FRANCE GOING AGAINST THE GRAIN

By Louis Perez y Cid
Our website aims to be apolitical and intends to remain so. However, the scenes of vandalism and riots of recent days, like the images of a country sometimes given over to violence and destruction, cannot help but concern us.

As former legionnaires, we served France, each in our own way, with a sense of duty and respect for values ​​that are dear to us.

Without seeking to point the finger at political figures or defend an ideology, we believe it is legitimate to ask ourselves a simple question: "How did we get here and, above all, how can we prevent the situation from deteriorating further?" Questioning the state of the country is not engaging in politics. It is refusing to be indifferent.

Changing methods to move forward. When he was only seven years old, Milton Erickson is said to have watched his father trying to herd a calf into a stable. The boy pulled on the rope, but the animal reared up and refused to move forward.
Amused by the scene, the child mocked his father, who retorted, "Do better, if you think you're so clever!" Rather than pulling on the rope himself, young Milton had an unexpected idea: he went around the calf and pulled its tail. In response, the animal moved forward and finally entered the stable.

This anecdote, often associated with the thinking of Milton Erickson, illustrates a simple idea: when the method used does not produce the expected result, insisting further is not always the solution. Sometimes a change of approach is necessary. Having become a psychiatrist, Erickson developed an original approach to hypnosis, based in particular on adapting to the patient's reactions and using indirect strategies. A similar logic can be found in certain everyday situations. A child refuses to tidy their room despite repeated requests from their parents. Rather than continuing to order him to do so, a different approach might lead him to become aware of the situation himself and to act.

When remedies end up feeding the disease.
Looking at contemporary France, a question deserves to be asked: don't some of our responses to collective difficulties sometimes contribute to perpetuating the problems they seek to solve?
In education, security, the economy, social protection, and civic responsibility, contradictions abound. We want to protect without always succeeding in empowering, prevent conflicts without relinquishing authority, guarantee rights without losing sight of the duties that accompany them.
This is not to say that all public policies fail or that the intentions behind them are bad. Protecting the most vulnerable, reducing inequalities, and striving for social peace remain legitimate objectives. But a laudable intention alone does not guarantee a satisfactory result.

For several decades, our country has thus seemed to face persistent difficulties, despite successive reforms and measures. We want more security, but we question the effectiveness of sanctions. We want a more effective school system, without always managing to guarantee mastery of fundamental knowledge. We intend to preserve our social model while ensuring its funding. We demand authority, but also expect it to be exercised with consistency, discernment, and fairness.

These contradictions invite us to examine our methods with clear eyes. What if some of our difficulties stemmed less from a lack of resources than from responses that have become inadequate or insufficiently evaluated?
The paradox is not about systematically doing the opposite of what we do. Rather, it invites us to understand why certain actions produce effects contrary to those intended.

A nation does not necessarily become weakened following a major catastrophe. It can also weaken gradually, when compromises accumulate, when exceptions ultimately undermine common rules, and when responsibilities become diluted among institutions, administrations, and citizens.

Our society has legitimately sought to better protect the most vulnerable, reduce injustices, and prevent abuses of power. These ambitions remain essential. However, by trying to avoid all difficulties, we sometimes risk making it harder to learn to make an effort. By multiplying the mechanisms designed to solve problems, we can also create administrative complexity that hinders action. Finally, when proclaimed principles are not followed by concrete results, the gap between rhetoric and reality ultimately fuels distrust.
The difficulty of this problem arises particularly when common rules are no longer perceived as a guarantee for all, but as a constraint that everyone tries to circumvent.
The economy provides an illustration of this. It is difficult to sustainably finance collective ambitions without sufficient productive activity, businesses capable of investing, skilled labor, and rigorous management of public resources. Preserving our economic and social model therefore does not simply consist of distributing aid or multiplying regulations. It also requires creating conditions conducive to initiative, production, and employment.
Education raises a similar question. Giving everyone the same opportunities does not mean abandoning high standards. On the contrary, equal opportunities require that every child can acquire the essential knowledge, that work is encouraged, and that difficulties are addressed without abandoning learning objectives.
Finally, security is not simply a matter of firm rhetoric or the accumulation of laws. It also relies on prevention, a visible presence on the ground, the effectiveness of procedures, the enforcement of judicial decisions, and trust in the impartiality of the common rule.

In these three areas, the same pitfall can arise: we sometimes try to correct the consequences without sufficiently addressing the mechanisms that produce them.

This is precisely where paradoxical reasoning becomes crucial: before reinforcing a response, it is essential to verify that it truly addresses the root cause of the problem.

For former legionnaires, this reflection has a particular resonance.
Military life teaches that cohesion cannot be decreed, that missions require rigorous preparation, and that trust is built through actions. It also reminds us that a collective cannot function sustainably if each member asserts their rights while shirking their obligations.
It would obviously be illusory to mechanically transpose military methods to the whole of civil society. A democracy is not conducted like a section in combat. It rests on debate, the plurality of opinions, individual freedoms, and the accountability of institutions to citizens.

Certain military values ​​can nevertheless resonate far beyond the armed forces: a sense of duty, fidelity to one's word, solidarity in times of hardship, respect for common rules, and a refusal to shy away from difficulties.
These principles are neither nostalgic nor authoritarian. They call for a renewed commitment to a genuine culture of engagement.
France does not need to be put on high alert. It needs institutions that fulfill their mission, leaders who are accountable for their decisions, and citizens convinced that their efforts truly contribute to the common good.

A paradoxical approach to breaking the deadlock
How can this reflection be translated into concrete actions?
A few principles could serve as a guiding thread.

First, understand before reinforcing. When a system does not produce the expected results, the causes must be investigated before allocating more resources or replicating the same methods. Next, reconcile protection and demands. Responsibility implies a balance between rights, duties, and individual circumstances.
Prioritize results over intentions. What works deserves to be reinforced, and what fails must be corrected.
Make responsibilities clearer. Rights must be accompanied by clearly defined, understandable obligations adapted to each individual's situation.
Restore trust through consistency. A stated rule must be consistently applied, and a decision must be upheld or, failing that, be subject to a transparent accounting.
Finally, be willing to question our habits. Some practices may seem reassuring or politically advantageous without being truly effective. Changing them requires courage, a methodical approach, and a commitment to prioritizing the common good. The paradox, therefore, is not to do the opposite on principle. That would risk replacing one mistake with another. It lies in examining the consequences of our choices and modifying our approach when the results contradict our intentions.

Let's return to our stubborn calf. Pulling harder on the rope wasn't enough; a change of approach was needed.
France must face its difficulties head-on, acknowledge what isn't working, and equip itself to act differently.
The economy, education, and security all bring us back to the same imperative: reconciling freedom with responsibility, solidarity with effort, and authority with justice.

The true paradox might be to stop doing more of the same thing in order to finally achieve different results. A nation doesn't recover by simply regretting its past, but by drawing on its best qualities to build its future. The gloom is not inevitable.

But to regain its vibrancy, one must first be willing to change methods.

NOTE: The looting and rioting were amplified by outside forces as well as by the direct intervention of foreign groups on our territory.