Marc Salomone / blog: madic50 / Book: The two forms
Paris, Monday July 19, 2021
REFLECTION 64 ON THE MEETING OF THE SECURITY GROUP OF THE PRESIDENCY OF THE REPUBLIC (GSPR) FOLLOWING THE GIFLE LAUNCHED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC ON JUNE 8, 2021 AND ON THE DOCTRINE OF LEGITIMATE DEFENSE.
N. Ref. : Reflection 63 of June 10 on the facts concerning the slap of June 8, 2021.
See blog madic50.
1) - The imaginary questioning
Le Canard Enchaîné of Wednesday June 16, 2021, publishes information on the meeting and internal reflection of the Security Group of the Presidency of the Republic (GSPR), following the slap received by the President of the Republic on June 8, 2021; see below.
This article is the only piece of information I have on this subject. The study of this meeting is therefore in fact the study of this article.
Only the authority of this newspaper in matters of information report guarantees its credibility.
I proceed to the analysis of this credible information because it appears to construct an imaginary reality.
The speech reproduces that of the media of June 8:
1- The President unbalanced the security service by rushing towards a walkabout which was not foreseen.
2- The bodyguards did not have time to set up.
Whether or not it was their fault, they weren't there.
3- The issue is the priority dispute between the President and his security services. Who runs who?
However, it is precisely this questioning which seems to me to be part of the administrative imagination and in no way of the analysis of the facts, in other words of the images of two videos showing one "the left shoulder" and the other "the shoulder. right ”from the President's security service.
The objective of this meeting is to "understand".
But how to understand when the questions asked do not correspond to the reality of what the French and specialists have seen around the world.
2) - The ritornello:
The article reports to us a presentation of the facts by the GSPR identical to that of the media of June 8.
A- On the one hand:
a- The President was alone in the company of the individual.
b- The individual has well hidden his game and suddenly, unexpectedly, suddenly, he leaps towards the President.
c- The bodyguards rush late on the individual that they can only control after the fact.
B- On the other hand:
a- The blow could have been fatal or disabling. A razor blade is enough to cut an artery. A simple pen is enough to puncture an eye or an eardrum.
A scar would have brought in all presidential meetings the bankruptcy of the security of personalities in France.
b- The expert requested by the newspaper also says:
"The person in charge of the dispo should have anticipated the President's sudden urge to shake hands and pre-position staff accordingly."
C- Conclusion
a- The observation of the adventurism of the President and the absence of "the right shoulder" seem to rationally account for the facts.
b- Everyone agrees on this description of the situation, this logic of the facts. Opinions differ only on the priority of the opinion of the President or the GSPR.
3) - The trompe-l'oeil of surprise
All the thinking of the media and, it seems, of the GSPR is based on the evidence of surprise.
1- The individual
The individual would obviously not have warned anyone. He even started by chatting withoutanimosity with the President. Slyly, he showed no signs and he was hiding his intentions.
2- Services
The services did not anticipate and therefore did not have the ad hoc staff.
3- The invention
That would explain everything.
Except that is wrong. It is visually wrong.
The invention of these absences recomposes the scene, redefines the filiation of the acts and the criteria of the intervention.
4) - Viewing the video
The logic which is thus presented to us is ineffective in accounting for the facts.
The President did not find himself in danger because of his placing in a “walkabout” position.
The blow was not given because of the absence of the so-called "right shoulder" bodyguard. The assertion of this absence is false, visually false.
a- The images show that the so-called "right shoulder" was in its place.
This guard is present, nearby, in a position to intervene, throughout the President's meeting with the individual.
He had plenty of time to intervene and he intervened as soon as the movement of the right arm of the individual to strike a blow at the President.
b- The same applies to the so-called “left shoulder”.
This guard may not have done what is expected of him in sidelining the President, but another did
so immediately.
On the other hand, “the left shoulder” is present, in a situation of acting, from the beginning of the meeting of the individual and the President until the aggression.
c- There may have been a mess but this is not the cause of the individual's freedom of initiative.
d- There were two qualified men in intervention position and they were subordinated to the initiative of the individual.
5) - The view of the
stage
The video from the side of the "left shoulder" clearly shows that the President leaves his hand within reach of the voters who come to meet him. It is a familiarity usual with President Macron.
Most of the time people just touch it. The individual will use this arrangement in a precise maneuver.
A newspaper summarizes the scene as follows:
“Grabbing the forearm of the president, a man wearing a khaki T-shirt, black beard and long hair slaps the President of the Republic, while a voice clearly utters the royalist war cry 'Montjoie! St Denis ! ", As well as" Down with macronia! ". "
This summary clearly indicates the continuity of the seizure of the arm and the slap.
6) – Aggression
What is the start of the assault?
It is the moment of the seizure of the forearm of the President by the individual.
