Press: nausea

September 23, 2007

Not a day goes by without my readers asking me to relay information that they have generally found in the "web-press". It takes me an enormous amount of time and I do the job of the official press, which gives me more and more nausea. Apart from a few newspapers, like Le Monde Diplomatique, which has nothing to do with the newspaper Le Monde in terms of content, the rest is to be vomited. But the public is itself complicit in this generalized disinformation. One only has to look at the content of our newsstands. They are at once the reflection of what is thrown at people and ... of their tastes. The magazines, which one finds at one's doctor's or dentist's, are the daily illustration of it. Alain Delon's moods, a retrospective on the conflicts inside Windsor Castle, the latest evening at the So-and-Sos', a report on the "billionaires' island", fruit of the hard labor of the Aga Khan, etc.

Change aisle: words, weapons, ass, women's magazines, luxury yachting, celebrity magazines, video games. And in the midst of all that, a popular-science press that suddenly discovers that the efforts deployed by our theoretical physicists for thirty years are nothing but a vast swindle after having echoed every possible and imaginable farce.

Don't let yourself be fooled by this sensational announcement of a "debate" that was held on France Culture on September 21, 2007. Present were:

• Thibaud Damour, member of the Academy of Sciences of Paris, professor at the Institut des Hautes Etudes of Bures sur Yvette - Gabriele Veneziano, professor at the Collège de France - Costas Bachas, research director at the Cnrs in the physics department of the Ecole Normale Supérieure

Three ... supporters of this same theory. Vénéziano is even its founder.

Boring, long, empty.

I am going to try to contact Lee Smolin, and Brian Josephson, the English Nobel Prize in Physics. I think I have a few suggestions to make, concerning astrophysics and even physics. Work that I was able to present this summer before ... mathematicians. Oh yes, I realize that I have wasted 15 years trying to speak before astrophysicists and those who claim to be cosmologists. You have been able to see how those people barricade themselves in their institutes, like Thibaud Damour at the IHES, or the mediocre Alain Riazuelo at the Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris. See the dossier which shows their infamous cowardice. I understood the reason for it this summer. They are simply incapable of understanding what I set out to them, or what I have been trying to set out to them for years. I understood it by giving a talk before ... mathematicians. Oh yes, when you have been immersed in research topics for twenty years you don't realize that the geometric concepts involved are beyond the reach of the average astrophysicist. I had the surprise ... of being understood, word after word, sentence after sentence. What I do is called mathematical physics. And in that expression there is "maths". Nothing to do with "theoretical physics" which has become over the years, to use Souriau's word:

A physics without experience and a mathematics without rigor

As for "physics without experience", we already knew. On the "mathematics without rigor" side, read Lee Smolin's book, commented on in this dossier.

It's just that in science it is the same as in politics. Lies and imposture reign supreme. After the sand merchants ("stardust") who sold the Big Bang for thirty years, the socialites strut about. in the magazines or on the small screen.

I don't know how many people read me, and what their profile is. I hope that these people end up being convinced that their television channels and their newspapers, including "Le Monde", once a reference in matters of information, are no longer anything but caricatures of information organs. Nowadays you have to go fishing for information yourself and above all not be content with the information delivered to your home. More than ever, one is forced to think for oneself, to prevent others from doing it for you. Fortunately new media are taking over, on the net. In the United States the movement was launched long ago. Otherwise how would it have been possible to disseminate information on the burning dossier of September 11, 2001? Today video documents, seen by tens of millions of Americans, have begun to provoke the beginnings of an awareness in the USA, through polls.

Before plunging back into the English formatting of my work, for the attention of Smolin and Josephson, I feel obliged to mention a new dossier, given the gravity of the facts. It is about the Tazer, of which I had been one of the first, in 2004, to reveal the existence and the misdeeds.

The taser

It is a weapon that sends up to ten or seven meters away two projectiles in the form of weighted cylinders, carrying one-centimeter-long darts. These can pierce the thickest clothing. The face of the cylinder, when it comes into contact with its "human target," limits penetration into the body. These cylinders remain linked to the weapon by wires that then deliver a 50,000-volt discharge, incapacitating and extremely painful. This weapon has been classified in the category of "non lethal weapons" of "non-lethal weapons." They are designed to neutralize a single person at relatively short distances.

And now the wireless version (video) (archive of 27/10/2010)

For crowd control, against demonstrators, the Americans are already able to deploy microwave weapons, capable of inflicting unbearable burns.

A new weapon: intolerable suffering with little damage in human beings

There already exist, in the United States, "civilian versions" of this new gadget, to be installed behind one's door, to electrocute intruders without risk.

microwave "rifle"

While waiting for microwave systems, which are already the subject of experiments, likely to act on entire regions of the globe. See the Haarp project.

I am tired of hearing idiots tell me that I dramatize, that I do easy sensationalism. My scientific palette is simply broad enough to allow me to quickly grasp the implications of new technologies (like chips, RFID). The facts demonstrate that extensions I had foreseen have taken place.

The generalization of the use of the Tazer was foreseeable as early as 2004 and that is what is happening. There are sites (http://www.blog-police-recrutement.com, more precisely the article http://www.blog-police-recrutement.com/?p=239, for which I cannot establish a link) where police officers report their use of this new neutralization weapon, which they describe as "with reduced lethality" (but not zero). In the cited article the police officer, who announces that his unit has been equipped with the Tazer since 2004, says:

*- With what could I neutralize an individual holding a shard of bottle? With my service weapon? *

He adds that the use of the Tazer is justified against individuals:

- Overexcited (definition? ...) * - Dangerous - Suicidal*

You don't have to look far to find the first French blunders regarding the use of the Tazer:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xt9t2_taser-et-bavures-de-la-police-de-sa

This is only the extension of incidents that have occurred in the United States, and for which we have numerous videos. I have cited several on my site and I don't know which link leads there.

In one of these American videos we see two police officers proceeding with the arrest of a young black female driver. The scene is filmed by the automatic camera present on the police vehicle. The offender parks docilely on the side of the road. There was no chase. This young woman seems to present no danger to our two Starsky and Hutch who proceed with her arrest as if she were a dangerous repeat offender. One of the police officers opens the vehicle door and orders the driver to get out. She replies: "Well, I'm going to give you my papers and you're going to give me a ticket, but I'm not getting out of the car." But the police officer insists and restates his order. The young girl, visibly, takes fright. The other then says to her:

- Get out of this car or I taze you! (the verb "to taze" was immediately created across the Atlantic)

As the young woman does not react to his order and is even more frightened, he shoots her, then extracts her, screaming in pain, from the vehicle. He throws her to the ground and begins to handcuff her. As she struggles weakly he threatens her with a second discharge and I even believe he sends it to her at point-blank range. His colleague remains indifferent to the scene.

There, the Tazer ceases to be "functional," as it could be for example with respect to an individual armed with an iron bar, a Molotov cocktail, a grenade or a shard of bottle. It becomes "the extension of the police officer's authority." In the ethical norms that this police officer has forged for himself, it is clear that henceforth, in his head, everything comes down to:

- People obey me or I "taze" them.

And here it is:

- Get out of the car or I taze you

There is a video, still from the United States, where the injunction becomes:

- Shut up, or I taze you!

Source: one of the main sites where "Karl Zéro" posts online a number of videos recovered here and there by his readers:

http://leweb2zero.tv/video/kapsul_6346f14d94900b0 http://leweb2zero.tv/video/kapsul_6346f14d94900b0

http://leweb2zero.tv/video/samael_7546efd3e367f5a

The scene is mind-boggling. It takes place in a university lecture hall where Senator John Kerry has come to speak. We remember that Kerry was Bush's opponent in the elections that led the latter to the presidency in a climate of suspicion of electoral fraud. A 21-year-old student having asked for the floor, a microphone is handed to him. He takes the floor entirely by the rules. Before the student's intervention, Kerry can be heard saying, very distinctly:

- Sir... (in other words, addressing this 21-year-old student: "sir, it's your turn").

The student asking his questions to John Kerry

He then asks Kerry a series of rather embarrassing questions. The first refers to a book he is seen brandishing, whose author investigated the conditions of George Bush's election and concluded that there had been fraud. He asks Kerry why he did not file a complaint for fraud.

Kerry does not answer.

The second question concerns his position on the September 11 attacks (Kerry had previously declared that he thought they had been fomented by the people in power and not by Islamist terrorists). Recalling these earlier statements, the student asks him why he did not join the other political figures who co-signed the demand for the indictment of Bush and Cheney, via the "Impeachment" procedure.

Kerry, embarrassed, does not answer this new question from the student either, who insists. But at no point does the latter show himself to be insulting, or aggressive, or display any kind of imbalance. He is not the leader of a demonstration. No disorder reigns in the room. The students are simply sitting on the benches of the lecture hall and Kerry is on the platform.

The young man simply makes the mistake of insisting. It should be noted that the intervention takes place after only a few minutes. The speaker does not monopolize the floor, does not cling to the microphone. At no point could anyone say to him:

- Right, the senator has answered you. Now give us back that microphone.

Simply because the senator... does not answer him. The whole scene takes place before his eyes, a few meters away. Police officers are present in the room, including several women. As soon as the student raises the question of the invalidation of Bush and Cheney (impeachment procedure), they decide to intervene and expel the young man. They then seize him and drag him away.

It can be seen in the following images that this arrest is not initially carried out only by two police officers, including a woman, on the left, of modest build compared to that of the young man. But they are very quickly joined by more muscular officers, including a black man who lifts the young man off the ground and carries him like a mere parcel, gripping him around the waist (below, left image).

On the left a black man, a veritable Hercules, who has seized the student and drags him away while lifting him off the ground. You can appreciate his size by comparing it to that of the other police officers. As soon as the young man is thrown to the ground and subdued, a female police officer draws her Tazer: right image.

Kerry's reaction, or rather *his total lack of reaction *is already shocking in itself. We hear the young man, who is on the ground and now has five police officers on his back, including three men who are handcuffing him, shouting "don't taze me!", a phrase you will surely have the opportunity to hear often in the near future. But the woman pulls the trigger and the man immediately screams in pain. He is "punished".

Kerry does not react.

What is worrying are the criteria mentioned by a member of the French National Police on the site mentioned above, who says that he has been carrying a Tazer for three years now and that it serves in particular to calm people who are

overexcited

What is an overexcited person? (Larousse; overexcitation: passionate animation). Is the student shown in the video, according to this police officer's criteria, "overexcited"? We would very much like to have the answer to this question.

The scene, filmed on video, is commented on by Paul Craig Roberts, former Under Secretary of State under the Reagan administration.

Source:

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070918_kerry.htm

Here is this text, translated

:

The meaning of the Florida incident at John Kerry's conference

**Paul Craig Roberts **

September 18, 2007

Naive Americans who think they live in a free society should watch this video (archive of 10/11/2007) filmed by students during John Kerry's speech on September 17, Constitution Day, at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

At the end of his speech Kerry gave the floor to Andrew Meyer, a 21-year-old journalism history student. Meyer brandished a copy of the book by Greg Palast, investigative journalist (archived 11/22/2016) for the BBC, Armed Madhouse, [see Greg's latest article on Alter Info (archived 12/07/2007), NDT] and asked Kerry whether he was aware of the fact that Palast's investigations had established that he had in fact won the elections. Meyer asked Kerry why he conceded his defeat in the elections so quickly when there were so many examples of blatant vote fraud? Why, Meyer continued to ask, did Kerry refuse to consider the impeachment of Bush when the latter was about to launch another act of military aggression, against Iran this time?

