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?