Bellamy Fitzpatrick's podcast appearances

110 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':

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

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)

- 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.

lumpentroll (not verified)
so how's that going anyway?

so how's that going anyway? being too clever for the combined weight of centuries of political definitions? are we just waiting for the other 7 billion or so ppl to climb on board with the clever ducks?

i often hear folks in the canada and the US insisting that they're too brilliant and don't need that historical context to orient their politics. it's an assertion that they love to make ... and that's about all that it is.

anon (not verified)
",,,,don't need that

",,,,don't need that historical context to orient their politics." That would be about 100% of indigenous folk me thinks. But you, ooOooh, you are sooo into traditional politics that you sometimes sound like Plato when he verbally trolled the Cynics.

lumpentroll (not verified)
you thinks pretty dumb as

you thinks pretty dumb as usual Le Troll. So ... you're saying native folks can't read or what? and why wouldn't you include them in "centuries of political definitions" in the first place?

anon (not verified)
I got deleted hahaa, luv it,

I got deleted hahaa, luv it, now lumpen you you only have to call any anon you disagree with "le fool" , and if they reply to defend their argument they are instantly deleted even if they aren't this lefool troll. Lucky you, now you are invincibletroll ;)
What I was saying in layman terms that indigenous folk are literate and bilingual often, but their priorities are about their kinship and animal/environment relationships, not materialist politics and government per se.

lumpentroll (not verified)
it's the use of ,,,, that le

it's the use of ,,,, that le fool did for years. why would you imitate their broken keyboard or whatever? dont do it and you won't get mistaken for them.

anyway, that means what you said has nothing to do with what I said? except that you were pretty obviously trying for a "gotcha!" and failed because of your own shitty assumptions about identity or something equally boring that says more about you than me.

plus my ancestry is part native, ya jackass, so there's that.

anon (not verified)
You just contradict your

You just contradict your whole claim to disown identity yet you claim part native ancestry. Not only bourgeois to even look back that far, but also you've called in the whole determinist aspect of genetic identity f9undation when indigenosity is infact about consciousness and the related human values which flow from it.
You really do put you foot in your mouth sometimes haha, or as the Sán would say, cl*hn op*hayt*,,,,

anon (not verified)
"indigenosity is infact about

"indigenosity is infact about consciousness and the related human values which flow from it."

What a load of garbage. Not only you can't spell "indigenousness", but you basically make it into something anyone can just be coz they decided. What else magic tricks there are?

anon (not verified)
Well if you want to introduce

Well if you want to introduce identity based on genetic inheritance go for it and join the other past nationalist and nazi forerunmers to your determinist assumptions. I invent words because sometimes the dictionary is wanting for nuanced and sophisticated synonyms, and I'm not a spelling fascist. Now you get yourself over to a library and broaden your knowledge.
Some white babies were rescued by indigenous folk and brought up throughout their life by them and are/were regarded as full indigenous members of the tribe you boring dullard!,,,

anon (not verified)
Wow, bigot above just threw a

Wow, bigot above just threw a racist generalization on indigenous people. And it's 100%... not 75% or even 99% of indigenous people are uninterested in historical context!

I suppose that's gotta do with this racist bigot's convictions that their genes keep their minds away from wandering in the so-White territory of historical analysis! But this just in.. it's a totally false claim. The Natives I met in North America are on the contrary heavily interested in the historical context. You wouldn't have a native struggle in the fist place, if they weren't.

Educate yourself about... LOGIC, idiot!

anon (not verified)
"You wouldn't have a native

"You wouldn't have a native struggle in the fist place, if they weren't. "

actually, no. struggle does NOT have to be rooted in history. conditions for so many - including many american indians - are so bad RIGHT NOW that struggle need only be revolt against the what-is. which is not to say that strategic planning shouldn't consider historical context; to the extent it makes sense to those objectives. but struggle takes many forms.

anon (not verified)
here we go again...

Lumpentroll, insisting that people who don't believe in this dusty thing called "history" or people who don't read books are by default elitist.

NEWS FLASH: the left/right paradigm is a work of fiction. In the end some petty beliefs that someone has is irrelevant to how they act within the actual world. You remind me of those "market libertarians" who basically use the political compass in order to argue about anything. All you have to do when you disagree with someone is refer to them as a communist dictator. A great work of sophistry.

Expected from lumpen-troll.

No wonder everything below this comment said about "indigenous" people isn't based in reality either! The premise isn't based in reality! Wtf fuck is the deal with all these anarchists having to refer to these abstractions in order to talk about anything??

lumpentroll (not verified)
I can't even make any sense

I can't even make any sense of your post? people who don't believe in history are elitist? wtf?? how did you even get that interpretation?

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:

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)

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)

'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.

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.

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!

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)

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

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."

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)

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 (lol) and the various state institutions you're getting your facts and figures from.

anon (not verified)
yea, it's entirely possible that BF believes some stupid shit

about covid19 conspiracies (stupid because i disagree! lol), but to draw a line between that and him being a fascist is sloppy and uncalled for and doing the enemy's work (enemy in the broadest anti-anarchist sense here). slippery slope fallacy is rampant everywhere. don't fall down it!

anon (not verified)
Hey shit for brains, yes,

Hey shit for brains, yes, most people who retweet other tweets are tacitly endorsing those tweets most of the time, unless they make some indication (e.g. sarcasm, or directly disputing it) that they are actually not endorsing it, That's how twitter works. Duh.

I dismiss ideas I don't like, because they have no evidence to support them. Which is why I don't like them. That's how rationality works. Mediabiascheck isn't a state institution, and neither are the scientific authorities I read.

Any other straw men you'd like to throw at me?

TheTao (not verified)
what i'm wondering is why something bellamy retweeted

is such a huge deal to you. Conspiracy theories are called theories for a reason, they can't be verified, just in the same way that "bellamy is a right winger" also can't be verified.

It's true that people retweet things they endorse, but so far nobody has posted any evidence that bellamy retweeted a conspiracy theory just seems like people on here have this persistent desire to somehow discredit/smear him which is really funny to me. It's like he's this criminal in cyberspace who the anarchist authorities are attempting to bring down! It reminds me a lot of how people respond to KT's podcasts posted on here, lot's of anarchist mobs with flaming torches running around. Some of the comments in response to KT were so funny but unfortunately they got taken down :-(

Big Navi (not verified)
WTF? It's not a huge deal to

WTF? It's not a huge deal to me. I just happened to mention BF's retweet, and you and others got all triggered about it. It's obviously a huge deal to you., since you are now trying to tone police me. And for the record, claiming COVID is an overblown hoax is definitely a conspiracy theory.

anon (not verified)
rationality duh

> Mediabiascheck isn't a state institution

i didn't say it was. i said appealing to the authority of (lol) is no different to appealing to the authority of or

> neither are the scientific authorities I read

they absolutely are.

let's see if you can reply without resorting to childish name calling this time, anon.

TheTao (not verified)
state institutions

"Mediabiascheck isn't a state institution, and neither are the scientific authorities I read."

actually the "scientific authorities you read" are more than likely funded or supported by the state in some way, which doesn't make them a state institution, but doesn't mean that they AREN'T state institution oriented...

Big Navi (not verified)
In that case, all science is

In that case, all science is funded directly or indirectly by the state (or corporations). And therefore what? All science i.e. physics, biology, chemistry, engineering, astronomy, etc., is therefore wrong?

Off-Guardian wants you to believe that the coronavirus "It's all bullshit". If all science is wrong, who and what are you going to base your beliefs on? Shamans? Astrology?

TheTao (not verified)
I'm still laughing about the fact that

you still haven't proven any association between BF and the conspiracy theories, yet the allegations keep popping up! And now you are putting words in my mouth...that i was trashing science, i was only pointing out the simple fact that what gets called "science" is as you are saying, funded by state and corporate interests nearly 100% of the time.

Oh, what some people are willing to do for "the truth"! Some of my facebook friends post stuff about conspiracy theories but i don't accuse them of being conspiracy theorists or right wingers because that's preposterous. Nice trolling.

anon (not verified)
I'm laughing about the fact

I'm laughing about the fact that anyones even talking about this. A history-bending moment is occuring and yet motherfuckers are on the internet, talking about Bellamy of all people.


anon (not verified)
WTF are you talking about? I

WTF are you talking about? I wasn't trying to prove any association between BF and conspiracies other than noting the fact that BF was tweeting a link to a conspiracy site. It was idiots like you who got all triggered about it. Maybe you should relax, calm down, take a stress pill, and go to your safe space.

You were the one saying all science is funded by the state, implying that therefore all science is somehow suspect. Otherwise why bring the state into it on an anarchist blog?

anon (not verified)
" If all science is wrong,

" If all science is wrong, who and what are you going to base your beliefs on? Shamans? Astrology?"

i have no "beliefs". beliefs are the basis of ideology and dogma. i have observations, experiences, relations, perspectives. the only way the word "belief" has any relevance for me is as a synonym for "thought".

i "think" you are lying. i "believe" you are lying. like that. never would i say "i believe in [science/god/anarchism/humanity]".

the alternative, as i see it, is a synonym for "faith". not something i believe in. (yes, to the sarcastically challenged).

anon (not verified)
How about this scientific

How about this scientific fact, ---you are a raw natural non-entity wandering a ball of rock in space ----
Thus, you are devoid of any belief structure within your own consciousness, therefore a nihilist.
Hoorah, welcome non-entity to the exclusive realm of the Dasien nihilist. Cheers ;)

anon (not verified)
"therefore a nihilist"

"therefore a nihilist"

just can't resist shoving individuals into predefined boxes.

This is the way #39

This is the way. I would also point out that the Feyerabendian poly method to science should be the default and not the all to belief based mono method. Feyerabend is what happens when you take the findings of Kuhn seriously.

anon (not verified)

Freyerbend honestly seems pretty interesting to me, and ideas that i would probably agree with...where does he talk about his "poly method"?

Feyerabend is for epistomological anarchic science

Poly methods simply follow from his prescription for scientific practice. One of the good things about his way of doing things is that you would have less longstanding institutional structures of science and something more akin to an upper dark age renaissance way of doing things. There would be less quantitative technical progress on the whole but that's a good thing not a bad thing(think the situationists and their preference for human progress over technical progress).

Big Navi (not verified)
I was using the word 'belief

I was using the word 'belief' in reference to the way someone would say that they believe (or not) that COVID-19 is a hoax.

anon (not verified)
anon (not verified)

hey big brain navi, get a load of this conspiracy theorist!

Big Navi (not verified)
Hey, did you read this part?

Hey, did you read this part? "So far, the scientific data do not support Gupta’s best-case scenario. "

Is this epidemiologist part of the worldwide conspiracy too?

God you people are nuts. Take your hydroxychloroquine and go to bed.

anon (not verified)

so you found a scientist who says the opposite of something another scientist says. It's almost as if science doesn't have all the answers, almost as if science isn't an infallible authority for you to appeal to every. single. time.

> you people are nuts

which people are you referring to here? everyone who has a slightly divergent position to you? your authoritarianism is showing again

anon (not verified)
Please just stop. It doesn't

Please just stop. It doesn't matter what Bellamy retweets. I don't get why y'all are so obsessed with monitoring this guy's twitter account. It's cringe and lol. It's twitter and retweets are just retweets. You spend too much time on twitter. Is there a user manual for anarchists that informs them on proper anarchist retweet etiquette by the anarchist twitter monitor association? If you not, you should write it so we can all fall in line lol. You people are cringe

TheTao (not verified)

it was this sentiment is the only reason i joined the conversation, i don't even admire BF much other than his critiques of civilization. I bought corrosive consciousness off of underworld amusements (**GASPS!** I SUPPORTED POSSIBLE RICHARD SPENCER FANS WITH A FEW DOLLARS **CRIES IN MORAL DESPAIR I'M SOOOO SORRY**) and haven't got around to reading it since they only have the first page of it on anarchist library.

And still nobody has shown me the link to BF's retweet about him embracing conspiracy gossip queens suck!

anon (not verified)
Christ some people are lazy:
anon (not verified)
Big Navi/Anon

Why do you monitor Bellamy's twitter account and get all hot and bothered by his tweets? You made this post on here detailing why you felt the contents of some retweeted article was wrong. I don't get why you would bother considering it has nothing to do with podcasts Bellamy has been on. Do you monitor other anarchists' internet accounts to make sure they stay in line or drama-rama or primarily just Bellamy's internet accounts? I remember seeing y'all whinging about Bellamy's twitter awhile back, so it could be a see-monkey, do-monkey thing with you specifically.

Let me ask you something. I read a book by someone you'd likely say was a fascist and someone asked me about it so I told them to read it. Does that violate this anarchist doctrine code you follow? I don't want to stray from the anarchist doctrine code and get banhammered. I don't know what I'd do

Big Navi (not verified)
Who is getting "hot and

Who is getting "hot and bothered"? Have you read through the thread? I happened to mention BF's link to a conspiracy theory site and then all of a sudden, the shit hit the fan. You're asking the wrong person. Ask all the trolls who were triggered by what I said. Then ask yourself why you are triggered.

What is this "doctrine code" you believe I am following?

anon (not verified)
Big Brain Navi

Is on's list of approved websites?

TheTao (not verified)
christ, some people are dumb:

they'll call you lazy because the previous posters on here weren't smart enough to talk about some of the details concerning BF's posts, instead they just want to say vague crap about how he "retweets conspiracy theories" or "he is a right-winger", or "off guardian bad" tell me why i have a reason to believe anything anyone posts on here.

It was fun giving you science bros a headache, next you'll get triggered about how anyone who critiques anything you say "gets triggered", clearly stripping any pretensions of my manliness away (gasp!), and then you'll also take my words and try to twist them to your purposes!

Now tell me, how does me saying that all of nearly all science is related to corporate and state money mean that i was saying "all science is funded by the state"? But you see, taking anything on here posted by an anon seriously is a mistake anyways, because that means nobody can have a coherent discussion with you, because anon is a generic identifier that supposedly just means you are part of a generic mass of idiots.

None of what you say has any factual or credible weight to it unless you can figure out how to argue with people in a more precise and less cyber-bullying manner. If you actually read the article that bellamy retweeted, they are supposably "debunking the coronavirus narrative", in otherwords, it isn't a conspiracy theorist article, it's disputing whether lockdowns are based on credible science or not, you dumb lazy fucking science bro. Whether or not lockdowns and all the "science approved" measures are justifiable or not is beyond me. As someone who's spent considerable amount of time looking up the science relating to the virus, i only came to the conclusion that i still don't know anything, and the experts are still learning about it, and i also want to consider learning about it, so thank god there are scientific/medical experts way smarter than you out there posting articles online. It is not BF "supporting conspiracy theories" as some anons and big navi have been saying

anon (not verified)
Some ppl are just fucked

ya know?

I feel like normal people with a healthy self esteem source their validation from within. Others can't do that and so they have to fuck with others to feel better about themselves. They try to put others down to raise themselves up, because they don't have that internal scaffolding to uphold their own sense of self. They have no sense of self, just a black void they try to fill with the validation of others. Some people have learned early on that they can get validation and attention (narcissistic supply) by spearheading campaigns for cancel culture; this accomplishes many things for them, including but not limited to projection; deflecting things away from themselves and onto the other person; virtue signalling, etc.

No grown adult should care about cancel culture and no grown adult should spend their time trawling through someones social media, scanning for "objectionable content".

Big Navi (not verified)
That's not what the article

That's not what the article BF linked to said, and you know it. The article is making a bigger claim: namely that the virus itself is a hoax, if not harmless, or at least only as harmless as the regular common flu. This is just flat out false, with zero evidence to support it. No science supports this nonsense. This is what makes it a conspiracy theory, because it's tied into a broader narrative promulgated by right-wing Q Anon conspiracies about Agenda 2020, population control, deep state, New World Order, etc.

If the coronoavirus is just another ordinary virus, then all the governments have been lying to us, and their move to lock countries down must be part of some kind of world wide nefarious plot by not only governments, but Bill Gates, George Soros, etc. That is the unstated, underlying subtext of the article. Glancing through the other conspiracy articles on the website, it's easy to put two and two together without it having to be explicitly said.

anon (not verified)
Prof BN vs Prof BF - who would win?

> This is what makes it a conspiracy theory, because it's tied into a broader narrative promulgated by right-wing Q Anon conspiracies about Agenda 2020, population control, deep state, New World Order, etc... Bill Gates, George Soros etc... Lizard people... therefore BELLAMY FITZPATRICK is literally ALEX JONES who is also BILL HICKS.

One of the things that makes a conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory is making links where there are no links.

TheTao (not verified)
yes 3:22 lmfao

and big navi is coming through again pretending to have a better understanding of the article BF retweeted than i do, this is what i said:

"If you actually read the article that bellamy retweeted, they are supposably "debunking the coronavirus narrative", in otherwords, it isn't a conspiracy theorist article, it's disputing whether lockdowns are based on credible science or not, you dumb lazy fucking science bro."

and yes if you read the article, it has more to do with state's reactions to the virus and the lockdown measures, and it doesn't say anything about the virus not existing, it's an opinion piece about the threat being not that bad, which is not something i really agree or disagree with, but that's what they are saying. Recognize that i used direct quotes, when someone speaks i generally do want to know what they mean, and if i make a mistake i recognize it and move on, i don't try to argue my original point if i later find it to be bullshit. That's what decent science is all about.

Big Navi, you've gotta be careful with this stuff if you want to be taken seriously by anyone. The article says nothing about Q anon. Q anon theories are way more whacky and strange than the article that BF retweeted, it's funny to me that you are so desperate to expose BF's lies but then the more you talk, the more bullshit comes out of your mouth. If you want to be a scientist then get the fuck off a news and take some science classes online, they're offering discounts given the current situation. Get an organic chemistry set and a microscope, study bacteria, stop arguing bullshit.

anon (not verified)
the anarchist twitter monitor association

You mean antifa?

Errsian (not verified)
For how many more decades,

For how many more decades, nay, centuries, must we revellious nihilo-anarchs be distracted and perverted by the stasis from left/right binary discourse?
Is it not time to raise the discussion to paradigm shifting dimensions I beg of you binary obsessives? We, nay, I and those other individuals who do not comprise a group, the famous quip, " to collect is to corrupt ", is applied to my new proposal, change and adapt, or die!

anon (not verified)

speak for yourself, loser

anon (not verified)
"WE, rebellious nihil-anarchs

"WE, rebellious nihil-anarchs!" "WE, 8ndividualist insurging iconoclasts! etc etc etc"

Whats up with all this WE shit? I see it all the time on here. "Individualists" on this site are 100x more caught up in the abstracted "we" than any other political tendency I've ever encountered, even more so than the communists and socialists, apparently.

Errsian (not verified)
Agreed, its like a

Agreed, its like a totalitarian individualism, all the individuals are clones, like most Muhricans, call themselves proud self-opinionated liberal free-thinkers but they all think the same.
To maintain autonomy it sometimes helps to be 50% selfish half of the time.

anon (not verified)
Tho that's just not individualism

More like programmed egotist bigots. This behavior branches directly to a period of early childhood, and that says much on the maturity of these fascist goons and their Muh-Muh-Muricah.

anon (not verified)
Guys, stop it

I think Big Navi and their little crew of anons are getting a little triggered you guys. This cancel culture op hasn't worked out for them. Don't back them into a corner tho, it's OK. Just let them scuttle back to their safe space...

anon (not verified)
Sounds like you're the one

Sounds like you're the one who's triggered.

anon (not verified)
New Bellamy Fitzpatrick guest podcast appearance
anon (not verified)
can anyone point to a single

can anyone point to a single aspect of modern human life that is not in some way funded by the state or capital?

seems like a pretty vacuous argument.

anon (not verified)
Bellamy Fitzpatrick on Ted K

Wow how did we miss this one

anon (not verified)
Its still over

Its still over intellectualizing the fact that TK was a bitter sociopath with a borrowed neo-Luddite excuse, simple as that.

anon (not verified)
Is this the actions of a

Is this the actions of a grown man who is meant to be intelligent, --Oooh, loook at meee, I'm a BIG professor, I've got MORE brains than you have, therefore I'm going to BLOW you UP, cos you won't listen to my propheciex, yes, I have prophicies like jesus, I live on the mount i wrote my sermon Manifesto, your all going to hell, I'm like pedantically astute intelligent, not emotionally intelligent, but no different to a spoilt child throwing a tantrum, blowing shit up with sneaky mail bombs. I'm actually boring, no one loves me, boohoohoo,

anon (not verified)
^ angry keyboard smash by

^ angry keyboard smash by someone who thinks of themselves as very 'emotionally intelligent'

even a wikipedia scan knowledge of ted k would tell you that he sent the bombs to get his manifesto into the papers

anon (not verified)
simple as that

can't help but think that you reduce everyone to a pop psychology archetype and dismiss them as 'simple as that' instead of having to engage your brain for a moment

lumpentroll (not verified)
so ... another way of putting

so ... another way of putting it would be there's those of us who think Teddy was "really on to something" and those of us who are bored by another garden variety angry anti-social narcissist who took the logical leap of stochastic attack. this is very impressive to a certain type of person and I've come to realize it tells me a great deal about them when they admit it.

anon (not verified)
prof lumpentroll strikes again!

you could try to engage with ted k's writing. some of his essays are very short. or you could just dismiss an entire body of work as 'anti-social' without having read a word and spend your days stinking up the anews comments section instead.

anon (not verified)
how do you know whether I've

how do you know whether I've read his stuff? you know how much of his writing has been referenced on this site alone, over the years? it's weird to assume I haven't read it. he's had far too much attention from the green @s over the year imo.

plus the consensus feels like that was interesting 10-20 years ago? are you just catching up?

anon (not verified)

'pff I don't need to engage with this because I already talked about it years ago! scroll back a decade and you'll see!'
- the wise old sage of the anews comments section

lumpentroll (not verified)
are you sad cuz I don't want

are you sad cuz I don't want to have a long, boring pissing contest with you? you don't seem impartial on the subject matter, that's for sure! emotionally invested even! is teddy your primmie surrogate father figure? ;)

anon (not verified)
Prof Lumpentroll...

...resident pop psychologist of the anews comments section, can detect 'daddy issues' in anons, but is tragically unaware how much he gives away of himself day in, day out.

if you have nothing to say then do us - and yourself - a favor and just. stop. posting.

lumpentroll (not verified)
you'd like that, I'm sure.

you'd like that, I'm sure. try begging me. the answer will still be no.

anon (not verified)
As a Sàn friend of mine once

As a Sàn friend of mine once whispered into my ear, kl*ajh*^@yiu*

anon (not verified)
Yes siree, I'm a Jungian :)

Yes siree, I'm a Jungian :)

anon (not verified)
What's up with Bellamy

What's up with Bellamy currntly? It looks like his twitter is deleted and so is his website. And the liberty and logos project hasn't been active in a while.

anon (not verified)
Nunya bidness.

