Posted by: exiwp | August 21, 1986

Sex and the NAP (1986)

By Ken Lawrence
The Jackson Advocate, August 21-27, 1986

“You can have your cake (LaRouche politics) and eat each other too.”

At least a few persons who have dealings with the New Alliance Party say the group is obsessed with sex; not the sexuality of love and procreation, not the joy of shared intimacy, but the voyeurism of the peeping Tom and the exhibitionism of the insecure adolescent.

They contend that obsession is firmly anchored in the history of Fred Newman’s cult. As long ago as 1974, when Newman and his followers were members of Lyndon LaRouche’s National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC or LC), the two gurus clashed over sexual matters.

Apparently LaRouche, like Adolf Hitler, hated homosexuals and advocated strict monogamy. Newman’s grouping, like the Nazi SA headed by Ernst Rohm seems to have had an “anything goes” attitude. Both factions hated feminism, and even after they split, Newman’s International Workers Party considered feminism fascistic.

Today, as Newman and NAP posture as feminists, their older writings would shame them, yet even now Newman continues to employ the sexual metaphors of the male-supremacist that he acquired from LaRouche 12 years ago. Thus, in polemics then and now, his political opponents are “important,” the obvious and intended implication being that he and those he agrees with are virile, and that this macho trait carries with it a superior ideological position.

After Newman and other NAP founders quit NCLC, LaRouche’s group analyzed Newman’s IWP in an internal discussion paper by Scott Thompson and the NCLC security staff. The authors noted that the “IWP lays stress upon the fullest formal agreement when addressing a member of NCLC or its periphery,” while playing down that agreement when speaking to an outsider.

The bulk of the document consists of lurid personal details of the private lives of Newman and his followers, focusing heavily on Newman’s alleged “harem,” and concludes that the sexual aspects of the group effectively “brainwashed” the members and bound them to Newman, while its basic politics were appropriated from LaRouche. The NCLC’s document said” “The founding document of the IWP, which wins issued on August 26 (1974) in essence says: ‘You can have your cake (LC politics) and eat each other too.”

The fixation on sex continues, and would seem to be an important ingredient in NAP’s ability to survive, since it helps deflect attention away from the organization’s history and political practices, even contradictions between their theory and practice in the realm of sex itself. NAP watchers in New York have difficulty explaining how Newman’s alleged polygamy is compatible with the cult’s current orientation toward feminists, for example.

Each issue of NAP’s newspaper, The National Alliance, carries a page called “Sexually Speaking & Otherwise” by Fred Rosen.

Rosen’s apparent delusions of grandeur lead her to consider herself, the lovelorn lonely heart’s answer to Dear Abby, Dr. Joyce Brothers, and Dr. Ruth all rolled into one. But observers contend in reality, she is to these columnists what Hustler is to Jet. Where Abigail Van Buren chooses clever euphemisms, Freda Rosen can be safely called stylishly crude and often lewd.

Rosen’s “best” columns ate republished for posterity in the Newmanite journal she co-edits, Practice. One example is “Ass Backwards,” a discourse on the joys and sorrows of anal sex—complete with cartoon.

The sex page in the August 8, issue of The National Alliance probably came as a shock even to some of the party faithful. In it, Rosen described a day she spent at the Barbara Taylor school (Taylor is also a leading NAPer) talking sex to the pupils, ages seven to eleven.

Part of what Rosen told these children was: “One of the things that makes it hard, sexually speaking and otherwise, to be a kid is that you can’t always tell beforehand if sex is going to be nasty or nice; and even when you do know you can’t always do something about it.”

The article was accompanied by illustrations the students drew; and a central theme seems to be is sexual coercion. One drawing by 7-1/2 year old [Name Deleted] shows a man saying, “I want to have sex with you, okay,” and a woman replying: “Why are you forcing me to do it?” Another shows an airplane towing signs that read: “Men want to have sex every day,” and “Women don’t want to have sex every day.”

In a drawing apparently by [Name Deleted], a girl says to a boy, “I don’t have o have sex with you because you are forcing me,” and the boy answers: “You better.”

Lest anyone get the mistaken idea that the purpose of these graphic lessons is to fortify children against abuse, NAP’s advertising policy reveals the opposite. The current issue promotes a film titled “The Young and the Hung,” promising the uncut full version at a theater described as “America’s Premiere Male Showplace.” Others are in a similar vein.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: