[...] to further clarify the situation, let's play devil's advocate.
Let's admit that Jean-Michel and Brigitte Trogneux are not one and the same person, but the
two children, one born in 1945 and the other born in 1953, of Jean Trogneux and Simone Pujol.
Let us also admit the marriage of Brigitte in 1974 with the banker André Louis Auzière and the three
children who will be born of this quiet union broken by an "incredible" love story as crazy
as transgressive.
In the same way, let us admit that Jean-Michel is an ordinary man with a very calm sentimental life and a very
and a very self-effacing existence. Married only once to Véronique Dreux, from whom he had two children, divorced,
without known mistresses or companions. A man withdrawn from business, from the world, from his family.
And let's admit that the relations between the son, the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law are now
perfectly peaceful, to the point of fusion between Manu and his mother, and that Françoise and Brigitte
are now two good friends who often have lunch together, who are so friendly that they laugh together and have the same affections.
together and to have the same affinities...
Let us also admit that all these soothing declarations of the ones and the others on the good relations
within these recomposed families - and also decomposed - owe much more to a campaign of
supervised by Mimi Maquerelle Marchand for the next presidential election than to the reality of their
reality of their real "family" relationships.
Let us simply admit the - or rather the - successive and shaky official versions...
because they are successive and contradictory. And let us go back in time to the beginning of this incredible
love story which is finally the "cornerstone" of the whole Trogneux-Macron case.
Officially (that is to say, by trying to make a more or less plausible synthesis of the contradictory versions) everything begins with the
contradictory versions) everything begins with the dazzlement of a French teacher, Brigitte Auzière, née Trogneux
Trogneux, animator of a theater workshop, who is enthusiastic about the brilliant talent of a young
schoolboy, Emmanuel Macron, for the only thing he knows how to do: act. Indeed, Manu
with a friend, Renaud Dartevelle, had staged the play Jacques et son maître by Milan Kundera.
We are in 1992, Manu is 14 years old and finishes his third year... From the beginning of the legend, the
hagiographers get confused and confuse everything, as usual. They fall madly in love
in 1993 according to Sylvie Bommel (Et Brigitte créa Macron, Pop Story of May 2016), they met "in the mid-1990s" according to Maële
the mid-1990s" according to Maëlle Brun ("Brigitte Macron. L'Affranchie"), but Brigitte had "seen" him at a
Brigitte had "seen" him at an award ceremony for an internship report in the ninth grade (i.e., during the first semester of 1992) and knew him "well.
semester 1992) and knew him "mostly by reputation. I have a madman in my class who knows everything about
I have a madman in my class who knows everything about everything,' his daughter Laurence told him, 'who will be in the same class as him... but in the second year and who, who, like Manu, participated in her "mother's" theater workshop.
We are thus at the very first hours of a fabulous story of transgressive love and
already we do not have any reliable information on them. Nothing agrees: the dates, the circumstances
circumstances, the testimonies... Let us summarize the few "sure" data we have
before entering into even more uncertain terrain.
Manu attended public school until the fifth grade. School which, according to his biographers, was almost
at the end of the family garden, surely much larger than indicated in the cadastre, since the
Sagebien primary school is 500 meters away as the crow flies. For his entry into the sixth grade, he then joined the
private college of La Providence on the advice - the injunction? - of... Manette. A choice that is all the more
the two secondary schools, Sagebien and La Providence, are - at a few dozen meters - at the same
the same distance from the family home. And the very secular and "avant-garde
Germaine Arribet spent her entire teaching career in the public sector before ending it as principal of the
by being the director of the college... Sagebien!
Manu joined the Jesuit school in 1989 and was in the fourth grade when Brigitte arrived as a
teacher at La Providence for the beginning of the 1991 school year. But, at the time, according to the official legend, she did not meet him, did not
never heard of the remarkable precocity of the little Mozart of theatrical writing, of the
theatrical writing, the Orson Welles of Henriville, the budding Rimbaud whose poems made Brigitte swoon, the "madman who
Brigitte, the "madman who knows everything about everything"... Apparently, this protean genius was then of a remarkable
and his multiple and dazzling talents suddenly appeared as if by miracle at the end of his
his multiple and dazzling talents suddenly appeared as if by a miracle at the end of his ninth grade year. The transgressive lovers will wait patiently until 1993 to fall madly in love and to declare their flame whereas all the conditions were
met since 1991. But, at this date, the romantic legend of a teacher succumbing to the
irresistible charm of her young pupil became less obvious to swallow and the too obvious
less easy to hide even under tons of glamorous infomercials making the
glamorous infomercials promoting the transgressive...
Let's play the devil's advocate to the limit of the unbelievable and accept the
official" version.
Thus, according to the canonical hagiography, Brigitte officiates at La Providence from the beginning of the 1991 school year, meets her
in 1992/93/mid-1990s, fatally falls in love with it despite the appalling
the dreadful scandal that is bound to erupt... and quietly leaves the establishment in 2004.
To integrate another, much more prestigious, in Paris where is formed the top of the future "zelites" of the country.
of the country. Who said that crime does not pay?
All the protagonists are apparently suffering from paralysis and Alzheimer's disease. The
Macron's couple do nothing. The invisible Mr. Auzière does nothing and pushes invisibility to the point of
disappearing from the family home. La Providence, however a religious establishment, does nothing
does nothing in spite of a proven misappropriation of minors of which the whole good society of Amiens is informed.
It does not take the slightest measure, even of "simple precaution" to protect potential
victims: the theater workshop continues, a sexual predator continues to teach the kids of the same Amiens
good society of Amiens that it does not seem to worry about it... The Trogneux family, however
directly concerned by such a scandal and in particular Jean-Claude Trogneux (whose swimming pool
the pool of which sheltered the clandestine love affairs of Manu and Brigitte), is absent. The only one to react is
Manette - the grandmother and quasi "mother" of Manu - who... takes up the cause for the lovers and
supports them!
The Macrons, as "responsible" parents, leave their offspring at La Providence. Françoise is even
even admires the French teacher of her daughter Estelle, who was enrolled in 1995 at La Providence from the age of six, a certain
sixth grade, a certain... Brigitte Auzière! The Macron couple stoically waits for the arrival in
to evacuate Manu from Amiens where his moral health is in serious danger, the scandal
resounding - but as invisible as André Louis Auzière.
And there, as usual, we are entitled to a flurry of contradictory and absurd versions. Manu would have
been "exfiltrated" to Paris by his grandmother who bought him an apartment so that he could do his final year at Henri IV. His parents were probably indigent or under guardianship... Moreover, Brigitte
would have used her connections to get him admitted to Henri IV. In fact, no, it is Jean-Michel Macron
if we are to believe the Daily Mail investigation of April 26, 2017: "Jean-Michel would have intervened
personally to ask if they would accept his son with the guarantee that he would be separated from Mme
Trogneux" ... who never taught at Henri IV since when she left Providence in 2004 she integrated
Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague for the thirty years of her schoolboy lover! As all this does not make sense
Since all this doesn't add up, we change again the lame version. According to the Macrons: "We had planned for a long time
that he and his brother would leave to study in Paris.
Jean-Michel is even more affirmative: "It was Emmanuel who wanted to do his final year in the capital. It was his wish.
His mother adds: "We had thought, from the second year of high school, to send him to Paris.
This decision was not linked to his affair with Brigitte. In the end, the Parisian second year "wanted" by his parents turned out to be a final year imposed by Manu with the support of Manette...
