, was assassinated under
suspicious circumstances. Not so strangely, Gurney’s
death was timed to occur with Churchill’s re-election in
October, 1951. Provided with an excuse for a hard line,
Churchill ordered the unification of civil and military
control of Malaya under General Sir Gerald Templar,
the former Vice Chief of the General Staff.
With Templar’s arrival, the war, if it can be techni¬
cally called that, was over. Then the Reesian test phase
began. Rees’ techniques for food control, selection, and
resettlement were implemented with a vengeance. The
rice crop was destroyed, and “food cans were even punc¬
tured.”[46] Food was stored by the government and dis¬
pensed only at community kitchens. “This technique of
community cooking as a control mechanism was based
on the fact that cooked rice spoils in twenty-four hours in
the tropical environment and thus could not be stored\for
any period of’time.”[47] Reeling from this quick descent
into near starvation, Malayans were told that it was the
fault of the guerrillas, but that they could obtain food by
resettling to a system of “New Villages” that the govern¬
ment had set up. Over 500,(X)0 Malayans (one-tenth of
the population) were resettled, sometimes by force, to
the New Villages, but it is obvious that the program was
more aimed at the additional 650,(XX) rubber workers
and tin miners who were also resettled. [48]
While the New Villages were nominally under
Templar, their functioning was controlled by Templar’s
Director of Intelligence, John Morton, formerly of MI-5,
and the head of his Information Department, A.D.
Peterson. Peterson had been a colleague of Enoch Powell
while he was the psywar specialist for Mountbatten’s
intelligence section. It is likely that by that time they
both met Rees, who had himself spent early 1945 ad¬
vising Mountbatten on the Burma operation. [49] Mor-
49
ton’s job, as he himself saw it, was “bringing the
nationalist movement to the fore.“[50] Morton and
Peterson used the Villages to profile the population, and
select out the future Malaysian Government and Civil
Service.
If our discussion tends to leave out the role of the
guerrilla movement itself, it is because their “inde¬
pendent” effect on the development of the new Malay¬
sian Government was in fact minimal. Though they did
manage to kill off about 1,900 police and soldiers in
twelve years, their more heinous alleged crimes like
destruction of crops, slashing rubben trees, and assassi¬
nations of civilians, were more likely done by the Special
Branch. In addition to the guerrillas’ being well-pene¬
trated by the pre-war and wartime apparat, Morton and
Petersoh selected lively candidates from the New Village
and POW camps to form a Special Operational Volun¬
teer Force, which they used to even further infiltrate
their network.
The infiltration was so deep that “by 1957 Special
Branch had a dossier on almost individual guerrilla who
was left.”[51] The guerrillas of Malaya were never beat¬
en, they were allowed to slink back into the jungle. Un¬
fortunately, the pitiful puppet show goes on to this day,
as the guerrillas are occasionally trotted out to perform
some meaningless act of terrorism. They are of the most
use when it is necessary to exacerbate racial tensions.
SOE had made sure in 1941 that they trained only
communists from Malaya’s Chinese minority, and the
CPM was never able to organize its way out of that
situation.
The unified command form of government, which was
set up even on the state and district level, was phased
over to selected and British-trained, anti-communist
Malays who maintained the system intact. Even the food
control system was maintained under the new title
“Emergency Food Denial Organization,” administered
by the Malayan Ministry of Defense and Internal
Security. The New Villages, of course, became the
basis for the new, “independent” Malayan economy.
The problem of Kenya proved to be more difficult for
the Rees-trained counterinsurgents of the British Army.
Strike activity in Nairobi in the early 1950’s, and the
possibility of its link-up with the ugly mood of the adja¬
cent, pro-independence Kikuyu tribesmen had
demanded action by 1953. While it is unlikely that the
so-called Mau Mau Emergency would have led to a
socialist revolution, capitalist planners had determined
that if any colonial looting ground was to be inde¬
pendent, its freedom would definitely be conducive to
maintained accumulation. Food control and resettle¬
ment — called “villagization” in Kenya — was viciously
administered, this time by practitioners who had learned
the methods from the Reesian masters in the German
occupation.
The military commander who implemented the tech¬
niques, General Sir George Erskine, had been deputy
Chief of Staff on the Control Commission for Germany,
responsible for civilian food distribution, and, possibly,
Rees’ center at Bad Oeyenhausen. The officer in charge
of Nairobi area Special Branch forces and covert opera¬
tions was Captain Frank Kitsbn, who had also served in
the German Occupation as an Intelligence officer.
