textfiles/politics/SPUNK/sp000779.txt

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

MINDLESS SEXUAL TABOOS
Dear Anarchy,

 Writing in the Winter 1993 issue, W.B. from Edgewood, IA. states,
"Radicals need to take social construction seriously. Where there
is social power, there are distortions that can hardly be undone by
the individual, alone, no matter how strong and competent. And all
of the above has bearing on child-adult sex. The selfish individual
of individualist anarchy apparently can legitimize adult-child sex
as a mutual (domination free) relationship irrespective of existing
social consciousness: the way current mores contribute to guilt,
lost esteem, etc....We all are continuously being socially
distorted by the dominant consciousness. It prompts us to seek
individual gain over others and nature. How can a child, suddenly
cast into this adult arena of competitive self-seeking individuals
and narrow moralism, still be expected to avoid serious injury?"

 W.B. raises a valid point in his letter. (I assume W.B. is a "he"
due to his dogmatic, abstract style of argument.) All relationships
do take place in a social context and this does have bearing on
adult-child sex. A child may find a sexual relationship with an
adult both pleasant and delightful, yet may be "consenting" to a
risk s/he does not understand. She risks emotional trauma should
she later encounter society's horrific view of the relationship. It
is not obvious to young children that their loving relationship
with an adult will suddenly become problematic for others when it
begins to involve sexual pleasure. The hysterical response when
such a relationship is discovered definitely causes harm to at
least some children. Examples abound, including a couple of case
histories cited in my article ("Positive Child-Adult Sex: The
Evidence," Anarchy Summer, 1992). As W.B. wisely points out, these
mindless sexual taboos hurt children. It would follow then, that
such hurtful influences which threaten children engaged in
otherwise harmless, pleasurable behaviors should be scrutinized,
challenged, questioned. But apparently, this is where W.B. draws
the line. He gives no indication that the "existing social
consciousness" and "current mores" invoked in his argument can be
changed, or indeed that they should be. By this omission, W.B.'s
position accepts the moralism of the prevailing culture as a
"given," a fixed, unchangeable constant to which everyone's desires
and mutual behaviors must conform. Ultimately, this type of
reasoning reduces to a circular argument. "Consensual child-adult
sex should be taboo because it is harmful. Why is it harmful?
Because it is taboo!" W.B.'s argument is a tautology.

 Where in W.B.'s view is there room for rebellion, for experi-
mentation, for subjectivity? Where is there room for liberation of
desire in general? I agree with W.B. that radicals need to take
social construction seriously, but would add that radicals also
need to take radicalism seriously. Otherwise, all of the subversive
potential of relationships which cross sociological demarcations of
power is lost. Writing in Daniel Tsang's anthology, The Age Taboo,
lesbian feminist sex radical Pat Califia observes, "Our society is
made up of class systems and runs on arbitrarily assigned
privilege. Loving relationships are one way to cross barriers,
forge alliances and redistribute power. Granted, they are no
substitute for full-scale social change. But we cannot forego all
intimacy until these iniquities are abolished. There is nothing
wrong with a more privileged adult offering a young person money,
privacy, freedom of movement, new ideas and sexual pleasure."

 Since whites hold most of the power in this society, W.B.'s
analysis forbids all sex between blacks and whites due to inevita-
ble "distortions that can hardly be undone by the individual
alone." Since people with money have more power than people without
it, equalitarian sexual relationships which cross class lines are
also forbidden because "we all are continuously being socially
distorted by the dominant consciousness." Since men have more
political and economic power than women, every woman/man
relationship is oppressive, according to W.B.'s theory, because of
the societal construction of gender roles, and should be stamped
out by "radicals" who "take social construction seriously." By the
way, sexual activity between children of the same age also involves
risk of "guilt, lost esteem, etc." if discovered. Thus, we can
assume that W.B. works hard to prevent this kind of behavior as
well.

