INTRODUCTION

In this text, and in a continued Egoist Polemic, I’m going to dwell on the complex mechanisms of comparison between individual and law.

Nothing complete or already written – by saying so I intend to enunciate the fairytale of the concreteness of the juridical anarchist – and the Nihilist holds a dagger in his hand, which destroys certitudes!

In the fragments we moved on a ground of egoist experimentation of the metaphor.

In this text metaphor is present in part – to specify the fragmentation that ‘occurs’ when one oversteps a metaphorical labyrinth.

In developing an anti-juridical non-trajectory with texts experienced with blood along with my proud and affinity comrade Maurizio, we posed the annihilator attack on the use of the law.

As specified above, sometimes the complex mechanism of the law in society does not allow one to carry out a lucid and specific examination of the complementary rules in an integration subordinating the individual in living the procedural and programmatic essence inherent to the community-order.

This text also talks about the investigation of nun Comodi – which also concerns me for 270bis.

I want to specify that for no reason and in no way will I abdicate and transform an investigation into a mere instrument of salvation by choosing a technical or a political trial – as the latter is a device of assimilation in the complying use of the Parabola Ope-Legis.

The Nihilist attack does not know borders that knits one’s own path, and in the continuous search for a willing movement that – in the chosen moment – denies the law – by colliding with the authority in charge of the law – with the legally recognized citizen – and with those who choose jurisprudence as forma mentis in the ethical defense of their redemption.

I dedicate these lines to the attackers of the Informal Anarchist Federation Olga Nucleus!

Long live the Black International!

The law, the radically different formulation of certain conditions of conservation of a community, forbids certain actions turning to a defined direction, that is to say when they turn to the detriment of the community: it does not forbid the disposition of mind generating these actions – because it needs such actions, but only if they turn to another direction, i.e. against the enemies of the community.

‘A critique of supreme values’ – ‘Will to power’, F. Nietzsche

The misanthropic advancing of destruction is the discordant pivot of the Nihilist action:

The Centric-Ego is the transmitter of Singular power.

Irregular beginning of pleasure – the Nihilist action of attack does not identify the normalizing retreat of the anarchist exculpatory determinism in a judicial context.

Instable flux in an incessant tension – it longs for perseverant conflict, debauchery that denies the law.

The adjoining of what can be communicated is the enemy to be annihilated in the search for collision and penetration of the vacuous and indeterminable organic-structural juridical body.

The metaphors expressed in the texts Amoral Anti-juridical- ‘The temple of prophecy’ and ‘Impeding Rigor Mortis’ stand out in a vacuous horizon consumed in a correctional right to defense:

The complete spelling out of the stepping in the labyrinth of identifying codes places the individual in front of the underwriting formulation of ‘Defendant’.

Every time the threshold is crossed – the depersonalizing act of the metaphorical court-labyrinth recurs and occurs – and the epigraph appears in running the State-forced individual.

To escape with mind and body becomes a sterile and useless succession of penetration in an epideictic formulary of procedure.

The underwriting instance in the ‘crossing’ is the condition that manifests itself in an instance aimed at achieving the compensatory punishment of repentance.

To enter and to go beyond the mazy net of codes-orders predetermines the procedural scansion in codified rules.

Any present/absent redemptive cell appears deformed and unrecognizable in the act of overstepping, in a desire to conform that longs for the assumption of the leading key:

The key opens- the key closes.

In a succession of performed acts the representations of the leading form and of the Demiurge appear in reflections concatenating the coveted object:

The key closes by opening.

The event determines the eventuality of moving inside the labyrinth.

The time and place of the procession for the removal of any amoral fragment are the affirmation-synthesis decided by those who redeem the sins.

The affirmation is the concrete complementary reciprocal interpretation between an elected time and a given place.

The principle in device is the structure of rules governing the criminal code.

The individual under judgment moves towards the solving rite and goes through the paths of the web of code-order in the labyrinth of the law.

