A proposal for dialogue, solidarity and attack
Incendiary Attack for a Dangerous June
As individuals, it is difficult to speak of solidarity because we do not want to express it as a group, but to individuals whose feelings we feel would be sufficiently close to establish a dialogue.
We feel in solidarity with people who, through their actions and their discourse, seem to convey a will to fight in the here and now against power in all its forms.
For us the most sincere way of supporting individuals in revolt is to revolt ourselves and to attack. That people who consider themselves potential accomplices to be transmitted by force can allow our ethics and passions to guide our actions and not the fear and resignation brought about by repression.
Through the attack we want to break the isolation and express our anger and sadness. In times where distances are no longer counted, we reaffirm offensive and irrecoverable positions.
We believe that if we want to sharpen practices and critiques it can be interesting to share, to confront others. We are not interested in the idea of producing ideas labelled ‘anarchist’ that everyone can accept and adapt to their local discourse or context. We like the dissent and conflict that allow us to take a stand. We are as disgusted by the omnipresent apathy as we are deeply moved by the beauty of those who revolt without waiting for either objective conditions or the favourable social ground or the strategic moment. Our choices will never be convenient since they are always in motion. We have no one to convince, nor any desire to wait until we have a thousand plans, only the desire to meet other accomplices in the impatient and irrepressible urge to fight.
The attack can take many forms and for us the interpersonal dominations must be at least as much attacked as this existent which chokes us. We do not want to focus on one another. We reject this logic and want to make each aspect of our insubordination visible. In support therefore with those who take action in the face of repression, in their affections, their friendships, their sexualities.
We do not live in the past, we do not want hope for the future, our revolts have no future, so they can not be postponed until tomorrow.
Even if we advocate conflict, we think that debates about praxis have all to often crystallized around polarized positions that do not reflect the complexity of the points of view. We reject consensus at all costs but do not want to participate in a dogmatic struggle. We are really excited by the idea that attacks are varied and we are not satisfied with certain debates (recurring signatures or not, for example). Even if it seems really important to us to communicate our actions and we do not find ourselves insurrectional perspectives, we do not feel the desire to break with people whose attacks are part of this goal.
We respond to the call for a Dangerous June because it expresses these nuances well.
During the night on Thursday we penetrated within the enclosure of the ENEDIS building in Crest, supplier of the energy that allows in particular this world of shit to turn. We spilled 10 liters of gasoline and lit it with hand lighters (we had a plan B in case the hand lighters failed). 10 liters of gasoline made it a breath of fresh air. When the grille was put back in place, the building was in the grip of the flames. We learned later that they had largely devastated it.
A little thought for the incendiaries of Grenoble, we found your method of attack and communicating particularly relevant. Your critique is very well articulated, we could not have done as well. But we want to take advantage of the opportunity to raise a few points, and thus participate in the creation of a dialogue through attack.
We share your observation about the nuisance of technology. Nevertheless it is only one aspect of the new forms of domination. For us, at the genesis of these nuisances there is civilization itself. So we do not want to attack technology as one of the excesses of the system, which we could transform / replace, but as one of the aspects of the domestication of life. We do not want to be content with a criticism of capitalism but to challenge the very concept of society (as fair and egalitarian). We are against all societies because they can not exist without the submission of the living beings that they are composed of. Whether it is through smartphones, Linky counters but also via work, family, culture, morals, justice, the exploitation of fauna and flora…
To fight against technology, it seems necessary for us to question the process of domestication that makes us civilized beings. We wanted this kind of critique to be a kind of interpersonal discussion, and to share it with you. So we can always find new angles of attack, new weaknesses, new targets.
The joy we felt that night, we want to share it with others.
To Krem, because he always knew how to keep silent.
To Kara, because even if she did not know how to keep silent, she had the courage to go back on those statements.
To Damien, because his words and his determination give us strenghth.
To the Brussels anarchists who face an anti-terrorist trial for having fought without mediation against all the prisons.
To the accused of Scripta Manent, who refuse to take on the role of victims.
To Nicola Gai and Alfredo Cospito who have been able to take firm positions despite the risks, and who have given themselves the means of their ambitions.
To those who want to fly away even if they burn their wings.
Konspiration d’Individualités Complices et Kaotiques
(Conspiracy of Complicit Individuals and Chaotics)