"Well you heard about the Boston...
It's not one of those
Well, talkin bout the midnight...sh...
The one that closed the bedroom door
I'm called the hit-and-run raper in anger
The knife-sharpened tippie-toe...
Or just the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler
You know, the one you never seen before
"So if you ever meet the midnight rambler
Coming down your marble hall
Well he's pouncing like a proud black panther
Well, you can say I, I told you so
Well, don't you listen for the midnight rambler
Play it easy, as you go
I'm gonna smash down all your plate glass windows
Put a fist, put a fist through your steel-plated door"
--Rolling Stones, "Midnight Rambler" (1)
Attempting to ride post-911 market demand for books about "why do they [non-Amerikans--ed.] hate us [Amerikans--ed.]," New York University Press has a section of a book titled Anti-Americanism obviously referring to MIM and its ideological predecessors inside U.$. borders. Within that book section, a female writer's article comes first:
"In the late 1960s and early 1970s, some black and white New Leftists, led by young macho guys, took to spelling America with a 'K.' That 'K' gave off intense heat, recalling the bonfires of lynching, the white hoods of the Klan, the swastika, and the skinheads. It was a powerful condensation symbol, because it communicated so much with so little: anger at the exploitation, injustice, and suffering supervised by the rulers of America. . . the 'K' condemned the whole of America."(2)Linda Gordon ends her essay concluding that anti-Amerikanism is counter-productive to the anti-war movement. Her attack on so-called macho radicals reminds MIM to write against pseudo-feminism for the youth most likely to be deemed an intellectual threat to the imperialist state.
The authors of Anti-Americanism admit that the question was Third World males toting guns--Mao, Che and Ho in addition to Huey Newton. The key question is how to empathize with people in their thinking: Is Linda Gordon or the white female generally really coming up with a theory and strategy against patriarchy or is she using a cover to avoid considering that she is not in tune with Mao and Huey because of rich white background, not biology. The Euro-Amerikan female's brothers cannot avoid considering Mao, and wondering why they do not feel in tune with him, but the white female has a potential out, a return to patriotism via gender identity. The female can think, "I just don't feel this, because I am female," when in fact she is just rich and white.
In the midst of the Iraq War, lesbian Mary Cheney became pregnant. She attacked Democrats on the Iraq War.(3) Did the lesbian pregnancy serve as political correctness capital for endorsing a war against the Third World?
For political market research reasons, MIM knows in advance why Gordon casually threw out that word "macho." It was a scathing aside not meant to draw too much attention, which would cause people to notice that she does not offer any analysis of patriarchy and a strategy to defeat it, if that is in fact the high-minded reason Gordon does not agree with Mao and Huey. From decades experience, MIM can say that most references in movements and writings contain no real theory and strategy of feminism. Pseudo-feminism has become a convenient backdoor patriotism, most recently in the war on the Taliban, another case of gun-toting Third World males.
Despite knowing of many similar articles to Gordon's from long investigation, we can try to empathize with people on both sides of this question, before returning to our third position. That is to say we will consider that opposing sides of political questions actually come to differ for underlying biological reasons or that macho ideology takes precedence over other ideological questions, if biology is not the cause of differing perceptions of Huey Newton and the like.
MIM believes this whole question is actually a misdirection. On the one side we have Gordon with nothing to say. On the other side, we have a Black Panther male who said the position of the female in the Movement is "supine" while another Panther male complained against males acting "pussy- whipped." We would say that when it comes to anti-Amerikanism, gender is a misplaced question. The downfall of patriarchy will come paradoxically as a result of these "macho" movements Gordon is talking about.
Nonetheless, if we were to try to oppose MIM, how would we go about empathizing with what anti-macho critics are thinking? How shall we characterize these feelings as political constellations?
Did Elaine Brown turn the Black Panthers into a charity group as good as dead? Why did post-psychiatric analysis of females appear in the press against the Panthers? Is it an accident that the author of Women and Madness is now recruiting for Amerikan and Zionist intelligence services?
If most men vote for the Republicans, does that mean Democrats can never have an anti-war position "with spine"? Is testosterone necessary not just to start a war but to stop a war too? Is that why the Vietnam War stopped, testosterone in Vietnam and the Weatherman? If there is no draft of young men, is there no "Movement" with a capital "M", '60s people do tell?
