Security Minister
November 3 2006
Comrade X, I don't know if you are really out there or if someone who knows you well is now spreading rumors. But your latest rumors do add a new twist to a particular pornographic episode bothering the party since more than a decade.
Comrade X is a third party in our investigation, but our attitude toward Comrade X is not the same as toward the pig CIA asshole. We have no deadlines for you comrade X. We do encourage Comrade X not to say anything voyeuristic, because Comrade X is not a main party in the investigation.
Over time, we come to appreciate your position better. Our positions are in fact analogous. You had a strong feeling about a comrade's academic presentation that ended with faculty yelling at each other. We had a strong need to investigate something. I suppose it could look like a circular tail chase.
Perhaps I can put words in your mouth. You are wondering now why it is that when we flushed you into the open, we did not drop the whole matter? You figure not just you but especially we should have dismissed the whole thing based on the fact that it came from you and your partner? That's what any "normal" persyn would have done, right? And should we not have separated your complaint with us from the other?
Comrade X's role is important as a kind of witness and "origin" role. To give
our readers access to this question, let's admit the following:
1) The party investigated a sexual rumor involving a comrade.
2) The rumor specifically using the comrade's name first came up from someone who was the partner of Comrade X.
3) The rumor never involved two people originally! It was about one, being that vague.
4) The words in the rumor could have been from a presentation, in particular a few words that would have offended this particular comrade X's most seriously held post-modern beliefs. (This would only be questionable for timing though certainly the main conflicts were pretty close, close enough that comrade X got flushed out in the midst of investigation. And there were conflicts before that too.)
5) The party had the pieces to know what the origin of the rumor was, but we did not gossip a lot about other people's partners! So in fact, knowledge was scattered in the party.
6) Comrade X's latest theory explains for some comrades why the non-MIM main party of the investigation might have been skittish and fearful about the investigation, but other comrades who know more might not be satisfied.
7) Had one or two key comrades known Comrade X's involvement, possibly the whole thing would have died right from the beginning. Is that what you expected us to say Comrade X, especially by now when we must have figured it out?
So now what is the reason this thing continued? This is what our witness to the timing could be asking us. So everyone wants to know why is this coming up in 2006 and who is pushing it? For the first time, the rumors are now blowing a different direction.
The party's answer is that by the time the comrades linked the presentation to the question of rumor origins, the investigation was already under way. In fact, in the meantime, Comrade X's partner enthusiastically implied there was a serious problem beneath the rumor. There were also rumors without names at all that fit in. Well guess what, the party voted for an investigation and attempt to collect first-hand information.
It's pretty easy to tell a story of Maoist evil in any direction. We squelched the investigation. We pushed it when it should have been over. Choosing a direction is important. Maybe our critics should really ask, "why would MIM take the hit to their reputation by pushing the investigation, if and when such an excuse to drop it was delivered on a silver platter?" Could it be other complications? Could it be some of the story is missing?
Comrade X, you are absolved from responsibility as far as we know. Other things were going on. Maybe we understand how you feel about somehow having blown solidarity with someone. Maybe we do not. If any of this causes you to say "Bingo," then feel free to show up or criticize at www.irtr.org. Please do not make claims about third parties and obviously we can't tell if you are for real or not, so try to stick to providing insight if there is anymore.
The investigation of ourselves continues. Maybe the non-MIM main party, if she still exists as other than someone deep into a witness/spy protection program, now feels "safe enough" and "survived" to denounce a MIM comrade, let's say "comrade Y" in public. We at MIM still assume that this persyn probably wants justice and closure, especially at this age, when the old games are not as much fun. We conclude more into a different direction when it seems that someone wants to draw something out. After all, how much shit would end up on my desk if the original potential source had beaten it down or the fight had been had out conclusively? Continuation is more consistent with a Cold War game and "being one of the guys." We would be overwhelmingly inclined toward speculating on the justice-and-closure angle for this non-MIM main party, except that there are so many people active right now that we cannot imagine would be mobilized except "on behalf of one of their own." It definitely doesn't help when the CIA takes up your cause and fans it, saying "credibility can be bought and sold."
All right, but not to worry. MIM ain't stupid. There's a lot going on, much disinformation. It would be unwise not to align with the appropriate interest group, if one wanted closure, because that would send the wrong signal. If you send a continuing process message, a forever process message, that is consistent with someone in a spy protection program with a political goal. OK? And that is going to justify the comrades who had the hee-bee jeebees about you all along. Racist CIA asswipe is not your friend if you want closure. He has big cowardly self-interests he is protecting, other potential long-term lawsuits on other questions he is defending himself with on this question. If you want closure, denounce at the top of your lungs, but get it over with. If you want infinite political process, we see that as reflecting a fundamental truth about imperialist decadence, so we can deal with that too, it being quite "true" for the moment after all.
If closure and justice is the aim, then send in a typed denunciation addressing "comrade Y's" crimes or demerits worthy of purging now or in the past, possibly in opposite directions or different sorts of crimes/demerits at different times, signed, with copy of picture or notarized (for authenticity purposes only, no address or identifying information necessary) on the same page and we will publish it in MIM Notes without the picture and without your real name. Or suggest another way we can be sure the document is really from you. Please do send it. Hey, if you want to admit you were a spy, it was a long time ago. That's a third possibility, that you were one of the guys and want out. Let's get your side into MIM Notes. Whatever the comrade says can't be worse than the neo-Nazi who denounced us to the FBI for 9/11 and we did not do anything to the neo-Nazi who wasted years of our time, right? The neo-Nazis denounced a whole party. Your gripe is against one. Please, do it soon and send to both MIM, PO Box 400559, Cambridge, MA 02140 and MIM, PO Box 29670, Los Angeles, CA 90029 or come up with another way that we would believe.