Kitson found that, for reason of the recent origins of
the insurrectionary movement, there had been no oppor¬
tunities for infiltration as in Malaya. This he solved by
taking Morton and Peterson’s minor innovation, the
Special Operations Volunteer Force, and, expanding it,
he built a parallel guerrilla infrastructure from the
ground up. [52] Selecting out “volunteers” from the
resettlement labor camps and the internment camps for
Mau Mau suspects, Kitson dotted the region with his
own network of training centers. There are indications
that Kitson’s “revolutionaries” were better organized
than the actual insurgents. Within less than a year, the
“counter-gangs” — as Kitson called his network — had
penetrated the insurgents’ infrastructure so deeply that
Kitson’s men were leading relatively large Mau Mau
units.
The fact that official histories of the Emergency credit
the final defeat of the insurrection to “Operation Anvil,”
a silly maneuver in which the RAF aimlessly bombed the
huge Kikuyu Forest hoping to drive hiding insurgents
into soldiers at the forest’s perimeter, only indicates that
Kitson’s efforts were being down-played by decision. The
rebellion was more likely broken by the total psycho¬
logical collapse of Mau Mau cadre under Kitson’s on¬
slaught.
After his counter-gangs had penetrated the Mau Mau,
Kitson would occasionally pull out some of his cadre and
a few of his professional informers, dress them in hoods
and long white robes, then clear out an entire village and
force them to march past his “hooded men” who would
select Mau Mau suspects. While the Japanese and others
had used the “hooded man” technique defensively years
before, Kitson, with his long, ominous line of spooks,
used it to bluntly impress the population with the
fact that their underground was hardly secret to the
British. When it became obvious to every Mau Mau
cadre that there was a good possibility that he might be
the only one who was not an infiltrator, the movement
collapsed. As the Mau Mau disintegrated, Jomo
Kenyatta, a more malleable leader of the anti-colonial
movement, was given a timely release from a British jail.
Years later, with a cuteness typical of the “old boys”
at Cl A Covert Operations, “De Mau Mau” would be the
50
name of one of the counter-gangs operating against U.S.
ghetto populations, and two of the CIA’s biggest black
operators would have their names changed to Muhamed
Kenyatta and Charles 37X Kenyatta. [53]
By the late 1%0’s there could have been no question in
the minds of Rockefeller’s CIA planners that food
control, resettlement, and counter-gang organizing
would be the ptimary weapons against the working class
and their potential allies in the Eastern Bloc. At the
beginning of that decade, the primary thrust was toward
enlarging that capability so as to be ready for the final,
inevitable battle with the working class and the Soviet
Union. Though the U.S. military had been engaged in
covert operations since the war, and the CIA itself had
built up a formidable covert para-military network, it
was obvious that the whole U.S. Armed Forces had to be
upgraded to perform Reesian operations on the level of
the CIA and the British Army, if the class war were to be
finally resolved.
Valiant attempts were made to turn the crude
counterinsurgency action in Vietnam into a mature
Reesian operMion. It is clear that the CIA planners had
believed that a simple puppet Diem government com¬
bined with counter-gang organizing among Meo tribes¬
men, etc. by the CIA-controlled Special Forces would
suffice. But, by 1961, such small-scale measures could
not cope with an unbroken working class, an im-infil-
trated guerrilla army, and support from the Chinese and
Soviets, however half-hearted. The Rockefeller wing of
the CIA brought in Sir Robert Thompson, who had
served in the Malayan operation, to plead for food
control and resettlement. [54] If the Strategic Hamlets —
as Thompson had renamed the resettlement camps —
were implemented wisely, and backed up by food
control, then the Vietnamese farmers, and later the
workers could be psychologically smashed, and the
Hamlets could become the basis of a new government to
replace the ineffectual Diem regime.
Though the Pentagon did agree to the massive use of
chemical defoliants to destroy the South Vietnamese rice
crop to complement the formation of the hamlets in
1961-62, the strategy was not seen as more than defen¬
sive by President Kennedy and the old school Pentagon
faction. Kennedy, in fact, would never internalize that
the true nature of “counter-gang” organizing was that
such manipulated formations could actually become the ,
government. It was only after the President’s death that
the U.S. military would begin gearing up for Reesian
capability.
