Statement by Alfredo Cospito

via contra info, translated by Anarchist News.

Statement by Alfredo Cospito read in the courtroom on September 9, 2020 for the appeal of the Scripta Manent trial

I would have liked to be silent and let only my lawyer speak (who is more than capable), but seeing that my ideas have been torn to shreds and that words that I have never said have also been put in my mouth, I am forced to intervene directly in the first person.
For us anarchists the end does not justify the means, we firmly believe in the ethics of the means we use, for us it is the means that justify the end, not the other way around.

That is why I must reiterate that I have never made an apology for massacres or mass murder (as stated by - the prosecutor - Sparagna in a previous hearing). The prosecutor is confused, deliberately confusing "terrorism" with "massacre."

Two ugly words (without a doubt): one belongs to me, "terrorism", the other is totally foreign to me, "massacre."

(I open a brief parenthesis on "terrorism")

Sparagna, in order to create the monster ("the bloodthirsty anarchist," myself, so we can understand each other), has fished in the context of many of my writings, extrapolating phrases at random. Phrases that are the result of a diatribe (from one of the many debates) that our movement is going through, "the legitimacy of the use or not of the term 'terrorism' in an anarchist sphere." For those who are not anarchists, it is difficult to understand the passion with which we anarchists collide on certain issues.

The (real) meaning of this discussion about terrorism (used by the prosecutors in an incriminating key) actually revolves around my conviction (solitary, I am practically the only one who holds such a position in an anarchist sphere) ... I said, about my conviction that It should not be the power to decide which definition is fair or not to use.

Since its origins, anarchists have used the word "terrorism" (in my opinion correctly) in the true original sense: defending the poor people from the exploiters, from the capitalists.

In the 1970s, the word "terrorism" fell out of favor, used only in a derogatory way, by the entire revolutionary left, including anarchists.

Bah! As usual, I have rowed against the current, I have put into discussion the dogma of many revolutionaries that only the State is a terrorist. Let it be very clear, they are two different types of terrorism, that of the States and that of the anarchists.

Anarchist terrorism is historically the son of the Resurgence (the time of the occupation of Italy by foreign countries, ndt.). He is the son, no matter how scandalized you are, of Pisacane and Mazzini (two revolutionaries of that time, ndt). For Mazzini, terrorism assumed a non-derogatory meaning, it spoke without false moralisms of terrorist actions, and organized them by putting them into practice. I am not a hypocrite, at least you should grant me this in view of my (suicidal) lack of hairs on my tongue, I have always said what I thought clearly without turning of words, specifically putting my own freedom at risk and I fear that in this case too that of my co-defendants. And so that's why I tell you very clearly that, as far as I'm concerned, anarchist terrorism does not contemplate massacre in any way.

Contrary to that of states that bomb innocent populations, that blow up trains, stations, banks, beating innocent people. That is why I was outraged when the prosecutor said that I made apologism for massacre, forcing me to intervene, which I had no desire to do.

Having arrived at this point you will ask yourself: why have you not distanced yourself from those massacres of which you are accused? And here we come to the heart of the matter, simply because I am convinced that it is not about massacres. I have reached these conclusions also through the prosecution's experts.

We are talking about the Crocetta bombs of which more is known, those of Fossano are a mystery, there is talk of an explosion with projectiles, but there is no proof that these "projectiles" have been there, there are holes in a wall and a curved network, but no one has bothered to verify if indeed those holes were pre-existing or caused by those presumed projectiles (never found), mystery ... total, but we will return to Fossano ...

In La Crocetta, three devices have exploded, the first explosive composed of dynamite explodes in the middle of the night in a deserted square. At different times there are two devices composed of an incendiary substance, of low intensity, with camping bottles, so you can understand me like those little ones that we prisoners detonate to protest, they would not kill even if they exploded in your hand.

The third device, which if the attackers' intention had been to kill should be the strongest, can barely uncork the lid of the pot used as an enclosure, and the experts themselves assure that it was characterized by low power.

