Note of the Harvard Law Record

I appreciate the change of tune at the Harvard Law School, as evidenced in the February 11 2010 issue of “Harvard Law Record.” Articles about the devil, Ralph Nader and South Africa clearly aim at me at an Aesopian and not-so Aesopian level.

“Bob Mnookin Deals with the Devil: In His Newest Book, Mnookin ’68 Negotiates the Pitfalls of Bargaining with the Forces of Evil” reads one title. Summarizing the book, the Harvard Law reviewer says “Stories emerge out of profound political conflicts. Some involve political leaders like Winston Churchill or Nelson Mandela; other tales concern lesser-known figures who came face-to-face with Nazi officers or the KGB.”

Mnookin expressed his view that “‘the challenge is to make wise decisions at a particular time in a particular context.'”

Fortunately it is now not disputed I was howling at racism and fascism in the period leading up to 9/11 — and getting nowhere. Right up into 2005, my old age “served his time with good behavior” promotion was that I was no longer a “rapist” but a participant in a “he said; she said” according to a member in the RCP-led organization the National Lawyers Guild of Boston.

Nonetheless, many are trying to judge some of my work without the Internet context. Let’s recall that context.

If Amerikans were not so vigilante in character, if they did not fall for every psychological ruse in the book, what I could have said and done after 9/11 and even before would have been different. Instead, people heard that I had “persynal problems” and that’s all.

Since December I’ve been in a similar situation, where I have now heard that I pushed Obama to resign to benefit myself with the office and also that I demoted myself to AAA minor leagues, which will have the effect in some of meaning that I cannot be taken seriously. The pattern is clear to create double-edged psychological criticisms that CANNOT be wrong, because they cover all bases.

In 2005-2006, things finally reached an intolerable point and my first major step was against the CIA. This I call a major step because it went above and beyond arguing in discussion groups and even shuttering one. In late 2006 I went to threatening exposure of CIA figures if the situation did not calm down. What that situation was, I will describe below, and if you do not have the discussion group documents including the website documents trying to convince me that someone in the government was someone else’s uncle, then you just don’t know what you are talking about yet.

If you saw me cause the CIA to cough up the “family jewels,” then you saw some of the crucial struggles. Otherwise, consider yourself without sufficient historical documentation.

  • The persyn who pre-announced the CIA jewels was saying “DIE X!” in the discussion group I was trying to lead politically for Maoists.
  • Another persyn was saying my ex- should be dragged to and fro across the border with Mexico, naked. This was an associate of my ex-‘s, not mine.
  • Ward Churchill was saying that those opposing his smoking should consider snuffing their children.
  • Less provocatively, but historically important, various websites arose saying my ex’s handler should be thrown off a building. (Such is almost standard in a situation of espionage where the plot is at least partially uncovered.)

    If you knew all the above, then consider that you have a good piece of the picture. When I started receiving messages about this in movies, I decided I had to crackdown on the CIA as the only road to resolution.

    If my lyncher and/or her children were to go down in a hail of CIA, FBI, mafia and radical bullets, and if I managed to escape physically unscathed, I was going to have even bigger persynal problems than I already did. That’s not to mention that given the psychological penchant of Amerikans, the FBI would have said I had a motive to kill her. Those of us who read about cops and the FBI in the 1960s know that’s exactly the kind of thing I could expect.

    Again, had Amerikans including my ex-comrades not been so obtuse, the context would have been different and threatening the CIA would have not been necessary, nor attempted verbal contact with my ex- for the first time in over a decade.

    Threatening the CIA was exactly the right move in context, because the third party gambit did not want to be ended with a case in court against me over exposure of CIA identities. With my lyncher alive, over time, more people would start to see straight as it turned out.

    The most important sense in which I negotiated with the devil was that I showed everybody that I could go along through the Annapolis negotiations. This sort of showed the devil that doing things his/her way was not going to work anyway. Overall, because of the low level of the anti-lynching struggle, it became in my urgent interest for my lyncher to survive and show everyone where things were going directly instead of people hearing it from my mouth.

    Advertisements

  • %d bloggers like this: