Two attacks, two perspectives: Enedis trucks and office torched in France
The attacks these reports are referring to both occurred last month in response to the call for a Dangerous June of rebellious acts in solidarity with anarchist prisoners in Italy. Both targeted the energy company Enedis, though for different reasons in addition to solidarity. The first attack, a torching of vans in Grenoble, takes a specific anti-technology stance; the latter offers a friendly critique of the focus on technology by expanding the fight to society and civilization itself.
Attack #1: Grenoble, France: Incendiary attack targeting 12 vehicles of energy company ERDF / Enedis
source on Insurrection News
29-30.06.17: The most deadly enterprises are strategically adorned with new names. Suez becomes Engie, Vinci becomes Indigo, ERDF becomes Enedis. These changes of appearance do not miraculously deceive. In a world where communication falsifies everything, let us frankly expose those responsible for the organized disaster. ERDF works on the constant electrification of our territories. ERDF is deployed between each production site and consumer home. It is this network, this mesh of cables that plug human beings into dams, wind turbines, photovoltaics and nuclear power plants. EDF, alter-ego of ERDF administers doses of energy control bureaucracy. We will not discuss the insignificant distinctions that others like to make between the industrial modes of electrical production. We condemn them all.
Let us explain the night we destroyed the ERDF vehicles: We had firelighters in our pockets, a few liters of flammable material and our determination, sabotage then became necessary for us knowing the evidence against one of the thousands of avatars of the capitalist infrastructure.
Due to the vital function of this company in flow management.
Due to the environmental devastation caused to the environment where EHT lines run.
Due to our acute addiction to the electrical industry.
Added to this is the small but very harmful device, the Linky. The dangers of this meter have already been explained by others who are more knowledgeable than us. The Linky is just a prelude, a pioneering device in the new wave of domesticating technology that is coming. Domotics is progressing, the old cybernetic dream is embodied. Let us not stop here, let us go back to its roots, to the genesis of nuisances. Behind the Linky lies the omnipresent industry and the logical dispossession of the material means to produce our own energy.
It’s about attacking, and the targets are many. We are attacking those who are responsible for the present state of the world. We are opportunists. Why this target rather than another? Vinci, Suez, Eiffage and the CEA are all enemies. There are others too. Their arrogance is unbearable. We look for weaknesses, seeking where to strike to remind them that people resist and turn their criticism into action.
We wish to share this practice of sabotage. It is old but it is still current. It is putting a wrench in the cogs of the machine. We are aware that the ERDF and their misdeeds will not be stopped by our action. But we are aware that without offensive actions against it, ERDF is free to expand its grip.
It is not a question of dialogue or criticism of ERDF. With the sabotage of these vehicles we attack an enemy, we establish a balance of power, and we demonstrate that we can overcome our fears. Because it is no longer possible for us to contemplate misery by dressing our wounds or simply doing nothing. But sabotage is not an end in itself. This practice is just one of many others in our lives. We choose them in order to fully live our lives.
(via Attaque, translated by Insurrection News)
Attack #2: Crest, France: Incendiary Attack Against the Offices of Energy Company Enedis
source on Insurrection News
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 strength.
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)
*Note from Insurrection News: The original French language text claiming responsibility for this action was posted on June 11th, 2017.