The current MIM chairpersyn is known as the least tolerant of ideological ambiguity in the party. The security benefits of ideological struggle are not mostly direct. Only the dumbest federal agents are unable to spout MIM line when required.

Currently there is a series of commercials running in the U.$. media about talking to your kids about drugs by calling them all the time if need be, wherever they are. In actual fact, MIM is much more sympathetic to the teenager who does not want to talk to parents about drugs than to the party affiliated persyn with ambiguities. Ambiguities prevent the flow of information, which may not always be exactly about the ideological point under discussion. So ideological discussion is a way of bringing many issues to the fore. It also brings about improved unity and mutual understanding.

Ideological clarity is also beneficial when under fire. In a serious conflict with feds, we want people who are good under fire. If the comrade is already ambiguous and paralyzed in dealing with people within the organization, that does not bode well for stepped up struggle with the enemy. So ambiguity is out.

Stupid Liberals believe that purging ambiguity crushes creativity. They simply do not have experience with organizational clarity and why it benefits activity and hence the creativity that counts. Ambiguity crushes the flow of information, creates inequalities, exacerbates leadership versus led contradictions and lays the party open to attack.

Our next policy after ideological clarity weeds out both the lazy and the feds. We have to ramp up our action requirements for people to stay around the party at all. Then we should also have friendly charity and reform organizations to channel our less-motivated comrades toward.

Finally, we need a crypticness about the rest of what we are doing. It took many years for us to formulate the line that we will not tolerate people who have difficulty with crypticness. We had a few people who always complained about it. In the end there are two kinds of bourgeois individualism. One is the obvious persynality cult, in which we unite behind a leader we "trust." The other bourgeois individualism is also individualism by distrusting all people, thereby creating all individuals as equal--another road to individualism. In the total distrust scheme, everything has to be accessible, which rules out allegorical struggle, cryptic struggle and secret policy. This is the ultraleft form of bourgeois individualism, because even Mao under socialism had to deal with allegorical critics. The gap between leaders and led did not disappear even under Mao and certainly has not disappeared under imperialist conditions either. We would now only say that MIM is more transparent and accountable in its line than any other organization, proletarian or bourgeois. We write more about what we think and do.

We had a case of struggle inside the party regarding a fed, and the argument went like this. "X is a fed." "No, I don't think so. I know who X was sleeping with before X affiliated." And it went further that we knew what parties X was going to. So in the face of policy and in face of something that a comrade saw, we had someone basically say, "I know WHO X is better than you do." Any aberrations by the persyn we supposedly know so well could then be written off as "anarchism," just someone being dumb and undisciplined. It was the vouching method of security which we have derided many times now.

We have been stressing that who-oriented intelligence is basically the bourgeoisie's game. As such it may work in a country with feudal limitations. If they use it in Peru, it might work. We might pick who is a spy sometimes right, and sometimes wrong and still win overall in many countries, and therefore in those countries where the bourgeois revolution is still brewing, it can be OK to use the who-oriented tactics.

The real superiority of the proletariat is at the group level and abandoning constraining group influences. Cheney cannot do that because of Halliburton. Likewise, Bush has oil experience. They cannot carry out a proletarian scientific policy. In Nepal there are as yet no proletarian revolutionary leaders, because they are all constrained on the gay question. There is a narrowness in public opinion that political leaders feel compelled to cater to. It's not likely a reflection about the gay question directly, but the bourgeois limitations of the society generally.

In the united $tates we are trying to fly by showing people what is possible while abandoning constraining influences, most notably the labor aristocracy. So to start with, Amerikans are caught up in the career/money rat race. Then even those dissatisfied with that can go home to turn on the videotape with Paris Hilton. If the imperialists do not soothe you with money, they can still get you with pornography, and sufficiently that there is nothing left for politics.

So MIM says, our emphasis on ideology is not to be Hoxhaite. Our being intolerant of spies is not going to make them go away. It is much better to be intolerant of people who think spies are going to go away in the imperialist countries.

Now to take the case of the spy whose lovers we knew down pat, MIM had the following in place:

We've talked about this, where people are unable to take action until after they have a government paystub, and even then we'd better check if it's a forgery. This is the wrong, Liberal, individualist way to go. Organizations need to run policies with probability the most favorable they can manage. People who are wronged by a policy can always set up their own independent Maoist activity. People who believe that our ideological intolerance can generate a 100% accurate who-oriented approach to intelligence basically live a delusion about the transparency and freedom of the imperialist countries. They are headed to becoming passive appendages of the state.

Tactics have to be chosen not because they will win every time, but because they will have the highest possibility of success. Hezbollah took it up a notch with I$rael by getting anti-tank rockets that make tank battle too expensive for I$rael. It does not mean Hezbollah never dies in battle.

