Foreword: "Either Red or Dead"
The world is now being pushed toward a new form of organization modelled ultimately on the most hideous features of the Nazi Third Reich. If the Rockefeller-headed supranational agencies succeed in realizing their stated tactical goals for the Winter of 1974-75 and later months of 1975, a majority of the human race will be deprived immediately of all basis for hope of a civilized personal life as most of us understand that term. The probable included consequence of the Rockefellers' projected "new world order" is thermonuclear holocaust no later than the early 1980s. If, improbably, such war is avoided, the 1990 situation of humanity still would not be much better than if the worst kind of thermonuclear holocaust had occurred.
This threat confronts us with two principal analytical tasks. Although the rudimentary principles permeating the Rockefellers' designs for fascism are identical with those adopted by the financiers behind Hitler, the Rockefeller model includes major added features beyond anything projected by Mussolini or the Nazi planners. Secondly, the strategic situation and problems before us are radically different than those posed by Italian and German fascism.
The urgent task of resolving these two kinds of novelties is complicated by the fact that, apart from the Labor Committees themselves, no institutionalized body of investigation - academic liberal or socialist - has competently analyzed the older forms of fascism. Rosa Luxemburg's 1913-16 analysis of imminent threats of "military economy" did represent an astonishingly precise forecast of fascist economic order. but that fruitful line of investigation was repudiated foolishly by social-democrats and Bolsheviks alike, in favor of the bowdlerized "vulgar Marxism" which still passes for theoretical competence in most of the socialist organizations of today.
The common feature of both the Hitler and the Rockefeller models of fascism is centered around a shared commitment to the primitive accumulation strategies of Nazi finance minister Hjalmar Schacht. Once one has mastered the significance of Schachtian economic policies, one directly understands all the main features of both Nazi and Rockefeller policies.
Concerning "zero growth," "anti-inflation" austerity, military aggression, looting of occupied territories, and the death-camp system, there are no differences between Nazi policies and those of the Rockefellers.
The principal specific distinctions are in political forms. The Nazi model was based on German nationalism; the Rockefeller model is based on supranational, not national financier blocs, and originates as a world system, rather than as a program of world conquest developed by a national fascist system. This aspect of Rockefeller fascism was still difficult for many to grasp as recently as the Winter of 1973-74; it is becoming obvious. The second distinction, which represents a more sophisticated problem for the layman's understanding, is the Rees-Lewin innovations in Nazism, which replaces the emphasis upon the jack-booted SS system with a superficial parody of democratic institutions. It is the Rees-Lewin innovation which determines the most important strategic and tactical distinctions of Rockefellers' fascist thrust.
Except for the second type of political distinction, the typical militant worker of North America and continental Western Europe has demonstrated that he has no lack of the intellectual powers to understand the imminence and nature of the Rockefeller fascist threat. It has also been demonstrated that he is capable of understanding the more sophisticated, psychological aspects of the Rockefeller program, although with somewhat greater effort required for this. The same qualification has been demonstrated for most of the center and left faction leaders of the European continental social-democracy, who have often privately confirmed the essential accuracy of our analysis from the standpoint of their direct knowledge. Communist Party officials are generally more reluctant to understand, but because of fear-prompted hysteria rather than relative lack of knowledge or intellectual powers.
In sum, counterposing the Rockefeller thrust for fascist world order to the intellectual and mass resources of the workers' movement, we have still a period of a few months during which we can begin to sabotage the Rockefeller drive, and a relatively short period beyond that - not later than 1976-77 - in which to crush the Rockefeller forces forever. Provided that we realize those working-class potentials, we still have barely enough time to save the human race from the virtual extinction that otherwise confronts it during the next decade.
The "Allende Syndrome"
The greatest danger to humanity, apart from the Rockefellers themselves, is a suicidal syndrome within the workers' movement, a pattern of suicidal psychosis usefully identified as the "Allende model." Essentially, at the time of the first election of Salvador Allende to the Chilean presidency, the existing correlation of forces did not permit the Rockefeller interests to launch the sort of military-police bloodbath later enacted during September, 1973. As a result of Allende's bungling administration, the conditions for coup were created, and the bloodbath occurred. The German social-democracy, the Socialist Party of Italy, the Communist Party of Italy, the Communist Party of France, and even the leadership of the Soviet Union itself, are presently committed to repeating that tragic pattern - with analogous inevitable consequences.
