TOTW: How pan is your pan-secessionism?

A while ago I/we made a topic of the week discussing differences among anarchists. This topic is about how you engage with not-anarchist people and ideas, stemming from the recent debate about Bellamy’s new project Liberty and Logos in which he’s engaging with someone who’s a self-identified reactionary (and someone who apparently has some unpleasant yet unsurprising interests according to some recently deleted tweets).

The concept of anarchy that Bellamy is working with here is one where there’s no big happy ending where everyone agrees with us (never mind us agreeing with each other) - an idea that most readers on this site can probably get behind. Most people, even people we love and care for, don’t agree with us, and relationships with people who aren’t anarchists are inevitable in this world. The more complicated question is where do we go from there?

Agree with his approach or not, this is what Bellamy is attempting. My question for you is, what is your next step from that premise? What does it mean to look for allies in a world that’s generally hostile to us? How wide do you draw your circle, where and how do you draw the line, and what does that engagement mean?

There are 120 Comments

Inb4 " is now part of Bellamy's fascist entryist plan!"

Seriously, though - why inflame this two days later when Bellamy hasn't even responded on his show? Do we really need some dumpsterfire thread again?

for as much as the Left was seen using "anarchism" to their ends, you also got the Far Right doing its own parroting, attempting to steer anarchos to their realm. I'll fight both tendencies of course, but since the latter is more dangerous in their *political fanaticism* and resources for its potential for direct interpersonal violence, I tend to be cautiously siding even with Leftists against these rats.

Lots of comments critical of bellamy have been deleted from this comments section, if anyone is curious why it's so one-sided. Not sure why the moderators are deleting what looked to me like legitimate arguments.

comments that are a. name calling, b. repetitive, c. unsubstantiated

but you get to say anything you want about missing comments, so... knock yourself out.

So the repetitive unsubstantiated defenses Bellamy and his intern keep posting here are not in violation of your statutes? Is that correct?

> his intern

do you honestly believe that the people who disagree with you are being paid to comment?

the reason the 'OMG BELLAMY' red brigade are thinner on the ground this time is because even the (faux) outraged reddit crowd can't get this much mileage out of a retweet. His co-host retweeted something shitty from a shared account. Bellamy deleted it. Move on.

Like the above poster said - seriously, why do this? It's just going to turn into people trying to dunk on Bellamy over nothing and then a brigade of defenders coming in. And why repeat the BS that something shady happened on Twitter when they already explained it? This is just shilling controversy for controversy's sake.

> people trying to dunk on Bellamy over nothing and then a brigade of defenders coming in.

the brigaders on the last thread were the 'OMG BELLAMY LITERAL NAZI' people. they came from discord. the defenders were regular, named anews users.

Swear I've never been to discord. I just think Bellamy's project tweeting in favor of the state bringing terrorism charges against anarchists is bad. That simple.


There's no way my pan-secessionist praxis will include room for an Ogre-bolo. I don't care what they say - we all know what 'Ogre separatist' *really* means!

We the goblins of the left will not let the crypto fascist post left ogres of Anews ever have a bolo.

Really don't want to hijack this thread and make it about the end game of cancel culture (like what happens if those cancelled gather and push back, or a really bad actor like state forces use the tactic against segments of the population (as if reputation smearing isn't already a practice amongst the weathy)), but this very old divide and conquer social engineering strategy end of idpol seems to have some roots here worth delving into:

That said, I am one of those folks that loves Bolo'Bolo, and and wish more were at the very least open to examining the consequences of their thinking on down the line of that lense (instead of ATR fantasies). Relations are all there are, and all we have is now.

I really thought that an interest in anarchy would surround me with open minded people. It's been so strange that many won't even engage with the material they're so critical of. Perhaps that's an anti-intellectual American thing, and perhaps it's a leftover of Marxist paternalism where somehow the proles will rise up yet they cannot be trusted with their own thoughts.

That sort of arrogance is what puts people off to anarchists in general. This need to be right is a totally puritanical religious notion.

Politics at this point in time is incapable of solving the problems of the world. It is because politics is a narrow logic of war (and always consider that that type of conflict usually has three sides). It is a theatre that ends up defining so many as the role of professional militants that Debord cautioned against (and most seemed to have ignored).

Humans are simply so much more interesting and dynamic than the roles and categories used to define them (and sometimes they happily confine themselves with).

Can we have reasonable conversation, avoiding hyperbole and hysteria, to intuitively grapple signal to noise ratio and bad actors in 2020?

What is a life worth living?

To me that looks like starting inside nondualistically, and moving outward to reconnect spiritually to a long term reappraisal of relations to the common living space that engenders all life forms, and the continually unfolding dynamic we are all situationally included in. To me, there are some really great people doing regenerative models of restoring soil health on the ground right now that would be fun to connect and play dangerously with in cahoots.

I don't think there's a Thing that we can fight and win Against. Some paths forward might instead being finding ourselves rendering the old models useless and no longer needed them. Militancy, and old political frameworks just don't allow for such a holistic outlook on a full life...

> someone who apparently has some unpleasant yet unsurprising interests according to some recently deleted tweets

tbf, they were retweets, not tweets.

retweet =/= endorsement etc etc

Exactly - why is @news recreating/endorsing this dumbass @-space fake news?

I want to know what happens in the anarchist future when someone doesn’t want to live in your anarchist utopia? Do you line them up against a wall for wanting to live differently? I don’t think many anarchists actually think that far forward because I think it’s still such a fantasy to them. It also makes me question how they interact day to day with people with very different opinions. Do they just haul up in their collectives shitting on the normies and occasionally crawl out to wail on someone who appears to be a nazi?

While this probably sucks for Bellamy what a good advertisement for his new project. Hopefully it’ll get actual engagement because of all this.

ever since realizing that leftist activism and propoganda are essentially useless for any kind of change i am interested in (~ 20 years ago), i have rejected any approach that relies on and perpetuates mass society. which immediately eliminates any leftist, rightist, or societal focus. bolo'bolo - or something relatively similar - has always seemed like the only viable option for any world i am interested in.

i long ago accepted the reality that everyone does not - and will not ever - think the same way, want the same things, choose the same way of living and relating. more specifically, there are an extraordinarily small number of individuals that share my perspective and desires for life. i am fine with that. i have no desire to coerce, or otherwise force - others to think/live as i do. and i for damn sure won't let others do that to me, to the extent i am capable.

so, accepting that there are many ways in which individuals choose to think, live, relate, etc, was a primal step towards understanding my life, and acting with my own agency to create it continuously as i desire. it seems many here, and politicians everywhere (i use that term very broadly, not simply confined to formal governance), are incapable of such open mindedness. there is this seemingly unconquerable desire for everyone to agree on how everyone should live and relate; which of course leads to the dogmatic belief that there is only one correct way. and of course, everyone knows THE correct way is THEIR way.

it boggles my mind that so many seemingly smart people are incapable of envisioning a world without mass society and mass conformity (of ideas in particular). the bolo'bolo concept speaks well to the (blatantly obvious, to me) idea that people are different, and forming social groups is best left to individual choice and affinity rather than dogma, tradition and imposed moralism (by any name).

i don't know enough about pan-secessionism to understand how it relates to the bolo'bolo concept. but the fact that there will be individuals that i disagree with is an absolute certainty. i have no problem with a nazi bolo, that is the choice of those involved. if/when they choose to impose on anyone else, that will be dealt with by those being imposed upon and their allies. at that point it is all about relations. the exact same thing could be said of antifa, feminists and the rest of the progressive left that would choose to impose their morals on everyone. authoritarian behavior is just that, regardless of the underlying ideologies.

one final point (which, like all of them, has been brought up many times before). the welding of people to ideas is pathetic. because someone espouses an idea that you associate with the right wing, or fascism, or whatever, does not make them a fascist or a right wing nut. i'm not saying they aren't, i'm just saying that assumption is the kind of generalization that could never be useful if one is actually wanting clarity. there are ideas that are associated with the right that i might agree with, jjust as with the left, or with any other defined strain of thought. yet i am neither right nor left. those are at best barely useful labels, and at worst rigid identities. rather than trying to shoehorn individuals into pre-defined boxes, maybe just take in their ideas and do what you want with them. reject some, consider others as possibly useful, etc. i doubt any benefit has ever been gained by making broad assumptions about people based on severely limited observation of behavior, interaction or communication.

think critically, act personally, reject dogma. some of my principles.

It seems obvious to me that anarchism is a breakaway from mass society. But so many anarchists don’t see the managerial forces at work who want a perfectly managed anarchist utopia. If only we could prefigure it it’ll happen! If you spend enough time on IGD you’ll think the people are just minutes away from the revolution and that they’re all actually anarchists.

"anarchism is a breakaway from mass society"

i wish i could agree. far too many folks that use the term "anarchism" tend towards leftist, social strains. revolution, mass movements, classes of masses, etc. perhaps that is why i almost never use the term. i prefer the term "anarchy", which for me speaks more directly to a way of being and relating.

regardless, other than the more individualistic @s i have known, most seem to only be able to think of change on the scale of mass society. yes, that is the left arm of the anarchistic universe, but in my experience, that includes most (self-described) anarchists i come across either irl or online. a pity, for sure.

Speaking of "anarchism is a breakaway from mass society", there is or at least was a social center in chicago called Breakaway. Except, the "breakaway" meaning of it was the elite Tiqqunists or "those who hear the Call" breaking away from all other radical projects in chicago and using it as a hub to strategize taking over those radical projects. It didn't work. So Breakway stayed fairly isolated, a few others came and went, but the core members continued to try to hijack demonstrations and distribute communization theory zines.

"no big happy ending where everyone agrees with us (never mind us agreeing with each other) - an idea that most readers on this site can probably get behind. Most people, even people we love and care for, don’t agree with us, and relationships with people who aren’t anarchists are inevitable in this world. The more complicated question is where do we go from there?"

This really has nothing to do with pan-seccessionism (PS), nor even what Bellamy is proposing. You're doing a disservice to the discussion and attempting to brand Bellamy's proposal which is pretty straight forward: that anarchists should work with far-Right groups to secede from the US and towards that end, enter into mutual agreements for non-aggression and mutual defense, into instead some sort of moralistic question of if anarchists should work with non-anarchists.

Again, what Bellamy is proposing, and this is laid out in the Liberty and Logos show, is that representatives of the various marginal political groups from anarchist to far-Right, that don't like the (current) State secede from it, theoretically causing a collapse of the State or at least some sort of...something. He goes on to argue that these groups should form non-aggression agreements and mutual defense pacts, that way if the National Socialist ethno-state down the way gets attacked by "the State," the Anarch Commune will have their backs. In the episode on PS that is on Bellamy's video-cast, he even talks about Richard Spencer being the arch-type for a representative for the white nationalist movement, that in theory "the anarchists" would sit down at a table with and hash out an agreement.

If at this point you aren't seeing the Ancient Aliens guy meme pop up in your head...

This is completely different from the general notion A-News is presenting that building anarchic relationships or pushing back against the State means that we will work with and interact with people who aren't anarchists, as if this hasn't been the hallmark of modern anarchist activity. For the people at A-News to present Bellamy's ideas as such is just an attempt to justify his strategy. "You're not opposed to talking to your neighbors are you? You're not opposed to working with non-anarchists are you?"

Actually think about what Bellamy is proposing:

1.) Imagine if Bellamy's idea was taken seriously and anarchists put effort into reaching out to the "myriad marginals" that Bellamy mentions on his show; groups the far-Right. Do you think any of the actual movements and communities we work with now would want anything do with us if we did engage in such a project? The abolitionist, prison rebel, and black liberation movements and currents? The Native communities anarchists have spent decades working with? The people anarchists meet everyday doing tenant, labor, community organizing? You think any of these people, who by and large are not anarchist, would want anything to do with us if we were signing "non aggression pacts" and "mutual defense clauses" with neo-Nazis, anti-abortion zealots, and the Alt-Right? Why is this even something that people think is a good idea? Why do they think this strategy is going to create literally more of a critical mass against the State - literally working with people on the far-Right who are obsessed with the State and property, rather that building with other currents already organizing, fighting back, and in resistance to the State, white supremacy, the police, etc? Even if we reject revolution or insurrection as a strategy, wouldn't it then make more sense to work with the currents in society already pushed to the margins of class society to take the next leap, instead of making nice with the local Three Percenters who want to bring back 1776?