It does not take an expert in explosives to understand that those who planted those bombs did not want to kill but only to scare, so it is certainly terrorism but not massacre. Whoever would have wanted to kill would have done exactly the opposite, first those little ones then the strong one with the high-potency explosive, the dynamite.

Even a child would understand, this is the reason why the GIP (Preliminary Instance Judge) had dropped the charge of massacre, it is incredible how it has been forced in the first degree.

I have done all this diatribe because the accusation of having carried out a massacre is contrary to my ethic, it disgusts me. In this courtroom, I have appreciated these actions in a positive light because I do not consider them massacres, certainly terrorist actions, but they did not have the objective of striking the mass, of killing innocents.

It is my conviction based on the facts, on the dynamics of things, on the same expert reports from the prosecution. Let it be clear, I do not reduce the scope of these actions, on the contrary I do not want them to be altered. In this sense, my conviction is very strong, whoever planted those bombs did not want to kill, this is if logic still has any sense.

Now we come to the absurdity of the distortion of my words, to the miracle of the transformation of water into wine, when the prosecutor, complaining to the judge of the first degree for not having distorted my writing as he has done, transforms my first statement above into a confession. When instead (in this writing of mine) I argue in a way, that although I have not carried out those actions attributed to me, I do not dissociate myself from them, appreciating them (again, let it be clear, because I do not consider them massacres).

In addition, it has been pointed out to me that on page 120 of the appeal instance of the Public Ministry (prosecutor), a «that» appears that is not in the original of the writing on the preceding page, page 119. A distraction, I don't think that with that extra "that" one would like to change the meaning of the writing (I hope not, anyway) also because it seems to me that the meaning of the phrase does not change much anyway.

Let's read it: «Valentina, Danilo, Anna, Marco, Sandro, Daniele, Nicola friends, brothers, sisters, comrades, have been detained and detained again». Here I make the simple list of brothers, sisters, companions, comrades detained. Then I continued: "Cue the violins on the umpteenth frame-up ...". Here I wanted to say that I am not going to make the normal whining about the frame-up, because we should take for granted that by supporting direct action with writing and words, someone sooner or later (for lack of something better) builds, like a tailored suit , a frame-up.

Moving onward with the reading: “Instead, I want to talk about why they have been arrested. Because brothers and sisters (here in the prosecutor's version there is an extra "that") in his version it would be "Because brothers and sisters that have struck..." sounds a little different...

Let's go back to the correct version starting at the beginning: “Cue the violins on the umpteenth frame-up. Instead, I want to talk about why they have been arrested. Because brothers and sisters have struck, they have grown tired of waiting, they have ignored the decisions of the majority and have taken action.”

Had there been the "that" added by the prosecutor, the sentence would sound slightly ambiguous, but only if it is read without punctuation. The brothers and sisters of whom I speak who have taken action are not Valentina, Danilo, Anna, Marco, Sandro, Daniele, Nicola or the other common co-defendants, as Sparagna asserts in her interpretation of my words (on page 120), but rather the brothers and sisters who have claimed the actions by signing them with the acronyms FAI.

That I call brothers and sisters in this communiqué those who sign FAI is evident also by a sentence at the end of the same communiqué. I’ll read it to you: «My ideal complicity goes to the brothers and sisters of the Cooperativa Artigiana Fuoco e Affini 'FAI (artisan cooperative of fires and related FAI), the brothers and sisters of the FAI-RAT (Tremendous Anonymous Revolt) and the brothers and sisters of the Narodnaya Volja-FAI ”(later I add)“ whoever they are, wherever they are”.

As you can see, in confrontating of those who claim these actions, with the terms brothers and sisters and also with the final phrase "whoever they are and wherever they are" I make it clear that I have no idea who they are and where they are, it couldn’t be clearer!

Look carefully, I speak of "ideal complicity", for us anarchists these are important words, it means that although not knowing who made these actions, I feel ideally complicit because I approve of them, I consider them fair.

