en it es - 1st Fragment – The Anarchist and Amoral Anti-Judicial Attitude

A “first” fragment has been placed in the deconstruction of the criminal trial, the overall apparatus of the secular moral-monster of justice and “logical” use of judgment; in which we introduce into the “dissolution” of any bourgeois law, that reflects and projects it’s “shadow” – the cancellation of the individual -, delivering a resolution of the thorny specification and arduous path of anti-judicialism.
The path is hard to follow. A second fragment will speak about bureaucratic quibbles used in the rights obtained by procedural signed clauses, for the “certainty” of punishment, but this will happen in a second time. Now is the time to go out of the closet with no more implicit fear, or with the intrusion of “voices” who want to save, as they have the effect in the redemptive deception or specifically in “repentance”. The essence turns “the living” repression under a light shading which transforms the sight (with the “thought” that looks) in a myopic and double-edged effect sight. Hiding the act of a denial implies a surrender and collapse to the repeated attempts, given by the world of the “normals”, in returning to the insidious hands of logic-compromise.
In this is expressed the evaluation of effects-signs of distinctive notes. In a choice that starts from the individual and returns to individual.
The Anarcho-nihilism/anti-social imprints strength to my own words that are my “evil passions” too.
The con-division rejects very moral judgment.
The text coincides with “who I am” because I am unreproducible as an individual, that’s why it must be done “properly” into the con-division, as “union”.
In the “meaning” there’s a “purpose” too : a “proposal” about a correlation of texts that will form an anti-judicial publication which will be edited by Edizioni Cerbero.
-

“The individual in rebellion aspires to become lawless” Max Stirner
Life burns like a candle 1. The explanation of a heresy, that from imagination becomes evident, explores and analyzes the explicit : In a discordant world and necessary destruction, in search of an imbalance in the remote areas…
The “moral fracture” dissolves into the indefinable and inexplicable (not being learned by a common language) and involves at each step a new “conflictual” : impulse. Violent passion.
The amoral principle rises in a reflection of instincts and impulses, into a force that must be consumed until it becomes “nothing”, from the “nothing” from which it comes.

“The nihilist is the one who, about the world as it is, judges it should not be and, about the world as it should be, judges that nothing exists” 2.
Condemned by “human” laws (which are devoted to utilitarianism), the free spirit – the anarcho-nihilist, is tied to a small community, with a common “thread” : the informal “happening” of events.
“Spirit is the first knowledge of oneself, the first anti-divinization of the devine, namely of that hostile force of that ghost, of that superior ‘power’” 3.
Reject the mass and eradicate the concept of class, and the structure that supports her : “the right of society”. The insignificant determines the vital impulses of the “dutiful automaton” citizens, and fixes them into a radical demolition of the individual-subject : into a “faith” (principally of obedience), in which “reason” falsifies the absolute meaning of things.
“How many human beings have gone through life without ever waking up! And how many others realized that they were living only for the monotonous tick of clocks.” Emile Henry, ‘Colpo su colpo’.
The systematic nature of logic and order, and their behavioral rules, affirm their role of the “definite” in a world dominated by the sacred order of the laws.
But the free spirit advances and goes beyond.
Chaos and chaotic events change and take us with them, in an arrogant sharing of intentions, with pregnancy, like in a destructive act that burns the “codes of society”.
The experience of the destroyer chaos stands out in its uniqueness, instability and in the losing of every defined form, in an incessant flow of life, that is always it’s death too.
The Anarcho-nihilist incipient “crushes” the overall structure of values and the alleged uniqueness of things, which break up into an “apparent world”, and in the advent against what we can “see”, against what is embodied in men.
“We have eliminated the real world : What world has remained? Perhaps the apparent one? But no! With the real word we have eliminated the apparent one too.” 4
Speaking the enemy’s language, we align to its concepts:
In the systematic logic of articles of law, “justice” requires a moral need, to judge the validity of the “right” to judgment, which is inalienable from society-order.
“Pre-trial detention is proportionate to the size of the fact and to the penalty that you think may be imposed”.
Rights-duties determine the proportion of penalties imposed according to judgment.
It determines the course of the offence according to its fluctuations in the legal-judicial matter, and also prescribes the sentence to be served, according to the model prescribed by the established order.
The mundane judge becomes the eternal judge, his law and commandments are the nodal point of “punishment”.
The “mask of the right” stands between a choice of revolt (and denial of a judicial “mask”) and the acceptance of this “right”, in harmony with a “limited world”, relegating the individual into the impersonal, that transforming them into a dead form, a living-non life.
The “insuperable limit” becomes the adhesion to the order-ordinariness of things and calculation of the expected.
The belonging of the “delay” has a role of regulation which is a principle-reflection of “reconciliation”.
The cementing of the respect between friends is transformed into a devoted bond, and turns attachment into affection.
The gap between free will and imposition (of the friendship’s role) is the logical consequence of “readaptation”.
“The lawyer is the interpreter and mediator between laws and citizen, and in the performance of their mandate, helps to understand the situations from a legal point of view, also they find the shortest way and the least expense for the protection of rights.”
“I speak with the lawyer. And help to protect their rights and to recognize those of others.”
The individual falls into the contradiction (the falsification of what happened) and enters into the logical principle of the “reason”.
Those who “interpret” (the legal defence) this “right-duty” stands between the accused and who imputes, and “mediating” does their job.
They subordinate the individual-defendant to their own vision of mediation that gives to them the right, the “right” to defend.
In the interpretation-“faith” of the legal doctrine, the choice of a “shortest way” makes the boundaries of existence like a dream where the “cell” is the inevitable background of daily life.
The process of transformation is placed side-by-side between order and disorder (the fusion of chaos with existence). Annihilating the “first”, this process goes beyond adaptation to the necessity of human community (in the reconciliation), where the free spirit seeks this disorder through vital impulses, and breaks and crosses the banks of a civilization built on “appearance”, and refuses to be judged.
Denial involves the capacity to look beyond appearance (the deductible) and is preferred to the net of codes-quibbles that cover the entire structure of societies order.
The anarchist-amoral anti-judicialism imprints a decoding sign in the criteria and discipline of a mere tool of adaptability to the legal doctrine (from and in which the “comforting” becomes “conformity”) and uproots it’s base: The indefinable accordingly becomes the “risk” of the unknown.
Violating the codes of societies order, we stick out and expose ourselves through the denial of absolute values and, pushing us to the base of this denial, we move in a continuous renewal and overcoming of our own limits, in a universe dominated by “logic”, the counterpart of “will”.
The anarchist-amoral anti-judicialism, denying the existence of any “right”, it breaks with consequential logic, and in it’s denial crushes every “logical” interpretation of being judged in the identity of things.
The anarchist-amoral anti-judicialism completes itself into the denial of every “legal defence” and uproots every opportunism, destabilizing and showing the boundaries of the irreparable in a world that does not belong to us.
In a break given by the endless possibilities, we nullify the labyrinth of prohibitions, and denying them we don’t recognize them, and we place ourselves at the “margins of society”.
-
1 Max Stirner, “The Ego and Its Own” “But how does one use life? In using it up, like the candle, which one uses in burning it up. One uses life, and consequently himself the living one, in consuming it and himself. Enjoyment of life is using life up.”
2 Ibid.
3 F. Nietzsche “Twilight of the Idols”
4 F. Nietzsche “Twilight of the Idols”
Edizioni CERBERO


Federico Buono – Frammento

Proposta: l’antigiuridismo anarchico-amorale

Un frammento “primo” è stato posto nella decostruzione del processo penale, e dell’apparato complessivo del mostro-morale e secolare della giustizia e del “logico” uso del giudizio, in cui ci introduciamo nella “dissoluzione” di ogni legge borghese, che riflette e proietta la sua “ombra” di annullamento dell’individuo e consegna una risoluzione di specificazione dello spinoso e arduo sentiero dell’antigiuridismo. La strada è in salita.

Un secondo frammento andrà a toccate i cavilli burocratici usati in quelli che sono i diritti che si ottengono con le clausole procedurali firmate, per la “certezza” della pena, ma questo in un secondo momento.

Ora era tempo di uscire allo scoperto senza più la paura insita, nell’intromissione di “voci” che vogliono salvare, ma che hanno un effetto nell’inganno della redenzione o specificatamente nella “resipiscenza”.

L’essenza tramuta il “vivere” la repressione sotto una luce chiaroscura che rende la vista (con il “pensiero” che guarda), miope e dai contorni dal doppio effetto.

Dissimulare l’atto di una negazione sottintende a un cedere e franare ai ripetuti tentativi, dati dal mondo dei “normali, nel ritornare nelle insidiose mani della logica-compromesso.

In questo si estrinseca la valutazione degli effetti-segni di note distintive:

In una scelta che parte dall’individuo e torna all’individuo.

L’anarco-nichilismo/antisociale imprime forza alle mie parole che sono anche le mie “cattive passioni”.

La condivisione rifiuta ogni giudizio morale.

Il testo sono “me stesso” irriproducibile in quanto singolo, ma da fare “proprio” nella condivisione, in quanto “unione”.

Nel “mezzo”, che anche un “fine”: una “proposta” in una correlazione di testi che andranno a formare una pubblicazione in ambito antigiuridico che sarà editata dalle Ed.Cerbero.

“L’individuo in rivolta aspira a diventare senza legge.” (Max Stirner)

La vita brucia come una candela.1 L’esplicazione di un eresia, che da immaginativa diventa evidenza, esplora e analizza l’esplicito: In un mondo disarmonico e nella distruzione necessaria, nella ricerca di un disequilibrio in spazi remoti…

La “Frattura morale” si dissolve nell’indefinibile e l’inesplicabile (non essendo appreso da un linguaggio comune) e comporta ad ogni passo, un nuovo “conflitto”: impulso. Passione violenta.

Il principio a-morale si innalza in un riflesso di istinti e di impulsi, in una forza che deve essere consumata fino a renderla “nulla”, dal “nulla” da cui proviene.

“Il nichilista è colui che, del mondo qual è, giudica che non dovrebbe essere e, del mondo quale dovrebbe essere, giudica che non esiste.”2

Condannato dalle leggi dell”uomo” (devoto dell’utilitarismo), lo spirito libero-l’anarco nichilista, è legato a un esigua comunità, con un “filo” comune: l’informale “accadere” degli eventi.

“Spirito è la prima conoscenza di se stessi, la prima sdivinizzazione del divino, e cioè di quella forza ostile di quel fantasma, di quella “potenza” superiore.”3

Rifiuta la massa ed estirpa la concezione di classe, e la struttura che la supporta: “il diritto della società”. L’Irrilevante determina le pulsioni vitali del cittadino “automa del dovere”, e lo concretizza in una demolizione radicale del soggetto-individuo: in una “fede” (con il principio dell’obbedienza), in cui la “ragione” pretende il significato assoluto delle cose.

“Quanti esseri hanno attraversato la vita senza mia svegliarsi!

E quanti altri, si sono accorti che stavano vivendo

solo per il monotono tic-tac degli orologi.” Emile Henry, “Colpo su colpo”.

La sistematicità della logica e dell’ordine, e le regole comportamentali, affermano il loro ruolo del “definito” in un mondo dominato dal sacro ordinamento delle leggi.

Ma lo spirito libero avanza e oltrepassa:

Il caos e la caoticità degli eventi, mutano e ci prendono con sé, in una tracotante condivisione di intenti, in modo pregnante, come in un atto distruttivo che brucia i “codici della società”.

L’esperienza del caos distruttore, si distingue nella sua unicità e instabilità, e nel perdersi di ogni forma definita, in un flusso incessante della vita, che anche è sempre morte.

L’incipit anarco-nichilista “frantuma” la struttura complessiva dei valori e la presunta univocità delle cose, che si disgregano in un “mondo apparente”, e nell’avventarsi contro ciò che si “vede”, contro ciò chi si incarna negli uomini.

“Abbiamo eliminato il mondo vero:

Quale Mondo è rimasto?

Forse quello apparente? Ma no!

Con il mondo vero abbiamo eliminato

anche quello apparente.“4

Nel parlare la lingua del nostro nemico, ci allineiamo ai suoi concetti:

Nella logica sistematica degli articoli di legge, la “giustizia” esige un bisogno morale, per giudicare la validità del “diritto”al giudizio, che è inalienabile dalla (società-ordine).

“La custodia cautelare appare proporzionata all’entità

del fatto e alla sanzione che si ritiene possa essere irrogata.”

Il diritto-dovere determina la proporzione della pena irrogata in base al giudizio.

Ne determina l’andamento in (base) all’oscillazione del reato che in materia legale-giuridica, presuppone la condanna da scontare, secondo il modello prescritto dall’ordine costituito.

Il giudice terreno diventa il giudice eterno, la cui legge e i comandamenti sono il punto nodale del “castigo”.

La “maschera del diritto” si frappone tra una scelta di rivolta (e negazione di una “maschera” giuridica), e l’accettazione di questo “diritto”, in armonia con un “mondo circoscritto”, relegando nell’impersonale l’individuo, che si trasforma in una forma morta, in una vita-non vita.

Il “Limite invalicabile” diviene l’adesione all’ordine-ordinario delle cose e del calcolo del prevedibile. L’appartenenza all’”Indugio”, ha un ruolo di regolamentazione che è principio-riflesso di “riconciliazione”.

La cementificazione del rispetto amicale si trasforma in un vincolo consacrato, e tramuta l’affetto in affezione.

Il divario tra il libero arbitrio e un’imposizione (del ruolo amicale) è la conseguenza logica del “riadattamento”.

“L’avvocato è l’interprete ed il mediatore tra le leggi e il cittadino e nel suo svolgimento del suo mandato, aiuta a comprendere le situazioni dal punto di vista giuridico, e individua la strada più celere e meno dispendiosa per la tutela di un diritto.”

“Ne parlo con l’avvocato. Un aiuto per tutelare i propri diritti e saper riconoscere quelli degli altri.”

L’individuo cade nella contraddizione (la falsificazione di ciò che accade) ed entra in un principio logico della “ragione”.

Chi “interpreta” (la difesa legale) questo “diritto-dovere” si (frappone) tra l’imputato e chi imputa, e svolge il suo ruolo “mediando”.

Subordina l’individuo-imputato alla propria visione di mediazione che gli dà il diritto, nel “diritto” al difendere.

Nell’interpretazione-”fede” della dottrina giuridica, la scelta di una “strada più celere” rende i contorni dell’esistenza, come in un sogno in cui la “cella” è lo sfondo inevitabile della vita quotidiana.

Il processo di trasformazione è collocato tra l’ordine e il disordine (la fusione del caos con l’esistenza). Annientando il “primo”, questo processo oltrepassa l’adattamento alle necessità della comunità umana (nella riconciliazione), laddove lo spirito libero, ricerca questo disordine attraverso le pulsioni vitali, e spezza e travalica gli argini di una civiltà edificata sull’”apparenza”, e rifiuta di farsi “giudicare”.

La negazione comporta la capacità di guardare oltre l’apparenza (il deducibile) e si antepone alla rete di codici-cavilli che rivestono l’intera struttura della società ordine.

L’antigiuridismo anarchico-amorale, imprime un segno di decodificazione nei criteri e la disciplina di un mero strumento di adattabilità alla dottrina giuridica (da e in cui il “confortante” diventa “conformità”) e lo sradica alla radice:

L’indefinito di conseguenza diventa il “rischio” dell’ignoto.

Nell’infrangere i codici della società-ordine, ci sporgiamo e ci esponiamo, attraverso la negazione dei valori assoluti e, nello spingerci fino alla radice di questa “negazione”, avanziamo in un continuo rinnovamento e superamento dei propri limiti, in un universo dominato dalla “logica”, controparte di “volontà”.

L’Antigiuridismo anarchico-amorale, negando l’esistenza di un “diritto”, spezza con la logica consequenziale, e frantuma nella “negazione” ogni interpretazione “logica” dell’essere giudicato in un identità delle cose.

L’Antigiuridismo anarchico-amorale si completa nella negazione di ogni “difesa legale” e sradica ogni opportunismo di facciata e “destabilizzando”, rende noti e concreti i contorni dell’irreparabile in un mondo che non ci appartiene.

In una rottura data dalle infinite possibilità di rivolta, vanifichiamo il labirinto di divieti, e negandoli non li riconosciamo, e ci poniamo ai “margini della società”.

__________

1 Max Striner da ”L’Unico e la sua proprietà”:

“Ma come si sfrutta la vita? Consumandola come una candela, che si sfrutta bruciandola, si sfrutta la vita e con ciò se stesso, il vivente consumandolo e la vita e se stesso, godimento della vita e consumo della vita.“

2 Ibidem

3 F.Nietzche”Il Crepuscolo degli idoli”

4 F.Nietzche”Il Crepuscolo degli idoli”

http://culmine.noblogs.org/2011/11/29/federico-buono-frammento/


Fragmento – La actitud anarquista y amoral anti-judicial

extraido de 325, traducido por 22-05 Contra!nfo

http://325.nostate.net/?p=4117#more-4117


El derecho a la defensa

‘Esta es la magia de lo extremo. La seducción que ejercita todo lo que es extremo. Nosotros los anti-moralistas, nosotros somos los extremistas’. i

El espíritu libre – el anarquista nihilista está avanzando y llendo más allá.
Los sistemas formales de referencia, dados por los órganos judiciales, establecen el rol del acusado. De esta forma la base del monstruo moral y judicial se establece de manera orgánica.
Desmantelar y derrumbar los “pilares” del juicio legal significa destripar su abismo inferior hasta que sus fragmentos puedan ser encontrados de manera oculta.
Derrumbar todos los elementos de referencia logocéntrica significa negar en una renovación continua, interpretar todos sus fragmentos, hechos de una “resistencia” sin esquinas.
El fuego del caos devorador extingue todas las re-elaboraciones racionales, “negando” y renovando mientras niega.


Cada uno de nosotros debe encontrar su infierno personal ii .

Defensa (derecho) art. 24 de la constitución: ‘Derecho inviolable garantizado por la constitución que consiste en asegurar a todos la posibilidad de defender sus legítimos derechos a través de la acción o resistencia durante el juicio.’

La plácida repetición de un movimiento que apunta a consecuencias lógicas se disuelve a sí mismo en un cuadro consecuencial.
Un examen cuidadoso de este cuadro lleva a la teorización, asimilada de forma asimétrica, de lo determinado.
Mientras escucha, la ausencia sorda, la “marca” dada por la presencia de la ausencia, es la ausencia misma.
La ausencia es la presencia del “ser ausente”.
La producción de una serie de consecuencias lógicas-racionales crea “apaciguamiento”, llevando a la determinación de este apaciguamiento, el cual se vuelve adquisición silenciosa transmitiendo la razón que creó el apaciguamiento: circunscribir y determinar los eventos determinandolos en una lógica racional.
De forma apriorística, el sujeto-individuo que no tiene prejucios en lo que respecta a su deducción lógica de los efectos de esta “determinación” acepta su normalidad, porque la distancia entre la adquisición de los efectos lógicos y su hacerlos lógicos se reduce hasta que se re-margina así mismo enfocándose en su efecto.

‘El defensor de *** ha protestado porque el material tomado no puede ser clasificado como fulminante o explosivo (…). Sin embargo ha demandado que la medida coercitiva sea rechazada también por falta de alguna referencia al comportamiento del que se acusa a su cliente (…)
Subordinadamente ha pedido la aplicación de una medida sin custodia.’

Este fragmento escogido racionaliza los eventos y clasifica el efecto-signo que surge del extento de los eventos mismos. El fatalismo “afirma” al sujeto-individuo, el cual se da cuenta de sí mismo en cada movimiento-momento y se convierte en el desarrollo “lógico” que simplifica el desarrollo mismo adaptándolo.
Todo esto considerando la evidencia supuesta de que este desarrollo es una determinación, un evento que la lógica ha realizado determinándose así misma.
Las dinámicas de la autodefensa hacen a las capacidades sensoriales de la propia individualidad de unx inútiles. Esas capacidades adquieren significado mientras se revelan a sí mismas.
Por lo tanto el rol homólogo del/la acusadx, establecido por los órganos judiciales, está polarizado por un signo convencional.
Una naturaleza sistemática absorbe los eventos a los cuales y en los cuales el sujeto-individuo es puesto, de forma que se pone a sí mismo ante la dependencia de una ‘jaula dorada’.
El desarrollo de los eventos establece un hilo, el cual sublima en la ‘nada’ disolviéndose.
El sistema formal de referencia para el individuo privado de su esencia, de su ‘ser’ individual, exacerba y The formal system of reference for the individual deprived of his essence, of his ‘being’ individual, exacerbates and sojuzga la razón y la asimila a la ‘máscara de la ley’.
En la asimilación de una raíz moral, la afirmación de uno mismx es una prisión social, donde la trasposición entre el individuo que se afirma a sí mismo y el prisionero que se conforma a través de la homogeneización, se anula a sí mismo.

Un defensor acorde al art. 96 s.s del código penal. ‘Garantiza la defensa técnica en un procedimiento penal al acusado y a otras partes que tengan el derecho a nominarlo.’

Los intentos principales de un sujeto-individuo, por ahora acusado, se disipan en una disociación lógica, la cual moldea la interpretación de la doctrina judicial y de la ‘fianza’.
Un acusado camina por una senda preestablecida, la cual define lo que está ‘garantizado’ como la cláusula procesal de una falsificación subjetiva.
Tomando medidas, se respalda a sí mismo en una constitución-construcción, dando así un sentido-significado a ‘su’ nada.
‘Los carácteres de una defensa son la efectividad y libertad del defensor’.
Tragado por la ley, un acusado no-individual asimila los carácteres esenciales que hacen un procedimiento judicial, en el cual signos convencionales emergen en una lógica y un punto de vista racional.
Cualquier ‘carácter’ impone una obligación moral, en la cual el acusado se atrapa sin salida.
La reparación se vuelve aparición, la cual se convierte en subordinación, en el vacío creado por un rol judicial que se ha convertido en absoluto en su objetivo de redimir al anular.

‘La efectividad implica que un defensor tenga una rol dinámico, creativo y participativo en la dialéctica con un fiscal público durante un juicio.’

El rol de un defensor hace el perfil de un acusado preciso y claro. El acusado, que no reconoce, o ha anulado, su individualidad y peculiaridades, se convierte en una forma recompuesta y de nivel.
Su identidad es la ‘ley’.
Los efectos del rol de la defensa asumen y cambian la subjetividad de un acusado, y aplican un lenguaje-dialéctica global en la farsa judicial, llevando así las partes perdidas a una rehabilitación totalizante.
Las partes recompuestas expropian cualquier fibra del individuo y catalizan la adaptación a perspectivas conciliadoras de forma mecánica, reconciliación que representa una síntesis de significado.
El resultado es la privación de la ‘revuelta interior’ y el abandono de la ‘nada’.
La conciliación es permanente.
Ahora el defensor, invasivo como un patógeno, asume el humus del sujeto, en una elminación total de todos los ‘carácteres’ singulares, y se estabiliza a sí mismo.
La articulación metodológica del ‘compromiso’ es vista como fundamental.

‘Entre lo que está disminuyendo dentro suyo y alrededor suyo
Y lo que lo mejora
El viento de una catástrofe está pasando.’
P. Klossowski

La vivisección de la conciencia representa el concepto de ‘razón’ en una obvia actividad metafísica-racional.
La efectividad de la razón, disecada, regresa a una reducción-representación, en un sujeto cuya expresión se vuelve una leal intersección de esa disección.
El rechazo asimilado por la voz de la conciencia, la cual diseca, priva al individuo de su esencia y peculiaridades, llevando a una meta-verdad como un concepto global de la ‘voz’.
Esta ‘voz’ expone una lógica moral que expresa el valor del mundo de acuerdo a categorías, las cuales son los resultados y las perspectivas de utilidad, determinadas en lo que tiene que ser determinado.
Construido por la consciencia, los valores son derivaciones de la mantención de la forma-dominio humano.
Proyectando información formal y conceptos-órdenes, la ley adquiere el derecho a existir.
La renuncia se convierte en virtud.
La virtud de esta renuncia viene como una necesidad en el sujeto, en un estado psicológico disecado.
La moralidad pone al individuo en una esquina, y el individuo recibe los golpes sin darse cuenta de su sujeción.
La voz de la consciencia se expresa a sí misma ‘diciendo’:
‘Los valores universales del hombre son mis valores, son valores fundamentales.’
El valor común de la ley representa el entendimiento lógico, el cual confiere un ‘derecho’ de existencia a valores universales.

El derecho a defensa


‘La defensa es un derecho inviolable en todo estado y grado de un procedimiento.’ (Art 24 de la constitución).
‘Contrario a lo que se piensa comúnmente, un acusado no es el objeto de una postura punitiva del estado, ni es un mero sujeto pasivo de esta postura, sino que es un sujeto real en el juicio, a quien la ley reconocer algunos derechos y poderes (derechos de un acusado).’

La base de la disciplina judicial demanda, afirmándose a sí misma, la simplificación y reducción, y la deconstrucción interpretativa del individuo. Marginaliza la expresión de cualquier especificidad existencial reduciendo así una expresión sorda a una forma de muerte.
Los efectos de la ‘auto-defensa’ expresan la manifestación sintomática de una enfermedad del espíritu, donde los elementos de expresión son encadenados a sustancia moral, la cual lleva al síntoma de ‘remendarse unx mismx’, como un signo de razón.
Esos valores inhiben la entrada aniquiladora, y convierten la lógica hegemónica de la ley.
En una perspectiva de reconciliación, la razón re-emerge, una razón que da sentido a la renuncia y extinción de la voluntad de fuerza.
De un punto de vista ético, la conciliación es una ‘pista’ del signo convencional del ‘derecho a defensa’.
Un trauma es resuelto en un acuerdo conciliador.
Adaptarse unx mismx le da sentido a las cosas, en lo que es afirmado y aceptado en la consciencia-existencia.
Lo que es necesario es deseable.
La supuración moral prevalece.

‘La constitución democrática, estando fundadad en leyes, asegura verdadera libertad y armonía, previsto que los ciudadanos no se dañen unos a otros y aprendan a adaptarse a la vida en común, inspirada por la armonía’ iii

Voluntad de Poder, F.Nietzsche
ii ‘No es por casualidad, Cerbero vigila las puertas de tu infierno personal donde nadie puede entrar
y desde donde nada sale’ (ver ‘Cattive Passioni [Malas Pasiones], Edizioni Cerbero.
iii Los fragmentos de los presocráticos, H. Diels W. Franz


http://22demayo.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/fragmento-la-actitud-anarquista-y-amoral-anti-judicial/#more-413

Émile Henry Letter to the Director of the Conciergerie

During the visit you made to my cell Sunday, the 18th of this month, we had a quite friendly discussion of anarchist ideas.
You said you were very surprised to learn our theories in a different light, and you asked me to summarize our conversation in writing, in order to better know what the anarchists want.
You can easily understand, monsieur, that in just a few pages one can’t expound upon a theory which analyses our current social life in all of its manifestations; that studies these manifestations the way a doctor examines a sick body, and which then condemns them because they’re contrary to human happiness and, in place of them, builds an entirely new life, based on principles completely antagonistic to those upon which the old society was built.
Besides, others have already done what you ask of me: Kropotkin, Reclus, Sébastien Faure have set forth their ideas, and pushed their development as far as possible.
Read Évolution et Révolution by Reclus, La Morale Anarchiste, Les Paroles d’un Révolté, La Conquete du Pain by Peter Kropotkin; Autorité et Liberté, Le Machinisme et ses Conséquences by Sébastien Faure; La Société Mourante et l’Anarchie by Grave; Entre Paysans (Fra Contadini) by Malatesta; read also the numerous pamphlets and manifestoes that have appeared over the last fifteen years, each expounding new ideas, according to whether study or circumstances suggested them to their authors.
Read all of this and then you would form a well-founded judgment on anarchy.
Nevertheless, don’t think that anarchism is a dogma, a doctrine that can’t be attacked, indisputable, venerated by its followers as the Koran is by Muslims.
No, the absolute freedom that we call for ceaselessly expands our ideas, raises them towards new horizons (following the will of diverse individuals) and removes them from the rigid frameworks of regimentation and codification.
We are not “believers;” we don’t bow before Reclus or Kropotkin. We debate their ideas, we accept them when they develop sympathetic impressions in our brains, but we reject them when they don’t strike a chord within us.
We are far from possessing the blind faith of the collectivists, who believe in something because Guesde said it had to be believed in, and who have a catechism whose paragraphs it would be sacrilegious to dispute.
This being established, I am going to try to briefly and rapidly expound for you what I understand by anarchy, without involving other comrades who, on certain points, could have views different from mine.
You would not dispute the fact that the current social system is evil, and the proof that it is, is that everyone suffers from it. From the poor itinerant, with neither bread nor roof, who knows constant hunger, to the millionaire, who lives in fear of a revolt of the poor that would trouble his digestion, all of humanity lives in a state of anxiety.
On what bases does bourgeois society rest? Putting aside the principles of family, fatherland, and religion, which are nothing but corollaries, we can affirm that that the two cornerstones, the two fundamental principles of the current state are authority and property.
I don’t want to go on any longer on this subject: it would be easy for me to prove that all the ills we suffer from flow from property and authority.
Poverty, theft, crime, prostitution, war, revolution are all nothing but the results of these principles.
The two bases of society being thus evil, there is no reason to hesitate. There’s no need to try any of a group of palliatives (e.g. socialism) that serve only to shift the wrong. The two vicious germs must be destroyed, and eradicated from social life.
This is why we anarchists want to replace private property with communism, and authority with freedom.
No more deeds of possession or domination: absolute equality.
When we say absolute equality we don’t claim that all men will have the same brain, the same physical organization: we know that there will always be the greatest diversity in cerebral and physical aptitudes. It is precisely this variety of capacities that will bring into being the production of all that is necessary for humanity, and we count on this as well to maintain emulation in an anarchist society.
There will be engineers and laborers: this is obvious. But one will not be considered superior to the other, since the work of the engineer is useless without the collaboration of the laborer, and vice versa.
Everyone being free to choose his trade, there will exist only beings that obey, without any constraints, the leanings nature places in them (guarantee of good productivity).
Here a question must be asked: And the lazy? Will everyone want to work?
We answer yes, everyone will want to work, and here is why:
Today, the average workday is ten hours.
Many workers are kept busy at labors that are absolutely useless to society, in particular on armaments for the army and navy. Many are also unemployed. Add to this a considerable number of able-bodied men who produce nothing: soldiers, priests, policemen, magistrates, civil servants, etc.
We can thus say, without being accused of exaggeration, that of a hundred capable of producing some kind of labor, only fifty furnish an effort truly useful to society. It is these fifty who produce all of society’s riches.
From this flows the deduction that if everyone worked, instead of ten hours the workday would decrease to only five.
Beyond this we should consider that in the current state of things the total of manufactured products is four times, and of agricultural products three times the amount required to meet humanity’s needs; which is to say that a humanity three times more numerous would be clothed, housed, heated, fed; in a word, would have all of its needs satisfied if waste and other causes didn’t destroy that overproduction. (You will find these statistics in the little pamphlet: “The Products of the Land and of Industry”).
From what has gone before, we can draw the following conclusion:
A society where all would work together, and which would be satisfied with productivity not far beyond its consumer needs (the excess of the first over the second would constitute a small reserve) would have to ask of each of its able-bodied members an effort of only two or three hours, perhaps less.
Who would then refuse to give such a small quantity of labor? Who would want to live with the shame of being held in contempt by all and being considered a parasite?
...Property and authority march together, the one supporting the other to keep humanity enslaved.
What is the right to property? Is it a natural right? Is it legitimate that one eats while the other fasts? No. Nature, in creating us, made us with similar organisms, and the laborer’s stomach demands the same satisfaction as that of the financier.
Nevertheless, one class today has taken all, stealing from the other class the bread not only of its body, but also of its soul.
Yes, in a century that we call one of progress and of science, is it not painful to think of the millions of intelligences hungry for knowledge and that cannot flourish? How many children of the common man, who could have become men and women of great value, useful to humanity, will never know anything but the few indispensable notions taught in elementary school.
Property! That is the enemy of human happiness, for it alone creates inequality, and in its train hatred, envy, bloody revolt...
Established authority serves no other purpose than the sanctioning of property. It is there to put force at the service of the act of despoiling.
Work being a natural need you will accept along with me that no one would flee from the demand of as minimal an effort as that which we spoke of above.
(Labor is so natural a need that History shows us several statesmen treating themselves with joy from the cares of politics to work as simple laborers: To cite two well-known cases: Louis XVI worked with locks, and in our day Gladstone, “The Great Old Man” [ in English in the original] profits from his vacations to himself chop down some of the oaks of his forests, like a common lumberjack).
So you see, monsieur, there would be no reason to have recourse to the law to avoid the problem of idlers.
But if in some extraordinary case someone wanted to refuse his assistance to his brothers, it would still be less costly to feed this unfortunate, who can only be described as sick, than to maintain legislators, magistrates, police and prison wardens to break him down.
Many other questions arise, but they are of a secondary nature, the most important thing being to establish that the suppression of property would not cause a cessation of production due to the development of laziness, and that anarchist society would know how to feed itself and satisfy all of its needs.
All the other objections that can be raised will be easily refuted by taking inspiration from the idea that an anarchist milieu would cause to grow in each of its members the love of and solidarity with his like, for man will know that in working for others he works for himself.
A seemingly better-founded objection is the following:
If there is no more authority, if there is no fear of the gendarme to stop the criminal’s arm, don’t we risk seeing crimes and misdemeanors multiply at a frightening rate?
The answer is easy:
We can categorize the crimes committed today in two principal categories; crimes of interest and crimes of passion.
The first group will disappear on its own, since there can be no attacks on property in a milieu which has done away with property.
As for the second group, no law can stop them. Far from this being the case, the current law — which acquits a husband who kills his adulterous wife — does nothing but favor the frequency of these crimes.
On the contrary, an anarchist milieu would raise the moral level of humanity Man will understand that he has no rights over a woman who gives herself to another man, since that woman does nothing but follow her nature.
Consequently crimes, in a future society, will become increasingly rare, until they disappear completely.
Monsieur, I am going to summarize for you my ideal of an anarchist society.
No more authority, which is far more contrary to human happiness than the few excesses that could occur at the beginning of a free society.
In place of the current authoritarian organization, the grouping of individuals by sympathies and affinities without laws or leaders.
No more private property; the gathering in common of products; each one working and consuming according to his needs, which is to say, as he wishes.
No more family, selfish and bourgeois, making man the property of woman and woman the property of man; no more demanding of two beings who loved each other but a moment that they remain attached till the end of their days.
Nature is capricious: it always demands new sensations. It wants free love. This is why we want free unions.
No more fatherlands, no more hatred between brothers, pitting against each other men who have never set eyes on each other.
Replacement of the narrow and petty attachment of the chauvinist for his country by the large and fruitful love of all of humanity, without distinction of race or color.
No more religions, forged by priests to degrade the masses and give them the hope of a better life, while they themselves enjoy life in the here and now.
On the contrary, the continual expansion of the sciences, put within the grasp of every being who will feel attached to their study, little by little bringing all men to a materialist consciousness.
The particular study of hypnotic phenomena, which science is beginning to become aware of, in order to unmask the charlatans who present to the ignorant, in a marvelous and superstitious light, facts which are purely physical.
In a word, absolutely no more hindrances to the free development of human nature.
The free blossoming of physical, cerebral and mental faculties.
I am not so optimistic as to believe that a society built on such foundations will arrive at perfect harmony. But I have the profound conviction that two or three generations will suffice to tear mankind from the influence of the artificial civilization which it submits to today and to return it to the state of nature, which is the state of goodness and of love.
But in order to make victorious this ideal, to set anarchist society on a solid base, we must begin with the work of destruction. The old, worm-eaten edifice must be torn down.
This is what we are doing.
The bourgeoisie claims that we will never arrive at our goal.
The future, the very near future, will teach them.
Vive l’Anarchie!
Notes: Translated for marxists.org by Mitchell Abidor. This text was written from jail just two weeks after Henry had thrown a bomb at Paris’ Café Terminus, killing one and injuring twenty.

Émile Henry The Interrogation of Émile Henry

Émile Henry
The Interrogation of Émile Henry
On February 12 you entered the Café Terminus.
Yes, at eight o’clock.
Your bomb was in your pants belt.
No, in my overcoat pocket.
Why did you go to the Cafe Terminus?
I had first gone to Bignon, the Café de la Paix and the Americain but there weren’t enough people. So I went to the Terminus and I waited.
There was an orchestra. How long did you wait?
An hour.
Why?
So that there would be a bigger crowd.
And then?
You know full well.
I’m asking you.
I threw away my cigar! I lit the fuse and then taking the bomb in my hand I left and, as I was leaving the café, from the doorway I threw the bomb.
D: You hold human life in contempt.
No, the life of bourgeois.
You did everything you could to save yours.
Yes, so I could start again. I counted on leaving the cafe, closing the door, getting a ticket at the Saint-Lazare station, escaping, and starting over the next day.
As you left you met a waiter. Further on a certain Etienne detained you saying: “I’ve got you, you wretch!” You answered: “Not yet.” What did you then do?
I fired at him.
He fell. What did you say?
That he was lucky that I didn’t have a better revolver.
Then you were detained by a hairdresser. What did you do?
I shot him with the revolver.
Q; He was hit and hasn’t healed. Agent Poisson followed you.
At this moment, since a crowd was gathering, I stopped. I waited for Agent Poisson and fired three shots at him with my revolver.
You were then arrested, and the policemen had a hard time tearing you from the fury of the crowd.
Which didn’t know what I’d done.
You had special bullets on you. Why?
To cause more harm.
And a dagger on which there was a preparation.
I had poisoned the blade in order to strike an anarchist informer.
You were determined to strike the agent with that weapon?
Certainly.
You were seated at a table near the door and had thrown the device in front of you. Why didn’t you hit more people with that explosion, since you had aimed at the orchestra?
I threw the bomb too high. It hit a lamp and went off course.
A muffled explosion was heard and the cafe was completely destroyed: tables, mirrors, woodwork were broken. There were many wounded: twenty. One of them, M. Borde has since died. His leg was covered with wounds. Another, M. Van Herreweghen received forty wounds. There were women: Mme Kingsbourg, who is still suffering from her wounds, many others that you will hear. And these women were so terrified that they have hidden their presence and their wounds. You said that the more bourgeois that die the better it would be.
That’s just what I think.
At first you said you were called Breton. A little later you revealed yourself and you said that your name is Emile Henry and you gave the design of your device. How was it made?
It was a small kettle of tin containing a detonator and a fuse.
You said that you had been relatively unsuccessful. What does that mean?
I wanted to kill more, but the kettle wasn’t properly closed.
You had put projectiles in it.
I had put 120 pellets.
Vaillant, who said he wanted to wound and not kill, had put nails and not pellets.
Me, I wanted to kill and not wound.
Your domicile wasn’t known.
I had said that I didn’t have a domicile in Paris, I declared that I arrived from Marseilles or Peking.
Soon afterwards a room at the Villa Faucheur was robbed. The Police superintendent finds explosives and recognizes that this is your home.
I don’t know who robbed my home.
You were warned that your domicile has been discovered and at that point you declared that quantities of explosives must have been found at your home.
I had enough to make twelve to fifteen bombs.
(To the jury) You know the crime and the accused, who has just cynically confessed his crime.
It’s not cynicism, it’s conviction.
Did you want to kill the waiter Etienne?
I wanted to kill all those who put themselves in the way of my escape.
Did you want to kill the Agent Poisson?
Certainly. His saber was raised and he would have killed me.
Did you want to kill the people at the Hotel Terminus?
Certainly, as many as possible.
Did you want to destroy the building?
Oh, I could care less!
The Presiding Judge to the Jury: This would suffice to establish the guilt of the accused. But whatever the crime, justice — and this is our honor — never deviates form the usual rules. We must examine all the details and pause before another act for which the accused is reproached.
Your father lived at Brevannes, then he went to Spain, took part in the Paris Commune, and your mother found herself a widow with three children. You received a grant at the Ecole J-B Say, at seventeen you qualified for admission to the Ecole Polythechnique. You didn’t continue.
In order not to be a soldier and be forced to fire on the unfortunate, like at Fourmies.
You found a job with a builder, M. Bordenave, your relative. How much did you earn?
In Venice I earned 100F a month.
Why did you leave?
For reasons foreign to the affair.
You said that he wanted to force you to carry out a secret surveillance, which revolted you. M. Bordenave when questioned protested.
He recognized that there was a misunderstanding.
You then found another job.
I suffered through three months of poverty before this!
In any event, you soon had a position.
A quite mediocre one: 100 to 120 F a month.
At this moment you come under the influence of one of your brothers. A short while later you were arrested after a meeting in honor of Ravachol, and your boss found anarchist works in your desk, most notably a translation of an Italian newspaper indicating how to make nitroglycerine and in which we read: “Long live theft, long live dynamite!” We can see there the rules you put in practice in the attack on the Rue des Bons-Enfants. So then your boss fired you.
I was fired when these papers were found.
You looked for work at a watchmaker’s. Then you were employed by l’En dehors, edited by Matha, who was condemned in 1892 — the year you arrived at the newspaper — for inciting insubordination among soldiers. You refused to be a soldier.
I had done three years of school battalion and that was all I could do as a soldier.
You avoided the call to military service and your mother disapproved of you.
She feared my expatriation.
On the recommendation of Ortiz, a burglar, you went to work for M. Dupuis.
I don’t know what Ortiz has done since I knew him.
M. Dupuis had increased your salary.
I had much affection for him.
Would you like to repeat before the jury the confessions you made during the questioning? I would very much like it to be you that speaks.
Certainly. Tomorrow I’ll give the motives for my act. The Societé des Carmaux is represented in Paris by its administration. After the strike I bought a kettle. I had dynamite, a primer, fuses.
(The questioning continues. The accused refuses to say what he did during 1893. During a difficult period in the questioning the Presiding Judge shouts:)
Beware of your silence!
I don’t care. I don’t have to beware of my silence. I know full well that I’ll be condemned to death.
Listen; I think there’s a confession that’s damaging to your pride. Vaillant admitted that he received 100 F from a burglar. You don’t want to recognize that you extended your hand to receive the money from a theft, the hand that we today see covered in blood.
My hands are covered in blood, like your red robe is! In any case, I don’t have to answer you.
You are accused and it’s my duty to interrogate you.
I don’t recognize your justice.
You don’t recognize justice. Unfortunately for you, you are in its hands, and the jury will be able to appreciate this.
I know!
(The Presiding Judge): Be seated.
Notes: Source: Jean Maitron, Ravachol et les anarchistes. Paris, Julliard, 1964.

Translated for marxists.org by Mitchell Abidor.

