💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000780.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:37:40.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Anarchy: a journal of desire armed. #38, Fall 1993
LETTERS part three
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
NEO-FASCIST CLAPTRAP
J. McQuinn,
Regarding your review of Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist
in the Fall 1992 Anarchy: You write that the pamphlet is "worth
missing." I wish I could fool myself into thinking that this gross
understatement was made in a spirit of sarcasm, but the truth is
that your pathetic "review" was worth missing. You seem to have
spent more time reading neo-fascist claptrap (with a decided lack
of skepticism at that!) than legitimate history. Spend a little
time in the library before you write any more "reviews" on this
sensitive subject. You can start with The War Against the Jews by
Lucy Davidowitz and The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William
Shirer, the basic works, and then move on to the more specific and
detailed studies in Nazi evil such as The Nazi Doctors by Robert
Lifton. The Holocaust has not been exaggerated=FEif anything, history
has downplayed its magnitude. For instance the "six million" figure
we often hear refers only to the Jews who died in the extermination
camps. If one adds the gays, "gypsies" (Romani), trade unionists,
communists, political dissidents, and the mentally, physically and
psychologically disabled people killed in "euthanasia" programs,
the number approaches twelve million.
To argue that the mainstream Jewish press and organizations have
failed to grapple with the existence of other holocausts in history
(e.g. the extermination of Indian communities throughout the
Americas in the colonial era) is one thing. It is similarly valid
to point out that Zionists have sometimes manipulated the legacy of
the Holocaust for their own ends. But to write that "`The
Holocaust' has been magnified into a larger-than-life tale of
historical racial persecution=FE largely in order to justify the
continuing atrocities by Zionists in the racist state of Israel"
betrays such a poor sense of history (not to mention classically
conspiratorial anti-Semitism) that I find it demoralizing to think
that any self-respecting publication would print such words.
Have things degenerated to the point that "anarchists" think that
holocaust revisionism is worthy of expending ink and paper on for
purposes other than exposing and debunking? If so, we're really in
trouble.
Yours in disgust,
Bill Weinberg, New York, NY.
Contributing Editor, The Shadow
News Editor, High Times
Frequent Contributor, Love & Rage, GroundWork, etc.
Member, Walter Benjamin Committee on Fascism & Anti-Semitism
Jason comments:
Baseless accusations
I find anti-Semitism to be nauseating, as I do any other type of
racism I've encountered. But I will not grant that questioning the
spectacular media packaging of the Holocaust in the U.S. automati-
cally constitutes "classically conspiratorial anti-Semitism." One
needn't be anti-Semitic nor entertain any conspiracy theories to
note that in the U.S. mainstream media the state of Israel can do
no wrong. It is also clear that much of the media mystification
surrounding the actual process of colonizing Palestine and the
suppression and expulsion of the indigenous Palestinian population
from the 1940s to the present finds its justification in magnifi-
cation of the Holocaust to almost metaphysical proportions. But the
Nazis are no longer in power. It is the liberals, the conser-
vatives, the nationalist parties, the socialist and labor parties,
the social democrats, the Christian democrats and in Israel, Labor
and Likud that are responsible for massively exploiting racist
sentiments in order to maintain their power and perpetrate current
world atrocities. If Confessions of a Holocaust Revisionist is any
indication, Holocaust revisionism is a pathetic failure at
presenting any kind of convincing case that millions of Jews and
others were not purposefully killed by the Nazi state during WW2.
However, this does not excuse self-righteous and baseless accusa-
tions of anti-Semitism every time discussion of the subject is not
framed in the reactionary politically-correct terms favored by de-
fenders of Zionism and the state of Israel.
PRISON CENSORS NEVER SLEEP
Dear Anarchy,
I just thought I would write and inform you that Texas Department
of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division has in the past
clipped several articles in the #35 Winter '93 Vol.13, No.1 issue,
as follows:
1) Page 55 "Is Genital Fondling a Form of Child Abuse?" by Shaun
Perry
2) Page 56 "Russian Dolls" by Allen Thornton
Pages 55-58 were classified as "A specific factual determination
has been made that the publication is detrimental to prisoner's
rehabilitation because it would encourage deviate criminal sexual
behavior." [...]
