THE WOOD BURNS (en)

Dear Fenrir’s writers.

I just read your last publication and I want answer to the “debate” explicated into the lines of the editorial and in the next pages and I write you this mail:

At the page 61 of the last Fenrir number you put a paragraph on my absolution and the absolution of the comrade Mattia.But you put my name at the page 18 too, in reference to the CARI-PGG “Revolutionary Anarchist Cell – Gabriella Segata Antolini” attack. Until now it seemed to me that I was precise and conform to what you put in the above mentioned pages. My interest in “debate” arises spontaneously reading the paragraph on my absolution and the absolution of the comrade Mattia.

I mean that, at least to me, it’s fundamental to be “free” to express our selves, without any occlusion, and overall in anarchic context, nobody can tell to another anarchist “you have to do this or that”…

You as promulgators of Fenrir zine, are naturally free to express and express yourselves as you like… on this nobody can put his “voice” on that

Attention, because just specifying, and being specific, you can understand what I mean with “voice”:

I as individual, I won’t for sure force you to write what I want, but this because the paper is yours, as I feel mine (and my affines’), Edizioni Cerbero.

But since in the paragraph and in the CARI-PGG attack transcription there is my name, I want to specify that:

Some months before the end of the trial I put on internet, and I sent to comrades and affines, a text called:

“A break from the endless possibilities”

So, now, in the text, I wrote clearly and with a premise, fundamental to me, that I separated myself consequentially to the comrade Mattia, co-defendant with me into the trial for explosive material.

Some weeks after someone put this text on Indymedia Lombardia with a pseudonym that gives anonymity to this person.

I put hand to my fantasy and I put again with my name the complete text.

Now, to return to what I wrote above:

Who can, in a hidden way, not to put a premise, that sharply “cut” the text itself and make it seems that I and the comrade Mattia stay together in the trial, or continue into the same path with the same choices for both?

Each individual in his choices has to be free to do what he like, and not following any moral, he can use forms suited to him, to reach a result:

So, denying the moral (anarchist moral too), I don’t deny to another individual to put a text without the premise, but the same individual has to take his own responsibilities , when who wrote the text itself will read and will act consequentially.

I invited to the anonymous extensor to show him up, but without any result…

My interest point, into writing this to you, is to specify how I act, in anarchist context and that as individual, I defend with all my strength and all my claws.

I put a specific text, I don’t care if good or bad, but “clear”, without too many facets or references to who-knows-what “bourgeois justice”, to exploited and exploiters…

In the text it’s me “individual, inseparable from myself.

In the same way (the difference is present into the “non”-anonymity), meanwhile I as individual, make clear my choice, and to be more clear I write to who’s interested that he can write me to my e-mail, to “debate”, you don’t put absolute anything that could make understand to who read that my choice is completely opposed to that of the comrade Mattia, and this “rupture” is due to peculiar choices, that I made to preserve me as individual who put before him how to act in choices context.

However the comrade Mattia make the same thing writing a public text, by citing me, to make clear his choice.

This last text arrives to me from one of the Fenrir’s editors (right?) with a mode that I’d like to debate on with the same extensor of the mail that I received:

you text’s extensor, write “me”, but like if you talk with the comrade Mattia, right?

But this specific form of structural and synthetic simplification, is maybe nullifying the individual, and to consider “everything” as individual itself?

The form used presupposes the use of the subject as equal form of the structural form?

I come back saying that you being editors and owners of the zine Fenrir, you can move me as you want, but I’m free, since you wrote to “debate”, to “invite” too, without any anonymous form to the debate, inviting who is interested to the “debate” itself.

But primarily because this concerns my choices, that in your paragraph aren’t even mentioned, but is put a line that doesn’t make understand anything, if not that there was an absolution.

And there are 2 texts (more “Negare ogni resipiscenza” signed by both us co-defendants), that were published.

But now, I want to specify again:

You could put a note or a long text, your idea on the juridical theme and on the choices made in the context of “justice”, may them be for or against.

