CRIMINALITÉ, ÉTATS, GUERRES SECRÈTES : LA FACE CACHÉE DE LA GÉOPOLITIQUE ! ALAIN BAUER

Hello everyone and welcome to Legends. Our guest today is Alain Bauer. He is a professor of criminology. You'll see, there's only one in France. You will meet Donald Trump in 2003.

I think I saw one of the two Donald Trumps.

One of the two, that is?

There is a Donald Trump, calm, kind, sympathetic. Then I saw Donald Trump coming in, who wants power. Provocative, aggressive, mean. Was it announced in September 2001? Did they have the information? Yes, of course. In 1996, five years before, Al Qaeda tried to turn off half a dozen American planes to blow them up in flight. And curiously, in the computer, there is everything and no one translates. And the attack took place.

Should we be afraid of a war on our territory? Would it be possible. Hello everyone and welcome to Legends. Our guest today is Alain Bauer. He is a professor of criminology. You will see, there is only one in France. He is recognized by the whole environment. You will see, politics, geopolitics.

We will talk about all these subjects precisely since he is publishing a book called Trump, the power of words. You understood who he is. A description of a formidable mass persuasion mechanism.

He's going to explain to us how he describes Donald Trump, how he does it to abound the American media who love him, the American media who hate him too, but he's everywhere. He's going to explain to us how he does it. We're going to talk about security, defense during the show, foreign interference, Russia, China. We will try to address all the subjects,

which are very interesting. But just before starting the show, subscribe to our YouTube channel in two seconds. Do not hesitate to comment on the show, to tell us what you thought about it as well, as you go along with the subjects.

We love to see afterwards, during the broadcast, what you thought about it. And then in podcast audio, do not hesitate to put us five stars on Spotify, Deezer, Apple Podcasts and Amazon Podcasts. And just before we start, I want to thank our sponsor for this video. It's Joe, J-O-W, it's an app that takes care of doing your shopping for you and that offers you recipes to make at home.

Joe is a company that is almost 5 years old and that is already preparing 300 million plates a year in France. A while ago on the channel, we received Jacques-Edouard Sabatier, co-founder of Joe, who came to talk to us about French people's cooking and eating habits. So, as we talk about food, we thought it would be interesting to know more about what is really good for our body,

what to do or not to do to eat well on a daily basis. So for that, we received Violette, a dietitian who came to talk to us about diet, diseases related to food and all the myths around nutrition. We've addressed the issue of fast food, gluten-free, but also lozempic, which is the treatment against diabetes that helps you lose weight and that's a hot topic today.

If you haven't seen the show with Jacques-Edouard Sabatier, the co-founder of Jo, the link is in the description of the video on YouTube. Anyway, thanks to them for sponsoring this video. I just remind you, before starting the show, He's a professor of criminology. You'll see, the anecdotes will be exceptional. We'll also talk about the biggest mistakes in the US intelligence system. It's one of his courses.

He'll show us, he'll explain to us, he'll give us concrete cases of mistakes in the US intelligence system, but also in France, you'll see. And we'll talk about the dumbest criminals in history. That's how he called them in a book, and he mapped them out, by the way, with a lot of things that happened on criminals that really did anything. You'll see, there's a lot of stories too.

But just before we start, take your seats, friends, for the tour. We're launching a tour starting in October 2026. It's called Le Légende Tour. We're going to leave with six guests who have marked the channel,

who will come and tell totally unpublished anecdotes, anecdotes never told. And no one will be able to film because there will be a system in the room that will not allow filming. There will be no footage of this tour with a central scene. We have booked large rooms like the National Forest in Brussels, like the Adidas Arena in Paris,

like the arenas or the Zeniths all over France. I'll put you all the dates, in any case, on legend-tour.fr Take your seats, I can't wait to see you there and see you all together. There will be artists joining us, depending on the dates, Franck Dubosc on some, Maxime Gasteuil on others, Rémi Gaillard in Montpellier will be with us. Humorists will be there, different artists will join us depending on the dates. In any case, I can't wait to see you there.

You can come with children, with parents, with grandparents, We'll be able to see it and learn a lot. We'll have a lot of surprises every day. Let's go with Alain Bauer on Legendes.

Alain Bauer, criminology teacher.

Welcome Alain, thank you for coming to see us. I know the planning was complicated, we managed to find a date. We've been wanting to do the show with Alain Bauer for a long time. Thank you for finding the time. You released a new book. Yes, I publish it regularly.

Very often. And it works very well. This one is called Trump, the power of words. A decryption of a formidable mass persuasion mechanism, by First Edition. We'll talk about it. I'll put the link in the description,

as usual. If you want to go and get the book, directly in the description of the YouTube video, and in podcast audio, so Spotify, Deezer, Apple Podcast, Amazon Podcast, you will always have the link in the description of the episode. Why a book about Donald Trump? We're going to get into your background, that's the principle of the show.

Because everyone talks about Trump according to his provocations. The provocation creates the assiduation. When he says repeated sentences. But during that time, there is another Trump, who, while you look at his left hand, the right hand pokes your wallet. And so, what I wanted to explain to Donald Trump, when he was a Democrat, real estate agent, and in New York...

You met him, right? Yes, I met him. In 2003, I think. He gave me ties. 2002, 2003, yes. Because I was called by the New York police when they wanted to set up their anti-terrorist service after the 2001 attacks.

Donald Trump was very interested in this subject, so I had the right to a visit of the Trump Tower, at least of Donald Trump's activities. It was extremely interesting, but I discovered that there was a sophisticated Trump speaking perfect English, totally coherent with himself, knowing what he was doing, what he wanted,

how he wanted to do it. When he became president of the United States for the first time, and then the second time, I was very surprised by this other Trump, a provocative, digressive, sometimes divagant, provocative, difficult to master. I was looking for where he came from.

To understand a little... To understand. First, Trump in question had a mentor, called Roy Cohn. It's the little grey man you see behind Joseph McCarthy in the Commission for Anti-American Activities, the McCarthism, so, who was a lawyer.

Who was Fred Trump's lawyer, Donald Trump's father, and who became Donald Trump's lawyer, Donald Trump's father, and who became Donald Trump's mentor. On page 19 of the book, you have the five big rules of life that he was given. Saturation of the media space, never admitting that you are wrong,

when you lose, you win. It's a bit like Orwellian. That is to say... When he loses, he says he wins. When he loses, he says he wins. Anyway, he can only win. So, never admit a defeat, always practice a process with powerful networks.

How do we say we won when we see we lost? We say we won. In fact, from the moment you create an alternative truth, you have won. If I spend my day saying you have a blue sweater, I can even convince people that your sweater is blue. Even though it's green. Even though it's green, for those who see it in black and white or are Daltonian.

But we can get to, by the power and saturation, to persuade people that reality is not reality. And Trump made a political path that allowed him to exist. In 2000, he wrote another book, in 87, so, sorry, he wrote a first... He published a book for 100,000 dollars. He bought a whole page in the New York Times.

This is what foreign policy in the United States should be like, and it's a whole page against Japan. It's his first founding political act. A long time ago, then. 87, 40 years. And for 40 years, he's been doing it for a long time. 87, 40 years. And for 40 years he's been doing the same thing.

But what's great is that he says what he does, he proclaims it, he writes it, he announces it, he sometimes sings it, and we don't believe him. We don't believe him. We say, no, he's not going to do it, no, it's the opposite. He says it, so he does it. It's transparent, there's no hypocrisy, it can be changing. So you have provocation, sideration, digression, sometimes divagation.

But in fact, everything is a thought process, thought, structured. In 2000, he wrote the book program of what his presidency should be in 2000. 16 years before being elected, The America We Deserve, the America we deserve, it's his political program. And since then, he's always done the same thing. And we're left dumbfounded, saying,

Oh, it's horrible what he did, and we try to psych him out. It doesn't mean he has mental problems like everyone else, but that's not the point. And so what I wanted to explain is how to understand this Trump, who is still here for a while,

at least politically speaking, how he created a generation of magas that will survive him, and how we have to start understanding how he works.

There are the five points, we'll come back to that later. Prassim, it's funny to go through your book, but never apologize or admit your mistakes. Never apologize. He never said,

I could have done better.

No. He said said, I could have done better.

No. He said, something happened, something tweeted, I didn't see it, but it's a stupidity. Even when he does serious things, or makes mistakes,

because everyone makes mistakes.

Never. He never recognized a mistake, at least since that time.

And he used the media as a weapon, the number one point.

Words are weapons. Words are weapons. Systematically. And so he is at war with words. Which is the basic rules of life. At the beginning was the word. We didn't invent anything.

But he really uses it. And it's a mantra, a life path. We're going to talk about geopolitics to try to understand the world.

You have a lot of knowledge. You are a professor in criminology. What does criminology mean? And not criminologist, I know it's quite different.

Well, the criminologist is an actor of life. The criminology professor teaches criminology to the criminologist. So it's a little bit of a different status. You are a professor a lot? A criminology professor. In France, I am the only one.

Validated, certified, recognized. Unfortunately, I have about forty colleagues who are without papers or clandestine in criminology, since sociologists, not sociologists, sociologists are a nice science, but sociolatry is a cult that aims to explain everything and in general to explain that no one is responsible for anything.

And some of my legal colleagues were afraid that we were eating their vital space. Criminology was invented in France, Italy and Germany. Emil Durkheim defined it the best. He said there is a social fact called crime. To explain this social fact, there is a science called criminology. Basically, there is one or more actors,

one or more victims and circumstances. And they must be explained in three areas. I add to that, of course, the punishment, the criminal part, the criminalistic part, the management of the crime scene itself, and then the re-insertion part, because after the sentence, you have to avoid the recidive or the reiterance, and so you have a tool

called criminology.

We'll talk about it later, if there don't mind, about the errors in the information. It's a course you give, we'll talk about the subject. And the most stupid criminals in history, that's how you called your book. The previous book, which was a hit, you sold more than 60,000,

if I'm not mistaken, today during the shooting.

And we'll talk about it, if you don't mind, How did you become a professor of criminology before talking about the topics? By chance, I was turned away from my main mission by the only political officer I worked for. So the only label I have is Rocardien, so Michel Rocard, a political man from the last millennium, who had a long career.

He was Prime Minister in 1988.

He was Prime Minister in 1988-91, but I accompanied him from 1979 to his death. He was a friend, I saw him until his death. At the time, I was the Vice-President of Sorbonne, I was at the Board of Directors of the Chancellery of Paris, at the Board of Supervisors of Research, I was the specialist of the standards Garaces and Sanremo,

which is basically the art and the way to find ways to finance the functioning of universities at a time when there was still a little money. And when Michel Rocard became Minister, first of all of agriculture, of the plan, etc., I accompanied him on missions that reflected my competence.