 When not applied in an atmosphere of respect for individual
freedom and subjectivity, social constructionist theories such as
W.B.'s quickly collapse into defenses of the status quo. W.B.
reduces living, breathing human beings to abstract social catego-
ries ("adult," "child") and passes judgment on the validity of spe-
cific people's specific relationships solely by examining the
interplay of his abstractions. He writes as if no tender, equali-
tarian relationship could ever exist between living, breathing,
desiring, individuals who have the misfortune of being members of
societal groups which, as groups, relate in hierarchical terms. A
multitude of personal and social factors converge upon any
relationship. How all of these factors interact is unique to each
relationship. Hence, each relationship must be evaluated on its own
merits or lack thereof. To treat relationships existing in unique
circumstances between unique individuals as unique is not "selfish
individualist anarchy." It is just pragmatic realism, that's all.
There simply isn't any other way to find out what is really going
on between two people except to find out. We need to listen to
them, not lecture them from the outset about how their relationship
must be oppressive because of the disparate sociological categories
to which each of them belongs.

 W.B. asks rhetorically how a child engaged in a sexual rela-
tionship with an adult can "be expected to avoid serious injury?"
If W.B. believes he can prove all sexual contacts between adults
and children injurious, then he is more than welcome to try where
all others have failed. W.B. can begin by explaining away each and
every one of the case histories cited in my article., as well as
the many others where these came from. The research literature is
so full of this type of evidence that mainstream child abuse
professionals long ago gave up trying to prove all child adult sex
harmful or negatively experienced by the child. Since the late '70s
the prevailing doctrine is that such relationships should be viewed
in moral rather than empirical terms. In other words, even when a
relationship is admittedly harmless and mutually desired by both
child and adult, they say it should be destroyed because it is
"immoral." It is here, among the elite academics of the child abuse
industry, that W.B. will find the "adult arena of competitive self-
seeking individualism and narrow moralism" which he projects onto
all child /adult erotic relationships. These mandarins of the
psychiatry/social worker/police axis intervene to destroy
relationships which they tacitly admit are harmless and consensual,
and justify this by invoking a higher morality to excuse any
subsequent emotional damage sustained by the child as a result of
such intervention. Breaking up harmless, consensual relationships
between adults and children is a form of child abuse, whether the
ideological rationale stems from "morality" or from "social
construction."

 X.M. from San Diego notes that male adults outnumber female adults
in the case histories cited in the articles. She then concludes,
without further evidence, that "male dominance/patriarchy" lies at
the root of adult/child relationships. However, there is nothing
intrinsically "male" about sexual response to children. As Pat
Califia noted in her previously cited essay, "it is possible that
more sex occurs between mothers and other women and children than
between men and children. Women have more access to kids, and there
are fewer taboos on women handling young people's bodies. Granted,
given feminine conditioning, the women who have erotic contact with
young people probably don't think of it as sex, but this is
hypocrisy, not liberation." She adds, "Why is there no discussion
of the frustrating and tragic situation of young girls who know
they are lesbians in grade school, junior high school or high
school?... Why are lesbians willing to cooperate with the patriar-
chal conspiracy to silence the truth about the intensity and
diversity of female sexuality? This attempt to define pedophilia as
a male issue simply alienates and estranges women whose lesbian
experiences include cross-generational contact."

 Women in feminist CR groups who attempt to share childhood
memories of positive sexual experiences with women typically find
themselves shouted down. Lesbian girl-lovers are deeply closeted
due to the intolerant PC ideology of so many of their sisters. A
recent setback to this ongoing battle to suppress all evidence of
woman/child sexual desire has come in the form of the Special
Women's Issue (#8) of Paidika: The Journal of Pedophilia (Postbus
15463, 1001 ML Amsterdam, The Netherlands). The editorial board of
this journal includes such notorious patriarchs as Dutch feminist
writer and poet, Sjuul Deckwitz; University of Amsterdam Gay Stud-
ies Lecturer, Gert Hekma; feminist political scientist and sex
activist, Marjan Sax; and economist Jan Schuijer. The women's issue
includes articles by Nora de Ronde, Gloria Wekker, Pat Califia,
Marion De Ras, and Beth Kelly, and interviews with Gisela Bleitreu-
Ehrenberg, Martha Vicinus, Kate Millet, and four other women who
preferred to remain anonymous. This issue also includes "There Can
Be No Emancipation of Women Without the Emancipation of Children:
The Kanalratten Manifesto," written in 1989 by "The Canal Rats," an
anarchist women's and children's commune in W. Germany. The opening
words of their manifesto read, "We define female pedophilia as love
between girls and adult women which is voluntary and includes
sexual satisfaction; it is not a form of domination over other
people since it is a form of life in which we have no need to
dominate or possess children." Further on in this document, they
state, "Almost all women who have tender and sexual feelings for
children are afraid to pursue their wishes and needs and to respond
to those of children, because these relationships are legally
prosecuted and their social therapeutic nature is destroyed. The
current campaigns which are supposedly directed against "sexual
abuse" underscore the tightening of conventional morality, the
suppression of our sexuality and the control of children."

 A couple of readers have speculated, without evidence, that the
North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) might be a kiddie
pimping operation, a child kidnapping ring, and so forth. There is
no excuse for writing such scurrilous letters without taking the
time to find out what kind of organization NAMBLA really is.

 NAMBLA can be reached at POB 174, Midtown Station, N.Y., NY.
10018. Or if you prefer, give them a call at (212) 807-8578. If you
forget this number, just look it up in the NYC phone book under
"NAMBLA." Infiltrating NAMBLA is as easy as writing out a check for
$25 and sending it to the above address. As one of NAMBLA's 1200+
members, you will receive their monthly 32 page Bulletin, and will
be entitled to attend local and annual meetings to see with your
own eyes how much pornography, pimping, kidnapping, sexual slavery
and rape NAMBLA coordinates: NONE! If you want to hobnob with the
"inner circle" of NAMBLA, simply volunteer to do some work for the
national office. The hard-core of activist burnouts who put out the
Bulletin each month will be delighted to welcome a volunteer keen
on sharing their workload. The FBI, Postal Inspection Service, NYC
police, and other law enforcement agencies have been
"investigating" NAMBLA since its inception in the 1970s, hoping to
link it with something, anything, of an illegal nature. After all
these years the cops have had no luck. NAMBLA is an above-ground,
scrupulously legal, educational organization which, while not
"anarchist," does take quite a few very libertarian positions on
children's issues, most of them unrelated to sex. It does not
deserve to be hounded in print by irresponsible so-called
"radicals" who won't bother to learn before launching diatribes
revealing only their own ignorance.
                                                Joel Featherstone
                                             c/o Uncommon Desires
                                                         POB 2377
                                              New York, NY. 10185

IN THE HOLE AGAIN
Greetings!

 Let me begin with a statement made by Voltairine de Cleyre in the
year 1909, "Free speech means nothing if it does not mean the
freedom to say what others don't like to hear."

 I wrote a letter that appeared in the Anarchy magazine issue #35.
Due to that letter I received a total of 188 days in the hole. I am
in prison, I am writing this statement from the hole. The Security
Director of this prison, Mr. Chris Ellerd, wrote me a "Major
Conduct Report" for that letter in issue #35. The reason for the
"Conduct Report" is because he claims I violated two rules by
writing the letter, Rule #30325 "Disrespect," and Rule 3303271
"Lying About Staff." The "Disrespect" charge is because I referred
to Capt. Milliren and associates as "Pigs." The "Lying About Staff"
charge is because Mr. Ellerd claims that I said "Captain Milliren
and her pig associates influenced the Hearing Committee into giving
me a 120 day hole sentence on a previous charge (having a tatoo
gun, bong, etc.). This "Lying About Staff" charge was totally
fabricated by Mr. Ellerd. I never said in the letter what he ac-
cused me of saying. I did claim that Capt. Milliren and pig asso-
ciates were retaliating against me which is totally true. To
retaliate, according to the American Heritage Dictionary means "to
return like for like." What that means to me is that if I do
something that offends the morals of their pig laws then they will
in return do something to me. Since my arrival at this prison in
April '92 I have received numerous "conduct reports," had all my
books, zines, letters, legal materials, etc. confiscated, had
countless letters and magazines denied to me from the mailroom
along with many books also, and have been threatened with more
"conduct reports."

