Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Ex-IWP Website Hacked, But We're Not Going to Be Disappeared by Cult Members!

BREAKING NEWS

The EX-IWP website was hacked soon after the death of cult leader Fred Newman. We have every intention of restoring the website as quickly as possible. In the meantime, please visit one of our new BLOGS which contain LOTS and LOTS of archive materials that many would like to see disappeared. Please also visit our new FORUM where former members can freely express their thoughts and communicate with others about their IWP experience. Stay tuned for more information.

RECENT MEDIA COVERAGE

Party to fraud – New York Daily News, December 9, 2013

Independence Party endorses Adolfo Carrion Jr. for New York City Mayor - New York Daily News, February 21, 2013

Built on deception, the Independence Party boosted Michael Bloomberg into office in three elections (New York Daily News, December 14, 2012)
 
Lots of reasons DA can crash this ‘party’ (New York Daily News, December 12, 2012)

City Independence Party insiders wrongly filled their governing committees with unwilling and unwitting voters (New York Daily News, December 12, 2012)

Independence Party’s confusing name has tricked thousands of New Yorkers (New York Daily News, December 11, 2012)

The state has to end the confusion that has swelled Independence Party rolls with unwitting and unwilling members (New York Daily News, December 11, 2012)

Revealed: How cult-like band exploits voter deception to wield political power in N.Y.C. (New York Daily News, December 10, 2012)

Anti-Semitic Jew Fred Newman led his cult-like followers to Independence Party power in New York City (New York Daily News, December 10, 2012)

Gov. Cuomo must deliver an ultimatum to the Independence Party: Stop the shams or the party dies (New York Daily News, December 10, 2012)

Rupert Murdoch Joins Independence Party In New York Accidentally (Huffington Post, September 26, 2012)

The Strange Life of the Late Fred Newman (Pajamas Media, July 12, 2011)

Fred Newman, Writer and Political Figure, Dies at 76 (The New York Times, July 9, 2011)

NYC Independence Party Founder Newman Dead At 76! ‎ (NY1, July 5, 2011)

Former Leaders of New Alliance Party Have Become Leading Opponents of Ballot Access Reform (Ballot Access News, December 30, 2010)

Bloomberg and the Not-So-Independent Independence Party

Mating Game: Bloomy Loves Fred Newman, All Over Again (Village Voice, February 19, 2009)

Bloomberg's Therapist (Village Voice, June 14, 2005)

ARE YOU UNFAMILIAR WITH FRED NEWMAN AND THE IWP?

Political Research Associates (Extensive Information on the IWP)

Steve Hassan's IWP Web Page

"Psychopolitics": Inside The Independence Party Of Fred Newman (NY 1 News, November 2005)

Mayor Defends Financing for Fulani Group (2006)

By Jill Gardiner
The New York Sun, September 14, 2006

Mayor Bloomberg is defending the city's decision to approve more than $12 million in tax-free financing for a nonprofit group founded by a political leader who has been accused of making anti-Semitic comments.

Mr. Bloomberg said the approval of the tax-free financing for the All Stars Project, a performing arts group, was based solely on the substance of the group and had nothing to do with its founding member, Lenora Fulani, who is no longer affiliated with the group.

The city's Industrial Development Agency gave the green light to the arrangement earlier this week over objections from several leading elected officials, who said the organization's relationship with Ms. Fulani should disqualify it.

"We don't look at the politics or the personal philosophies or the first amendment rights of what people say who are not involved with a project," Mr. Bloomberg told reporters.

"If they have a problem with other people they should express it to other people, but we are not going to hurt the kids at the All Star Project," he added referring to the opponents.

Ms. Fulani, a former leader of the Independence Party, backed Mr. Bloomberg when he was running for mayor in 2001 and then again in 2005, giving him crucial support and an alternative party line for New Yorkers who wanted to vote for him but didn't want to pull the lever for the Republican Party. He has distanced himself from her positions, but they repeatedly come back to haunt him.

Ms. Fulani's most divisive words came in 1989, when she wrote: "Jews had to sell their souls to acquire Israel." This week, the state comptroller, Alan Hevesi, the City Council speaker, Christine Quinn, the public advocate, Betsy Gotbaum, and Rep. Jerrold Nadler wrote to the head of the IDA urging him to block the financing request. Others who hold power on the IDA board directed their proxies to reject it.

But Mr. Bloomberg contended that there was nothing wrong with the deal: "We're trying to do what's right for our children and we certainly do not want to run a city where everybody's got to pass a litmus test of agreeing with those people running for office," he said.

Bloomy's 'All Stars': City arranges new multi-million-dollar financing for Fulani's crew (2006)

By Tom Robbins
The Village Voice, August 22, 2006

City arranges new multi-million-dollar financing for Fulani's crew

Even though he was the odds-on favorite to win re-election last year, Mayor Mike Bloomberg took no chances. In addition to running as the Republican Party's nominee, the billionaire media mogul sought and accepted the nomination of the Independence Party, thus providing an alternative for those true-blue Democrats who could never pull the GOP lever, even while holding their noses in the privacy of the voting booth. It was the same strategy that had worked so well for him in 2001, when the 59,000 votes he polled as the Independence candidate put him over the top in that razor-close race.

But the second time around, Bloomberg took a fair amount of heat for the tactic: Reporters asked him why he was still associating with the zany crowd that controlled the city's Independence Party, which included Lenora Fulani, prone to tossing occasional anti-Semitic barbs, and her oddball therapy guru, Fred Newman, who openly approved of sex between shrinks and patients. Those questions increased in volume after Fulani publicly refused to disavow her own earlier comments, in a NY1 TV interview, that Jews are "mass murderers" and had "sold their souls to acquire Israel."

But Bloomberg's strategy was to be better safe than sorry, banking on the hope that most voters wouldn't notice and the rest wouldn't hold it against him. And he was right. The CEO-turned-politician scored an overwhelming 750,000-vote tally against Democrat Fernando Ferrer, with more than 74,000 cast for him on the Independence Party line.

Now, nine months after the little third party helped him achieve that crushing victory, Bloomberg's administration is poised to provide Fulani and Newman with new $12 million tax-free bond financing for a controversial nonprofit organization they have long controlled. The bond deal, due to be approved by the city's Industrial Development Agency next month, would allow a youth program called the All Stars Project to refinance $8.3 million in outstanding city bonds and add an additional $4.2 million to allow the group to make improvements at its headquarters on West 42nd Street—a space it acquired in 2002 with an earlier IDA bond deal from Bloomberg's administration.

Tax-free bonds for private businesses and nonprofit groups are awarded frequently by the city, but applicants have to show that the subsidies will benefit the public. All Stars has been the subject of repeated complaints and investigations concerning allegations that it is used to lure unwary people into Newman's so-called "social therapy" practice and into political activities like the Independence Party. The group has always denied it, and a probe last year by the office of state attorney general Eliot Spitzer did not result in charges of wrongdoing.

The financing deal is clearly attractive. The bonds would save All Stars several hundred thousand dollars in costs and mortgage-recording taxes, according to Good Jobs New York, which monitors city projects. So far, however, few specifics have been provided. The only information made public is a one-paragraph advertisement published in the New York Daily News on August 8. A spokesperson for the city's Economic Development Corporation, which oversees the IDA, confirmed the deal and said only that some of the new $4 million plus would go for new heating and ventilation systems for the All Stars headquarters, adding that more details will be available before a September 7 hearing on the matter.

Bloomberg spokesperson Stu Loeser said the mayor played "no role" in the bond deal, adding that Newman and Fulani have distanced themselves from the project. In February, Newman resigned from posts he held there, although he and Fulani remain leading figures in the group.

An All Stars spokesman confirmed the bonds will be used to "finance necessary renovations and improvements."

Whatever the details, the project appears to be a kind of consolation prize for the group, which had a decidedly unhappy experience in its most recent dealings with city government. In March, in a caustic letter, the group announced it was dropping its application for a $230,000 contract to provide after-school training to city schoolkids through the Department of Youth and Community Development. The move came after a 10-month-long inquiry that began shortly after a Voice story on the matter ("Fulani's City Hall Push," June 7, 2005). At the time, the Voice reported that Fulani and Newman had been invited into Bloomberg's inner sanctum at City Hall, where they had met with top city officials, including schools chancellor Joel Klein. Part of their pitch was to provide theater and music activities to schoolchildren. Bloomberg's aides were receptive to the idea. But All Stars officials confirmed that they were more interested in receiving the stamp of approval from City Hall than the cash. "It would be the city validating all of our work in this field," Gabrielle Kurlander, who lives with Newman and receives $200,000 as president of the group, told the Voice last year.

But the contract negotiations came just as the mayor was agreeing to take the Independence Party line, and the coincidence helped spark a spate of additional stories in the New York Post and on NY1. In the face of that publicity, the city's youth department announced that All Stars would get careful scrutiny before any contracts were awarded.

That investigation, along with a parallel one by Spitzer's office, put the after-school grant on hold. City officials never completed their probe, but on March 6, All Stars president Kurlander fired off an angry four-page letter to city youth department officials saying they'd had enough. The letter offered—in remarkably frank language—Kurlander's version of her group's dealings with the youth agency and City Hall.

According to Kurlander, the after-school activities application started with the suggestion of a Bloomberg policy aide, Ester Fuchs, who "urged us to apply for a grant." (Fuchs told the Voice last year that the idea was broached by an All Stars lobbyist.) Kurlander said she "expressed concern" that the application "might fall victim to various forms of political gamesmanship" given the media attention to the group.

Despite city assurances that wouldn't happen, Kurlander wrote, the youth department's general counsel began contacting All Stars board members and supporters as far away as California "to inquire about their political affiliations." After a protest to Fuchs, Kurlander said, those inquiries were halted. But as the mayoral race heated up, NY1 broadcast a multi-part series by reporter Rita Nissan, prompting a new series of inquiries.

The youth department's new questions, Kurlander wrote, "read like an inquisition from Senator Joseph McCarthy." She said the queries included questions about who on the board was "in therapy, about living and personal financial arrangements of principals associated with the program, and other intrusive and abusive lines of questioning."

All Stars again complained, Kurlander wrote, this time to both Fuchs and Bloomberg campaign director Kevin Sheekey (now a deputy mayor). Kurlander said City Hall aides "disingenuously" told her that it was out of their hands. She said that even after Spitzer dropped his own separate inquiry, the city's probe continued. The last straw apparently came when the Voice reported, several days before Kurlander's irate letter, that city sources were telling it the contract wouldn't be awarded.

The All Stars executive wrote that the city's inquiry had "degenerated into the worst form of 'policy by politics' " and a "corruption of governmental responsibility."

"Finally," Kurlander concluded, "while it is the case that some individuals in the All Stars community worked hard for Mayor Bloomberg's re-election, All Stars has always made it plain that it neither sought nor expected any special treatment or favors." At the bottom of the letter, Kurlander cc'd Fuchs, Sheekey, and Mayor Bloomberg.

"Psychopolitics": Inside The Independence Party Of Fred Newman, Part One

By Rita Nissan, NY1 News, October 30, 2005

The New York Independence Party has grown to 325,000 members statewide, 90,000 members in the city. It's become a powerful voice in politics, but there are some who say the leaders of the Manhattan party should be silenced. NY1’s Rita Nissan has more in part one of her special series, "Psychopolitics."

To say Lenora Fulani is vocal would be an understatement. As a leader of the Manhattan Independence Party, Fulani has been outspoken in her support for Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is running on her party's line. But while Fulani comes off as an in-charge and in-command leader, people who used to be aligned with her say a man you probably never heard of calls the shots - Fulani's mentor and psychotherapist, Fred Newman.

“Fulani is 100 percent subservient to Fred, 100 percent subservient to Fred, and when Fulani says something it's with Fred's blessing and by his design,” says Frank MacKay, Chairman of the state Independence Party.

Newman controls a web of organizations: The Manhattan Independence Party, a youth charity, and therapy clinics that practice his self-invented field of psychology, Social Therapy.

Newman has controversial views on politics, Jews and psychology. Newman lives with several former patients and says he has no problem if patients have sex with their therapists.

“I think that people’s sexual relationship should be something very personal between the people who are engaging in it, and I think if people love each other, care for each other and are attracted to each other, and decide - together - that they want to have sex, they should,” Newman recently told NY1.

Yet politicians like Bloomberg have been quick to seek Newman’s support. MacKay says it was Newman's decision to let Bloomberg run as an Independent in 2001.

As a Republican, Bloomberg benefited from a second ballot line because it made some Democrats more comfortable voting for him.

MacKay says Bloomberg's name first surfaced when a prominent Republican called him.

“He said, "There's a billionaire. He's looking to run for office. He's a Democrat and he’s switching into the Republican Party,’” says MacKay.

MacKay says he reached out to the party's Manhattan chapter and spoke to its chairwoman, Cathy Stewart.

“She said, "You’ve got to talk to Fred about this.’ And I did and I discussed it,” says MacKay. “He knew a little something about Bloomberg. Fred’s very in touch with what’s going on out there. I guess he understood.

MacKay says Newman and Bloomberg met, and an alliance was formed. “I thought it was a good idea to support Bloomberg. Why? Because I thought he was more independent with relatively traditional liberal values, but without having all the kinds of connections to the kind of Democratic Party machine and the clubhouse structure, which I thought would be a plus,” says Newman. “I thought he was an intelligent guy who knew how to manage. I thought he’d make a good mayor.”

The Independence Party can claim credit for Bloomberg's victory. It delivered 59,000 votes, more than his winning margin.

It appears the relationship has paid off for Newman, with high level City Hall meetings, Bloomberg's push for non-partisan elections, and tax-free bonds for his charity, the All Stars Project. Bloomberg has donated tens of thousands of dollars to All Stars.

The mayor's office claims these were not special favors, but critics say Bloomberg's actions have given Newman and his associate's credibility they don't deserve.

“I would warn anyone that would consider being involved in an organization somehow connected to Fred Newman to really investigate the history of the group,” says Rick Ross, a cult expert.

Over the course of this week, NY1 will do just that. We'll take a closer look at Fred Newman, and you'll hear from him in a rare interview.

We also spoke to more than three dozen people with knowledge of Newman and his groups. You'll hear why they say this behind the scenes organizer is the force behind a massive empire that runs largely on private donations.

- Rita Nissan

"Psychopolitics": Inside The Independence Party Of Fred Newman, Part Two

By Rita Nissan
NY1 News, November 1, 2005

On Monday, NY1 introduced you to the Independence Party's Fred Newman, a major player in city politics. In part two of her special series, "Psychopolitics," NY1’s Rita Nissan takes a look at Newman's colorful past.

Fred Newman may be the most powerful political leader you never heard of. His followers have been dubbed "Newmanites" and they liken him to Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

“I met Dr. Newman 30 years ago. One of the things we did, not just the therapy, [but] one of the things I recognized was that I knew he had a vision for the African-American community and he could help us do something besides feel sorry for ourselves,” says Lorraine Stevens, a Newman supporter.

