web space | website hosting | Business WebSite Hosting | Free Website Submission | shopping cart | php hosting


A Dirty Little British Operation

by Lyndon LaRouche


from the Nov 1978 issue of The Campaigner (12 MB PDF image file)

page numbers from source included to facilitate comparison



One of the groups which antiterrorist intelligence and security units are obliged to watch is a campus-centered rag-tag deployed under the trade-style of "Marxist Perspectives." Although the group's pathetic sort of babbling and scribbling, which represents its "cover," has no practical importance itself, the group has some nasty and powerful connections, and has been caught red-handed repeatedly serving as a conduit for elements of internationally coordinated operations which support terrorist activities.

For purposes of providing itself a cover, the group's pedigree is traced efficiently through the "Socialist Scholars Conference" organization of the middle 1960s. Like Rutgers Professor Warren Sussman, the principal, campus-based sponsors of "Marxist Perspectives" are associated with initiators of the Socialist Scholars Conference. The seed of other activists and semi-activists maintaining the group's cover activities are predominantly persons drawn into the Socialist Scholars Conference.

Behind the "left-liberal" covers offered by the controllers of "Marxist Perspectives," the group's real purpose is directed from known, Wall Street-centered circles. The several notable intelligence "black operations" run through the "Marxist Perspectives" cover


have all been proven to originate with British-Canadian "Special Operations Executive" old hands. These old hands now occupy key banking and allied positions, chiefly in and around lower Manhattan, old hands otherwise part of the inner circles which directly control Senator Jake Javits and, more broadly, run the New York Council on Foreign Relations. It is a group which sometimes styles itself simply by the name "Our Crowd."

The "Marxist Perspectives" group turns up in the British Canadian-coordinated projected assassination of this writer. This projected assassination includes three principal, interdependent elements. During 1977 two of these elements were identified in nature and by acronym by high-level U.S. intelligence community circles. One is given the acronym "FIST," which is the name given to internationally coordinated financial warfare against the U.S. Labor Party: The second is given the acronym "SWEEP," which features singling out individual Labor Party members for personal blackmail and other pressures, both directly on themselves and through members of their families and old friends and acquaintances. These first two operations, enriched with coordinated major-press slander campaigns, gang beatings, attempted rape, and "black bag" burglaries, are intended to isolate and weaken the Labor Party, so that the


projected assassination can be accomplished with reduced political penalty to the already exposed British and Zionist perpetrators.

Otherwise, the "Marxist Perspectives" group provides a "safe house" meeting point for proterrorists generally. Study of the way in which British intelligence deployed the editorial board of the old Sozialistische Politik and that editorial board's designated, present-day successor, the Sozialistische Buero, in West Germany, is a model of reference for understanding how, and to what extent, the "Marxist Perspectives" group is -- and is not -- involved in terrorism-related activities. "MaPer" is much less important than the old Sozialistische Politik (SoPo) editorial board, but it provides the same species of "cut-out" cover for nasty covert operations.

To aid security and other antiterrorist units, we provide two key elements of background here. First, we summarize the pedigree and modus operandi of the group. Second, we underline those features of the group's cover operations which depend significantly on British Secret Intelligence operative David Urquhart's manipulations of Karl Marx himself.

It is true that the "Levi Guidelines" and other institutionalized arrangements prevent antiterrorist units from maintaining adequate levels of passive surveillance of terrorist and proterrorist networks. Granted the misplaced conception of civil rights involved in rationalizing these guidelines, clumsy, crude, and misdirected surveillance and related undercover operations do tend to impair the rights of the innocent. The proper precaution is a surgically precise targeting of the guilty and the tainted which avoids injury to innocent bystanders.

The genuine mistakes made in covert security and related operations in the past have been principally two. First, many of these operations were downright evil in assigned purpose, or unconscionably silly -- having nothing to do with vital national interests or other proper law enforcement and security concerns. Second, Freedom of Information Act releases and related sources prove that outright incompetence in political and related matters of judgment have prevailed in shaping undercover deployments, defining targets of surveillance, defining what information is sought, and in evaluation of information received bearing on further action and case disposition.

If these agencies had understood better the sort of animal with which they had been assigned to deal, misdirected, unconscionable operations would have occurred much less frequently, and proper surveillance operations would have been conducted as clean jobs, rather than as the clumsy, bungling operations they usually were in fact.

From a constitutional standpoint, the worst sort of practice arises when a security or intelligence organization takes upon itself to attempt to "play God" with the


persons and organizations under his covert surveillance. Without naming names, I have in mind a specific well- known organization of this category, in which several, competing agencies each promoted some of their respective penetration agents into leading positions within the organization. The combination of low-level penetration agents, those placed in key positions, and control of elements of the organization's environment gave several of these competing agencies the capability to meddle in shaping the organization's development in a way which had no connection to the intelligence or security agency's actual assignment in that case. Having developed a capability as a by-product of the surveillance operations, the agency involved could not restrain impulses to play the sort of games the capabilities indicated as possible.

The ironical feature of the case is that there was an important British-intelligence operation intersecting that organization, an operation which was a proper subject for counterintelligence attention by the U.S. agencies involved. So preoccupied with their game-playing, those agencies remained blind to the issue on which their attention should have been concentrated. Eventually, some of the agencies were significantly embarrassed -- when the competing British intelligence interest in the same organization resorted to the obvious opportunity to "blow the cover" of competing U.S. agencies.

The U.S. agencies behaved like a bunch of political intelligence amateurs, British intelligence laughing at the U.S. agencies' silly antics all the while.

By providing relevant agencies with a competent profile of "Marxist Perspectives," we aid in preventing the kind of follies which predominated during past periods. Suitable agencies should be able to work up a surgically precise approach to the subject case (and related cases) with aid of the following summaries.

Background on 'Marxist Perspectives'

The development of "Marxist Perspectives" should be traced predominantly from President Dwight Eisenhower's humiliation of the Anthony Eden government of Britain in the 1956 Suez Affair. The British monarchy launched several lines of operations against, principally, the United States in response to that humiliation and its perceived implications. One of these was the acceleration of Britain's thermonuclear weapons commitments, another was the engineering of the open break between Khrushchev and Mao Tse-tung, a third was the launching of the "New Left" project.

What occurred in the wake of the Suez Crisis can be described as a qualitative change in inflection in the British geopolitical strategic posture earlier defined under the leadership of Lord Milner.

The Eisenhower humiliation of the British coincided


with a net failure of British intelligence destabilization operations launched in Hungary and Poland during the same period. The net effect of those actions was to consolidate the Warsaw Pact as both a strategic force and an effective internal security institution within the Warsaw Pact as a whole. This development dovetailed with Eisenhower's nearly successful efforts to secure detente with Khrushchev.

These and correlated developments presented the British with two principal strategic problems. First, the possibility of continuing the geopolitical doctrine behind two preceding World Wars -- a military thrust from central Europe for conquest of the "Eurasian heartland" -- was either already ruled out of possibility, or that possibility was rapidly losing any remaining margins of applicability. Second, Eisenhower demonstrated that the American commitment to industrialized progress, not only at home, but in the world generally, was still a principal vector of U.S. policymaking, a vector which would reassert itself whenever a popular U.S. President oriented toward such outlooks occupied the White House.

The British therefore concentrated on developing alternatives to a "total war" thrust from central Europe as their approach to conquering (or destroying) the Eurasian heartland, and also concentrated on deploying fresh approaches to destroying the idea of progress's influence among the youth of principal industrialized (and other) nations.

British geopolitical emphasis on "the China option" during the spring hysteria on that subject, reflects the effort to find substitutes for the old Milner-Mackinder-Haushofer formula of sending Germany eastward (but not westward) to conquer the Eurasian heartland for the interests of the City of London. British Middle East policy (i.e., the policy Britain has embedded in the government of Israel under Ben Gurion and his successors) is another aspect of the same shift in emphasis in British geopolitical outlook.

Britain's acceleration of its thermonuclear commitment was not aimed to provide Britain with a war-winning capability, but a new dimension of war-provoking capability -- as Harold Macmillan later threatened President John F. Kennedy at their Nassau meeting of 1963. British sovereign thermonuclear bases, especially those at Cyprus, represent British capability for starting a thermonuclear war with no formal means for prior restraint by either NATO or the United States. Helping Israel develop its own thermonuclear weapon is another dirty British trick for launching a thermonuclear war which, as Macmillan threatened Kennedy, the British view the United States as then obliged to fight.

The second measure, provoking the open rupture between Peking and Moscow, was accomplished through stepped-up direct British intelligence influence in


Peking. Through Hong Kong, Shanghai, through Canada and through Comintern representative Roy, the Communist Party of China had been riddled with British agents and agents-of-influence from the outset; after the Shanghai massacres and the purge of the CPC leadership which followed, peasant-oriented Mao Tse-tung was gradually brought to power in a process which consolidated British influence at high levels of the CPC command. The British had controlling influences in both the Kuomintang and the CPC -- along with the odd warlord thrown in, and played China like a man playing chess against himself -- in a manner which utterly mystified generals Marshall, Stilwell, and Hurley, among others. The British accelerated their ties into Peking during the middle 1950s, using this to heat up the potentials for a Moscow-Peking split.

Moscow had made clear to Peking during the Korean War that it was not going to supply Peking with the forms of air power or other strategic capabilities for escalating confrontations with the United States into a Soviet-U.S. war. Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace and related matters did not weaken Moscow's desire to avoid everything that could be avoided along such lines as a Peking adventure.

Peking knew that the Soviets were not going to give China a strategic nuclear capability even before the confrontation which Peking forced on this point. Before Mao Tse-tung presented Khrushchev with a virtual ultimatum-form of Peking's demands for nuclear weapons, Peking knew that Moscow's answer would be "no." The ultimatum was posed because Peking desired that "no," as a formal pretext for effecting the desired split with Moscow. It was British channels of influence which pushed Peking into presenting such an ultimatum.

Many branches of British intelligence were involved in launching the "New Left" project during this same period. It is sufficient for our purposes to identify two elements of this operation. In the United States, the project was organized around the League for Industrial Democracy and elements of Walter Reuther's United Auto Workers bureaucracy. In West Germany, the center of the project was the editorial board of a magazine, Sozialistische Politik. The latter, now represented by its designated successor organization, the Sozialistische Buero, was aided by elements of the German trade-union organizations (metal workers and chemical workers) in much the same manner the UAW bureaucracy cooperated with the League for Industrial Democracy.

The most efficient way to outline this connection is to reference the West German side first, and to show the principal connections between those German elements and the corresponding U.S. elements.

The Sozialistische Politik was established under the


patronage of British intelligence during the early 1950s. The chief officer of the operation was Dr. Richard Loewenthal, and the editorial board itself included the following and other persons: Peter (Count) yon Oertzen, titular head of one of the surviving Hanoverian feudal houses, presently leader of the Social-Democratic Party for the state of Lower Saxony (which includes Hanover), and patron of the New Left and Maoist professors and students centered around the university at the city of Hanover. Juergen Seifert, son-in-law of the (now) retired head of the Sigmund Freud Institute at Frankfurt, and intimately allied with the leaders of proterrorist groups in West Germany. Seifert's circles were closely associated with defense of the Heidelberg Patients' Collective, the program which produced the second-generation of Baader-Meinhof gang terrorists from the ranks of mental patients processing through the Tavistock-designed political conditioning program of the Heidelberg Patients' Collective. Ernest Mandel (a.k.a. Ernst Mandelbaum, a.k.a. Ernest Germain), one of three leading members of the International Executive Committee of the "Fourth International" (Trotskyist), Pierre Frank, a French national and then the oldest among the three International Executive Committee members of the "Fourth International." And others.

Richard Loewenthal's highly visible career in British intelligence networks dates from the onset of the 1930s, when Loewenthal appeared as the head of the first, semi-Trotskyist "Third Camp" organization in Germany later shifted to Czechoslovakia. During that period, Loewenthal came under the same British intelligence networks under which Professor Sidney Hook was being trained and deployed at that time.

