Marc Salomone / blog: madic50 / Book: The two forms
Paris, Thursday June 10, 2021
REFLECTION 63 ON THE COPORATIST OFFENSIVE AIMING AT IMPOSING CASTE POLICY IN THE PRESIDENT'S REPORTS TO HIS SECURITY SERVICES AND LEGALIZING THE SUBJECT OF DIRECTORS TO THESE ADMINISTRATIVE DICTATES.
1) - The facts
On Tuesday, June 8 in Tain-l'Hermitage, in the Drôme, an individual slaps President Macron who was engaging in a walkabout.
A few hours later, the news channels hammer home in a loop:
a- The President had been warned by his security service and he ignored it.
b- It is the President who put himself in danger and put his Security Service in difficulty.
On Wednesday, June 9 at the end of the Council of Ministers, the government spokesperson, Gabriel Attal, indicates that "There was no particular alert" from the security services before the bath. crowd during which Emmanuel Macron was slapped.
On June 9, at the end of the afternoon, it seems that the offensive operation was abandoned and that the Chains returned to the debate on societal violence in general.
This is clearly an effect of the undemocratic backstage debates.
This media episode is the emergence in the public debate of the functioning in caste of the networks of civil servants; here those of the Ministry of the Interior.
The Services, whatever they are, cannot be faulted. There is a culprit, it is the administered; in this case the Head of State.
2) – Porridge
The public will easily share the following nonsense:
a- The accredited officials sought to guarantee the safety of the President. It makes sense since it is their raison d'être.
b- It is therefore probable that they have assessed the danger and communicated their opinion to the President.
Therefore,
a- The President was surely warned by his services.
b- For nothing to happen, it was enough that he was not there.
Therefore :
He bears the responsibility for what happened.
Next time he'll listen.
To convey this media slurry, the channels refer to the opinion of a retired specialist who was obviously not there at the age of the captain etc.
3) - Modern times
Except that these arguments have nothing to do with the facts which endangered the President.
French journalists, like almost all French executives, even the French, still operate according to the old days. When the ruling networks of circumstance controlled the image, the sound, the witnesses and the testimonies.
I affirm therefore I create information.
Except that times have changed.
Today, the video of smartphones comes not to contradict but to upset the certainties built by the former beneficiaries of censorship.
4) - Immediate sight
What do the videos of the same scene taken from the President's left and from his right show us?
A newspaper summarizes the scene as follows:
“Grabbing the president's forearm, a man wearing a khaki T-shirt, black beard and long hair slaps the President of the Republic in the face, while a voice clearly utters the royalist war cry 'Montjoie! St Denis ! "As well as" Down with macronia! "
"The videos first show the scene of the two men.
a- Arrived at the barrier, the President leaves his arm available as a sign of relaxation vis-à-vis the few people massed on the other side of the barrier. It creates familiarity.
b- It is a habit of President Macron to use bodily movements to create political seduction. This was seen in Saint Martin on October 1, 2018.
c- The individual grabs the President's arm.
d- On the other hand, he does not touch the President's arm in a familiar or relaxed way.
e- It transforms this offer of familiarity into a battlefield.
f- He gives him a takeover which is a combat hold intended to control the right forearm of the opponent to paralyze him in the use of this leading arm in right-handed people.
He thus unbalances his left and leaves him the only subordinate left arm as valid.
g- On the other hand, the attacker who is on the initiative immobilizes only his left arm, subordinate, and frees his active right arm.
h- He can strike a blow with his right arm to an opponent that he unbalances by the right of this one and of which he hinders the response by a subordinate arm.
i- The Slap leaves quietly.
j- It could have been a pen in the eye, for example. Security does not remove pens.
k- It is only when the right arm of the President is firmly anchored that the individual unbalances the President and launches his right arm to the assault.
l- The immediate intervention of the security guards breaks the link between the two men, the individual lets go of his arm. The President slips back violently. This is the mark that he cannot answer with his left arm being right handed.
5) - The media debate
It is at the moment of the intervention of the Services that the public discourse begins, initially in the media.
1- The fault
The services, supported by the media, fall on the President's responsibility.
If he lived under a bell, if he accepted to be a vegetable and to consider France as a field of war, nothing would happen.
2- The evidence
This rant seems to be based directly on the immediate playback of the videos.