You embellished yourselves in the lines you write, to specify the various position in the anarchist context, that are specific for each individual that choose them but:

Nothing, like if I and Mattia had always gotten along, and both me and him did not separated in any way in the trial context.

I ask you:

How can a comrade understand the difference, if you don’t put anything that could make understand something different to the absolution?

And in the same way, you act in the field of simplification and nullification of any individual and peculiar choice, by citing my name wrote into the CARI-PGG claim text, but it was simple to put just a line more, that they give me solidarity!

But I ask you:

But how can the comrade to understand why CARI-PGG give me solidarity?

If you had put the part where they cite me (and I claim my support toward them in the attacks they made), the reader would read and understand that they gave me solidarity too, because they supported my anti-juridical conduct in the trial…

There’s no trace of this, and this make me think that you don’t care at all about what was the trial, or you have a divergent or opposing idea from mine, or from other comrades that made similar choices…

But what do you think about this?

It would be interesting to understand, but this in a extended way, and not only on my trial, or on my choices.

The systematic reduction of a communiqué (intended as communicate), can bring to the detriment of the meaning of the communication itself, because it narrows to a cancellation of the significant signs that the communiqué wants to give:

if I (in general) communicate something that doesn’t communicate anything, then the text becomes something that is incommunicable.

But I mean this not in the sense that a text must “say” something that is comprehensive at all, but it has to be something specific, because if not every text extensor’s communicative singularity is nullified.

I don’t care at all to “say” we’re all comrades, and I see in a specific way each peculiar difference.

So I’m or not free to act how I like?

I repeat: the zine is yours and you can act as you want, but if I read in 2 paragraphs that there’s my name and there’s nothing that could make understand that my choice was not Mattia’s choice, and that furthermore there’s a specific text on the trial against me, that there’s an invite to debate, then I can answer you…

Like, on the other hand, is omitted the part of the CARI-PGG claim where they give me solidarity for a precise reason (that in the claim paragraph there’s not), that is that of my trial choice and my choice to revoke the lawyers, and my trying in all ways to nullify the use of legal right.

Now, you can don’t answer me too, but why, which is the reason, in a specific note in the CARI-PGG claim, not to put that they give me solidarity because of precise reasons?

Into the anarchist context, but not the stereotyped one, individual choices are fundamental: they’re the essence  of the individual itself.

Into the anarchist context, the individual who propose itself and make a personal choice, in which he takes his own responsibilities, acts in a clear way and without hiding anything.

Into the anarchist context, individual essence is his acting as he like more, breaking when and how he wants any imposition, may it be moral or material.

Into the anarchist context, the individual doesn’t have to submit to anything that can impede him his free will and if he has to act because he made a choice, he’ll do it, even if the others won’t agree with him.

Into the anarchist context, acting has to be go against too, without content the majority, and if he has to break to preserve his peculiar essence, he’ll do it, and the moral won’t stop him.

Into the anarchist context, the use of own Ego is the essence itself of the individual, who’ll start from his own choice, essential to himself, and just after, joining him in a informal way he’ll can come to “terms” with another individual.

But without submit to any law that could stop him from “breaking” this union, if doesn’t want anymore to, respect to his inseparable singularity.

My letter to you wants to preserve my individuality that, into the trial context, broke, to continue my individual choice, because ceased that affinity in the choices of own way to act into the trial against me and the comrade Mattia.

With the comrade Mattia, I talked about this and other openly, without remain silent on anything, and he continued in his choice that is his choice and just his, as on the other and I did, without submit to any stupid anarchist moral imposition in saying and doing.

You didn’t put anything that could make understand the total difference between me and the comrade Mattia, into the trial against us.

And you repeated this into the CARI-PGG attack claim text, omitting that the solidarity was due to specific reasons into the trial context and of the logic right use.

At this point I ask you:

But how do you intend “debate”?

Fede and for total sharing Maurizio/Ed. Cerbero