LA Anarchist Bookfair Rejects Anarchist Publishing Project

  • Posted on: 23 October 2017
  • By: thecollective

Dear Aragorn [sic],
We Los Angeles Anarchist Book Fair (LAABF) Collective members have decided not to accept your application to table and share our space at this year’s Book Fair. We have refunded your Paypal transfer of $150.00 for Little Black Cart (LBC).

Why, you may ask? First, we know that a physical fight broke out at the recent Seattle ABF over the publication of Atassa, and we wish to avoid a repetition of any such occurrence at our ABF. More importantly, however, giving a platform to ITS is completely unacceptable in our view, given its wanton violence against women, ordinary people, and humanity in general. This goes against our principles as collective members in how we present and represent what Anarchism is all about. We have also noticed that, rather than choosing to discontinue publication of Atassa, you have used the controversy surrounding it to market it further. Simply not presenting eco-fascist material at the ABF, as per your proposition, is not nearly an adequate corrective response in our view.

Consider our response final. Given the reasons cited above, we cannot have LBC present as a vendor at our ABF this year. However, we also do not want to neglect LBC’s presence and work in the past as an anarchist book distributor. We hope that LBC makes a reassessment of its ties with ITS and other eco-extremists and consider applying for next year’s ABF when your position has changed.

The Los Angeles Anarchist Book Fair Collective


we started out by offering to not bring atassa at all to this bookfair--the letter alludes to this.
obviously that was not enough for them.

Perhaps because you'll still be publishing it? So to not bring copies of Atassa while still publishing it seems rather live a PR move, and not a serious engagement to correct something. If you remove it from your publications and the ABFs are still making a story, then yes, in that case they'll come off as Left moralist bigots.

of left moralist bigots is quite different from mine. presumably th e offer to not bring the book was about fights, not because lbc thinks publishing the journal is a Wrong Thing.
but you know, you do you.

and not moralism, you childish bigot.

But no matter what keep working hard on keeping your nostrils clear of accumulated mucose residues.

Ethics is different from moralism how?

one is a secular philisophical science based on Objective Logic. The other is like a religious thing

Wrong. They are both interchangeable terms for roughly the same concept. Sometimes 'ethics' is used by philosophers as a broader category of conduct under which 'morality' is subsumed.

please read an introduction to philosophy primer or take a philo 101 class. ethics and morality are not interchangeable.

"Generally, the terms ethics and morality are used interchangeably" were saying?

i had the exact same reaction. I was going to say something, but better to live the distinction than to explain it.

Though you do explain things quite clearly, and I'm sure if you did, it would make my own understand even clearer, just saying.

Different philosophical schools, even just within the West, use the two terms differently; they obviously map even less well to terms used in other cultural contexts. Less formally trained people (i.e. with access to an academic education in Western philosophy) may not even have the chance to learn what some practical definitions are, and only have all the bunk they hear from fools like you to go on.

In common conversation, "ethics" IS used quite interchangeably with "morality". Whenever a person says, This is the distinction! Accept it!, they are just trying to set the terms of the argument so they can win it. There is no need to accept their terms, and if they say some nonsense like "take philo 101" or "you just haven't lived the difference", you can safely write them off as idiots.

i think for some people the distinction is somewhat similar to the distinction between free will (an idealist notion) and agency (a realist one). can you guess which one is better har har

maybe sir e can enlighten us all. he's so fucking smart it blows me away

Are you saying, like... Morality is an objective condition set by God or Nature or something, and in this, it is like free will. Whereas ethics, like agency, is something that is "real", but also... inferred, not actually something you can point to, just something you can talk about (which is, like, what a "realist" strategic understanding is always trying to do, identifying the "real dynamics" or whatever).

If so, that's sorta cool. Not far, I think, from how I would personally use these terms most of the time.

thats exactly what i had in mind. morality, free will, god, nature are absent, whereas agency, something 'real' as you put it, might be there but can't be pointed to, and might only be something that 'accompanies' something else, as in a dynamic understanding as you suggest. id elaborate now but these things usually come to me at inopportune moments, like...later

But you're not leaving that 101 class with a universally practical ethics/morality conceptual distinction. You're not leaving a PhD with one either.

Autistics like us have a tendency towards semantic solipsism. It makes us irritating. You're not right because you insist you are, and you would be taken more seriously if you addressed this flaw in Way Too Fucking Much of everything you say.

wtf is a "universally practical ethics/morality conceptual distinction" and why in the world would any living human desire such a thing if it did exist?

look, you can argue with a linguist over the commonly accepted usage of the term "literally" until you're blue in the face with a crowd of yapping millenials backing you but it won't make you—nor a single person who uses the term incorrectly—correct.

but who cares what cabbages mean anyway, amirite?

why you talking about cabbages guy?

If you've spent enough time autodidactically(which is how I presume most anarchists become) developing your mind to the finer points of anarchism I should think you have the more basic stuff down. You shouldn't need some community college primer. The problem is things like IDPol(which many of the retarded half of anarchism accepts) are based on the basics. It's not too much to ask of neuro normies to know this stuff. It might make things like anarchist takes on nihilism less painful to read.

From what I understand (it's basic Nietzsche, also Vaneigem, Bonanno and Bey, and it's in "Anarchist Ethic in the Age of the Anti-Globalisation Movement" among other things):

Morality = code of "shoulds" and "should nots" imposed, or believed to exist, transcendentally - from a higher level. Living in line with your desires is taken to be evil. Not being evil - obeying morality, reason, the will of God or whatever - is being good. Psychologically, morality is "superego" or "reactive desire" - desire/will turned against itself.

Ethic/ethos = personal system of meaning, focused on something of value to a person, which the person lives by. Someone with an ethos will define what is in line with the ethos as "good" and what is against it as "bad", but in a non-universal sense. Psychologically, ethic/ethos stems from, rather than repressing/splitting, desire.

This has all become very confused because idpols and liberals have started saying "ethics" when they mean "morality". There's also some weird influence coming across from Levinas and Derrida, where "ethics" means absolute responsibility to "the Other", which is also a superego function.

did you get a phd or just hang out at the library, or the third thing?

namely, that they made things "very confused" because they say one thing and mean another. I think their uses of these terms are perfectly philosophically consistent - or, I mean, it depends on the person, but I can certainly think of a few of this ilk who I would never consider of being "wrong" on these fronts.

I mostly like your articulation, though. It seems close to how most people use these terms in my own circles. I think that it probably orients thought in more interesting directions, in general, than an idea of ethics as simply The Science of Applied Morality. But within the last year, I read a text that issued an interesting challenge to this North American anarchist scene cultural norm, which made a case for using the word morality as simply a part of being a human animal. Like language or having a limited flesh-body, you can critique it (as primitivists and transhumanists do the other things), but most of us are still stuck with it. The idea of morality as something transcendental, then, becomes something more properly referred to as one or more "morality myths".

I am NOT arguing for you to adopt the understanding I have just articulated - but simply to say, I thought this new articulation was interesting, and allowed me to think about things differently. It is a practical example of how these words are used differently by different people, and that being too committed to one rigid idea of the semantic Truth is limiting to understanding what other people are talking about.

ok but don't underestimate misunderstandings, more creative than any understanding

I sometimes misunderstand a concept and I typically don't have any genuinely creative thoughts as a result. I just can't follow the argument, and have to ask for clarification, haha

Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? -- Thus they yelled and laughed.

You're embarrassing yourself.

that's important

Objective logic is religious, as is the science you seem so dogmatic about. Objectivism is for Randites.

whatever that is, i'll be the last to join that party! sounds a lot like liberals' basing their opinions on their version of 'facts' to me. the avid insistence on objective truth is a telltale sign of religious conviction: i.e., "we better all do what i say god says we should do"

"they'll come off as Left moralist bigots"
Too late. One is left to wonder about the actual content of the rejection letter. To wit: if there had been no altercation at the Seattle book fair, would the LA folks have cared about LBC's publication and distribution decisions? My supposition is no, they would not have cared. There are items, for example in the AK Press and PM Press catalogues, that are also outlier materials, and the eco-extremists of ITS are not the only eco-minded folks who have questionable positions regarding humans.

One might further wonder if the organizers of this event have read every text in every vendor's catalogue. Again, my supposition is no, they have not (and that's even granting them the possibility of desiring to read much in the first place).

Rather than the organizers of the event taking responsibility for the security of participants (along the lines of the silly, but apparently somewhat necessary, plans of the folks in Houston), they have opted to avoid any conflicts around one item -- pointedly ignoring the provocative nature of many other items that will undoubtedly be hawked at their consumer frenzy -- in the most unimaginative moralistic manner possible. This is a purge, plain and simple, a despicable arrogation of centralizing power among a self-chosen clique of intellectual (?) conformists.

The book fair model has already been on the decline for many years. Unwittingly, the organizers of this and any future such event where certain unpopular or outlier anarchist/anti-authoritarian ideas and items are banned, have clearly signaled its impending death.

I hope some LBC folks will still go to LA and find a way to set up a table nearby, showing that they will not be cowed by this ridiculous decision, and that they will hand out a flyer or pamphlet with all the relevant correspondence and their own commentary to people going into the venue. Surely there will be some folks going to the LA book fair who will be curious to know why LBC was banned.

These conversations need to take place regardless of the purgative delusions of the LA organizers.

This is the entire rejection letter

"all the relevant correspondence" is not just this rejection letter, but would include the initial concerns of the organizers, to which the offer of not selling Atassa refers. You know, transparency and all that...

It's lost to the nature of webforms but there was no prior correspondence other than us saying "We'd like a table. We will not bring Atassa. Here is the table fee." This was their response.

But I'm not surprised. The differences between radicals and citizens have been diminishing for some time. I guess anarchists are now part of the thought police.

Arguably the same happened years ago with Crimethinc. Oh the fucking irony.

This is good though. It's a constructive development. There's clarity. No one who is an actual freethinker will bother wasting their time with the Left or the Anarchists. Their ontological worldview, along with the Marxists, is a fucking prison. Good riddance.

what was the reason behund excluding crimethinc?

i second this question...

I don't think anyone excluded crimethinc. Idpols shut down a crimethinc convergence and people just took it lying down.

worth fighting for. if you don't think so, what the hel are you doing on this site?

Its legitimately kind of you guys at lbc to offer not to bring atassa so as to avoid any sort of confrontation/headache for yourselves AND the organizers.

honestly, Atassa is kinda boring, Im wondering how many copies youve sold. A couple dozen?

that kind of question disavows social antagonism, are you a populist, do you disavow social antogonism? but yeah I've never read atassa and probably never will, but i don't like this inclination to try to sing kumbaya together by the campfire, i mean it's either painful social antagonism or go on Facebook and get likes for bullshit

youre taking my question way too seriously.

but also my point was that its some book thats only mildly interesting and kinda irrelevant. Being someone who does work in anarchist publishing/books, its weird as hell to me that Atassa is the book that everyone is up in arms about.

i have no experience or connection to anarchist publishing/books, but doesn't it seem like atassa is actually the antagonism it has 'caused', the up in arms, the book fair episode of violence with bottle attacks, the back and forth arguing, and not the actual journal which is just some paper or digital files that probably is boring but I've never read it

It's true that ITS promotes anti-anarchist violence and murder, and it's not clear why any supposedly anarchist group would give the a platform. Right? Also, who wants fights at their book fairs?

What is the "platform" bullshit? Sounds like the logic of censors..

I actually think we need more fights at bookfairs. These bookfairs have grown quite dull in recent years. Maybe we could set up a pay-per-view?

i like your comment. whenever i go to a bookfair i always ask myself: "where is the blood?"

How many Hitlers is ITS worth, with 10 Hitlers being Hitler himself?

but I'll say 3?

EDIT: more precisely, 2.7

Anarchist's need to engage with movements that a born out of their own, in ways that are not simply name calling, witch hunting or pointing out surface level uglinesses.

Also -

Why does Little Black Cart publish ITS?

They must have some intelligible reasons -- so, let's here them

While I'm not a member of LBC so can't say for certain, my guess is because eco-extremism is a movement born out of a disenfranchised anarcho-primitivist and insurrectionary anarchist post-Kaczynskian ideology. Which is entirely something anarchists, if we are a reflective and self-criticising movement, should engage with.

Why should we engage with authoritarian terrorists? ITS has NOTHING to do with anarchy, primitivism, anarcho-primitivism, or insurrectionary anarchism. ITS themselves state as much.

i live in north america, so why should i engage with anything happening in Asia? they are completely separate, they themselves even state as much.

you are a fucking idiot

Just as I am most likely separate to your area... or to Mexico or Europe. But fo' real we're all related because we live on the same fucking planet... remember, you nationalist?

The fact that some people are physically distant doesn't mean much shit, and a vast distance from Halifax to Winnipeg like pretty much like a vast distance from Kamchatka to Paris, or from the Moon to Mars while we're at it. Living in Canada teaches you how distance is division, wherever you are, and it's rather things like affinity that makes people closer.

i think you should reread the comment again and think about it a bit more

I don't care where you live, moron. We're talking about ideology and practices. How the fuck does your geographical analogy relate to this?

PM Press has published several books about the RAF (who were authoritarian and certainly labelled terrorists), two books about The Blekingegade Group (Marxist Bank robbers who used the money to support the PFLP), not to mention Derrick Jensen who wishes DGR was the RAF. Is this a problem? Are they tabling at the LA Anarchist book fair? I personally don't care that they publish those books (well, I really wish they wouldn't publish Derrick Jensen) and quite liked Turning Money into Rebellion (the first book about Blekingegarde, but isn't this pretty similar to publishing a journal that talks about ITS?

Well to me RAF were almost as shitty as ITS. They only know a bit more how to make a different between State agents and random proles, but that's about it. They worked alongside Islamic fascists and stood by those fucking antisemites Black September. I don't like what happened to them in jail, the fact they were shitty is no excuse for their brutal, extra-legal executions. But only this stuff is making us learn a lot about insurgency in terms of where NOT to go.

You may also look at the much more horrible Carlos, compared to which ITS are just a bunch of boy scouts rambling about "Ancestors" bullshit.

While it's true the RAF were authoritarian, they were considered a terrorist group by the West German government. They also didn't kill innocent people indiscriminately, and moreover, the books are historical in nature. Unlike ITS, both the Marxist left and to a lesser degree Derrick Jensen do share some history with anarchism. So it's not quite the same thing.

where are people getting this idea that ITS shares no history with anarchism? The early communiques clearly have an anarchist influence and were for a long time interested in engaging with other anarchists. you do realize that ITS is a lot older than a couple years old, right?

Where are you getting the idea that ITS has any early affiliation with anarchism? You have provided zero evidence. Why should we simply take your word for it?

No, i never said that you should take my word, I mentioned their communiques in their early years. If you don't want to listen to me giving you a place to look thats fine, but stop demanding proof from me then.

If you read their early cominiques its explicit that ITS was born out of @. that, as well as their eventual split is clear and documented you just need to get off the internet, calm down, and read.