It was under the President François Mitterrand, 1988-1981.

From 1981 to later. And in reality, when I arrived at Michel Rocard's, at first, we started by doing nothing of what was planned. It's a bit like, you speak English, you're a potato. You're never used according to your skills. There was a major crisis, the New Caledonia crisis,

and so, among a whole series of people who worked to resolve this crisis, which was a terrible crisis, with murders, murders, a uprising...

And hostage takes.

Hostage takes in the Ouvéa cave, a very hard moment. Michel Rocard tried to find a way to pacify the situation, which worked well until the next crisis, this time it lasted almost 17 years. And I found myself involved in this case,

which ended in a referendum. When I was about to finally take possession of my future status as a counselor for universities, for students, we didn't know that very well, I learned that not at all, someone else had been appointed for the entire education sector,

which suited me because I was in kindergarten, primary and secondary school were not my thing at all. I was appointed to the education sector. It suited me because I didn't like the first and second year of nursery school. But I was trained to go and see the interior affairs advisor, who was the prefect, Rémi Potrat, former DST boss, who explained to me that, as I was the only one who was interested in the past, because between 1986 and 1988 there there were riots in Paris. A very powerful student movement, one of the young people was dead, Malik Ousekine.

At the time, I was one of the UNEP vice-presidents and in charge of a part of the order service that managed Paris and the universities. So I was both the vice-president of the university and vice-president of the UNEP. And I was given the title of Colonel Boer, in the parliamentary investigation report. How old were you when Rocart chose you? 88, 26.

Why did he choose you? What does he see in you?

I don't know.

Because he's 26.

One day he asked me if I wanted to be one. I said, well, given what I've done since, no. But at the time I was a bit surprised. It was the police who chose me over Rocard, because I was their interlocutor. Especially when there were the terrible clashes on the Rue Snaupeltry in front of the National Assembly, where there were a lot of breakdowns. When Michel Rocard asked what the situation of trust with the people from the inside,

which was not at all the field of knowledge and mastery of Michel Rocard and the Rocardians. It was the economic, the social, the educational. But Michel Rocard was very interested in the questions of information, which I discovered later. It was roughly decided that, a priori, the one who would make the link was me. We wrote a book with Michel Roquin on the national security issues just before the 2007 presidential elections.

Are there things that we don't imagine? You could have gone to the other side, to see the security issues with a Prime Minister. Are there really things that we can't imagine if we don't see them?

Reality always outweighs fiction, even when we... If we had written the events of the last three years in a novel, we would never have been published because we would have been told that we had smoked the carpet.

Even Covid, we would never have imagined...

While Covid is a recurring element that has existed for a hundred years and that we come across every 20 years. But the ignorance of the repetitiveness of reality, a form of amnesia, this amnesia is all the more powerful that the acceleration of time and media

makes us receive so much information every 30 seconds, if we are addicted to our phones, TikTok, and so on, it's the end of the world, that we always feel like something is new. What's new is what we've forgotten. There's no extraordinary novelty.

Technology speeds up repetition and the intensity of events, but there's not much novelty in reality. So yes, we discover curios time to time curiosities, but for me, it is always retrospective. I wrote a book about the bosses of the intelligence, and at one point, I organized with my publisher of the time,

a lunch in the Goncourt Salon at Drouan. It was great, they all came. It was the first time they ate together. It had never happened before. So there are... And you say that? The directors of the education services asked me.

And among those, there are some from my time. And at one point, at the end of the meal, at the dessert, they told a lot of anecdotes, fights that happened to each other, they succeeded each other, they changed their jobs. And there is one who turns around and says in front of all the others,

I have to tell you, Mr. Boer, when you were in Matignon, before formal meetings, we had an informal meeting to decide everything we were not going to tell you. And at that moment, one of his former assistants, who succeeded him, said to him, yes, but Mr. Director, we did that before to be sure that you would not say anything, because you did not know anything. And so, you have a self-protection process.

There are several meetings. Yes, which aim to eliminate any risk of leak. Incredible. Because we are not, I quote, waterproof.

Yes, nobody is waterproof. Politicians.

Of course. They think they are more waterproof than us. And so, there is this quite surprising process of reducing things. Which means that from time to time, when we read the Ibile, Figaro and Le Monde, we had the feeling that we were much better informed than the Synthesis of Services. Not because they knew less,

but because they didn't trust us at all to keep secrets. I don't know if I know better how to keep secrets than the others, but in any case, I have the feeling that the journalists were better informed than the politicians, and so they had to have sources themselves.

That's it.

Fewer people know this, fewer people know this.

Fewer people, yes.

Because the problem is that we already talked to an agent of the DGSE who explained to us the MICE.

Yes, MICE, MICE.

Money, ideology, self-slandering, to make someone talk, there is always... Sex, it's mostly sex.

It's mostly sex? Yes, the rest, the money a little, the ideology, but sex is the major element. Besides, we see it in all the affairs in progress. Is it to make someone fall by sex? No, to hold him. To make him fall is useless. He fell, you have nothing to do with him. To hold him is much better, because it is a long-term investment. Information is a long-term affair.

Elimination is the last resort.

Yes, it has no interest anymore.

No, it's an investment.

And is it true that this system of 10 roundels, we were talking about Pascua, etc. 10 roundels of pretty women who were going to flirt, to have...

Ask Jeffrey Epstein. He could tell you about it. Of course, pretty women, young women, young men, all lives are in nature, so all can be used to recruit, to compromise someone.

And so unfortunately or fortunately, we can see it as we want, it depends on which side we are on. Of course it works very well, but there are some who do it for moral reasons, there are some who do it for ethical reasons, there are some who do it for political reasons, others for political reasons, that is, really political, of conviction, not only...

Of patriotism, of helping the nation. Yes, or of anti-patriotism, that is, my country is behaving badly, I will restore the balance.

Did we lose patriotism? We had the opportunity to receive Laurent Nunez, the Minister of the Interior, to show small offices, offices, which are still in Beauvau today, where the Minister of the Interior works. He opened the doors for us, thanks again to him. He was able to show the interior.

It was at the time the Gestapo that had taken the seat of Beauvau and had used it for its offices, but which also unfortunately tortured the resistance when they caught them, before shooting were shot. And they were made to speak in these offices, which remained intact. They were left as they were, with the chairs of the time, the rings of hell, etc. And we saw beautiful inscriptions, people who said,

I didn't say anything, I would die French, help me. There were super beautiful texts, signed by a young Lorraine condemned to death. I remember there were sentences that really got to me. Have we lost a bit of love for the country, for the nation?

I think patriotism is still there. The cult of the hero is, apart from being a national hero, a manga hero, a TV show hero, there is always a cult of the hero. The hero is necessary, a gatherer,

and he is always present. The traitor has relatively little surface and challenges much less. But I remember, after the attacks of 2015, when we were receiving the candidates to become information analysts,

all of a sudden we went from a hundred candidates to a thousand, and with a proportion of young women who went from 15% to almost 50%. So we feel that it's not enough to get it back going. And by the way, the commitments are very present. Young people are much more committed, but not for the same thing. For the environment, for any possible and imaginable reason

that I don't have to judge. But it's not very difficult to launch a process of gathering, an investment in patriotism. No, no, I think it's still there. I think it's still there, yes. Less visible, maybe, too.

Less cultivated, above all, because it's the role of the State to do it. But the State has spent its time explaining that we had to suspend, to suppress the national service, that the flag was a kind of nationalism. Everyone says it's the flag of the French Revolution, but it's not the flag of the monarchy. The general unculture, especially of politicians,

the decrease of level and and cultural point of view, I'm not talking about their intelligence, but their culture, is a national drama because they let themselves be taken for any delirium without going to check what it is. Then they are surprised that it happened, then they make a commission of inquiry to try to understand

how they created the conditions for that, and then try to get away with it, saying it's not my fault, it's not my fault, I'm not at fault. It also creates a problem of trust in the ability to exercise the very beautiful mission of politics, especially in a democracy. So the real loss of trust is not in patriotism,

it is in suffrage, in the good luck that are lucky to be able to criticize our elected representatives, but we must forget that we are the ones who elect them. The biggest weapon in a democracy is the ballot. We will see how citizens will behave in the next elections. But we must remember that criticizing politicians is one thing, but we have the right to change it.

It was Churchill who said, a people that forgets its history is condemned to relive it.

Condemned to relive it, yes.

That's what you're saying, that it's a loop, and we forget it.

I don't think so. I think we are amnesic, not from our history, because we have a very beautiful history. You saw how popular it was to revive the National Novel. The problem is that the National Novel is quite far from the national narrative. We like to make up things, for example.

What do you call the National Novel?

It's quite easy. Are you French? Me? Yes. We wear the name of our invaders, the Francs. But at the same time, our ancestors are the Gauls, who didn't invade us, who were the structural peoples. There are hundreds of Gaulish tribes.

If you find something that looks like something between a Breton, a Corsican, a Basque and an Alsatian, you'll have to explain it to me, because they have nothing in common. But at some point, Gaul became a nation, and not only tribes.

The Gauls, the Gallo-Romans have become a people with a national structure. The French invaded us and strengthened this national structure. And the Republic has invented a magnificent, extraordinary national novel that united us all in a story, partly invented, but so beautiful that we all decided to believe it. And this is a special moment

when peoples create a nation that invents a history and finds it magnificent, and unites it, launches it, motivates it, etc. At one point, we deconstructed this history because in the 70s, the time of globalization has arrived. The time when the market and the economy

replaced the nation, culture, ideology. In fact, the business, the market, was all of that at the same time. So we put aside everything that was too national, too nationalist, too Gaulish, too Gaullist. It was the rupture with a past, but it's a past that doesn't pass,

that is there, that is residual, that is present, that is identifiable. And that is a phenomenon that we have absolutely not mastered in the name of this illusion of a happy globalization, of the end of borders, of teddy bears walking in the Pampa, and of a giant Erasmus where everyone loved each other.

History is tragic, and it is often reminded of us. And we pay for this terrible illusion of 50 years of ignorance of our roots, of our past, and even of the way we imagined we could exist between two blocs,

since it is the charm and power of General de Gaulle's will that had prevented us from being totally aligned with the Americans, from being totally adversaries of the Russians, and from being able to speak to the Chinese. This particular moment made France a power, not by the strength of its armies,

but by the independence of its positions. We have also forgotten that.

I think it was with Laurent Deutsch that we were talking about it. We often hear about the Romans.

Of course, the Gallo-Romans. They restructured France, they gave the name to Gaul, I explained this in a more ancient book called The Conquest of the West, but it shows how France was structured. And Nordic countries,

many Vikings arrived on the coast? The Franks come from the northeast, they don't come from the southwest.

When you say the Franks, it's...

They're tribes. They're Frankish tribes. It's French tribes. And they say we are Francs, so we are French. That's where it comes from. That's where it comes from. With Gaulish ancestors.

We never realized there was an incoherence between the two. If we are French and our ancestors are Gauls, there is something missing in the middle. The link that existed. We were invaded. Did you work with American intelligence, The link that existed, that we invaded.

Did you work with the American intelligence, especially New York?

I worked only with the New York police, in fact. After the attacks, its boss Ray Kelly, who was the former undersecretary of the customs of Ronald Reagan, wanted to create a intelligence service from nothing. Because intelligence is complicated, because it create a information service from nothing. Because information is complicated, because it's three professions and three cultures.

It's very difficult to understand how it works because you have the first profession, it's the collection. That's great, we collect everything. It's the Dyson of information. We plug, we suck, we keep, we store.

Great.

What are you talking about? Data, for example?

Everything, anything. The phone, the mail, the railway police which took off on steam, the letters, all that is a real story.

At the time, people opened the mail?

Of course, we even opened the buckets with techniques to not show that we had opened the bucket, we were collecting. It was a permanent activity. That's where the first encryption comes from, which are operations that were born in Antiquity, with modules that rotate...

From Antiquity? Yes, that's true.

Yes, encryption is very old. After that, we move on to the second mission, which is analysis. As much as external information was extremely powerful, as much as internal information was a bit difficult to analyze. Because they were composed of police officers, not that they were more stupid than the others,

but they didn't have the openness of the others. Whereas the external information called for a lot of engineers, technicians, doctors, etc. So, to gain in the openness of minds, in the ability to project ourselves. And the third is action, it's what we talk about and see on TV.

We've been good and bad. But there are three important aspects of education. The first is spying. Everything is good to take all the time. It's easy.

Everything.

Everything, all the time.

What does that mean?

There's no time. Everything. A ugly girl, we listen to someone at the cafe, we take a picture of him with his phone, we search his trash, we sound his apartment, we send him a young girl or a charming young man to enter his privacy.

Everything is good, all the time. There is no time, no space, no prohibition. Easy. Then we had counter-espionage. So everything is complicated, everything is secret, everything is protected, everything is paranoid. Because the problem is to go back to the line, to find the target, the contact. And every day we come to negotiate one more day to have the possibility to go back to the line once again. And everything must remain secret, because if there is a leak,

the whole network disappears and we only have the passwords. And then the third part is the anti-terrorist. And the anti-terrorist happened very late, very late. And the anti-terrorist is exactly the opposite. Raymond Marcellin, Minister of the Interior, in the 70s, who says that there are attacks from the ultra-left or the extreme left,

the revolutionary army, the Red Army, the Liberation Front of Brittany, etc. And he decides to ask the DST counter-espionage to deal with this issue. And it's a subject that will become extremely complicated to the DST's counter-espionage team to deal with this issue. It's a subject that will become extremely complicated because counter-espionage is all long and all secret, and anti-terrorism is all fast and all shared.

Because the goal is not to stop the authors of an attack, it's already a failure, it's to prevent the attack. So you have to share with a lot of people. But we ask the same service to do both, both long and short, with many people. But we ask the same services to do both. Long term, short term, secret, share. So they make knots with the brain

and for a long time it didn't work because the openness on the analysis of the information, on the capacity of them, was neglected. And in fact it's the NYPD, considering that it had been, in quotation marks, the police of New York,

betrayed or in any case badly treated by the CIA, NSA, FBI, created a intelligence service based on the criminal intelligence model, infiltration, multiple operations, and decided to call on journalists, experts, academics, university students, civilians. We had half of the uniform, half of the civilians,

and we are a half dozen experts who are called by the New York police to do that. So I'm part of it because I knew Raquelie before. There is an Englishman, an Israeli, an American and my apple. And we create this service. How, not being a spy myself, we create a counter-espionage service. Is it that in France we also use the American symbols in France? I know that Americans use them a lot.

Now, yes. The DGSE has always done the outside information, because of its technical platform, engineers, doctors, etc. You mean outside, so DGSE, outside, DGSI, inside. It's the outside information. And the inside information, unfortunately,

did not do it because it was essentially composed of police officers for police officers, and that the counter-espionage part was so... panicked at the idea that it was fleeing, it's a story of waterproofing that I recalled, that they couldn't open. First, they didn't have the means, then they didn't have the right,

and in fact, they didn't have the staff. So, at the same time, we had to change the law, change the organization, and create an academic center to train the analysts of the information, and to do permanent training. And that's Ambassador Bajolet, who creates the Academy of Information. For the first time in France, we have an Academy of Information,

which is an academic training center that allows the agents of the information to change, to evolve, and improve.

My question was more about whether we use people from civilian life once, a bit like other nations, and who use dormant agents who will be in a country for 20 years until the day they are active. Is there this in the country, completely random, completely normal families,

who can be activated by the internal secret services to give information. So, the internal secret services take care of the inside. So they don't have agents inside. On the other hand, they have honorable correspondents, and they have, for the external services, agents sent either under the guise of a pavilion, that is, we know that he is the resident of the DGSE,

it is almost marked on his door and he has his business card, like the English, the Americans, the Russians and the others. And then there are others, which are much less visible, covered by travel agencies, transport companies, in short, people who are naturally traveling a lot, often.

Yes, I have an alibi for traveling.

They have a legend, it seems, it's good for you. And so it allows you to So that's what it allows. Sleeping is a Soviet traditional activity, because you have to build something very complicated, it's very slow, it's very long, it requires a deep trust, it also requires managing their family life,

because they can't stay single for eternity. So, suddenly, there will be children, what happens is that children will come, what happens to the children who are not all recruited as spies at birth? But the Eastern countries have had an extremely powerful gendarme activity for a very long time, and this is one of their characteristics.

To leave people for 20 years without ever calling them? It's possible.

There was sometimes a little... just to be sure. A little technical reminder.

To talk about the streets, in the discussions, every time, on the TV sets, we hear that there are a lot of Russian spies everywhere in the world, but like Chinese, like Americans, like Israelis. Is it true? In the streets, we're shooting in Paris,

can you meet spies from different countries every day?

Yes, it's a very important country. There are centers where spies are there to talk to each other. Geneva, Vienna, those are the places where we exchange, we chat, we solve problems, we free stuff, yes, but we have to free stuff.

Rome, because of the Vatican, which is an extraordinarily powerful center and quite underestimated in terms of information. So I tell in a novel, because from time to time I like to write novels, what is the nature, the reality, the power of the Vatican's intelligence service.

But in other places, they are active agents, even if they do nothing, they are available in case. So, available in case, either they are active, that is, they have a network that provides them with information and they take the risk of transmitting this information. They can be caught because they have to send elements,

they have to go from time to time to meet someone from the embassy who, having the diplomatic status, allows them to avoid more important difficulties. Or they are available to commit acts of sabotage or murder. And here, it's much more serious operations, which means that if, for example, Russia invaded Ukraine,

there were several Russian networks in Ukraine, which have always committed helicopter sabotage, assassination attempts of President Zelensky or his relatives, and who were in an aggressive position, even though they had not done anything in particular during, let's say, at least 2008.

Can we quantify how many agents there are? Is there more than a thousand agents, for example, in France? What can that represent?

There was an estimate a few years ago, I don't know if it was a joke, Do you think there are more than a thousand agents in France? What does that represent?

There was an estimate a few years ago, I don't know if it was a big estimate, that there were at least 40 Russian agents.

On the territory?

At least 40 Russian agents. That doesn't mean much.

It doesn't mean much. In fact, we separate them.

They are not registered at the arrival. There is no bar code.

There is no bar code. There is no bar code. But we all probably met a spy one day, in the end.

Probably, yes. You have my friend Vincent Cruzet who has just written a book that tells his story of espionage and says that for decades he has not told it to his wife or anyone. Then he comes out with a book, he started to publish novels under a pseudonym, then we started to see him on TV, and now he says, I was a spy. Vincent Cruz.

He was a DGSE?

Yes.

He tells his whole life how he was recruited, his whole life, what can be told.

You say, speaking of Americans, that we have underestimated terrorists.

Yes, of course. First, it's very strange. There is a particular moment in history, I wrote something called terrorists always say what they will do and we make immense efforts to never listen to them.

Since terrorism exists, terrorism requires violence and communication. So terrorists start by saying I have a claim and I start not to be violent,

and when I'm not listened to or repressed, I will be violent, and I will commit an attack, and I will do this, and I will do that. You have the most horrible example, which is Mein Kampf,

the founding act of Nazism, which says, once I get power, I will kill all the Jews. Nobody believes it. Nobody believes it. And in fact, most of the dictatorial operators, all those people who fascinate us,

seduce us, horrify us, spend their time telling us what they are going to do. And we spend our time saying, no, they are not going to do it. And you have a whole series of examples that go like this, for example, the invasion of Ukraine.

Putin warned them? Putin said it, announced it, proclaimed it. He wrote a 21-page text in July before the invasion. The Americans said, they will invade Ukraine, they will invade Ukraine, they will invade Ukraine. Except that it doesn't happen on the first, second or third day. So, by force of Kriol, where nobody believes it, I made some slides,

and among others, I explained that yes, without a doubt, he was going to attack in the South, the Sea of Azov, the connection between Crimea and Donbass, all that was logical, but that he would never attack in the North, because it made no sense.

Well, he still attacked in the North, it didn't make sense. He attacked the North, it didn't make sense. It didn't work, but he did it. So how can we not see this reality? Not because we didn't have the photos, we had the same ones, the satellites told us the same thing as the Americans, because it didn't make sense. So we denied reality,

what is called a cognitive bias. As we think it's not possible, it's not possible. And it's not possible. It's a mistake. Cognitive bias is a tragedy. There are hundreds of cognitive biases. For example, we could do a test.

I let someone in this studio for one second. He opens the door, he comes in, he leaves. And in ten minutes, we ask those who are watching us to describe this person without having the possibility to see again. It's very simple. It's a man, it's a woman. She's going to be tall and short,

bald and bald, bearded or gloomy, with a green or blue sweater. And we're going to see the limits of human testimony. Why? Because this brief passage, there are even people who won't see it through,

fascinated by our conversation. And this thing disturbs everything we can imagine as the capacity to understand things. So, first, there is the smoking aspect, which is very important. Then, there is the digression aspect.

Look at my left hand, not my right hand. It's called the Mangdrak effect, for those who like the magicians of the last century. You have to look at something to be able to catch another card. And all these elements, when they are accumulated, can be an excellent source of information because manipulation is a structural element of espionage.

It's not just about having information, espionage.

Manipulation is also the heart of the job. You say we don't listen to terrorists. It was often announced. Was it announced on September 11, 2001? Did they have the terrorists. It was often announced. Was it announced on September 11, 2001? Did they have the information?

Yes, of course. First, because in 1996, five years before, there was an operation called Bojinka in the Philippines, in Mani, which is the general rehearsal of September 11, where terrorist operators from the organization called Al-Qaeda, which is not exactly what it's called,

it's also part of the Cognitive Front, tries to detourn a half dozen American planes to make them explode on the ground or damage them at sea. They plug too many electric wires into one multiport and there's a fire in their home. In the computer, there's everything.

Absolutely everything. A Frenchman crossing the Canadian border is arrested and given a number of elements about the possibility of a future operation. The assassin of Rabbi Cahan in New York leaves in Arabic the plan of the operation Bojinka, the plan of the operation of September operation, post-Bojinka,

and no one translated it. The detour of the Airbus Alger Paris and another general repetition, because this plane was not only intended to free Algerian Islamist militants, but to crash between the Chemin de Lyon and Paris.

That's why, with a lot of courage, the interior minister of the time, Charles Pascua, said he would land in Marseille and never take off again. The interior minister and the pilots, who know very well what's going on and who tell terrorists anything, and the command of the GIGN, led by the future General Favier. So, we realize that we know everything.

Absolutely everything. FBI analysts say, write to their chiefs, there are people who want to learn how to take off and not land. It's weird. For me, it's the opposite.

We have this, we have that. There are targets that are identified. We have a very high risk of a plane crash that could lead to a crash in Washington and New York.

They have this note.

Yes, it's in the report of the 11th September Commission of the US Congress. What do the FBI and CIA say? You are tired, take a vacation. And you will see that the RH problem is very important in the drama of the intelligence. So, they know everything and they don't understand anything

and the attack takes place. The NOIPD says, well, all of this is not possible, we're going to create a intelligence service to answer this problem. But we're lucky, it's not a service that is marked by the internal problem,

the external problem, that is being long-term. It is only made for terrorism. And it is a model of a new kind of educational service. And it works well? They are quite satisfied. I won't make self-satisfaction,

because I am not for much, even if I go quite often. But they managed to prevent all possible operations against New York City, with one exception, but it was in New Jersey, outside of their field of expertise,

it's just next door, but still, and they don't have the expertise to do surveillance and intelligence outside of the borders of the state of New York, let's say. The city is a bit... even if it takes up a lot of space, that's it.

We'll talk about the errors of the information in a moment. You were talking about Vladimir Putin before, and about Ukraine. Does he work differently from Trump? We'll talk about Trump later, it's the subject of the book. Does Putin work differently?

Isn't it the same way of working? So, Trump understands Putin perfectly in the text, and Putin understands Trump perfectly in the text, and both understand each other perfectly. Xi Jinping understands them. Powerful men speak to each other,

like President Erdogan, Prime Minister Modi. They have an operational model which is power and strength. The military doctrine of imperial Russia, then Soviet, then current,

is the escalation for the decalcification. In common French, I'll hit you first and then we'll talk. Our philosophy is not escalation.

France is...

From Europe, the West. Europe, yes. It's not escalation. So we wait to be slapped, to say, ah, something happened, it's a bit like being a templar, something happened.

And so we try to say to ourselves, yes, but are we hitting? Because they risk hitting harder, which is what they do. Because as there is no balance of terror, the attacker benefits. The glaive always has an advantage on the shield.

You discover in an interesting way that the Russian problem, and that of Putin, is to always say what he will do. He said it in 2007 in Munich. He said, everything is over between us. In 2008, he said it again in Bucharest, where he was invited to the NATO summit. He said it again in 2014, in 2015, in 2016, in 2017, in 2018...

He never stops saying it. Then he wrote, 6 months before the invasion of Ukraine, a 21-page text on the subject. In fact, Ukraine does not exist, we are a single people, and 21 pages that nobody reads in Russian and in English. He's making an effort. And we don't believe it, and we don't think it. When the Americans say,

he's going to invade Ukraine, in fact, nobody believes it. It's a maneuver, he's putting pressure on us. Everything indicates that he's going to attack Ukraine. And at that moment,

there is a moment, President Biden, who is the President of the United States, faces the questioning of American journalists. There is a journalist who says, well, it's been 15 days since you announced that he will invade Ukraine every day. Well, he still hasn't invaded, but in fact, I have a question for you.

In fact, the question is not whether he will invade or not, if he invades, what are you going to do? Joe Biden's answer? Nothing. In Moscow, it means green light. For Joe Biden, it means no escalation, I won't send troops, and so I continue the negotiation.

I won't go to war.

For the Russians, it's, oh really? Oh, well, okay. Let's go. And besides, when I discussed with my Russian alter-egos, because I taught in Moscow and I kept a few of them, just after the invasion, they said, but in fact we didn't understand anything.

For us it was a bomb of agreements. Because in 1989, when the USSR collapsed, when the wall fell, there was an agreement for the reunification of Germany. There is an agreement between Gorbachev, the Russian president of the time, and us, the Westerners.

This agreement is about the reunification of Germany. Germany is divided in two, there is a federal republic in the West and a democratic republic in the West. With the Berlin Wall, the famous Berlin Wall. With the Berlin Wall in the middle, which separates Germany. The Germans want to reunite.

We understand them, it's quite legitimate. And to reunite, they are ready to leave the Atlantic Alliance and the EU. In a speech in front of everyone, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Genscher, said that they were ready to give up everything. Obviously, the Americans are not very happy, so a negotiation begins.

This negotiation ends with an agreement. The Russians say, OK, come on, reunite, stay in the Atlantic Alliance, but there are three absolute rules, three red lines.

You do not attack Kaliningrad, this Russian enclave in the middle of Europe,

at the top.

You don't take care of Ukraine, you don't take care of Georgia, and you don't advance to the East. The Americans, especially Minister Baker, replied, we won't make a single millimeter to the East. And between 1989 and 1999, ten years of peace, no one moves.

Nothing happens. Everything is fine. 1999, terrible war in Yugoslavia. The country explodes in very small pieces. Massacres take place, inter-ethnic, religious. Muslims were massacred by the Croats, who even fought against the Serbs.

Everyone killed everyone. Some of them did well, like Slovenia, Montenegro, but the others, it was a terrible bloodbath. At one point, the Europeans said, it can't last, it's quite legitimate. A decision was made, and at the time, there was a pro-Western interlocutor in Moscow,

called Evgeny Primakov. He was the Prime Minister. He was born in Kiev, in addition. He is the man of the West in Moscow. He is the man who wants Eurasia, who wants Russia to join the European Union, who is for the opening of the Atlantic to the Urals,

a huge Eurasian power, they are all in great things. And next to him, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, secretary of the National Security Council, who at the time helped dismantle the Russian intercontinental missiles in the context of denuclearization. These people are official Western pros.

Evgeny Primakov said, These people are official Western pros.

Evgeny Primakov says, I have a plan to save Yugoslavia because Serbia is an Orthodox country and we are the defenders of the Orthodox all over the world. He takes the plane and in the middle of the Atlantic

he receives a call from the US National Security Advisor who says, Evgeny, it's nice to come and see us, but it's useless. You're welcome, but from now on, we're bombing Serbia in the name of NATO. Primakov said, «Yes, that's how it is. Make a lie.

Summon the National Security Council. It's said, it's in the documents, more or less declassified, everything is over between us. For 50 years, we thought we were the bad guys and the West were the good guys. But we are not at all. We are the same.

Now they want to kill the Rodina, the country, with a capital P for the Russians, and we have to prepare for a major confrontation. And from this day on, they are preparing for it delusions, misunderstandings, and mistreatment.

The idea of treating Premakov like that is a strange one. We bombed Serbia for 99 days. Our historic ally, the French. And the Russians are preparing for confrontation. Was the Yugoslavia in the USSR?

No, the Yugoslavia has always been a neutral country. It was out of the two clans. But the Serbs are Orthodox. It's like that. It's like the Vatican is taking care of the Catholics, Israel is taking care of the Jews. Each has a dimension that goes beyond the regional status.

And so we break the trust, and from that, a situation of distrust is created, then of confrontation, then of provocation, then of war, which is the one we have lived since 1999-2000. The vice-president of the DUMAC and also the president of the Academy of Sciences, Arbatov, even wrote a book in English. He said, you don't realize what you have just done.

You have just broken any idea that we could work together. Should we be afraid of a war on our territory? Would it be possible?

We sometimes hear about military,

high-ranking people. Our territory is very vast. I remind you that just like Polynesia, which is as big as the European Union, New Caledonia is a martyred country and we are not out of the crisis yet.

But we are talking about Russia. Is it possible that one day,

on the metropolitan territory... Azerbaijan takes care of our affairs in New Caledonia and Polynesia. So we must not believe that geographical proximity has anything to do with strategic manipulation. We have to be very careful.

What about interference?

Manipulation? Yes, it's the same. No, no, interference is when we interfere, manipulation is when we go a little further. There are degrees. If we screw up in both cases, in any case. Yes, but more or less strongly. Sometimes we just want to screw up.

To screw up, sometimes we want to screw up for a gain, including territorial. Our Chinese friends are very interested in what is happening in Polynesia. For example, they never hid it, our American friends too, because of the submarine cables.

So there are a lot of subjects that we need to take into account. Everyone is sp spy anyway. Yes, but not everyone manipulates themselves. Spying is rather soft. Manipulation is aggressive. And so we have a very important level of aggressiveness with sabotage operations, manipulation operations,

false collections, crosses, David's stars of all colors. Ah yes, it was science. Yes, it's manipulation. It was things that happened in Paris all the colors. Ah yes, it was intelligence. Yes, it was manipulation.

It was things that had happened in Paris at the time.

Exactly. There were articles.

They are paid by Russian agents.

But we are also offensive. Sebastien Lecornu, who speaks here, who said, it's been years since we said we are only defensive,

obviously we are also offensive and we have hackers, for example. Thanks to Jean-Yves Le Drian, who was the Minister of Defence at the time, of François Hollande and then of President Macron, he was initially contingent on the idea that we would have nice hackers, defensive hackers. Then at some point he said, let's stop joking, let's stop waiting for the next day. Civilis Pacem Parabellum,

situated near the war. So he started to launch an offensive capacity. We are not as optimised as the Russians or the Chinese, first because we are not really

at war and in confrontation,

but we have progressed a lot. What do you know about interference? It's an interesting subject. We have already touched on this topic in the show. What can we say about it today? Is there really a lot going on in everyday life?