To follow up the growing interest in Reesian war after
Thompson’s intervention, the CIA brought a team of
British counterinsurgents to the U.S. in 1962 for a barn¬
storming recruitment tour of military circles. At an
important symposium on counterinsurgency set up by
the CIA think-tank RAND Corporation in 1%2, the new
style of warfare was pushed by counter-gangster Kitson
himself, and it is reported that there was enthusiastic
response, especially from the Americans.[55]
To counteract the cost-minded bureaucratuc faction
of the Pentagon beginning to coalesce around Robert
McNamara, the British team included Colonel Shireley,
the head of the Operations Research Section during the
Malayan Emergency, who stressed that such warfare was
the only effective “long-haul, low-cost” strategy. [56] The
Operations Research line that there should be a unified,
“systems analysis” approach to warfare — that the mili-
I
Brigadier Frank Kitson
(Boy Sadist)
51
(
tary should be prepared to govern as well as fight, as the
Reesians suggested — would within a year be taken up
by Tavistock directly. In 1%3, the Operations Research
Society of Britain, of which most military QR men like
Shireley were members, merged with the Tavistock Insti¬
tute to form the Institute for Operational Research.
While it will not be necessary here to detail the further
takeover of the U.S. military by the Rockefeller-Rees
forces (See Cuskie), by 1967, the CIA had gained enough
support to openly suggest that the Southeast Asia situa¬
tion, if it could not be won* could be the testing ground
for an American Army prepared for class struggle. The
cabal’s position was most bluntly put forward in a 1967
proposal to the Department of Defense by a lesser-
known CIA braintrust, the American Institute of
Research which claimed:
The potential applicability of the findings in the United’
States will also receive special attention. In many of our key
doniestic programs, especially those directed at dis¬
advantaged subcultures, the methodological problems ^re
similar to those described in this proposal; and the
application of the Thai findings [which included the
demand for extensive use of food control and reset¬
tlement — M.M.] at home constitutes a potentially more
significant project contribution. [57]
IV. Low Intensity Operations and What to Do
About Them
At the beginning of the present decade, it had become
unquestionable to the Rockefeller Cabal that the troops,
many now well-schooled in counterinsurgency tech¬
niques, would have to be brought home. Throughout the
second half of the 1960’s, such a contingency had been
built throughout the advanced capitalist sector, with the
velocity of its implementation increasing with capitalists’
awareness of the magnitude of the present breakdown
crisis.
In the United States, the CIA-fpunded Law Enforce¬
ment Assistance Administration (LEAA) took over the
brainwashing network that the CIA had set up in the
nation’s prisons a few years earlier to destroy the black
movement. The LEA A used this network as the basis for
the creation of a number of large counter-gangs, both
black and white, right ^nd left. The LEA A also took
responsibility for rationalizing and reshaping urban
police departments to make them capable of using the
sophisticated techniques that had been laboriously tested
in Vietnam.
In the United Kingdom, the Home Office provided a
similar function. In Italy, the CIA-controlled Psycho¬
logical Warfare Division of the Italian Army works
directly with one of the largest counter-gangs in
existence, the fascist MSI.
By our estimation, every “underground” terrorist
group in the world is either a counter-gang or so infil¬
trated by operatives and psychologically manipulated
victims that it is, except in the case of individual
members, impossible to make the distinction. Such a
depth of penetration is demanded by a depression.
Firstly, in a period when it is certain that workers will be
seeking out radicals both left and right, the cabal has
made sure that those workers will have to run a gamut of
counter^gangs who will take the most weak-willed and
siphon them off into suicidal terrorism, nationalism, and
clean-trade-unionism. Secondly, it is necessary that
some of these gangs become large enough to be used on
the world strategic level against the working class and
against the Soviet Union.
Even the Soviets have fallen into supporting blatant
counter-gang formations like the notorious Black
September guerrillas, whose existence was developed to
out-fox them in the Mid-East. Another counter-gang,
the provisional IRA, set up by Kitson himself, is still
being used for last-minute training of British troops that
will be shortly used on their homeland, and the situation
has gotten so unwieldy that security forces cannot help
but occasionally ^hoot British soldiers assigned to
counter-gang duty. [58]
But even the counter-gang’s utility in manipulating
world politics and in ensnaring potential class leaders is
insufficient to prevent serious working-class opposition
to the demands of capitalism in its final depression. That
is made quite clear by Frank Kitson, the Reesian
lieutenant who has now made his way to brigadier and a
position as the top counterinsurgent in the British
General Staff. Low Intensity Operations, Kitson’s 1971
extended memorandum to the military officers of the
cabal that he helped recruit over the last two decades,
demands that armies prepare for the only war that is left,
the world revolution. [59] The only armies that are so
prepared are those capable of “stability operations” —
Kitson’s bland military term for military dictatorship. In
the Kitson memo, the Rees-Rockefeller forces call upon
the military for the last-minute re-tooling in preparation
, for rule, suggesting that now armies must quickly muster
the capability to run vital services, such as sewerage and
transportation, “without the aid of civilian authorities,”
in periods when such authorities are “unable or un¬
willing to provide them.”[60] Kitson leaves the dubious
legal point of who is supposed to decide when duly
elected or appointed civil authorities are “unwilling,” up
to the barren imaginations of his fellow Reesian officers.