During the late 1920s and early 1930s, the British intelligence operations in which Loewenthal and Hook were then occupied were centered around British intelligence operative Karl Korsch, on the same track in British intelligence operations as Bertrand Russell since prior to World War I. Korsch's link to Russell was maintained to the end of Korsch's life, as U.S. resident Korsch performed a continuing role, in collaboration with Russell and Kurt Lewin, in the development of the linguistics track out of which Professor Noam Chomsky was groomed at the University of Pennsylvania and into which Lewinite slot he was inserted at MIT ... quite in line with Chomsky's work on brainwashing techniques and other topics as a Rand Corporation associate.

The essential, self-designated quality of the Sozialistische Politik editorial board was the perpetuation of the outlook and conceptions of Karl Korsch. It was the same Korsch on whose lectures student Sidney Hook based his somewhat plagiaristic From Hegel to Marx. (A fellow-student of Hook's from that period alleged that Hook's book was a direct plagiarization of Korsch's lectures.)


The editorial board itself was not simply an editorial board. It was both an editorial board and a British intelligence covert operation. The magazine published by the group had the special function of wholesaling new items of doctrine and policy to witting elements in various organizations, not unlike the function the small but influential New Republic has performed for British intelligence in the United States. The true editorial function of the editorial board was as a secondary think tank which developed British policy directives for the European "left" into marketable forms.

Although the "Fourth International" was a small organization then as now, it represented a cover for an important British intelligence network of operatives in many parts of the world. Its function was not to develop mass movements, but to be a mixture of straight intelligence and intelligence-operations functions and serve as a controlled catalyst for influencing "left" developments among social-democratic "left" strata, anarchists, and various sorts of scattered left sects generally. Mandel, otherwise active in a similar arrangement centered in the French social-democratic "left" as well as in the intelligence operations of his adopted country Belgium, rarely missed a meeting of the Sozialistische Politik editorial board -- even if this meant traveling abruptly from fairly distant locations in the world.

In various international activities, through" publishing and other covers, SoPo, as it was usually named among insiders, was connected to such circles as those of Baran and Sweezy in the United States. It was through SoPo that Mandel's rambling, semi-literate economics text was published in Germany, and by Sweezy's Monthly Review in the United States.

The other principal connection of SoPo to the United States was through trade-union covers, centered in the British intelligence-controlled International Metalworkers Federation, of which the UAW is the chief U.S. affiliate. On the U.S. side, SoPo's opposite number was, as we have noted, the League for Industrial Democracy and its student affiliate, the Student League for Indus- trial Democracy.

During the pre-1956 1950s, SLID was headed from Wisconsin by Gabriel Kolko. Kolko's correspondence from that period is, in part, on public file in archives, and is most instructive to one who knows how things are done.

One of the letters discusses the case of one Bertell Ollman. Bertell Ollman, who has acquired a heavy British background since the early 1950s, has been based at New York University, and was also Zbigniew Brzezinski's protégé as a candidate to head up the political science department at the University of Maryland. Ollman was the key to the establishment of the "Marxist Perspectives" group on the NYU campus. The unit on


that campus engaged in black operations against the U.S. Labor Party, black operations whose authorship has been definitively traced to "SOE" elements in the New York Council on Foreign Relations.

One should not be astonished that Brzezinski should offer to sponsor Ollman. In the early 1950s correspondence, Kolko proposes to weigh whether or not to make their instrument, Bertell Ollman, "more fully witting" of the truth about what were in fact British intelligence operations deployed around the Gates faction of the Communist Party USA.

It is not surprising that LID and elements of the UAW bureaucracy should have been exposed by Freedom of Information Act releases as persistently conspiring to organize a broad spectrum of black operations against the U.S. Labor Party, or that LID's black-operations activities should heavily intersect pre-1977 as well as 1977 operations against the U.S. Labor Party by former AFL-CIO official Tom Harris, now head of the Federal Elections Commission. There is a tight intersection among dirty elements such as LID, the top leadership of British intelligence's B'nai B'rith cover, the so-called Jewish Labor Committee and the ADA's Joe Rauh, Jr., who said of the U.S. Labor Party chairman recently, "We're going to shoot him, shoot him!"

LID's political intelligence operations inside the Communist Party are most relevant to the development of the New Left in the United States.

The first step toward development of the U.S. New Left was an electoral tactic known as Regroupment, structured around the skeleton of the withered Socialist Workers Party of the late 1950s. The catalyst for this Regroupment was a "dissident "Trotskyist" group of Mandel supporters who had been split out of the SWP during the early 1950s, as a by-product of the SWP's temporary break with the Fourth International. The other elements were the youth group of another dissident Trotskyist group, the followers of the recently deceased Max Schachtman, and a group of former Communist Party members and fellow travelers grouped around a weekly publication, The National Guardian (subsequently reorganized as the proterrorist Guardian). The principal figure of this Regroupment operation was Corliss Lamont, of the J.P. Morgan Lamonts, the principal fellow traveler of the Communist Party during the 1950s.

The summary background of these elements and note of the circumstances enables the security analyst to work up a proper profile on the "Marxist Perspectives" security problem.

The Schachtmanites were the first durable Third Camp organization in the United States. Max Schachtman, a life-long admirer of Karl Korsch since the 1920s, based his policies on those pioneered around Richard


Loewenthal's project of the early 1930s. The group was formed through a break between Schachtman and L.D. Trotsky, set into motion during 1938 and consummated in 1940, just prior to Trotsky's assassination.

There are numerous links between Schachtman's break with Trotsky and Trotsky's assassination. Part of Schachtman's conspiracy against Trotsky on the Third Camp issue was one Sylvia Ageloff, the woman used to get the assassin, Jacson/Mercader, into Trotsky's household. There is every reason to believe that Ageloff was unwitting of her before-the-fact role in the assassination until after it had occurred. She was wittingly merely part of another covert operation, one traced back to the circles of Sidney Hook. The Hook connection in the Schachtman covert political operation was James Burnham, a close associate of Hook and later a close associate of William F. Buckley -- who, like Hook himself, is not unfamiliar with personalities involved in the Mexican side of the Trotsky assassination.

These connections overlapped earlier Hook connections inside and outside the Communist Party of the 1930s. The most important of the operations in which young Sidney Hook was involved during his period of being based in Germany was the British intelligence service's "Right-Opposition" caper. This involved Bukharin, Ryazanov and others in the Soviet Union, the Brandlerites in Germany, and the Lovestoneites in the United States. The Lovestoneites were a strict British intelligence operation, and played a significant contributing role in British organization of an SIS-SOE structured controlled "KGB" unit in the Communist Party USA from 1938 onward -- it still exists at the present time.

Once the Schachtmanite Third Camp organization had been formed, Schachtman's partner, Burnham, excused himself, seeking other careers. Schachtmanite organizations, which presently persist under such covers as the PROD-TDU operations against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, are best summed up as "British Jesuits" in "left cover." Their distinguishable characteristic, setting them off as a subspecies from other varieties of "leftists," is doctrines based on lists of uncorrelated "legal" precedents, and an equation of "democracy" with anarchosyndicalist-utopian outlooks generally. This characteristic correlates with their patterns of laboriously joining various sorts of coalitions and soon splitting up those organizations quickly after the coalition has been established. Their peculiar conception of "principles," laundry lists of unrelated items, aids them in rationalizing building or entering a coalition on one moment, and then splitting it on a "principled issue" the next. The two motions are each respectively determined by emphasis upon contradictory elements of the same incoherent, Aristotelian laundry list of accreted "principles."


As a tool of political intelligence operations, the Schachtmanite species is ideal as a catalyst for bringing an organization into being through coalition methods, and then wrecking that coalition immediately thereafter. By negotiating terms of coalitions, the Schachtmanite secures concessions for his participation which prevent the coalition from occurring in the manner it would have developed without attempts to accommodate to Schachtmanites. Once the organization has been formed with "aid" of such influenced disabilities, the Schachtmanites wreck the coalition at any moment of their choice. The original Schachtmanite contingent usually departs the wreckage in several antagonistic organizational chunks, all of which converge at later dates to repeat the procedure.

One must not underestimate even so despicable a collection as the Schachtmanites. People today being what they are, rather large social formations are readily influenced by concerted deployments directly involving only small numbers of persons. The PROD-TDU operations against the teamsters union is exemplary of this. The actual numbers of PROD and TDU supporters are miniscule within the teamsters union membership. Yet,


with the aid of corrupt press and publishing agencies controlled by the intelligence agencies otherwise behind the Schachtmanites and Maoists running the tiny TDU and PROD kernel, and with the aid of corrupt personalities within government agencies, the tiny Maoist-Schachtmanite infection is caused to appear to be a substantial force -- even in the eyes of many IBT members and leaders.

The Schachtmanite youth performed a key role in levering the SWP into the role it was assigned to play in the Regroupment phase of the British operation. The idea for Regroupment was formally introduced by Mandel's collaborators who, although a tiny number, were proportionately influential in getting the first, pilot phases of the Regroupment caper into operation.

The key SWP figure involved in this at that time was, incidentally, one Murry Weiss, now attempting to simulate the appearance of an aging Delphic oracle in the midst of the NYC facet of the "Marxist Perspectives" Caper. It was the same Murry Weiss who worked closely with Ernest Mandel to bring the SWP into "reunification" with the Fourth International in 1963. The operation was coordinated between Weiss and Mandel by a


male airlines steward, a.k.a. "Trent Hutter," who acted as cover, cut out, and relay for the plotting between the two. Murry Weiss is presently a pathetic figure by comparison with his less impaired activity of earlier years, but, in addition to playing large toad in a small garden around NYU's "Marxist Perspectives" premises, he found time earlier to associate himself politically with those factional elements (tied to the Institute for Policy Studies) of the Puerto Rican Socialist Party who have been most closely allied with the Puerto Rican terrorist groups.

Once the 1957-1958 Regroupment tactic had been completed, the coalition was destabilized; from the standpoint of the controllers, it had served its usefulness. It had established a new pattern of "old boy" associations among those involved, a pattern which was played upon and developed to facilitate each next phase of the operation.

The next operation of the "New Left" project for the U.S. was the Woolworth Picket campaign. This mixed the forces involved in Regroupment with a larger strata of liberal campus youth and, in turn, gave these forces sufficient credibility won in the picketing to penetrate the black Civil Rights movement from a new dimension with these white youth and aging radicals.

The next operation was the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. This was a political intelligence operation which used both the image of Cuba and the combined patterns of association of the Regroupment and Woolworth campaign to several purposes. The image of the "Cuban peasant revolution" was used to provide a bridge to the "Chinese peasant revolution," and to steer the combined "old radicals" and liberal youth around them into an anti-labor outlook. By the close of the Fair Play for Cuba operation -- which faded out after the Bay of Pigs, with aid of timely internal dissensions within the national office of that organization -- the "old radicals" were already moving toward an antilabor outlook, and toward the organizational "gate receipts" presumably proferred by lumpenized, antilabor strata in the United States.

Through British influence over U.S. policymaking, the CIA's paramilitary operations in Vietnam were escalated into regular warfare under President Lyndon Johnson. At the same time, during the closing months of 1964, British intelligence channels in the United States, following the Bertrand Russell formula from the "Ban the Bomb' and SANE operations earlier, prearranged the launching of an antiwar movement. The latter was initiated from two directions: on the one side, typified by the New York Fifth Avenue Parade Committee, was a resurrection of the old Regroupment tactic in modified form. On the other interconnected front, the SDS antiwar project was launched.


It was during this same period that the Regroupment effort coordinated by British intelligence was also expressed by the establishment of the Socialist Scholars Conference organization, a by-product of the "teach-in" project used to develop the antiwar movement on key campuses.

Although the latter organization was wrecked -- with aid of a rigged tantrum by Professor Eugene Genovese in mid-1968 -- the pattern of associations consolidated through these conferences has been one of the two principal polarities of the so-called U.S. "left" ever since.

The dominant "left" polarity, numerically, is the irrationalist radicalism typified by terrorists, proterrorists, lunatic "environmentalists" and "gay rights" sideshows.

The smaller, but more important polarity is the strata of campus-centered "leftist intellectuals" typified by the proterrorist professors of Hanover University and the associates of Professor Warren Sussman, Eugene Genovese, Noam Chomsky, et al. There is a direct link back to the LID of the early 1950s, when Gabriel Kolko was leading SLID, and wondering whether or not Bertell Ollman was ripe enough to be made somewhat more "witting" of the nature and purpose of the activities to which Ollman was being assigned.

