from culmine (their translation edited slightly by war on society to clarify Fede’s ideas as well as we are able)
Note by Federico Buono:
On the night of 15 June, chance places before us a patrol of Polfer (Railway Police) in the district of Lambrate, Milan. In the search that happened during our detention we were found in possession of two “bomb ignition devices.” Also on 15 June myself 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, addressed the posed question separately from the choices that I consider to be inapplicable with the stated principle. To understand the reasons for the case requires more than one premise.
For a further discussion on the political question and not the personal choices, I’m open to any correspondence: CaracoKaos(at)krutt(dot)org
“A rupture with the endless possibilities”
In the trial of 10 October when I will charged for possession and public transport of explosive material, I’ll clarify my position, just to not give misunderstanding to the readers:
From now on, my choice is to continue in an individual way. The basic reason comes from the incongruity of affirming a revolutionary proposal and then making use of bureaucratic quibbling that re-establishes – in a “juxtaposition” of these lived events – a “confrontation” between the accused and accuser.
“The lie is the truth that reminds itself how the world came to be, mask of the mask, on the other side of the mask, another mask.”
– Fragments of a deaf-mute in apnea, P. Porcu
To wear a mask (the mask of innocence in defense), and then propose a political and existential attack in the end is for me to establish a “lie”.
To use a legal counsel to determine the justified / the false, trying to minimize the living part of myself and my choices – which go solely to the confrontation – is incompatible with what I choose within my path of “impetuous radicalism.” The incompatibility lies in rejecting a role (the accused) and then restoring it by becoming the “defendant” and taking advantage of what the laws set out in terms of “certainty” of the punishment:
“To not surrender to blackmail when we are prisoners is and should be the key to continue, despite the physical limits of our own imprisonment, on a revolutionary path.”
– Deny every repentance
In this there is an annulment of one’s own will and one’s own “deed.”
In my path of breaking with the “outside world” – erected by a thick bond of rules of subordination to the role of the automated human – I do not allow anyone, except my will itself, to decide for me, and thus I refuse a priori to attend the trial and to be subject to any interrogation.
I refuse every involvement of an expert (in this lies the incompatibility of being defended). Furthermore, in the a priori rejection of being subject to a right or duty given by a judging court, my choice is the revocation of lawyers.
In this, a “rupture” is granted by the attack, one experiences endless possibilities of revolt within the choices one makes and which, for the anarchist revolutionary, are the expression of myself:
“To act means to be equipped with an intrinsic subjectivity of offensive potentiality.”
Federico Buono