The other great absentee of this affair - in fact he has always been absent - is André Louis Auzière, the husband of the teacher in charge of
husband of the teacher responsible for the misappropriation of a minor by a person in authority and father of three
of three children in permanent contact with a sexual predator. The hagiographic work Un jeune homme si parfait
perfect young man describes him as having been assigned to Amiens in 1991... but this is contradicted by an "irrefutable" witness
but this is contradicted by an "irrefutable" witness: his daughter Tiphaine Auzière who explains that her father, working in Lille, only came back to Amiens on weekends to Amiens. But why, if he was actually assigned to Lille, did he not move there? He
knows the city and its suburbs well, having lived there for a long time. So why did he move to
Amiens where he has no real ties? For Brigitte? But she could very well get a teaching job in a
teaching position in a private school in Lille. Unless her objective was to be hired
at La Providence and not elsewhere... Moreover, a husband as complaisant as he was invisible, living during the week in Lille
in Lille left the field free for her. Far-fetched? In reality, much less than the unlikely existence of
the improbable existence of a man who says nothing, does nothing, abandons his home (but was it really his?)
his home (but was it really his?), his children, and only divorced much later to allow Brigitte to
remarry... The "official" version is so absurd that it becomes involuntarily comical.
We always come back to the "cornerstone" of this story of transgressive love that looks more and more like a vaudeville
more and more like a vaudeville revised and corrected by Alfred Jarry: the theater! The place of the famous
meeting, of the dazzling, of the famous complicity in the common writing, of the love at first sight
of the forbidden and impossible love which, finally, imposes itself to the world. And we understand
that the whole story of the theater workshop is a lie, a screen intended to impose a romantic theatrical work
a romantic theatrical work that is totally implausible: Romeo and Juliet at the Jesuits
of Amiens.
Facts & Documents, in its issue 499, demonstrates that the Macronist documentary La stratégie du
meteor, broadcast for the first time in November 2016, in which appears the famous film of their mythical
"meeting", that of the theatrical performance in the spring of 1993, is a clever manipulation:
Manu and Brigitte never appear there together!
"By cutting frame by frame, we observe a cut between the sequence where the troupe greets the public - Emmanuel and Brigitte - and the sequence where they meet.
the audience - Emmanuel Macron is visible but not 'Brigitte' - and the sequence showing 'Brigitte' going on stage - Emmanuel
Brigitte' coming on stage - neither Emmanuel Macron, nor the other actors from the previous sequence are
present. So there is no common individual in the two sequences. And
contrary to what the editing of the documentary suggests, everyone can agree that the one who
is not Emmanuel Macron.
Unlike Facts & Documents we do not believe that the "alleged images of their
meeting are meant to convey a subliminal message of transparency": "there is nothing to
to hide". They are there to impose, by the means of the manipulated image, the invented version of
a mad love born on the occasion of this workshop of theater... while they dissimulate a reality
infinitely more sordid still.
We can take this story by any means, following the official version(s) or the "conspiracy" theories, one arrives inevitably at the only possible conclusion: the scenario does not
hold up! The story has been completely invented after the fact. The only "witnesses" of the
misappropriation of minors resulting from the famous love at first sight are the protagonists themselves, who
then put themselves on stage, in value, through contradictory versions that change over time.
The official story serves to give a glamorous varnish, to clear - over time and through complacent
The official story serves to give a glamorous veneer, to clear one's name - over time and through complacent accounts - and to camouflage a misappropriation of minors that took place over many years with the agreement of the authorities,
the complicity - tacit or active - of the protagonists and leading, beyond the physical rape, to a
psychological rape with frightening consequences.
This is the only hypothesis that allows us to resolve the contradictions and absurdities of the imposed story;
which offers a plausible explanation of the sequence of events and the behavior - otherwise
aberrant - of the protagonists; but which also brings new interrogations and opens the famous door on
door to the unspeakable.
In an article published on June 25, 2021 and entitled: "Poix-de-Picardie, Marie-Claire Stubbe remembers
of Emmanuel Macron's grandmother", Maxime Bouhier brought, on the occasion of Manu's pilgrimage in the footsteps of Germaine Arribet in Picardy, his contribution to the edification of
the hagiography of Saint Manette, the "mother" of "God is among us":
It was in the 1960s. When Marie-Claire Stubbe was able to talk with Germaine Noguès, one of the grandmothers of the
current President of the Republic, Emmanuel Macron. She had been received by the one who was the principal of the elementary school.
At the origin of this interview, a terrible fact that Marie-Claire Stubbe would have done well without. "Until she was
6 years old, one of her four children went to school near Poix-de-Picardie. But her teacher
was violent towards her. He beat her because she had visible marks on her face.
And even bloodstains could be seen in a book.
This unbearable and unsustainable situation led him to find a new school for his
daughter. That's when Germaine Noguès stepped in.
"I will always remember that meeting. As soon as we told her about the problem, she didn't hesitate to
welcome my daughter in the establishment. She was very warm. It warmed my heart.
I will always be grateful for what she did." [...]
But she still has one regret. "I would have loved to meet her again. Unfortunately, the opportunity never came.
never presented itself." 24
In spite of a certain journalistic staging that transforms the anecdote into an edifying episode
of the golden legend of Manette, let us admit that this testimony is true, especially since it is supported by
the name and the photo of the interested party - an element rare enough in the Macronian accounts to be
underlined. Indeed, there is nothing a priori to cast doubt on it: a primary school teacher engages in
assault on one of his students, leaving marks on the child's face and blood on a book.
The mother, unable to bear that her daughter undergoes such violence, decides to change school and confides in Saint Manette who immediately welcomes the martyred child with warmth in her
saving establishment. End of the pious legend. And the questions begin...
At first sight, the story could only enhance the brightness of the halo of the lay saint and
"avant-garde". On closer inspection, however, it could well be tarnished by a few
embarrassing shadows. The journalistic account is designed to exalt the pious grandson through the uplifting life of his
grandmother, and so it focuses on what Manette did... but not on what she didn't do.
Faced with the drama of the little martyr, the warm and caring principal welcomed her without
hesitation or delay. And that's all.
A teacher indulges without restraint in unspeakable violence on one of his young pupils. She
may not be the only victim, nor the first or the last. And the beating she received
could also be a cover for something even worse. Welcoming the child in this way can also be interpreted as the
easiest way to discreetly cover up the tragedy... and ensure impunity for the perpetrator, allowing him to continue.
Nothing in the story indicates that Manette has done anything
else. Such as advising the mother to file a complaint, urgently alerting the school administration to the
teacher's behavior, report it to the rectorat, to the prosecutor... In short, what one would expect from a teacher
so open, so attentive and so avant-garde in front of "a terrible fact", "an
unbearable and unbearable situation". Certainly, one could see in it only a corporatist reflex aiming at
not to disown, not to denounce a colleague, even if it is a serious fault punishable by the courts
which makes one an accomplice...
Although the halo of the "saint" does not shine, the deciphering of this episode allows us to highlight her ambiguous
behavior at the time and to shed new light on her behavior when Manu was
educated at La Providence on her advice... or her order?
The recent discovery by Natacha Rey of a photo of a ninth grade class at La Providence during the 1991/1992 school year
shows Manu and... Laurence Auzière, both students in the same class!
The presence of these two students of THIRD grade on their class photo totally invalidates the "official" version explaining that the future
First Lady only knew Manu by reputation thanks to her daughter
Laurence, then in SECOND grade: "I have a madman in my class who knows everything about everything".
The whole narrative of the previous versions collapses once again... The hijacking
didn't start when Manu was in second grade, but in 1991 when he was in third grade. Or maybe even
even earlier in Amiens - or elsewhere - ... since the whole biography of "Brigitte" is only a immense deception.
According to Natacha Rey: "Macron's parents themselves testified that they believed at the time
that their son was dating Laurence, his young classmate, before discovering with horror, that he
had in fact started an affair with her "mother"! The latter wanted to make a complaint,
but it seems that they were dissuaded and that the scandal was hushed up within this private Catholic and Jesuit institution.
The appearance of Laurence Auzière in Manu's class not only demolishes the version of "Mom" but also allows us to put forward the more than probable hypothesis that "Brigitte" was using her daughter (and her other children) as bait, diversion and cover, among other things...
Let's push the complacency to the point of admitting the fable that they were dissuaded from filing a complaint and that the scandal was
suppressed by the establishment. This makes ipso facto the Macrons and the
Jesuit leaders of La Providence the active accomplices of a pedocriminal guilty of the crime of
sexual attack on a minor of 15 years with aggravating circumstances defined in articles 227-25 and
227-26 of the Penal Code... In fact, the list of offenders is far from being complete since we have to
include André Louis Auzière who, in addition, abandons the marital home and his three children to the clutches of a
pedocriminal!
More prosaically, Brigitte and Manu were frolicking in the private swimming pool of the family residence of
Jean-Claude Trogneux. According to the testimony - "irrefutable" - of Brigitte, her brother Jean-Michel
Trogneux had instructed him to break up and stop this scandal.
We can not say that this new version is without risk for all this little world knowing
that, according to article 706-47 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, public action for crimes committed against minors
is prescribed by thirty years from the age of majority of the victims. The sword of
Damocles of the blind Justice can fall on them until December 21, 2025...
Let's push the absurdity to the limit and admit that the people in charge of La
Providence absolutely want to stifle such a scandal in defiance of Catholic morality and
the republican law. But why then keep Brigitte as a teacher until she leaves for another
Jesuit establishment in Paris in 2004? Especially since the pedocriminal teacher
continued her affair with a Manu for years and could reoffend at any time with other
students of both sexes... This represented an enormous and uncontrollable danger for them...
especially since everyone knew about it according to the biographers of the presidential couple. We
want to believe in the efficiency of prayer, but there are limits to miracles.
Let's even admit that the Trogneux, anxious to protect their reputation and their business,
also want to stifle the scandal even if it means stifling their conscience. The "fraternal" admonitions
"of Jean-Michel were - not surprisingly - a total fiasco. Other possible
solicitations, incitements, pressure on their part so that Brigitte leaves Amiens or at least La Providence were not
successful either, if we exclude the disappearance of André Louis
Auzière, but as he did not exist before... As adept at the Credo and the Coué method
as the Jesuits of La Providence, they were content to cross their fingers and shake their asses
for a dozen years until his departure for Paris...
Let us also admit that in a - very long since it is still prolonged - moment of distraction the
Macron gave in to the pressure not to file a complaint. But what
"irresistible" arguments did Providence and/or the Trogneux have so that loving parents
sacrifice the moral and physical health of their son? Avoiding a public scandal does not justify in any way such
inertia which borders on stupidity... or complicity. Why didn't they put La
Providence to separate from Brigitte as soon as possible, to inform André Louis Auzière of the criminal
behavior of his wife and the risks for his own offspring? In spite of everything, even at
the Macrons, in order to protect their three children, to remove them from such an
establishment that promotes pedocriminality. Especially since the Sagebien college and the Louis
Thuillier and Edouard Branly high schools, a few steps away, could accommodate them... And that Manette, director
of the Sagebien college until her retirement, could very well advise them usefully.
Except that...
She too - and for the same reasons - falls under the same articles 227-25 and 227-26 of the
Penal Code... but with an even worse case! Not content with not lecturing her daughter and son-in-law
daughter and her son-in-law, of not denouncing Brigitte's crimes and the complicity of La Providence,
she systematically supported Manu and Brigitte! The halo of the saint takes henceforth tints
and this is only the beginning of the passage to the dark side...
We are now faced with the heart of the enigma: why have they ALL accepted the unacceptable to the point of
the unacceptable to the point of becoming accomplices? What pact bound them together? No one has
denounced the crimes of Jean-Michel/Brigitte. No one even tried to prevent him from acting. Nobody
tried to protect his victims.
There is only one logical explanation for such collective behavior for decades:
ALL of them were guilty of the same actions, and denouncing ONE of them meant that ALL of them were
denounce themselves! To refuse this evidence is to find oneself faced with the absurd actions of individuals
- and even institutions - permanently lying about whole parts of their existence, denying the obvious, accumulating
inconsistencies and contradictions for nothing: an idiotic conspiracy of innocent fools...
There is no idiotic conspiracy of innocent fools, but an occult pact of deeply perverse individuals
working for a specific purpose, even if many of them are not even aware of it. A
pact based on lies and dissimulation, because it has to hide and protect Subversion.
Subversion understood here in the metaphysical sense of the term as the inversion of all values to
better to deny them, to annihilate them.