Especially with the upcoming presidential elections for 2027, for example? You saw it during the British elections on Brexit. Clearly, this is documented. So we know exactly that hundreds of false accounts intervened to manipulate the British opinion under the hallucinated gaze of the British government,

not understanding what was happening to him, when he had provoked a referendum that he could not lose. We had not learned anything about the Amsterdam Treaty in France, where there was no manipulation, but it had happened.

What was the Amsterdam Treaty?

It was the treaty that strengthened the EU competences, where President Chirac wanted to hold a referendum that was supposed to give a yes to 76% and a no to 53%.

Which was still done, no?

Which was bypassed by others. But the French people, unlike the Maastricht Treaty, which was the object of a referendum organized by François Mitterrand, where he had won the referendum by a a fair margin, at 52-48, the loss had been severe. And so we started to think,

we have to talk to people, we have to discuss with people, we have to appeal to their individual and collective intelligence, rather than explaining to them that they have to vote here because it's good, because it's not enough. And so, the Russians, the Chinese and a few others

got caught up in this failure of our ability to have a dialogue and a sufficient democratic pedagogy. And so, we managed to do a lot of manipulations that led to Brexit, that led to a whole series of manipulations, including the dissemination of hacked documents

during the elections here and elsewhere. And we have seen this happen in almost all countries, since hyper-communication, hyper-connection and the disclosure of traditional media allow the appearance of either useful pedagogical media, which is the case of pedagogical media, useful, as is the case with yours,

and others that are more like rage at the sphere and trolling, but that also allow a lot of manipulation with false information, or modified information. There are media in France, in any case, maybe on digital networks, like us,

that are paid by foreign states to...

So, media, no, but netizens relaying true or false information and acting in a hushed manner. When you discover, for example, 15,000 fake accounts, since none are linked to anything, when you see a farm troll

from Obermanni, you have 1,000 cell phones with 1 a thousand fake accounts that all relay the same information, or the same disinformation. So, it also works to make a ransom, it also works to do fraud, it also works to turn your accounts into a bank,

it also works for anything you want. They are multi-service. It's not just hackers for everything. They are multi-service. They are not only hackers for the beauty of the gesture, they are mercenaries. And they can do that for politics, for money,

for fraud, for blackmail.

What has happened recently, for example? Is it a bit of a concern? I think that for 2027, it will be misinformation everywhere. Are the States preparing to try to make a mess in France?

Well, the Russians are doing it quite regularly, they are not even hiding it. We don't have a lot of Chinese activity, it is rather limited to pure information and not to manipulation, at least not really.

The attacks are rather targeted at very specific issues, and they concern themselves, Taiwan, Uyghurs, Tibetans, the Dalai Lama. They are in their sphere of self-protection, of their own internal interests. But they don't act from an external point of view. First, they need trade. For them, Europe is not a power, but a market. So, don't laugh too much. Weakening is not a problem.

But, on the other hand, you have a lot of American troll actors, for example, who have their own interests in this matter. The Russians, in a rather structural way. And then, in a cyclical way, on the old colonial possessions of France. There is a lot of manipulation, lies, disinformation,

targeted, notably on the Sahelian-Sahelian zone.

You are giving a course on the errors of the information in history. Why are you giving a course on this?

First of all, I did a course on this, because there are a lot of errors in the information, and it was enlightening to say, except that it is unacceptable for those who listen to me and who are professionals in intelligence. Because not being one myself, trying to explain to someone the job they do without being one,

even if I'm a kind of family friend or distant cousin, it's very unpleasant. Because when you say that, you sometimes form spies. Operatives. Analysts of intelligence. So sometimes you tell them that there you are sometimes training spies. Operators. Analysts of the intelligence. So sometimes you tell them that there is this as an error.

No, we take practical cases.

You were talking about the acoustic project Kitty, for example, in the 70s.

I didn't talk about it, but it's your team. To go and get that, no, no, but it's a nice project. But this one is rather funny because because it's not a misrepresentation of the information.

It's about how to equip a dolphin with a beacon,

how to equip a cat with a microphone.

That's...

That existed?

Of course!

In fact, everything you have in James Bond,

when you see the gadgets,

all of that has been tested.

None of it is invented.

Probably.

Yes. Yes, there are lists that have been declassified, of absolutely unbelievable things. Why? Well, I'm telling you, the dolphin, the cat, but at the same time, you can see drones that are not bigger than insects today and that could perfectly recover. So, in fact, everything is not wrong, but it has failed a lot in the 60s.

Well, it's that Technology has evolved a lot. I don't remember which country did that. I know that the Russians managed to control a pigeon by putting two electric things on it, with a small beacon, and it was flying.

That's from the Dauphin. There's the bee, they managed to make a micro-camera. The miniaturization is a great thing.

The quantum, the tiny one, the very small one, they managed to make printing circuits. We saw it with Sebastian Lecordu, when we visited a military base under Rhine, the Rhine homeland, Bruges. We showed the quantum, the very small, very small,

and we can put processors, mini batteries on the head of a bee. It's crazy. We can even make you swallow a microcell that stays in your body.

Even more efficient.

What is it?

You'll see one day. There are many miniaturized products.

There are nanoparticles.

Yes, of course.

It's a real subject, the information.

Everywhere. So, information uses everything. They are very technical.

There is always an advance between what you will learn and what we will know. Because it's obvious, they won't explain it on the air, otherwise we lose the lead. And often, we learn technologies a bit later, when we have already passed to the next technology, otherwise it's not possible. It will put in danger...

Because suddenly, who says technology says... Anti-technology reaction, the shield arrives, and the glaive says, ah, we'll have to progress. But that's the principle of the Glaive. With the war's accelerator effects. It's the war that accelerates everything.

The Ukrainian field has totally changed the art of war.

But with artificial intelligence, everything accelerates.

It's not very intelligent, and it's still very artificial, but when it's going to become one, because for now it's only reproducing what it knows, and staying in a finite space. We showed the cannons that were controlled with the IAEA that could save aster missiles that take off and land. They shoot less.

And to shoot Shaheed drones, for example, Iranian and Russian drones, they can do it with small cartridges. An aster for a Shaheed is better avoided because the cost-efficiency ratio... It costs 7 million, 20,000 euros.

Yes, even less expensive than that now, the Shaheed. But let's say that today, the classic machine gun is the...

With the IAEA, it will be possible to hit a missile very quickly and thus save a lot of money. And if ever the small machine gun fails, well, there is a missile that goes, but it costs 7 million euros.

Well, now we are rather in... The Army of Earth has managed to restore old Renault vehicles with cannons from the 70s are much more efficient and much cheaper than anything because we learn from the field and the field is the Ukrainian field

which shows both what to do against long-range missiles very powerful, ballistic and the Shahid of the area, which is made with real bricks and bricks. In reality, the problem is that we see a whole series of projects, tests, anticipations, and then the laboratories, the services,

try things and we see if it works. But everything you see in the films was invented, but in general in the 60s or 70s. We see the reality because there is an extraordinary acceleration. We have just won several decades of research because of the Ukrainian conflict.

But what is interesting is when we make an analysis error. For example, in 1973, the Israeli education services have human agents infiltrated among all the main Arab heads of state.

Infiltrated.

Relatives, friends, spouses, friends. But it takes years. Yes, of course. You have to be patient in education. They took 20 years to set them up. One of them said told his leaders, taking a lot of precautions,

there would be an attack on Yom Kippur Day 1973, the great Israeli holiday. The first minister of the time, known for her firm side, Mrs. Golda Meir, gathered all the military and intelligence leaders saying, we have human sources, human, it's the Grail of intelligence.

We are sure that...

That's it. The chiefs of intelligence said, not at all. It's just made to prevent us from going on vacation. Do you remember the holidays of September 11th? The holidays of 1973? That's why you were talking about the R.H. all the time.

It's impressive. And so they decide not to prepare. The Kippur War took place, Israel almost got ripped off the map, and they decide that it will never happen again. On October 7th, the Israeli military intelligence agents who watch all day what's happening in Gaza, say that things are happening in Gaza.

They have reproduced our bases, they are doing penetration exercises. These people are preparing something. One of my colleagues wrote in July, they will attack us by September. In a newspaper, any newspaper can read it. The former boss of the military intelligence in Gaza newspaper, that anyone can read. The former military intelligence boss in Gaza said, they will put us in a lot of trouble,

Hezbollah and Hamas at the same time as usual. The answers of the military and Israeli intelligence officers, no, they will give us the vacation again. They didn't say they would give us the vacation of 1973. They are not capable, they are useless, they don't have the means. And they do it on October 7th.

The reality is that the denial of reality, the arrogance, the underestimation of the opponent cause the biggest disasters in the history of the intelligence. I took you some foreign stories. Are there any in France? Of course, plenty.

I think there is one about SMS in your class.

When you write to your mistress rather than your wife, it happens that you write to the person you are monitoring rather than to your supervisor. Did that happen?

It happens.

You follow someone and you...

The mobile phone is dangerous. You have to be careful when you receive a message. So what I do is, instead of telling these stories, I call one of the former bosses who was in charge of the case and tell him how he messed up. Which becomes acceptable.

Because we are between... And I try to give a more philosophical and global framework to this. But I have colleagues who do this very well. And it is very important that they understand what is the nature of the cognitive bias. But it is valid for future agents,

it is valid for agents in office, it is valid for political or industrial operators who discover what can be a fault in management, major strategic errors on the electric car, on the solar. Why are we in a situation where, by force of waiting, of not having done the hybrid,

we are submerged by cheaper and more efficient electric vehicles than those we have, with disastrous situations for some of the big European industrial operators who, not wanting to choose, did not make a choice and therefore pay a high price. 20 billion for at least one of them, which is a lot.

You were talking about the fact that we do not take the attacks seriously. Can we finish with the pig's bay?

The pig's bay is not a... It's an execution error. Did they underestimate the population? No, they got themselves smoked. They wanted to invade Cuba so badly, but the operation was not totally stupid.

The idea that they could progress quickly... Fidel Castro did the same thing in the opposite direction.

It was to capture Fidel Castro.

It was to overthrow Fidel Castro. They didn't want to capture him, as they did. No, capturing him would have been much easier. Because it didn't require a landing, it required a helicopter operation, as they did with Maduro in Venezuela, for example.

So, it depends on what the final objective. Often, there is no final objective. You do something and you say... We had invented something great, the German army and the Israeli army have the same thing, it's called the devil's lawyer. The devil's lawyer is someone who attends the meetings of the State Major and who says nothing.

Absolutely nothing. And he is there. In Germany, he was even on a small pedestal, to show that he wasn't participating. He took notes. And after an hour or two of discussion,

after everyone had negotiated, found compromises, situations you don't know very well, at that moment, the Chief of Staff decides to do this. At that moment, the Chief of Staff turns to the devil's lawyer and says, why are we doing this nonsense? At that moment, everyone Chief of Staff turns to the devil's lawyer and says, « Why are we doing this bullshit? » At that moment, everyone is looking at each other.

Either someone who is able to rationally explain to him the decision that has just been made, from compromise to compromise, and from negotiation to negotiation, and he says, « Maybe it's worth it. » Either no one can explain it, and it's really bullshit, and so the general interest is not to do it. It's a process that requires a lot of courage,

both for the devil's lawyer, who takes it very seriously, because he is the disruptor, the bad news carrier, the pathological nuisance, after 4 hours of negotiations, the guy who comes to say, what is this thing? It's very unpleasant and it's very useful to avoid a disaster or a defeat.

There are the Cambridge Five, they were alcoholics in 1930, it's a bit older, but...

And homosexuals. I think they were American agents... No, they were English agents. English, sorry, who were turned over by the KGB. Not turned over, they were always communists, they didn't even really hide it,

the English services, because it was a very British club, didn't see them, they let them run for decades. Some died, others fled to the USSR. It was a magnificent operation.

You released a book a few years ago called The Dumbest Criminals in History.

Yes. It's not the book I'm most proud of, but it's the one that sold the best. It's true. Why not proud? Well, I kept it as a source of hilarity, because I receive the list of the events of the previous day every morning, and there's always one or two funny things in it.

Really funny.

Can you name one or two?

I think there's a fugitive who likes... The criminal who attacks his own bank with a cash-net, and the banker looks at him and says Ah, Mr. Dupont, it's for a pension! The one who attacks a bank and takes a taxi and loses his identity card

The one who attacks the bank and says This is a hold-up on a deposit bond of his own of his own cheque The one who gets stuck in the chimney and calls the police to be delivered of his... of his... and I don't know what, and thinking he was invisible, he attacked the bank. He could have done a test on his mother or see someone and ask her if she saw him. No, when you're stupid, you're stupid.

The stupid must be splendid. Otherwise it doesn't count. You see what I mean? And in fact, it was my editor who, one day, coming to my house, sees the battery and says, what is this? So I tell him what I just told you. They said, it's a book!

The publisher, it's a book. I was very reluctant to this idea. I said, I didn't write a book. It's ridiculous. Well, I wrote a second one. The most stupid people, when you arrest them,

it's great, but in court, it can be even better. So I have the most stupid of them in court. Where there, it's both them, the magistrates, and especially their lawyers. The most splendid of them, if you will, was magnificent. He says, no, but you're pursuing my client for cannabis. But no, no, no, frankly, no, it's not good what you're doing.

Because also, he's doing coke, red milk. I don't see why we would focus on that. And Prokhorov says, I thank you for these elements of pressure that I didn't have, so it will be double.

There is a fugitive in 2015, an American 23 years old, I put you the picture there, who was wanted in the state of Montana. Yes, very beautiful. Since January. Is this in your book or not? I don't know, because I was in Montana too. So it's about theft, theft, money theft, etc.

And he was arrested because he liked his own search engine, because the police there post your search engines. Absolutely. So we see Lévi-Charles Riordan, and we see that he liked his own search engine.

It's in there, yes.

There is a robber who attacks a MMA champion, you also talk about it.

Yes, in Brazil. It's all documented. There are a few things that I put aside because I said authentic legends, but they are so beautiful that I kept them. But I say it, everything else is verified from A to Z, it even took an infinite time.

There are a few stories. You are not sure of the veracity? No, because I did not manage to prove it. It's in the paper, but I didn't have access to the police or the judiciary files. And I say, but they are so beautiful that I kept them. So the story of the hacker, to finish.

What is this story that is going to attack a MMA champion?

Well, actually, he's on the street, she's walking around in a thong with a t-shirt, we're in Brazil, in Rio, I think, and he doesn't know who she is at all, and he's the one who asked to call the police so that she stops hitting him. But there's the same case with an old grandmother who herself is a kickboxing champion, I think, and there are two guys who attack her house,

and one of the two called the police himself to stop her.

Incredible.

It's beautiful.

It's enjoyable to see.

There's a kind of immanent justice. Karma, in the end. Instant, what we call karma, the first justice.

That's it.

Where the formidable robber attacks a house, robs the house, eats in the house and falls asleep. While waiting for the owners to arrive.

Can we talk about China, to finish before we finish on the book and Donald Trump? In recent years, there have been several cases of Chinese espionage in France. I think in 2019, there was a research center in Brest, there, Oceanographic Ocean, which was infiltrated by a Chinese student. Is there a real subject?

Industrial spying? State spying? For a long time, there was a lot of industrial spying, copying. Then there was a much more targeted development spying, that is to say, using French skills, plus real Chinese skills, and Chinese skills to obtain major industrial accelerations. It has been reduced and targeted

on more specific subjects, such as miniaturization, in startups, and in research centers of universities that help to generate startups. they took a step forward. We see a startup when it's created.

But before it's created, there's an academic process. People do research. It's quite rare to go out. Open AI, all of a sudden? No one leaves their garage. With artificial intelligence, there are years of work before it's created. Exactly. The Chinese understood that they had to identify

in universities the future creators of start-ups. They took one episode in advance. But that was to identify particular research. They are great readers of scientific journals. They manage a lot of elements, sharing,

websites, which also allow them to take the lead, because they have tools which allow them to test and anticipate with huge financial resources awarded to universities,

especially military universities, which are very important there. We don't have that. They do. Americans too, but less important. And in fact, it's their essential activity.

It's less traditional espionage, like finding something they don't know, than improvement and acceleration.

You gave courses in China, Shanghai, Beijing, etc. Are there probably students who are spies to watch what you are going to say?

Of course, half of my students in Fudan had a haircut that left no doubt.

On their origin?

On their origin.

Chinese spies often have a military haircut.

Yes. The others, I don't know about the others.

So you have to be careful with what you say in these courses.

These are anti-terrorist courses. Yes, we share that. There is no debate. And if I go there, it's with the authorization. It's with the authorization of the French government.

Which is the government that has the most violent intelligence service? In Paris, are there sometimes elimination operations?

Which are the most violent? Those that are considered to be able to help to very brutal actions against the Kurds, especially the Turks, with operations that sometimes have counted as homicides.

So even if nothing proves that it is them saying who benefits of the crime, the Russians let themselves be led to some brutal eliminations, sabotage and attempted homicides, including against non-Russians. For a long time, it was an operation, you are traitors, so we eliminate the traitors. Schmiert, Spionam, that's what it was called.

He returned to the people for the... No, he wanted to eliminate them. He was a traitor, he was dead. There were a few intimidation operations, physical ones included, that took place. And then they are suspected of having sabotaged armories, refineries, transport networks, cables, and even attempted to kill one of the main leaders of the German military industry. Who is a German, I specify.

We have moved on to micro-terrorism, you say, to finish with Donald Trump. You speak of France, we have not had very large attacks for about 10 years.

We have had lots of small attacks.

What is micro-terrorism?

So, the lumpen-terrorism, or micro-terrorism, or proximity terrorism, is when you're alone or with two people, you don't need to have big organizations, a lot of support, a lot of logistics, to commit attacks with the car, the shovel, the knife, shovels, knives,

in short, anything, because it has the same media effect as if you were 10. It provokes the same stupor and the same horror in people. It can make a lot of victims, a single car, a single truck in Nice, a man with a knife can kill a dozen, twenty victims. You had a horrible murder there, not a terrorist murder, but a mass murder in a school in Canada

that killed many people. One person can cause a lot of damage, you don't have to kill 15 people. Even if we don't have the same effect as hyperterrorism. Microterrorism allows a constant repetition, a feeling or a state, or a climate to be more precise, of constant terror, a kind of background where you are never safe. So it is one of the most effective effects of the detour

that the Minister of Attacks of the Islamic State had proposed by saying, if you cannot come and defend the Islamic State at the Levant, it is not a problem, attack anyone, anywhere, any way, on the spot, in close proximity. And so, Mr. Al-Adnani had theorized this idea of the terrorist in close proximity.

You say that the enemy is no longer identified, by the way.

The profiles. The enemy is identified. We can find out who does what. But the profiles have totally changed. Before, a profile was a politician who went to terrorism because his activism had failed. The Islamic State has changed everything. It was a political change, a change from terrorism to militantism. The Islamic State changed everything.

The lions of the caliphate, the small salaried personnel, the caliphate soldiers, the uberization of terrorism, you order on the internet, like you call a car,

there is a driver, so he knows how to warm up, then there are the unknown people of the Caliphate. We don't know who they are. They commit the attack and proclaim their allegiance. So we identify them. They are not even often known by the Islamic State itself,

even if they may have had epistolary relations on TikTok or elsewhere, or on a forum or anywhere.

And the Taïsamiks sort it out.

They say, yes, this one is ours, this one we don't know, we have nothing to say. It's a very strange way of claiming. And so, this diversification of profiles, including many women,

many young people, many converts, is something that has changed a lot. But you have that now also in the mafia DZ, where you see a new generation of minors appear, totally unknown to the services, recruited at random and ready to commit murders.

So there are rapid transformations and a generalized rejuvenation of murder and attack operators.

We're going to talk about Donald Trump, you met him in 2003, but we were talking about technology, I have one last question on that. We haven't talked much about artificial intelligence, 3D printers, all the new technology that can help services,

but also unfortunately on the other side. There are scientists, especially those who work in viruses, there are articles that came out saying that with the new technologies, people could create deadly viruses. Did you follow this story?

First of all, the old technologies already allowed to create deadly viruses. We have considerable stocks, and in fact, the Russian laboratories have shown, when they were identified, that a certain number of their leaders went to the West, we discovered considerable advances in terms of everything that can kill humanity as a whole. So, from that point of view, humanity was creative with or without artificial intelligence.

What artificial intelligence does is that it allows to accelerate the recombination processes of what we know, in a different way. Either to increase the lethality, or to increase the ability to find...

To kill, yes.

...antiviruses or vaccines, sometimes. And then we see the difficulty of accepting vaccines coming too quickly, because we haven't had time to test the human reaction to treatments that are more treatments than vaccines. But indeed, in chemical and biochemical matters,

the speed of data processing in a closed universe, that is, we don't create new products, but we recombine what we knew about old products by increasing lethality or resistance, which leads to rapid transformations. But if you go to a hospital,

the recombination of viruses resistant to antibiotics is a physical reality that we have known for about 20 years and that didn't need artificial intelligence. It's just an accelerator, but in a closed universe. We haven't yet had a process of creating something totally new,

but it will happen. The army is looking for viruses, you said,

so Russia, but do we also have viruses research?

We have laboratories where we look for viruses to find antiviruses. The general idea is shielded shielded shield is the shielded shield.

It shouldn't come out by mistake.

It happens. In the United States, we identified about twenty leaks in P4 laboratories. In general, it's the laborators themselves that die or are victims. It remains confined, but there are flaws. But we discovered a few years ago that researchers were sending prohibited batteries by mail, as if nothing was wrong, in a kind of total indifference to the idea that something could happen.

And so, since the coronavirus, stric strict measures have been taken. But for a long time, this was the subject of a kind of... Well, we're going to send him by mail, it doesn't matter. Yippee!

Trump, the power of words, that's the name of your book, a decryption of a formidable mechanism of persuasion of the masses. At First Edition, I went looking for Alain Bauer. I'll put the link, I told you earlier, at the beginning of the show, in the description of the YouTube video and in the description of the podcasts, directly from the episode. You will meet Donald Trump in 2003. You said he had changed a lot at the beginning of the show.

Is it the power that made him take over? I don't think he has changed a lot.

I think I saw one of the two Donald Trumps. One of the two? Yes, because I think there are two Donald Trumps.

There is a Donald Trump, very calm,

speaking a chatty English, kind, sympathetic, pleasant, intelligent, educated, perfect in his role, a Democrat at the time. Democrat.

So, that is to say, more to the left?

Not Republican. In New York, Democrat, it's So, more to the left? Not a Republican. In New York, Democrats are not systematically more to the left. Let's say that on the Chiquet, I remind you that it is the Republicans who abolished slavery, and that it is the Democrats of the South

who defended it. Lincoln was not a Democrat, but a Republican. So, we must be careful. The French transition is worth nothing. It's not the same. And then, I saw the arrival, like everyone else, of the TV,

of Donald Trump from The Apprentice. Donald Trump who understands reality TV. And Donald Trump who wants power. He becomes a Republican from the outside, because he is anti-RINO, Republican in name only. He takes them to the right, and it has a new language.

Provocative, aggressive, mean, but that corresponds to an America between two rivers that doesn't want to die. You have a developed America, Florida, California, the America of the two coasts, Texas, which is a peculiarity, and in the middle you have an America that dying, and that doesn't want to die. An America called the Little White, in the sociological sense of the term.

And this America was looking for a hero, OS and ULT, a hero that represents it. And Donald Trump understood that by being aggressive, using simple language, or even simplified, simplistic... More than when he spoke to you? Ah, well, he was charming. He made me... It lasted 10 minutes, I didn't spend 3 hours with him.

What did he talk to you about? About his real estate projects.

And he gave you a gift, I think.

A tie, two ties. A blue tie, a red tie, a Democrat, a Republican. Yes, that's it. Republican. So, he was... He used a simple language to talk to everyone. To talk to everyone, and especially to those we don't talk to anymore. Those who receive contradictory injunctions from the top,

those who are in agricultural bankruptcy, those who are in Main Street where there is nothing open. There are only three bars left, social security and the pharmacy. So this America needed to be listened to and heard. The Democrats abandoned it. The Bible Belt was the Democrats of the South

and the Rust Belt was the Industrial Democrats. Car crisis, textile crisis, crisis 2, crisis 2, crisis 2, crisis 2. In fact, Trump's first text, in 1987, was against Japan, in terms of automobiles, audiovisuals, etc. It evoked something, not much, but it's there. 2000, The America We Deserve, is his electoral program.

But above all, from...

What is that?

His book, America, What We Deserve, which is his program. Everything is in it, it's freely accessible, it's on any merchant site, rather Amazon for reasons that, and curiously, it has never been translated into French, which is still extraordinary. And so, we pretend to discover Donald Trump

who wrote everything in 87, 40 years ago, then rewrote it in 2000, 25 years ago.

Who had warned.

Who had warned, he wrote, he... So I tell three things in the book. Donald Trump, where does he come from? He is a political individual for a very long time, formed, structured by his mentor Roy Cohn, the man of McCarthyism.

Who he ended up firing.

Yes, by firing.

Financial reason, he asked too much money. Then, Donald Trump, who discovers reality TV and creates political reality TV, that is, the permanence and saturation of networks with « You are fired », « Vous êtes viré ». A Donald Trump, then hyperbolic, all the words are huge. Everything is gigantic, big, extraordinary, fabulous, amazing,

when he talks about himself. And everything is horrible, awful, horrible, end of the world, when he talks about others. A Trump who uses phrases that structure the lockdown, send there a hand-to-hand, They were talking about the lockdown, about the tolls. They were structuring both the words and the slogan. The same oral meme.

And at the end, I say that there is a semantic behind it. There is a political project. There is a coherence. And behind Trump, aggressive, provocative, digressive, sometimes divagant, there is another Trump, hidden behind the first one,

that we rarely see, except once, in his speech at the United Nations. So, at the end, I put Trump's speeches. Super square investment speech, second super square investment speech. In the middle of the book, there are all the crazy people, all of them. 17,000 tweets analyzed. It's not all put, but you have...

It's him who writes the tweets, you think?

Oh yeah, yeah.

Yes?

Oh yes. Yes.

They use them, they recycle them, it goes by itself. Besides, he is not at all ... he is transparent, Trump. He tells you what he thinks when he thinks it. There is no packaging, it in reality, he manages his tweets, especially at night. And then, Trump has a clear, coherent political project, and he goes straight to his political project,

by making detours, by making circumvolutions, but he knows where he's going, he knows what he wants,

and Trump always wins something in the end. by making a lot of circular movements. But he knows where he's going, he knows what he wants,

and Trump always wins something in the end. Because, contrary to what everyone thinks, in the end, Trump won something. A little something. He never finishes the game with less tokens than he started. And that's what's impressive about Trump,

because when you look at him beyond our emotions, our scandalized air, our moralistic statements like, « No, it's really not good, he's horrible, he's awful, we have the right to think » we don't realize that our consideration is useful

and that it's an asset for him.

And curiously, the more he does it, the more it works. There's an assassination attempt, even two, on him. In 2024, we all saw this image. How can the Americans let this happen? How do the American services...

There are too many services in the United States. You know that it is the territory that makes the law in the United States. And that, contrary to popular belief, it is not because you are the Secret Service or the FBI that you take power. In fact, you arrive, and you're... Petsou is in a soup-pâtelin in Missouri. Well, it's the sheriff who has the power.

And so you negotiate with the sheriff. I attended a negotiation meeting for the Atlanta Olympics with 87 police departments to share the responsibilities. I was representing the external organizers, but it was a very impressive subject

to see this sharp need. The airport road is me, the airport is me, yes, but the customs are me, the arrival in the city is the county, yes, but there is the city, yes, but there is the sheriff.

They changed that, so?

No, not at all, you can't do anything. The territory makes the law. The files can give the power, but here we are before the assassination, so we are just in a meeting of the candidate. So you negotiate with everyone.

The next day, at the minute someone shot, the Secret Service takes the power. That's up to him. And the FBI, because he has the judicial part. It's always a little late when he shot, normally. Ah yes, but at least everything is clear. But before, as nothing happened, everyone has their own little thing.

No one is infallible. You have a hole in the racket that checks the roof of the thing that is 500 meters away. There were also attempts on Charles de Gaulle, on Jacques Chirac to talk about France. Yes, but now it's easier. There we were first in a period of war, in quotation marks, of events with the OSCE. And the state services, the police in France,

are a unified and centralized police. There is no debate, neither in prevention, nor in dissuasion, nor in action.

In the United States, there are 17,000 police services. Are there any threats against the French president today?

Has he already been assaulted? Has he already been pursued at gunpoint, physically assaulted. Social networks are full of people who want to kill him, hang him, guillotine him. Well, yes, of course, he can't be one of the most beloved presidents of the Fifth Republic. Do you advise him? I know that you sometimes advise politicians, even today. Do you sometimes have an appointment with them?

Politicians, not so much, because I don't have any. I work with representatives of the State, so for me they are not politicians. They are people who assume public responsibilities.

Who are in the wheel.

Who are elected to be in the wheel, or designated to be in the control of the country, or designated to be in the control of the country. In any case, when there is trust, or a lack of trust, as we say now, in the Parliament to be in power, yes, of course, when they call me, I come.

To finish, violence in France in 2025, it's the worst year on violence in France. We often talk about feelings of insecurity a few years ago, little by little it has changed. You talk about a climate of insecurity, a climate of violence.

No, I'm talking about a climate of violence.

What's the difference?

First, the term violence doesn't mean anything. We don't quantify violence. So I have two simple indicators, homicides and attempts. The rest is unstable. Homicides, because since 1539,

in this country, we know who is born and more and more who dies. It's the creation of the civil state by François I, so it's useful. And we know that we went from 150 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in a period of peace, to two. So I can tell you, documentarily,

we have never been so safe in France. And this is the moment when you normally stop the show by saying, what is this pittance? In reality, we have experienced cycles, a downward cycle, absolutely incredible, which brought us to the lowest homicide rate in our history in 2011-2012.

It's always a pleasure for Nicolas Sarkozy when I tell him that, because he was in office at the time, less than 700 homicides. Remarkable. We have risen to more than 1000 homicides. Remarkable. We have increased to more than 1,000 homicides. 50% in 10, 12, 13 years, that's a lot.

It's a cycle, and it has accelerated, it has intensified, and above all, no one counted the homicide attempts, which are only failed homicides, either by the incompetence of the killer, I thank him, or by the efficiency of the rescue services.

And they are very important in terms of... So we take the homicides attempts, and there, unfortunately, the year 2025 is the worst year, homicides plus attempts, of the last 50 years. The worst. The last 50 years, because the new statistical tool dates from 1972.

So I can't go back in time. And here we have a major problem in the modern period to see this inversion of trends. We had domesticated the homicide, but it didn't prevent voluntary violence, sexual violence that we hadn't recorded,

incest, mito, etc. But on death as a final object, we had a rather pleasant situation for a modern and populated country. Very far, fortunately, from the United States, but still. And here we have an inversion of trends,

of power, of intensity, of speed, which is extremely disturbing and not only linked to the drug trafficking regulations, but to a kind of death drive, where everyone wants to kill everyone to relieve themselves. For reasons of under-reported looks, of climate, of violence between girls and boys, the gang of girls and the gangs of boys have now been balanced,

in terms of parity, a kind of parity by the gang of boys are now more or less balanced, in terms of parity. There is a kind of parity by the absurd that has developed. And then, well, there is no intermediary to solve the problems. There are no negotiators, there is no... We go directly to the act for everything and anything. And then, especially with this moment, when you meet the authors,

no regrets, no remorse. Death is an element that no longer appears as something unfair and forbidden. Sometimes a little, fortunately, but in general. And when you have 13-year-old murderers, 13-year-old terrorists, who find what they did right, who are happy to have done it,

who find it normal, legitimate and proud of it. You have a subject that is cultural, social, and even more impressive than the purely criminal part. How to reverse the trend? For that, you have to do what the state has done and stopped doing, that is, to come back.

The state has withdrawn, the nature of the horror of the void. If the state withdraws, someone replaces it, in general, crime. The educational state, the social state, the medical state, the military state, the police state, the judiciary state has been reduced,

sent back to its districts, because all of this was going to be done naturally. The invisible hand was going to solve everything. But in fact, it didn't solve anything. And the destructuring of everything that is transmission, acceptance or respect of the family, the police,

it's not just a question of uniform. It also brings us to the idea that we can settle our own accounts.

You are a professor in criminology, what are you afraid of today?

I'm afraid of the world I'm going to, or that we'm going to leave to our children. I'm more afraid of my daughters, because I have a dozen. I'm not very proud of the legacy to come.

Why?

It's ugly. It's ugly in terms of environment, it's ugly in terms of war, it's ugly in terms of a lot of things. So I just wish them to take advantage of it as best they can and then try to reverse the trend. Because I'm pretty confident in the ability of the new generation to be both vigilant, to realize that the world is dangerous,

resilient, able to suffering without breaking, and above all, resistant. I always believed there was a capacity for citizen and collective resistance. And the only message I give to them and to others is this. I believe in this capacity of individuals, of groups, to be resistant, even when the state is failing.

The first part of your sentence, we won't start the natality with that.

Well, with resistance, we can do things.

Yes, the second part of the sentence.

Like everything.

You are quite pessimistic, aren't you?

I am realistic. I don't sell dreams, I don't announce that everything is fine, I don't lie, at least not as much as possible. I don't always tell the whole truth, because it's not always easy, but I think that, as an epitre would say, the truth will set you free. Aren't we in a government that says that everything is fine all the time?

The role of the government is to make people believe that everything is fine all the time, but it discredits it, especially when people live poorly, their daily lives. And so there is a moment when we have to stop communicating... On the false notion that everything is fine? What Gérald Darmanin did in the show, he said that there is no safe zone,

frankly it had been taken up everywhere because it was not usual.

It was honest. We must salute honesty. Precisely. I think that politicians are usually rather lucid, but often cowardly in communication. They don't dare because they say, people are not ready,

people are not... they can't hear that. On the contrary.

On the contrary. Everyone understands the same thing.

Everyone understands very well. And on the contrary, once we've said that, we become credible again, on the idea that the solutions are not as simple as cutting everyone's head off. Are you more afraid today than 10 years ago? Am I more afraid? No.

I'm more afraid today than...

One year ago?

No. I started to think that the situation was not going well in 2001. So in 2000, 25 years ago, 26 years ago, I thought the world was pretty nice.

Last question, you said, while preparing the interview, to the team, that the United States need an enemy, the States

need an enemy. I remember very well in 1990, there was a meeting The United States needs an enemy. The States need an enemy. Yes, of course. Why? I remember very well, in 1990, there was a meeting, I have a very good memory of it, which was called Who is the Enemy? Because when you lose your enemy,

first of all, it's bad for morale, for security and education services, what are you good for? And then it's bad for the budget. And you have to remember that in 2000, a few days before the attacks, in 2001, early 2001, the budgets of the French intelligence services were reduced.

Why? Because nothing was happening. So the more efficient you are, the more you are punished. The next day, on September 11, the budgets were restored. Because as you had just failed massively, the time had come to give you money. It's a practical curiosity,

but it's part of the difficulties of understanding when accountants deal with politics. Accountants must do accounting, they do it very well, but above all, they stop defining what the priorities are,

because their results so far have not been particularly brilliant.

This professor of criminology, does the perfect crime exist?

It's the one we don't know, no doubt. No crime scene, no corpse, no author.

Does it happen, do you think?

Of course. Every year, it disappears in a disturbing way a dozen thousand people. 60,000 in all, people disappear, more or less. In France? Yes, of course.

60,000? Yes, more one disappears, more or less. In France? Yes, of course. 60,000? Yes, more or less.

That's huge.

Yes, but we find them. Except 10,000. It's worrying. Of those 10,000, there are about 1,000 that we don't find at all. Happy New Year. 5 years later, 6 years later, they drowned,

they went to Nepal to discover, I don't know who. Anyway, but still. And at the same time, there are 1000 people who are buried under X in France every year. We do the DNA test, but we don't pay to know who it is. That's the purity of national bureaucracy. Unbelievable.

Yes. And so, already, if we could identify everything that is buried under X, it would give us holidays. And above all, we would also have the possibility of having a problem. Maybe there is a huge serial killer who kills a thousand people a year. I can't tell you that it's not possible. I don't believe it.

It's three a day, almost. Two and a half.

But we discover today people who have disappeared for a very long time. The last call from Europol and Interpol allowed us to identify about twenty people whose bodies we didn't know who they were. We went back to the trails. The evolution of DNA, of parental DNA, of floating DNA, in short, a lot of technological innovations that allow us to find cases.

The cases are starting to be reopened in France, but we had to wait for the great work of the prosecutor d'Aleest to have a Paul Colquist. Jacques Dallest, who received him twice. Yes, magnificent, who teaches at the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers in the Master of Criminology. So we took a very long time to take these realities into account, to discover that seriality was possible,

even though we had Gilles Doré who opened the way for us. We could have started almost a thousand years ago to deal with these realities. So all these events were very important to understand that crime could go unnoticed. Our chance is that criminals need to be recognized.

It helps. That is to say, the ego? Yes, the E of Ego, of vice, vice, vice.

How to catch someone? Money, ideology, blackmail, ego.

Yes, and especially sex.

There is no S in vice.

No, but it's in... Yes. It's in compromission, the C.

You are for digital identity. I will ask you the question at the end, because it is a subject to finish the show.

We often hear about it. What is digital identity? It's simple. We all have an identity. You have a national identity number. I have a 62 something something something. It's our number of civil state. It's your number of civil state. One, because you are a boy. Two, because you are a girl.

I think there will be a third one for the intermediate genders. The year, the month, the department, the area, and a personal number. It's a shock to no one. It allows you to exist. It's the recognition of your existence. You have a whole series of children who were born in the Islamic State camps that don't exist today in terms of civil state.

They don't know who they are, how they are, nothing. While they ask themselves to be repatriated to the international territory, they do not have an identity, for example. This number could have served to provide us with a basic digital identity, like a digital identity card. What is it for?

First, to assume its responsibility to open a digital account and when we become a troll, a defamator, a neo-Nazi, an anti-Semite, a xenophobe, someone who wants to kill someone else, who calls for hatred, for all possible and imaginable reasons, and I'm not making a list, to assume his responsibility.

Which is the case with the French law, since the law on freedom of the press, which says you have the right to say what you want, but you assume what you say. Today we have created anonymous people, people who can tell anything, call for hatred, murder, murder, anything,

and who don't assume. who can say anything, call for hate, murder, murder, anything,

and who don't take responsibility. And journalists sometimes take back anonymous things. Well, yes. But the number doesn't prevent you from having a nickname. I mean, that's not it. It's if the State wants to know. Not if the State.

If someone is suing you because you threatened me with death, you insulted me, etc. Then, your digital identity number becomes an element of your responsibility in the issue of insults or threats. I am simply to regulate not the freedom of expression,

I have no problem to say everything we want, vote for whom we want, but the insult, the death threat and the rest involve a responsibility. And so the digital identity is the same as our civil identity.

But we can take the VPN and connect to another country,

open with another country, it's not a global system. I'm trying to reduce it. Besides, to buy a VPN, you can also need your digital identity, because you can explain to the operators of other countries that they will never be able to operate in France.

Which is a possibility. It's the lack of willingness to solve the problems of freedom of the markets that poses problems. But when Lula said to Starlink either you regulate or I shut you down, a month later,

and for the only time in history, Elon Musk said, well, I regulate. I wait for the European Union to learn. I think an internship in Brasilia is necessary.

You were Grand Master of the Orient from 2000 to 2003. Freemasons. At 38 years old you became Grand Master. You were the youngest at that time. We did a show, we received a Freemason, I'll put a link if you want to see it.

What did the Freemason teach you? So paradoxically, silence. It's a bit complicated for your show, because we're one person. But we learn silence, so listening. Because we have to furnish silence, so we listen to others. Which is a great moment, because we don't skip the opportunity,

we don't interrupt the interlocutor. I have some more beautiful lines, I didn't interrupt you. But it's a permanent job. What is a real TV show? It's a moment where everyone interrupts the others in the middle of the sentences, and only the host is the hero of a decibel contest.

But nobody has finished a sentence. You have some great places, like C'est dans l'air, you interrupt someone else, Caroline Roux puts a red or yellow card on the theme, not twice, and the next time not invited. So there are rules.

These rules require listening to people, speaking politely, and even when we are in total disagreement, expressing it. The return to courtesy. So, that's the first element.

So, when you listen, you learn. Because it's difficult to listen without something coming in, sometimes even despite yourself. You can't just pretend to sleep. And then, thirdly, it allows you to move forward,

to discuss, to learn, possibly to intervene. There are two currents in Freemasonry, the one where Freemasons and Freemasons, there are a lot of women,

intervene in society as individuals, and so they are simply transmitting rules of courtesy, of dialogue, of sharing, of respect, all that. And then there is the part where it is the Masonic organizations that intervene as a collective representation,

that is rather the role of the Grand Orient de France. And there you have ideas like the right of women to choose, the right to die in dignity. Our friends at the Grande Loge de France invented the tax on progressive income. The Société des Nations, well, you can find a lot of them, which doesn't prevent some less dazzling aspects from time to time.

But the vast majority of those who are in these houses are there for a sharing, a dialogue, and with a vision more oriented on the future of humanity than their personal future. Thank you very much for taking the time. Thank you.

I don't know how long it took, but it took a while. A certain time. Thank you very much. Trump, the power of words. Decryption is a fearsome mechanic of persuasion. I will put the book in the link, in First Edition. And I will put the others too, I know you have several.

So if you go and see it like that, and especially, it's not the one you're most proud of, but the other one, on the most stupid can order it. Don't hesitate to subscribe, you are about 150,000, 200,000 to join us every month. Thank you for being more and more numerous, thank you for following us on Spotify, Deezer, Apple Podcast, Amazon Podcast. When you cook, when you do sports, when you are on the road, when you. Thanks to the team for preparing the show with me. I send you a big hug and we'll see each other again soon

I send you a big hug and we'll see each other again soon for another show on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday on Legend.