💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000302.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:17:30.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
============================================================
MOTHER ANARCHY
No.6, December 1993 - January 1994
============================================================
LOOK WHO'S CALLING THE FASCIST BROWN
The leaders of world politics and the media have found yet
another person that they can berate to flaunt their moral
superiority: Vladimir Zhirinovsky. The purpose of this piece
is not to try to excuse any of the fascist's views, but to
point out the hypocrisy with which the media and the
politicians of the world act as if they are outraged by the
man. In fact, Zhirinovsky is no worse than other politicians
that enjoy the respect and approval of the world political
mafia.
Recently it became clear that the politicians of the
world were going to use Zhirinovsky for their own public
relations gimmicks to try to separate themselves from
fascism and to feign moral outrage at his statements. He was
expelled from Bulgaria, denied entrance to Germany and to
Australia, etc., etc.. President Clinton made it clear that
during his purposed visit to Moscow in January he would not
meet with the leader. Yet at the same time he will visit
Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin has yet to condemn Zhirinovsky's
politics. The reality of the situation is that Yeltsin and
Zhirinovsky are two of a kind, except that Yeltsin has to
manipulate the scenario and carry out a pernicious type of
fascism to keep himself in power; for Zhirinovsky is was the
overt form that got him elected. Of the two, one can even
argue that it is Yeltsin and his people who pose a more
serious threat of creating a fascist order in Russia.
First of all, it is important to point out that Yeltsin
and his government stands for the predominance of the
Russian people as the leading nationality in the territories
of the former Soviet Union and that they have been trying to
revive Russia's role as the leading military power in the
region for some time. As the leaders of the former republics
all know, the respect that they show for the national
autonomy and separate economic development of these areas is
mostly political showmanship. The recent CIS summit in
Ashgabat had Yeltsin pushing for special status for Russians
living in the former republics. Yet his response to
foreigners living in Russia has been decisively punitive; as
many as 100,000 people were deported from Moscow after the
coup for being foreign, many being brought to war torn
areas. Visiters to Moscow and Leningrad must pay a fee for
every day they stay in the city and must get work permits
and pay 40% taxes. People are checked for their papers
according to their skin colour. If anything of the sort
would happen to Russian's living in the former republics,
this would be practically a declaration of war and we would
most likely see immediate military intervention. The idea is
clear: as the leading nation, we have the right to live
peacefully wherever the hell we want; we can take what we
want from you, but won't tolerate people we formerly
dominated using the "wealth" that belongs to the Russian
people.
Nursultan Nazarbayev critized Andrei Kozyrev for trying
to drum up Russian separatism during his election
campaigning in Kazakhstan by promising special support for
Russians in the country. He felt that he had set the mood
that led to votes for Zhirinovsky in the region. The
difference between Kozyrev and Zhirinovsky is that
Zhirinovsky would like (at least he says) to take back
Kazakhstan (as an inferior nation) for use by Russia while
Kozyrev would rather use more subtle political mechanisms to
keep part of Kazakhstan for Russia, and to try to guide it
into their sphere of influence. The latter realises that in
the long run, such agressive methods of conquest and
domination are not as benificial as others as military
agression of the type Zhirinovsky preposes can lead to some
negative reaction (if the oppressed people have any friends
with big sticks) and rebellion amongst the local population.
Kozyrev and his cabal save their necks by pretending that
they have no vested interests in subordinating different
countries to Russia, but this is exactly what they hope to
achieve. Various economic policies have been put into effect
to try to devastate areas such as the Ukraine in order to
get them to go along with Russia's policies. Russia has sent
in troops and promises to send troops on various campaigns.
Economists promise to rebuild the military industrial
complex to help the Russian economy and Grachev promises
that the military will not be cut down as promised and looks
foward to its renewed "prestige". They are now aspiring to
the American political model of domination where effective
control of an area can be rendered without military
intervention and where any military intervention will find
some mythical policing/racist-humanitarian justification.
The word in Moscow is that Yeltsin helped to bring
Zhirinovsky to power (see Ivan Papugai's article in this
issue). This is one possibility. In any case, I find it
amusing that certain politicians in the world are so
offended by Zhirinovsky. Bill "send back the Haitians"
Clinton, refuses to meet with the man because he doesn't
respect sovreign nations. Rumania, itself not "the model of
democracy" cannot imagine a bigger insult than the fact that
Zhirinovsky said it wasn't a real nation but a bunch of
"Italian gypsies". (Given the treatment of gypsies in the
area, one can guess that the essence of the insult was being
compared to gypsies.) Germany is afraid of allowing
Zhirinovsky into the country. Would be nice if their
government took such decisive action against their own
nazis. As far as I know, Germany has the most racist
citizenship laws in Europe. These people have a lot of nerve
to act morally superior than Zhirinovsky; they all have been
party to various crimes against humanity, have all implented
racist and chauvinist policy and all have somehow supported
people who are just as bad as he in various corners of the
world.
The fact that Zhirinovsky has met with popular
dissaproval and condemnation by the media and many world
leaders while much of what he talks about already goes on
uninterrupted in the world probably shows that these other
leaders are perhaps more dangerous because of the tacit
approval given to their policies. Zhirinovsky, who now looks
like the most likely future leader of the country, might
actually get nowhere because of threats from the
"international community". Then on the other, is the living
conditions of Russians continue to deteriorate as they have,
the Russians will wage war in spite of them.
LAURE AKAI
____________________________________________________________
MORE ON RUSSIAN ELECTIONS
The question most people are asking in regards to the
recent elections in Russia is - was it all a mistake? Did
the people really know who they were voting for when they
voted for Zhirinovsky or were they fooled? It's really hard
for some people to believe that the Russian people,
themselves with a long history of suffering from fascist and
authoritarian ideology, would want this sort of order for
their country. I think it's long time for these people to
wake up and smell the coffee.
First of all, anybody who has studied the deveolpment of
fascism and knows Russia at all can see that all the
preconditions for a surge in fascist ideology have been here
for the last two years. You have a nation which was brought
up believing that its people have a special place of
predominance in the world. From the Orthodox Church's Third
Rome theory to the Comintern's Third International, the
Russian people were supposedly charged with a special
purpose in life: to lead humanity into salvation. In the
Soviet Union's closed off little fantasy world, the
Russian's were the most advanced, cultured people on the
face of the earth and foreigners (especially from the
"capitalist countries" ) were viewed with suspicion. Then
suddenly the Soviet myth was "exploded", but in fact only
partly. The parts about the specialness and superiority of
the Russian people were bound to stay in the public psyche.
But as a nation, great Russia was offended; all of a sudden
people were being told that there is mass incompetence in
many fields of social life. People should be retrained,
redirected from the "free world" and their economic experts.
In countries where Russians once felt themselves superior,
they are not wanted. People in surrounding countries
complain about the "poor Russians" who try to go there,
about how they are mostly drunks, criminals and prostitutes
who are a wart on their nice prosperous societies. In
places where Russians were settled, (one can say where
Russia was "extended") local authorities demand or expect
Russians to use their language; they would have never
thought to learn it in the first place. (Doesn't everybody
appreciate having to learn the language of Pushkin?) Many
governments are ready to give certain neighbouring countries
treatment unbefitting to a former colony. Russian prestige
in on the decline.
At the same time that Russian prestige is on the
decline, Russians, including the so-called "intelligentsia"
(so-called because they're not actually at all that
intelligent; it is a class of people who earn money by using
their brains somehow), are busy trying to revive pride in
the Russian nation. These calls for revival however are
often closely connected to fascist ideas. (In fact you can
see that the same type of escape to the glorious cultural
past had strong symbolic power in Nazi Germany, fascist
Italy and a number of other places.)
The bad economic situation also had contributed to the
rise of fascism, for obvious reasons. There is some basis to
the popular idea that the destruction of the Russian economy
was largely caused by intervention by foreign interests; the
conclusion the fascists draw (and many of their national
communist allies) is that these foreigners are evil, not to
be trusted, and that only the Russian people can save each
other. There is a large appeal of socialist ideology of a
sort, namely nationalist socialist ideology, which proposes
well being for all good nazis. Like Germany after WWI, the
reconquering of lost lands is high on many people's list of
priorities. (It was Russia who developed that industry,
Russians who build those factories and who worked there and
now they want to steal all the wealth for themselves and cut
us off from it.)
And the scapegoats are pretty much in place. It seems
very likely that futher military interventions and attempts
at annexation will happen in the areas of the Caucasus and
Central Asia. They have the pretexts: that these areas are
under conflicts that they are too stupid and barbarian to
solve, that most of the people from these areas are criminal
and "uncivilized", that these areas might come under Turkish
agression or become the victims of their territorial
ambitions. Things like this are heard in the media all the
time.
It should be no surprise to people that Zhirinovsky
made such a strong showing. The government itself has been
supporting racist, nationalist (and sexist) policy for quite
some time now. Incredible things are said in the media.
Zhirinovsky is simply saying what the people say. When you
have fascist material being sold on the streets openly for
some time, with no reaction from the public, this says
something. (Technically it's illegal to sell this but ask
what happened when we made an action against people selling
fascist literature. It was the anti-fascists who were
arrested and berated by the press, including the most
popular newspaper in Russia!) There are fascists all over
the place and they have the support of much of the
population, of law enforcement officials, of part of the
military and even part of the mainstream press. But nobody
wanted to tell you this; the media was too busy serving up
its ideological bullshit about economic reforms and the
future of democracy in this country.