 The materials were confiscated because they dealt with the subject
of anarchy. 3 of my past conduct reports were written on me because
of my use of the anarchist symbol (the circled A). Capt. Milliren
wrote 2 of them. In the first one Capt. Milliren blatantly lied in
the report by saying the "Anarchy and its symbol are used by
Satanists and white supremacists." This by an official who is
supposed to be some kind of expert on symbols. In the second report
I was accused of "Disobeying Orders" for refusing to stop using the
anarchist symbol. The third report I received was by another
officer who said that the circled A "is a gang symbol." These are
only 3 examples of the conduct reports I have received and been
found guilty of. A small example of the type of fascist mentality
these pigs have.

 Capt. Milliren sent me a memo on Aug. 2, '92 while I was in the
hole. She had confiscated all my anarchist literature and was told
to return most of it. This is what the memo states: "A couple weeks
ago I ordered literature pulled from your cell ...after several
hours of inspection" (more like 3 weeks) " I am returning most of
the material and will have you send out the remaining items that I
feel fall under the laws of Wisconsin, the United States or the
Dept. of Corrections." (A couple catalogs and a couple A.Y.F.
papers.) "I also am writing to you to make it clear that the
publication of letters which advocate starting or supporting
`anarchists'' groups will be looked at as `group resistance.' These
materials are not allowed. Conduct Reports will be issued for
possession of these materials. Also, use of the anarchists' symbol
(circled A) will also be looked at as `group resistance.'"

 That is why I stated I would have more days in the hole coming.
When Capt. Milliren sends her threats of more conduct reports what
else can I say but more days coming in the hole. If you don't call
that retaliating what else can you call it?

 Mr. Ellerd took the letter out of context and twisted it into what
he wanted. He is a sneaky, conniving pig. Just like most of his pig
associates. He's had the nickname "Rooster" for years, probably
because he looks like one, but inside he's 100% pig.

 The charge of "Disrespect" should also have been dismissed due to
the fact that in the Wisconsin Administrative Code Rule Book it
states: "Disrespect does not include all oral or written criticism
of staff members, criticism of them expressed through the mail,
thoughts and attitudes critical of them, or activity in therapy
groups." So why was I still found guilty? Because the Hearing
Committee that hears & prosecutes the conduct reports goes by their
own rules and personal feelings, plus since Mr. Ellerd is the Se-
curity Director he can't be lying or be wrong. So the Hearing
Committee, since they are included as pig associates, find me
guilty not because of facts, but because pigs will be pigs.

 There are a couple friends of mine here who are also being
harassed and in the hole for similar offenses. Adrian Lomax is
serving a 360 day hole sentence for an article he wrote in the
Madison Edge zine about the prison system's corruption. He also
just received another conduct report for the same thing which will
probably get him another 360 in the hole.

 Also my friend Alex Rasmussen is in the hole for calling a pig a
"pig" and Capt. Milliren has confiscated most of his anarchist
literature. All of us have agreed upon and are in the process of
filing lawsuits. What these pigs are doing is against our First
Amendment Rights.

 The prison officials are obviously scared of having the prisoners
speak out and expose the lies and corruption that they are guilty
of. They try to oppress and suppress us by locking us in the hole,
thinking this punishment will shut us up. It sure isn't very
American or patriotic of them, is it? After all they are the ones
always bragging and waving flags about how their blue blooded
patriotic forefathers fought and died for our freedoms in this
country. Freedom of the press freedom of speech, etc. Sounds like
Chris Ellerd, Capt. Milliren and all their pig associates are the
kind of people their forefathers fought against.

