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

<table><tr><td>From <a href="http://325.nostate.net/?p=4209">325</a>

<p>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&#8217;s “shadow” &#8211; the cancellation of the individual -, delivering a resolution of the thorny specification and arduous path of anti-judicialism. <span id="more-4209"></span></p>

<p>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.<br /></td><td><img title="The surest way to have me reach for my revolver is to evoke logic OR compromise..." src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2012/naughtywhistle.jpg"></td></...

In this is expressed the evaluation of effects-signs of distinctive notes. In a choice that starts from the individual and returns to individual.<br />
The Anarcho-nihilism/anti-social imprints strength to my own words that are my “evil passions” too.<br />
The con-division rejects very moral judgment.<br />
The text coincides with “who I am” because I am unreproducible as an individual, that&#8217;s why it must be done “properly” into the con-division, as “union”.<br />
In the “meaning” there&#8217;s a “purpose” too : a “proposal” about a correlation of texts that will form an anti-judicial publication which will be edited by <strong>Edizioni Cerbero</strong>.</p>
<p>-<br />
<em><br />
“The individual in rebellion aspires to become lawless”</em> <strong>Max Stirner</strong></p>
<p>Life burns like a candle <strong>1</strong>. 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&#8230;</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.<br />
<em><br />
“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&#8221;</em> <strong>2</strong>.</p>
<p>Condemned by “human” laws (which are devoted to utilitarianism), the free spirit &#8211; the anarcho-nihilist, is tied to a small community, with a common “thread” : the informal “happening” of events.</p>
<p><em>“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 &#8216;power&#8217;”</em> <strong>3</strong>.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><em>“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.”</em> <strong>Emile Henry</strong>, &#8216;Colpo su colpo&#8217;.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>But the free spirit advances and goes beyond.</p>
<p>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 <em>“codes of society”.</em></p>
<p>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&#8217;s death too.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><em>“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.” </em><strong>4</strong></p>
<p>Speaking the enemy&#8217;s language, we align to its concepts:<br />
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.</p>
<p><em>“Pre-trial detention is proportionate to the size of the fact and to the penalty that you think may be imposed”.</em></p>
<p>Rights-duties determine the proportion of penalties imposed according to judgment.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The mundane judge becomes the eternal judge, his law and commandments are the nodal point of “punishment”.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The “insuperable limit” becomes the adhesion to the order-ordinariness of things and calculation of the expected.</p>
<p>The belonging of the “delay” has a role of regulation which is a principle-reflection of “reconciliation”.</p>
<p>The cementing of the respect between friends is transformed into a devoted bond, and turns attachment into affection.</p>
<p>The gap between free will and imposition (of the friendship&#8217;s role) is the logical consequence of “readaptation”.</p>
<p><em>“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.”<br />
“I speak with the lawyer. And help to protect their rights and to recognize those of others.”</em></p>
<p>The individual falls into the contradiction (the falsification of what happened) and enters into the logical principle of the “reason”.</p>
<p>Those who “interpret” (the legal defence) this “right-duty” stands between the accused and who imputes, and “mediating” does their job.</p>
<p>They subordinate the individual-defendant to their own vision of mediation that gives to them the right, the “right” to defend.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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&#8217;s base: The indefinable accordingly becomes the “risk” of the unknown.</p>
<p>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”.</p>
<p>The anarchist-amoral anti-judicialism, denying the existence of any “right”, it breaks with consequential logic, and in it&#8217;s denial crushes every “logical” interpretation of being judged in the identity of things.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>In a break given by the endless possibilities, we nullify the labyrinth of prohibitions, and denying them we don&#8217;t recognize them, and we place ourselves at the “margins of society”.</p>
<p>-</p>
<p><strong>1</strong> <strong>Max Stirner</strong>, <em>“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.”</em><br />
<strong>2 </strong>Ibid.<br />
<strong>3</strong> <strong>F. Nietzsche</strong> <em>“Twilight of the Idols”</em><br />
<strong>4</strong> <strong>F. Nietzsche</strong><em> “Twilight of the Idols”</em></p>

Comments

@news admins: turned off by logic. ahahaha

To reach for one's revolver is the very form of logic

I reach for my revolver when anyone nearby reaches for their revolver

- lOne rⒶnger

i like how applied nonexistence stopped putting their name on their posts since everybody in their right mind hates everything that blog produces. ps- please, never ever ever ever fucking ever reference samuel beckett again in your inane approach to suicide anarchy or whatever the fuck it is.

there is an egoist newspaper.

this thing they wrote was good:
http://appliednonexistence.org/?p=824

also, they posted this badass video of bahriani molotoving:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NniIgQNsphk

but yeah, everything else, hrm...

agreed on the youtube video (though they can hardly take credit for any of that) but as for "this thing they wrote," it is like 1.5 paragraphs plus a quote, the best part of which is the quote. the rest just says "we no like waiting" with confusing parentheticals (e.g. "which Tiqqun often argues"--wait, what position do Tiqqun argue?).