The counter-gangs must now become the Reesian
“shock troops,” the “mobile teams who are free
52
to.. .make contact with the local situation.” “Counter¬
organization is the putting over to the public by action
rather than by propaganda, the views of the goveynment.
For this purpose individuals can be sent amongst the
community for the purpose of doing work which will help
to remove sources of grievance and at the same time
making contact with the people. ”[61] “Serve the
people”? Once such counter-organizations are estab¬
lished “on similar lines to those established by the
enemy” and have gotten “right under the skin of the
population,” then, after the army has moved in, they will
have provided “a framework which helped engender a
feeling of security aiid commitment amongst the popula¬
tion which in turn encouraged them to give in¬
formation. ”[62]
The counter-gang can only be a holding action in ^
revolutionary period, even if it has some offensive capa¬
bilities, as Kitson insists it must. Kitson’s point has been
already proven in the field when two counter-gang
formations, Baraka’s Kawaida organization and the
Beni Zakeem of Brooklyn, attempted to move offensively
on the Labor Committees and were counter-attacked so
successfully that they had to be sacrificed by higher
authorities. The counter-organization network, even
when assisted by the CIA’s LEA A hit squads like
STRESS and the Tactical Squads of urban police
departments, can only prepare the path for stability
operations troops prepared to cement rule with, of
course, ‘‘‘food control and resettlement schemes” which
are the “primary non-military means of harming the
enemy. ”[63]
After the stability forces, which must have full psycho¬
logical warfare capability, have herded the population
into the resettlement camps under threat of starvation,
then Reesian selection can go on unimpeded and in full,
society can be rebuilt as the rationally selected citizenry
are placed into their proper roles, and can take over from
the military who have minimally maintained vital ser¬
vices for the duration of the transition. From the psycho¬
logically manipulated environment of the camps there
can be selected the informers to keep camp security, the
caards, the workers who must be worked to death, and
those who will be brainwashed. But capitalist rationality
in a period of depression demands that the entire process
of psychological manipulation, brainwashing, and selec¬
tion become no more than a sophisticated version of the
medical team at the gate of Auschwitz who sent the able-
bodied to the left and the doomed to the right.
Kitson’s plans significantly leave out how his special
units will actually defeat the fighting potential of the
working class. In spite of massive infiltration of the labor
movement and the collusion of labor leaders in the broad
implementation of coercive techniques in plants, how
will it be possible to believe as Rockefeller does that the
imminent presence of soldiers in the streets of Britain
will not finally warn the workers, of the Continent and
North America that they must prepare for the fight?
These special forces and their counter-gangs are
prepared to give a limited fight, but is finally Reesian
psywar which has become the means of class war. The
movements of the Rockefeller forces on a daily basis have
brought this conclusively home. Rees himself claims that
his only publicly acknowledged original contribution to
the psychiatry of war — or the psychiatric war — was
that of “battle inoculation.”[64]
Rees found that in the First War, training was limited
to teaching a soldier to shoot straight, march in line, and
follow orders. When such trainees were thrust into the
horror of battle, many broke down. In the early part of
the Second World War, army psychiatrists tried to
counteract this by making maneuvers as realistic as
possible, using blood and offal from local butcher shops,
^ plenty of explosives, etc. Unfortunately, recruits tended
to be as traumatized by the maneuvers as by real battles.
Rees realized that the incidence of battle trauma could
be reduced by a series of maneuvers, accompanied by
training films, in which there was a “gradual introduc¬
tion of unpleasant things.” Using the massive economic
forces that the Rockefeller cabal can muster, they are
similarly “inoculating” the working class to food con¬
trol and resettlement schemes.
Phony shortage upon phony shortage, in addition to
providing the excuse for cutting back unprofitable
production, has been used to bring areas of the world to
critical low points in their food and fuel supplies. Then
add a transparent counter-gang like Mike Parkhurst’s
independent truckers and an engineered shutdown of
transport, and you have the National Guard bringing in
the food and fuel, as happened in Pennsylvania and the
South. In San Francisco, a group of obvious brainwash
victims, the Symbionese Liberation Army, have made
food distribution centers commonplace in the ghetto.
