Police Chief: anarchist insurrectionists are ready to kill

<table><tr><td>From <a href="http://www.agi.it/english-version/italy/elenco-notizie/201202221540-cro-... (Italy)</a>

Rome - Anarchist insurrectionist groups "are ready to make a quantum leap and are getting ready to murder". The statement was made by Police Chief Antonio Manganelli during a hearing before the Chamber of Deputies' Constitutional Affairs Committee. "We must find out if it hasn't occurred up to now - Manganelli underscored - and why we have been lucky enough for it not to happen". "When a bomb is placed in a garden - he recalled - and another is exploded in the same area after only a few minutes, this means that the intention is to strike the rescuers. And the assistant of the Greek Interior Minister died in the explosion of a letter-bomb". "Our informal anarchic Federation - Manganelli explained - have met the proposal of their Greek counterparts of the Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei to join a more aggressive international network aimed at performing acts of violence against the establishment".</td><td><img title="Kind of puts flat brims and arguments about typefaces into perspective" src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2008/shoottokill.jpg"></td></tr>...

Comments

dumb

Thank you for this excellent list!

Okay so the way I use the term insurrectionism it is precisely a response to clandestine/guerilla tactics - insurrectionism for me means trying to figure out a way to maintain and spread violence, rather than isolating it. I think this is how other people use that word too, yes?

So then if we really really don't want to distance ourselves from people who do bombings and whatever because we don't want to contribute to them getting into more trouble, what do we say/do?

I'm not sure any "contributions" outside of things like snitching can be made towards "getting them in to more trouble."

If not for patriotic masses rallying for their country as a silly counter example, I would maintain that campaigns of this sort do not garner the type of public sympathy that would play a role in maximizing reception and minimizing "trouble." Avoiding trouble is not the goal, neither is gaining sympathy, and I don't even think "support" in the form of what insurrectionists say/do is expected. In fact, it appears that the very question of how to contribute, and concern of what to say and do, and concerning with distancing, is an indulgence in the "isolation" of their violent acts that you mentioned. If you want to "maintain and spread violence," make violence. Haha. That's what they're doing to "spread and maintain violence." Their actions don't need help or concern, or the vacuous activist phantom of "support" that is so readily tossed about, so other than how you're going to speak and act, I'm not sure what your question even applies to.

For me, it's about "what happened" and my perspectives on WHY it happened, not so much worrying about whether I'm distancing or concerned with the trap of associating with these actions. I'd rather embrace the implications, understand that my mere feelings, thoughts, and words about these actions are reason enough for state apparatus to take measures against me and anarchists at large, regardless of those who would intentionally distance themselves. Those who distance can cry all the way to court about how they're not one of the big bad bombers when they're engaging in placating discourses on the state's terms.

You can't distance yourself any more than by not undertaking similar actions... that doesn't mean that you need to, either. But if your concerned about what to say, even calling them murderers does not damn them in any way that they didn't foresee or even intend.

"Their actions don't need help or concern, or the vacuous activist phantom of "support" that is so readily tossed about,"

uhh... if they have any hope of overthrowing the state... yeah they do. Thats a really stupid thing to say.

The lack of context regarding your interpretation of my statement is staggering.

so...

-doing one's own actions is a lot more important than talking about other people's (yes!)
-verbally offering 'support' for an action doesn't usually mean very much (also yes)

-and if I understand you correctly, you also think that it doesn't matter At All what we say about particular actions. You argue that even publicly condemning people wouldn't change their situation - the only way to worsen their situation would be to snitch on them.

I really, really disagree with that idea. I think that what people say in public is actually really important. For one thing, the terms used to describe political actions, the arguments used to morally evaluate them, and the true or untrue facts circulated in the press can have a decisive impact on a person's trial! Ever heard of Sacco and Vanzetti?

Obviously this isn't equally true of all trials - some are not very publicized, some are so legally clear cut that what is said about them couldn't possibly make a difference, etc. etc. But I do think that there are occasions where this matters, a lot. We shouldn't just be ceding this territory to the enemy.

