The enemy within

This is not directly linked to our current enemies and yet may well be, upon further examination … Them, the invaders, the Woke left indoctrinated … the baddies here are very much indoctrinated or in someone’s pocket, or are in thrall in some way, maybe even in fear of consequences.

The story is about a Paris section set up by two abused women (remember this was written around 2006, revised up to 2016, so there’s nothing new in the subject). They received help, funding, and so were able to function for some years, exposing corrupt officials … but after some time, it was apparent that the really high-ups were protected, so it was only low fruit they were able to get at.

A man (Hugh), a guy with some military experience, who’d met the head of this French section (Geneviève) in a Russian town … well they’d liked one another and he’d decided to shift base to Paris.

Soon he was attacked (a lorry tried to run him off a motorway, across a grassy gap into oncoming traffic) … then rescued girls in the section started being bumped off. Clearly, someone inside knew they’d discovered something more sensitive than the usual.

The worst incident was when one of the supposed rescuees had tried to kill both Geneviève and Hugh, plus there were two other traitors as well … Alana and Elaine.

Geneviève (partly injured) was obviously highly upset, they needed a meeting, together with the section member Nadine who’d given the alarm on the three traitors. She was a much younger member (23).

The moral of the excerpt below was that one never really knows … while there are people, such as this Emmeline below, who have given way completely to evil, barely able to disguise it, yet there are others far more devious and clever, who can be hidden for years, even coming to them at the section’s inception.

Below is a set of things to look for when employing staff … some might seem spurious but experience says otherwise.

……

Just after lunch, Geneviève appeared. Her head was back together and she was more in control of herself. They got down to business.

‘Let’s look at the Emmeline and Alana question, all right?’ began Geneviève. ‘I’d thought our selection procedures were pretty good – we’d chosen Nicolette, Nadine, Melanie –’

‘But also Elaine, Emmeline and Alana, I have to remind you.’

‘Yes, yes, that’s what worries me. We need better procedures.’

Nadine put in her contribution. ‘We need to check records better and check the checkers as well. Expand our database.’

‘You weren’t selected solely on your record, Nadine,’ said Hugh. ‘It was Geneviève here who decided to take a chance with you. The ability to sniff out talent and danger is everything in the final analysis – data goes only so far.’

‘But that’s unreliable and it makes one person indispensable,’ protested Nadine.

‘That’s the eternal dilemma. But after a long period of time, even if you’re an unwise person, which describes me perfectly, sheer experience helps you pick up certain things but you can’t do it alone, this is the error many leaders make … they don’t listen to the middle ranks.’

‘Example?’ asked Geneviève.

‘If an enemy wants to infiltrate, he’ll use sleepers who’ll get past your guard at the recruitment stage, then act perfectly normally for a long period of time, allaying your fears – they’ve studied you, know your weaknesses, they know the general system – you really must have others in there as well who can give advice from the side so to speak.’

‘Mademoiselle is good at picking up anomalies.’ Nadine.

‘She is, it’s her strength but she picks up certain kinds of anomalies she’s sensitive to, I’m the same, so is anyone, there’s no shame in this. For example, you and Nikki saw that this Emmeline was insubordinate to Nikki, but there might be other anomalies.’

‘Such as?’ Geneviève.

‘This Emmeline’s manner was closed, too intense, too internalised. Plus she had a stud in her nose.’

Nadine huffed. ‘What does that have to do with it?’

‘Nadine, do you have a stud in your nose or a nail through your eyebrow?’

‘No.’

‘Why not?’

‘That’s my business.’

‘Why don’t you just say ‘because I don’t want to’?’

‘All right – I don’t want to.’

‘You’re a certain type, brought up in a certain way – this Emmeline was far more cavalier, less careful in her ways, I’ve watched you make the coffee and I’ve watched her too.’

‘I don’t accept it.’

‘I do,’ Geneviève chipped in. ‘I’ve had my eye on her for quite some time and that coffee was one example.’

‘Why, Mademoiselle?’

‘The boys Emmeline hung around with were rough. Stupid, yes?’

‘No,’ said Hugh. ‘Exactly the opposite. You know the saying, ‘You’ll know them by their fruits?’ Each little anomaly, on its own, may mean nothing, might be inconclusive. But when certain anomalies of a kind are combined, then that’s possible danger. In normal life, we can ignore it but in a Section like this – it can’t be ignored.’

‘So, why didn’t you pick her?’ persisted Nadine.

‘Because I observed but then dismissed what I’d seen.’

‘What did you observe?’

‘Emmeline was about 167cm, hair tied back severely, hands large but arms skinny like the rest of her – almost 20 years old, dressed to appear more childlike than she was, made up darkly, steady gaze from the eyes betrayed something other than innocence.’

‘And?’

‘While I didn’t fall for her little girl beauty, I missed seeing the viper lurking behind the eyes. She was pretty – that’s how they got me in Russia.’ Hugh sat back in the chair and sipped his now cold coffee.

Geneviève had been listening carefully. ‘So are you saying we should be more vigilant?’

‘Not only. Yes, we should always be vigilant but we should always do things in conference – someone might have seen something we didn’t. And don’t forget they are trying to make you ineffective, they lay troubles on you, plus you lay troubles on yourself, such as me and so it does need those extra eyes and ears.’

‘Emmeline and Alana?’

‘Emmeline and Alana were designed to get past your guard, Genie, that’s why they were placed. Secondly, your own antennae weren’t picking up clear signals due to your own troubles and that was factored in – to make you less effective. Thirdly, those girls were only bit players, on the peripherique. And there is a fourth point.’

‘Go on.’

‘Sometimes we’re blinded by close association with people. On the grounds that we’ve been working with them for a long time and that they appear to be our kind of people, we make the logical jump that they are, therefore, good people. We don’t really know that – we don’t know who has what hold over them. Are they more likely to betray that or to conceal it?’

‘Example?’

‘Philby, Burgess and Maclean, especially Philby. There’s a less high profile example from London. My immediate boss and I interviewed a young woman for a teaching post and he asked what I thought of her. I said I really liked her – I have a bit of a problem with pretty girls, yes I know you can’t understand that – her methodology was sound, she was personable and the children responded to her.’

‘So you gave her the job?’ asked Nadine.

‘My boss refused, he said she was wearing denim at the interview.’

‘Excuse?’ Nadine snapped.

‘Denim – she was wearing a denim jacket.’

‘Yes? And what?’

‘To an interview.’

‘So?’

‘That was my reaction too at the time. Turned out though he was 100% correct – the girl had been trouble. Tiny point but he’d picked up on it.’

‘But how could he have known?’

‘Firstly, he was a naturally suspicious character. Secondly, it was only the faintest of suspicions. The rest was easy – checking the database.’

‘Did this boss of yours ever get it wrong?’

‘We both did. Another absolute little dream came for a job interview, exactly my type of girl, and we gave her the job. She was the front girl for a gang of thieves – that’s a true story by the way.’

‘All right – wearing denim and excessive prettiness, you claim,’ said Geneviève. ‘What other things would warn you?’

‘They’ll sound crazy and Nadine will go beserk when she hears them but I swear they’re indicative, they’ve been borne out by long experience, I myself ignored most of these or dismissed them in the early days.’

‘Go on.’

‘Any form of body piercing beyond earrings, a ring worn on the thumb, tattoos, dressing a la mode, excessive attention to make-up, arriving late for meetings, not apologising for things, speaking of ‘doing’ a country you’ve visited, excessive travel, beach worship, nightclubbing more than once a week, loudness in general demeanour or the opposite – excessive shyness, uncompromising attitude on certain issues, primaeval tendencies such as heavily rhythmic musical preferences, very personal questions early in conversations – I could go on and on. Remember – no one item is indicative, they’re only indicative in combinations’

‘What’s wrong with wearing a ring on the thumb?’ Nadine protested.

‘Nothing in itself as I just mentioned. But if you also club, wear clothes a bit on the immodest side and your speech is coarse, then that’s very much a sign. And certain combinations do often go together. We had to know these things professionally in one of my jobs.’

‘I still can’t see it.’

‘I can,’ said Geneviève. ‘I see it very clearly. Any other factors?’

‘Any number of them, Genie – taking yourself too seriously, unreasonable habits like being in a car and realising you forgot your compact and expecting the driver to turn around and go back for it, a man who uses come-on lines to a woman instead of natural conversation, excessive internet usage at night, general secretiveness, feeling things are unfair or that you’re not getting your fair share, coming up with new plans the whole time while not finishing the others and so on and so on.’

‘I’d appreciate it, Hugh, if you’d write those down and discuss them with me at a later stage. Any others?’

‘Hedonistic lifestyle, suntan in winter, beach worship, excessive muscular development in a guy, narrowed eyes, glazed eyes, feeling your business will break down without your presence, being a natural rebel rather than a natural loyalist, having no time for simple pleasures, doing only leisure activities which require money, inability to control personal finances, excessive shopping.’

‘Shopping?’

‘Shop-a-holics are sad people – not much inside them as people and compensating with external things.’

‘Like Louise?’

‘Yes, we keep coming back to her, don’t we? Incidentally, she wore a ring on her thumb.’

‘Yes, she did.’

Nadine had been listening to all this and was near-apoplectic. ‘But almost everyone I know does those things,’ she exploded. ‘Suntanning on the beach, for example – are all those people dangerous?’

‘It’s the combinations which count, Nadine, not single items. And not necessarily dangerous but sometimes just unreliable – it might not matter in everyday life but in our work – it does. Also, if they continue that tan into the winter – yes, they’re possibly unreliable. Not because of that itself but because of the mindset and the other things which go with that mindset.

You think this is outrageously wrong, don’t you, Nadine, because it attacks things in your age range which you accept as normal? I’m sorry, we can’t afford to worry about who’s upset about what – we need to be sure and so niceties don’t come into it. It’s not a foolproof method by any means but experience often bears it out and if that’s combined with things like your opinion on things, it gets pretty close.’

‘You’re sad. May I ask you something – are you happy in your life?’

‘Right now I am.’

‘You do have a penchant for provoking people, Hugh. All right, so where do we start?’ asked Geneviève.

‘With the fruits, of course – always the fruits. Take the specific of Emmeline – go into her flat at her invitation and observe. Go round with her for 24 hours, on some pretext, listen to the language coming from her lips, look at and listen to her friends.’

‘We do that already but I think we need to be better organised.’

She sent Nadine out for supplies and used the time to speak further.