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