In Italy and in Germany today, as in Allende' s Chile. the mass-based working-class parties' leaders are governed principally by fear that they will "provoke" the financiers to launch a military-police bloodbath and dictatorship. .Out of this fear of "provocation." the parties' leaders hysterically limit their struggles to "demanding" what they regard as the least unfavorable terms within the framework of the austerity demands advanced by the financiers.
In Italy, for example, the most right-wing current within the Communist Party. the "Cloaca Maxima" ("big sewer"), current of Giorgio Amendola, has the upper hand at the moment of this writing. Amendola is the co-sponsor, together with the representatives ot the ex-Nazi and Rockefeller ally, the Fiat empire's Gianni Agnelli, of a scheme to "save" the Italian economy by eliminating the "parasites" of the state bureaucracy. Presumably, Agnelli will be induced by this tactic to lessen the intensity ot his austerity measures against the industrial workers. In reality, this proposal does not involve a constructive rationalization of the Italian bureaucracy trom a socialist standpoint, but is simply a crude drastic cut in social services for all Italian workers and the lumpenization ot a mass of Communist and Socialist parties' potential supporters into a raving fascist horde.
Meanwhile, the PSI's and PCI's "tears ot provocations" cause them generally to demoralize the workers and other supporters, so creating the preconditions for the fascist takeover. In disgusting irony, the Amendola gang warns that this repetition ot Allende's suicidal policies must be strictly tollowed in order to avoid the fate of Allende!
In West Germany, the feartul left wing ot the SPD so tar follows an analogous policy. Each threat prompts them to react by clinging to the right-wing SPD faction (the self-styled "sewer workers" taction). We must not lose any allies, they warn hysterically. The sewer taction, in turn, warns that the liberal allies ot the SPD must be cultivated at all costs. So, to placate the sewer taction, the left wing ot the SPD is induced to hysterically placate the Free Democratic Party (FDP). Since the FDP, in turn, is placating its own right-wing sections, which are indistinguishable variously from the Christian Democracy and the Christian-Social Union of neo-fascist Strauss, one sees where the policies of the SPD left-wing end up.
The powerful German working class base of the SPD is demoralized by such whorish antics, which impels the cringing left leaders to placate the right-wing forces all the more desperately. The potential social allies of the SPD are disgusted by this display of impotence, and accordingly vote directly for the FDP and CDU, rather than dealing at discount through would-be SPD brokers of FDP-CDU-CSU politics.
The blunders of the Soviet leadership are necessarily on a somewhat grander scale. Since the Cuban Missile Crisis and increasingly since the escalation of the CIA-Pentagon War in Vietnam, the Soviet leadership has become the most faithtul adherent of RAND Corporation-Hudson Institute "strategic doctrine." Referring to its control of the U.S. thermonuclear establishment, the Rockefeller forces propose that war can be avoided so long as the Soviets are informed and respond appropriately concerning the outer limits of whatthe "U.S." considers a provocation of its thermonuclear potential. "We are mad, you see," the Rockefellers warn the Soviets, "and will destroy the world in radioactive holocaust if we consider ourselves unduly provoked." The Rockefellers continue: "You socialists, by contrast, are sane. You have compunctions concerning the survival of the human race, where we do not. Therefore, it is your responsibility to be the sane person in this strategic game, which you accomplish by staying within the bounds of the 'game-limits' which we madmen define."
The Soviets agree to play this losing game, although with certain "hard bargaining" stipulations which they imagine to represent an effective defense of the bloc itself. They maintain an impressive counterpunch capability, thus raising the "threshhold" value for thermonuclear confrontation. Their game is essentially premised on nation-politics, while Rockefellers' is premised on gaining the world. The Soviets are playing against a rigged game, which they must ultimately lose as long as they play within the terms defined by the Rockefellers. In particular, since October, 1973, the Soviet leadership has lost - in large part, given away outright - the major part of its former strategic assets outside the Soviet bloc itself!
The Soviets, otherwise, cling to the bastion of "Mother Russia" and Eastern Europe, hoping that somehow, in the long run, this hideous uproar in the "outside world" will go away of its own volition. Everything for them, otherwise, is a rear-guard delaying action, giving away the world up to their doorsteps, piece by piece, ostensibly trading for time against the hour the nightmare will hopefully evaporate. They, too, are victims of the tragic "Allende syndrome."
This apparently poses the problem as follows. The Labor Committees understand the problem and have, presumably, a strategic "doctrine" capable of stopping the Rockefellers. Despite the fact that the Labor Committees' analyses, predictions, and other activities are now a collateral tactical consideration at the highest levels of a number of governments, all the mass-based working class organizations are in the hands of either outright traitors, such as Woodcock, Abel, Loderer, and so forth, or terrified creatures such as the cited Communist and left-wing social-democratic spokesmen. What are we accomplishing in the end except to win the overwhelming admiration of whatever future generations appear beyond this holocaust?
There is no need to dwell on that misleading argument. Granted : to say the very least, most of the top and second level leaders of working-class organizations are either traitors or are simply way behind the militant strata of rank-and-file members in manifest intelligence and combative temperament. Granted : it would be idiotic to respond to that discrepancy by desperate adventures intended to "electrify" the masses into motion. There are other, scientifically valid methods and techniquesfor pushing aside presently hegemonic misleaders and creating quickly the much-needed quality of replacement head for the body of those organizations.
ABCs of Psychology
It has been conventional wisdom in the socialist movement that long years in the bureaucracy imparts a petit-bourgeois sociology of outlook to former rank-and-file leaders. On the proverbial "average," this is a fair description of the case. Otherwise, like most common-sense truisms, it is a useless tool for treatment of serious problems.
There is no necessary fatal connection between being in a leading position over periods of years and petit-bourgeois tendencies. On the contrary, responsibility for representing large numbers of workers and the advantage of overview which leadership stances for developing the active a more profound insight into the workers' interests than a rank-and-file status would ordinarily facilitate. As long as the leader sees himself, as the elected commander of a working-class force he is responsible for effectively deploying to its best interest, nothing but good will usually occur for experience in an official position.
The difficulty occurs when official positions become an ordinary career, when the post becomes a "job" rather than a leadership profession. When such a shift occurs, the union becomes for the bureaucrat not an instrument of its members, but a kind of "business" interest significantly independent of the workers' interests. In such a self-imposed bureaucratic environment the former rank-and-file spokesman acquires a psychological outlook which in the extreme we recognize as paranoia. This paranoid tendency, or germ of a paranoid tendency, is what we ordinarily recognize as having the "smell" of a petit-bourgeois outlook.
There is no exaggeration in attributing clinical psychological significance of that sort to the bureaucratic mentality. Brief consideration of the basic principles involved aids us considerably in understanding the problem, and in locating the clues for the kind of tactic we must follow to save the human race.
The basic difference between mental health and mental disease is the distinction between reality and fantasy. It might be imagined that the sanest person is one who works with his hands, since he is obliged to prove constantly that the mental processes guiding his hands are in appropriate correspondence to whatever laws of nature determine the actual results obtained. There is the germ of truth in that, but to the extent that we attribute sanity to isolated hand-work, we make a fundamental blunder in interpretation of the point. Without explaining here exactly why that is necessarily the case, the question of reality is a social question of ideas, concepts. Ideas, concepts are intrinsically social. Hence, to go directly to the point at issue, it is those persons who develop concepts in connection with policies of cooperative changes in nature who are most advantageously situated to directly compare the mental processes by which they develop ideas in a social context with the empirical results of the resulting proposals for cooperative work.
Consequently, on the average, it is skilled and semi-skilled industrial workers who represent the relatively sanest broad stratum in capitalist society.
At the other extreme among those daily involved in socialized activity, we encounter the individual whose goal is to realize what we may call ego-advantages (more personal income, promotion, increased status, more job security, etc.) through verbal and related manipulations of others. Lies, purely invented "facts," and so forth are effective tools to that end. To the extent that these succeed in apparently assisting him toward his ego-goals, they become as psychologically "real" to him as a law of nature becomes to the scientist. The stricter definition of this is that his mental processes are biased in favor of propitiatory-associative rituals, a mental disorder which belongs strictly within the etiological as well as symptomatic criteria of paranoia.