The 'Marxist' Professor's Mentality

The "campus Marxist" is fairly described, as a type, as a case of development arrested at or regressed to a state of neurotic early adolescence. The rebellious campus adolescent is emotionally in rebellion against his father's "authority." It is fair to say that there is an oedipal crisis involved.

It would be unfair to say that the issues adopted by the campus rebel of this sort can be explained away categorically by the rebel's typically oedipal neurotic problems. Rather, when such a rebel adopts an issue -- even quite rationally, as far as the issue itself is concerned -- the emotional outlook he brings to bear in behalf of that cause is the emotion otherwise cathexized to his oedipal resentments against his "authoritarian" father.

For those reasons, it is very simple for a trained intelligence operative to disorient this sort of neurotic personality. The operative merely has to keep in focus the fact that the campus rebel's emotional outlooks on issues are powerfully cathexized to the oedipal hostility toward both the actual "authoritarian" father and to those surrogate fathers who, as targets of hostility, serve to deflect the neurotic's rage against his own father to the strangers adopted as surrogates. "Down with authoritarianism" is the essence of what any skilled British-intelligence operative introduces into a campus


rebel ferment, to transform a rational or semi-rational ferment into a mass of babbling, lunatic fools on an oedipal rampage.

When a person matures, his or her parents cease to be the mystified "mother" and "father" of childhood and early adolescence. One's parents become human beings, persons in their own right. One is no longer struggling against their suffocating "mothering" or fatherly constraints. One is honoring one's debt to the persons who have provided most of one's development as a schoolperson. It is not a matter of paying back parents for past help; it is a matter of making one's own life worth their having lived once they have died. It is not a matter of doing something to satisfy one's parents' expectations; it is to accomplish something for oneself which redounds properly to the honor of the parents of the person who has accomplished that. A mature person owes it to his or her parents not to degrade himself -- even if one's parents were to demand degradation of oneself. Of course, one wishes them to secure joy from what one is attempting to accomplish or has accomplished, but one no longer has a child's attitude toward parents.

With the immature personality, this is not the case. The usually desired ideal of permissive "mothering" is contrasted to abhorrence of "authoritarian fathering." It is also a wish to be "free" to perpetrate all sorts of petty nuisances without risk of being spanked. The typical "radical professor" is just such a type. He seeks a generous, tolerant set of patrons, who will "take care of him" -- as Brzezinski intervened in Bertell Ollman's behalf. He does not face the world; he has an Ace In The Hole, a set of patrons who will "send money from home" or otherwise bail him out of difficulties. He is no "hero."

The same trait permeates the campus "Marxist" student. Scratch that student and one finds a brawling adolescent, preoccupied with his or her own egoistical-sensual appetites -- financial security, sexual gratification, liberty to enjoy eccentric pleasures. He or she also desires to be insolent; this is an oedipal trait: making deprecating remarks against one's father in one's mother's presence.

In a case which shall be nameless, a woman visiting the Low Countries was informed by a written tourist's guide that shoes and gloves were among the items in which that nation's offerings to purchasers were among the poorest. Therefore, the woman in the case reacted to that information with a zealous determination to buy nothing but gloves and shoes in that country! She was asserting her right to be irrational.

A campus radical is typically such an irrationalist, akin to the fellow who parked his auto two blocks away from his house, because he had just run over his next-door neighbor's cat. He or she does not take responsibility


for the consequences of his action (or acts of omission) in the world generally. He or she treats life from the standpoint of schoolyard games. It is all play. The only thing of importance is the rules of the game agreed among with one's like-minded peers. Any reality not taken into account by the rules can be therefore ignored, denied to be of any practical relevance.

Once that insight is grasped, one understands how the immorality of a Warren Sussman is developed. The relevant world outlook is an oedipal, adolescent, schoolyard view of the world. Everything is a game; one's patrons (surrogate parents) and peers, and the rules of the game agreed upon with the peers are all the reality taken into account. Anything which can be done with impunity in the larger world can be done, as long as one stays within the rules of the game agreed upon within the circle of one's patrons and peers.

Their immorality is essentially amorality. Underneath all the "Marxist" or other sorts of "leftist" posture, the only principles these unfortunate creatures know is an infantile sort of egoistical sense of greedy hunger for sensual gratification. With proper use of slightly aversive environment ("hard cop") and proper dangling of the bait of a little money and a little sex ("soft cop"), one can rapidly transform any of these miserable oedipal creatures into almost anything one is cruel enough or amoral enough to elect.

I have known these types over decades. Much as I pity them for their degraded mental condition, my compassion does not blind me to the pure evil of which they are capable.

The Corruption Of Karl Marx

The name "Marxist Perspectives" is in part misleading. There are all sorts of freak shows on the street of the "Marxist Perspectives" carnival. In general, the profession of "Marxist" is only a social convention. All sorts of Tories and other anti-Federalist types cross the George Washington Bridge in droves every day without imbibing even a hint of Federalist world outlook. Discounting those "Marxist Perspectives" participants whose principal preoccupation is creating a nation of lesbians, there is a small quotient among the various proprietary exhibits of this aggregation which senses itself obliged to prove at least a certain familiarity with the writings of Karl Marx, or at the very least, to have an opinion concerning Marx.

What is typically academic practice in today's universities, the "Marxism" professed among those who take the profession seriously, has at best an accidental connection to anything actually written by Karl Marx. Like "true contemporary scholars," it is the latest, best accredited commentary on preceding layers of commentaries


on Marx and "Marxism" which is the common starting-point for these babblers and scribblers.

Among those who feel obliged to consult something more proximate to primary sources, such commentaries as Franz Mehring's fraudulent biography, Karl Marx, or some other celebrated but equally or more dubious secondary source, are employed as a guide to what the reader will thereafter choose to superimpose upon any actual writings of Marx he or she consults.

At best, the matter is complicated on the principle that there is a vast difference between knowing what is written in a book and merely having read that book. A tone deaf person can learn to read notes without any consequent ability to either sing the notes or assimilate the notes as musical ideas. On the basis of this same principle, it is not difficult for persons who are literate but conceptually illiterate in a given field to understand only those selected passages which concur with their preconceptions, or at least appear to coincide literally with such preconceptions. They appreciate only "the parts I liked."

