Maoist Internationalist Movement

The anti-MIM campaign:

Infinite opportunism of FBI

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Lately the FBI troglodytes seem to have gone so far backward they exceed the McCarthy-era in reaction. The above quote from the First Amendment makes it clear that free speech is for citizens lobbying the government, not government lobbying the citizens. In actual fact, in its most recent rumor campaign against MIM, the FBI not only lobbied citizens but did so on behalf of government officials, the most corrupt practice possible. It is also the most specifically corrupt practice possible because it involved FBI lobbying citizens on behalf of a government official it needs to cultivate to win court cases. So in other words, FBI in addition to having reasons for attacking MIM and Ward Churchill also has corrupt professional motivations for making the attack.

The very simple rule implicit in the First Amendment and other laws has been lost along the way with the growth of parasitism, the spread of government among people with weak reading skills and inclined to the Rush Limbaugh school of law. The distinction between citizens lobbying the government and government lobbying citizens is so basic it is the ideological foundation of any legal sense of what corruption is.

With the growth of government into ever larger shares of people, it has become possible for Bush to use taxpayer money to pay journalists to say what the Bush regime wants to hear.(1) With so many people in parasitic occupations of all sorts, the natural outrage against such a practice is lacking.

In the name of "free speech" for the FBI, the FBI of the last several years has also undertaken a practice against MIM which did not even fly in the McCarthy- era courts. The criticism of MIM for use of allegorical writing containing all sorts of alleged threats has occupied much time lately at the FBI, but even in the ultra-reactionary McCarthy period of red-baiting, courts ruled against allegorical claims against communists. It makes one wonder what the FBI is spending money on if its allegorical analysis cannot be used in law enforcement. The answer is clear--for political and corruption purposes.

The reason for such a practice is clear to anyone with a background in logic or scientific discipline. The basic problem is that there is an infinity of literary concepts that could be used to interpret the meaning of any document. That is especially true considering that MIM has so much material to interpret just on its website alone. Considerations like that are why McCarthy-era attacks on communism ended up spurring post-modernism as some kind of total relativism about the written word.

A disciplined use of allegorical thinking would apply the Maoist allegory to Maoist writings. Our FBI critics realize that talking about "Hai Jui Dismissed from Office" would make them look like fools for what they are doing, so they do not use the most obvious literary analogy against us. They could also do an Amerikan spinning of Mao-era literary practices, which would be the theory of "totalitarianism." In that case, all the literary criticism of Mao and the "Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom" period were all a conspiracy to boost Mao's power. That again would leave the FBI looking stupid, to use such an analogy. So what the FBI has to do is use literary reference completely inappropriate and opportunist in use against MIM.

The reason even McCarthy era courts rejected what the FBI is doing now is the same reason that individuals cannot be tried twice--so that prosecutors can change their stories as they go along. It is also the same reason that drug companies are not supposed to get "do-overs" when they conduct their clinical trials of experimental drugs. Drug companies are supposed to publish evidence from their clinical trials even when it goes against the drugs they own--not suppress evidence or fire their staff for bringing a bad message.

USA Today in 2006 reported that studies done by drug companies on average report a higher success rate for the experimental drug than studies done by the government or other independent sources without a profit motivation. However, the vast majority of studies of drugs are done by privately-owned corporations with just such profit and career motivations to fudge their data and analysis of data.

Those of us with real scientific training about scientific integrity will understand the link MIM just drew between drug studies and prosecutors getting to change their stories as they go along in a trial. The case of the prosecutor is inherently pre-scientific because it is based in a fundamental misconception of how truth is produced, a bourgeois misconception; nonetheless, the pre- scientific mind will be marked by an inability to link the situation of the prosecutor and the drug company. It will seem that MIM is "too abstract" on this point.