So now the people voted. We can debate about how much
this was a protest vote against Yeltsin and try to guess why
people voted they did, but what's really important was that
the real militant fascists and communists had boycotted the
election, and that there is even a more extreme segment of
the population who distrust Zhirinovsky, who, as I have
heard repeatedly, (even from teachers at my school) "is not
only a Jew, but a Polish Jew- the worst kind". Zhirinovsky
of course was much closer in ideology to the so-called
"moderate wing" of Russian politics. (In fact during the
campaign, fascist-type commercials were always being run by
people like Sergei Shakrai and much seemed to actually
revolve aroung nationalist themes; even discussion of the
economy was tinged with them and eventually were
subordinated to them.) So what about the so-called "sane
segment of the population", who were busy apologizing to
Western TV consumers for the stupidity of their
compatriots?
The segment of the population which is not effected by
this nationalist and fascist mania is unfortunately small
and thusfar has been apathetic. They are mostly tired of
politics and have grown up never knowing a tradition of
civil society. This total lack of citizen's initiatives in
politics is so striking that even the staunchly pro-business
"Moscow Times" has realized its devasting effect on Russian
society; the most important thing that they could think of
to wish for the New Year was not a speed up to economic
reforms, or economic recovery, but "a civil society where
grassroots political movements force gray-suited bureaucrats
out of power". (December 30,1993)
It is important to note that it never even takes a
majority to get political consent to start fascist
campaigns. All you need to have is a firm base of
desperate, fanactical people and a population which thinks
mostly the same way and is not bent on agression and will
not get together to wipe out fascist ideology. They cannot
even begin to think about what ideas need to really be
attacked because they harbour these ideas as well; they
cannot make a connection between their own thoughts and
outright fascism because they do don't understand how deep
it runs. Wiping out Zhirinovsky's fascism is nothing- it is
really just the tip of the iceberg, just the part we see.
What is really enormous is the large mass of fascist, racist
and nationalist ideology submerged in hypocritical political
policies and pernicious forms of expression, which is
naturally the part that is the basis for the ugly face of
fascism which we know see so obviously before us. The form
of Zhirinovsky's fascism is so overt that it can be
understood in no other way, thus many wll be able to see
that he is a fascist and will reject him as the symbolical
representation of this ideology, but will not be able to
completely reject the ideology in and of itself. Thus it is
bound to take other forms and find other representatives.
Unfortunately, those that have some understanding of the
situation are few and far between.
---------------------------------------------------------
"Russischer Durchbruch" - Gegenkultur und Neue Rechte in
RuSland
Moskau, 19. Dezember, nur 6 Tage nach der Wahl: Im Haus der
Kultur "Maxim Gorki" findet eine Veranstaltung ganz
besonderer Art statt. In einer "nonkonformistischen Aktion"
(so die Veranstalter <ber sich selbst) im Rahmen eines
"ununterbrochenen Festivals" kommen nationalpatriotische und
Ideologen der Neuen Rechten mit populFren Vertetern der
sogenannten Gegenkultur zusammen.
Alleine der Name dieses Festivals "Russkij Proryv"
(Russischer Durchbruch) deutet die StoSrichtung - im
Russischen bedeutet die Wahl von russkij im Gegensatz zu
rossiskij den (gedanklichen) AusschluS der <brigen in der
Russischen Ffderation vertretenen Nationalitdten (Ins
Deutsche werden beide Begriffe mit russisch bbersetzt).
Als Veranstalter der Aktion werden in der Presseerkldrung
der Reihe nach die Bewegung der nonkonformistischen K<nstler
"Russischer Durchbruch", die historisch-religifse
Gesellschaft "Arktogeja" (Herausgeberin der Zeitschrift
"Elementy"), die Zeitschrift "Elementy", die Zeitung
"Savtra"( ehemalige Tageszeitung "Den") genannt.
Besonders der Name "Elementy" sollte alle die aufhorchen
lassen, die sich im Westen mit der Neuen Rechten
beschFftigen. So ist "Elementy" eines dieser neu-rechten
international erscheinenden (russisch, deutsch, franzfsich)
Theoriebldtter. Neben dem Chefideologen Alain de Benoist
gehfren u.a. Claudio Mutti und Robert Steukers zum
internationalen Redaktionskommitee. Die Zeitschrift, die den
Untertietel "Eurasische Rundschau" trdgt, versteht sich als
Kampfblatt fbr eine konservative Revolution. Anknbpfend an
die antiwestlichen Traditionen der Russophilen im 19.
Jahrhundert wird ein eigenstdndiger, genuin russischer
(eurasischer) "dritter" Weg der gesellschaftlichen
Entwicklung und ein Kampf zwischen "atlantischen und
eurasischen Mdchten" beschworen. Es geht darum, die
Vormachtstellung der atlantischen Mdchte einzuddmmen und
dafbr eine eurasische Koalition zu errichten. In vielen
dieser "Weltdeutungsversuche" sind vulgdr
antikapitalistische, antiimperialistische und
antizionistisch getarnte oder offen antisemitische
Positionen zu finden. Dies erkldrt auch die Affinitdt dieser
Bewegung zu den national-kommunistischen und national-
bolschewistischen Gruppierungen.
Den vorhin genannten "dritten" Weg auch in der
"nonkonformistischen" Kultur zu finden bzw. zu definieren,
war erkldrtes Ziel der Veranstalter: "Im allgemeinen
BewuStsein herrscht das Stereotyp, nach dem zwei sich
gegenseitig ausschlieSende Kunstrichtungen existieren, deren
Vertreter sich selbst die Namen "avangardistisch" und
"traditionalistisch" geben. Wir haben vor, dieses Stereotyp
zu zerstfren und eine gesonderte dritte Position
einzunehmen. ... Die jahrhundertelang sich herausgebildeten
religifs-kulturellen Traditionen RuSlands sollen ihren
Ausdruck in modernen, dem Zeitgeist entsprechenden Formen
unter Anwendung neuester Technologien und
Kommunikationsmitteln finden."
Worum es in Wirklichkeit aber in erster Linie geht, wird aus
dem folgenden Zitat, ebenfalls aus der Presseerkldrung,
deutlich: "In einer Zeit, die den Wahrheitsbegriff und den
Begriff des absoluten Wertes in Zweifel gezogen hat; in
dieser Periode in der die Kioskkultur in unserem Land
eingefbhrt wurde, verkbnden wir den Nonkonformismus als
Lebens- und Schaffensstil." Es geht also darum, absolute
Wahrheiten und Werte a'la "Elementy", d.h. die Einteilung
der Welt in Gute und Bfse wieder neu und ewig zu definieren.
Wie aber anders als bber Glauben ist dies mfglich? So spielt
Irrationalitdt und Religion eine zentrale Rolle in den
Publikationen der Neuen Rechten.
Was Viele hier in Moskau nach wie vor nicht verstehen, ist,
daS eine Gruppe wie "Groschdanskaja Oborona" (Zivile
Verdeidigung) an dieser Aktion teilnehmen konnte. Ihr
plakativer Gebrauch des Anarchiezeichens, vielmehr aber ihre
antisowjetischen ("Vso idjet po planu"- Alles lduft nach
Plan) und antifaschistischen ("Obschestvo Pamjat" -
Gesellschaft Pamjat) Lieder sowie das persfnliche Schicksal
ihres Sdngers Jegor Letov, der selber Opfer sowjetischer
Repressionen (Zwangspsychatrie) wurde, lie+en starke Zweifel
aufkommen, daS G. O. so einfach, ohne irgendwelche
Provokationen an dem "Russischen Durchbruch" teilnehmen
wbrden.
Doch das UnfaSbare wurde Wirklichkeit - friedlich auf dem
Podium vereint saSen wdhrend der Pressekonferenz unter
anderem Prochanow (Chefredakteur Den), Dugin (Chefredakteur
Elementy), Neumoew (Sdnger der Rockgruppe "Instrukzija po
wyschiwanju"- Instruktion zum berleben - erkldrter
Antisemit) sowie Jegor Letov.
Auf die Frage, warum er, Letov, an dieser Veranstaltung
teilnehme, entgegnete dieser, er wdre noch nie Demokrat
gewesen, heute sei er linksradikaler Kommunist. Sein
Lieblingspolitiker sei Anpilow, National-Kommunist, einer
der fbhrenden Verteidiger des WeiSen Hauses, der zur Zeit
deswegen im Gefdngnis sitzt. Letow duSerte sich erfreut
darbber, daS alle "Unsrigen", d.h. Kommunisten und
Nationalisten in dieser Veranstaltung zusammenkamen. Die
verzweifelte Frage eines offensichtlichen Fans - "Jegor was
willst Du eigentlich, was ist geschehen? Du warst doch immer
Du selbst und gegen alle! - beantwortete dieser: "Hfr meine
Lieder an, in ihnen ist alles enthalten. Ich habe mich nicht
gedndert, ich verteidige meine Werte."
Zum eigentlichen Konzert kam es dann doch nicht mehr. Die
Halle des Kulturhauses war viel zu klein, um den Hunderten
von agressiven und zumeist auch betrunkenen Punks Platz zu
bieten, die einzig und allein gekommen waren, um
Groschdanskaja Oborona zu sehen. Der Abend endete in einer
mehrstbndigen StraSenschlacht zwischen enttduschten Fans und
OMON, die Trdnengas einsetzte und scharf in die Luft schoS.