Critics call him to a cult leader.

“He is the man, the guru,” says Nanette Harris, a former Social Therapy patient. “Everybody aspires to be like Fred or to have Fred's approval. It's ridiculous.”

Born and raised in the South Bronx, Fred Newman received a Ph.D. in philosophy from Stanford in 1963. But psychology and politics became his passion.

In the early 70's Newman developed a small group of followers, and they lived in a communal apartment on the Upper West Side. Members took part in the group therapy Newman created, Social Therapy. They also did political work. Newman called it, "A Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization."

“I now often refer myself to a post-modern Marxist because I think Marx is very antiquated,” says Newman.

His group morphed into the International Workers Party, the IWP. Former members say the IWP did, and still does, serve as the backbone of Newman's causes.

They say members live together and are expected to quit their jobs, turn over their assets to Newman and raise money for him on the street, while undergoing his therapy.

By the late '70s, former members say the IWP went underground and Newman started operating several front groups, including the New Alliance Party. Critics called the party a fringe group, with shady politics, operated by a cult-like core.

“It slowly dawned on me that I had been part of a cult,” says M. Ortiz, who was a loyal follower from 1985 to 1990.

Ortiz says she went to Social Therapy to treat her anxiety and depression. “Therapy at the institute isn't just therapy,” she says.

Ortiz says she was recruited to work for the New Alliance Party during her weekly sessions. She was told society was to blame for her emotional problems and her recovery would be helped by doing political work for Newman.

Not long into her involvement, Ortiz says she was invited to join the IWP, which also became known as the "inner core" and the "tendency."

“I found myself a member of an underground, Leninist, Marxist tendency whose ambition was to overthrow [or] take over the U.S. government through fair elections and third party elections,” she says.

To join, Ortiz says she filled out a form stating her income and assets, and that she had to turn those assets over to the IWP. She says she had to contribute money to fund Newman's various causes, including the 1988 presidential campaign of his protege, Lenora Fulani.

Ortiz says she and her fellow comrades also had to attend secret meetings at different places in the city, to avoid being spotted by the FBI. In 1988, the FBI called members of the New Alliance Party "armed and dangerous."

“As Marxist-Leninist cadre, we would have secret bi-weekly meetings with a cell leader in small groups of between four and six people,” says Ortiz. “We were given orders to read, information like, ÎSo and so has joined the tendency, so and so has left the tendency.’ We would also give at those meetings bi-weekly dues, which ranged anywhere from 10-50 percent of your income.”

Ortiz says she devoted her life to the organization. She says she even agreed to live with other so-called cadres. Ortiz says they took turns caring for each other's children so they could devote more time to the revolution.

But slowly, she says she realized she was in a cult. Ortiz says the final straw came when she was told to give up her daughter.

“It was strongly suggested that I consider putting my daughter up for foster care because she was, "getting in the way of my work as a revolutionary.’ And that was it,” she says.

After five years of what she describes as slave labor, and thousands of dollars in debt, Ortiz said goodbye to Fred Newman in 1990.

Now, at age 70, Newman is frail and is said to be suffering from diabetes. He dismisses the claim that he leads a cult.

“I don't think there are such things as cults,” he says. “I think there are human beings who decide to come together in various ways and sometimes the ways in which they come together turn out to be pretty destructive — witness Jonestown - and sometimes they come together in ways that are relatively innocuous, and sometimes they come together in ways that turn out to be quite positive.”

Newman says he's a positive force. “Our therapeutic work has brought more families together than any kind of therapy that I know of,” he says.

Ortiz has gone to great lengths to document her story. She launched a website, www.exiwp.org, that's become a sanctuary for former IWP members.

“I want to give people the chance to find out as much about them, their entire history,” she says. “They have a tendency to hide information, to deny information, to shred information, and to just lie. I don't want to give them that chance anymore.”

Ortiz says she's outraged that 15 years since she parted ways, Newman is still practicing Social Therapy and his political power has grown.

Newman now runs the Independence Party in Manhattan and largely controls the other four boroughs. He also has considerable influence over the state party.

His followers dominate some upstate counties. That has given Newman and his allies access to politicians like Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Governor George Pataki, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and Senator Charles Schumer. They have all sought the Independence Party's endorsement.

- Rita Nissan

"Psychopolitics": Inside The Independence Party Of Fred Newman, Part Three

By Rita Nissan
NY1 News, November 2, 2005

Fred Newman, the leader of the Manhattan Independence Party, wants to have a say in how your children are educated. But his views on sex and marriage may leave some parents wary. NY1’s Rita Nissan has more in part three of her special series, "Psychopolitics."

Fred Newman lives by his own rules. He says monogamy and marriage aren’t for him.
“I don't think it's any of the state's business who my dearest loves are and how I relate to another human being and give to them and receive from them,” he says.

Newman calls them his dearest loves, the women he lives with in his West Village
townhouse. He admits some of the women initially came to him for psychological help.

Newman treats patients in Social Therapy, his self-created field of psychology.

“Some of them were in therapy, yeah,” he says.

But mainstream psychologists say it's unethical for therapists to have sex with their patients because it violates personal boundaries and trust.

Newman is not held to any ethical codes. As a psychotherapist, he doesn’t need a license to practice in New York State, although the laws have changed and he’ll need one by the end of the year.

“I think that people’s sexual relationships should be something very personal between the people who are engaging in it, and I think if people love each other, care for each other, are attracted to each other and decide together that they want to have sex, they should,” he says. “[Does it matter that it's a patient and a therapist?] I think sexual relationships are between human beings, not human beings under certain descriptions or in certain categories. I believe that people should fall in love as they so desire, and if they want to include in that sexuality, they should include that.”

Newman controls several organizations that appear to be intertwined: Social Therapy clinics, the Manhattan Independence Party, and his youth charity the All Stars Project. All Stars introduces children and teens to Newman’s ideas.

At All Stars headquarters, Newman writes and directs plays at the Castillo Theatre. His books are everywhere, and volunteers have been invited to social therapy related events.

“It’s cool,” says Loretta Martin.

NY1 met Martin at a campaign rally for Mayor Michael Bloomberg. She works for Newman’s Independence Party and volunteers for All Stars.

“We hear it all over the place, Social Therapy,” Martin says.

A 2003 evaluation of All Stars shows some high school students read his book, "Let's
Develop." In it, Newman explains what he calls "friendosexuality." He writes that sex is best when "performed" the same way children play, with friends as equals.

Former patients say they were advised to have sex with their friends, without forming
emotional bonds. Mainstream psychologists say that leads to unhealthy relationships.

Here's how former patient M. Ortiz describes what happened when she went to Newman
for help with a relationship: “Fred Newman in therapy suggested that maybe I should go have a relationship with someone else and bring it back to the therapy group and see if there were any problems and then we could discuss it. That was his advice to me regarding a personal relationship. He said I should go sleep around.”

Ortiz says Newman’s views on sex were well known among his followers.

“It was a joke in the media and even in the community that Fred has four wives, Gabrielle [Kurlander], Hazel - the late Hazel Daren, who was his first cult relationship - and two other wives, Gail Elberg and Deborah Green,” she says.

Some of those women now have plush jobs with All Stars.

Gabrielle Kurlander earns $200,000 a year as its president. In the 1980’s she was a therapy patient. Newman fell in love with her. He once wrote, "Gabrielle Kurlander, my dearest love, made my life."

Gail Elberg is another All Stars official that Newman lives with. Elberg oversees the volunteer program. She’s been with Newman for more than 30 years.

Newman doesn't call these women his wives. He doesn’t think marriage is a good thing.

“I don't consider any woman my wife. I think that's a highly troublesome and complex
relationship,” he says. “I no longer participate in it. I have some very dear friends of mine, women friends of mine, who I relate to in all kinds of ways. But I don’t collect wives.”

All of this doesn’t sit well with the people who have spent decades tracking Newman. Critics say his unorthodox views make it questionable whether he should work with children, and they say Mayor Bloomberg should be held accountable for helping All Stars grow.

Since he took office, All Stars has moved into a massive new headquarters thanks to tax free bonds from the city, and its been awarded a three-year contract to operate after-school programs. But that contract is on hold because of various investigations.

We have spoken to some All Stars participants who say it's a wonderful program that gives underprivileged children and teens a place to go. They praise Fred Newman and the work that he is doing.

Independence Party chief says guru Newman OK’d Bloomberg endorsement (2005)

By Tom Robbins
Village Voice, September 27, 2005

Speaking out: Independence Party chairman Frank MacKay

In the six years that Frank MacKay has been chairman of the state’s Independence Party the influential holder of Row C on New York’s ballot he says he never had a substantive conversation with Lenora Fulani, the party’s most famous and controversial member.

“It’s never been more than ‘Hi’ and ‘Goodbye,’ “ MacKay told the Voice.

On the other hand, MacKay said that he spent many hours in discussion about tactics and party activities with Fred Newman, the guru style figure hailed by Fulani and others as the inspiration for their various enterprises, including therapy clinics and the All Stars Project, a city subsidized nonprofit organization with a multimillion dollar budget.

MacKay said that when he had important party business to discuss including the initial recommendation that the party’s city chapter endorse Michael Bloomberg for mayor he was told to talk to Newman, and Newman alone. He said that he was often summoned to meetings at Newman’s Greenwich Village townhouse, attended by a coterie of longtime followers.

“There would be this little circle grouped around Newman, hanging on his every word,” MacKay said. The group included Cathy Stewart, the chairwoman of the New York County Independence Party; attorneys Harry Kresky and Gary Sinawski; political consultant Jackie Salit; All Stars president Gabrielle Kurlander; and Fulani. MacKay said that he attended some 20 such sessions, and that Newman did most of the talking.

“The meetings would go on for two hours, and the only two talking are me and Newman,” MacKay said. “The others only chimed in to agree with Fred.”

Newman, 70, has long been a political fringe player, allied at different times with Lyndon LaRouche, Louis Farrakhan, and Pat Buchanan. But he has largely kept in the background, allowing Fulani (whom he once called his “greatest accomplishment”) to take the lead. A playwright, Newman also claims authorship of what he describes as “a new science of human development” called “social therapy.” But therapists using Newman’s teachings have been accused of recruiting patients to their political efforts.

“He’s like a Svengali,” MacKay said. “He is the one and only decision maker.”

MacKay, a former nightclub owner from Suffolk County, was originally elected state party chairman in 2000 with the support of Newman’s group. But MacKay ended the alliance this month when he and upstate party officials concluded that Fulani’s refusal to disavow past anti Semitic statements, and her continued self identification as the party’s leader, were hurting the organization.

Why had he worked so long with Newman’s group? “The party is about building coalitions,” he said. “They seemed cultlike, but not on a Jonestown type level. You could say we used each other.”

The break came September 18 at a crowded meeting near Albany where state committee members voted overwhelmingly to remove Fulani and five allies, including Stewart, Kresky, and Sinawski, from their executive panel. Fulani later dismissed the vote, saying it wouldn’t affect her status as a leader in the “Black community.” She also noted that her group still holds the reins of the party’s autonomous city chapter, which boasts Bloomberg as its mayoral candidate in November. “God bless the mayor,” Fulani said during the debate, “he voiced his disagreement with me, and then kept right on going.”

Indeed, that same day Bloomberg refused to comment on Fulani’s removal, saying he didn’t want to get involved in another party’s affairs. But he had good reason to avoid offending her. The 59,000 votes he received on the Independence line in 2001 was almost double his narrow margin of victory over Democrat Mark Green. This year, Bloomberg originally ducked comment on Fulani’s anti Semitic statements, saying he hadn’t heard them. He later called her views “despicable,” but still agreed to take the party’s nomination in June. So far in this election, he has pumped $270,000 into the party’s city committees.

But when Bloomberg’s name originally surfaced as a potential Independence Party candidate in late 2000, MacKay said he was told to discuss it first with Newman.

MacKay said that in December that year he received a call from “a major Republican leader” whom he declined to name on the record asking about the party’s intentions for the 2001 mayoral election. “He said, ‘What are your crazies down in New York doing next year in the mayoral race?’ “ said MacKay.

The GOP figure went on to say that he had “a bona fide billionaire” who was switching from the Democratic to the Republican Party, MacKay said. The would be candidate “is a long shot, but his only chance is with a second line,” MacKay said he was told.

MacKay, who has no role in the Independence Party’s city committees, said he quickly called Stewart, the city chairwoman. But when he started to tell her the news, Stewart cut him off.

“She said she couldn’t talk to me about it, that I had to talk to Fred. She said someone would reach out to me.” A few minutes later, MacKay said he got a call from Newman’s personal assistant, who put Newman on the phone.

“I asked Fred what their plans were for the race. He said, ‘We are going to see if [Reverend Al] Sharpton grows a pair of balls and starts standing up for himself against the Democrats.’ Otherwise, Newman said, ‘we’re going to run Fulani.’ “ MacKay said Newman told him he wanted to take advantage of matching funds available under the city’s public campaign finance law. “He said, ‘We can raise $200,000 and make $1 million,’ “ according to MacKay.

When MacKay raised Bloomberg’s name, Newman responded immediately. “He knew all about him. He said, ‘We’re very interested.’ So I put them in touch. Obviously, they made beautiful music together,” said MacKay.

Bill Cunningham, a Bloomberg campaign adviser, said several state Republicans originally recommended that Bloomberg should seek the Independence Party nod for the 2001 race, among them state senate majority leader Joe Bruno. “I can’t say Bruno was the first, but many times he has talked about them as a good ally to have in politics,” Cunningham said.

Newman was present both times that Bloomberg met with Independence Party leaders to seek their endorsement, he said, adding that Stewart and Salit appeared to be the “political operatives” for the group.

Cunningham defended Bloomberg’s decision to take the party’s endorsement. “There are some 20 to 30 Democrats who have done so, including Schumer and Spitzer,” he said.

But most Democrats backed away from the party after Fulani, in an appearance on NY1 in April, defended past statements she’d made that Jews “had to sell their soul to acquire Israel,” and “function as mass murderers of people of color.”

“What is anti Semitic about that?” Fulani told host Dominick Carter.

Two days before Fulani’s remarks, Bloomberg spoke at a benefit dinner that Fulani and Newman held at Lincoln Center for the All Stars Project. There, MacKay said Stewart excitedly told him that the event had raised $1 million, and that Fulani had been invited onto the NY1 show.

MacKay said that when he heard about Fulani’s comments and the ensuing media controversy, he sent a critical statement to members. He didn’t make a bigger commotion at the time, he said, because he “didn’t want to interfere with the Bloomberg nomination.”

He called Stewart, however, and insisted on a meeting with Newman. “When I got there, all of them, Salit, Kresky, Sinawski, were laughing. Newman said, ‘Oh, here’s our chairman, you’re just in time. We’ve been strategizing about how to use this wonderful publicity we’re getting.’ “

MacKay said he responded angrily. “I said, ‘You are the only ones laughing. This is serious. This is a disaster.’ “ MacKay said Newman then asked to meet with him alone. “He told me, ‘We could have done better on this.’ “

Despite the admission, MacKay said he believed Newman was delighted with the uproar. “He knows how to create controversy. He believes any press is good press, and that Fulani can only get press if it looks like she has power.”

