Anarchist Thoughts About Anarchism
Gustav Landauer
1870-1919
Anarchist Thoughts About Anarchism
1901
I remember a statement made by the English anarchist Charles Mowbray in 1893 during the International Socialist Congress in Zaire. It was about whether or not anarchists had the right to participate in the congress. Following stormy debates, a resolution was adopted, which meant that only those who were prepared for "political" action should be allowed. At that time, when we seemed to be anarchists out of order, Mowbray once again brought the weighing scales with a pathetic joke. The act of Brutus, he called out, was an excellent political action. We are a political act and must therefore be admitted.
This statement seems to me very well to clarify the remarkable phenomenon that it has become almost an anarchist dogma to kill the heads of state if it appears to be something anarchistic and that almost all attackers in recent decades have assumed anarchic ideas. Anyone who is uninhabited will indeed call that coincidence of circumstances remarkable; because what has people brought to life with anarchism, the teaching of a society to be pursued without state and authoritarian compulsion, what about the state and legal violence? Nothing! However, the anarchists note that teaching and informing have not yet been done enough; that civil society is not possible because of the violence of the rulers; Thus, they conclude, in addition to propaganda with word and writing, and in addition to construction, about destruction; To overcome all obstacles they are far too weak; so they must at least propagate the act and make propaganda through the act; The political parties are conducting positive political action: so the anarchists, the only one, must have a positive anti-political, have a negative policy. This reasoning explains the political action of the anarchists, propagating the act and individual terrorism.
I do not hesitate to speak out in very sharp terms - and I know that I will not reap thanks either for the one or the other side - that although the strategy of the attacks commits the pursuit of a small group, it also applies for the big parties . There is something boisterous. We also do politics, they say; We do not just see it temporarily; one has to take care of us. The anarchists are not anarchist enough to me; they are still a political party, they even carry a very primitive reform policy; The killing of people has always been part of the reform efforts of primitives; and Mowbray's Brutus was a short-sighted reformist politician. When the American rulers, without taking into account the law suspended a few anarchists who were not involved, they acted as anarchically as any attacking officer - and perhaps, as well, from idealism. Only dogmarians might want to deny the existence of fiery and sincere state ideals. Anarchists are self-evident to most dogmatics; they will call that I, who still measure me the right to give my worldview the name of anarchy, expresses my own truth without exception; They are also opportunists and will find that it is not the time for such statements. However, I think that is precisely the moment.
However, it is also an anarchist's dogma, for example, saying: Every day, our sisters and so many workers, brothers and so many soldiers, and so many tuberculosis sufferers are killed by our murderous conditions; what do they want to shout with that shout? They say that McKinley (the American president killed by an anarchist in 1901) is not more important than one of those others. With permission! Here too I will be too anarchist to my anarchists: McKinley's death has shocked me much more than that of a roof worker, which would be dropped by a poorly constructed roof rack. That's old-fashioned and I like to but if someone surrounded by the shining of perfect power, arrogant and with good conscience is shot by a fellow man, he reaches the hand, then when the eyes of millions are on his death bed, then I see this as a real tragidy, which this individual, who may have only had a moderate mind and has been a less noble person, surrounds with a aureol. I would like to add that the attacking officer is also closer to me than the unfortunate man who had torn the scaffold badly. It's quite a matter of life.
I do not intend to explore the psychology of the attacking physician here. It may have to be called a new type of suicide, rather than heroes or martyrs. For someone who believes nothing but in this life and who is bitterly disappointed by this life, who is filled with a kidding hatred against the states that have destroying him and finds him unbearable, it can be a devilish and seductive thinking of taking someone else from up there and suiciding through the court and front of the worlds eyes. And at least as tempting is the thought that comes back to you in thousands of different ways in the anarchist literature: in front of the authoritarian violence the free violence places the rebellion of the individual.
That's the basic mistake of the revolutionary anarchists, whom I've shared with them for a long time, believing they can violently reach the ideal of nonviolence. They strongly oppose the "revolutionary dictatorship" provided by Marx and English in their Communist Manifesto, as a short transition stage after the Great Revolution. That is self-deception; Any exercise of violence means dictatorship, provided that it is not voluntarily tolerated and approved by the mass commissioned. In this case, however, it is about authoritarian violence. Any violence is either despotic or authoritarian.
