The following video contains yet more bad news for the French government: Mikaël Harpon, the Islamic convert and perpetrator of the October 3 knife attack that killed four police officers at police headquarters in Paris, had a thumb drive containing data files of personal information on serving police officers. Now the police have to contend with the possibility that mujahideen throughout the country may decide to target specific police officers at their places of residence.
A representative of the French police union was interviewed by RTL for this report. Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Video transcript:
| 00:04 | At 11am respect will be paid to the officers killed in the attack at the Paris police prefecture. | |
| 00:08 | Good morning, Patrice Ribeiro. —Good morning. —Thank you for being here with us | |
| 00:11 | live this morning on RTL. You are the general secretary of the police union Synergie Officiers. | |
| 00:15 | We will be talking shortly about the most recent news, because it is worrisome. | |
| 00:18 | The investigation into Mikaël Harpon continues, and we have found out about the discovery | |
| 00:21 | of a USB drive with a content labelled ‘ultra-sensitive’. It is worrisome? | |
| 00:29 | It’s more than worrisome, in fact, because in that ultra-sensitive content | |
| 00:33 | there is personal information on dozens of people. So absolutely, if | |
| 00:37 | from the beginning of the investigation we find this type of thing on some USB drive, we are afraid | |
| 00:42 | other things may be found on his computers. —So all that in the midst of Islamist propaganda, | |
| 00:45 | of videos, in particular, decapitations. It means that in a certain | |
| 00:49 | way Mikaël Harpon was, objectively, building files on the police officers of the prefecture. | |
| 00:54 | Well, we don’t know if it was a part of his work that he collected | |
| 00:58 | that data, or those things. For now it hasn’t been determined; | |
| 01:02 | we don’t really know. If he pulled this data out in order to do harm, then yes, it’s serious. | |
| 01:06 | But we will know that as the investigation proceeds. —Which means that for now | |
| 01:10 | the searches that are being done on his computer have not yet definitively resulted [in anything] , | |
| 01:14 | is that right? —That’s right. For now we are at this stage of investigation. | |
| 01:18 | Is it normal or current to be privy to such data about police officers when as an IT specialist | |
| 01:23 | at the police prefecture of Paris? — Well, in his case yes, since he had a security clearance | |
| 01:27 | that was very high. He had access to everything, since he was in the IT service of a department | |
| 01:31 | which is extremely sensitive. — He had access to EVERYTHING? We are sure of that today? | |
| 01:35 | As an IT specialist he had access to a fair amount of information and had a level of clearance | |
| 01:39 | that was very high. Yes. —Right now I would even like to ask you: | |
| 01:43 | on the psychological level, among yourselves, police officers: how do you regard one another? | |
| 01:48 | I mean, you just experienced a shock, emotional and moral, very serious, | |
| 01:52 | and at the same time you realize that the suspicion can emerge in the very ranks of the police? | |
| 01:56 | It’s the worst thing. Because on one hand we are being attacked in a sanctuary, | |
| 02:00 | since the police prefecture IS a sanctuary, in a department which is, again, very special, | |
| 02:04 | and [on top of that] by one of our colleagues. Voilà, so this is… | |
| 02:08 | we still don’t… we know that the motivations have been explained as religious motives, | |
| 02:13 | but there was probably a mix of handicap [he was deaf], of personal problems, of frustration. | |
| 02:17 | Again, all that will be untangled little by little. — It’s always very easy | |
| 02:21 | to reconstruct the story after the fact, but we are still stupefied. | |
| 02:25 | We are talking about a man who dared to say incredible things after the Charlie Hebdo attack, | |
| 02:29 | about whom we know that he changed his behavior towards his female colleagues. | |
| 02:33 | And this didn’t wake more than that amount | |
| 02:37 | of suspicion, of worry? I know that it’s very difficult, because | |
| 02:42 | as I said before, he was first of all a fellow cop and an office colleague. | |
| 02:46 | On the one hand, you find only what you look for, that’s the first thing; then | |
| 02:50 | the exact content of his statements expressed after Charlie, anyway, | |
| 02:54 | didn’t motivate anybody to write a report. We are talking about a department that is | |
| 02:58 | relatively sensitive; I think there are things that were said and done, voilà, | |
| 03:02 | but it wasn’t reported in writing. And at the time his colleagues with whom he worked | |
| 03:07 | in an open space, didn’t assess his remarks as sufficiently worrisome, | |
| 03:11 | and he never repeated them later. —Do you think that such | |
| 03:15 | reports should be automatic and systematic from now on? So it’ll be terrible, because | |
| 03:19 | the tiniest little sentence will be interpreted. But at the same time there are moments when | |
| 03:22 | you have to be confronted, voilà, with the reality and with the decisions. Do you think that now, | |
| 03:27 | that a statement of this sort should be immediately reported and | |
| 03:31 | and leave a written record? —Well, we shouldn’t transform the police into Stasi, either, | |
| 03:35 | but anyway there are two cases: on the one hand people who work in specialized departments | |
| 03:39 | where, indeed, everything that could be a security failure, or everything that could seem | |
| 03:43 | to be a vulnerability, should attract attention, and we have to tighten the gaps; and then | |
| 03:48 | there are police officers who work for whatever other departments, there are about, say between | |
| 03:52 | 20 and 30 radicalized police officers in France among 150,000 people. —We’ll get back to that. Yes. | |
| 03:56 | For those people we need a few objective facts in order to be able | |
| 04:00 | to begin a procedure and eventually be able to remove them [from the police]. Do you think that | |
| 04:04 | security clearances need to be re-evaluated? —Well, it’s rather the rhythm of clearances, the rhythm | |
| 04:09 | of the investigations, and perhaps also a little more random rhythm from time to time, because | |
| 04:13 | today it’s fairly standardized: every 5 years, 7 years and 7 years [the clearance is re-evaluated]. | |
| 04:17 | Mikaël Harpon was supposed to be investigated again, to renew his clearance, in 2020, | |
| 04:21 | and probably then we would have seen the behavior changes, the changes in his associates. |
There can be little doubt that the reasons he was not reported and investigated are the same reasons that the mass rape of girl children in the UK was not reported and investigated until wide public revelations outside of the policing and political spheres forced them to take action – those reasons being the mass Muslim infiltration of both organisations and a fear of being persecuted for ‘Islamophobia’ on the part of those few remaining, non-Common Purposed, non-Globalised indigenous officers and junior local Council Staff who knew what was happening and feared for their livelihoods and possibly even their lives if they spoke out.
Here’s a suggestion:
All the police officers throughout France resign, on the same day, and refuse to be re-employed until the French tart, Mr Macron, immediately implements a programme to deport the invaders en masse.
I wonder how the French government would respond?
They will ask the muslims to become Police officers.
And then all hell will break loose.
Yes that is what they should do IF they were patriotic Frenchmen, unfortunately they aren’t , instead police in France are part of the globalist deep state.
Many of them are likely patriotic and dislike the policies they are forced to follow. However, they also have families to feed, mortgages, and bills to pay. The pain has to get extreme before those considerations become secondary.
The French had a choice. They picked Macron. In the US, we picked Trump. Why should we pity the French. This is what they chose!
While I don’t have any sympathy for the Germans who consistently reelect socialists and globalists and 80+ percent voting against the AfD, the French voted for Le Pen at over 20% in the runoff election only to see her defeated by the ganging up of all other political parties against the Front National in the regular election. Against all this opposition she still managed to achieve almost 34% of the vote. The election of Trump was a very close-run thing, and it very easily could have gone the other way so we should avoid being smug about the ability of American voters to do the right thing.
The Front National or National Rally as they are now known, are overwhelmingly supported by the police and the military, who are after all on the front lines of the jihad in France. Many French even had the gonads to don yellow vests and protest for months against the dictates of the Macron administration, and many policemen were not very enthusiastic about crushing protests which they sympathized with. When there is open fighting against the invaders, I believe that France is a very likely flashpoint for the start of hostilities. The French deserve a little more sympathy since every chance the citizens get to show their displeasure against the invasion they do so.
The definition of “Deep State” is a vast, entrenched, unaccountable bureaucracy which is focused on exploiting the resources of the government for personal profit and power. The bureaucracy is also focused on expanding itself, funneling more money and power to those on the top of the bureaucratic ladder.
The intelligence apparatus is a prime example of the Deep State. A mainstay of the Deep State is the defense industry, which uses a network of tax subsidies, unnecessary wars, and lobbyists with deep pockets to ensure the purpose of wars is not questioned too closely. The Deep State is fighting a death battle against Trump because the trajectory of his changes will lead to less money and business for the defense industry, and for the parts of the intelligence service (CIA in particular) involved in supporting both sides of a war, as in Syria.
The hallmarks of a Deep State are leaders with a deep leftist philosophy, as the philosophy of a huge, all-encompassing global government accords very well with the totalitarian left. The Deep State is also focused on perpetuating itself, and militates itself towards any threat to its existence. Any systematic questioning or oversight over the Deep State bureaucracy is seen as a threat. Thus, you get an FBI that is super-efficient when harassing its political enemies, but a paper tiger when it comes to actually acting on obvious threats, such as the Tsarnaev brothers, the Parkland shooter, the Pakistani rape gangs, or the protected minority members of the Deep State bureaus itself.
My own tendency is to think that the large intelligence agencies should be simply disbanded, and intelligence left to the military, which actually suffers casualties from bad or incomplete intelligence, and also left to decentralized police departments under local, not national, authority. If the Paris police is a locally-run agency, an intelligence failure, such as Harpon, will affect the officers of the local police, who rub elbows with their commanders every day. I expect a commander who allows his subordinates to be at risk would not get a very warm welcome. As opposed to the commander being able to be in a bunker office far away, too remote from the troops to every have to worry about actual consequences.