Sanity, the appropriate perception of real connections in the world, involves the thinker' s assuming personal responsibility for the consequences of his concepts in respect to those persons who act upon them in connection with lawfully determined processes. The immediate, active principle involved in making such mental connections to reality is termed sensuousness. Sanity is a habit of rejecting the mental disease of playing with ideas for show of verbiage, and the habit of regarding every idea as either one with practical consequences or not worth having. The tendency to place a premium on being heard to say the thing that will please, impress, etc., is the germ of fantasy , insanity.
Once the bureaucrat disassociates himself from constantly "feeling" the implied consequences of his proposals and ideas for the working class he is presumed to represent, he has cut himself off from his sensuous connection to political reality. He is launched on the mad leading through petit-bourgeois mental outlooks in the direction of paranoid-schizophrenia.
In the case of the petit-bourgeoisified right-wing leader of the Communist Party of Italy (PCI), he has ceased to see the PCI as an instrument of the international working class, and instead regards the PCI as a national institution which prospers to the extent it maintains its gate-receipts through a client relationship to a large number of Italian workers He is consequently paranoid to a significant extent.
This means that the rank-and-file leaders leap way ahead of the bureaucrats under conditions of sharply changed circumstances The rank-and-file leader who must react more immediately to tests of reality, is forced to develop new conceptions which correspond to the changed circumstances The bureaucrat, whose view of the world is relatively paranoid, sees changes predominantly in terms of their effects in his relationships to bureaucrats of other proprietary institutions, such as corporations, banks, capitalist parties, etc
Continuing with the Italian example, the petit-bourgeois bureaucrat sees bargaining over the form which austerity should take as a realm in which he secures careerist's success by "winning" one form of austerity over another The rank-and-file leader, by contrast. is forced to recognize any austerity sanely as a defeat What is "acceptable" to the careerist PCI bureaucrat is absolutely not so quickly " acceptable" to the saner CGIL union representative in the plant.
The conventional wisdom on this subject is that the bureaucrats will act positively in such circumstances only when the rank-and-file forces "burn their tails." In ordinary trade-union situations under capitalist prosperity that truism usually works fairly well. It is not adequate for circumstances of crisis. Under circumstances such as the present world situation, it is necessary to absolutely dump all trade-union and socialist leaders who do not respond to the first pressure of the rank-and-file by moving ahead of the rank-and-file.
In a conjunctural situation like the present crisis. the only course is to concentrate on those secondary bureaucrats and rank-and-file leaders who will more im mediately respond to the first clear presentation of a programmatic strategy appropriate to the situation. This stratum must quickly and absolutely replace the existing leadership. However. this will not occur until those new leaders are convinced that they have the aggregate personal qualifications for the role they are about to assume. This is absolutely the key to the present situation.
During the past ten months, the International Caucus of Labor Committees has put the existing trade-union and socialist top leaderships to a conclusive test, generally before the eyes and ears of a substantial plurality of secondary leaders and rank-and-file strata. For ten months, the rank-and-file has seen the Labor Committee analysis confirmed repeatedly on the most urgent issues of the period ... has seen the present leaders discredit themselves by insanely rejecting the ICLC analysis and program.
Recently, this process has reached a turning-point. In key parts of North America and Western Europe, secondary leaders and rank-and-file vanguards from the labor unions and socialist organizations have begun to move toward us with the full understanding that this step almost certainly means an out-and-out factional power-struggle against the present leaderships of those organizations. Furthermore, this new quality of movement by that potential new leadership is accompanied by a significant supporting movement among larger numbers of rank-and-filers around them.
The potential objective correlation of forces for such factional power struggles is overwhelmingly in our favor. Whether that potential is realized or not is primarily a matter of the subjective preparations. The question, whether the emerging potential new top leadership of labor and socialist organizations will actually move effectively to take that power, will be determined by the extent to which that layer considers itself intellectually equipped to assume such leading positions. If it is so qualified, and if it understands that it has such qualifications, the broad masses will support them in waves.
Broadly speaking, the Labor Committees have published' and have in continued circulation ample analytical and programmatic materials through which to quickly qualify this emerging new leadership for its tasks. What is also wanted is a single statement, a kind of draft resolution such as this present one, which provides a unifying focus for that existing material. This will facilitate the form of rounded strategic discussion among those leaders and their immediate supporters through which they can quickly assemble themselves as a factional striking force to assume leadership of those organizations - or of mass-based factional split-offs which quickly replace the old organizations.
