Le journal de BORIS VICTOR

avr. 21

LIRE DANS L'APP

While the mainstream media and every last self-appointed censor France has to offer are losing their minds because Elon Musk failed to show up for his police summons, we are republishing our article from last February, which covers the matter in full.

Those self-appointed censors are not merely malicious, but breathtakingly stupid and ignorant to boot. Take, for instance, La France Insoumise (far left) Member of European Parliament Manon Aubry, who is demanding the issuance of an international arrest warrant against Elon Musk — an Interpol red notice, no less. Let us take a moment to enlight her in words she may grasp.

Manon Aubry MEP, demanding an international arrest warrant for ElonMusk

This is a preliminary probe conducted by the Paris prosecutor’s office. In France, a prosecutor cannot issue an arrest warrant — that is the exclusive prerogative of investigating judges and criminal trial courts - the Bench. Holly molly ! Just like in any other country that’s bound to due process.

A prosecutor can only issue a “research warrant” (enabling cop to locate you) or request a detention (maximum 24 hours, renewable once), and since no investigating judge has been appointed in this case, he cannot even request a summons warrant (enabling cops to detain you the time needed to drag you to the interview).

Elon Musk is an American national residing in the United States. French justice has no jurisdiction over him directly. It therefore falls to the competent American authorities to serve him his summons in the USA at France’s request — failing which, that summons carries precisely zero legal weight.

The American Department of Justice declined to assist the French state, which is its absolute and sovereign right. Since Elon Musk was never served with a legally valid summons, he is perpetrating no offence whatsoever by declining to present himself before France’s cyber-gendarmes.

Is that clear enough?

L’ECLAIREUR is reader-supported. To support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Paris prosecutor’s office presses ahead with a case against X it knows full well is doomed.

The political motivations behind the two criminal referals filed in January 2025 are glaringly obvious. We laid them bare back when the preliminary investigation was launched last July.

France v. X

July 22, 2025

The Paris prosecutor’s office has now openly confessed its mission creep in black and white. In today’s press release—dated February 3, 2026— prosecutor Laure Beccuau declares (third pragraph): “This investigation is, at this stage, part of a constructive approach, with the ultimate objective of guaranteeing the conformity of the X platform to French laws, insofar as it operates on French territory.”

Here is the press release.

Since when does criminal justice play compliance officer? That’s the job of administrative regulators—the CNIL for data protection, ARCOM for DSA compliance, the DGCCRF for consumer affairs, or even European DSA enforcers under the EU Commission. French criminal law exists to prosecute and punish criminal offenses, not to coax corporations into “conformity” through raids, summons, and veiled threats of prosecution.

Beccuau’s phrasing exposes the charade: the probe isn’t truly about crimes—it’s a fishing expedition, with the real aim of forcing X to bend to French (and Brussels) preferences on content moderation, algorithms, and speech.

Criminal proceedings aren’t negotiation sessions or audits; they’re accusatory, adversarial, and punitive when evidence justifies it. Here, the tone reeks of preemptive coercion: come explain yourselves to the police, hand over what we want, or face escalation.

When a Renaissance (Macronist) MP and an anonymous senior civil servant invoke Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to refer in january 2025 to the Paris public prosecutor a “genuine danger and threat to our democracies” stemming from a “major modification to the X platform’s algorithm, which has led to the massive promotion of hateful, racist, anti-LGBT+, and homophobic political content aimed at distorting democratic debate in France,” one struggles to identify any actual crime.

Observe the exquisite timing: these twin referals landed in perfect sync with the “HelloQuitteX” (now “Escape X”) campaign. Coincidences? We stopped believing in those long ago. The Twitter Files France have already exposed the intricate back-channel machinery—proxies and all—that lets political power and the French state apply pressure while maintaining plausible deniability. This racket has been running since the 1972 Pleven law.

Let us remind everyone: “hate” is not a legal category; it’s an emotion, and the law cannot punish feelings. Last year, landmark rulings in French courts pertaining to the DSA reaffirmed that censorship is exclusively the judiciary’s domain and can only target manifestly unlawful content demonstrated by concrete evidence. Freedom of expression remains the rule.

French criminal law demands strict interpretation: prosecutors and judges cannot chase phantoms or pursue nebulous theories; they are bound by the letter of the statute.

Yet here we are: armed with two fanciful complaints, studies from censorship-happy NGOs bankrolled by American foundations (Soros, Omidyarand and their ilks), and French “researchers”—we’d wager David Chavalarias, the mathematician who masterminded HelloQuitteX, features prominently—the Paris prosecutors unleashed the cyber police for a raid.

Charges? Organized fraud in automated data processing, organized fraudulent data extraction, organized illicit platform administration. Seriously? Well, X’s core business is to collect, collate, analyse and exploit data and provide a social networking platform.

This will collapse into a judicial comedy, much like the indictments of Pavel Durov. The real issue there isn’t algorithmic manipulation or complicity in a laundry list of offenses—it’s the inconvenient fact that Telegram may technically holds years of presidential, governmental, and parliamentary communications. France’s elite, blissfully ignorant of technology, treated it as a secure app, despite its client-server architecture, unaudited proprietary algorithms, and lack of default end-to-end encryption.

X’s algorithms are intellectual property—and the core product. The company can tweak them freely. The main target of the probe is the recommendation engine, which tailors content based on user preferences, browsing data, and geolocation. Elon Musk has zero incentive to break the law.

Proving criminal intent will be difficult. Ask any CFO if they blindly trust their ERP system’s output; they’ll admit to confidence in proper legal compliance configuration but acknowledge inevitable glitches. That’s why accounts are audited. Targeted advertising based on prohibited criteria (sexual orientation, etc.) ? Large databases produce errors. Always.

Moreover, X France is merely a commercial shell: it sells subscriptions and ads, handles creator monetization payments, handles marketing, PR public affairs and nothing more. It doesn’t run the social network, manage servers, handle user data or conduct R&D. Its operations are deliberately firewalled for security purposes from X’s core activities (based in Ireland for Europe), whose strategic assets—algorithms and user data—are intangible.

French courts have twice ruled that X France SAS and its executives cannot be held liable for X Corp’s actions (see Twitter Files France, sections H onward). Paris’ prosecutor is barking up the wrong tree. The raid will likely yield zilch, but media circus.

Grok allegedly generated negationist content and porn deepfakes? Then prosecute every generative AI on the planet—they all do it under the right prompt. When will people grasp that AI isn’t “intelligent”? It doesn’t understand, think, or believe; it computes. Feed it the right sequence, and any model will “prove” the gas chambers never existed.

And now the summons for Elon Musk and Linda Yaccarino for a police interview on April, 20? Pure commedia dell’arte.

Complying with a police summons is mandatory under threat of research warrant (meaning cops can search for your to bring you to the interview)—enforceable only if you’re in France. Neither Musk nor Yaccarino resides here. Compliance requires formal mutual legal assistance from U.S. DoJ at the request of France. Don’t hold your breath for them to show up at the Gendarmerie Nationale’s cyber unit’s doorstep.

Throwing in Europol for a pan-European gloss—while the agency accomplishes little internationally without FBI, DEA, or other U.S. federal muscle—only underscores bureaucratic amateurism. Across the Atlantic, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee drives a legitimate, democratically grounded probe (Congress alone holds legislative initiative), now two years deep, with real teeth. The EU lacks that legitimacy.

Another “coincidence” that’s anything but coincidental: the raid on X’s Paris offices unfolded on the exact same day—February 3, 2026—that the U.S. House Judiciary Committee dropped the bombshell second installment of its foreign censorship probe. Titled “The Foreign Censorship Threat, Part II: Europe’s Decade-Long Campaign to Censor the Global Internet and How it Harms American Speech in the United States”, the 160-page interim staff report is devastating in its detail.

Backed by subpoenaed nonpublic documents from Big Tech (including internal emails and communications with the European Commission), the report lays bare a ten-year effort by Brussels to pressure major platforms into adopting global content moderation rules that directly suppress speech protected under the First Amendment.

Framed as fighting “hate speech” or “disinformation,” the EU’s campaign has targeted true information and core political discourse on COVID-19 origins and vaccines, mass migration, transgender issues, and more. The Digital Services Act (DSA) is portrayed as the culmination of this push: a tool to coerce platforms into worldwide censorship, infringing on American free expression on American soil.

The report doesn’t stop at generalities. It accuses the European Commission of meddling in elections across EU member states—Romania, France, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Ireland—by demanding platforms throttle narratives threatening establishment power. This isn’t abstract; it’s backed by evidence of closed-door meetings (over 100 since 2020) and successful arm-twisting that forces global changes affecting U.S. users.

The Digital Services Act itself sprang from the Obama administration demands during 2015 personal data-transfer talks with the EU after the CJEU struck down Safe Harbor (Schrems I). The goal: outsource censorship of American speech to Europeans, circumventing the First Amendment.

The relentless targeting of X is nakedly political. Old Twitter was an elite echo chamber—under 30% of French social media users, mostly highly educated upper-class (71% male)—where dissent was verboten. A perfect Platonic cave, convincing that narrow socio-cultural clique their views were mainstream. Musk’s acquisition restored free speech (within local legal bounds) and let majority opinions flood in.

The establishment cannot tolerate it. As we noted in the piece below: France’s ruling class believes it shall only converse with the “enlightened” 30% of the electorate capable of “understanding.” The rest? Top-down communication only. Verticality reigns.

L'Eclaireur In English

[ Flash ] X Masks the Spot

Jan 8

France’s self-anointed guardians of democracy, led by the ever-smug former Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire, slither onto state-run TV channel France 2’s “Complément d’enquête” tonight (January 8, 2026, at 11 PM, for those tuning in to the spectacle) to peddle their latest fever dream. In an episode brazenly titled “Elon Musk, the Billionaire Who Chooses Presidents,” Le Maire doesn’t mince words: If we can’t outright ban X, then by God, let’s slap it with mass censorship to neuter its “dangerous” influence.

