On the night of 15 June the casualness sets before us a patrol of Polfer (Railway Police) in the district of Lambrate, Milan. In the raid took place during our firm we found in possession of two “selfmade triggers craft to bomb”. Also on 15 June me and the comrade Mattia enter in the prison of San Vittore. The next 8 July the court of review released us. In this period of political discussion and insights about how to stand a trial starting from anarchist-revolutionary positions, I, in determining the course of events, face this question posed in being separated from the choices that I consider to be inapplicable to the principle stated. Understanding the reasons of the case requires more than one premise.
For a further discussion on the political question and not on own personal choices, I’m open to any comparison : CaracoKaos(at)krutt(dot)org
“A break from the endless possibilities”
In the trial of 10 October when I will charged for possession and public port of explosive material, I’ll clarify my position, just not to give misunderstanding to the readers :
From now on, my choice is to continue in an individual way. The basic reason comes from the incongruity in affirming a revolutionary proposal and then make use of bureaucratic chicanery that re-establish – in a “juxtaposition” of these lived events – a “comparison” between accused and accuser.
“ The lie is the truth that reminds herself how come to the world, mask of the mask, from the other side of the mash, even a mask. “
(Fragments of a deaf-mute in apnea, P. Porcu)
Wear a mask (an innocentist defence one), and then propose a political and existential attack in the end is for me to establish a “lie”.
Use a legal counsel to determine the right/wrong, trying to minimize the living part of myself and my choices – which go to the clash – is incompatible with what I choose within my path di “impetuous radicalism”. The incompatibility consists in the rejecting a role (the accused) and then restore it by becoming “defend” and take advantage of that the laws state in terms of “certainty” of punishment :
“ Do not surrender to blackmail when we are prisoners is and should be the key to continue, despite the physical limits of our own imprisonment , a revolutionary path”.
( Deny every repentance )
In this there is a cancellation of own willingness and own “act”.
In my path of breaking with the “outside world” – erected by a thick tie of rules of subordination to the role of automizzato human – I do not allow anyone, except my will itself, to decide for me, and for this I refuse a priori to attend the trial and subject to any interrogation.
I refuse every involvement of a expert (in this consists the incompatibility to be defended). Furthermore, in rejecting a priori the not to be subject to a right or duty given by a judging court, my choice is the removal of lawyers. In this a “break” given by attack, experiences endless possibilities of revolt within choices that are implemented and, being an anarchist revolutionary, they are an expression of myself.
“Act means to be endowed with a subjectivity inherent of potential offensive”.