On the question of morality

182acac9aef754f17a7e3896815c56d2“But that leads straight to my question as to what these people are using, other than the aforementioned ‘pure desire’, to make their decisions, if anything.” – Lone Raven

In answer to Lone Raven’s question as someone who does deny morality, I would ask, so what if it is? If I am not basing my decisions upon my desires, than whose desires should I make them off of? I desire to consume life in the fullest sense of the word, to get the maximum amount of pleasure that I can get from living. I see moralism as taking away from my ability to live my life as my own, to consume my life as I see fit, and another system that is placing restrictions upon it.

I think the words “pure desire” do add a level of complication to the conversation. I can have multiple desires that don’t all fall in line with each other, but in consciously thinking on them and what value each desire has and what will ultimately bring me the most pleasure, I am making decisions based upon desires that have come from myself, rather than something alien to me. As I attempted to explain (but may have been able to elaborate better) on “Dispossess”, I base my decisions upon an understanding of how any individual action (or by extension, another individuals action) affects me and what I can gain or lose by them, by the pleasure that I can receive by doing so as well as in what way that means doing everything I can for my life to be my own. Continue reading

Anarchists — Bandits

ravacholLast week the dailies related in detail a tragic incident of the social struggle. In the suburbs of London (in Tottenham) two of our Russian comrades attacked the accountant of a factory and, pursued by the crowd and the police, held out in a desperate struggle, the mere recounting of which is enough to make one shiver…

After almost two hours of resistance, having exhausted their munitions, and wounded 22 people, three of them mortally, they reserved for themselves their final bullets (2). One, our comrade Joseph Lapidus (the brother of the terrorist Stryge, killed in Paris in the Vincennes woods in 1906) killed himself; the other was taken seriously wounded.

Words seem powerless to express admiration or condemnation before their ferocious heroism. Lips are still; the pen isn’t strong enough, sonorous enough.

Nevertheless, in our ranks (3) there will be the timorous and the fearful who will disavow their act. But we, for our part, insist on loudly affirming our solidarity.

We are proud to have had among us men like Duval, Pini, and Jacob (4). We today insist on saying loudly and clearly: The London “bandits” were at one with us! Continue reading

Unbridled Freedom

enzo martucciStirner and Nietzsche were undoubtedly right. It is not true that my freedom ends where that of others begins. By nature my freedom has its end where my strength stops. If it disgusts me to attack human beings or even if I consider it to be contrary to my interests to do so, I abstain from conflict. But if, pushed by an instinct, a feeling, or a need, I lash out against my likes and meet no resistance or a weak resistance, I naturally become the dominator, the superman. If instead the others resist vigorously and return blow for blow, then I am forced to stop and come to terms. Unless I judge it appropriate to pay for an immediate satisfaction with my life.

It is useless to speak to people of renunciation, of morality, of duty, of honesty. It is stupid to want to constrain them, in the name of Christ or of humanity, not to step on each other’s toes. Instead one tells each of them: “You are strong. Harden your will. Compensate, by any means, for your deficiencies. Conserve your freedom. Defend it against anyone who wants to oppress you”.

And if every human being would follow this advice, tyranny would become impossible. I will even resist the one who is stronger than me. If I can’t do it by myself, I will seek the aid of my friends. If my might is lacking, I will replace it with cunning. And balance will arise spontaneously from the contrast.

In fact, the only cause of social imbalance is precisely the herd mentality that keeps slaves prone and resigned under the master’s whip.

“Human life is sacred. I cannot suppress it either in the other or in myself. And so I must respect the life of the enemy who oppresses me and brings me an atrocious and continuous pain. I cannot take the life of my poor brother, who is afflicted with a terminal disease that causes him terrible suffering, in order to shorten his torment. I cannot even free myself, through suicide, from an existence that I feel as a burden.”

Why?

“Because,” the christians say, “Life is not our own. It is given to us by god and he alone can take it away from us.”