A spokeswoman for the city’s Independence Party, Sara Lyons, refused comment on behalf of its leaders. “We’re not interested in being interviewed by you,” said Lyons, who heads the party’s Staten Island chapter. “You’re not doing serious journalism.”

Bloomberg's Therapist (2005)

By Tom Robbins
The Village Voice, June 21, 2005

Mayor Mike's independence party friends can put him on the couch

There was a post-stadium dip in the polls for Michael Bloomberg last week. But the Republican mayor still has a potential job-saving ace in the hole, the same one he had in 2001: a jowly, white-bearded fellow named Fred Newman.

Fred who? That would be Dr. Fred Newman, of course, renowned founder of Social Therapy, the psychological practice dedicated to "a new science of human development," as he modestly proclaims it. Still lost? Well, you must have heard of Fred Newman, author of half a dozen books, and considered by many (OK, by many of his followers) to be the philosophical heir to Ludwig Wittgenstein and Lev Vygotsky (you know, Vygotsky, the great Soviet constructivist psychologist).

Utterly lost? What about Fred Newman the well-known playwright, whose works include Lenin's Breakdown, Risky Revolutionary, and the hilarious All My Cadre, not to mention The Therapy Plays: Newman's Postmodern Follies? That one just finished a successful month-long run at the Castillo Theatre (founded by Newman), which is partners with the All Stars Project (co-founded by Newman), which is the nonprofit youth performance organization housed in a glittering new West 42nd Street headquarters purchased and built with $8.35 million in tax-free bonds provided by the administration of, yes, Michael Bloomberg.

Which brings us to that other important hat worn by Dr. Newman, that of state committee member of the Independence Party, the political group that holds Row C on the ballot and which provided Bloomberg 59,000 votes and his 2001 margin of victory. This month, the party announced it would once again be proud to carry the mayor's name for re-election.

Lenora Fulani, whose past anti-Semitic comments got her in hot water this spring, gets most of the ink and the airtime where the Independence Party is concerned. But she is a longtime and loyal disciple of Fred Newman.

"She is one of my life's proudest accomplishments," Newman told an interviewer a few years ago. "This man is someone I love dearly," Fulani said in turn of her mentor.

After years spent on the political fringes, the two orchestrated a takeover of the Independence Party in the mid 1990s. They promptly found themselves courted by people like Bloomberg, George Pataki, and Charles Schumer in search of a second ballot line.

The party announced its latest Bloomberg endorsement at a reception held on June 5 at City Hall restaurant on Duane Street, attended by some 150 party faithful and a throng of media. Newman, 69, briefly addressed the troops, but his logic and sentence structure are sometimes hard to follow, and the press kept its focus on Fulani, asking her one more time if she regretted saying a few years back that Jews "function as mass murderers of people of color."

Fulani's comments were actually a slightly softer echo of Newman's own words, uttered in 1985, according to the Anti-Defamation League, which has long watchdogged his efforts: "The Jew, the dirty Jew . . . ," Newman said then, "a self-righteous dehumanizer and murderer of people of color."

Bloomberg has denounced Fulani's words as "despicable." But he's otherwise stuck by Fulani and Newman, appearing at their fundraising events and donating $250,000 of his own money last year to the Independence Party. The mayor has also had an open-door policy for Fulani et al. at City Hall, and the All Stars Project is now seeking a city contract to provide after-school care ("Fulani's City Hall Push," Voice, June 8).

The Anti-Defamation League thinks that's a bad idea, as do many others who have witnessed Newman's theories at work. They say that while his neo-Marxist philosophizing and zany plays appear comical from the outside, there's very little amusing about his rigid orthodoxy when viewed up close, with the occasional anti-Semitic outburst being only part of the problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of those who has recently made her complaints public is a Los Angeles-based theatrical producer named Molly Hardy, who was hired last year by a neighborhood clinic in L.A. run by a longtime Newman associate. Hardy thought she was being hired to produce neighborhood theater but soon discovered that her job was to produce youth talent shows on the West Coast like those currently promoted by Newman and Fulani's city-subsidized All Stars Project.

The talent shows date back to the early 1980s, when Newman's political organization, then called the International Workers Party, decided that providing venues for kids to sing and dance could aid its other organizing. The shows are not aimed at developing talent so much as getting kids to "perform"—an all-important buzzword in Newman's theories.

Last June, Hardy was flown to New York to receive training at the All Stars Project about how to put together a talent show. "It was more like controlling me than training me," said Hardy.

She received a 12-page "Licensing and Policy Manual." It spells out, in minute detail, how All Stars talent shows must be conducted. Each licensee must undergo two to three years of training by national All Stars staff, including trips to the New York headquarters. It also lists the minimum number of seats for each show (500), number of volunteers (45-50), clipboards (75), rubber gloves (two boxes), and tubes of Super Glue (two), along with a couple dozen other must-have items.

More troubling to Hardy were the provisions listed under "All Stars Talent Show Network Tenets" that said all participants and audience members were required to pay admission fees. That was Newman's Social Therapy peeping through—you gotta pay for what you want. Hardy was sent to observe a talent show on June 26, 2004, at Walton High School in the Bronx, where she saw the rules put into practice. There, a mother with three young girls in tow arrived at the school after taking the subway from their home in Queens, eager to participate. The All Stars organizers told the mother that she had to pay $22—a $5 fee for each of her daughters, and $7 for her to sit in the audience. "The mother didn't have the money, and they wouldn't let her in," Hardy told the Voice. She said she watched as an All Stars representative approached the woman and said, "What did you hear the person on the phone tell you to do?"

The mother answered that she heard the figure $5, but that she thought that was the price for the whole family. According to Hardy, the All Stars representative, a white woman with a lengthy association with Newman, responded, "You need to listen so you don't perform like a poor, uneducated black woman."

"The woman got real mad," Hardy said. "She said, 'I am going to report you.' The kids were crying. I turned to two of the volunteers with me and said, 'I could never do that.' One of the volunteers said, 'I know. It is really hard at first. You get used to it.' "

What made the scene more unreal, Hardy said, was that only 11 kids showed up for the show. "They had 50 volunteers, all with these red vests on, and only 11 kids in a theater that holds 500."

Back in Los Angeles, Hardy filed complaints with state officials and the FBI, charging that the clinic that employed her had improperly funneled money it received from the government to All Stars. She also relayed her criticisms to the office of New York State attorney general Eliot Spitzer. The office, which said it had reviewed past complaints about All Stars without finding violations, said it had yet to receive Hardy's information.

All Stars officials refused to discuss Hardy's allegations or any other matters. "We'll have no comment for your story," a spokesman for the group said late Friday. He gave his name as Bill O'Reilly. Wait a minute, he was asked, is that your real name? "Honest. We just don't talk to The Village Voice," he said.

Unsafe On Any Ballot (2004)

By Christopher Hitchens
Vanity Fair, May 2004

Democrats are furious that Ralph Nader, whose last presidential bid helped put George W. Bush in office, is running again. Equally dismaying, the author finds, is Nader’s backing from a crackpot group with ties to Pat Buchanan, Lyndon LaRouche, and Louis Farrakhan

For me, it was all over as soon as it began. The day after he announced himself as a candidate for president on Meet the Press, Ralph Nader held a press conference at which he said, “I think this may be the only candidacy in our memory that is opposed overwhelmingly by people who agree with us on the issues.”

Hold it right there, Ralph. First, don’t you realize that politicians who start to refer to themselves in the plural, as in the royal “we,” are often manifesting an alarming symptom? (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher started to employ this distressing locution shortly before the members of her own Cabinet began to stir nervously and finally decided to call for the men in white coats.) Second, if by “we” and “us” you really meant to say yourself and your allies in this enterprise, then you should not complain if it’s pointed out who those allies actually turn out to be. Third, by stating that your campaign is “opposed overwhelmingly by people who agree with us on the issues,” do you mean to imply the corollary, which is that you will appeal to those who don’t agree with you on the issues?

Nader’s answer to that third question, astonishingly enough, does appear to be in the affirmative, since he had told Tim Russert just the day before that he expected to reap votes from “conservatives who are furious with Bush over the deficit,” as well as “liberal Republicans who see their party taken away from them.” The job of reconciling these opposed factions of the G.O.P will be hard enough for Bush himself. But the idea that either group would rally to a Nader banner, this year or any other, is a non sequitur of hallucinatory proportions.

The psychedelic effect is only intensified when one examines the forces that might allow Nader to speak in the plural. A short while before announcing his candidacy, he had been the featured attraction at a conference of third-party “independents” in Bedford, New Hampshire. The word “independent” can conceal more than it reveals, as anyone with any savvy in American “alternative” politics can tell you, but in this case it only barely masked the influence of Fred Newman, Lenora Fulani, and the former New Alliance Party (NAP), whose latest front organized the New Hampshire hootenanny.

Not to mince words, the Newman-Fulani group is a fascistic zombie cult outfit, based on the eternal principle that it is a finer and nobler thing for the members to transfer their liquid assets to the leadership. It’s where you would turn when you had exhausted all the possibilities of a better life with Lyndon LaRouche, or Jim Jones, or any of the other alliterative crackpot or quasi-redemptive formations (K.K.K., A.A.…).

The Newman-Fulani faction is protean and sinister in one way, and pathetically obvious and transparent in another. In New York City, for example, it sometimes calls itself the Independence Party, which also controlled the rump and letterhead of the Reform Party—Ross Perot’s gift to American pluralism. Indeed, Lenora Fulani, a black woman who, like her mentor Fred Newman, professes to be a shrink of some sort, was a prominent co-chair of Pat Buchanan’s Reform Party candidacy in 2000. That must have made a soothing change from being a Louis Farrakhan fan in her two presidential election bids.

“Try anything once” would seem to be the motto here. And now she’s endorsing Ralph Nader. “I think it’s pretty cool,” she breathes. “I think Nader is a distinguished independent and he needs to be supported.” A fabulous detail about Fulani, incidentally, is the hold that she seems to exert on the cast of The Sopranos. Dominic Chianese, who plays Uncle Junior, is a regular at the All Stars Project, co-founded by Fulani and Newman, which puts on Newman’s unwatchable dramas, and has taken along other members of the team, including James Gandolfini, for photo ops. Analyze that, if you dare.

Am I asserting guilt by association here? After all, a candidate needn’t necessarily be judged by his disciples. And at “third party” events in previous campaigns there was certainly a fair sprinkling of people with propeller beanies, the fillings in their teeth wired for instant Martian dial up access. (You get these people at mainstream gatherings, also; be in no doubt of it.) No, the difference in this case is that the Newman-Fulani cult more or less is the Nader campaign. Through its network of shell organizations and front groups, and given its batteries of living dead petition drive robot artists, it has arrived at the point where it can at least guarantee ballot access in many, many states. All you have to do is agree to run on its ballot line.

Even Michael Bloomberg, princeling of opportunists, was willing to take out this Newman-Fulani insurance in his campaign for mayor. This, you may say, is partly the fault of restrictive ballot access laws, riveted into place by the Democratic-Republican duopoly in many jurisdictions—an offense to the spirit and letter of the United States Constitution.

But Nader kept people guessing, in a rather irritating way, about whether he would run at all or whether he might deign again to accept the Green Party nomination (which he has suddenly decided he won’t anymore). So, having come down from his Sinai, he finds it’s the loonies or nothing. Is this politics? And if it is, is it clean politics? Does it “empower” the average voter, who is so often taken for a ride by the party machines, or does it empower clusters of well financed, marginal nut bags with whom, behind closed doors, the party machines can and do frequently make deals?

Nothing is more difficult to write than a “more in sorrow than in anger” letter. Sentimentality swirls around your feet like a swamp, tempting you to become even more moist and runny yourself. But if this were an open letter to Ralph Nader, it would begin by being genuinely soft.

We don’t have enough heroes. (We have replaced them with “role models” and don’t even know what we have lost.) We do not have many candidates of whom it could be said that, if they were caught on video seeming to accept a bribe or kickback, we would automatically assume that the video had been faked. Washington, as a community, and Washington, as a federal city, would be a very much worse place without Ralph Nader.

He stood up against the rotten bureaucracy and mayoralty of the town itself, while unsettling the folks who live on Capitol Hill. Some of the story is known by everyone, including people who have never heard Nader’s name, the exploding car that the manufacturers lied about; the lead in the water; the non-regulation of the meat and mining industries.

It really wouldn’t be too much to say that there are many people now living who would be dead without Ralph. It certainly wouldn’t be too much to say that successive generations of reforming lawyers and legislators got their start and their continuing encouragement from him.

In writing, about him, therefore, one need not declare an interest. “Sea-green incorruptible” was. Carlyle’s sardonic description of Robespierre, but it recurs to my mind as an almost frighteningly apt phrase, in this case.

Why frightening? Well, I first met Nader 22 years ago, when he took me to lunch on my arrival as a columnist in Washington. We had what I thought was a great time, and he later telephoned to say that he was worried, about my smoking. He would, he said with perfect gravity, pay me the oddly exact figure of four and a half thousand dollars, and cover any therapy bills I might incur, if I would quit the habit and thus save myself for the nation (or The Nation, as he may possibly have thought of it).

On every occasion that we have met since, he has renewed this offer, adjusted for inflation and other variables. I once really needed the money, and considered calling him up and claiming to have sworn off, before realizing that the very idea of exploiting his innocence and concern was profane. Of course, there is something paternalistic in such a gesture (if he could be the father I never had, I could be among the many, many children that he never had). Indeed, his whole crusade for greater “safety” and regulation could be described as paternal in character.

And a slight secret about Ralph Nader is the extent of his conservatism. The last time I saw him up close, he was the guest at Grover Norquist’s now famous “Wednesday Morning” gathering, where Washington’s disparate conservative groups meet—by invitation only, and off the record—under one ceiling. He gave them a sincere talking-to, pointing out that their favorite system—free market capitalism—was undermining their professedly favorite values. I remember particularly how he listed the businessmen who make money by piping cable porn into hotel rooms. (He rolled this out again on Meet the Press.)

Nader was the only serious candidate in the last presidential election who had favored the impeachment, on moral and ethical grounds, of Bill Clinton. When asked about his stand on gay and transgender rights and all that, he responds gruffly that he isn’t much interested in “gonadal politics.”

He has often made a united front with conservatives like Norquist, and even more right-wing individuals like Paul Weyrich, on matters such as term limits and congressional pay raises. When I asked Grover about Ralph’s prospects of attracting Republicans, incidentally, he told me that he thought a Nader campaign just might appeal to some of the former Buchanan wing—anti-trade and anti-interventionist (not to forget anti-immigrant). So Nader and Buchanan might as well run for each other’s votes, or skip all that and just take in each other’s washing.