Is the imperialist country heterosexual female stuck in a hopeless position of showing "left face" as liberal Democrats if political at all, all as a way of courting the Republican males? Does it then become OK to become a Republican upon marriage? Is that what is really going on? Or is there more to the liberal Democratic stream of Euro- Amerikan females than a temporary dating strategy for dinner time conversation, caring for mother and supporting young children?
When this reviewer tries to picture other people, and whether the gender question as pointed to by Gordon is really at work or not, she tries to picture what life would be like with 20 times more or 20 times less sex drive. How would this change people? We can consider Axl Rose of "Guns N' Roses" and Julia Kristeva, the psychoanalyst.
Guns n' Roses considers whether the Euro-Amerikan male would be better off without the female:
"I said they'reIn the background of the song females cackle about how Axl Rose is always asking for "sex, sex, sex." Then the song continues on how Guns n' Roses sees a typical female philosophy of life:
They're leaving it all up to me
When all I needed was clarity
And someone to tell me
What the fuck is going on
"Slippin' farther an farther away
It's a miracle how long we can stay
In a world our minds created
In a world that's full of shit
. . .
"Ya live your life like it's a coma
So won't you tell me why we'd wanna
With all the reasons you give it's
It's kinda hard to believe
But who am I to tell you that I've seen
any reason why you should stay
Maybe we'd be better off without you anyway"
"You got a one way ticketThere are 544 Google entries combining "Axl Rose" and "misogyny." If there really is macho philosophy, then this song is it. Listening to this song a few times might clarify something for those seeking to understand what it is about.
On your last chance ride
Gotta one way ticket
To your suicide
Gotta one way ticket
An there's no way out alive
An all this crass communication
That has left you in the cold
Isn't much for consolation
When you feel so weak and old
But if home is where the heart is
Then there's stories to be told
No you don't need a doctor
No one else can heal your soul
"Got your mind in submission
Got your life on the line
But nobody pulled the trigger
They just stepped aside
They be down by the water
While you watch 'em waving goodbye
They be callin' in the morning
They be hangin' on the phone
They be waiting for an answer
When you know nobody's home
And when the bell's stopped ringing
It was nobody's fault but your own
There were always ample warnings
There were always subtle signs
And you would have seen it comin'
But we gave you too much time
And when you said that no one's listening
Why'd your best friend drop a dime
Sometimes we get so tired of waiting
For a way to spend our time
An 'It's so easy' to be social
'It's so easy' to be cool
Yeah it's easy to be hungry
When you ain't got shit to lose
And I wish that I could help you
With what you hope to find
But I'm still out here waiting
Watching reruns of my life
When you reach the point of breaking
Know it's gonna take some time
To heal the broken memories
That another man would need
Just to survive" (4)
There is another discussion of the female as living in a coma or least that is how this reviewer takes lengthy passages in Julia Kristeva's work talking about stifling of humyn development and interaction when encountering someone who seems stuck behind embryotic tissue. According to Kristeva, the heterosexual female has a near hopeless task in psycho-sexual development and Kristeva ends up writing a book on patriotism, no surprise to MIM as we seem in broad agreement about the intellectual and emotional territory that needs covering if there is to be deemed a connection of gender to politics, patriotism and liberation.
Kristeva talks about how the society set itself up to repress the maternal and matriarchy and the consequences of that set-up. She said rituals consider the female body needing of control appear. Now the problem becomes that to be "with" others, we have to grab hold of the feminine inside ourselves, and she says she does not want a political unity based on appreciation of the father above brothers.(5)
Politically, one can see what happens if men do not embrace the feminine side of their own persynalities. A Black Panther calls for "supine" females. This evokes a counter-response and increases apprehensions that males just "cannot get it," the difference that is. So whether gender is really there as a factor or not, it will certainly appear to be. Since the vast majority of bourgeois history is about male heroes, then there will be a problem when those portraits do not seem humyn to females. Likewise, in political organizations today, there can be a pressure for macho postures, especially where membership in a group comes with perceived dating benefits, a marketing strategy. It was a great act of integrity for Huey Newton to knock down anti-gay ideology. We can be sure there was social role and dating-related pressure otherwise.
