Certainly, up to the last millennium things were simpler. In the face of actions of revolt there were those who condemned them and took distance publicly, those who hid their heads under the sand and pretended nothing had happened, and those who supported them openly. And here we’re not talking about the claims spread by the perpetrators of the actions. We’re talking about all the people who publicly expressed their approval, support, solidarity with the actions. To defend revolt, give it all its reasons, express all one’s passions: shouldn’t this be in every subversive’s heart? And to take this freedom of thought and speech: shouldn’t this be the minimum to be done?
As it’s difficult to identify the actual perpetrators of the actions, whereas the identities of those who publicly support them are well known, investigators have started accusing the latter and attributing the actions to them. It’s just a hypothesis of course, given that the coincidence between the former and the latter can’t be taken for granted. Maybe yes, maybe not, maybe just for some, maybe just in certain cases. But what does a cop care? A cop doesn’t make many distinctions and after all to stop an idea is already something, it’s a first step to hamper and contain an action too. For example, how many anarchists happened to be put under investigation because guilty of editing publications where joy was expressed at actions of revolt and disorder? It’s easy to understand the question that crosses an investigator’s mind: why do these people support these actions openly? Obviously no good people would do it. This kind of behaviour is shady, suspicious… in other words, the culprits must be them; and even if they aren’t, it’s almost as they are!
Probably the incrimination of the idea, with all the nuisances it implies, is not extraneous to the spreading of a habit in the course of the last years, which was not so frequent in the past. In the face of an action of revolt, today there are still those who condemn and dissociate themselves (a bravery that has reached beyond the ranks of the most mummified militant organizations) and those who show indifference. As for the rest, many have begun to spread news of what they consider more exciting as they limit themselves with reproducing scrupulously what journalists wrote, specifying the origin of the source. As a result the subversives who publicly champion actions of revolt have almost disappeared today, while those who at the very best copy-and-paste what press agencies say are proliferating.
This has further strengthened the old cops’ assumption according to which a break of the law can be openly appreciated only by those who did it. Just think of journalists, who for some time have been taking the habit to define ‘claim’ any text in praise of an action of revolt. Or just think of the little leaders who a year ago publicly pointed at us as the perpetrators of sabotage actions against the TAV, because we are editors of a website that has always supported this practice. It’s becoming like a cliché, only those who carry out certain actions of revolt can openly support certain actions of revolt. No one else. Anyone else – if they don’t condemn the actions or dissociate themselves – must be silent, pretend nothing has happened, not express themselves, and at the very best repeat the news as aseptically as possible by taking them from the press of the regime.
Well, we’ve just found out that this brilliant line of reasoning seems not to be confined to the miserable brains of cops and their servants, but it also swirls around in some anarchists’ heads. Considering the time, this doesn’t surprise us much.
We acknowledge it. But to us, supporting an action of revolt not only has nothing to do with repeating the media exact words but it also has nothing to do with praising the perpetrators of the action. Even less so when the latter show the same identical attitude as those who’d like to see only claims besides condemnation, silence and press reports (never mind even if this attitude is backed by ‘good faith’, the unpredictable side effect of a tantrum).
There we are, we only missed it. After a citizenism that wants to transform collective nocturnal flares into public property, here comes a certain nihilism that wants to transform individual nocturnal flares into private property. In this case too, no, we don’t agree at all. In our opinion to support actions of revolt should be all the comrades’ doing, not only that of those who carry out the actions. And as it is a desirable outcome that individual comrades don’t have one and only thought or one and only language, it is as much a desirable outcome that each one supports revolt as they like most. Their reasons, just like their passions, won’t come out undermined or abused because copyright infringement is disregarded, but enriched, widened, distinguished. To support, defend and develop the reasons of revolt means to put the latter at everybody’s reach, it means to try to make them expand and become generalized. A possibility that obviously doesn’t interest the admirers of their own images, according to whom what they do can be appreciated only by themselves and anyone who repeat their every words. As if an action of revolt was a private business, the exclusive property of the ones who can demonstrate its authorship.
But if revolt is like poetry and has to be done by everybody, if the best way to defend freedom of thought and speech is to exercise the latter, then on our part we wish that dull copy-and-paste is left behind and that we start (or restart) to openly support actions of revolt, each one with their own language and reasons. The defenders of public order will go witch-hunting, that’s possible. The people’s leaders of political militancy will go provocateur-hunting, that’s likely. True blue armed revolutionaries will go non-believer-hunting, that’s plausible.