In summary then, the meaning of the phrase is this: my co-defendants have been arrested (period) because brothers and sisters (the subjects who claim actions as FAI) have struck, they have gotten tired of waiting, they have ignored the decisions of the majority (here I speak of the majority of the anarchist movement) and have taken action (period). That's it.

No self-accusatory act on my part, much less hetero-accusatory as the PM says. I continue, on with the other incriminating phrase: "I am still optimistic and in a good mood because the logic of 1 + 1 = 2 tells me that the comrades who have struck are still free and therefore able to strike again." This phrase also seems clear to me.

Knowing that Anna and I did not plant those bombs, convinced that the co-defendants I know have nothing to do with it, stuck in the middle just because we were seeing each other. Convinced that those among my co-defendants whom I have never seen in my life as a free person were at that time too young to have planted those bombs. I do the math, and the logic of "1 + 1 = 2" makes me think that whoever made those attacks is free as a finch, probably not even controlled seeing that you have arrested the wrong culprits, and this put me in a good mood. I do not support the state, I have never hidden my sympathies for those who practice direct action, and I certainly do not change my mind just because I end up in the machinery of repression.

Sparagna says that this phrase is ambiguous, it does not seem to me, however that was the meaning of it. The proof of the 9th that definitely puts an end to the fanciful theory of self-accusation is found later in a sentence not quoted by the PM. In which he maintained that although he did not want to enter into the merit of the accusations and the so-called evidence, I wanted to say that the brothers and sisters of the FAI-FRI had always claimed their actions with their heads held high before the judges, assuming own responsibility. As in fact I also did in Genoa (I add now) so as not to leave space for frame-ups.

This statement of mine was written two weeks after the arrest warrants with rage, and this phrase, in particular, also contains a couple of insults that have cost me a complaint. The Public Ministry could take advantage of this phrase and the consecutive insults to put me even more in a bad place (which, I admit, easy to do in my case), but it has not done so since this phrase definitively dismantles the confession thesis. Claiming responsibility for one’s own actions in the courtroom of is a generalized and consolidated practice for those who claim with that acronym, just take a look at all the specific claims before the judges of those who have been arrested with accusations similar to ours signed FAI in Greece, Chile, etc. If the actions are not claimed in the courtroom, it means that those responsible are not among the accused. This is what I was thinking at the time writing that statement, and that is what I wrote. This conviction of mine is evident in the reading of that entire document and was confirmed by the fact that none of my co-defendants claimed the actions. Of course, from a procedural point of view what I say has no value, I understand it, but however naive my conviction may seem, this is what I meant by that document, it is difficult to deny it.

In particular, the content of this last sentence without a shadow of a doubt completely dismantles Sparagna's self-accusatory thesis. It seems clear to me that this statement of mine is not an admission of responsibility, but one more reaffirmation of my (bad) anarchist and revolutionary attitude. In his conclusion Sparagna writes: "Thus, such statements are published on the CNA website and the First Degree Court does not consider them, does not even mention them and this seems truly overwhelming." It doesn't seem so overwhelming to me, there is something more overwhelming about the First Degree sentence, an invention of two non-existent massacres, and the acceptance of inconsistent evidence turned into granite evidence.

The prosecution's accusations are riddled with errors and distortions of this kind: extrapolations, random quotes from my writings, political fiction and implausible reinterpretations of anarchist history, terrifying videos downloaded from the internet, geographic maps of terror taken from the web, we all know that on the internet you can find everything and the opposite of everything, I don't even want to waste time commenting on these things, not even knowing who wrote them and why they were written.

But on the other hand, he couldn't do anything but pile things on top of things, thousands upon thousands of pages so that, in the end, something could rise, and it has. He could not do otherwise because there are only a series of slight -to say is to pay them a compliment, I would say nonexistent- indications against us except one (it only concerns me) but I will talk about that shortly.

The key proof of my and Anna's guilt would be an absurd discussion (yet discussed so much) of which I already spoke about in a previous audience, between my ex-girlfriend and myself, about another Sunday that I spent working instead of having fun out and about. Transformed into the compilation of a threatening letter that would link us to the massacres. The other overwhelming surreal proof (allow me to say so): the tracing of our own handwriting on the envelopes of some bomb packages. That is, we would have re-traced our own handwriting on the envelopes, in short, we would have imitated our own handwriting. A superficial expertise carries this thesis forward. So superficial that it is in fact denied by an expert previously years ago, carried out by the RIS (Special Investigative Cast), which when noticing (original envelope in hand) the tracing, established that it would be impossible to locate the authors. In fact, and I don't think I can be proven wrong, the RIS report (prepared based on the original envelope) negates that of the prosecution's experts who have based their analysis on photocopies.

Naturally, the First Degree judge has lapped up the second expert’s testimony.

In short (forgive me if I repeat myself) I would have re-traced my own handwriting, I would be totally insane, if it had been so I would deserve being shot by a firing squad against the wall, not twenty years.

This "evidence" would accuse me and Anna of the so-called bombs of the Fossano and Crocetta massacres.

The time has now come to talk about the only evidence worthy of that name in this investigation in my opinion, it only concerns me and the (impossible) attack in Parma, I say impossible because the device was turned off (switch in OFF position), so it couldn’t explode: logic then tells us that it had been placed solely to frighten. This probably explains the threatening air that it had. The evidence would consist of my DNA in the device, to be precise in the handle of the bag that contained the artifact, according to the expert reports of the same RIS of Parma, to whom the attack was directed. Those who were the targets of the attack have investigated the attack. Can it be done? It seems so, apparently. This proof, then, concerns only that attack and only me, but it creates that necessary insinuation to condemn us for the other attempts signed by the FAI.

In summary:

This DNA jumps out of nowhere 8 years after the fact, after twenty years of research on anarchists to no avail.

This DNA has nothing to do with the other attacks, much less with the two so-called massacres.

The only thing they have in common is the acronym FAI.

Several times over the years they’ve taken my DNA, for example after the Crocetta bombings.

The same forcings (I would not know what else to call them) that were enough today to convict me of that attack, at the time they did not even lead to being detained and I was acquitted along with many other anarchists. Then the DNA came out in Parma (another attack, another story) and everything changes, the so-called indications that were not even worthy of being taken into consideration become granite evidence. I wonder why my DNA at that time was not immediately compared to that of Parma?

Given that I was always among the first investigated when an attack with an anarchist signature took place in Italy?

These questions of mine will never have an answer, I know that well. For 20 years I have had the police and the magistracy on my heels, every time there was an anarchist attack they searched me, it was a continuum, microphones and cameras outside the house, finding microphones in the house as if they were mushrooms had become a hobby for me, every time I posted photos of them on anarchist websites, without turning them into a tragedy. I am not complaining, they had good reasons for doing so, given that I was among those anarchists who publicly with newspapers and rallies clearly supported the actions.

Is it possible that no one in 8 years had thought to compare my DNA with that of Parma? And poof!  After the attack on Adinolfi, look where that DNA appears on the artifact bag, to be precise on the handle of the plastic bag that contained the device.

The device is clean, there is not a single micro drop of DNA, but the bag contains something, although it does not even meet the recognition limits established by law, the technical escape is that it is at the limits of recognition.

My conviction is that the time had simply come to bring it up, given that an anarchist had claimed an FAI action: the Genoa attack against Adinolfi. The forcing to that point would have happened without much trouble: making usable an unusable DNA because it had degraded.
Success is guaranteed if the DNA (albeit in an unstable way) ended up being from an anarchist who had previously claimed FAI action.

I am convinced (and no one will get it out of my head) that my DNA had already been compared to that of Parma and the results at that time were unusable for a trial, but this is my intuition and it is worth what it is worth ... The (bad) conviction that I have is that with a damaged DNA, not intact, it is easy to juggle with the parameters.

After my arrest, all the actions claimed by FAI have been studied (and there are dozens of them) and the only thing they have managed to get out is that uncertain DNA, and they have pointed everything to it. But this, as I have already said, is my conviction, and it is worth what it is worth, nothing for a court, but I had to give myself an explanation.

Not being a state myself, that uncertain DNA cannot be mine, I exclude that someone has put it there, I only have left to think that someone has made a mistake.

I have never been to Parma and I have never made that attack, but it does not matter, it is not a disgraceful accusation for an anarchist. I cannot take the credit for having done it, but I agree with it, and therefore I feel ideally an accomplice, as I feel ideally an accomplice of all those anarchist actions, claimed or not, worthy of the name, as I feel ideally an accomplice of Bresci and of his regicide, a natural affinity, let us say in a loving sense.

Then there are the texts that follow the actions (the responsibility claims): much of the hypothesis of the massacre is supported by these writings. I want to point out the distance between these texts and the real dynamics of these attacks: in the claim of Parma there is talk of two devices, a double attack, instead there is only one device, with the switch off and therefore incapable of exploding .

In Fossano's claim, there is talk of an iron tube with dynamite, the RIS analyzes instead exclude that the device was not loaded with high potential explosives (dynamite) but with pyrotechnic type gunpowder, fireworks so you may understand me, much less destructive.
It is enough to read the ordinance for the application of the precautionary measure on pages 141-142-143 to get an idea. Ordinance that has later been beautifully ignored in first degree sentencing.

The thing is repeated for other demands: it is clear, far from me any form of criticism of the comrades who have carried out these actions, will have had their good reasons. As Bakunin said (if I remember correctly) the revolution is 90% fantasy and 10% realism.

I think (but maybe I'm wrong) that in a trial you have to stick exclusively to the facts, this if you don't want to reach the level of the inquisition courts.

The clear example of this inquisitorial mechanism is the comical bloodthirsty conviction of the prosecution that if I had been blocked in Genoa I would have started shooting at the crowd, on the balconies of the houses, like a mad gunman. I assure you that nothing is further from my way of acting.

To conclude, I have to say two things about the FAI-FRI. Also in this case I would have liked to be silent, but seeing that a lot of nonsense has been said, even offensive at times, I am forced (by force majeure) to give my opinion: I would not want anyone to take as historical truth the revisionism and political fiction of a PM.

This decision to say mine in merit is linked above all to the fact that my sentences have been used, extrapolated from the context of much longer writings, distorting their real contents, to build a kind of alternative reality, mixing true things with invented things and intentions that have been planted, to give a distorted and monstrous vision of a part of the anarchist movement. A widely used strategy in political processes.

My paranoia is that through a falsified narrative a part of the history of anarchy is distorted. From experience I tell you that in the anarchist sphere, when the story is told, especially anarchism of action, reference is made (with due distinction) to the procedural documents.

I will try to keep it short, I can only speak for myself based on personal experience, I do not reveal any state secrets. These things I have already said in a trial with fierceness and pride.
As far as the FAI-FRI concerns me (for what I have lived on my skin) they are two anarchists who alone without any organization or association, without saying anything to anyone and asking for the endorsement of anyone, decide after the disaster of Fukushima to give their own contribution so that a disaster like this does not happen again, hitting one of the main responsible for the attempt to bring nuclear energy to Italy.

My contribution to the FAI-FRI fighting experience started there and ended there.

I am convinced that the same dynamic that has involved us in Genoa has happened 100 and 100 times in a similar way in 100 and 100 different points of the planet.

Some anarchists (in our case two) decide to act and strike, this after having personalized (slightly modified) a symbol found on a Greek website (by the way, not even a website of the movement), they copy it in the pamphlet and claim their own action, and then they return home in hopes of not being arrested. Due to inexperience it went wrong, we got detained.

In this case, the ethics inherent in the use of that acronym tells us to claim action so as not to lead to repression and frame-ups on unaware and innocent comrades, this is the only clear thing (in my opinion) in the use of that acronym.

As far as I am concerned, anarchists claim their own actions with their heads held high, it is part of our historical tradition. And this is also the only reason why I have not claimed the actions you attribute to me: because I have not done them.

There is no "qualitative leap" in the attack on Adinolfi, these are fascinations that the prosecutor has taken from novels, films about the "years of lead", light years away from reality.

Analysis and deductions made by the prosecution, product of the naive idea that it made for itself of this phenomenon and of the anarchists who at some points of their lives have claimed with that acronym. Because it is an acronym that we are talking about, an acronym to understand each other.

An acronym used by anarchists around the world without copyrights to claim hundreds and hundreds of actions in Indonesia, Russia, Australia, Ukraine, England, Mexico, Chile, Argentina ... Anarchists who among them do not know each other and who will probably never meet , except perhaps in the event that they are arrested.

Which is what happened to me when, once the action was claimed in court, some Greek anarchists from the CCF interviewed me writing to me from a Greek prison.
With regard to the anarchists of the CCF, in order to report the reality of the Greek situation in fair proportion, the PM has forgotten to say that all CCF prisoners sentenced to hundreds of years, whose sentence has been translated (to create a dark atmosphere due to years of lead), they have been free fo more than a year and a half after having served their sentence since, they served about 8 years in prison in total. So much to resize and frame in their proper context the accusations and sentences of the Greek comrades.

There are several acronyms like that of FAI-FRI used by anarchists: ALF, ELF, the simple A in a circle, none of these acronyms, as far as I know, is considered an organization.

One of the proofs that the FAI-FRI is not an organization is that it just so happens that the actions are signed mixing several acronyms (ALF-FAI, FAI-ELF, etc…). And this the PM has been careful not to say it in court...

Naturally I can only speak for myself, I don't know what goes through the minds of hundreds of anarchists who sign with that acronym. The only thing I know is that everyone has my sympathy and solidarity (for what it is worth) as long as they do not leave the anarchist ethic, for example by carrying out massacres.

Personally, I think even the coordination is counter-productive, imagine organizations, as I have written several times even in non-suspicious moments (also in this case the PM has been careful not to quote those words of mine). But this is not because I am good and friendly, but because I consider organizations and coordination inefficient (clear instruments) in a complex post-industrial society like ours. And this because I am convinced that an organization is much easier to destroy, to dismantle, than an acronym that anyone can use.

Hundreds of free individuals who move autonomously without knowing each other, without direction of any kind in a chaotic and therefore vital way.

The only thing that unites them is an acronym, an acronym that becomes a symbol, thus building a myth that becomes a voice and an instrument for all the oppressed.

The communication (if we want to call it that) are the responsibility claims written by strangers, addressed to other strangers who read them in the newspapers, newscasts, places of chronicles, websites of the revolutionary and anarchist left.

Whoever exalts or supports with words or with videos or with maps and revolutionary symbols (I am talking about drawings, the so-called FAI symbols) in web pages does not participate in this phenomenon. They are spectators and their words are worth less than zero. Naturally, this also applies to me and to these very words of mine, which only represent me and my convictions and certainties.

The moment of action is the only contribution and the only words that count are the responsibility claims. This simple, elemental, impalpable dynamic nullifies the need for organization or coordination of any kind.

Transforming a simple acronym into something much more dangerous than an organization, no matter how powerful it may be. An organization can be defeated militarily or with repression, a myth is much more difficult to eradicate, because it is ethereal, in fact it has no structure of any kind, it has no organization and then it continues to grow. You will always find an anarchist who somehow with his own action will decide autonomously to give it new life by signing with that acronym.

This naturally if the myth manages to take on the spirit of the time, otherwise it will disappear, just like it appeared, and something new will be born, and this until the world is divided into classes, exploiters and exploited and no court in the world can do something about it.