If the academic sort of "Marxist" has a modest amount of pride, or, at least, fear of being caught out as a utter fool, it occurs to him to glance through writings by Marx. His selective reading of what falls under his eyes in that way will not be selected at random. He will select in some more or less consistent fashion.

It is in this context that certain major errors in Karl Marx's writing -- and knowledge -- are selectively


magnified. The case of the massive disinformation operation deployed against Karl Marx by David Urquhart has a special significance in respect to the sort of creature one encounters around British intelligence-coordinated groups such as "Marxist Perspectives."

A cross-gridding of researches on major British intelligence operations shows the British Museum's David Urquhart turning up as a principal authority on such British intelligence conspiracies as the Chartist movement, the networks associated with Mazzini, and so forth during the early-to-middle nineteenth century. The same David Urquhart who is cited in other locations as an authority for facts contrary to what Marx believed is Marx's cited source for key judgments exactly to the contrary. Either Urquhart or Marx has to be lying. The overwhelming burden of circumstantial evidence suffices to prove that Marx was not lying, but rather duped by Urquhart.

For example, Marx believed Palmerston to be in effect a Russian agent, which is historically silly. Marx believed Bakunin to be a Czarist agent, which is not quite so silly a blunder on Marx's part, since the Rothschild subsidies via Alexander Herzen to Bakunin were laundered in part through Russian channels. Marx fought with Henry C. Carey on the leading facts of American history -- which was silly on Marx's part, but Marx's silly views had the support of the information selectively supplied to Marx by the librarians at the British Museum (chiefly). Marx disagreed with Carey on the American-Russian alliance


policy of the 1860s. Here, again, Marx's views were silly in fact, but were also documented by aid of Marx's trusted source, David Urquhart.

Marx was silly in economic history, too. He actually believed that Adam Smith and David Ricardo were, at worst, "honest bourgeois scientific" workers, whose errors wanted correcting, but who otherwise represented the most advanced thinking of their time. Marx similarly believed that eighteenth century and early nineteenth century British economic policies coincided with the model of reference for the progress of capitalist development generally. This would not be possible unless Marx's sources at the British Museum had selectively excluded the principal mass of relevant historical sources available in that Museum, and had been selected limited to disinformational aggregates of sources.

Marx was also silly on the issue of the significance of Rothschild operations, although less foolish on this point than Friedrich Engels. Relative to Friedrich Schiller, Marx's knowledge of history was wretched; relative to Heinrich Heine, Marx's comprehension of the political movements of the 1840s and early 1850s was pathetically credulous.

These are, aggregately, a monstrous lot of error, and figure in a most important way in determining the numerous errors in Marx's theoretical and other judgments. Although Marx was subject to massive disinformation from many sources -- not excluding an often erring Friedrich Engels -- the rest of the disinformation would not have taken control of Marx's judgment unless a very clever set of librarians at the British Museum had been doing a masterful job of selectively burying Marx with a disinformational selection of references. Discovering the importance of David Urquhart in the specialty of continental conspiracies, and noting the special mention Urquhart enjoys at several crucial points of Marx's arguments, we are properly impelled to conclude that the manipulation of Marx by Urquhart was a masterful effort conducted by a person who had a good and efficient comprehension of the purpose of this operation.

Given the conditions of the 1850s and early 1860s, we cannot consider it extraordinary that Urquhart and his associates expended such strict attention on the manipulation of Karl Marx. Urquhart and his associates were coordinating home-base monitoring of a whole network of interconnected conspiracies at that time, including the Communist conspiracy which had moved out of its origins in Switzerland to the locations in which Marx encountered it. The fact that Marx had achieved considerable celebrity in connection with the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, and had earlier been selected as a capitalist newspaper's editor over the famous Friedrich List, indicates Marx's importance in the eyes of British


intelligence at that time. The task of controlling "the potentially interesting" Dr. Karl Marx would have naturally fallen to Urquhart as one of his regular list of assignments the moment Marx showed a serious interest in the British Museum and otherwise showed up among émigré circles gathering in post-1848 London.

It is from the standpoint of the British-induced disinformational elements in Marx's judgment that groups such as those associated with Sweezy and company, with Germany's Sozialistische Buero, or with the associations defined by the Socialist Scholars Conference define their shadings of "Marxism." By denying the elements of “Marxism" developed by Marx himself, and abstracting for emphasis those elements which reflect British disinformational efforts, a perverted sort of "Marxist orthodoxy" or "counterorthodoxy" is adduced as a "scholarly appreciation."

This is the outstanding feature of the operation with which Korsch, Loewenthal, Hook, et al. were associated at the close of the 1920s and early 1930s. Through close cooperation with Eduard Bernstein on the one side and G. Ryazanov in Moscow, Bukharin-Brandler-Lovestone channels of influence were exploited to promote a Moscow-centered effort to discredit the "early Marx" (1844-1846) relative to the "mature Marx." This coincided with an operation laundered through the Communist Party of Great Britain, in which the included focus was the effort to show Marx as a cothinker of Charles Darwin.

Later, British operatives, aided by Dr. Erich Fromm, reversed the operation, attempting to show the "early Marx" as a "humanist" of the Warburg Institute variety. Fromm's argument was based on sound scholarship concerning crucial features of the "early Marx," an insightful scholarship which lent plausibility to the wretched, immoral conclusions affixed as conclusions to the overall thesis. Sidney Hook, in due course, registered a strong objection to the work of Fromm in the Sunday New York Times -- both in a Times Magazine feature, and in a subsequent literary debate with this writer in the same publication.

Fromm had been the "Peck's Bad Boy" of the so-called Frankfurt School in Weimar Germany, and thus in a different factional current of the same British intelligence networks to which Sidney Hook was apprenticed at that time. The thesis of an "early Marx" versus a "mature Marx" was a street with two sides; Hook walked the street in one direction; Fromm walked the same street, on the other side, in the opposite direction. The ultimate political destination of each was the same goal reached by different approaches.

The Sozialistische Buero's network modified the same tactic, with the "new Marx" of the Grundrisse, popularized through British intelligence-funded publishing


channels, during the post-1968 period. This version, now rampant among the pattern associations associated with the Socialist Scholars Conference, rejected both the "early Marx" and the "mature Marx" in favor of the "new, scholarly discovery," the Marx of the Grundrisse.