Okay. But when god gives life to us, it becomes ours. As Thomas Aquinas points out, god’s thought confers being in itself, objective reality, to the one who thinks. Thus, when god thinks of giving life to the human being, and by thinking of it, gives it to him, such life effectively becomes human, that is, an exclusive property of ours. Thus, we can take it away from each other, or anyone can destroy it in herself.
Emile Armand frees the individual from the state but subordinates him more strictly to society. For him, in fact, I cannot revoke the social contract when I want, but must receive the consent of my co-associates in order to release myself from the links of the association. If others don’t grant me such consent, I must remain with them even if this harms or offends me. Or yet, by unilaterally breaking the pact, I expose myself to the retaliation and vengeance of my former comrades. More societarian than this and one dies. But this is a societarianism of the Spartan barracks. What! Am I not my own master? Just because yesterday, under the influence of certain feelings and certain needs, I wanted to associate, today, when I have other feelings and needs and want to get out of the association, I can no longer do so. I must thus remain chained to my desire of yesterday. Because yesterday I desired one way, today I cannot desire another way. But then I am a slave, deprived of spontaneity, dependent on the consent of the associates.
According to Armand, I cannot break relationships because I should care about the sorrow and harm that I will cause the others if I deprive them of my person. But the others don’t care about the sorrow and harm that they cause me by forcing me to remain in their company when I feel like going away. Thus, mutuality is lacking. And if I want to leave the association, I will go when I decide, so much the more if, in making the agreement to associate, I have communicated to the comrades that I will maintain my freedom to break with it at any time. In doing this, one does not deny that some societies might have long lives. But in this case, it is a feeling or an interest sensed by all that maintain the union. Not an ethical precept as Armand would like.

From christians to anarchists (?) all moralists insist that we distinguish between freedom, based on responsibility, and license, based on caprice and instinct. Now it is good to explain. A freedom that, in all of its manifestations, is always controlled, reined in, led by reason, is not freedom. Because it lacks spontaneity. Thence, it lacks life.

What is my aim? To destroy authority, to abolish the state, to establish freedom for everyone to live according to her nature as he sees and desires it. Does this aim frighten you, fine sirs? Well then, I have nothing to do. Like Renzo Novatore, I am beyond the arc.

When no one commands me, I do what I want. I abandon myself to spontaneity or I resist it. I follow instincts or I rein them in with reason, at various times, according to which is stronger within me.

In short, my life is varied and intense precisely because I don’t depend upon any rule.

Moralists of all schools instead claim the opposite. They demand that life always be conformed to a single norm of conduct that makes it monotonous and colorless. They want human beings to always carry out certain actions and to always abstain from all the others.

“You must, in every instance, practice love, forgiveness, renunciation of worldly goods and humility. Otherwise you will be damned”, say the Gospels.
“You must, in each moment, defeat egoism and be unselfish. Otherwise you will remain in absurdity and sorrow,” Kant points out.

“You must always resist instinct and appetite, showing yourself to be balanced, thoughtful and wise on every occasion. If you don’t, we will brand you with the mark of archist infamy and treat you as a tyrant,” Armand passes judgment.
In short, they all want to impose the rule that mutilates life and turns human beings into equal puppets that perpetually think and act in the same way. And this occurs because we are surrounded by priests: priests of the church and priests who oppose it, believing and atheistic Tartuffes. And all claim to catechize us, to lead us, to control us, to bridle us, offering us a prospect of earthly or supernatural punishments and rewards. But it is time for the free human being to rise up: the one who knows how to go against all priests and priestliness, beyond laws and religions, rules and morality. And who knows how to go further beyond. Still further beyond.

Enzo Martucci

My Maxims (From My Intimate Thoughts Notebook) by Renzo Novatore

beks1

GOD: The creation of a sick fantasy. Inhabitant of senile and impotent brains. Companion and comforter of rancid spirits born to slavery. A pill for constipated minds. Marxism for the faint of heart.

HUMANITY: An abstract word with a negative connotation, long on power, short on truth. An obscene mask painted on the mean face of a shrewd vulgarian for the purpose of dominating the multitude of sentimentalist idiots and imbeciles.

COUNTRY: Penal servitude for the semi-intelligent, a cowshed of imbecility. A Circe who transforms her adoring fans into dogs and pigs. A prostitute for the master, a pimp of the foreigner. Child-eater, parent-slanderer and scoffer at heroes.

FAMILY: The denial of love, life and liberty.

SOCIALISM: Discipline, discipline; obedience, obedience; slavery and ignorance, pregnant with authority. A bourgeois body grotesquely fattened by a vulgar christian creature. A medley of fetishism, sectarianism and cowardice.

ORGANIZATIONS, LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND UNIONS: Churches for the powerless. Pawnshops for the stingy and weak. Many join to live parasitically off the backs of their card-carrying simpleton colleagues. Some join to become spies. Others, the most sincere, join to end up in jail from where they can observe the mean-spiritedness of all the rest.

SOLIDARITY: The macabre altar used by capable comedians of all sort to display their priestly talent for reciting masses. The beneficiaries pay nothing less than 100% humiliation.

FRIENDSHIP: Fortunate are those who have drunk from its chalice without having their souls offended or poisoned. If one such person exists, I urge them to send me their photograph. I’m sure to look upon the face of an idiot.

LOVE: Deception of the flesh and damage to the spirit. Disease of the soul, atrophy of the brain, weakening of the heart, corruption of the senses, poetic lies from which one gets ferociously inebriated two or three times a day in order to consume this precious but stupid life more quickly. And yet I would prefer to die of love. It’s the only swindler, after Judas, that can kill with a kiss.

MAN: A filthy paste of servitude, tyranny, fetishism, fear, vanity -and ignorance. The greatest offence one can commit against an ass is to call it a man.

WOMAN: The most brutal of enslaved beasts. The greatest victim shuffling on earth. And, after man, the most responsible for her problems. I’d be curious to know what goes through her mind when I kiss her.

A Plague Upon You! (Reflections #12)

[nggallery id=5]

“When she got infected she ran to her brother

when he got infected he ran to his dad

the plague gradually spread within the neighborhood

causing the invasion of the city”.

(from the song “1660 Peste ti colga”)

In the next lines, with my inelegant and crude, but definitely honest way, I will try to explain my point of view on some issues which are for me fundamental ways of being an anarchist.

Some of these aspects have already been discussed in the various and past “reflections #” on this site.

The reason why I returned to certain issues arose from reading the pamphlet of Gerasimos Tsakalos, translated in Italian and published recently by the comrade of Anarhija.info.

This long document of the Greek comrade indicates how projects, abbreviations, and acronyms sometimes are embraced without understand well what you are approaching to; even worse is the denaturalization of those projects-initials-acronyms that you are embracing …

Let me give an example. One day I decided to went on the attack tangibly against the system and I signed a document/claim “Cell X”, created in the moment by one who carries out the action, myself or with other individuals, and accompanied by an acronym “Y” which is a project of other comrades who have launched a propaganda of attack through a document that explains what they are, what they want and what they mean with their project.

If I decide to sign with the acronym of the project too, it means that I consider its basis as mine, otherwise it would be better to avoid the combination of the two signatures. Even more, if I have ideas, or visions, completely different from that project I will not denaturalize it with my reflections. Continue reading

Scotland, Edinburgh : Torching of an SPCA van

escape into lifeWe received and publish :

Capitalistic civilization spreads like fire. It engulfs the physical reality but also the ways of thinking that ideologicalize the norms and roles that enslave individualities, perpetuating as such their consolidation. Servility is not found in what one does in itself, the purism of morality as a way of mechanistic thought is an instinct of slaves not of conscious egoists who by following their existential insurrection try to interpret reality outside the imaginary world of ideas, to render themselves able to attack as they see fit, choosing what belongs to them and what not. Servility is found in the ways one accepts and reproduces its values. Many try to spread indoctrination because their mysticism or fantasies don’t leave them to take a breath, but we know that it is politics to try to show that your values are to be followed, because if someone hasn’t created them by experience from their own will to live, it will be totally pointless, if you are interested in creating anarchy and not an ideology. Nobody can be convinced to live their own lives by following role models, heroes and reified values. This is the way of thinking of civilized mentalities and we don’t care about anyone who doesn’t attempt to find their own ways for what is their own. We are misanthropes and we try to look chaos in the eye. History has shown that human civilization is inevitable. Although its contemporary form is beyond comprehension because from one field of alienation you jump into another, left flowing into the maze of existence surrounded by metaphysical attacks.

At night on the 15/09 we torched a van of the animal welfare charity SPCA. The van was parked at a courtyard of a neighborhood. This was an action of extreme joy and unruliness in the land of the ruled, but also an action of revenge for an individuality. When the body lives only then you value life, when you feel the flow of power, otherwise the spirit is just a mascot. Whatever we do is part of us, we don’t represent anyone or anything.

The animal welfare SPCA is another cog in the factory of civilization. This law abiding fossil, ”controls” the ”wellbeing” of non-human animals by removing the ”defective” ones who would taint the sterilized cage of the worshipers of the Law. When an animal is hurt (not fatally) inside the necropolis, and is categorized by the ghost of the Law as non-native for the ghost of the Nation, then it is killed as an indication of ”mercy” from the executors of ”humanity”, of imaginary inherent characteristics, prescripts of morality connected with the fanaticism in the Law. Even if someone wanted to take a wounded animal to a vet for nursing there is a fine for those who treat animals that are not ”native” for returning them to the ”wild” (namely in the public gardens of the city). The stupidity, the excessively willing obedience downgrading the life of an individuality into a worn out product, and the hypocrisy of caring in the name of the ruin of ”animal welfare”, or the real feeling of caring channeled through institutionalized thinking of morality and the Law trigger our hate and these people are our enemies. The paradoxical anthropocentric caring for non-human individuals is a contemptible chain for us because it doesn’t emerge from an interest of fully engaging with ones own relations outside of rationalized contexts in order to enjoy your own life by doing what gives you pleasure, but instead it emerges from a plausible need to ”improve” existence which comes from a non-understanding of the naked reality. It is another system rooted in ”progress”. Which is the extension of ”humanity”.