Es wurden bber 60 Personen verhaftet und 10 verletzt,
darunter 5 Polizisten. Bleibt am SchluS neben der treffenen
Titelzeile der Tageszeitung "Sevodnja" - "Zivile
Verteidigung"( = G. O.) rettet nicht vor OMON - nur noch
hinzuzufugen, daS es keine ernsthaften Versuche gab, das
Konzert zu verhindern oder wenigstens einen 6ffentlichen
Boykott zu initiieren.
M. M.
---------------------------------------------------------
MUCH ADO ABOUT A NAZI
by Ivan Papugai
This man must be either very talented or lucky that he
is supported by a powerful and invisible sponsor. Most
probably it's the second. Now he is the most famous deputee
of the newly elected sub-parliament and everybody says he
has won the elections. It is only partly true, the same as
saying that Yeltsinists lost the elections. Maybe they
really did, but does it really change anything? If the
elections could change anything they would have been
abolished. Those who were the architects of this farce tried
their best and of course after so much money was invested in
the starting part of their election campaign (the famous
coup d'etat) they just couldn't afford to lose. They were
smart enough to make their defeat almost impossible. They
proclaimed that 25% of the voters is enough to be the basis
of democracy. And they were right to do that since it could
have been forseen that in some regions there will be not so
many people willing to register their opinion when it really
doesn't interest anybody on the top.
Only 54,8% of the voters turned up at the polling
stations. The constitution was approved by the Russian
people. Of course not by all and not everywhere. In a number
of regions less than 50% of the voters went to the polls.
During these elections we saw the highest percentage of
abstention and voting against everybody (17%), 7% of the
votes were thrown out because they weren't filled correctly.
It is interesting to note that almost all the radio and TV
stations announced on December 12, when the elections were
the focus of media interest, that at 3 p.m. in Moscow and
Leningrad only 17 and 20 per cent of the voters respectively
turned up at the poll stations. But of course it is no
surprise that by midnight the number was correct - a little
more than 50%. It is not 99,9% of the Brezhnev era. But they
don't need so much, this would have been too hypocritical.
So the man was the first. He got the largest number of
votes in the majoritarian system, leaving behind all the
boring and clever; he spoke the language that even three
year-olds were able to understand. (*) He wasn't rich enough
to bye more TV time than his vivisectorial opponent Yegor
Gaidar, but he just used what he had rationally - shuting
all these gentlemen up, not letting them say a word. These
respectable gentlemen were not smart enough - they tried to
reply intelligently, they tried to argue... This is exactly
what was best for him. He was getting his new status - the
status of a man whom you can argue with, the one who is
accepted as an opponent. Tomorrow he will be accepted as a
member of the political elite. The media will broadcast his
bullshit -- what he thinks about cosmos exploration, the
origins of Romanian nation, technical projects like dumping
all the nuclear waste on the border with the Baltic states
and making a strong wind using ventilators so they will get
it all. Just a few phrases ago he was probably speaking
about the rights of Russian minority on the very same
territories. He has verbal diarea but nobody seems to feel
the smell.
He is not the smartest, he is the brightest of all those
elected. Those who are the most disaffected with his victory
try their best to secure his fame. In search of sensation
and trying to scare those who will probably try to think
about it seriously, the newspapers write that the majority
of the military voted for the real man. Later it turns out
that it's not true -- the military were voting together with
the civilians so nobody can know whom they really voted for.
Those military who voted separately from the civilian
population (1% only) in fact voted for the man. But the
majority of the military never did. This is what the Central
Election Committee said while announcing that media reports
were not true. The report was published in small print in
some of the papers. Almost nobody paid attention to it. The
rest now know that military supported the man. Though it is
not true, the majority believes it. And they are scared. Or
they love the man themselves. Those who bother to think can
be easily counted by numbers.
It's true that in the former Soviet republics he got
almost half of the votes of the Russian citizens. Of the
military and the civilians. Because they feel like they were
betrayed and redundant for their historical nativeland.
Because he was rather vocal to suuport them. He was less
vocal about his desire to help the refugees who escaped to
Russia, but the rest didn't even remember about them. And
the man can easily promise the Earth and the Moon. Both to
the workers and the entrepreuners, separately to each group,
while assuring both that he won't let anybody to violate
their rights.
He was obviously a Nazi, but according to the
information that leaked from the president's office there
was a secret decision to promote him on TV so that he could
take votes from the more moderate opponents of the Yeltsin-
Gaidar course. And so he did. The majority of the Communist
and Gaidar electorate knew whom they are going to vote for
already when the elections were announced. It wasn't so with
the moderate bloc of Yavlinsky, who was both pro-democracy
and pro-social guarantees. Those who hesitated whom to vote
for (the overwhelming majority of the people) could have
voted for Yavlinsky, since he looked smart, intelligent and
nice and promised his assistance for the poor who were
suffering from the shock therapy of doctor Gaidar. Of
course, the guy almost didn't appear on TV. And the man took
the votes of those who were hesitating.
He didn't win anyway because this would have been too
much for a puppet on nomenklatura/secret police strings. He
won the majoritarian vote, but that was not all. Almost all
the celibrities and the necessary people got elected through
the candidate system. The rulers studied the results of the
April referendum and cut the territory of Russia the way
that secured their victory. And though everybody thinks the
man has the majority, it is not true. He posesses no serious
danger to the system so far. He is the one with whom the
system can make agreements on particular issues. His
vocabulary is quite the same - Great Russia, Nation, State,
etc. - as that of the official propaganda. He is not the
only Nazi on the podium and he is not the main one. There
are reasons to believe that he himself votes according to
the instructions of the invisible conductors. Being a
"passionate opponent of the Yeltsin regime" he in the same
time supported the constitution. Of course, he said, the
constitution is just a piece of paper (true), but for some
weird reason he called on his electorate to support it. If
you will read the text of it you will see that this
parliament is a fiction too. It can't influence the policy,
neither internal, nor foreign. It is there to be a
constituonal democratic fiction.
The past of the man is unknown to the general public. So
there are reasons to believe he is a serious politician.
Back in 1988 he was just a crazy man on the street. While
the oppositional activities were still semi-legal he tried
to be everything - a Zionist, a radical liberal, a social
democrat. He was kicked out of everywhere for reasons that
were obvious. First, he was obviously crazy. Second, he was
almost surely a provocateur. Some time later his party was
the first to be registered. Soon he was already running for
the president of the USSR. He got several million votes and
was the third popular candidate. Some time later he
developed his success.
Out of many people on the street, out of all the insane
would-be-czars it was he who was chosen by the anonimous
conductor. Being a marionette he nevertheless made a big
success. He is accepted now. There is a chance that some day
the strings will be too thin to hold him. Or that he as a
leader will be necessary.
(*) Literally. My friend's son who is three occasionally was
left at the kitchen with a TV on when the man was delivering
his pre-Christmas fairy tail. Being asked what Uncle
Zhirinovsky said, the boy thought and said that "It's cold
here 8 month a year so there will be no ice-cream
advertisments anymore. No more Snickers. The movies will be
in Russian." Quite close to the original, I bet.
REVIEW: DISINFORMATION AND DISTORTION: An Anarchist Expose
of AIDS Politics by Joe Peacott. BAD Press P.O. Box 1323
Cambridge MA, 02238 USA
The latest pamphlet put out by BAD Press can be seen
as a follow up to one written some four or five years ago
entitled Misinformation and Manipulation: An Anarchist
Critique of the Politics of Aids. A well researched and well
thought-out pamphlet, its implications reach out beyond the
spectrum of AIDS politics itself and is highly recommended
to our readers.
The beginning of this 64p. the pamphlet is devoted to
substantiating Peacott's claim that the government, the
media and the activist movement have manipulated the facts
about AIDS to support their own political agendas. This has
ranged from employing scare tactics to help promote
chastity and "family values" to manipulating statistics and
blowing the "epidemic" out of proportion (in relation to
other diseases and illnesses which have delivered a more
fatal toll to the population) in order have moral strength
to beg the government for solutions. (The fact that
governmental "solutions", with its focus on and interest
in corporate medicine are far from the best possible is also
treated extensively in this pamphlet.) In fact, what is
needed is the truth about the risks of contracting HIV so
that people can make informed decisions in terms of their
sexual practices and other personal behaviour (such as drug
injection), and not scare tactics, and sensationalized media
treatments of the topic which pander to public paranoia
about sex as primarily the bearer of bad consequences.
An excellent section of the pamphlet, which I will
know reprint almost in its entirety, is the part entitled
Teenagers, Aids and the Statisticians. Peacott thus
approaches this topic: (footnotes omitted due to space
considerations and personal laziness)
"Several years ago, one of the more popular and
inflammatory topics for discussion about AIDS was the
impending heterosexual epidemic. Since then, because this
predicted outbreak never arrived, the experts and the media
have casted around for a new method of frightening people,
and have decided on the supposed teenage AIDS epidemic. The
press now subjects us to headlines such as "AIDS Runs Wild
Among Teenagers," and statements like the following: "AIDS
and HIV infection are rising fastest among teens and
college-age kids."
"Overblown press coverage, however is not justified by
the facts of HIV-infection and AIDS rates among teenagers.
Among united states teenagers as a whole AIDS cases dropped
from 170 in 1990 to 160 in 1991, and among those aged 20-24,
they dropped from 1626 in 1990 to 1485 in 1991. In 1992, the
number of cases among teenagers was the same as in 1991, and
that among 20-24 year olds declined again. Since there were
so few cases earlier in the epidemic, looking at the
increase in the cumulative number of cases led one newspaper
to state, in 1992 that, "AIDS in 13-24 Age Range Grows 62%
in Two Years," and Karen Hein, and adolescent AIDS
specialist in New York was quoted in June, 1993, stating
that AIDS cases among adolescents in the united states have
increased 77 percent over the last two years. Howver, using
the technique of looking only at the cumulative case
figures, as these people have done, obscures the fact that
while the number of total cases when the computation was
made was significantly higher than that of two years before,
the number of new cases had either fallen or remained
unchanged in the most recent year.
"...Not content with simply exaggerating the overall
numbers of teenagers with AIDS and HIV infection, some
reporters and experts have also greatly overstated the
extent of heterosexual transmission of HIV among young
people. One writer in the Boston Herald, for instance, wrote
in 1990 that, "AIDS in teenagers is being spread through
heterosexual intercourse, with equal numbers of girls and
boys being infected." In fact, the majority of cases of AIDS
in teenagers have occurred among hemophiliacs (the largest
single group, and almost all men), men who have sex with
men, and injecting drug users of both sexes. In 1990 only 37
cases were attributed to heterosexual contact, while in 1991
there were only 21 such cases. This, of course, does not
stop an alarmist like Karen Hein from declaring, in total
disregard of the facts, that "The new face of the epidemic
is teen-age girls."
"...In addition to the standard statistical
manipulations and half-truths that have appeared in the
press, a number of outright fictional statements and horror
stories about HIV infection among teenagers have appeared in
the press and the romour mill. Particularly outrageous were
the incidents where a blood collecting agency had to
publically quash rumours that "a third of the Santa Fe High
School students who donated blood during a recent blood
drive had tested positive for HIV," since in fact none
actually had, while the texas health department had to deny
the claims of a school AIDS counselor that 6 of 179 students
at Rivercrest high school and seven other students at two
other schools were HIV-positive, after they were unable to
locate any of these students.
"Despite the nonsense we have been subjected to, it is
clear that AIDS and HIV infection are not widespread among
teenagers. To put it in perspective, while there are under
200 cases of AIDS among teenagers every year, 5000 die in
car accidents (half preventable by seatbelt use) each year,
and almost 4200 were killed by bullets in 1990. This is not
to belittle the need for AIDS education among young people,
but lying about the extent of AIDS and HIV infection among
teenagers, just as has been done in the case of
heterosexually active adults, can not only lead to a
diversion of efforts away from those most at risk, but may
well promote an irrational fear of sex or an even more
irrational - and dangerous- fatalism and increased risk-
taking. As writer Micheal Fumento said in The New Republic,
"The disinformation campaign that grossly overemphasizes the
groups and activities least at risk of getting AIDS does
those in greater jeopardy no favor."
"The hysteria about teen AIDS has led to a debate
about AIDS education and condom distribution in the schools,
the likely result of which, whichever sides wins out in the
end, will be the continued intrusion of the state into the
lives of young people, with little, if any effect on the
course of the AIDS outbreak among students. The conservative
anti-sex side of the debate supports teaching abstinence as
the only way to avoid AIDS and is opposed to any sex
education in the schools at all. The other side, including
much of the AIDS activist movement calls for extensive sex
and AIDS education in the schools, sometimes starting as
early as first grade, and the distribution of condoms in
schools. Unfortunately, both sides rely on the state to
achieve their goals and neither side wants young people to
be told the truth.
"While the dissemination of truthful information about
sex and AIDS and easier access to condoms are worthwile
goals, the approach of the condom distribution and sex
education supporters is misguided in several ways. First,
though they want the schools to teach sex education and give
out condoms, they want students to be told only one message:
they are all at the same (very high) risk of HIV infection
and it is always unacceptably risky to have sex without
latex. One "certified teen speaker for the AIDS Action
Committee", in an article in the Boston Herald even made the
preposterous claim that, "If HIV spreads as expected, 160 of
the 400 people in my high school graduating class will be
HIV-positive or dead when I go to my 20th reunion." Comic
books such as The Works and Risky Business, published by the
San Francisco AIDS Foundation and clearly directed at
teenagers, make no distinctions between different sexual
activities in terms of HIV-transmission risk and take great
pains to put out the message that "viruses aren't
prejudiced" and "anybody can catch a virus."
"Likewise, in their song "Let's Talk About AIDS,"
which was written to support their "Sisters for Life " AIDS
education campaign aimed at young black women, singers Salt-
N-Pepa imply that oral and anal sex are equally risky. This
is simply untrue. As I will discuss in greater depth later
in this pamphlet, the only really high-risk sexual activity
is butt fucking (and then, only for the receptive partner,
or bottom), with vaginal fucking significantly less risky
for women and very low risk for men. Sucking dick is very
low risk, and eating pussy is essentially risk-free. So the
AIDS activists are willing to have students lied to in order
to frighten them into complying with their version of safer
sex. Students, and everyone else, should be told the truth
and encouraged to make their own choices based on reason,
not fear.
"The second problem with the activists' program is
that, besides advocating dissemination of an inaccurate
message, they have also chosen a flawed messenger. The
schools are the worst place for kids to learn about sex - or
anything else, for that matter. Do we want our children's
ideas about sex to be influenced by authoritarian,
intolerant institutions and individuals who encourage not
active decision- making and individual responsibility, but
passivity and obedience? Can we reasonably expect the state
and its schools to adequately discuss why buttfucking is
more risky than eating pussy, or to encourage students to
consider oral sex instead of fucking as a means of both
birth control and safer sex?
"...If the activists feel, as I do, that sex and AIDS
education in the home and school is inadequate, or that
condoms are inaccessible, it would make better sense for
them to act for themselves. Queer Nation has done successful
leafleting campaigns about homosexuality at high schools.
Similar informational leafletting - only this time with
truthful information about HIV transmission - and condom
distributions by AIDS activist organizations would be time
and money better spent than that wasted on lobbying school
committees and other politicians. Instead of encouraging
state intervention in people's lives, such activity would
provide a model for independent, voluntary responses to
problems like AIDS."
Peacott believes , with much to substantiate this,
that measures taken by the government to inform people and
to help people in regards to AIDS (and presumably to just
about anything), are largely misdirected, and that much of
the time and energy put into fighting for changes in
government policy, is better spent organizing grassroots
education and help programs. Asides from this, as an
anarchist, Peacott realizes that taking action for oneself
or in a community, rather than relying on the government,
has its own importance as an act of validating the ability
of people to do by themselves, without the help or the
sanction of the government. (This premise of course being
the cornerstone of anarchist philosophy.) Of course, given
the fact that the state continually takes control of money
and resources, to restribute as it sees fit, he can
understand the desire of people to see these resources go to
things such as health care and education, rather than to the
military, corporate subsidies, and into poiticians' pockets.
He writes , "Surely if government is to confiscate my money,
I'd rather see it spend the stolen goods on improving health
care for people who have AIDS, than on murdering people in
iraq and somalia. But this does not mean it is acceptable to
advocate either higher taxes to pay for this, or a larger
role for government than it already plays in regulating and
attempting to control medical research and provision of
health care."
A good part of Peacott's arguments against government
intervention in health care choices revolve around his
conviction that what would be most helpful is in fact not
more government action, but rather less; he calls for
government deregulation of the medical industry as one way
of improving the situation in health care. (For those of you
interested in these arguments, I would also recommend a
previous BAD pamphlet, Regulated to Death: Anarchist
Arguments Against Government Intervention in Our Lives
authored by Peacott and Jim Baker, which also contains
arguments for the deregulation of medicine.) Although
Peacott admits that ,"A relatively free market in health
care, in the context of an otherwise statist society, would
certainly be distorted and far from ideal" -(and here I
think that he should have also criticized the profit motive
in health care, and capitalism in general, because a
relatively free market in which people have the choice of
purchasing what they want and need, and will have some sort
of guarantee that this will be available at affordable costs
can only have a limited scope under capitalism)- he realizes
that all the same, that health care would probably be
better, because people would have more choices, and would be
freed of certain impediments constructed by the state.
"Therapeutic drug manufacture and sales should be
completely deregulated. Government intervention in the drug
market, through the FDA, the patent system, and the
prescription system has severly restricted people's access
to therapeutic drugs. The FDA, through its obstructionist
rules causes delays, sometimes as long as a decade, in the
release of effective drugs available in other countries.
Prescription laws prevent people from choosing which drugs
they want to take when, and forces them to hire the services
of expensive conventional doctors in order to obtain the
medicines they wish to take. And the patent system, by
preventing competition in the manufacture and sale of drugs,
allows pharmaceutical companies to charge extortionate
prices for their drugs. A free market in drugs would produce
plentiful, cheap and varied medicines for treatment of AIDS
and its related diseases.
"...Health care providers should be similarly
deregulated. The government, through its licensing of health
care providers and institutions, both limits people's health
care options and makes available health care artificially
costly. Most alternative methods of healing, many of which
may be beneficial to people who have AIDS, are heavily
regulated and restricted by law, and, consequently unlikely
to be covered by health insurance policies. Granting
monopoly status to convential physicians, either MDs or DOs,
has allowed these groups to control the number of providers,
maintaining a shortage, and thus driving up prices. Free
competition among health care providers would allow people
who have AIDS to choose whatever kind of health care
provider they desire, and competition between providers
would drive down costs to affordable levels."
There is much here which deserves further serious
discussion. Deregulation is, and has been a taboo idea, even
in more radical or liberal circles, due in part to the myths
of specialization, to the idea (naive) that the government,
and other official bodies exist to protect us, and that only
their benevolent wisdom will ensure that we get safe drugs
and qualified doctors, despite the obvious fact that the
government has not only approved, but has developed drugs
and chemical agents that are indeed harmful for human life.
But perhaps what frightens people more about the idea of
deregulation is the fear that people will make uninformed
decisions, or will be led astray by devious drug peddlars,
or treated by incompetent doctors; what many seem to fail to
take into account is that now, as doctors are often
accredited with an unquestionable knowledge of the best
medical treatments and care methods, people are very reliant
on their doctors, often taking drugs or submitting to
treatment with little knowlege of what they are doing, and
that perhaps allowing medical alternatives to exist more
openly, and allowing people to educate themselves and
pratice various forms of medicine will motivate people to
actually become much more informed, and to start looking at
medicine as not only the realm of the government approved,
traditionally ($) educated specialist, but of the average
person as well.
Peacott is totally for the individual's right to make
his or her own choices, even if these choices seem like
risky behaviour. Different people should be able to choose
how much risk they are willing to take in their lives; they
should have ready access to the facts about the risks they
are taking, but Peacott realises that even when people know
that something is potentially dangerous, they might choose
to do it anyway, and that decision should be respected. In
particular, Peacott addresses the problems of AIDS and
intervenous drug use. While readily crediting those who have
campaigned for greater access to needles or have done
something to make them more readily available to IDUs, he
also dislikes tendencies which view drug use as a mental
disease or a moral difficiency, rather than a personal
choice.
"Opposition to needle use arises from the opposition to
drug use that is so widespread in this country. Many feel
that drug use for recreational purposes is evil and
destructive, and therefore to be avoided. Others consider it
a sign of illness, either physical or "mental". Despite the
differences in their views of the nature of drug use and
users, both groups feel that the sale and consumption of
recreational drugs should be suppressed by the state, and
users wither punished or "treated". Consequently, anything
that could be construed as facilitating drug use is to be
dealt with in a similar fashion. However, there is no
evidence to support the contention that more people would
inject drugs if needles were freely accessible. In fact, the
states with the toughest laws around drugs and needles are
precisely the places with the highest rates of recreational
injectable drug use."
Part of this pamphlet is addressed to activists and
Peacott, although often praising the work of activists in
circumventing the government and medical establishment and
in trying to work out approaches to alternative education
about AIDS and treatment programs, also has his share of
criticism of activists who have double standards of
tolerance or who alienate people from their cause. As in the
above passage, Peacott tries to reveal how a certain type of
pernicious racism has permeated the tactics of many of the
activists.
"It is interesting to note that the activists have
singled out the catholic church for special contempt,
although anti-homosexual ideas are spread by many religious
leaders of all faiths, including many black protestant and
jewish clergy. However, activists don't attack these people
becasue they fear being perceived as insensitive to black or
jewish people. Similar concerns about sensivity don't seem
to come up when the targets are catholics. Since the
catholic church is large and influential (and largely
white), activists consider it a legitimate target for
actions they would not take against other religious groups."
Mostly, however, Peacott criticises the mainstream of
AIDS activism for relying too much on the government and of
distorting reality to fit their political agenda. Activists,
for example, often use unrealiable or misleading statistics
from the mainstream media which are frequently reported in
terms of cumulative cases. As Peacott notes, "Concentrating
on cumulative totals lends an apocalyptic feel to statistics
about AIDS, making it seem more widespread and dangerous
than it actually is." Also, "While many in the AIDS
establishment and the AIDS movement seem wedded to the idea
of AIDS as holocaust, the numbers don't support their case."
He notes that, despite the claims of many activists,a good
deal of money is dedicated to AIDS, disproportionately so in
relation to other diseases, but that does not guarantee a
cure. In addition, "...much of the money dedicated to AIDS
programs, wherever it has been acquired, has been misspent,
directed at people at low risk of AIDS."
Among the people at low risk, Peacott points out, are
female non-IDUs (and non-hemophiliacs), particulary
lesbians. Still, that doesn't stop the alarmists, the anti-
sex zealots and some "activists" from playing up the risk.
"Safe sex information aimed at women who have sex with
women is even more distorted than that aimed at homosexually
active men. Most studies have shown no sexual transmission
of HIV between women, but there have been a handful of
anecdoctal reports of such transmission, most recently that
of two women in texas, although an expert on AIDS among
homosexually active women has stated that only one of these
two women is likely to have acquired HIV from another woman.
Such a small number of cases among the millions of women
engaging in sex with each other, should be cause for
reassurance and elation. Instead we see the kind of fear-
mongering evidenced by the following headline found in the
feminist journal, New Directions for Women: "Nowhere to
Hide:AIDS an Equal Opportunity Killer Invades the Lesbian
Community." Women are frequently advised to use rubber
gloves and dental dams when having sex with other women,
despite the fact that most of them know no other women who
acquired HIV homosexually. Prominent lesbian activists tell
the story of their decision to get tested for HIV (both were
negative, of course) in the lesbian/gay press, while safer
sex groups visit women's bars to hand out kits containing
gloves, dams and safer sex disinformation, and women-only
porn movies feature performers who wear gloves and use dams.
Time, money and effort are being wasted on such efforts,
while those who are taken in by the arguments of the safer
sexers are unnecessarily sacrificing their sexual pleasure."
And,
"...Besides being counterproductive, the anti-drug
position is also hypocritical coming from the many activists
who engage in homosexual sex. The same experts and
"scientists" who still call recreational drug use a disease,
until recently thought of homosexual sex the same way. Drug
and needle use, like homosexual sex, are voluntary, private
activities which are the business of no one but the
participants."
Of course this can lead to a debate over how people
make choices, over whether free choice really exists, and
whether something like drug use is a totally private matter.
(I am writing this for example in a country where alcohol
abuse is rampant, particularly given the social situation,
and drunks readily abuse the people around them.) I would
argue that, while respecting others rights to do as they
like with their bodies and their lives, including things
most people would tend to look at as self destructive,
there must also be a sensitivity of how our actions can
effect others. (For example, smoking in the workplace.
Although smoking might be your personal choice, it might not
be that of your co-worker, and that person's right to a
smoke-free environment will be enfringed upon if you smoke
in that person's presence. ) I should say however that the
possible effects of drug users' actions over other people's
lives should not be blown out of proportion, especially if
motivated by any moralistic (and undeserved) contempt of
drug users; to put things into perspective, I would argue
that the actions of any number of businesspeople are more
likely have a much more far reaching and detrimental effect
on our lives, yet society at large hasn't declared a war on
them, and most certainly doesn't view them as "mentally
ill".
Perhaps more potentially controversial is Peacott's
insinuation that a largely white activist community, and
perhaps a smaller non-white one, by separating people on the
basis of their skin colour (in regards to creating separate
strategies for communicating with non-white people) is
helping to perpetuate a largely artificial and unnecessary
division. In regards to AIDS specifically, he writes that,
"Much press has been given to the disproportionately high
rate of HIV infection and AIDS among "people of colour".
While it is politically correct to lump all people who
aren't white together under this classification, there is a
major problem with this group-based way at looking at
people: namely, that people who are not white do not all
engage in the same activities, and therefore do not run
similar risks of HIV infection." In fact, the insinuation
that Peacott makes (and that I myself am aware of) is the
fact that a patronizing, latent racism is often behind the
veneer of separation. (This can also be seen in regards to
women and the special place accorded them in some activist
circles.) Peacott gives an example of activists applying
different standards to people of colour, (confusing
challenge with contempt), who in such a way failed the
people they were purporting to help.
"This idea that black and latin people need to be
talked to differently from white people can also backfire
and directly hurt AIDS education efforts among black or
latin people. For instance, some area residents objected to
a billboard in a black neighborhood in Boston that featured
black people talking about AIDS and condoms, and forced its
removal. Even though the billboard was designed by two black
women and other black people publically expressed their
support for keeping the billboard in place, there was no
attempt on the part of AIDS activists or service
organizations to intervene in the incident and prevent
removal of the sign. This was despite the fact that AIDS
organizations in Boston were able, for example, to convince
(and sometimes force) the unwilling local transit authority
to carry various pro-condom ads. The AIDS groups also tried
to get the city government to force all bars and restauarnts
with entertainment licenses to carry condom machines,
regardless of any opposition based on religious or other
"cultural" convictions of the proprietors. The unwillingness
to confront the ignorance and biases of some, while catering
to that of others, under the guise of "cultural sensivity"
is based on racist assumptions about the differences between
people and their ability to learn and change.
"Interestingly, while the more zealous among the safer
sexers are willing to distort information about sexual
transmission of HIV to terrorize people into draping their
body parts in latex in any and all sexual encounters, they
are more than willing to deemphasize other kinds of risks
when it suits their political agenda. For example, the
activists wish to have condoms distributed by school
personnel. Therefore, when those who oppose giving out
condoms in the schools bring up the failure rate when
condoms are used to prevent conception and claim that they
would be even more likely to fail to prevent HIV
transmission, the pro-condom forces routinely dismiss such
concerns. This is despite the fact that condoms do indeed
sometimes rip or fall off, although not as often as the
anti-condom people imply, and are more likely to do so in
rectal than in vaginal intercourse. Remember these are the
same folks who themselves exaggerate the practically non-
existent risk of woman-to-woman transmission of HIV."
Disinformation and Distortion, although seemingly a
pamphlet on a single issue, touches on various important
ones, from reliance on government, to politics that downplay
the importance of pleasure in this libertarian critique of
AIDS politics. Although at times I felt that certain aspects
of the problem were not sufficiently examined (such as the
role of the media or capitalism 's influence on health
care), these are usually well treated in other articles on
AIDS politics, so perhaps the author felt that they have
already gotten their fair share (or too much of it) already.
