Skip to content or view mobile version

Home | Mobile | Editorial | Mission | Privacy | About | Contact | Help | Security | Support

A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.

Letter to the anarchist galaxy

. | 22.11.2011 19:50 | Social Struggles

Letter to the anarchist galaxy

Actforfreedomnow! receives and trasmits:
En-dessous, le texte se trouve traduit en français…

we are forcing ourselves into a debate which is not ours. And which will never
be so, because it is put on a terrain remaining sterile for the development of
insurrectional perspectives and the anarchist ideas and activities focussing on
this development. You could wonder, so why writing a letter? Because nothing is
closer to our hearts than the liberating and destructive revolt, than the
struggle for the subversion of the existent, because we will never stop to recognize
ourselves in all comrades who decide to attack the structures and people of
domination out of a desire for freedom; because there are few things we cherish
so strongly as the individual will, the striving for coherence and the courage
of putting the fire to the fuse despite everything. Don’t think we are writing
this premises in an attempt to please; they are sincere, as much as is our
concern about the voluntary amputation of the anarchist struggle domain.

Let’s be
clear: more than ever there is a need for the destructive intervention of
anarchists, more than ever it is the moment to intensify, to search for
possibilities and hypotheses enabling the expansion of revolt and insurrection
and in this way fastening the turn-over of this world. But this need and urge
don’t resign us from the obligation to think about what, where, how and why.

Let be
straightforward: for what reasons do anarchists (we don’t have any difficulties
to understand why authoritarians would do so) systematically claim their acts
and sign them with acronyms that have become famous worldwide? What brings them
to associate this road with an excessive form of coherence between thinking and
acting, between ideas and practices, while in fact it is simply the illusory
abolition of a permanent tension which should exist in between them and which
is beyond doubt the moving strength behind the anarchist movement?

extending mania is in risk of casting its shadow over all other acts of revolt.
Not only those acts by anarchists that merrily let pass by the bitter and ever
pill of the claim, but as well and maybe even especially the acting of the more
general panorama of rebellion and social conflictuality. Maybe that is one of
the ‘reasons’ which urged us to the writing of this text. Tired of experiencing
and of finding the anarchist struggle field of attack, sabotage and
expropriation more and more assimilated to an acronym and as such a political
representation; tired of noticing the horizons falsely narrowing into two falsely
opposed choices: or the ‘well-behaved’ anarchism, running behind the assemblies,
social movements and base trade unions; or the ‘bad’ anarchism, being friendly
asked to stamp your contributions to the social war with some acronym- and if
you don’t, someone else will do it for you.

Because we
as well choose to attack. We as well sabotage the machine of capital and
authority. We as well choose to not accept a begging position and don’t
postpone the necessary expropriation to tomorrow. But we do think that our
activities simply make part of a bigger social conflictuality, a conflictuality
which doesn’t need claims and acronyms. But we do think that only when acts are
anonymous, they can truly be appropriated by everyone. But we do think that
putting a stamp on an attack is bringing the attack from the social to the
political field, to the field of representation, delegation, actors and
spectators. And as already has often been said in this kind of debates, it’s
not enough to proclaim the refusal of politics: its refusal implicates moreover
the coherence between means and goals, and the claim is a political instrument,
as are the membership cart, the program, the statement of principles.

On top of
that, there is a confusion which we want to expose, because we can’t continue
simply standing by and watching the content which is nowadays more and more
given to concepts such as for example informality. The choice for an informal
autonomous anarchist movement implicates the refusal of fixed structures, of
membership organisations, of centralising and unifying federations; and thereby as
well of fixed returning
signatures, if not of all signatures. It is the refusal of the drawing up
of programs, the banishment of all political means; and thereby as well of the
programmatic claims which pretend to be in
the position of outlining campaigns. It is the refusal of all
centralisation; and so equally of all
umbrella structures, no matter if they declare themselves digitally ‘informal’
or formal. In a positive way, to us informality signifies an unlimited and
undefined archipelago of autonomous groups and individuals which are forging
ties based on affinity and mutual knowledge, who decide upon that basis to
realize common projects. It is the choice for small, affinitary circles which
make outof their own autonomy, perspectives and action methods the basis for
creating ties with others. Informal organization has nothing to do with neither
federations nor acronyms. And what brought some comrades to speak not only
about informality, but about ‘insurrectionalism’ as well? With the risk of
devaluing the wide panorama of ideas, analyses, hypotheses and proposals, we
could say that ‘insurrectionalism’ contains the methods and perspectives which,
out of a non-compromising anarchism, want to contribute to ‘insurrectional
situations’. The anarchist arsenal of methods for this contribution is
enormous. Moreover, the use of methods (agitation, attack, organisational
proposals etc.) on itself hardly means anything: only in a thought over and
evolving ‘projectuality’ do they get meaning in the struggle. Putting fire to a
state building is beyond doubt always a good thing, but it is therefore not
necessarily inscribed in an insurrectional perspective ‘as such’. And this
counts even less for the choice to for example aim the attacks especially
against rather central, spectacular targets accompanied by confessions of
faith. It is not a coincidence that during different moments of insurrectional
projectualities, the emphasis was put especially on modest, reproducible, anonymous
actions of attack against the more
and more centralized structures and people of the domination, or on the
necessity of well-aimed sabotage of infrastructures that don’t need echo’s in
the media in order to reach their goals, for example the immobilization of the
transport, data- and energy currents of the power.