We aren’t saying that these people don’t save lives of animals in different cases or help them in general contexts, we don’t present them as we ”would like” to attack them in ideological frames but we attack them for what they are. Parts of the societal machine who work well with the capital and the ideologicalization of the pet business into the rationalist reality of control with technology in the humanistic modern states. They also cooperate with the Crown Office and can prosecute to enforce the moral Law. So in the end the issue is who kills ”humanely” not systematically. The one who kills an animal because it violated his space (for whatever reasons, no matter if we agree or not) is a ”criminal” but the animal cops who kill to regulate are ”humans” because they do it for the ”right” reasons and with ”proper” ways. Morality dictates, the Law executes.

The god of the Law converts life into a field of bargain of ”right” – ”wrong”. Chaos is converted into non-life by the acceptance of the various interpretations of ”good” – ”evil”. The complete rationalization of every action in existence constitutes the origins of depersonalization introduced by the institutional consolidation of mores. In this way the existential regulation takes over.

These are not words of denouncement but of vigilance and a call for those who haven’t succumbed to the law abiding death. Those who place the ghost of the Law above the real life of an individuality are our enemies. We don’t tolerate any non-human individuality to be the subject of control of the faithful of the Law, lovers of the society of prisons. Bastards you wear well the face of the human ghost, but we are not ”humans”.

Nocturnal Gale

Destroying Civilization, Destroying Nature

tumblr_o30sebATNt1rg28rzo1_1280

Theses toward decivilizing and becoming dangerous

1

One of the most harmful prevailing prejudices of our times is the belief in Nature as a unified being separate from, and even opposed to Humanity (also perceived as a unified being). In the context of this doctrine, what is specifically Human – what is created by conscious human activity – is called Artificial as opposed to Natural.

2

The concept of Nature (that is the concept that all beings, things, relationships and activities not created by human beings constitute a unified whole that stands in contrast to all the things, beings, relationships and activities consciously created by human beings) is itself a product of conscious human activity and, thus, artificial.

3

Etymologically, “nature” simply refers to what is born into something, what is inherent to it; “artifice” refers to something that is made through consciously applied skill. Considered in this way, there is no necessary (“natural” if you will) opposition between “nature” and “artifice”, since what is consciously and skillfully created can only be made by natural beings (at least as of now) with an inborn capacity to learn to act consciously and with skill.

This does not mean that all or even most “artificial” creations are desirable. Just as there are certain “natural” realities that may cause us harm, so there are many “artificial” realities that are detrimental to us. Furthermore, while “natural” harms are usually temporary events that we can endure and get beyond, artificial creations that cause us harm are often meant to be permanent and even expansive. Thus, the only way to put an end to their harmfulness is to dismantle or destroy them. For example, institutions, large-scale structures and technological systems are all created through conscious human activity. They form a network that defines and limits the possibilities of our lives. They harm us socially and psychologically through these limitations that cripple imagination and creative capacity. They harm us physically by causing or enhancing disasters, illness, poverty, pollution, etc. Getting beyond them requires not endurance, but rather conscious human activity aimed at destruction… Continue reading

Neither Prison, No Policemen

kubin black mass 1905

The libertarian communist of today conceives the Anarchy as a democratic a-statal regime, based on the municipality in which the majority will decide the general rule of conduct… The theorists of libertarian socialism, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Rèclus, Malatesta were instead more tolerant. They thought that in the future municipality, the economical system to follow, the ethical and moral rules to respect, the collective decisions to take will not be imposed by the majority, but they must be voluntary accepted by the totality of the associated. They believed in the agreement of all, in an idyllic life, but they admitted also a dissident minority to whom the majority will recognize the right to try their experiences. Only if the minority will attempt with violence the interests of the majority, this last one will be obliged, with force, to subdue it.

“Martucci will not accept” wrote Malatesta in 1922, polemizing in Umanità Nuova, “that, for regard to the sacred rights of the individual, we’d have to set free, to do harm, a wild killer or a rapist of children. We instead consider him a sick person and we will close him into a hospital where we will heal him.” I think that as for nature, the individual can do everything if he has the force, so the others, that feel themselves injured by his action, they can defend themselves in every way. The defence is also natural and a group can expel the one who harms the comrades, can send him to another place or kill him if the damage has been too heavy.

But he must not be deprived of freedom, closing him in a prison-hospital, he has not to be healed if he doesn‘t want to be. The presumption to attend, to heal, to put the right way up, is extremely hateful because it forces the individual to cease to be what he is and what he wants to remain to be, to become what he is not and he does not want to be. Continue reading