So what happens when Axl Rose tries to understand what is going on with the female mind? Can he look inside himself to reach it or is there nothing there to reach? Is there overlap apart from pure domination or would Axl Rose "be better off without you anyway." Does he end up imposing control of the female body alone, no matter what? Kristeva it seems pictures Axl Rose and the female he has encountered, and claims a possibility for looking within, but in later life, without politics, especially without Marxism. She advocates internal reflection, psychological processes, quasi-religion, individuality and a softening of edges by taking gender out of politics. Of course, her reasons for antipolitics are political and that is what interests MIM.
The way Kristeva puts the question is that she's against downgrading the individual, but that is on account of how she sees the female individual asserting herself:
"This interest for the love discourse and for psychoanalysis and art even can be considered as political in the deeper and larger sense of the world, social and the like. What I wanted to say is that it seems to me that if artists or psychoanalysts act politically they act politically through an intervention on an individual level. And it can be a main political concern to give value to the individual. My reproach to some discourses with which I am disillusioned is that they don't consider the individual as a value."(6)This is a matter of sales packaging. We can look at it as valuing the individual or devaluing the possibilities of females in politics. Politics requires rallying a group for a direction.
So Kristeva seems to be saying that the result of sending females as females into politics is disaster, just not directly. What needs to be brought out from the male inside and with females is not appropriate for politics she says, unless that politics is simply individualism, with no feminist direction. It were as if Kristeva is saying that if one were to generalize, it would come out as Axl Rose says. In "Black Sun," Kristeva says, "one cannot overemphasize the tremendous psychic, intellectual, and affective effort a woman must make in order to find the other sex as erotic object." Yikes, it goes so far that "very often, either phallic, professional, or maternal compensation, or else clitoral pleasure are frigidity's hermetic veil." Axl Rose can express himself as a group member, but Kristeva says females cannot: there is no way to be "with" Axl Rose in public, only as individuals or males. This also means that the female cannot as a matter of constitution challenge patriotism successfully, which is why Kristeva says MIM- style internationalism is doomed. Bringing the female to politics as a group to challenge fuzzy love of country is impossible she says. There is no psycho-sexual economy for that.
Of course, MIM tells people to read Catharine MacKinnon, to take up theory in the hopes of forming feminist strategy. What strikes the reviewer about Kristeva is her generosity, her willingness to communicate to the point of saying whether one sees it as a "defect" or not, there is a certain impossibility in the female condition that limits the possibilities for change that she herself once sought. Otherwise, it would be difficult to explain why common patterns of retrieving the female from archival emotional storage do not exist.
To restate, the female is bound to the home, the parochial and the patriotic disproportionately compared with the male says Kristeva. When MIM speaks of the "principal contradiction," the pseudo-feminists are not just a "cop-out." She is saying it goes further than that. Nor is the white female just equally regressive via a concept such as gender aristocracy according to Kristeva.
We agree with MacKinnon that individualism cannot be feminism. Nonetheless, it is tempting to say that individualism erodes a patriarchal structure dominated by Axl Rose clarity, but there is no way that Kristeva says individualist strategy can be checked or confirmed. It could be that individualism leads individuals to be misogyny supporters. This is also connected to a previous criticism MIM made, that for Kristeva, there is no accessible factual world except the individual. We have no real way of collecting data on the effectiveness of her work. In contrast, we find it absurd to assert that the anti-war movement for instance is an individualist product that cannot be grasped and even measured outside psycho-analysis. So here the female must choose: is the anti-war movement recalling the feminine as Kristeva might ask or is it really just intra-male generality? Even if we concede to Kristeva that motherhood in connection to sending children to war is not the location of the suppressed female is there nothing at all an anti-war movement can contribute to gender liberation directly?