Sabre-rattling by Rockefeller man Kissinger and by
the CIA-sympathizers at the Pentagon, in addition to
being aimed at the Soviets, provides the excuse for “civil
defense” hysteria. Already, Secretary of Defense Schle-
singer has suggested that by June there should be a civil
defense test in which the “non-essential personnel” of
seven large American cities will be resettled for a short
period in safe spots in the country. The two English
towns of Corby and Hull were recently turned into
Northern Irish towns as troops took over the streets for
counterinsurgency maneuvers without notifying the
citizens or the local authorities. Calculated layoff pat¬
terns are creating bands of unemployed “refugees” not
unlike the^ “Oakies” of the Thirties, but in this period.
53
they are being offered jobs if they resettle to the Rocke¬
feller-controlled work camps of the Athabasca oil fields.
The working class has already sustained a series of the
most rotten set-ups in which they have experienced food
control, resettlement, and the presence of military or
para-military forces controlling the streets. Some
tactics, like the oil hoax, are now being tried again
— recycled — in some parts of the world. Yet most
workers cannot see the coherence of this series, and are
experiencing only the horrible, vague feeling that “some¬
thing must be wrong.” This is because the manipulations
are being administered in the same way that Rees used
Bion’s group therapy.
Generally, the manipulations are not administered in
a linear progression, but in a cyclical fashion such that
one section of workers will experience layoffs while
another will wait in long lines for rationed gas. The
worker’s bourgeois ego blinds him from seeing the attack
on another section of the class as an attack on himself.
These manipulated events remain “natural” and uncon¬
nected — that is, magical — even though some of them
are shaping his behavior. Basing their. strategy on this
weakness in the class, the Rees-Rockefeller forces are
aiming for the cumulative effect. Like the empiricist
quack manipulators of group therapy, the Rockefeller
forces have built up, through their counter-gangs and
financial deals, a fairly sQt repertoire of hoaxes, terrorist
attacks, phony strikes, etc. Computer-assisted, they run
through the repertoire, altering the progression, velocity,
and form slightly in accordance with the ideological
differences in the class that they have studied for so long.
The class is faced with the situation in which world
events are designed for effect, in which large radical
groups and some trade unions are led by zombies or
dupes, and in which many of the operators in the field
are themselves unaware of their shaped motivation, or of
how they fit in the overall effect. In such a world the
criterion for insanity is to say that reality is what it
appears to be.
The Labor Committees will continue to shine the light
on this covert network of vampires because once the
coherence in detail of a section of this psywar program is
exposed it tends to lose its effect on workers. It is actually
a race against time, whether we can build the forces to
take out key sections of this network, before the network
destroys through this program the creativity necessary to
lead a revolutionary fight against these forces. The
vampire image is doubly apt, for the psychological
significance of the vampire legend is that the vampire
feeds upon the rottenness of the victim (e.g., the failure
to wear a crucifix, say prayers regularly, etc.).
For psychopath Rees there was no positive significance
to his psywar program, outside of a hysterical desire to
maintain capitalists’ property titles for them. The
Reesian theory or war is predicated on the weakness of
the working class. “The post-war malcontents,” says
Rees, in the sentinal Shaping…, “may well be written
down as infected by subversive influence, as communists
or what-not, unless we are able to demonstrate that they
are men who have been unwisely handled and who are
reacting like rebellious and difficult children. ”[65] The
statement is partially a cover. The nature of Reesian
control is “motherly,” but what Mother Rees does not
mention is that, if workers refuse to be treated like chil¬
dren, his psywar program is designed to viciously drive
them back into infantilism, many at the cost of their
minds.
It is clear from an analysis of the work of key Tavi¬
stock personnel, and collaterally, from the modus
operand! of the Tavistock network and the CIA, that
infantilization — officially, the theory of anal sadism —
is at the basis of the psywar strategy.
Rees’intellectual troubleshooter, H.V. Dicks, informs
us that the first big discussion paper at the “invisible
college” was his own “Anal Sadistic Basis of Our
Culture,” and that his became the basis for the work in
the German ideology and for the selection of Ger¬
mans. [66] Only hints are given about the full theory in
Dicks’ writings, as he writes concerning his role in
UNRRA, as the chief psychological profile specialist for
the CIA’s RAND Corporation. Only in 1972 do we get a
coherent picture in Dicks’ Licensed Mass Murder, a
study of mass killers of the Nazi SS. As in the case of
Kitson’s final book, there is no time to banter, and there
is only a minimal cover on what must be done. The book
is a “how-to” text. The Columbus Centre at the Uni¬
versity of Sussex in England, under whose aegis the piece
is writeen, is an open Tavistock-front organization. The
Centre has only one line of work; it publishes “Studies in
the Dynamics of Persecution and Extermination.”[67]
Both Rees and Dicks marvelled at the level of control
that the Nazis held over the German population, and the
Nazis’ purblind understanding of psychological oper¬
ations. As an example, Rees in 1945 pointed to Ger¬
many’s “elaborate selection techniques, out of which
grew the still wider department of psychological warfare.
