Anarchy: a journal of desire armed. #38, Fall 1993
LETTERS part five 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
REPLY TO SIMONS ON PLAY
Dear Readers and Editors,

 So Paul Z. Simons wants a paste made of my liver and brain
("Letters," Anarchy, Spring '93). If he were nicer, I'd offer to
send him some homemade chopped liver. On a less playful note,
Simons has done me an injustice in his letter, though he obviously
feels I wronged him in my pamphlet, Anarchy and Civilization.

 Simons takes umbrage at a section of my pamphlet that quotes a
paragraph from his article, "Seven Theses on Play," and that then
has the audacity to criticize his and others' romanticization of
play and of the primitive. My quote from Simons was not
out-of-context, nor, to be fair, does Simons criticize me for
distorting his view. Instead (between smears of pat=82), he takes
very personal offense at my characterizing his view as "silly,
fatuous, and unoriginal." He responds by presenting a distorted
account of my discourse, selectively ignoring major points that
might inconvenience his rebuttal=FEall the while vacillating between
denials that he's a primitivist, and defenses of what he himself
characterizes as primitive virtues.

 He says "MH demands a return to the Enlightenment project of the
rational search for the "perfect society"=FEdisregarding utterly that
the current dominant culture is part and parcel of the realization
of this very project." I don't disregard that "fact"; I dispute it!
One of my central arguments is that the current dominant society
represents a betrayal of the hopes of the Enlightenment, a cruel
parody of its vision by a ruling class that's never grasped=FEand
never could grasp=FE"the vision thing." As I emphasize, if Thomas
Jefferson could see the life-constricting industrial monstrosity
we've built, he=FEalong with Simons and me=FEwould choke on his pat=82=FEif
the smog didn't get him first. Incidentally, I don't demand in my
pamphlet; I advocate=FEand I believe that the absolutism of those
who'd demand conformity to their blueprint for some "perfect soci-
ety" is another cruel hoax that perverts the aspirations of the En-
lightenment.

 Yes, I've lumped Simons with Zerzan and the Fifth Estate crowd,
but not inadvertently, nor on every issue (as he evidently
presumes, and therefore needlessly rebuts). What I've done is to
criticize some of the notions, particularly certain characteriza-
tions and terminologies, that his essay, "Seven Theses on Play,"
shares with the work and thinking of other(?) "primitivists" when
addressing the subjects of work and play, and of the civilized and
the primitive.

 Perhaps Simons simply thinks he owes me a smear, but I'm no more
a huckster for "cyberspace" than Simons is a flack for the "leisure
industry." Interesting, though: much "primitivist" criticism of my
work=FEand here I do again include Simons=FEpointedly disregards my
calls for the rediscovery of a pastoral physical and cultural
landscape, for a reassertion of classically civilized values=FE
especially dialogue and balance=FEamong a population of autonomous
individuals=FEand my fervent denunciation of domination and hierarchy
for fucking things up.

 I never said that the notion of the primitive as a world of free-
dom and abundance is devoid of even a shred of truth; I merely
suggested that we reserve judgment, that the primitivist view is
simplistic, and that it represents an age-old strain of wishful
thinking. My point was not that those who believed in such a view
could find no evidence to cite for it, but rather, that such
citation was besides the point, which is the transparently sub-
jective nature of such belief, and its tendency to become dogma.
Nonetheless, Simons chooses to answer me with a raft of scholarly
citations=FEof books I'm already familiar with, thanks, incidentally,
to the helpful, very civilized personal advice of the Fifth
Estate's Bradford!

 It appears that Paul and I have different definitions of "work"
and "play." I understand the distinction he makes between
"productive" work and "goal-less" play, but=FEwhile rejecting a
Puritanical, dutiful approach to work and to life=FEI believe we're
mistaken to uphold "play" over "work," or even to value the
distinction. Hierarchical societies, after all, maintain spheres of
"unproductive" activity=FEeither as coerced economic endeavor (e.g.,
packaging and junk mail)=FEor as reactive, escapist "recreation." And
then there's shopping!

 Simons, conflating two definitions, also uses the word "work" to
mean alienated or coerced labor. I'm as opposed as Paul to
alienated labor. I use "work" to mean directed effort, especially
highly focused creative effort. (Some might say "disciplined" or
"purposeful"; I don't. Even "fun" is a purpose.) Right now I'm
working on a letter, but I'm also playing. When a hungry animal or
person forages in the woods, they're working=FEhowever playfully.
(And when we play, we also learn.) My definition of work includes
work done without explicit or implicit coercion. It includes work
that one enjoys.

  Life should be a labor of love. I enjoy my work. I hate my job.
(The outcome of my job had better be a check that clears. The
outcome of work had better be something lovingly produced, a memory
treasured, an experience savored, or at least a feeling of
accomplishment.) This, too, is clear and obvious in my writing.

 While I'll stand by my skepticism regarding romantic primitivism's
line of hype, this divergence may ultimately be a matter more of
style than of substance. When we strip away differences in
vocabulary and imagery, Simons and I actually agree on much
regarding the pathology of this society. Even Zerzan (along with
Wittgenstein) is right.. The very nature of language and abstract,
"reflective" thought are themselves close to the root of the
problem.  Meanwhile, I've worked on this letter long enough. It's
Friday night, and my check has cleared. Sorry, Paul, I'm going out
to play, before Monday comes and it's back to the grind.
                                             Mitchell Halberstadt
                                                   Daly City, CA.

POETIC SOPHISTRIES
Hello Jason et al,

 Feral Faun, in the "Iconoclast's Hammer" in Anarchy #36, rejects
anarchists who believe in "a moral and/or social system that they
wish to create and expand into a worldwide system of
relationships." This sort of belief, F.F. says, causes these
anarchists to "morally oppose... aspects of...society which are in
contradiction to their values." F.F. states, "I am not an anarchist
in this sense"; and goes on to defend egoism, greed, and
selfishness=FEalbeit of an "expansive" sort that transcends property
and economic relations=FEwhile denigrating "altruism."

 While I appreciate F.F.'s subtle and poetic sophistries, I'd like
to interpose a word in defense of the "moral anarchism" which comes
in for such scorn and ridicule in F.F.'s column and elsewhere in
your pages from time to time.

 The word "moral" refers to the concepts of "right and wrong."
Without digressing too deeply into the tangled byways of ethical
theory, I would assert that the central identifying characteristic
of anarchism is the recognition of an innate human sense of
"rightness"=FEa gut-level feeling of "the way it's supposed to be,"
of "fairness"=FEa quality or element of consciousness, common to all
humanity, that each of us was aware of during our childhood. This
instinctual moral sense exists on a pre-rational level, arising
spontaneously within us; it's a basic part of our equipment, woven
into the genetic fabric of our being, prior to
learned/indoctrinated moral concepts. Kropotkin describes it as
"...the principles of morality which are engraved on the hearts of
each one of us" (in his Prisons and their Moral Influence on
Prisoners).

 This innate moral sense constitutes the sole valid core of the
religious teachings of the world, beneath the accretions of super-
stition and manipulative authoritarianism; it is the "golden rule"
that finds essential agreement in the traditional scriptures of all
languages. Religions base their claim to legitimacy on the degree
to which they reflect this common instinctive knowledge.

 It is alluded to in Thomas Jefferson's preamble to the Declaration
of Independence=FE"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."; the
innate sense of rightness is the basis of the concept of "rights"=FE
civil rights, the Bill of Rights, etc. "Rights" are not abstract
metaphysical entities in some Platonic realm; they are simple
formulations of the folk-wisdom that recognizes the rightness and
wrongness of certain basic behaviors of humans with each other.

 Anarchism is the idea that our natural innate moral sense will re-
emerge when the externally imposed inhibiting social forces are
removed. Natural human instincts of social harmony=FEmutual aid,
voluntary cooperation, synergy, altruism=FEwill assert themselves
when the corrupting influence of authoritarian power is broken. As
water seeks its own level, as green plants turn toward the sun,
humanity will return to social and ecological "rightness" when the
social revolution ends our decamillenial detour down the dead-end
evolutionary alley of hierarchical, authoritarian, ego-bound social
relations.
                                         Dale R. Gowin #91-B-0209
                                                          POB 500
                                                Elmira, NY. 14902

Feral Faun responds:
No evidence
 If "the central identifying characteristic of anarchism is
recognition [sic] of an innate sense of `rightness'...," so much
the worse for anarchism. There is no evidence that such a sense
exists, and much that it does not. Children exhibit no "pre-
rational" "instinctual moral sense." As a child, I lied, stole and
committed acts of cruelty without compunction. The closest I had to
"moral sense" was fear of getting caught. Nothing I've observed
indicates I was unusual. Concepts of fairness I manipulated to my
own ends=FEagain, not unusual. Though raised fundamentalist
christian, I always recognized morality as an external imposition.
When I killed the god in my head, morality and belief in an
inherent human nature quickly followed. Non-state societies (tribal
groups) also indicate a lack of an inherent moral sense, valuing
drastically different traits and behaviors=FEincluding, in some
cases, extreme cruelty, deception for deception's sake, hatred of
strangers.

 Belief in an "innate moral sense" is, indeed, a "religious
teaching," but one no less superstitious or manipulatively
authoritarian than the concept of sin (which goes hand in hand with
it). The golden rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you," is an absurd basis for behavior. How do I know that
anyone else wants what I want? It's much more sensible if I do what
will create what I want.

 Even if we assumed that an "innate moral sense" existed, obviously
people (including pre-rational children and non-static, non-
capitalist tribal people) don't act on any such thing. Some
authority is always necessary to enforce morality. So to put an end
to authority is to put an end to morality, and to discover
perpetually free uncodified ways of living and relating.

``RAP COPS'' RACIST
Dear Friends at Anarchy,

 Just wanted to respond to a couple of things in the most recent
issue (#36) of your magazine. I was reading the article on
supporting the anarchist press and the need for anarchist media to
network and help one another out. I wholeheartedly agree. I work
with the Love and Rage production group and I definitely feel
there's far too much sectarianism in our movement. The difficulty
is often in letting personalities get in the way of discussing
valid political differences. I'm going to try to walk the tight
rope of being critical of an article at the same time as saying
that we'd like to work with you and hope you'll contact us on some
of the specific ways we might be able to help one another out. One
note considering the "distributor hall of shame." @ Collective in
New Orleans and Dayton Anarchist Collective, both listed as Love
and Rage supporting groups, haven't been much more supportive or
responsive to us. Perhaps at one time they were, we just haven't
decided a process for deciding who's a supporting group, yet too
broke to contribute money and who's not being supportive of the
anarchist movement. It's a delicate question as many of us live on
very little and often put so much into local projects that it's
difficult to help with broader or seemingly more distant ones.

 The article I wish to comment on is the one on "Rap Cops" by
Michael William. The page is titled "The Sad Truth" and I can only
hope that you meant the piece in some ironical way, yet reading the
article over and over I couldn't help but come to the conclusion
that it was racist. For anarchists to publish a positive piece on
the police in and of itself is enough to raise eyebrows. One cop
says "We were being judged and hung just for being the police." To
serve and protect. Who are they serving and what is it they
protect? They protect property and serve those with the most of it,
using force to do so. They'll help me out when the property of my
body is in danger. Having once been homeless, I was witness to, and
victim of continual police harassment, often for being in the wrong
place. In other words if I try to get out of the rain and sleep in
an empty building the police are paid, by real estate speculators,
to come in and throw me out. The worst part of the article however
is to continue with "in a related incident" in which a Mr. Howard
is accused of shooting a Texas cop while listening to Tupac Amuru
Shakur's album. I say all power to Ronald Ray Howard and that we as
anarchists ought to do some prisoner support work for him. To say
someone killed someone because of music sounds like Tipper Gore.
The name Tupac Amuru Shakur is symbolic for 500 years of resistance
to racism. I wonder how many anarchists even know the story of
Tupac Amuru and the native uprising against the Spanish in South
America? The name Shakur in its original African language means
"the thankful." Others that have taken the name, like Assata Shakur
embody the best in the anti-racist struggle. Despite some ideologi-
cal differences, her courage and others who have taken the name
Shakur in the fight against racism are a role model for any one who
might seriously think themselves to be a revolutionary. The full
name of the group is rich in the tradition of standing up to
racism, in particular in the Americas. The U.S. has the #1 prisoner
per capita in the world. Racist South Africa is #2, and the evil
former empire of the Soviet Union (CIS) #3. The rate of
incarceration in the U.S., for those of African descent is seven
times that of whites! There is no mention whatsoever of the cir-
cumstances of why Mr. Howard might feel his life endangered enough
to risk shooting a cop. It's not the music, it's the ways of white
folks who just don't seem to get it. This is not the first
controversy with Anarchy editorial policy running racist material
without commentary. Calling the article a "scam" hardly puts it in
an anarchist perspective. I, too, believe in free speech, but
there's a difference when you run something under the banner of
anarchy. People think that this is what anarchy is all about, when
I find it difficult to imagine any anarchist as supporting
something so exploitative as racism or the armed thugs used to
perpetuate it. In a choice between freedom and dropin' a cop I say
all power to the people and fuck da po-lice. If the article was
meant as satire it was neither self-evident, nor placed in such a
context as to how Anarchy felt about the article.

 Love and Rage is no stranger to controversy. I hope you'll
consider the criticism as constructive and that likewise Anarchy,
Love and Rage, and other anarchist projects can recognize and
respect our various differences and still find ways in which to
practice mutual aid. We look forward to hearing from you.
                                                       Sincerely,
                                              R.S., New York, NY.

Michael William replies:
A bogus ``controversy''
 Having indicated its anti-cop stance in the first sentence with
the epithet "pigs," I am baffled that R.S. found my "Rap Cops" a
"positive piece on the police." Elsewhere, social workers are
insulted by comparing them to cops: "The cops come on with a soft-
cop social worker spiel..." Two anti-cop songs are quoted at
length.

 My article was a straightforward news piece about a recuperation
that I thought would be of interest to Anarchy readers. Aside from
the part on the rap cops, it contained related material I found in
a gay and lesbian journal about anti-cop rap music being
censored/self-censored (in the case of Ice-T's "Cop Killer"), and
about legal proceedings against it (in the case of Tupac Amuru
Shakur's album). Composed of quotes and information, it contained
minimal commentary or analysis. I simply wanted to get the
information out.

 In the letter there is no attempt to substantiate the charge of
racism. His only specific accusation, in effect, concerns my lack
of speculation about precisely why Ronald Howard allegedly shot the
cop. In R.S.'s opinion, I should have discussed the very strained
relations between African-Americans and the cops and why someone
might shoot a cop. But more directly than any possible comment of
mine, this is expressed by people who are quoted in the text (e.g,
"I don't like the police; they be shooting and killing people").
Both of the anti-cop songs evoke situations in which cops are
killed. Calling my piece racist because I don't comment on this al-
ready discussed point is pretty far-fetched.

 Concerning his comment about Tupac Amuru, it is worth noting that
these words have been adopted by MRTA, a Peruvian guerrilla group
which has been responsible for killing gays as part of a "cleansing
of undesirables"  campaign=FEanother example of how easily symbols
are recuperated by bigots and thugs (and of the dangers of un-
critically embracing symbolic values).

 It may well be "sincere," but I hardly consider R.S.'s letter
"constructive." Rather, his attempt to conjure up a bogus
"controversy" out of thin air only discredits him.

 R.S. mentions doing support work for Ronald Howard. People who
want to find out more about his case may be able to obtain this
information from the journal where I found the uncredited news
article. Write to: Frighten the Horses, 41 Sutter Street #1108, San
Francisco, California 94104, U.S.A.
                                                  Michael William
                                                C.P. 1554 Succ. B
                                                 Montr=82al, Qu=82bec
                                                   Canada H3B 3L2

IMPUTATIONISM
Dear Politically Challenged,

 Getting three issues at once, as I just did, impresses on me the
enormity of your output=FEthat anthology you've considered will have
to be huge to be at all representative. I am not going to try to
make up for lost time, just lash out a little here and there.
Imagine my delight at a Russian anarchist invoking my name as the
epitome of intra-anarchist critique! "I seem to be a verb," as the
futurist idiot Buckminster Fuller once senascently mused.

 Max Anger is up to the same old scam the situationists and many
others (myself included) have too often pulled, it needs a name:
imputationism. Imputationism is wishful thinking dressed up as
critical theory, an esoteric variant on what the psychoanalysts
call "projection." Max Anger, like the S.I. before him, wants the
Los Angeles riots (1965, 1992, same difference) to be
revolutionary, therefore, inspection discloses they were exactly
that.

 Of course, this calls for some serious spin control. There is, for
instance, the targeting of Korean-owned shops by black looters and
arsonists. Class war was "subsumed, unfortunately, under the rubric
of race." Evidently the rubric of race trumped the imputation of
class war since, as Anger sorrowfully acknowledges, many businesses
owned by or employing blacks were spared. Like many white men
before him, Anger knows what black folk are up to better than they
do themselves. Words =FEhis words=FEspeak louder than actions=FEtheir
actions.

 "Fifty years of totalitarian disinformation" is to blame for this
unfortunate misunderstanding on the part of rioters who just
"happened" to be black regarding small businessmen who just
"happened" to be Korean. Now maybe I don't watch enough TV or
something but I am entirely unaware of any media efforts in my less
than 50 years (and Anger is younger still) to incite blacks to hate
Koreans. Indeed the only media treatment of black/Korean relations
I've ever seen, pre-riot, was Do the Right Thing by black filmmaker
Spike Lee which I didn't understand to be at all anti-Korean, and
if it were, a black would be to blame. Anger is just making this
stuff up. Too many blacks figured out how to hate Koreans all by
themselves. Give them that much credit; if their anger was
misdirected it was, at least, theirs. Anger's anger is abstract and
bookish.

 Anger also has to explain away the brutal beating of white truck
driver Reginald Denney by black thugs. Denney had nothing to do
with the acquittal of Rodney King's police assailants. Anger opines
this episode was not "typical," but first repeats an unconfirmed
and self-serving allegation by the accused that Denney "taunted"
them about the verdict in the King case. This is blatantly
improbable=FEa white guy drives into a black ghetto to taunt the
locals about the King verdict?=FEbut even if it happened, does this
justify beating him half to death? Whatever happened to free
speech?

 When Anger says "typical," what does he refer to? Black-on-white
street crime is much more "typical" than white-on-black street
crime. Maybe he wasn't thinking along these lines. Maybe he wasn't
doing much thinking at all. Rodney King wasn't beaten by a random
sample of whites. He was beaten by police. In this he has a lot of
white, black, Asian and Hispanic company. Anger says we should
"support" the black goons. Why? Why not support the white goons who
beat up Rodney King? They're not "typical" either.

 What else? Why is everybody freaking out over Molly Gill's white
nationalist infiltration of anarchdom, although she has never
concealed her opinions or claimed to be an anarchist, whereas
nobody but Lawrence and I have noticed the red nationalist
infiltration of anarchdom by Professor Ward Churchill and his
partner Dr. M. Annette Jaimes? This pair is to indigenism what
Dworkin and MacKinnon are to feminism. Churchill, formerly of
Weatherman SDS, is that only too ubiquitous figure, the Marxist-
turned-nationalist. He and his girl friend play good cop/bad cop,
Churchill serving his racism straight up, Jaimes watering her
drinks.

 Jaimes' article was, in Anarchy, a waste of space, although it
might have been enlightening for its original leftist readership.
It said nothing that has not been as well or better said in
publications like Anarchy and the Fifth Estate for ten to twenty
years now. Even some of her phraseology sounded like it was taken
from people like John Zerzan and myself, both conspicuous by our
absence from her footnotes. I'm not affronted by these omissions=FE
the more this information gets around, the better I like it=FEbut I
wonder what they mean.

 Zerzan was too gentle with Dr. Jaimes, intimidated, perhaps, by
her privileged position as a woman and a Native American. She
openly celebrates Amerindian civilizations like the Aztecs and
Incas for their independent invention of the state, imperialism,
slavery, priestly religion, human sacrifice and other Old World
accomplishments. Euro- and Afro-Americans need no lessons from
Indians in these activities, we need lessons in living in entirely
different ways. What matters is not, as for Jaimes and Churchill,
who, what matters is how. The thousands of Europeans who went
native ("gone to Croatan") in colonial America learned such lessons
from their Indian hosts. So should Churchill and Jaimes. What
they're teaching we already know only too well.
                                                    (Wish I Were)
                                                 Gone to Croatan,
                                                        Bob Black
                                                         POB 3142
                                           Albany, NY. 12203-0142

HETERO, HOMO & BI BOXES
Dear @narchists,

 I think the most important point in Michael William's piece
"Bisexuality" in Anarchy #36 is that the burgeoning bisexual
movements, like the gay and lesbian movements before them, are
operating for the most part within the established authoritarian
structure=FEand liking it! As someone who, when pressed, describes
himself as voyeuristically bisexual but interactively
heterosubmissive, but also at various times an ambi/asexual (and
even anarchosexual) rubberist, foot-fetishist, fan of vanilla
hetero porn videos and male homoerotic literature, above all an
anarchist, this just does not do much for me.

 Liz Highleyman's quote is apt, to a point. All these gay, lesbian,
and bi "leaders" I see, especially in conjunction with this sum-
mer's March on Washington, seem very establishment. Could it be
that the leadership of these "liberation" groups seeks to maintain
its own power by courting the very institutions that oppress not
only so-called sexual minorities but all people? No government can
make you free, folks. Whenever all the Gays In The Military talk
starts to wear on me, I just put on Buffy Sainte-Marie singing "The
Universal Soldier" to remind myself there should not be a military
Marriage? Nearly 100 years ago, Wanda von Sacher-Masoch, wife of
the original masochist (so-called), named and damned marriage for
the sham and tool of repression that it is.

 So what do we have here? The hetero box, and its attendant
privilege of heterosexual identity, which is highly internalized in
our culture. ("Privilege" to be lorded over by other hets,
perhaps?) The homo box. It took me a while to realize that the
reason I was not actively seeking sex with men had nothing to do
with "repression" or being "closeted," but simply because I have no
particular desire to initiate or, in most cases, reciprocate sex
with men, enjoyable as it may be. Period. These ideas are very
popular in our society and constantly reinforced in a variety of
venues. But I don't consider myself some kind of traitor (to what
or whom?) just because I'm not gay enough to join some peoples'
clubs. Now there's the recently re-vocalized bi box. It sounds like
you're supposed to hang out a banner, join a support group, and
sign up for some kind of newsletter. There's also the role model
thing, but I don't think I'd be much good for that.

 Frankly, people, I am sorry, but I'm just too busy being human for
most of this.

 Gender, Basically arbitrary. Kinsey scale? I spit on it. Bio-
logical origins of sexual identity? Please. I don't have time to
run out and get a brain scan every time I wake up wondering how I'm
going to feel that day. Besides, the 3 boxes are not big enough to
hold all the may ways people find of experiencing their sexuality
and their humanity. That's why there are so many closeted
heterosexuals of varying stripes and the multitudes of other
suppressed individuals.

 I know this is controversial. The people I love most have strong
gay, lesbian, and straight identities. Many have suffered
considerable personal anguish in arriving at them. But it must be
remembered that one of the most powerful tools of control is the
imposition of a uniform identity, or at the least the outward
appearance of such identity.

 For some time in our culture, this has meant vanilla hetero. Many
people are, and that's fine. Today, in our so-called "progressive,"
post-Stonewall era, the power structure is responding to the
assertion of gays and lesbians. Thus, we have the possibility of a
new, officially sanctioned option for being. Looks to me like it's
going to be vanilla homo. Who knows? Maybe even vanilla bi, as
well. Meanwhile, though it makes many people uncomfortable, there
seems to be considerable debate in the gay community as to the
proper way to be gay and who gets the full embrace of the "tribe."

 Please understand, I think vanilla is a fine, fine flavor.
Moreover, I would not question the validity of anyone's sexual
identity or the gratification and self-affirmation in finding a
group of like-minded friends in a hostile world. But my concern is
that it seems to me it might be more liberating if we relied less
on the seemingly arbitrary terms by which we purport to describe
our sexual proclivity, skin color, genitalia, etc. It is no secret
these categories are fluid. I believe that to a great extent they
exist and change in response to the self-preservation needs of the
power structure and the feelings of alienation it engenders. I say
what you have said in your masthead: "Disarm authority! Arm your
desires!"

 I do not waver in or apologize for my feeling that we are all
human and that human liberation is an anarchist goal. (As a vegan,
I would include nonhumans as well.) For me, there isn't really any
such thing as "queer" any more than there could be a "perverted"
consensual relationship. We are all whom we are. Essentially, we
are human, and to put too much faith in the millennia-old Divide
and Conquer, stock-in-trade of the authoritarians, is deadly. Knock
down walls. Don't put up new ones.

 As for my own penchant for "sadomasochism" (another misnomer if
there ever was one and used far too loosely to hold much
significance), I do not find it incongruous with my being an
anarchist. In fact, outside the anarchist press, the best anti-
authoritarian writing I've found appears in publications which
cater to this interest. (Dian Hansen's Leg Show and Lily Brain-
drop's Taste of Latex come to mind.) Without going into boring
details of my personal life, let me say that it's just me, expe-
riencing my humanity to the fullest extent of my desire (armed!)
and ability, loving every minute of it, and doing so without
apology. Consensuality is a must, but PC? I'd spit on it if I had
any saliva left.

 American anarchist Voltairine de Cleyre wrote in her essay
"Anarchism": "Ah, once to stand unflinchingly on the brink of that
dark gulf of passions and desires, once at last to send a bold,
straight-driven gaze down into the volcanic Me, once, and in that
once forever, to throw off the command to cover and flee from the
knowledge of that abyss,=FEnay, to dare it to hiss and seethe if it
will, and make us writhe and shiver with its force!" (It gets even
better. Find it and read it!)

 That's the banner under which I want to march!
                                                       Sincerely,
                                    Bob-Boy, District of Columbia

PS: Space limitations precluded my discussing AIDS, feminism, gay-
and bi-bashing, homo- and bi-phobia, and the always popular Anarchy
letters section topic of adult-child sex. I am aware that these are
important topics which need to be included in full-scale
discussions of gender and sexual identity.