Joe tries to keep a consistent libertarian view of the
problem, rejecting increased government action as the
answer to the problem, instead calling for less government
meddling in people's lives and for greater individual action
and responsbility for their actions. I hope that those of
you who have found this review interesting will take the
time to read the whole pamphlet, and, more importantly, I
hope that it will eventually spur some serious debate on any
of the important issues that the author raises.
Laure Akai
LOOKING THE GIFT HORSE IN THE MOUTH: WHY PROPOSED HEALTH
CARE REFORMS ARE NO ANSWER TO THE HEALTH CARE CRISIS
It is no secret that one of the cornerstones of Bill
Clinton's election campaign was his promised reform of the
health care system. Leaving aside the fact that his work on
the reform is well behind the unrealistic schedule he
promised, the fact is that many people view these reforms as
a positive step that will be of greater benefit to society.
Yet, if the reform is carried out, people will immediately
realise that the new system is little better than the old.
Yes, the fact that many Americans who need health care
cannot afford to see a doctor is disturbing, but what is
even more disturbing is how patients are treated at public
clinics and through low-cost care providers, and how the
medical industry, in general operates.
Anybody reading this article who has had a chance to be
around a low-cost medical center run by an insurer (or HMO -
health maintenance organization) or a city hospital,
particularly in a depressed urban area has probably seen how
bad the so-called health "care" system can be like.
Similarly, many who have lived in a country with mass public
health care can tell you that you are often better off
paying to go to see a private doctor, or not bothering to go
to the doctor at all. I myself, family and friends have seen
enough of the system to know that even if it were free, we
wouldn't want it.
I grew up in one of those zip codes in New York which
automatically qualify you for a Mayor's Scholarship. A block
away from my home was the borough's general hospital, and
behind that another hospital, famous for it drug rehab
center. My mom, a city worker (of the Akaky Akakievich sort)
had us insured with Health Insurance Plan (HIP) and if we
had to see a doctor, we went off to the Jamaica HIP Center.
Although we had this center to go to, we rarely went, for
various reasons. The first reason obviously was that a trip
to the doctor took up the whole day or evening. I remember
that if you went to see the doctor, you often had to wait 3,
4, or 5 hours and then you were afforded the most minimal of
care. It was routine that they would skip the checkups (to
this day I have never had a complete physical) ask you a few
questions, if necessary look in your throat and check your
blood pressure, and prescribe a drug or sign your form as
quickly as possible. Misdiagnoses were common and I remember
our spice rack being overrun by at least 12 different types
of pills that my mother was prescribed for her high blood
pressure. (What she really needed was to eat more fresh
foods, quit smoking, exercise and, most importantly, she
needed to quit her job. But, she was tied to the mortgage
and worked until she died young of a heart attack on the
job.) The medical center was always the last place anybody
wanted to go, especially if they were ill, so we went mostly
to fulfill the needs of the school system to know that we
were healthy. Then we'd wait for 5 or six hours with all the
other families trying to get their kids papers signed, and
when we saw the doctor she would ask how we felt, check our
weight and height, maybe our blood pressure, declare us
healthy and send us on our way. If we were sick, it was
always more convenient to go to the drug store than to wait
at the doctor. It was this disgust and distrust of the
doctors that kept me, my family and friends away from them
more than anything. The fact that we could consult them for
free was practically worthless to us because their care was
worthless; it was rare that their help was useful to us, and
with all the medications they prescribed, we knew that it
was actually often harmful. On Friday nights the women of
the neighbourhood would come over the house, and there you
could here what people thought of doctors: my new medicine
gives my headaches, I'm retaining water, I stopped taking my
medicine and I feel much better, etc.etc.. So unlike today,
when I simply cannot afford any medical care, I didn't go to
the doctor even then, under the insurance plan, and even
came down with pneumonia because I didn't treat myself. Dad
probably hasn't seen a doctor voluntarily for forty years;
last time he saw one was when he came home after being hit
by a car and the next day couldn't move. Broken ribs; x-rays
showed his lungs are black. A lot of people say I should
make my dad go to the doctor, cause he's old and dying and
that he's being stupid not to go. But after hearing stories
such as I've heard about the doctors at the center, and
after having very bad experiences with them myself,
including misdiagnoses that recommended this or that
surgery, I have no faith that doctors will help him. Yes,
there may be some medicines or medical procedures that help
people, or there may be better doctors than others, but the
fact that someone went through medical school does not
guarantee that he or she is willing or able to help you,
particularly when they are working under the conditions that
the clinics often force them to work under.
I've had some pretty scary experiences in my life, but
without a doubt the most traumatic I've had to face was my
stay in a New York City hospital some years ago. I was
riding my bike home one day when I got hit by a truck in
front of the hospital. An ambulance driver saw the accident
and I was taken to the hospital. I was taken into the
emergency room where I waited for 7 hours with my leg
shattered before I could see a doctor, gets x-rays taken
etc.. Not that my injuries were any greater than those of
the screaming people around me with gunshot wounds, broken
bones, respiratory and heart problems, etc.. But it is
easily to understand why 30% or more of the emergency cases
taken to that hospital don't make it out alive. Of course
none of us had to wait for so many hours to see the doctor;
in that time I could have been taken to another hospital
where such waits don't exist, but of course once you answer
the first question, "What kind of insurance do you have" the
wrong way, that's it.
After I saw the doctor I was told I needed surgery, but
I'd have to wait eight hours until the morning shift came. A
month in that hospital followed, until I was able to get
into a wheelchair by myself and literally escape.
Unfortunately what I witnessed was not health "care" at its
worst, but was bad enough.
In the mornings we would be woken up and forced out of
beds, most of us being strapped into wheelchairs. As I was
unable to get into bed myself, I was totally dependent on
the nurses to do this for me, and even for them to help me
take a piss. We were often left 6 or 7 hours this way, our
buzzers being placed out of reach, or our calls for help not
being answered. I, as well as others with heavy casts on our
legs, sometimes tipped out of the wheelchair, and there were
times when people in our ward would have an accident and
scream and holler for the nurses, being helpless to help the
others. I faced numerous horrors there: falling out of my
wheelchair, having my IV put in incorrectly after surgery
and having to rip it out after my arm swelled up like a
balloon and after screaming in pain for more than an hour,
getting no help. Then there was the old woman across from me
who screamed all night and who the nurses were tired of. The
wanted her to die quickly because they were tired of
cleaning the shit out of her bed. They let her die one night
and all though none of us were happy about the constant
screaming and smell, and some knew she was better off dead,
we cursed the way in which she was left to die. The woman
was alone, and I only remember two people ever coming to
visit her- women from her church. One time she was asleep
when one of the visitors came, and I asked about the woman.
I heard sketchy details about how she grew up in
Constantinople, about being a refugee, about the woman's
tough life. I was initially irritated by her, by the fact
that she kept me up all night with this awful screaming, and
although I never had a chance to talk to her, after I heard
about her I was deeply concerned that she should be treated
well, and was horrified at how badly she was treated in her
final days.
One night the woman next to me, who somehow was able to
get into her wheelchair herself, despite the fact that the
nurses would put it on the wrong side of the bed so that she
couldn't easily slip into it, feel out the wheelchair and
began to scream in pain. Everyone in the room (and I think
there were 8 or 10 that day as the ceiling was leaking in
the next room) began ringing their buzzers and the nurse
came at last. The woman was worried that she hurt her knee
and demanded that the doctor see her. But it was Saturday
night, and as a rule we didn't have doctors come to see us
on the weekends. The nurse admonished her saying that the
doctors could only be summoned in case of emergency. Soon
after being back in bed the woman pissed and a large clot of
blood came out and she called the nurse who admonished her
again. She bled the whole next day and when the doctor
finally showed up, it turned out she had been pregnant
(which she didn't know) and had a miscarriage. The woman and
her family summoned the person in charge whereupon some
bureaucrat woman showed up and everyone complained. My
neighbor vowed to sue the hospital and I promised to back
her up, but I guess that she got as far as all the other
people I've known who have tried to complain about
something.
Of course these stories are just the tip of the
iceberg, and, as far as I know, they aren't uncommon. The
numerous surgeries I had went O.K:, but the doctors
summarily refused to explain what they were going to do to
me and in one case, after an operation when my ankle really
began to hurt, nobody told me my ankle had undergone surgery
and only when I was having a cast change and could see the
scar did somebody tell me, "Of course they operated there -
didn't you know that?" Of course the doctors technically
did nothing illegal cause the surgery was necessary, but I
would seriously question the professional ethics of a
surgeon who refuses to explain the surgery he will perform
to the patient and upon being questioned refers to me as "a
pest". A year and a half after the accident I had my last
operation. I was told it would take six weks to heal. I was
naturally concerned because I was making a semi-legal living
and wanted to know when I'd be able to work. I was told
the operation was "minor" and it was to be ambulatory. The
fact that it had to be ambulatory, I later learned, was
because I wasn't going to have some insurance company pay
for a room, and that under other conditions, I would have to
had remained in the hospital a few days. This fact however
was obvious when I woke up after surgery and could only cry
and ask them what they had done. I was totally dizzy, in
complete pain and with a cast so high that sitting was
completely impossible. I asked how I was supposed to sit in
this cast, which was set so my knee was locked, (an
uncomfortable position to be in for over 5 minutes,
especially after surgery) and found out that I was supposed
to lay in bed for six weeks and not sit up. Then I was sent
home and couldn't even sit during the car ride, never mind
how I was supposed to get into bed and stay there for six
weeks. I couldn't make it for more than one night in the
thing and wound up breaking it upon and resetting it myself.