Any retiree taking imaginary self-defense classes knows that this arm grab is a takeover of the body of whoever is then called an adversary.
The individual thus takes, with his left arm, the second arm, control of the President's right arm, the first arm.
He reserves the right to attack the President with his right arm, determining him, while the President responds to the attack with his left arm, the second.
In addition, the body of the President is maneuvered by the left arm of the individual who holds his right arm and can thus unbalance it.
The damage was slight because he had to deal with an isolated populist follower of "propaganda by fact" who recoiled before the magnitude of his act.
An organized nihilist or a sympathetic looking Religious Terrorist would have had the opportunity to carry out a massacre.
The fairly athletic President was able to immediately step back and free his arm. But, he could not avoid the blow even mitigated.
7) - The paralysis of the guardrails
a- The President's attack procedure is therefore organized well before the movement of the right hand.
b- The right guard is present at this start in the same way as the left one.
c- If they had not been present, they would not have been able to intervene during the act of aggression.
d- They only intervene when the individual throws his right arm against the President.
e- But there, they intervene immediately.
The question is not therefore that of the absence of the guards, they are present in the image, but of their mental paralysis in front of a scene of which they follow all the development.
They are unable to define its beginning.
8) - The initiative
1- It is obvious that:
a- They cannot block the hand of the individual before it touches the President and is a real danger for him.
b- The individual has the initiative.
2- He has the initiative twice:
a- When taking the forearm of the President
b- When throwing his arm.
The individual had set up his device. Once his arm was in action, no one could stop him from reaching his first and perhaps only destination.
3- The guards only regain the initiative in the third phase of the action:
a- The blocking of the hand which has already reached its goal.
b- The arrest of the individual
9) - The moment of the intervention
1- The pictures show that:
a- The guards are there,
b- They assist in the preparation of the aggression.
c- They intervene only at least partial fulfillment of this one.
2- The questions
a- Why did neither of the two guards, the right and left shoulders, intervene as soon as the individual slipped his forearm under that of the President and grabbed it with his hand?
b- Regardless of the specific role assigned to each other, at that time, they had total control of the situation.
3- determining the moment
a- The question is therefore not that of the intervention but of its moment and its reason.
b- The paralysis which they show is not due to the absence but to the inability to determine the moment of the intervention.
c- Why are they unable to intervene at their convenience, at the opportune moment, in a dominant position?
Why do they grab hold of the individual's hand after she has acted?
10) - The reasons for the blockage
In view of the images, it is credible to think that the police officers actually present were not physically absent from the action because they were absent but because they were waiting for the action to be allowed to them.
The guards were not caught off guard.
They refused to intervene as long as the situation, the aggressor's gestures, did not correspond to the formal, administratively defined criteria of the aggression.
If they had intervened when the individual placed his arm under that of the President, before the act had taken place: no one would ever have been able to prove the intentions of the individual concerned.
The logic is as follows:
a- The President does not receive blows, there is nothing.
b- The individual does not kick, there is nothing.
To act, they wait for one to strike and the other to receive them.
They are logically, professionally, subordinate to the individual.
11) – Self-defense
This method of action has a name, it is the ideology of self-defense.
Rule :
We find the action device used by bodyguards in the jurisprudence of self-defense.
As long as the victim is not attacked, he can neither defend himself nor take the initiative to attack.
It must be attacked according to the administrative criteria of an attack.
It must respond according to the technical modalities of the attacker's action.
It is subordinate to the attacker.
The attacker initiates the attack and the legal control of the response.
Otherwise, the victim becomes the aggressor.
In the event of a preventive response, she is the only aggressor.
In the event of a technically superior response to the attack, she is a co-author;
Law becomes a code of the sacred, legality its course and public order a sacrificial rite.
12) - Some precedents
a- A man was tried and convicted for having too violently countered a rapist in action.
b- A police officer was sentenced to the Assizes for having used his weapon against an armed thug on the run while, according to the examining magistrate, he could have hid himself and let the thug choose his targets.
The thug would then have been tried for these new crimes avoided by his neutralization.
c- In the Charlie Hebdo affair, the Kouachi Brothers, the mass murderers, took refuge in a printing press which was under siege by the gendarmerie.
During one of their exits to shoot at the besiegers, a gendarme, a good marksman, had them in his line of fire.
ca- He injured one in the leg on the grounds that this Kouachi was going to shoot towards him.
cb- The other Kouachi came to get him to take him back inside.
cc- The gendarme refused to shoot him because the latter did not immediately target him. The brothers returned to the printing press.
cd- The gendarme therefore left the Kouachi free to take care of themselves, to regain their strength, to decide whether or not to kill the boss of the printing press who remained inside, to kill the gendarmes during their second outing; the one where they were alone killed.