Respectfully submitted,
D.G., Tennessee Colony, TX.
POLITICAL PRISONER
This is an open letter to the publisher and editors.
I am a thirty nine year old man of mixed Native American/European
lineage. I have a diverse collegiate level educational background
with an insatiable appetite for knowledge and a special affinity
for the printed word. I have a highly developed concern for my
planetary family and have "Walked My Talk" by way of an unobtrusive
life of volunteerism and service. I now find myself in the position
of many that I have in the past served: in need.
I am now writing you as a non-violent political prisoner from
within the walls of a Federal prison. I am serving a ten year
sentence; a victim of this government's "War on Drugs." I was
extorted, entrapped and incarcerated for a crime that I'm not
guilty of. I believe I was singled out because of my eco-
nomic/political and spiritual/religious views and practices. These
included a non-participatory stance in the inhumane consumeristic
economic system and the personal, private ceremonial use of
botanical psychedelics (which was not the "crime" that I was
unjustly charged and convicted of committing). My accusers are
guilty of a far more heinous crime than the one they have falsely
convicted me of. It's name is injustice.
I have been torn from amidst those I love, have had my family home
of three generations seized by the government for auction, and lost
my personal freedom for many years to come. This all was achieved
through law enforcement's use of immoral and illegal tactics to
enforce laws that upon close scrutiny are at best unconstitutional.
One can only speculate with dread the future direction of such a
trend if it is allowed to continue. We are witnesses to some of its
present impact upon our culture if just by the statistical data
alone: this country now imprisons more people per capital than any
other in the world.
I have an upcoming appeal of my case, but because I'm currently
indigent and thus cannot afford an experienced attorney; once again
an attorney has been appointed by the very unjust system which
raped me in the first place. Needless to say, I don't hold much
hope for the appeal process.
Like most prisoners of the "War on Drugs," sentenced as the
majority of us were, under the unduly harsh Mandatory Minimum
Sentencing Guidelines, I await with anticipation the incoming
administration of Mr. Clinton. I hold hope that this new
administration will take steps to begin the process of ending the
unjust and illegal tactics currently used by law enforcement and
bring a long needed return of sanity to the arena of politics, law
and sentencing guidelines.
For the present, I survive day by day. I daily exert conscious
effort to visualize my imprisonment as a monastic and spiritual
retreat that will strengthen, not embitter me. This, in union with
a meditative relationship with life, and emotional support from
those that love me, has been the only way that I have been able to
endure this past year, the first of my decade of incarceration.
All of my dear friends (I have no surviving family), live economic
minimalist lifestyles as I did. I thus cannot ask them for
financial assistance above and beyond that which they already
provide by covering the expenses of my telephone communications
with them. So I now appeal to your prisoner readership sponsoring
fund for a subscription grant and hope that you are able to help
me. I would also like to address your readership personally and
invite them to communicate and appeal to them to donate any
softcover (Federal prison rules) books or magazines. I have always
networked all of my reading material with others less fortunate and
will of course continue to do so. This subscription will touch the
minds and spirits of many for this reason.
If you would like to become more informed about the illegal
tactics used by law enforcement and the unjust laws which threaten
freedom of us all; one nonprofit organization that is striving for
justice and reform is:
Families Against Mandatory
Minimums
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 200 South
Washington, DC 20004
They publish a bi-monthly newsletter. Write them before you or
someone that you love has their life destroyed; none of us are
immune! [...]
Robert D. Milcher #15705-018
F.C.I. Tallahassee
P.M.B. 1000
Tallahassee, FL. 32301-3572
WAITING FOR AN APOLOGY
Dear Editors,
My letter in Anarchy #35 says that we all begin adult life ac-
cepting without question the social conditions in which we find
ourselves; you reply by drawing attention to the frequency of
rebellion, and this is agreed; acceptance does not have to be
peaceful. But rebelliousness has been with us since ancient times,
it pursues limited aims and does not amount to a questioning of
social conditions. A minority go beyond rebellion to question those
conditions, to analyze them and try to change them. Some of these
go on farther, a few even becoming anarchists, with numbers
diminishing at each stage. The idea that people generally are
starting to question social conditions is an illusion that has
haunted the anarchist and revolutionary movements since they began;
it accounts for much of the continuing disappointment they suffer.