I'm sorry to disappoint Sparagna, but the informal organization is an oxymoron, a paradox, a magnificent paradox. An organization must be formal, structured, specific: if it is informal, it simply is not.

I open a parenthesis: the prosecutor has taken an article of mine from 23 years ago in solidarity with imprisoned comrades written on the occasion of a very heated controversy that had stirred the movement at that time, in which I said that it could also have entered a specific organization. Two decades have passed and more, the usual inquisitorial method, if it went back a little further, it could pick among my writings from high school, and it would certainly find some thing to incriminate me with.

Now I leave you with the input, there are so many things that the two PMs have said in these three days that it is impossible for me to refute about everything, after all it is the inquisitorial strategy of a political trial: you pile up so many of those things that later the so-called evidence become obsolete or almost, and you no longer know what to respond to...

- The so-called FAI logo does not exist, in fact there are 10,100, 1000. And to say that only a part of the claims that are going around are followed by a symbol.

I have seen an A surrounded with a machine gun, a burning phoenix, a non-burning phoenix, the globe with a phoenix, the variants with the phoenix are infinite, from the parts of Latin America two crossed feathers, an ax with an A in a circle, in Europe a star with arrows, a star with an A inside a circle, a round device with an A inside, then the one invented by me for the Genoa attack, arrows with the words FAI- FRI, and to finish off with the most beautiful thing: a stylized little man who throws a bomb, I think maybe it is the cartoon character Anarchik.

- The PMs say that the acronym FAI is a mockery, a mockery of the Italian FAI. If it is so, as they say, they cannot give a realistic meaning to the acronym, this would explain the paradox of the federation and the informal in the same context. That is, as always, if logic means anything, but from the looks of it, even PMs love paradoxes, not just anarchists.

- PMs speak of a world organization but do not say how this organization would come together.Perhaps it is more plausible that simply anyone does whatever the hell they want (not to be vulgar).

And the words of the communiques that launch campaigns travel, for example, through the presenters of the newscasts, as we have seen in the video to the clockwork orange that you have given us, where the journalists of the Greek newscast who read the CCF releases in their entirety.

- Couldn't it be that the most intricate explanation is the least realistic, and that the truth is simpler than we think? And that the back and forth between the various communiques that for the PM are the demonstration of the existence of a strategic direction are much more simply the effect of communication through actions that launch fighting campaigns, which are collected at random by other anarchists and then sent forward? But, after all, we are in the age of conspiracy.

- Don't you think that the dynamic of the Adinolfi action is totally different from all the other actions of the FAI in Italy, in terms of the instrument used, due to the dynamic carried out? But could it be that Nicola and I have used the pistol not to make the ridiculous leap in quality, but because the explosive is not congenial to us? And that perhaps that is the only FAI signed action that we have carried out?

Could it be that if Nicola and I did not claim Adinolfi's action in the room, we would still be acquitted, since the recordings were made far from the scene of the attack, we did not have motorcycle helmets and therefore we could make up 1000 excuses to be there in Genoa that day considering that Nicola worked in Genoa? And that we have not claimed these actions out of desperation, but because the only practice that unites all the detainees who use the acronym FAI-FRI is to claim their own action if they are detained so as not to give rise to frame-ups and take on their own responsibilities, perhaps that’s what acronyms serve for.

- The PM says that we are isolated from the entire movement, and also from the other insurrectionary anarchists: but then, how do you explain all the manifestos in our solidarity, demonstrations and rallies?

And how do you explain that the comrades here invited to speak against us for Sparagna either have not come forward or have come to show solidarity and greet us?
Wouldn't the empty room of this court in these months be explained in the same way by the fact that the comrades who have attended have been regularly handed over the expulsion form from Turin? A classic of totalitarian democracy.

