Over more than a decade there has been whining in the party on writing in context, because the rules of writing are not simple or even stated as if they could be for all contexts. Past oversimplified proposals included only using the term "settler" to refer to whites. This past year there have been tussles over "bitch" and "Amerikkkan." A past congress resolution specifically eliminated "cracker," but did not step up to a general theory of language and enemies. This resolution is meant as the general theory behind writing in context and making our terminology correspond to that context--subordinating form to content.

Crucially we must write without Liberal or anarchist ideas that there are no enemies and we must intermix the most theoretically correct and precise terms with terms that the masses commonly use. In MIM Notes, 75% of language terminology choices should be language the masses understand intermixed with our own 25% precise terms for enemies. "Gender aristocracy" should be less than 25% of the mentions of female-biology-enemies in MIM Notes and terms like "bitch" the other 75%. In MIM Theory, we should use a higher proportion of correct but little- used terms, but even there we cannot use 100% MIM or MLM manufactured terminology. That is the only way to spread the usage of more precise scientific terms.

1.1. In overturning a previous Congress resolution, the term "cracker" can now be used in context to attack white enemy when the enemy does something evil in a class/national context--cracker prison guards, cracker KKK, the cracker vote swayed by racist appeals etc. If the white in context is of lower-middle class, we can also refer to "trailer trash" or "white trash" and be understood by the masses.

The ideology that race-related terms should never be used is irrelevant in Amerikkkan context, because the oppressor nation formed on the basis of race and there is nothing that can be done about it now before the completion of the stage of history that re-civilizes the oppressor nation under the joint-dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations (jdpon). To attempt to eliminate the language of the oppressed before we eliminate the language of the oppressor is upside-down. We should only make sure that the oppressed use their language of enemy in the right contexts to accomplish their goals most efficiently and of course, we should oppose anyone who uses an enemy term to refer to a friend.

1.2. MIM introduced the world to the term "gender aristocracy" to include those people who may not even be bourgeoisie but who benefit from the current patriarchal setup in particular. The term "bourgeois feminists" preferred by Marxism before MIM is not sufficient to cover all the enemies. However, 99.9% of the world does not know what "gender aristocracy" is.

Such a term cannot be taken up by the masses simply because MIM fiats it. Though it much overlaps with "bourgeois feminists," the unique use of "gender aristocracy" refers to patriarchal enemies of female biology. The current and nearly only term the masses have for such people is "bitch." A womyn who murders her child is definitely an enemy in the MIM book and appropriately called "bitch."

The anarchists and pseudo-feminists have argued that "bitch" is a term indicative of the oppression of language supposedly because there is no parallel term for men. In addition, for most pseudo-feminists, in theory there are no enemies of female biology. Likewise, anarchists believe we are ready for communism right now, which in effect means there are no real enemies right now, just people who are going to see the light at any minute. Then there are those post- modernists who like anarchists do not see any enemies, because everything is relative. For them to eliminate the "bitch" term makes sense.

Contrary to that line, MIM holds that language is male-dominated by exclusion--just as "there are no famous wimmin writers in history" is a problem of exclusion either in the real world or in the world of dominant opinion. With a situation in which wimmin are rarely the central subjects of historical narratives, contrary to the pseudo-feminists, the real problem with "bitch" is that it is the only commonly used term that specifies a female-biology enemy and thus becomes overly degraded by wide usage in all contexts such that a mere complaint is called "bitching." Breaking down the dominance of patriarchy in language would mean having common and widely diverse terms to be able to write about current or past history to specify wimmin actors, including wimmin enemies.

Because of the same dynamic of exclusion that says there are no good wimmin writers in history and thus no texts to teach in college classes, terms to refer to male enemies are diverse including every imaginable enemy--pirates, slave-masters, rapists, terrorists etc. None of these terms specify men, but in most historical contexts to the people of that day or even now they would be inconceivable except as men. Ironically, as feminism succeeds, these terms referring to various enemies will be more and more occupied by those of female biology. The whole concept of a "lesbian batterer" or lesbian "wife-beater" is recent.

Dominance of the term "wife-beater" is indicative of the assumptions of patriarchal language. The biology of the wife-beater does not have to be specified and even today, such an assumption is more often accurate than not. "Stop beating your wife" is a general all-purpose put-down. No one says "husband-beater," which is proof that the dynamic is one of exclusion, not specific conspiracies for specific words as the pseudo-feminists say about "bitch." The patriarchy does not attempt to oppress by eliminating the term "wife-beater" or "husband-beater," but "husband- beater" never gets used. A Google search shows 26,200 entries for "wife-beater" and only 411 for "husband-beater." This shows that people have a difficult time seeing a womyn as the central actor in any story. The Google result is not on account of the dominance of feminist concerns in language as if there had already been a feminist revolution. In actuality, as explained in MT2/3, violence against adult males by gender aristocracy females is common in Amerikka, much more common than voiced in language, probably because it is an embarrassment to the male role to admit that your wife beats you and because pseudo-feminists buy the man-as-central-actor role by saying he is only beaten if he attacks first--a la the "burning bed" metaphor. The wife-beater term will be relevant and refer predominantly to men until communism. Contrary to the pseudo- feminists, almost all terms for enemies refer to men, the male rivals of other men. This does not mean there are no female enemies and MIM will use "bitch" and any other term it can to refer specifically to female enemies.