 I'm sure if any of these pigs see this letter I will receive an-
other conduct report. But the hole ain't shutting me up. Fuck the
pigs! Fuck the pig system! And I'll keep on fighting this whole pig
nation.

 Feel free to write,
                                               Dale Austin #76660
                                                  Box 900, R.C.I.
                                            Sturtevant, WI. 53177

Letters of protest to the warden & security director at same ad-
dress. And remember, "Free speech means nothing if it does not mean
the freedom to say what others don't like to hear."

RATIONAL DISCOURSE IS A TECHNOLOGY
 A friend recently introduced me to issue 35. I'd never read your
magazine before; I thoroughly enjoy its wide range of content and
opinion. Here's a sample of my content and opinion.

 I found an interesting thought a year or two ago in the corpor-
atist/hegemonic pages of Toronto's Globe & Mail by Merlin Donald,
who had written a book about "our cognitive evolution, that is,
about how we came to acquire the distinct properties of mind that
make humans human." In his newspaper article, he states:

 "During the past 35,000 years, we have moved from the Stone Age
to the Electronic Age, from small tribal settlements to huge
metropolises, and from living invisibly as just another terrestrial
species to exerting an overwhelming dominance over the environment,
threatening the survival of planet Earth...Our consciousness spans
only a few seconds of time; we are easily distractible; our
memories are distorted and often just plain wrong; and we seem able
to solve only one small problem at a time...How can such limited
minds split the atom, write novels, and run mega-corporations?

 "The answer is that we don't; that is, we don't really do these
complex things entirely in our minds. We have gradually developed
a way of circumventing our mental limitations; we have invented
dozens of external memory devices...these devices include written
scripts, graphs, models, and other symbols that have become the
principle location of our thought operations."

 I find Donald's thesis quite illuminating, implying as it does
that the difference between people today and people 35,000 years
ago is not in brain capacity, it is in cultural carrying capacity.
Culture is a vehicle carrying our shared ideas of what's what.
North America's carrying capacity for cultural artifacts and
symbols is far more accommodating than, say, Islamic culture's, or
European Medieval culture's. Thanks to desktop publishing
technology, and freedom of expression, people in North America can
make choices concerning the content of their own consciousnesses.
For instance, my consciousness largely excludes what is on
television, by free choice. My consciousness largely excludes
mainstream film and newspapers, by free choice. I can choose a
variety of non-mainstream sources of information to complement my
personal awareness of what's what. But why stop there? As well as
being a consumer of information, I produce information. I'm free to
express myself in the context of rational discourse; I'm free to
express myself in poetic and mythic forms; and I'm free to find
personal expression in entirely nonverbal forms such as music,
photography or drawings.

 Discourse carried out on a strictly rational level appears to be
self-defeating. In the debate concerning technology, I'd argue that
rational discourse itself is a technology. We wouldn't be able to
indulge in such a debate around technology if we didn't live in a
complex society in which highly-refined forms of intellectual
abstraction are used to shape and direct beliefs, institutions and
collective endeavors. Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, Murray Bookchin
et al. seem well aware of this. Technology, whether it is in the
form of political concepts, or in the form of a Bic lighter, is a
distinctly human thing; it is our species' particular
specialization. A piece of sharpened flint, and a multiple-warhead
nuclear missile, are both examples of technology. So, for that
matter, are the Hohokams' irrigation canals, and Stradivarius'
violins. If we've reached the point of arguing against technology,
let me paraphrase a line from one of Ferron's songs: can we
seriously believe that if cities fall, minds won't follow? Could
the debate be, not pro- or anti-technology, but what kind of
technology humans need?

 Anarchy functions in daily reality, as does a form of hunter-
gatherer behavior in an urban setting. I furnish me home with other
people's garbage. There's an implicit social contract in the
streets of Montr=82al; what people no longer need is set out as an
offering, not to the waste disposal system, but to those who might
need these items. Clothing, furniture, dishes, records, magazines,
appliances, electronic equipment, typewriters, chance is an
operative element of life. Statistically we live well below the
poverty level, yet paradoxically, we are not poor. Food is cheap,
varied and plentiful. Entertainment is often free. There are
sources of income from "real jobs," from "the social safety net,"
and from "the underground economy." Social, racial, gender and
class distinctions are more and more meaningless. People form
relationships, associations as they see fit. Most don't call it
anarchy=FEit's just the way many people live.

 Empowerment is in the recognition that we don't have to live as
others tell us to live; we don't have to think as others tell us to
think. Poverty is a concept that belongs to the dominant culture,
so break the mindset. Is poverty not having all the stuff the TV
sells? Lose the TV, lose the mindset. Maybe poverty is a lack of
self-determination, self-awareness, self-esteem. Maybe poverty is
not thinking for oneself. Maybe poverty is a lack of feeling, of
being numbed-out by tons of junk: Doritos, Pepsi, Time Magazine,
Rambo IV, authority/power demands on your time. Cut as much junk
out of your diet as you can. Take some time to find some feeling.
Desire armed? Funny metaphor, like rappers calling their lingo-
proficiency "my Uzi." Feeling=FEas a boy-child I was sensual. I
fucked all the time. I fucked trees, grass, friends, parents, the
sky, the TV set, the cities, the mountains, I fucked everything all
the time with my whole being. I felt. Sexuality is only an aspect
of overall sensuality; why narrow one's range down to just sex? For
a long time I stopped feeling; "growing up," "being good." Prick
psychosis, prick was everything; prick prick prick. I did what I
was told until I found "being good" was not equivalent to "feeling
good." "Being good" was equivalent to "not feeling anything." So I
drove the Sherman Tank of my rational mind through the philosophy
department, the religion department, the science department...that
felt pretty good. The cops were quickly alerted so I disguised
myself as a cop and began directing traffic, sending cruisers with
lights blazing this way and that for days. I took off my day and
followed a feeling. I took off my head and threw it through a
window. Panic ensued.

 I might freely choose to involve myself in group activities:
social activism, rallies, readings, radio shows. I might soak
myself in as much feminist, left, wiccan, queer, green, postmodern
thought and action as I can find. Then I might freely choose to be
alone with myself for awhile to consider, mull over, meditate upon,
think about all that I've experienced. To those who way this is
copping-out; fuck you very much.

 You see, there's freedom and there's freedom. On one hand, I like
Ward Churchill's articles, such as his fine critique of Black Robe
in Z Dec. '92. Undeniably brilliant, and I'm in accord with his
opinion. The same goes for his response to "Lawrence" from Frisco
in your letters section. I can't disagree with any of his points,
because he's right. But it seems unfair that Mr. Churchill should
deploy so much heavy ordinance to rebut such a weak target. I don't
know about ol' Lawrence, but when I'm faced with that kind of
attack I just fold my tent and head for the hills. While Mr.
Churchill may be a great warrior on the field of rational
discourse, he seems to have difficulty distinguishing between a
"civilian" and a "military" target. Ostensibly, Lawrence is on Mr.
Churchill's side; at least, he might potentially be. But does Mr.
Churchill acknowledge this? No, he sends out a battalion of
arguments to pacify some poor rag-assed objection thrashing around
in the woods. My objection to this is not on a rational level at
all; I just find such an exchange to be cold. Why not convey the
same information without treating the "Lawrences" of the world like
the man-shaped cardboard targets I used to mindlessly pump 7.62
rounds through when I was a cog in the military/industrial machine?
Why stay stuck in one mode of consciousness, especially when that
mode=FErational thought=FEis a product of the very Eurocentric
traditions which left thinkers profess to so vigourously oppose?