At that moment the police detail protecting the public decided that Meyer had said too much. They seized Meyer and began to drag him away by force. Meyer said repeatedly, "I did nothing wrong,"* which was true under our laws.*He had threatened nor assaulted no one.

But the police decided that Meyer, an American citizen, had neither the right to speak freely nor to benefit from constitutional protection. They threw him on the floor and gave him a Taser shock in front of Senator Kerry and the large student audience, who recorded on video the incontestable act of police brutality. Meyer was expelled and imprisoned on the false charge of "disrupting a public meeting."

The question we should all ask is why a United States senator just stood there while Gestapo gorillas *violated the constitutional rights of a student participating in a public meeting, brutalized him in full view of everyone, and then took him to prison on the basis of false charges *?

The absence of any reaction from Kerry, not only in the face of electoral fraud, not only in the face of Bush's wars which are crimes under the Nuremberg standard, but also in the face of the behavior of police gorillas trampling the constitutional rights of American citizens, fully explains his inability to be president, and he is incapable of being a senator.

Usually when the police violate constitutional rights and commit acts of police brutality, they do so when they think no one is watching, not in front of a large audience. Clearly, the police have become more arrogant in the way they violate citizens' rights. What explains this new courage of the police to violate rights and to brutalize citizens for no reason?

The answer is that the police, who are mostly people who wish to exercise their authority, have seen that constitutional rights were no longer protected. President Bush does not protect our constitutional rights, nor does Vice President Cheney, nor the attorney general, nor Congress. In the same way that Kerry Kerry allowed Meyer's rights to be tasered, Congress allowed Bush to strip people, including US citizens, of their constitutional protection and to incarcerate them without presenting evidence.

How long will it be before Kerry himself, or another senator, is dragged off a podium and tasered?

Bush's Republicans, with the complicity of the Democrats, essentially helped create this situation of government irresponsibility in the USA toward citizens. The US government has established a list of 80,000 people, including ordinary American citizens, on a "no-fly list." No person on this list knows why they are on it, and knows how they can get off it. The Bush administration has provided no explanation for this measure. .

Airport security services harass and mistreat people who do not match any known definition of a terrorist. Nalini Ghuman, a British-born citizen, music professor at Mills College in California was greeted on her return from a trip to England by armed guards at the plane door, who immediately dragged her away. A squad of Gestapo gorillas tore up her US visa, damaged her British passport, subjected her to a body search, and told her she had the choice between leaving immediately for England or being sent to a detention center.

Professor Ghuman, a graduate of Oxford University, holder of a doctoral thesis from the University of California at Berkeley, says she feels like the character in Kafka's book, The Trial. "I don't know why it happened, what I am accused of. No one can defend themselves. You are just totally powerless." More than a year after the events, there is still no answer. (A music specialist is excluded from the USA, but no one will tell her why, by Nina Bernstein, New York Times, September 17, 2007)

In the name of "security," Bush's Republicans and their Democratic lackeys have all rendered us powerless. While Senator John Kerry and his Democratic colleagues remain silent, the Bush administration has seized our country and made us its subjects.

Paul Craig Robertswas Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is the author ofSupply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington;Alienation and the Soviet Economyand Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Click here for Peter Brimelow of Forbes Magazine's interview [in English] with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

Paul Craig Roberts Archive ***Paul Craig Robert's appeal on behalf of VDARE.COM ***

September 18, 2007

The Meaning Of That Kerry Fracas In Florida

**By Paul Craig Roberts **

Naïve Americans who think they live in a free society should watch this video (archived 11/10/2007) filmed by students at a John Kerry speech September 17, Constitution Day, at the University of Florida in Gainesville.

