FROM THE FILES OF THE FBI #120
March 5, 1954
[ADDRESS BLOCK BLACKED OUT]
Dear [BLACKED OUT]
Two of your recent articles have brought questions to my mind
that you might consider worth answering in some future column.
The first concerns your definition of a communist.
In 1947 I joined an anti-Communist Party, communist group. It
has since been labled [sic] subversive--and God knows, if the
Communist Party is subversive, the one I joined was twice so; they
even subverted the Communists. You surely know enough abut
communism to realize that I did not believe myself to be
subversive, but instead believed that I was one of _the_
enlightened young men, who, if we could just present our case
adequately enough, would convince all the poor misguided
capitalists that their brutal ways were futile and that by
foregoing them they could create a heaven on earth. I have yet to
meet one of the so-called cynical communists; I've known quite a
few of different leftist persuasions, but each one fervently
believed himself to be an American patriot---and the,
"All-American," to be a traitor, motivated by greed.
I quit the group within a few months, giving these three
reasons: (1) I objected to the group's insistence that
non-communist writers should not be read; (2) I believed they were
wasting time, and should start the revolution immediately; (3) I
didn't believe that good could result from violence. You may note a
lack of consistency in these reasons. I've more recently realized
that I simply lacked the guts required even to be a communist.
From the point on, I justified my being practically a bum, by
the noble ideals, including Marxism, that I aspired to. I wanted
such good things for the world, that people should excuse my not
holding a job, borrowing from them, etc., etc. Besides, some day I
was going to write a book that would achieve the bloodless
revolution.
Then, being a crackpot of the overly intellectual variety, when
the crackpot therapy, "Dianetics," came along, I got involved with
that. But I was unique from the other crackpots I have met in that
field, in that I'm a whiz at reading-comprehension; I finish those
tests that aren't supposed to be finished, in three quarters of the
alloted time, and get _all_ the answers right.
I'll cut this sob-story short. I understood Dianetics, followed
directions, and not surprisingly considering that the technique has
been developed by the empirical "scientific method" from the
ground, up--I got and am getting results.
Okay, what results?
I started as less than a communist and am at this point by
practical definition almost a fascist--this latter qualified by the
realization that the goal-motivated, free society envisioned by our
Constitution is probably the sanest concept of government since the
technically impossible attempts at democracy by the Greeks some
three-thousand years ago.
[next page]
Now to set the stage for my first question, first let me define
communism, fascism, etc. as they are understood in Dianetics. To a
dianeticist, the "natural" functional state of any sane and healthy
person is indicated by the word, "enthusiastic." Dianetics
postulates that the Good Lord did a mighty fine job of constructing
us--enthusiasm as the normal state, then, for emergencies,
different psysiological [sic] adjustments, nervous, muscular,
vascular, glandular take place that are emotionally experienced as,
indicatively: strong interest, mild interest, content,
indifference, boredom, threatening, anger, veiled-hate, fear,
grief, apathy, deepest apathy, death. From any of these
psysiological [sic] adjustments the body is supposed to readjust
itself automatically back up to enthusiasm; from "death," this
seems to involve getting reborn. (You may not like this mechanical
description; I know I don't, but it's convenient) Unfortunately,
this readjustment is accompanied by several side effects that man,
not understanding, has decided to dispense with: apathy comes off
with deep sighs; grief with bawling; fear with perspiration,
"hysterical" laughter, etc; anger with violent activity. Edietic
day-dreams on the entire depressive situation seem a necessary part
of reattaining enthusiasm. And every single damned one of these
things is treated by our society as uncouth, animal, something to
be ashamed of, or a sign of weakness. Result: people don't readjust
back up to enthusiasm, but instead, by the time they are in their
teens, they are, on the average, chronically depressed to anger,
and by the time they reach maturity, they've become
"intellectuals"--too beat to fight openly, they start undermining,
with big words and twisted conceptions.
Political states are reflections of emotional states. Our nation
was conceived against a background of unbelievable freedom and
potential wealth by men vigorous and alive enough to carve a nation
from wilderness. Further, they were coalesced by a goal, thus
mingling and augmenting their strength. They created a nation
reflecting their temperament.
Time, and to a great measure, freedom passes. The sick mores of
Europe and its culture find their way to a no longer so vigorous
United States. By the time of Teddy Roosevelt, the temperament of
the people finds best expression in the threat, "Carry a big
stick!," and in the anger--fascism--of the Cuban war. And fascism
breeds veiled-hate and fear--communism: hiding behind
makeup-falsies-perverted ethics-foreign culture-intellectualism, to
strike out deviously at anything strong: as Marx would destroy FREE
enterprise, from behind the facade of a glorious sounding,
mathematically brilliant, intellectual tour de force that seeks to
impose nothing other than the CONTROLS which destroy that greatest
beauty and strength of all--life. Next step down: the apathy of
India, and until recently of China, who I believe took an upward
step with communism, surged up to fascism, and may damn well, if
encouraged, continue right on up to free enterprise.
Here, at last, is the question:
To me a Communist is a sick person, who, I know can be cured.
