Indiscriminate Anarchists

  • Posted on: 14 December 2016
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

In anticipation of the publication of issue 1 of Atassa: Readings in Eco-extremism, we offer this free translation from the issue originally published in Spanish in Regresión 5 in October 2015. Further information about Atassa and its availability can be found at atassa.wordpress,com.

****

How I dream sometimes of a world all in harmony: each tendency based in its own initiative, without clashing with another; without humiliating themselves, in order to be stronger tomorrow, when we should all run toward the great battle of the revolution! But all of that is only a dream.”

Letter of Severino Di Giovanni to Hugo Treni, May 15th, 1930.

In our time, the essence of particular things often changes. The real is modified and transformed into a pantomime that matches the supposed march of progress. Modernity has altered many things, from the environment to human behavior, and even political ideologies. This age demands from citizens (dissident or not) that they oppose vehemently inhumane violence of any sort. The moral values defended by civilization as a whole have brainwashed everyone. This brainwashing drives us toward individual amnesia and collective ignorance.

Many political ideologies have been distorted in modern times, and little by little they have evolved from being original and almost defensible to trite and abhorrent. This applies particularly well to anarchist ideology. With time it has changed and transformed itself into something that it wasn’t at its origins.

For some time now, many anarchists have rejected the concept and practice of indiscriminate attack as defended by the eco-extremists. For modern anarchists, to speak of an act that seeks to strike a target without worrying about “innocent bystanders” is a sin against “liberated humanity” and a “self-managed” future. This would be an “irresponsible” act that is incompatible with “revolutionary morality.” It’s true that in an indiscriminate attack morality doesn’t enter the equation, nor does revolution or anything of the sort. The only important thing is to strike at the target.

Still, it confuses us how modern anarchists are scandalized by this practice, since these sorts of acts were what constituted anarchist praxis in the past and, a couple of centuries ago, made anarchists TRUE enemies of the government, the clergy, the bourgeoisie, and the army. To demonstrate this and develop this theme, we have compiled the following list of events that is the true history of actual anarchists rescued from various historical sources. In this effort, we hope to dig them up from individual amnesia and collective propaganda spread by this modern progressive society. Like nuns recoiling before anarchic demons spreading terror and violence in their time, modern anarchists (even so-called “nihilists”), will tar all of this as some sort of “Black Legend”:

-January 14th, 1858: The anarchist Felice Orsini and his comrade attack Napoleon III, utilizing three “Orsini bombs”. These were christened in honor of their infamous creator, and they were built using a ball of hard metal full of dynamite, with the outside containing small compartments filled with mercury fulminate. The explosive is triggered when the bomb hits a hard surface. In the case of the attack on Napoleon III, the first bomb was thrown and landed on the carriage’s chofer, the second on the animals that accompanied him, and the third on the window of the carriage. In this attack, eight people died and 142 were injured.

-February 17th, 1880: The nihilist Stepan Khalturin, a member of the Russian secret society, Narodnaya Volya, detonated a bomb in the Winter Palace in Russia: eight soldiers died and 45 bystanders were wounded.

-July 5th, 1880: A powerful explosive was detonated in a warehouse of the Ramba de Santa Monica, Spain. A young worker at the scene was blown apart when the explosive was indiscriminately left there.

May 4th, 1886: A meeting of anarchist organizations in Chicago against the repression of striking workers outside of the McCormick plant on May 1st was violently dispersed by police. In the melee, a homemade bomb was thrown at the police, killing one of them and wounding another. This attack was followed by a street battle where dozens were arrested, after which five protesters were condemned to death. The police raided the houses of those detained and found munitions, explosives, firearms, and hidden anarchist propaganda. Those condemned to death were thereafter known as the Chicago martyrs.
The traditional anarchist movement has canonized the Chicago anarchists as if they were “peaceful doves”, even though they were a real threat in their time, veritable atentatores.

January 18th, 1889: In Spain, a 70 year-old employee was killed when a bomb was placed on the staircase of the building where his boss lived.

-February 8th, 1892: In the so-called, “Jerez de la Frontera Rebellion” in Spain, more than 500 peasants attempted to take the city under the agitation of anarchists, resulting in the death of two residents and one peasant. The police undertook a campaign of repression against the anarchist movement of the time, arresting the anarchists who planned and carried out the rebellion. The anarchists were later executed.

The next day, on February 9th, on the eve of the executions, a bomb exploded in the Plaza Real in Barcelona. The bomb was abandoned in one of the flower pots in the garden near the place where the secret police usually gathered. Even though some historians say that the intended target was the police, the blast reached many innocent bystanders, including a junkman who was killed and a servant and her boyfriend whose legs were amputated, among others.

Anarchist vengeance for the execution of their comrades was fierce. The Italian anarchist, Paolo Schicchi, edited many newspapers exalting the violence, including Pensiero e Dinamite, in which he wrote after the attack:

“In order for the social revolution to triumph completely we have to destroy that race of thieves and murderers known as the bourgeoisie. Women, the elderly, children, all should be drowned in blood.”

Some anarchists were disturbed by the attack and rejected it vehemently, saying:

“We cannot believe that an anarchist detonated the bomb in the Plaza Real… [This was an act] characteristic of savages. We cannot attribute it to anyone but the enemies of the working class. That is what we stated in May. We have repeated it in public meetings and in all places, and we repeat it again here. Detonating bombs is cowardice. One can glory in heroism when one risks one’s life in a face-to-face confrontation for a generous idea. One can explain and even offer praise if one approves of what happened at Jerez. But one cannot diminish the severity of the evil of what one prepares in the shadows that is intended to inflict injury on someone you don’t know.” (i.e. indiscriminate attack)

-March 11th, 1892: Ravachol places a bomb in the house of Judge Bulot (an anti-anarchist) in France.

-March 27th, 1892: Ravachol detonates a bomb in the house of Prosecutor Benot. Even if these attacks did not result in any fatalities, they were still characteristic of an age of blood and dynamite which would strike out at bitter enemies (as well as anyone in the path) of the anarchists.

-March 30th, 1892: Ravachol is arrested in Lhérot Restaurant for the attack on the Véry Restaurant. The next day, during the trial, anonymous terrorists detonate a bomb in Lhérot Restaurant leaving many wounded.
It should be mentioned that Ravachol was considered a “common criminal” by the anarchists of his time, as his attacks were considered to be out of bounds for anarchist morality.

-November 7th, 1893: Santiago Salvador, a Spanish anarchist, threw an Orsini bomb into the audience of an opera at the Liceo Theater in Barcelona, Spain. Blood, corpses, and debris flew everywhere, resulting in 22 dead and 35 wounded.

-December 9th, 1893: Ravachol’s execution by guillotine drives many anarchists to adopt “propaganda of the deed” in revenge. The anarchist Auguste Vaillant threw a powerful bomb at the French Chamber of Deputies, wounding 50 people.

-February 12th, 1894: The individualist anarchist Émile Henry threw a bomb into the Café Terminus in Paris as revenge for the execution of Vaillant. One person was killed and 20 bourgeoisie were injured.

June 7th, 1896: An attack took place in the middle of the Corpus Christi procession in Barcelona, Spain. An anonymous terrorist threw an Orsini bomb which was originally directed at the authorities present, but instead landed in a group of bystanders watching the return of the procession in the street. The bomb exploded, leaving 12 dead and 70 wounded. The bombing caused great indignation, leading the anarchists to claim that they weren’t responsible. The authorities blamed them anyway and made four hundred arrests. Out of these only five were executed. This event has led to a decades-long controversy, with some arguing that the constant attacks in Spain by anarchists drove the authorities themselves to detonate the bomb so they could blame it on the anarchists, thus halting their activities. Others argue that the bomber was a French anarchist named Girault who fled after the massacre. Regardless, the Corpus Christi attack is either considered a historical lesson or a classic example of indiscriminate attack.

-May 31st, 1906: In Madrid, the anarchist Mateo Morral threw a bouquet of flowers toward the carriage of King Alfoso XIII and his wife Victoria Eugenia. Hidden in the bouquet was an Orsini bomb which hit the trolley car cable and was deflected onto the crowd where it exploded leaving 25 dead (15 of them soldiers) and 100 wounded. The king and queen were unhurt in the blast.

-June 4th 1914: An anarchist hideout and warehouse for explosives was destroyed in a large explosion on Lexington Avenue in New York City. Four anarchists and one bystander were blown to pieces in the explosion, with 20 bystanders lying wounded in the street. The police blamed the anarchists members of the IWW and of the Anarchist Red Cross for the blast.

July 22nd, 1916: A powerful explosion occurred during the Preparedness Day Parade in San Francisco, CA. The bomb was hidden in a suitcase, activated by a timer, and filled with dynamite and shrapnel. Ten died and forty were wounded in this attack. The police suspected the syndicalists or anarchist leaders from the Galleanist group. This latter group was given that name by the press after its leader Luigi Galleani, an Italian individualist anarchist living in the United States whose intention was to unleash chaos and terrorism in the country. He was the editor of the fierce Cronaca Sovversiva. An example of what Galleani wrote in the paper follows:

“The storm has come, and soon it will blast you away; it will blow you up and annihilate you in blood and fire… We will dynamite you!”

He wasn’t joking.

The anarchist Gustavo Rodriguez in his 2011 talk in Mexico entitled, “Anarchist Illegalism: Redundancy Matters!”, indicates the following regarding a couple of the attacks carried out by the Galleanists:

“We can tell many anecdotes about this group - we can spend all day talking about them. But there are particular ones that at least merit brief mention, such as the November 24th, 1917 attack on the Police Garrison in Milwaukee, where a powerful time bomb exploded that contained many kilos of blasting powder. The device had been constructed by Mario Buda who was the group’s expert in explosives. He utilized his expertise to help Luigi Galleani come up with an explosives manual that circulated among insurrectionary anarchists and was translated into English by Emma Goldman. And while the plan was found to be ingenious - since these garrisons were well-fortified due to the tremendous amount of anarchist activity at the time - the problem was to get the bomb past the security of the well-protected police station.They did this by placing the bomb first at the base of a church and then passing the information to someone who they suspected of being a police informant. The bomb squad showed up almost immediately and moved the bomb from the church to the police station, thinking that its detonator had failed. Minutes after confirming that the device was now in the garrison, they detonated it, killing nine policemen and one civilian. And with this act, they killed two birds with one stone, since they not only hit their target but also were able to confirm the identity of the snitch.

Another attack that should be mentioned was carried out by Nestor Dondoglio in Chicago in 1916. Dondoglio was a cook of Italian origin who was known as Jean Crones. When he found out that a large banquet was to be held in honor of the Catholic Archbishop of the city, Mundelein, with a large number of Catholic clergy in attendance, Dondoglio volunteered his services and stated that he would provide exquisite dishes for the occasion. He poisoned around 200 attendees by putting arsenic in their soup. None of the victims died since, in his enthusiasm to kill them all, he added so much poison that his victims vomited it out. The only death by poisoning occurred two days afterward when a Father O’Hara died, who was the parish priest of St. Matthew’s Church in Brooklyn, New York City, and previously the chaplain at the gallows of the Raymond St. Prison. Dondoglio then moved to the East Coast where he was hidden by one of his comrades until he died in 1932.”

-February 27th, 1919: Four Galleanists died when one of their bombs prematurely went off in a textile factory in Franklin, Massachusetts.

-April 29th, 1919: Galleanist anarchists send 30 package-bombs to notable figures in authority throughout the United States. One of the packages maimed a servant of Senator Thomas W. Hardwich of Georgia, who lost both hands, as well as the servant’s wife who was severely burned upon opening the package that had been left in front of the house.

-June 2nd, 1919: The Galleanist Carlo Valdinoci died trying to place a bomb in the house of the lawyer Mitchell Palmer. Two bystanders also died in the explosion. The lawyer’s house as well as surrounding houses were heavily damaged by the blast. A note was found on the scattered remains of the anarchist and the debris which read: “There will be a bloodbath; we will not retreat; someone will have to die; we will kill because it is necessary; there will be much destruction.”

-June 3rd, 1919: A night watchman died detonating a bomb abandoned by the Galleanists in a New York courthouse.

-September 16th, 1920: Mario Buda (an anarchist of Galleani’s crew) detonated the first car bomb (or rather a carriage bomb) in history. He left a deadly bomb consisting of 45 kilos of dynamite that detonated by timer in a carriage parked in front of Wall Street. The bomb destroyed the carriage, killing the horses, employees, messengers, bystanders, and everyone else in the vicinity of the blast. The bomb also destroyed the offices of Morgan Bank. 38 people died and 400 were injured in the formidable indiscriminate attack.

-March 23rd, 1921: A group of individualist anarchists threw a bomb inside the Diana Theater in Milan, Italy, with the intention of killing Commissioner Gasti and King Victor Emmanuel. The terrorist bomb left 20 dead and one hundred wounded, most of them ordinary citizens.

-November 29th, 1922: The individualist anarchists Renzo Novatore and Sante Pollastro were ambushed by three policeman near Genoa in Italy. In the melee. Novatore was killed by a bullet in the forehead while Sante fought ferociously, shooting two policeman and disarming the last one and letting him go free.

-May 16th, 1926: A bomb made out of two hollowed-out cannon balls filled with blasting powder exploded in front of the U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The blast left a man-sized hole in the embassy wall which shocked authorities. The blast also destroyed the windows of surrounding houses and businesses. Although no one was injured, this act was one of many carried out by Severino Di Giovanni and his crew. These attacks evolved into being ever more deadly terrorist attacks.

-July 22nd, 1927: A powerful bomb exploded at night in the Palermo neighborhood of Buenos Aires. The target was the monument to Washington, but, even though it was a powerful explosion, damage to the monument was minimal. At the same time, another bomb exploded in the Ford Agency that destroyed the model car and all of the windows within a four block radius.

-December 24th, 1927: A powerful bomb exploded in broad daylight, destroying a branch of the National City Bank in the center of Buenos Aires, Argentina. The bomb was detonated by acids but exploded prematurely, killing two bank employees and leaving 23 others wounded. The same day, another bomb in a suitcase was found in the Bank of Boston; it did not explode, but it caused great terror in the populace and authorities.

Osvaldo Bayer in his book, “Severino Di Giovanni: Ideologue of Violence,” described the bomb in the following passage:

“The explosive device was the same as the one at National City Bank (which had been placed in a suitcase). This was an iron device about a meter and a half long with covers at each end sealed in cement. The inside was filled with gelignite, dynamite, and pieces of iron. On top of this was a glass tube divided in two containing in each part different acids (potassium chloride and sulfuric acid). The divider was made of cork or cardboard through which both liquids could seep. When they came into contact, they produced an explosion [more precisely, they produce a flame that ignites a charge that goes directly to the explosive].

While the suitcase was upright, the liquids stayed separated, but when it was laid on its side, the filtration process began and it was then a question of seconds.”

The explosive attacks on those days were against the economic interests of the United States in the Argentine capital. (The United States Embassy, the monument to Washington, the American Ford dealership, and the Yankee banks described above.) This was in support of an international campaign for the two jailed anarchists in the United States, Sacco and Vanzetti, who were accused of belonging to a group of terrorist-anarchists and of committing robberies and expropriations.

G. Rodriguez in the talk cited above describes the following concerning the relation between the two anarchists condemned to death and the terrorist illegalism of that time:

“The overwhelming actions of the [Galleanist] anarchists would lead to their becoming the most persecuted anarchist group pursued by the federal authorities of the United States. On the other hand, the ‘official’ history, even in its “radical” version in anarchist circles, would condemn their memory to forgetfulness while silencing their actions and ‘disappearing’ their texts and other theoretical engagements. The only exception was that of Sacco and Vanzetti whose story ‘legalist anarchists’ altered in order to canonize them as ‘martyrs’ of the movement. The same was done with the so-called, ‘Martyrs of Chicago.’ Once again, we see the same tricks to cover-up the real history. The legal argument of the defense used to try to prove their ‘innocence’ became the ‘official story’ of what actually happened. With the exception of the anarchist historian Paul Avirich, who devoted himself to developing a better picture of anarchist activity of the time and the work of Bonnano on this topic, the rest of the literature published about the Sacco and Vanzetti case firmly denied their participation in the expropriation for which they were condemned. These expropriations were carried out at regular intervals by the [Galleanist] group in which they were active. The funds that they acquired from these expropriations were used to fund the printing of anarchist literature as well as to fund attacks, calls for reprisals, and in order to support imprisoned comrades and the unemployed or in some cases their families.

After this attack, there emerged the first divisions between anarchists who sympathized with terrorist violence and those who defended “Franciscan violence” [as Di Giovanni called it (after the Catholic religious order founded by St. Francis of Assisi - translator’s note)]. This dispute was closely followed by anarchists of the time, especially by the editors of the anarchist newspaper, La Protesta. Bayer writes the following on this event in his aforementioned book:

“La Protesta referred to the classic example of ‘clean’ attacks like the one carried out by Wilckens (a German anarchist who assassinated Colonel Varela on January 17th, 1923) and Radowitzky (a Ukrainian anarchist who assassinated Colonel Falcon on November 14th, 1909). But those examples proved faulty upon closer examination. Those attacks were ‘clean’ and ‘pure’ because they went off without a hitch. What would have happened if Wilckens’ bomb had gone off on the street car and killed three workers and the agent selling the tickets? Or if the bullets from the gun wounded a woman in the eye who was just walking her kids to school, or worse, went through the back of the head of a girl out buying bread? In the case of Radowitsky, what if the bomb, instead of falling in Colonel Falcon’s carriage, fell on the sidewalk killing the driver and two old ladies walking to church? And what if Di Giovanni’s bomb had exploded on the desk of Consul Capanni, killing the butcher of Florence and Mussolini’s ambassador, and that’s it? Was the violence the difference?

“La Protesta established that Wilckens and Radowitzsky had taken their lives in their own hands. Did not Di Giovanni and Ramé do the same in building the bomb, entering the den of fascism, and trying to place it at the target? At any moment, it could have exploded and blown them to bits. There was some truth to that, yes, but not the whole truth. La Protesta’s reasoning was not entirely fair. Violence itself was the problem. Once one chooses that option, it is not possible to know for sure whether the actions will be clean or dirty. There are certainly differences. It is not the same to kill an executioner in his den than it is to indiscriminately throw a bomb in the marketplace or a cafe or in a train station full of people. But was the fascist consulate an innocent place? The victims of fascism didn’t go there. An attack on the consulate was clearer than the ones against banks in which, even if you factored in the hours when they would be empty, there was still more probability that innocent people might get killed, which did occur on occasion. The discussion was thus not whether the attack on the consulate in itself constituted an act of cowardice.”

On this topic of debate among anarchists, Rodriguez wrote:

“There was a polemic between those who, calling themselves anarchists, justified expropriation and the propaganda of the deed and included them in a large list of valid direct actions - the ones who believed that the ends justified the means - and those who, also considering themselves anarchists, condemned these former people as “amoral” and violent. The former which we are discussing here was labeled “illegalist anarchism.” We are trying here to distinguish between these two tendencies’ approaches to direct action and the way in which they conceived of themselves according to their own worldview. “

-May 7th, 1928: An infernal explosion shook the Italian Consulate in Buenos Aires. A man left a suitcase which contained a bomb on the stairs of the entrance. The attack left nine dead and 34 wounded. Seven of the dead were fascists, but the majority were bystanders, including four women and a girl. An hour afterward, a suitcase bomb was found abandoned in the pharmacy of fascist Almirante Brown. A child found the suitcase and without intending to deactivated the explosive by emptying one of the acids and generating a small flare. The frightened child screamed and ran out to warn everyone around. They too saw the bomb and ran away as well. The newspaper La Nación told the story in this manner:

“The top of the small tube was firmly sealed and, in opening it, its liquid contents spilled out near the suitcase but not on the suitcase itself. Thus, there was no contact with the contents inside. This was the reason that the bomb failed to go off, which would not have happened if the tube had come into contact with the explosive packet inside the suitcase. Instead, the acid fell on one of the corners of the suitcase, producing a flare. In the suitcase were 50 bars of gelinite, 32 five-inch nails, an iron bolt, two iron screws, and cotton. The bomb’s charge was formidable, of the same potency as the one at the consulate.”

After these attacks, it was clear that the intention of the terrorist-anarchists (Severino and company) was to attack their target, in this case the consulate and the pharmacy of a fascist, without worrying about wounding “innocent” people. The attack was condemned by the majority of anarchists of the time, who called it a “work of fascism”, denying that it was even the work of anarchists. With this, a schism emerged in anarchist circles as Di Giovanni would defend to his death the acts in which he was involved. The cowards of La Protesta positioned themselves in this matter:

“Anarchism is not terrorism. How is this the work of a conscious man, of a revolutionary, this act of cowardice that hurt innocent victims, which was not in line with the political motive that they set out to follow? It is moral cowardice that inspires these types of vengeance. It is these actions that lead us to put salt in the wound of the provocative terrorism that has made its appearance in the capital of the republic.”

La Protesta’s declarations even appeased the police, who started a manhunt for Di Giovanni and his crew. This is evident in the interview after the attack of Subcommissioner Garibotto (Head of the Social Order) by the socialist newspaper, La Vanguardia, on May 26th of that year:

“This attack was a scary thing, no? When I saw those arms and legs all over the place and those groans of agony, I went weak in the knees. This was so brutal that even the anarchists are indignant. We are very happy with La Protesta’s editorial. Have you seen it? It’s very good. And other anarchists have come to cooperate with us out of indignation for the act. They have promised to tell us everything they know. And it makes sense, since there’s much freedom here and if these things keep happening it can stir up a negative reaction by the government.”

Severino responded to such infamy from the anarchist newspaper, La Diana of Paris, under a pseudonym:

“It’s odd that the entire ‘revolutionary’ press attributes the attacks to fascism, while the anarchist (?) newspapers disapprove of them, repudiate them, deny and condemn. The docile friars of unionist anarchism denounce the ‘horrible tragedy’ as more characteristic of fascists and not of anarchists. They take their inspiration from from a sheepish Christianity and they gesticulate like Jesus Crucified when in reality they are so many Peters of Galilee (‘Truly I say unto you that before the cock crows thrice, Peter will deny me.’) And they betray thus. I have seen denial and condemnation on the lips of many terrified cowards. They spew sophistries like so many canons and vile Jesuits. Some of those killed in the attack: Virgilio Frangioni, fascist, and Fr. Zaninetti, director of the ‘Italia Gens,’ a den of spies; that’s enough to open up the tear ducts of crocodiles of all sorts. The anarcho-syndicalist newspapers fight among themselves to see who can be the most ignoble and vile. Thus, for example, we find the Committee for Political Prisoners, the anarcho-syndicalist La Protesta and the anarchist La Antorcha (which is always praising dynamite) have shed cowardly and vile tears. And they have even received praise from the police and the whole conservative press for their magnificent work of eunuchs. La Nación, La Razón and La Prensa have branded the current situation saying: ‘The latest attack against the Consulate has also been repudiated by the distinct tendencies of anarchism.’ Of course here they refer to the vile ones.”

Finally he writes a quote from the terrible Galleani:

“It is an act of supreme cowardice to repudiate an act of rebelling for which we have ourselves given the first seed.”

Another text was written by Severino under a different pseudonym making clear his indiscriminate non-humanist attitude:

“... the attack on the den of Avenida Quintana (The Italian Consulate) and against the eternal fathers of fascism who in the land of exile also try to found their death squads. In Argentina alone are dispersed thirty-six fascist sections. Are they innocent? In Milan as well, in the Diana Theater and in Giulio Cesare Plaza, those killed were also innocent. Innocent people who applaud the king and shore up his throne with their passivity. Those who took a day off from work to applaud the fascist aviator De Pinedo who, in the name of Il Duce and the ‘greatest fates of the Italian Throne’, mixes fascism with the ephemeral glory of his hydroplane.

That is the rotten and moth-eaten structure on which anti-fascism, in the name of all the conveniences, launches arrows and strikes against the iconoclast who, without permission and consensus, acts, breaks, and strikes.

For anarchism - for us - there is no other way other than that which we have taken with all of our fortunes, with all of the glory, heroism, and audacity. The path of the most unprejudiced [indiscriminate] action crushes with its powerful might the right to kill reserved to fascism. For ten years we have been the only ones who have had the audacity to attack this right of theirs. From today forward, we will expand this audacity one-hundredfold....”

-May 26th, 1928: Some weeks after the attack on the Italian Consulate, the Di Giovanni group placed a bomb that destroyed the entrance to the house of Colonel Cesar Afeltra in Argentina. The fascist officer was at home and was guarded by police. The police had left to go to a nearby bar when a terrorist took advantage of their absence to leave the bomb. Windows in a three-block radius were blown out from the blast (harming “defenseless citizens”). According to the press, the power of the bomb was such that it undermined the stability of the building.

-May 31st, 1928: The hiding place of the anarchist-terrorists was discovered by a boy who was chasing his escaped rabbit from her pen next door. The boy opened one of the doors to the small house on Lomas de Mirador and a small explosion scared him. The boy grabbed his rabbit and ran out to tell his relatives. When the police arrived, they were met with another small explosion upon opening the door. This was a storage place for the anarcho-terrorist bombs which had been rigged to explode if the police found it, and only the terrorists knew how to enter without triggering the bombs. By this they hoped to leave no evidence of the bombs and kill the police in the process. The humidity of the place, however, dampened the explosives and caused them to only let forth a small explosion instead of the intended deadly one. This turned out to be the storehouse of Severino and his crew. It should be pointed out that after this occurred, the Italian anarchist individualist Francesco Barbieri, who was the designated bomb-maker for the crew, decided to flee Argentina. He was an innocent-looking man and tremendously audacious in slipping past police. Barbieri was one of the most important anarchist “dinamiteros” in the country, as he had been in Spain, Geneva, Brazil, Italy, France, and other places.

-June 10th, 1928: A powerful explosion occurred in the house of Michele Brecero, a prominent fascist living in downtown Buenos Aires.

-June 11th, 1928: An explosion destroyed the house of Cavaliere R. De Micjelis, Italian Consul in Argentina.

-November 10th, 1928: A briefcase was found by a curious Bank of Boston employee near the Cathedral in Buenos Aires. The briefcase exploded immediately, killing the employee and leaving a police officer gravely wounded. Many windows of nearby businesses were also blown out. The press all pointed to Di Giovanni as the one responsible for the indiscriminate attack. The Catholic newspaper, El Pueblo, called Di Giovanni, “the evilest man who ever stepped foot on Argentine soil.”

-November 14th, 1928: An explosion characteristic of Di Giovanni’s crew occurred in the Palace of Justice of Rosario, Argentina. Other explosions shortly followed at the Bank of the Nation, at the Courthouse, and at the Santa Fe Railroad Bridge. The acts were added to the death of the bank employee from four days past.

-April 25th, 1929: An ex-collaborator of the newspaper, Culmine, named Giulio Montagna was shot to death by anarchist terrorists for revealing the location of Severino Di Giovanni to police.