However disastrous the ultimate aim and purpose of this
work iii Germany, there is no question that it was
thorough and effective, though lacking in some of the
more imaginative and insightful aspects of work in our
own countries.” [68] It was Dicks whom Rees assigned to
discover the origins of such developments in the
phylogeny of the German ideology.
The general theory coming from the studies Dicks
believed was applicable, with variation, to all European,
Russian, and North American cultures. Blocked from
54
seeing love as the infant’s growing perception and under¬
standing of social relations around it, Dicks cannot see
how the infantile ego is capable of overcoming its
preoccupation with object possession. [69] The infant
lives in a state of “primitive greed” which is “coupled
[with] typical resentment against the originators of the
frustration [denial of objects — M.M.] that had to be
internalized as ‘bad, anti-libidinal objects.’”[70] For the
child, “excrement becomes the symbol of all the badness
and hate taken inside as oral privation, just at the stage
of toilet training and acquisiton of muscular control over
the anus and so over the faeces can become the setting
for rebellion against the depriving, punishing authority
figure, internalized as well as outside.”[71] The child
becomes an anal sadist, both excreting upon his
enemies, and terrified of the “badness” inside him.
Since adulthood is, more or less, a veneer for Dicks,
regression into this infantile state can be caused by
“stressful circumstances resembling or evoking strong
emotive associations with the early object-relations.”[72]
Dicks found that the Nazi ideology tended to appeal to
those egos that had been most weakened and terrified by
hunger (such as in the horrible period of privation after
the First World War) and disruption of the home (with
many fathers away at the front or dead).
As is well-known, the period of Nazification was not
abrupt, but was a de facto process of inoculation which
simultaneously exacerbated these fears while getting the
Germans used to Schachtian policies. The Nazis actually
selected the weakest of these egos for the elite SS, in
which they were consciously inoculated on the basis of
a’n intense form of sadistic mothering (recruits were
forced to watch and implement progressively more brutal
tortures and publicly humiliated if they flinched; alter¬
natively, their trainers would offer them beer and
camaraderie, etc,). The product, especially in the SS
who made up the concentration camp guards, was
“mother’s little men” (“I was only a little cog.” “I was
only following orders.” “I did not pull the trigger, I only
drove the truck.”). The Reesian “beauty” of Nazi propa¬
ganda was that it portrayed Jews and Eastern Europeans
FOOTNOTES
1. Rees, J., The Shaping of Psychiatry By War, New York, 1945, p. 81.
2. See Cuskie, Freeman, and AAarcus in this issue. The tactical deployment of the
TavistQCk-Rockefeller forces, along with marching orders to our growing working
class forces to take out these targets, can be obtained from New Solidarity, the
NCLC press, on an on-going basis.
3. Rees, op. cit., p. 43.
4. Ibid., p. 45.
5. Grmasci, Antonio, “Americanism and Fordism” in Selections from the Prison
Notebooks, New York, 1971, pp. 302-303.
While Gramsci avoided the difficult question of Freud’s contribution, he “in-
stinctually” suspected the use of the new science at the hands of the capitalists,
and noted it as one of the problems facing the working class; “psychoanalysis and
its enormous diffusion since the war, as the expression of the increased moral
coersion exercized by the apparatus of the State and society on single individuals,
and of the pathological crisis determined by this coersion,” p. 280.
6. AAenzel, C. “After the Ludlow Massacre,” New Solidarity, March 27, 1974, p. 4
and April 10, 1974, p. 6. Covers the Rockefeller family’s early relationship with
Rees and the mental health movement and Rees’s formation of the World
Federation of Mental Health.
as rats, as the shit that the Nazis themselves much
feared. In the extreme form, SS camp guards obsessively
tried to destroy the rats, the shits, the “useless mouths to
feed” confined in the camps.