You accuse me of trying to prove that nothing can be done about
present conditions. I deny having done anything so absurd and
challenge you to support your charge with quotations.
I attributed to you the opinion that people giving their lives in
support of the Spanish Republican government were anarchists, and
you call this a lie.
Your words (#31) were: "for Walford, the entire anarchist
revolution in Spain is a figment of anarchists' imaginations! He
devotes an appendix in Beyond Politics to use some of the con-
tradictions within the Spanish movement to "explain" that it wasn't
an anarchist movement anyway...."
That Appendix ends: "people who right and kill and die in defence
of a government, heroic as they may be, are not acting like
anarchists in any normal sense of that term." Your scornful
dismissal of this showed you to be then holding the opinion that
these people were anarchists. I did not lie, and now await your
apology.
Do you now agree with me that those who fought on behalf of the
Spanish Republican Government, heroic anti-Fascists as they may
have been, were not acting like anarchists?
Unjustified accusations have to be countered, but like yourselves
I prefer to avoid nitpicking and stay with the main substance of an
issue. Here the main substance is that the anarchist movement
remains what it was in Bakunin's time, a tiny and ineffectual
minority with no good reason to expect significant growth. My book
Beyond Politics explains how this comes about and goes on to
consider the consequences for people concerned about social
conditions.
Sincerely,
George Walford
[Your book "explains" nothing of the sort. Instead it reveals one
person's unconvincing strategy for categorizing his way to social
and historical mystification. Your conclusion that all Spanish
anarchists must have wanted to "fight and kill and die in defence
of a government" is ludicrous on its face. It makes no provision
for the actual, complex situation faced by Spanish anarchists at
the time, and collapses all of their efforts into a parody which
you are then free to take to an illogical conclusion. If this is
not deliberate obfuscation in the service of an underlying
authoritarian perspective, you ought to seriously consider a self-
analysis of your own motivations in order to better understand how
you could be so successful at fooling yourself about what you're
really doing! -Jason]
L.A. RIOTS NECESSARY
Dear friends,
I would like to comment on the article by Adam Bregman entitled
"Preparations for the next riot," which appeared in Anarchy #35,
Winter '93. Upon reading the headline I was sure this was going to
be another bullshit article portraying the riots in a negative
manner only from a different angle. Fuck that! There's no fascist-
pig ass-kissing in Anarchy! I was pleasantly surprised by the
positive viewpoint taken by the author and the many useful tips for
future rioters. This was an excellent article! It encourages people
to get off their asses and participate in smashing the state, it
gives us useful critique of the riots (burn down police stations,
not the local store), and it portrays the mass-media for what it
is, a tool of the establishment.
I suppose I enjoyed this article so much because I believe the
riots were very necessary and needed to happen years ago and need
to happen again. Had it not been for the riots the situation in
South Central L.A. might have gone unchanged and unnoticed by
outsiders for quite a while but now people around the world are
forced to take notice of the immense poverty of inner cities and
the mega-power common people have when they come together to fight
oppression, even if it is against the largest militant superpower
in the world.
I would like to hope that we can learn from the L.A. riots and be
more successful rioters next time by directing our anger and
violence towards the state and not "innocent bystanders" and small
businessmen.
In closing I would like to say "hang in there" to all the people
serving time for some bullshit charge (like I am) and send out a
"Fuck You Bitch" to Capt. Milliren and a "Go Fuck Yourself" to the
entire Huntsville city police dept.
Down with the establishment!
M.C., Huntsville, AL.
ANARCHO-JERK
Dear folks,
I got your mag #36 and it's sharp and highly informative although
I must say that the material in columns will most likely go over
many people's heads. Perhaps if your contributors will try to enact
simpler lit-vocab, then more people will be able to readily
appreciate this.
And now something totally irrelevant...when I went to Australia
for a couple months this winter I stayed almost an entire 24 hours
in a place called Yeppoon in Queensland around the first of Dec. in
one of two local hostels. There was this jerk who kept rambling on
about his Anarcho inclinations and sounded like he was trying to
save somebody's soul half the damn night. The acoustics were
perfect where I slept and the walls thin. I was annoyed. This
fellow must have had some sort of gentile place in the society (if
only in his mind) and had given me no less than a cold stare when
said hello in passing earlier. Late, late in the evening I went for
some tea and he was watching a soft porno with a silly woman,
talking anarcho trash to her and groping her vehemently (?) while
I returnt to my slumber. I guess you just had to have been there.
Cheerz!
J.S., Waynesville, MO.
LAUGHING MYSELF SICK
Dear Anarchy,
First let me compliment you on the new format. I like it very
much, and enjoy it all month until nearly everything is read.
Secondly, I have just started issue #36/Spring '93 and am laughing
myself sick at all the letters chewing me out as a threat to nearly
everybody on the political spectrum.
Third, I have been researching and writing about the various
political movements since 1984 when I founded what is now called
The Rational Feminist (went through three other titles):
socialists, communists, white nationalists and various other
movements and publications, such as Eidos (which I think is
exploitative of females and no way feminist).
I do appreciate the cool analysis of Doug Imrie & Larry Deck, as
amicus curiae, offering some very objective defense and sanity on
the whole matter. Rather than "infiltrating" the Anarchist
movement, I have had one foot in the anarchist camp for years,
since writing an article called "Anarchist Feminists" for my
feminist newsletter and including the renowned Emma and Rose
Pesoto. (I tend to champion the underdog.)
In fact many lonely anarchist juveniles (17-20s) in prisons often
see that letter I wrote defending white prisoners and write to me
for friendship and instructions in anarchism (now that will bring
on another tirade from somebody, I'm sure).
I subscribe to Anarchy because Bob Black said it was one of the
best of the anarchist papers and that he sometimes appeared
therein. I have found that that is so, and that Michael William is
now my antagonist as well as his. I have arrived in the literary
world!
Further, I have been known to publish letters-to-the-editor in The
Rational Feminist that were very much opposed to what they thought
my paper was all about after reading a review of it in Factsheet
Five. I certainly think it would be very dull to publish only the
people who agree with me. It seems strange that anarchists who
advocate freedom, or some of them, can be so=FEshall we say
"authoritarian"?
It is refreshing to know that we also have a cool-headed editor
in Jason who handled the whole situation with aplomb.
Has anyone ever considered that the anarchists and the "neo-
fascists" have at least one thing in common=FEa dislike of big gov-
ernment? An unmistakably anarchist-slanted paper in Key West has
picked up on the Randy Weaver story in the Northwest wherein the
feds descended upon Weaver's mountain home with destructors, diesel
fuel for burning, and shot and killed his wife, a nursing mother
and 14 yr old son.
I will end by saying that my anarchist tendencies are in the
primitivist direction. You will doubtless have a good laugh if I
tell you that for all my "neo-fascist" and "crypto-fascist" no-
menclature, I recently fell in love with a Jew. So have fun.
Most sincerely and appreciatively,
Molly Gill, Editor
Rational Feminist
Suite #202
11922 Seminole Blvd.
Largo, FL. 34648
ALL ANARCHISTS LOOK ALIKE
Sir/Madam:
Recently, I received a sample copy, (#35) of your publication
Anarchy. As an omnivorous reader I did not make any grand
presumptions about its agenda, in spite of the title. Now, after
perusing its contents, I would like to accept your magnanimous
invitation to "critique" a thing or two.
The ideal state of freedom which some dream of is as unreachable
as any other perfect state. Moreover, the quest for freedom on the
utopian scale which most of your readers aspire, is reminiscent of
religion's appeal to primitive emotions. What the anarchist seems
to be advocating is infantile self-gratification and tribalism,
with no consideration for the weak or defenseless who would become
prey to "desire armed."