As we have documented in other published locations, actual current scholarship concerning the historical Karl Marx locates his development as a Neoplatonic thinker with reference to an 1835 secondary school thesis (Aufsatz) written for Dr. Johann Hugo Wyttenbach, head of the Friedrich Wilhelm Gymnasium in Trier. Wyttenbach had been a member of the Benjamin Franklin-centered networks during the 1790s (which remained active, in alliance with the Cincinnatus Society networks of Washington, Lafayette, et al. after Franklin' death). It was Wyttenbach's association with the Franklin networks which had been the basis for his popular appointment as head of the school during the 1790s.

Study of Wyttenbach's own work and connections, and comparison of the essays written on the same assigned topic by Marx's classmates, leaves no margin for doubt concerning the impact and content of Wyttenbach‘s


influence as a teacher or of the exceptional degree of assimilation of that viewpoint by the 1835 Marx.

Marx's next phases of intellectual development were his work for his doctoral dissertation and his reaction to the Neopiatonic element in the otherwise contradictory Ludwig Feuerbaeh (E.g., as this writer has developed the case in his own "The Case of Ludwig Feuerbach," Campaigner, Vol. VII, Nos. 2 and 3, Feuerbach begins his The Essence of Christianity from an authentically Neoplatonic standpoint, and then degenerates to a modified form of Isis-cultism concerning the interpretation of the Christian Trinity.) In Marx's rather devastating and profound 1845 "Theses on Feuerbach," and the first section, "Feuerbach," of the Marx-Engels The German Ideology, a rigorously Neoplatonic outlook, a masterful break with both Feuerbach and with Hegel, is accomplished.

This Neoplatonic world outlook and method persists as Marx's essential character into the last sections of Capital Volume III. Without his comprehending the content of that connection, Fromm was entirely correct, during his writings on this subject during the early 1960s, in citing the "Freedom-Necessity" passage of Capital Volume III's Section VII as proof that Marx's essential world outlook had undergone no change in quality since the 1845 writings.

Once all of Marx's principal errors of historical and systematic political-economic judgment are identified and analyzed, a clear and indisputable characterization of Karl Marx's work as a whole emerges. Excepting Marx's ignorance of the conceptual issues of mathematical physics as bearing on the problem of deterministic models of extended reproduction, every important error of judgment and fact in Marx's writings is directly traceable to a known disinformational influence, such as that of David Urquhart. Marx appears, in net, as an astonishingly powerful intellect, of essentially Neoplatonic outlook, whose work reflects his effort to resolve combined facts and disinformation according to a generally powerful grounding in the Neoplatonic method.

There are two principal errors in Marx, apart from those errors of political-economic theory corrected by this writer. The first is his credulous acceptance of that falsified version of European history which presented the "British model" as paradigmatic for the systematic study of industrial capitalist development. The second was Marx's inability to overcome a softness toward "leftism," his attempt to rationalize the Jacobin Terror as the work of honorable but inadequately developed "revolutionaries." He -- and most of his professedly Marxist successors -- accepted the myth which represented the suppression of the Jacobin Terror as a model of "Thermidorian Reaction."

This understanding of Karl Marx is not only indispensable


for a competent study of Marx himself; without it, no one can effectively understand the Soviet Union today, and cannot, therefore, render competent judgment on the most crucial of the strategic issues occupying the attention and policymaking outlooks of the major forces of the world.

The Soviet Union is a reality which, in crucial aspects of its practice, embodies the Neoplatonic current in Marx. The Soviet Union is also influenced both by Marx's own errors and by ideologies advanced in the name of "Marxism-Leninism" which originated with sources other than Marx and which are, frequently, directly contrary to Marx's own essential method and outlook. The toleration of Karl Korsch's influence in East Germany, and the misguided admiration for Korsch's friend, Bertolt Brecht, is also exemplary. By understanding how Soviet reality intersects the various professedly "Marxist" or "neo-Marxist" ideologies one locates the Soviet decision-making process, and is able to untangle the intersection of various tendencies and factions which participate in the decision-making process.

For example, the perspective of the "Grand Design" featured as the dominant theme of the May 1978 Schmidt-Brezhnev summit expresses, on the Soviet Side, that thrust in Soviet development and through policy which coincides with the characteristic world outlook of the actual, Neoplatonic Karl Marx. It is the same Neoplatonic thrust which characterizes the ongoing shifts in Moscow-Vatican relationships. In the latter case, whether in Casaroli's Vatican "Ostpolitik" or the Augustinian thrust of Pope John Paul II now, the Vatican is guided by the ecumenical principles which flow from St. Augustine's City of God, and were first elaborated both theologically and theoretically otherwise by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. This was the Cusa who, with Cardinal Bessarion, is the point of origin of modern Vatican ecumenicism. This Neoplatonic thrust from the Vatican finds a resonance within the Soviet leadership (among other locations). This same resonance toward Vatican ecumenical approaches is the essential quality reflected in the Schmidt-Brezhnev summit.

We have based our approach toward East-West relations since early 1974 on precisely that appreciation of the essential thrust within Soviet society. This was the basis for our "Golden Euroruble" proposal in Europe during the Spring of 1974, and was a crucial feature of the 1975 International Development Bank proposal. This has also been the thrust in Vatican Ostpolitik under Pope Paul VI, and is the approach being taken by France's President Giscard d'Estaing and Germany's Chancellor Helmut Schmidt.

From the standpoint of the best thrusts in Soviet objective and policy developments, Soviet socialism is the quality of Marxian socialism expressing agreement with


the Neoplatonic character and method of Karl Marx. One may choose to judge the Soviet Union in any fashion one chooses; however, only this approach to the issues of East-West and North-South strategic relations will yield fruitful results.