It seems that
there are not too many perspectives behind the current mania of claims, or at
least, we have difficulties in discovering them. In fact, and this doesn’t
imply we want to underestimate the sincere and courageous rebellion of those
comrades, it seems as if there is especially a striving for recognition. A
recognition by the enemy,
who will hurry up to complete its list of terrorist organisations, often signifies
the beginning of the end: the enemy starts working to isolate a part of the
conflictuality from the larger conflictuality, isolation which is not only the
forerunner of repression (and actually it doesn’t really matter, repression is
always there- we’re not going to weep about the fact that anarchist activities
are always being followed with Argus’ eyes, and so prosecuted), but especially,
and that’s the most important, it is
the best means to combat all possible infection. In the current situation of
the social body, which is ill and deteriorating, the best for power is a
clearly recognizable and definable knife which tries to cut a bit, while the
worst for power is a virus which risks harming the whole body in an intangible
and therefore uncontrollable way. Or are we mistaken, and is it all more about
recognition by the exploited and excluded? But are we as anarchists not against
all forms of delegation, of shining examples which often especially legitimize
the proper resignation? Most certainly, our practices can be contagious, and
our ideas even more, but only on the condition that they bring back the
responsibility to act to each separate individual, when they are questioning
the resignation as being an individual
choice. To set alight the hearts, most certainly, but when lacking the
oxygen of the proper conviction, the fire will extinguish fast and will in the best
case be followed up by nothing more
than some applauding for the upcoming martyrs. And even then, it would really
be too ironic if the pre-eminently opponents of politics, the anarchists, would
take over the torch of representation and, in the footsteps of the
authoritarian predecessors separate the social conflictuality from the
immediate subversion of all social roles, and do this in times when political
mediation (political parties, unions, reformism) is slowly getting completely
finished and outmoded in the facts. And it makes no difference if they want to
do this by taking the head of social movements, speaking the big truth on popular
assemblies or if they want to do it by means of a specific armed group.

Or is it
all about striving for ‘coherence’? Unfortunately, those anarchists that exchange
the quest for coherence for tactic agreements, nauseating alliances and
strategic separations between the means and the goals have always existed. An
anarchist coherence is beyond doubt as well to be found in the denial of all
this. But this doesn’t mean that for example a certain condition of
‘clandestinity’ would be more coherent. When clandestinity is not regarded as a
necessity (be it because repression is hunting or because it is necessary for
certain action), but as some kind of top of revolutionary activity, there is
not so much left over from the infamous a-legalism.
In order to imagine this, it might suffice to compare it to the social
situation in Europe: it is not because
thousands of people are living a ‘clandestine’ situation by the fact (people
without papers), that it makes them automatically
and objectively into a threat to the legalism and crowns them as being
‘revolutionary subjects’. Why would it be different for anarchists living in
clandestine conditions?

Or might it
all be about frightening the enemy? A recurring element in claims is that apparently
there are anarchists who believe they can frighten power by expressing threats,
by publishing pictures of weapons or exploding little bombs (and let’s not talk
about the despicable practice of sending letter bombs). In comparison to the
daily slaughter organized by power it seems kind of naïve, especially to those
who have no illusions left about more sensitive rulers, humanized capitalism,
more honest relations inside of the system. If power would, despite her
arrogance, already fear anything, then it would be the spreading of revolt, the
sowing of disobedience, the uncontrolled igniting of the hearts. And off
course, the lightning of repression will not spare those anarchists wanting to
contribute to this, but it doesn’t prove in no way whatsoever how ‘dangerous’
we are, it maybe only speaks about how dangerous it would be when our ideas and
practices would spread between excluded and exploited.

