By Security Minister
May 18, 2007
In professional basketball interviews, when a team loses we often hear that the team "did not come ready to play." Our communists often do not seem to have a score to keep, and so there needs to be some sense of how well we are doing. There is a high-intensity struggle for Ward Churchill that serves as a good measure of where we in the proletarian camp are at. The struggle surrounding Ward Churchill involves spooks, FBI spies and both wings of parasitism, most notably University of Colorado graduate Lynne Cheney.
Probably many of us in the proletarian camp do not notice any spook- type tactics in the struggle. That means one was not "ready to play" this time, but maybe some things will sink in much later. Someone has to say it, point to the bar.
MIM could document a number of struggles, but that is to miss the point. Lenin told us about the state and how the revolutionary leaders have to be so political. Ward Churchill and Huey Newton both documented COINTELPRO type tactics already. There are also numerous books on the CIA. So if one read these books, one could be "ready to play" or one could somehow pass over them or not digest them. In current struggles the real issue is what one is ready to apply.
That is why the current struggle is so good as a gauge. If MIM has to document for you what is happening, and yet you are interested in this struggle, then you "did not come ready to play." The additional problem of documenting spies in struggles like this is that if you start doing it, they might stop talking but not leave the playing field. That's one of the things we are supposed to know when we come to play.
One federal agent with a blog against Ward Churchill has adopted the identity of a mother of a rape victim. Thanks to the fatuous nature of the pseudo-feminists and left-wing of parasitism, this identity actually works pretty well. It gained the collaboration of a Harvard PhD who claims to be "rrrrrrrevolutionary" as we say in our lingo--one of at least three Harvard PhDs that have tried to stop MIM in recent months through use of persynal information about MIM. Without knowing anything and just by thorough reading and paying attention, anyone should have been able to avoid this trap.
In the other direction, we also have people trying to provoke MIM. Thus the FBI uses identities for the dew-eyed and also the FBI tries to wave a red flag in front of a raging bull. So the FBI carries out weapons provocations in the hopes of having an excuse to shut down MIM's support to Ward Churchill. In addition, MIM has been given explosive "information," that someone with a sensitive position in the Ward Churchill issue is a CIA agent, married to the FBI and receiving money to stymie MIM's advance. Some fed somewhere reasons that if he had such parallel information in reverse, that he would use it in a certain way. It stands to reason in this case we should be looking at the deep recesses of the Pentagon (DoD) that the Cheneys seem to have a grip on. Often MIM speaks of "CIA," when we have to keep in mind that DoD has its own interests that would fall under that rubric. Again it underscores that one should not believe everything, especially when the goal seems to be intra-individual conflict. The bourgeoisie uses intelligence to pinpoint the individual to distract people from the real problems of the system. Our method should have none of that whenever possible.
We have even had people pose as "matchmakers" claiming to do us favors over a number of years. It could be anything and that's part of "being ready to play."
The FBI will say it is allowed to stage weapons provocations and allowed to "express opinions," but what it is really doing is using classified files to damage the movement to support Ward Churchill.
There are important lessons for the proletarian camp to learn.
First, again, if one ever wants to distinguish between federal agents and others, one must adhere to organizational principles expressed by Joreen or Lenin if one really has read Lenin and knows what the party structure does. It has to do with not being half-assed about one's politics, not going for rumors and not spreading rumors and always using formal organizational rules. The left-wing of parasitism is generally half-assed or eighth-assed about its politics and that is another reason to shun it, because later, one will not be able to tell it apart from federal agents anyway--provided one has done a good job in political development and attracted enemy attention. The earlier one shuns the left-wing of parasitism, the better off the proletarian camp is going to be.
Secondly, one must have class, nation and gender goals to one's intelligence work. As MIM said when 9/11 hit, the imperialists have no long-run possibilities of winning against the oppressed and exploited. The imperialists can spend as much as they want on intelligence, but using intelligence is another matter. Here MIM is presented with a similar issue about "information," and it is important to understand we are in a non-stop information war. Again, having goals also helps one set up apart from the forever vague and occluded parasite Left and this will in turn help security.
Thirdly, one difference between what we have to do and what our enemy does is that we have a somewhat larger emphasis on teaching. The enemy has formal academies and 9-5 jobs. We on the other hand have to work our teaching into our struggle as we go along. What we are seeing in the Ward Churchill struggle is something we are going to be seeing for a long time to come, with different names.
Fourthly, we have had some criticism of our sink-or-swim attitude. Again, here the point is that theory dictates, not pragmatism. So we know we are behind enemy lines and Mao said it was possible to do clandestine work behind enemy lines without surrendering. We do not adjust for the exploiters by taking up their line and we start from the class structure in all our work. We do not start from the need for 51% and then tell corresponding lies about what the class structure is. No, we start from what the class structure is and what needs to happen with it and we get whatever percentage we can. Overall in the world, we will have the majority, but not in every country. We need to shut out the slipshod people to the contrary and do our internationalist jobs. The amazing thing will be that as soon as one takes up the work and starts applying oneself in detail, the impact on the enemy is immediate. Being able to perceive that impact is a big problem for us in the proletarian camp and those considering joining it.
It is difficult to rise above bourgeois approaches to intelligence, especially in the Ward Churchill case because Lynne Cheney and David Horowitz are so out in front on the issue. For this reason, there is a whole patronage network that we have to look at emerging from Colorado. We are getting criticism on this question from a couple people who do not see the international implications of the Ward Churchill case.
Where the University of Colorado goes, we can also see the University of Wyoming, University of Arizona and many others going the same direction. This is not a battle of some quirky intellectuals. It's not a question of liberalism versus conservatism. We do not give a shit about Lynne Cheney's stand on abortion or gun control. It's about class struggle when military contractors run universities. It's about using a bunch of Colorado crackers ready for Holocaust revisionism to restructure universities for for-profit militarism and it's about rewarding repressive agencies with the head of a professor. It has to be admitted it's also about the question of fascism, because when the profit motive is left in place and the government-infiltrated and controlled media and universities converge with that interest in what is called corporatism, we have the political economy of fascism. So if a pro-choice, pro-gun control and anti-tax cutter representing Halliburton's interests came forward to reorganize the University of Colorado, MIM would say the same thing about that Halliburton beneficiary as about Lynne Cheney and her cronies.
There are various ways around the corporatism problem known throughout history. In East Asia, Confucianism developed where government officials had individual feudal ownings but no stake in trades that would be regulated by the state. In Russia, the people have a similarly Eastern idea about a monarch apart from what Amerikans call "special interests." In contrast, Wikipedia explained Italian fascist corporatism as "non-elected form of state 'officializing' of every interest into the state." In the corporatist approach behind fascism, the media and universities and what we call corporations would not say anything different about military production or contracts: they would all be united. The crucial difference between communist and fascist states again is that the fascists leave private property and the impulse for profiteering in place. Fascism is the worst of both worlds, leaving aggressive and greedy impulses in place while shutting down possible sources of criticism.
It becomes easy to reduce the Ward Churchill question down to a few problematic individuals leading one bourgeois party. Sometimes we are going to have to do that, but mostly we need to avoid it. In some cases, we have to ask a sweeping question about intelligence such as "what difference would it make if it were all true?" The bourgeois method leads constantly to intra-individual conflicts that add up to continued bourgeois rule. In Colorado a near-majority of people are looking for an authority to follow that reminds them of god: it is the problem, not what we want to reinforce. The socialist strategy and tactics support the international proletariat in a sweeping way.