Hamilton Update: News About Arrests and Tips for Staying Safe at the Blockades to Come

from north shore info

Anonymous submission to North Shore.

Several arrests in Hamilton have been made in relation to the recent blockade action that saw rail lines shut down in response to the OPP raid in Tyendinaga early this week. Police took people from their homes and workplaces, for a total of 4 arrests at this time. These people are currently all still in police custody and will be appearing in court for bail in the next couple days. While unfortunate and enraging, none of this is surprising. Over the course of the last month, wave after wave of blockades and other actions have swept across the country causing incalculable economic damage and throwing Canada and its treatment of indigenous communities into the global spotlight. It was only a matter of time until the state responded with force and began to target those involved. This week appears to have been a tipping point in this regard, with police increasingly making arrests in different cities. 
With resistance comes backlash, repression is a standard tactic used by the state when it is threatened. The history of social movements and liberation struggles is scattered with countless examples of this. Arrests and police harassment are used not only to target specific individuals, but more critically, to instill fear in people more broadly and in doing so, quell action. It is important that we do not let this happen. The best response to state repression is working to make it as unsuccessful a strategy as possible. This is not the time to let intimidation hinder action, rather this is a time to push ourselves and those around us to be brave and continue to act. Some people may choose to continue taking the same actions they have been doing, and others may choose to shift and try different things in response to changing contexts. In any case, the key is continuing to struggle and not allowing the flame of rebellion to be extinguished. 
Related to the topic of action, we wanted to say a few things about risk. While risk is an ever-present reality, it is nowhere near a universal thing and different people face very different levels of risk. Tens of thousands of people have participated in actions across the country, and in proportion only a small handful of people have been arrested. There is strength in numbers, and the scope of this struggle has created a context in which it would be difficult (and likely very unpopular from a public opinion standpoint) for there to be large-scale arrests. In the case of Hamilton, only very particular people have been arrested. The people who have been arrested are by and large ‘the usual suspects’ to police in the city. These are people who are highly visible in their antagonistic politics and activities, are already known to (and regularly surveilled and harassed by) Hamilton Police, are currently facing other criminal charges and have conditions and/or just recently concluded other court matters. All of this is to say, if you are someone who participated in the blockade and are worried, the arrests of these people is not an indication at this time that police will be conducting sweeping arrests across the city. That said, this is a good moment to reflect on practices and think about how to reduce risks. 
When taking part in these type of activities, we highly encourage folks to consider masking up. Covering your face and concealing your identity to the greatest extent possible does a lot to both decrease your own personal risk and help in keeping others around you safer. The more people who are masked, the harder it is to identify people in crowds. This is not only a matter of state repression. In addition to police taking photos and videos of the action, there were a variety of far-right individuals (and this is not uncommon) who also showed up and attempted to get photos of people involved. Being doxed online is as big of threat as being arrested, and it sucks in its own right. So cover up, you’ll thank yourself later! 
Lastly, if others are targeted and do get arrested – know that we have your back. Do not talk to the police under any circumstances, ask to call a lawyer, and wait. You will not face repression alone and will be supported throughout the process. For better or worse we’ve got a fair bit of experience with this stuff, and are good at dealing with. We are a resilient bunch and will help you through any difficult times. Repression isn’t fun, but it is totally survivable and something that in the long run can actually make you stronger, rather than weaker. 
See you at the next blockade ;) 
Helpful Resources
On masking up and concealing your identity: 
On security culture: 
On lots of things: 
The Tower (your friendly neighbourhood anarchist social centre) regularly hosts free public events and workshops that cover topics such dealing with arrest, navigating the legal system, and other relevant topics. If you are contacted by the police, and/or want tips on how to prepare for all things repression related you can contact The Tower at thetower@riseup.net and folks involved in that project can provide support.

There are 154 Comments

TLDR: Bellamy is explicitly promoting the intensification of state "anti-terrorist" repression. This ex-anarchist(?) is now promoting violent crackdowns on the blockades in Canada.


Bellamy's new podcast, "Liberty & Logos" (https://twitter.com/LibertyLogos), retweeted this tweet from conservative journalist
Candice Malcolm (@CandiceMalcolm) on February 26.

Candice's tweet quotes a tweet from conservative opponent of the blockades Aaron Gunn (@AaronGunn), who can be seen saying all sorts of reactionary shit all over the internet, about people carrying out an anti-train action:

"There is no other way to spin this. This is domestic terrorism. In Canada."

Candice's tweet reads:

"How is this different than the al-Qaeda inspired plot to derail Canadian trains back in 2013? Those two terrorists were given a LIFE SENTENCE for conspiring to do what these terrorists below are actually doing. "

Let's be clear: promoting the language of "terrorism" to describe protest activity is a way to encourage government violence against people. Uncritically retweeting reactionary journalists legitimizing "anti-terror" crackdowns on indigenous-led movements means explicitly legitimizing and encouraging the intensification of state violence and oppression.

Maybe Bellamy was an anarchist at some point, but I have no fucking idea how he could defend this conduct as having anything to do with anarchism.

What's especially ironic is that he presents himself as an advocate of pan-seccesionism (including alliances of non-aggression with neo-nazis, if I understand correctly), but here you have an indigenous-led effort to defend a territory from state control, and he's helping to depict it as "terrorism" to strengthen the hand of the state against it.

I have screen captures in case he deletes this.

aren't there 2 people running that twitter account? one of them who self-identifies as a reactionary? maybe they were the ones retweeting The Bad [tm] tweets and not Bellamy?

So if Bellamy was volunteering for the Trump campaign, would that be "anarchist"?

He has set up a platform with a self-identified "reactionary," he's promoting the platform, and what the platform is doing is calling for the Canadian state to engage in anti-terror crackdowns against the very people who are posting articles to this site.

He could oppose this, but he's not. He's endorsing it.

You should totally write a very stern electronic communication to show the anarchist world the error of his ways that will possibly end in a big embarrassment for all the bad people involved and a safer, more righteous milieu.

This has nothing to do with "safety" and "righteousness." It is about the difference between revolt, on one side, and those who legitimize state attacks on it, on the other.

Would it be "anarchist" if anews published a call for the state to crack down on blockades, rather than the above call from blockaders? No. Is it defensibly "anarchist" for Bellamy to do EXACTLY THAT from his (admittedly smaller, weaker) twitter account? No.

Bellamy did not publish "a call for the state to crack down on blockades" his shared Twitter account retweeted some reactionary dumb dumb. There is a difference. One is used to generate discussion, the other is to ruffle the feathers of e-activists who should be out chopping wood.

What are you, Bellamy's paid intern?

The twitter account Bellamy co-controls and personally promotes has literally done nothing but retweet "reactionary dumb dumbs." That's dumb enough, but the point here is that it literally has retweeted a "reactionary dumb dumb" calling for the state to crack down on blockades using the language of "terrorism." That is actually what happened.

What is motivating you to try to obscure this?

And why are your arguments so weak?

Yes, I am Bellamy's paid intern. I am motivated to try and obscure it for the sake of Truth. My arguments are so weak because Bellamy doesn't give paid lunch breaks but soon we will unionize and then the power of lunch will be all ours.

Can you tell me what you think of Bakunin's political metaphor: When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick". and how it applies to derailing trains? I must know.

That's not a passenger train. What "people" are you joining right-wing trolls in calling for terrorism charges to protect? Here, let me edit your Bakunin quote to match what you really mean:

"When the windows are being broken with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick'."

And I guess your point is that if someone breaks a window, we should unite with conservative newscasters to call for them being branded "terrorists"?

Fuck off. I wouldn't work the job you're working for three times the pay.

same pathetic logic that says if lbc publishes atassa, they are unequivocally supporting eco-extremism and indiscriminate attack. publishing a perspective is not the same as supporting that perspective. does this really need to be explained to you dweebs every single time?

Look, if you published Mein Kampf and went around trying to sell it, it would be fair fucking play for me to be like, what's your goal, kiddo?

And if you were like, whoops, oh nothin, and pretended like it never happened, that would not make it any less questonable,

Aaaaaaaaaand reductio ad Hitlerum, folks! *ding ding ding* That's all for tonight! Be sure to tune it tomorrow night when we will be putting Aragorn's ghost on trial for some Facebook activity where we discovered he "liked" a link to Alex Jones' appearance on Joe Rogan!

Whatever you can say against Aragorn!, he was an anarchist. He would —never— have set up a social media account for right-wing cop-lovers to post shit like the above tweet (which you can still go up and see, if you want, by clicking on the link above). The closest he came was letting troll trash like you use the comments section here to spew invective. But he wasn't an actual pro-fascist. Don't disgrace his name.

Bellamy, on the other hand, has gone from just making excuses for white supremacists to actively giving cop-loving self-professed reactionaries a platform from which to argue that folks exactly like the people who post articles on this site deserve terrorism charges.

There's no way to spin that. It's exactly what happened.

Now that a! has passed on I guess you man-babies need to find another anarchist to try to cancel? Great praxis, comrade!

Great counterargument. Really well-reasoned.

I'm vegetarian, so if I eat pork chops, they're vegetarian, right?

Similarly, if Bellamy is an anarchist, then calling for the Canadian government to use more forceful "anti-terror" measures against the same people who wrote the above article must be "anarchism." Right?

Thinking that retweeting something on the Twitter is an endorsement of that thing is very sad. Go chop some wood, son.

This is a weak, weak argument. Using *any* platform to non-ironically promote the intensification of government anti-terror operations against protesters is fucked. If Bellamy was just posting these tweets for "informational" purposes, he could make that clear, but his entire twitter page is just a string of right-wing nonsense without any distance on it at all.

Are you saying that anybody can say anything they want in favor of state crackdowns, and it's still "anarchism"? That's a very fucking stupid thing to say.

> his entire twitter page is just a string of right-wing nonsense without any distance on it at all.

That's just blatantly, evidently untrue: https://twitter.com/AnarchBellamy

For a group trying to take the moral high ground, you e-activists sure do lie a lot. Seriously, you should run for office.

> calling for the Canadian government to use more forceful "anti-terror" measures

Never happened, comrade. But don't let that stop you.

Anyway, I'd never heard of Bellamy's new show until this brigade turned up, so I for one would like to thank the brave antifa keyboard warriors for their work in finding my weekend's listening for me. Keep fighting the good fight! And remember, there are nazis EVERYWHERE!

Oh, don't out entryism or else you'll convert to fascism to punish us, is that your threat?

> Oh, don't out entryism or else you'll convert to fascism to punish us, is that your threat?

Strange world you live in Evon where listening to an hour's podcast can 'convert' you

To me, this just shows what fucking bullshit it is for Bellamy to talk about "secessionism" when he's doing his best to promote a platform that encourages state violence against those who are trying to keep a zone autonomous from state and corporate power.

He's not really into "secession." He's on a track moving very fast towards extremely conservative, reactionary views and activities. The sooner anarchists who are keeping company with him understand this, the less embarrassment there will be for them. How much worse than this can it get? Does he have to join the military? Break up a "terrorist" blockade himself?

If in his little Twitter bio he wrote "Retweets are not an endorsement" would your feathers un-ruffle and you'd shut up forever? What if they added that to the bio but secretly in their hearts didn't mean it? What if they secretly meant it but didn't put it in the bio?

Go chop some wood!

Does saying things mean anything? Is there any reason to engage in discussion at all? If I talk to you and all you do is unironically say "THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD CRACK DOWN ON THOSE TERRORIST BLOCKADERS," can you then call yourself an anarchist?

And why would you defend someone who does that?

Nowhere did Bellamy say "THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD CRACK DOWN ON THOSE TERRORIST BLOCKADERS," and no matter how you try to spin it it's simply not true. Social media has destroyed your brain. Chopping wood can help. Now Go!

No, you go. The commenter above spelled out very clearly what Bellamy is promoting. Who fucking knows why you want to defend people who are promoting anti-terror crackdowns and Dinesh de Souza. I guess you're just stuck in knee-jerk mode defending every reactionary who wants to call himself an anarchist?

Does Bellamy have to actually say say "THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD CRACK DOWN ON THOSE TERRORIST BLOCKADERS" himself, rather than endorsing and promoting someone else saying that, for you to consider it a problem?

Or would you come up with some other excuse then? You chop some wood, you have no argument to make here.

Are you simply too afraid to confront Bellamy on Twitter regarding these evil things you think he's saying/promoting/doing without first gathering a herd of people to back you? I wood recommend you take it to Twitter, these very important matters before Bellamy kills again.

Went through most of the catalogue of "Liberty and Logos" (name says it all, right) last night between Bellamy and his co-host, who identifies as a 'reactionary.' Some key points:

1.) Bellamy calls for "pan-seccesionism," which is a term popularized by Keith Preston of 'Attack the System.' Attack the System is a national anarchist website. Preston also has spoken at a variety of white nationalist conferences along side Richard Spencer. Bellamy's idea, which is the same as Preston's, is that the various marginal subcultures and secessionist currents should form some sort of alliance or agreement of non-aggression in order to remove themselves from the State structure and thus make it collapse.

2.) Bellamy states that the goal of Liberty and Logos will be to spread this idea of pan-seccessionism across various political subcultures and encourage people to work towards that goal.

3.) Argues that while capitalism and the State may have in the past been organized in a white supremacist framework, it is now ruled by 'woke capital' that promotes feminism, trans issues, etc, in order to "make us hate each other." As the far-Right argues, if there is racism now, it's direct at white men.

4.) He argues that a key delusion of modern anarchists, is that they believe that by attacking "other dissidents" (his words, and here he's referring to those on the alt-right/far-right/white nationalists) they are in turn attacking power. He argues that in actuality, they are simply being the shock troops for the globalist "woke" elite. This is the exact same argument that the alt-right promotes.

5.) Argues for a new conception of anarchism that rejects left and right categories and also works to include ideas and concepts from the Right spectrum into a re-understanding of anarchism.

If you look at the Liberty and Logos Twitter account, it's all far-Right bullshit. Half the accounts it follows are white nationalist and pro-Trump conspiracy pages; many of which are followed by Bellamy himself, as well as his co-host. I'm sure Bellamy would argue that this is simply to engage with the ideas, but his account shows him leaving friendly comments under articles written by white nationalist and anti-immigrant authors at sites like V-DARE and liking tweets from white nationalists proclaiming that coronavirus isn't so bad because it'll kill off the undesirables.

Liberty and Logos sharing a tweet that calls Native protesters "terrorists" pretty much says it all, and I'm sure Aragorn if he were still around, the A-News collective, and editors at Black Seed won't even be able to justify this one. The idea that Native people fighting for their land and driving out the State and industry are "terrorists," yet white nationalists who want to take over the US and kill half the population are somehow a group that 'anarchists' want to engage in building a relationship - with is ridiculous.

There's just so much dumb shit that Bellamy is putting out. Don't think anyone is arguing that anarchists shouldn't engage with "red state" America or that everyone who considers themselves a Trump support or on the Right is our enemy. This is why people table at gun shows and organize in rural areas. What's ironic is that this is the same stuff that Bellamy would write off as "leftist bullshit activism," yet we are told that change is gonna come if we hook up with a pathetic group of 20 neo-Confederate losers who want to bring back slavery. Towns in Mexico are kicking out police, the cartels, and the State, in Puerto Rico people are forming popular assemblies to make decisions as the government ebbs away, and in Canada Native people are rising up against the government across a huge area in a coordinated fashion - and Bellamy's big idea is to sit down with people's who's political blueprint is the Turner Diaries.

Also, the stupidity and lack of any real analysis is front and center when Bellamy argues the US and other post colonial states are no longer organized around lines of race anymore and currently are simply regimes of 'woke' elites enforcing a list of words you can't say online. This is just so fucking dumb, that only someone from inside a far-Right media bubble would say it. As if woke capitalism is anything other than a tool to expand markets and politicians on either side trying to use identity politics to get votes while also advancing a reactionary and racist agenda. For someone that prides themselves in being smarter than everyone else while rocking a shit eating grin only a lime disease infected insect would love, Bellamy's analysis of the world in 2020 reads like the comments on the same far-Right articles he's helping to amplify right now on social media under the banner of 'anarchism.'

I'm convinced from this that Bellamy has joined the ranks of our enemies. Let's burn down his farm and make him see the error of his ways by posting anonymously on anews but never directly engage him where he is doing it (on Twitter).

I'm not entirely convinced by #s 1 and 2... like, Bellamy might have just read Bolo'Bolo and gotten into his ideas from there, rather than Keith Preston.

But regarding #3, it's dumb to think that the alternative to "woke" stuff is to be inclusive specifically towards the *earlier* things that made us hate each other (like white nationalism). I think Bellamy is explicitly in the wrong there.

As for #4, it's a big mistake imagining that there are only two sides in the current conflict, rather than at least three. All sorts of errors can flow from that.

I didn't know how seriously to take everybody's anti-Bellamy stuff until now, but this stuff has changed my mind about him. I don't like it when anarchists go around policing each other, but there's just no way you can call it anarchist, what he's gotten into.

"I'm not entirely convinced by #s 1 and 2... like, Bellamy might have just read Bolo'Bolo and gotten into his ideas from there, rather than Keith Preston."

Fair enough, but pan-seccessionism is also a term that was coined and popularized by Preston and also from it flows the idea that across the spectrum from anarchists to neo-Nazis, these different groups should work together to all drop out from the State. Even if Bellamy isn't up on Preston, they are arriving at the same conclusion, and I'm guessing, Bellamy will be soon engaging more and more with white nationalists and Alt-Right types (just like Preston), who are desperate to engage with people on 'the Left.'

"But regarding #3, it's dumb to think that the alternative to "woke" stuff is to be inclusive specifically towards the *earlier* things that made us hate each other (like white nationalism). I think Bellamy is explicitly in the wrong there."

Key point is that the State, especially in the US, is still largely organized around lines of race, and that also, neoliberalism and 'woke' culture aren't a departure from it. Wokeness is all about increasing the spectacle of representation within capitalism and the State, not about challenging its existence or power dynamics. But the idea that essentially racism is over and now the powers that be are out to get the white man is literally infowars fever dream bullshit.

"As for #4, it's a big mistake imagining that there are only two sides in the current conflict, rather than at least three. All sorts of errors can flow from that."

Fighting fascists can actually be just that, fighting fascists - or a street movement attempting to take State power. However, there are clear lines of solidarity and connection between the far-Right in the US and the State itself, as there is across the world. Bellamy's idea it that the alt-right etc are actual "dissidents" fighting the "globalist order" alongside anarchists, not a group of people wanting to take over the State or embed within it.

"I didn't know how seriously to take everybody's anti-Bellamy stuff until now, but this stuff has changed my mind about him. I don't like it when anarchists go around policing each other, but there's just no way you can call it anarchist, what he's gotten into."

Don't think anyone wanted to police anyone, just point out what you are now coming to understand.

I was always confused by why Bellamy thinks that right-wingers (proponents of hierarchy and traditional state power structures) would be likely to permit him to live in peace and not try to impose any control over him in his ideal "pan-secessionist" world. That's just plain naive, if it's not, like, willfully disingenuous.

I am writing a new tome called, Forest Gardening and Graduate School: The Real Fascist Creep slated to be released in Fall 2020. Pre-order today!

Haha, now they deleted all the tweets! That's hilarious! But we have screen captures of everything. What cowardice! Showing your true face too publicly, eh? We will remember!

I get rather tired of this phenomenon of anons making Gish Gallop comments since their anonymous shitposting makes it impossible to actually have sustained, honest dialogue and gives them a zero-accountability way to make bad faith smears full of logical fallacies like 'You sound like [bad person] therefore you are wrong and also bad.'

I didn't make the Twitter account in question, nor did I do the retweeting, nor, honestly, was I even aware of it until earlier today. I've since talked with my co-host and modified the account on the basis that it is jointly representative and therefore should not include posts that do not reflect my views. This would be a case of the complexities of doing informally-managed group projects with people with dissenting views.

Trying to impugn me because of who I follow on Twitter is both hilarious and analogous to trying to impugn someone for a list of the books they have read. I am following people from all over the political spectrum because I use Twitter to quickly scan what all of the political factions I consider relevant are discussing. Does the fact that I follow DemSoc journalists like Max Blumenthal mean I am a DSA sympathizer?

"I'm sure Bellamy would argue that this is simply to engage with the ideas, but his account shows him leaving friendly comments under articles written by white nationalist and anti-immigrant authors at sites like V-DARE and liking tweets from white nationalists proclaiming that coronavirus isn't so bad because it'll kill off the undesirables."

- This is completely, demonstrably false and absurd. Since it is difficult to see how it could be a mistake, I can only assume it is a hallucination or a vile and slanderous, deliberate lie.

"As the far-Right argues, if there is racism now, it's direct [sic] at white men."

- Again, this is a smear, as I never said this. But I completely stand by the idea that the purpose of IdPol is to divide and conquer, as it seems difficult to resist the conclusion given how it functions politically. Many anarchists have said this as well, and I don't think it should be seen as some untoward argument, even if someone disagrees.

"Bellamy argues the US and other post colonial states are no longer organized around lines of race anymore and currently are simply regimes of 'woke' elites enforcing a list of words you can't say online."

- How could the IdPol function I am describing function without being "organized around lines of race?" - obviously race is part of it. I've said many times and places that racism is probably ineradicable, so it obviously still exists.

"The idea that Native people fighting for their land and driving out the State and industry are "terrorists," yet white nationalists who want to take over the US and kill half the population are somehow a group that 'anarchists' want to engage in building a relationship - with is ridiculous."

- This idea exists only in your paranoid, vindictive imagination and is not something I have said. If you have a real argument, I invite you to come onto my show and debate me, which will force you to actually defend your strange desire to anonymously smear me for things I do not believe. If I am somehow not an anarchist, it has clearly not been demonstrated by a mix of bad faith reads and outright lies. If anything, I have been insanely open about my beliefs the entire time I have done media, including repeatedly openly acknowledging times that I have been wrong or changed my mind about things, so let's please not pretend I have some secret agenda that involves obfuscating what I think.

> "Trying to impugn me because of who I follow on Twitter"

This is not about who you follow. It's about the unironic retweeting of a call for the Canadian government to treat blockaders as terrorists.

You're not addressing that?

Whether the arguments against your conduct are anonymous or not is beside the point. They're powerful, legitimate arguments, or else you wouldn't have dignified them by taking down your tweets and responding here.

Hey Anon and others (mostly other anons, unsurprisingly!)!

It's hard to know where best to physically position my response amongst this clusterfuck of shitposts, but since this is the one that most directly attacks me, it seems the best place.

1. I get that pan-secession is a controversial topic for you folk. But a) it doesn't define the show, and b) if you have things you wanna say about it, why not participate in the conversation that we're starting, rather than just reaching into your diaper and flinging your own shit about?

2. Yes, I have decided in the last week to identify as a reactionary, for various reasons. This doesn't prove that I necessary mean the same thing by the word as you do, nor do I think most aNews types engage with media objectively enough to have truly considered the ideas I resonate with that lie behind my use of it. Again, rather than foaming at the mouth and falling over backwards, why not engage in dialogue? You could ask me why I use the term and what I mean by it. We did a 1hr 20min show in which I listened to Bellamy's account of anarchism and remained open to the possibility that you're not all just stinky commies :P You just prove my point when you get all rabid like this :D

3. Yes, I love Alex Jones. But again, are you SURE you have an accurate and detailed picture of who the man is? For example, do you see no value whatsoever in a man who has risked his life hundreds of times to expose key information about the crooked SOBs who conspire to exterminate all of us? If Bellamy is keen, I would love to do a segment on why I love AJ, and if those of you who despise him (because, I suspect, you unthinkingly swallow the thinstream media's propaganda about him) want to join in this conversation and ask questions, you are very welcome to do so.

4. The thing about Twitter, that the vast majority of Twitter users get, but seemingly aNews folk appear to be unaware of, is that RT does not equal endorsement. Twitter is simply a replacement for the news. So if I post something to my account, it means I think it's worthy of attention. I do not think native people, or any people for that matter, should be rounded up by any state. I am against government. Hell, I'm more anti-authoritarian than most of y'all are, to the point where Bellamy has said that he 'thinks of me as an anarchist'. I don't adopt that label, but I sure as shit don't support state or capital. That said, I like holding contradictions up for analysis, and the comparison in that post about the saboteurs, is I think, worthy of consideration.

5. The long and short of the matter is that the L&L Twitter will not be used for anything other L&L posts from now on. This means several things: a) you will not longer have completely bogus excuses to attempt to lynch Bellamy and if that's your objective, you will actually have to try (in the same fashion as people spinning vinyl backwards to find Satanic messages) to find your 'evidence' in what he actually types with his own hands or utters with his own mouth. b) should you wish to learn more about the character of his co-host (me) you will have to look at my own output. Neither of us can be judged purely by retweets.

People are free to ask me more about these things if they really want, but this will be my only visit to this site, so if you wanna do so, you'll have to come to L&L and engage in good faith.

My final words here are a plea: try to stop seeing this as all some kind of big football game, where rooting for your 'team' is the entire focus of things. Try to separate ideas from the people that express them, and from the wider corpora that they are seen to be located in, and try to use these ideas as best you can to formulate a coherent concept of liberty and logos.

I hope you understand that because Hitler was a veggie, it doesn't mean that all veggies are Nazis. If you do, try to hold off on jumping to conclusions before you are sure that you're not just embarrassing yourself.


Good work, comrades! It was totally because of your excellent anti-Bellamy praxis that those tweets were delete and not at all because one of the account's co-owners disagreed with the vile stuff the other was retweeting.

Keep those receipts! There are no take-backs! Death to our enemies (but very precisely and discriminating death)!

Mysteriously, after going away to delete your tweets, you show up at the exact same moment as Bellamy! On the dot!

Regarding why I think secessionism is necessary, this is a summary of my thinking: http://bellamyfitzpatrick.com/index.php/2020/01/22/decentralist-anarchy-...

Regarding Preston, I have limited familiarity with him but will undoubtedly need to engage with his ideas given that I seem to have bumped up against some similar ideas, to the point that he posted about me on his website.

Honestly, I would be perfectly happy to actually debate any of these anonymous people wanting to destroy my reputation, and my e-mail is open as always bellamyfitzpatrick@protonmail.com , but I doubt anyone will do so.

You don't need our help to destroy your reputation, man. It's ugly that you're using this as an opportunity to promote your personal brand rather than speaking to why you established and promoted a platform that was used to call for terrorism charges against blockaders, AND ONLY BACKED DOWN FROM THAT AFTER WE PRESSURED YOU HERE.

You literally made a blog, twitter account, and now a video series promoting your ideas and now you are angry people on the internet are critical of them, lol. Tell us again about the plan to destroy the State by working with the Nazis.

Yeah, and did this dumb motherfucker seriously start a twitter account with a reactionary, pretending that they are into "pan-secessionism" together, and not ever mention "By the way, don't retweet stuff promoting government anti-terror crackdowns on people trying to defend autonomous zones"? Like, he's working with a self-professed "reactionary" and they never had the conversation about that? And we're supposed to believe that Bellamy only found out about his co-moderator's tweets FROM THE COMMENTS SECTION HERE?

No, what's going on is that Bellamy is doing fascist entryism into the anarchist movement, and he recognizes that he went too far in this case. That's the simplest, most convincing explanation.

"No, what's going on is that Bellamy is doing fascist entryism into the anarchist movement,"

Awwwwwww yeah, it's the mutha fuckin' fascist creep!

Good thinking, comrade - his multi-year close working relationship with one of the major indigenous anarchists in the U.S. was obviously just a long con to accrue plausible deniability for his fascist, anti-indigenous agenda - AS TWITTER HAS CONCLUSIVELY SHOWN

You're trying to change the subject. If someone is friends with an indigenous anarchist, and they publicize and promote calls for state crackdowns on blockaders, that doesn't make the latter activity somehow any less statist and fucked.

I have issues with things Bellamy has said over the years when it comes to commenting on worldwide events when you aren't on the ground and such (and he has actually backed off of that more recently and acknowledged some bad takes), but, seriously, dudes - you are reading this in the absolute worst possible way, and it comes across as dishonest. He responded multiple times here saying 1.) he didn't post it, 2.) his co-host, who he says he doesn't agree with about everything, retweeted as an FYI, not an endorsement (sure, they could have specified it, but most people on Twitter realize that RTing is not endorsing), and 3.) he removed the Tweets not because OMG-they-caught-me!! but because it was being read in a bad faith way and he wanted to remove the possibility of that happening more.

Really not stoked that the milieu is engaging in cancel culture, whereby someone can tweet a few things that get read in the worst possible way and then have everything else they've been saying for years ignored.

I hate cancel culture as much as the next person, but dude, did you see their twitter? None of that was "informational," it was all just outright propaganda. There was no "information" in the tweet in question except a call to employ terror charges against blockaders. There was no "information" in the Dinesh d'Souza tweet saying that supporting Bernie because he's a socialist is comparable to supporting Hitler. Fuck Bernie and socialism, but you can't say that either of those tweets were posted because they had "information" in them. They're both just straight up classic far-right authoritarian propaganda. WTF is complicated about this?

Look, I can't keep responding to I will say one last thing: What is "complicated" about it is that it is dumb and melodramatic to take a few things someone says on social media (and in this case he said multiple times that it was not even him running the account) and use that as a judgment for their whole character and views and then say that person is awful and needs to be called out or dismissed or banished or whatever. That is what cancel culture is - dragging someone for social media stuff and then repeatedly dismissing and insulting them when they respond trying to explain why it was said. That is what you did initially, and then you followed it up by hooting and hollering at Bellamy when he responded and basically doubling down over and over instead of actually engaging. So you can't say "I hate cancel culture as much as the next person" while you are doing it. Bellamy responded here and said he is going to respond further on his show. Not doing cancel culture is looking at someone's behavior over a long period of time and judging them for that, instead of one incident in which you are making a dozen assumptions and blasting someone over and over for it anonymously.

Also, Bellamy has been saying for a long time that he doesn't like IdPol and that he considers white nationalism to be just the right's version of IdPol, so that is being taken in bad faith, too. And obviously an upshot of being anti-civ is a decentralized world that is going to include reactionaries, so Bellamy is just being honest about the consequences of a position he has had since FRR, which he either hadn't really thought through before or decided to be more blunt about it or whatever. If you read bolo'bolo or Desert or other shit that has been out for a long time, these people acknowledged that, too, so I don't see why this should be some scandal except that antifa is more of a thing now than it was when those books came out.

Desert didn't call for the use of anti-terror charges against blockaders. Bellamy's latest project literally has. We're not even talking about "pan-secessionism" anymore, we are talking about straight up advocacy of intensified state repression. That's not even consistent with the position Bellamy is pretending to espouse.

This isn't "cancel culture," this is identifying those who want to promote authoritarian projects. If you promote authoritarian projects to anarchists, anarchists will probably identify what you are doing for what it is.

I'm not saying Bellamy should be stoned or whatever. I am saying it's extremely hard to understand why anyone would see what he's doing as "anarchism" rather than as entryism. If he wants to be understood differently and treated differently, he could, for example, NOT BE WORKING WITH SOMEONE WHO PROMOTES THE VIEWS OF ALEX JONES, DINESH D'SOUZA, AND RIGHT-WINGERS CALLING FOR TERRORISM CHARGES AGAINST BLOCKADERS AS THE BEST REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THEIR SHARED PROJECT IS ABOUT.

Very simple.

New poster - this is literally cancel culture, like the other poster said. Did you watch the show? Both hosts are obviously anti-state, including the "reactionary" (baffled what he means by this since he claims feminism is a major influence on his views and then goes "all you need is love" later on - I don't know if the label is some sort of anti-civ trolling or what). Obviously Bellamy's anarchism is not everyone's cup of tea since he is anti-civ and anti-tech and acknowledges right-wing influences like Nietzsche and Stirner, but I find it extremely hard to believe that they he is literally calling for state crackdowns, whatever was tweeted. If you think Bellamy is somehow spending hours laying out his state-critique in usual Bellamy excessive hyper-detail, and that his big, secret plan is to simultaneously pump state propaganda through some tiny Twitter account, that is its own form of Alex Jones-tier conspiracy-mongering even if that was tweeted. Even if Bellamy is drifting right-ward in certain weird ways or whatever like he says on his blog post about Left and Right, there is zero reason to think he is anti-indigenous or pro-state. He just did an episode with Aragorn right before the dude croaked where his position on this stuff is clear, including the potentially problematic aspects - he's basically saying we're never going to control everyone's views and behaviors without a state. It's true, even if a lot of people don't want to hear it. And I agree with him about that, even though I think he his tone when talking about it was a bit off-putting.

"right-wing influences like Nietzsche and Stirner" = automatic fail. troll harder

New poster here, too. Nietzsche and Stirner are way less right-wing than what we're talking about here. I went and looked at the tweets while they were still up, which you haven't?, and they're pretty damning. I honestly don't think anyone could defend the choice to post those tweets. If the "reactionary" guy is supposedly anti-state, why is he posting tweets asking the Canadian government to prosecute pipleline protesters as terrorists?

That's not anti-civ, it's just wild. No pun intended.

"I honestly don't think anyone could defend the choice to post those tweets."

retweet =/= posting
(i know that without ever having been to a social media website like twitter or facebook).

you must also think lbc blindly supports indiscriminate killings, because they published atassa. didn't any of these ideologues learn from past mistakes?

Nietzsche and stirner are now right wing? What the fuck am I reading?

N, for one had his estate taken over by his sister. He hated antisemites, but sister and her husband were antisemites who tried to start a commune in paraguay. It did not go well, so they decided to inject their views into his works. He had nothing to do with Will to Power. That was all her.

Leave wings to the birds

> Desert didn't call for the use of anti-terror charges against blockaders.

Neither did BF

> Bellamy's latest project literally has.

It literally hasn't.


If you think having a podcast where BF has conversations with someone with opposing ideas is a bad idea then why not just say you think it's a bad idea and not listen to it? No need to fash-jacket the guy.

Listen, if it's a problem for you that your co-host in this project is promoting government crackdowns on blockaders, you could always... not do a project with him. If you give him a platform and promote it, you are responsible for what he says, too.

You're just doing fascist entryism. Admit it.

> if you give him a platform and promote it, you are responsible for what he says, too.

So if you talk to someone in public, you are responsible for everything that person says, not only during the conversation you have together, but also everything they say subsequently?

If you say "Hey everybody, listen to what I say through this project," and you do the project with a proponent of state "anti-terror" crackdowns on blockaders, and that person says "we need the state to crack down on blockaders as terrorists," and you don't do anything to distance yourself from this until you're called out for it and then you try to delete it like it never happened, then yes, you are responsible for it. Duh.

A! today... Bellamy tmrw...

Maybe someone out theres gunnin for masked heroes!

*Rorsharch meme*

I already addressed this by saying that I did not create the Twitter account or make the posts or even know about them until about 45 minutes ago, at which point I phoned my co-host and asked him to remove tweets that do not reflect my views in order to eliminate ambiguity. His response was that they did not reflect his views either but were retweets for information, but I still preferred he remove them, so they were removed.

It is unserious and hysterical to act as though I support state violence or the designation of dissidents as terrorists after *five years* of doing anarchist media. It is equally bizarre since I have previously been impugned for *supporting* terrorism (i.e., ITS, which was also false) - which is it? Am I a statist who wants dissidents crushed, or a supporter of eco-terrorism?

"retweets for information"


There was no new "information" in that tweet, its ENTIRE CONTENT was urging the Canadian government to use terrorism charges against blockaders.

I didn't pay attention to the whole ITS thing, so you can't accuse me of hypocrisy or whatever. In this case, you did something stupid and unprincipled, and you're making a bunch of unconvincing excuses. Is that what happened in the ITS case, too?

You got him, bro - Bellamy was a fed the whole time, building up social capital with podcasts and journals so he could use all of that capital to have some guy he knows crush radicals with retweets about other people saying the state should arrest people and then deleting those tweets.

Or....maybe, just maybe....retweeting does show how an event is being perceived by others?

Maybe just maybe he's doing exactly what he said he's doing: making a podcast with a far-Right reactionary who thinks Alex Jones, Qanon, and throwing Native people fighting for their land into prison is good, and moreover, wants to continue that path forward and create bigger alliances between anarchists and the far-Right.

If you wanna get down with that, feel free.

^ This shit right here. Calling what Bellamy is doing "fascist entryism" should not even be controversial at this point. It's literally what he's doing in the full light of day.

Should we take Bellamy at his word that he knew nothing about the tweets and would have had them removed even if there was no outcry? I don't think so. But even if we did, that would just mean he would be *better* at doing fascist entryism. You don't want to make everything clear too fast.

Sometimes, the best thing a person has to offer is the ways in which he incompetent. That's the case here. Bellamy has shown us all who he is, who he's trying to work with, and what kind of ideas he is trying to create a platform for. After this, he's going to cry about getting "canceled" for not being "allowed" to say the same stupid shit we hear from the President of the United States and Fox News without getting his @ card revoked. That's fucking pathetic.

If you get a hipster mustache, you still have a mustache.

If you make a twitter feed and all you post to it is right-wing propaganda, without any clarifying information whatsoever, that's not "ironic" or "informational," that's right-wing propaganda. You're trying to make the argument that an anarchist could set up a twitter feed and retweet nothing but Trump supporters and argue that that's anarchist practice? From someone (Bellamy) who supposedly cares about online communication and believes in it way more than I do, that's just mind-boggling. No, maintaining a twitter feed that is the equivalent of a Russian bot is not anarchist activity.

"If you make a twitter feed and all you post to it is right-wing propaganda, without any clarifying information whatsoever, that's not "ironic" or "informational," that's right-wing propaganda. "

This reasoning totally makes sense. The only other logical explanation I could find for Bellamy posting this stuff on his Twitter without any hint of personal distance or criticism is that he'd be doing that just to provoke his "antifa" antagonists among anarchists. Buuut... then, this would mean... near-360°. The alternative rationale leads to the assumed one, therefore there is only one: he's being a mouthpiece of the Far Right by *just* reposting their bigoted hate speech.

indeed, putting information out there for people to learn about, digest, and decide what it means for them (usually nada) is clearly right wing, state agent behavior.

you might read a bit about the its situation, it is possible you could learn something about what it means to have an open mind and not immediately pigeon-hole someone's entire thought process due to a social media post twice removed from them. you are aptly demonstrating the difference between exploring wide ranging ideas (both agreeable and nonagreeable to you), and being owned by a rigid box of ideas - aka an ideologue.

anyone that is spouting this crap about bellamy here, and who does not take him up on his offer to have an open discussion about this directly, clearly has no desire for real engagement at any level. the only desire, apparently, is to follow the prescription.

doug stanhope had alex jones open for one of his shows. only a complete ignoramous would assume, from that, that doug is a right-wing conspiracy nut.

see any similarities?

Also, are we supposed to be impressed by you saying you did "*five years*" [asterisks sic] of "anarchist media"? That's honestly not very long. Like, it's long enough that you should DEFINITELY KNOW BETTER but it's not long enough for you to have earned a pass to get away with whatever you want. You're not a "movement elder" or something. You're a kid in your 20s, right? Still going through a bunch of rapid changes in your ideology.

Anybody know what age Mao and Mussolini were when they shifted away from their quasi-anarchist phases towards their out and out authoritarian phases?

if SOMEONE ELSE uses your shared twitter account to RETWEET A NEWS ARTICLE you are LITERALLY MAO AND MUSSOLINI

Right? This is the ultimate fucking tempest in a teapot, worse than the Bones/Wolfi drama. Bellamy has made a fuckton of media in the past several years, and y'all are trying to fash-jacket him over what seems like some micro-misunderstanding. You seriously think the guy was calling for state crackdown on natives?? Come the fuck on....don't play the 'I'm totes against cancel culture, bro!' This is so obviously Wolfi 2.0, except y'all are doing it for IGD politics points against the bad-bad LBC crowd instead of the Bones e-celeb. Fucking lame.

It wasn't a news article. It was a straight up demand to use terrorism charges to target pipeline protesters. Are you into that? You think that's a cool thing to promote?

Before wolfi it was Bob black, and then novatore, galleani, severino do Giovanni, the bonnot gang, Emile Henry, etc...

The internet is ironing out all behavior so we become predictable clones for the algorithms, which are funded by a mentality of risk avoidance.

Both right and left are squeezing us all into a model of techno feudalism.

No thanks

I cannot and will not respond to further comments here because I will not be online for at least two days, but I will address comments that are not baseless either on my blog or my show.

*grabs popcorn*

Im here to watch the stoning

Because I think there is an anti-civ to fash pipeline, I took this pretty seriously until I watched the show, and now it seems like a nothing-burger. Bellamy's position seems basically the same as previous podcasts, except that he has a new co-host who seems anti-civ from the right or something (guy's position is not that clear because Bellamy talks 75% of the time). I don't agree with Bellamy about a lot of things (like that an anarchist global society would necessarily have to be a state, but I get the critique) and don't like how he seems to feel the need to often sarcastically dunk on other anarchists by making big generalizations about what "the scene" thinks and does (which seem to be mostly based on his Bay Area experience, and, yeah, I agree with some of the critiques, but #NotAllAnarchists or whatever), but he is not being fash or pro-state and it's annoying when people cry wolf about this stuff because then it gets taken less seriously. I do think Bellamy should diss other anarchists less than he does, but I get that he is annoyed by people not thinking things through - my critique to Bellamy would be: maybe you are generalizing about anarchist opinions from your time in the Bay around post-college 20-somethings? Maybe you could have serious anarchist thinkers like Gelderloos on your show and talk through some of these 'world society' criticisms you have?

Agreed - scanned through the show, and it is the same "You're not really anarchist unless you are anti-civ and decentralist"-line that Bellamy and Zerzan and others have been doing for years. Disagree but w/e - it's not fash unless we think Zerzan, Wolfi, et al. are also fash, which I don't even though I think their view makes anarchist strategy basically impossible because they tow such a hard line that is not really practical. Social media drama is not anarchist news - who cares. Bellamy is a nerdy guy with opinions, not some entryist mastermind. Yeah, I agree he is a know-it-all, but no one has to listen. There's always been this 'green anarchism is crypto-fash' scare, and it's rarely true. It's more like anarcho-purity-spiraling from these post-left people, where even trying to have large societies is somehow already authoritarian. Pretty sure Bellamy thinks this as well iirc from FRR when he had better things to say. You and your dozen friends who pass an anarcho-purity test on some farm somewhere is not fash - it's just armchair phallosophers dropping out, which is what anti-civ inevitably leads to and why I reject it even though they have some good points about ecology and such.

I'm a green anarchist, I'm not into big formal organizations, but this is a totally different thing. We're talking about whether to terrorism-jacket demonstrators who block trains. From a green @ position, and I'd daresay from an anti-civ @ position too, for people who identify with that, that is just fucked up.

I haven't listened to the podcast. I'm not talking about any of the content on it. I'm talking about the thing everybody is talking about here, the twitter account they apparently took down after getting caught promoting terrorism charges etc. If there's nothing fucked up on the podcast, we can still identify this as fucked up.

No one was "caught" doing anything. If they were actually promoting terrorism charges on a social media account --directly tied to the show-- then they would have been doing it openly! They explained that was not what they were doing, but you're acting like you discovered some secret identity. Bellamy has applauded eco-sabotage and blockades a zillion times on his shows. He wrote for Black Seed multiple times, which is pro-indigenous, anti-civ, etc. This was already explained multiple times on this thread - come on.

What you're saying just makes it more fucking weird that he gave his buddy carte blanche to call for a state crackdown on blockaders. But that is exactly what happened.

Entryism, I tell ya. That's the only logical explanation anybody on here has offered. Unless Bellamy really didn't know he was working with somebody who wants to see blockaders prosecuted as terrorists. In which case he'd presumably stop working with him. Unless he likes that!

How is having a conversation with someone on a podcast 'working with' them? Whenever someone is interviewed in the NYT, is the interviewer 'working with' the person they're interviewing? When you chat to someone on the train, are you 'working with' them?

> In which case he'd presumably stop working with him. Unless he likes that!

Bellamy explained exactly who the person was before he started doing the podcast with them.

Honestly, do any of this e-activist brigade actually know what they're so outraged about?

'he gave his buddy carte blanche to call for a state crackdown on blockaders'

Evon, comrade:

> the twitter account they apparently took down after getting caught promoting terrorism charges

They retweeted a fucking news article you baby

It wasn't a news article. I guess you didn't see the tweet, and now you're trolling without knowing what you're promoting. You can be sure they took it down for a reason!

Are you dense? BF already explained what happened. You are quadrupling down now on cancel hysteria because social media has destroyed your brain and you think the Internet is real life. You actually think an anarchist show is using its social media account to 'call for state violence' and then removed it because daring investigators caught them. Is Putin involved, too, you think?

'i haven't listened to the podcast'.

Says it all! Somehow I guessed correctly on this one just from the sheer amount of bloviating done instead.

"serious anarchist thinkers like Gelderloos" = automatic fail. read harder

For some reason, I read through all the comments here even though it seemed like a waste of time. Since I did, I'll post - two possibilities here:

- Bellamy has had some total 180 shift to becoming a vicious authoritarian in the past few weeks and hatched the dumbest entryist plot ever where he completely broadcasted his view on social media and then immediately tried to take it back, or...

- There was some nothing kerfuffle over his friend sharing some social media post by an authoritarian calling for terrorism crackdowns on activists, where Bellamy's friend was showing that this was happening ot of concern, and halfwits thought he was calling for/endorsing it. They deleted the posts because of the misunderstanding, and then the halfwits took this as a confession.

Gee, which is more likely?

Internet culture is fucking dumb and messes up anarchism that was better off when we did things in print, I say as I type on it.

Or, what could be happening is exactly what Bellamy said he is doing: he launched a project with a far-Right person with the stated purpose of promoting pan-seccesionism, which is the belief that anarchists should work with neo-Nazis and others on the far-Right to push for succession. His co-host is far-Right and thus promoted Qanon, an Alex Jones event, and some stupid far-Right take on why the State should lock up Natives for protesting. This follows as part of a larger pattern of Bellamy referencing, citing, following, and engaging with far-Right and white nationalist ideas and figures.

Seems the question more over is if anarchists want to get down with that.

But this makes no sense. If the goal was to secretly infiltrate anarchism, then why would they post calls for state crackdown openly (not very secretive)? If the point was to call for state crackdowns openly, then why delete the tweets and say it was a misunderstanding? Why not stand by it? Either way, it doesn't make sense.

And even if his co-host is a basketcase (he seems all right in the show, imo, but I guess we will see) and was posting basketcase things on Twitter, doesn't Bellamy shutting it down show he didn't like it? And isn't Bellamy arguing with the guy in the show? And wasn't his co-host's main point of disagreement with the label "anarchist" rather than the ideas?

In any case, it seems dumb to obsess over some social media incident instead of engaging with the content of the show directly. Some of that happened above, granted, but the focus here seems on reading the worst possible motives into a social media post.

"secretly infiltrate anarchism" -

Who is saying that the goal is to be secret about anything. Bellamy has been on Anews since January talking about promoting pan-seccesionism and talked about it on the Brillant. This isn't something that is new.

"why would they post calls for state crackdown openly" -

His co-host posted a click-bait far-Right tweet that called for Native protesters in Canada to be labeled terrorists - he did that because he's a far-Right douche bag. It really ends there - that's who Bellamy is doing a show with. He called him up and had him delete it when people started posting on here about it because it makes them look bad.

"posting basketcase things on Twitter" -

Posting far-Right stuff on twitter means you have far-Right politics. It's that simple.

"And isn't Bellamy arguing with the guy in the show? And wasn't his co-host's main point of disagreement with the label "anarchist" rather than the ideas?"

Bellamy's whole project as stated in the episode about pan-seccsionism is to make common cause with the far-Right in order to secceed from the State. It makes sense then that's he's working with someone on the far-Right for the show. It makes sense that someone on the far-Right tweets a bunch of racist bullshit - because that's what their politics are. Doesn't mean that Bellamy believes that, it means that that is who Bellamy is working with on that podcast. If you want to support that- be my guest.

"engaging with the content of the show directly. "

Don't think anyone on here has attempted to separate a far-Right person running a twitter account who is working with Bellamy from Bellamy's ideas on pan-seccsionism which promote alliances with the far-Right. This isn't about once speciifc thing on twitter, although people defending Bellamy have attempted to turn it into that in order to defend him.

Okay, but you're shifting the goalposts now, or else you are a different anon. It is one thing to say that Bellamy is doing a show with someone with shitty views that he disagrees with but is engaging on a show with for pragmatic and strategic reasons. Maybe that is happening; I don't think we know enough to know whether the co-host actually thinks those things or not. But this is *not* what other anons have been saying - they have been saying that Bellamy *himself* wants actvists and resisters labeled terrorists. And I think that is total BS and ridiculous cancel culture. It is *very different* to say on the one hand that someone might engage with people with bad views to try to find common ground (and the co-host claimed to be totally anti-state on the show, so I still find this hard to believe that he was calling for state crackfown) - it is *totally different* to try to say that person, Bellamy, *has* those views. Again, this is shifting the goalposts.

That's a different anon than me. But my earlier concerns stand. I think there's probably about four people in here attacking Bellamny and one person defending him.

I see several named accounts commenting along the lines of 'it was a retweet by his co-host ffs' and ONE named account commenting along the lines of 'OMG B IS NAZI'

If it is indeed four brave people brigading here can I ask where you came from? Reddit? Discord? Honest question.

I was going to leave my big comment above as the only thing I was ever going to say on this site, but this really got my goat.

I have a piece of advice: if you are genuinely interested in doing good in the world (through your anarchism or whatever), try not to use the term 'basketcase'.

It is a disgusting slur (that some might call ableist) against people with mental health difficulties, and as someone with CPSTD who is in recovery from severe trauma, I'm not going to stand by and just let this go.

So thanks for the benefit of the doubt that I'm not crazy, and for the efforts to calm the baying hordes of rabid ideologues, but please be very careful about the language you use, if you don't want to be seen stigmatising people.

That is all. Thanks! :)

it all started going downhill after controlled fire, i tell ya

the only thing Bellamy is guilty of here is being hopeful enough to continue to make media that he thinks might appeal to a scene poisoned with leftist crybabies and LARPy dingdongs that pop their horrified heads into the [online] anarchist space just long enough to add to the boring hysteria on social media only to boringly disappear into their boring, non-anarchist, boring lives never to be seen again... well that and his recent choice of co-host...

if these projects truly bother you on such an existential level then maybe you should do a little more than cry anonymously on anews... but they don't and you won't.

the other thing Bellamy is guilty of here is being hopeful enough to continue to make media that he thinks might appeal to a scene poisoned with RIGHTIST crybabies and LARPy dingdongs that pop their horrified heads into the [online] space just long enough to add to the boring hysteria on social media only to boringly disappear into their boring, non-anarchist, boring lives never to be seen again...

so its a sin to have an idea that could appeal to a "rightist"? (what is that btw?). your intellectual purity tests and elaborate mental gymnastics are giving you away as.... I don't know, an annoying person?

Shut up, you're drunk. You've been posting nonsense defending Bellamy for ten hours straight and it's undermining your grip on reality.

Aside from you (and Bellamy, if you're not Bellamy), he's just burned his bridges with everybody at this point. Set up a podcast with a far-right idiot, let the far-right idiot call for increased repression of blockaders, and try to call yourself an anarchist. It won't work.

or maybe (just maybe) there are multiple people on this thread who think you're wrong, and its hard for you to accept that other people have different ideas that contradict yours?

Why would a whole lot of people on an anarchist site defend the act of creating and promoting a space for far-right reactionaries to call for increased repression against anarchists? Either A) you're not an anarchist, or B) you don't understand the situation. I think you're one person changing your name over and over to pretend to be more people. I can't imagine that the average anews user nowadays is here to defend creating spaces for far-right reactionaries to call for increased repression against us. That's just crazy.

> Why would a whole lot of people on an anarchist site defend the act of creating and promoting a space for far-right reactionaries to call for increased repression against anarchists?

Because that never happened and anews commenters are generally interested in what is really happening, not in faux outrage and showing the internet how super woke they are by cancelling someone over a fucking retweet

Maybe you think someone can set up a twitter and just nonstop retweet far-right idiots, which is exactly what happened, without anyone disapproving, but this is not a Trump fan club, this is a space for anarchists, and your excuses for people posting far-right garbage are even more pathetic than Bellamy himself.

At least Bellamy had the spine to take down the tweets. You would defend them even if he hadn't.

> What is the argument FOR what Bellamy did? Anyone?

gnoring the obvious fact that it was a shared twitter account and wasn't him who retweeted it: a retweet is putting something out there for people to see and, you'd hope, have something interesting to say about.

you keyboard warriors are foaming at the mouth over literally nothing here

There's nothing interesting to say about promoting tweets from Alex Jones, Dinesh d'Souza, and somebody who wants to see the people described in the above article prosecuted as Nazis. Just what people have been saying here. Fuck you.

If it's literally nothing, why did Bellamy take it all offline when it came out?

Straight up the thing that’s going to push people out of anarchism is wack ass internet posturing like this. What a huge embarrassment. If you’ve read or listened to anything Bellamy has put out its clear where he stands. This is a disservice to the actual issues at hand. I honestly think original poster cares more about being an internet anarchist white knight than the blockades.

Stop making fucking excuses. There's nothing more fucking explicit than calling for the people doing the blockades to be treated like terrorists. This is fucking bullshit. I didn't get into the anti-Bellamy stuff until this, but this is egregious, and you posting excuses over and over is just embarrassing for you.

  1. Bellamy didn't call for anything. his co-host retweeted something that, once BF became aware of it and also as something he disagreed with, was removed.
  2. the only thing that is "fucking bullshit," "egregious," and "embarrassing" is your reading comprehension and continued bad faith engagement in this thread.
  3. dingdong.

except a retweet isn't the same as "calling for" something? In what way is a retweet of someone else's content an "explicit" call for any action? What's explicit about it? You could take that standard and cancel half of woke twitter. low on logic and high on self-righteousness

Bellamy understands that what happened was fucked or else he wouldn't have removed it. All the same, you're defending him. You want him to put the tweets back up? That would put him in a much worse situation. He doesn't want it to be clear how fucking pro-state the self-declared reactionary he's working with is.

Pack your stuff and leave. You're done.

How can I be done, Anonny, when I just got here? Funny feeling I'll be on this site long after you've cancelled it entirely (the horror!)

"Just got here," indeed. If you're not Bellamy himself, you're his fascist co-conspirator, trying to make excuses for your failed attempt to normalize begging the police for more terrorism charges. Maybe you're so confused (and keep changing your arguments—like, above, you're saying that we should feel bad for the poor trains, being "beaten with the people's stick") because you haven't even been on an anarchist site until now.

Going to start a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds so IGD can have comment functionality so these outraged e-activists can complain to each other and leave Anews forever.

IGD have thousands a month in donations to pay for... a single webhost server. The reason they don't have comments is not financial. It's because they want to control the narrative.

If you weren't a lazy little turd, you could write and submit an article to IGD and they'd probably run it. Their standards aren't that high. But you're such a lazy little turd, you'd never be able to do that. So you whine and complain like a little slug being stepped on by, like, a slightly bigger animal. Say, a rat. Yeah, you whine and moan like a little turd-shaped slug getting stepped on like a rat.

I've been over the fence lately about Bellamy, especially since during one of his last podcasts with A! he went on using the commonplace talking points of the Alt Right about "gubment gunna take our guns so let's prepare", that could have been a prank yet there's zero sign it was.

Then now you got this Alt Right mess on his Twitter page, indeed let being posted uncritically, then he does Youtube videos with this InCel neckbeard that can be only viewed when logging in (adult content, really?). So it's kinda like someone hijacked Bellamy to make him look like a not-so-crypto fash, except that it's... Bellamy himself doing that.

This is getting me interested. Looking forward to "ask him a few questions" at an upcoming ABF.

give me a fucking break, now a person's fascist if they don't want cops to take their guns? your ideas aren't even your ideas, I think you bought them in a Leftist temple. The stock market might be down, but the New Woke Orthodoxy must be rated for BUY NOW

Just like rfa.

"now a person's fascist if they don't want cops to take their guns?"

As I wrote, this has made me dubious, or "over-the-fence". Not certain of him being a fascist. The recent superfast accumulation of highly-suspicious evidence in his social media productions, on the other hand...

If your intent is to drag people away from the antifa dogmatism, you're doing exactly what you shouldn't be doing at the moment. Come back to your senses and consider *what is happening*, right now, instead of continuing on those knee-jerk defenses for your herd.

give me a fucking break, now a person's fascist if they don't want cops to take their guns? your ideas aren't even your ideas, I think you bought them in a Leftist temple. The stock market might be down, but the New Woke Orthodoxy must be rated for BUY NOW

New poster to the giganto-drama thread here. Pretty sure Bellamy's overtures to people on the Right have to do with this explicit statement on his blog: https://bellamyfitzpatrick.com/index.php/2020/01/22/decentralist-anarchy...

You can call it a bad idea, or wishful thinking, or whatever, but it's most definitely not fascist or authoritarian or some secret plot to support the state.

Also, it's batshit that people are throwing around these accusations while admitting that they haven't listened to the actual show, or seemingly read his blog, and...maybe aren't really familiar with much of anything Bellamy has done? He's always been adopting unconventional anarchist views and seems to always have some new thing he's thinking about and throwing out there, but, as someone who has corresponded with him a bit over the years, he's no fascist.

You don't have to listen to his show or click on the link you posted. All you have to do is look at the tweet he reposted:


That tweet and several more like it were all presented without any comment. He set up a venue in which his buddy was calling for increased repression of anarchists. That's all there is to it. Maybe it was his buddy choosing what to retweet, but it seems like Bellamy only considered it a problem when it came up here.

Seriously, this is just indefensible.Terrorism charges are real and some of us have already faced them.

He didn't 'repost' that tweet. Also, it's a news opinion piece. Also, people retweet stuff they disagree with all the time. Like literally hundreds of millions of times per day.

It's quite telling that you openly admit to having never heard B's show or read his writing, Dan. You're only here for the drama.

> Terrorism charges are real and some of us have already faced them.

You haven't faced anything. If you had, you'd know what it's like to have baseless accusations thrown at you by an ignorant mass.

Strength and solidarity to the blockaders! Fuck Bellamy for attacking them!

Come on, do people not remember the Atassa controversey that has dragged on and on, where Bellamy defended the LBC decision to publish it in spite of getting attacked over and over for 'sanctioning' eco-terrorism or whatever the charge was? And that Bellamy has cited ideas from Uncle Ted numerous times in his writing and podcasting? And now the claim is he is instead calling radicals terrorists and cheering state violence? This is obviously either a misunderstanding or a conflict between him and his co-host. Anarchists eat their own at the drop of a hat.

Maybe. We'll see how he handles it. If he keeps working with the person who posted all that stuff, that's not a good look.

Here's the first comment (and it's supportive) on the tweet that Bellamy's project posted:

"They are 100% terrorists and need to be treated like terrorists.. enough is enough. Cut funding to tyandenega and any other reserves trying to cause harm to Canadians."

It's followed by a bunch of other stuff like that. This is the discourse that they were promoting. While anarchists in Canada are getting arrested for this.

Episode #2 of "Liberty and Logos": https://libertyandlogos.com/episode-2-what-can-be-done/

2: 10 (Bellamy): When asked to explain concept of pan-seccessionism he replies: "I don't mean at all to claim that this is a novel idea of any kind...there are many people right now who are proposing it...we'll have some of these people on the show...."

On 'Left' and 'Right' Taking Part in a Pan-Secessionist Project

16: 55 (Bellamy): "I've started using this phrase, the myriad marginals, to describe the various groups who more or less, really don't like what is going on...but don't agree with each other...You have anarchists, anti-state communists, Right-Libertarians, religious fundamentalists, racial and ethno nationalists of all different kinds, Traditionalists...ex-military people who are very opposed to what is happening in American society....so they problem being that these are all small groups individually and for the most part don't like each other....that works to the advantage of the power elite...they play these factions against each other...

On White Supremacy Being Over; Replaced by Woke Capitalism

19:05 (Bellamy): "It used to be, the United States ran on a kind of white supremacist ideology, now it runs on this woke ideology that's being embraced by everyone from Hollywood to academia to Spite and Gilete and various corporations....because it pits everyone against each other, women and men against each other, people of different races...non-hetro against heterosexuals...we all hate each other....that same logic has bleed into the radical milieu....anarchists in North American have in large part [embraced] this..."

On Pan-seccessionism as the Only Strategy Forward:

24:25 (Bellamy): "As much as it might sound romantic or implausible...all those myriad margins, could somehow get along....I see, a greater likelihood and a higher intensity of violence through the world society, whether its the world society we are approaching now, or its this sort of liberated idea of a world society...and it seems far more possible to me, even its a very romantic idea, that we could through doing alternative media like this, disseminate the idea in each of these sub-cultural milieu, that I just described, that the overall strategy is pan-seccessionism. Our common enemy, as much as we may dislike each other, is the world Leviathan, it is globalism, it is this corporate monoculture...and if we could agree to voluntarily seceded, form organic communities, and agree to mutual non-interference and mutual defense pacts, I see that as...maybe the only strategy going forward..."

How to Go About Promoting Pan-Seccessionism:

28:20 (Bellamy): "I think the most likely way...my romantic scenario here could play out, could be...that these ideas get decimated, various subcultures start talking about them on their own, and they have to work out the contradictions each with their own milieu..."

This is all pretty cut and dry. Bellamy's strategy to get to a better world is working with groups on the far-Right and he's interested in using his platform, alongside people from that movement, to spread these ideas into other political circles, including those in the far-Right. As he stated out the gate, this isn't a new idea, and so-called "national anarchists" have been promoting them for decades now.

"organic communities"... (as in the fascist ideal for community)

"woke ideology that's being embraced by everyone from Hollywood to academia to Spite and Gilete and various corporations" Or CULTURAL MARXISM, right?

Oh my.

Nope. No one said that except you.

I wish you people would stop making shit up all the time. Seriously. Don't you have anything better to do?

I don't think Bellamy's idea is realistic, frankly, but there's not anything obviously sinister about it. Other anti-civ people like John Jacobi and the author of bolo'bolo have said similar things - if the world is decentralized, cultural conservatives and reactionaries will inevitably form their own enclaves. He's basically saying he wants to try to accelerate this by "disseminating ideas," and this is somehow being taken as him defending or encouraging those tendencies, which really isn't fair. If anything, he is attempting "entryism" into those right-wing groups, which I think is totally unrealistic, but, hey, give it a try.

As others have said, RT=/= endorsement is pretty much standard Twitter practice, so there is a way higher barrier of evidence than the critics are pretending there is. The guy is spending hours promoting secessionism on the one hand, and calling for state violence on the other? Use your brains.

Want to just drop a reality check in for our brethren that most anarchist revolutionary plans are unrealistic. At least I see Bellamy putting in the tough work to have conversations about it.

this whole thing is embarrassing. Bellamy is painfully almost always in good faith, largely to his detriment. the thoughtful argument against him would be that he believes In truth and is hopefully still always on the lookout and hunt for a solution, not that he is a nazi. sweet Jesus, anarchist lowest common denominator is fully embarrassing. this dude kills himself writing pages defending his positions and still you have no idea what he is talking about. I mostly disagree with him, but also let's just remember he is just one dude chit chatting about his opinions. The fascist entryism comments are so embarrassing.

A few years ago someone messaged me to tell me that a mutual friend was now a white supremacist and that I should be careful so I'm not converted. I found the message extremely pedantic and condescending. If we have to be "worried" about people being converted to fascism or nazism or w/e then I'm not part of we....oh wait I'm usually not part of "we" so big surprise. Also, all the ataxia discourse is so embarrassing it isn't even worth discussing. anyways, continue on w the torches and stones, I'm sure he's probably planting some shit or fermenting something or hopefully doing anything besides engaging in good faith with w anonymous internet commenters. oh lordie

I(like you?)also disagree with B on the issue of truth. I also think pan secessionism has too much of a call back to 20th century pan political projects. I'm more of a Nietzschean Heraclitusan then a platonic perennial truth guy but what I like about his approach is that he is asking concrete questions that arch post-leftists should be asking. He's not afraid to make a hard break with what I call 20th century legacy leftism. Part of that break means going against entrenched linguistic fundamentalisms which these fools don't even realize are that. This is what new anarchist and anarch thought patterns look like and many legacy left based radicals will not like this.

Let's also bear in mind that back in the genX days before the indymedia and post-indymedia infrastructure of today it was not uncommon for anarchists to make alliances with certain types of right wingers and reactionaries. Bob Black and his relations with Mike Hoy and others like him come to mind. For anarchists/anarchs that are fed up with the legacy left and its constricting discourse it makes sense to return to this sort of approach.

Whoa, settle down, this is traditional anarchist methodology which was carried on from its beginnings in the trenches of Catalonia in 1937 when the anarchists argued all the time amongst themselves. Mèanwhile, in the enemy trenches, Franco's cunning soldiers devise and ingenious plan to infiltrate and produce low morale in the anarchist trenches by calling some of them nazis and machismo.

Off by decades, although hilarious a sense. Just don't forget Franco wasn't the only threat. Recall that Stalin dude and that Hitler fellow played behind the scenes as well. Stalin pushed the anarchist grenaders into increasingly suicidal missions (without them realizing they were trapped from go) on the front.

This, instead is a case where someone doesn't even have to engage with your material and you're guilty of being a dinner. If the sinner speaks up to clarify or address anything they're still guilty. Any time or effort invested in not being guilty of sinning is just proof that they were a sinner all along and only guilty since birth. Correcting anything is sin. Not correcting anything is sin. You don't even have to do or be anything in order to be accused, and being accused is enough to be condemned guilty of every sin.

I remember it being easier to be a Mormon than this shit. Do some of these leftist (maoist) influenced anarchists want a religious cult? It is 10% of your income BEFORE taxes, and they hold you to that, the Mormons. Have at it.

Puritan hysteria is alive and well from both right and left in 2020.

Self crit or self flagellate in the square of its going down. That is your only option lest ye be burned on the pyre of wokeism. I wonder if it'd be better to be burned alive than to be constantly pecked at by these whiny babies.

The constant stress and pressure the average woke antifa supersoldier must feel must be immense. There are nazis everywhere in their social scene. Anarcho-Puritanism.

this is possibly the most pathetic thread i have ever seen on anews. and that is saying something.

all you twitter/facebook lemmings need to take a few months away from the internet, get a grip on actual life, and discover what it means to communicate directly (face to face) with other individuals in a meaningful way.

the level of critical thinking in many of these posts is below zero.

Prior to when Bellamy cleaned up these fash tweets, this would have been a brutally dishonest claim, but now I can at least assume that Bellamy's got foolhardy naive -at best- and also not that brilliant in his recent flirting with conservatives. Is he THAT desperate to find new co-hosts with ore something to say, at all? I'd be way more interested in a face-off between him and, say, the IGD podcast.

> Prior to when Bellamy cleaned up these fash tweets

*retweet. Singular. Don't forget what you're losing your shit over. A single click of the retweet button.

I for one would like the thank the brave discord anons on here for drawing my attention to Bellamy Fitzpatrick's new project. I had no idea he'd started a new podcast. Looking forward to listening to it.

Thanks again, comrades, and keep fighting the good fight!

Same! Just listened to the first episode and it’s great. Hopefully more controversy will bring more people to the project. It’s clear the IGD anarcho puritans need a new person to feel threatened by with A!s recent passing. Glad to see Bellamy keeping things alive. I always appreciate that he engages with folks in good faith even the ones who only have poison to spit.

this thread has been locked. almost all of the comments on this thread have nothing to do with the article. if you care for continued conversation, plz move it over to the forum.

Add new comment