That Dicks had convinced capitalist planners that this
theory should be the basis of post-war psychological
warfare is demonstrated by the operations of the Occu¬
pation Forces and UNRRA which Dicks and Tavistock
advised. The essence of SHAEF propaganda in occupied
Germany was that Germans would starve to feed the
Jews and Eastern Europeans. One SHAEF propaganda
drive impressed Germans with the fact that the refugees
were ten to twenty pounds heavier than the starving
Germans. “Your body is disappearing. It is turning into
shit. You are turning into shit.” From this studied in¬
tensification of all the psychological horrors of the Third
Reich, plus the profiling and manipulation of many of
the new leaders at the Selection Centre, the creative
revolutionary potential of the German working class was
not expected to survive.
Similarly, the forced resettlement and food control
conducted by the Rees/Dicks-advised UNRRA not only
provided a clinical laboratory to test different national¬
ities’ ability to withstand infantilization, but also insured
that the coming generation of Greeks, Ukranians, et aL
would grow up with the experience of extreme childhood
deprivation and uncertainty.
The Rees-Rockefeller program calls for the reduction
of the advanced capitalist sector to the state approxi¬
mating that in Greece and Italy after the war by exploit¬
ing every form of infantilism that the working class
retains. Look at Italy, where CIA neo-fascists are openly
touting that they will destroy the country’s political
parties around the divorce referendum and defy the left
to overcome its mother domination and stop the
move. We build a self-conscious intellectual renais¬
sance and organize the working class out of its childish
individualism, or we are permanently reduced to infants
emulating the sadism of the Reesian Woman who tells us
where to resettle and giyes us our food.
7. Ree%, op. cit., p. 133.
8. Ibid., p. 62.
9. Ibid., p. 120.
10. See The Campaigner, Vol. 7, No. 4-5 (February March 1974), particularly the
articles by Marcus, White and Menzel. for a discussion of the clinical aspects of
brainwashing.
11. Dicks, H.V., Fifty Years at Tavistock, London, 1970, p. 63.
12. Ibid., p. 145.
13. See L. Marcus’s papers on the New Psychoanalysis published in The
Campaigner, September-October, 1973, November, 1973, December, 1973. and
January, 1974.
14. Rees, op. cit., p. 52.
15. Rees, J. Reflections, New York, 1966, pp. 41-42.
16. Dicks, op. cit., p. 99.
17. Rees, Reflections, p. 45.
18. Rees, Shaping, p. 61.
19. Wilson, A.T.M., et al., “Transitional Communities and Social Reconnection: A
Study of Civil Resettlement of British Prisoners of War,” in Readings in Social
Psychology, New York, 1952, p. 561-581.
55
20. Rees, J. (ed.), The Case of Rudolph Hess, London, 1947, introduction.
21. Hints of this can be found in Dicks’ discussion of his work in “Personality
Traits and National Socialist Ideology,” Human Relations, 3 (1950) p. 111-154.
22. Dicks, Fifty Years, p. 110.
23. Rees, Shaping, p. 136.
24. Rees, Reflections, passim. In the Reesian view, power over social formations
can be maintained by controlling a select number of key “co-operators.” See the
lengthy discussions of “rumor control” by many Tavistockians in early post-war
Issues of Human Relations and Public Opinion Quarterly.
25. Rees, Shaping, p. 83.
26. Rees, Reflections, passim. See also the cited AAenzel articles on the WF/WH in
New Solidarity.
27. See Note 10.
28. Morgenthau, Henry, Germany Is Our Problem, New York, 1945, passim. U.S.
Senate, Committee on Military Affairs, “A Program for German Economic and
Industrial Disarmament,” Subcommittee on War Mobilization Monograph No, 6,
April, 1946, passim.
29. Adequate for the story of the dumping of the Morganthau Plan is Kolko, G.
Politics of War, New York, 1968, passim. Collaterally, refer to James Forrestal’s
Diaries (edited by Walter Minis), New York, 1951.
30. Marcos, L. “United States of Europe: Their Program and Ours,” The
Campaigner, Vol. 5, No. 4 ( Fall, 1972) and Syvriotis, N., “The Self-Cannibalization
of Europe,” The Campaigner, Vol. 5, No. 3, (Summer 1972),
31. Quoted in Proudfoot, M. European Refugees: 1939-52, Evanston, Ml., 1956, p.
162.
32. Ibid., p. 174.
33. Quoted in Kolko, The Politics of War, p. 259.
34. Rees, Shaping, p. 105.
35. Lerner, D., Sykewar, 1949. See also Cuskie in this issue.
36. Hauser, R. and H., Fraternal Society, New York, 1963, pp. 192-196.
37. Rees, Shaping, p. 153.
38. Rees remained a close advisor to the United Nations High Commissioner on
Refugees, and ran a convention on that subject in Vienna in 1959. Refer to Michael
Klare’s War Without End, New York, 1972, for a discussion of the CIA’s use of
refugees.
