Get a site

(tü) Solgun Suçlu Üzerine

Ey yargıçlar ve kurban edenler, hayvanı başını eğmedikçe öldürmek istemezsiniz, değil mi? Bakın! Solgun suçlu başını eğdi: büyük aşağılama gözlerinden sesleniyor.

“Benliğim aşılması gereken bir şeydir: benliğim bence insanın büyük aşağılanmasıdır”: böyle sesleniyor o gözden.

Kendi başına hüküm verdiği an – onun en yüksek anıydı. Bu yücelmiş kişinin yeniden alçak konumuna dönmesine meydan vermeyin.

Böyle kendi kendisinden ıstırap çeken için hiçbir kurtuluş yoktur, tez bir ölüm gelmedikçe.

Ey yargıçlar, sizin ölüm hükmünüz acıma olmalı, öç alma değil; dikkat edin, öldürürken siz kendiniz yaşamı haklı çıkarmalısınız. Öldürdüğünüz kişiyle barışmanız yetmez. Kederiniz, Üstinsan’a dönük sevginiz olsun: kendi sağ kalımınızı böyle haklı çıkarırsınız. “Düşman” deyin ama “alçak” demeyin, “sakat” deyin ama “rezil” demeyin “ahmak” deyin ama “günahkar” demeyin.

Ve sen, ey kızıl yargıç, kafanın içinde geçenleri yüksek sesle dile getirecek olsaydın, herkes şöyle haykırırdı: “Defol ey haşere, zehirli sürüngen!”

Ama düşünce başka, eylem başka ve eylem fikri başka. Bunlar arasında nedensellik çarkı dönmez. Bu solgun adamı bir fikir soldurdu. Suçu işlediği zaman eylemi için ehildi, ama işledikten sonra bu fikre dayanamadı.

Ve artık her zaman kendisini bir eylemi işleyen olarak görüyordu.Ben buna delilik derim. istisna onda tersine dönerek kural olmuştu.

Tebeşirle çizilen çizgi tavuğu hipnotize eder; onun vurduğu darbe zayıf aklını hipnotize etti. Ben buna eylemden sonraki delilik derim.

Dinleyin ey yargıçlar! Bunun yanında bir başka delilik daha var ve o da eylemden önceki deliliktir. Ah sizler, bu ruhun derinliklerine bence yeter derecede dalamıyorsımuz!

Kızıl yargıç şöyle der: “Bu suçlu neden cinayet işledi? Bir şey çalmak istiyordu da ondan.” Ama ben size diyorum ki, onun ruhu kan istiyordu, ganimet değil: o bıçağın mutluluğuna susamıştı.

Onun zayıf aklı bu deliliği kavrayamadı ve onu ikna etti. “Ne olur ki kandan!” dedi; “hiç olmazsa öldürdüğünden bir şey çalmak istemez misin? Ya da öç almak?”

Ve o, zayıf aklına uydu: aklının sözleri onun üstüne kurşun gibi yüklendi – o nedenle, öldürürken çaldı da. O, deliliğinden utanmak isteği duymadı

Ve şimdi suçunun kurşun yükü yine onu eziyor. Ve zayıf aklı yine öyle durgun, inmeli ve ağır.

Kafasını sallayabilse yükü üstünden yuvarlanacak. Ama bu kafayı kim sallayabilir?

Bu insan nedir? Ruh aracılığıyla dünyaya ulaşan bir yığın hastalık; bunlar orda aylarını yakalamak isterler.

Bu insan nedir? – birbirlerinin yanında nadiren sakin durabilen vahşi bir yılan dolamı -bunlar ayrılıp yola çıkar ve dünyada av ararlar.

Şu zavallı bedene bakın! Onun neyin ıstırabını ve açlığını çektiğini zavallı ruh kendisine göre yorumladı – canice arzu olarak ve bıçağın mutluluğuna duyulan açlık olarak yorumladı.

Şimdi hastalanan kişiye şimdi fena olan fenalık egemen olur. O, kendine acı veren şeyle acı vermek ister. Ama başka çağlar da olmuştur, başka bir fenalık ve iyilik de olmuştur.

Bir zamanlar şüphe ve Kendilik iradesi fenaydı. O zaman sakat olan sapkın ya da sihirbaz haline geldi; sapkın ya da sihirbaz olarak ıstırap çekti ve ıstırap çektirmek istedi.

Ama bu sizin kulağınıza girmiyor. Bana diyorsunuz ki, bu sizin iyi insanlarınıza zarar verir. Ama sizin iyi insanlarınızdan bana ne!

İyi insanlarınızın gerçekte fenalıkları değil de onlardaki birçok şey midemi bulandırıyor. Ah keşke, onların da bu solgun suçlu gibi bir deliliği olsa da o yüzden batsalar!

Gerçekten, onların deliliği hakikat, sadakat veya adalet adıyla anılsın isterdim; oysa onların uzun bir ömür sürmek ve acınası bir kendinden hoşnutluk içinde yaşamak için erdemleri var.

Ben girdap boyunca uzanan bir parmaklığım; bana tutunabilen tutunabilir; ama ben sizin topal değneğiniz değilim.

Zerdüşt böyle dedi.

[en] (Chile) 88 communique of ITS

We incite chaos and destruction and once again we took advantaje of the mob within the demonstrations on these southerner lands, to cause destabilization.

Infiltrated in the midst of the enajenated mob and hooded vandals, we were around with only one target: fire and destruction.

We worship the burning flames, penetrating, see how everything burns, the gasoline has been a good ally.
Armed with bottles filled with flammable liquid, we proceed to burn everything, stealthy and always looking for our affinities, spreaded, we were, we are and we will be here, observing and laughing from the shadows.
Forwards the lumpen, mechas, destructive ones, criminals, looters, thieves and amoral ones.
The day of chaos is coming and we wish death to the city and human progress!

ITS – CHILE

CHAOS INCITERS

(it) LA GERARCHIA

Anche Nietzsche ha il suo Socrate. Sono i pensatori liberi. Dicono: “Di cosa ti lamenti? Come sarebbe il trionfo dei deboli, se loro stessi non formassero una forza superiore?”

“Ci inchiniamo al fatto compiuto”: questo è il positivismo moderno: è destinato a portare avanti la critica dei valori, è inteso a respingere qualsiasi chiamata a valori trascendenti, che sono dichiarati fuori moda, ma solo nel ritrovarli, come forze che guidano il mondo attuale. Chiesa, morale, Stato, ecc.: Solo il loro valore viene discusso per ammirarne la forza e il contenuto umano.

Il libero pensatore ha la singolare abitudine di voler recuperare tutti i contenuti, tutto il positivo, ma senza mai interrogarsi sulla natura di questi contenuti che sono considerati positivi, né sull’origine né sulla qualità delle corrispondenti forze umane. È ciò che Nietzsche chiama “fatalismo”.

Il libero pensatore vuole recuperare il contenuto della religione, ma non chiede mai se la religione non contenga proprio le forze inferiori dell’uomo, che piuttosto dovrebbero desiderare di rimanere esterne. Ecco perché non è possibile fidarsi dell’ateismo di un libero pensatore, anche se è un democratico e un socialista: “La Chiesa ci disgusta ma il suo veleno no…”.

Questo è ciò che caratterizza principalmente il positivismo e l’umanesimo del libero pensatore: il “fatalismo”, l’incapacità di interpretare, l’ignoranza delle qualità della forza. Dal momento in cui qualcosa appare come una forza umana o come un fattore umano, il libero pensatore applaude, senza chiedersi se quella forza non è di bassa estrazione, e questo fatto è l’opposto di un fatto nobile: “Umano, troppo umano” .

Poiché non tiene conto delle qualità delle forze, il libero pensiero, per vocazione, è al servizio delle forze reattive e traduce il suo trionfo. Perché l’atto è sempre quello dei deboli contro i forti; “l’atto è sempre stupido, e mi è sempre sembrato più un bue che un dio.”

Al libero pensatore Nietzsche oppone lo spirito libero, lo stesso spirito di interpretazione che giudica le forze dal punto di vista della loro origine e delle loro qualità: “Non ci sono fatti, solo interpretazioni”.

La critica del libero pensiero è un tema fondamentale nel lavoro di Nietzsche. Senza dubbio perché questa critica scopre un punto di vista secondo cui diverse ideologie possono essere attaccate allo stesso tempo: positivismo, umanesimo, dialettica. Il gusto per l’atto nel positivismo, l’esaltazione del fattore umano nell’umanesimo, la mania di recuperare i contenuti umani nella dialettica.

La parola gerarchia ha due significati in Nietzsche. Significa, in primo luogo, la differenza tra le forze attive e reattive, la superiorità delle forze attive rispetto a quelle reattive. Nietzsche può quindi parlare di “un grado immutabile e innato nella gerarchia”; e il problema della gerarchia è lo stesso di quello degli spiriti liberi.

Ma la gerarchia indica anche il trionfo delle forze reattive, il contagio delle forze reattive e la complessa organizzazione che viene da esse, dove hanno vinto i deboli, dove i forti sono contaminati, dove lo schiavo che non ha cessato di essere uno schiavo prevale su un Signore che ha cessato di essere: il regno della legge e della virtù. E in questo secondo senso, la moralità e la religione sono ancora teorie della gerarchia.

Se si confrontano i due sensi, vedi che il secondo è come l’altra faccia del primo. Facciamo della Chiesa, della morale e dello Stato i signori o i detentori di ogni gerarchia.

Noi, che siamo essenzialmente reattivi, che prendiamo i trionfi della reazione con una metamorfosi dell’azione, e gli schiavi dei nuovi padroni – noi, che non riconosciamo la gerarchia più del suo rovescio, abbiamo la gerarchia che meritiamo.

Nietzsche chiama schiavo il debole o non meno forte, ma a chi, a prescindere dalla sua forza, è separato da ciò che può. Il meno forte è forte quanto il forte se va fino alla fine, perché la beffa, la sottigliezza, la spiritualità e persino il fascino con cui completa la sua minima forza appartengono proprio a questa forza e non la rendono meno. La misurazione delle forze e la loro qualificazione non dipendono affatto dalla quantità assoluta ma dalla relativa realizzazione. Forza o debolezza non possono essere giudicate dal risultato della lotta e del successo.

Perché, ancora una volta, è un dato di fatto il trionfo del debole: è anche l’essenza del fatto. Si può solo giocarecon le forze tenendo conto, in primo luogo, della loro qualità, attiva o reattiva; secondo, l’affinità di questa qualità con il polo corrispondente della volontà di potenza, affermativa o negativa; in terzo luogo, la sfumatura della qualità che presenta la forza in questo o in un altro momento del suo sviluppo, in relazione alla sua affinità. Allora, la forza reattiva è:

1° la forza utilitaristica, adattamento e limitazione parziale;

2.º la forza che separa la forza attiva da ciò che può, che nega la forza attiva (trionfo dei deboli o degli schiavi);

3.º la forza separata da ciò che può, che nega se stessa o si rivolge contro se stessa (regno dei deboli o schiavi).

E, parallelamente, la forza attiva è:

l.º le forza plastiche dominano e soggiogano;

2.º la forza che va fino alla fine di ciò che può;

3.º la forza che afferma la sua differenza, che fa della differenza un oggetto di piacere e affermazione.

Le forze saranno determinate in modo concreto e completamente, solo se si tengono in conto, queste tre coppie di caratteri a loro volta.

(CHILE) 88 COMUNICADO DE ITS

Enviado al mail.


Incitamos al caos y la destrucción y una vez mas nos aprovechamos de la multitud en las manifestaciones de estas tierras del sur, para generar desestabilidad.

Infiltrados en medio de la horda enajenada, en medio de encapuchados vandálicos anduvimos nosotros con un único objetivo: el fuego y la destrucción.

Adoramos las llamas calcinadoras, penetrantes,ver como todo arde, la bencina a sido buena aliada, Armados con botellas de líquido inflamable,procedemos a quemarlo todo ,sigilosos y siempre atentos a nuestros afines, esparcidos,seguiamos,seguimos y seguiremos aquí, observando y riendo desde las sombras .
Ánimo al lumpen, mechas, destructores, a los delincuentes, saqueadores ,ladrones,amorales
Se acerca el día del casos y deseamos la
Muerte a la cuidad y al progreso humano!

ITS -CHILE

INCITADORES DEL CAOS

(en) Eulogy for Abe

If you follow the online world of anti-civ discussion you might already be aware of the departure of Abe Cabrera from this world, apparently as a reaction to the responses to his writing projects.

For anyone reading this who are unaware of Abe or his projects, I will briefly sum Abe up, as best I can.
My first time encountering Abe was in September 2016, after reading content from his 2 blogs Wandering Cannibals and Atassa (both now deleted). Abe’s writings were relentless and unforgiving. He had a near Artaudian energy to his approach, which sparked in me immediate interest.

We soon after became “friends” through Facebook and I found myself caught between contradictory feelings towards him. What respect I had and have for Abe, regarding his engaging, critical and unforgiving arguments, became forced up against disappointment towards his vulgarity as a troll, the narcissism he revelled in as his infamy grew and the apparent lack of creativity, as he continually parroted the ideas of other’s within the eco-extremist milieu, which he was the English language voice of, and became reduced to perpetual negation. (Perhaps I was naïve to have hoped for much more from him. Maybe he was perfectly all he could have been.)

But I maintained interest in him, as he and his project succeeded in challenging the sensibilities and aesthetics of the vast majority of the anarchist milieu. During what will remain in my memory as the EE (eco-extremism) vs IGD (It’s Going Down website) saga of 2017, the upset caused by the Atassa journal Abe edited and contributed content towards shook anarchist discourse to the core. He and the eco-extremists he was a voice for challenged many of the presuppositions of its contemporary anarchist ideologues and forced us, particularly those of us anarchists within the anti-civ conversation, to stand naked and acknowledge those aspects of the wild that are most challenging to our world-views, which are in many ways still tied to the logic of civilisation and domestication.
As his infamy grew, Abe seemed to get more and more cultish, claiming to worship demons and becoming seemingly more and more interested in the super-natural. His final upload to his Wandering Cannibals blog exemplified this, with his appeals to Christian-type (albeit perhaps of an inverted Christianity) eschatological discourse (all of the blogs content can be found at this link https://ia801505.us.archive.org/33/items/wccontent69420/Zhu%205.pdf).

I cannot deny that the cultish aspects of Abe’s projects became increasingly disappointing, but his, strangely reminiscent of Jim Jone’s suicide, abandonment of the digital world is even more disappointing and I cannot deny being sad to have lost his voice from this aspect of the conversation.

I’ve seen some claim that Abe’s departure from the digital world was a reaction to hate from antifa type left-anarchists, but I do not believe this (or rather, I do not want to believe this). I’d rather believe that this has been done as an act of theatre of cruelty, an act of trolling par-excellent, where Abe intended that I, and others who took interest in his projects, would be disappointed in him and he could “lulz” as we ponder his disappearance. Alongside this, I’d like to think that this was a clever ploy to spark interest in the second issue of Atassa, leaving those of us who are interested in his thoughts forced to go to the journal for his ideas, rather than his blogs.

Whatever is the case, I hope this eulogy can stand as testament to an individual/writer/thinker/troll who was, if nothing else, undeniably provocative and interesting. He was in many ways ugly and worthy of critique and criticism, but was also brilliant in many ways and I will miss him. (And I hope he is thoroughly disgusted by this, should he ever read it).

by Julian Langer

SISBIN debate eco-extremismo e outros grupos terroristas em Brasília

Em um evento sediado na ABIN em Brasília, a atuação de grupos extremistas foi debatida por profissionais de órgãos integrantes do Sistema Brasileira de Inteligência (SISBIN), na semana passada.

O evento foi marcado pela interação entre os mais de 40 integrantes de núcleos de Inteligência governamentais do Centro-oeste.

Com ênfase nas ações do Estado Islâmico, o extremismo violento em geral, as ações de ecoextremistas e os processos de radicalização online também foram abordados.

http://www.abin.gov.br/atuacao-de-grupos-extremistas-e-debatida-por-orgaos-do-centro-oeste-em-brasilia (Utilize o TOR para acessar)

(es) Towards A Radical Mysticism

“It was a though we’d been living for a year in a dense grove of old trees, a cluster of firs, each with its own rhythm and character, from whom our bodies had drawn not just shelter but perhaps even a kind of guidance as we grew into a family.”

