There seems a complete lack of accumulating political power within the modern phenomena of “western anarchism”. Its modern character is a drastic contradistinction from late 19th and early 20th century western anarchism, which sustained a primary emphasis on the class struggle, where as now the fusion of post-modernism with anarchism has resorted to the atomized individual in revolt to late capitalism and the renunciation of the cause for socialism.

Mostly having this conversation over and over again is exhausting. The internet is a shit show. I don’t think me spending another 1-2 hours a day on improving comment quality (by removal) will make the internet less shitty. I don’t use it for conversation… other than here. BTW the limited removal we do gets called censorship and gets us into hacker fights on a fairly frequent basis. Exhausting.

Look for ideas, writings, and actions that you have affinity with. The moment you start analyzing the race, gender, ability, etc. of the author, the more you start being attracted to and/or having affinity with an identity rather than an authentic real set of ideas and practices. This is why authors in Green Anarchy were rarely under their real names or even real genders. So that such useless things could be dismissed and the content could be focuses on without prejudices toward a particular author or their particular chosen or unchosen identity.

LBC should seek out good content, which is sorely lacking in the anarchist movement in general (in both theory and action) and is lacking far more than the movement is lacking non-male participants.

Will there be forthcoming books from LBC that are shittier than what’s been put out already due to some desire to fulfill your Title 9 requirements? If you feel like you actively pushed aside shit written by women for no reason other than that, then sure, examine your practices. But if you’re considering lowering the bar to even out a gender trend with the authors, please don’t. Women are not intrinsically weak pathetic human beings that are incapable of writing and incapable of being anarchists. This is what’s implied pretty clearly when you have to lower the bar for there to be more women and feeds into the whole argument of certain politics or anti-politics being more “masculine” than others. I’m not saying this is what you’re doing or considering doing, but when you see self-criticism that simply states “too many men”, this is what usually follows.

I mean just look at Microcosm, they have tons of books written by women and they’re all terrible but if you’re judging them only by their gender divide they’re a great publisher. Because if this basically just amounts to an uncomfortable feeling you have like there “should” be more women doing x, y, or z, what practical steps do you have to take besides compromising your ideas to make some politicians happy? Efforts to “seek out women authors” are pretty silly as well.

Women are everywhere and women anarchists are more plentiful than you think. And if there aren’t enough of them writing good shit, that’s their own choice/fault and no one else can be blamed for it. Don’t be backed into a corner where you have to choose between printing some garbage like the LIES journal and being called a sexist. Because I hope we all know the correct choice is clear on that dilemma.

this shit was dumb

On the flip side, I was surprised at how accurate the test seemed to be for me, despite the test seeming like nonsense to take. It told me I was in the top 20% of society. I always test well, but only because I’m awesome.