MIM's critics might also do well to read Kristeva's comments on Islam. We call it Islam, but actually she is talking about terrorism including Palestinian terrorism: "This terrorist violence, which is inevitably directed against the regimes of current bourgeois democracies, assigns itself a program of liberation that consists of an order even more repressive and sacrificial than the one it is fighting. Indeed, the object of female terrorists (sic.) groups' aggression is not the various totalitarian regimes, but the liberal regimes that are becoming increasingly democratic."(7) This is another way of saying that she is neutral in politics, but the participation of females in politics challenging the order is a disaster. At first it seems like a contradiction of her call to individualism, but in the end, the call to individualism is actually subordinate to her analysis that men can do politics, and the female is actually inherently more reactionary than the male. She does not say it in the open. We only read it in-between the lines: "I am not in favor of decimating men or of believing patriarchy a horror."(8) Her statement is another warning to those resisting the MIM gender line. This is where MIM's critics may end up.
Kristeva also has good reasons for opposing anti-individualist feminism. According to Kristeva, in France, what she has seen is that to create such a movement, the females center on biology. We agree with her completely that this same movement bought into a biological explanation of power inequality, including scientific ability's distribution. So Kristeva is saying, if we put anti-Liberalism in imperialist country females' hands, they will blow it "maintaining women in a position of inferiority, and in any case of marginality, to reserving them the place of the childish, of the unsayable, or of the hysteric."(9) She goes on to add that as of yet she has yet to see a way for females to attain scientific prowess via a mere switch of roles in the family and she shudders at the idea of test-tube babies.(10)
Nonetheless, she does try to consider what would happen if someone of female biology played a different role, and Kristeva's concerns lend support to MIM's discussion of the gender aristocracy and gender oppression as social and not biological. For instance, what happens if we do without MIM's line on the gender aristocracy? Are we not giving up the basketball equivalent of the defensive rebound? When Amerikan females are in Abu Ghraib sexually torturing Iraqi males, (and we leave aside the more serious matter of outright killings), we can pass it over as "politics" or we can grab the chance to talk about gender and gain a politically expanded male empathy for female oppression. It is not by psycho-analysis, but by group level dynamics that have popped up into clear sight.
Also timely is the discussion of how the NSA controls imperialist country men through heterosexual sex, as self-documented by the NSA's John Perkins, who the NSA recruited with sex. This is another point that the majoritarian 1960s crowd must suppress in fear of offending political correctness. Gender oppression is supposedly not political, so the state's involvement against males is an impossibility. The difference between anti-Amerikanism now and the 1960s is that spies now play a much larger role in the anti- Amerikan movement of the imperialist countries, a majority role, because of the small size of the vehicle of change. The spy role is no longer a rarity in a sea of millions of 1960s radicals, but the rule among those so-called macho intellectuals who are a threat today.
On this point, it is also important to do one's own research and not accept the wisdom of older people, even senior professors. Often times, intellectuals are able to escape into their own easy worlds free of struggle. A youth applying knowledge in struggle will know much more about intelligence than a senior professor fussing over political correctness simplification to ease the routine of his day. As just one example, there was a senior professor who showed MIM "left face" on the intelligence question in academia, often euphemised as "classified research." He asked the MIM comrade about it, while holding in his hand a letter from someone working in intelligence; his top or near top student, he had recruited from the CIA; his colleague in his department most similar to him in credentials and subject matter of interest to intelligence started public work for military intelligence and proceeded to a covert tie to the CIA. That's not even all of it. It was an example of someone with the ability but not the desire to apply himself for progressive struggle. Thus, young dragons should not be snowed by people calling them "paranoid," no matter how senior or seemingly knowledgeable.
Young dragons both male and female may find reading John Perkins on the NSA revealing, particularly on the sense of impermanence or the possibility of stringing someone along sexually. It's not a "normal" relationship and suggests another possibility for empathy expansion. The NSA does not recruit Main Street South Dakota necessarily, but for some reason Perkins found himself valued for analytical skills and he paints a racy picture that obviously sells books.
The Perkins example also points out the correct aspect of MIM's line against Liberal division of females. For any dragon male or female, it would be far better to be seeing prostitutes than to get sucked into abandoning revolutionary possibilities by joining the NSA, especially through an emotional connection.
Revolutionary females do exist contrary to the anti-macho line. For revolutionary males and revolutionary females both there is a shortage of potential mates. In the old-fashioned language, there is no 'ho or pimp good enough for our revolutionary dragons. Somehow we will still have to stay out of the clutches of state-agent manipulators.
