This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
ProxifyAnonymous ProxyGet more access, faster, without ads. Subscribe now!
Location:       Manage cookies
Show this form Remove titles Less caching Hide useragent Encode URL's

Sign up now to remove these ads and get special access.
We all have something to hide

Author Message
It's Right to Rebel! Forums Index > Anuncios / Announcements  ~  regarding June 3 MIM Chair note
IRTR35
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 9 am  [Reply with quote]



Joined: 19 Jan 2006

I apologize to readers: This isn't the kind of writing that normally appears on IRTR. I'm having to write this because people are making provocations and perhaps forcing others to address IRTR, and IRTR is being dragged into something. When this is revolved, IRTR will be able to do work with fewer interruptions.

IRTR was never led or organized by MIM but broke with a cell at etext.org in February for specific documented and principled line reasons. IRTR's criticism of MIM was confined to certain things IRTR identified. None of these had anything to do with First Nations. I have to point this out, not only because I don't want inaccurate information to be distorting politics and security questions, but also because various people have inaccurately portrayed the extent of IRTR's criticism of MIM and even taken a Liberal security approach to IRTR's break with MIM and questioned IRTR's motives for that despite what is clearly written on this website. I'm referring to various people, more than two. Nobody in particular need feel singled out here, but they should realize what they are doing and how IRTR is unable to distinguish them from others if it is to be consistent.

IRTR didn't drop a one-liner against MIM and shut up shop. In contrast, others did drop one-liners against IRTR while discouraging people from working with it. This is contrary to MIM's policy before fall 2006. People who do know what MIM has said about one-liners and the countless statements on MIM's website about how to approach infiltration questions haven't studied enough. The entirety of http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/howdoweknowspies.html is correct.

The enemy can manufacture all kinds of illusions. It's important that everyone understand that I don't think of things in terms of "paranoia" on anyone's part. I see incongruous perceptions created by differences in knowledge, communication difficulties, incorrect responses to things real or perceived, and probably provocations. It is understandable that different people may have different perceptions. Provocateurs may have manipulated perceptions. Because of, not in spite of, this, it is important to stick to a correct security approach. Nobody is going to get a pass for an incorrect line, and incorrect approaches to security have to be discouraged as a matter of what is in the interests of the proletariat as a whole. Even if an organization was forced to support an incorrect line or take a certain approach, it isn't an example IRTR can uphold. I am confident that MIM at one point would have agreed that this is the correct approach. MIM has stressed repeatedly the importance of criticizing incorrect ideas as an approach to struggle and infiltration questions.

IRTR has no special insight into reclaiminglands.jpg. Either the line reflected is incorrect or it isn't. I noticed with a quick search that two reactionary blogs attacking Ward Churchill have mentioned MIM Art Ministry's work, but I don't see any criticism of insensitivity to First Nations. IRTR does have a text-only archive of www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/ and can say that as of April there was a link to a "reclaiminglands.jpg" ("Reclaiming indigenous lands") on http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/art/index.html if that information is of interest to anyone, but the text-only archive doesn't contain the image file, so it isn't possible to say if a file identical to the one now at http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/art/reclaiminglands.jpg was there in April. I may be able to determine what binary files were on MIM's site at earlier points, but unless there is a specific question about that, I'm not going to bother. IRTR doesn't believe reclaiminglands.jpg resembles MIM Art Ministry's work. MIM should examine the entirety of MIM Art Ministry's blog and decide for itself what if anything MIM Art Ministry has to do with First Nations and what things are acceptable coming from a supposed Maoist minister. IRTR is under no obligation to explain cryptic statements appearing on MIM Art Ministry's blog that may reflect an incorrect approach to security, at best. IRTR could make claims about what Mousnonya said to it in e-mail as early as whenever, but it won't prove anything conclusively for others.

IRTR was going to put up its text-only archive of etext to contribute to its preservation, but there was no immediate need to have a duplicate copy on MIM's site on the Internet. If MIM would like IRTR to put up the archive, that can happen tomorrow. It wouldn't be a big burden to IRTR. It would be a static archive. IRTR doesn't need to call itself "MIM" or update the site. Putting up a binary archive would be more difficult.