“Other animals, in a constant and mostly unmediated relation with their sensory surroundings, think with the whole of their bodies.”
2 passages from David Abram’s Becoming Animal: An Earthly Cosmology

Caught between the differing narratives of both Jewish and Catholic families, a father constantly shifting between Christian and Buddhist traditions, and my mothers death when I was 7, I’ve always had a strained relationship with “God”, the divine and religious/spiritual thought. I explored various faiths and became somewhat of an experimental practitioner during my teens, exploring Christianity, Neo-Paganism, Buddhism, Hinduism and other faiths, some what divorced from those of the families I was born into.

Then I died (not in the melodramatic sense of edgy gothy “nihilists” and emo-kid aesthetics). My experiences as a young cancer patient in my late teens gifted me a more intimate relationship to death than that of my mother’s passing and the years that had followed from then, up until the point of my diagnosis. The experience of being little more than flesh tore away from me my relationship to these Symbols that had bridged my sense of self with my fundamental existential lack and formed (unstable) pathways for me to navigate the world as I encountered it.

This was both a horrifying experience and a liberating one. In the year prior to my diagnosis I had started exploring existentialist thought, through a somewhat Buddhist-existentialist practice and the individualist anarchism of Armand and similar thinkers, and as my relationship with the realm of “spiritual”/religious thought disintegrated through the experiences of the MRI machines, the brain surgeries, the steroids and the radiation therapy, existentialist thought served as a form of semiotic encoding to help me travel from despair to Life, as embrace of the Absurd and return to the body – (this was initially through Camus and Nietzsche in particular).

In the following year post-treatment, as I explored my relationship with my body through various means and my personal creativity, I came across 2 texts that encoded something I’d seen, experienced and known throughout my entire life, and that granted me words with which to articulate them – all that discourse has ever really granted me (or grants anyone as far as I can see) is new words to articulate the experience of their being-in-the-world; their experience of the Real (the wild) mediated by the Symbolic/technology. These 2 texts were Heidegger’s The Question Concerning Technology and Freud’s Civilisation and it’s Discontents. After reading these works on what it means to live within civilisation and the language they granted me, I then started on the “pathway” that led to my writing Feral Consciousness and worlds of thought and discourse I currently immerse myself (my-Self) within.

From these experiences with discourse and corresponding immediate embodied experiences I’ve undergone throughout my life, I’ve come to view eco-radical, anarchist and active-philosophy as practices of iconoclasm – as revealing what is underneath the icons of the Symbolic, technology, and seeking to destroy them. And my interests have been directed increasingly towards a type of ontological anarchism, based in deconstruction of the machine (both semiolinguistically and in its embodied form), the practice of creative radical semiotics and an ecophenomenology pursuing relationalities that civilisation attempts to deny through domestication, both within the body of the machine and as-close-to outside its territorialised-ontotheology as I can get living on this island in the North Sea, which has been the geographic-stage of the production of history and empire for almost as long as civilisation itself – the creation of Temporary Autonomous Zones.

So if this practice I’ve been engaged with is an attempt to form relationship with and reveal to others something concealed(/repressed/suppressed), and if Mysticism is a practice based in sense-perceptual experience (super or otherwise) of something rendered secret/concealed, then the green nihilism of attempting to destroy those aspects of the Leviathan I have means of destroying is some-what-of-a practice of Mysticism (something ontological anarchism has always found itself tied to).

Mysticism as a term invokes the image of something of a theistic-ideologue, which is a platform I’ve long distanced myself from, particularly within the context of the God of classical theism, and taken a somewhat Nietzschean aesthetic around. But I would not consider myself an atheist, in the general sense of the term, and am relatively comfortable with naming wild-Being as divine, as it is all power, all presence, all that is “knowable” (inside and outside language) and all love(/hate/desire/value). Nor would I consider myself a pantheist or a pagan, as my sensations of the acosmic egoistic transient present render me unable to embrace the notion that there exists an absolute existing totality these/this theology requires, and I’d find myself being inauthentic if I embraced the term animism for my practice, given my historical-geographical context within the narrative of History.

So regarding “God”, gods, the spirit, Life, death and the divine(, and the practice of radical semiotics) I feel like my relationship to wild-Being is one of a hylozoic-Mysticism, born from a practice of eco-radical ontological anarchism and the iconoclasm of feral-deconstruction – a radical Mysticism.

Now this morning I awoke to see this piece by a contemporary of mine within this world of anti-civ discourse I find myself within, within which he attempts to denounce mysticism through embrace of religious-type thought and self-renouncing denial of the immediacy of embodied subjectivity and a seemingly anti-civ scholasticism, which seems highly confused (and somewhat cultish). This follows from the apparent trajectory of the eco-extremist school of thought they (Cabrera) immerse themselves within and their Atassa project and its focus of thought. But, while I have some interest in eco-extremism as a phenomena and as a political movement, and the Atassa project, I find much ugliness in this scholasticism.

Scholasticism as an approach to discourse is (as I understand it) an attempt to gain scientific knowledge of the “revealed truth” of a religious dogma, through a dialectical approach – this is apparently being done, under Cabrera’s project, as a Catholic-Marxist scholasticism of dialectics-in-reverse. The methods of scientific “knowledge” has many issues, that those of us sympathetic to radical scepticism are familiar with, and religious dogma also presents problems for this approach, which again many within this world of discourse are very familiar with. Alongside these, there is the issue of the dialectic approach to discourse, which we might be condemned somewhat to engage with in this world of discourse (given how much Hegelianism and Marxism are part of this world). To quote Karl Popper “(t)he whole development of dialectic should be a warning against the dangers inherent in philosophical system-building” and to quote Nietzsche “I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity.”.

The dialectical approach is one based inherently in historicism, whose holist determinism presents itself as the narrative of the master-signifier of the supreme Other I have no desire to embrace and I find to be nothing more that the narrative of the mythic-illusion of civilisation, which I desire the destruction of. It’s semiolingusitic lexicon is nothing more to me than the cartography of those who wish to deny me the immediacy wild-Being and positivism of my subjectivity. My subjectivity might always be somewhat mediated through discourse, by my socialisation within this culture and the subsequent internalisation that is the general trajectory of normal-development (mine as described when I started this piece). But this doesn’t lead me to wish to deny myself the ecophenomeological authenticity of my embodied subject-sensitive rationality. Discourse and study, to me, is best done as an anarchist venture de-systematised epistemologically-free and as a venture not to discover some truism to be revealed, but to find words/signs/languages to reduce the limits language constructs for our worlds and to articulate our experiences as living feral beings, not to embrace the death of History.

So I cannot share in Cabrera’s rejection of Mysticism and embrace of scholasticism, with its apparent encouraging others to do the same. Rather I feel compelled to embrace, and feel anti-civ eco-radicals are best served embracing the iconoclastic Mysticism of ecophenomenological relationalities with wild-Being and the ontological anarchist deconstruction of the technosphere/the Leviathan/civilisation.

La Federación del Dolor

Estoy reuniendo toda la agonía del mundo junta. Cualquier persona que tenga un gusano oculto roando en su interior, cualquier persona vestida de luto por el ideal, cualquiera que se ría con desprecio de la ruina de la mente, puede venir. Necesito mi dolor para convertirlo en un diluvio, una tormenta; necesito escuchar los gritos de sufrimiento, los gemidos de desesperación. Porque hay risas en el mundo, y no las puedo escuchar.

Hermanos del encadenamiento, camaradas del sufrimiento, la batalla está cerca. Pronto lanzaremos nuestro ataque, intoxicado con venganza; el enemigo huirá, porque la Federación del Dolor es terrible.

* * *

Desde el día en que nací, he soportado una pesada carga. Y mi espalda está doblada y mis ojos hundidos. El gusano roe y roe; ya me ha destruido.¡Basta, por dios! Estoy cansado.Me deshago de la carga y me detengo; tengo suficiente de esto en mi vida. No he sido capaz de vivir, pero sabré cómo vengarme. Croaré en alguna acera, con la blasfemia final en mis labios y el destello final de odio en mis ojos.