This process itself will slow down the Rockefeller drive. The centrists will be caught between their sycophantish terror of the Rockefellers, on the one side, and fear of the fire burning under their seats from factional ferment in their base. Their capitulation to the Rockefellers will slow down - which is our immediate objective. Meanwhile, we shall be quickly moving toward consolidating leadership of the North American and W estern European workers' movement in the kind of programmatic united front we have proposed The initial factional struggles by the new vanguard force will remoralize broader layers of workers, augmenting our forces, which will moralize still broader layers.
We have little time. We must move ruthlessly. If we do, this tactic provides us with means and time enough to win.
Except for a few key points, the required documented support for the arguments made in the following resolution has either been provided in materials already in circulation, or. in a handful of instances, will have been put into circulation at the time this draft is being published. Since a number of the crucial points of this analysis are still new to workers. we are compelled to include more explanation for those matters than would ordinarily be included in a policy statement. We have minimized the amount of writing required here by referring the reader to the topical bibliography of supporting documentation provided at the end.
Although some aspects of the analysis are unavoidably advanced, except for two of these cases there is nothing which cannot be competently grasped in entirety by the average intelligent worker through a reasonable amount of concentration. In the two cases which are perhaps an exception to that, namely the basic concepts of psychology and a connected notion termed "negentropy," we have done two things. We have concentrated on presenting the concept so that it may be understood competently for purposes of practical use, and have indicated the nature of the more advanced scientific substantiation - for purposes of reference and verification.
W e conclude this foreword with the following piece of advice to the reader. In the course of developing the various points which have to be brought together as a single idea at the end, we are compelled, at most points to take a brief side-road excursion into the immediate sub-topic. The reader's grasp of the material will be helped if he bears in mind that none of these side-roads are really detours. What we are aiming for - and this has been kept in mind at each moment of drafting and editing this document - is a statement of our proposed strategic conception of the way to stop Rockefeller and save humanity in the immediate months ahead. Under such circumstances "theoretical" absolutely does not mean "academic."
The General Strategic Situation
The capitalist system is currently plunging toward the depth-phase of the worst depression in its history. The so-called "Great Depression" of the 1930s was a relatively mild affair by comparison with the monstrous situation looming before us.
The only approximately comparable collapse in modern European history is the so-called "Great Crisis" which ravaged most of the continent from approximately 1560 through approximately 1660, which brought to an end the so-called "medieval" culture of the thirteenth through sixteenth century Renaissance. The emergence of modern capitalism, springing from roots best developed in the Low Countries and England. rescued humanity from that earlier disaster. Unless humanity is rescued from the present capitalist collapse by the establishment of workers' governments in North America and Western Europe during the several years immediately ahead, humanity itself may be virtually extinct by as soon as 1985 or 1990.
The current phase of the depression is shaped in many crucial respects by the willful machinations of supranational agencies headed by the Rockefeller brothers. The Rockefellers' so-called "October Revolution" of 1973, a 400 per cent rise in world market oil prices directed to bankrupting and "restructuring" most of the world, is the immediate trigger and cause for the present form of this crisis Yet, on a deeper level of analysis, the Rockefellers acted only in response to the inevitability of some form of the economic collapse at about this time. In a very narrow sense, the Rockefellers willfullv caused the present misery. To be more exact, they acted to cause the inevitable collapse to occur In a form which was to their overwhelming special advantage.
The Depression Itself
From the broader analytical standpoint of theoretical economics, the present crisis should be defined as the collapse phase of a world depression which began during the 1964-66 wave of recessions. From late 1967 through August, 1971, the capitalist monetary system experienced a rapid sequence of liquidity crises, which culminated in the collapse of the post-war Bretton Woods monetary system during August, 1971. The effort to keep the capitalist economy afloat by patch-work means after that collapse exacerbated the illiquidity of the economy, with accelerating rates of inflation. By late 1972 and early 1973, the effort to maintain the values of both debts and equities under conditions of galloping increases in debt-equity ratios throughout the system, already threatened to bring the system to the point of an inflationary explosion. The failure of the U.S. to adopt temporary stabilizing agreements around S.D.R.'s during the January, 1973
The ordinary misuse of the term paranoia by laymen and by some reckless professionals has nothing to do with this.
All paranoia is nothing but the superimposition of the mother-image-dominated world-outlook of infancy and early childhood upon the real events of the adult world.
