![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Most countries in the world are concerned about U.$. interference in their internal affairs. Since there is a FISA sort of warrant against MIM, and ongoing declassification of information and threats against MIM, albeit simmering down, we can ask whether MIM interferes in U.$. internal affairs. The answer is generally no.
It is well-known that MIM has too little respect for U.$. politics to interfere in it. Abortion, gun control, tax cuts--these mean nothing to us intrinsically. We have never watered down anything to obtain majority support and we do not really recruit. MIM is a political party of less popularity than the Greens or Libertarians and MIM spends no money on image altering marketing. MIM does not claim to represent the Amerikan majority. Amerikans may nonetheless find it a powerful intellectual fantasy to consider the MIM position, especially for the future.
We know how to interfere in the internal affairs of U.$. politics. We have studied Lyndon LaRouche for example, and we have far less interest in these questions of detail in U.$. politics than he does. Yet, when we are treated as domestic political enemies, we can retaliate as domestically fit for Amerikan citizens. As some imperialists have pointed out, that may most logically occur because of MIM's anti-militarist politics. The Iraq War is hurting some forces internally and politically. There is concern that the real reason that declassification against MIM is happening is that MIM took the hard line against the Iraq War from before the beginning.
Like most Amerikans we have that outward expansionist outlook. Bush wants labor to exploit and so he looks to Mexico for a relationship appropriate to that, not what Lou Dobbs wants. Like Bush, MIM might go from the internal to the external. When we have the outlook of the lumpen and migrant workers, U.$. imperialism looks differently than it does to Bush and Dobbs. For that matter, the intellectuals opposed the Iraq War in the majority from before the beginning. MIM will make the most of such a thing, an aspect of the minority view in the united $tates.
People will notice that the Western media covers Russian Liberal Kasparov's every breath, despite his having single-digit approval in Russia. He is on record for a U.$. invasion of Russia and has argued strenuously that history is literally only 500 years long. He is actually more extremist than MIM, and with little actual knowledge of politics, economics and history. However, Kasparov has a loyal band of marketers and the deep pockets to remake his image when the time comes necessary.
There is no clique of Russian, Chinese and Indian media following MIM's every move as if MIM were god. It is the united $tates and like- minded imperialist countries most dead-set on interfering around the world.
MIM willingly refers to itself as principally of international interests. 40% of MIM's readers are in the Third World. The minority of readers are U.$. readers. This is not just the factual truth but also our ideological truth of internationalism. Bush is similar in that most of his readers and most of the people who consume his speeches are outside u.$. borders. MIM's clashes with Bush will come in regard to the external.
Whether a question is principally domestic or international colors one's solutions to a problem. There are times when the joke can be on MIM if MIM has an inaccurate view of the principal interests in a question.
Ward Churchill is an example of someone on the borderline. He is in trouble because of 9/11 which is an international issue, not one involving domestic bombers; although most previous discussion of him was probably domestic in nature. He is also someone who would not mind being classified either way, someone as "indigenist" or maybe someone with principally international interests in stopping war crimes.
At the same time, most countries in the world would say that whether Churchill is fired or not is a domestic issue. Russia and China will not be commenting on the case; although, MIM is quite sure that this case does shape international opinion of the united $tates.
Recently declassification in connection to MIM and Ward Churchill landed MIM in a tangle that it had to interpret. We ruled out two positions. We do not believe that the tangle involved principally international interests; although again, MIM could be mistaken thanks to the nature of all things covert. We also ruled out that someone intended to start a totally wild international conflict with MIM. Our interpretation is that MIM landed in something that seems to be going on pretty often these days, a series of declassifications for domestic political interests.
We are convinced that most intellectuals in the united $tates share more of MIM's internationalism than the rulers are prepared to admit. Had they the time and inclination to get involved in politics, perhaps the majority of intellectuals would wind up with FISA warrants against them as things stand now. It's not an accident that the Association of American University Professors has the same stand on Ward Churchill as MIM, even as Churchill is wildly unpopular in the general public.
When MIM finds itself dragged into something with people who see themselves as principally domestic, MIM's retaliation is also domestic. We hope our enemies can see that and hold us to the reasoning on this.
A FISA warrant cannot be said to be a question of majority rule on international questions, because Bush and MIM both stand in the minority on the question of Mexico and the border, as recent political events proved. For that matter, MIM's line on the Iraq War is closer to the majority view than Bush's. Bush is not getting FISA warrants issued against him and facing selective declassifications for his minority interests in many international questions. Rather it seems that Bush, thanks to his stands on abortion, crime, taxes etc, has the power to determine which minority views have FISA warrants against them and which do not.
A pea-brain threw Darfur against us recently, just as in the past such
pea-brains of little international knowledge threw Tiananmen Square
against us. On this, we would have to agree with Lou Dobbs, that
there are many politicians much more beneficial to China than MIM in the united $tates.
We doubt that people with multi-million dollar business with China generally face
FISA warrants or anything like that. If social-fascist China wanted to interfere in Amerikan politics, we
would advise China to buy some imperialist politicians, since they are
all available for rent. We would also advise the Chinese to buy some
media and tail their favorite Amerikan politicians as if they were
rock stars. Obviously going through MIM would not get very far.
It's difficult to see what interests that China or Russia would have that would warrant much investment in interfering in U.$. politics. China has to worry about tariffs. Russia has to get permission to get into gas distribution business networks. Businesspeople have their ways of getting involved in those issues already in U.$. imperialism.
International questions such as the UN are a different matter. If people want to accuse MIM of trying to influence things in the UN, then so be it. That accusation we will grin and bear.
Today Joe Lieberman is in the press asking for an Iran war again. He opened his mouth too soon on Glasgow, because it turned out that those bombers were from Iraq's Al Qaeda, for which Lieberman deserves considerable blame.
We are also hearing those imperialists telling us something else opposing the Lieberman camp. We are listening, even if it does not always look like it. We see imperialism as a system. We're not really much for domestic politics. The argument against us is that MIM is part of the domestic that someone in office would normally encounter, so why does MIM count itself that way, as principally international. MIM is also Amerikan citizens.
If there are five people part of someone's domestic situation, and one of them happens to be MIM, MIM would tend to say the other four should act on the domestic question. MIM would say our enemies do not appreciate just how scrupulous MIM has been about that, how generous in some senses. MIM seeks international influence, not a real role in U.$. domestic politics. The people and parties do not matter, just the ideas.