LETTER FROM K.KARAKATSANI (greece)

LETTER FROM K.KARAKATSANI

 1. About the "Agreement" 


 Avoiding public controversy, I could not answer the statement of those who claim my attitude in order to put together the pieces of their scattered obtuseness. But I am doing it, to be consistent in my commitment to the wider struggle. I do not intend to step on the backs of others to rise seemingly, either way I have things to say.
But it would be very cheap and also would not help the political situation, to limit myself to what we said and what we did not say with some. The essential ruptures liberate so now I have no hesitation to break the taboo of public criticism of fighting actions. And of course, since some spoke more than they deserve, I have to mention issues that I would otherwise consider have no place in a public text. First, therefore, I will clarify my position, but i seek also to give food for thought from the moment we stand embarrassed in front of unfamiliar situations. 
I will begin with the matter of the "agreement" that supposedly I made with my co-defendants. They wrote that they "talked seriously about the possibility of the trial to happen behind closed doors and how they would react to this possibility. From my side, I never participated in such discussions did not move on any pre-planned common action. The only thing mentioned to me, was the matter of the audience, ie not to let cops occupy seats so the largest possible number of people in solidarity can enter the room. This was the only thing we had reached an agreement on and all other requests came suddenly into the spotlight. Which means, their claim was not the product of an understanding or at least I did not know such a thing. Of course I did not express any objections to any demands and what happened the first day had my consent. Certainly for a moment I viewed the withdrawal as a gesture of protest because no one knew of the possibility of a trial in absentia. From the moment we were informed about it, everything came under discussion again and while I was possessed with skepticism, I avoided making hasty moves and statements that I could not process, within the very tight time frame. So, I did not commit to something, leaving temporarily a gap in my attitude. And because i functioned completely individually, like I intended, I did not communicate my thoughts to anyone. So, if I left room for misinterpretation, it was my fault and I accept it of course. Between that I agreed to enter demands and that I agreed to be tried in absentia, is a great distance. That I was asked and "assured that I still agree" and other such things that were written, is obscene lies.On the contrary they knew that I have not told my lawyers that i will cease them. But anyway, since the beginning of this case up to now I move completely independently, so I think I have not given any impression to my co-defendants, so they can imagine such agreements, that prerequisite proper consultation, the intention of fighting coexistence and comrade feeling. Concepts certainly that do not characterize our relations .. and made it clear to them, by telling them in the holding cells from the start: "you should know that i do not feel any unity with any of you". 
Meanwhile, in the intervening week until the next court, it should have been to everyone visible my differentiation from this situation: my lawyers do not participate in the press conference, my parents do not sign the text of the other parents, I do not align myself with texts and statements of the others. It is therefore obvious that I am handling this case alone and I will never proceed to cooperate with some, that as more suspicious now, I think that perhaps they wanted to turn the trial into a spectacular blockbuster and would find a reason either way to do so. (To be honest I do not think they all had the same intention)

2.about the court

In a previous letter I have already referred briefly to the reasons I chose not to leave the trial. We have as first fact, a court in full alignment with the regime's totalitarianism. This is anything but surprising, as it is included in the overall context of the "special treatment" of dissidents, where everything is converted to "special". Transport conditions, conditions of detention, conditions of litigation. And we experience it as "special" arrested, imprisoned, accused. Through this, expressions such as "legitimizing the practice of the judges" is the definition of a superficial approach. Nobody goes voluntarily to a court. So when any revolutionary is in a court with "special" features he/she "legitimizes" its practices, and therefore its existence? When they transfer you with bulletproof vests and stretched out automatic machine guns, you legitimize this process, and hence the existence of the anti-terrorist police? When we were in the offices of the prosecutors, did we "legalize" them as well? When you are a prisoner, again against your will, do you "legitimize" the existence of prisons? And because we are in places that naturally have hostile characteristics (holding cells, courts, prisons), generally what we do is to "legitimize" state terrorism? Eventually, everyone can experience in our time such procedures, but the question is how we stand in them. And if anyone still believes that the presence in court means "legalization ", then they would do well not to attend any proceedings for this case, nor another, nor to the appeals courts. Because the id cards will continue to be held and generally the same conditions will not cease to exist. We will be here. No one else, except time will decide who is consistent in his choices. To not attend a trial demeaning it, is a respectable choice of denial. Not going to a trial because you wanted to do something and it did not work out and you are trapped in your own selfishness is a result of bad strategy.

As for me, I'll be there in order not to become a spectator of my conviction, especially when it is a case in which I do not accept the charges and my prosecution in general. And of course, every trial of such type can not but target from our side to the confrontation with the state, the emergence and diffusion of subversive ideas. And not to consume the insurrection of each one, creating a force field although strong, ineffective. 

3.about the hunger strike.

Soon the situation slipped from the bipolar of presence or absence from the trial. It took other dimensions, when it was decided by some to start a hunger strike, in order to return to the trial after their demand concerning the holding of the identities is met, something which was obviously impossible. If the mobilization was decided considering no one will go to the trial (as they said), then the trial would finish rapidly. The strike would not have had time to evolve, the sentences would be announced, the state would have ignored this mobilization and it would have been permanently exempted from the  Halandri case, without any discomfort. And on the other hand we dispersed in prisons all over the place with a sense of dissatisfaction on our consciences. With these facts, it is worth wondering where they base the assertion "we could have achieved a significant victory". Not only  there was no chance of victory, but in my opinion, the matter was also placed on a wrong base. The defeat was prescribed and that is why there was an attempt to avoid the strike. In the end it started a week late, for selfish reasons, just because it was announced. 

And in the end, my presence at the trial marked the gaining of time. If the hunger strikers had taken their task seriously, they could see this as an opportunity to carry out their struggle. To exploit the duration of the trial, bringing the strike to the point where their health would put more pressure, and hopefully on the horizon would appear a promising prospect. But since they gave up, probably its not me who cannot take the weight! Personally I was not interested in any way to occupy myself with this move, since I saw from the beginning the unsuited exaggeration and non-productivity, so I cannot be attributed with any role of influence to it. The state is pressured by those who strike not those eating.

And to finish with the games to impress, let it be clear that these individuals, although they perceived the dead-end of this option, they thought they could not backtrack to not look like they are retreating and so they found in me a perfect excuse to retreat . And of course, when they were in front of their responsibilities, in order to not recognize that they were trapped by their wrong handling, attempted my moral and political obsolescence, in order for their own credibility to remain intact. 
Besides, my attitude was which suited everyone. First: me who I said clearly I did not want to be tried in absentia, nor did I agree to it, second, the piece that also did not want, but expected the divisive factor Karakatsani to take the blame, but also the remaining piece looking for a smooth exit from the hunger strike. This is the piece that unloaded on me all the responsibilities in the review of a political failure of hunger strikers. Which better not be historically recorded as such, but as a result of a political imbalance, because then it reaches the point of commoditization of the instrument, its individual goals and achievements. To not historically be recorded as such, since the movement's legacy remains alive the vivid memory of the hunger striker Christophoros Marinos in 1995 for his liberation, of the Turkish political prisoners in 2000 who were on strike for the white cells dropping dead one after another, the hunger striker Holger Meins exterminated by the German state after forced feeding in 1974, etc. Remain alive the memories to remind us that the strike is not a simple painless instrument but means of struggle in which is compromised the health and life of those who decide to use it. Alive or Dead. Either a winner and standing or a loser and lying down. A middle situation does not exist and no Karakatsani is an excuse to retreat. So lets be a little more modest. An honest self-criticism would have more chances to win the respect, unlike the responsibility feared backlash move, which cast the burden on my shoulders.

I am and I will remain INCONSISTENT for those who trivialize practices and demean forms of struggle that have historically been landmarks of struggles in revolutionary procedures.

INCSINCERE for those who shift their responsibilities to others, relegating even any sense of self criticism . I am and always will be DISRUPTIVE for those who choose moves that are on the verge of self victimization and give reasons to useless subjects to speak of me politically, who sabotage the revolutionary vision, more efficiently than dominance itself. (referring only to the arson in the Law school). And honorably, I am and I will be in the future ENRAGED, for those who adopt attitudes and behaviors that are not recognized within the scope of my political assessment. Also among other things, I will also be a traitor, to anything that does not coincide with my value and fighting positions.

Honest I will be only with those who consciously honour their value codes. My robust respect and consistency therefore will only be enjoyed by those who feel comradeship as the highest good. A concept that should be worn as a crown on our heads, because it is also the lobby of the post-revolutionary order.

P.S.: The reason I sent the last letter was very specific. I wanted to say a few words about the trial, but mainly intended to block some journalists who over did it on my attitude, in order for obvious reasons to promote the “rupture of the accused". A crack that existed anyway, I just thought that i should treat it as an internal matter (of those who sit in the same dock), protecting it from any kind of enemies, visible and invisible, who are flattered by such statements, and not to expose it before all for cannibalism. As it seems, however, I was the only person who respected this value rule. 

P.S.2: In the text of my co-defendants I could see that with a very petty political practice they tried to turn against me also those who stand in solidarity, writing that "I legalize the court's decision to register the people". Obviously i consciously discredit those who deliberately swallow, without chewing, these words. Whatever I say is for those who enroll themselves in the direction of building a strong revolutionary movement with healthy terms that will not step over respect, but promote it, will not cover up its political mistakes, but will learn from them. 

As long as these situations find support within the movement, so long will they destabilize it, disintegrating it from within. 

KOSTANDINA KARAKATSANI 
-female prisons of Koridallos. 25/2/2011

boubouras translations

Panayiotis Masouras: Statement in Solidarity with the “Bombings Case” Prisoners in Chile

13 03 2011thisisourjob.wordpress.com/ From Culmine (March 7, 2011) via Indymedia Barcelona (March 7, 2011):

On March 2, Panayiotis Masouras released the following letter in solidarity with the hunger strike being carried out by the imprisoned “Bombings Case” comrades in Chile.

In a world where most people exhaust themselves over the petty-bourgeois dilemmas produced by modern capitalism, and their common ethical code of self-interest celebrates the importance of saving their own skin, direct solidarity is a way to connect with people we’ve never met face-to-face and yet have fought and are fighting with on the same side: the side whose objective is true rejection of this society and its prevailing structures and perceptions.

It is an attempt to recover time and space, to stand firm beside one’s comrades. It is a permanent commitment to create alternative escape routes while consciously maintaining direct collaboration to spread revolutionary discourse and subversive practice as a necessary intensification of the struggle.

In the war being waged, we have known victory, we have confronted defeat, we have experienced joy, and we have tasted the bitterness of difficulty. In the trenches, between revolutionary forces and the regime’s machinery, losses come as the result of injuries on both sides. Of course, an inseparable part of the revolutionary movement comprises political prisoners, and it is inseparable because it makes us reflect on whether a war without losses can be called a war at all.

The captives express their opinion on how things are going, they take action, they propose solutions, they encounter dead ends, they communicate, and they are affected by severe doubts and anxieties. The discourse they articulate from behind the walls is a way for them to cut through the immovable wire fence and join the polymorphic subversive struggle.

Behind different walls, surrounded by different fences, locked up in cells far away from one another, what we share is the desire for liberation and the intensification of the radical subversive struggle for total disruption.

We continue to be among those decisive minorities that reject the dominant morality. We discover our commonalities in the context of struggle, spreading our ideas and completely rejecting the era we were destined for.

We raise a global barricade against the structures of Domination, and we fight on the side of revolution. We fight until victory.

I send my Solidarity to comrades Andrea Macarena Urzúa Cid, Camilo Nelson Pérez Tamayo, Carlos Luis Riveros Luttgue, Felipe Guerra Guajardo, Francisco Solar Domínguez, Mónica Andrea Caballero Sepúlveda, Pablo Hernán Morales Führmann, and Rodolfo Luis Retamales Leiva, who are captives of the Chilean regime and began a hunger strike on February 21, 2011, demanding the immediate release of all comrades being charged in their case.

—Panayiotis Masouras, political prisoner, Korydallos Prison

Note: The above statement doesn’t mention comrades Vinicio Aguilera and Omar Hermosilla, likely because news hadn’t yet reached Greece that Aguilera and Hermosilla were back in prison and had immediately joined the hunger strike. Another error is the mention of Pablo Morales as one of the hunger strikers, when in actuality he is the only one who has not joined.

Fire Cells Conspiracy Prisoner Cell: Statement in Solidarity with the “Bombings Case” Prisoners in Chile

FROM THE EXELENT thisisourjob.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/fire-cells-conspiracy-prisoner-cell-statement-in-solidarity-with-the-“bombings-case”-prisoners-in-chile/

11 03 2011

From Culmine (March 7, 2011) via Indymedia Barcelona (March 7, 2011):

On March 2, the Fire Cells Conspiracy Prisoner Cell released the following letter in solidarity with the hunger strike being carried out by the imprisoned “Bombings Case” comrades in Chile.

We are have entered a period in which attacks on Domination and its conquered subjects are spreading with undiminished intensity to the four corners of the Earth. Our individualities, despite living and evolving in many different circumstances, share the same positive emotions: disgust and hatred toward this world. We collectivize our negations and arm them with the insatiable desire for action and the burning passion for total liberation. Different borders and languages are obstacles we will demolish to find ourselves side by side, rising up against this system’s orders and decrees, derisively spitting on each law-abiding way of life it offers.

We reject this world—this vast authoritarian construct—and we do not hesitate to point the barrel of our critique at the willingly enslaved majority of the social body, whose defeatist attitude contributes to the preservation of the existing regime. We refuse to degrade, in any way whatsoever, our revolutionary perspective and ethic in the name of wider “social acceptance.” We are proud to be part of the anarchist/antiauthoritarian movement, and we are in favor of all processes and projects that spread the idea and practice of revolution. To us, revolution doesn’t boil down to a specific period of time in the distant future. Rather, it is a response, here and now, to the totalitarianism we see in every expression of Domination. It is our own response to the existential void imposed by contemporary consumer civilization. It is an expression of the rage awakened in us by the agonizing urban environment that restricts our movements and desires, the same expression of rage that can’t be suffocated by the elaborate dead-ends presented to us as “reasonable choices.” It is also all the moments of attack we’ve shared with comrades, as well as the moments to come. It is the enchantment and the magic of connecting praxis to theory, causing little cracks to form in the shop window of determinism. It is all our points of view, and the means of achieving it is the new urban guerrilla war. Self-Organization, Solidarity, Attack, Respect, Trust, and Friendship are its cornerstones, forming the foundation of diffuse urban guerrilla war.

Dozens of our brothers, the well-known but also the unknown, are in prisons here as well as far away. Some of them remain captive on the basis of a few pitiful charges, others because they were unfortunately stopped while carrying out an attack. However, the legal duality of “innocence and guilt” is irrelevant to solidarity, which is a relationship between comrades that considers the dignity and political conscience of each revolutionary. In August 2010, a number of Chilean comrades were arrested during a repressive operation. Eight of them, plus two more arrested in September, were placed in preventive detention, while the rest were granted a provisional release. These comrades are being charged with dozens of revolutionary bombings despite a complete lack of evidence against them. The organizations that carried out said bombings have even stated via communiqué that they have no relationship with the arrestees, whose criminal prosecution by the Chilean state nevertheless continues. The comrades in preventive detention are locked up in high-security wings for 22 hours a day, in cells that measure six square meters. The extension of their captivity fills us with rage. They recently began a hunger strike, demanding their immediate release and the scheduling of their trial date, as well as the abolition of the antiterrorist law inherited by the current Chilean democracy from the Pinochet regime.

We send our warmest greetings to Andrea Urzúa, Camilo Pérez, Carlos Riveros, Felipe Guerra, Francisco Solar, Mónica Caballeros, Pablo Morales, and Rodolfo Retamales, and from the bottom of our hearts wish them victory in the difficult struggle they are engaged in. From thousands of miles away, we send them our revolutionary signals, encouragement, courage, and strength. We call on all comrades, including ourselves, to carry out attacks and aggressive expressions of support for their hunger strike in the context of International Solidarity, thereby giving the powerful a taste of the flames that burn in our hearts. From Chile to Greece, the Netherlands to Mexico, Italy to Argentina, England to Switzerland, Germany to Russia, and the U.S. to Turkey, we will use every method to intensify the revolutionary anarchist war. Finally, many special thanks to comrades  Andrea Urzúa and Mónica Caballeros for publicly expressing their solidarity with our case.

You aspire to the free heights, your soul thirsts for the stars. But your wicked instincts, too, thirst for freedom. Your wild dogs want freedom; they bark with joy in their cellar when your spirit plans to open all prisons.
—Friedrich Nietzsche

REVOLUTION FIRST AND ALWAYS.

LONG LIVE THE NEW URBAN GUERRILLA WAR.