The prevalence of this psychopathological trait among so-called normal people is typified by the maudlin sentiment frequently attached to such terms as "mother country," "mother tongue," and the identification of the Central Intelligence Agency as "Mother" among those closely associated with it. This fact has its basis in the process by which new-born infants are transformed into normal, i.e., neurotic, adults. A summary of the main points of that development is a necessary grounding for understanding psychological warfare.
The newborn infant is psychologically purblind. He is incapable, as an infant, of developing rational forms of behavior through individual direct exploration of the world around him. His infant's world, as he begins to become aware of it, centers around either his mother or a mother-surrogate His capacity to survive, insofar as the notion of survival is expressed in his outlook, is his ability to command this central mother figure.
This mother figure is not the mother as an actual person. It is characteristic of neurotic individuals that even into the last years of their lives they are unable to adduce a competent conception of their mother as an actual person from their empirical knowledge of her. Instead of the real mother, their internalized mother-image is a fantastic creature. This fantastic, false image is of such psychological importance that they must suppress recognition of their actual mother in the interest of protecting the image of the fantasy-mother.
The basis for this fantasy is elementary. The role performed by the mother in infancy is immediately acting to control most of those features of the immediate environment which the infant and young Child regard as essentially relevant to their existence. The infant and young child do not see the mother as a person, but as a symbol for the predominant potency of their existence, a potency defined for them by the importance and form of the role she performs. On this account, virtually every child regards his internalized fantasy-mother as a witch. As we have shown elsewhere, all the myths concerning witches and witchcraft conform to the fantastic view of the mother-centered world as seen by the infant and young child. Similarly, belief in magic, astrology, and superstition generally are symptomatic of a severe paranoia of adults, and of the relative backwardness of cultures.
The infantile view of the internalized mother-image as a witch is associated with the notion of the boundaries of the real mother's ostensibly magical powers. These are approximately the boundaries of the family, and of mother's apparent domination of the family. Beyond, the infant or infantile sees the irrational "outer world," from which come the "outsiders," the "strangers," who by virtue of not being subject to mother's witchcraft, are axiomatically malevolent. (The sociological notion of radical-democratic "local community control" is intrinsically a replication of an infantile, paranoid worldoutlook.)
As the child develops, relations with the father, siblings and other persons develop the rudiments of actual consciousness and Ego. As this is accompanied by exploration of the "outer world," the child begins to acquire a sense of rational determination of cause-effect relationships. In the unfortunately rarer and happier instance, in which the extension from the mother to both mother and father is mediated by a loving relationship between the parents, or in which the father shows superior psychic potency, a powerful self-feeding process of general intellectual and moral character development becomes conspicuous by the second through third year of the child's life.
Later, the parental authorities are complemented by surrogate-parent authorities, which generally increase in importance as the child's entry into the "outer world" progresses.
During this process, beginning during early childhood, three contending kinds of internalized influence govern the child's behavior. The first influence is the becoming unconscious need to regard each act as an implicit (or, explicit) propitiation of the witch-mother. This is the unconscious influence associated with the most primitlve root of the Ego, sometimes termed the "Id." At the other extreme, the healthy child is esperiencing the power, tbe creative mental activity, through which it can discover the laws of cause-and-effect universally applicable to a widening world of activity. The child associates this rational quality of self with the power to act lovingly for others generally. This confidence in its capacity to create and accumulate rational knowledge as the guide to behavior is the quality of the child's developing Ego. In between, the child's mind compromises, tending to delimit the exercise of its reason to those forms judgment and behavior which are accepted as rational by social authority. These latter two influences are commonly confused as one, and termed ego- ideals.
Every fascist is a cultural relativist (and every cultural relativist is implicitly-at least-a fascist ideologue). The common psychopathological feature of all the fascist's demands is infantilism. The fascist is a paranoid, who defines himself as such by his attempt to impose the principle of the autonomous extended family, and to block out the reality of a universality and rationality in the "outer world" as a whole. The notorious fact of Hitler's and Rudolf Hess's astrologers exemplifies this superstition of the fascist generally. Nationalism (mother country), racialism (mother), language-group (mother tongue), cultural affinity-groups (family traditions), community (extended family, neighborhood), natural (anti-rationalism), and so forth are all symptoms of potentialities for acute neurosis or semi-psychosis. They are all characteristic of propitiatory-associative paranoid) world-outlooks.