As MIM Art Ministry has been so good to clarify after certain problems appeared and appeared again, IRTR has nothing to do with MIM Art Ministry. MIM Art Ministry isn't IRTR's responsibility, any more than it is the responsibility of communists generally to pay attention to the work of those claiming to be Maoist, and certainly no more than MIM is responsible. If MIM is seriously suggesting it hasn't been looking at its Art Ministry's videos and writing, now would be a good time. It may take several hours tops but will be time well spent if the inquiry in the MIM Chair statement is that serious. The issue isn't Mousnonya's "political background," but Mousnonya's and MIM Art Ministry's line. The only people who have talked about Mousnonya's background are Mousnonya and MIM, to the effect of excusing Mousnonya's line. It is unclear why Mousnonya should be treated any different than others with a retrograde line. IRTR has dealt with others who gave impressions of themselves (unstable, illiterate, egocentric, etc.) that would lead undiscerning people into tolerating incorrect ideas or errors. IRTR is basically being pressured to focus on backgrounds and even take a psychological approach to infiltration.

IRTR already had a lengthy struggle with MIM Art Ministry, in which it made things crystal clear to both MIM Art Ministry and etext-MIM. Nihilists may want to deny what was said, even what is right on web pages, but IRTR isn't going to be bothered with this anymore. IRTR isn't the one keeping things inflamed with this MIM Art Ministry business. IRTR has already said what it has to say. If MIM continues being Liberal and letting MIM Art Ministry say things on its behalf and refusing to address most of IRTR's criticism even indirectly, it will not be question of individual people or ministries needing to be purged. IRTR has already said MIM has become revisionist and explained why. (That is, the MIM cell IRTR knows about. IRTR only knows what it can see, so IRTR uses "MIM," "etext-MIM," "etext-based cell" and other variations interchangeably.) I'm not even sure most of what MIM Art Ministry has written is MIM Art Ministry's fault. MIM Art Ministry did ask MIM repeatedly to clarify its position and opinion of its work. MIM has made errors related to allowing Liberalism under the pretext of centralism difficulties and needs to correct those. There are also specific line questions IRTR has already addressed, questions intertwined with cardinal questions but also other questions that there need to be bars for. People can pay lip service to cardinal principles at times but oppose them, but in regard to cardinal principles, what is necessary isn't the same thing as what is sufficient. Cardinal principles don't mean everything else goes. This isn't just about MIM Art Ministry, but MIM. If MIM Art Ministry wants to say some of its line is consistent with MIM's current line, IRTR isn't going to dispute that, because MIM's line has changed, in a way that goes beyond tolerating contradictory lines. Whether Mousnonya should simply be in MIM circles or not isn't something IRTR cares about. The issue is MIM's line. There are people, if they are around, who know better. I don't have time for people playing dumb or acting like they can't read, and further struggle in public isn't going to benefit readers. If Reichian line is Trotskyist, it is Trotskyist and doesn't belong in a Maoist party context. If Liberalism is CIA line, then the same goes for that, too. It is one thing to say a line is a bourgeois, another to allow it in the party context. Some of MIM Art Ministry's work may belong in a united front context but not in the party context. Again, this isn't something I need to be pulling teeth with, with people who know better.

IRTR hasn't been sending any e-mail. I understand MIM may not be able to send e-mail, but IRTR isn't going to lower security itself or fill people's e-mail boxes just to send Ward Churchill or intermediaries what they can search for on www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/, YouTube, Google Video, Yahoo! Video, http://www.maoism.ru/artministry/art.htm, and http://maoistinternationalistmovement.blogspot.com/. Mousnonya has posts at irtr.org or https://irtr.org/archive/, including a movie review, that were never removed. IRTR is also not going to send anyone e-mails Mousnonya sent to IRTR. That is against IRTR's security approach and not something IRTR would rely on. It doesn't matter what IRTR thinks about Mousnonya. There are lines comrades can't cross even if others might choose not to reciprocate. If files have been taken down or web pages changed and that is significant, IRTR may bring attention to that, but there is no reason for IRTR to be going over all of MIM Art Ministry's work at this time.