People only care about a group that takes credit for actions they probably dodnt even commit in whats mostly a satirical way.

They dont care about people publishing a man who harrass trans woman and hates just as much on anarchists.

Yeah, I've wondered this. There was a Dutch group called the Provos, who used to take credit for everything that went wrong (e.g. mall fire in which people died) and put it down to resistance to the Vietnam War ("we were bringing the war home"). They were a Situationist spin-off.

In addition to Julian's response it's worth mentioning that we do not, in fact, publish ITS. We publish a journal written by North Americans on the topic of Eco-Extremism. EE has as much to do with Ted Kaczynski (and his ideas) as it does the activity of ITS. I'd say it has as much to do with anarchism as, say, the IWW.

Get over yourself, people don't want to deal with your edgelord shit. Makes sense to me why the LAABC doesn't want you around. You are a self aggrandizing ass, who wants to set the terms of what anarchy is or is not based on the worldview of your living room and it's window into the shithole that is the internet.

who are these people? i am people and just bothered to read atassa for myself. it was roughly as interesting as i expected it to be (50/50), and somehow i didn't turn into a nazi by having read it.

who wants to set the terms of what anarchy is or is not

yeah! remember that time aragorn forbid anarchists from reading certain books and ripped up other people's books. such an edge lord. to the anarchist gulag with him! amirite?

Right and someone from Olympia who has likely done no more than sitting in a meeting a few times and jerking off thinking about the girls in the campus socialist group has a more complete worldview than someone who has published books thousands of people have read and created an internet resource that 100's of thousands of people have participated in. Nobody gives a shit about you enough to even consider your participation at an event.

I look forward to your astute observations regarding what anarchism needs, from Olympia. The pinnacle of absolute shit whitebred culture in the USA.

Let's just go ahead and brand anyone who takes interest in anti-authoritarian positions an edge-lord...very ironic to hear you say "....not based on the worldview of your living room and it's window into the shithole that is the internet".

So they're also going to ban AK and PM because of Derrick Jensen and Lierre Keith the transphobic and explicitly anarchist-hating assholes, right?

...Thought not.

AK Press does not publish anything by Jensen or Keith. They're two different presses with different politics.

actually AK press has at least one book by Jensen on their website you can order.

AK press has tons of derrick jensen.

Stay Solid, which has Jensen's writing. who better to provide guidance to youth than a man who harrasses trans women and builds an ideology around it.

They also have mythmakers and law breakers that has an interview with him. irronically the author of that is a trans woman.

oh and then theres igniting a revolution. cause when the rev happens, men will attack trans womanor those who do will be invited?

theres a couple more that they sell but didnt publish

And all of that is somehow totally way more ok?

Then I don't want to go to the LAABF anyway.

It's the fights that draw me to these events. This is just boring and unnecessary and why I stopped pretty much calling myself an anarchist and just go by post-civ nihilist now.

Well, they could justifiably ban wholly-devoid-of-convictions, cynical dirtbag business creep Ramsay Kanaan on different grounds, and nobody other than Kanaan's petit bourgeois business endeavor PM Press would lose.

Again, why does Little Black Cart publish ITS? This post on appears to be intended to portray them as some kind of victims, so logically this obligates them to offer some clarification as to their motives.

My apologies to Aragorn: I wrote the last post before reading his explanation.

A: "don't read that!"

B: "hmmm, i wonder what it says..."

C: "A and B are such idiotic turds. I'm sure I can exploit this situation profitably."

The LA book fair's about us talks a big game about different persectives on anarchism,

"Since we are not a top down movement or political party, our tactics, ideas and avenues for social change vary."

but then their "principles of unity" includes winners such as:

"8. We reject individualism, nihilism, and defeatism as serving the established system..."

in favor of:

"5. As transitional means toward the end of collective liberation, we support syndicalism, radical community organizing, direct action, autonomism, councilism, libertarian municipalism, mutual aid, dual power, the Commune, and the general strike."

"10. As an alternative to the myriad horrors of the capital-State system, we advance the cause of libertarian socialism..."

Workshops include one of Catholic Anarchism and another on building coilitions, given by the "Socialist Party USA’s 2016 presidential nominee"

...if that helps to give folks an idea of where their affinity lies

almost none of that sounds like anarchism. maybe half of the thinvs they support?

well this is pathetic. All this drama and ridiculousness around LBC publishing one fucking book cannot possibly attract people to anarchism, i mean this shit makes anarchists look like the puritanical and repressive christians that they claim to be against. If I wasn't already an anarchist, but instead I was a disillusioned liberal or conservative looking for something different, i could not possibly be interested in anarchism. I mean if I looked at anarchism and saw the same repressive, manipulative, and puritanical qualities of the political and/or religious ideologies that i came from I would ask the questions "how is this any different from what I thought before and why should I care about this?". I was initially attracted to anarchism because I felt it was actually challenging the values of this world, but my foray into traditional leftist anarchism was short lived when I saw that this was not entirely true, however when I did encounter people who did challenge these values (who were influenced by post-left, anti-civ, situationist, individualist currents, among some other things) my interest in anarchism was rekindled. But now I look upon all this resurgence of this same garbage that made me disinterested in anarchism in the first place and disinterested in Marxism before that and just shake my head in disgust.


surely you mean *uninterested*

well I don't always have perfect grammar, but 'disinterested' and 'uninterested' tend to nowadays be confused with one and other to the point that they have become synonyms in popular vernacular. So yes, I mean 'uninterested', but you know what I meant.