We are
continuously surprised about how little the idea of some sort of shadow is able
to please the contemporary anarchists that don’t want to resign, wait or build
up mass organisations. We used to be proud about it: we would put all on all to
make the swamp of social conflictuality extend and so making it impossible for
the forces of repression and recuperation to penetrate. We didn’t go searching
for the spotlights, neither for the glory of warriors: in the shadow, at the
dark side of society we were contributing to the disturbance of normality, to
the anonymous destruction of structures of control and repression, to the
‘liberation’ of time and space through sabotage, so that the social revolt
could continue. And we used to diffuse our ideas proudly, in an autonomous way,
without making use of the echo’s of the media, far away from the political
spectacle, including the ‘oppositional’. An agitation which was not striving to
be filmed, recognized, but which
tried to fuel rebellion everywhere and forge ties with other rebels in the
shared revolt.

It seems
that today not just a few comrades have chosen for the easy solution of an identity
over the circulation of ideas
and revolt, and have in this way for example reduced affinity relations to a joining
to something. Off course it is
easier to pick up some ready made product out of the shelves of the militant
market of opinions and consume it, rather than developing a proper struggle
track which makes rupture with it. Off course it is easier to give oneself the illusion
of strength by using a shared acronym, than to face the fact that the
‘strength’ of subversion is to be found in the degree and in the way it can
attack the social body with liberating practices and ideas. Identity and
‘formation of a front’ might offer the sweet illusion to have meaning,
especially in the spectacle of communication technology, but doesn’t clear off
any obstacle from the road. Even more, it shows all of the symptoms of illness
of a not so anarchist conception of struggle and revolution, which believes being
able to pose in a symmetrical way an illusionary anarchist mastodon in front of
the mastodon of power. The immediate consequence is the ever more narrowing of
the horizon to a not so interesting introspection, some tapping on the back
here and there and the construction of a framework of exclusive self-reference.

It wouldn’t
surprise us if this mania would paralyse the anarchist movement again a bit
more regarding our contribution to more and more frequent, spontaneous and
destructive revolts. Being locked up in self-promotion and self-reference with
a communication reduced to publishing claims on the internet, it doesn’t seem
that anarchists will be able to do a lot (apart from the obligatory explosions
and arsons, often against targets which the revolting people themselves are
already very much destroying) when the situation is exploding in their
neighbourhood. It seems that the closer we seem to get to the possibility of
insurrections, the more tangible these possibilities are becoming, the less
anarchists want to be busy with it. And this counts equally for those who are
closing up themselves in some ideology of armed struggle. But what are we
talking about when we speak about insurrectionary perspectives en insurrection?
Definitely not only about a multiplication of attacks, and even less when those
seem to tend towards the exclusive terrain of the anarchists with their fronts.
Much more than a singular armed duel with the state, is insurrection the
multiple rupture with the time, space and roles of domination, a necessary
violent rupture which can signify the beginning of a subversion of the social
relations. In that sense, insurrection is rather a social unchaining which goes
further than a generalizing of revolt or riots, but which carries in her
negation already the beginning of a new world, or in any case should. It is
especially the presence of such a utopian tension which offers some grip
against the return of normality and the recovery of the social roles after the
big feast of destruction. So it may be clear that insurrection is not a purely
anarchist matter, although our contribution to it, our preparation towards it,
our insurrectional perspectives could in future times be beyond doubt important
and maybe decisive for pushing the unchaining of the negation towards a
liberating direction. A priory abandoning these difficult issues, which should
gain importance in a world that is becoming more and more instable, by locking
up ourselves in some identitarian ghetto and cherishing the illusion of
developing ‘strength’ by common signatures and the ‘unification’ of anarchists
that are prepared to attack, inevitably becomes the negation of all
insurrectionary perspectives.