Nunya bidness.

anon (not verified)
Just asking out of sincere

Just asking out of sincere interest. I enjoy his perspective and content.

anon (not verified)
"Nunya bidness"

On the contrary... this is everyone here's "bidness". And I'm afraid this just won't stop there.

anon (not verified)
What’s the deal with leftists

What’s the deal with leftists/anarchists having knee jerk reactions to certain words like Liberty and Globalism?

Liberty = Freedom
Globalism = Globalization

These things are literally the same.

anon (not verified)

"Liberty = Freedom
Globalism = Globalization"

These are semantics carrying different ideological subtexts. You probably know it, but just wanna play LeFool.

"Liberty" is a classical liberal political concept being massively used by Right-wing libertarians, also their White racist counterparts, for justifying all kinds of colonial, supremacist politics. Liberty is private property, and in the sense of Confederate views, it is the right to also own Black slaves. Liberty is all over the old KKK propaganda.

Liberty is, and is not, "freedom". Just like "freedom" in the US could mean the freedom that is free, but also the freedom that's not free. Words take meaning according to their users, and their historical precendent of use. A Swastika is still a Nazi symbol in the West, because Nazis are still using it. The fact it's something entirely different in Asia is meaningless.

Hence, Freedom to liberals or to conservatives means something different than it does to radical Left or anarchists.

There's only one freedom that is relevant to the views supported on this site here, and it's "total freedom". Which means, yeaaa, things like Black people having the same "liberties" than you in life. Same thing for everyone else. That sux to you? So consider going back to 8kun for good.

anon (not verified)

maybe that's what liberty means where you live; where i live liberty is synonymous with freedom. plenty of classical anarchists use it in the same way.

anon (not verified)
what liberty means where you live

Nowhere here you're refuting what I said about words taking meaning according to their context of use, which includes their users. So Bellamy and his White Alt-Right cronies are living in the US, where this notion of "Liberty" I referred to above is still being used by this same crowd as a buzzword for their retrograde colonial racist ideology, especially that of the Confederates, who definitely are NOT dead as a movement.

This is Alex Jones' "Liberty" we're talking about here, but let's also look into the French version of the same word, that ain't different much. It's still about the rights of the citizens of the Republic according to classical liberalism. That is okay with prisons, political repression of people who don't think the same (monarchists, yeah, but anarchists as well), private property for those who can afford, and the sheer denial of recognition to those not part of this citizenry.

So sure, if you live like in China or even Cuba, that's very liberty might not mean the same. But... back to the first sentence of the present comment.

anon (not verified)
liberty is cancelled

liberty is the name of more than one US anarchist magazine. they're early 20th century though, so don't get all excited thinking you've found someone else to cancel.

anon (not verified)
Silly boi

I didn't cancel "liberty". I'm totally for building as much liberty as I can, for myself and also others.

All I'm saying is just be careful with the context or purpose of use. You think that I'd go down on a cute hippie putting a swastika pattern within a vedic-inspired psychedelic painting? But Bellamy using (by design or by demented carelessness) the capitalized "Liberty" while doing podcasts with White Alt-Right dudes, that's just him feeding the Alex Jones crowd, imo.

Was his intent to break their ideological cleavages to bring them to a more radical, fundamental view of freedom? If only it was that... that'd be respectable. If only.

anon (not verified)

now you said it! time to cancel yourself!

jk. i think i get it now: lower case l is okay, upper case L is bad. so the late 19th & early 20th century anarchist magazines are cancelled, right? how do we get to deplatform them?

> You think that I'd go down on a cute hippie putting a swastika pattern within a vedic-inspired psychedelic painting?

well, that escalated quickly...

anon (not verified)
Yeah, well.

I like it. And I use it in my own way. Fuck all that ideological shit.

You might as well cancel much

You might as well cancel much of anarchism buddy given how much the capital L use of the word has been used. Obviously the context lies in what people mean by the term.

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.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the code without spaces.