Critics may argue with some validity that contemporary "civil-
ization" with all of its social and economic injustice is proof
that government is useless, and only a facade in which evolutionary
law still prevails.
What are the alternatives? Revolution? Anarchy? Careful analysis
would eliminate either. Historically, every revolution has become
more repressive than the regime it has displaced. The anarchist
deceives himself into thinking he can become "an island unto
himself." It is an exercise in futility to imagine that any
gathering of human beings can live without rules, laws, or ethics,
and to promote that idea seems immature, escapist, and
irresponsible.
Your publication is sufficient proof of my argument, since it
offers a base where would-be anarchists can come together, (like
fascists, religionists, et al), and make their own rules & laws,
like the groups and governments they revile. "Radically cooperative
& communitarian"? That has at least the ring of some ethical
consideration.
In the end, anarchists, like those who pierce their ears, or
tattoo their bodies in an attempt to be "different," all wind up
looking alike. There simply is no way of escaping our humanity, or
our interdependence. Those who have, live in a cultural neth-
erworld, whose existence is defined by a tightrope, balancing
escapism, alienation, and madness in a vain attempt to give life
meaning.
H.F., Winter Haven, FL.
RAPE IS WRONG
I am writing in response to the "A good gang bang" letter in #36.
First, rape is wrong, under any circumstances, rape is shit! Your
view that somehow women ask for it is simply ridiculous, and then
you somehow seem to work your racist bullshit in too.
And now, A.I., you sound like the kind of person that makes me
doubt that the human race has any intelligence, for it's obvious
that you don't. Maybe I'm strange but anarchy to me is a society
where there is near absolute equality, no hunger, no war, and
everybody caring for each other and helping each other out without
any ulterior motives except human compassion. But..., regrettably,
as long as there are assholes such as yourself, A.I., anarchy will
never succeed to any extent.
That is all that I have to say at the moment. Now I must sleep so
that I may attend boot camp, oops, I mean high school and get
brainwashed, I mean learn. Anyone wishing to write me is more than
welcome! Anarchy, please include my address.
XXOOXOX
Hugs and kisses,
Dean Bures
POB 1347
Port Orford, OR. 97465
NOT A NEWSLETTER
Dear Jason McQuinn,
Our magazine, The American Rationalist, is continually described
in Anarchy as a "newsletter."
Please note that The American Rationalist is not a newsletter, but
a magazine that has been published for more than 35 years, in
various formats. We have articles and almost no "news." We also run
no real ads, so the size of the magazine is smaller than it would
be if we ran ads.
Please correct your identification of our magazine. Thank you.
Gordon Stein, Editor
The American Rationalist
POB 994
St. Louis, MO. 63188
MORE ANTI-PORN
Jason,
I do not support the idea of a judiciary and oppose all authori-
tarian and repressive actions. I am not familiar with MacKinnon's
legal activism and cannot comment on it. I am neither anti-porn nor
pro-porn. My concern in posing the questions (Anarchy #36 [note:
see page 62ff.]) was, as always, with the destructive effects of
power (a term I clearly distinguish from enablement). I am also
concerned with Anarchy narrowing to political correctness and
alienating even larger elements of the potential readership, espe-
cially women.
You (Anarchy), on the other hand, have raised a number of issues
about porn, and since the questions I asked are the classic ones,
I think you should answer them so readers can judge. Please keep in
mind my questions deal only with hierarchical (your adjective)
power not with porn (sexual titillation) per se. If the issues are
as clear cut as you seem to suggest, a full response should not be
difficult. For example, if you conclude porn has no major theme of
sexual power (nonmutuality), my questions hardly apply. My sense is
this would open you to the "just don't get it" charge, however,
from whatever female readership you have left.
There is no mean-spirited or vituperative intent to the questions.
They were framed to clear the air on this subject so the pages of
Anarchy could finally move on to discuss other things like the
building of nonhierarchical community.
I have no idea how anti-porn activists and fanatics (to whom you
address your questions) would answer them.
If you want to know what I think (anarchistically speaking), read
my book, The New Political Consciousness (Lysander Spooner, 1992),
especially chap. 14, "The Feminist Connection." Then, perhaps we
can have a sensible discussion about our common opposition to
hierarchical power.
Did you ignore my book (Ziesing says you were sent a copy for your
Anarchist Book Review section) and not publish my article (on
community) because of possibly false intimations from my questions?
Perhaps the book review and article will appear later? [Note: The
article was rejected; the book will be reviewed in the future.]
My main interest is in actualizing a political context (or if you
prefer, an internalized anti-authoritarian gestalt) of "Domination
destroys; community builds." Such a context of social freedom, I
believe, can be shared generally even though (since there are no
universal or absolute values) each community must work out its own
structures on the basis of locally shared values.
If you want to inform your readers as to what C. MacKinnon's book
is about, you should read it first.
Because someone seeks, what to them are necessary protections,
finding (in the absence of an anarchist society) only the law to
provide them, does that make them authoritarian? Perhaps I am
overlooking something? What is the politically correct response for
anarchists, for instance, if the police confiscate their property
or means of livelihood without justification?
If Picasso was a male chauvinist, Marx a supporter of the liberal
state (in transition), and Ed Abbey believed Hispanics are
generically impoverished, would this mean their contributions
should be rejected wholesale (have nothing to offer)?
It is a fact that MacKinnon uses terms like "the feminist state"
(social structure?) and law (relation of structure to life?) that
confuse me as to where she stands on political structure.
Nevertheless, she is an outspoken and articulate opponent of the
liberal state, its conception of law, epistemology, and method and
has some interesting (to me) criticism of marxism. In her critique
(which is confined to feminism) I've found many new ideas and
useful arguments for replacing liberalism with community and
expanding nonauthoritarian politics in general, while also making
it relevant to women.
Anarchism has been weak in its appeal to women, even antagonistic,
in part (I think) due to a residual liberal (and male privileging)
consciousness. It is difficult to rise completely above
liberalism's social constructions given our constant subjection to
its coercive, consciousness conferring structure. MacKinnon shines
in demolishing liberalism. Maybe she is incorrigible when it comes
to the law and the state (she does say they should not dominate
life). To give you some flavor of Toward a Feminist Theory of the
State, here are some excerpts.
Page 169: "...the [liberal] state, through law,
institutionalizes... power over...This power...is a web of
sanctions throughout society which controls...everyday lives." Page
237: "liberal...law is...a site and cloak of force. The state
incorporates...social power ...as law...law becomes legitimate, and
social dominance becomes invisible...(continuing on p.238) a
feature of life...a one-sided construct imposed by force for the
advantage of a dominant group...control over being produces control
over consciousness, coercion legitimated becomes consent." Page
242: "Inequality is about power ...grasped as a question of hier-
archy...mainstream law is falsely universal [meaning it imposes
agreement according to p.xv.]." Page 249: "[under liberalism] forms
of power over...are affirmatively embodied as individual rights in
law." Page 245: "A systematic inequality...exists in the social
practice of...violence...and in the operation of the [liberal]
state." Page 248: "Law objectifies social life...makes be there
what it puts there, while presenting itself as...neutral. Abstract
rights authorize...substantive rights... would not." Page 249:
"Both the liberal and left...rationalize... power. Law that does
not dominate life is...difficult to envision... existing law
is...at women's expense. Women have never consented to its rule."
Other points: 1. How does one recognize a feminist charlatan
without knowing what a true feminist is? 2. Empowerment (which came
into popular use in liberal-socialist circles in connection with
getting in power) is not that much of a clarification of power's
meaning when enablement is intended. 3. It's better, I think, to
help people over their blind spots than to condemn them. There must
of course be no sacrifice of principle.
PS: In the interest of moving on, I don't care that much if this
gets published.
W.B., Edgewood, IA.
Jason responds:
Loaded questions
It's interesting that you claim to have so relentlessly put for-
ward the anti-porn line in your letter in Anarchy #36 without being
aware of the authoritarian consequences of most recent anti-porn
activism. That you could read MacKinnon's Toward a Feminist Theory
of the State without being tipped off that she is pursuing an
expressly authoritarian agenda shows just how tenuous your
understanding of these issues must be. I'm genuinely sorry if I
misjudged my response to your letter by assuming that you under-
stood the general context in which your remarks would be read in
this magazine.
However, your comments in the present letter continue to betray
an antipathy towards the liberatory stance taken by this journal,
at the same time as they make unjustified assumptions concerning an
alleged concern with liberation by anti-porn feminists like
MacKinnon. For example, your concern "with Anarchy narrowing to
political correctness and alienating even larger elements of the
potential readership, especially women," can be taken to imply that
you believe criticism of the increasingly dominant authoritarian
trends in the feminist movement is an example of "political
correctness" rather than sensible and necessary engagement. It as-
sumes that sustained criticism of the authoritarian trends in femi-
nism will drive potential readers, particularly women readers away,
as if anarchist criticism of other authoritarian trends doesn't
equally drive away other groups of potential readers who remain
antipathetic to freedom and sympathetic with repressive tactics and
institutions. Sure, we could probably greatly increase our read-
ership if we were to change our name to something more like Time or
Utne Reader and pursue a pro-authoritarian editorial course. But
the purpose of this journal is not to acquire readers at the cost
of abandoning an anarchist perspective!
Your request that I should answer your "classic" questions about
porn betrays a misunderstanding about why I answered them with
another set of questions in Anarchy #36 in the first place. That
is, you apparently claim to have not a clue that your questions
were artfully constructed to be intentionally misleading, making
certain crucial anti-porn assumptions in the way they were framed
that makes it almost impossible to answer them without decon-
structing the invalid assumptions hidden in each at length. This is
why I, instead, simply opposed them with another set of equally
loaded questions that you refused to answer in turn, by assuming
they were not really meant for you.
That every institutionalized aspect of life in a highly alienat-
ing, authoritarian, patriarchal and exploitative society promotes
a theme of hierarchical power ought to be quite obvious to any
genuinely thoughtful anarchist. The pornography industry is
certainly no exception. However, it is entirely possible to be
critical of pornography as it is presently constituted without
mounting authoritarian campaigns to suppress consensual sexual
expression, however unappetizing that expression may currently be
for the most part.
It is not the fault of libertarian defenders of free expression
that authoritarian feminists "just don't get it" that they have
made themselves enemies of women's and men's freedom. They really
do think that their support for police repression of consenting
sexual expression is somehow liberating. But this only confirms
their danger for the rest of us. They are willing to work hand-in-
hand with right-wing Christians to put those they define as sexual
"deviants" in jail. They are willing to work with vice cops to jail
editors and distributors of publications they don't approve of.
They are willing to intentionally manipulate data and manufacture
new "facts" in order to justify their anti-sexual propaganda.
Ultimately, they are unapologetic partisans of state repression
like the Leninists, who were "outspoken and articulate opponent[s]
of the liberal state" as well! They may have some valuable things
to say, but first, as with the writings of Lenin, their valuable
ideas must be disentangled from the authoritarian frameworks in
which they are embedded. It simply doesn't work for anti-
authoritarians to use their ideas without first detoxifying them of
their repressive assumptions and making explicitly clear that they
are not being used for repressive purposes. When MacKinnon says the
law and the state "should not dominate life," that is as reassuring
to me as Leninist promises that the "workers' state" really means
proletarian freedom. Politicians always lie about freedom; that is
half their job. The other half is destroying it.
Are you really so dense that you need to ask the question: "Be-
cause someone seeks, what to them are necessary protections, find-
ing (in the absence of an anarchist society) only the law to pro-
vide them, does that make them authoritarian?" Why wouldn't it?
Because slumlords seek, "what to them are necessary protections" of
the profits they are making from their tenants, "finding...only the
law to provide them, does that make them authoritarian?" Because
capitalists seek, "what to them are necessary protections" from the
outrage of "their" exploited and poisoned workers, "finding...only
the law to provide them, does that make them authoritarian?" Be-
cause anti-porn feminists seek, "what to them are necessary protec-
tions" from other people's depictions of human sexuality,
"finding...only the law to provide them, does that make them au-
thoritarian?" What do you really think?