39. Kolko, op. cit., p. 259.
40. Dicks himself led the exodus to RAND. In 1950, he took leave from Tavistock
for a special assignment with RAND and a notorious RAND sub contractor.
Harvard University’s Social Relations Department (which, incidentally, was
founded by Dr. Alan Gregg, the Rockefeller Foundation’s Chief Medical Officer
and Rockefeller’s Mason man with Tavistock). A “laundered” version of Dicks’
psychological profile work for RAND can be found in his “Observations on
Contemporary Russian Behavior,” Human Relations, 5 (iy52), pp. ni-l75.
41. In addition to Freeman (this issue), Tavistock’s early post-war deployment in
industry can be reconstructed from Jacques, E., The Changing Culture of a
Factory, London, 1951, and Trist, E., and Bamborth, K., “Some Socialand Psycho¬
logical Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-getting,” Human Relations,
4 (1951), pp. 3-38.
42. Hanrahan, G.Z., The Communist Struggle in Malaya, New York, 1954, p. 12-13.
43. Komer, R., The Malayan Emergency in Retrospect: Organization of a
Successful Counterinsurgency Effort, RAND Report R-957-ARPA, February, 1972,
p. 3.
44. Lee, Chong-Sik, Counterinsurgency in Manchuria: The Japanese Experience,
1931-40, RAND Corporation Memorandum, RM-5012-ARPA, January, 1967, p. 13-
15.
45. Komer, loc. cit.
46. Ibid., p. 58.
47. Ibid., p. 60.
48. Ibid., p. 56. See also Pelzer, K., “Resettlement in Malaya,” Yale Review
Spring, 1952, pp. 392-404.
49. Rees, Reflections, p. 45.
50. Komer, op. cit., p. 64.
51. Ibid., p. 45.
52. Kitson, F. Gangs and Countergangs, London, 1960, passim.
53. Rockefeller’s Mau Mau, made up primarily of brainwashed black, Vietnam
veterans, has already been exposed in the Labor Committee Fact Sheet, “CIA
Youth Strategy,” and in numerous New Solidarity articles. Their latest claim to
fame was an attempted defense of the Rees-created Imamu Baraka, which led to
the destruction of their Boston branch at the hands of the NCLC. Charles 37X
Kenyatta, the “unsuccessful” bodyguard of Malcolm X and presently a confidant
of Nelson Rockefeller, and Muhamed Kenyatta of Eric Trist’s Philadelphia
network, are also part of this Cl A anti-ghetto youth strategy.
54. Hilsman, R., To Move a Nation, New York, 1968, passim.
55. Kitson, F., Low Intensity Operations, Harrisburg, Pa., 1971, p. 73.
56. After the 1961 symposium, RAND began an extensive study of the British
experience. Komer, op. cit., is one of the few that is unclassified, and opens with a
polemic for “long haul, low cost” approach.57. Quoted by James Holland in his
paper presented at the Second international Seminar on Behavior Modification
(Mexico City, 1971).
58. “Royal Ulster Constabulary Exposes Real IRA,” New Solidarity March 25,
197 4, and Chris White’s “CIA ‘Streltas’ Strike,” New Solidarity, April 1, 1974.
White’s full expose of the IR A as countergang is forthcoming.
59. Kitson, Low Intensity Operations, passim.
60. Ibid., p. 187.
61. Ibid., p. 79.
62. Ibid., p. 80.
63. Ibid., p. 166.
64. Rees, Shaping, p. 81.
65. Ibid., p. 136.
66. Dicks, Fifty Years, p. 99.
67. The Columbus Center’s crederilials include the Who’s Who of Anglo-American
fascism. Its funders include members of the old “Clivedon Set” who previously
backed British fascist Moseley, the J.M. Kaplan Fund, a known CIA conduit,
Unilever Corporation, the first corporation to use Reesian selection, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and the American Jewish Committee. The Centre itself
is run by its advisory committee which includes Harold Lever, Marie Jahoda, J.D.
Sutherland, A.T.M. Wilson, and Eric Trist, all of the Tavistock hierarchy.
68. Rees, Shaping, p. 34.
69. See Note 13.
70. Dicks, H.V., Licensed Mass Murder, New York, 1972, p. 174.
71. Ibid., p. 174.
72. Ibid., p. 29.