MIM always pursued a strategy somewhat along these lines, but in 2006 and since, the strategy has become moreso. The underlying reason is that in the imperialist countries there is no proletariat. The movie the "Matrix" is our model of what Amerikans are like, with ordinary people turning into agents of the machine at any given moment the machine chooses.

The Bill of Rights is supposed to be the highest law of the land, but the freedom of association is a fiction. Cheney and White House occupants before him believe that the CIA and FBI have the right to penetrate newspapers and parties to collect intelligence. So that means contrary to the First Amendment, there is no "freedom of association," because one cannot forbid CIA involvement. Taken literally, the First Amendment says there can be no law authorizing the existence of the CIA to interfere with our rights of association.

In fact, not only can one not prevent associating with people who covertly hide their identities, once one is done associating with such people, one cannot do without the smear of the association. So the CIA gets you going in and going out. On the way in, they lie to the public, most especially about each other. They violate the party rules on intelligence agents. Then on the way out, they hand over the information to use as smears to benefit organizations that are led by CIA agents!

On the plus side, in 2007 two separate events landed hard blows against MIM's enemies' efforts to smear MIM by association. MIM's enemies had spent millions trying to smear MIM by association. Yet in the process of spying on MIM, some of the spies uncovered some inconvenient truths about the organizations that sent the spies to begin with.

At the same time, while we have some accomplishments this way, at this point we are mainly hoping that other fearless youth will take up self-reliant revolutionary struggle.

What we have learned about security

Since 2006, we have learned only that more people are spies than have been admitted so far. Furthermore, more people are willing to turn the question into joke, even while attorneys in the Bush administration believe things have gone so far that they themselves fear for their lives.

So more intelligence associations are being talked up since 2006. There is no full accounting of the number of spies, their budgets and hence their associations. We only know that the number is at least a 10 digit annual budget with at least 100,000 spies involved.

Included in the huge budget for creating intelligence connections are friends and lovers. In the case of the present writer, the lover that seemed least likely to be intelligence-connected, even that persyn the parents asked to work for the FBI.

Also we have learned more on the importance of a self-reliant or juche-oriented approach. The question of intelligence agents has caused the capitulation of countless activists. Rather than figure out how to struggle themselves, they join the system. The problem is compounded by the fact that we have no proletariat to begin with. Among the remainder of oddballs who are inclined to proletarian activism for one reason or another, only the minority of the minority will try to take up self-reliant activism.

The minority of the minority perseveres in the face of ridicule including smears by association and blackmail by the mafia and revisionists. It is part of doing one's share of internationalist work. If Palestinians have to carry out suicide-bombings, that sets a difficult standard to meet in doing one's share.

Winning does not mean obtaining a majority within U.$. borders. It means adding our forces to those of the world's majority. Being able to do that requires the kind of people who can stand alone.

Why other parties do not tell you this

The "Revolutionary Communist Party" and others say that in the past MIM was trying to "scare" people away by talking about the realities of spies. No where in their literature do they address the numbers, the balance of forces between spies and revolutionaries. Only MIM does that on a regular basis, because the truth is more important than comforting weak-minded people looking for a persynality cult that is going to end up led by the CIA anyway.

The pro-CIA political organizations do not want the public to know or panic. Least of all do the super-patriotic pro-CIA organizations want to see a struggle. They generally continue to spew dogmas about a huge proletariat instead, again so that the revolutionary few will never learn the true extent of the enemy and thus fall to its attacks more easily. Instead of talking numbers, the pro-labor aristocracy organizations talk individuals and associations. By doing so it is possible to discredit any proletarian organization, through guilt by association, simply because spies do abound within U.$. borders.

Social psychological research says that the plurality of people requires the approval of others. So specifically, even if the plurality of people knows that 2+2=4, still this significant portion of society would like to hear other people say it, and if these people do not hear that from others, they become uncomfortable. For them, truth is not important in its own right, because social approval is more important. Taken to extreme as in East Asia, approval-oriented pseudo-truth is simply whatever the conformist herd says it is for reasons of custom at a given moment.

When combined with the people who do not know 2+2=4, the people who are ignorant of a given topic, the approval-seeking people swamp the potential for proletarian scientific activism.

The ignorant and approval-seeking constitute the vast majority in U.$. politics, but it is only MIM that even attempted to answer the gendered aspects that make our problem worse.

The female who eroticizes power to a higher degree than the male is the greater evil than the male stuck on looks. The professional life of the female comrade belongs properly to the party--whether that professional contribution is writing, natural science, art, fund-raising or building a fort for the party.

Now what happens when the female instead seeks approval from party men is that she degrades her own ability and the party's abilities in the name of achieving a romance without an emphasis on looks or sex. Yet what if the male she picks is a CIA agent? Now she has wrapped her seeking of approval around a CIA agent--great for the revolution. How is she to know that he is a CIA agent? Just because he says so and she needs his approval for her romance? Again, this is a circular firing squad for the revolutionary movement. Ultimately, she must learn the methods of discerning CIA interests, and that is done by a number of people in a collective pooling and analysis of information, not by one persyn who she should hinge her anti-CIA chances on. What she needs is not approval for her intellect but a social reference point, colleagues and the ability to detect the CIA's interests.

Conversely, what we should emphasize for the male is that he should not give up revolutionary activity in search of beauty queens. When the pursuit of beautiful females becomes full time, the evil is every bit as great as that of the female who seeks the approval of a single male full-time for her professional abilities. As some males can make a hobby of their love lives, it may be that the female actually has a harder time separating from the influences of psy-war.

People who seek the approval of isolated others are ready targets for psy-war. They will succumb to mere ridicule. The romance culture is a great isolater that opens the door to the CIA and others to take down the proletarian movement.

How can you identify a CIA interest as opposed to a general imperialist interest?

If we have a TV reporter or writer who happens to stand where every persyn within a mile is CIA, does that make that reporter or writer CIA? No. This is how we have to learn to separate ad hominem reasoning or reasoning by association from substance. Someone who calls for a 90% or 100% cut of the CIA's budget is still opposing the CIA's interests, even if every single persyn associated with the persyn within a mile is CIA.

The New York Times just reported that a third of Amerikans cannot get a single question right when asked about who are Gordon Brown, Condi Rice and the heads of Congress. That's why it becomes difficult when questions intersect politics and the intelligence agencies. Only a certain portion of the public can handle the questions to begin with. Being associated with any of that third of people does not make one ignorant.

When the Iraq War broke out, MIM specifically denounced the line that the war was wrong, because Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. We have to learn that that in fact is a CIA line with no basis for being propagated by socialist and communist groups. Why?

Socialist and communist groups believe that arms races are caused by capitalism, the drive for profit. Arms-makers make profit as do arms dealers, and there is a "law of supply and demand" under capitalism.

Secondly, the converse is false. If Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction that Rumsfeld gave him earlier, then that is still not a reason to invade, not according to communists. It may be a reason for super-patriots disguised as communists. It's not an accident that the labor aristocracy loving organizations are unable to prioritize the fight against the invasion of Afghanistan.

The reason the weapons of mass destruction line is a CIA line is that it emphasizes knowing the things that it is the CIA's professional responsibility to know. Socialist and communist groups generally do not have the means of knowing what weapons Saddam Hussein has. Hence, making the issue one of a general importance, a question of war and peace-- such a prioritization benefits the CIA.

So in addition to budget priorities for the CIA there are task priorities. We have to learn when the CIA is flaunting its task priorities and agitating for its own priorities.

The weapons of mass destruction question was CIA turf all along, but the so-called left-wing in the united $tates demonstrated its own lack of bearings in the lead up to the Iraq War and after by re-spewing the CIA line uncritically.

Now here is another interesting point. Within the CIA could there be those who said there were in fact weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq? Yes. What makes this a CIA interest is not the specific answer but the task and turf. Whether one answered "yes" or "no" to the weapons of mass destruction question, the question was the CIA's turf. Those raising the CIA's turf up during the anti-war movement were taking the CIA line. The problem infected the entirety of the left-wing of parasitism, most brazenly the "Revolutionary Communist Party."

Money, tasks--there is also the question of cover, an aspect of tasks. Those making the CIA's job easier include individualists and mercenary vigilantes. A frequent cover for the CIA is the diplomat. An expansion of the diplomatic corps is in the CIA's interests. Likewise, increasing the number of spies willing to work with the CIA is in the interests of the CIA--be they mafia or "Revolutionary Communist Party."

Another example of covers is not taking Mao's line on the principal contradiction. Mao was very clear that oppressed nations under invasion can unite against the imperialists except for a few TRAITORS. The petty-bourgeois organizations are unable to admit this cleanly, because they seek to yoke the proletariat to the bourgeoisie. The CIA has used the womyn question to conduct covert operations in the Islamic countries. People unable to admit that cleanly are too dishonest to be given credence. The "Revolutionary Communist Party"'s line on Iran was not just an academic debate. It was a question of specifically serving the interests of the CIA and other covert services oppressing Iran by providing political covers.

Now it is true, we would like to see a U.$. diplomat stationed in Iran. There is a certain minimum under capitalism where we have to back CIA interests. We would wish Iran well in getting a diplomat who was not CIA. That is not the same thing as holding demonstrations for Iranian wimmin in the united $tates, while the United $tates conducts covert operations against Iran. That is pure treason to the international proletariat.

There is nothing wrong for CIA and liberal people to take a CIA line on opposing the Iraq War. It's good to oppose that war for any reason. Such a line should be known and its supporters tallied. The problem becomes when such a line supplants communist leadership's own thinking. Then at that point, the question of association goes beyond association. It's where we the proletarian leaders have become so swamped that we cannot think straight ourselves anymore-- a constant risk in the imperialist countries. At that point, we no longer have any possibility of making our individual contributions, doing our share of the internationalist work that Lenin wanted us to do against imperialism.

Currently there is a problem in that those claiming to be revolutionary are in fact revisionists. They use covert means to serve the imperialists. It is better to be open Democrats than to be revisionists. Mao himself made a deal with Nixon. Nixon did not try to claim to be a Maoist or even share vaguely similar goals. Some of the same supposed communists who believe they can straighten out ideological problems for Chavez in Venezuela are nonetheless Democrats and CIA co-conspirators. Chavez though of mushy ideology at least represents an actually exploited majority. U.$. revisionists are working for arch-imperialists and representing their interests at the highest levels. At best they are working for the richest 10% of people in the world, and so anything Chavez does will be angelic by comparison.

On the surface, the Amerikan "revolutionaries" may criticize Chavez for being a watery socialist. Yet when we combine the lines of organizations such as the "Revolutionary Communist Party" or "Communist Party," we learn that they are in fact super-patriotic organizations. They have extensive Marxist verbiage to criticize Chavez, Castro, Deng Xiaoping--any Third World leader; yet, in practice, they promote the interests of the CIA and Democratic Party along with those Republicans also willing to work in a similar vein. It would be far better for these revisionists to be open Democrats or Republicans rather than confusing those who may be able to start an effective self-reliant revolutionary practice.