1.2.1. AMENDMENT

Add the following:

Although MIM recognizes that some people reference themselves as "niggers" and then call all wimmin "bitches," and that [combined action--ed. 2004] has the effect of changing the meaning of both terms, MIM reserves use of "bitch" as an enemy term and is more friendly to the position that all wimmin are " 'hos. "

1.3. In the choice among terms regarding enemy, in MIM Notes, 75% of the choice should be based on what the masses say when they do name an enemy. Within the remaining 25%, specifics of the term matter. "Settler" is especially good for land disputes, nation formation and oppression--Azania, I$rael, etc. "Labor aristocracy" is only slightly understood by the masses. "Amerika" is a good all-purpose theoretical term for the oppressor nation, but "Amerikkka" is necessary when the masses have to know whose side we are on at a single glance or in contexts of specific oppressive actions. Headlines, picture captions and intro sentences should bow to the masses and ideology most. The masses should know whose side we are on right away.

1.4. With regard to common street language often heard in rap about wimmin as "whores" or "hos" pronounced "hoes" or some variation--the term originates as "whore" and gets changed slightly to refer to wimmin not just in a one-hour or less sex contract. The fact that "ho" is not exactly "whore" makes it all the more interesting for theoretical purposes.

Tupac Shakur has a song in particular where he talks about having super-star money and the resulting effect on relations with wimmin. On the one hand, MIM has specifically criticized overuse of the whore concept today as part of our general theory that patriarchy is not only class oppression. On the other hand, Tupac Shakur's music is mostly correct and talking about all wimmin as whores is something Marx and Engels did in more refined language than we should expect to hear in a song.

Combined, those of us who think of all wimmin as a variety of whore and those of us who buy MIM's theory of a gender aristocracy are less than 10% of the population against the 90% who buy a Liberal lifestyle line on sex. The use of the term "ho" is actually theory taken up by the masses.

The reason Black heterosexual wimmin cannot find Black men for stable monogamous relations is prison and differential health care that kills off Black men before wimmin and white men. The desperate clamor for men with steady jobs is deafening and it opens the eyes of men to problems in gender relations. The shortage of available Black men also conditions Black female behavior and Black male behavior. Most of the conflicts in Amerika are at the level of acting as a single household financially, because people do not step up their thinking beyond the individual level to the scientific level. In another song, Tupac Shakur says "I don't have time for bitches," but he has a womyn talking in the song about how he just stands at the door with an AK-47. "He doesn't work, don't fuck" while he just stands there all day. However, obviously if the man is waiting with an AK-47 in his hands, the job and fucking questions are not appropriate for raising. The question has to be dealt with in its own right--at a political-military level.

Although wimmin can also stand guard at the door with an AK-47 waiting for the enemy to show up, in practice, including Black Panther practice and most of history, men did most of the military work. So the attacks of the enemy do have an effect on gender relations. If Tupac Shakur did not deal with females at all, then he is wrong, and if he meant that all wimmin are bitches he is wrong, but if he has to carry out something revolutionary and alone, then he's not really condemning all females. It would be strange to have a womyn in the song at all if that's what he meant. The point is that we have to evaluate the use of terms in context. Referring to all wimmin as "hos" is more correct than not; even though MIM does not do it. Acting as if a womyn could make a lifestyle choice and not be a ho is completely wrong.

Referring to all wimmin as bitches is wrong though. Some hos are friends of the people. If the problem is money, then the term ho is better than "bitch." If the point is that a middle-class womyn grubs for money like she was going to die, then yes, that is a "bitch." There is normal average level ho life and then there are those who go beyond that even in money questions and that is a bitch. The system makes all wimmin hos, but within that some people have a revolutionary or progressive attitude toward changing the system and others are wrapped up in it.

The line between misogyny and revolutionary anti-Liberalism is that term "bitch." Not all wimmin are bitches, but internationally all wimmin are hos or participating in all sex that is rape. If that makes a womyn mad to hear it, then she should blame the conditions and organization of society, not the messenger. Under communism there won't be hos anymore.

It boils down to this, how revolutionaries want to take their lumps. MIM does not want to say all wimmin are hos; even though, sex and money are completely intertwined right now under capitalism and semi-feudalism, so we said all sex is rape. Other people are saying all wimmin are whores and they are attacking capitalism whether they know it or not. They take their lumps for that too. Our common enemy is the Liberal whether s/he calls himself "conservative" Liberal or liberal Liberal. Whether they are calling themselves "Marxist" or "feminist" or not, gender oppression is a system and we should beware of those trying to comfort others about systematic oppression.