|
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. |
|
|
|