Hamas and Al Qaeda generally use the suicide bombing as did Japanese kamikazes at the end of World War II. The reason for that is that the military situation they face is very bad. It would not be the same situation in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia. For its part, I$rael has superior equipment and will go to hand-to-hand combat sometimes, but generally it will not, because that is not a game the Zionists can win if they go to it on a regular basis.

MIM learned early-on that writing academic history is a futile task. Once you've organized a demonstration of a 125 to see one student show up with one poster and get photographed by the newspaper so that an anti-apartheid rally becomes a rally for local white workers' union, you learn forever what disadvantages document-whores are up against.

So abandoning the fantasy of always winning one's battles and always getting them right is important. We have to pick our tactics of choice just to win most often. We are no better than Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda or I$rael in this regard. There is nothing anyone can do to always win one's battles.

So to return to the spy whose lovers and parties we knew, the thinking of a party member was wrong on a policy level. First of all, spies outnumber communists. So for a spy to find another spy for a lover is easier than for a communist to find another communist. There is nothing miraculous about seeing two spies or several spy couplings. Secondly, there was perhaps an illusion about spies--that some may not think of themselves as liberals. Much of the labor aristocracy and traditional petty-bourgeoisie in the blue states will consider itself liberal. It's a lifestyle statement, nothing about an unwillingness to take a federal paycheck to spy on MIM. MIM has gone the extra yard to say it does not even recruit classic labor aristocracy anymore, regardless of what the people may be spouting. The FBI loves to recruit labor aristocracy with resentments to spy on MIM. MIM's more educated opponents end up in the NSA and CIA.

The remarkable persynal knowledge of a persyn created an individualist illusion that "we knew" X. This in turn obviously becomes a gender question or what Van Halen said is "carnal knowledge."

Not only is it wrong to think that there are not two spies that can sleep with each other. Spies also sleep with MIM. It is not a question of whether but how many, how often.

In Turkey, they have an active armed struggle and they can weed out much garbage that way. In the united $tates, we can "pick up the gun," but even then it is not going to play out well for us. When the Black Panthers were patrolling the police, weeding out people with the gun was also an option. It's an example of a policy relating to the party's security. Not all people who refuse the gun will be spies, quite the contrary. However, the IRA found it could assign people assassinations that would weed out many spies; although, even then, not always. It just worked out more often than not for the IRA.

Another policy that is given too short shrift because of current political correctness fascinations of the middle class was the "supine" statement of the infamous Black Panthers at an SDS convention. The social-democrats writing the history of the 1960s revolutionary movement--and it's always social-democrats writing history--boiled this question down too quickly to being a matter of some Black Panthers just being sexist in asking wimmin to be supine, when in fact, there is a policy point here. If a womyn is not patrolling the police gun in hand, why is she hanging around the Black Panthers? And then is there nothing to Bobby Seale's policy "challenging" wimmin to sex? Potential gun battles weed out people. Getting rid of wimmin hanging around who are not sleeping with anyone within the "pick up the gun" policy is another way. Those wimmin do not have to hang around the vanguard party to make their charity or reform-minded contributions.

Now the truth is that there will even be both male and female spies who will go to that level of having sex to stay in the loop. Some imperialist agencies recruit spies with express policies against it. This is a very damaging area, but it is also an area with ambiguity for the enemy. Here the point is not what we know about a specific womyn or man. The point is whether there is a policy to raise the cost of hanging around the party. Sex is one way, pseudo-feminist objections notwithstanding. Females who patrol the police the same as males should not be subjected to any sex test in any circumstance. That would be sexist. Tossing females who don't sleep with anyone fulfilling party policies could be completely correct counter- intelligence policy, not sexism. Only Liberals who believe parties are coffee klatches would say otherwise.

The IRA assassination or knee-capping policy, the police patrolling tactic, the "supine" tactic--it can be anything but it has to be a tactic that weeds out people independently of "who" questions. People vouching for others because they go to the same parties and "know them" are ridiculous to Maoism. Likewise, the CIA has publicly admitted to being heavily involved in the liberal arts writing and publishing in connection to Mao's China. So writing a paper on a subject should not count for anything. It does not mean there cannot be organizations with low levels of discipline required. There should be, but obviously we do not want our most advanced work going through such fronts.

People who cannot break with an who-oriented approach to intelligence endanger the proletarian movement by making secret policy more difficult. Gossip and tolerance for state-sponsored white nationalism is bad enough without the party getting involved. Who-oriented intelligence is also easy to botch without knowledge of the real stakes in various struggles. Certain "who" questions will look one way in the context of one struggle but another way in another struggle. So again people who think everything is transparent with the implicit related corollary of living in a free country with a huge white proletariat about to whip out a can of whup-ass at any minute are missing the real layeredness and unevenness of struggle as it actually happens.