Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 17:59:56 -0500
From: Jim Martin <flatland@mail.mcn.org>
To: orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: Reich, paranoia & conspiracy
Sender: owner-orgonomy@jefferson.village.virginia.edu

Chris writes:


> In this case, Reich's own concept of the "emotional plague" is sufficient to 
> explain the above facts that you listed.  To say that Rockefeller Interests 
> worked with the US government bureaucrats who worked with Communist 
> spies to conspire against Reich is a very complex explanation.  Simply to 
> say that the arch-enemies of the 50's- capitalists and communists- worked 
> together to do _anything_ would require iron-clad proof.  To 
> motivate the conspiracy theory of Reich's case over the simpler explanation
> that already explains the facts, it would require overwhelming evidence.  
> That is what I have been asking for.

I think when you really consider the complexities of "the emotional plague" and 
all its manifestations, "conspiracy" is simpler to explain to people.

But you raise a good point in the fact that the word "conspiracy" denoted an 
over-arching coordination between all these parties. Also, I realize that many 
people don't know that the historical relationship between Wall Street and 
Moscow  has not always been antagonistic. 

The irony is that Felix Dehrzinsky, head of Russia's secret service, realized 
way back in the 1920s that the English ruling class structure presented a 
perfect opportunity to infiltrate Britain's foreign service and high gov't 
echelons. He sent agents to work with Cambridge student groups. They were 
sympathetic to the cause of socialism, but these were not workers, they were the
cream of the ruling class.

The brutality, sadomasochism and covert homosexuality of British boarding 
schools is well known. Anthony Blunt's biographer paints a vivid picture how old
school ties blossomed at Cambridge, into plaguey clubs, association and secret 
societies. One of the most highly regarded and secretive of these was the 
"Apostles." During the twenties, the "apostles" were essentially a red cell, and
even back then, Blunt was in the pay of Russian agents. By the thirties, Kim 
Philby was high up in the MI6, Blunt was in the Foreign Office, and Michael 
Straight, publisher of the New Republic, was a banker on Wall St. All of this 
has been romanticized by movies like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, and much of the 
references have come out in a number of serious spy-craft non fiction books. The
most important is Michael Straight's After Long Silence (out of print, I guess).
In his book, Straight never wanted to be a banker (he was born into the 
Payne-Whitney family) but Anthony Blunt told him when he left Cambridge that 
"this is an order from Stalin".  

In 1948, when Michael Straight hired Henry Wallace as Managing Editor of the New
Republic, funds came from Wall St, Bankers to expand the staff. The new staff 
were essentially Wallace campaign workers, and Mildred Brady was among them. 

>>>>>To say that Rockefeller Interests 
worked with the US government bureaucrats who worked with Communist 
spies to conspire against Reich is a very complex explanation.<<<<<

Michael Straight was all three of these, part of the "Rockefeller interests", a 
Government Bureacrat, and a self-confessed Soviet spy. That's pretty iron-clad. 
It's incredible, I know, not simple. But it's the truth just the same, Occam's 
razor notwithstanding.  

I'll get myself into trouble by overstating the case. I haven't found evidence 
that the FDA had connections similar to these. We know that the Rockefeller 
Foundation had a lot of weight at the FDA, and that the Rockefellers were 
invested in petroleum-based pharmeceuticals. That's as far as I've taken it so 
far, but then, no one has really investigated the FDA agents backgrounds. Red 
Thread of Conspiracy detailed some of those connections as gleaned from the 
press attacks. Were there FDA agents operating under orders from the Modju in 
Moscow? I don't know, but Michael Straight was. 

Nor would I want to give the impression that a conspiracy implies a single 
person as the motivating force, say old man Rockefeller. Sometimes it's just a 
matter of quiet consensus between friendly, well-placed individuals, a shared 
ideology. 

I haven't located any connection between Straight and Lew Douglas. But Douglas' 
archives await me. In some ways, they were at opposite ends of the political 
spectrum, but if we keep in mind the idea of "the functional identity of thesis 
and antithesis", maybe it will make sense. 

-Jim Martin


     --- from list orgonomy@lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Many thanks for Geocities providing this free space
Get your own Free Home Page

Web Hosting · Blog · Guestbooks · Message Forums · Mailing Lists
Allwebco Web Templates · Build your own toolbar · Financial Data · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by bravenet.com