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”.
‘This is the magic of the extreme. The seduction that exercises all what is extreme. We the anti-moralists, we are the extremists’.[5]
The free spirit – the anarchist nihilist is advancing and going over.
The formal systems of reference, given by the judging organs, establish the role of the defendant. In this way the base of the moral and judicial monster is established in an organic way.
To dismantle and knock down the ‘pillars’ of the law-judgement means to eviscerate its inferior abyss until its fragments can be found in a hidden way.
To knock down all elements of logo-centric reference means to deny in a continuous renovation, to interpret all fragments of it, made of a ‘resistance’ without corners.
The fire of the devouring chaos extinguishes all rational re-elaborations, by ‘denying’ and by renovating while denying.
Each of us must find their personal inferno.[6]
Defence (right) art. 24 of the constitution: ‘Inviolable right guaranteed by the constitution which consists in assuring everybody the possibility to defend their legitimate rights through the action or resistance during the judgement.’
The placid repeating of a movement aiming at logic consequences dissolves itself in a consequential plot.
A careful examination of this plot leads to the theorization, assimilated in an asymmetrical way, of the determined.
While listening, the deaf absence, the ‘stamp’ given by the presence of the absence, is the absence itself.
The absence is the presence of the ‘absent being’.
The production of a series of logical-rational consequences creates ‘appeasement’, leading to the determination of this appeasement, which becomes quiet acquisition by transmitting the reason that created the appeasement: to circumscribe and determine the events by determining them in a logic rationale.
In an aprioristic way, the subject-individual who has no prejudices as concerns his logic deduction of the effects of this ‘determining’ accepts its ordinariness, because the distance between the acquisition of the logic effects and its making them logic reduces itself till it re-marginalizes itself by focusing its effect.
‘The defender of *** has protested because the seized material cannot be classified as primer or explosive (…). However he has demanded that the coercive measure be rejected also because of lack of any references to the behaviour his client is accused of (…)
Subordinately he has demanded the application of a non-custodial measure.’
This chosen line rationalizes the events and classifies the sign-effect that emerges from the extent of the events themselves.
Fatalism ‘affirms’ the subject-individual, which realizes himself in each movement-moment and becomes the ‘logic’ development that simplifies the development itself by adapting it.
All this considering the supposed evidence that this development is a determination, an event that the logic has realized by determining itself.
The dynamics of defending oneself makes the sensory capacities of one’s own individuality useless. These capacities acquire significance while revealing themselves.
Therefore the homologous role of the defendant, established by the judging organs, is polarized by a conventional sign.
A systematic nature absorbs the events to which and in which the subject-individual is placed, so that he puts himself before the dependence of a ‘golden cage’.
The development of the events establishes a thread, which sublimes into ‘nothing’ by dissolving itself.
The formal system of reference for the individual deprived of his essence, of his ‘being’ individual, exacerbates and subdues the reason and assimilates it to the ‘mask of the law’.
In the assimilation of a moral root, the affirmation of oneself is social prison, where the transposition between the individual who affirms himself and the prisoner who conforms through homogenization, nullifies itself.
A defender according to art 96 s.s of the penal code. ‘He guarantees technical defence in a penal procedure to the defendant and to other parties who have the right to nominate him.’
The main intents of a subject-individual, by now defendant, are dissipated in a logic dissociation, which moulds the interpretation of the judicial doctrine and of the ‘guarantee’.
A defendant walks along a prearranged path, which defines what is ‘guaranteed’ as the procedural clause of a subjective falsification.
Taking measures, he endorses himself in a constitution-construction, thus giving a sense-signifier to ‘his’ nothing.
‘The characters of a defence are the effectiveness and freedom of the defender’.
Swallowed up by the law, a non-individual defendant assimilates the essential characters that make a judicial procedure, in which conventional signs emerge in a logic and rational point of view.
Any ‘character’ imposes a moral obligation, in which the defendant gets entrapped with no way out.
Atonement becomes appearance, which turns into subordination, in the void created by a judicial role that has become absolute in its aiming at redeeming by nullifying.
‘Effectiveness implies that a defender has a dynamic, creative and participating role in the dialectic with a public prosecutor during a trial.’
The role of a defender makes the profile of a defendant precise and clean. The defendant, who does not recognize, or has nullified, his individuality and peculiarities, turns into a recomposed and level form.
His identity is the ‘law’.
The effects of the role of the defence take on and change the subjectivity of a defendant, and apply an all-embracing language-dialectic in the judicial farce, thus leading the missing parts to a totalizing rehabilitation.
The recomposed parts expropriate any fibres of the individual and catalyze the adaptation to reconciliation perspectives in a mechanistic way, reconciliation which represents a synthesis of significance.
The result is the privation of ‘interior revolt’ and abandonment to the ‘nothing’.
Conciliation is permanent.
Now the defender, invasive like a pathogen, assumes the humus of the subject, in a total removal of all singular ‘characters’, and stabilizes himself.
The methodological articulation of the ‘compromise’ is viewed as fundamental.
‘Between what is declining inside him and around him
And what enhances him
The wind of a catastrophe is passing.’
P. Klossowski
The vivisection of conscience represents the concept of ‘reason’ in an obvious metaphysical-rational activity.
The effectiveness of reason, dissected, goes back to a reduction-representation, in a subject whose expression becomes a faithful intersection of that dissection.
The rejection assimilated by the voice of conscience, which dissects, deprives the individual of his essence and peculiarities, leading to a goal-truth as a global concept of the ‘voice’.
This ‘voice’ exposes a moral logic that expresses the value of the world according to categories, which are the results and the perspectives of utility, determined in what has to be determined.
Built by conscience, values are derivations of the maintenance of human form-dominion.
By projecting formal data and concepts-orders, the law acquires the right to exist.
Renouncement becomes virtue.
The virtue of this renouncement comes in as necessity in the subject, in a dissected psychological state.
Morals put the individual in a corner, and the individual takes the blows without realizing his subjection.
The voice of conscience expresses itself by ‘saying’:
‘The universal values of man are my values, are fundamental values.’
The common value of the law represents logic understanding, which confers a ‘right’ of existence to universal values.
‘Defence is an inviolable right in every state and degree of a procedure.’ (Art 24 of the constitution).
‘Contrary to what is commonly thought, a defendant is not the object of the punitive stance of the state, nor is he a mere passive subject of this stance, but he is a real subject in the trial, to whom the law recognizes some rights and powers (rights of a defendant).’
The base of judicial discipline demands, by affirming itself, simplification and reduction, and the interpretative deconstruction of the individual. It marginalizes the expression of any existential specificity thus reducing deaf expression to a death form.
The effects of ‘self-defence’ express the symptomatic manifestation of a disease of the spirit, where the elements of expression are chained to moral substance, which leads to the symptom of ‘mending oneself’, as a sign of reason.
These values inhibit the annihilator input, and become the hegemonic logic of the law.
In a perspective of reconciliation, the reason re-emerges, a reason that gives sense to renouncement and extinction of the will of strength.
From an ethical point of view, conciliation is a ‘track’ of the conventional sign of the ‘right of defence’.
A trauma is resolved in a conciliating agreement.
To adapt oneself gives sense to things, in what is affirmed and accepted in the conscience-existence.
What is necessary is desirable.
Moral suppuration prevails.
‘Democratic constitution, being founded on laws, ensures true freedom and harmony, provided that citizens do not harm one another and learn to adapt to life in common, inspired by harmony’[7]
[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”
[5] Will to Power, F.Nietzsche
[6] ‘It is not by chance, Cerberus watches the doors of your personal inferno where no one can enter and from where nothing comes out’ (see ‘Cattive Passioni [Bad Passions], Edizioni Cerbero.
[7] Die fragmente der vorsokratiken, H. Diels W. Franz