August 15 2008

1. A "legitimate concern" is raised by people directly and at the time. When such a concern IS raised with family and a friend or two, but not with the minority individual in question, that concern has become a racist concern of informal racist networks, a.k.a. rumor-mongering. So for example, if one doesn't like someone's body odor, but one raises it with other people. . .

2. If one waives off a minority individual's approach to the question, flees from struggle over the question and then years later take up too many topics via allegorical (a.k.a. grapevine) procedures, the misplaced persynal references and unfortunate coincidences created are one's own fault. If one knows one is suspected as a racist rumor-monger, one has to be pretty stupid to come and raise suspicions of one's own racism (still as yet not directly sorted out) and then years again later say it was just allegorical. The hope here: please, it can't be THAT stupid. But it could be and that might be costly.

3. When one's organization is in print for an infamous neo-Nazi idea, and one doggedly defends and refers to it, one doesn't get out of it by saying it was a mere allegorical reference. With enough topics to discuss and years passed by, ANYTHING could be an allegorical reference. Analagously, if historians discussed slavery in Tibet in print before there was a Lenin and a Bolshevik party, one cannot blame propaganda on the question on the Bolsheviks.

Likewise, if in addition to the printed word, one has made unfortunate mixed blood references that echoed in a professional context, one has allied with institutional racism and one doesn't get out of that by correctly pointing out that some allegorical references years later were misunderstood. No kidding--grapevine methods of discussion are informal and result in racism.

If an allied homophobic organization and individuals also conciously do not rise to rebut the infamous neo-Nazi idea part of an organization's program, they also do not get out of responsibility for what is already in print by saying anything allegorical is good. That again is just another way to avoid white accountability.

4. If a concern about sexism is raised at the time, it is one thing. When it is raised many years later and without chronological explanation, it is often just a post-hoc defense of racism. When rumor-mongers raise allegorical references to sexism in a prompt way, it is still a defense of racism. Sexist charges should be raised directly. Otherwise, they are simply new guises for the good 'ole white boys' network.

If Julia Child arranges for an imperialist intervention in Chile from her Chinese restaurant, she is not absolved of her neo-colonial oppressiveness by the fact that males no doubt treated her poorly in the restaurant at the time.

5. If one has read MIM and does not understand that MIM says the imperialist country female eroticizes power--power-tripping, and that such is a defense of class structure as well, then one has not understood a single thing MIM has said for 20+ years.

If one does not understand that a power-tripping intellectual female (especially one treading grounds in more than one known location of intense espionage struggle) cannot be distinguished from an espionage professional (swallow) who finds her sexual duties burdensome, then one has not fully absorbed the evil of eroticizing power--the existence of a power structure intertwining with sex.

There is a subtle distinction that seems to escape our audience repeatedly, because feminist theory is not a strong point in the imperialist countries. MIM circles never condoned a certain intellectual female competitive mating strategy. That competitive mating strategy is often mistaken as the substance of feminism, because it is in the self-interests of intellectual females, and especially intellectual females of low to non-existent sex drive. In this strategy, the emphasis goes on the intellectual characteristics and Rielle Hunters are invented as party girls. Perpetual insecurity on intellectual points arises in order to create Rielle Hunters. Instead, MIM always stressed that there is no reason not to be lesbian or asexual and form feminist separatist organizations if necessary. One should not invent the Rielle Hunter party girl concept to avoid consideration that one is simply lesbian or asexual. There is nothing wrong with being comrades in an organization, and nothing more. That is stated over and over again in our publications and primer-related discussions.

Some intellectual females have been told by MIM point-blank that they do not need MIM males as individuals. Particularly, one should not substitute political or intellectual prestige for physical attraction. That's what Mao's party said as well, but the lesson has yet to be absorbed in imperialist countries. There are countless situations in MIM circles where that came up and there was no problem. Some can handle separating out organizational questions from persynal ones. Others can for a while and then fail. The problem of disconnecting at the persynal level has to be separated from espionage and racist rumor-mongering.