The anarchists must realize that a goal can only be achieved if the goalhas already been dyed in the color of that purpose. Never will violence come to violence. There is only anarchy, where anarchists are true anarchists, of those who do not exert any violence. I do not really say anything new about it; It's the same Tolstoj told us for a long time. When the king of Italy? By Bresci was murdered, Tolstoj published a beautiful article, culminating in the words: don't kill killers, but make them clear that they should not kill. The text was even sharper and the article contained such hard clash with the rulers that it was printed in anarchist magazines; Also those passages were, I would like to say, succinctly or nonchalantly, but as if it were a gril, no further attention was paid.
The anarchists will oppose: if we are violenceless, let us take all the robbery and suppression; then we are not free men but slaves; We do not want non-violence from individual individuals, but a state of nonviolence; We want anarchy, but then we must first stop or take what became desolate or remembered. That's such a basic mistake: that the world could or should bring anarchism to the world; that anarchy is a matter of humanity; That should first be the big settlement and then the Millennial Empire. Someone who wants to bring freedom to the world - that is to say, his concept of freedom - is a despair, but not anarchist. Never will anarchy be a matter of mass, it will never happen through an invasion or armed insurgency. Nor can federalist socialism be achieved by waiting until the capital accumulated until now and the land ownership comes into the hands of the people. Anarchy is not something for the future but of the present; not something of demands but of life. It should not be a question of nationalization of past achievements, but for a new nation, which, through small columns of domestic colonization, converges among the other peoples, here and there, into new communities. Ultimately, it is not about the class struggle of the possessors against the owners, but becoming free, innerly strong and self-control figures from the mass and uniting themselves into new structures. The old contradiction of destruction and rebuilding begins to lose its meaning: it is about forms of something that has never existed before.
If the anarchists would know how close their ideas are to the deepest ground of human being and how inexplicably far they bring from the massacre's hassle, they would shamefully admit how much the distance goes between their actions , their superficial behavior and the backgrounds of their worldview; then they would realize that being an anarchist is too banal and too simple to kill McKinley or to raise such unnecessary fears and tragedies. Who kills dies. Whoever wants to create life must have a new life and be born again inwardly. I should apologize for the fact that I make "propaganda for anarchism" on neutral soil, if I were not convinced that what I would like to do without saying, call anarchy, a general feeling is that found with every human being who thinks about the world and soul. I mean the urge to bring yourself once again to the world, reform your own way and then shape the environment, your world, as far as your ability reaches. That ultimate moment must come for everyone; that moment when he, in order to speak with Nietzsche, creates the original chaos in himself, in which he as a spectator drives the drama of his drift and his urgent inner things for himself, to then determine which of his many characters in him the boss has to play, what is his own, distinguishing himself from the traditions and legends of the ancestral world, what the world should be for him and what he should be for the world. That's what I'm calling an anarchist, someone who has the will to not play the doubles for himself, who has kneaded himself like a fresh dough in a decisive life crisis, knowing and acting in himself, as his secretest being calls him . For me, someone is without boss, free, owner and anarchist, someone who is his own boss who has determined the urge of who he wants to be and who is his own life. The road to heaven is narrow; The way to a newer, higher form of human society is through the dark, ominous gate of our instincts and the terra abscondita of our soul, which is our world. The world can only be formed from within. That country and rich world we find through chaos and anarchy, through the unheard of, quiet and unthinkable experience, we discover a new human being; each in itself. Then there will be anarchists and anarchy, scattered here and there, singles; they will find each other; they will kill nothing but themselves in the mystical death, which are sunk in themselves to lead to regeneration; with the words of Hoffmannsthal they will be able to say about themselves: "As surely as the ground under my feet, I have taken away from the old." Only someone who has been creeped by his own person and has been deeply worshiped by his own blood helps to create the new world without interfering with other lives.