His sickness is, however, virulently contagious--yet! the most
direct source of his sickness is the fascist, the man who scares
the bejesus out of him. I recognize McCarthy as a far healthier man
than a communist, and as a guidon of a vigorous resurgence of our
nation. Yet, I know damn well that McCarthy has created more
communists in this country, with the exception of Hitler, than any
man since John Wesley managed to get castrated by some Washington
businessmen twenty-odd years ago. Particularly, among Jews, who
five years ago would have knocked your block off it you spouted
communism--but who now, seeing in McCarthy the rising American
Hitler, and smelling the stench of the furnaces from just beyond
tomorrow, are now muttering unfamiliar phrases about controlled
economy, or, "wasn't Jack London's writing marvelous?," or, "you
know, so-and-so (a commie) makes some sense at that...," to such an
extent that since getting my boost from Dianetics, I feel nauseated
trying to talk to these people
[next page]
who used to feel nauseated trying to talk to me.
Healthier than a communist, yes!--but Mr. McCarthy has split
this nation into a million suspicious segments, while coalescing
into a firm legion the previously constantly inter-squabbling
factions of leftists.
I was raised under a dictatorship, my grandfather's.
Should I now, recognising the psychotic slime I became under
that dictatorship to be a devious poison, ally myself with the
overt blackjack of McCarthyism? Would that, according to your
lights, make an honest American of me, or would it not be a
perversion of honesty itself? Further, those persons above anger,
are they failing their duty as citizens, when they fail to ally
themselves with the anti-communist movement which relative to
themselves is destruction incarnate?--or put it this way:
Jefferson, were he alive today, but retaining the sanity of
yesterday, would despise communism. But do you believe that he
would deny the communists freedom of thought and belief, or would
he view them as he viewed other men: when sick, sick through
controls; when revolting, serving a valuable function as a symptom
of a sickness in the society, NOT to be cured with the mankind-old
cyclic fascist-commie-fascist-commie cure of more CONTROLS, but
with the new, 1776, United States cure of great, inspiring,
rewarding, and ever higher GOALS and ever more FREEDOM to attain
them?
I'll answer this question for myself, by myself, but I'd like to
know your thoughts on the matter.
Second question: How? How the blue-blazes can a hospitalization
insurance policy be put on the market, that would pay for lengthy
hospitalization? If you insure a group, frequently a single injury
will wipe out the premium that was paid for the whole group. From
that time on, you are covering any subsequent injuries that may
occur in that group, with money gained from premiums paid by other
groups--or by other people, for entirely different lines of
insurance. A kid's playground in New Jersey was insured early last
year. The first day the playground opened, a boy broke his leg. The
doctor's bill was more than the entire season's premium, yet the
protection lasted for the rest of the year and paid for several
other injuries.
Or, let's look at this way. The only money that comes into an
insurance company is the money that people pay as premiums, plus
the relatively small amount that can be gained by very careful
investments of a certain part of those premiums. Some of this money
is spent on administrative costs; a little goes to the
stockholders; some goes into a legally required reserve. The rest
goes to pay loses [sic].
The common practice is that if over 50% of the premium for a
line (a _type_ of policy) is spent on losses, the rate is raised or
the conditions of the policy restricted. If only 30% of the premium
is being spent on losses, however, the premium is lowered or the
conditions of the line broadened. 50% over losses might seem like a
hell of a large margin of profit, but when you consider that in
some companies it costs an average $2. (sometimes more) to process
every slip of paper concerning policies that comes into the
company--and many of these slips mean money going out to an
assured--that grand profit soon starts looking very meager indeed.
I would say that on the average, the insurance men rank among
the most moral and civic minded men in the country, and would not
be associated with [illegible word]
[next page]
They recognise the moral crime of cancelling a policy when a
person becomes chronically ill, but they further recognise the yet
greater moral crime of charging a premium that could cover chronic
illness, and by so doing, completely removing accident and health
insurance from the financial reach of the many people who can now
receive at least some benefit from it.
[BLACKED OUT] if you or anyone else can find a means of
providing broad health coverage at a premium rate that people can
afford--just mention it in dulcet tones around an insurance
company. The rigorous competition that exists between these
companies will have them all providing it within a year.
The insurance companies are in the same position as the Red
Cross. They provide a tremendous and frequently inspired service
for our nation, but they are big, and thus a target, and a few
missfits [sic] make them appear fair game for anyone wanting to
take potshots. But what's the matter with a few
potshots--except--the unprotected lives, homes, and health of those
who pay attention to them.
I'm not going to sign this letter for the simple reason that I
can't see how my signature could do anyone any good, and I can see
how it might do me a lot of harm.
My best regards, and respect to you, sir. May the need to avoid
signing letters, soon become a vague and amusing memory.
P.S. One of the greatest rewards of my boost by Dianetics, is
the pleasure I can now get from reading [BLACKED OUT] column. That
guy used to scare hell out of me; I could sick simply by reading a
few paragraphs of his writing. Now, although I darned frequently
disagree with him, I get an invariable lift and a yak from the
vigour with which he expresses his point of view. And also find a
wealth of sense in his writing, that I never before suspected to
exist.
You, even while I was a commy, I could read. I thought, however,
that you were a sadly warped and treacherous sort of soul.