The detriment of intellectual female competitive mating approach to the revolutionary organization becomes additionally apparent as soon as one considers what it is that the espionage professional is doing. Why is the intellectual female REALLY there in the organization attempting a persynal connection beyond a professional one? Unfortunately, because of the low level of theoretical development in the feminist movement, intellectual females generally cannot be distinguished from espionage professionals in any accountable way usable by revolutionary organizations. Theory must take hold first and it has not. "That's the way it is." Becoming an appendage of the state to find out who is a member of the state is not considered a self-reliant revolutionary option, but a road to reformism and defense of exploitation.

There ARE low to non-existent sex-drive-intellectual-females seeking persynal and devoted commitments from heterosexual males and there are also espionage professional females. BOTH exist. Bummer for the revolution. We should not have to run the CIA to be able to come up with a political advance to handle this question.

Outsiders looking at MIM have to tell themselves a lot of fibs to force MIM history into their mistaken pseudo-feminist framework. The conflicts that they presuppose happened did not happen and decisive breaks had nothing to do with pseudo-feminism. Quite the opposite, chronologically, MIM veered for a pro-commitment line and now pseudo-feminists are going back and jumbling timelines in order to make excuses rather than accept that white females have to be accountable.

The political and intellectual is handled by the party. That connection is always there and available. In contrast, the persynal in an heterosexual context IS only that vestigial evolutionary drive, if it exists. If it is sexist, so are all heterosexual relations. When revolutionary male leaders are accused of sexual transgressions because they have separated these questions, it is on account of Rielle-Hunter-creating-pseudo-feminism. Everyone is a "party girl"--pun intended. That's why there is no such thing as a female in party circles who is inferior to another for persynal reasons.

6. One should never convict someone based on a plurality or preponderance of evidence. In capitalist countries, we should stick to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

When a number of crimes come together in a very brief time, one concludes that there is at least one controller (espionage) or kingpin (mafia) involved. Then there is the question of what the kingpins are responsible for and what the peons are responsible for. The kingpins seek to pin the blame on each other and the peons.

So one might hold out hope for the peons on two levels, one that they're not guilty or not guilty of all crimes and two, that kingpins manipulated the situation. One might go so far as to defend or protect the peons until the situation clarifies.

The pre-scientific often called MIM "cynical." Nonetheless, if one is invited in three different professional contexts to open a can of worms, one can do it or decide "that's the way it is." MIM's line says that oppression is institutional and that under capitalism there is no guarantee of truth or victory. Without a certain "cynicism," one might spend all his or her time fighting battles that do not add up to change.

On a professional level, the revolutionary leader should know that going to a demonstration means that cops might beat one up. "That's how it is." At a certain level, anything professional is more easy to accept. As long as one does not give up the struggle, professionalism is good.

In addition to a certain professional cynicism that allows one to pick and choose battles, in "Reds" we saw John Reed take up "revolutionary romanticism," a situation where sometimes one takes on a hopeless challenge in an individualistic Amerikan way. He wanted both the Russian Revolution and for his girlfriend to see the light and show up. Instead, his kidneys gave out.

MIM never said anything about wanting the house at the end of Mission Street. We're not that stupid or unprofessional. The question is one of what was unnecessary in a professional way. Getting beat up at a demonstration might be inevitable. The reason MIM had to shut down increasingly in late 2006 toward 2008 has largely to do with something that was completely unnecessary. There was a direct conviction and removal of all doubt. At the same time, there was a concern about what could have been.

Again, unaccountable racist astrologists who think MIM can be knocked off proletarian course for the benefit of their favorite reformists and exploitaton strategy fail to understand what day August 15 2008 is. They are coordinating their attacks on ex-MIM with the occupation forces in the Islamic countries at precisely the moment they should be supporting ex-MIM to the max. They stand exposed.