One would misunderstand me very much if one would think that I preach quiism or resentment, abandoning action and outward activities. Oh no! one must join forces to work for municipal socialism, including neighborhood, consumer and housing co-operatives; one has to set up public gardens and libraries, one has to leave the towns, one has to work with shovel and hoee, one has to simplify the whole outward life to free space for the mind; one must organize and inform one has to work for new schools and winning the children; however, all that conquers only the past, if it does not happen in a new mind and from the newly conquered inner world. We all await something great, something unheard of, our whole art is full of a chilling and silent suspicion of something that's going to happen: it will come out of our being when we force up the unknown unconscious in our minds as our mind does not mistake itself in the fact of the non-mental psychic that we are waiting in our crowns when we become new; then the suspected world will come about, which can never bring outer development. The great time will come for people who are not only sick of states and institutions, but of themselves. Do not kill others but themselves; that will be the sign of man who creates his own chaos to find out what is the oldest and best of him and to become mysterious to the world, that which he brings into the world from an unknown the world seems to be inflamed with him. Someone who lives into the world that flows into him, creates his own life, someone who experiences himself as a world radiant, and not as a stranger, who comes, and does not know where it goes, and does not know where to go; For him, the world will be like himself. Those people will live together as common, as united people. That will be anarchy. That is a far removed goal, but it has come to pass that life is incomprehensible for us if we do not intend to drive on the unbelievable one. To us, life is nothing and iniquity, if it is not a sea for us, something infinite that promises us eternities. What reforms, what politics, revolution! After all, it is always the same. What anarchism! What the anarchists pretend to be the ideal society is far too intelligent, takes too much into account just given it, in order to ever and truly be reality. Only someone who takes into account the unknown, calculates correctly. Because life and the actual human being in us are unnamed and unknown to us. No war and murder anymore, but rebirth.
However, one would again misrepresent my words if, in this amended view, one wanted to discourage the versatile, cohesive and innovative activities of free, undogmatic socialism. Perhaps people like us who have devoted their work to such matters for years are inclined to point out to all of this at the moment, where childhood belief in a radical change is manifested everywhere, which it sees it Socialism is not something that rises behind the facade of bourgeois society as a new, radiant whole, but something that grows and penetrates into our capitalist world itself. This realization is, of course, it's starting to pay too much, than we can find ourselves in the new way so quickly. There has been something heroic, hardship and practicality in current socialism. That is undoubtedly gratifying, but our year-olds were so used to the half-darkness and the romance of expectation and preparation for the sudden that we should be given some time to get used to this new way; it is not lacking in fresh forces that are at work. I am also very well aware that the masses who want to liberate themselves from social woes and insecurity are very limited to the most important cultural needs and psychological distress I am talking about. It is indifferent to us for which we fight separate people and it would once again bear witness to a corrupt romance if one believes that the innovations that the socially dependent and the poor mass need to be identical or inextricably linked to the material change of humans that I am talking about here. We must learn that there are countless ways, by the state or out of state to get the mass of its place; We need to learn to differentiate any improvement, any renewal, in conjunction with our highest and ultimate purpose unconditionally. It is a wonderful idea to link the well-being, the development of the masses and the deepest necessity of culture so that both goals can be achieved in the same way; that is incorrect, as all such rigid, highly-defined abstract ideas are incorrect. We have long regarded socialism as a vague, comprehensive worldview, a magic wand that opens all the doors and solves all the questions; We could now know that everything in the world beyond and also in our soul is so confused that there is never a single way that could lead everyone to a goal. What I hereby say is in no way a call to the human society; We must realize that there are different stages of culture next to each other, and with a calm heart, let us not even make the dream come true, that everyone has to be raised to the same level. So no call. I just want to describe the inner condition, from which individual people may be so far as to survive the other communism and anarchy. I just want to say that this freedom must be born and fed first in the deepest of man before it can be seen as an appearance. Also, socialism has gradually become something old; It has combined everything, which today breaks down into several separate things. Everywhere the dogmatics end, and the battle ends with lies that have been placed as border posts at the beginning of a new era; everywhere, words are real and flowing, something unrecognizable and shaky. Brightness, however, exists only in the land of shame and words; where life begins, the system keeps up.
The anarchists have so far been far too much systematic and people who have been stuck in rigid and narrow terms; and that is the last answer to the question why anarchists see something in killing people. They are used to not having connection with people at all, but with concepts. For them there are two fixed, divorced classes, hostile to each other; they do not kill people, but the term exploiters, oppressors and state representatives. Thus it has come to pass that the people who are often human in their personal lives are often the most humane in public to surrender to inhumane acts. Then their feelings of life are turned off; they act as thoughtful beings, who, like robbery of the Goddess of Reason, are the separating and condemnating subjects. From the judgments of the cold, innocent, ignorant, lifeless and life-threatening logic, the killing of death sentences condemned by the anarchists. Anarchy, however, is not so close to it, kils and clearly, if the anarchists have thought; if their anarchy becomes a dark, deep dream, rather than a theoretically achievable world, their ethics and their actions will only take place in one way.