At the conclusion of Kerry’s speech, Andrew Meyer, a 21-year old journalism student was selected by Senator Kerry to ask a question. Meyer held up a copy of BBC investigative reporter Greg Palast’s (archived 22/11/2016) book, *Armed Madhouse

,* and asked if Kerry was aware that Palast’s investigations determined that Kerry had actually won the election. Why, Meyer asked, had Kerry conceded the election so quickly when there were so many obvious examples of vote fraud? Why, Meyer, went on to ask, was Kerry refusing to consider Bush’s impeachment when Bush was about to initiate another act of military aggression, this time against Iran?

At this point the public’s protectors—the police—decided that Meyer had said too much. They grabbed Meyer and began dragging him off. Meyer said repeatedly,**"I have done nothing wrong,"**which under our laws he had not. He threatened no one and assaulted no one.

But the police decided that Meyer, an American citizen, had no right to free speech and no constitutional protection. They threw him to the floor and tasered him right in front of Senator Kerry and the large student audience, who captured on video the unquestionable act of police brutality. Meyer was carted off and jailed on a phony charge of “disrupting a public event."

The question we should all ask is why did a United States Senator just stand there while Gestapo goons violated the constitutional rights of a student participating in a public event, brutalized him in full view of everyone, and then took him off to jail on phony charges?

Kerry’s meekness not only in the face of electoral fraud, not only in the face of Bush’s wars that are crimes under the Nuremberg standard, but also in the face of police goons trampling the constitutional rights of American citizens makes it completely clear that he was not fit to be president, and he is not fit to be a US senator.

Usually when police violate constitutional rights and commit acts of police brutality they do it when they believe no one is watching, not in front of a large audience. Clearly, the police have become more audacious in their abuse of rights and citizens. What explains the new fearlessness of police to violate rights and brutalize citizens without cause?

The answer is that police, most of whom have authoritarian personalities, have seen that constitutional rights are no longer protected. President Bush does not protect our constitutional rights. Neither does Vice President Cheney, nor the Attorney General, nor the US Congress. Just as Kerry allowed Meyer’s rights to be tasered out of him, Congress has enabled Bush to strip people, including American citizens, of constitutional protection and incarcerate them without presenting evidence.

How long before Kerry himself or some other senator will be dragged from his podium and tasered?

The Bush Republicans with complicit Democrats have essentially brought government accountability to an end in the US. The US government has 80,000 people, including ordinary American citizens, on its**"no-fly list."**No one knows why they are on the list, and no one on the list can find out how to get off it. An unaccountable act by the Bush administration put them there.

Airport Security harasses and abuses people who do not fit any known definition of terrorist. Nalini Ghuman, a British-born citizen and music professor at Mills College in Californiawas met on her return from a trip to England by armed guards at the airplane door and escorted away. A Gestapo goon squad tore up her US visa, defaced her British passport, body searched her, and told her she could leave immediately for England or be sent to a detention center.

Professor Ghuman, an Oxford University graduate with a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley, says she feels like the character in Kafka’s book, The Trial.**"I don’t know why it’s happened, what I’m accused of. There’s no opportunity to defend myself. One is just completely powerless."**Over one year later there is still no answer. [Music Scholar Barred From U.S., but No One Will Tell Her Why, By Nina Bernstein, New York Times, September 17, 2007]

The Bush Republicans and their Democratic toadies have, in the name of**"security,"**made all of us powerless. While Senator John Kerry and his Democratic colleagues stand silently, the Bush administration has stolen our country from us and turned us into subjects.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

• Paul Craig Roberts*[email him]was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is the author ofSupply-Side Revolution : An Insider's Account of Policymaking in Washington; Alienation and the Soviet Economy and Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, *and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of *. Clickherefor Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

Is there a difference between this scene and the incident in Lyon, which moreover was filmed on video? The impression that emerges is that, in the minds of the (young) police officers who undertake, three of them, to neutralize this young girl (...) the use of the Tazer seems a natural thing, as if this gesture were henceforth to be part of every arrest. But perhaps she was "overexcited"?

The new President Nicolas Sarkozy surprised more than one person by his choice of collaborators. He willingly mingles "with the little people," lets himself be photographed in the midst of teenagers. Yet his remarks concerning the maintenance of order and "the use of the Karsher" in the suburbs are not forgotten. Was this man engaging in a pre-electoral maneuver intended to win back, which he negotiated very well, Le Pen's electorate, or is it a real conviction or intention on his part?

THE SAME INFORMATION, IN YOUR MEDIA: TF1 News "ARRET SUR IMAGE"-bis

Source:

http://videos.tf1.fr/video/news/monde/0,,3555800,00-taser-utilise-abusivement-aux-etats-unis-.html

At this address you will find a segment from the news broadcast of the TF1 channel, presented by Patrick Poivre d'Arvor.

The presenter discusses the harmful effects of this anti-paralyzing, "anti-slobber" weapon which, he says, already equips half of American police officers. He offers two segments, adding that he advises them against people who are too sensitive and that "these scenes are hard to bear." The first, recorded by the automatic camera of an American police vehicle, shows the arrest of a young blonde woman, a little tipsy. A police officer, after throwing her to the ground and kicking her, will give her, the commentary continues,**seven Tazer shocks,**including after she has been dragged, screaming in pain, and handcuffed (...) into a car.

The report specifies that the police officer was asked to stay at his home for some time, without loss of pay.The young woman, a 38-year-old mother, was charged with assault and battery.

" I see only one thing : that the pain stop "

The second segment represents another shot of the incident that accompanied the intervention of Senator John Kerry, at the University of Florida.

The police have to face new situations, in France. Young people are now organized in gangs. In fact, the evolution simply follows that of the USA with a few decades' delay. I went to the USA for the first time in 1961. Six years earlier, rather, a film by Glenn Ford " Graine de Violence " had come out on the screens ( in black and white ). The English title is " blackboard jungle " ( the jungle of the blackboard ). It is the story of a middle school teacher who is confronted with a class of very insulting and aggressive teenagers. In the final scene of the film, one of them pulls out a knife and the teacher must face him bare-handed, having just wrapped his jacket around his hand. He ends up overcoming the young man, who is taken away by the police. Throughout the confrontation, not a single one of the teenagers, aged about twenty, intervenes.

When we had seen this film, at the end of the fifties, it represented for us a completely surreal, unimaginable scene. At that time the pupils of a secondary school were still afraid of the Headmaster, or of expulsion. Yet, as early as those fifties this film was the reflection of an American reality. In the same way drugs were already implanted in the United States on a large scale, particularly among the young, whereas it remained in France a marginal social phenomenon. This upsurge in crime in the United States, after the second world war, stemmed from agreements, whose existence was only known much later, made between the government of the United States and the Italian Maffia. The latter, accepting to collaborate with the American government to help it control a possible infiltration of spies or saboteurs on the docks of New York, which it controlled, and to facilitate the American landing in Italy, was able to benefit afterwards from privileges. One of the actors of this intensification of the extension of Cosa Notra to the United States was the sinister Lucky Luciano.

The dangerous gangster Lucky Lucianohttp://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Luciano

Luciano, exiled in Sicily, from then on organized crime on a vast scale in the USA and above all developed the massive export of drugs to the country. This collaboration between services, the army and gangsters is not an American specialty. We had our French Luciano in the person of Antoine Guérini, " gangster resistant ", notoriously linked to Gaston Deferre, mayor of Marseille and politician ( both are now deceased ).

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Gu%C3%A9rini

In France, the post-war period coincides with low-value trafficking, such as that of cigarettes ( affaire du Combinatti ), of alcohol, then of the export of weapons to Algeria. Drugs, generating immensely larger profits, but requiring a vaster organization and financing, would only come later.

In 1955, at the time of the release of Glenn Ford's film the filmmaker Henri Decoin releases his excellent " Razzia sur la Schnouff ", with Jean Gabin.