One FBI produced rumor that arose in 2006 says that after writing off a comrade more than a decade ago, MIM suddenly popped up in 2006 and ingeniously crafted a Ward Churchill quote to physically threaten this ex-comrade most extremely-- through an allegory. Other people then found quotes from MIM that seem to support, not attack the ex-comrade. The motivations offered for the allegorical criticism cut in two directions, in typical have-it-both-ways opportunism. One theory was that MIM was trying to suppress the release of really old information about MIM and suddenly came up with a violent means. The second theory was completely opposite and held MIM to contain sick puppies with totally whacked out persynal motivations. Neither theory was true: they were simply products of active literary imaginations of people paid to have nothing better to do than invent threats. So there is a full cycle: parasites invent infinite literary "theories" and threats and then use those threats to lobby the public including MIM to justify the importance of their own "work." It's an important reason that government officials do not have "free speech," especially in combination with hallucinatory drug use. Maybe these parasites should find more effective ways to make money.

In the struggle surrounding this rumor in 2006 a number of facts have arisen. On the surface, one might think MIM spies on the ex-comrade or the ex-comrade spies on MIM for political or persynal reasons or some combination of both. That would be the direct and natural thing to think. Thanks to the growth of parasitism, it has become clear to MIM that third parties spend more time spying on MIM regarding one ex-comrade than MIM has spent spying on all ex-comrades combined. That is the nature of COINTELPRO. We need to understand how Eldridge Cleaver and Huey Newton parted ways, how the FBI spread rumors about Huey Newton and what a provocation is in general and what its goals are.

Instead of learning what provocations are and how they work, at IRTR we found that the FBI had an easy time leading around Prairiefire and Rebelone by the nose with psychological warfare. On the one hand, IRTR did a fairly good job suppressing the most obvious provocations surrounding it, but on the other hand, when it came to allegorical warfare some found themselves under sway of the FBI's infinite opportunism. This is also connected to underlying disagreements about science production especially regarding psychology and psychiatry. To believe these threat manufacturings, one has to be predisposed to believing them.

There are many safeguards in MIM Thought against parasitism and pornography. MIM Thought is symmetric, coherent and scientifically taut in a way that nothing among politically activist groups is. Had people applied MIM Thought on any number of points, the FBI's infinite opportunism would have had less sway. Much thought and even the suffering of many people in the Chinese revolution, Korean struggle, Black Panther Party and MIM struggle produced the MIM Thought on the relevant gender questions, so people might as well take advantage.

If we split the FBI inventions into persynal and political ones, the theory of gender privilege covers the infinity of persynal motivation rumors possible. Probably there are not many self-labeled Marxists that would be caught dead supporting a t-shirt for wimmin that says "if you don't have a car forget it." There are countless persynal ads with even more brazen statements. Yet we will find that supposed Marxists accept gender-privilegist arguments easily.

The test for this question is easy and cuts from above and below. On the top side, the whole persynal vein of rumors surrounding MIM and the long lost comrade would have had zero power had MIM been seen dating movie stars. The pornography mill would have turned to gossip about MIM and Britney, MIM and Brad Pitt or MIM and whatever Hollywood star was around. Sick-puppyist rumors would have withered.

The gender privilege theory of MIM Thought also cuts from below. It basically amounts to understanding that the sick puppyist rumors are gender privileged put-downs of people who cannot command the attention of Britney/Brad Pitt. It is interesting to note that in this particular case, FBI chose not to go with appearances when some of its rumors revolve on the slightest of appearances. FBI chose to put down people as less gender privileged than the persyn FBI is cultivating with a carrot and perhaps a stick at least partly for corrupt professional reasons.

We are used to saying, "would you have said the same thing about X, Y or Z rich persyn or about a persyn of a different nationality?" We need to get used to asking about various levels of gender privilege. Would you have raised this rumor against MIM if you had seen MIM dating Britney Spears? No? But you would have raised it if MIM were dating X? If your answer would vary depending on whom you have seen MIM dating lately, that should be a clue you are doing something wrong. This is especially true of the rumor-spreaders, none of which know anything worth a damn factually. The inconsistent need to ponder MIM's theory of gender privilege more.