* * *

¡Qué odioso!… Los asquerosos adoquines de la ciudad emiten el mal olor de la alcantarilla. Me ha envenenado. ¡Una vez fui tan fuerte! Aun así me reí… Pero luego… ¿Debería realmente aullar a lo que sucedió, realmente debería revelarme ante ti? Pero, imbéciles, ¡es la misma vieja historia!Uno ama, espera, actúa, y luego viene el disgusto, el vacío, la desesperación.

* * *

Un día me llevaron a la guerra. Entonces soñé que era un niño otra vez. El primer estallido de la ametralladora sacudió cruelmente mis nervios; abrí los ojos y vi sangre, y luego nada más. Recuerdo un gran incendio, un trueno continuo… muerte, muerte… y ese hedor, el hedor de los cadáveres… Nunca entendí cómo el olor desagradable de este hedor ha permanecido en mi garganta. Parece como si estuviera en un vasto cementerio… cruces, ataúdes, hedor.La sociedad apesta a cadáveres.

* * *

Me duelen horriblemente las orejas. El cañón causó esto. La bestia atronadora hizo profundos rasguños en mi cerebro. Siempre escucho un grito lejano, como el sollozo de un gigante desesperado. ¿Pero quién es el que llora en el mundo?

* * *

La guerra ha despertado a la bestia en mí. Mis mandíbulas se contraen convulsivamente, mis ojos se abren, y mis manos quieren apretar, agarrar… Cuando miro a alguien, me sorprende un extraño deseo de hacerlo pedazos. ¿Por qué tengo la necesidad de matar y destrozar a alguien?Ya no hay alemanes para matar; entonces, ¿a quién debo matar?

* * *

Tal vez estoy loco. Pero mi locura es la racionalidad más terrible. Veo más lejos, siento la vida más vívidamente. No sé por qué, pero es cierto que sufro enormemente, mucho más que antes.¿Antes de esto? ¡Pensar que antes de esto, yo era un niño!

* * *

Pero ¿por qué tan así? ¿Qué he hecho? Veo las margaritas crecer pacíficamente; las golondrinas van y vienen por los caminos del cielo. Yo también soy una margarita o una golondrina. El rocío y el azul abierto también me agradan.Y en cambio… esposado, salpicado de barro, muerto de hambre. Sin amor, sin libertad.

* * *

Y así es como es, ya que así lo quieres. Tú me transformaste en un lobo, y en lobo me quedaré. Pero hasta ahora, solo me he arañado el pecho; mañana querré otra sangre. No pidas misericordia entonces. Has escrito en mi cerebro: matanza. Y matanza es. Tal vez la humanidad está sucia. Necesita limpiarse, y para este baño desea sangre. Tal vez después de la limpieza y la destrucción… Tal vez entonces seamos como las margaritas y las golondrinas… Qué hermoso sería.

* * *

Almas que están de duelo por el mundo, es por eso que los invito a reunirse.La bandera ya está ondeando. Es negra; es sinónimo de luto. Adelante entonces, salvajes Prometeos. El grito de la venganza es música dulce y querida. Hoy es necesario matar, destruir… mañana seremos margaritas… Federación del Dolor, ¡adelante!

Bruno Filippi

[en] (Mexico) 87 Communique of ITS

Taking advantage of the popular clamor, the demand for justice, the tolerant administration of the capital authorities and police incompetence, members of Individualists Tending towards the Wild have infiltrated the demonstration yesterday and have been participants in the riots generated in the downtown of the disgusting Mexico City.
Once again, Chaos seized the streets and our groups, along with other rabid antisocial, ravaged several targets within our reach. This is not the first or the last time we infiltrate a peaceful march, it is clear that ITS takes any opportunity to unleash Chaos, confusion and destabilization, we really don’t give a damn about their demands (from whoever).
For the mindless we clarify that, this is a small statement concerning of OUR responsibility in those riots, with this it does not mean that we were the ONLY responsible for the beautiful violence of a few hours ago, the merit also belong to others with whom we share masks, sweat, mocks and effusiveness.

For the Occult and the Unknown:

Individualists Tending Towards the Wild – Mexico

Estudio, análisis y crítica contra el progreso humano