Attack on the headquarters of Bayer AG

  • Posted on: 8 October 2018
  • By: thecollective

via act for freedom now!

During the night of 24 to 25 September 2018, we destroyed some of the windows of the headquarters of Bayer AG, pharmaceutical society resident in the 9th district of Lyon.

In this troubled world where the border between friendship and enmity is increasingly uncertain and changing, the mercantile society is still generous enough to produce some really bad villains. Bayer AG, parent company of zyklon B, and mustard gas, whose non-exhaustive list of horrors includes laboratory tests on women deported to Auschwitz and the flow of products infected with HIV. In the top 100 of the most polluting multinationals the monster Bayer AG merges this year with the horrifying beast Monsanto Company. Monsanto Company, parent company of agent orange, of a GMO seed with the sweet name of “terminator” and glyphosate currently at the centre of several thousand procedures for its carcinogenic properties. The north wind brought us the hearty echo of a well-deserved attack on the seat of one of these companies in Loos. At the start of autumn, while here in Lyon we are preparing for the return of our dear Gerard Collomb, we got it into our heads to make this beautiful action resonate even louder.

So, late into the night of September 24 to 25, we mustered our courage and beat our hammers many times on the pearly facade of Bayer AG headquarters, in the 9th district of Lyon. To get their poisons get out of our plates, their diseases out of the earth and our bodies. And because a minister’s resignation and climate marches will change nothing we are calling for the echo of this modest attack to continue to resonate. On their showcases and in our hearts.

Direct Action For A Better Life

Some fireflies


Translated by Act for freedom now!

via: Attaque



Same old tactics with debatable outcomes and even more debatable intensity of damage, yet the suits and their pigs only keep improving in tactical and technological advantage. Tho this is low intensity enough to not get those involved in deep trouble, this ain't achieving much neither. least if you wanna smash windows of some big-shot offices (and privileged artist lofts, please?) of northern countries, couldn't you just wait in the winter!?

Time for modesty has passed. Keep the modesty for your own interactions in daily life. Ambition is what is needed these days.

Sez some twat on the Internet

As an indication of the intensity of such tactic, smashing windows of some big business, and one that's not even a domestic company is within the things undercover cops would do, in order to give themselves some insureecto cred. Not snitch-jacketing here... just saying that this is some very safe stuff that doesn't necessarily embody an anarchistic insurgency. Reds or liberals could be behind this shit too.

What we need is a Black Army of sorts; not cheap, low-efficency tactics that appear to be made to justify a communique. People who accept the notion that we are at war with the capitalist technocracy... but not a war that has to be Rambo Anarchy all the time. Think of shocking, harmful deeds that wouldn't even need a communique, instead. Things that truly shake up the power dynamics.

Still writing bad fan fiction?

You honestly believe that somebody will read this comment, start the "black army" and then praise your genius?

It all started with an @news anon!

You gotta admit that harmless windows-smashing like we used to do for a decade won't get anarchism much further than fiction, anyways. What's the point in reproducing stuff that hardly works towards your goals? Doing the same petty deeds with the same communiques you had back in like 2010 or something.

Nothing came out of this; just face it and grow the fuck up. Insurrection cannot be a matter of faith, that's just insanely delusional.

There are so many ways -violent or not- to be effective against a corporate mega-business like Bayer. Like through these myriads of interesting tactics or even longer-term strategies, they went for the monolithic sucker-punch action, based on the metaphysical Chaos Theory belief of an escalating insurrection out of signals of dissent?

I think your problem is more about this weird misapprehension that you can give advice to a huge, amorphous mass of angry anti-social sentiments with thousands of different motivations and levels of understanding. There's no suggestion box at the front desk of anarchy, ok?

If you want to play Tyler Durden, face it, you're going to have to start a cult or something. As for the rest of your rant, I personally believe that a lot of contemporary @s fail to appreciate that most of the "peak militancy" of various anarchist tendencies in history had a very parasitic (symbiotic if I'm generous) relationship with broader leftist revolutionary movements.

Today, especially in the US, the left is almost completely destroyed, so there's no wellspring for anarchists to get their water. You don't get capable militants from a hodge podge of student activists and homeless addicts. A lot of the street fighters from the turn of the last century were all veterans from WW1, for example. Europe was awash in angry people with battlefield experience and untreated PTSD.

Dilettantecy not militancy I say. I agree that anarchism has needed a symbiotic relationship with the left for the purposes of greater forms of affection. What anarchy needs is more discursive self initiation and drive without a greater affecting discourse.

Now, from that, I'm not inherently against discursive symbioses with a larger discourse but I think anarchism and anarchy need to diversify it's dealings with a larger ideology. If there is to be a left to be in symbiosis with it should only be a left that has a strong anarchist structural element to it. For this reason I've suggested the existence of a baseline libertarian left that is distinct from all the other red hot messes. Also consider non-leftist options like certain neo-classical ideologies that have a claimed anti-state posture. They may be problematic but they could be useful. I'm talking about the gold and blacks of course. Anarchists actually did use to associate with them before the late 90s when the anti-globalization movement took off. To me this was a mistake as anarchism became once again to awash in red and green ideology. This all goes back to my orange and blue alternative as alternative discursive affectors.

Anarchism and anarchy is entering a new formative stage right now and usually this is time for it to return to the philosophical, literary, poetic and aesthetic corners where it is strongest. Forge a new discourse there and when a new anarchism and anarchy comes about don't put your eggs in one basket. Right now for instance you have a 4chan body of counter cultural memers who are products of a dead end neo-liberal society who have been rejected by the IDPol left who are ready to go. Give them a strong anarchist structured discourse that keeps them from going down the ugly leftist roads and have a strong ready made post-left discourse be ready for the most talented of that cohort.

There's no such thing as "ditching militancy" any more than you can ditch gravity. Violence is eternal and true politics is defined by those who have the capacity for it versus all the windy little sheep, encouraged to pretend anyone gives a damn about their opinions.

Which one are you, "bartleby"? :)

Militancy is a supplemental form of violence that is based on more underlying structures of existence. It is not a necessary solvent for existential change by any means. As far as anarchy goes it is far more important to have productive dissociating people then it is to have militant people(think 1970s absenteeism). Violence is best when it is intimate and existentially warranted as opposed to initiated. You also have personal individualistic violence like Novatore which I do not really view as militancy(more sociopathic) which is more sporadic and individually contextual.

Anarchy will involve some violence but it hardly needs militancy.

Oh. So you just don't know what the word means. Why must you always talk and talk when you don't know much about a topic?

"Individualistic violence" with any sort of political or social theory driving it, makes you a militant. That's what the word means.

Next comes the part where you post a text wall about how you want to reinvent the definitions of words. Something, something structuralism and reification. Boredom ensues.

Is not what I'm looking for and the Novatore type is more of a one off then something sustainable that fuels and an ideology. I'm talking about things like 'worker militancy' which is not as important to me as workers who simply focus on immediate survival or have an orientation which stays away from work and politics.

Actually you're responding to what I said and I didn't say anything about workers or whatever it is you think you're on about. Apparently it's your boring anti-leftist bias again.

That's what I'm speaking against. A school shooter or someone who is anti-social and violent is not a militant and if you look at the common definition it usually involves the terms social and political. There is an obvious struggle element to militancy which does not define violence as such.

Yes ... If I randomly attack someone for no reason, that's theoretically just violence, not militancy, although this is a very interesting line of inquiry!

What exactly makes violence social or political?
You mentioned Novatore and I think most people would consider him a militant by any reasonable definition. But my only original point was violence IS politics. The oldest, purest form of it anyway. There's no escaping that grim fact, IMO.

Random commenter just having to interject here for 17:37s total ignorance of psychology and the roots of apolitical violent behavioral responses to emotional issues within the social environment. Didn't your momma and pappa ever make you throw a tantrum or ground you for not doin your chores?

Do you... always completely ignore the context of a statement or ..?

It's not just random violence that need not be classified as militant. A school shooting can have something of an intention behind it.

I would say that what makes violence militant is that usually there is an ideological frame of reference that is primarily driving the person as opposed to a tension and release sort of event. Quite often there is a sacrificial element that drives it. Novatore is something of an agnostic wildcard in terms of how you define him. I could go either way in saying whether his is militant or not but he is certainly not driven by a social political base which is where militants usually come from.

Which is a rather round-about way of you admitting that you don't actually know and might be guilty of some speculation here.

That would be fine, if you weren't constantly proselytizing about how anarchists need to stop doing something that you can't even define very well. Oh ziggy ... We've been here so many times, you and I.

I’ve mentioned what I think militancy generally is and why I don’t think it should be a crutch for anarchism and anarchy. Novatore was a Novel individual who had a naturally violent pathos, not something generalizable. I don’t mind militancy on the margins I just don’t think it should structure anachist anarchic practice.

Militancy is a basic concept ffs.… the reason you're confused is because of all the doublethink around the issue of violence. It's basically just any sort of semi-coherent violent action taken by anyone outside of state sanction.

Also, it DOESN'T structure anything. Or it barely does anyway … it's firmly on "the margins" already so don't worry.

That are not militant such as the examples I gave. Lone wolf violence is not necessarily militant for instance. Beyond that my original point was that militancy is not something that anarchy should crutch on.