1870-1919
Anarchist Thoughts About Anarchism
1901
I remember a statement made by the English anarchist Charles Mowbray in 1893 during the International Socialist Congress in Zaire. It was about whether or not anarchists had the right to participate in the congress. Following stormy debates, a resolution was adopted, which meant that only those who were prepared for "political" action should be allowed. At that time, when we seemed to be anarchists out of order, Mowbray once again brought the weighing scales with a pathetic joke. The act of Brutus, he called out, was an excellent political action. We are a political act and must therefore be admitted.
This statement seems to me very well to clarify the remarkable phenomenon that it has become almost an anarchist dogma to kill the heads of state if it appears to be something anarchistic and that almost all attackers in recent decades have assumed anarchic ideas. Anyone who is uninhabited will indeed call that coincidence of circumstances remarkable; because what has people brought to life with anarchism, the teaching of a society to be pursued without state and authoritarian compulsion, what about the state and legal violence? Nothing! However, the anarchists note that teaching and informing have not yet been done enough; that civil society is not possible because of the violence of the rulers; Thus, they conclude, in addition to propaganda with word and writing, and in addition to construction, about destruction; To overcome all obstacles they are far too weak; so they must at least propagate the act and make propaganda through the act; The political parties are conducting positive political action: so the anarchists, the only one, must have a positive anti-political, have a negative policy. This reasoning explains the political action of the anarchists, propagating the act and individual terrorism.
I do not hesitate to speak out in very sharp terms - and I know that I will not reap thanks either for the one or the other side - that although the strategy of the attacks commits the pursuit of a small group, it also applies for the big parties . There is something boisterous. We also do politics, they say; We do not just see it temporarily; one has to take care of us. The anarchists are not anarchist enough to me; they are still a political party, they even carry a very primitive reform policy; The killing of people has always been part of the reform efforts of primitives; and Mowbray's Brutus was a short-sighted reformist politician. When the American rulers, without taking into account the law suspended a few anarchists who were not involved, they acted as anarchically as any attacking officer - and perhaps, as well, from idealism. Only dogmarians might want to deny the existence of fiery and sincere state ideals. Anarchists are self-evident to most dogmatics; they will call that I, who still measure me the right to give my worldview the name of anarchy, expresses my own truth without exception; They are also opportunists and will find that it is not the time for such statements. However, I think that is precisely the moment.
However, it is also an anarchist's dogma, for example, saying: Every day, our sisters and so many workers, brothers and so many soldiers, and so many tuberculosis sufferers are killed by our murderous conditions; what do they want to shout with that shout? They say that McKinley (the American president killed by an anarchist in 1901) is not more important than one of those others. With permission! Here too I will be too anarchist to my anarchists: McKinley's death has shocked me much more than that of a roof worker, which would be dropped by a poorly constructed roof rack. That's old-fashioned and I like to but if someone surrounded by the shining of perfect power, arrogant and with good conscience is shot by a fellow man, he reaches the hand, then when the eyes of millions are on his death bed, then I see this as a real tragidy, which this individual, who may have only had a moderate mind and has been a less noble person, surrounds with a aureol. I would like to add that the attacking officer is also closer to me than the unfortunate man who had torn the scaffold badly. It's quite a matter of life.
I do not intend to explore the psychology of the attacking physician here. It may have to be called a new type of suicide, rather than heroes or martyrs. For someone who believes nothing but in this life and who is bitterly disappointed by this life, who is filled with a kidding hatred against the states that have destroying him and finds him unbearable, it can be a devilish and seductive thinking of taking someone else from up there and suiciding through the court and front of the worlds eyes. And at least as tempting is the thought that comes back to you in thousands of different ways in the anarchist literature: in front of the authoritarian violence the free violence places the rebellion of the individual.
That's the basic mistake of the revolutionary anarchists, whom I've shared with them for a long time, believing they can violently reach the ideal of nonviolence. They strongly oppose the "revolutionary dictatorship" provided by Marx and English in their Communist Manifesto, as a short transition stage after the Great Revolution. That is self-deception; Any exercise of violence means dictatorship, provided that it is not voluntarily tolerated and approved by the mass commissioned. In this case, however, it is about authoritarian violence. Any violence is either despotic or authoritarian.
The anarchists must realize that a goal can only be achieved if the goalhas already been dyed in the color of that purpose. Never will violence come to violence. There is only anarchy, where anarchists are true anarchists, of those who do not exert any violence. I do not really say anything new about it; It's the same Tolstoj told us for a long time. When the king of Italy? By Bresci was murdered, Tolstoj published a beautiful article, culminating in the words: don't kill killers, but make them clear that they should not kill. The text was even sharper and the article contained such hard clash with the rulers that it was printed in anarchist magazines; Also those passages were, I would like to say, succinctly or nonchalantly, but as if it were a gril, no further attention was paid.
The anarchists will oppose: if we are violenceless, let us take all the robbery and suppression; then we are not free men but slaves; We do not want non-violence from individual individuals, but a state of nonviolence; We want anarchy, but then we must first stop or take what became desolate or remembered. That's such a basic mistake: that the world could or should bring anarchism to the world; that anarchy is a matter of humanity; That should first be the big settlement and then the Millennial Empire. Someone who wants to bring freedom to the world - that is to say, his concept of freedom - is a despair, but not anarchist. Never will anarchy be a matter of mass, it will never happen through an invasion or armed insurgency. Nor can federalist socialism be achieved by waiting until the capital accumulated until now and the land ownership comes into the hands of the people. Anarchy is not something for the future but of the present; not something of demands but of life. It should not be a question of nationalization of past achievements, but for a new nation, which, through small columns of domestic colonization, converges among the other peoples, here and there, into new communities. Ultimately, it is not about the class struggle of the possessors against the owners, but becoming free, innerly strong and self-control figures from the mass and uniting themselves into new structures. The old contradiction of destruction and rebuilding begins to lose its meaning: it is about forms of something that has never existed before.
If the anarchists would know how close their ideas are to the deepest ground of human being and how inexplicably far they bring from the massacre's hassle, they would shamefully admit how much the distance goes between their actions , their superficial behavior and the backgrounds of their worldview; then they would realize that being an anarchist is too banal and too simple to kill McKinley or to raise such unnecessary fears and tragedies. Who kills dies. Whoever wants to create life must have a new life and be born again inwardly. I should apologize for the fact that I make "propaganda for anarchism" on neutral soil, if I were not convinced that what I would like to do without saying, call anarchy, a general feeling is that found with every human being who thinks about the world and soul. I mean the urge to bring yourself once again to the world, reform your own way and then shape the environment, your world, as far as your ability reaches. That ultimate moment must come for everyone; that moment when he, in order to speak with Nietzsche, creates the original chaos in himself, in which he as a spectator drives the drama of his drift and his urgent inner things for himself, to then determine which of his many characters in him the boss has to play, what is his own, distinguishing himself from the traditions and legends of the ancestral world, what the world should be for him and what he should be for the world. That's what I'm calling an anarchist, someone who has the will to not play the doubles for himself, who has kneaded himself like a fresh dough in a decisive life crisis, knowing and acting in himself, as his secretest being calls him . For me, someone is without boss, free, owner and anarchist, someone who is his own boss who has determined the urge of who he wants to be and who is his own life. The road to heaven is narrow; The way to a newer, higher form of human society is through the dark, ominous gate of our instincts and the terra abscondita of our soul, which is our world. The world can only be formed from within. That country and rich world we find through chaos and anarchy, through the unheard of, quiet and unthinkable experience, we discover a new human being; each in itself. Then there will be anarchists and anarchy, scattered here and there, singles; they will find each other; they will kill nothing but themselves in the mystical death, which are sunk in themselves to lead to regeneration; with the words of Hoffmannsthal they will be able to say about themselves: "As surely as the ground under my feet, I have taken away from the old." Only someone who has been creeped by his own person and has been deeply worshiped by his own blood helps to create the new world without interfering with other lives.
One would misunderstand me very much if one would think that I preach quiism or resentment, abandoning action and outward activities. Oh no! one must join forces to work for municipal socialism, including neighborhood, consumer and housing co-operatives; one has to set up public gardens and libraries, one has to leave the towns, one has to work with shovel and hoee, one has to simplify the whole outward life to free space for the mind; one must organize and inform one has to work for new schools and winning the children; however, all that conquers only the past, if it does not happen in a new mind and from the newly conquered inner world. We all await something great, something unheard of, our whole art is full of a chilling and silent suspicion of something that's going to happen: it will come out of our being when we force up the unknown unconscious in our minds as our mind does not mistake itself in the fact of the non-mental psychic that we are waiting in our crowns when we become new; then the suspected world will come about, which can never bring outer development. The great time will come for people who are not only sick of states and institutions, but of themselves. Do not kill others but themselves; that will be the sign of man who creates his own chaos to find out what is the oldest and best of him and to become mysterious to the world, that which he brings into the world from an unknown the world seems to be inflamed with him. Someone who lives into the world that flows into him, creates his own life, someone who experiences himself as a world radiant, and not as a stranger, who comes, and does not know where it goes, and does not know where to go; For him, the world will be like himself. Those people will live together as common, as united people. That will be anarchy. That is a far removed goal, but it has come to pass that life is incomprehensible for us if we do not intend to drive on the unbelievable one. To us, life is nothing and iniquity, if it is not a sea for us, something infinite that promises us eternities. What reforms, what politics, revolution! After all, it is always the same. What anarchism! What the anarchists pretend to be the ideal society is far too intelligent, takes too much into account just given it, in order to ever and truly be reality. Only someone who takes into account the unknown, calculates correctly. Because life and the actual human being in us are unnamed and unknown to us. No war and murder anymore, but rebirth.
However, one would again misrepresent my words if, in this amended view, one wanted to discourage the versatile, cohesive and innovative activities of free, undogmatic socialism. Perhaps people like us who have devoted their work to such matters for years are inclined to point out to all of this at the moment, where childhood belief in a radical change is manifested everywhere, which it sees it Socialism is not something that rises behind the facade of bourgeois society as a new, radiant whole, but something that grows and penetrates into our capitalist world itself. This realization is, of course, it's starting to pay too much, than we can find ourselves in the new way so quickly. There has been something heroic, hardship and practicality in current socialism. That is undoubtedly gratifying, but our year-olds were so used to the half-darkness and the romance of expectation and preparation for the sudden that we should be given some time to get used to this new way; it is not lacking in fresh forces that are at work. I am also very well aware that the masses who want to liberate themselves from social woes and insecurity are very limited to the most important cultural needs and psychological distress I am talking about. It is indifferent to us for which we fight separate people and it would once again bear witness to a corrupt romance if one believes that the innovations that the socially dependent and the poor mass need to be identical or inextricably linked to the material change of humans that I am talking about here. We must learn that there are countless ways, by the state or out of state to get the mass of its place; We need to learn to differentiate any improvement, any renewal, in conjunction with our highest and ultimate purpose unconditionally. It is a wonderful idea to link the well-being, the development of the masses and the deepest necessity of culture so that both goals can be achieved in the same way; that is incorrect, as all such rigid, highly-defined abstract ideas are incorrect. We have long regarded socialism as a vague, comprehensive worldview, a magic wand that opens all the doors and solves all the questions; We could now know that everything in the world beyond and also in our soul is so confused that there is never a single way that could lead everyone to a goal. What I hereby say is in no way a call to the human society; We must realize that there are different stages of culture next to each other, and with a calm heart, let us not even make the dream come true, that everyone has to be raised to the same level. So no call. I just want to describe the inner condition, from which individual people may be so far as to survive the other communism and anarchy. I just want to say that this freedom must be born and fed first in the deepest of man before it can be seen as an appearance. Also, socialism has gradually become something old; It has combined everything, which today breaks down into several separate things. Everywhere the dogmatics end, and the battle ends with lies that have been placed as border posts at the beginning of a new era; everywhere, words are real and flowing, something unrecognizable and shaky. Brightness, however, exists only in the land of shame and words; where life begins, the system keeps up.
The anarchists have so far been far too much systematic and people who have been stuck in rigid and narrow terms; and that is the last answer to the question why anarchists see something in killing people. They are used to not having connection with people at all, but with concepts. For them there are two fixed, divorced classes, hostile to each other; they do not kill people, but the term exploiters, oppressors and state representatives. Thus it has come to pass that the people who are often human in their personal lives are often the most humane in public to surrender to inhumane acts. Then their feelings of life are turned off; they act as thoughtful beings, who, like robbery of the Goddess of Reason, are the separating and condemnating subjects. From the judgments of the cold, innocent, ignorant, lifeless and life-threatening logic, the killing of death sentences condemned by the anarchists. Anarchy, however, is not so close to it, kils and clearly, if the anarchists have thought; if their anarchy becomes a dark, deep dream, rather than a theoretically achievable world, their ethics and their actions will only take place in one way.