August 22 2008

We've got three groups of people frustrated with MIM right now: 1) Counter-terrorists trying to link us to a time-bomb, so they can waterboard us. They have gone so far as to try to provide weapons. 2) Counter-spies trying to link us to money and ego problems, so they can say we serve another country. 3) Mainstream political people who do not understand why we are not more easygoing and cheerful.

At the turn of the century, someone tried to mainstream MIM and started by apologizing for past persecutions. He was not the right persyn for the job. It's an example of how it's difficult to communicate when there are two goals going on at once. All three of the above are generally going on.

There are ongoing investigations of MIM. The safest approach is to reject the material world. The steady stream of stings results in not being able to do business like normal people. If you find a way to make money, they say you spied to make it. If you have great ambitions, they say that is the reason you spied. It becomes difficult to be in the real world.

MIM has always attacked pragmatist-empiricism. One should never throw out a truth over one fact. More germane is a situation where general truths are in conflict. So the truth is there are more counter-terrorists and counter-spies than communists. There is also the question of how to interpret someone's attempt to involve one in mainstream politics. That's another truth--that there are people trying to move the communists into another strategy. So the question is not that any of these general truths are wrong, but which truth is principal in a given tactical context.

We have another example. MIM has never cared about teachings regarding "hypocrisy." "Hypocrisy" is a Christian concept which should only be used as an agitational shorthand, not for any serious thought.

In the 1990s we had a situation of three policies. 1) For monogamy. 2) Against rumor-mongering. 3) Against spies. All three policies have general value to a revolutionary organization.

Then we had one interesting innuendo arise about monogamy. The statement provided no source. The fact that it appeared in rumor form suggested COINTELPRO. In point of fact, at least one of the persyns involved did later prove to be FBI as confirmed by other sources.

The persyn who would have been the victim of the monogamy rumor raised the rumor without providing a source and included some inaccurate information.

In a party security situation, accountability is very important. An affair may serve as an opportunity to uncover a spy or set of spies. So no, "hypocrisy" is not the principal concern of the party in that situation. An affair within the party is just musical chairs. An affair outside the party that someone raises an innuendo about is a much different thing.

People who run from struggle, spread rumors or make totally true but unsourced statements are all suspect as spies. Bill Clinton is followed around daily as a high profile figure. MIM comrades may or may not have a very high profile. Our first question is not about the "stained dress" but about "how did you know that if that is even true?"

This has to do with taking the state seriously and downplaying emphases on Christian background. If someone provides a source internally to the party for an innuendo and if that source is seen making the innuendo, then the party may be able to nail that source as a spy. AFTER that if there really were an affair, then an apology would be due.

It's not a question that we throw out monogamy policy. In one affair rumor situation, three people basically implicated themselves as spies. The middle of three was so good as to admit that the first was in fact a spy. Perhaps the FBI does the CIA a favor or vice-versa.

The point of this article is how to handle general truths in practice. We don't throw general truths out when struggle becomes difficult or emotional. Instead, we find ways to relate them in productive ways for the party.