Believers in anarchy-ism should never make news - they should just troll anarchist news sites. This is because anarchy-ism revolves around being a serial-pest & spamming from behind a stupid pseudonym like a craven coward. Right, Ziggles?

Snapping or premeditating violence, either way, is a loss of control and spontaneous reversion to tantrum mode or the seething mind obsessing toxic rot of spiteful revengeful tit-for-tat simpleton reflex. Basically, its moronic and lacks style and unpreenable repercussions!

That's just an allegation on your part. I'm using the word like most people do, you're claiming some special, undefined definition.

Therefore, the burden of proof is yours. I'm usually unimpressed with your kooky little theories, by the way.

Whenever you here about these stories of violence in the context of lone wolf or sociopathic attacks the word militant or militancy is usually not used. Usually when the term militancy is used there is some type of supportive base that drives it. The corespondent use of the term actually backs up my points. It's not about an undefined definition it's that the term militant and militancy is simply not applicable to all violent acts including projectual violent acts which can include the likes of school shooters and Kaczynskian mail bombers. Militancy is related to a military war position and the violent contexts I am talking about do not correspond to such terms.

Like I said, you're confused by corporate media's attempts frame discourse around violence. Taken in by the spectacle.

Without propaganda distortions of the issue, a militant is anyone who deploys violence in a semi-coherent manner, outside of the state's attempts to monopolize violence.

Media will attempt to "other" people with labels like "terrorist" or "gang member" or "bad protestor" but it's not a consistent definition of for the word.

Quit arguing with me and you might learn something ;)

This is basically the formal and informal definition that most people agree upon. You're basically trying to turn projectual violence as such into militancy which is absurd and retarded. There is clearly a contextual structure of violence that makes the term militant applicable. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not militants. Militancy is ASSOCIATIVE violence usually backed up by an ideology. Individual or banded in group disassociative violence is not militancy.

What's the point of ongoing discussion if you just forget the things I already said? We covered that already. It needs some social or political coherency of some kind. Stop explaining like a pedant and learn something.

I'm not confused about what militancy is. You are.

Damn, other poster here, you quitter, you keep not answering sir einsiges points with revolving rhetoric and then go all flustered and weak as piss excuse GTFO if you can't handle @news heat!

So you're not familiar with ziggy's work?

I'm very familiar with his comments but have only recently begun skimming through about 20 of my favourite sites, @news ranking 4th presently on my list. His/her comments are quite numerous on this site, and I find them mostly balanced and logical in their opinions and suggestions. I don't see any dogma or ideologically driven bias, nor any ineptitude in the analysis of current political and social tendencies.

Ha! Well we can disagree about the quality of his analysis but I've been talking to him for almost 3 days now so ... I'm a fukin paragon of patience. Also, of the two of us, I'm nowhere near as inclined to repeat myself.

So no, you're not familiar yet.

I don't know why you hold an obsessive compulsion to torture yourself with your own fascination in going back for more defeat at debate and logical appraisal of the available data, but that's your particular fetish I suppose, to entertain random readers such as myself with your foaming at the mouth and getting all riled up vitriol after reading well balanced and argued points over some issue, takes all kinds huh?

Cute trolling. I especially like how I'm apparently "foaming at the mouth" because of internet comments. You know me so well.

Hey listen, you've really spoiled my itinery, I have serious and intelligent blogs to respond to at briebart, huffington and drudgecom and you've wasted my time, which would have been better spent swapping ideas with your nemesis sir enziege. My impatience cannot tolerate you any longer, I wonder about sir enziege and his graceful willingness to bother replying to your regurgitated cerebral discharge, quite noble of him.

K, cool story. Buh bye Le Fool

I'm unsure if you are poster 15:34, I've noticed about this site the layout of replies, so I'm not certain if you mean me or the poster I am replying to, or who this " Le Fool " is, not on this thread anyway, so everything is up to you to be more explanatory in your comments, I guess?

So Wheels, you're sulking now? Sigh, because you realize you are wrong, or you didn't get the flamed response to get you off with your little jar of vaseline and your wife banging on the basement door screaming "WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING IN THERE YOU PERVERTED CUM ON WHEELS !! " ;)

What are you on about? First I'm compulsively here too much, now I'm ignoring you?

Make up your mind sweetheart. None of this matters but it's cute how you're sticking up for ziggles, I suppose. He's a big boy tho!

Look, I don't "stick-up" for people unless they are outnumbered underdogs, I'm just expressing my support of the deduction that violence can be coherent without being described as militant action. The latter requires an organized pretence to arrive at a premeditated action, the former is spontaneous and justifiable response, simple, let's just leave it at that, you agree to stubbornly disagree, and then go away, mkay?

Oh I'm not "going away" any time soon. The funny part is you completely failed to understand the discussion you butted in on.

Ziggy's whole definition of militancy is mixed up with his anti-Marxist crap so he doesn't even know what it is and this whole thing started when he insisted anarchism should "ditch militancy" (it can't) because it's "structured" by a reliance on it (if only).

Actually, there's very little militancy or even much violence in the better part of a century! So how could one be so confused? Too much time online, most likely.

But that's true, anarchism should ditch militancy, that's just an obviously intuitive way of dismantling authoritarian process, wow, you can't even grasp even THAT quintessential property of anarchist agency, *gasps and mimics fainting*

I don't know if I'm crazy to jump in here, but this is the definition of militant from wiktionary:

An entrenched or aggressive adherent to a particular cause, now especially a member of a particular ideological faction. [from 19th c.]

I don't see how it could be controversial in any way for an anarchist to say that we should ditch miltancy. It's not exactly out of left (pun!) field.

Thanks, that's exactly what I and sir enziege have been trying to explain, the nuanced varieties of violence and how militancy is a particularly unarchistic process in relational dynamics, but big Wheels and anon, or are they the same ? onsist otherwise, and maintain a co trary stance as if to stir and troll the besieged sir enziege out of some imaginary holistic anarchistic reality.

The only anarchists who would have a problem with my points are those who want to hold onto a cause or those who want to polticise violence. Ditching militancy is part of disassociating from the structure of ideological sacrifice.

Sigh. It's not "controversial" and it's not interesting. It's simply absurd. The last thing anyone interested in anarchy or freedom or ANYTHING that would draw them to this site needs, is ziggles trying to tell them to "ditch militancy" and "disassociate" even further.

As if there's thousands and thousands of anarchist militants "sacrificing themselves for ideology" and THATS the problem. That hasn't been the case for almost a century. The reality is there's almost no-one willing to do anything except publishing and maybe getting their asses kicked at the J20. So few who could even speak to this topic seriously. You cyborgs are so far behind, you think you're first.

Again, I was the one floating the basic definition of militancy in the first place. Why would anyone need to "ditch" something that isn't happening in the first place? lmfao

Wheels, YOU never sigh genuinely! YOU never really have constructive things to say! YOU seem to mainly troll other posters. YOU should study anarchy 101.

You'll forgive me if I don't trust your judgement or advice ;)

*levitates and drifts away*

There are thousands of anarchists with an ideology of sacrifice, duty, morality, etc. No, they're not actually sacrificing themselves, but the ideology at the root of militancy is ever present. It's abundant among those drawn to self-inflated antifa secret agent spy games. You know, militants. This critique is anti-politics 101.

Hah, the US is awash with angry people with battle experience and untreated PTSD

Not on anywhere near the scale like after ww1.

But they're around, you're right. The online alt-right crap has been trying to activate them, in case you didn't notice. ;)

Oh we Knights of the Compassionate Order are always curing erupting pathologies around us by wielding our claymores of empathy and firing our happy arrows! *hugs burnt-out disabled veteran *

Wow, USian anarchists are pretty good at talking shit and doing nothing.

Some are also good at doing something, just for the sake of doing something about it.

Can't hear you bro! My ears are full of the sound of the #struggle!

Being logical and realistic, I regard life as carcinogenic anyway, since the countries with the highest longevity consume the most carcinogenetics and have the cheapest food within the highest quality of life to the largest percentage of its population. Sucks doesn't it, that anarchist critique is now attacking service providers and industries which the underdeveloped folk of the world crave for. Maybe it the residual Marxist activists unable to control their erupting pathologies in an increasingly pacified majority, but history has shown that anarchist activism is a fail. Anarchists, to retain their title, can only do their own little individual part to forward egalitarianism and eventually replace their name with the individualist anonomous Knights of the Compassionate Order of Existentialist-nihilists.

Yet more anarchy-ist garbage - from a Mr Mandarin, Ziggles, this time, not Zerzan ( Zig and Zag! ) Ya basta. We get the point - you hate anarchism. We heard you - now don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.

*levitates away from crazy comment and drifts away*

*reflects on how cringey these descriptive asterisk posts are*

But yeah, I'm a bit worried about Rat too! Told him there's no commies here, trying to eat babies and worship satan or whatever...

but he just got even more worked up and called me a "commie concern troll"!!!

*crashes to earth*
Methinks he's escaped a rat race?

The Satanic verses of Anarchy-ism contain ever increasing amounts of left-communism in case you've been tuning out Ziggles spamming of this site. There's your child destroying Marxism right there - even if its sometimes phrased as critical-theory &/or inverse-Marxist libertarianism/ survivalism. Please - for the love of anarchism - make it stop. He's even trying to get CHANNERS to come here!
The Zigfield follies - Jesus Fucking Christ...

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Enter the code without spaces.