AK Press allegations against Michael Schmidt

1024 posts / 0 new
Last post
syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 21 2015 15:17
Quote:
I disagree with Zabalaza. As I understand it is currently a majority black organisation, with little or no members still around from when Schmidt was part of it. They are also under attack from government thugs, so probably have bigger things to be dealing with at the moment.

I'd respectfully disagree here. Not so much with the current composition of ZACF, or the repression against two members, that the orginzation has no responsibilty. I think there are a couple of ZACF folks around who were active at the time. It would also help set the record stratight about internal discussions of the time (and noted in the reports against MS). And to make sure that the name, the history and integrity of the organization are maintained.

Operaista's picture
Operaista
Offline
Joined: 18-02-12
Dec 26 2015 15:17

ARR fact-checked MS's autobiography. It looks like he's been openly sympathetic to the far right in a substantial portion of his journalistic output for years (it wasn't just a few articles, in other words).

And, at least from the half of the journalistic output and two-thirds of the radical output found, nothing that required any sort of infiltration of the far right to produce.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Dec 26 2015 21:31
Quote:
ARR fact-checked MS's autobiography. It looks like he's been openly sympathetic to the far right in a substantial portion of his journalistic output for years (it wasn't just a few articles, in other words).

That piece by ARR is well worth the read. If only the original saga had been written as clearly as that one.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Dec 27 2015 12:45

l looked through a few of the articles linked and think they are quite shady. People should check them out and compare them to Schmidt's defense. l think there are good points made here.

subcomandante_juan
Offline
Joined: 4-12-15
Dec 27 2015 17:17
Operaista wrote:
ARR fact-checked MS's autobiography. ...And, at least from the half of the journalistic output and two-thirds of the radical output found, nothing that required any sort of infiltration of the far right to produce.

One new thing is Schmidt advocated public displays of white supremacy on his Stormfront account by telling South African neo-Nazis to attend the World Cup and display their symbols, including the Lebensrune (of which he has a tattoo) on flags. Even if Schmidt were an infiltrator, recommending actions that could incite a race riot in public is deeply unethical.

Add to the list that Schmidt incited public displays of white racism and the coming together of white supremacists at the World Cup.

Who is defending this?

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Dec 28 2015 08:36

Nobody will publically defend this stuff, because it is clearly crap. On the other hand, there are unfortunately a lot of people who defend Schmidt or act in a way to derail conversations, try to get it off mailing lists, etc. Pretty scary.

lucien_lies_too's picture
lucien_lies_too
Offline
Joined: 28-12-15
Dec 28 2015 10:21

Red.Black.Writings is Lucien van der Walt, and his continued apologetics for a close friend and co-author are shameful (although quite understandable). See pastebin here (libcom won't let me link directly):

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fpastebin.com%2FNZ9mYtcj

There is likely more evidence out there on the Web, with a deeper search. Hey Lucien - care to fess up to your "anonymous" account (which others have already called you out on in this thread)? Seems you're as shitty at "going undercover" as your buddy Schmidt.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Dec 28 2015 18:02

Oh come on here. I can certainly understand why people use pseudonyms to protect their identity, but if you are a person known by some name, creating a new one to hide your identity is not cool. It would be especially uncool in this case where dozens of people (including myself) have asked Lucien for his opinion.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 28 2015 23:54

If red black is LvdW, I guess he's laid out where's he coming from then
If it is LvdW, it's a pity you choose to go the "underground" route. I'd venture to say that a number of folks have been patiently and respectfully waiting for your reply. Trusting you recognize that and if is LvdW it'd be appreciated if you simply come out and say so. If it's not LcvD, then it really is time for him to make a statement of perspective and so forth

lucien_lies_too's picture
lucien_lies_too
Offline
Joined: 28-12-15
Dec 29 2015 18:59

Edited paste with more evidence available here:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fpastebin.com%2FJQ3qf7Vm

Most damning is the redblackwritings Scribd account. 88 of the 100 articles uploaded were authored or co-authored by Lucien and 12 by Zabalaza; it's very obviously a personal repository of articles for Lucien to share with others.

I suppose there's just some superfan of Lucien out there who happens to use the same username across the Web, to only write about Lucien and his books and upload his works?

I will continue to dig and find more. I may not find the "smoking gun" that shows a photo of Lucien as redblackwritings, or absolutely proves his ownership of the Libcom account, but I think any rational reading of the evidence so far links the redblackwritings moniker to him. A further familiarity with his interests, writing style, and approach to dialogue makes the linkage very clear.

Lucien - Care to come out and stop trying to shape the discussion from the shadows? Or have you now been backed too far into a corner where you'd have to admit to infantile tactics?

Join the debate now, openly and honestly. An apology is also in order, given the patience and respect you've been given so far in the Schmidt affair. Posting defenses of Schmidt in hiding and arguing with the same people who have nicely asked you to present your side of the story is nothing but a slap in the face.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Dec 30 2015 15:07

(deleted)

lucien_lies_too's picture
lucien_lies_too
Offline
Joined: 28-12-15
Dec 29 2015 21:27

No shit sherlock, but I'm happy to burn this account as long as the discussion about Red.Black.Writings continues. Attacking me goes nowhere, and the pastebin posts can't be taken down and are available for all to see:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=http%3A%2F%2Fpastebin.com%2FJQ3qf7Vm

Who I am has no bearing on the evidence I present, and I know no one personally involved with this story; not Schmidt, not the key players, not their friends, not Schmidt's investigators/accusers, not anyone at AK Press. I have been watching this issue from the distance, as thousands of others have worldwide.

Let's stay on point here: Schmidt's co-author Lucien van der Walt used the Red.Black.Writings account to defend Schmidt in these forums and others, rather than make a public statement. Lucien has a long history of using sock puppet accounts, now public for anyone to peruse.

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Dec 30 2015 15:06

(deleted)

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 30 2015 01:43

Flint, I do have a question. What if it is LvdW posting under RedBlack whatever?
Not that I would want to see things derailed, but I think, at this point, what he has to say and how he says it will have some bearing. I know that some of us have been patient in waiting for him to provide us with his insight and so forth. Same with ZACF. But if folks are gonna do stuff under cover and so forth, I think it diminishes some things and plays into others.
Anyway, in this instance the clock has run out and the more time wasted just plays into the negative, IMO

lucien_lies_too's picture
lucien_lies_too
Offline
Joined: 28-12-15
Dec 30 2015 03:41

This is my one and only Libcom account, created specifically for the purpose of making this case and publishing the evidence that Red.Black.Writings is Lucien van der Walt. I could have chosen a name like "citizenzero" or "John Doe12345" but I didn't because I want these posts to be focused upon one subject. It would have made 0% difference if I had chosen another name.

Red.Black.Writings, on the other hand, is being purposefully deceptive and "going undercover" to defend his friend and co-author, rather than approach the situation in an open and honest manner. Lucien has been asked many, many times to say something about this issue, and his public silence is telling. His "undercover" chattiness is also telling.

We should no longer give Lucien the benefit of the doubt. He is willing to write hundreds (thousands?) of words in this forum alone about Schmidt, but not a single one in public since Schmidt came under scrutiny.

We should go back, look at the Red.Black.Writings posts, and hold Lucien accountable for their content. It is only a matter of time before those who know Lucien personally are able to reinforce my case with more evidence.

Beyond that, I am working on more technical analyses of the multiple accounts of Redblackwritings, and may be able to link them directly to Lucien's contact info as time goes on. If not, the evidence is still extremely clear that Red.Black.Writings is Lucien. The only other explanation belongs in the realm of speculative fiction, something like the existence of a Lucien clone with family memories and an extreme interest in his career.

Again, let's keep this discussion focused. Flint, do you have any comments about the evidence I presented?

Flint
Offline
Joined: 17-12-05
Dec 30 2015 04:24
syndicalist wrote:
Flint, I do have a question. What if it is LvdW posting under RedBlack whatever?
Not that I would want to see things derailed, but I think, at this point, what he has to say and how he says it will have some bearing. I know that some of us have been patient in waiting for him to provide us with his insight and so forth. Same with ZACF. But if folks are gonna do stuff under cover and so forth, I think it diminishes some things and plays into others.
Anyway, in this instance the clock has run out and the more time wasted just plays into the negative, IMO

Sure. Lucien should post something about it. I think its more Lucien's responsibility than ZACF.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 30 2015 04:45

As I've said before,Flint, the ZACF has some responsibility to respond.
MS was a founding and longstanding member and a major public face of the various incarnations
of ZACF. Some of the allegations against MS occurred while he was a member, related specifically to internal discussions and position papers and do forth. IMO they have some responsibility in promoting organizational integrity, historical organizational accuracy and ultimately an organizational defense of their ideological integrity. Maybe it's just what I would want to see any organization do in difficult matters such as this, including my own.

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Dec 30 2015 05:15

This is a good example of what an organisation has said in the wake of a member's serious misbehaviour:

http://libcom.org/forums/announcements/af-statement-disassociation-sam-s...

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Dec 30 2015 07:43

Personally, l don't like the user name lucien lies, which seems a bit obsessive, but l agree with what the user is saying. lt looks like this is Lucien and, if that's true, l'd say it's pretty ball-less not to discuss openly while trying to influence the discussion.

lt's also senseless given the fact that it seems like plenty of people are bending over backwards to give both him and Schmidt the benefit of the doubt.

This all said and moving to another related topic, l've never had time to write a serious critique of Black Flame, pointing out all it's problematic points, but maybe all of this will give some people reason to look through it, or look through it again. What l mean is that, like the Schmidt article on Anarkismo, or another article there (which l also hadn't seen but was pointed out by ARR in his last piece), this guy has been writing shady or untrue stuff for a while and almost nobody has called him out. l am interested in how people with such ideas have been trying to smuggle them past anarchists for years.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Dec 30 2015 07:47

For those interested: http://www.anarkismo.net/article/28923

At least the author signs his own name.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Dec 30 2015 11:24
Flint wrote:
"lucien_lies_too"
Could we not be so obvious with sock puppets, please. [...]
I really don't care who you are. Site policy is against sock puppets for obvious reasons (which would include Red.Black.Writings if it is a sock).
I'm happy for the conversation to stay on point about about Schmidt, but sock puppets are not part of the terms of discussion here. Your the one that decided to go that route to make a joke or whatever it is you are doing with this sock.

You made a similar 'sock puppet' accusation about ‘AntiWar’ on a Rojava thread, http://libcom.org/library/negri-harvey-graeber-wallerstein-holloway-cult...
... failed to back it up with any evidence when asked and then similarly said you didn’t care anyway. Sock puppeting – whether by ‘Lucien lies’ or van der Walt ( and at present there’s only good evidence for the latter) – is devious but so is repeatedly using unfounded claims against political opponents. You’re free to inform admins of breaches of site rules. But again, if you have evidence, show it, or stop making the public accusations/smears against your opponents - as that appears just as devious.

Edit; Flint has since deleted some of his accusations above, both here and on the Rojava thread - which, if anything, makes his behaviour even more devious as he wasn't even willing to either stand by his unfounded claims nor explicitly retract them.

subcomandante_juan
Offline
Joined: 4-12-15
Dec 30 2015 14:42

Lucien will have a lot to answer to for his antics and comments here on Libcom.

Lucien and fellow apologists should be pressed to squarely address the core facts, such as the racist 2008 memo, Schmidt's Nazi (Lebensrune) tattoo (and how he lied about it in his "defense"), his inciting people to display racist symbols at the World Cup, and so on.

These are specific things no person defending Schmidt can ignore. Let's see Lucien go public and defend them.

lucien_lies_too's picture
lucien_lies_too
Offline
Joined: 28-12-15
Dec 30 2015 14:48
Red Marriott wrote:
Flint wrote:
"lucien_lies_too"
Could we not be so obvious with sock puppets, please. [...]
I really don't care who you are. Site policy is against sock puppets for obvious reasons (which would include Red.Black.Writings if it is a sock).
I'm happy for the conversation to stay on point about about Schmidt, but sock puppets are not part of the terms of discussion here. Your the one that decided to go that route to make a joke or whatever it is you are doing with this sock.

You made a similar 'sock puppet' accusation about ‘AntiWar’ on a Rojava thread, http://libcom.org/library/negri-harvey-graeber-wallerstein-holloway-cult...
... failed to back it up with any evidence when asked and then similarly said you didn’t care anyway. Sock puppeting – whether by ‘Lucien lies’ or van der Walt ( and at present there’s only good evidence for the latter) – is devious but so is repeatedly using unfounded claims against political opponents. You’re free to inform admins of breaches of site rules. But again, if you have evidence, show it, or stop making the public accusations/smears against your opponents - as that appears just as devious.

Thanks Red Marriott, that's exactly right.

Just to clarify for everyone here, since the phrase "sock puppet" is flying around pretty loosely:

* This is my one and only Libcom account, I'm not violating any site policies. If you mean "sock puppet" like I'm another poster in this thread hiding my identity with an alternate account, you're wrong.

* If you mean "sock puppet" like "obvious pseudonym", then of course it's a pseudonym. Maybe it's poorly chosen or "obsessive", but the account has one purpose: exposing Lucien van der Walt's covert participation in this discussion.

Enough with my username already, this is not about me.

lucien_lies_too's picture
lucien_lies_too
Offline
Joined: 28-12-15
Dec 30 2015 14:43

This thread is about to get a lot more exposure:
https://twitter.com/areidross/status/682082206525722624

xx
Offline
Joined: 26-06-15
Dec 30 2015 14:59
akai wrote:
For those interested: http://www.anarkismo.net/article/28923

At least the author signs his own name.

It's good to see some sanity from the US anarchist scene.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Dec 30 2015 16:32
xx wrote:
akai wrote:
For those interested: http://www.anarkismo.net/article/28923

At least the author signs his own name.

It's good to see some sanity from the US anarchist scene.

"Sanity" and "from the US" are generally incompatible terms.

Loukanikos
Offline
Joined: 29-10-15
Dec 30 2015 17:23
akai wrote:
For those interested: http://www.anarkismo.net/article/28923

At least the author signs his own name.

I much prefer the first comment on that article, much of which could be addressed to people on this thread (including Lucien):

Quote:
Not the principled response we need
author by AFAB Wed Dec 30, 2015 23:58

As much as I admire your work, Wayne, I have to say that this is one of the most simplistic and superficial analyses of the Schmidt situation I have seen yet. You have managed to reduce the five-part article by Ross and Stephens (and two addendums by Ross) to, essentially, “Michael Schmidt wrote some things on fascist websites.”

Either you are a very bad reader or you have willfully left out a whole range of evidence. You have, in a very doctrinaire fashion, limited yourself to an entirely textual analysis that amounts to an equally simplistic “but he wrote (or co-wrote) a lot of anarchist stuff too!” The real world is far more complex than that, Wayne.

Your analysis completely avoids such basic facts as:

1) Schmidt’s fascist alter ego both joining conversations among anarchists on Schmidt’s Facebook page and contacting South African anarchists in an attempt to lure them toward National Anarchism.

2) Schmidt’s description of his tattoos (to his fascist audience) as symbols of white pride on Stormfront, tattoos that he actually has, which can be seen in multiple photos.

Just these two things alone have been repeated so many times online that I can’t imagine that you missed them. There are many others. I must assume that your avoidance of them is intentional.

Your basic logic—that one cannot be both an anarchist and a fascist or white nationalist—betrays your insufficient understanding of the contemporary forms that neo-fascism takes. I suggest reading up on National Anarchism, National Bolshevism, and Third Positionists. While you and I know how deeply flawed and contradictory such ideologies are, there are plenty of people like Schmidt who disagree.

As a life-long organized anarchist partial to both especifismo and platformism, I in no way considered Schmidt’s undercover fascism to reflect upon those traditions themselves. The real test, though, will be how living, breathing platfomists—actual individuals and organizations—deal with his betrayal. Doing a poor job of it will damage our traditions far more than Schmidt's actions ever could.

Respectfully, I have to say that I think this is precisely what you have done here. In this situation, we need serious and principled responses from our organized anarchist traditions. If we circle our wagons, rely entirely on doctrine, wear blinders to the full range of the accusations, attack the messengers—all of which have so far been the main responses I’ve seen—we will isolate ourselves from the anarchist and radical movements. We will become irrelevant. And Schmidt will have won.

I hope others are more up to the task.

AFAB

bastarx
Offline
Joined: 9-03-06
Dec 30 2015 21:12
xx wrote:
akai wrote:
For those interested: http://www.anarkismo.net/article/28923

At least the author signs his own name.

It's good to see some sanity from the US anarchist scene.

Wayne Price writes a really shit article shocker.

akai
Offline
Joined: 29-09-06
Dec 30 2015 22:20

l'm not shocked about the Price piece: it was what l expected and unfortunately l was correct about how this would play out in certain corners. And it is very unfortunate.

l put my comment there and hope Anarkismo will publish it. l also commented on a piece that was pointed out by ARR in his last article, about a "neo-Makhnovist" organization. Personally, l don't think it is the best piece to show MS's right-wing sympathies, but it does show some other things. For example, that people sometimes write articles on topics they know nothing about. That one has a lot of mistakes. Some seem deliberate, others are misinformed or just plain propaganda.

l suppose for some, these types of articles are proof that MS is helping to build the international anarchist movement - only if such articles are so poorly researched and so off-the-mark, they are not too useful. Also, l show how there is a repeated use of manipulation in the arguments. For example, MS would have people believe that people who criticize some hierarchical practices in organizations are "anti-organization" "against organizational discipline" or "synthesist anarchists". He implies that the reason l see an organization as hierarchical must be that he sees things as a platformist, and l as a synthesist. lt's really manipulative crap. His work is full of that, really.

syndicalist
Offline
Joined: 15-04-06
Dec 31 2015 00:53
S. Artesian wrote:
"Sanity" and "from the US" are generally incompatible terms.

O jolly ole england....