UNREADABLE CRAP IS THE NEW ANARCHISM

it's readable in the original italian, if you're into that sort of thing.

can you do a better translation then? cuz this thing is jibberish to me.

nope.

325 is a euro paper. euro english + insurrectionary jargon = ???????

The use of quotes from Stirner and Nietzsche makes it appear as if these two were advocates of a common understanding. They were not. As Deleuze points out in ‘Nietzsche and Philosophy’;

“Stirner is the dialectician who reveals nihilism as the truth of the dialectic”

“Nietzsche never stops attacking ‘the theological and Christian character of German philosophy --- the powerlessness of this philosophy to extricate itself from the nihilistic perspective (Hegel’s negative nihilism, Feurbach’s reactive nihilism, Stirner’s extreme nihilism).

The commonality in Stirner and Nietzsche is that they both ‘attack dialectic’. The difference is that Nietzsche’s philosophy is all about overcoming or extricating ourselves from the inevitable collapse in belief in dialectic (collapse of having our reasoning approach dependent on the Socratic method of deploying Aristotelian 'logic of the excluded third').

We can examine this difference in a thought experiment involving the trial of an anarchist who is being defended independently by both Stirner and Nietzsche.

[Judge] We are here to determine whether the defendant is guilty of the alleged criminal behaviour or is not guilty.

[Stirner] Must we continue to play this ‘is’ - ‘is not’ game as if there were meaning in either ‘is’ or ‘is not’. As has been long known, the negative numbers and the positive numbers all derive from zero and all add up to zero. To try to isolate positive and negative is madness, there is nothing to base it on but one’s own subjective bias.

[Nietzsche] In considering dynamic behaviour in general and applying it to the behaviour attributed to the defendant, it has been established by philosopher-physicist Ernst Mach and others, that the dynamic of the inhabitant and the dynamic of the habitat are ‘relative’ in the manner that the dynamic of a storm-cell in the atmosphere is relative to the dynamic of the atmospheric medium in which the storm-cell is included. Therefore, we cannot assume that the action of the inhabitant, the defendant who stands before this court, is independent of the dynamic of the society which his action was relative to. It is therefore not possible to judge whether the defendant ‘is’ or ‘is not’ guilty of behaviour he is charged with since that ‘behaviour’ is not ‘his’ but belongs jointly to him and to the dynamic of the social collective he is situationally included in.

[Judge] I see you are both attacking dialectic, the logical method propounded by Aristotle and deployed so excellently by Socrates in his ‘Socratic method’. However, I wish to remind you that our system of justice is founded on the notion that all men are born equal in the eyes of God and the law, and that being fully independent organisms as science also affirms, each one of us is fully and solely responsible for our own behaviour. Therefore, the behaviour of which the defendant is accused, if it is established that he is indeed the author of those criminal actions, is no-one else’s behaviour but his own. In other words, 'is' - 'is not' ‘dialectic’ is foundational to the justice system in which this court is merely operational apparatus. If you wish to critique the concept of the ‘independence’ of the action of an individual, you will have to do it ‘upstream’ of the court, in the political-cultural realm which stewards our understanding of what justice is.

[Nietzsche] For the purpose of informing the court record and the public who are following this trial, I wish to make a further comment on the cultural practice of anti-dialectic viewing of the current, rising dissonance in our social dynamic, stirred as it is, by the human-storm-cells of needed transformation. I am not simply attacking dialectic to expose the truth of the fact that ‘nothing’ but ‘nothing’[zero] supports a negative or positive judgement in such affairs. I am saying that one faction of society, such as this court claims to represent, holding itself to be in POLAR OPPOSITION against another faction, such as the defendant and many others who have been protesting along side of him, has no basis in reality. There is just one collective dynamic, not two. In the fluid medium of the crowd, one-to-many inside-outward pushing is conjugate with many-to-one, outside-inward accommodating [the accommodating may be more or less receptive or resistive]. The collective dynamic is 'relational' = 'transformational' and can't be adequately captured in terms of 'what things-do'. As Mach’s principle says; “the dynamics of the full collective are conditioning the dynamics of the faction at the same time as the dynamics of the faction are conditioning the dynamics of the full collective they are included in.” In other words, the protester, like the storm-cell, does not step into the same river twice, since he, and each of us, is a ripple in the dynamic medium of society that his actions are continually helping to transform. Therefore, judge, I call upon you to give an account of how your own actions, and those of the prosecution and police, are contributing to the trouble in the streets, and to accept your co-responsibility in societal transformation.

[Judge] I must say that I prefer Stirner’s brand of anti-dialectic to yours, Nietzsche, in that his is pure abstraction based and reduces the dialect to pure nothingness, something that is unlikely to ‘rally the masses’ against our established system, while yours provides a heretical means of extricating man from the collapse of the dialectic, ... extricating man from moral law based on judging between the opposites of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ behaviour, by questioning NOT the ‘goodness’ or ‘evilness’ of individual behaviour but by questioning the ‘reality’ of the concept of the ‘individual’ as full and sole author of ‘his own locally originating, internal-process driven and directed behaviour’. Your heretical philosophy would imply that we would have to look upon an individual’s dynamic as relative to the dynamic of the collective he is included in, in which case, there could be no authority empowered by the collective to stand in absolute judgement over individual behaviour. Such heresy would lead to the collapse of hierarchical authority as a means of purifying the social collective of behaviours that disturb the continuance of our established ‘normal operations’.

[Nietzsche] Thank you for your summarizing, judge, ... I rest my case.

lol, the best thing about dead people (and especially dead authors (which also include living authors cuz of the DEATH OF THE AUTHOR)is that you can make them say anything.

also, who is the judge? god? haha

and what about you, a living author of words, would you deny that dead people have gotten hold of your tongue? oh, i understand, you have personally authored everything that comes off of your tongue. but what ever made you come up with english when there are so many interesting possibilities? surely your manner of asserting was not biased by the shape of the sockets that you would be able to plug into?

as for a judge, behaviour informed by the quest to cultivate and sustain balance and harmony in the community dynamic we participate in needs no 'judge'. restoring balance and harmony is direct drive. if one experiences (tastes, sees) something disgusting, body language directly expresses disgust, unless we suspend our natural engaging. one does not NATURALLY 'judge' whether something 'is' or 'is not' disgusting, applying the logical branching of the Socratic method, one branch leading to 'making a face'; i.e. to driving-in-reverse body language to manufacture a good representation of 'disgust' the other branch suspending such representation. "look dear, another rape in broad daylight in our city streets. look at those fine breasts heaving about as she screams and struggles against his powerful humping. he looks dangerous, let's just smile and say 'fine day, isn't it' and walk on by."

hi emile,
i dont know about "a living author of words", i just typed that shit on a computer. but what if the words live on their own and just use our bodies (and vocal chords and keyboards and pencils) to propagate?

words are like glass ornaments that can't be understood as things-in-themselves but one has to look upstream in the glass-blower's breath for the meaning. if you are good at catching the glass-blower's breath so that you can channel it to blow glass ornaments out your orifices, as these guys were, you don't have to start off with the tedious processes that start from the shapes of the ornaments.

as zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance affirms, we still have to deal with the structures we create [dialectics included], we just don't have to be a 'gradgrind' and 'start' with them as if they are 'things-in-themselves' that can only be understood by analyzing them.

THOMAS GRADGRIND, sir. A man of realities. A man of fact and calculations. A man who proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four, and nothing over, and who is not to be talked into allowing for anything over. Thomas Gradgrind, sir- peremptorily Thomas- Thomas Gradgrind. With a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in his pocket, sir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to. It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple arithmetic. You might hope to get some other nonsensical belief into the head of George Gradgrind, or Augustus Gradgrind, or John Gradgrind, or Joseph Gradgrind (all suppositious, non-existent persons), but into the head of Thomas Gradgrind- no, sir!

'Girl number twenty unable to define a horse!' said Mr Gradgrind, for the general behoof of all the little pitchers. 'Girl number twenty possessed of no facts, in reference to one of the commonest of animals! Some boy's definition of a horse. Bitzer, yours.' The square finger, moving here and there, lighted suddenly on Bitzer, ... ... 'Bitzer,' said Thomas Gradgrind. 'Your definition of a horse.' 'Quadruped. Graminivorous. Forty teeth, namely twenty-four grinders, four eye-teeth, and twelve incisive. Sheds coat in the spring; in marshy countries, sheds hoofs, too. Hoofs hard, but requiring to be shod with iron. Age known by marks in mouth.' Thus (and much more) Bitzer.

'Now girl number twenty,' said Mr Gradgrind. 'You know what a horse is.'

To be fair to my man Max he didn't have the updated German physics and all around better discourse to work with in latter day century 19, also his orientational consistency is what puts him over the top and that counts for much more then epistemological or ontological groundings(Nietzsche after all was still an authoritarian), Hegelian thought has tendencies toward extreme retardation if not appropriated and dispensed with properly, on the whole Stirner did pretty damn well for his situation, besides if you looked into the Stirner/Nietzsche influence question there are more then hints that Stirner not Schopenhauer was the slightly bigger or at least equal point of his thinking(certainly his genealogical concept is straight out of Stirner) , I think in western historical trajectories if you are looking for 2 major western situated conduits to get you out of the Aristotelian/Roman/Monotheistic thought complex(cause you can't just be exotic and take up the Zen/Taoist stuff in a vacuum)then those 2 are both indispensable, if you look at individualist anarchism even in France and Italy before the Nietzschean intellectual explosion in the 90s Stirner alone wasn't getting it done, even people like Emile Armand were suckers for Tucker and some of that other market property rubbish early in their histories. With Nietzsche Armand and company stepped up their game big time and plugged the gaps and the crazier and sexier Italians soon followed in Novatore and Martucci, all in all Stirner provided the base and Nietzsche the super structure.

the aim of my comment was not to ‘put down stirner’s’ work, nor Aristotle’s, and who will ever know for sure to what extent, or if at all, stirner’s work influenced nietzsche’s. i don’t believe that the evolving of such understandings has a simple constructive progression as its genealogy. meanwhile debate over the philosophies of stirner and nietzsche; e.g. if the former provides the foundation for the latter or if the latter transcends the former can’t all be bad because, as you say, both are conduits that take us out of the Aristotelian/Roman/Monotheistic thought complex.

the aim of my comment was to point to the important difference, that Deleuze brings out, that nietzsche is oriented to what takes over from the smashed and trashed Aristotelian thinking foundation, and not just to the smashing and trashing.

the focus is on how to ‘reconcile opposites’. nietzsche’s anti-dialectic is self-similar to heraclitus’ view that the world is flux/transformation. so the dialectic does not simply collapse into nihilism but is recognized as the degenerate mental reduction of the transcendent dynamic of ‘spatial transformation’ into a degenerate 'existential dynamics'.

Nietzsche’s ‘will-to-power’ is an evolutionary logos that permeates all of nature and his definition of evolution is; “a process of flow in which outside-inward orchestrating influx [endosmosis] and the inside-outward asserting outflux [exosmosis] are in conjugate relation.

this conjugate relation IS transformation/flux and it agrees with Mach’s principle of space-matter relativity. Simply said, the space of the biosphere [and universe in general] persists as an energy-charged medium and the forms that outwell and inwell within it are flow-features as in a fluid-dynamic.

unlike stirner, nietzsche is talking about the natural world in its entirety, not just ‘people’; i.e. not just a ‘union of egoists’.

dialectic is often taken to mean the opposition of the existence and non-existence of 'things'; e.g;

“In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: first, existence must be posited as pure Being (Sein); but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (Nichts). When it is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (in life, for example, one's living is also a dying), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming.

as mentioned above, nietzsche coincidentally or otherwise followed the philosophy/physics of mach [and poincaré and schrödinger] wherein the world dynamic is an energy-charged spatial-plenum. so the opposites, rather than being in terms of the existence, then non-existence of a 'thing', are in terms of ‘flow’, the many-to-one flow as in a ‘sink’ and the one-to-many outflux as in a ‘source’. the 'singularity' where sink meets source is the apparent 'centre of being' as in the machean view of matter. and since ‘field’ is the animator that precedes flow, the opposites of ‘sink’ and ‘source’ are the conjugate aspects of one dynamic; i.e. relational transformation as in a fluid dynamic.

this machean/nietzschean view transcends the logic of existence and/or non-existence; e.g. we don’t have to solve the problem of the ‘coming into being of a thing’ and ‘returning to no-thing’ of a storm-cell in the atmosphere since it not ‘really’ a ‘thing-in-itself’ since its ‘thing-in-itselfness’ or ‘being’ is something the observer imputes to ‘ripples he ‘sees’ in the spatial-flow-plenum’ [‘appearances’].

nietzsche thus collapses the dialectic into nihilism by recognizing that the opposites, instead of being ‘real’ states of being and non-being, are ‘appearances’, opening the way to extrication from being stuck in the 'cul-de-sac' of nihilism by understanding the previously presumed ‘existential dynamics’ as ‘transformation’ [of spatial relations].

in any case, there is a collapse of the one-sided doer-deed Aristotelian/Roman/monotheist thought complex, plus, a transcendent extrication from the rubble.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
8
X
j
8
f
M
2
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "1st Fragment – The Anarchist and Amoral Anti-Judicial Attitude"
society