Paris, France – A few clarifications concerning an attack on CGT premises and an ‘anonymous dissociation’



Translated from Italian by act for freedom now!


In the night of 24th-25th June 2016 the comrades of ‘one cell among the many…’ attacked the national premises of the CGT union. The action was claimed, denouncing the collaboration between the unions and the prefecture of police and in solidarity with the rebel prisoners in France and the members of the CCF nearing the end of their trial for their escape attempt; the claim specified that there were some seriously injured people wanted by the police and on the run.

The media frenzy began on 25th July 2016, the CGT representative Martinez, several ministers including the minister of labour El Komhri, the interior minister B.

Cazeneuve and the prime minister M.Valls, as well as all the representatives of various union organizations, gave public statements condemning these acts (would you ever have imagined…) pointing out that the police forces would be incremented so as to protect union premises and their officials and to identify those ‘obviously well organized’ responsible for the attack.

Such a political and repressive mobilization cannot be explained by the level of violence used in this attack, which was of relatively low impact (although the media gave it unrivalled resonance), but by the target chosen.

In fact the comrades had demonstrated that it was possible to attack and also enter the building of the union federation in France the most video-surveyed and most protected by professional vigilantes and increased police surveillance during these times of social conflict and state of emergency.

In spite of what Martinez declared, the comrades had managed to enter the building to express their destructive passions, as witnessed by the smashed door. So it was neither lack of time nor the presumed alarm that would have been activated to do anything to prevent it.

The same day, 25/6/16, as the political and media frenzy was in full swing, the anarchist website ‘Brèves du désordre’ publicly dissociates itself from the comrades on the pretext that such an action doesn’t need to be claimed and that they didn’t like the comrades’ perspectives in terms of solidarity.

Here is the short response of the comrades responsible for the attack following the dissociation (comment on Indy Nantes):


So it’s dissociation not from the act itself but from the claim – and so, by extension, from the individuals who drew it up:

The reason given: there is no need to claim an action whose meaning is clear, those who don’t get it are just ‘blind and anesthetized’.

This is also the reason why our anonymous dissociated ones considered it opportune to let off an anti-union tirade  – quite pertinent after all – very similar to a claim…

Besides, the clarifications supplied would certainly have been appreciated if their author/s hadn’t thought it necessary to attribute false intentions to the comrades, authors of the claim, insinuating that the use of the word ‘betrayal’ suggests a past connivance with the unions under attack.

(Deliberately?) omitting the conditions under which the comrades had drawn up the claim, seriously injured and hunted by the police, not perhaps having the time or the chance to analyse the role of the unions, which was lacking in the communiqué, according to our dissociated friends.

So, it’s easy, when we are sitting comfortably in front of our computers to blast the claim that the comrades had to put out very rapidly, surely for easily comprehensible medical and security reasons, before leaving each other, and in order not to let Martinez’ (1) and police’s declarations be the only ones to speak. In such a situation there’s no time to focus on the form with respect to solidarity, using the verb ‘must’ instead of the commonly accepted imperative form– as if this changed anything in terms of ‘authoritarian language’.

In the end, it would have been possible to add all this analysis on the role of the unions along with the claim, which is being opposed in all manners, without saying, even unintentionally, ‘it’s not us, go and look elsewhere’ to the enemy…

It could have been, even in a preparatory phase, a text anonymously proposed and more widely drafted, that would have integrated the action and its claim, so that a clear analysis would emerge.

And that could suddenly have been complementary to the proposal in ‘Brèves du désordre’, without ownership, and without exclusivity, it was anonymous.  One who had acted in the ‘cell among the many…’ created for the occasion, that has no name, but which has practice (2).

(1) President of the CGT.

(2) The practice of attack and clandestinity, not of some exclusivity or imaginary ownership.


We affirm that it is intolerable to dissociate oneself from comrades on the run, wounded, in the media spotlight, just to improve one’s own way of communication/propagation of the subversive idea.

Moreover we believe that the debate on anonymity, which the partisans of non-claiming assert has been aborted, on the contrary continues to live through actions and their claims, messages of solidarity, the response to international callouts and proposals; it also continues to exist in all anonymous acts, sometimes carried out by the same comrades, with some ‘religious’ ones to dissociate themselves again.

In complicity with the ACCA cell and the CCF, both of whom have suffered jibes from the ‘anonymous dissociation’ during the most difficult times.

A special wink to the Gianfranco Bertoli Anarchonihilist Commando, which claimed itself of the FAI / FRI and the anarchist cell ‘les Casseurs’, who really act in complicity – among others with the ‘rebels in France’, with fire.

Equally a wink to all those, anonymous or not, who really act through destruction, fire, the spreading of ideas in every way imaginable without ever dissociating themselves from the comrades in the heat of the repression.

For informal organization and polymorphous action,

Let’s take back Chaos!

A few anarchists, anonymous today…

In French