2.) Bellamy wants to create mutual defense pacts and agreements between anarchists and the far-Right in order to secede from the US. How does the anarchist movement even all sit down with another movement and make those decisions? Are we electing a spokesperson? It's funny how he and his host are critical of the Zapatistas and Rojava because it's "basically Communist," but somehow we're supposed to believe it'll be totally chill for all the anarchists to be represented by...some group...that sits down and hammers out agreements with...Nazis?

3.) It's ironic that people who have spent the majority of their political lives attacking 'activism' and 'mass organizing' really seem into a numbers game. Bellamy tells us that the only way that the State will collapse is that anarchists need to work with the far-Right to secede - but even just based on numbers, why is putting our faith in working with the far-Right a better strategy than trying to organize and intervene within the tensions of industrial class society? Like seriously, how big are the groups on the far-Right? Putting aside how stupid it would be to 'work' with groups from the Oath Keepers to the National Socialist Movement, these groups are still pretty small. The idea, even from a standpoint of numbers and strategy, doesn't even make sense.

4.) Imagine if somehow anarchists actually agreed to "mutual defense pacts" with the far-Right. Does that mean the next time the Alt-Right has a tiki torch march and tries to attack students holding a protest or some liberals in a church we show up to do security to protect the Nazis? We have to protect the KKK from the police? Work with far-Right vigiliantees to dismantle Native blockades? This is literally the logic that Bellamy is proposing. After all, he refers to these people as "dissidents."

5.) How would a PS movement that essentially creates more States/ethno-states but preferable to just the "Leviathan" state? Bellamy's idea sounds fucking horrible and pretty much like the world we have now. ISIS controls this territory, neo-Nazis over here, anarchists have this place, maybe an-capistan over here - and we all have "mutual defense pacts" against the "bad State?" So stupid. An alternative would be strengthening and expanding the zones of autonomy that already exist.

6.) Earth to Bellamy, 99% of the far-Right wants nothing to do with you and if you think in a post-PS world (whatever that means) they wouldn't hesitate to destroy us to take our shit, "mutual defense pact" or not, you're an idiot. Most current far-Right organizations want to take over the existing State anyway. Others state plainly that they will fight for more "living space." The Turner Diaries, which is about people waging a guerilla war against a "globalist State," ends by the new State literally nuking the rest of the non-white world, after having slaughtered all the "communists" and "race traitors." People like Matthew Heimbach talk about murdering ever Jew and leaving not one left alive. You really think they are gonna wanna participate in your autonomous-Balkanization project? Even within the accelerationist, 'burn it all down' groups, they still ultimately want an authoritarian, Hitlerian national socialist State.

7.) It has to be pointed out, but isn't it ironic that the crowd that would never be caught dead engaging in "coalition building" or working with Left groups is calling for a model UN with people who want to turn most of us into lamp shades? If a critique of Left Unity means anything to anarchists, and it does, then it should also hold just as much water, if not more, for working with far-Right groups. DER DER.

8.) There's literally projects focused around autonomy and building resiliency against the current nightmare popping up everywhere. From people squatting buildings, forming networks of gardens, and creating a DIY internet in Detroit, everything that groups like Cooperation Jackson are doing, what's happening in Puerto Rico with the growth of popular assemblies, everything that is popping off in Canada...the idea that there aren't non-anarchists having similar conversations and doing similar things is a fallacy and that instead we should actively work to build bridges with the far-Right is just straight up dumb ass shit and I think everyone knows it no matter how much you wanna play edge lord on the internet. The idea that the holy crusaders of the Beautiful Idea from da big bawd weft are defending this racist garbage is just fucking sad.

This is obviously not what he means. Here is Bellamy on Richard Spencer: "Indeed, Spencer’s vision of establishing a desirable society through an “ethno-state” is either deviously mendacious or hopelessly naïve, as — even if one were, due to an extreme White Nationalism, indifferent to the terror and misery that would undoubtedly be caused by an ethnic cleansing of all or part of the United States — the bureaucratic-police apparatus necessary to achieve it would assuredly develop its own inertia and become an institution of sustained tyranny over its European-American host population. The Alt-Right thus ironically parallels the vulgar communists who imagine, against evidence and intuition, that a dictatorship of the proletariat, having seized the State and used its authoritarian powers to secure the transition to communism, would ultimately then allow a withering away of the State to create a stateless society. The irony of this parallel dissipates with the clarity that both the political Left and the political Right have, from an anarchist perspective, always had more in common than they have had differences: both have the aim of Statecraft — that is, authority of the few and slavery of the many."

From here:

4.) Imagine if somehow anarchists actually agreed to "mutual defense pacts" with the far-Right. Does that mean the next time the Alt-Right has a tiki torch march and tries to attack students holding a protest or some liberals in a church we show up to do security to protect the Nazis? We have to protect the KKK from the police? Work with far-Right vigiliantees to dismantle Native blockades? This is literally the logic that Bellamy is proposing. After all, he refers to these people as "dissidents."

I think this is a really good question. Can someone address it, please? Who here wants to put their body on the line to protect the Unite the Right folks from cops? Anyone?

You're missing the point. The mutual defence pacts B mentioned (not sure he even suggested them yet) would be DEFENSIVE pacts for enclaves.

So an ethno-enclave of all whites that lives a few miles from, let's say a green anarchist enclave, MIGHT (feasibly) agree to come to each other's defense IF RAIDED BY THE GOVT.

So don't miss the point entirely. It would be defensive in nature.

Remember the history of WW1? Italy were in what they thought was a defensive alliance. Austria-Hungary initiated an armed conflict, so Italy said 'ciao' to the Entente and went their own way.

So this is not protecting the KKK from anyone, since the KKK are the strawman you are imposing.

You really need to learn the meaning of the word 'literal', also

It's very noteworthy that Bellamy listed a shitload of different hypothetical groups that could agree to secession, and people are acting like he is exclusively talking about reaching out to Richard Spencer or something. Clearly, people who wanted a large, technological state would be a non-starter for coalition building, which Bellamy has talked about since FRR days. Both he and his co-host specifically talked about a Nazi-bolo being an extremely negative thing that would have to be dealt with by trying to put soft power on it to dissolve and supporting people in abandoning it.

You're shadowboxing, dude.

You can actually listen to what he said.

Amory Devereux: "Mutual non-aggression, I can imagine, ok, it would take time, it would take, a number of individuals to exist within each group who excelled at diplomacy, tact, negotiation, compromise and so on...I can imagine Richard Spencer in a room with Louis Farrakhan...

Bellamy: "I can imagine that yeah."

AD: "And after sometime, them saying, "Alright, we'll leave each other the fuck alone..."

Bellamy: "I mean...these are humorous examples to me...Spencer he has this whole, I wanna recreate the Roman empire, kinda thing, so I don't know if that'd he would be the best diplomatic representative in my imaginary scenario..."

AD: "His equivalent..."

Bellamy: "Sure, sure, sure."

Right, so he is saying that because Spencer wants to create a huge state, it wouldn't work.

Right, Bellamy doesn't even care that Spencer is a racist whose parents own a plantation, that doesn't bother him. Spencer is just THE WRONG KIND of white supremacist for his tastes.

> Bellamy doesn't even care that Spencer is a racist whose parents own a plantation, that doesn't bother him. Spencer is just THE WRONG KIND of white supremacist for his tastes.

Where did he say that? Try to converse without making shit up, comrade.

He didn't... That's the thing.

Bellamy's using these very secondary arguments that also dismissal of the threat caused by these.groups, completely dodging the fact that they're White supremacists.

I'd very much like to hear/read Bellamy's stance on racism in the US as I don't recall any significant statement of his on this topic.

But what about the friends who aren't white who would never sit down with Spencer or someone like him? Negotiations fail? The white ("European American") anarchists throw PoC out to get something from the white nationalists/supremacists? No thanks. I would never count on a guy (Bellamy) who seems to go out of his way to avoid talking about race in America to suddenly have a backbone when it comes to "negotiating" with white nationalists/supremacists, and not capitulating.

Who has the entrenched position here? White nationalists/supremacists who have been looking for better ways to engage in entryism in the anarchist scenes, or a guy who does a back to the land project and is citing a "national anarchist" political position (pan secessionism via K. Preston & A ttack the S ystem) within a couple of years? Talk about embarrassments to the milieu...

> seems to go out of his way to avoid talking about race in America

He talks about race many, many times on both The Brilliant and Free Radical Radio.

> a guy who does a back to the land project

Land projects are racist now? That'll come as a surprise to all the indigenous people currently doing exactly what BF is doing. How do you know his particular land project is exclusively white? You're making a lot of bad faith assumptions here.

> citing a "national anarchist" political position

He has talked about this, and how his position is not that of the 'national anarchists', at length, going back to his The Brilliant days. If you'd make any effort to engage with the material you're so faux outraged by you'd know this.

Yeah, or you could just take people at their word instead of demanding I watch 5 hours of talking heads. Or 120 hours of The Brilliant just to take notes every time he mentioned race. No thanks! I knew about pan secessionism long before Bellamy started showing interest.

so you've not seen any of what you're so upset about, but are instead basing your position on the word of an authority somewhere? is this that anarcho-Maoism people keep talking about?

Usual accusations of "Maoism" every time some person gets critical or asks too many questions about some talking head's positions. Something something Purist paranoia something....

I feel it's totally relevant to be asking these questions, as the Far Right has grown increasingly toxic and invasive over the last few years and... yes, they've set up beachhead in anarchyland... and yes, also on this very site... and maybe, you could be one of them, denying the agency of their own groupings, just as many other comments can.

And if it's so evident to you how Bellamy talk about race and racism, then maybe you could source your claim? As neither I recall him taking about the matter. And no, obviously I didn't listen to every second and read every word from his productions. How can you expect anyone to!?

Anews should remove commenting and become carefully curated and talking points driven a la IGD or crimethinc. Otherwise someone might have a thought of their own and follow through with commenting here with it! Echo chambers really are the way to safeguard against authoritarianism, comrade. The masses are too susceptible to the virus of bad-thought that we must spoon feed them. We MUST maintain perfect Public Relations. A united party is our biggest strength in the fight against the bad stuff.

You piss on the masses you pretend to want to save.

Now you're being the silly moron, here, loiterhard. Dunno if it's brain clots, macho self-pride, both... Of course everyone ends up farting from the brain at some point and that's maybe a biological thing and we can't help, but when you become so hard convinced that 2 + 2 = 5, well you turn out to be the ultimate stink. It's like Flat-Earthers, you know.... Post-Truth n shit.

Of course the internet has never forced anyone to be "sincere" just like it never forced anyone to not be a total asshole, a political bigot, or any more elaborate form or manipulative jerk. Which doesn't mean you have to be that way.

So just like a few others here you have drawn the forced, irrational equation that "moderating" means "being the police"... aaaaand also that removing the most vile, extreme, bigoted trollbait makes Anews to instantly become another IGD (that isn't "curated", but never allowed any comment, jsyk).

Wow, get a grip, dude.

If there's a thing I can't stand is absolutists, as their convictions are a mirror image of their implicit totalitarian views. Maoists... Fascists... White racists... Nation of Islam... Trans fanatics and the rest of ID pols.... Infowars morons... Appelistas... You name it.

I so much thank Thecollective for cleaning up at least some of this bigot filth over the years. I recall being the one (or oen of the first) to have alarmed them as soon as an Attack the System post ended up on this site, for instance. And if that shitty nationalist drivel would have been given a free unrevokable platform for all this time, that would have dwarfed the whole bickering on, say, Atassa and LBC.

So now, back to the meaty stuff... Any idea of why an anarchist oultlet should contribute to the spread of racist Far Right bigotry, or any other authoritarian bullshit, on the net? Just text me when you got a straight answer, silly boi. Thanks!

- Your loyal comrade of the Party

I'm going to ignore your meanness

What I was speaking to, sarcastically, was the idea that the far-right has a "beachhead on anews" and the ensuing paranoia of that view. As if people in the comments aren't capable of being critical and capable of calling things bullshit when they see them as such. Yes, cops, far right, stalinists, whatever can and have posted here anonymously for over a decade. Do you think there is some simple solution to that? Aggressive moderation was's style and it basically killed conversation that didn't fit the ideas of the moderator (particularly anti-organizationalist and insurrectionary anarchist type commenters were heavily moderated). After all these years I don't see there being some spooky fascist undercurrent to anews. I DO see anews as filling a void that IGD etc are not able to with the way they run their sites. I DO think that the talking points prescriptive style of writing at the end of every (many?) IGD article is dumb, but perhaps :p I am not their target audience.

I don't know where you got the idea that I think "the most vile, extreme, bigoted trollbait" should stay posted to anews. In fact the commenter I was replying to didn't even seem to be talking about vile extreme bigoted trollbait, but a more crypto entryism. The nasty stuff you are talking about is either irrelevant/off topic or ad hominem and thecollective seems to do a pretty good job of dealing with it. I also think thecollective does a good job sticking to what is already stated in the about section of the site (apparently some need to be reminded of this):

About "anarchism": We recognize that there are many different definitions of anarchism out there, as well as many different kinds of people who call themselves anarchist. We do not seek to promote one uniform definition of anarchism, but we do have some broad outlines for what we think fits inside that term. For starters, we consider anarchism to be an outlook that is fundamentally opposed to the existence of capitalism and the state, regardless of what forms they may take. One may also go further and say that anarchism is opposed to all forms of social hierarchy, authority and/or domination. And to be more specific, anarchism in our eyes does NOT include "anarcho-capitalism" or "national anarchism".

"So now, back to the meaty stuff... Any idea of why an anarchist oultlet should contribute to the spread of racist Far Right bigotry, or any other authoritarian bullshit, on the net? Just text me when you got a straight answer, silly boi. Thanks!"

I think you are taking a very ungenerous read of my post with this question. Does being a relatively open platform equal contributing to the spread of racist far right bigotry? How would you quantify and measure anews' contribution to such spread? As if that were even possible. I appreciate that anews is less echo chamber-y than other places while also not being 4chan.

If you want to talk about irrational equations, I guess you and I both are guilty of reductio ad absurdum fallacy in this thread.

-your silly boi

> the Far Right has grown increasingly toxic and invasive over the last few years and... yes, they've set up beachhead in anarchyland... and yes, also on this very site...

This is what I've been saying all along! It's the faaascist creeep comrades!

I love this narrative cope: the pro-state crackdown accusation didn't stick, the fascist creep accusation didn't stick, so now try to smear him as some sort of racist because he didn't talk about race enough. It's not enough to criticize someone's ideas - you have also to claim that person is horrible, right?

I personally think Bellamy's scheme has as many problems as the social revolution concept that I know he rejects as basically impossible, but the guy has shown no sign of thinking or doing anything seedy. I am personally pretty tired of the walk-on-eggshells atmosphere created by this sort of accusation culture.

Also, this wouldn't exactly look like classical state to state negotiation. We're talking about what would be regional likely land locked bumpkins in places like Montana(and certainly not all of it or even most).

I don't like the term pan and I personally try not to work with people I don't like or give them any indirect help to further their project but I do think some type of discourse on secession makes sense. You have to make do with the fact that a post-empire state of affairs would be something of a poly descriptive mess. I think team anarchy does better in this context however then a universalist world societal project which will need a historical marking and making force of power.

amazing ziggy … you're still at it! in 2020! after everything that's happened, here you are!

still regurgitating the same tone deaf, astonishingly willfully blind analysis about how everyone needs to chill and just ignore those silly paranoid exaggerations about the threat from the far right.

the audacity … the shamelessness or stupidity required for this… very impressive!

Give me concrete examples. Where is the raising psychology of racism in the US outside of a marginal flash in the pan akin to the far left in 1968 who did not take over US political economic power. Face it, you're looking at phantoms. Yes there is Donald Trump in office but he is not exactly a reactionary revolution. The 4 years are almost up and if he gets another 4 he will likely not turn the country upside down. Imagine if McGovern had gotten elected in 72, he would not have been the radical lefts manchurian prez just as Trump is not beholden to the Spencer Crowd. The man had Kim and Kanye as guests for fux sake.

Again I ask, WHAT is the threat and what has happened? I'm all eyes.

free association/disassociation is a foundational principle of my anarchy, so if bellamy wants to team up with "right wingers", far out. i would hope that association would be based on individual affinity based on a real relationship, and not affinity with some (group) identity or label. iow, he would possibly associate with any number of individuals with any number of perspectives.

it would be easy to write off anyone from either right or left, given the dogma and oppressive/dominating behavior that drives both. or, one could look at an individual, get to know them (beyond social media and heresay) and where any affinities might be, and not even think about what ideological box they may or may not fit (or be forced) into.

just food for thought.

TL;DR edit: Bellamy said [something he didn't say] and here are ten reasons why I disagree with [the thing I just made up].

The fact that he took down the tweets definitely suggests that he did something that not even *he* agrees with. You're the one trying to conceal it.

It appears that this drama deposit has been exhaustively mined. You don't have to go home but you can't stay here.

"An alternative would be strengthening and expanding the zones of autonomy that already exist."

I don't think he would disagree with this, but the point is, eventually, you run into millions if not billions of people who don't want to live the way you do, so what do you do then?

"Bellamy's idea sounds fucking horrible and pretty much like the world we have now. ISIS controls this territory, neo-Nazis over here, anarchists have this place, maybe an-capistan over here - and we all have "mutual defense pacts" against the "bad State?" So stupid."

Okay, so what do you do with those people who have ISIS-type values, or even way milder but still reactionary-from-your-point-of-view values? Serious question. Some would join you when given a chance, some would come around from seeing examples of a better way of life, but a lot would not. This is why Bellamy is talking about the "world domination anarchism" mindset.

"Okay, so what do you do with those people who have ISIS-type values, or even way milder but still reactionary-from-your-point-of-view values? Serious question. Some would join you when given a chance, some would come around from seeing examples of a better way of life, but a lot would not. This is why Bellamy is talking about the "world domination anarchism" mindset."

Don't know if anyone has "the answer," but this conversation is different than what Bellamy is proposing in terms of a strategy for right now, that the forward is to work directly with far-Right groups to form mutual defense and non-aggression agreements.

This is turning into the same dumbass discussion as on the last thread. He gave a laundry list of people at the beginning including "utopian socialists" and religious people, and you are acting as if he named one exclusively.

All the anti Bellamy folks in here are so ready to commit genocide on every non anarchist left in the world in the name of the rev

All the larping about guillotines is just as cringe as alt right people talking about giving leftists helicopter rides.

commenting over and over agreeing with yourself, I see. Various anarchists have rejected guillotines of late. You're just straw-manning because there is no real argument that could give any value to what you are trying to do.

The dumb thing (one dumb thing, rather) about Bellamy is that he's saying he wants to coexist with people who really don't give a damn about coexisting with him. He was shocked (apparently!) about the statist & conspiracy theory trash his co-host published, but that's totally representative of the politics of the people he wants to buddy up with. They might /tell/ him they want autonomy from the state, but when in the last several centuries have white supremacists actually wanted real autonomy (which would depend on solidarity with non-whites against the state, for self-defense) rather than just some fake rhetoric about liberty to cover up their real agenda?

Settles on the frontier could say they were "independent" until they had to call in the army to defend them from savages. That is the "autonomy" that Bellamy's new friends want.

As for your "laundry list" comment, it doesn't matter at all if bellamy hides the Nazis among a bunch of other identities. He's still going out of his way to say he wants to work with them.

I don't think he's actually an entryist. I think he's just a damn fool.

"Remooove those ANTIFA moralist mental blocks from yoooouuu! White supremacists and nazi hate speech is all fine, but also, they're not nazis or WS, it's just you making things uuup! They're Whites who're really just into the 14 words, that are okay but not WS dogmatism, duuude! It's all gooood. Now here's some anti-civ dark enlightement podcast for you to enjoy..."

- your local O9A branch

Spoken like a true antifa super solider. In what podcast does Bellamy recite the 14 words? Have fun being the speech police anarcho comrade. Suppression of speech isn’t fashy at all. You all are so concerned that other anarchists are turning into fascists but you’re playing straight out of the same playbook. Kill the cop inside your head bud.

I wasn't referring to Bellamy reciting the 14 words, but rather some trolls hanging out here and more openly on anarchyplanet. There's yet no evidence Bellamy is anywhere near a fash... yet he's part of this trend of allowing bridge-building with them.

And why is "antifa" such a big issue for you? Did they took anything from you? Like your free-dum... yer cuntry.. or your manly-man-manhood!?

> I wasn't referring to Bellamy reciting the 14 words, but rather some trolls hanging out here and more openly on anarchyplanet

I'm on here and on the IRC most of my waking hours and you're literally the first person I've ever heard mention 'the 14 words'

Doesn't mean reciting them upfront, you bad-faith windbag. It's an obvious reference to White racists who're still huge in the US and especially bathing within the cesspools of the internet, like you know...

And Other Maoist Tricks To Getting Ahead! Win Any Internet Argument With This One Weird Trick!

Can someone explain to me the link of Maoism with woke left anarchism? This is a genuine question because I see it being referenced a lot. I don’t really know anything about Maoism.

from what I gather, the theory is the Maoist influence on mid century new-left movements that have led to contemporary identity in-group policing practices. this essay explains a bit of the link in the section: Identity Politics and Maoism.

You clearly have no fucking clue how I hate Maoists and the rest of the these totalitarian leftists who got everywhere.

In your own political fanaticism you think in binaries; I don't.

> I hate Maoists and the rest of the these totalitarian leftists

So why are you acting like them? Anarchs don't purge, comrade.

I remember a Bob Black article somewhere in which he talked about how while just about any anarchist would say they hate the U.S./British justice system of trial by jury and whatnot, many of them want to replace it with something even worse - guilty by accusation until proven innocent.

This whole thing is mind-reading, bad faith, immediately jumping to the worst possible interpretation. Two days ago Bellamy was definitely an entryist, now it's that he is being deceived by his co-host who is an entryist...why not just see what actually happens with the show before rushing to judgment? Ffs, they haven't even responded yet.

Bellamy has been extremely anti-identitarian for years - I find it next to impossible to believe he would now somehow have flipped to alt-right, or that he would somehow be deceived by them. It is honestly weird to me how easily some people think it is to flip, as if just talking to someone would make someone become a fascist.

And I say all of this as someone who is skeptical of this whole strategy being proposed, but as someone who also thinks people should be able to propose dubious ideas without getting dogpiled, slandered, or purged. Clearly things are very bad in our current moment, and creating an atmosphere that punishes (or, for that matter, uncritically embraces) heterodox thinking is not helpful.

> It is honestly weird to me how easily some people think it is to flip, as if just talking to someone would make someone become a fascist.

One of the comrades in the last brigade seemed to think that just listening to Liberty & Logos would 'convert' (their word) someone into a fascist. Scary.

That's actually a misrepresentation of what was said. Some pro-Bellamy person (or maybe just... Bellamy) was like, "ALL THIS CONTROVERSY SURE MAKES ME WANT TO SUCK BELLAMY'S DUCK!" in all sincerety, and some anti-Bellamy person parodied that by being like, "ALL IT TAKES FOR ME TO WANT TO CONVERT TO FASCISM IS FOR PEOPLE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT"

But if you're the same anon behind alllllll the other Bellamy masturbating, I'm not surprised at your critical reading abilities being pooooor.

keep 'em coming comrade! for the revolution!

^^^ not a reply to anon, to be confused with anon or anon but definitely directed at anon!

did the anti-Bellamy gang change the look of the site? it's horrible, and therefore one step closer to fascism!

I was astonished that this became TOTW after the thread from two days ago.

I am not going to respond to things here (except for one thing below), but I will respond to the most salient themes from comments from this and the previous thread in the next episode. High-energy haters are welcome to e-mail me at - if you write something coherent and fleshed out, I will read it verbatim, insults and all (creativity welcome, but maybe not the 'masturbating covered in peanut butter' thing again), and respond on air.

Let me just say once and for all: neither Amory nor I were, are, or would call for state violence on dissidents or anyone else, and it is either paranoid (given the content of my numerous past media projects), dishonest, or delusional to keep insisting that this is what happened. People claiming this have nothing but the mind-reading of strangers and bizarre ideas about what would obviously be ineffectual, moron-level infiltration conspiracies (launching a show about radical politics while simultaneously tweeting to 7 followers calls for state violence...what on Earth would be gained if we *were* trying entryism?) to support their argument. Criticisms of my secessionist strategy are honestly perfectly welcome, and I am genuinely quite sympathetic to why some people find the idea troubling; but pretending someone's views are different from what they are helps no one, including the critic. The whole point of doing a video-based show is to have rapid response time to feedback: if people want to debate, let's please have a real and substantive debate. I am not claiming to have all of the answers, only some ideas and interest in dialogue.

Did y'all catch the part on the last thread where Bellamy's partner says

"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?"

This is the caliber of intellectual that Bellamy is determined to work with. Seems like anews is rapidly on its way from post-left to just plain selling tinfoil hats. Prove me wrong.

Watch 'Dark Secrets inside Bohemian Grove' (2000) and tell me there is nothing of value in what it reveals. Don't expect everyone to do your homework for you. Prove me wrong.

On July 15, 2000, filmmaker Alex Jones and his cameraman, Mike Hanson, infiltrated the Bohemian Grove expecting to uncover the owl statue being worshipped as Moloch, with human sacrifices thrown into its fiery interior.[20] With a hidden camera, Jones and Hanson filmed the Cremation of Care ceremony. The footage was the centerpiece of Jones' documentary Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove. Jones claimed that the Cremation of Care was an "ancient Canaanite, Luciferian, Babylon mystery religion ceremony".

yeah man, sounds like there's tons of super important information in there, def doesn't sound like a bunch of hyperanalysis of old rich frat bros throwing a rager lol

That's all Bohemian Grove really is. Yes there's plans of Leviathan, but leviathan births them they don't birth leviathan. They are simply figureheads to the game.

Jones is a drunken right wing grifter using fake hysteria to hock supplements of a questionable caliber. Not only does he have a terrible booze problem (well documented), but also suffers from sleep apnea so severe it cannot be treated and he sleeps upright in a chair. This person also very often confuses reality with movie plots.

Here is a podcast that debunks all aspects of the Jones brand (this particular episode on bohemian Grove), point by point, while also being hilarious:

From the distance he's a funny ass-clown of full testosterone Muhrikan chauvinism... you know of the likes of that mythical image of the guy riding a nuke bomb in Doctor Strangelove... except that now he's *with* the Russians and riding a bomb against them "Soros gay commie globalist reptiles".

I'm sure he also went full manly-man gay sex with David Yicke but that's another story.

To Abovethearch

These "knowledge fight" guys are really smart and funny. Love this link, thanks for the hookup!

Also read a testimony from one of his ex-employees about Alex Jones drinking 40's while driving fast in his big brodude car while occasionally going on fits of rage against the globalists just like on his show. Pretty close to the Dr Strangelove analogy.

> Seems like anews is rapidly on its way from post-left to just plain selling tinfoil hats. Prove me wrong.

Bellamy is not part of anews and, I wouldn't have thought it needed saying, nor is the co-host of his new show. Is this why there are so many brigaders on here? Do you e-activists think BF = anews?

are there "so many brigaders"? or is there one or two of the usual tireless douchebags, stirring shit up for the chuckles? oh trolliest of trolls, so hooked on that dopamine hit from when you feel all clever ducky doo! but the emphasis is always just on the doo ...

I'm one of many people who think that it's bullshit to want to be called an anarchist while you host content calling for the government to bring terrorism charges against anarchists.

Very. Fucking. Simple.

Serious. Fukin. Punctuation.

You know whats worse tho? Actual things.

That's taking the middle road within a binary relationship, and I assure you, the Abyss stands alone and at a distance both unique and aloof, not within the petty anthropocentric spectrum of human sentimentality.

So where do I go to read the original drama? Been a sec since the last good anarcho-shitshow and I'm bored.

and Lone Raven (aka Amory Devereux )? Here is a link to it: The speech patterns are so identical: Amory and Lone Raven employ 'and so forth' many times. this podcast is very similar in nature to their previous: Dispossess as it is based on searching/asking questions. Come on Bellamy, fess up! This has the potential of being a decent podcast although it does appear to a grand undertaking.... so many questions! First off, they both assume we're approaching some form of catastrophe which may be a straw-man position from the get-go!? One man's catastrophe is another man's opportunity: we could be heading for the land of opportunity!

I am not on the Dispossess podcast and had nothing to do with its creation.

Remember when Bellamy killed that hiker in Mexico? Very suspect that nobody can prove to me that Bellamy did not backdoor Signal app. The Fascist Creep!

What debate about Bellamy? All I can find is a person in the other thread that is upset that a fucking twitter account, associated with Bellamy and some other person, supposedly retweeted something another twitter user tweeted. From what I have gathered, some person that spends far too much time on twitter to know the ideologies of gazillions twitter accounts and monitor other twitter users that are associated with anarchism got very upset on @news. So upset that they even take screenshots and added it to their "violators of the gospel of anarchism" folder. So, beware guise and make sure if you post something on the internet that it upholds the sacred tenants of anarchism. Otherwise, this twitter hall monitor in the other thread will screenshot your violations and report you to the principal if you fall out of line.

It sounds like Bellamy was spit-balling ideas to deal with one of the problem concerning anarchist revolution fairy tale and everyone else on the planet. It's batshit crazy to think for a few seconds that anarchist ideals could be "implemented" worldwide. The anarchist revolution fairy tale is ridiculously absurd on its own. I don't think his idea had anything to do with anarchists co-existing with these non-anarchist aligned groups and values, but rather a strategy on how to deal with the state. A common enemy type of deal. I personally don't see that as all that realistic, but I would put it's probability above the anarchist revolution fairy tale.

I know some people heard Bellamy say Richard Spencer and they naturally started foaming at the mouth assuming Bellamy was somehow saying he was a-okay with all kinds of right-winged ideas and groups. The brains of the people that were foaming at the mouth over Richard Spencer's name being dropped, temporarily stopped functioning properly leading to confusion because all they could think about is the word 'fascist' over and over. That repeated thoughts of the word 'fascist' by the mouth foamers eventually evolved into claiming Bellamy is a secret fascist apologist. The thought processes of these mouthing foaming and message board/internet hall monitors anarchists should be studied in their natural habitat of LARPing on the internet by someone in the near future. I think it would have interesting results, like how fast and why do these people think of fascism and start throwing around this or that person is a fascist apologist when hearing something related to right-wingers.

I like the update and slight redesign of the website. Makes it much easier to follow the stuff that is posted on here.

I would be surprised if it were more than two people outraged over the twittering, and one of them is the other's friend.

Yeah it was likely only a few people from the /r/anarchism subreddit. Black and white logic, buzz words, nonsensical drama over the dumbest shit, spamming and posturing is their specialty.

I wouldn't be surprised if you are just one person answering your own comments. But I know that a lot of people thought Bellamy was an idiot for getting into bed with an infowars-loving reactionary who wants the government to bring terrorism charges against people like us ***and used their platform to call for it.***

I have yet to hear a ***good*** argument for why it's cool that Bellamy did that?

The good argument is that actually he didn't do it, as he himself said, and as his co-host has said. It is insane to listen to their show and think they are even remotely pro-state.

"supposedly retweeted something another twitter user tweeted. "

Supposedly? Bellamy has publicly acknowledged that it happened and took down the tweets. So he's admitting things that you won't. Also the fucking text of the tweet was published at the top of the comments thread along with a link to it. Why is it so important to you to obscure this stuff?

tell them niggas to read and kiss my ass

Nobody is interested in your stupid new religion. Go recruit elsewhere! Back to Patreon with ya!

This would be my alternative to either secession or revolution. Both have performative problems in terms of sudden change and power taking on the one hand and the disunity problem on the other. The subject of this change would be adolescent human beings who have not yet become fully educated made for work adults and are smart enough to undue the conditioning that continues leviathan civilization and state.

It's similar to Dupont's change solvent but with my idea(unlike theirs) there is no consciousness problems. The event of insurrection and dissociation is to shut down education and self dictate a new mode of learning and knowledge for life.

sounds more like a thing for the work-ready adults, seeing that if you aren't then the task is just avoiding the associating to begin with

I see SE, you have such bright hopes for youthful clean slates!!

The problem is the adults have built up generations of learned attachment. The reason why adolescents are key is that they are at a halfway point of development between child and adult. There will always in the long recalibrating run of things be asymmetries between age minors and majors but when civilization and leviathan is the existent then the only way out of it in a general solvent sort of way as I see it via a power subject is through insurgent divergent adolescence. I really don't see any other way as we've tried the adult to adult thing.

A refusal of education and off plantation learning event would theoretically shut down leviathan in a way that is not psychosomatically sudden as would be the case with, say, the core proletariat shutting down the world which would probably lead to complications. Pan-generational adolescent dissociation would create a buffer period where the current adults would still keep the trains and trucks going and resources flowing but radical adolescence would create a phase out of this world over a tapered period of time.

This is a thought experiment on my part and I'd like to hear genuine counterpoints if anyone has them. I see this as the only logical way to do a big eventful here to there historical event IF one still entertains such things. Beyond my thought experiment I still default to ahistorical human scale and individual endeavors of insurgent exit.

personally i see it as less age related, the ability to break away from the capitalist-work-consume model, and more as an ability to not depend on capital or to lessen that dependence, but then the problem with my theory is this is looking next to impossible. You need to have groups of people in order to create the environment for this, in a way that spurns the temptation to return to the older way of dealing with things. The only reason the current model continues to be dominant is that people simply don't know anything else anymore, and all people are more or less isolated by their need to make money.

Not every adult has attachments to society's institutions and expectations, adolescents often just buy into the ways of their parents in order to not feel disconnected and fit in. I do agree with you though, that adolescents and younger have less skin in the game, and are more nihilistically opened to alternatives.

i think that age is only secondarily significant. i am 60, and my desire and ability to distance myself from capitalist dominance has only grown over time.

but of course if i had gained the knowledge and experience that led to my shift in life much earlier, my life now would be even more detached.

yes, younger folks tend to be more impressionable. i see that as a double-edge: open to different ways of thinking, perhaps; open to coercive intent, most likely.

like every other massification, generalizing by age is still just a generalization, and flies in the face of unique individuals with their own agency. which is not to deny certain biological realities (my brain is already showing signs of deterioration, be it from aging, abuse, whatever). but those biological realities vary hugely between individuals.

Certainly avdeconstruction of the present adult value framework built around work, consumerism and school brainwashing.
I'm fairly recent to this site, I'm unsure of your tenure here, but you ween to be the dominant target of illogical trolls. Otherwise I find most of your comments sober and non-ideological, which fits the anarchist prerequisite.

Its easy to spot for a nihilist, because, having no structured layers of culture and complex codes and moralities to pervert and corrupt our pure clean-slate awareness, the slightest hint of order, the smallest smidgeon of regulation, to us, is a klaxon warning us of the presence of an ideological driven moron.

For those who live with one foot in the Abyss, SHOW SOME GODDAM RESPECT !!!

This topic is over. New topic: weekends. What are you doing this weekend? Want to hang out?

Add new comment