Moreover, speaking publicly in favor of violent actions is definitely a part of how these kinds of actions spread. You need an ELF press office if you want more ELF cells. You need people to argue for diversity of tactics at protests if you want more than a small clique to show up ready to fight. It's not about trying to convince the state or the public that these types of things are okay, it's about bringing people with violent inclinations out of the woodwork.

also I forgot to say that of course there is another dimension to this: not everyone's voice is equally powerful, and none of us has the same ability to affect the course of a trial that a newspaper does. Obviously. But there are some people in a position to speak publicly, and I think it matters what comes out of their mouths. That's all.

"I think that what people say in public is actually really important."

I don't disagree with any of this, essentially. The distinction here is *actions like this* in particular. I'm speaking of actions anonymous actions taken with death as the ends with objectives in mind. I think actions like this are rarely popularized in any meaningful sense, and that no measure of supportive dialogue is likely to pull them out of the fringe. Don't misunderstand, that in *no way* is a condemnation or lack of approval on my part, as a "supporter" (understander? happy-er? haha) of these actions, I don't think it does them any injustice to be realistic about how much support they are likely to gain by any means of social influence or pressure, and I mean to remind that actions like this usually represent ends and expressions intended to *do what they do* and not intended to "win points" for one movement or the other.

When someone says "this makes me uncomfortable" I sympathize with that, because giving some form of a shit about the well being of people has to do with where social elements develop in to these actions... Again, this doesn't mean that in the right moment you won't hear a "fuck you, I support this!", but it also doesn't mean I'm like "FUCK YOU, YOU SHOULD LOVE THIS!!"

"For one thing, the terms used to describe political actions, the arguments used to morally evaluate them, and the true or untrue facts circulated in the press can have a decisive impact on a person's trial! Ever heard of Sacco and Vanzetti?"

This has elements of truth to it, but again, we're not talking about proving *innocence* and demonstrating lack of evidence here, if people are caught for letter bombs, their best defense isn't "WE SUPPORT THEM OPENLY FOR WHAT THEY DID!" it's "uhhhh you can't prove it... right?" The example you provided is a perfect case, you'll find anarchos and liberals alike citing the S&V history as an example of state corruption, but it remains a fringe position to say "I don't give a fuck if they killed people, free them now!" That's the position I hold on the S&V situation, but the dialogue is dominated by the weak and tampered-with evidence revolving around the trial... AND in full circle irony, the example you used, *they were still treated as if they were horrific monsters and they were put to death.*

So, the outcome, is post-mortem support of the fact that the trial lacked proper evidence. Like "See!? the state is so fucked up!" But S&V already knew that, which is why they did the things they did.

"We shouldn't just be ceding this territory to the enemy."

I agree. What does that look like, though? This is why I brought up what "doing one's own actions is a lot more important than talking about other people's." Does anything I'm saying sound like ceding? Does it sound like I don't think people should mobilize to break anarcho-murderers out of jail or support their actions?

You mention those with larger voices and their potential roles in verbal support, can you provide instances of this in relation to actions like targeted letter bomb campaigns meant to injure and maim?

"Moreover, speaking publicly in favor of violent actions is definitely a part of how these kinds of actions spread."

Sure, "spread" to small fringe groups. I think that's fine, though, and I kinda look at it like "hey doofs who are doing "movements" and want to distance from this, it's playing a role in what's going on *whether you like it or not*", and the "whether you like it or not" is what I mean when it seems like i'm saying "verbal support doesn't matter."

So, to borrow from and add to your summary:

-doing one's own actions is a lot more important than talking about other people's (yes!)
-verbally offering 'support' for an action doesn't usually mean very much (also yes)
- since actions="more important" (you agree) and "verbal support doesn't mean very much" (you agree), these types of actions remain require less concern for "social support" than others unless by acting similarly, because *they aren't social actions*.

whether it's supported or not, it's role remains and has impact. so it's not that "verbal support doesn't help," it's that it makes more sense to me to view it as *simply what it is* rather than something to "promote" like a fad-tactic for the consumption of a populace.

I don't find many of these tendencies even asking for "support," I find them to be independently motivated and having less concern regarding approval, and more expectation that they are not going to be approved of... So, to "support" the action, consider what it means and what it takes to have a perspective that requires the above interests regarding standing and support. They're willing to be "terrorists" by actually committing "terrorism," so I'm not really interested in discussing the merits of specifically "how to support" because you will be called a terrorist for simply doing so... and *I have been called such in court.* Hahaha. So, ya know, it's like, who do you want to convince? If there was room to move in these ways, they wouldn't be underground ways. It's near impossible to create room (social approval, support) to move in those ways. Dunno. Maybe this clarifies.

Maybe a better short answer would be...

"How do we go about supporting these actions?"

Be open about embracing them as people in "the struggle" *regardless* of opinions and feelings about the specific actions they undertook. Like, we can debate later about their contributions or harms to our ideas, try not to be a statist fascist fuck and I'm pretty sure you'll never have to worry about their letter bombs.

You're right, assassinations can't really be undertaken in a social way, but that doesn't mean that everyone will always be against them. If any of the anarchist plots to kill Hitler and Franco had succeeded, liberals would have totally applauded the people who did it. So for me, the question isn't, "how can we get people who hate anarchists to support anarchist letter bombings or assassinations?" nor even, "how can we get activists who nominally support anarchists but are squeamish about violence to change their minds?" The real question -and obviously I know we are really far from being able to answer this - is how do we bring about a situation where violence no longer distinguishes activist from terrorist, but rather simply distinguishes our side from theirs? That is, how do we make this conflict into a war?

anarchists don't have balls to kill, they only have balls to take on windows in the dead of night (aka "games white kids play")

You mean... in America, right? Because that's not the case everywhere.

bin laden was not anarchist

... but Conspiracy Cells of Fire and IAF are... which are who the article is about... who kill people and bomb shit... so I'm confused about your point.

So was Chris Hedge

chrys hansen

Why don't you have a riot over there?

Why does this have a 'negative 1' vote?
Bin Laden hated foreigners, homosexuals, and athiests, just like religious fundamentalists. How did that make him an anarchist?

he wrote a p cool article in killing king abacus

I think it got voted down for being an irrelevant, fallacious point. Not because it was necessarily an inaccurate statement.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS! This piece of shit is trying to get people to posture. Fuck this person.

look that's cool and everything but would you jerk me off?

dawg. there is an egoist newspaper.

I dunno, I'm ready for the shit to hit the fan. In fact, I have some anger that I need to translate into the police, by means of a slug to the head. So fuck you, you don't know shit, Jack. And I'm not white.

Another dumb American :)

I've killed every newspaper box I've knocked into the street. Fuck the liberal reformists who are content to allow newspaper boxes survive their attacks.

fuck fire departments for pretending to have authority over me and fire

lol, BURN

Police-friendly Fire Dept buildings set ablaze? Wow, that sounds like a nice scoop for the next riot downtown!

lofl.

when was the last time there was a serious political assassination in America?

dont go there dawg, just saying, dongothar :)

jfk got kylled by that wannabe communyst who couldn't hack it in a communyst country.

thangs fo vote, yah me, jus testing, ol skool anark

Gunter

Does Gabby Giffords count? People on the left tend to discount it, but I don't know how people would have felt if an @ had pulled the trigger rather than someone with pseudo-jeffersonian libertarian politics.

yo, yo, yo, wud up feds? catch you drooling yet? bet you just love this shit, don't you? you gonna send yo goons out to offer an 18 year anarchist a bomb?

Jared Loughner is a paranoid schizophrenic incapable of forming a coherent political ideology to serve as a motive for his violence. However, I give him credit for the way he works the camera for an epic mugshot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jared_Loughner_sheriff%27s_office.jpg

not even a real mugshot. probably an actor.

There was an attempt made by Casey Brezik in Kansas City. He was going after the Missouri governor, some other dude tried to snitch on him, he got that guy, now he's in jail. Infoshop website is based out of KC and didn't do squat to support him, in fact, they condemned him.
Infoshop is now dead to me.

You don't have to agree with every anarchist's actions, but they still deserve support.

NOT IN MY BACK YARD, DAWG!
-love infoshop

dude's a creep who creeps on women. i mean, the whole media thing about him being a lil out of it is not an exaggeration. that being said, he does deserve support, but DAMN. i can understand why some people feel the need to not associate with him. just saying. also, i'm pretty sure he's not in jail.

-not munson, but a kc anarchist.

Maybe when anarchist Leon Czolgosz killed U.S. President William Mckinley in 1901 after being inspired by a speech from Emma Goldman. Hrm... Maybe that is not the most recent example though.

This article and all of the comments are gross. I'm gross for reading it and you're gross too.

You can't destroy a social relation, but you can't destroy a social relation without destroying. Does that make sense?

None.

Hey well, I'm incapable of abstract thought too.

Go take a shower, Jesus.

Showers are bourgeois, and Jesus was communist scum, didn't ya know?

i'm ready to kill this three layered cheesy burrito

Dude, what happened to the other four layers?

In case you are literally ready to consume a three-cheese burrito, I would advise you against those sold in American gas-stations and convenience stores that are packaged as "the bomb". To say that this specific product is unhealthy and dangerous is an understatement. If you have ever eaten too many psilocybin mushrooms and had a truly horrific experience, then my experience with "The Bomb" burrito will be easily recognizable.
However, I will not disclose my traumatic burrito experience unless the greater anarchist community conveys the promise of similar experience. I want to know that I'm not alone in my physical and psychological trauma. Just because I was drunk doesn't mean that a franchised Shell station can rape my entire digestive system by selling me a toxic burrito made of refried beans, synthetic cheese, and hellfire.
Perhaps the attendant behind the counter is involved in the Conspiracy of Fire Cells.

dude, the fast stop up the street sells bombs. those things are definitely evil.

but a good colon cleanse is important every now and then.

BETTER BE A VEGAN BURRITO

I'm totally fine with anarchist insurrectionists killing people, but only as long as they throw newspaper boxes into the street afterwards.

If one were to calculate the probability of stopping the chaos, it would be 0.

Chaos/0= awesome reaching infinity

The possibility likewise.

The other night i got drunk in a bar with a friend who found a fake id. afterwards we kicked over newspaper boxes and some trash cans in solidarity with comrades who were not drunk.

thank you.

"Drunkedness is a pathway to many anarchies."

- anarchist leader

On the front page of an egoist newspaper this morning.

hear hear

CAN'T STOP THE CHAOS! XD

Oh my god insuwrecktionaries are so fucking dumb. LONG LIVE SYNDICALISM!!!! SOREL FOR PRES!

Whilst I'm pleased that our Mediterranean comrades are taking things in a murderous direction, I still think that politicians are the wrong target when boxes still dispense newspapers at will.

(Fight the real enemy.)

You mean windows?

I mean the windows of newspaper boxes.
Or boxes of windows meant for newsagents.
They both constitute each other, and with windows so wrapped up in newspapers and boxes (figuratively and literally), the news-window Totality can be destabilized by attacks on either.
For the death of news-windowism, and the beginning of life!

Total liberation begins through the cracks of newspaper boxes windows!!! And confused news agents.

And who the fuck got that idea that anarchists were totally against murder? Malatesta... or some anarcho-hippie morons who defend neonazis?

If meat is murder... then murder is meat!

Yeah ... It's bizarre how twisted most of the logic around violence/militancy is (especially in north america).
Chalk it up to taint from the hippie pacifists and the anti-war movement still hanging around, clouding logic, going unexamined.
More likely it's about complacency, externalization and insulation. "Out-sourcing the violence".

A capacity and willingness to kill isn't even interesting in itself, it's all about context.
You know, the why, where, when of it? Not the how, the how is the simple part.

For most of human history, the majority of people walked around every day ready to kill each other.
Often, they'd do it for no good reason at all (and still do)!
We're all at least partially the descendants of the greediest, meanest motherfuckers who survived.

The aberration is in the last few centuries where pockets of society are sheltered enough to forget this.

So these anarchists are allegedly "ready to kill"?
Meaning they've achieved the bare minimum equivalency to the state and its triggermen?

SO FUCKING WHAT PIG?!
Just trying to scare yuppie politicians in to writing you another blank cheque.

for most of human history? the "greediest, meanest motherfuckers"?

not necessarily, but i agree with your overall sentiment.

you need to watch Nice Guys Finish First, mon friere.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3494530275568693212

i liked this movie, whomever - cheers

Ew ... Richard Dawkins ... ew.

as a flatbrim wearing typophilic illegalist, i would just like to say that your effort to qualify my interests into a parallax "perspective" falls short. there is no perspective without position! And all positions are relative AND subjective! down with the foreground, depth-of-field stasis!!

ABOLISH YOURSELF.

Crash course in insurrectional consciousness, watch 4 Rambo movies -First Blood, rambo 2, 3, and 4, in a row. So far ahead dude,,,

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?
s
s
q
G
q
a
n
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "Police Chief: anarchist insurrectionists are ready to kill"
society