This is a must listen. Pete Quinones interviews Bellamy Fitzpatrick on Ted Kaczynski. From what I gather, the Goofy Gillis/Alexander Rodham Ross sectors of the anarchist milieu about the interest in Kaczynski among other anarchists. Because fascism or something.
Listen to the interview here.
Bellamy Fitzpatrick is a writer, podcaster and self-described “green anarchist.”
Bellamy joins Pete to talk about the writings and thought of Ted Kaczynski, the “Unabomber.” Ted is a prolific writer (and killer) whose commentary on society should not be ignored, and is so poignant as to demand a response. Bellamy explains why green anarchists flock to his writings and then discusses with Pete some of the major themes of Ted’s books and papers.
This is the kind of discussion that needs to happen more often. These two guys represent the best of the Left and Right.
In which A & B discuss C.H.A.Z. / C.H.O.P., explore the philosophical concepts of liberty and autonomy, and comment on the concept of ‘White Fragility’
Amory Devereux and Bellamy Fitzpatrick discuss the current situation of widespread protests and riots throughout the Western world, BLM, and the theoretical connections between shared values and the need to defend them.
In which A & B expand on the ideas of pan-secessionism, and also consider the spiritual and ecological motivations for non-societal approaches to living.
Having established a general overview of humanity arrived at its current juncture, A & B now start to lay out ‘what can be done’, in very broad strokes. Bellamy starts to lay out what pan-secessionism would look like.
Pete invited Bellamy Fitzpatrick to come on the show. Bellamy is a self-described “Green Anarchist” who joins Pete to have a conversation that includes an explanation of what G.A. means to him and to find some common ground among people who realize that, first and foremost, the State is the problem.
This is the best critique of the mainstream left-anarchist movement that I have seen to date. Kudos.
By Bellamy Fitzpatrick
“Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it?
I do not believe it can be done.
The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.
If you try to change it, you will ruin it.
If you try to hold it, you will lose it.
-Laozi, Tao Te Ching, Chapter 29
The recent kerfuffle over the Bernie Sanders campaign field organizer defending gulags, coerced ideological reeducation, and mass executions in the name of revolution caught my attention last week. I do not find the way it will be used as a scandal in the political horse race either very interesting myself nor particularly important for radicals in general, but I do think the event is highly relevant for anarchists in terms of conceptualizing just what victory precisely looks like to us and just what means are both conceivable and righteous for getting there.
By Bellamy Fitzpatrick
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. Naturally, this objection is rarely heard, and I am often nonetheless pressed to answer where I stand on Left versus Right.
My usual response is to say that the Left versus Right spectrum is not merely accidentally incoherent, but deliberately so, in that its constant usage in mainstream discourse is a form of divide et impera by the power elite that is simply the next level up from the Democrat versus Republican binary. Many people recognize the latter as a bullshit choice, but nonetheless maintain that Left versus Right is a real and natural split – in my view, it is instead meant to get the politically active masses to play team sports that the power elite can regulate and broker, making all of the Little People compete with, direct invective at, and even physically assault one another rather than their wise overlords. Divide et impera is the oldest power game the elite have, and it has worked extremely well for millennia.
By Bellamy Fitzpatrick
I have found a new humility.
It was almost four years ago now that I moved from the San Francisco Bay Area to this new place I have grown to love. It has been said that urban radical subcultures have a tendency to degenerate into ersatz religious cults or milieux for furnishing an extended adolescence for social misfits and eccentrics, and, from my small experience, that is true. But they are also spaces in which one, if conscientious, can learn quickly. As I moved to the Bay at the age of twenty-five, I was a self-identified anarchist who was passionately committed to living out my values, but I had a terribly naïve and incoherent worldview, in part because I had so few people in my life who could challenge my beliefs with anything other than mainstream boilerplate that I was perfectly capable of deconstructing.
But in the Bay Area, where I lived for three and a half years, I was suddenly around numerous anarchists for the first time in my life. Many were as young and foolish as I was, and many were thinly-veiled communists who would reveal themselves to be ultimately more authoritarian and hateful than normal people; but I was still able to learn from so many who were wrestling with a similar mix of enormously passionate visions, existential angst, and strategic confusion. Moreover, there were older anarchists who had shed many illusions, and, from them, I was able to do what every generation of healthy, pre-postmodernity humans has done: learn from the accumulated wisdom of elders.