I must add that I healed up much better than anybody
expected, through the help of medicinal herbs and exercise.
Of course maybe some of you are thinking that I just
had bad luck and just bad doctors, and that the majority of
doctors are really good, caring people. Maybe, but the fact
is that I received very bad care due to the fact that I'm
not rich and that I don't have insurance. Throughout the
whole affair it was clear that I was only going to be
treated in accordance to how much I could pay. I saw also
how the hospital lied about the treatment I got to get more
money reimbursed, and how they would bring me $18 pain
killers every morning that I would refuse and that they
would claim I would take, how they put daily physical
therapy on my tap when I received it to or three times for
15 minutes. This is what I see in the future of "free and
universal health care".
There are of course very many problems concerning
health care, ranging from how it is administered to what
methods of healing are to be used. Without getting into the
question of whether instutionalized medicine should even
exist (which is a valid one which I don't want to dismiss,
but which would be better treated by someone more
knowledgable on the subject), I can say that health care
will not be seriously improved under the proposed Clinton
plan. The main problem of course is that health care is
primarily an industry in which people try to make huge
profits. In the public health industry as well, most of the
problems are based in the capitalist/profitist system.
Let's take for example those nurses at the hospital.
Any number of people could agree that these people simply do
not belong in that job. The fact is that they probably don't
want to do that job anymore themselves. I cannot guess what
their motives were for choosing the nursing profession -
whether they were once people who thought they would
dedicate their lives to helping people or whether they were
simply drawn to the profession by the relatively good salary
and stable employment opportunities they would have. But
these people are not capable of doing their jobs; they view
the patients as nuisances and are tremendously overworked.
Their jobs make them tired and irritable, and although this
is no excuse for neglecting the patients, it is
understandable.
I know a few people in the health care profession. I
remember one friend who upon graduating school and becoming
a physicians assistant, was expected to be on call on round-
the-clock shifts. I remember how exhausted she was and how
she eventually had to take another job and is now waiting to
be able to get out of the health care profession altogether.
I asked, what is the sense of exhausting these people who
after all have a difficult job at which they should be able
to concentrate so as not to make any mistakes in the
operating room. It's not fair to them, and not fair to the
patients. But think about it - the hospitals fork over a lot
of money because its the only thing that attracts and keeps
some people in the profession. They don't want to hire more
high-priced workers. The profession becomes exclusive and
elitist. The medical schools become more and more elitist
and expensive, promising graduates big returns, which they
feel like they deserve after all the money they fork over in
med school and all the hours they have to needlessly put in
their first years on the job. One of the first steps in
reforming health care would have to be making health
education accessible to everybody who wants access to it,
allowing more people to be qualified health practitioners,
putting less pressure on doctors, nurses and other workers
to work long hours, etc.
Of course in a country where workers slave a good part
of their lives just to have a roof over their heads, and
wealth has a certain status, people have a certain motive to
make money. If investors, insurers, med schools and the
like, who don't give a shit about anything more than profit,
see little profit in health care, they will turn their
investments elsewhere. The same can be said of workers who
would choose more profitable professions. For the situation
to really improve, the profit motive must disappear not only
from health care, but from society at large. To follow this
train of thought, we should look at how the profit motive
negatively effects American health care, how, even when
there is supposedly public, non-profit health care, there
can be big money involved, and how the way capitalist
societies adversely effect health.
The way that the health care system is structured, a
lot of money is wasted, particularly by bureaucrats, paper
pushers and the system of insurance companies. An eighth of
the cost of health care is administrative. In addition, drug
companies, insurance companies and hospitals, driven by the
profit motive, drive up the cost of health care for
everyone. Since health care is so expensive, many people go
without, which is a fact so obvious that nobody can deny it.
Any system which can fail to provide basic medical services
to so many people is obviously a failure. Now the Clintons
think its time to change the health care system, but not
because people go without medical attention so much as (as
one AFL-CIA operative said) the cost to companies of
providing insurance for the workers drive up the cost of
production.
Apparently, to keep the corporate greedy sated enough
with the meagre millions they take in every year (as opposed
to the money they could make shipping this business to
another part of the world with a more desperate work force),
the state has thought up a plan.This plan should be more
cost efficient; they tell the workers who begrudge state
spending that it will be more cost effective to provide
preventative medicine than to treat the effects of going
without it. The fact is that whatever changes they make (and
it is questionable if they can manage even part of what they
themselves envision) will profit mostly everybody but the
people. Coverage will be minimal and will involve copayments
which will keep the poorest from seeking help. The quality
of medical care may not improve, and may even worsen as more
and more people find themselves insured by HMOs where the
care leaves something to be desired. Medicaid and Medicare
would be slashed. Many of the very poor and unemployed would
remained uncovered, with money for existing public medicine
being cut. The poor working class would be serviced by the
corporate HMOs and would receive substantially different
care than the wealthy and professional classes, even though
in general they run greater health risks. New bureaucrats
would take over this system, adding new costs; if costs
need to be managed, it will be at the expense of care and
not these new bureaucrats. Part-time workers, an ever-
growing group of people as businesses try to avoid paying
health care and other premiums, will find that they might
have mandatory coverage, for which their employers will pay
a pro-rated amount while they have to fork over the rest.
It is obvious that the new system, while trying to be
more cost effective than the old, will also be more
bureaucratic. Medicaid reciprients will be transferred to
private carriers, who, with more overhead, are much less
cost efficient. If the new policies save any money, it will
most likely do so by cutting on care.
The idea that people have about free health care (not
unlike that which many people have about inner city schools)
is that it is far from perfect, but at least it exists. This
is a very poor attitude to have when people's lives are in
question. There is no reason that decent health care cannot
be given everybody, except that the people who are in
control have their priorities fucked up, and that health
care is too regulated and the system run stupidly. What we
don't need is a more bureaucratic and universal system, but
more alternative systems of health care which are run by
people and not corporations or their legal arm - the
government.
L.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
THE MISSING PERSON; HEALTH AND ECOLOGY IN POST-PERESTROIKA
RUSSIA
Kati Laapaikan
The rapid industrialization which communism brought to
the former Soviet Union proved to be an ecological disaster.
Some of the worst ecological disasters in history have
occurred here, including Chernobyl and the depletion of the
Aral Sea to supply water for cotton crops. But these are
only the most wide known cases in the world - in addition,
there are numerous cities which have been contaminated by
industry, where the people suffer from many of the typical
diseases associated with industrial pollution. This is why
the emergence of an ecological movement is of such
importance. Yet after visiting with some actvists and having
gotten the feel for the politics of the ecologists, I get
the feeling that something is missing, something which is
usually of concern to environmentally aware people in the
West. This is a connection between the environment and the
person and between the way that we treat our bodies and the
way we treat the earth. The environmental movement seems to
have developed without the traditional health consciousness
and sense of personal responsibilty for the environment
that is supposed to accompany it.
The state of health consciousness in the former Soviet
Union seems to be nil. Though I had visions of a nation of
well-trained athletes, in good form and rosy-cheeked, eating
youghurt and living to the age of 105, the reality is quite
different. Tired looking, malnourished bodies with
translucent faces that betray bad health. I found that the
average diet in Russia is way too high in fats and
cholestoral, too much salt and too much sugar. Although it
seems that most food is without preservatives, much of it is
of questionable quality, and is sold in filthy conditions,
just right for the transmission of disease. The idea of
writing the ingredients on anything seems to be useless to
the Russians, who apparently have little concern for the
nutritive value of what their consuming. The basics of diet
are not taught, and so most people that I spoke to were
totally unaware of the condition between food and health.
Many people also feel that their health is somehow too
frivolous a thing to worry about. "I don't know if I'll have
enough money to last me through the month. I'm supposed to
worry about my health?", an aquaintance asked me, as if I
had approached a question to ridiculous to even answer.
Some Finnish tourists that I met told me of a diptheria
epidemic in Russia and referred me to the embassy medical
staff. I took the occasion as an opportunity to find out
what a foreign doctor thought about Russian health care.
The opinion was very low. With the exception of a few
reknowed specialists and a few hospitables which serve the
elite, Russian hospitals were best to be avoided. Unsanitary
conditions. Wrong dignoses. Over medication. I told my
Russian friends about my innoculation. They thought I was a
crazy person, willing to waste good money on an
innoculation. I thought, maybe they know something I don't.
Maybe there is something natural which protects Russians
from disease. None of them had heard of the epidemic. They
refused to believe it existed. "Nothing about it in the
Russian news." I thought, this is incredible. Is there an
epidemic, or is this something that some doctors thought up
to squeeze some money out of tourists? "About 600 something
people died. I don't know if you can call that an epidemic",
said an American friend living in Moscow. "The papers didn't
say a word about it, at least not the Russian language ones.
Back home if you had 60 people who died of a disease, it
would be on the news and the media would make a big to do
about it. Experts would give advice and the medical
community would create a health alert. Of course I am a
great critic of the medical industry and I dislike the way
that the media functions in general, but when I see what
happens here, I really begin to wonder if there is any value
in human life at all."
What I found was no preventative medicine, practically
no health consciousness at all. I did however find that
traditional herbal medicines were in use, but , as one
person pointed out, that was only to compensate for the low
supplies of pharmeceuticals that reach the people. People
are unaware of the side effects of many of the medicines
that they take. Analgin, for example, seems to be the most
popular pain killer. I thought that this would be an area
which environmental activists might be interested in - in
helping people heal themselves and live a healthier, more
balanced lifestyle, in coexistence with environmental
concerns.
I brought my idea to various activists, but it seemed
to fall on deaf ears. I mentioned that I thought it was odd
to be in a room of people who had protested against the
emission of pollutants into the air by factories yet had no
problems about emitting cigarette fumes into the air,
despite my request not to smoke. (They did open the window
in the 0+ weather however.) "You yourselves probably do as
much damage as the factory, if not more," I finally blurted
out, vexed by so much seeming indifference to the role that
personal behaviour plays in creating our circumstances, both
physical and mental. A long tirade followed about how people
cause pollution and waste energy, how bicycles were
perferrable to cars, and how cities were environmental
hazard zones. Finally somebody said, "Yes, it would be
better if we all lived in the country, but then there
wouldn't be work for some of us. We all can't be farmers."
I felt that, although the activists could easily
understand that city life was unnatural, they were not
ready to dismantle the idea of the city, and had very
little, if any critique of technology and industry. "Your
Western activists are elitist intellectuals," I was told.
"They always demand the closing of factories without
thinking of the workers. When there was a camp at
Cherepovetz, where there is a huge but dangerous
metallurgical factory which employs the whole city, we
demanded that the factory use ecologically clean equipment,
but we didn't demand that it be shut down. If we had
demanded that, we would have alienated the workers from our
cause. The main problem of the Russian worker is to feed
himself, and problems of health and safety come later."
I wanted to protest that it wasn't just the emission of
toxins into the air that should be of concern with
Cherpovetz. The factory is just the end stop in a cycle of
environmental production, and the people are chained to it
only because their area was industrialized. However they
lived before the huge metal works must have been a lot more
pleasant than spending 8 hours a day in a noisy, polluted
metal shop, spending 4 hours just to recover from the
experience, and spending the rest of your life feeling the
ill effects, both physical and psychic, of their
employment. I wanted to say all this, but it didn't come to
my head quick enough. I was busy digesting the dose of guilt
I had just been fed by my Russian friend, who honestly felt
he was protecting the working class. Poor
environmentalists, I thought. Afraid to let people know of
their own complicity in the ailing environment, too self-
abasing to say to themselves that their bodies are as
important as the trees in the taiga.
Upon my arrival home, I sent a care package of
literature back to Russia with a friend. I felt that maybe,
if they saw the case for health consciousness in print
enough, they would come to believe it was important. If I
learned one thing during my trip, nothing seems to impress
people there as much as glossy printed publications. (I
often wondered curiously what was so interesting about my
magazines that people would page through them endlessly,
despite the fact that they didn't read a word of Finnish.) I
have yet to see the results, but I am waiting.
------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICES
Radical pamphlets and books need to be printed in the
Russian language now more than ever. There are several
ready for publication now but we are having great logistical
problems with getting them printed. We would like to ask
people who have access to printing presses to help out in
this difficult time. We are mostly interested in making
small print runs of several pamphlets and are more than
willing to reimburse all or part of the material costs.
Please contact the publishers of this magazine if you are
able to help out.
The Moscow Institute for the Study of Racism, Fascism and
Nationalism is looking for people who are doing scholarly
work on any of the three subjects. Please contact the
Institute c/o this magazine or on e-mail at
cube@glas.apc.org
Anarchists and other interested people are busy cleaning out
their new squat on Petrovsky Blvd. in Moscow. The squat,
known popularly as "Gulyai Polye" (due to the fact that
there is an authoritarian neighbour by the name of
Petliura), hopes to open up early in the spring and have
discussions, performances and other events, as well as serve
as a meeting place.
Russian President Boris Yeltsin has posthumously
rehabilitated the Kronstadt rebels. Anarchists around the
world still consider themselves the enemies of the state.
-----------------------------------------------------------
YOU CAN'T REHABILITATE AN ANARCHIST
MOSCOW, JAN.10,1994
Almost 73 years after the slaughter of the Kronstadt
rebels, Moscow has decided that they were the victims of
political repression.
As yet another part of an assinine flow of symbolic
gesture against the legacy of the communist past, President
Boris Yeltsin has decided to officially "rehabilitate" the
participants in the 1921 Kronstadt uprising. This includes
restoring full legal rights to all those repressed. Thanks a
lot, Borya.
At a press conference held today, Alexander Yakovlev
released documents that proved that the Kronstadt uprising
was a rebellion against Bolshevik power and not a rebellion
supported by the Whites and Western imperialists. No shit
Alex - tell us something we didn't know. Yakovlev stressed
that the lesson of the Kronstadt rebeliion is that political
repression did not begin with Stalin. "Stalin just continued
doing what Lenin was already doing."
(We hope that historians of the future will draw the same
conclusions and figure out that Zhirinovsky was just a
continuation of Tsar Boris.)
It is important to note that this rehabilitation is merely
part of a sophisticated ploy carried out by Yeltsin to make
him seem morally superior to all things associated with the
Soviet government. The important thing is not historical
accuracy, but discrediting Soviet power down to the very
foundation, as one can discern from Yakovlev's statement
that, "It is important to remember Kronstadt now, when
people are becoming nostalgic for the old days". Yeltsin,
has taken an unprecendented number of moves against the
symbols of the past and has lamented the tragedy of
communism mostly in effort to drum up public sentiment
against his opposition. We think it's funny that someone who
himself sends the army against a rebellion should label the
same thing "political repression". If the anarchists of
Kronstadt were alive today, they'd probably have their guns
pointed at you Boris Yeltsin!
We want you to know, Boris Nikolayevich, that you have
more opposition than just those commie and fascist hacks.
You can shove your rehabilitation up your ass - down with
all political repressors and tyrants! Death to the
dictators, to those that take power through coup d'etats
after making speeches upon armoured vehicles. We have your
number Yeltsin, you pig scum. You ain't no better - blood is
on your hands.
Yeltsin plans to erect a monument in Kronstadt, to the
victims of the events. I think he should put one up around
the White House.
If he only knew that the spirit of Kronstadt lives on, he
wouldn't erect a monument.
You can't rehabilitate an anarchist.
FIND YOURSELF SOME OTHER MARTYRS!
ANARCHISTS HATE ALL TYRANTS - INCLUDING YOU, YOU
MOTHERFUCKER!
LONG LIVE THE SPIRIT OF KRONSTADT!
------------------------------------------------------------
Letters
Dear editors,
I'd like to thank you for taking the time to think of
me as I find myself in this difficult position. I read the
two issues of Mother Anarchy that you sent me with great
pleasure, especially as they differ so radically from the
rest of the red-brown crap I am sent. Having read the
material published in your magazine, as well as Alexander
Tarasov's excellent pamphlet entitled Provocation, I have
changed my views on the events that have taken place.
I'd like to say first of all that I have always
considered anarchist ideas to be very admirable but too
idealistic to work. I have always maintained that one must
take an active part in the political system in order to
change it. In my own role as Speaker of the Russian
Parliament, I tried to create an atmosphere in which the
best direction for the country could be examined openly and
honestly in order that the best decisions be made. As you
already know, many people have entered politics for entirely
different reasons, and know I have begun to realize that all
the politicians in Russia are bastards.
I am glad to know that there are some people who are
ready to see that Yeltsin provoked the events of last
October. As the legally elected legislature, we felt that
Yeltsin had no right to usurp our authority. But upon seeing
that the public did not support us, and furthermore that
myself and my colleagues were being villanized by the media,
I realized that the stance of Rutskoi and his friends was
stupid. In fact, Rutskoi is one of the last people on the
earth I would want as president, the macho shithead. During
my unfortunate time in the White House during the seige, I
had to listen to the most disgusting crap I have ever had
the misfortune to hear in my life, including constant racial
epiteths being hurled my way, anti-semtitic nonsense, and
calls for agression against Russia's neighbours in order to
bring Russia back to superpower status.
Now that Russians have elected Zhirinovsky, I am
tempted to think that the people have gone out of their
minds. But thinking it over now, I see that such people
have always been in power here, albeit that they expressed
their programs in different forms. I try to have faith, like
you, that the Russian people have not gone insane. I
realize that you are right, that many people didn't support
us because we were just as bad for them as was Yeltsin.
(Especially Rutskoi, that son of a bitch.) I swear that if I
ever get out of here, I am turning my back on politics. All
politicians are scum and I don't want to be part of it
anymore.
I hope that you will forgive my language, but I am very
upset , understandably. Please continue to write. It is a
great relief to know that somebody is willing to send me
mail besides the Stalinists and a few fans who want me to be
the president of an independent Chechnya. I wish that those
idiots would just leave me alone. A special hello to
Comrade Akai whose constant condemnation of Russian
nationalism, and particularly of the deportations which took
place after the coup d'etat is greatly needed and to
Alexander Tarasov, whose Provocation is an admirable work of
scholarship.
For your freedom and mine, (especially mine),
Ruslan Imranovich
------------------------------------------------------------
MOTHER ANARCHY is one of the few remaining independently
produced, self-financed samizdat publications left in the
world's newest liberal democracy. The culture of samizdat
has all but died away completely as people aspire to make
high cost, widespread publications that are almost
completely subsidized, and without these subsidies could not
exist. We on the other hand would like some of our readers
to get involved with the actual publishing and distribution
of the zine. Rather than collect money and then bankrupt
ourselves publishing this zine only to then have to hawk it,
we ask readers who might find it interesting to pass any or
all of it on to a friend or to make xerox copies of it and
spread it around. Nothing is coppyrighted, and anything is
free to reprinted as well.