The issued order appears harmonious in a pyramid-shaped structure.

Any parameter incurs in the representation prescribed by the Demiurge.

The conditions of appearance affirm the complete formulation of the law – in a succumbing and definite ‘body’.

The ceremonial procedure is in a balance harmonized in an imbalance-speculated vision of the individual as a prisoner in the metaphor of the Temple of prophecy.

The parabola Ope-Legis becomes the meaning and concept in an elected time in the event of the ostensive ceremony.

Importantly the structure establishes acts of judicial-disposed definition in the ‘prophesized’ individual.

Exposition and transmutation in paths established inside a continuous cycle of ‘side’ roads (but the choice of legal defense is already a choice ‘according’ to the assumption of stability) – preponderant to the core of the essence of the prophetic Temple – create the chained concentration in a process identified as a backward-forward escape of impeding Rigor Mortis.

To be present through vehicular media becomes the observation of the Demiurge, who exposes his encoded rite through ‘images’ attached to the ‘wall’ (it has yet to be determined: what intrinsic meaning does this other metaphor have in a criminal procedure?) of the concentric and illusory wall in a non-centric vision of the metaphorical court-labyrinth.

Multiple and imaginative adulating abilities make the structure of the labyrinth an induction in stratified formulations of a present-absent in the process annihilating the individual on criminal trial.

The synthetic process of assimilation modulates the belonging of the defendant in a necessary mediation-meditation through the disturbing and allusive power of the Demiurge.

The reflex of the concentric wall in a non centric hallucination breaks into the essence of the subordinated body in the ceremonial rite.

The reflex seen by the defendant does not reflect his being sensitive and only denotes the effect given by the producing reflex of the power of the Demiurge.

In going through the metaphorical court-labyrinth:

‘The definition “path” is indivisible in a fraction composed in the time course, along a border composed between time course and commencing term in the passage from the limit giving a border to practicability’.

The symptom of the cure while entering the labyrinth of the law is being specifically defined ‘defendant’.

The event composes the phases consequential to the cure that it imposes on those who have subjectively subordinated to juridical discipline in a foundation of objectivity.

Going beyond is to claim an assumption that composes the time complying with the establishment of the regulation of the chosen path – in a prone prostrating oneself in the terms established by jurisdictional conformity in a moving and unwillingly line.

Digression is the border probed in search of a structural form that becomes and extends its foundations between a time limit and a limiting term of a limbo in a prophesized temporality.’

The labyrinth-metaphor extends the inoculation of the form-guide that becomes the directional form, in which the demolition of the subjective object of the key that closes by opening is made void by the occurring chosen event (criminal procedure is the symbol expressing the going towards the occlusion of any willingly motion) that tends to marginalize any glimmer of escape from the event itself.

The choice is not optional but it is subordinated to the relational form instituted by the form-guide and the impenetrable Demiurge – where time is limited to the foundation of objectivity of the key that closes by opening and of a closure of the codes of conduct consequent to the trial.

A criminal trial establishes a path chosen by those who transform themselves into ‘defendants’ – in the temporal center of the prophetic Temple.

Now the axiom is decomposed.

‘Now the identity structure stays at the “center” of a fatal ceremony, is visible in a perceptive manner, expresses the clarifying signs in the essence of the representation of a symbolic representation in the immanence of the coming prophecy.’

What a person on criminal trial ‘sees’ as a defendant?

Once it has been inoculated the complex and diffused penal code (this unknown book of prophecy secretly kept by human society – but incomprehensible to those who are anarchists and rely on the cure of their doctor-lawyer) nullifies the essence of the ‘Ope-Legis’ nucleus and all motions involving singularity.

In his thwarted effect a defendant is sure he has the key opening redemptive hope in his hands – but as written in the metaphor the key, if it opens, closes-occludes any act attempting one’s conscience; and even if it opens an acquittal it closes the dissolution of any fundamental value of morality.

The closer the end of the trial the more the intrusion of medication assumes – in relevant importance – any fiber of the individual who has chosen to go beyond the entrance of the labyrinth.

Escape is necessary – escape from the chosen event – but escaping is no longer comparable to the definition of ‘escaping’ in negation of the code-law; but it is escaping from one’s own choices, which the moment of becoming in the chosen form in a paradox in collision makes stable and effective.

The objective criterion resides in the identification nucleus of the subject who is ‘defendant’.

The present transforms the nightmare of the past into the becoming of a complexity of expressive-logic modulations in choosing a chosen path.

The key that closes by opening in an escape inside the unwillingly-willingly assimilates the totalizing ‘substance’ arranged by the form-guide.

The key opens the labyrinth where the becoming of principles and concepts is the closure code of the law in an integrated formulation synchronic to the act of going beyond.

The parabola inscribed in a preparatory path is the penalized remission of a predetermined criterion.

The formal assumption in the ‘defendant’ terminology:

By reading a simple and deductive ‘compendium of criminal procedural law’ (this book unknown to the judicial anarchist), the investigated individual acquires the assumption of the characteristic of ‘defendant’.

Identification is the formula corresponding to the assumption of being characterized.

How can one get out of this assumption of acquired responsibility?

In the Egoist paper Vertex Abyss the articulated attempt at annihilating the value of the law is exposed through texts and questions in a complexity of deepening.

The organic acquisition poses a desire in the negation of the value of the law as a continuous contradiction between unlimited Nihilist action of attack and an obvious return to a certain juridical event, unconceivable and non destructible.

Every time one gets out of the law one enters a ‘given’ limit. The metaphor of the ‘key’ is intrinsic material in a disciplined principle of forced redemption.

The right to the ‘law’ is the duty given by a plurality of rights.

An infamous ruling court (and citizenship that becomes infamous by supporting justice), with the deference of a public prosecutor who is even more infamous, limits and delivers the faculty of being participants as ‘defendants’.

The individual defendant has the right to be present at the trial – as well as the right not to be present.

By choosing not to be present he exercises the right of ‘choice’ in the acquisition of his qualitative faculty.

The labyrinth intersection poses expressive code limits every time a ‘choice’ is being expressed.

Does the relation between a free choice and the choice permitted by the law become the legitimacy of the criminal trial?

At the beginning of a discussion with Cerberus and Vertex Abyss we had placed the first base for the revocation of one’s lawyer or duty solicitor.

Does not one already see an antinomy in ‘revocation’ – as an acquired right?

Non participated acquisition becomes like going beyond the labyrinth as one wants to get out of it.

If one revokes one’s lawyer, the law gives one the acquisition of becoming defendant rather than investigated – in an effective return to the chains of justice.

How can one get out of it once and for all?

We reproduce a passage of the ‘compendium of criminal procedural law’:

‘A lawyer is a purely formal party in the sense that the substantial interest of a trial belongs to the client, who is the substantial party.’

Does this mean that to get a lawyer involves that in the end the latter is only an assistant of he who is on trial?

In this way could the sacred anarchist church of redemption set the schematic organization chart in defense of the law (the Opes-Legis parabola-metaphor might come to the essential nucleus and to the defense and redemption of one’s sins) as an alleged attack on the judicial body?

Does it mean that the comrades of the ‘Bombas’ operation have basically attacked the judicial body?!

In no way can any attack be carried out by believing (belief is in the parabolas of the sacred church of redemptive anarchy) in the notes of a hyper-compendium.

‘The propensity produced in an analogy between a ‘stretched’ in claiming and ‘leaning’ towards the official liturgical ceremony prepares the simulation of the leading role in a dissimulation of the preparatory acts.’

The simulation complying with the result of a trial tends to show the fiction in claiming in a homogenization that corresponds to the role that extends the admissibility of the act communicated by the lawyer.

Let’s go back to a specific passage of the ‘compendium of criminal procedural law’ regarding the right to get a lawyer (to get someone defined ‘defender’ is already significant in the redemption):

‘The task of the lawyer, which is ontologically different from that of the public prosecutor, has recuperated a position of equal dialectic with the prosecution from the point of view of the court, possibly more favorable to his client.’

In sinking into the ‘flesh’ of concrete and judicious ‘defense’ total eradication of the parabola Ope-Legis occurs.

The reading of the above mentioned colorless notes clarifies what a defender is like, and in which the presence of a party to the proceedings is implicit:

The subject to be defended.

The appointment of a lawyer is the rejection of claimed actions of attack.

The relation with the reference link is the analogy with trials of the past such as the ORAI one, the ‘Cervantes’ case and the ‘Bombas’ case.

These trials all had a systematic and methodical organization chart (it must be pointed out, however, that some comrades involved in the investigation of infamous Marini revoked their legal defense and claimed to belong to a specific group) through acts of completion of a terminology compendium in assumed completion of the defense.

During a trial, the effectiveness of the concept of defense becomes a dynamic role that participates to the dialectics with the infamous public prosecutor.

The twisted and complex right to a ‘right’ penetrates the individual in a permeating way.

The modular core of the assumption of the law is a continuous penetration of the attribution of a concept intrinsic to the assumption of an explicitly penetrated ‘quality’ of the ‘defendant’:

The characterization of the defendant in equalization of the essence-nucleus of the ‘law’.

The apologetic and complex penal law – of constitutional and juridical norms – is the traditional conception of behavior according to the rules of human functioning.

Common sense gives an obligation-norm wedged in an individual to the objectivity of the law.

The object of the law is compensation and penetration of the objectivity of the subject adjusted to the obligation-norm.

The logic norm-model runs in an identical identification of the effective foundation of the complexity of the model-praxis so that when one tries to ‘get out’ of a metaphorical labyrinth one gets into it.

The system of principles and precepts – with the Demiurge delivering the key that opens and closes or closes by opening?

The model praxis of the law is the conformation chaining the behavior of the affiliates (how can one distinguish the individual who tries to break the law while being inside it by right from so-called citizen?) to the sanctions to be followed.

Going beyond the metaphorical labyrinth-Court of someone who enters it willingly is to permanently conform oneself to the sanction.

The holy church of redemptive anarchy and its believers go into the law and judicial thought where the key becomes the ‘sought-after object’:

The law and the human culture of law become the plurality of the rights:

The goal determined in a multiplicity of rights is the instrument that prevents and settles conflicts.

In these pages we should look for the conciliatory causes that define the clauses involved in the act of settling – as negation of annihilating bad passions – a formal derivative-assumed-conventional relation, and which are the exculpatory and schematic pivot of the juridical anarchist as concerns taking a stance (here I’m using a descriptive formula suitable to the sentence written above) in criminal trials.

The formal concept consequent to the juridical action is the completion in a society-structure of the behavior of the affiliates in an objective foundation in the retribution of the sanction.

‘The order of events is to direct the translation of an inclined deduction to a reversibility between Abnegation and Invocation.’

The reproducibility of an asserting event in a conformist language that can be transferred to adulation of the court is a false doctrine of dedication – disposed in the asserting and belonging declamatory mindset of the lawyer.

The gnomic form of the holy church of redemptive anarchy rejects any dissonant impulse – and follows the precepts of defunct Malatesta and his purposes of an anarchist society with mental hospitals for the antisocial: so the right to the ‘right’ of defense from all signs is a sign of abnormality.

In this the above mentioned anarchist – norm-normalized in front of the dissolution of all juridical limits:

By giving a limit in a restraint given to the value of ‘acting’.

