Today, we have decided to speak out about the authoritarianism suffered by the activists of the 269 Libération Animale collective. This French collective was led by a couple from 2016 to 2023, then by one of the two leaders : defining their collective as “antispeciesist, anarchist and anticolonialist” practicing slaughterhouse occupations and non-human escapes.

The decision to speak publicly has been a long one, and stems from the realization that the harmful impacts of this organization persist, and that we are still suffering the psychological repercussions.

Authoritarianism and manipulation

The vast majority of people wishing to join this collective are “animal protection” activists, who come from associations dedicated to raising awareness about speciesism. They are used to legal action, and often feel powerless in the face of the immensity of speciesism and the horrors experienced by non-human people. These activists are often unfamiliar with anti-repression and anti-authoritarian culture. Many are unfamiliar with police violence or anything to do with disobedience, so we can’t compare them with other direct action collectives. These are activists seeking to be more effective, to become more involved in the antispeciesist fight and to join a radical collective.

It’s mainly on social networks that the seduction operates to attract these activists, with an aesthetic that has always been judiciously crafted. Lyrical texts and speeches, videos with thrilling music, illustrations with a 100% black dress code, hoodies, balaclava, a very “radical, black block, direct action” appearance, reminiscent of the “ALF” imaginary much fantasized by the middle. But blockades don’t require you to be dressed in black or wearing a balaclava, since the idea is to enter a slaughterhouse and tie yourself to it, while waiting to be dislodged one by one by the police. The aim of all this is to create an advertising that recruits : fascination, admiration and idealization are the desired effects. The manipulation begins even before you join the collective, with this seduction in the form of a promise of revolt. (There’s not much choice : in fact, few antispeciesist collectives practicing direct action advertise themselves on social networks).

So when you finally join the collective for the next action, you feel impressed and grateful. There’s no meeting, no prior organization. You arrive straight on the discussion channel where the future action is set out : it’s already decided and organized. The secure atmosphere (because it’s only an atmosphere, given the major security flaws) is impressive and gives a feeling of risk, great importance and solemnity. You immediately feel that you have to be very small, attentive and obedient, because you have the privilege of being trusted to join such a “closed”, “select” group.

Instructions are given, and then we have to say “ok” to certify that we are going to follow them precisely. There’s no room for any response other than “ok” ; we have no say whatsoever. The explanation is that this authoritarian organization is essential to the smooth running of the action and the functioning of the collective more generally. So we convince ourselves that our obedience is essential for safety. It’s not just in the run-up to an action that we’re not given a say, since there’s never been a general meeting or even a collective discussion in 7 years. So there’s no opportunity to choose your own role. Occasionally, activists in the collective try to question things, offer criticism or ask for certain things to change (organization, strategy, etc.), but these are ignored or discredited, and if that’s not enough, new conversations are created without them, so that the group doesn’t know what they have to say. Discrediting messages can be posted to make sure no one wants to be on their side. We soon realize that we’ll have to be docile, or risk being excluded from future actions.
We’re afraid of upsetting this “well-oiled” organization with our proposals, and then it’s never the right time. Any initiative is prevented.
Only ideas that go along with those of the bosses, which only reinforce their authority, are valid. In the end, they don’t really come from us. The leader’s speeches, with their insurrectionist and unifying aesthetic, beautiful turns of phrase, metaphors and strong appeal to the emotions, play a big role and act as a lure that dazzles us and makes us adhere despite the authoritarianism. It creates a whole atmosphere and state of mind : you think you’re part of a revolutionary collective, and a great deal of work is done with words to create the illusion.

Some of us are given a slightly higher place in the hierarchy : we get a bit more information, a semblance of responsibility, the impression of having a bit of power, and therefore room to maneuver. This position close to the bosses is always achieved through emotional manipulation. In reality, as “core” members, we’re just responding to the expectations of our leaders, who make us feel useful and more than just “soldiers”. But above all, they expect us to be friends, “accomplice comrades”, with a false sense of intimacy. The bond created is unbalanced, with the leader selecting the aspects she shares and at the same time giving the illusion of affection and closeness (nicknames, compliments, showing a certain vulnerability...). This relationship is entirely controlled. In this position, you become dedicated and exclusive. We acquiesce to requests, even if it means taking unconscious legal risks, because it’s an honor to be especially needed. We’re individualized for once !
We also gain access to the privilege of being invited to the sanctuary to meet the non-human persons (putting faces on the rescued people is very important as an antispeciesist activist, it gives us positive strength to get even more involved). With this emotional manipulation, we’re also more inclined to give more time and manpower to the sanctuary. During this time together, we are supposed to feel special.

The hierarchy and the cult of personality put us in a position of admiration, giving us a feeling of recognition for those selected to be “closer”. This whole image is already staged on social networks and in the media, with photos of the leaders as the collective’s main characters, speaking in a megaphone in front of an attentive crowd (social network content is only published by the leader). This creates a whole fantasy around these personalities who become celebrities in the milieu.

And it’s not just the quest for influence that we denounce, but how it’s used to maintain unconditional respect from members of the collective and a hold over those in the “core”.
During the action, it’s always the same people who also give orders : “You sit there”, “You’re tying yourself down now”, “We need men for such and such a thing". The “core” also serves to keep the rest of the activists obedient (the hierarchy).

Media statements are always made by the leaders, without consulting the collective. We therefore have no say in what is said or shown in the media, nor in the choice of media in question, or even its presence during an action. It’s an opportunity to maintain the cult of personality : they’re the ones being interviewed, they are the collective.
During interviews, these two leaders have also appropriated various direct actions in which 269 LA was not involved.

The 269 Libération Animale activists have no voice within their own organization, nor in the media. Their leaders also stops them from speaking out on social networks.
Everything is done in a pernicious way so that we don’t dare ask questions, propose ideas or take initiatives. We also don’t want to give the impression that we know things that the bosses don’t, and we don’t want to upset the hierarchy. Who am I to give a contradictory opinion ? When these people have experience and knowledge that I don’t have.
Nobody wants to be told off by their bosses in front of everyone. The lever of guilt is also mobilized : animals die while we deviate from their instructions.
We have a lot to lose if we’re excluded, because the activists become our entourage and sometimes the only people who can understand us, because they’ve seen what we’ve seen.

Once the power of initiative is confiscated, dependent activists’ lack of autonomy, even for small decisions or questions, is used to justify the need for authority.

As well as being dangerous for activists’ mental health, authoritarianism is dangerous for the fight. We may believe that we don’t have the capacity to act without leaders, that we’re only good at following instructions, since those who decide and plan actions seem inaccessible to us, and don’t pass on any information or knowledge that would give us the experience and skills to be autonomous.

Dependence is also maintained with the constantly repeated idea that “the others don’t understand anything, only we are radical and useful”. This idea creates mistrust and even hatred of other anti-speciesism activists, and reinforces a feeling of being alone against the world.

It’s not uncommon for leaders to denigrate, insult and mock other anti-speciesism activists as stupid, ridiculous, counterproductive and egotistical, whereas we are truly dedicated.

Other antispeciesists means of action, collectives and personalities are also judged to be egocentric, useless or copycats. So we remain loyal to this collective, which also plays on the false and toxic sensation of cohesion and complicity : we’re the only real radical and left-wing antispeciesists.
Collectives with a less hierarchical organization and which take collective care into account are described by the leaders as soft, that abandon the animals in favor of their safety.

Always aiming to secure the loyalty of activists : to make us believe that the grand soir is coming, that soon we’ll be moving on to the next stage, in order to keep us on our toes, maintain a level of stress and attention, and a feeling of being exactly where we need to be. This way, the leaders maintain our exclusivity in the collective, waiting for the next order to be given.

This can also be seen in the events advertisement on the networks. The sole aim of these “actions” is to rally activists with catchy headlines such as “Slaughterhouses will tremble” for simple pacifist gatherings in front of slaughterhouses. It has to look radical, revolutionary, Grand ! So teasing with an insurrectionist atmosphere, we need to make people believe in the grand soir, not to scare off the big speciecist companies, but to seduce people who want to be useful.

Confiscated speech

TW slaughterhouses, blood, murder, sexual assault

We’re not allowed to share what we’ve seen or experienced during these actions. Neither the horrors of slaughterhouses, nor police violence. It would be seen as a way of victimizing ourselves and diverting attention from the victims of speciesism. The only media shared must be those of the leaders on the collective’s social networks. The texts and speeches always come from the same person. If we’re really doing this for the animals, then we have to make ourselves invisible.

Even feedback between activists on conversations is outlawed, no debriefing. We’re told that we’re not the victims and that it’s indecent to talk about what we’ve just experienced, that it’s affecting us. But how can a collective function without feedback ? Without internal communication ? How can activists endure over time without being able to talk about their often traumatic experiences ? Spending a night listening to non-humans cry and scream in distress and terror, watching calves try to turn around and get pushed into the slaughterhouse, hearing them cry, seeing them killed on a production line. Seeing their bodies butchered, seeing someone alive for hours on end, then seeing her get shot in the head and hearing the saw cut her up. Spending hours next to their still-fresh skin, feeling their blood and excrement soak into our pants. Passing hundreds of chickens piled into crates, leaving them behind and heading home. To have the smell of fear, of shit, of death lingering in your nose, even when you’re home alone and can’t tell anyone, and to have to go to school or work with all that.

How can you let traumatized activists go home and tell them to shut up about it ? How can we create a collective that goes to such violent places without thinking about the care of these activists ? And refusing to let this care go unmentioned.

This environment fosters the continuation of violence and puts these activists in serious danger. How do you report oppressive behavior ? How do you tell when something inappropriate has happened during an action ?

It’s the perfect breeding ground for sexist, sexual, racist and lgbtqi+phobic assaults to take place without anyone knowing about them, and without the victim being able to get support. When victims tell their bosses about these assaults, they are hushed up. No one knows about it. And it’s the victims who leave the collective before the aggressors.

Anyone can join the collective ; there’s no charter. There’s nothing to indicate that oppressive, discriminatory behavior is not welcome. As minorities, we can quickly find ourselves in situations that put us in danger. On top of having to manage the risks of militant action, we have the burden of having to spend hours sitting with our legs spread apart, glued to unsafe people who don’t have to justify themselves.

And on top of all this, the leader doesn’t hesitate to appropriate anti-colonial and feminist struggles to give herself an intersectional radical-left image and credibility, and therefore visibility in anti-fascist circles. It’s yet another form of violence, making this leader’s visits (speaking engagements, support evenings) to libertarian spaces unbearable, acting as a stinging reminder that we still don’t have a say, that power and influence are still in the same place. And all the while, we’re still dealing with the traumas of this period of subjugation.

Faced with repression

No collective, concerted, political defense has been put in place.

We’re put to sleep for the reasons given above, and also because the boss uses her position of authority : jurist. After each slaughterhouse blockade, the police check the identity of each activist. We find ourselves in front of the police without knowing our rights or procedures.
No preparation for identity checks or police custody !
Lost, some of us talk to the cops.
We also find ourselves alone before the judge in court, having to answer for our actions in a collective action !
No sharing of anti-repression resources or best practices, no meetings, workshops or discussions on legal or police self-defense. The only thing we’re told is that refusing to give our identity, fingerprints and DNA can lead to prosecution and longer stays at the police station. With so little information, and not without influence : in the queue at the police station, everyone gives their identity, fingerprints and DNA. Because the carpool is waiting for you, and your comrades are tired and have to get back on the road and to work the next day. Nothing is done to make a identity refusal conceivable and supported by the collective - quite the contrary. Since 2017, this systematic filing of 269 Libération Animale activists has spread across France, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Germany and the Netherlands (since the “collective” travels throughout Europe). Furthermore, with a very high turnover in the collective ! The cops’ work is made much easier, and the relevance of these civil disobedience actions, which automatically end up in a police office, must never be questioned. Otherwise, you risk implicit exclusion, like ghosting, or being discredited by others. It’s not surprising that we don’t oppose this mass filing system, when we see it as a way of mistreating and disregarding activists.

With no long-term strategy and no organized common defense, we fear the impact of such filing on the antispeciesist movement.

Without a lawyer in the collective, everyone manages their legal problems in their own isolated corner, receiving their court call at home. Those who can, choose a lawyer, but often without one, we end up with lawyers who get us into more trouble than they help us. Defenses are unequal among activists, and this is accentuated between those who can afford a good defense and the activists living in precarious situations, who often receive heavier sentences.
Many of the activists who join the collective are people with no background in anti-repression. They know neither their rights, nor the risks involved. We’re told not to ask too many questions at all, and also on this question of repression with the credo : what are fines or a risk of prison compared to what non-human people suffer ?
Talking about repression matters would be to take the place of victims, would show proof of weakness when our situations are so privileged (compared to animals always). So we quickly get into the mindset of “rushing in without protecting ourselves” is equal to “being a really determined ally for the animals”.
And anyway, the leaders have plenty of outstanding convictions, so we’re bound to have a few. Because during the first few years as “leaders”, they “sacrificed” themselves by taking legal responsibility for themselves alone at every occupation.

Manipulation is also present here : we may receive a call or a private message from the boss urgently requesting a “service”. At this point, we are valued and individualized (I’m only asking you, you’re experienced and trustworthy). This service might be to declare a fake demonstration in our name, so that we can be considered organizers of disobedience actions by police investigations. We don’t know that it’s a ploy, and recognizing that we’ve been entrusted with a personal task, the hold operates and we accept directly, without thinking about the possible risks (which have never been mentioned, by the way). Many of us have ended up with convictions as organizers, understanding the trap long after the fact. Without manipulation, we would have realized what we were doing, what it implied, we would have thought it through and not given the answer in a instant. We’d have felt like we had a choice, we’d have had the space to ask questions.

With these strategies, the bosses are playing the game of repression : isolating us in our trials and convictions.

So we’re the opposite of an anarchist, anti-colonial collective, since here there’s no collective, no solidarity. But all this is done in a very insidious way, by persuading us through convincing that we would form a collective whose strength would lie in our complicity.

And the money ?

There is no collective organization against repression, and no activist has access to the collective’s cash.
And yet, tens of thousands of euros have been raised through fund-raising and support evenings, which we are encouraged to organize on our own... But the accounts are kept secret by the leaders.
No financial aid is given, the poverty of some activists is ignored, yet the leader often denounces on the networks the poverty in which they would be, omitting to specify her privileges (social class, family support, level of education...).
Several of us have found ourselves in tough situations : accumulated fines debited from our bank account, or directly from our employer, bailiffs at our home and then at our parents’... And of course, all this in isolation, since it wasn’t managed collectively. There’s never room to talk about all this. It’s seen as indecent to ask the collective for help : it’s like becoming a victim in the animals’ place. The subject of money is made taboo, leaving the bosses free to monopolize it.
Systematic withholding of information is a means of retaining power.

Refusal to question : endangering the non-human people in the sanctuary

The omnipresent idea that everyone else sucks, continues in the management of the sanctuary. Sanctuaries are places of life for people rescued from slaughterhouses and breeding farms. These people have very fragile health due to genetic selection and poor conditions on the farms. They need meticulous care throughout their life in sanctuary. To find out which food and care practices are best suited to them, it’s essential to rely on the research carried out by anti-speciecist activists and veterinarians. For example, the ABVA shelter shares its valuable protocols on the “chicken nurse” Facebook group, the Open Sanctuary Project makes guides available on its website, and sanctuaries such as Groin Groin offer advice on taking care of pigs. It’s essential to be able to share health-related experiences between sanctuaries, as too few reliable resources are available and rural vets are incompetent.

At 269 LA, however, questions about care practices were roundly dismissed on the grounds that “we’ve always managed on our own”. Not surprisingly, it’s the same watchword as for the rest. But in this case, it has direct dramatic consequences on the lives of non-human persons. Pigs and sows fed daily on a mixture of biscuits, pasta and fattening flour (from farm stores). Inducing locomotion difficulties and great suffering. Chickens that never see an NAC vet (vet follow-up is essential for hens, particularly due to their systematic genital problems).

It’s possible to have difficulties running a sanctuary, because it’s far from easy, it’s easy to make mistakes, because there’s a lot of false information on line, and many vets aren’t trained properly. On the other hand, refusing to question oneself, and to listen to competent people and places, is a deliberate endangerment of the lives and comfort of those in our care.
We have far too few serious and verified resources about anti-speciecist care for people saved from livestock farms to refuse to take them into account for the sake of a game of ego.

Care is political ! And it makes perfect sense in the anti-speciesist fight, which is fought with and for non-human people, who are physically and mentally wounded and worn down by the system.

What happens in collectives is political !