- But doesn't it seem to you like a monstrosity that the freedom of people (as unpleasant as they may be, like me) is in the hands of an algorithm that nobody knows how it works, not even the RIS of Parma himself, not even the judge, not even me, but only the computer programmer who probably lives happily in America or Japan and that no one has ever consulted, and that perhaps knows about DNA (being a programmer) as much as I do? That really is terrorism ...

- Could it be that perhaps different individuals (since there are no copyrights) sign with the same name of a cell?

Could it not have happened that in the ten years of history of the Cooperativa Artigianale Fuoco e Affini to vindicate in time there have been different people who did not even know each other, given that it is the most famous acronym in the anarchist scene, having claimed actions for at least 10 years even outside of Italy, in Spain?

- Couldn't it be that the story of the containers that Sparagna uses as proof of the violence of the bombs at the Crocetta are containers burned by low-potential devices composed of incendiary substances?

As a child I burned wastebaskets in the demonstrations and I can guarantee you that a lighter is enough, a small flame is enough to see it burn reduced in the same identical conditions, a plastic stain on the ground. Couldn't it be that a bomb, instead of burning the wastebasket, would have disintegrated it, scattering thousands of splinters everywhere and not a few as we have seen in the photos?

Could it be that one of the mistakes that we have made in this trial is that we did not choose our own expert on explosives, because we were stupidly confident that, not having carried out these attacks, it did not defend our case?

Now I’ll read you very few extracts taken from the same interview, the one about (the magazine) Vetriolo, from which the PMs have taken phrases which they think favor organization. When PMs have read the word "organization" in those writings of mine, they have forgotten to say that regularly that word is in quotation marks. This to give a different meaning to that word, deconstruct it, turn it around.

Let’s read:

"We need to make an effort and get into the specifics, in particular, for example, without Internet, the experience of armed struggle of the FAI-FRI (however limited it may have been in time) would never have been able to spread throughout the world. Each action was corresponded with an action in response in some other part of the world, this without coordination or structured organization that encompassed everything. In this case, the Internet has made it possible to exclude authoritarian mechanisms, avoiding, thanks to anonymity and lack of knowledge between the different action groups and individuals, the birth of leaders and hierarchies. In a dynamic of this type (without organizational structure) the Internet acquires a vital importance".

"One day a black international will rise from the ashes of the many defeats that we have suffered as anarchists in history, and that day a stupendous oxymoron will come to light, an organization without organization."

"…the ALF and the ELF. Organizations that are for other reasons an important example (for being concrete) of how it can be 'organized' in an unstructured manner. As some comrades say, it is the organization that does not have and does not want to organize. Without any doubt, as I consider it, its influence on the practice of the FAI-FRI, it’s sufficient to think about its communication through actions and its international campaigns”.

I’ll stop here, otherwise we’ll stay all night.

Anarchists do not make armed parties, and they have a totally opposite conception, if then you want to strangle reality, history, to arrest 20 comrades, then do it, but it is truly instrumental and distortive.

To finish, but this time for real:

Even in the anarchist "organizations" of the 1980s there is talk of affinity groups, of individualism, of an anti-organizational conception. It is not a modern invention, just read Carlo Cafiero: small groups of affinity, singular individuals that move in a dispersed, chaotic order, without a center or hierarchy. It is not an invention of the anarchists who refer to the theories of Bonanno: the affinity group, the anti-organizational conception has always been part of the anarchists' way of life, way of fighting.

Regarding Alfredo, his contribution, as far as I am concerned, to modern anarchism is enormous, we are all his children from a theoretical point of view. And of revolutionaries who have given as much to the anarchist cause as he has, there are truly few in turn: far from having any form of contempt as Sparagna has sought to distort. We anarchists also fight violently on the theoretical plane, we are passionate and impetuous, it is in our nature.
Anarchists never meddle in organization nor do they have strategic leaderships, promoters, ideologues, and similar monstrosities: this is the abc of anarchy.

I realize that it is difficult to make a prosecutor understand.


Add new comment