Nader’s puritanism and austerity—he lives in a rooming house with a shared pay phone in the hall and doesn’t own a car—have been his shield since 1966, when the clever people at General Motors admitted to putting private dicks on their most scathing critic.

Nader was followed, and his friends were questioned, on the assumption that an unmarried guy of Lebanese parentage must be up to something. But no: no drinks and no drugs and no carnality and no terrorism. Nader testified, a congressional subcommittee saw Bobby Kennedy trashing G.M.’s president, and an all-American star was born, one who rejected the affluent part of the American Dream.

Ralph could have gone on being an uneasy conscience for Washington, as he was all through the Nixon and Carter and Reagan years (after all, you don’t need to campaign for office to do that), but he seems finally to have found a temptation he cannot resist.

By running for president in 2000 and accidentally changing history, he has at last imbibed a draft of something addictive. Someone should tell him that the next bender will bring diminishing returns. In 2000, no matter how much he claimed to be above such distinctions, Nader clearly ran from the left. He also repudiated one of the center left’s favorite mantras, concerning the “lesser evil,” scornfully pointing out that this meant giving in to evil without a fight.

In most of his speeches he maintained that he didn’t care which of the two main candidates won, because it made no difference. But when pressed, he would sometimes try to have this both ways, saying that his candidacy energized liberal Democrats and even helped get out their vote. His less conspicuously intellectual supporters, such as Michael Moore, assured the faithful crowds that Bush couldn’t get elected anyway, so there was no need to worry.

At that point, a certain intellectual corruption crept in. You must accept the logical and probable consequences of what you propose. Nader could not quite be honest and admit that, given the national arithmetic, he was very much more likely to help Bush than Gore. There are 10 toss-up states, with 106 electoral votes among them (and everybody now knows about the electoral college). They are Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.

Once you understand the arithmetic, you cannot really claim that any consequences are unintended. For example, we have it on Gore’s own word that if he had been elected, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.

Nader is currently the only recognizable candidate who wants the United States to withdraw from Iraq. This discrepancy is not exactly a detail. It is, in fact, too big a contradiction to be explained away. But could it explain why Nader this time seems to be running from the right? He is spouting the rhetoric of social and fiscal conservatism, and pitching for allegedly disillusioned Republicans who would have nothing to be disillusioned about if he hadn’t helped squeak their man past the post in the first place.

The NAP could also probably be described as a right-wing force even if, as befitted a party run by a couple of shrinks, it suffered from chronic schizophrenia. It began as a Maoist splinter group and mutated through LaRoucheism to Buchananism. Guru Fred Newman characterizes Jews as “storm troopers,” and Fulani calls them “mass murderers of people of color,” positions which have a nice, demented ring to them.

Nader seems, to his credit, a touch sensitive on the point. When Doug Ireland, one of the country’s toughest and brightest radical columnists (and a two-time Nader endorser), called attention to the unholy alliance he got a call from Ralph, who shouted at him for being “a McCarthyite bully” and repeatedly asked, about Newman, “Has he committed any crime?”

I had better luck when Ralph called me back late one night and nearly persuaded me to argue against myself. It’s a pleasure to debate with him. But he told me, when I asked about the NAP, that “I never saw Fulani at the meeting,” which I suppose could be technically true as long as he was looking away. (She was a prominent member of the platform committee.)

He maintained that the Newmanites were no different, in principle, than, say, the Mountain Party in West Virginia: “They’re recognized as ‘on the ballot’ by the Federal Election Commission, so you can ‘jump on.’” He said that the Green Party wasn’t going to decide until its June convention, and that it still might vote not to campaign in swing states, so there was no purpose in delaying.

In the very rational and seductive tone of voice that he can bring to bear, Ralph insisted that there is no bad time at which to challenge the gerrymandering of one party districts, the fixing and front loading of primaries, the rigging of party conventions, and the exclusion of third-party candidates from the “presidential debates.” The liberal intellectuals who take these deformities for granted and then turn on him are, as he put it, “incarnate autocrats.”

And whose fault is Gore’s defeat? “He slipped on 18 banana peels, of which I was only one. Anyway, he won the election, didn’t he?” This is quite funny and also quite shrewd, as regards Democratic self pity, but it shows again that tendency to have everything both ways. “I’m going to take more votes from Bush this time—no doubt about it.” (By the way, at least one exit poll suggests that this was true in 2000, if only in New Hampshire.)

But on the other hand, and only moments later, he says, “I’ll show Kerry how to take Bush down; we’ll be a free consulting firm for the Democrats; be our guest—take our issues.”

Since one of the main “issues” is the pressing need to demolish the Democratic Party, my head began to swim a little, and I told him as much.

He made a friendly inquiry, renewing his smoke-ending offer. We chatted about a heroic Israeli dissident we had both known. He recommended a good comrade of his who was deeply involved in the rebuilding of Afghanistan. There are not enough people like Nader running for office, even at the local level, let alone the national one. I hung up with a truly bad case of the blues.

When Nader says “corporate” he really means corporate, and not just Halliburton. When he says that politics should not be a “zero-sum” game, he articulates a truth. When he says that Americans ought to be able to vote “No,” rather than being compelled to say “Yes,” he asserts something morally important.

But when he proposes to help elect a corporate Democrat by outbidding a conservative Republican, he is building a bridge from the middle of the river, and ends up not by combating the many absurdities of our electoral system but rather by illustrating them.

Social Therapy at APA: Not Very Sociable! (2003)

By Cathleen A. Mann, Ph.D., 2003

I attended the APA (American Psychological Association) annual conference recently in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The convention had its share of problems before it even convened the week of August 6, 2003. One item of interest to me was the willingness of the APA Board to allow Dr. Lois Holzman and her various underlings to speak 4 times this year at the convention. Last year in Chicago, the APA only allowed Dr. Holzman and crew to speak once.
a
Dr. Holzman is affiliated with Fred Newman, and inhabits various incarnations, such as Social Therapy, All Stars Project, Inc., East Side Institute for Social Therapy (in New York City), Castillo Cultural Project, New Alliance Party, and sometimes, just plain International Workers Party (IWP). Many past members, including professional counselors/therapists and former patients, report abuses, deceit, and manipulation at the hands of Social Therapy and its various offshoots. There have been allegations of psychotherapeutic manipulation, lack of ethical integrity, boundary violations from professionals to students to staff to clients, financial improprieties, and various other problematic behaviors.

Many ex-members of Social Therapy say they've been subject to a mind control cult operating under the guise of a legitimate psychological movement. Individuals formerly involved with Social Therapy emphatically claim that they were deceived into a pseudo-postmodernistic social influence political movement. One useful model to assist in understanding how a destructive cult operates is Hassan’s BITE model (Hassan, 1988, 1998). Using social psychological principles, a destructive cult deliberately and deceitfully wrestles control of an individual’s behavior (B), information (I), thought (T), and emotions (E) through subtle processes (see http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/articles/BITE.htm). Many other psychologists have also discussed the cult phenomena, including Drs. Margaret Singer, Phil Zimbardo, Stephen Kent, Steve Dubrow, and Michael Langone, just to name a few.

When word got around to concerned individuals that the APA had rewarded Social Therapy and Dr. Lois Holzman with four separate presentations this year at the APA conference, a small email campaign was launched with complaints about Social Therapy’s presence at the APA, and their seemingly transparent pretensions to science.

When word reached Dr. L. Michael Honaker, COO/Deputy CEO of the American Psychological Association that all was not bliss with Social Therapy’s presence at the convention, he responded:

“Thank you for your recent email concerning the participation of Drs. Lois Holzman and Fred Newman in our upcoming conference in Toronto. The APA Convention is a large 4-day meeting with over 4,000 presenters. It provides a forum for a wide variety of speakers and presentations. Dr. Holzman will participate in four convention sessions. She was invited to participate in those sessions after a review of her program proposals by peer committees that deemed the presentation appropriate for an APA convention.

Furthermore, Dr. Holzman has participated in APA conventions in the past and we have not received any complaints about the content of those presentations. However, the issues you raise are serious. We will monitor those sessions in which Dr. Holzman participates to hear what is said. We are also confident that if Dr. Holzman or anyone else were to express views that were prejudiced or potentially harmful to psychotherapy patients their APA colleagues would challenge those views. (emphasis added). Dr. Newman will not be participating in the meeting. Thank you again for bringing your concerns to our attention.”

L. Michael Holanker, Ph.D.
Chief Operating Officer/Deputy CEO
American Psychological Association
Executive Office
Email: mhonaker@apa.org

It should be noted that by the time the email campaign was initiated, Social Therapy was already on the APA convention program. It may have been difficult for the APA to completely remove them the program; thus, the presentations were allowed to go forward.

I personally attended Dr. Holzman’s first presentation on Saturday morning, August 9, 2003 (session #3079), entitled “Symposium: Impact of Participatory Youth Programs on Youth and Communities.” In addition to Dr. Holzman, in attendance were Barbara Silverman, who spoke on the broad subject of crises in education; Diann Eley, who spoke on the use of sports to aid “disaffected young people,” and Gloria Strickland, who spoke on the All Stars Project in New Jersey, wherein she uses theatre and the performing arts to “aid hundreds of inner city young people.” There were no APA staff or board members in attendance at this presentation.

The presence of APA board members at this session would have done a great deal to see the subtle nature of Social Therapy in action. Much of the presentation was geared toward mutual admiration of the panel’s “contributions to society,” with little opportunity for scholarly interaction with psychologists and others in the audience. An APA board member should have been there to document the one-sided nature of the presentation, and the impression that Dr. Holzman and company were merely pushing an agenda.

Arriving just as the presentation was to begin was Columbia University professor, Dr. Edmund Gordon, who quickly and adroitly turned the discussion into a left-right political debate complete with comments on the “social causes” of racism and poverty. Dr. Gordon was ostensibly inducted to be the discussant of the presentation.

However, Dr. Holzman spoke first with some interesting opening comments. She acknowledged that she had “been recently informed that complaints have been made about this presentation.” She asked if any “complainers” were in the audience, which may seem an odd question as there were a range of 12 to 16 people in the audience at various times in the presentation. Dr. Holzman nobly stated, “I encourage challenges and debates. I want to create together our psychology. I am from a passionate group of individuals with new approaches to community development.” She also stated that she had been presenting at APA conferences for “over 20 years” and “had heard no complaints before.”

This is not a true statement, or Dr. Holzman and the APA have an exceedingly short memory. At the APA conference in Chicago last year, I also attended one of Dr. Holzman’s presentations on the legacy of Fred Newman, among other topics. When she asked for questions of the audience, I asked her, “There have been newspaper reports and ex-member accounts that you operate a psychotherapeutic cult. Could you please respond to this allegation including your definition of what a cult is and what it is not?” Dr. Holzman refused to answer the question, and either would not or could not tell me what a cult was, but she was certain her group was not one. She refused to address the issue of ex-member complaints, and sat silently as I asked her the same question three times. I did bring this to the attention of then-APA president, Dr. Philip Zimbardo, but I don’t know if any action was ever initiated.

After 70 minutes of a 90-minute presentation, Dr. Holzman acknowledged my raised hand in pursuit of a question. I asked her a simple question; a question that every member of APA, and certainly every presenter at an APA conference, should be able and willing to answer. I asked Dr. Holzman, “As an APA member, do you ascribe to and uphold the APA Ethical Principles for Psychologists at your East Side Institute for Social Therapy?” Dr. Holzman replied, “That is not relevant to this discussion here.” I responded back. “You are speaking at a professional conference. You represent several organizations. You show yourself as the representative of these organizations in order to obtain permission to speak here today. Again, I ask you, do you ascribe to and uphold the APA Ethical Principles for Psychologists at your East Side Institute for Social Therapy?” Dr. Holzman again replied, “The question is not relevant.” I replied, “Do you refuse to answer?” Dr. Holzman replied, “The question is not relevant.”

Then, quick as a flash, Dr. Gordon jumped to Dr. Holzman’s rescue. He stated that the controversy with Social Therapy came from the “old Freudian thinking at APA” and from the “political right.” I responded by informing him that he knew nothing of the extent of the lie and the extent of the controversy. I asked permission from Dr. Gordon to leave a flyer so members of the audience could consider another side of Social Therapy (see http://www.ex-iwp.org ). While Dr. Holzman sat silent, Dr. Gordon provided permission for me to leave the flyer. Presenting alternative views is the essence of critical thinking (at least that’s what they taught us in graduate school). Dr. Holzman’s refusal is not keeping with the best pursuits of science. I and some of my colleagues have been concerned that some destructive cults may use professional and scientific platforms to gain credibility and respectability. I don’t want to see this happen to the APA.

It is appalling that Dr. Holzman cannot identify herself and her organizations as subscribing to the APA Ethical Standards for Psychologists regardless of her designated “agenda” and “topic.” I think the APA should take note of this refusal, and place it in context of the desire of psychology to have open debate, not refusal at an APA annual conference. If the APA is concerned about these questions, perhaps a deeper investigation should be made before Social Therapy and its various offshoots are again allowed to present at another APA conference. It is vital that the premier organization of psychology, the APA, look more closely at this matters in order to assure its membership that convention presenters have committed themselves to the highest standards of science, scholarship, openness, and respectful dialogue with other professionals.

Letter to Michael Bloomberg (2003)

The Honorable Michael Bloomberg
Mayor of the City of New York
City Hall
New York, NY 10007

Dear Mayor Bloomberg:

The Democratic Party machine and the Working Families Party recently mobilized 63
elected officials to sign on to a letter asking you to abandon your commitment to nonpartisan
elections. Did you note that their letter fails to mention that nonpartisans would not be enacted
by you, but by the voters? Democratic Party leaders love to substitute themselves for the people,
claiming (as always) that they know best.

Your promise on nonpartisans was to give the voters the right to decide the issue. We
presume that your commitment remains intact. The not-so-veiled threat made in the letter signed
by the Comptroller, the Public Advocate, three Borough Presidents, 19 members of the City
Council (with 37 Albany legislators and two members of Congress thrown in for good measure)
should be related to as what it is – a bullying tactic designed to deprive the voters of their right to
decide.

A few comments on their arguments against nonpartisans. They say party labels offset
“information and resource disadvantages” for poor, of-color and immigrant communities.
English translation: the above mentioned people are too stupid to choose a candidate on the
merits. In other words, if they don’t have party labels to guide them, they won’t know what to
think. We have more respect for the voters than that – not to mention the fact that many, many
New Yorkers ignored party labels altogether when they voted for you.

The opponents of nonpartisans argue that this reform will depress turnout. It’s hard to
imagine a more depressed level of participation than the one we currently have under a partisan
system. (A quick note here: in the special elections just conducted in February, the turnout rate in
the nonpartisan city council races was significantly higher than that of the partisan assembly
races.) Does a shift to nonpartisans guarantee a high turnout? No. Communities will have to
mobilize themselves under these changed conditions, but the changes create more incentive to do
so. Do partisan elections guarantee a continuation of low turnout? Yes.

Finally, your antagonists urge that you abandon nonpartisans because of the “rancor that
would inevitably accompany a charter amendment campaign.” At the Charter Revision
Commission hearings in Brooklyn last year the authors of the letter staged a major disruption, forcing their way into a filled-to-capacity room, shouting at the Commissioners and injuring a
security guard. This, apparently, is their idea of democratic public dialogue on the issue. Rancor?
The only rancor in the debate has come from them.

I imagine that what motivates the Working Families Party’s hysterical opposition to
nonpartisans is that it takes away the ballot line they have to wheel and deal within city politics.
As you recall from our discussions on this, the Independence Party supports nonpartisans (which
would similarly affect us) because we place the interests of the voters and the health of the
democratic process ahead of our own narrow interests. That’s what it means to be an independent
party.

I’ve seen the news reports that you’re moving ahead with a Commission. That’s great!
Let’s get the question before the voters and let the people decide.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Salit
The Independence Party
225 Broadway, Suite 2010 ~ New York, NY 10007
Phone (212) 962-1699 Fax (212) 803-1899

Speech to the Reform Party National Convention (2000)

By Dr. Lenora Fulani, August 11, 2000

It's great to be here. Thank you all for that beautiful welcome last night. It's great to have a credential you can count on. As you know, I've been a political independent for a long time. I first ran for office as an independent almost 20 years ago, in the days when, if you told people you were an independent, they looked at you as if you had just come from Mars.

Today, the American independent is the new force in national politics. We're the wild card. And it certainly has been wild. And it looks like that's going to continue. I like that feature of our movement.

Since the very start I've been something of a conatroversial figure myself. Some people have objected to me on the grounds that I am too radical that I am a left winger, a progressive, a revolutionary and that a storm of controversy follows my every move. I want to address that reputation today. I want to address it because I believe it is at the very heart of the issues and the choices that face us, the Reform Party and the entire independent movement.

Let me get right to the point. The issue that we face is whether or not we are a revolutionary movement. What does that mean? What does it mean to be a revolutionary movement in the year 2000? Here's what it means to me. It means being a movement dedicated to completing the first American Revolution by challenging the basic formula that is contemporary America a formula in which corporate interests rule and democracy takes a back seat. I believe we are a revolutionary movement. I believe we must be. American politics is too corrupt for us to be anything but. And let me tell you something more. If our Founding Fathers George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and Benjamin Franklin and Tom Paine, and if you'll grant me historical license, Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony were in this room with us today, they'd be standing up here with me. They'd be saying to all of you Fellow Citizens, aren't you ready to stand up to tyranny? Don't you love freedom and liberty sufficiently to challenge the old order? Do you not understand that to be a patriot is to be a revolutionary?

Fellow Reformers, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would not be on the side of the nay sayers who counsel us to avoid controversy, to appear moderate and to walk the straight and narrow. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would be on my side because I am like them. I am cut from the same cloth.

Some people like to call me names and believe me, I've been called plenty. There's nothing I haven't been called: Left wing, Right wing, Nigger, Jew lover, Jew hater, Pervert, Provocateur, Opportunist. I've heard it all. And then some. But General Washington and Mr. Jefferson slave owners though they might have been were also revolutionaries. And I am certain, if they could rise from the dead this morning, they'd join me at this podium and say, Lenora Fulani? We know her. She's with us. She's an American Revolutionary. Aren't you?

But what does it really mean to be a revolutionary in this new and high tech and frightening millennium? It means continuing the revolutionary process not violently but powerfully such that we can engage the fundamental contradiction of the American experience. What is that contradiction? It's that while we believe with all our heart in democracy, we have been willing to compromise it for the good of the economy.

The deepest conflict among the Founding Fathers let us not forget was the issue of slavery. While virtually everyone knew it to be morally wrong, the institution was allowed to exist because it made the economy thrive. And so the democratic rights of a whole race of people were abrogated because slavery enriched the U.S. economy.

It is not altogether different from the circumstances we face today. The globalists argue that NAFTA, the WTO and a general trade policy that unleashes multi-national corporations around the globe are good for the economy. The negative impact on Americans workers, on the environment and on long term economic development is supposed to be considered negligible. We don't believe it is negligible. But there is a far more profound problem at hand. For the globalist special interests have stolen our government so that they can prioritize their economic interests over all else. Some argue that the problem with the two parties is that they are captive to the special interests. I disagree. They are not captive to the special interests. They are the special interests. And they rule unequivocally on behalf of the globalists.

That's why Ross Perot told the American people, when he first ran for President, that we had to take our government back. That we, the people, had to set the terms on which business does business. We're not anti business. We're pro democracy and we believe this is our country and we have the right to run it.

Sometimes people will say to us, "Oh, that political reform stuff very interesting. But what do you stand for?" Here's our answer: We stand for the democratic right of the people of this country all the people of this country to collectively and democratically determine our economic, social, cultural, and policy priorities. The two parties have usurped that right. And we must re assert it.

The Reform Party has been through tremendous turmoil in the last year. I don't have to recapitulate it for all of you, because you lived it we lived it, together. Some people have said to me that they have been beaten down by it. They feel demoralized, angered, and despairing. I can understand those feelings. I have felt them myself. I was, after all, a supporter of Pat Buchanan, before he betrayed his commitment to build this party on a pro democracy, left/center/right foundation. But, I want to thank Pat Buchanan. Yes, I want to thank him. Here's why. I think Pat, by his presence and his neo reactionary takeover attempt of our party, has taught us a very important lesson. A lesson we needed to learn. He taught us that we you and I and millions of liberty loving Americans across the country, built something of extraordinary value, something he wanted so badly that he was willing to commit fraud to try to get.

We belittle ourselves if we think it's just the $13 million. Yes, Pat wants the money. And John Hagelin will hopefully prevent him from getting his hands on it. But this party, if it remains honest and uncorrupted, and this movement this revolutionary movement are things of extraordinary value to ordinary people. But there's another lesson to be learned here, too. It's a harder one to learn. It's a lesson about building building from the bottom up. A lot of people are angry at Pat Buchanan. They're angry because he came in and tried to take over our party. But if we're serious independents, and genuine revolutionaries, we have to ask ourselves how that happened. I think it happened because in many states, the party had simply not been built at the grassroots. When Pat Buchanan came in with 25 followers here and 70 followers.

There, he could make a power grab. How did that happen? How did a movement, which attracted 20 million Americans in 1992 and 8 1/2 million Americans in 1996, find itself with a political party in the year 2000 that was so vulnerable to being overrun by 300 Buchanan Brigadiers?

We find ourselves in this situation, fellow Reformers, because we failed to build the party from the bottom up. We remained too dependent on a top down model for party building, and that simply will not work. We were created by the 8/1/2 million votes cast for Ross Perot in 1996. We honor and respect Mr. Perot for that catalytic contribution. But we will not succeed in our historic mission if we rely on a model of party building that rests solely on big names and big money.

In New York, we have a state party that was created by a millionaire independent Tom Golisano, who spent $8 million on a run for governor in 1994 to poll 217,000 votes which won ballot status for the Independence Party. But in New York, hundreds of party activists believed that we had to take the gift we had been given and make it our own. And so we went out and built that party so that it now has 175,000 members and vibrant broad based democratic structures making it the largest and most significant state party organization in the Reform Party and an increasingly pivotal force in New York State politics.

In my view, we have paid too little attention to the New York model and too much attention to waiting for the next big name or big money to come along. That has hurt the party and hurt the movement. We have paid a price for that error. How big of a price we do not yet know.

But we must move on. And we will. And I must say that one of the things I like best about John Hagelin is that he is not a big name and he has no big money. But he's been out there building and organizing and getting on the ballot and bringing new blood into the Reform Party and into independent politics. That's who I think deserves the nomination of the Reform Party.

If you watched any of the Republican National Convention, as I did, you may have been astounded as I was, by the seeming transformation of that party. I was deeply touched by Colin Powell. I was thrilled to see John McCain. But if you look closely at that party, in spite of its new openness and inclusivity you can see that while Colin Powell and John McCain are permitted to speak, they will not be permitted to lead. It is not a revolutionary party. It's a special interest party. That's why, in my opinion, they both ultimately belong with us in the independent movement.

And we must carry on building our movement. The destructive divisions and unhealthy fractiousness in Reform did not begin on the day Pat Buchanan arrived. They will not be overcome merely by our shared opposition to his effort to transform us into a party of social conservatism. Nor will they be overcome by our trying to recreate ourselves as some bland and non controversial element hoping to survive the election and somehow, magically, get 5% of the vote.

Controversy is our business. We're the people who want to bring down the two party system. We're the people who want to open up the debates, close down the FEC and throw the corrupt politicians and their globalist benefactors out of office. If that ain't controversial, I don't know what is.

I am proud to be with all of you today. I fully expected that our New York delegation would be de credentialed by the Buchanan convention because democracy is out the window over there and so is election law and the constitution. I want to take a moment to acknowledge those delegates, our state chairman Frank MacKay, our most able delegation organizer Cathy Stewart, and our brilliant attorney Harry Kresky. They are some serious party builders and serious fighters. We're fighting hard for the heart and

soul of our movement. And we are proud to be fighting alongside John Hagelin, soon to be our Presidential nominee. John Hagelin is a good and decent and highly intelligent and articulate spokesman for our cause. You all know that.

And you know, of course, that when we turned to him to champion the fight to preserve democracy in our party, he responded with enthusiasm and wit and grace. But let me tell you something else about John Hagelin that you may not have fully grasped. He's got real guts. There were a lot of people out there in the media, in the two parties, on the right and on the left who couldn't wait to attack Pat Buchanan. It was sound bite heaven for every would be, has been, wannabee political type across the spectrum, including some people who like to think of themselves as independents. But you know something? None of them, not one, was willing to come out and get into the Reform Party primary to have the fight the fight for the heart and soul of not just the Reform Party but of our revolutionary independent movement. None, except John Hagelin.

Let me leave you with this. If George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Frederick Douglass were here today, do you know what they'd be doing? They'd be standing up with the American Revolutionary, John Hagelin. And do you know who else would be up here? The great Revolutionary War naval commander and hero, John Paul Jones. In a critical naval battle in 1779, under constant fire from the better armed and better equipped British Navy, Jones rallied his forces with words that inspire us today. "We have not yet begun to fight," he cried. Several hours later, the British ship Serapis was forced to surrender to Jones and the revolutionary forces. And so, in the great tradition of our American Revolution which continues to this day I send this message to all who would try to denigrate or derail our independent populist revolution: We have not yet begun to fight!

Fred Newman: Lenin as Therapist (2000)

[Chapter 7 of "On the Edge:  Political Cults Right and Left"]
By Dennis Tourish & Tim Wohlforth, 2000

Let Hitler take office-he will soon be bankrupt, and then it will be our day.
-H. Remmele, Communist member of the Reichstag, 1933

Pat Buchanan and That Woman

In the fall of 1999 Pat Buchanan sat down to lunch with Dr. Lenora Fulani.  A pretty, light-skinned African American woman, conservatively dressed, with close-cropped hair, Fulani was by no means a novice to politics.  She had been the 1992 presidential candidate of the New Alliance Party (NAP).  The party qualified for more than $1 million in federal matching funds and was on the ballot in nearly all fifty states.  In the past Fulani had supported Jesse Jackson and had been a close confidante of Louis Farrakhan and the Reverend Al Sharpton.  She had a reputation as an outspoken lesbian and a defender of abortion rights.  Buchanan was on a tour promoting a book in which he expressed the view that the United States should not have interfered with Hitler, his subjugation of Europe, and the Holocaust.  Some eyebrows were raised in the mainstream press corps.

During an interview later that day, Buchanan was asked about his relations with the "black-nationalist Marxist."  His eyes narrowed and he answered:  "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Lenora Fulani."1  Political relations, however, were a different matter.  Fulani was about to launch her latest grand political maneuver, promoting Buchanan as the presidential candidate of the Reform Party.

Fred Newman runs the cult, which fuses politics seamlessly with psychotherapy.  While Newman is little known, Dr. Lenora Fulani is a national media figure.  The Newmanites prove that cults can affect mainstream politics in the United States in a dangerous way.  At the same time Newman's distinctive method of cadre recruitment gives us an insight into the psychology of cult organization in general.

The Cult's Obscure Origins

Fred Newman, a Korean War veteran, was awarded a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from Stanford University.2  He has had no formal training in any branch of psychology.  He turned to a Maoist version of Marxism in the mid-1960s.  In 1970 Newman gathered together a tiny collective, which shared a communal apartment on Manhattan's Upper West Side.  This was a moment when the left was searching for a road forward after the collapse of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and the New Left generally, while a cultural revolution was in full swing.  Newman's collective, much like Harvey Jackins' reevaluation counseling (see chapter 6), combined the radical politics of the sixties with the New Age therapy of the seventies.  The result was a potent mixture of cultic consequences.

They named their collective "If . Then."3  While Jackins stressed techniques of co-counseling in which therapist and patient exchange places, Newman developed a group version of radical therapy led by a therapist, which he called "social therapy" or "crisis normalization."4  All members underwent therapy while they, at the same time, carried out political activity.  By 1973 the group was called Centers for Change (CFC).  "CFC is," Newman explained, "a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist organization."4

The origins of the group in a communal setting gave it a cult-like character from the very beginning.  This aspect of Newman's operation did not change.  Its core members have lived in shared facilities or are closely linked to such communes.  Core members are expected to quit their jobs, sell their private possessions, and earn a meager living through such activities as soliciting funds on street corners.

In Bed with Lyndon LaRouche

For approximately one year, from the middle of 1973 until the end of August in 1974, Newman's group was under the influence of Lyndon LaRouche (see chapter 5).  The "United Front," was formed, consisting of LaRouche's National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC), Newman's Center for Change, and a third group led by Eugenio Perente-Ramos (this later became another cult, the Communist Party U.S.A. (Provisional) (CPUSA [P])-see chapter 12).  Joint forums were held and activities coordinated.  On June 1, 1974, Newman wrote, "We have traveled from a community based storefront, to a health-service collective, to a cadre socialist organization.  We have traveled from non-existence to existence and finally back to non-existence at a higher level.  For CFC is disbanded.  We move, not as a collective, but as self- conscious human beings into the National Caucus of Labor Committees."6

Fred Newman's comment about moving into the NCLC "not as a collective" proved to be a bit disingenuous.  Then again, a cultist like LaRouche should have been sharp enough to spot another cultist.  The group had been formed around the personality of Fred Newman, they all underwent continuous group therapy under his guidance, and they shared common living quarters.  The Newman group continued to operate in lockstep while within the NCLC.  It should therefore come as no shock that the fusion did not work out.  The two gurus inevitably clashed.  In late August 1974 Newman and thirty-eight followers walked out of the NCLC to form the International Workers Party (IWP).  Newman announced that his tiny group had "now become the vanguard of the working class."  Newman declared:  "The organization of the vanguard party is, as Marx makes clear, the organization of the class.  The formation of the IWP had grown from our attempt to organize the [NCLC] from within that it might move from a position of left hegemony to a position of leadership of the class."7

Newman's period of association with LaRouche was to have a major impact on his thinking and future development.  It is significant that he joined up with LaRouche precisely at the moment when the NCLC was moving from left to right and engaging in some rather bizarre conduct.  Newman contacted LaRouche within weeks of the conclusion of his "Operation Mop- Up," involving physical attacks on the left.