The latter plays the role of a policeman who infiltrates an entire drug network and ends up dismantling it completely. At the end of the film we see the long line of drug addicts apprehended, in the corridor of the PJ. This image gives us a very precise idea of the population affected by drugs at that time. There we find a rather rich dandy, prostitutes, young or old, crooks, but no young people. No drug addict corresponding to the current population.

*It is important to understand that the United States represents in many respects what you will be called to live through in future years. *

Everything that these films of the fifties showed us poured in afterwards throughout all of Europe. With five decades of delay our current teachers are now afraid of being ... stabbed in the courtyard of their high school. The film West Side Story, musical comedy by Leonard Bernstein shows us the confrontation between two gangs of young people, native Americans and Puerto Ricans. These confrontations and settling of scores take place completely outside any control or any police intervention. The Bronx of the sixties, that is our suburbs of today where certain neighborhoods have been totally taken over by gangs. I recently followed the broadcast of a program where policemen were interviewed on a television set. One of them said:

*- Now, the arrests, that's between six o'clock and six thirty. Otherwise you have all the inhabitants of the neighborhood on your back. Before, we could proceed with reduced teams. Today it takes a bus and twenty policemen and there are neighborhoods where my colleagues simply refuse to venture. *

Things have changed, it has to be taken into account. The police profession is not among the easiest either. Either these people take their profession casually, decide to manage business from their office or, for the field cops it becomes a real apostolate. I cite a personal anecdote. In the seventies I lived in a street in the city center of Aix en Provence. Right opposite my apartment located on the first floor was a restaurant run by "a consular representative of a distant country". The noise produced being absolutely infernal until all hours, every night. After several complaints the owner physically threatened his neighbors by knocking on their door. He invited me to enter his restaurant where he held me for an hour putting a revolver under my nose and saying to me:

*- Why are you tacking me?

• We don't say " tacking" but "attacking".
• What! ?
• Simple clarification on the use of the French language. The verb " taquer " does not exist in the dictionary. Can I make a phone call?
• Who do you want to call?
• Well the police, by dialing 17. We're not going to spend the afternoon here. You're very good with your revolver but frankly I have other things to do. *

I went to the neighborhood police station after this incident and reported the facts. Here is the reaction:

*- Did he hurt you? - No - Well, you'll come back if he hurts you. *

I suppose that when one is dead someone has to be sent ...

A few days after my arrival in New York, in 1961, I saw a uniformed police officer, with badges, cap, striding along a street in the city center, who suddenly began quite calmly to inspect his 9 mm revolver, after having drawn it from his "holster". In France, at that time, even if our cops had abandoned the bicycle and the cape, they still occasionally happened to direct traffic with their white baton. They were quite often neighborhood cops who wore on their belt a 7.5 mm Herstal pistol. The carrying of this weapon seemed moreover more symbolic than anything else.

I was 24 years old. I questioned the police officer:

*- Excuse me, sir. I saw you a moment ago take out your revolver in the middle of the street and proceed to inspect it. For me, who has just arrived from France, this scene is quite unusual. It does not seem that you are about to proceed with the arrest of a dangerous criminal. *

The police officer smiled and answered me:

*- Sir, I believe that where you come from, on the other side of the Atlantic, you have no idea of what we experience here, in New York and in many cities of the United States, today. Last week in Harlem, one of my colleagues on patrol came across two youths of 14 and 17 who were, crouching, trying to break into a shop, at night, by picking the lock of its security grille. He approached and asked them to get up. Without answering, the older one aimed a revolver in his direction and put a bullet in his belly. That was a few days ago and he is between life and death. *

In France, the social situation and that of delinquency have changed. The police profession has become very difficult. By the admission of those who appeared on the television set where they had been invited

- The great majority of cases today revolve around drugs - Drug seizures can only be carried out on the basis of denunciations coming from informants.