—Fire Cells Conspiracy Prisoner Cell: Gerasimos Tsakalos, Panayiotis Argyrou, Haris Hatzimichelakis, Michalis Nikolopoulos

Note: The above statement doesn’t mention comrades Vinicio Aguilera and Omar Hermosilla, likely because news hadn’t yet reached Greece that Aguilera and Hermosilla were back in prison and had immediately joined the hunger strike. Another error is the mention of Pablo Morales as one of the hunger strikers, when in actuality he is the only one who has not joined.

Update on C.C.F. trial athens 10/3

10/3

Doubts were expressed after testifying in the trial of the case of the revolutionary organization "Conspiracy Cells of Fire", by the cop who had recognized the face of the accused, Konstandina Karakatsani, the girl who was seen entering the house in Halandri.

Policeman A’, Paraskevas Hinopoulos, who headed the operation of surveillance on the home in Halandri the alleged safehouse of the organization, responding to questions from the defense, today was skeptical about whether Konstandina Karakatsani is the same person as the girl who he saw coming and going from the apartment.

"they had pointed out to me another girl as Karakatsani. The girl I see here today I don’t think is the Karakatsani that I thought", said the witness, after the persistent questioning by the defense.

Earlier, testified the former deputy Interior Minister, in charge for matters of public order, Panagiotis Hinofotis on the bombing that took place at his house in Paleo Faliro on July 11, 2009, an act which was claimed by the “Conspiracy Cells of Fire”.

Testifying, Mr. Hinofotis mentioned the explosion was very small, saying it could not harm a human.

UPDATE ON C.C.F. TRIAL greece FRIDAY 4/3/2011

The comrades today asked for the actions that are attributed to them to be recognized as political. At the same time they submitted procedural objections for bad composition of the court as well as for the declaration of the official charges as vague. The objections were rejected repeatedly.

First, A.Mitrousias lawyer submitted three procedural objections that were also supported by the advocates of the present defendants E.Rallis, N.Vogiatsakis, E.Giospas and Konstandina Karakatsani.

Firstly, was submitted an objection of bad composition of court. Second, the advocates submitted an objection of jurisdictional matter of the court, because it is, as he said, for political actions, and not of common illegal acts. The advocates pointed out that the definition of terrorist action, according to the penal code, coincides with the definition of political crime, as this has been given by the the law. The public prosecutor, on the contrary, stressed that according to the Supreme Court the coup d'etat or the attempt of coup d'etat is only considered political crimes.

At this point comrade A.Mitrousias spoke up and commented that it is contradictory of the legal system to recognize the attribution of political criminal only in its “superior” hierarchical layers, as for example colonels that attempt a coup d'etat, but not recognizing it in simple teams of citizens that have a different ideology and wish to change order as we know it.

Thirdly, the advocate of A.Mitrousias, submitted an objection of vagueness of the official charge with the explanation that it includes ambiguities and vagueness in the basic evidence of the criminal actions attributed to the defendants. More specifically, he supported that the official charge does not define with clarity the attributed criminal actions, the place, the time, the way as well as the individuals by which these acts were commited. The court rejected also this objection as unacceptable. It is reminded that the same objection was submitted on the 7^th of February from the lawyer of Konstandina Karakatsani.

 

The trial continues on Monday the 7th of March.

Update on C.C.F. trial 28/2

The trial continued today (28/2), in absent of 6 of our comrades who deny to participate in the procedure, with the testimonies of three cops of the antiterrorist police, that participated in the surveillance of the house in Halandri.

The cops testified in court that, during the surveillance they made on the house, they saw an individual wearing a helmet throwing away garbage bags, where they located suspicious items, which were evaluated afterwards in the laboratories of the police. However, all three, as they said, had not observed any suspicious movement in the house.

The defence advocates of the defendants, that are present in the court, asked the witnesses to explain the reason why, although examined precognitive, they did not recognize no one, while, testifying to the interrogator, they named specific people. The cops insisted today that, seeing the faces on television, they combined the characteristics they had seen and concluded that it was these particular individuals that they named.

The trial will continue on Wednesday 2^nd of March.

notes: from the 9 comrades today 28/2 woes in the court only 5 , A .MITROUTSIAS, KOSTANTINA KARAKATSANI, E. RALLIS, E. GIOSPAS, AND N. BOGIATZAKIS.

LETTER FROM PRISON BY THE ANARCHIST PANAGIOTIS MASOURAS ACCUSE FOR THE CONSPIRACY OF CELLS OF FIRE '''CASE''

"Anyway, everything that happened before the trial, the transmissions of the legislation and the detainment conditions, had made clear to us that we are not dealing with a legal procedure, but that justice was activating as a means of war. In reality what they were interested in was to exterminate us politically. And against this we could not defend ourselves with legal means, there we must act politically.”

Irmgard Moeller

On 17/1/2011 began the special court martial inside of koridallos prisons.

The juridical and executive authority, from the beginning of the procedure had made clear that they are not willing to leave their totalitarian leadership exposed to whoever dares to dispute it.

Their court martial, attempted to isolate its anti-regime enemies from the movement of solidarity that wanted to stand by them. It tried to depoliticize, demean, and amputate the reciprocating quality that characterises solidarity.

Besides the isolation that is attempted though, what stands more perceptible that ever is tomorrows penalization of comrade and friendly relations.

From the photocopying of the information and the retaining of the id cards of those who come to watch the procedure as a necessary condition in order to enter the court room, to the direct and vicious tactic of registering the comrades, with photographs that end up in the drawers of the D.A.E.E.B(Response Directorate of Special Crimes of Violence)

All this structures a strategic plan of the regime and capitalist mechanisms, that have as an objective the consolidation and acceptance of such conditions, aims clearly now at the spreading of a climate of terrorism on anyone who considers it to be necessary to stand in practice next to the political hostages.

The sector of justice is utilized following and imposing the orders of the public safety forces. The structure of co-dependant authorities states clearly the choice of the state mechanism, that attempts to exterminate legally, ethically but mainly politically the revolutionaries. This anti-revolutionary strategic completes a total of polemic that attempts to “cover up” the political opponents to succeed without obstacles our extermination.

The above condition acted as a catalyst for us to realize and co-value the necessity of a position which was going to secure us that one more regime blackmail would be received as forbidden from our side.

It was this specific condition where the 6 imprisoned defendants, after a discussion we had, we decided together, in full conscience and clarity on our choice. If the judges continue to insist on the establishing of this fascist measure, we would leave the procedure denying to legalize it, firing our advocates at the same time as well.

Until this fascist measure changes and the public character of this political trial is secured, we concluded that for us to return would be at least unseemly, so much towards ourselves, as towards the comrades who appeared in solidarity to support us.

For reasons of political consistency and to avoid ethical acceptance, we left the room through our advocates, as the present comrades realized.

At this point it would be important to make some clarifications concerning the total of the people who “participate” in this trial.

In this procedure we are individuals with different political positions, theoretical expansions, different defensive lines, different personal relationships.

In this trial there are two imprisoned members of the R.O. C.C.F., but also other prisoners who deny the charges attributed to us.

Despite this we all met demanding the obvious, discovering thus a community in the frames of solidarity and companionship.

The common decision we took, despite us being different individuals had a common denominator. The practical opposition and dispute to the body of the court.

It was not, neither a decision between members of the organization, but an agreement between people with a substance, conscience and integrity. It is an agreement based on the consistent and political sobriety, against the blackmail of this totalitarian regime.

This collective position means the definition of practical theoretical political bases, that divide the clear and responsible position from political chameleon-ism.

Because the “evidence” that involve me in this case is non-existent and the scenarios of the antiterrorist police arbitrary, it is a fact that if I appeared in the court room the percentage of success of my release would have been practically high and realistic.

There are things though that touch me to the bone and I am not willing to mortgage in a contract that would secure me a more favourable treatment by authority, because if I have room inside me for only one faith, it is for the struggle.

For me the consistency and continuity of the struggle, as well as my denial to appear in their court martial, is one more act for the readopting of the memory of the past, the consistency of the present and the dignity in the duration of the future.

My political positions do not allow me to succumb one more regime or “fighting” blackmail.

I do not retreat, meeting myself in the practice of revolutionary dispute.

I know that the state hunts its enemies like a raging dog. As a political prisoner though I have nothing to bargain.

I declare that I will not appear in their special court martial until this fascist measure changes.

If they are waiting for me to legalize the isolation of the political prisoners in court martials, but also the upcoming persecutions of comrades, I have one thing to say:

REVOLUTION MEANS SELFLESSNESS.

Whoever does not smile in front of the cliff, unfortunately has calculated the hight and inevitably has defined it.

Until we meet again, until the end, until liberation

Long live the subversive Struggle. Long live the Revolution.

Panagiotis Masouras

political prisoner

1^st wing koridallos

February 2011

boubouras translations.