ATLANTA (Jan. 13, 2015) — The Charlie Hebdo massacre which took place Jan. 7 in Paris, France took the lives of 12 people and seriously injured 11. In the days that followed the massacre, the local government administered an unprecedented massive military and police response upon its civilian population.

In the interest of security, the New York Times reported today, “France Deploys Troops to Guard ‘Sensitive Sites’,”:

“Confronting a country in shock from last week’s terrorist attacks, the French government acted on Monday to increase security, sending thousands of soldiers and police officers to guard sites considered vulnerable, including Jewish schools, and calling for measures to reinforce electronic surveillance and curb jihadist recruitment in prisons and other crucibles of radicalization.”

What measures would be imposed next? Curfews, no movement after dark, internet and cell phone blackouts. The catastrophic event would most likely require a complete electronic database save and search of everyone’s electronic communications for the past five years?

Yet, because the civilian population was essentially still “stunned” by the tragic event, the governmental imposition in order to provide “security” took place without resistance. Understandably, the citizens were just too busy being human experiencing their grief, anger and fear. Making them highly susceptible to being manipulated, a condition permitting the unprecedented military response to successfully be deployed and indeed welcomed.

Taking advantage of a “dazed and tragedy consumed” citizenry is not unheard of practice. The opportunistic intervention of both private and governmental entities is discussed in depth by Neomi Klein in her book, “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.”

In the Shock Doctrine, Klein discusses the manner in which corporate interests capitalize in collaboration with applicable and consenting governments during disastrous times such as tsunamis, hurricanes, mass murders, and of course, times of war.

“The architects of this [Iraq 2003] invasion were firm believers in the shock doctrine — they knew that while Iraqis were consumed with daily emergencies, the country could be auctioned off discreetly and the results announced as a done deal,” Klein writes. She adds, “As for journalists and activists, we seemed to be exhausting our attention on the spectacular physical attacks, forgetting that the parties with the most to gain never show up on the battlefield.”

Here, the Hebdo mass murder was the “shocking” event. At which time the applicable government, or multiple governments operating from the same protectionism game book, launched into action an unprecedented intrusion of military and law enforcement assets into the civilian landscape.

Using predictable human emotional responses to their advantage, unprecedented governmental intrusion was able to be deployed in response to the Hebdo massacre.

In looking at the fine print, the enhanced security applied in response to the Hebdo massacre arguably allowed for: 1) the imposition of governmental intrusion upon the civilian sector’s privacy and living spaces; 2) the establishment of a response precedent to be referred to during similar future situations; and 3) the behind the scenes capitalization by private companies arranged to profit off of said intervention through exclusive contracts for goods and services needed for such intervention.

Goods and services would include the weapons, vehicles, surveillance apparatus, electronics and other equipment, to include ongoing service contracts for said equipment, however narrowly rationalized to be needed by the respective requesting agencies. This would also include any human personnel assets such as private security personnel, similar to the non-military security services provided by the private company Blackwater in Iraq.