Newman declared in 1974 that "the former workers of CFC will organize in the spirit outlined by Marcus [Lyndon LaRouche]."8  He wrote a book that contained extensive quotations from LaRouche.  He echoed LaRouche's catastrophism, seeing the United States as facing "the grim reality of cannibalization and encroaching fascism."9  He agreed with LaRouche that a "massive fascist brainwashing" was taking place.  Like LaRouche, he dismissed most of the left:  "Black nationalism, community control, feminism, the petty bourgeois movement, gay pride, worker participation programs, trade union parochialism, and so on, are concepts devised by the fascists to locate a group's identity in something other than the working class." 10

In 1974 Newman declared that "Liberalism is fascism.  The liberal do-gooders are the fascists."11  And, "'The Left Movement' or 'The Radical Movement' or 'The Movement' . is the CIA-developed deterrent to the development of a vanguard party...  Fortunately there are some around working to destroy the CIA controlled left movement.  Lyn Marcus and the NCLC are such a group."12

While Newman never again publicly referred to the left in such terms, he was never really part of the left.  His relationship was more that of a predator:  from time to time running in Democratic primaries, moving into existing leftist organizations with the aim of taking them over, and utilizing prominent black leaders to advance his own aims.

Just as important, there was a concurrence between LaRouche and Newman on the critical questions of the role of leadership, cadre formation, and the mental manipulation of the membership.  LaRouche brought to the "United Front" a far more developed distortion of Marxism than anything Newman had been able to extract from Mao Tse-Tung.  Crucial was the linking of an apocalyptic crisis theory with the necessity of creating an elite cadre.

Newman contributed his knowledge of psychotherapy and experience gained in transforming his followers through these techniques into political operators.  We suspect that LaRouche's rantings about impotency and his ego-stripping sessions were at least partially inspired by Newman, who claimed that "all psychic problems are correctly diagnosed as impotency." 13

After parting, the political evolution of the two gurus was, on the surface, quite different.  LaRouche transformed his hostility toward the left and its constituents into a new rightist ideology with links to fascism.  Newman continued to function politically on the left until 1994, when he began to move into the right-centrist Perot movement.  Yet both leaders shared a common disdain for ordinary citizens, who were to be manipulated; for their members, who were transformed into robots to be used to do the manipulation; and for the democratic norms of a pluralistic society.

The Theory of Proletarian Psychotherapy

Fred Newman developed, in his 1974 book Power and Authority, a theory of the mind and its relation to society that has served him well as a justification for the existence of his cult and has aided him in controlling his followers.  Newman saw revolution as a two-level process:  the external overthrow of the bourgeoisie and its state and the internal overthrow of the "Bourgeois ego."

We must learn, he insisted, to see "in both directions-inside and outside."14  "Proletarian or revolutionary psychotherapy is . the overthrow of the rulers of the mind by the workers of the mind."15 "Revolutionary therapy," he stated, "involves an act of insurrection; of overthrow."16 Through this act the "bourgeois ego" is replaced by the "proletarian ego."  "The proletarian or revolutionary therapist is . a leader."17  This internal revolution is followed by "a long period of the withering away of the proletarian ego."18

Newman viewed the "bourgeois ego" as the automatic product of the capitalist system.  Drawing from Marx via Lenin and LaRouche, he concluded that "the self-interested, rational individual is guided by a ruling class imposed conscience (or super ego) which she or he transforms into a self controlling bourgeois ego." 19

This view could be interpreted as a reasonable distillation of Marx's concept of alienation.  Capitalism tends to atomize people.  People then relate to each other in the belief that they are acting autonomously in their own self-interest.  Actually their relations are being determined by market forces and their thinking is influenced by the dominant capitalist culture and institutions.

Marx, however, noted countervailing effects of capitalist relations upon the worker.  The very organization of the production process brought workers together collectively, creating the conditions for their common action, such as trade union organization and the formation of workers' parties.  Newman, following upon Lenin and LaRouche, dismissed such processes as expressions of "trade union parochialism" and therefore reactionary.  He proposed "therapy" as a substitute.

A difficulty arises out of Newman's efforts to "overthrow" the individual's "bourgeois" ego through a therapeutic act while the capitalist system remains intact and functioning.  The discarded ego is actually the only individual identity a person is capable of developing and sustaining within a capitalist society.  Its dissolution creates a vacuum that is filled by the ego of the therapist.  The therapist's ego is no less shaped by the society within which he functions.  The guru therapist's desire to control others, manipulate others, and drive others to carry out his wishes represents a demented form of the worse features of personality in contemporary capitalist society.

Newman developed a critique of Freudian and all other forms of psychotherapy, labeling them "bourgeois."  Bourgeois psychology (read "all therapies excluding Newman's") "entails an act of transference (making the therapist into a substitute conscience and, at the same time, into a 'temporary' oppressive ruler) and eventually this transferential act itself must be analyzed and undone..  The bourgeois authoritarian leader allows a temporary and controlled regression to the bourgeois id and then leads the patient back again to her or his bourgeois ego."20

These therapies, in Newman's view, take a patient with a wounded ego; pass her or him through a process of transference; and, ending the transference, rebuild a healthy independent ego in the person.  However, Newman believed, this process simply strengthened the "bourgeois ego," that is the mind control of a sick society.  He believed the very concept of a "self-interested rational individual" was reactionary.

What then is to be done?  As part of a group therapy practice, the "leadership" of the therapist is required to carry through an insurrection against individual egoism.  Once the "proletarian ego" is installed, the therapy is by no means at an end.  It continues and is coordinated with revolutionary activity.  "Revolutionary therapy becomes more and more indistinguishable from revolutionary organizing."21  The victory of the "proletarian ego" over the "bourgeois ego" is thus expressed in the patient's complete devotion to the political causes espoused by Fred Newman.

Normal therapy is designed to be completed during a limited time period.  The patient may be emotionally bound through the transference process to his or her therapist for a period of time.  However, health comes through the ending of the transference process and the restoration of the patient's own sense of self and emotional independence.  Not so in Newman's "social therapy."  The process of transference, and therefore dependence upon the therapist, is never ending!

The difficulty is that the "proletarian ego"-read "emotional dependence on Newman"-withers away only when the proletarian state withers away.  Since the creation of a proletarian state does not appear to be imminent in the United States or any other advanced country, and further, since all attempts to create such states have so far led to growth rather than withering away, the patient must remain dependent on Newman indefinitely.  In the case of Newman's oldest adherents, this dependency has persisted for more than twenty-five years!

The doctrines explicitly developed in this book continued to guide Newman's practice right up to the current period.  Dr. Lenora Fulani, the group's spokesperson, wrote in 1989:  "One of the earliest statements on the foundations of Social Therapy is contained in a book written by Newman in 1974 entitled Power and Authority.  It states that psychic and emotional life in contemporary society reflects the political and economic degeneration of capitalism."22

The International Workers Party and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Having founded the IWP, Fred Newman was not quite sure what to do with it.  For a brief period he sought unification with various small Trotskyist groups as well as Marlene Dixon's Democratic Workers Party (see chapter 9).  In June 1975 the Newmanites were admitted into the Peoples Party, a forerunner of the Citizens Party that ran Barry Commoner for president in 1980.  A bitter internal struggle ensued, which almost destroyed the small party.  The group was expelled in March 1978.23

It was in this period that Fred Newman developed a curious relationship with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  In April 1974 Jim Retherford left the therapy cult.  He had had a child with Ann Green, a devoted member who stayed with Newman.  After Newman took his followers into the NCLC, Retherford, not wanting his son to be raised by people he viewed as crazy, took him away without the mother's permission and left town.  Green appealed to Newman who enlisted the help of two young lawyers, one named Harry Kresky, who were cult members.  Together they developed a strategy that they hoped would enlist the aid of the federal government in finding Retherford and the child.

The lawyers contacted the FBI and arranged a meeting between Green and its agents.  Green told them that Retherford was a former member of the Weather Underground and maintained relations with Jane Alpert, at that time a fugitive.  Kresky met with representatives of the U.S. attorney in New York, giving them the same information.

The matter was brought out into the open in 1976.  A meeting was held at St. Gregory's Church on the Upper West Side to form the New York State Working Peoples Party, a forerunner of the New Alliance Party.  A group called the Communist Cadre, which had recently split from Newman's IWP, issued a statement primarily devoted to the Retherford matter.24  They accused Newman of working with the FBI.  The IWP, in an answer to the charges, admitted that the events had occurred but held three members, not Newman, responsible.25  King, however, believes that it is "unthinkable" that Kresky and Green, loyal followers, could have acted without Newman's full knowledge and approval.26

This incident raises a question fairly early on in Newman's political evolution about the seriousness of his commitment to the left and its causes.  Our study of political cults complements the conclusions reached by those who have studied a broader array of cult types:  they operate in the interest of their leaders rather than for the purposes they are purportedly created to promote.

A West Side Story

In 1977 Fred Newman turned his attention to the politics of New York City's Upper West Side.  The area was and is among the most sophisticated liberal political strongholds in the nation.  His activities caused concern among political activists.  Newman's group had resurfaced as the New York City Unemployed and Welfare Council.

He caused a stir when he ran a key follower, Nancy Ross, for local school board and actually won.  The startled liberal politicos decided to look a bit deeper at Newman, his past, and his current practices.  Dennis King, who was later to write a book about Lyndon LaRouche,27 conducted an investigation of the group, interviewing over thirty people, including many former members.  For the first time Fred Newman found himself publicly accused of leading a "therapy cult."

There are about 35 individuals in the inner circle of the cult, most living in semi-communal apartments on the Upper West Side.  Through the years, a combination of group pressure and Newman's directive therapy had induced most of them to give up their jobs and to break off all meaningful personal ties outside the group.  Likewise they have been induced to turn over all personal property and savings to the cult.  They regard themselves as full-time organizers for the cult's front groups, operating under tight discipline and secrecy.  They eat and pay their rent through a variety of parasitical activities, such as street corner solicitations, the practice of amateur psychotherapy, the dunning of past and present patients for "political contributions," and the occasional plucking of an inheritance or trust fund from a patient.28

Newman acted as a "benevolent despot," to use his own words.  "Fred's veneer of compassion and his deep-set Rasputin-type eyes created strong transference feelings in . [his] patients."29

"His groupies," King explained, "cut off from the outside world and with almost every waking hour spent either in 'busywork' or interminable meetings (so that independent thought could be kept at a minimum), had no feedback from reality."30

When Nancy Ross campaigned for the school board, she insisted that the IWP had been disbanded.  Newman's front organization, the New York City Unemployed and Welfare Council, issued a statement that the party had disbanded shortly after the factional struggle in 1976.  However, Jack Finn, another reporter for Heights and Valley News, discovered that the IWP continued to exist in a "clandestine" fashion.  It issued at least a dozen issues of an internal bulletin, "Party Building."  These bulletins referred to the ongoing work of a "central committee" and of "chairman Fred Newman."  There were mention of the "Party" and the "work of the Party," while the IWP was called the "apparatus."31

We believe Fred Newman concluded from his brief experience attempting to build the IWP that he had no need for an open vanguard formation.  He recruited new members through therapy and gained political influence by working within other groups or creating broad front organizations.  However, he did have need for a clandestine vanguard formation, based on the Leninist model and made up of core therapy patients.  As we will see, there is considerable evidence that the IWP continues to exist up to the present time.

The 1977 period of activism on the Upper West Side was a learning experience for Newman and his followers.  They became skilled at operating within politically ill-defined front organizations and raising funds from guilt-ridden middle-class liberals.  Most of all Newman got a taste for electoral activity.  This would shape the rest of his political life.

The New Alliance Party

Sometime in the late l970s Newman had the great good fortune of running into Lenora Fulani, an attractive black woman who had been raised in Pennsylvania and was earning a Ph.D. in psychology at the City University of New York.  She heard Newman lecture and "was very intrigued by the progressiveness of the politics guiding his thought."  She dropped her black lesbian Gestalt therapist and joined a Newmanite social therapy clinic full time.32

In 1979 Newman and Fulani formed the New Alliance Party (NAP).  While the politics of the new party were purposely vague, they generally reflected a progressive agenda similar to Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition.  Fulani ran as the NAP candidate for lieutenant governor of New York in 1982.

In 1984 the NAP ran Dennis Serrette, a black socialist and NAP member, for president.  The party was on the ballot in thirty-three states and received 35,000 votes.  A year later Serrette broke from the NAP, accusing it of having an all-white leadership that manipulated him.  He took his charges to the Jackson Advocate, the only black newspaper in Mississippi.  The NAP sued the paper in 1986 and lost.33

In May 1985 the NAP held its founding convention in Chicago, even though it had been formed six years earlier.  Emily Carter, a black woman from Jackson, Mississippi, who called herself a "former organizer, now therapist," was elected chairperson.34  In 1988 Fulani ran for the office of president of the United States.  The party qualified for ballot status in all fifty states and received nearly $1 million in federal matching funds and a respectable 217,219 votes.35

Fulani's tactics in 1992 became increasingly complicated.  She began the year by entering the New Hampshire primary on the Democratic Party line.  Then the Newmanites in California joined the Peace and Freedom Party and battled to capture it.  While Newman lost that factional struggle, he nearly destroyed the small leftist party in the process.  That spring Newman and Fulani turned their attention to the growing movement around Ross Perot, the right centrist billionaire curmudgeon.  When Perot withdrew from the race in July, Fulani commented that "we've been stabbed in the back."  Fulani revived her presidential bid under the NAP label.  Walter Sheasby has noted:

Fulani offered herself and the Presidential campaign as the vehicle of a Perotism sans Perot..  Fulani claimed to represent "my base-the old 'New Deal' coalition base of African Americans, labor, Latinos, women and gays."  And she said to the Perot followers "and there you are.  In the radical and independent Perot base lies the potential for a new majority coalition."36

The NAP once again qualified for ballot status in all fifty states, and this time it received $2 million in federal matching funds.  Fulani received 73,708 votes, a considerable decline from 1988 and no doubt part of the reason Newman turned toward Perot.

A Washington, D.C., newspaper has exposed the complexity of Newman's financial maneuvers that year.  This involved running in the New Hampshire Democratic primary, where Fulani received only 402 votes out of 167,900 cast.  She then switched tactics, running in several small party primaries, including California's Peace and Freedom.  Finally she ran on the NAP ticket.  The total budget for primary activity alone was $4,161,495, which included the matching funds.

Interestingly, some $901,495 of this money "went to organizations that share offices, phones, and leadership with the NAP."  This permitted a process of "double-dipping," whereby members of the NAP, working for various front organizations, were paid with campaign funds and in turn made campaign contributions that qualified for federal matching funds.  While campaign funds are required by law to be spent on campaigning or returned to donors, the NAP, by spending a large portion of its funds on individuals and organizations associated with Newman, saw to it that the core group prospered.  For example, "Fred Newman Productions received $68,925 in retainers for Newman's services as campaign manager."37

Life Among the Newmanites

Loren Redwood, a lesbian who fell in love with a Newmanite, told her story in a letter to a gay newspaper in San Francisco:

My experience with NAP was a nightmare.  I am a white, working class lesbian and met NAP in Indiana where I was living at the time.  NAP was in Indiana petitioning to put Fulani's name on the ballot there.  I was so excited and so moved to find that a black woman was running for president that I immediately began working for the campaign.  I also fell in love with a woman working on the campaign.  When it came time for NAP to leave Indiana, she asked me to go with them, and I did..  I was given 48 hours to prepare.  I quit my job, left my home, my friends, put my belongings in storage, found a home for my pet, and gave the use of my car to NAP in exchange for their taking over the payments..

As a working class lesbian, I thought I had finally found a political movement which included me.  What I found instead was an oppressive, disempowering, misogynistic machine.  All my decisions were made for me by someone else.  I was told where to go, and who to go with.  I worked seven days a week-sixteen to twenty hours a day (I had two days off in two and a half months).  There was an incredible urgency which overrode any personal needs or considerations, an urgency that meant complete self-sacrifice..  I felt totally powerless over my life, forced into a very submissive role where all control of my life belonged to someone else.  I had given up everything for the campaign, my job, my home and my support system, I felt desperate.

Another strange aspect of NAP is what they call social therapy.  This is political therapy founded by Fred Newman..  [I]t was expected that I enter social therapy and I did attend a few sessions..  My position on political issues was dictated to me by NAP-independent thought was discouraged.  We were all part of something bigger than ourselves and were of one mind.  I felt personally threatened, like I was being absorbed into something and was losing myself..  I was completely exhausted, so tired I was unable to work well.  Being unable to work I had no income, as I was expected to raise my salary myself in addition to raising money for the campaign..  I was very frightened.  I was in a strange city, I knew no one really except my lover, who couldn't help me:  I had no job, no home and no money.  At this point I was feeling very suicidal.

It's been four months since I left the campaign and I am putting my life back together piece by piece.38

This report is interesting in a number of respects.  First, it documents one method of recruitment to the Newmanite cult:  a person is attracted to one of the political projects sponsored by Newman, in this case the NAP, and is then urged to take group therapy.  Only those who combine political activism with therapy are considered solid core members of the group.

Second, we are given a picture of the intensity and time-consuming nature of the group's political activity.  Loren Redwood felt "an incredible sense of urgency which overrode any personal needs."  This in turn has a disorienting and numbing effect upon the recruit.  Her feelings and experience is identical to that reported to us by members of such groups as the Workers Revolutionary Party, the Militant Group, the Democratic Workers Party, and the LaRoucheites.  It helps explain how a politically oriented cult can produce the same degree of total control over members as religious cults.

Third, the Newmanites carry out a practice that is common among religious cults but not used as extensively by political cults.  This is having members quit their jobs, move into common quarters with other members, and solicit funds from the public to support the organization as well as themselves.  This increases the recruit's isolation from civil society as well as his or her dependence upon the group for survival.  We have found this practice among the LaRoucheites (chapter 5), NATLFED (chapter 12), and Synanon (chapter 8).

Not all recruits have joined the cult through political activity and been steered toward social therapy.  Many seek out therapy because of emotional disturbances, only to find themselves sucked into Newmanite political groups.  Berlet reported this experience of an East Coast Latina activist:

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

Before and after the therapy session, they would say "why not sell the newspaper" or "maybe you could do us a favor and hand out those leaflets."  The therapy offices were full of their political propaganda.  In the group therapy sometimes we discussed politics and their political party.

Some people get involved because they think the political work will help them get better emotionally.  They told us societal problems are making people ill and the New Alliance Party is going to change things so people get better.39

M. Ortiz, a single mother living in the Bronx, became involved in social therapy in 1985 in a similar fashion.

The trouble wasn't "in our head," but "in the world," we learned.. Through Social Therapy, I was conditioned to relate to my personal history in exclusively political terms.  My family's problems and subsequent poverty-and all my suffering-were all the result of the government's imperialist invasion of Puerto Rico..  But consciousness-raising in itself was not enough.  Our individual development and growth, we were told, was dependent upon the group's.

Only by embracing this psycho-therapeutic doctrine could I hope to change what it meant to be a "poor, working-class Puerto-Rican woman.."  [T]he "cure" for my depression and anxiety was ultimately conditional upon my becoming a serious political activist.

When I finally left the cult in July of 1990-after finally becoming disgusted with the totalitarian internal structure which, in my opinion, basically relies on slave labor for profit in the name of justice and empowerment-I had to literally rebuild my life.40

Individual distress is manipulated to transform the patient into a political activist under the total control of the therapist or the revolutionary leader.  The new "family" of fellow cultists replaces the traditional family and friends.  The followers become completely dependent upon Newman for their sense of self-esteem.  "When Newman was happy, everyone was happy," commented one former member.  "When he was angry, everyone was terrified."41

Organic Leaders:  Jackson, Farrakhan, Sharpton

Antonio Gramsci originated the concept of the "organic intellectual."  In contrast to "traditional intellectuals," such as clerics, teachers, and other professionals, Gramsci believed each social class created organically out of its own members a stratum capable of generalizing that class's historic mission and projecting its hegemony over society as a whole.  Since he believed that the capability of being an intellectual is in all human beings, he was convinced that the working class could and would develop its own organic intellectuals.  This aspect of his thinking could be interpreted as more democratic than Lenin's approach.

Lenin-particularly in What Is to Be Done?-advocated building a party composed exclusively of full-time professional revolutionaries drawn from the traditional intellectuals.  This vanguard would bring socialism from "outside" the working class into the proletarian milieu.  It matters little the degree to which Lenin may or may not have modified this view in a later period.  What is critical is that so many on the left, including virtually all cultists, have been influenced by this vanguardist "from the outside" theory.  Newman learned his Lenin from LaRouche.42

Fred Newman operated on the basis of both concepts of leadership.  He viewed his core group as a vanguard formation, made up overwhelmingly of white, middle-class, traditional intellectuals.  His elite members were professionals in two ways:  They largely worked full time for Newmanite fronts, and, in many cases, they were professional therapists.

Newman's concept of "organic leaders," borrowed from Gramsci, was given a decidedly undemocratic twist.  For Newman the term "organic" became a code word meaning "people of color."  Organic leaders were therefore prominent black spokespersons with real bases of support in the black community and wide media recognition.  He embraced these "organic leaders" uncritically, but they were just so much window dressing to be used as a way of advancing the interests of the secretive vanguard made up of white traditional intellectuals.  The result was a manipulative and undemocratic relationship.

The Newmanites' first major foray into organizing around an "organic leader" involved support of Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition and his 1984 and 1988 Democratic Party presidential bids.  Declaring "Two Roads Are Better Than One," Lenora Fulani announced support of Jackson while at the same time fielding her own independent candidacy under the New Alliance Party banner.43 Then, in an interesting and self-serving twist, the Newmanites organized the Rainbow Lobby.  The group, headed by Nancy Ross, had almost the same name as Jackson's organization and an identical program.  However, it was not authorized by Jackson, was totally controlled by Newman, and raised its own independent funds to the tune of more than $1 million a year.44  In 1992 the Lobby was closed down and the lobbying firm Ross and Green was formed.  The "Ross" of Ross and Green is the very same Nancy Ross, former school board member from the Upper West Side and head of the Rainbow Lobby.45  The "Green" was Ann Green, whom we met earlier working with the FBI.  [Correction:  Deborah Greene co-founded Ross & Green, it was not Ann Green.]

The next "Organic Leader" to catch Newman and Fulani's attention was Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, noted for his anti-Semitic rantings.  This is particularly interesting because, in the LaRouche cohabitation period, Newman shared NCLC's extremely hostile (bordering on racist) attitude toward black nationalists.  The NAP moved its national headquarters to Chicago in order to be closer to Farrakhan.  In 1995, after Newman's dissolution of the NAP and turn toward Perot, he ran a full page advertisement in the Village Voice entitled "Never Again! A New Pledge for the Jewish Community," saluting the Million Man March.  It featured a photo of Newman, Farrakhan, and Fulani, and was signed "Dr. Fred Newman, Convenor, Jews for Farrakhan."46

Soon Newman added the Reverend Al Sharpton to the organic roster.  Sharpton developed a particularly close relationship to the Newmanites during the period he was conducting confrontational marches through Howard Beach and promoting Tawana Brawley, whose tale of rape by white assailants has been proved to be a fabrication.  Sharpton has developed a reputation as an anti-white demagogue and has clashed with New York City's Jewish community.  The Newmanites even rented office space to Sharpton and put him on their payroll as a $12,000 a year consultant.47

Noting the connections with Farrakhan and Sharpton, Dennis King wrote in 1992 that the NAP has "unsevered ties to anti-Semitism."  Newman is Jewish but this did not prevent him from saying that "Jews 'as a people' have made a pact with 'the devil' to serve as the 'storm-troopers of decadent capitalism against people of color the world over.'"48

Overall the Newmanites gained a high profile and significant membership growth in the decade between 1982 and 1992.  Newman expanded his base beyond the Upper West Side with therapy centers throughout New York City, as well as in Boston; Chicago; Los Angeles; San Francisco; Pennsylvania; New Jersey; Washington, D.C.; Jackson, Mississippi; and elsewhere.  During its first ten years of operations Newman's core group numbered between thirty and forty people.  By the end of the next decade, Newman had several hundred core followers and significant political influence.  In 1992 NAP-related businesses employed fifty-six people and brought in at least $3.5 million a year.  The East Side Institute for Social Therapy alone reported sales in excess of $400,000 a year.49

Lenora Fulani was a popular, media-savvy spokesperson who received considerable, and largely favorable, press attention.  The potent combination of the NAP election campaigns with high-profile identification with Jackson, Farrakhan, and Sharpton made Lenora Fulani a well-known public figure.  However, the political winds were shifting to the right.  Discontent in America was finding a new path for expression:  Ross Perot.  Was this tiny white billionaire with his folksy manners and Texan twang a new "organic leader?"  If so, of what class?

A Pact with Ross Perot

Beginning in 1992 Ross Perot developed a movement around his quixotic personality.  He drew almost exclusively from whites, was particularly popular with small businessmen and people who lived in smaller cities and towns, and pulled support almost equally from the Democratic and Republican parties.  His politics were generally right of center.  He was anti-government, strongly against political action committees (PACs), and for electoral reform; he favored a balanced budget and welfare reform.  Perhaps his most popular position was his strong stance against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).  His economic nationalism gained him some support among workers hurt by job competition from south of the border.  Many voted for him because he was very rich and therefore beholden to no special interests (except, of course, himself).  The Perot movement definitely represented a radical departure from the traditional two-party system.  However, there is no evidence that this departure was in a left direction.

In 1993, immediately after the 1992 elections, Fulani met with Nicholas Sabatine III, a small-town Pennsylvania attorney, and helped form the Patriot Party.  In April 1994 the NAP officially dissolved into the Patriot Party.  The National Patriot Party was formed with Sabatine as national chair and Fulani as chair for New York State.  The apparatus of the Patriot Party was, for all intents and purposes, controlled by the Newmanites.50  The Patriot Party was, to quote Fulani, "based on the principles of democracy, fiscal responsibility, government accountability and a deep commitment to inclusivity and diversity."  Many on the left view "fiscal responsibility" as a code meaning cuts in benefits to the poor.  According to Sabatine the party supported privatization of Social Security and a flat tax, hardly progressive positions.51

In 1994 Fulani ran in the New York State Democratic primary against Governor Mario Cuomo.  She received 142,000 votes, or 21 percent of the vote.  She then switched her support to businessman Tom Golisano, helping to create the Independence Party.  That party received 217,000 votes.52  The Independence Party, like the Patriot Party, was a forerunner of the Reform Party.

In 1996, Ross Perot, who had resisted forming a third party, preferring to run as an independent, permitted the formation of the Reform Party.  The problem facing Perot was how to get his party on the ballot in all fifty states in order to qualify for federal matching funds.  His supporters were, by and large, enthusiastic but disorganized and politically untrained.  Newman came to the rescue, throwing his cultists once again into a grueling nationwide ballot drive.  Russell J. Verney, national coordinator of the Reform Party and a Perot confidante, stated to the New York Times in 1996 that "Mr. Perot was aware and appreciative of the role Ms. Fulani and Dr. Newman have played in helping the Reform Party.  'They are just one voice in a very big group of individuals.'"53

At Newman's and Fulani's urging, the Patriot Party and the New York Independence Party affiliated with the Reform Party.  Verney recalled that, faced with the need to get 90,000 voters registered in the Reform Party in California, he called Jim Mangia, the chairman of that state's Patriot Party.  Mangia was formerly a member of the New Alliance Party.  Having succeeded in registering 120,000 voters, Mangia was made secretary of the state Reform Party.54  In 1999 he assumed the same post in the national party.

In 1997 Richard Lamb, who was defeated by Ross Perot in his effort to become the Reform Party's presidential candidate, split away to form the American Reform Party.  "They resented what they said was autocratic management of the party from Dallas," the Chicago Tribune reported.  "In Illinois, additional resentment had grown over the presence in the party's governing structure of former supporters of Lenora Fulani and the largely defunct New Alliance Party."55

In 1998 Lenora Fulani organized the Democracy Slate of candidates for the State Committee of the Independence Party.  Both Fulani and Newman were on that slate.  She took over control of the party and then ran as the party's candidate for Lieutenant Governor.56  The Independence Party's platform calls for "fiscal conservatism."  It states, "Wherever possible, we prefer to minimize the role of government, transferring needed activities into the private sector through privatization."  It favors an alteration of civil service requirements to make it easier to discharge government workers, a one-year New York residency requirement for welfare benefits, no welfare for illegal aliens, public funding for private schools, and more cops.57

From early on Newman has displayed little interest in the political programs of the parties he participated in, such as the Democratic Party; or set up and controlled, as in the case of the NAP; or supported, like Farrakhan and Sharpton.  Still, until 1994, all his political machinations involved figures and parties generally considered to be on the left of American politics.  Since there is nothing even faintly liberal or progressive, not to mention socialist, about the politics of the Reform Party and affiliates, what trick of dialectics did Newman employ to justify his moving into the Perot movement?

Bill Lynch, an aide to former New York City Mayor David Dinkins came up with a cynical answer:  "We could never figure out what the New Alliance agenda was.  The one common thread was that they were always trying to move in and take over someone else's political operation."58

Alliance with Pat Buchanan

Political relations between the Newmanites and Pat Buchanan date back to 1996.  In an article entitled "Black Empowerment:  What Does the New Populism Mean for African-Americans?" Fulani claimed that Buchanan was being "demonized," comparing him to Louis Farrakhan, Ross Perot, and Jesse Jackson.  Buchanan's views were characterized as "anti-government, anti-big business, pro-people."  Fulani saw the Reform Party as "populist, not centrist," a populism that "cuts across the traditional labels of right, center and left."59  She and Newman had already prepared the theoretical groundwork (read:  rationalization) for embracing Buchanan as a candidate for president on the Reform Party ticket.

Chip Berlet is one of the few political commentators to note Fulani's shift to the right and to begin to develop a theoretical understanding of its broader implications.  He notes that the extreme right wing has developed a "producerist narrative" which pits "hard-working productive middle-class and working-class" people against a rich elite and a socially parasitic welfare class.  This movement is sometimes called "Middle American Nationalism" or the "Radical Center" or "Middle American Radicals."  It is narrowly nationalist and isolationist, opposes free trade, and is against big government and business.  However, it also tends to be homophobic, racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic.60  Some leftists have become confused by the "anti-war" and anti-globalist demagogy of these rightists.  Fulani and Newman are contributing to that confusion.

Buchanan's interest in Newman and Fulani stems from their power within the Reform Party as well as from the proven ability of their cult followers to put the party on state ballots.  At the 1999 Dearborn Convention of the Reform Party, Lenora Fulani received 45 percent of the vote for the position of vice-chair.61  They dominate the New York, Illinois, and California parties, and have extensive influence elsewhere.

Fulani and Newman have thrown their considerable support behind Pat Buchanan's primary campaign.  On November 11, 1999, Fulani announced that she would serve as co-chair of Buchanan's campaign.  "In traditional political terms, Pat Buchanan stands for all things that black progressives such as myself revile," Fulani stated.  "So how can we get to be standing here together with me endorsing his candidacy?  Because we have a common interest in overthrowing the traditional political terms."62  We are reminded of the German Communist Party in the early 1930s, which campaigned using the slogan "Hitler First, Then Us."  There never was a second.

Fulani has framed Buchanan as "a mighty powerful spokesperson for issues of political reform" whose appeal goes "beyond ideology ...  beyond issues of left, center and right."63  When asked on Cable News Network (CNN) about Buchanan's views on gay rights and abortion, she said that she could overlook them because Buchanan "can play a role as a unifier, bring everybody together."64  In another interview Fulani said "We're hoping he gets 10 to 15 percent of the vote."  Newman added that such a result "keeps the dollars coming in, and it keeps us as America's major minor party."  When asked what would happen if Buchanan actually won the presidency, Newman cynically answered "Then we're all in trouble."65

It seems quite clear from the above that the Newmanite support for Buchanan is rooted more in opportunism than in ideology.  This fits with a pattern of political opportunism that goes back for decades.  Their past support for Farrakhan despite his anti-Semitism prepared them for their current role in Buchanan's camp.  Hard as it is to believe, the core members of this group, believing themselves to be progressives, even Marxists, will carry out Newman's instructions to advance the agenda of a man whose most recent book claims it was a mistake to oppose Hitler.

The Clandestine Party

We have noted that in 1976 Newman claimed to have dissolved the International Workers Party.  However, a reporter on the Upper West Side discovered that the party was never actually dissolved.  The evidence suggests that the IWP continues to exist today.  Cathy Hollandberg-Serrette, who left the NAP in 1985 with Dennis Serrette, reported that, at the time she left, "the IWP was alive and well with about 150 members in NAP."  Sheila McCue, who was associated with Serrette, also confirmed the existence of the IWP.66  M. Ortiz reported that in the period between 1985 and 1990:  "I was drawn in the group's underground web of pseudo-revolutionary cult activity-The International Workers Party..  Once indoctrinated, most IWP cadre are immediately divested of all assets and assigned mandatory fundraising quotas (ranging from $75-300 per week), and bi-weekly IWP 'dues,' which combined with Social Therapy fees, ranges from 15-30% of their income."67  Wittes referred in 1994 to "a sub-rosa political core made up of the underground remnants of a self-declared Marxist-Leninist revolutionary organization."  He stated that "at least five ex-members confirmed the continued existence of the IWP.."68

The New York Times interviewed Newman in 1996, describing him as "a 61-year-old white-bearded man who looks like Santa Claus after a bohemian makeover."  The interview took place in a loft in downtown Manhattan "scattered with mementos of Ché Guevara."  Newman came up with an interesting explanation for his support of the Reform Party:  "It's like the left going into unions controlled by gangsters.  You have a chance to make a statement to the rank and file, and then maybe you can do something about the gangsters."69

This indicates that Newman still thinks like the Leninist operator he was in the days of LaRouche.  His cadres, his comment suggests, sustain a long- term "left" goal.  The route has turned out to be more circuitous than it had originally appeared to be in his "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist" days.  Yet they believe that, someday and somehow, world progress is being served.  In the meantime his therapeutically enslaved minions operate within the Reform Party and, in some places, control its apparatus.  Political influence and power clearly please Newman and Fulani, while activism keeps the client/organizers busy, their minds empty, and their loyalties guaranteed.

The potential danger in this situation is not to be ignored.  After all, Jesse Ventura, a wrestler, ran on the Reform Party ticket in Minnesota in 1998 and won, becoming governor.  Considering the public's disgust with the two major parties, it is not to be excluded that the Reform Party can win again.  That could place parasitic Newmanites into positions of influence.  Once in power, their allegiance would not be to the voters but to their guru Fred Newman.  The Newmanites' support for Pat Buchanan has already had the negative and dangerous effect of assisting a right-wing demagogue in channeling legitimate dissatisfaction in a fascistic direction.

Today, in addition to his secretive political activities, Fred Newman considers himself a playwright.  He is also the artistic director of the Castillo Theater, an "interactive growth theater," which is a form of therapy directed toward people of color.  He is the director of training at the East Side Institute for Short Term Psychotherapy and has written several books that are featured at his Castillo Bookstore.  He operates the West Coast Center for Social Therapy in San Francisco and similar centers in Los Angeles, Chicago, and other cities.  He describes these centers as "a unique 'laboratory'-the 25-year-old development community of thousands of people who are living more developmental and joyous lives and helping thousands more to do so."70

For all the deprivations he has demanded over the years from his followers, he, like other gurus, is not living that badly himself.  In the fall of 1993 he purchased, together with long-time member Susan Massad, a large Greenwich Village brownstone at 60 Bank Street for $928,000.  Revolution combined with therapy can be profitable.

Conclusion:  New Age Leninism

It should come as no surprise that Fred Newman, Lenora Fulani, and other spokespeople for the group do not share our assessment that they run a cult.  In fact in 1993 they took legal action against the FBI for characterizing them as a "political/cult organization."71  Lenora Fulani stated that "the word 'cult' is a weapon, a murderously vicious, anti-democratic weapon used to attack people who are different in any way:  religiously, politically, culturally or otherwise..  There is no such thing as a cult [emphasis in original]."72  At the time Fulani and Newman's lobbying arm, Ross and Green, was running a campaign in defense of the Branch Davidians after the Waco disaster.

Of course, if cults do not exist, then the Newmanites could not possibly be a cult.  The difficulty with this position comes when we confront events like the Jonestown massacre or the more recent Heaven's Gate suicides.  Are we dealing in these cases simply with people who are "different," or is there something more sinister involved, which requires serious inquiry?

Fulani and Newman's defense of religious cults like the Branch Davjdians,73 is a recognition of a commonality with them.  In other words, if Fulani is wrong and cults do exist, then her statement represents a form of identification with the world of cults.  What she is really saying is that these groups are just "different" like us.

A study of the Newmanites deepens our understanding of other political cults as well as the cult phenomenon as a whole.  This is because Fred Newman's therapeutic approach exposes the essential mechanisms of mind control utilized, though not necessarily admitted to, by all cults.  The Newmanites display another interesting feature.  Their preservation, though in clandestine fashion, of a Leninist cadre organization, suggests the usefulness of vanguard ideology to political cults.  LaRouche, for example, has sustained this side of his thinking during his travel to the extreme right of the political spectrum (see chapter 5).

This outlook has contributed to the manipulative nature of their political activity.  Newman, particularly after his LaRouchian period, has been relatively unconcerned with the content of politics, while becoming extremely adept at its practice.  This has permitted him to support anti-Semitic black leaders, build a vaguely defined left party, run in Democratic Party primaries, support the right centrist Reform Party, and finally assist Pat Buchanan in his presidential bid.  Politics is conceived as something to be practiced to achieve influence and power as well as to lead to growth of his core group.

Newman has become a New Age Leninist.  While his group has been wildly successful when we look at its meager beginnings in a West Side apartment, it does have its limits.  The Newmanites have learned better than most political cults how to successfully manipulate the American political arena and the media.  Yet they remain a small group.  One estimate does not give them more than a hundred core members today.74  However, these members are highly skilled political operatives, hard-working and motivated, and they function with lockstep discipline.  Newman has done considerable political damage in the past.  Given the state of politics in the United States, he may emerge as a serious threat to democratic processes in the future.

Notes

1.      B. Shapiro, "Buchanan-Fulani:  New Team?" Nation, November 1, 1999, P.  21.

2.      D. King, "West Side 'Therapy Cult' Conceals Its True Aims," Heights and Valley News, November 1977, p. 14.

3.      C. Berlet, Clouds Blue the Rainbow:  The Other Side of the New Alliance Party (Cambridge, MA:  Political Research Associates.  December 1987).

4.      F. Newman, Power and Authority:  The Inside View of Class Struggle (New York:  Centers for Change, 1974), p. 1.

5.      Berlet, Clouds, p. 3.

6.      Newman, Power, p. vi.

7.      Berlet, Clouds, p. 3.

8.      Newman, Power, p. xvi.

9.      Ibid., p. xii.

10.    Ibid., p. xii-xii.

11.    Right on Time, May II, 1974.  This was the publication of Newman's Center for Change.

12.    Right on Time, March 7, 1974.

13.    Newman, Power, p. 113.

14.    Ibid., p. 3.

15.    Ibid., before p. 1.

16.    Ibid., p. 113

17.    Ibid., p. 112.

18.    Ibid.

19.    Ibid., p. 74.

20.    Ibid., p. 112.

21.    Ibid., p. 123.

22.    Z Magazine, May 1989.

23.    W.C. Sheasby, A Brief History of Coalition:  Third Parties and the Rocky Road to the White House (Sierra Madre, CA, 1996).  Sheasby was a Green Party congressional candidate in California's twenty-seventh district.

24.    Press release issued by Workers and Oppressed Unite, dated May 2, 1976.

25.    "IWP Admits Snitching To FBI!" undated statement issued by the above group sometime shortly after May 5, 1976.

26.    King, "West Side 'Therapy Cult,'" p. 16.

27.    D. King, Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism (New York:  Doubleday, 1989).

28.    King, "West Side 'Therapy Cult,'" p. 14.

29.    Ibid.

30.    Ibid., pp. 14-18.

31.    J. Finn, "Proof:  Therapy Cultists Lied to Community," Heights and Valley News (New York), holiday season, 1977, p. 18.

32.    B. Shapiro, "Dr. Fulani's Snake-Oil Show," Nation, May 4, 1992, p. 586.

33.    Ibid., 587.

34.    Berlet, Clouds, p. 1.

35.    L. Fulani, Lenora s Political History, http://www.fulani.org.

36.    Sheasby, Brief, p. 4.

37.    B. Wittes, "Lenora and the Money-Go-Round," Washington City Paper (Washington, DC), July 8, 1994.

38.    Coming Up! (San Francisco), January 1989.

39.    Berlet, Clouds, p. 7.

40.    "Statement Issued by M. Ortiz" (Cult Awareness Network Meeting, New York, June 16, 1993).

41.    Shapiro, "Snake Oil," p. 592.

42.    A. Gramsci, The Modern Prince and Other Writings (New York:  International, 1957), pp. 118-125; G. Vacca, "Intellectuals and the Marxist State," in Approaches to Gramsci, ed. Anne Showstack Sassoon (London:  Writers and Readers, 1982) pp. 63-67.

43.    Berlet, Clouds, p. 7.

44.    Ibid., p. 9.

45.    J. and T. R. Goldman Cohen, "Controversial Lobbyists Stirring Up Waco Fight," Legal Times (Washington, DC), May 2, 1994.

46.    "Never Again!" Village Voice (New York):  November 5, 1995, p. 5.

47.    Shapiro, "Snake Oil," p. 587.

48.    D. King, letter to the editor, New York Times, August 13, 1992.

49.    Shapiro, "Snake Oil," p. 587.

50.    Sheasby, Brief History, p. 2.

51.    F. Bruni, "Perot and Populist Group See Benefits in an Alliance," New York Times, August 21, 1996.

52.    Fulani, History, p. 2.

53.    Bruni, "Perot."

54.    Ibid.

55.    R. Worthington, "Ex-Perot Stalwarts Establish New Party," Chicago Tribune, October 6, 1997.

56.    L. Fulani, The Democracy Slate, http://www.fulani.org.

57.    The Platform of the Independence Party of New York, http://www.fulani.org.

58.    Bruni, "Perot."

59.    Originally posted online circa February 1996 by the Committee for a Unified Independent Party.  See http://www.publiceye.org.

60.    Buchanan, Fulani, Perot and the Reform Party, http://www.publiceye.org.

61.    Shapiro, "Buchanan."

62.    S. McCaffrey, "Lenora Fulani Endorses Buchanan," Associated Press, November 12, 1999.

63.    Ibid.

64.    "Reform Party Warming to Buchanan," Washington Post, September 20, 1999.

65.    J. Bennet, "The Cable Guys," New York Times Magazine, October 24, 1999, p. 79.

66.    T. Kingston, "The Seedy Side of the Rainbow," in Coming Up! (San Francisco), November 1988.

67.    See note 40.

68.    Wittes, "Money Go Round."

69.    Bruni, "Perot."

70.    Posted on the Internet at http://webpsych and at http://www.pond.com.

71.    Ross and Green, What Is the Cult Awareness Network and What Role Did It Play in Waco? (Washington, DC:  WRS, 1993), p. 10.

72.    L. Fulani, We Must Stand Up for Democracy! (New York:  Castillo Communications, May 23, 1993).

73.    M. Breault, and M. King, Inside the Cult (New York:  Signet, 1993); B. Bailey and B. Darden, Mad Man in Waco (Waco, TX:  WRS, 1993).

74.    Shapiro, "Buchanan," p. 22.

For more information, go to:  http://www.timwohlforth.com/edge.html.