Anarchy: a journal of desire armed. #38, Fall 1993 LETTERS part one @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ _Have_something_to_say?__Write_us!_ We would like to encourage you to write us in order to continue this dialogue, whether you are sympathetic or critical of anarchist theories and practices. All letters will be printed with the auth- or's initials only, unless it is specifically stated that her/his full name may be used or that s/he wishes to remain anonymous, or the name already appears in Anarchy=FEas in the case of an author of an essay or creator of artwork published here. We will edit letters that are redundant, overly long, unreadable, excessively boring or contain threats. (Ellipses in italicized brackets [...] indicate editorial omissions.) Limit length to three double-spaced, typewritten pages. Address your letters to C.A.L., POB 1446, Columbia, MO. 65205-1446. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ GIVE ME A BREAK Dear Anarchy, First some positive comments to prove that I can say nice things on occasion. Manolo Gonzalez' autobiographical article was one of the best pieces to appear in Anarchy ever; I hope to read more from him. And Feral's pointed and well-done critique of cybernetics should be required reading for all technophiles. Now that the good things are out of the way...I don't like the full-color cover. It adds nothing to the zine except a false slick- ness that reminds me of Processed WorldTM or Utne Reader. Also it's non-recyclable. I don't see the point, especially since you "have to pinch pennies whenever [you] can." Adam Bregman's report on the Anti-Columbus Day black bloc action was replete with the inflated self-importance of a street tough. This macho vanguardist and his cronies would have the rest of us ("armchair sitters" all, naturally) believe that with enough ebon- clad JDs at hand they could pose some sort of threat to the "powers that be." Give me a break. (I'm sure all the German politicians and industrialists quake with fear when 10,000 autonomen rumble with the cops.) Fetishizing one particular strategy as "the best" or "the most revolutionary" makes these dimwits resemble the civil disobedience crowd more than they'd want to admit. Each method of protest is championed with the same sanctimonious self- righteousness of the true believer, as if chest-thumping and jumping up and down, or sitting still and going limp enough times could make up for the paucity of their practitioners' impact on the smooth functioning of industrial civilization. The black bloc in S.F. on Oct. 11 broke up because an organizer told people to disperse? Where was the solidarity of the black bloc during the incarceration of one of their own on the charge of attempted murder (with $500,000 bail)? This isn't revolution, it's just dumb. If Bregman is irritated that AIM leaders wanted to tell the bloc- heads what to do, how much more irked does he think AIM people would be if he confronted them directly with his opinion of their "wimpy," "unthreatening" "lame" rally? Coming from a young posturing militant, I'm sure they'd be quick to repent their errant ways and make him their field marshal since he knows so much about Geronimo, Crazy Horse, and other famous Indians. He reminds me of the guy from out of town I spoke with at the rally after the arrests who carelessly bragged to me=FEa total stranger=FEabout preparing eight or so and throwing one molly=FEthey're both dolts. I want to clear up some things regarding my interaction with Ward Churchill. I sent a copy of my letter to W.C. at the same time I sent it to Anarchy. He wrote to me thinking that I was the publisher, deeming the "anonymous critic" too afraid to sign a name and send it to him directly. (Also on the letter was a memo promising that "This exchange will appear in my next book.") I explained that I was the author and that I had sent a copy to him because it's better to get a critique personally. When I got his lengthy reply to my original critiques I sent a copy to Anarchy because I'd written my letter for the zine. I had no idea that you would delete his provocative and insulting introduction and postscript without ellipses, making his letter seem more reasonable. In fact the nasty tone was set from his initial few curt sentences and spurious assumptions. By allowing W.C. to respond directly after my letter you give him a voice equal to yours and superior to mine=FEit makes it appear that you wrote to him and said, "Hey Ward, do you want to respond to this?" when in fact the exchange took place at my PO Box. It's not as though he doesn't have full time access to Z Magazine (not known for its relevance to anti-authoritarians), South End Press (leftists to the max), and now Common Courage Press (more expensive than Black Rose Books); now he gets near-editorial privilege in Anarchy, too. His letter could have been printed in its entirety or with ellipses in the issue following the one where mine appeared, putting his dispute with me on the same footing as all the other letter exchanges. The irony of this is that if I hadn't been considerate enough to send any letter to W.C. he'd never have known about it, since he hadn't read Anarchy (and why should he, being a nationalist as well as an academic intellectual and a leftist?) So not only did he get the advantage of having a response appear next to a critique of him, but he also attains the appearance of being a regular reader/supporter of Anarchy when it's obviously not the case. You've had no problem exposing the lines of Chomsky as the poseur that he is; why shy away from a few choice comments about W.C.'s leftism, his fetishism of legality and "rights," etc.? You had no problem telling off Barrabbas regarding the "no social concerns" punk band, so why pull punches with an authoritarian like Churchill? This college professor is obviously no friend to an anarchic perspective or those who have one; why then does he merit the consideration of having his specious innuendos and attacks on=20 me printed? Meanwhile W.C. and I engaged in a heated exchange of letters; Bob Black also entered the fray. I would be happy to send anyone copies of the unedited corpus if they send me a few dollars to cover photocopying and postage costs. Lawrence POB 410681 San Francisco, CA. 94141 Jason comments: Questions of balance Regarding our new full-color cover and its relation to our financ- es, we are assuming that it will quickly pay for itself through the greatly increased number of copies that we will sell of each issue. So far, this assumption seems to be a valid one. All of our major distributors have increased their orders substantially, while many of our other distributors report significantly increased sales. The question then becomes whether or not the increased durability and beauty of the new cover, along with the increased number of people who will read Anarchy (who otherwise wouldn't have noticed it on newsstands), is worth the cost of printing with a less directly recyclable paper. There is no perfect answer to this question, but I think the balance of benefits far outweighs the few drawbacks. Regarding your comments on Ward Churchill's letter appearing in response to yours in the same issue, you are right that had you not sent the letter to him yourself, he would not have responded until the following issue. However, since you did send him your letter, he was able to respond in the same issue. We don't intend to tell people that they can't write letters in response to other letters they've already seen, just because those letters haven't yet been printed in Anarchy. We always try to maintain a balanced access to the letters column without playing favorites among noneditorial writers. In the case of Ward Churchill's letter, it also made sense that he had no wish to include his original, mistaken preface and conclusion (to the body of his letter in response to you) once he understood to whom he was speaking. Nor did we see any purpose in printing them since they would just have been more confusing for readers who wouldn't know the circumstances in which they were written. We did not ask Noam Chomsky or Ward Churchill (or anyone else) to contribute to this magazine in order to then put them down. We may have disagreements with Chomsky and Churchill (as with most anyone else, as well), but we also respect the work they have done in exposing the lies of the powers that be. Readers, however, are always free to give their opinions on contributors to this journal. And they usual do. WHO NEEDS TAD KEPLEY? For Anarchy letters: Tad Kepley's "Who needs Class War?" (Anarchy Winter 1993) might better have been titled "Who needs Tad Kepley?" He admits to personally having nothing to offer; "I will never contribute anything ...[but will do] my best to destroy the work of others." Uh huh. While in NYC, that consisted of ripping off one anarchist after another and then basically being run out of town with no one left to burn. Anarchists here could indeed learn from Britain's Class War: they simply would have offed a clown like Kepley. Many of us who were at the San Francisco "Day of Action" had a laugh at Kepley's letter in Anarchy concerning that event. He was the one fingered for mouthing "faggot" & "nigger!" Eric Blake, Albany, NY. TYRANNY OF VOICES PAST In the film, "Simple Men," by Hal Hartley, a seasoned radical recites a passage from Malatesta's Anarchy while perched above his audience. He holds sway over several followers who are induced to recite along with him. Any perceptive anarchist would quickly find fault with this authoritative situation=FEthe recitation from the physical and psychological position of authority and the unquestioning obeisance of the audience (the followers). This repulsive and authoritarian situation introduces us to the subtle danger of using quotations in any context, for the quotation is a primal token of devotion and faith. The quotation comforts=FE things prepackaged and poetic have always comforted. Only external things are believed to make the whole resonant. And so the external bringer of comforting things comforts. The quotation transforms=FE transformation is sought because the whole decays or observes others that appear whole. Only external forces are believed to transform. And so the external possessor of transformation is deified. Possess an outwardly apparent great sympathy towards something, relate to those of similar endowment of the past, and garnish with quotations. The social relationship with the reverent audience is sealed. The instrument=FEfaith=FEensures the perpetuation of the new social contract. The hills seethe with those that understand and exploit the faithworks=FEthe quotation is their secret weapon. It is the new cornerstone for coloring speeches, introducing the chapters of popular books, complementing the graphics in calendars, and is the essence of today's little red books. Most of these have a transformational and comforting (spiritual) subtext. Those faithful who refer to spiritual and religious dogma=FE evangelists and acolytes=FEare notorious for quoting texts. These dogmatists invented the practice of lionizing the voices of the past. Even in the pages of Anarchy there are those that capitulate, the zealots, and those that develop a unified and self-assured exposition. Compare the numerous quotations and references (even this propositional aid is suspect in quantity) of the pro-sacred Dogbane Campion with the independent arguments of Lev Chernyi in issue #24. Should anarchists and anti-authoritarians practice the dogmatist tactics of the reverent? Should we encumber our audiences with convenient poetics that float endlessly in the historical spectrum, to brandish and then surgically implant them, instead of working towards an understanding of the larger scheme? Must we rely on cheap quotations to make credible and therefore official arguments? Must we aggrandize these folk like religious zealots? No, no, no, and never! Though many valuable ideas have been craftily midwived out of a social consciousness by their authors, they were thoughts that others, then and now, were generally thinking of. The much quoted were only different in that they patiently birthed these archetypical ideas and transformed them into words for the public. An exponent of the author subsequently extracts the quotations to play the role of the highly regarded priest, medium, apostle, or, sage; or to a lesser degree, associate or expert. Use the quotation and rivet the fate of a dominator/dominated relationship. Out of its original context, the quotation is a weapon of psycho- logical seduction to the unsuspecting. It lies tenaciously in the back of the mind like a critic, fending off other ideas with almost no chance of its dislodgment or resynthesis. The especially porta- ble quotation is fodder for a slogan where the above interplay is consciously exploited by the adherents. Now the supplicating masses become captive and hence susceptible to potentially devastating thought-control. The use of slogans (symbols and tokens, too) cannot ever be justified. Considering these dangers, is it ever safe to exhume a quotation? One might quote or paraphrase sparingly without developing authoritarian constructs if the author is especially not well-known or the quotation is not very popular. For the worn-out quotation or aphorism, some research may put the item in context. The quotation may be transformed or it may even become impotent. Offer the historical perspective surrounding the author at the quotation's creation. It wouldn't hurt to be thorough and also supply the surrounding text. Fragmentation, isolation, and distortion are tools of the state. One might state that the quotation is anonymous, not attributable to some other "great" figure as the reverent would. Quash the compelling feelings of guilt that force us to bolster authors and diminish ourselves. One might also para- phrase or completely rework the quotation (artists continuously borrow, sample, or steal ideas and constructs from "great" artists without compunction). Treading swirling author-itarian waters, one might quote but not cite it as such. A simple experiment unmasks the power of the quotation: try quoting yourself. It's plainly awkward and conceited. Only a megalomaniac would ever quote themselves. Why create the same aura by quoting others? As individuals, we embody the concept of uniqueness of character and experience. Our times embody the same uniqueness. Why relinquish the present, the privilege of genesis, the pleasure of saying something incisive to another voice or another time? Synthesize something new altogether. Retrieval is lazy. Synthesis is work. J.K., Chicago, IL. MY DEFINITION FOR ANARCHY Dear Jason & Toni, During the past fifty-odd years, I have belonged to various "organized" efforts to deal with and/or resolve humanity's ad- versarial condition. Those efforts range from the exquisitely eso- teric to the grossly political...All manifesting the same liabilities: "Inspired" ideologies carved in stone, administered by self perpetuating hierarchies. Each of these, with similar goals and "enemies," denounce the others as being in league with or ac- commodating to "the enemy." The experience evoked the gamut of emotions from hopelessness to rage. I have since risen to the level of amusement. About a year ago I was overheard repeating one of Ronald Reagan's "truths": "Government is the problem not the solution." Later, the eavesdropper confided, "...You talk like an Anarchist." We have since become close friends, and I have been exposed to Proudhon, Bukharin, Kropotkin, Rocker, Emma Goldman and this journal. I can now acknowledge association with that living diversity: Anarchism. For a personal guide-line I like the goal pursued by members of the Mondragon Cooperative in Basque Spain: "Freedom in community" and "Unity in diversity." Balancing astride the ridges between those apparent dichotomies is an exercise in self-location. Being a tyro on the @ scene, I rush headlong to offer my definition of Anarchy: The human condition in which all will be totally free and totally responsible for and to all and everything...I liken it to a square-dance where the music and the calls are in the dancers' heads; all dancing joyfully in their own spaces.... Meanwhile fractionized humanity trashes itself in a surreal cacophony of discotheques. Comprehended thusly, the amount and quality of time, space and energy required to approach that goal is daunting. But the prospect of our liberation can be apprehended from a one-page sentence by "Bucky" Fuller. What I Am Trying To Do Acutely aware of our beings' limitations and acknowledging the infinite mystery of the a priori Universe into which we are born but nevertheless searching for a conscious means of hopefully competent participation by humanity in its own evolutionary trending while employing only the unique advantages inhering exclu- sively to those individuals who take and maintain the economic initiative in the face of the formidable physical capital and credit advantages of the massive corporations and political states and deliberately avoiding political ties and tactics while endeavoring by experiments and explorations to excite individuals' awareness and realization of humanity's higher potentials I seek through comprehensive anticipatory design science and its reduction to physical practices to reform the environment instead of trying to reform humans, being intent thereby to accomplish prototypical capabilities of doing more with less whereby in turn the wealth augmenting prospects of such design science regenerations will induce their spontaneous and economically successful industrial proliferation by world around services' managements all of which chain reaction provoking events will both permit and induce all hu- manity to realize full lasting economic and physical success plus enjoyment of all the Earth without one individual interfering with or being advantaged at the expense of another. -R. Buckminster Fuller Fuller is probably best remembered for the geodesic dome. But (as he insisted) that was only one of many artifacts he created in his effort to get humanity to abandon its flat-earth concepts and behave in tune with the reality of our spherical, integral and indivisible Spaceship Earth. He seized every opportunity to chide us for allowing our abilities to understand and communicate to be held hostage by false words and concepts embedded in our languages. For instance, we speak of sunrises and sunsets when we know the sun to be stationary relative to the earth. We find security in "solid" things, knowing the atoms of those "solids" are (relatively) as spacious as the earth-moon system. Our spaces are framed with what we perceive to be intersecting straight lines. But laser-augmented measurement will expose their gravity enforced curvatures. "Bucky" challenges us to confront these and countless other inherited misperceptions that condition our reflexes as we cope with Life's surprises. He urges us to comprehend and act in harmony with the reality of our interconnectedness; knowing the only barriers between us are those we allow to be there. Any other course leads to more of the same. I recommend his book, Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, to get a grasp on our potential for universal success. Finally, I take the term "desire armed" to be a metaphor for the ability to hold a position and interact creatively with others. That is real power! All other forms and sources of power fuck us up. R.D.W., Englewood, FL. PS: In the interest of brevity I chose to avoid topics of action and projects. However I would like to see more attention given to "grass-root" activity intended to raise the level of personal re- sponsibility for local conditions. These can evolve into co-ops, unions and councils. Nor should regional, national, inter- and trans-national concerns be neglected; always responsibly. For example, we can be helpful in Greenpeace, Co-op America, the Committees of Correspondence, and always, the union movement. Enough! "MORAL OUTRAGE" A Chara Jason, Toni, folks of Anarchy, Hey thanx a lot. We just picked #35 from the post. Looks really good passing it back and forth as usual. Want to especially thank you for the blurb on Steal The Fire. Requests are being received from all over the place, faster than can be filled. While reading the letters section I came upon a letter concerning Amnesty International. J.G. Eccarius is correct to point out that people who practice self defense are beneath the regard of AI. In fact let's take for example Northern Ireland. During the '81 hunger strike AI to my knowledge did not support the strikers because they were IRA and INLA prisoners. Neither will they comment on the British judiciary which is stacked against Irish nationalists as exemplified by the case of the Birmingham Six or Guilford Four. "Moral outrage" is AI's watchword. Translated it means what can we use to raise more money for all sorts of non-prisoner support stuff. As an individual who does prisoner support I find AI's position beneath contempt. It's a fine first step that AI is calling attention to the USA but they still accomplish nothing but a little reform here and there. The situation in the occupied six counties is a moral outrage but AI turns a blind eye to it because vols are defending their communities from racist British troops, loyalist death squads, and Diplock courts. Come on AI get a clue. Abolish All Prisons! [....] M.L. for Acts of Resistance San Francisco, CA. BEWILDERED Dear Anarchy, As someone who first started having sexual contacts with adults at age 11, I think the issue is pretty straight forward. If the child wants the relationship and can leave without fear of retaliation then it is not abuse and should be tolerated. On the other hand, if force or threats or dishonesty is used to gain the child's compliance, then other adults should come in on the child's side and put a stop to it. There seem to be some readers who don't agree with me who feel justified in attacking relationships in which the child likes or loves the adult and doesn't want to be "saved." When I read letters like this I imagine myself as a boy in bed with my friend when a heavy knock comes at the door. "Open up in there! It's the anarchists! Do not attempt to escape, we have your house surrounded!" At this point, my imagination fails me. Just exactly how would these "anti-authoritarians" go about suppressing relationships between mutually consenting partners? If a bunch of self-righteous "libertarian" moralists busted down the door to the bedroom, I suppose that they could have sent me home to my parents and perhaps beat up my lover, but then what? How would they prevent me from sneaking back to the man's house once the coast was clear? Would they take the man away and lock him up? Where? In an anarchist prison? Who would guard it? What would they do to me if I screamed at them to get the fuck out of my life and to leave my adult friend alone? Spank me? I am tired of hearing a lot of abstract arguments about why the child's perspective should be ignored and about how the age difference absolutely determines that a relationship like this will be oppressive no matter how the two partners feel about one another or treat each other. What I want to know is how the "anarchists" who feel this way expect to enforce such standards in a stateless society. Will someone please enlighten me? Yours in bewilderment, Schaun Perry (no city listed by request) SAME OLD FACES A- How are you all? I'd been wanting to write for awhile but have been plagued with some of the very things described in "Amnesia" [Anarchy #35, p.5], though forgetting isn't at all my problem, just hopelessness. Some of this came from seeing the insurrectionary fever of last spring subside into bizness as usual and even more galling hip bizness, so much of it, also friends falling into drug addictions from heroin to vodka to pot and social degeneration and psychopathy on the rise. Plus ozone hole 15% bigger in '91, more trees gone, 5 Bay Area toxic gas releases, etc., etc. Let's have a protest? Doesn't seem to cut it, plus it'll just be the same old faces, some of them anarchists who are pretty unanarchistic. And the project dwellers across the street, those with really no future, are doing donuts in their hotrods till 3am, testing their weapons, 2 shot dead in the week before I left. So let's just get high and fuck. But my lungs are scorched and my heart dead. Something's wrong with my back and it takes me 3 weeks to get rid of a cold. No, amnesia doesn't get me, collapse does. Never mind, I'll try to put a positive spin on things. There's a burgeoning squatting movement that's taken off in S.F. as well as Santa Cruz & San Jose. In S.F. they have several buildings occupied by homeless people with AIDS and anti-renters. In early December a sniper at the Army St. projects across the street from me tagged a cop but wasn't caught. Epicenter has a switchboard for info, free food, medix, shelter & events, TV=FESunday 12-6pm @ (415) 431-4600. Down in Long Beach there was an anarchist get-together that was pretty interesting. Over here in Providence [Rhode Island] Newspeak exists next to a free artspace performance place called AS220 in downtown. Newspeak is now providing both a space and info materials, books, zines, videos & cassettes that didn't exist before. A local activist group, Anarchist Revolutionary Movement, existed but then split up over the use of arms vs. changing the name to @ Cooperative Mov't. And anti-Japanese graffiti that I altered into anti-nationalist, capitalist messages still stands on the overpass of a very busy street from 2 years + ago! So life is just popping along. As a letter in the last EF! paper said, "expectation of things going perfectly, and disillusionment when they don't is a product of a TV culture used to watching conflict introduction, resolution in 30 minute sitcoms...." I myself used to watch alot. [...] P.K., San Francisco, CA. DECENTRALIST PAPERS Dear friends, I want to draw your attention to some European not-anarchist-but- decentralist papers. I hope you will be interested in them, and that you will use them in your "Alternative Media Review." Fourth World Review, 24 Abercorn Place, London NW8 9XP, England. Perspectives, Transeuropa, BM-6682, London WC1N 3XX, England. Third Way, POB 1243, London SW7 3PB, England. Alternative Green, 20 Upper Barr, Cowley Centre, Oxford OX4 3UX, England. J.T., Crechowice, Poland TRANSVESTITE LITERATURE? Dear Jason and the cool collective of Anarchy, I sure hope this letter finds you all in the very best of health and happiness these days. Do you folks still remember lil ol' me? I'm one of the gals in prison, whom you send your astounding publication to. [...] Do you know of anywhere I could receive free literature regarding transvestite transsexual lifestyle issues? Also I would like to know if there was any way you could print my letter in hopes of finding a pen pal? I'll write to anybody nice enough to write to me. [...] Well, bye for now! With love and in solidarity, John Salyers #185067 POB 45699 Lucasville, OH. 45699 BLACK BLOC ARTICLE "BORDERLINE RACIST" Dear Anarchy, I am writing about the Black Bloc article in your december issue. As a participant in the bloc, I feel it is necessary to offer a different perspective as I found the article both macho and borderline racist. First of all, though I believe one always has the right to critically evaluate any organization, I felt that the tone of the article was bashing AIM, not offering constructive criticism of its methods. In fact, I got the distinct feeling that the author felt better equipped to organize a First Nation resis- tance action than AIM, a group which has done a lot more and gone through a lot more than 99.99% of white people have (though I am not assuming the author was white, but most of the bloc was). I question the motives of someone protesting Columbus Day who feels so strongly negative about the First Nation organizing group. If an anarchist feels strongly that there are First Nation activists fighting along more militant lines and that they would be more comfortable working with these activists, then form alliances with them, don't attempt to colonize the sovereigntist movement. Secondly, about Tommy Lawless (a friend). She did an extremely good job under intensely harsh circumstances. She worked her butt off and there were plenty of opportunities for others to become involved prior to the Saturday night meeting. I am rather sick of people sitting on their asses and then picking on hard working organizers after the fact. If you had problems, why didn't you say something? And if you can do a better job, then do it. Organized a bloc. Talk - Action =3D 0! Well that's it. The bloc, like any action, could have been improved, but picking out targets for bashing to avoid personal responsibility to make things better gets us nowhere. Peace, love and vegan joy, M@c Sm@ck Anor@k Victoria, British Columbia