Another confidence from a man who has become a film director but who had been in the PJ [judicial police] for twelve years: these informants are themselves drug addicts who receive at the time of the seizure, in a tacit and secret manner, ten percent of what has been seized. They are thus assured of seeing their personal needs covered and of making profits as dealers. That is the Achilles' heel of these traffics. Addicts are capable of anything to get "their dose", including tipping off traffickers to the police at the risk of their lives. A police officer said "a law is being studied to remunerate informants, and thus not to pay them by putting back into circulation a deadly drug". But that is going from Charybdis to Scylla. Indeed an informant will agree to denounce a traffic only if the operation is sufficiently profitable for him and one can easily imagine that the sums to be mobilized would then largely exceed the average salary of police officers. Moreover, what becomes of the families of police officers shot dead, or left disabled? What is the price to pay to remain upright and conscientious?

Far be it from us to denounce "the cops" as a whole. What one can fear, in a country where ethnic tensions are now emerging, where the first "youth gangs" are appearing, whose only motive, as in West Side Story, is to claim a "territory", where economic and employment conditions are deteriorating, where prisons are bursting at the seams, where judges are overwhelmed by case files, where new forms of criminality, among minors or, very harsh, within mafias from Eastern countries, benefiting from very vast fallback points, often made up of former soldiers or members of secret services, are developing at breakneck speed, is that a two-speed security and justice may be established, where the priority of maintaining order is based on the project of trying to create in the population a "fear of the policeman" passing through the use of objects such as the Tazer.

If our new president Nicolas Sarkozy wants to appear as a reformer vis-à-vis the population and not as the emissary of a form of neo-fascism, he must come out as quickly as possible on interventions such as that of Lyon, if only symbolically.

http://www.agoravox.fr/article.php3?id_article=29313

Click on the image to access an article published on September 24 on one of these other web-media: Agoravox

If he does not do it. If the press does not take up this affair, it will mean that the police will henceforth be able to act without control, being automatically "covered" as this already seems to be the case in the United States, cf. the commentary by Paul Craig Roberts, above.

During the television program mentioned, the police officers evoked a break in police-justice collaboration about ten years ago. They complained of being themselves put under accusation in a manner they deemed abusive, by young magistrates, "little judges" perhaps often too young and lacking experience. But nowadays the profession of judge is very poorly paid, for workloads defying the imagination. For many, it constitutes more of an escape from the employment crisis than anything else.

Let us return to the case of this young girl tasered in Lyon. Let us begin by noting that it is extremely easy for provocateurs to make the slightest demonstration degenerate, whether or not it is supervised. All it takes is a breeze block thrown through a shop window, or a fight and simulated injuries. The face-to-face with groups is the work that demands the strongest nerves. Had the young police officers seen in this video received sufficient training? What could be said of their emotional stability? As much as, as the police officer who reports carrying a Taser since 2004 in the "brigade 93" says, its use seems logical against a person brandishing a shard of bottle, so too a police officer must be able to absorb any insult without flinching, especially when, with colleagues, he has gained control of an eighteen-year-old adolescent. I do not think that was the case in this action in Lyon where this young girl was tasered.

One can also wonder about the future evolution of crowd-control techniques. The use of tear gas is nothing new, but, apart from rare blunders, it leaves no irreversible after-effects. The same goes for water cannon, used to contain large groups of demonstrators. Conversely, let us note that the Taser has already killed 170 people in the United States. The police officer described this weapon as "with reduced lethality." After having been pioneers of the Taser, we expect the Americans to decide to use large microwave emitters, mounted on vehicles, during public demonstrations. Will France one day do the same?

I will end this report by reformulating my question to the police officer who authored a report on the internet: http://www.blog-police-recrutement.com/?p=239

How do you describe the state of an "overexcited" person, justifying the use of the Taser?

If I obtain an answer from him, I will publish it below.

New features Guide ( Index ) Home page