Émile Henry Émile Henry's Defense

It is not a defence that I present to you. I am not in any way seeking to escape the reprisals of the society I have attacked. Besides, I acknowledge only one tribunal — myself, and the verdict of any other is meaningless to me. I wish merely to give you an explanantion of my acts and to tell you how I was led to perform them.
I have been an anarchist for only a short time. It was as recently as the middle of the year 1891 that I entered the revolutionary movement. Up to that time, I had lived in circles entirely imbued with current morality. I had been accustomed to respect and even to love the principles of fatherland and family, of authority and property.
For teachers in the present generation too often forget one thing; it is that life, with its struggles and defeats, its injustices and iniquities, takes upon itself indiscreetly to open the eyes of the ignorant to reality. This happened to me, as it happens to everyone. I had been told that life was easy, that it was wide open to those who were intelligent and energetic; experience showed me that only the cynical and the servile were able to secure good seats at the banquet. I had been told that our social institutions were founded on justice and equality; I observed all around me nothing but lies and impostures.
Each day I shed an illusion. Everywhere I went, I witnessed the same miseries among some, and the same joys among others. I was not slow to understand that the grand words I had been taught to venerate: honour, devotion, duty, were only the mask that concealed the most shameful basenesses.
The manufacturer who created a colossal fortune out of the toil of workers who lacked everything was an honest gentleman. The deputy and the minister, their hands ever open for bribes, were devoted to the public good. The officer who experimented with a new type of rifle on children of seven had done his duty, and, openly in parliament, the president of the council congratulated him! Everything I saw revolted me, and my intelligence was attracted by criticism of the existing social organization. Such criticism has been made too often for me to repeat it. It is enough to say that I became the enemy of a society that I judged to be criminal.
Drawn at first to socialism, I was not slow in seperating myself from that party. I have too much love of freedom, too much respect for individual initiative, too much repugnance for military organization, to assume a number in the ordered army of the fourth estate. Besides, I realized that basically socialism changes nothing in the existing order. It maintains the prinicipal of authority, and, whatever self-styled free-thinkers may say about it, that principle is no more than the antiquated survival of faith in a superior power.
Scientific studies gradually made me aware of the play of natural forces in the universe. I became materialist and atheist; I came to realize that modern science disacrds the hypothesis of God, of which it has no need. In the same way, religious and authoritarian morality, which are based on false assumptions, should be allowed to disappear. What then, I asked myself, was the new morality in harmony with the laws of nature that might regenerate the old world and give birth to a happy humanity?
It was at this moment that I came into contact with a group of anarchist comrades whom I consider, even today, among the best I have ever known. The character of these men immediately captivated me. I discerned in them a great sincerity, a total frankness, a searching distrust of all prejudices, and I wanted to understand the idea that produced men so different from anyone I had encountered up to that point.
The idea — as soon as I embraced it — found in my mind a soil completely prepared by observation and personal reflection to receive it. It merely gave precision to what already existed there in vague and wavering form. In my turn I became an anarchist.
I do not need to develop on this occasion the whole theory of anarchism. I merely wish to emphasize its revolutionary aspect, the destrucive and negative aspect that brings me here before you.
At this moment of embittered struggle between the middle class and its enemies, I am almost tempted to say, with Souvarine in Germinal: `All discussions about the future are criminal, since they hinder pure and simple destruction and slow down the march of the revolution...'
I brought with me into the struggle a profound hatred which every day was renewed by the spectacle of this society where everything is base, everything is equivocal, everything is ugly, where everything is an impediment to the outflow of human passions, to the generous impulses of the heart, to the free flight of thought.
I wanted to strike as strongly and as justly as I could. Let us start then with the first attempt I made, the explosion in the Rue des Bon-Enfants. I had followed closely the events at Carmaux. The first news of the strike had filled me with joy. The miners seemed at last to have abandoned those useless pacific strikes in which the trusting worker patiently waits for his few francs to triumph over the company's millions. They seemed to have entered on a way of violence which manifested itself resolutely on the 15th August 1892. The offices and buildings of the mine were invaded by a crowd of people tired of suffering without reprisals; justice was about to be wrought on the engineer whom his workers so deeply hated, when the timorous ones chose to interfere.
Who were these men? The same who cause the miscarriage of all revolutionary movements because they fear that the people, once they act freely, will no longer obey their voices; those who persuade thousands of men to endure privations month after month so as to beat the drum over their sufferings and create for themselves a popularity that will put them into office: such men — I mean the socialist leaders — in fact assumed the leadership of the strike movement.
Immediately a wave of glib gentlemen appeared in the region; they put themselves entirely at the disposition of the struggle, organized subscriptions, arranged conferences and appealed on all sides for funds. The miners surrendered all initiative into their hands, and what happened, everyone knows.
The strike went on and on, and the miners established the most intimate acquaintance with hunger, which became their habitual companion; they used up the tiny reserve fund of their syndicate and of the other organizations which came to their help, and then, at the end of two months, they returned crestfallen to their pit, more wretched than ever before. It would have been so simple in the beginning to have attacked the Company in its only sensitive spot, the financial one; to have burnt the stocks of coal, to have broken the mining machines, to have demolished the drainage pumps.
Then, certainly, the Company would have very soon capitualted. But the great pontiffs of socialism would not allow such procedures because they are anarchist procedures. At such games one runs the risk of prison and — who knows? — perhaps one of those bullets that performed so miraculously at Fourmies? That is not the way to win seats on municipal councils or in legislatures. In brief, having been momentarily troubled, order reigned once again at the Carmaux.
More powerful than ever, the Company continued its exploitation, and the gentlemen shareholders congratulated themselves on the happy outcome of the strike. Their dividends would be even more pleasant to gather in.
It was then that I decided to intrude among that concert of happy tones a voice the bourgeois had already heard but which they thought had died with Ravachol: the voice of dynamite.
I wanted to show the bourgeoisie that henceforward their pleasures would not be untouched, that their insolent triumphs would be disturbed, that their golden calf would rock violently on its pedestal until the final shock that would cast it down among filth and blood.
At the same time I wanted to make the miners understand that there is only one category of men, the anarchists, who sincerely resent their sufferings and are willing to avenge them. Such men do not sit in parliament like Monsieur Guesde and his associates, but they march to the guillotine.
So I prepared a bomb. At one stage the accusation that had been thrown at Ravachol came to my memory. What about the innocent victims? I soon resolved that question. The building where the Carmaux Company had its offices was inhabited only by the bourgeois; hence there would be no innocent victims. The whole of the bourgeoisie lives by the exploitation of the unfortunate, and should expiate its crimes together. So it was with absolute confidence in the legitimacy of my deed that I left my bomb before the door to the Company's offices.
I have already explained my hope, in case my device was discovered before it exploded, that it would go off in the police station, where those it harmed would still be my enemies. Such were the motives that led me to commit the first attempt of which I have been accused.
Let us go on to the second incident, of the Cafe Terminus. I had returned to Paris at the time of the Vaillant affair, and I witnessed the frightful repression that followed the explosion at the Palais-Bourbon. I saw the draconian measures which the government decided to take against the anarchists. Everywhere there were spies, and searches, and arrests. A crowd of individuals were indiscrimately rounded up, torn from their families, and thrown into prison. Nobody was concerned about what happened to the wives and children of these comrades while they remained in jail.
The anarchist was no longer regarded as a man, but as a wild beast to be hunted everywhere while the bourgeois Press, which is the vile slave of authority, loudly demands his extermination.
At the same time, libertarian papers and pamphlets were seized and the right of meeting was abrogated. Worse than that: when it seemed desirable to get one comrade completely out of the way, an informer came and left in his room a packet which he said contained tannin; the next day a search was made, on a warrant dated the previous day, a box of suspicious powders was found, the comrade was taken to court and sentenced to three years in gaol. If you wish to know the truth of that, ask the wretched spy who found his way into the home of comrade Merigeaud!
But all such procedures were good because they struck at an enemy who had spread fear, and those who had trembled wanted to display their courage. As the crown of that crusade against the heretics, we heard M. Reynal, Minister of the Interior, declare in the Chamber of Deputies that the measures taken by the government had thrown terror into the camp of the anarchists. But that was not yet enough. A man who had killed nobody was condemned to death. It was necessary to appear brave right to the end, and one fine morning he was guillotined.
But, gentlemen of the bourgeoisie, you have reckoned a little too much without your host. You arrested hundreds of men and women, you violated scores of homes, but still outside the prison walls there were men unknown to you who watched from the shadows as you hunted the anarchists, and waited only for the moment that would be favourable for them in their turn to hunt the hunters.
Reynal's words were a challenge thrown before the anarchists. The gauntlet was taken up. The bomb in the Cafe Terminus is the answer to all your violations of freedom, to your arrests, to your searches, to your laws against the Press, to your mass transportations, to your guillotinings. But why, you ask, attack those peaceful cafe guests, who sat listening to music and who, no doubt, were neither judges nor deputies nor bureaucrats? Why? It is very simple. The bourgeoisie did not distinguish among the anarchists. Vaillant, a man on his own, threw a bomb; nine-tenths of the comrades did not even know him. But that meant nothing; the persecution was a mass one, and anyone with the slightest anarchist links was hunted down. And since you hold a whole party responsible for the actions of a single man, and strike indiscriminately, we also strike indiscriminately.
Perhaps we should attack only the deputies who make laws against us, the judges who apply those laws, the police who arrest us? I do not agree. These men are only instruments. They do not act in their own name. Their functions were instituted by the bourgeoisie for its own defence. They are no more guilty than the rest of you. Those good bourgeois who hold no office but who reap their dividends and live idly on the profits of the workers' toil, they also must take their share in the reprisals. And not only they, but all those who are satisfied with the existing order, who applaud the acts of government and so become its accomplices, those clerks earning three or five hundred francs a month who hate the people even more violently than the rich, that stupid and pretentious mass of folk who always choose the strongest side — in other words, the daily clientele of Terminus and the other great cafes!
That is why I struck at random and did not choose my victims! The bourgeoisie must be brought to understand that those who have suffered are tired at last of their sufferings; they are showing their teeth and they will strike all the more brutally if you are brutal with them. They have no respect for human life, because the bourgeoisie themselves have shown they have no care for it. It is not for the assassins who were responsible for the bloody week and for Fourmies to regard others as assassins.
We will not spare the women and children of the bourgeois, for the women and children of those we love have not been spared. Must we not count among the innocent victims those children who die slowly of anaemia in the slums because bread is scarce in their houses; those women who grow pale in your workshops, working to earn forty sous a day and fortunate when poverty does not force them into prostitution; those old men whom you have made production machines all their lives and whom you cast on to the waste heap or into the workhouse when their strength has worn away?
At least have the courage of your crimes, gentlemen of the bourgeoisie, and grant that our reprisals are completely legitimate.
Of course, I am under no illusions. I know my deeds will not yet be understood by the masses who are unprepared for them. Even among the workers, for whom I have fought, there will be many, misled by your newspapers, who will regard me as their enemy. But that does not matter. I am not concerned with anyone's judgement. Nor am I ignorant of the fact that there are individuals claiming to be anarchists who hasten to disclaim any solidarity with the propagandists of the deed. They seek to establish a subtle distinction between the theoreticians and the terrorists. Too cowardly to risk their own lives, they deny those who act. But the influence they pretend to wield over the revolutionary movement is nil. Today the field is open to action, without weakness or retreat.
Alexander Herzen, the Russian revolutionary, once said: `Of two things one must be chosen: to condemn and march forward, or to pardon and turn back half way.' We intend neither to pardon nor to turn back, and we shall always march forward until the revolution, which is the goal of our efforts, finally arrives to crown our work with the creation of a free world.
In that pitiless war which we have declared on the bourgeoisie, we ask for no pity. We give death, and we know how to endure it. So it is with indifference that I await your verdict. I know that my head is not the last you will cut off; yet others will fall, for the starving are beginning to know the way to your great cafes and restaurants, to the Terminus and Foyot. You will add other names to the bloody list of our dead.
You have hanged in Chicago, decapitated in Germany, garotted in Jerez, shot in Barcelona, guillotined in Montbrison and Paris, but what you will never destroy is anarchy. Its roots are too deep. It is born in the heart of a society that is rotting and falling apart. It is a violent reaction against the established order. It represents all the egalitarian and libertarian aspirations that strike out against authority. It is everywhere, which makes it impossible to contain. It will end by killing you.
Emile Henry
April 1894
Source: Retrieved on March 3rd, 2009 from
http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/Encyclopedia/HenryEmile.htm

Émile Henry – Aforismi

“Le occasioni non ci fanno essere ciò che siamo,

ma mostrano chi siamo”

Mme de Langueville



Una volta il chiostro si apriva per le anime stanche o disgustate dagli spettacoli del mondo, oggi noi non abbiamo altro rifugio che negli ospedali o nelle carceri.

Cosa vogliono gli anarchici? L’autonomia dell’individuo, lo sviluppo della sua libera iniziativa che, soli, potranno assicurargli tutta la felicità possibile. Se l’anarchico ammette il comunismo come concezione sociale, è per sempre ragionamento, perché comprende che solo nella felicità di tutti, liberi ed autonomi come lui, troverà la sua stessa felicità.

Quando un uomo, nell’attuale società, diventa un ribelle cosciente delle proprie azioni -e così era Ravachol- è perché ha fatto nel suo cervello un lavoro di analisi doloroso le cui conclusioni sono imperative e non possono essere eluse se non per vigliaccheria. Lui solo tiene la bilancia, lui solo è giudice della ragione o del torto di odiare e di essere selvaggio, “perfino feroce”.

Giudico che gli atti di brutale rivolta siano giusti, perché svegliano la massa, la scuotono come una violenta frustata e le mostrano il lato vulnerabile della Borghesia ancora tutta tremante al momento in cui il Ribelle sale il patibolo.

Ognuno di noi ha una fisionomia e delle attitudini speciali che lo differenziano dai suoi compagni di lotta.

Così, non ci stupiamo di vedere i rivoluzionari tanto divisi nella direzione dei loro sforzi.

Ci si domanda quale sia la buona tattica: essa è ovunque proporzionale alla somma di energia che si apporta all’azione.

Ma non riconosciamo a nessuno il diritto di dire: “La nostra propaganda è l’unica buona; fuori di essa non vi è salvezza”. E’ un vecchio rimasuglio di autoritarismo nato dalla vera o falsa ragione che i libertari non debbono sopportare.

Fa ciò che credi sia meglio e fallo con amore.

A coloro che dicono: “L’odio non genera l’amore”, rispondete che è l’amore, vivo, che spesso genera l’odio.

L’odio che non si basa su una bassa invidia, ma su un sentimento generoso, è una passione sana e potentemente vitale.

Più amiamo il nostro sogno di libertà, di forza e di bellezza, e più dobbiamo odiare ciò che si oppone all’avvenire.

Nella storia del progresso umano vi è un solo partito, è il partito del movimento.

I socialisti non vogliono capire che la libertà dell’individuo è necessaria alla vera libertà del popolo.

Nella dedica del suo libro De l’autre rive, Alexandre Herzen precisa un atteggiamento veramente rivoluzionario ed efficace quando dice: “Noi non costruiamo, noi demoliamo; noi non annunciamo nuove rivelazioni, noi distruggiamo le vecchie menzogne”. Questo libro di Herzen è pieno di sprazzi e di rivelazioni, ma non vi mancano nemmeno le osservazioni mordenti: è un buon libro per il carcere; è lontano dalla strada ma ne è come un eco: “I Francesi non possono liberarsi dall’idea dell’organizzazione monarchica; essi hanno la passione della polizia e dell’autorità; ogni Francese è nel suo animo un commissario di polizia; egli ama l’allineamento e la disciplina; tutto ciò che è indipendente, individuale, lo irrita; egli comprende l’uguaglianza solamente come livellamento e si sottomette volentieri all’arbitrio della polizia purché tutti vi si sottomettano. Mettete un grado sul cappello di un Francese, diventa un oppressore, comincia ad opprimere chiunque non porti questo grado; egli esige il rispetto nei confronti dell’autorità.”

Vi è un diritto che supera tutti gli altri, è il diritto all’insurrezione.

L’uomo libero è colui agli occhi del quale i filosofi sono superstiziosi, ed i rivoluzionari, conservatori.

I liberali sono in politica della stessa odiosa razza dei protestanti.

La società moderna è come una vecchia nave che affonderà nella tempesta, per non aver voluto liberarsi del suo carico accumulato durante il viaggio nel corso dei secoli; vi sono delle cose preziose, ma che pesano troppo.

Tutti i partiti politici si sono sciupati, ecco perché noi appariamo.

L’operaio che si ubriaca almeno una volta alla settimana non fa cosa diversa di colui che cerca illusioni. Se fossi filosofo scriverei delle pagine sulla necessità di ubriacarsi per addormentare quella volontà di cambiare che fa soffrire.

Quanti esseri hanno attraversato la vita senza mai svegliarsi! E quanti altri si sono accorti che stavano vivendo solo per il monotono tic-tac degli orologi!

Tra la beatitudine dell’incoscienza e l’infelicità di sapere, io ho scelto.

Sinora i popoli hanno compreso la fratellanza solo come hanno fatto Caino ed Abele.

Che dire di questi rivoluzionari che sono solo vili ragionatori e che meditano quando occorre colpire? La sfera delle idee generali ha preso per essi il posto del mondo della contemplazione.

C’è un’asserzione di Proudhon che, al suo tempo, è stata ritenuta immorale e che oggi sarebbe immorale. Cioè che la Repubblica è fatta per gli uomini e non gli individui per la Repubblica.

L’uomo ha bisogno talvolta di credere alla potenza della sua volontà; allora entra nella lotta.

Tra gli economi di se stessi ed i prodighi di se stessi, credo che i prodighi siano i migliori calcolatori.

Più amiamo la libertà e l’uguaglianza, più dobbiamo odiare tutto quanto si oppone alla libertà e all’uguaglianza degli uomini.

E senza perderci nel misticismo, poniamo il problema sul terreno della realtà, e diciamo: E’ vero che gli uomini sono solo il prodotto delle istituzioni; ma queste istituzioni sono cose astratte che esistono solo in quanto vi sono uomini in carne ed ossa per rappresentarle. C’è quindi un solo mezzo di colpire le istituzioni: colpire gli uomini.

Una volontà che va fino al suicidio può generare atti di abnegazione definitivi e senza speranza.

Uno dei primi insegnamenti dell’anarchia è questo: “Sviluppa la tua vita in tutte le direzioni, opponi alla fittizia ricchezza dei capitalisti, la ricchezza reale degli individui possessori di intelligenza ed energia”.

Amo tutti gli uomini nella loro umanità e per ciò che essi dovrebbero essere, ma li disprezzo per quello che sono.

Inoltre ho ben il diritto di uscire dal teatro quando la commedia mi diventa odiosa ed anche sbattere la porta uscendo, col rischio di turbare la tranquillità di coloro che ne sono soddisfatti.



(Grande Roquette, maggio 1894) *

____________

* Questi “aforismi postumi” sono stati pubblicati la prima volta da Le Libertaire (n. 28, 23-29 maggio 1896). Sono poi apparsi nel n. 7 dei Documents d’histoire (febbraio 1907) che Fortuné Henry pubblicava a Aiglemont (Ardenne).

Decalaración de Emile Henry

--Portada
http://www.mediafire.com/?6qg0o0gzgc197k7

Decargar Texto
http://www.mediafire.com/?0nmfa6od2uwqsiy