So now simply refusing LBC a table for publishing an authoritarian journal is "puritanical" and "repressive"?? Holy shit.
If LBC were publishing ISIS screeds, neo-con military propaganda, or Nazi material instead, would that also be puritanical and repressive? Must bookfairs allow any publisher publishing anything permission to table? Then what's the point of having an explicitly 'anarchist' bookfair?

no, it wouldn't as those groups never had anything to do with the anarchist space, while ITS did thus making ITS worth talking about on some level. Plus its worth noting again that LBC hasn't actually published anything by ITS, but they published a North American journal that talks about ITS. also as has been asked elsewhere, why is it fine for both AK Press and PM press to publish material by and about shitty authoritarian people, but its some how only a problem when LBC does it?. I mean the same question about "Why have an explicitly anarchist bookfair?" would certainly be relevant to those too publishers as well. Not to mention that Maoist and other non anarchist groups get away with tabling at supposedly explicitly anarchist bookfairs all the time, so give me a fucking break about this being about keeping the anarchist book fair explicitly anarchist.

ITS never had anything to do with the anarchist space either. Whether LBC directly publishes ITS or a journal that talks about ITS is irrelevant and a red herring. ITS is an authoritarian terrorist group who are actually ANTI-anarchist. As for PM press and AK press, what "shitty authoritarian people" are you talking about? I haven't been to a lot of anarchist bookfairs, but at those I have attended, I have yet to see a maoist table. Maybe that's a California thing?

Yes, the people of ITS did come out of the anarchist space, you can tell this in their early years. The very idea that you can say that ITS didn't come from the anarchist space, suggests to me that you are either new or have forgotten what ITS was originally like many years ago when they first started. It does matter as people keep claiming that LBC is publishing ITS, when they haven't done so. On the AK Press website you can find a book by Che Guevara, a collection of essays by Huey P. Newton, a major ideological text from the RAF, stuff by Derrick Jensen, among other things. PM Press has put out stuff by and about RAF, also publishes Derrick Jensen stuff, as well as stuff by Lierre Keith, among other things. Now, I have no problem with them publishing and distributing these books and don't think they should be prevented from tabling at anarchist book fairs, because these books can be of use to anarchists and contribute to our conversations. But if you are going to be for banning LBC, then you must ban them as well, if they don't it basically exposes the sectarianism of the decision.

well maybe some anarchist bookfairs are more vigilant about keeping Maoists out then others, but there are some that allow Maoists and other non anarchist groups to table. It has happened, and very few times do anarchists kick them out.

Source for your claim that ITS came out of the anarchist milieu?

ITS was inspired by Ted Kaczynski who was definitely not an anarchist.
The Marxist left share a history with anarchism, and are opposed to a common and specific enemy - the state, so those books may be of historical and theoretical interest to anarchists. Derrick Jensen likewise but to a lesser extent shares a brief history with primitivism which some of his insights have guided. ITS however, are not anarchists, share no history with anarchism, and in fact are anti-anarchist. They have no theory, ideology or goal. They are simply psychopaths.

pretty much what the subject says, its came out of animal-lib, earth-lib, scenes in mexico before getting their hands on uncle ted's manifesto (a thinker who had a relationship with the publication green anarchy back in the day), in their early communiques they even reference that some members are criminal anarchists, etc...its did have a relationship to anarchism early on, and it seems pretty obvious that the members who formed the organization came out of the anarchist milieu

You don't have to be an anarchist to be for or become animal lib or earth lib. And members of any group can call themselves whatever they want, knowing that self delusion is rampant among most radicals or anyone else with political motivations, we don't have to take them at their word. So no, it doesn't "seem pretty obvious" that the members who formed ITS came out of the anarchist milieu. You'll need a better argument than trying to connect some loose tangential associations together.

Then by that reasoning, DGR isn't from the anarchist space either and anyone who publishes their shit should be banned too.

so what, I'm supposed to track down the identity of a group of wanted Mexican criminals to trace down and document their roots to provide some sort of justification...give me a break...these people identified as anarchists, claim to have come out of anarchist affiliated circles, claimed to be anarchists in the past, quoted people affiliated with anarchism in early communiques, claimed inspiration from people associated with anarchism, were constantly trying to engage in conversation with anarchists....but you're right, no evidence that they came out of the anarchist milieu...meanwhile - your ASSERTION - that they did not, requires no justification or proof.

fuck off.

Still waiting for proof of your claims. You say ITS identified as anarchists, claimed to come out of the anarchist milieu, claimed to be anarchists in the past, etc.

Provide a source for their claims, or STFU.

i'm also waiting for a source, lets wait together, how long should we wait for though? isn't there a french play about waiting? what's it called? let's talk about it while we wait for the source. You really told that guy btw!

you know, this revisionist history about ITS that people are spewing out now days is really hilarious. Early on up to about when wild reaction fell apart, i would say on some level they were still apart of the anarchist space, it wasn't until the ITS name reappeared that they truly left the anarchist space. In many of their early communiques indicated that they were influenced by anarcho-primativism at some point as well. also they clearly were in dialogue with various anarchists at that time. So yes, they share a history with anarchism. they weren't always for the killing of random people and were way more like Ted Kaczynski in tactics, like him they had specific targets, many of whom were those involved in technological research.

Then you'll have to establish a connection to the anarchist milieu....with real evidence. And not just 'one of them knew so-and-so who knew John Zerzan's next door neighbor'.

I did, I mentioned their early communiques. That's were the evidence is. I'm talking about their pre-wild reaction communiques not the communiques from ITS version 2 that started two or so years ago. so you got to back a number of years.

ROTFLMAO ! You "mentioned" one of their communiques? That's evidence to you? Holy shit, please go back and finish high school.

Please give us a quote and a reliable source, or STFU. k?

I don't have to cite their individual communiques nor quote them, I told you where to look. I'm assuming you are an adult and can use the internet and look for those communiques yourself, as their stuff isn't too hard to find, hell FRR even did audio book versions of some of the earliest communiques so maybe you can look up them. You do realize we are not writing academic essays or books here in the @ news comment section, so I'm pretty certain I don't have to use MLA format guidelines.

You are an idiot. ITS was, at least, the old ELF Mexico post-green scare. The current manifestation could be the same people or just those that continued the group name. The change in how they did things started about the same time green anarchy in the U.S. was being reconsidered (primitivism without adjectives, what became wildism, is another example of this trajectory). For conversations about the Wild Reaction and beyond, Free Radical Radio covered extensive commentary which is still available on their site.

the ITS communiques have been printed, sold, bought and read by anarchists at bookfairs for the past several years. i acquired one in this way, and no one raised a stink then -

how did an interest in extremism become unspeakable? let LBC attend and vend their book so anarchists can read and think for themselves (and see that all the hand-wringing and accusations are a bit off base, if anyone can afford a few quiet hours of reading in place of participating in scandal addiction)... i certainly don't consider myself 'susceptible' to nazism or any other authoritarian ideology, and so i won't assume other free thinkers to be either. LBC has proved themselves able to offer provocative and engaging material many times over, so if they think this is worth reading i'll give it a go. anyone else is free to walk by their table if they don't like it!

and props to a! et al at LBC for their heretical efforts!

20:24, this is some of the dumbest most revisionist shit I've ever seen on this site. You're clearly a Marxist troll. Prove yourself to be otherwise, with sources, or accept that it's true.

Anyone who disagrees with me is a Marxist troll !

Refuse AK and PM!

they both publish an authoritarian transphobe who wants to kill most humans in bombings.

The Los Angeles Anarchist bookfair finally takes the bold step rejecting individuals! Anarchism in the USA is almost to zero growth!

The LA Bookfair people sound like they can be taken seriously and are for real.

"8. We reject individualism, nihilism, and defeatism as serving the established system..."

in favor of:

"5. As transitional means toward the end of collective liberation, we support syndicalism, radical community organizing, direct action, autonomism, councilism, libertarian municipalism, mutual aid, dual power, the Commune, and the general strike."

You lot sound like the usual juvenile, impossible to take serious fools.

Right, its very clear whomever wrote that (hopefully not an entire group) has an incredibly juvenile understanding of anarchy.

"8. We reject individualism, nihilism, and defeatism as serving the established system..."

I don't mean to be crude but I have to be honest, whomever wrote that is really, really stupid.

They reject anarcho-turdism -- a dominant tendency in what gets called anarchism in today's US.

I don't see how they can be for mutual aid and the commune but against individuals. I mean who is involved in mutual aid or the commune if not individuals? I guess they are some reformist politics, socialist candidate supporting people that still use the term anarchist, just old and unable to of those...I think that's why we all need to be firm anti-nominalists, the name isn't what it once was and never will be, any LA prius driving socialist can use the word anarchist now, fuckers

Falling right inline with the ITS wankers, LBC is now whining about various anarchists rejecting them. The whining is along the lines of being censored, excluded and misunderstood. Same shit, different whiner.

When these groups release their respective brands of bullshit into the wild, they shouldn't expect to control the reaction to it. Now they're seeing the consequences of their own actions. It shouldn't be a surprise.

So LBC wants to publish whatever it wants. Fine. Publish whatever, but when your projects get shunned, don't whine about it. And if other anarchists don't want to show up at this bookfair because of the acts of the organizers towards LBC, then they won't.

It's pretty fucking simple. LBC released a shit journal and then got shit on for it. All this whining about censorship, exclusion, being misunderstood and so on is just making LBC look worse than it already does.

"If LBC were publishing ISIS screeds, neo-con military propaganda, or Nazi material instead, would that also be puritanical and repressive?"

This is a sound argument for excluding PM Press, which has in fact published the neo-conservative war cheerleader Stephen Schwartz, in a rag called "Arena," edited by Stuart Christie:

From the article:

"...Stuart Christie's ability to look before he leaps has not noticibly improved in the years since the failed attempt to take the Generalissimo out of the box, and his lousy judgment-making skills are now on proud display in his choice of contributers for his literary journal 'Arena Two: Noir Fiction,' edited by Stuart Christie, and published by PM Press.

"Arena Two: Noir Fiction" features three pieces by a minor league neo-conservative war propagandist named Stephen Schwartz. (three, count 'em, three; Christie's cup runneth over a bit here.) A professional repentant former leftist turned fan of the Nicaraguan Contras, and more recently an apologist for Uzbek's murderous dictator Islam Karimov, Schwartz also styles himself as one of the world's leading authorities on the Spanish Revolution and Civil War. Schwartz's role in 'Arena Two: Noir Fiction" is touted in neutral terms as examining "the relationship between surrealism and anarchism." Indeed, "noir fiction" and "surreal" are words that easily attach themselves to the life and deeds of 'Arena Two: Noir Fiction' contributor Stephen Schwartz..."

Ramsay Kanaan will do anything for a buck!

You're actually comparing a book dedicated to discussing anarchism in fiction with a journal discussing the very real exploits of ITS?

What's funny about that?

Oh, nothing. Also, did you hear that ITS blew up the moon? Look outside, it's mostly gone now! Those bastards!

How about, very real exploits of the Nicaraguan Contras, the US wars in Iraq and the Balkans, and the torturer-tyrant of Uzbekistan? Several prisoners who died in Karimov's prisons were found to have been boiled to death. 'Arena' contributor Schwartz was the leading apologist for Islam Karimov in the English-speaking world. Published by PM Press.

Does PM Press publish books promoting these incidents and events?

they publish the ideology that does.

they also publish Derrick Jensen who wants to bomb "infrastructure" by infrastructure he means neighborhoods because the examples he gives of these bombings were bombings of the neighborhoods where the workers lived, not just the machines themselves.
jensen also hates anarchists and trans women.

"Ramsay Kanaan will do anything for a buck!"

Thats true. lets not lump. all the other PM prass munchkins in there with him tho

There's a certain irony here, in that I feel like the same type of people who were up in arms about Patreon dropping IGD are the same people who think it's okay for LAABF to drop LBC, and the type of people who think it was funny that Patreon dropped IGD are the people up in arms about the LAABF dropping LBC.

the irony isn't that ironic because patreon dropped for content and LAABF dropped for something entirely absent

Exactly, plus Patreon is ostensibly a neutral technological fundraising platform for everyone and not about helping only a certain ideological perspective raise money. Patreon dropped IGD on a flimsy excuse over a sabotage story IGD covered favorably. But the ban was really in response to criticism from the far right after Patreon had dropped Lauren Southern. LAABF by contrast, is explicitly an ideological event from a specific ideological perspective. They also, unlike Patreon, did not first approve LBC, then drop them.

So, not really ironic.

You're not in agreement with the parent poster, try re-reading.

>Exactly, plus Patreon is ostensibly a neutral technological fundraising platform for everyone and not about helping only a certain ideological perspective raise money.
Corporations and technologies are never neutral; the fact any anarchist thinks they can be is incredibly amusing to me. If you'd like, I can explain the reification of these entities for you so you can better understand how nothing exists without context?

>Patreon dropped IGD on a flimsy excuse over a sabotage story IGD covered favorably.
Which is of course nothing like the excuse given by LAABF, which sits on extremely solid ground.

>LAABF by contrast, is explicitly an ideological event from a specific ideological perspective.
Yes, a presumably anarchist one centered around written materials.

>They also, unlike Patreon, did not first approve LBC, then drop them.
I bought my copy of Atassa from LBC at the LAABF last year. The posting here came with a refund of previously accepted money. What the everloving fuck are you talking about.

By neutral I mean that Patreon does not ostensibly discriminate against who can or can't use their service based on political ideology. Of course if someone is promoting violence Patreon, like most businesses, reserve the right to refuse service. But they are for the most part happy to take anyone's money in the same way any grocery store or bank does. They don't first ask for your political affiliation.

"Which is of course nothing like the excuse given by LAABF, which sits on extremely solid ground"

That's right. Reporting on a sabotage story is nothing like promoting indiscriminate murder of innocent people. Glad we cleared that up.

"Yes, a presumably anarchist one centered around written materials"
Yes, anarchist materials. And ITS is not anarchist.

"I bought my copy of Atassa from LBC at the LAABF last year. The posting here came with a refund of previously accepted money. What the everloving fuck are you talking about."

Since this fact was not mentioned in the article, I presumed this was the first time LAABF was aware of LBC selling Atassa literature. My mistake then.

Ever try getting a mortgage for an infoshop? Let me know how that goes. Corporations are in no manner neutral, and begging them to play nice because they promised is sheer idiocy I can't wrap my head around.

>Yes, anarchist materials. And ITS is not anarchist.
Then I suppose it's a good thing that nobody else at the bookfair publishes non-anarchist material, or host politicians as speakers, or allow transphobic material that explicitly denounces anarchism. How scandalous would that be? And yeah, it really does suck that LBC publishes things that were literally written by ITS, and how they make all those statements about how great ITS is. Good job keeping on top of all that. I mean really, how did LBC expect the bookfair to react to their clearly provocative instance that they so much as bring the fucking book in question? Thems just straight fightin' words!

How the fuck is getting a mortgage for an infoshop the same thing as using Patreon ? That's some pretty fucked up sheer idiocy I can't wrap my head around.

umm... how the fuck are they different? They're both attempts at using capitalist infrastructure to fund anarchist projects.

Do I really have to break out the crayons and draw you a picture?

With a mortgage, the money comes from a bank. The bank decides whether or not to lend money to you for your project. And the money is borrowed, not given. You have to pay it back, with interest.

Patreon is only a financial web-based hosting platform that facilitates transactions, kind of like an online escrow account. The money comes from other anarchists or anyone else who chooses to give you money. Patreon doesn't decide whether or not you get money. The money you do get from others is given, not borrowed. You don't have to pay it back.

Are you really this stupid?

You can't be serious... I know what Patreon is and how it works, tyvm. You completely ignored the question, so how about you give it another shot: How, exactly, is relying on a bank as a financial institution distinct from relying on a silicon valley corporation? Why do you feel like Patreon owes you their service, but the bank does not?

Because of the fundamentally different nature of the service being provided ... I'm a different commenter and you're coming off pretty dense here, I must say.

Let's try your logic in a different context: If I mail money to a friend and the postal worker steals my money, is that my fault for using the "capitalist infrastructure"?

No, because it's generally safe to assume mail gets delivered irrespective to its content. What would be fucking stupid is if you started a campaign of crying to the government because a postal worker stole your letter. Nobody gives a fuck.

You want to rely on a silicon valley corporation for the sustainability for your project? Go right ahead. But if you think people are going to do something other than laugh at you when that backfires, you're a fucking moron.

>I'm a different commenter
Sure ya are buddy.

I guess since I responded to the easy take down it's only fair I bring up the more subtle point here.

The irony is that there is still a sense that there is something owed. As... simple as the other person replying to your post here is, they are correct in the sense that LAABF is pretty open about what they do and do not find acceptable for tabling (no "individualism, nihilism [or] defeatism"). While you and I may think this is a dumb hill for them to die on, that's how they roll. Things like calling for a boycott of the bookfair are still seated in the moralism of "But we're *anarchists*, and that's supposed to mean something, comrade!"

I am confident that the response of the LBC folks will be up to the task. Fuck the LAABF organizers and their thought-police Points of Unity [sic!]. But yes, polarization is a fine thing; someone pretty smart once said "Nothing clears the air like a good split." Stay negative, my friends!

sneak up quietly behind and quiver with pleasure as the knife goes in

"given its wanton violence against women"

so women attacking women is also patriarchy?

Anything which undermines the centering of fourth-wave feminist voices and their ability to create their own discourse and impose it on everyone else without challenge is patriarchy. Where've you been the last five years?

Wonder when the other anarcho publishers will drop out in solidarity... Crickets.

Unaccountable committee dictates the politics and procedures of the city’s most prominent anarchist book fair. Such anarchism… something something prefigurative politics.

The indignant reaction to Atassa and EE is rooted in the fact that they advocate killing people as an attack on industrial civilization. While it's pretty clear that this is a failed strategy (that is, until the planetary ecosystem continues to wipe us out), it still doesn't make any sense to get upset about human-on-human murder while there are probably millions of animals getting slaughtered every single day.

Unless, for some reason you actually think human beings are the superior species.

and right on two points:

1. its a failed strategy

2. unless your a christian, or moralist (christian in disguise), its not "wrong"

have people not read derick jensens stuff on bombing population centers?
PM press publishes ir?

red anarchists don't read, they just parrot what's approved and do as they're told.

Is essentially an eco-extremist, but all the more popular book publishers love his poetic prose and moralism.

Derrick Jensen is completely full of shit and freely admitted this throughout his rising-star phase. He was only writing/talking and would never do serious illegal actions.

Even still, comparisons could be made with the honeymoon phase of Deep Green Resistance and ITS to the rest of the Eco-radical milieu.

Splashy arrival, bunch of fawning adoration from naive supporters, then the hangover in the cold light of day and back-pedalling by those who've evidently humiliated themselves. I'm one of the ones pointing and laughing at your walk of shame, which isn't thought-policing OR deplatforming. Just garden-variety sadistic glee on my part, sad little nerds that thought you were so edgy! Still do, don't ya?!

did people support "ITS", though? and what back-pedalling are you referring to?

Jensen chooses moralism

ITS chooses a white man's interpretation of indigenous noble savage crap.

both are rooted in Christianity.

noble savage? do you know anything about what you are speaking of? ITS actually believes the opposite of the noble savage hypothesis. That's what they use a a defense of their own actions.

Anyone know if one of those Olympia clowns are fucking an L.A. bookfair organizer?
The "no puss for a week" threat would explain a lot about this situation and many others.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Enter the code without spaces.