Today among Liberal men stuck in political correctness and the cult of Mary, the female can do no wrong and thus we do not struggle with her. MIM would say the only correct way not to struggle is to "write off." The opposite strategy of keeping everyone around and watering down struggle is wrong. The default Euro-Amerikan female is a bitch. Only the exceptional male or female is revolutionary in the imperialist countries. While feminism warns against male biology, pseudo-feminism disarms revolutionary male dragons faced with spies and bitches, and that is a non-working strategy in a low-tide of proletarian politics such as now in the imperialist countries.
Anti-anti-Amerikan campaigns started systematically with the State Department of Eisenhower's second term as president. The intelligence collection advanced steadily, but the anti-Amerikan movement of the imperialist countries receded till recently.
Aside from the NSA example, there is the foreign competition for blackmail prospects. In another article we explained how the CIA recruited as assets all the intellectuals with a pulse who were not for Stalin. The U.$. media is more forthright about how Russians are competing in the same space.
Recently, the media knew enough to play down the following story:
"'He turned out to be a strong man, raped 10 women,' the Russian president was quoted by Russian media as saying at a meeting in Moscow with Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert. 'I never would have expected it of him. He has surprised us all, we all envy him!'" (11)The point is that a spy chief sees the political fallout for an Israeli president and makes light of it. However, we may ask the real reason. The mass manufactured pc reason would be that Putin is an old-style sexist of the worst sort. Alternatively, we smash political correctness and admit the possibility of blackmail operations for political gain.
Old Soviet bloc spies know about sexual blackmail operations, according to Western media. There is a whole strategy centering in intelligence strongholds. CNN reported on "Romeo" spies who date secretaries at embassies or even any government official, anybody but a manual worker. One manager goes so far as to deny that entire dating agencies arose to create such dating relationships for spies,(12) but the location of some well-known such agencies suggests to MIM otherwise.
Ironically, female spies play a greater role in "macho" politics today than in the 1960s and open up another gender dynamic. This is a subject that only MIM will touch as other parties rely on funding and numbers connected to easy rules for political correctness. The line of others that there is a revolutionary majority and that MIM is "paranoid" plays right into the preferences of U.$. intelligence agencies. Here is what one expose of the KGB had to say:
"To understand Soviet intelligence operations between the wars, it is frequently necessary to enter a world of smoke and mirrors where the target is as much the product of Bolshevik delusions as of real counter-revolutionary conspiracy. The Soviet propensity to conspiracy theory derived both from the nature of the one-party state and from its Marxist-Leninist ideology. All authoritarian regimes, since they regard opposition as fundamentally illegitimate, tend to see their opponents as engaged in subversive conspiracy."(13)In contrast, the NSA and CIA exude an ultra-sexually liberated energy. While "Marxist-Leninists" are "paranoid," good Liberals recruited to the NSA a talented mathematician who had sex with chickens and dogs till he was 19.(14) The famous sexual so-called radical Marcuse was from U.$. intelligence.(15)
Long before there was a MIM, spies targeted people of low ranks, so young dragons should beware. The facts might stun stupid Liberals out of their complacency. For example, photographs of gay activity arose for a clerk for a British Navy official. "The Second Chief Directorate (SCD) went to great pains to compromise foreign diplomats and Western politicians visiting Moscow by using female or male 'swallows' to seduce them, photographing their sexual liaisons and then blackmailing them into 'cooperation.'"(16) Of course, alcohol was another course of action.
These tactics have somewhat reduced value today, because gay sex is not the scandal it was up till the 1960s; although, a majority of politicians would still feel the sting. Extra-marital affairs that the FBI found Martin Luther King in while the KGB also sought to attack him are also now in the majority among U.$. adults. The KGB's goal was to discredit Martin Luther King along the same lines that the CP=U$A sought to discredit MIM--to drive support to other causes. So what happens is simply a reversal of blackmail tactics, in which a MIM comrade is not caught in gay behavior but actually anti-gay behavior where he is supposedly trying to "reform." As soon as we realize that this game can be played both ways, we realize what sorts of things are hopeless terrains for struggle--lifestyle terrains that divide individuals and leave the oppressors in power.
Sexual blackmail is another reason it is wrong to predicate the revolution on career ladder resources or public politicians. The KGB scored easily on politicians, who required a public image for holding office and salaries. People who read the Sword and the Shield already know that intelligence agencies can send wave after wave of sexual, financial and alcohol attackers. In contrast, the proletariat is not scandalized by gay sex, alcohol, rape rumors, extra-marital affairs etc.--lifestyle politics, because the proletariat is the class "with nothing to lose but its chains." So these lifestyle attacks by the imperialist state fail because the revolutionary vehicle has no special interests and cannot be lifestyled into capitulation.
Today, our most well-known parallel to the Cold War lifestyle spying is the Abu Ghraib prison. There, sexually tortured Iraqis are high-risk for suicide upon release in connection to sexual dishonorment. Many proletarians would rather die than aid the imperialist race toward social decadence. It is a point that has to be handled somehow.
An historical examination would show that what is considered lifestyle blackmail varies by time and country. One blackmail operation involving a mere abortion in Italy was thought to be a good way to create an agent. Abortion was criminally scandalous at the time. In other operations, sexual photographs, a fabricated rape, a fabricated abortion and mere prostitution agitation were dumped on Italians.(17)
Today, there are more spies than ever, but already by the late 1950s, the KGB had a "secretaries offensive" that involved seducers willing to go so far as marry their targets.(18) It is known that many drug problems and suicides arose from such operations. There was also a documented case of an Italian Maoist activist being a target of bribery(19) already back in the 1970s, not to mention the whole phony Maoist party the Dutch had.
We also know that the KGB had fewer resources than today's CIA and NSA, so our young dragons should think it over. If the KGB was going after secretaries in government offices, what would spy agencies do to people considered more of a threat or potential asset? MIM talks about the lumpen and intellectuals, but intellectuals who can string a sentence together, hand out literature, fly the red flag and see into important intelligence assets will have higher value than secretaries in government. This has to do not with paranoia or attitude, but the resources available for spying and what sounds good in an office memo. Targeting communists and "terrorists" is always going to sound good to easily excitable politicians.
Perhaps comments such as Linda Gordon's will happen less frequently if men refuse the gambit of gender and point to class and nation only. We call that position "two-strand reductionist," a common de facto view among pseudo-communists unable to grapple with the MIM gender line. We advocate a "three-strand" approach that includes gender.
In conclusion, MIM does not believe there is such a thing as "macho" revolutionary anti-Amerikanism. However, we are willing to consider it. We keep the gender ideas of others in mind as we do our work. We are much more concerned that the anti-Amerikan movement understands the security threats of today than in publishing political correctness fairytales in academic presses.
2. Linda Gordon, "Hating Amerika: Anti-Americanism and the American Left," Andrew Ross and Kristin Ross eds., Anti-Americanism (NY: New York University Press, 2004), p. 274.
5. Julia Kristeva, "Strangers to Ourselves," in Kelly Oliver, ed.,
The Portable Kristeva, (NY: Columbia University Press, 1997), p. 290. 6. Julia Kristeva, "Tales of Love," Ibid., p. 347.
7. Julia Kristeva, "New Maladies of the Soul," in Kelly Oliver, ed., The Portable Kristeva, (NY: Columbia University Press, 1997), p. 362.
8. Ibid., p. 379.
9. Ibid., p. 371.
10. Ibid., p. 375.
11. "Putin praises sexual prowess of Israeli president," http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1927726,00.html
Other reports refer to female versions of Romeo that managers found proportionately less useful in the sense that they had more reticence about leaving their targets.
"Romeo spies" is a worthy topic of further investigation.
13. The book on supposedly the greatest undermining of the KGB in history: Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB (NY: Basic Books, 1999), p. 31.
14. Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB (NY: Basic Books, 1999), p. 178.
16. Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB (NY: Basic Books, 1999), p. 400, 463, 478. One French officer simply shot himself after being blackmailed, an example of the seriousness of sexual blackmail questions. Another two deaths in a compromised situation, p. 475.
17. Ibid., p. 478-9.
18. Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret HIstory of the KGB (NY: Basic Books, 1999), pp. 445-.
19. Ibid., p. 482.