The television channels pass in a loop the arrival at a running pace of the President towards the barrier which contains the crowd, the President who mixes his arm and his hands with the others, those of the crowd, his improvised and insistent dialogue with the individual and then the Slap and the leap of the security services which regain control of the situation.
3- The loneliness of the President
b- The public discourse, that of all the comments, immediately focuses all eyes, raises that of the viewers, on the evidence of the loneliness of the two men in their tête-à-tête.
4- The impotence of the Services
From there is constructed the story of the inability of the security services to control a situation in which it seems obvious that they arrive after the facts, at the moment of their outbreak; because of the President's cavalcade.
6) - Back to videos
But what these videos seen from the right or from the left show is quite different.
a- The presence of security guards
b- A fight scene.
c- The long duration of the staging.
From this point of view, the two videos illuminate each other.
1- Presence
During all the contact between the President and the individual, there is a security guard who stands beside the President; one to his right, the other to his left. .
Both are in office. They watch, they observe, they wait.
They see, they can see because it is their job, the taking of the arm of the President by the individual.
2- The fight
No combat professional can see anything in this arm grip other than a combat grip preparatory to an individual assault.
3- The duration
Neither agent reacted to this arm grip, which lasted several seconds; it's long.
They had all the time and the means to act.
Faced with the clearly identified danger, they do nothing.
7) - The fault
Of course, they act on the spot when the slap is in progress.
But it's too late :
a- For physical danger,
b- For the international scandal.
They could ensure that this action, instead of being the proof of the President's vulnerability, was the demonstration of his personal invulnerability. The difference is huge.
This inertia is the only cause of the realization of the voluntary act of the individual.
The president could be there and an aggressive individual could wish him harm, with nothing happening other than the neutralization of an upcoming action that is currently non-existent.
Indeed, there was a fault. It is exclusively due to the two security agents who stood alongside the President.
8) – Corporatism
However, rather than examining how to ensure that this deficiency is not repeated, the networks of the personnel of the Ministry of the Interior concerned, here the Security Services, take the opportunity to establish a corporatist policy which imposes omnipotence, omniscience, impunity, of officials.
The latter cannot have been wrong. They have nothing to recognize, nothing to learn, nothing to correct.
To do this, they do not hesitate to engage in open controversy with the President.
They are taking advantage of the incident to try to impose their views outside any democratic public debate.
9) - The banality of arrogance
This event is not at all exceptional.
The President immediately clarified that this stupid violence against him was one of the episodes of violence against elected officials and law enforcement officials.
Neither is its corporatist exploitation to impose caste politics as the norm of administrative activity.
The French are constantly dealing with such behavior as soon as they enter into discussion with the administrations, particularly that of the Ministry of the Interior; high place of omnipotence.
Deception, arrogance, falsification, bad faith, cruelty, the cover of incompetence, inhumanity, sordid solidarity between colleagues against citizens, are the ordinary arguments of the Services as soon as there is a discussion .
The rule is intangible: the discussion is voluntarily transformed into a conflict which is knowingly led to become a confrontation. The stake is presented as that of the survival of the administration and the general interest is that of the crushing of the citizen.
10) - The opportunity
We find this diagram here.
Journalistic affidavits and commentators from these networks of colleagues did not hesitate to say that President Macron was endangering his life but also that of security agents.
The elected officials, the politicians, the administered, are uniformly monsters, incompetents, public dangers.
Except, as seen above, that the sole responsibility for endangering the President and possibly the staff and the public, comes from the two security guards who failed professionally.
The great victory of this corporatist caste cabal is that these responsibilities will not be examined and the same fault can thus be repeated.
11) – Conclusion
The French can convince themselves that they are not-great-things and that they can do nothing in the face of these mountains of arrogance, contempt, lies, connivance, that are the administrative networks. It is a form of feudal administrative tax; an Old Regime tax.
On the other hand, one should perhaps be interested in the fact that this time, the corporatist militants of all kinds gathered on the occasion of a fault committed by two of them in order to seek to discredit the President of the Republic to subordinate it to their ideological and political archaism.
To discuss the rejection of the authority of state officials, state officials begin by disqualifying the Head of State for the sole purpose of their corporate vanity.
It is worth thinking about it.
Marc SALOMONE