During the fight, in the name of self-defense, this gendarme voluntarily, tactically, unnecessarily, put the lives of his combat comrades at risk, during the fight, to avoid injuring or killing the enemy.
This is the exposition of the whole logic of the so-called Self-Defense ideology.
13) - The specific case
In the case of the slap, if they had grabbed the individual as long as he was only holding the President's arm, he would have had enough to say that he was in communion with him for the media condemn the police hysteria, the stupidity of the gorilla unable to understand the desire for dialogue of the young unjustly arrested.
If something had happened to this individual, the policeman would have had to answer for it in front of magistrates anxious to ensure respect for the rules of self-defense; as the priests enforce the sacred rites and the sacrifices which accompany them.
14) - The isolation of the President
This is also the reason why the police favor the control of the person of the President instead of the attack against the manifestations of unprovable aggressiveness.
In administrative logic, the President is a citizen.
The administrators remove the danger by controlling the citizen and locking him in a bubble with them.
The causes of danger are kept at bay. They don't exist.
The logic of the intervention aims at controlling the person of the citizen and not at aggressive extra-administrative manifestations.
As long as the public has not taken the form of the citizen, the administration has nothing to think about, to say, to do.
15) - New administrative policies
This institutional blindness leaves room for the organization of other types of administrations, religious for example, which aim to assert their right to public confinement specific to their logic.
It is singular that certain ritual words are sufficient to break the sacred circle of self-defense.
We can attack, retaliate disproportionately, rape, if we utter the incantatory words: racist! Bitch! Specism! Etc.
A conflictual space is created where certain civil administrative forms cut croupiers to the public administration which thought to be the only legitimate one.
a- It is enough to dare to take the risks inherent in the confrontation with the established order.
b- Darwinian selection does the rest.
16) - The installation of administrative sovereignties
At the same time as an anarchist slapped the Head of State, the trial of the accomplices of the administrative or religious activist was taking place, it is the same thing, a Muslim who wanted to impose on a minor the doctrine of inferiority of women and their free disposal for men, by the practical means of requiring the submission of this minor to rape.
Mila replied to this administrative that she denied to this administrative policy any public value other than criminal.
1- The representatives of
the said civil administration condemned her to death or supported
this sentence.
2- She was immediately indicted by the public
prosecutor.
It took a public mobilization for the judiciary to withdraw its action.
3- His accomplices acted on the Internet, through harassment whose legal value is recognized by the public authorities through Mila's school dropout, including in military schools.
4- Those who were screened to appear at the Tribunal left the Tribunal free and the financial sentences may be paid by CAF, that is to say by tax, as was the case for ethnic rapists of a white minor from cities released from the Tribunal; as required by the progressive recognition of administrative pluralism.
5- The condemnation is no more than the recognition of the (provisional) preeminence of an administrative policy (public administration) over its competitors.
6- On the other hand, their victim, Mila, to stop the hunting of which she is the object, had to "go to Canossa", by going to the Great Mosque of Paris, built by the French State in homage to the soldiers. Muslims of the 14-18 war, to ask forgiveness from Muslims for having offended them by denying them the right to impose their doctrine of the inferiority of women by the rape of one of them.
She had to apologize for saying that references used by rapists are criminal and that she fights them.
Wikipedia gives this definition of Canossa: With reference to the penance of Henry IV, the expression "to go to Canossa" indicates the fact of giving in completely in front of someone, of going to humiliate oneself in front of his enemy.
7- The case has a particular interest.
a- For the first time, to my knowledge, the recognized representatives of Islam establish an organic link, an administrative continuity, between the Muslim fascists (the various Islamists), the recognized Muslim religious authorities and the Muslim masses as well as individuals Muslims.
b- For the second time since the agreement between the Muslim bands, signed at the mosque of Dijon, to my knowledge, the representatives of the public authorities, including the magistrates, recognize the Muslim religious authorities as the legal representatives of the Muslims, and in particular Muslim outlaws, as well as the superiority of their authority in matters of public order.
It is at the mosque that the conflicts of Muslims, among themselves or with the French, are settled.
Prefectural action and court decisions prepare the ground before relying on religious authorities.
8- The Slap sounds the public installation of these new administrative policies, the rupture of the continuity of the State, the installation of separatism as a public doctrine.
9- It is not only Mila who "went to Canossa", it is the French Republic, the State, France.
17) - The conflict
Like any current victim, the President immediately intervened to ensure that his attacker did not suffer suspected police brutality. That is to say initiatives that go beyond the framework of the ideology of self-defense.
Since May 68, all students and graduates have gone through this doctrine which wants the law to be the only legitimate, legal and effective mode of resolution of extreme conflicts. Force is a priori illegal for people dependent on the public administration.
Contrary to this practical ideology, the major reason for the symbiosis of the French with the police during the attacks of 2015 and following is that the police killed the terrorists and did not arrest them alive.
The magistrates have not ceased since to regain control of what they consider to be an illegal political escape and much more dangerous than the attacks.
18) - The triumph of Anarchism
The aggressor of the President is part of the chain of anarchism and its so-called “propaganda by deed” strategy.
For example :
1- France
The assassination of President Sadi Carnot by the Italian anarchist worker in exile Sante Geronimo Caserio, on June 4, 1894. on the occasion of the Universal, International and Colonial Exhibition which takes place in the Parc de la Tête d'Or in Lyon .
The Head of State decides to greet the local population aboard the presidential car ... While Sadi Carnot wishes to make the journey on foot, Doctor Antoine Gailleton, mayor of Lyon, convinces him to get into a pram very low.
As a result of this assassination, anarchists will be banned from public propaganda until 1992.
2- Tsarist Empire
The assassination of Tsar Alexander II (March 13, 1881), and of Lenin, in 2018, even if it took several years to die. Russian revolutionary socialists of Narodnaya Volia.
3- The anarchists resumed the news in 1967-68. They gave rise to the March 22 movement which led the May-68 student movement.
This movement also came under "propaganda by the deed"; provoke aggression to denounce the repression.
Anarchism has known the most diverse developments. But above all, it has become the binder of all contemporary public political ideologies, including religious ones.
The leftism of May 68 was already a religious political movement in the current sense of the term. But its expression was entirely subject to political vocabulary.
The technical difference between this anarchist political terrorism and the religious terrorism that France is experiencing today is that:
a- It targets the executives of the State Power and not the populations.
b- It does not aim to enslave the French population to another population.
Technically, the victory of anarchists and religious over Marxists and Leninism is total.
In 2021, Chloé Morin summarizes this development by publishing: “Populism to the rescue of democracy? ". And soon: Pétain to the aid of France?
19) – Conclusion
The ideology of self-defense is based on the identification of all French people with citizens subject to a hierarchy and management both imaginary.
We notice the constant of public life which is the conjunction of the administrative policy known as self-defense and its various variations with these two political currents that are populism-nihilist and religious terrorism.
This doctrine disarmed the French and formed the movement to flee from aggression.
We see here that it has penetrated by capillarity the Directorate of State.
In this case, it endangered the Head of State and seriously damaged civil peace.
We will also notice the perfect adaptation of criminals to this doctrine and the inability of those responsible for public order to insert themselves into it except to destroy themselves corporately.
Georges Pompidou, in Le Nœud Gordien, in 1968, noted this development as an extension of the disorder "well beyond ordinary office anarchism".
When administrative policy prohibits the Head of State's bodyguards from guaranteeing his safety, it may be time to think about it.
As long as this doctrine has not been examined, the same causes will produce the same effects. We will manufacture lamps, settling of scores, rigidities, etc.
In any case, these police officers acted according to the rules in force.
Marc SALOMONE
PS: The article in Le Canard Enchaîné, 16,06,21, p.3:
GROUP THERAPY FOR MACRON'S GORILLAS.
Here is the article: (The numberings are mine).
A- The facts
1- The members of the security group of the Presidency of the Republic (GSPR) were summoned by email to a meeting devoted to the slap received by macron on June 8 in Drôme.
2- Objective? Understand
a- why "the right shoulder" (the gorilla supposed to stick to the President's right flank to ward off any blow coming from this side) was not in its place and therefore could not block the hand of the aggressor .
b- Why, too, did the "left shoulder" find itself all alone for a possible further blow when its main mission is "to extract" the head of state in case of danger? "
c- Why still one of the bodyguards, supposed to protect the rear, seems on the images completely overwhelmed by the events?
3- conclusion
Analysis of a cop expert in close protection
“If we had been dealing with someone with a razor blade or even a simple pen, the outcome could have been fatal. "
B- Comments from professionals
1- The fault
“Certainly, Macron, gives a hard time to the members of the GSPR, composed equally of cops and gendarmes: to take“ the pulse of the people ”, he does not hesitate to depart from the program and the instructions.
2- The independent expert
“But, specifies the expert, it is up to security to adapt to the authority to be protected and not the other way around.
"The person in charge of the dispo should have anticipated the President's sudden urge to shake hands and pre-position staff accordingly."
Say it like that it all sounds simple. "
C- Professional circumstances
The slap started at a time when gorillas harbor overwhelming moods …
The general who heads the Security Directorate of the Presidency of the Republic (DSPR) has objected to several elements of this too much shock, because of too muscular management .....
So much so that 40 gendarmes from the so-called Republican Guard asked to look elsewhere.
Recruitment problems.
Report for harassment targeting the general.
D- Conclusion
A fellow general of the general: "a toxic atmosphere around the security of the President".