The Anti-juridical and Amoral action annihilates in one instant – in the street as well as in police stations and prisons – the use of the law, and in this the juridical anarchist is faced with an insidious enemy, who acts following his egoist and anti-juridical impulses and expands his force of impact against the community-order in which stands the right of the anarchist redemptive of his actions.

The redemptive-judicial anarchist renounces his individuality and erects a new order out of the regulation and precepts of the custom of the law.

Does action assume the consultation of the motion carrying the action?

The limit given to the attribution of the ‘giving’ is the link connecting to an inhibitory process of assimilation of formal ethical-democratic-centrist power:

The profile of the conformation and conventional structure that configures the interference of an order exposed in a formula of assonance with society-order.

‘Doing’ becomes a moderate and balanced (or balancer), methodical scheme in exculpatory precepts for the use of the law.

The Nihilist and his Egoist Power exalt any particle of singularity and deny any right (the right to have a right) thus expelling the ‘data’ value in search of maximum satisfaction.

The research experimented with in this way is to be found every time in front of the limit of a right-limit in a circumscribed manner- and by ‘recognizing’ order, can one deny it totally?

Does the Attacking One deny the centralizing ‘all’ of the pyramidal organic of society-order?

In the context of a trial, is there any chance of expanding to full power the Nihilist destruction and denying the law by denying the ‘entirety of the law’ inherent to human society?

In the lines above written there remains the coarctation of the ability of expression with terms belonging to the law – in both appointing or revoking a lawyer – this limits the negation of this acquisition.

Like having rights when arrested: in a continuous entangling on the threshold of the metaphorical labyrinth, you have the right to make a telephone call, appoint or not appoint a lawyer.

We repeat it just to express ourselves more deeply: if you don’t appoint a lawyer you have the right to have a duty solicitor.

In the essence of rights and written laws, an individual acquires the right-duty of choice.

In the right-duty and when one becomes involved in the qualitative role of ‘defendant’ one is faced with the judicial concept of legitimization of the sanction-event.

The concept of law previously exposed is based on the association of living in a society where if you are a ‘defendant’ you have the right to respectfully pursue the duty to carry on with the rules and procedures of daily life.

The act of jurisprudential doctrine is the concentration of the law expressed in formulas corresponding to the duty impressed through codes-orders suitable to the right of the affiliate.

The affiliate was ‘born’ in society with its duties and rights – and he is capable of expressing them through an organization chart codified in a role decided for any individual subjected to society.

Therefore one enters a metaphorical labyrinth – because the right to have a plurality of rights expresses the overall net of being permeated in the coercive-ostatic society.

Society is a huge and complementary complex that permeates the objectification of the key that opens and closes and that closes by opening.

The key is the labyrinth-metaphor on which threshold one ‘stands’ because the quality of the assumption of being defendant is not optional but subjected to the codification registered in the right to live in association.

Society gives the individual a chance – and one does not acquire the possible choice – to have in front of him an organic pivot of fundamental bases with which he can go on the metaphorical labyrinth.

By entering a right –after acquiring it – one gets out by getting in beside the Demiurge and ceremonial power, which through contributory causes express the fact of being permanently subjected to the right of being defended, sentenced or acquitted.

The right ‘to be’ becomes the association with the ‘entire’ society, which the judicial anarchist thinks it is possible to attack as he let himself be defended by a lawyer.

In the context of Nihilist experimentation, how can one annihilate association and codes-orders?

Penal law is based on four fundamental principles complying with a pyramidal order (which will be explained in another piece of writing), such as: legality, materiality, offensiveness and guilt. It places the submitted individual within a series of precepts in which the trajectory of a metaphorical labyrinth is expressed through concepts considered objective and where the key – impenetrable and permeating – closes but opens to the duty to carry on with events producing penal norms suitable to the use of the right of the associate.

One is an affiliate because one is in the essence of ‘society’ – where when one tries to deny one is part of the right to have the right to deny – which is once again a right to have the possibility to use the codes-orders that are part of being affiliates.