In the mean time, in Europe…

L'Eclaireur In English

[ Flash ] Smells Like Green Spirit

Patricia Cerinsek

Jan 24

The European digital counter-offensive against global “disinformation”—with X (formerly Twitter) cast as the ultimate villain—is now upon us. Take that, Elon, you new Putin!

Vous êtes abonné gratuit à L'Eclaireur. Pour accéder à l’ensemble de nos contenus, merci de souscrire à la formule d’abonnement payant de votre choix.

Liker

Commenter

Restack

France Has No Chips — And No Clue Either

When it comes to microelectronics and semiconductors, France and the EU are strikingly devoid of any strategy. And what, exactly, is the French High Commission for Planning exactly doing?

Patricia Cerinsek

avr. 21

LIRE DANS L'APP

computer chip - microchip stock pictures, royalty-free photos & images

When it comes to France’s support for the semiconductor industry, the fix was always in.

Nobody with a functioning brain should be shocked by the French Court of Auditors’ latest report. The findings are as damning as they are predictable: government support, funneled almost exclusively toward the Franco-Italian STMicroelectronics and the CEA-Leti (the state research lab tasked with turning scientific breakthroughs into industrializable technology), is described as “enormous and growing.”

The effectiveness of that aid, meanwhile, is “hampered by the slowness of its disbursement.” And France’s grand plan — with the European Union dutifully trailing behind — will not “close the technological gap accumulated over years.” The French strategy is, in the Court’s carefully neutered language, “insufficiently coordinated with Germany.” Nothing here that wasn’t already obvious to anyone paying attention.

L’ECLAIREUR is reader-supported. To support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Let’s recall the farce that preceded this diagnosis. With European state-aid rules conveniently loosened — a welcome flexibility, or a carte blanche for industrial folly? — France and Germany launched a full-blown subsidy war to lure foreign giants.

Germany landed TSMC, the world’s number-one chipmaker. France got a partnership with Intel that went nowhere, just like the ST–GlobalFoundries alliance: both now floating in bureaucratic limbo.

The Franco-American joint venture between ST and GlobalFoundries, which promised to double chip production capacity in Europe, was entirely contingent on the American partner’s goodwill. GlobalFoundries ultimately decided it preferred investing at home, pockets stuffed with federal subsidies. Not a single dollar, not a single machine ever landed on French soil.

So yes: nothing works. The Court of Auditors confirms it. Public money flows into corporate coffers with no meaningful oversight — something L’Éclaireur demonstrated exhaustively and a parliamentary inquiry later corroborated.

But the deeper scandal isn’t the opacity. It’s the total absence of strategy. Or rather: what passes for strategy serves no recognizable French national interest.

Back in 2022, when Emmanuel Macron and Bruno Le Maire — parked at ASML for while having leaving the Ministry of Finance but reportedly eyeing the 2027 presidential race, because of course he is — unveiled the ST/GlobalFoundries project with great fanfare, an industry insider told us plainly that the whole thing was doomed.

The chip shortage that had triggered the panic was cyclical, not structural; everyone had piled in simultaneously, guaranteeing overcapacity the moment the cycle turned. Worse, the projects were aimed squarely at the wrong target.

“The main shortages concerned semiconductors around 40 nanometers,” Fabrice Lallement, delegate for the electronics sector, told us at the time. “So we’ll always have problems. Because while we know how to design chips, a large part of production happens abroad — TSMC in particular. There’s a lot of noise around the 10nm node. But today, Renault and PSA need 40nm, not 10nm. The discussions we’re having now will determine what shortages look like in ten years.”

Neither the French nor the German projects were designed to fix the actual shortage — the now-structural tension around 40nm nodes. Why? Because both projects chased advanced technologies that attract the richest subsidies: FD-SOI for France at Crolles, 28nm for Germany in Dresden.

In the meantime, another sector vacuumed up the remaining investment: artificial intelligence. Which, as we argue at length, amounts as it stands today to an elaborate con with zero productivity impact and therefore zero growth contribution.

AI: An Intelligent Con (Part 2)

Apr 20

Were these industrial projects? Or political theater? At STMicroelectronics, barely anyone had heard of GlobalFoundries before Macron announced the partnership. “ST didn’t want to play ball with GF — it was imposed on them,” a source told us at the time. Just as the State — a minority shareholder in ST — had previously imposed the decision to kill R&D on the most advanced technologies.

That is how, ten years ago, ST was made to abandon 14nm FD-SOI — which subsequently found its killer application in 5G. A technology initially developed with public money through the Leti, later taken up by ST, whose patents were then sold off to GlobalFoundries. The same story repeated with 28nm FD-SOI, sold to Samsung. France: faithfully funding innovations it then hands to foreigners.

What strategy governs any of this? France has, on paper, an institution dedicated to exactly this question: the High Commission for Strategy and Planning. L’Éclaireur recommended abolishing it in 2024. We stand by that recommendation. We’ll explain why in a forthcoming piece.

Vous êtes abonné gratuit à L'Eclaireur. Pour accéder à l’ensemble de nos contenus, merci de souscrire à la formule d’abonnement payant de votre choix.