The Value of The Amateur:
Ancient ages ago there was a campaign against Dimitri Rousoupoulos of 'Black Rose Books' (who at that time also published 'Our Generation'). The accusation was that he was basically a "parasite" who "lived off the movement". Personal differences in Rousopoulos' circle in Montreal gave this accusation credibility. This dispute is long gone, but I find it interesting that nobody raises the same accusation today against some people who OBVIUOSLY "live off the movement" such as "Chucky-Poo" of Infoshop or "Crimeth(INC-TM) who have found a way to extract money from the gullible and avoid work. Both these people and others had personal connections to some of those in the USA who were Dimitri's greatest detractors. There were others such as Jason McQuinn who probably didn't live as a parasite off of their anarchist efforts but who OBVIOUSLY had an independent source of income that allowed them to publish a glossy magazine that would always lose money. Anarchy Magazine could even survive turning the treasury over to a drug addict who robbed them and keep on publishing as if nothing had happened. The NOTHING is what McQuinn wanted to convey as he covered his ass across a continent without ever sinking to rationality and common sense in saying that criminal behavior is wrong- except in his privileged case. God, these people make me sick to my stomach.
But to return to the "value of the Amateur". There is an argument to be made on anarchist principles-ie those principles that "post-leftists" borrow from while denigrating as "obsolete"- that an anarchist propaganda effort should be susceptible of immediate reproduction by those who agree with it. Unlike the glossy magazine of 'Anarchy'. Unlike the complex website of 'Infoshop'. May I say that the latter two are "money-making enterprises" while publications such as ATN which can be reproduced by anybody with a printer are "anarchistic" in a way that the arrogance of "post leftist commercialism" could never be.

Question of the Day:
How close are cults such as Crimethink to the cults of the 1960s such as that headed by Jim Jones? The question may seem very rhetorical as they don't have a single charismatic leader but depend upon much more subtle and collective forms of interpersonal manipulation to maintain conformity. But leaders, and VERY stern leaders, they have none the less. These manipulators gain all the benefits that single charismatics leaders such as Jones did with considerably less responsibility. The word responsibility is key. When cult leaders (outside of the Crimethink cult but sympathetic to it) are the victims, or know the victims of, criminal acts they do their best to redress their own personal situation, or that of their immediate friends. But do they change their constant propaganda in favour of criminal behavior which, as most of these people are middle aged they know will expose young people to being victims ? Of course not. The ideology will be set aside for them but not for those who they know will become victims. When Jason McQuinn was conned by a drug addict to turn the finances of Anarchy Magazine over to said crook did Jason even consider for a moment that his glorification of criminal behavior was wrong ? Of course not ! He tried to limit the damage to himself and his close associates while trying to suppress the story as best as he was able. Has Anarchy Magazine become enlightened by this little affair ? Of course not !
When Chuck Munson's friend was mugged by thugs after leaving the classic lefty gathering did Chucky-poo reconsider his sympathy for criminals ? Of course not ! The blame that Chucky placed in his blog was NOT on the thugs but rather on the people who didn't give the victim a ride home. Considering Chucky's long standing desire to control all things in his field of vision I can see him as commissar of rides.
It is a cosmic understatement that I am infinitely glad that people such as McQuinn and Munson have such a limited ambition in that they want to make their living by selling false identities to the gullible. Both are actually quite intelligent and in other places and other times they would NOT be 'living off a movement" but rather plotting real political organizations that could challenge the powers that be in order to replace it with a very severe dictatorship. Thank God they are merely businessmen who don't want to work at a real service business. Too bad for their victims, but at least they are only small numbers.
The ideological beliefs of the Crimethink cult are bizarre on their very surface without any "deep analysis". They keep themselves going by living in a restricted world where they believe that they have a vision of reality that gives them the illusion of superiority over the "masses" that they demonize. This, of course, is pure illusion, but it can keep a cult going. It is, however, not politics but rather religion of a very sick variety. Its followers will always be susceptible to the rise of a charismatic leader within their ranks because they have NO external references in either logic, emotion, morality or simple common sense because they think that they are beyond such things.
I wait to see what rough beast slouching towards Jerusalem waiting to be born that such cultists will produce in the future. Their present actions cultivate victims and predators on a small scale. May it remain as tiny as it is.