 I believe this is the same problem Bill McCormick addresses in his
letter about Murray Bookchin. As McCormick said: "Please stop
destroying your children." Don't frame the debate as a contest
between the "rational" and the "irrational," because the
"irrational" is here to stay. I'm sure Mr. Bookchin and Mr.
Churchill both dream at night, just like any other members of homo
sapiens sapiens; the "irrational" inhabits their very beings, like
all of us. If they want to go on butchering feelings, it's probably
because they want to run the show. In that case, there is no show.
The show is not a show. There is no director, there is no cast, no
script, and no audience. There are just a lot of people who deeply
care about the future, and who want an answer to the question: how
should we dwell on this Earth?
                                                 Yours sincerely,
                                           V.T., Montr=82al, Qu=82bec

PRISONS ARE BIG BUSINESS
Anarchists,

 Brothers and sisters, thank you for expanding my knowledge of
anarchy and adding me to your ranks. The prisoners subscription you
sent me has been salvation in this bureaucratic void of menial
minds. I hope you will please continue this subscription for
another year. Thank you for the light. Possibly you could also list
my address in one of your future issues. And while I'm asking for
so much I would enjoy any back issues you could spare me. I have
issues #32, #33, #34, #35. I also like the new format because it is
easier for me to hide from ignorant guards who shake me down and
think it's gang related material. I just went through such an
atrocity with these fools and it's too exhausting. But everything
to a dim bulb is gang related material, it is a new ameriklan buzz
word.

 According to Amnesty International's standards I realize I am not
what they would define as a political prisoner. However, I am an X-
yippie who hates the system we have now! I am oppose it with
everything I have. It has created economical discriminatory
policies which led me to be labeled a criminal, a felon, a repeat
offender, a violent sociopath. In that sense I am indeed a
political prisoner who is held because of his libertarian beliefs.
I am communal in nature, an activist and an organizer. I am indeed
dangerous to their political conformity. I will talk to anyone who
will listen no matter what their age, sex, or color. I was "gotten
off the streets" because I promoted violent activities against the
capital-hungry beast which sucks us dry and grinds our fathers
bones to dust. This is not, to me, just an excuse to let my id run
rampant. I do not promote activities against people but against
corporate entities, big businesses, politicians, and the web of the
criminal justice system. Yes, they felt threatened. It is a matter
of my beliefs, my ideals, my choices which landed me here. I accept
that but I don't have to agree with it and become a conformity
statistic. Prisons are big business in this country and are taking
the place of what slavery was. The population of prisons is growing
every minute and prisoners are forced into labor without pay and
under tightly supervised authoritarian conditions while their
families barely exist on government handouts which lead to illegal
activities to survive and the cycle continues until what? Until we
are all slaves of the institutions. Twenty-seven prisons in Ohio
alone.

 Censorship is a fact as the prisoners political views are narrowly
defined by limited reading and educational facilities. The average
prisoner has a sixth grade reading level, sets in front of the TV
being brainwashed stimulated by sensationalism, then marches off to
work for the man for nothing because they are told they have to and
there is nothing they can do about it. There is forced drugging in
here but the TV does the job for most of the prisoners. Torture is
hidden, so is murder, but it is very real. Cultural assimilation is
mandated, and so is the twisted experimental emotional disen-
franchisement. These are all common at state levels. Meanwhile,
outside, the media soothes the masses towards political apathy with
candidates who could be twins while they stir up, incite, right-
wing vigilante attitudes against the lower castes with shows like
"Cops," and "America's Most Wanted." The state of the state is the
result of delegated authority without responsibility, authority
given to clerks who only know paperwork, who prop up the government
with a bureaucracy which feeds on paperwork, paper stilts for the
clown which reduces humanity to a careless statistic. Once a person
enters prison they become invisible to society, Desaparecido,
permanently outcast for the rest of their lives. The official
hysteria promoted by the media will see to that, it will result in
continual legal harassment, and the violation of human rights by
managers whose psycho-babble fills the minds of people with cotton
and contradicts the simplest human condition.

 Thank you brothers and sisters. You can use my name and my full
address. Please list my address with the following description: AA,
BA, Prisoner, Anarchist, Pagan, omnisexual, poet, writer, answers
all.
                                           In concrete and steel,
                                                     your friend,
                                                  R. Lee Etzwiler
                                                 POB 57 =FE 204-697
                                                Marion, OH. 43302