There is another angle on the gender privilege theory that should have squelched this train of thought that came up even at IRTR. MIM's gender theory is not bourgeois morality. We oppose drinking and drugs it is true, but for instance we had no trouble with Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn. We were also the biggest fighters in the pro-Stalin line of communists for gay/lesbian rights. Where MIM is coming from is a little difficult to perceive sometimes. We thought Fox News just made a good point about it being a good thing that there is a competition for fatherhood for Anna Nicole Smith's baby. It does not really matter to millionaires, but the Fox News audience is going to interpret that story persynally and not class-wise anyway. For the majority of people, having a father around is the point. We say this to show that we really don't care about the artificial lines of demarcation Amerikans focus on in their sex discussions.

So on the question of monogamy, it's not really a straight-edge question. Our youthful readers deserve the full unvarnished truth. There is no comparison in the political activity of those who manage to settle into monogamy and those who exercise more gender privilege in dating activities. MIM knows that from looking at a medium-sized group of people over a long run of years. That's to leave aside security questions. MIM has looked at this in various revolutions too, not just our own. Among people who may seem rather similar age, class and nation-wise, gender privilege questions can be decisive. In the Korean struggle prior to bourgeois democracy's implementation in southern Korea, the rulers found they could not make much headway on straight-up nation and class issues among students. People absolutely on fire on national and class questions cannot be diverted, but people who disagree with the regime but do so to lesser degrees are subject to gender privilegism. So the regime made use of what "Rage against the Machine" said, "What does the billboard say? Come and play; come and play."

Monogamy is also a question of degree. What it really is about is a question of commitment to what one is doing. People who can commit on one question end up being the same people who commit on the other question, on average. That is the underlying scientific question here. MIM's leading opponent on this question on the Internet has admitted to being politically inactive for decades at a time, and that is not an accident or atypical. The Reichian line is wildly popular in practice, but does not produce much when it comes to politics. One does not have to be a super-rich playboy to spend a lot of time dating. That is one example of gender privilege "choice." The gender privilege question is part of MIM Thought.

For gender privileged people to have access to feminist revolution, persynal pain is probably unavoidable. We can live in the shacks of poor Third World people for a day and privileged people can serve as journalists in war zones of nations in conflict, but when it comes to gender, it is not really possible to visit with and directly experience the same conditions as the gender oppressed. MIM's method is thus necessary for an understanding of gender. It is mistake to think that because people experience gender differently, psychology or psychiatry are useful.

The FBI's attack on MIM is pornographic and counter to published MIM policies that existed before the FBI's theories come into play, so it should not be echoed at IRTR. The FBI can search as long as it wants for individual attacks and individual origins in MIM writing and it is going to be wrong every time. MIM Thought is much more carefully crafted than that. More importantly, MIM is correct and in a totally general way.

The recent rumor campaign is so obvious and stupid even in its international manifestations, one can only hope that MIM's opponents are actually trying to make a very simple point through the use of a lot of noise. Right now there is an appearance of a great effort at being corrupt. The point is not even that MIM is being spied on, that the Bill of Rights is trash and that trash can't interpret what corruption is anyway. The whole underlying point produced through a rather corrupt means could be that MIM misjudges who is a spy and who is not. Well, gee, tell MIM something it does not know about how a military and police dominated polity corrupts social life. In this regard, "FBI" or "CIA" (standing in for any government agency doing domestic or international spying) also step on their own feet, because certain calling cards that they use to talk smack with us have become so over-used they have lost their value as calling cards. At this time, there is only one good repetitive calling card in the enemy's Aesopian communications with us, and it is good because slightly used. We credit those who have also invented totally new calling cards lately: those spies also have our attention as spies. The difficulties of communication when there are so many spies have further encouraged us toward means of struggle with less possibility of feedback from the public.

Notes:
1. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm ;
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-10-ag-dept-story_x.htm ;
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0217/p01s01-uspo.html