-October 22nd, 1929: The hated Subcommissioner Juan Velar was attacked by two men who snuck up on him and shot him in the face. Velar lost an ear, his teeth were blown out, and he lost a large portion of his nose, but he was not killed. Velar said that Paulino Scarfó and Severino were responsible.

-October 25th, 1929: A group of anarchist terrorists shot the Spanish anarchist Emilio López Arango three times in the chest. López Arango was responsible for the anarchist paper La Protesta that had defamed the bandit anarchists; Arango had waged a campaign of slander against Severino’s attacks, slamming him as a “fascist agent” and defaming him before the mass anarchist workers’ movement of the time. Thus, he obtained his merited execution.

Among the many poisonous paragraphs from La Protesta was this one dated May 25th, 1928:

“We have already exposed the criteria by which we anarchists judge that anonymous irresponsible terrorism: it is odious, as its victims are random and it can never carry with it a heightened spirit and clear revolutionary consciousness.”

It is fascinating how those very same words are repeated in the mouths of those modern anarchists who condemn the indiscriminate attacks of the eco-extremists...

Before López Arango’s execution, he had received many warnings through comrades (which he ignored) such as the one that the Uruguayan anarchist-bandit Miguel Arcángel Rosigna had told him:

“Please stop this campaign, since Severino is capable of anything.”

After the murder, a group of Arango’s anarchist friends searched for Di Giovanni among the bakery workers without finding him. This was the most radical sector of anarchist workers. The bakers didn’t say anything, and at the same time the police warned Arango’s close friend, the Spanish anarchist Diego Abad de Santillán that:

“Very well, under our responsibility go ahead and arm yourself because Di Giovanni’s crew is going to kill you.”

-February 12th, 1930: The anarchist terrorist and member of Di Giovanni’s crew, Giuseppe Romano (Ramé), who had been arrested and sentenced to eight years in prison, was freed from the hospital to which he had been transported as a sick patient. He was sprung free by five armed bandits.

-January 12th, 1930: A bomb was detonated at the Italian Consulate in Córdoba, Argentina, leaving one agent wounded and causing much damage.

-January 20th 1931: Three powerful explosions occurred in three subway stations in Buenos Aires. The attacks left four dead and twenty injured, as well as leaving serious material damage.

-February 1st, 1931: Severino Di Giovanni was executed by firing squad. He killed one policeman and wounded another severely when over a dozen police went out to capture him. In the melee, one small girl was killed.

Di Giovanni died looking his killers squarely in the eyes and shouting like a wild animal with his last breath: ¡Evviva l’anarchia!

One of the witnesses, Roberto Arlt, described Severino’s execution:

“Five fifty-seven. Eager faces behind bars. Five fifty-eight. The lock clinks and the iron door is opened. Men run forward as if they were running to catch the trolley. Shadows making great leaps through illuminated hallways. The sound of rifle butts. More shadows gallop.

We’re all looking for Severino Di Giovanni so that we can see him die.

The space of the blue sky. Old cobblestone. A green meadow. A comfortable dining room chair in the middle of the meadow. Troops. Mausers. Lamps whose light punishes darkness. A rectangle. It’s like a ring. A ring of death. An official: ‘according to the dispositions… for the violation of statute… law number…’

An official lowers the glazed screen. In front of him is a head. A face that appears covered with red oil. There are eyes that are terrible and fixed, varnished with fever. A black circle of heads. It is Severino Di Giovanni. A prominent jaw. A forehead fleeing toward the temples just like a panther’s. Thin and extraordinarily red lips. Red forehead. Red cheeks. Chest covered by the blue flaps of the shirt. The lips look like polished wounds. They open slowly and the tongue, redder than a pimento, licks the lips, wetting them.

The body burns up with temperature. It savors death.

The official reads: ‘article number… State law of the site… The Supreme Court… seen.. To be passed to a superior tribunal… of war, the regiment, and sub-officials…’

Di Giovanni looks at the face of the official. He projects on his face the tremendous force of his gaze and a will that maintains calm.

‘Being proven to be necessary to the lieutenant… Rizzo Patrón, vocals… the lieutenants and colonels… give a copy… sheet number…’

Di Giovanni wets his lips with his tongue. He listens with attention, he seems to analyze the clauses of the contract whose stipulations are the most important. He moves his head in assent, faced with the terms with which the sentence has been formulated.

‘The Minister of War to be notified… may he be shot… signed, the secretary…’

-I would like to ask forgiveness from the lieutenant defender…

One voice:-No talking.
Take him away.

The condemned duck walks. His enchained feet with a metal bar on the wrists that tie his hands. He passes the edge of the old cobblestones. Some spectators laugh. From stupidity? From nervousness? Who knows?
The convict sits resting on the bench. He supports his back and turns out his chest. He looks up. Then he bends over, and it looks like his abandoned hands between his open knees. A man cares for the fire while water warms up for their yerba mate.
He stays that way for four seconds. The subordinate officer crosses his chest with a rope, so that when they shoot him, he won’t fall on the ground. Di Giovanni turns his head to the left and lets himself be tied.
The target is ready for the firing squad. The subordinate official wants to blindfold the condemned. The condemned shouts:

-No blindfold.

He looks firmly at his executioners. He emanates will. If he suffers or not, it’s in secret. He remains that way, still, proud. A difficulty emerges. A fear about ricocheting bullets leads to the regiment, perpendicular to the firing squad, to be ordered a few steps back. Di Giovanni remains erect, being supported by the chair. Above his head is the edge of a gray wall, the soldiers’ legs move. He sticks out his chest. Is it to receive the bullets?

-Ready, aim.

The voice of the condemned bursts metallic, vibrant:

— Long live anarchy!

— Fire!

A sudden brilliance. The hard body has turned into a folded sheet of paper. The bullets shoot through the rope. The body falls head first and lands on the green grass with the hands touching the knees.

The burst of the coup de grace.

The bullets wrote the last word on the body of the condemned. The face remains calm. Pale. The eyes half open. The blacksmith hammers at the feet of the corpse. He takes off the handcuffs and the iron bar. A doctor observes. He confirms the death of the condemned. A man wearing a frock and dance shoes retires with his hat on his head.
It looks like he just came out of a cabaret. Another says a bad word.

I see four boys, pale and disfigured like the dead, biting their lips. They are Gauna from La Razón, Álvarez, from Última Hora, Enrique González Tuñón, from Crítica, and Gómez, from El Mundo. I am like a drunk. I think of those who laugh. I think that at the entrance of the Penitentiary there should be a sign saying:

-No laughing.

-Forbidden to enter with dancing shoes.”

In summary, it should be mentioned that the events described above are the ones that we consider the most important at the time when they happened. As one can read above, we have not only described indiscriminate attacks of anarchist-terrorists, but also their abilities to commit formidable crimes, such as their storing bombs, using firearms, murder, raids, complicity, falsification of documents, counterfeiting money, agitation, theft, bombings, jailbreaks, and other important crimes. It is well-known by those who know this subject that the majority of the anarchists described above had their political aspirations front and center. These aspirations were inspired by humanism and its foundations, namely “freedom” and “human dignity.” Reading their letters and writings, as well as their communiqués taking responsibility for their “terrible” acts, one can notice a language strongly in favor of “the people”, “the proletariat,” the oppressed,” “the class struggle,” terms which at the time were favored by many anarchists who also advocated the use of violence. This is because the conditions in which they arose as individuals in that society compelled them to proclaim themselves thus. Nevertheless, their words were one thing, and their deeds something else. We remember their deeds as irrefutable proof of the fierceness of past anarchists. They were very different from the dominant paradigm of the modern anarchist, who has turned into a caricature by his acceptance of “alternative”, but still civilized, moral values.

The contingent of anarchists partial to extremist violence has been also completely erased and forgotten in the official and not-so-official story. There are few who recognize true anarchists such as Severino, Buda, Bonnot, Rosigna, and others who carried out attacks against their targets without concern for bystanders; for whom the ends justified the means.
Let everyone come to their own conclusions, I have reached mine…

“I say that the most important thing in your life is yourself. The family, the state, the party, and anarchy itself can all go to Hell.”

-Mauricio Morales

category: 

Comments

Wow. Sure looks like someone has found their Jesus (their martyr) and then decided to document the Indiscriminate Acts of the Apostles. So much from the eco-extremists reeks of the same spirit of the Gospels...

It sounds like they dream of attracting as much attention as the Tsarnaev brothers did. However, eco-extremist actions are described perfectly by the Mexican state - the actions simply don't measure up to the rhetoric. No matter how many websites the eco-extremists have to distribute the same stories over and over and claim there is a government conspiracy to cover up their actions, it doesn't make them worthy of the attention they desperately seek. Some relatively low-profile criminal activity doesn't really equate to whatever it is they say they are trying to do. It's pretty comical to think of these morons claiming that wildness is speaking through them. But whatever... lots of idiotic stuff has been carried out by humans thinking other things of human invention are speaking through them, too.

This. That's right! Thank you! Finally.

Either ITS is a fraud or they're psychos out to kill everyone. Whatever weak slander works I guess.

Well Obomber created ISIS, so who created ITS? See, there's a place for everyone in the state, even anarchists.

Come to think of it, the two could join forces and form ITS-ISIS. A great tagline for shouting after bursting through a wall ala Kool-Aid man.

'xcept ITS are not even anarchists yet nobody cares at this point...

Yeah as if nature speaks through them, this sounds like Psychopaths with Shamanic Delusions, or a scam to get donations from alienated bourgeois youth with nihilistic tendencies, or are into inverted Christian black-magic fundamentalism. Totally nuts..

"Next I would like to clarify that when I mention that I am working and striving for rewilding I am only speaking of MY OWN rewilding and the rewilding of my group. I would give anything to see the system collapse and for the planet to be free again from all civilized bondage. But I can’t since I am an eco-extremist and for this reason I believe that the future doesn’t exist and all that is left for me is this piece of shit in which I am stranded and I’m well aware that I am not the Earth’s savior. The only thing that I can save is my own life and the way I associate with my affinity group. I am Wild Nature, as well as my group that holds on to idea of not letting our wild instincts die. They took everything away from us, even a place where we can freely dwell. They took away our wild places, our ancestral lands, and buried them under cement. Thus I and my group are the only Wild Nature, and re-wilding is what we aspire towards. Sure, there are eco-extremists who have their own place of Wild Nature that they defend and that is their work. And the truth of the matter is that it would be an error to give one absolute meaning to eco-extremism...

From the beginning, we’ve noted that within these schools of thought there are certain positions that are predominant. From what we can see on this side of the border anyway, important theorists such as John Zerzan, Kevin Tucker, etc. have dismissed eco-extremism or outright ignored it. They and their acolytes cast aspersions on ITS and eco-extremist groups in their publications and on their radio programs whenever their names or actions come up. They can’t take the chance of anything putting into question the “hope for a future primitive” lest their donations go down and they no longer get invited to chic conferences and speaking engagements. Their primitivism is eminently marketable, it appeals to the hipsters, the business start-up mentality, the people who want to re-wild any given product because nature sells. It thus remains progressive, a greening of leftism, but it’s just another fraud, another TV commercial peddling “rebellion against the system,” this time as homesteading and a prolonged camping trip."

http://wildism.org/hg/article/dialogue-on-wildism-and-eco-extremism/

If "nature sells", it's not selling very well. Admission to parks is cheap or free, Pipelines criss-cross the landscape in a country-wide spider web. Massive deforestation has reduced wilderness areas by 75% over the past 200 years. Species are going extinct at an accelerated rate. The oceans are dying, and fishing is down by 80% of historic levels. Wolves are being shot from helicopters merely for the crime of being in the way of development.

There's BIG money in destroying nature. There's hardly any money to be made in preserving what's left of nature.

If nature was like sex, we wouldn't have this problem. Dumb thing to say, but ironically true.

Nature is sex

You're contradicting yourself.

The fact that...

"Admission to parks is cheap or free, Pipelines criss-cross the landscape in a country-wide spider web. Massive deforestation has reduced wilderness areas by 75% over the past 200 years. Species are going extinct at an accelerated rate. The oceans are dying, and fishing is down by 80% of historic levels. Wolves are being shot from helicopters merely for the crime of being in the way of development"

... only proves how nature has been massively commodified and is being robbed and raped through this system. You got some dangerously weird logic where "nature" is not this object of possession and consumption, but am ideal something-else that could be marketed in a positive way.

If sex was cheap or free, the social institutions would not have destroyed and denied any social capital value to the foundations for an inter-gender and transgender marriage and intercourse which would have relieved a dominant social stress mechanism and liberated mankind from its binary conquest mentality, An analogous treatment of species, the diversity of which inspires natural wonder, would probably have a likewise beneficial treatment of natural systems.

Look at the pile of words that just fell out of this lump of flesh and hair. Just look at them. Someone diagram those sentences.

I'm sorry you can't get laid man (actually I'm not) but problem #1 might be that you're intolerable to talk to. I mean I feel bad for you if you don't see it, but that's totally overblown imitation of critical thinking. Like you just threw together as many jargony words as you could and stapled them together with nonsensical syntax.

Does anyone know when issue #1 of this journal is expected to drop?

Publication depends on the funding from their successful robberies. So far, the page count of Atassa has dwindled (likely due to the reality of production costs), so it looks like that revenue generating portion of their business plan is failing.

The good news is there are still plenty of university janitors and students to kill, but then they do like to brag about not taking their victim's money when they make these annual sacrifices to their Pagan Gods. Maybe they could sell the scalps that they say they're going to collect "if they had the time" during those sacrificial rituals, but then they have to carve out the time to scalp and sell from their busy schedule of translating their poetry into different languages. So far it appears that it's just easier for them to talk some shit on the internet through a variety of blogs, puff out the chest and HOPE FOR THE BEST!!!

I like that line at the end, good stuff!

Meh... bank robberies for funding ops is old school cliché. Nothing like the power of speculation, be-atch!

Mortage bubbles still works nice, but the new big trend now is refugee smuggling pipelines with strict border enforcement as catalyst for maximal profits. Hey, just look at Trump's upcoming cross-border tunnels...

I get that you're taking the piss mate, but that was a pretty unhelpful answer. The folks behind atassa aren't connected to any eco-extremist group and from my understanding are located in the US. The journal will be published through LBC, was just curious about the drop date as a definitive one doesn't appear to have been announced.

Oh, you're right. Atassa is comprised of US-based eco-extremist cheerleaders. So I guess you should ask them or LBC directly if you want a real answer. I forgot Atassa has no ties to all those other eco-extremist fronts - they just like regurgitating their blogs in printed form and then attempting to sell it to you. Doing the Lord's Work to help spread The Word...

To be perfectly honest, one can't help but wonder about the psychological mindset of someone who chooses to spend their time taking the piss out of genuine questions on the Internet...as most psychological inquiries into the matter have shown...the mindset of the troll is a pretty sad one...

Feel free to extrapolate whatever you like about my interest in picking up a copy atassa from LBC. It's quite clear you disagree with the politics associated with the journal - which is absolutely fair, but not exactly a compelling line of argumentation. My question, however, was answered below, so feel free to refrain from further comment - or continue on with your inane commentary, I don't really care.

Hey bro this is America. We don't know what "taking the piss" means.

It'll be available in a few weeks. Stay tuned to the Atassa blog. And it's great to know people follow eco-extremism so closely. But it's not like anything else is going on, amirite?

I personally enjoy reading comedy, so I'm hopeful that these jokers keep pumping this stuff out. Anarchist or not, who doesn't like to laugh? I mean this type of stuff is hilarious - "The storm has come, and soon it will blast you away; it will blow you up and annihilate you in blood and fire… We will dynamite you!"

If only they could enlist emile's PR skills in their media blitz. Or maybe that's who they're really trying to emulate with all the repetition?

Well, they're just citing anarchists, but anarchists in themselves are kinda funny so you have a point. Good thing most smart anarchists renounced violence tho. Wouldn't wanna do anything "edgy" and get made fun of in an @ news comment thread.

So I don't know why I bother but are you trolling or is your analysis seriously dogmatic pacifism or support for ITS? No territory in between those two, hmm?

You mean setting dumpsters on fire or punching a cop as riot porn or acting as auxiliaries for an ethnic pseudo-state? Well I guess that's "violence". Sure you win.

You guess..? Maybe this little back-and-forth is illustrating that you need to spend a lot more time thinking and reading before you weigh in on the subject.

I've left many vitriolic comments against ITS and their kin on this site in the past year, so I'm going to weigh in on this one too, coming from a long-time insurrectionary anarchist perspective that very much supports the use of violent means to achieve our aims.

I've engaged in some nit-picking in terms of selecting the history I liked and playing down the history I didn't like, but I think everyone does that. This article is certainly doing that and I think it's clear that it is not simply letting the "facts speak for themselves" but putting very much its own spin on it. So, allow me to put my own spin on it.

Anarchist history is long and full of events, characters, contradictions. You can undoubtedly find things you like more than others and find more than enough arguments to support your idea of the true anarchist. And looking back on events 100 or more years ago, all we have to go on are the texts that have survived.

The aim of this article is to argue that anarchist critiques of recent "indiscriminate" eco-extremist attacks are hypocritical and modern anarchists are essentially a bunch of moralist wet blankets that can't stand the sight of blood. There is particular attention given to the argument, in quoting La Protesta and Rodriguez, that what anarchist critics really have a problem with is violence itself, the implication being that maybe all violence is essentially indiscriminate and it’s only when things go according to plan that violent acts are considered acceptable after the fact, perhaps even begrudgingly in the author’s view.

There are distinctions I would like to make between different categories of action being lumped together here, which I think the author is aware of, but is attempting to spin and downplay. The lines between these different categories are no doubt very blurred from an apolitical point of view but I think that as anarchists we should be able to see and make the distinction. Yes, Bonanno said the tiger claw tears and does not distinguish, but right after that he says that the revolutionary minority does and must distinguish.

In one category we have, let’s call it: the “indiscriminate” eco-extremist actions of 2016. These are several actions committed most notably in Mexico and Italy that have involved murder and bombings. The murder targets have been politically non-traditional. A computer science student and the head of a chemistry department at the same university with no apparent connection to each other or reason for their execution beyond their chosen profession. It’s safe to say that the vast majority of anarchists worldwide do not approve of these targets, particularly the first one. But I’m going to be generous and leave these actions alone for the remainder of my critique because the discussion of what categories of people are legitimate targets are I think an entirely other discussion. The bombings are comparatively more problematic as what they all have in common is their truly indiscriminate nature. The bombs were all placed in public places with the goal of injuring or killing whoever happened to be nearby. This was the aim. This was the only aim according to the claims of responsibility. The claims also went out of their way to dissuade anyone from ascribing this to any movement and especially anything to do with anarchism, a tendency which the groups engaged in these practices reject. There’s a lot of references to ferocious animals and striking without mercy. It wouldn’t be incorrect to overall characterize the position valorized by the attacks as lashing out in all directions against everything and everyone in the line of fire. Anyone, it seems, that is living in or just happens to be in a city has it coming to them.

The other category of actions being discussed in this article are anarchist attacks, many of which could be characterized as reckless, but I would not call overall indiscriminate. The actions described in this article definitely discriminated and had targets, but to varying degrees were reckless and had unintended consequences. Some of the actions had these consequences because of poor luck, while some of them had these consequences more inevitably because of how reckless they were in going after the target. I certainly have opinions about where to draw the lines in these situations as I think everyone does, but on these historical events I’ve come to the following position: If you identified as an anarchist, had noble intentions for the anarchist project, and took action against targets generally anarchists could agree are worthy targets, I’m willing to accept that in the anarchist canon and would not outright condemn the actions or the people involved. So yes, I would say that is seems like La Protesta was wrong in their reaction. Anarchism is varied and we are not all on the exact same page, but I believe we should share enough in common to place the bar very high for condemning our comrades. I’m not attempting to whitewash the actions listed at all. There’s certainly a few that make me cringe, but not as much as I cringe at the relations of capital, which I think should always be the comparison.

Not being a New York Times reporter sketching out yet another annual article attempting to draw connections between anarchist history and Islamic terrorism, I don’t see much in common between these two categories of action I’ve described. I just don’t. The eco-extremists are proudly anti-anarchist, seeking to distance themselves as much as possible from anarchism. There is no need to argue that they aren’t “truly” anarchist because they aren’t anarchist at all. Furthermore, I know there’s a fair amount of blood in the above described actions, but how often are random civilians the target? There were many reckless anarchists of the past that did what they felt had to be done and accepted there would be unintended victims, but I think there is a difference right there. In the majority, or maybe even all of the actions described, random civilians are not the target, but rather unintended victims of circumstance. Random civilians in the eco-extremist bombings being defended are the targets and it is not unintentional. So when I condemn these actions as having more in common with fascists than with anarchists, I am not condemning anarchist comrades. They are not part of our movement, milieu, history, or whatever you want to call it. So it is qualitatively different than di Giovanni being called a fascist for the means he used in fighting against fascism as an anarchist. If the Italians engaged in this behavior can’t see the connection between their activity at the Piazza Fontana bombing, maybe it’s because they have the same aims as the bombers in that situation.

In every crowd there are exceptions, but I ask very sincerely, taking into account all the actions cherrypicked by the author, since when has killing random civilians been a goal of anarchism? Not an unintended consequence, not an inevitability in the context of a larger goal, but a goal/target in itself? I have yet to see any direct answer to that question by the defenders of the indiscriminate eco-extremist actions of 2016.

So, "they're not part of our church, so their sins aren't forgiven them" basically? I mean, sure, eco-extremists seem to consider the target to be much broader, but the point is that anarchists assign "guilt" or "innocence" through an arbitrary morality, and then arbitrarily condemn or forgive according to whether the act itself was "politically correct." The article is certainly "cherry-picking" because ultimately the eco-extremists have no dog in the anarchist fight, so this is another salvo in a "tit for tat" with (most?) anarchists. I think the last intention of the author is to make anarchists "better anarchists". Judging from the reaction on this site to the communique from anarchist prisoner Kevin Garrido, there is a gulf there that will never be breached anyhow. But the history is there.

Actually, the whole problem here is categorical statements like "anarchists do this" or "civilization is everyone, therefore, flimsy justification for unprovoked aggression on random people." It's just really shitty logic, when you boil it down.

"Logic" has nothing to do with it. It's all about one's arbitrary moral judgments (being a judge without a gavel, as I believe the Spanish saying goes) and the failure of social anarchists to own that.

Let me stop you at your first sentence ...

Anarchists in Spain '37 premeditated the killing of random civilians, but they were sort of syndicalists using artillery, so maybe that doesn't count as a once upon a time anarchist goal, just saying.

lielielielieliar.

Let's play a game now. Take history and distort it so it could fit any authoritarian agenda.

Oh wait...

Atrocities were committed by both sides. That is the nature of binary warfare, innocent civilians are killed, name me a war where one side did not err? Terrible things happen in war. But sure, the biggest atrocities were committed on the fascist side such as Guernica, that was their policy, the anarchist atrocities arose out of the loss of control and discipline, a revengeful tit for tat reflexive response to witnessing overwhelming inhumanity from the fascists.

"[The attack is more justifiable if the attacker...n] had noble intentions for the anarchist project [...]"

It really drives the anarcho-liberals crazy when you dangle anarchist history in front of their faces. All the best to the atassa crew and their new project. Nicely done. And the emphasis on Severino just feels perfect right now. With new people entering the movement across the globe they need to see and understand that our movement is one of melding action and theory, forcing the two seemingly opposed poles of anarchism into a larger, more consistent whole. Let's hope they do pieces on FA(I) cells as well.

Anarcho-liberals are what Bookchinist syndicalists call Stirnerites.

"And Di Giovanni’s actions were never violent for the sake of it. They were never indiscriminately applied to create a tension that would only favour power and its politics of consolidation. Di Giovanni’s actions were always guided by a precise revolutionary reasoning: to strike the centres of power with punitive actions that find their justification in the State’s violence, and which were aimed at pushing the mass towards a revolutionary objective. Di Giovanni always took account of the situation of the mass, even though he was often accused of not having done so. He was also accused of having contributed to the repression unleashed against the anarchist movement. In fact such an accusation is not possible. Police repression only kills a revolutionary movement if it is already dead in its most essential component, the attack against power."
- Alfredo Bonanno, Jean Weir
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/osvaldo-bayer-anarchism-and-viol...

Fucking THANK YOU, there's a damned huge difference between getting smeared by our enemies as violent terrorists because of strategic, successful use of militant tactics and self-identifying as the cartoon boogeyman they want to make us out to be.

The lines are blurry but the difference is huge and a lot of the armchair cheerleaders for ITS and the like don't seem to grasp this, likely because they are too immersed in the spectacle.

Reading their letters and writings, as well as their communiqués taking responsibility for their “terrible” acts, one can notice a language strongly in favor of “the people”, “the proletariat,” the oppressed,” “the class struggle,” terms which at the time were favored by many anarchists who also advocated the use of violence. This is because the conditions in which they arose as individuals in that society compelled them to proclaim themselves thus. Nevertheless, their words were one thing, and their deeds something else.

... So the point wasn't that these anarchists thought the same as eco-extremists, which they don't claim by a long shot. The point is to indicate the obvious that contemporary anarchists wouldn't do anything EVEN CLOSE to what Severino et. al. did. I don't know why that's so controversial or hard to understand. I'm sure you guys got tons of reasons, but I don't think you have many to condemn the TYPE of actions eco-extremists have carried out.

HH: What would be the difference then between an anarchist who sympathizes with eco-extremism and one who rejects it vigorously?

Xale: The difference would be substantial. In fact, the anarchist who sympathizes with eco-extremism would have to subvert much of what was said by traditional anarchist thinkers, shaking off the humanism and progressivism that aims to obtain a better world without “State-Capital.” He or she would have to leave aside utopias and focus on the decadent and pessimist present in which we find ourselves. He or she would have to assume the role of an individual within our present circumstances and act accordingly. He or she would have to disregard all that is human (in philosophical terms). He or she would have to act in a cold and calculated manner without regard to collateral damage. He or she would have to be like Di Giovanni, like Mario Buda, like Santiago Salvador, like the galleanist anarchists.

https://atassa.wordpress.com/2016/09/10/hard-words-an-eco-extremist-conv...

Or like a watered down version of Hitler, because in the end the qualitative overrides the quantitative, the goal overrides the aesthetics of harmony, the minority dominates the majority in the pursuit of its totalitarian dreams.

Nice proof of Godwin's law 10/10

End of discussion and any arguments then, cos its pretty obvious, any indiscriminate act is fascism.

Isn't a law, but a rhetorical cop out and logic fallacy with helped a great deal to the acceptance of fascist discourse in comment sections and forums. Godwin himself is a defender of internet Free Speech which made neofascism an acceptable entry in the market of online ideas.

From Wiki: "In December 2015, Godwin commented on the Nazi and fascist comparisons being made by several articles on Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying that "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician.""

When has violence ever worked in the long term?

The crucifiction of Jesus just to name one humungous historical event of ultra-violence which flipped the paradigm AKA martyrdom.

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?
b
P
s
9
H
u
1
Enter the code without spaces.