The above mentioned principles converge through the ‘threshold’ and eventually got stuck to the walls of the metaphorical labyrinth: they offer probable and possible choices of redemption when assuming the role suitable with society because the expressing quality is by right in the right to be qualified as ‘defendant’.

Criminal informed responsibility enters a net of norms suitable to the objectified objective of the key that closes by opening – to the conformation to the rules of society-order.

Subjected to the law, an individual is confined between the concentric meshes of any redemptive wall when taking part to a trial and going through the metaphorical labyrinth (labyrinth becomes a judicial citadel: those who experienced the entrance to one of these Temples of prophecy know what I’m talking about).

Meshes and barbed wire, which one tries to get out of, are the instable perceptive attempt at the distance between the redemptive road and salvation beyond nets.

The meshes opens to glimmers, which a gaze thinks they can be a potential to get out – but they are the depersonalization that a gaze ‘intends’ as cells where one can atones for one’s sins.

One gets in and out by entering a ‘cell’, and gets out with the key that opens-by closing but opens to the redemption and the passivity of an optional code order complying with the principles established by society and its affiliates.

By assimilating itself to the homologating ‘all’ of the mass, the holy church of redemptive anarchy tries to affirm itself s advocate of dominant rules – and carries on with its recuperative role in judicial matters without any critique.

Regarding operation ‘Ardire’ – in spite of the fact that comrades involved in it define themselves and ‘individualists’ – it seems that the latter want to take on indirect complicity with the anarchy church of redemption.

This should be clear to those who as defendants have expressed themselves in favor of a technical defense, and nullifying their past passions have made invalid any amoral debate on the annihilating attack of the individual, and attack as amoral a-form that denies social peace and stabilization of peace, and negation of universal values, claims, experiences of blood experimenting with individual and egoist deepening, and last but not least the declaration many times expressed : ‘Long live the black International!’

The guaranteeing function of penal principles consists in the subjected use (one is never really subjective when one uses a right) of the individual who in a metaphorical labyrinth claims loudly his innocence – or his claim – getting in and out the law and entering the right to a right of choice of a trajectory.

Choice –as said before – is never optional but it depends on the faculties given by the codes-orders articulated in principles of stability aiming at the common good of the affiliates.

So, how can one claim an act against so called formal ‘power’ (here it emerges – through the precepts of the redemptive church of anarchy – that Egoist extended power of the individual doesn’t exist)?

Does the act of claiming oneself in court – or doing it by not going – become again an acquired right or not?

The system of codified codes involves the total depersonalization because one is subjected to a criminal trial – and the fundamental questions brought forward are an experiment on how one can annihilate the use of the law in an attack on the structures and superstructures of human society.

The complexity producing subjection to the law in being part of human association places destruction in a continuous going through daily life – in the fragmentation of all penal codes and subjective pacification – in order to recognize the objectivity intrinsic to a complex permeating the codes-orders.

In the complementary residue of the law and society-order, even in a ‘surplus’ there are the bases to be integrated in equal way to the rules of the affiliates – in any going backwards where the expressive and completing modulation in reconsidering the ‘attempt’ at going back is repeated.

One goes in and out and goes back in all aspects consequential to life in association in acting through sub-chaining right to the plurality of rights in logics consequential to the derivation resulting from living in an organic structural form.

The law enter by law in life through codes-orders that the individual subjects to himself, where he turns to the threshold of the metaphorical labyrinth.

The exit is the key-order…

‘We’ll shout: hold the axes! We’ll conspire against authority without mercy and without saving our blows, given that they don’t do this either. We’ll make them disappear from the paved roads of the countryside and the streets of the capital. We’ll make them disappear from the towns. Remember: when this happens those who are not with us will be against us, our enemy. And we’ll use any means to exterminate the enemy.’

‘Till the end’, Damiano Bolano

(Source: Retrieved on September 13, 2012 from actforfree.nostate.net.)