Relative to the problem of alienation, as Marx actually conceived "alienation," Marx is dedicated to socialist society for humanity as a matter of historical necessity. However, it is worse than nonsense to imagine that "socialist society" is in any other way a principled question for Marx. That is, the utopian-ultimatist posture of "no aid to the perpetuation of the existing, capitalist state" has no connection with Marx's outlook, thought, or practice. Marx's premise, like that of all Neoplatonists, is a dedication to the cause of the city- builders and opposition to the cause of the oligarchists and to the radical-oligarchist populism of Malthusians (“environmentalists”), “machine-stormers,” and so forth. The primary thing for Marx is scientific and technological progress through extension of the industrial mode of production at the expense of "the idiocy of rural life." For Marx, the practical question of socialism is entirely one of advancing either the capitalist or socialist form of political economic organization of states and society generally, according to which pathway of policy-practice is required to ensure technological progress.

There is no essential difference, at root, between Marx's Neoplatonism and the Populorum Progressio policy articulated in fulfillment of the same policies already embedded in Vatican II. The material progress of society through technological progress is not an end in itself, but an indispensable precondition for continued human existence, and also an indispensable mediation of the development of man as man, for the development of the mind of man to the same ends prescribed in Plato's Republic and the Commedia of Dante Alighieri. Marx's objective is essentially identical with that of Miguel Cervantes's Don Quixote: to get Sancho Panza off his ass, free Sancho of his enslavement to his peasant-like gluttony, and qualify Sancho to govern a province. The object of Neoplatonism is to develop society, through the essential mediation of technological progress so that ordinary men and women are transformed from "bronze souls" into "silver" and "golden" souls successively, so that in the process of becoming "golden souls," ordinary men and women become fully qualified to govern themselves, to be transformed from sheep into shepherds.

The wretch such as a Paul M. Sweezy or "leftist" professors of the "Marxist Perspectives" varieties, turns this upside-down. This wretch currently defends Sancho Panza's "rural idiocy" against the sort of change in his nature which Cervantes poses as the objective. To these "leftists" in the tradition of British agent Marat's L' Ami du Peuple, it is the bestialized impulses of the "masses"


which must be defended against "elitist" efforts to lift these same masses off their asses, to develop their minds, to develop their competence to rule society without need of shepherds.

To construct a Marxism which is adapted to the bestiality of a Jeremy Bentham, or British SIS-directed butchers Danton and Marat, the "leftist professors" take an approach to Marx which is directly opposite to that we have outlined here. They seize on the errors which British disinformation influenced in Marx, and abstract these as the corpus of "orthodox Marxism," defending this "orthodoxy" against everything in Marx which opposes these errors. In short, the "leftist professors" employ the same cultist methods familiar to the history of Christianity in such excrescenses as Gnosticism, Arianism, Manichaeanism, Donatism and the prophesying (Delphic) cult of Our Lady of Fatima.

If one studies the literary aspect of "Marxist Perspectives" professorial types in light of the sort of freak shows which the "Marxist Perspectives" carnival represents in whole, the allusion to the models of Manichaeanism and Donatism shows itself most appropriate. The Manichaeansim of contemporary U.S. "radicalism," associated, lawfully, with various Manson Family and other models of Dionysian cults, lawfully complements itself with the kind of terrorism which is associated with Donatism from Augustine's time to its survivals among Egyptian Coptic circles to the present date.

The "Marxist Perspectives" groups' parody of pseudo-Marxism is a Delphic rationalization whose characteristic features are nothing but Dionysiac Manichaeanism. This shows the appropriateness of the "Marxist cover" for the sort of obscene assembly of lesbian and other freak shows the association as a whole represents. The sympathy toward terrorists among those strata reflects the same principle as the connection between Manichaeanism and Donatism in earlier periods.

Once the "Marxist Perspectives" cult is examined as a cult in the way we have outlined the case, appropriate intelligence and security agencies should have much less difficulty in understanding the significance of the cultist formation as a cover for "black operations" and occasional safe house facility for terrorists. The character of the cult as a Dionysiac formation in the model of the Manichaean-Donatism cases is the essential point of conceptual reference.

First, the shaping of ideologies and organizational relations in this way is peculiar to what is generically nameable as "British Jesuitism." The British Jesuits, who may wander under the titles of Balliol or All Souls dons, librarians in the Ashmolean or British Museum, as Anglican priests, or as radicals of the Jesuit-trained Ivan


Illich variety, proceed from mastery of the principles of Gnostic, Manichaean, Arian, Donatist and related forms of cultism. They employ the proven methods for creating such cults, as studied over a thousands-of-years span, to apply the same methods to present-day situations.

The concepts for such applications are mediated for practice through "SOE"-type circles, such as the "Our Crowd" gang running both the New York Council on Foreign Relations and most of Manhattan's investment banking activities.

The wetwork agency for those CFR-linked circles of British-Canadian "SOE" types is principally the Zionist cut-out facility, the Montefiore family's Jewish division of British SIS, such as the Bronfman operative, Major Louis Bloomfield. This Bloomfield, who coordinated both FBI Division V and the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence from World War II into a continuing key role into the 1960s, was, during the 1960s, the head of the network which was caught red-handed in the attempted OAS-conduited efforts to assassinate President Charles de Gaulle and was detected as the major element involved in the circumstances of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy during the same period. Bloomfield is representative of a complex of Zionist organizations such as the Jerusalem Foundation, the B'nai B'rith leadership, the Sonnenborn Institute, Technion, and Israeli intelligence agencies such as the Mossad, which play an up-front role as a cover for British intelligence in many dirty operations. In an emergency, under this arrangement, the Jews can be thrown to the wolves to save the British monarchy's interests as such.

It is this complex of SOE-type-plus-Zionist and Zionist-controlled organized crime (e.g. Meyer Lansky) elements which is most visibly deployed in the black operations now deployed internationally against the U.S. Labor Party and its allies. Every operation run against the Labor Party through the cover of the "Marxist Perspectives" networks is traced to these SOE-type banking-based sources and their Zionist accomplices. Furthermore, the sponsorship for the "Marxist Perspectives" group as a whole comes from the exact same sources.

In summary, the picture is as follows. The "Marxist Perspectives" group is a "Marxist" cult on the Manichaean-Donatism model, created under the sponsorship of the New York banking-centered SOE-types otherwise associated with the CFR of Kissinger, Bundy, Brzezinski, George Franklin, et al. This "Marxist cult" operates as a cover with various specific functions; one of its functions as a cut out is to conduit covert operations actually directed and initiated through the SOE types associated with CFR.


To website's home page