I don't want repression to be distorting politics and wish everyone well who is dealing with provocations, including people IRTR has major disagreements with. They should take a correct approach to provocations. Nobody is authorized to represent IRTR off-line or outside contexts IRTR can have access to as a collective entity. It isn't clear what help could be provided, but if Ward Churchill or any repressed MIM comrades need the help of someone specific at IRTR, someone practicing law and who has a web page they control must communicate with IRTR by web page or e-mail (irtr@irtr.org) and provide minimal information that neither they nor IRTR would mind too much falling into the hands of eavesdroppers and a means of verifying the authenticity of any request. All non-electronic attempts to make contact with IRTR will be disregarded. Anyone purporting to represent IRTR off-line should be considered a fraud. Whatever help individuals provide, under no circumstances will there be any exception to this. If these constraints are difficult to work with, people should realize what they are asking of IRTR and what one of the points of anonymity in the first place is. There may be people in IRTR who are private citizens with no public role and focusing on Internet work as a matter of division of labor. People spying on IRTR off-line are barking up the wrong tree and need to realize what IRTR is and what it is not. If people trip and make a miscalculation, there may be legal consequences. If that means people are going to be going to prison or paying money as punishment for agencies or national organizations or their collaborators violating people's civil rights or ruining their lives, that's how it's going to be. When it comes to provocations confined to the Internet, IRTR prefers not to use legal methods and instead takes an approach of clarifying its line and policies and confining provocations, but individual comrades experiencing off-line provocations should reserve the right to bring down the full weight of legal liberalism on whoever is ultimately responsible to the extent that this does not undermine anonymous movements. People need to realize the precedent they may be setting by generating or transmitting off-line provocations against an anonymous website. If anyone approaches IRTR off-line as IRTR, it will be considered a provocation. It doesn't matter who. If individuals must be queried, the boundary between that and IRTR must be respected. Nothing comes before the approaches to security the proletariat needs if it is going to be successful. In general, there should be more emphasis on the interests of the oppressed as a whole rather than any particular individual or organization, and that goes for any IRTR supporters who have been victimized.

Because of problems with such a method IRTR and others have already pointed out, IRTR isn't going to try to uncover covert infiltration on the Internet. There are some things IRTR "gets" but doesn't care about, because it isn't going to be taking a Liberal approach to security. (Legal methods, though associated with liberalism, may be necessary as a tactic to resist off-line provocations because of the public's low level of understanding and difficulties educating people off-line.) If there is something IRTR isn't getting, drop it and say nothing more about IRTR explicitly or implicitly. Mentions of IRTR that have nothing to do with IRTR's line are disruptive to IRTR's work and are not welcome. That I am having to make posts like this at all is unacceptable. Similar problems could arise again in the future, and IRTR isn't going to have time to deal with them piecemeal. If most of the criticism of IRTR has to do with security or organizational questions people outside limited circles aren't able to comprehend, that indicates an incorrect approach to IRTR overall. MIM will notice there have been no new posters at IRTR recently, and comrades have been moving away from the forum structure. Posters should contribute work if they haven't, but it isn't really a question of deciding which individual posters need to go, because posters may be doing work anonymously. Either there should be a forum or there shouldn't, or perhaps work needs to be credited to the usernames of comrades who do it, decreasing anonymity. Some opposition to attribution may reflect an anarchist attitude to leadership or accountability, but use of individual attribution and some inherent limitations of the forum structure increasingly seem to pose problems. Comrades who are hanging around but posting rarely or irregularly and unable to sustain participation should consider leaving the forum permanently and creating their own web pages if they want after studying security or contributing work to IRTR anonymously outside of the forum.
Back to top
[View user's profile]
Display posts from previous:   
All times are GMT.

View next topic
View previous topic
Page 1 of 1

Reply to topic
printer-friendly view

Jump to:  

 
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum