Bellamy Fitzpatrick's podcast appearances

98 posts / 0 new
Last post
anon (not verified)
Bellamy Fitzpatrick's podcast appearances

Bellamy Fitzpatrick's podcast appearances

In case you missed it, Backwoods editor Bellamy Fitzpatrick has been venturing into unknown territory of late. Here's last week's guest appearance on 'Free Markets, Green Earth': http://nickpecone.com/fmge046/

anon (not verified)
bellamy fitzpatrick

whos that?

anon (not verified)
this right-wing, liberty

this right-wing, liberty loving dude

he has a podcast about liberty with another right-wing dude

anon (not verified)
> right-wing

> right-wing

can you give your definition of 'right wing', please? i'm guessing it's 'someone my internet friends said was bad' but willing to be corrected

> liberty loving dude

do you not love liberty, comrade?

> he has a podcast about liberty

free radical radio?

anon (not verified)
you're a fucking idiot. do

you're a fucking idiot. do you enjoy being so goddamn stupid? use your head for one second, jfc
http://bellamyfitzpatrick.com/index.php/2019/12/29/what-left-and-right-r...

anon (not verified)
> angry keyboard smash

> angry keyboard smash

woah calm down there, comrade. have you read the essay you linked? the whole essay I mean, not just the final paragraph.

anon (not verified)
mhm, y?

mhm, y?

anon (not verified)
goofy

- Invocations of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are extremely common in political discussions. Typically, they are deployed as hopelessly vague terms of abuse or goofy indications of team loyalty, unfortunately including among anarchists, libertarians, and other radicals. I have argued for years that these terms are so broad and multifarious in their usage that they have been bleached of almost any meaning and should be abandoned by sensible people interested in coherent dialogue in favor of a multi-dimensional political grid.

maybe you missed that bit, angry anon? i suspect you skimmed to the last paragraph where he points out the absurdity that he, an anarchist, when using most definitions of the word, would fall in the same 'right wing' category as various presidents, oil barons, fox news pundits etc.

if you're going to reply, try to do it without petty name calling this time. this isn't reddit.

anon (not verified)
Editor of Backwoods journal,

Editor of Backwoods journal, co-host of the Brilliant and Free Radical Radio podcasts, and author of these: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/category/author/bellamy-fitzpatrick

anon (not verified)
yeah he's made several

yeah he's made several appearances on ancap/libertarian podcasts in the last few weeks, he posts them on his twitter if you wanna check them out :)

anon (not verified)
a couple others:
anon (not verified)
BF podcast
TheTao (not verified)
lmfao

This is not a slight against Bellamy, but that title is hilarious: "free markets, green earth". I also still think it's funny that you all are still arguing about whether Bellamy is "right wing", that by itself is meaningless to me. I also still don't think him having radio shows with ppl who lean in that direction really matters either...

anon (not verified)
i think it’s cool to get an

i think it’s cool to get an caps to read uncle ted

TheTao (not verified)
I agree

Fuck all this dogma about associations

anon (not verified)
Yeah who even cares if Nazis

Yeah who even cares if Nazis were left or right anyways

anon (not verified)
liberty

'I also still think it's funny that you all are still arguing about whether Bellamy is "right wing", that by itself is meaningless to me.'

'You all'? It was literally only one person. It could be the first of the many brave anon keyboard warriors who pop up every time BF's name is mentioned, ready to fight to the death in the antifa vs evil culture wars, but at this point it's just one person who seems to have a knee jerk reaction to the word 'liberty'.

anon (not verified)
Because the word "liberty" is

Because the word "liberty" is totally free of any historical and cultural baggage whatsoever

Errsian (not verified)
Sorry to inform you that

Sorry to inform you that "liberty" has an historical and cultural quagmire going back to the Enlightenment some say 1678 others 1715, coinciding with the building of the first State run prisons.
So err, hrmm, be careful what you say.

anon (not verified)
Errsian dupe has pretty bad history

Enlightement movement has arisen in opposition not support of absolutist monarchies, i.e. the proto-totalitarian models of State. Yes, the notion of "liberty" is rooted in it, yet totally not in support of the prison system that was already being put in place by the monarchies for centuries prior to this. Also, monarchy... republic... not the same, and rather conflicting views of power.

As for 1678... you're referring to the monarchist "Cavalier Parliament" that grew up in response to an attack on Charles the Second? Not so enlightened... more like fascistic.

Errsian (not verified)
Err umm duh, no I wasn't

Err umm duh, no I wasn't referring to some petty little Anglo-fascist brawl with swords in 1678 but to the publishing of Newton's Principia Mathematica in the same year.
AND, err umm, *gasp* not to the decrepit random dungeoning of scallywags and traitors but to the institutionalization of a prison system within the judicial framework.

anon (not verified)
wow. is shoving someone into

wow. is shoving someone into an ideological box what is actually important to you right now? do you see what is going on out in the streets? wow.

anon (not verified)
What's going on in the

What's going on in the streets? The snowflake generation with their shallow liberal activism is fully mobilized. Return here in 6 mos and tell us more about the US being close to the revolution...

Bernie 2024

Errsian (not verified)
Nice to see someone with a

Nice to see someone with a hand on the national pulse.

anon (not verified)
savage

savage

anon (not verified)
i presume that racism, state

i presume that racism, state brutality and covid are all hoaxes, amirite?

SirEinzige
Bellamay and the ancap right libertarians

BF is actually doing what anarchists like Bob Black and others like him were doing in the 80s. The traditional relationships of more honest anarchists and the greater left have dried up so people like him are going to other discursive avenues. Ancaps, for all their flaws, do have a sincere openness to niche ideas so long as they play to broad questions of liberty. You'll never get a drunk humanist leftist or an anarchist of that ilk to be open to green anarchist ideas.

We are entering a new age of anarchy so I expect to see more of this kind of thing. BF(like me) is also not afraid of going after the dogmatism of intsec legacy leftism. I disagree with him of certain things and find myself more in agreement with his old co-hosting partner Rydra who has retained that nihilexistentialist egoist anarchy but I find BF refreshing and necessary for a new era of anarchist/anarch thinking.

TheTao (not verified)
one thing i think is interesting about the show

is how the host of the show says that Bellamy is "of the left", yet he never gets around to saying why...whereas, here they say that Bellamy is right winger without any real basis on...anything.

anon (not verified)
I don't know who it was who

I don't know who it was who quoted Marx as saying "property is theft" ? But it was Proudhon, and also, the statement is glaringly self-refuting.
This whole "attitude" of the left/right dichotomy must be scrapped, there has to be a ñew paradigm which places capital and property into a common utilitarian facility. Then peace will reign!

Errsian (not verified)
Most ana4chists are

Most ana4chists are intellectually slovenly and are unable to grasp the irrefutable realities of life, unfortunately. Smashy-smashy and grabby-grabby are their only options, except for a few of us wiser and more Machiavellian psycho-political masters.

anon (not verified)
Us irredeemables...

Us irredeemables...

anon (not verified)
No u,

pseudo-intellectual asshat.

anon (not verified)
wtf?

wtf?

Errsian (not verified)
Firstly, err, u and wtf, I

Firstly, err, u and wtf, I mostly singling out the organised anarchist movement who resemble more the radical liberal sector, not the individualist anarchs, err mmk.

anon (not verified)
"Machiavellian psycho

"Machiavellian psycho-political masters" sounds like a narcissistic piece of shit I'd do well to stay away from. Narcissism/Machiavellianism is like the second hand smoke of mental health. Why anyone would want to associate with people who constantly see and treat you as a pawn and wtf that has to do with anarchy is beyond me. I'm not even defending the "radical liberal" wtv anarchist movement, but what you're talking about is just fucked.

May we never meet in real life

Errsian (not verified)
Err *sighs* the fuck got to

Err *sighs* the fuck got to do with narcissism, rather a err cunning amoral survival strategy through the mire of stale left/right political ideologies.

anon (not verified)
Yeah, we have a name for your

Yeah, we have a name for your "cunning, amoral survival strategy" in the real world. It's called: narcissism. You think you're smart but I've met lots of people like you in anarchism who attempt to make a politics out of being or acting like a pathologically toxic prick.

anon (not verified)
Also, a "machiavellian psycho

Also, a "machiavellian psycho political master" sounds just like a regular politician.... and an abuser. I think maybe you're in the wrong place, friend...

anon (not verified)
Yeah, radical sjws here, only

Yeah, radical sjws here, only, nihilist scourge! Go do some drugs, you irredeemables!

Errsian (not verified)
Just stop, you are only

Just stop, you are only adding to psychological profiling methodologies. Either say something objectiveĺy or err,,,,,shutup!

anon (not verified)
I did objectively say

I did objectively say something, freak.

Errsian (not verified)
Yeah, but you err made the

Yeah, but you err made the object of my personality and not of the topic at hand. Ever heard the expression "let's keep to the topic" , or "Death of the Author" as reference to delving into the politics and personality of an author and using this to interfere and impunge upon the critique of their writings, and err, upon Bellamy's podcast.

anon (not verified)
Are you a fkn stone? Being

Are you a fkn stone? Being "anti-morals" isn't a politics, it's a mental disorder masquerading as a pseudo-intellectual position.

so called "dark triad" personality traits: narcissism, sociopathy, machiavellianism... are concentrated in the ranks of the Fortune 500 companies. Maybe go there, instead? Not interested in "sjws" here, either. Sometimes they're the biggest narcissists of all...

Errsian (not verified)
So the "light/fair triad"

So the "light/fair triad" must be the boring herd morality dumb sheep who follow and obey their "dark triad" masters?
Why is your whole cosmos/reality overwhelmed with binary narratives hmm *farts*

anon (not verified)
You're the one introducing

You're the one introducing false binaries here. First of all, there's no such thing as a "light/fair triad". The darktriad model established in the DSM-5 follows the understanding that these 3 traits I mentioned are typically co-existing and reinforcing one another in the people who have them. These traits exist on a spectrum, meaning it's not an "on/off" switch, but more like a dimmer switch.

Another binary you imagine: you're either a machiavellian sociopath narcissist exploiting others, or you're some naive, overly empathic "sheep" being taken advantage of.

Errr, um, errr.... how about being neither, ummm, err.... pinche maldito pendejo?

Hang yourself, narc. Take your binaries with you.

Big Navi (not verified)
I enjoyed BF's appearances on

I enjoyed BF's appearances on these various podcasts. He makes some solid points and is pretty good at articulating his ideas and answering the hosts questions. From a Green Anarchist perspective, I don't have any major problems with with his take on things.

One thing I noticed on BFs twitter feed however, was a few retweets of COVID conspiracy theories. For someone who comes across as wanting to be taken seriously as a rational writer, this struck me as odd.

anon (not verified)
covspiracies

where? i see tweets about how the virus hasn't proved to be as dangerous as people said it was and tweets about how the lockdown/'social distancing' measures are extremely authoritarian. is this what you mean by conspiracy theories?

TheTao (not verified)
i didn't see any

i only saw stuff when i looked at his twitter about how in the US one of the major experts admitted they over estimate the number of COVID deaths in order to get support for their treatment...

and if BF was putting up conspiracy theories it doesn't mean he believes them, he seems to just put up a lot of stuff out for personal interest or fascination...

Big Navi (not verified)
He retweeted it and quoted

He retweeted it and quoted parts of it above the tweet. There is no clue or evidence that he is questioning it. He seems to be fully endorsing it.

Big Navi (not verified)
BF is retweeting a well known

BF is retweeting a well known conspiracy site https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/offguardian/

The off-guardian article isn't just saying the virus hasn't proved to as dangerous (whatever that means) it says it's all "bullshit", implying it's all a hoax, or a false alarm, and "The danger is obviously no greater than that of many other viruses.", which is demonstrably false given the public reported death tolls.

If you bother to read the article as I did, it's based on 5 explicitly stated faulty assumptions:

1. Most people won’t get the virus.
Fact: Most health authorities say most [i.e. >50%] of the world's population will get the virus. A small percentage will get severely sick, and a small percentage of those will die.

2. Most of the people who get it won’t display symptoms.
Fact: This is currently unknown. Anywhere from 22 -80% of people could be asymptomatic. Even one of the studies the article linked to stated that only "22.2% of all infected individuals were asymptomatic." https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.04.20090076v2

3. Most of the people who display symptoms will only be mildly sick.
Fact: This is currently unknown, as most people have not been tested yet.

4. Most of the people with severe symptoms will never be critically ill.
Fact: Lol...Huh? By definition you are critically ill if you are having severe symptoms. Duh.

5. And most of the people who get critically ill will survive.
Fact: False for people over 65.

This is all part of the "covid is a hoax" narrative spewed by the far right Q Anon conspiracy theorists. Of course, other conspiracy theorists claim the virus is more deadly, and that deaths are being underreported, and that it's all part of a UN plot to depopulate the planet.

anon (not verified)
retweets

Oh are we doing the 'he retweeted this site therefore he endorses them and everything they write!' thing again?

Dismissing ideas you don't like as 'conspiracy theories' and people you don't like as 'conspiracy theorists' is extremely authoritarian.

Coronavirus is not yet fully understood by anyone. Stop talking as if you're an authority on it, and while you're at it stop appealing to the authority of mediabiasfactcheck.com (lol) and the various state institutions you're getting your facts and figures from.

Pages

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

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

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
@
e
W
W
#
Z
Enter the code without spaces.