To get back
to the world of fronts and acronyms, we could for example mention the
obligatory references to imprisoned comrades as a clear sign of the restraining
of ourselves in a frame of exclusive self-reference. It seems that once locked
up by the state, these comrades are no longer comrades as we are, but
especially ‘imprisoned’ comrades. In this way, the positions in their already
difficult and painful debate are fixed in a way that can have only two exits:
either the absolute glorification of our imprisoned comrades, either the
absolute disgust which can very fast result into a renouncing of developing and
embodying solidarity. Does it still make sense to continue repeating that our
imprisoned comrades are neither positioned above nor under the other comrades,
but simply in between them? Isn’t it remarkable that despite the many struggles
against prisons, the current turn is again coming along with ‘political’
prisoners and abandoning a more general perspective of struggle against prison,
justice,…? In this way we are in fact risking to complete what the state was
already trying to concretize in the first place by locking up our comrades: by
making them into abstract, idolized and central reference points, we are
isolating them from the whole of the social war. Instead of looking for ways to
maintain ties of solidarity, affinity and complicity across the walls, by
placing everything in the middle of social war, the solidarity is shrinking into
the quoting of names at the end of a claim. On top of that, this is generating
a nasty circular motion without too much perspectives, a higher bid of attacks
which are ‘dedicated’ to others rather than taking strength out of ourselves
and out of the choice of when, how and why to intervene in given circumstances.

But the
logic of armed struggle-ism is unstoppable. Once put into motion, it
unfortunately becomes very difficult to counter. Everybody that doesn’t join
and take up its defence is being compared to comrades that don’t want to act or
attack, that submit revolt to calculations and masses, that only want to wait
and are refusing the urge to put fire to the fuse here and now. In the deformed
mirror, the refusal of the ideology of armed struggle equals the refusal of
armed struggle itself. Off course this is not true, but who wants to hear that,
there is no space for discussion left open for this. Everything is being
reduced to a thinking into blocks, pro and against, and the path which we think
is more interesting, the development of insurrectional projectualities is
disappearing to the back. Under the applause of the formal libertarians and the
pseudo-radicals as well as the repressive forces, who wouldn’t like anything
more than the drying out of this swamp.

Because who
still wants to discuss about projectuality today, when the only rhythm which
seems to be given to the struggle is the sum of the attacks claimed on the
internet? Who is still searching for a perspective that wants to do more than
striking a bit? There is by the way no doubt about that: striking is necessary,
here and now, and with all means which we think appropriate and opportune. But
the challenge of the development of a projectuality, which aims at the attempt
of unchaining, extending or deepening insurrectional situations, is demanding a
bit more than the capacity to strike. It is demanding the development of proper
ideas and not the repetition of other people’s words, the strength to develop a
real autonomy in terms of struggle tracks and capacities; the slow and
difficult search for affinities and the deepening of mutual knowledge; a
certain analysis of the social circumstances in which we act; the courage for
elaborating hypotheses for the social war in order to stop running behind the
facts or ourselves. In short: it doesn’t only demand the capacity of using
certain methods but especially the ideas of how, where, when and why to use
them, and then especially in combination with a whole spectre of other methods.
If not there will not be any anarchists left, but only a spectre of fixed
roles: propagandists, squatters, armed strugglers, expropriators, writers,
window breakers, rioters, etc. There wouldn’t be anything less painful than to
be so much unarmed in front of the coming social storm that each one of us
would have only one speciality left. There would be nothing worse than in
explosive social situations having to determine that anarchists are too much
occupied in their own garden to be able to really contribute to the explosion.
It would give the most bitter taste of missed opportunities when we, by
focussing exclusively on the identitarian ghetto, would abandon the discovery
of our accomplices inside of the social storm, to forge ties of shared ideas
and practices with other rebels, to break with all forms of mediated
communication and representation and in this way opening up space for a true
mutuality which is allergic to all power and domination.

But as
always we refuse to despair. We are aware that many comrades are searching for
possibilities to attack the enemy and to forge ties with other rebels
throughout the spreading of anarchist ideas and struggle proposals, in a time
and space which consequently abandons all political spectacle. It is probably
the most difficult path, because it will never be rewarded. Not by the enemy,
not by the masses and most probably neither by the other comrades and
revolutionaries. But we are carrying a history inside of us, a history which is
connecting us to all anarchists which will obstinately continue to refuse being
locked up, be it inside of the ‘official’ anarchist movement, be it in the
armed-struggle-ist reflection of it. Those that have always continued to refuse
the spreading of ideas being separated from the ways in which we are spreading
them, and in this way trying to exile all political mediation, including the
claim. Those who don’t care much about who did this or that, but who connect it
to their proper revolt, their proper projectuality which expands in the only
conspiracy we are looking for: the one of the rebellious individualities for
the subversion of the existent.

November 20, 2011

- Homepage:


Hide the following 12 comments


22.11.2011 20:08



proper confused

22.11.2011 21:12

wish people would give some context. not a clue what any of that was about



22.11.2011 23:28

The only part of this diatribe that makes sense are the first 3 words "Letter to the...", as there is no "Anarchist galaxy", and the rant goes downhill from there. "You could wonder, so why writing a letter?" Seriously, this nonsense is so incoherent, badly argued and badly written it hurts.

Will Indymedia pleeeassseee STOP accepting posts from agent provocateurs?!



22.11.2011 23:32

Is your strategy for trying to forge ties with other rebels ALWAYS going to involve trying to mis-represent Anarchists as gun-toting maniacs who (in your case) reserve the right to act as judge, jury and EXECUTIONER towards anyone YOU deem to be the "enemy", whilst not actually being intelligent enough to be able to string a proper sentence together?



23.11.2011 01:01

get a blog, mate. it's easy.

This is a 'newswire'. For news.

Your thoughts are welcome, in the right place?


Something Different

23.11.2011 09:48

It really dissapoints me that comments left are so often critical of silly little things and not looking at the bigger picture.We need to work together to beat the current system-please think before being so constantly negative about people who also feel the same way.


Anarchist symbol CROSSED-OUT with a gun!

23.11.2011 10:33

I reserve the right to be constantly negative about people whose posts deliberately LIE about for instance Greek and Russian anarchists, whose posts serve the interests of our oppressors by generating as much antipathy between anarchists and the rest of society as possible, whose posts effectively smear us all as psychotic nutters, and whose posts encourage naive young idealists to commit acts that will endanger innocent people, will wreck anarchist campaigns, and which will (as has happened with the groups this person supports in Greece etc) achieve nothing politically outside of landing significant numbers of activists in jail. Which part of that statement do you need HELP understanding?

As for the symbol at the top of this post, it's not an Anarchist symbol, an Anarchist symbol CROSSED-OUT with a gun



23.11.2011 18:11

This article is utter nonsense. It is a rambling of incoherent babbling.
The author really needs to rewrite this so that it can be understood by the reader.


Is that the Royal "we" you keep using?

23.11.2011 22:47

time to engage with the workers mate

KIng Henry

Its a Royal load of nonsense

24.11.2011 23:18

Seriously, you either need to be mental or have somekind of degree in bullshitty academic talk to understand this.

Put it this way: If the average Sun reader read this, they wouldn't bother after first paragraph.
Your ability as a writer should be to make something understandable to anyone who reads it.
It is not the fault of the reader, it is the fault of the writer

If you want your message to get across - make your writing more accessible



25.11.2011 01:09

It's not so much a case as "translated from the French" as WRITTEN BY A DAILY MAIL JOURNALIST


If you receive flak then you know that you are over the target

25.11.2011 20:02


Expect nothing from organizations. Beware of all existing social milieus, and above all, don’t become one.

It’s not uncommon, in the course of a significant breaking of the social bond, to cross paths with organizations – political, labor, humanitarian, community associations, etc. Among their members, one may even find individuals who are sincere – if a little desperate – who are enthusiastic – if a little conniving. Organizations are attractive due to their apparent consistency – they have a history, a head office, a name, resources, a leader, a strategy and a discourse. They are nonetheless empty structures, which, in spite of their grand origins, can never be filled. In all their affairs, at every level, these organizations are concerned above all with their own survival as organizations, and little else. Their repeated betrayals have often alienated the commitment of their own rank and file. And this is why you can, on occasion, run into worthy beings within them. But the promise of the encounter can only be realized outside the organization and, unavoidably, at odds with it.

Far more dreadful are social milieus, with their supple texture, their gossip, and their informal hierarchies. Flee all milieus. Each and every milieu is orientated towards the neutralization of some truth. Literary circles exist to smother the clarity of writing. Anarchist milieus to blunt the directness of direct action. Scientific milieus to withhold the implications of their research from the majority of people today. Sport milieus to contain in their gyms the various forms of life they should create. Particularly to be avoided are the cultural and activist circles. They are the old people’s homes where all revolutionary desires traditionally go to die. The task of cultural circles is to spot nascent intensities and to explain away the sense of whatever it is you’re doing, while the task of activist circles is to sap your energy for doing it. Activist milieus spread their diffuse web throughout the French territory, and are encountered on the path of every revolutionary development. They offer nothing but the story of their many defeats and the bitterness these have produced. Their exhaustion has made them incapable of seizing the possibilities of the present. Besides, to nurture their wretched passivity they talk far too much and this makes them unreliable when it comes to the police. Just as it’s useless to expect anything from them, it’s stupid to be disappointed by their sclerosis. It’s best to just abandon this dead weight.

All milieus are counter-revolutionary because they are only concerned with the preservation of their sad comfort.


Flee visibility. Turn anonymity into an offensive position

In a demonstration, a union member tears the mask off of an anonymous person who has just broken a window. “Take responsibility for what you’re doing instead of hiding yourself.” To be visible is to be exposed, that is to say above all, vulnerable. When leftists everywhere continually make their cause more “visible” – whether that of the homeless, of women, or of undocumented immigrants – in hopes that it will get dealt with, they’re doing exactly the contrary of what must be done. Not making ourselves visible, but instead turning the anonymity to which we’ve been relegated to our advantage, and through conspiracy, nocturnal or faceless actions, creating an invulnerable position of attack. The fires of November 2005 offer a model for this. No leader, no demands, no organization, but words, gestures, complicities. To be socially nothing is not a humiliating condition, the source of some tragic lack of recognition – from whom do we seek recognition? – but is on the contrary the condition for maximum freedom of action. Not claiming your illegal actions, only attaching to them some fictional acronym – we still remember the ephemeral BAFT (Brigade Anti-Flic des Tarterêts)- is a way to preserve that freedom. Quite obviously, one of the regime’s first defensive maneuvers was the creation of a “banlieue” subject to treat as the author of the “riots of November 2005.” Just looking at the faces on some of this society’s somebodies illustrates why there’s such joy in being nobody.

Visibility must be avoided. But a force that gathers in the shadows can’t avoid it forever. Our appearance as a force must be pushed back until the opportune moment. The longer we avoid visibility, the stronger we’ll be when it catches up with us. And once we become visible our days will be numbered. Either we will be in a position to pulverize its reign in short order, or we’ll be crushed in no time.


nologo supercluster
- Homepage:

Upcoming Coverage
View and post events
Upcoming Events UK
24th October, London: 2015 London Anarchist Bookfair
2nd - 8th November: Wrexham, Wales, UK & Everywhere: Week of Action Against the North Wales Prison & the Prison Industrial Complex. Cymraeg: Wythnos o Weithredu yn Erbyn Carchar Gogledd Cymru

Ongoing UK
Every Tuesday 6pm-8pm, Yorkshire: Demo/vigil at NSA/NRO Menwith Hill US Spy Base More info: CAAB.

Every Tuesday, UK & worldwide: Counter Terror Tuesdays. Call the US Embassy nearest to you to protest Obama's Terror Tuesdays. More info here

Every day, London: Vigil for Julian Assange outside Ecuadorian Embassy

Parliament Sq Protest: see topic page
Ongoing Global
Rossport, Ireland: see topic page
Israel-Palestine: Israel Indymedia | Palestine Indymedia
Oaxaca: Chiapas Indymedia
All Regions
South Coast
Other Local IMCs
Bristol/South West
Social Media
You can follow @ukindymedia on and Twitter. We are working on a Twitter policy. We do not use Facebook, and advise you not to either.
Support Us
We need help paying the bills for hosting this site, please consider supporting us financially.
Other Media Projects
Dissident Island Radio
Corporate Watch
Media Lens
Earth First! Action Update
Earth First! Action Reports
All Topics
Animal Liberation
Climate Chaos
Energy Crisis
Free Spaces
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Public sector cuts
Social Struggles
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Major Reports
NATO 2014
G8 2013
2011 Census Resistance
Occupy Everywhere
August Riots
Dale Farm
J30 Strike
Flotilla to Gaza
Mayday 2010
Tar Sands
G20 London Summit
University Occupations for Gaza
Indymedia Server Seizure
COP15 Climate Summit 2009
Carmel Agrexco
G8 Japan 2008
Stop Sequani
Stop RWB
Climate Camp 2008
Oaxaca Uprising
Rossport Solidarity
Smash EDO
Past Major Reports
Encrypted Page
You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.
If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

Global IMC Network

satellite tv


estrecho / madiaq
la plana
northern england
nottingham imc
united kingdom

Latin America
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
puerto rico


South Asia

United States
hudson mohawk
kansas city
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
tampa bay
united states
western mass

West Asia


fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs