After a couple of losses in the family, and a number of other emotionally distressing incidents, here’s the latest “gift” the Universe (or rather, this planet of imbéciles) just gave me.

1·Twitter is sincere

Since June 26, this is how everyone can see my Twitter account:

And this is how I see it:

Here’s the chain of messages I’ve got from Twitter:

The first message said one of my tweets was to be blocked in France:

We are writing to inform you that certain content on your Twitter account @ludditus has been flagged for possible violations of Twitter’s hateful conduct policy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175054) and/or the French LCEN law.

In accordance with the French LCEN law and our policies, Twitter is now withholding the following Tweet(s) in France:

Tweet ID: 1671272109396336643
Tweet Text: Tous les crétins de Français qui commentent sur le tweet d’origine défendent la mère. Si au moins ces femmes essaieraient de cacher, de masquer un peu leurs seins durant l’allaitement. Mais non, elles sont des fières exhibitionnistes sans aucune pudeur. Stupid bitches. [url]

Publishing content that is obviously unlawful under Article 6 of the LCEN law or that amounts to hate speech under the LCEN law can lead to civil and criminal penalties.

If you believe the withheld content does not violate the French law, you may challenge the above decision by filing an appeal to Twitter through this link (https://help.twitter.com/forms/lcen-appeals). You can also challenge this decision in a French court of justice.

For more information on our Country Withheld Content policy, please see this page: https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169222.

The second message said that my account was to be hidden in France:

We are writing to inform you that certain content on your Twitter account @ludditus has been flagged for possible violations of Twitter’s hateful conduct policy (https://support.twitter.com/articles/20175054) and/or the French LCEN law.

In accordance with the French LCEN law and our policies, Twitter is now withholding your account in France:

Publishing content that is obviously unlawful under Article 6 of the LCEN law or that amounts to hate speech under the LCEN law can lead to civil and criminal penalties.

If you believe the above content does not violate the French law, you may challenge the above decision by filing an appeal to Twitter through this link (https://help.twitter.com/forms/lcen-appeals). You can also challenge this decision in a French court of justice.

For more information on our Country Withheld Content policy, please see this page: https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169222.

The third message said that my account has been suspended!

We are writing to inform you that certain content on your Twitter account @ludditus has been found in violation of Twitter Rules (https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311).

Your account @ludditus has now been locked or suspended for violating the Twitter Rules (https://support.twitter.com/articles/18311).

A separate message has been sent to you regarding the details of this violation, and you will also be presented with these details when you log into your account.

If you believe this decision to be incorrect and that the above content is not violating the Twitter Rules, you may challenge it by filing an appeal to Twitter through the link provided in the separate message sent. You can also challenge this decision in a French court of justice.

2·A first set of questions, and the facts

To start with the first question that came to me: how come that the Twitter accounts of RT, Sputnik, and other Russian propaganda channels that are forbidden, withhold, “invisible” in the EU countries, have not been found in violation of Twitter rules, and have not been suspended?

So, one of your tweets allegedly (I said “allegedly” because there is no decision of a court of justice!) violates a law in France, Britain, or Germany, and you’re fucked. (In the past, they used to say: delete the tweet, and you’ll be able to post again in 12 or 24 hours.) But if your account is officially in violation of “something” (an EU Directive, I guess) IN ALL EU COUNTRIES, that’s fine for Twitter. That account can be accessed from outside the EU, or by using a VPN.

Also, Elon Musk’s Twitter allows all kind of Nazism, disinformation, and real hatred to be posted, especially from the US, while persecuting people who are just expressing benign opinions.

Of maybe “Stupid bitches” is in breach of the Loi pour la Confiance dans l’Économie Numérique (LCEN, Law for Trust in the Digital Economy). Snowflake-ism has now become wokism. Soon, people will be put to jail for having said or written “You’re fat!”; or, maybe, should J. K. Rowling write again something against the new transsexual gender-fluidity religion, but in French, she’d have her account suspended before getting “canceled” online.

Even if you know the link to my “illegal” tweet, you won’t be able to see it, so here it is (apart from what they cited in the mail), alongside the press article I was reacting to:

You can however read the reactions to my tweet, all of them full of abominable hatred, abject insults, and various signs of lack of decency and mental derangement. But no, those accounts are not in breach of anything, eh?

It’s not irrelevant to note that, über-feminists aside, some of the reactions came from pro-Russian tards who were judging the Ukrainian flag as the flag of pedophilia and rape! (The second flag was that of the ROC aka Taiwan.)

Oh, and I did make a grammar error in my tweet:

Si au moins ces femmes essaieraient de cacher […] leurs seins durant l’allaitement.

The “si” asks for the imperfect, not for the conditional, so it should have been:

Si au moins ces femmes essayaient de cacher […] leurs seins durant l’allaitement.

Translated:

If only these women tried (less common: would try) to hide their breasts while breastfeeding.

Funny thing, this construction that asks for the indicative imperfect in French typically asks for the optative-conditional mood in Romanian (“Dacă aceste femei ar încerca măcar…”), and for the conjunctive imperfect in Italian (“Se solo queste donne cercassero…”) and Spanish (“Si al menos estas mujeres intentaran…”).

But my real fault is that I did not read the article!

You see, everything seemed clear enough from the text of the tweet; but the image they used was, nonetheless, a stock image intended “for illustrative purposes”:

Should you go to the article, you’ll see that the mother was more decent than that:

Apparently, she was using a shirt “designed for breastfeeding”–not that the breast wasn’t clearly visible!

I’ll only quote one tweet:

Et puis même si elle en portait pas [un t-shirt d’allaitement], qu’est-ce que ça fait? Elle nourrit son enfant, point. J’en ai marre de ces crétins finis à la pisse qui, parce qu’ILS sexualisent toujours le corps féminin, veulent le cacher. Le problème, ce n’est pas les femmes. C’est eux.

What this implies is shocking. Corroborated with the tweet saying that LITERALLY the MAIN biological function of a woman is to give birth and to breastfeed, the fact that a woman’s body should not be hidden questions the mere fact that we humans are wearing clothes. Should we stop doing that?

3·Common sense, decency and pudeur

It is not because you are. It’s because we need basic decency. And this has nothing to do with either of the Islamic fundamentalism that requires the wear of a burka, or the Christian fundamentalism that can be found in the States.

Actually, for once, the Christian fundamentalism so typically American can’t be blamed. If my memory serves me well, when I visited the States back in 2005, I’ve seen mothers breastfeeding without bothering to hide in any way their breasts; I’ve seen such scenes in a mall, and possibly in an airport. Quite liberal for Utah, right?

There used to be some principles, or values, commonly known as decency, of pudeur in French. There is no more pudeur in today’s France!

Of course, I don’t want to go back to the ineptitude of the swimsuit police in the 1920s, of the morality police in Greece in the same decade, or in South Korea in the 1970s! After all, we had the miniskirts of the 1960s, although in 2010 an Italian mayor tried to ban them “to help restore urban decorum and facilitate better civil coexistence.”

It’s normal to have a more relaxed attitude towards exposing parts of the body that were taboo for centuries, but is this really having no end? Should we all go naked all the time, temperature permitting?

Complete nudity (not just going topless) is allowed in more and more places (not just beaches, but also parks) in the United States, in Germany, in the Netherlands, etc. etc. In the Netherlands, nude recreation in place without an official designation is possible if the location is suitable, however:

Going nude in places without an official designation requires a heavy dose of common sense, an ability to see someone else’s point of view and a willingness to adapt to a changing situation.

Uh. Common sense in today’s world?! Empathizing with the other people who share the same public space? You must be kidding me.

Today’s feminists and wokists have lost all sense of decency. They dress like shit, and particularly young women do that–males wouldn’t dare wearing shorts that are too short. But one has to allow everything when coming from women or from non-men. (Note that this gender-fluid non-binary fad angers even some lesbians.)

So you have teenage girls and young women with shorts so short that part of their buttocks don’t fit inside. This is disgusting. Esthetically, not erotically.

And you have teenage girls and young women wearing some leggings or stretch pants that used to be worn underneath proper clothing (skirt or trousers). Nowadays, such underwear is worn as street clothing! This started some 25-30 years ago, when the notion of camel toe got invented, specifically because of the increasing public indecency. Why should everyone see the exact shape of everything, especially when you’re a fat, stupid cow?

One hundred years ago, the society was “less fair” and still class-based, but at least we had this division:

  • The educated and well-off people (the middle class and the bourgeoisie) were dressed smartly and expensively, with taste and decency.
  • The lower classes were usually not mixing with the above people, but even so, and even when they were dressed cheaply and miserably, they were still observing the common standards of decency.

Nowadays, the “improved democracy” brought with it the spreading, if not the generalization, of the vulgarity, of the boorishness, of the lack of common sense. Millions of today’s people, most of them women, would have been fined or jailed decades ago for the way they dress in public. It’s indecent exposure, but the law and the public doesn’t consider it as such anymore.

Instead of having the education spread to the masses, what we have is the callousness and the lack of decency becoming mainstream. Because the uneducated, the stupid and the vulgar, they’re the many, not the few. And this is how democracy works.

Just look at how everyone is wearing sweatsuits and fugly trainers. We’re living in idiocracy.

4·Ad hoc anthropology

Have you ever wondered how come that people are resenting bashfulness, shame, embarrassment, and the need of exhibiting less rather than more of oneself’s body?

Obviously, the more you are timid, the more you’d have such feelings. But generally, the shame regarding one’s body is a social construct.

To be clear: I don’t support Victorian prudery, excessive prudishness, or pudibundity (BrEn), as they’re exaggerated forms of decency and modesty–called by Shakespeare pudency, and in other languages pudeur, pudore, pudor, from the Latin pudere (to feel shame, to make or to be ashamed), pudicus (chaste), pudibundus (shamefaced). What I support is decency.

I didn’t search for the “official” explanation on how people started to feel embarrassed to show certain body parts to strangers, but I’m pretty sure it didn’t start with religion. It’s true that strict morals were imposed in the Christianized world, and that, even today, the Muslim world still has absurd views of how little a woman should show of herself. But this kind of shame is older than that, being it only if we notice the Latin terms dealing with it.

My take is that modesty related to body parts that are primary or secondary sexual attributes is natural to the naked monkey that’s Homo sapiens sapiens. There is no such thing as “sexualization” of certain body parts as long as they literally and objectively are sexual organs, even if they have other, secondary functions. Yes, people were probably less ashamed of their nakedness 6,000 years ago. But no, it’s just an urban myth that in ancient Sparta they had sport competitions in which teenagers of both sexes competed naked. There is no historical evidence to support that. Decency is not a modern construct.

Throughout the known history of our species, we were wearing clothes, and not just because of the weather conditions. As about shame…

  • Adults might feel ashamed of their bodies as they get older, less pleasant to watch, less attractive both esthetically and erotically. Generally, most average-looking people and even many of those considered “ugly” (I’m not sure if it’s still legal to use this word) would seem literally better-looking when dressed in a smart way. One should be a complete idiot not to try looking better! To be comfortable with your body is one thing, to have the arrogant impudence to show it to everyone else is a different story.
  • Children might feel ashamed of their bodies because at certain ages, they can be very mean to each other, in total disrespect of political correctness. Whatever can be perceived as a physical “defect” or merely “inferior” when compared to another person will lead to mockery and shaming. Clothing comes here as a handy mean to mitigate this aspect.
  • Preteens (pubescent children) and teenagers (adolescents) encounter periods of accommodation with the changes in their bodies, quite often with feelings of uneasiness and embarrassment. Girls might feel their breasts are not large enough, or that they’re too large. Feelings towards the opposite sex (because they’re only two of them, you fucked-up woke retards!), or maybe the same sex, can make some people clumsy and wanting to present themselves… less naked.

Generally, I have nothing against the semi-nakedness on the beach and in similar settings; in such places, being topless often doesn’t reveal much more than what is shown by a two-piece swimsuit, given how some such apparel can consist in a couple of strings and a pretext of a bit more. Nudist beaches are optional, you normally don’t see nudists on the streets and in parks (with the known exceptions, from the World Naked Bike Rides in NYC to the Englischer Garten in Munich, which I disapprove of). Naturist camps (FKK, anyone?) are also exceptions to the general rule that people should generally not parade their private parts.

There is an old joke: “I went to a naturist camp. The first two days were harder.” It made me think how different people can be: some women would feel outraged if a stranger would have a boner upon seeing their “attributes”; other women would feel flattered, especially if they didn’t consider themselves attractive; finally, some would mock those poor males for their inability to control their hormones. But what if a hot chick would feel offended if your dingus is the only one that’s completely insensitive? Of course, in places like Cap d’Agde, most people are mature enough, and unattractive enough, so that nobody would ever have any erotic feelings towards them; conversely, if most people are young and hot, I suppose that a certain saturation would soon lead to insensitivity, like in a gynecologist who has seen too much. I can’t tell, as I don’t feel like visiting such places. However, I have a message to whoever thinks I am the pervert, and that naturism is… natural and should not be “sexualized”: the Dutch just told people, please, don’t fuck on the beach, so maybe naturists aren’t all that innocent.

I also have another theory. Covering of the private parts might have started in history because of… jealousy!

  • A caveman might have felt jealous that another caveman had a boner on seeing his woman.
  • A woman might have felt jealous that her man had a boner on seeing another naked woman.
  • A caveman might have been jealous on the size of another caveman’s schlong compared to his.

Now, of course, the last one also implies a corresponding shame, especially as people are generally stupid. By the way, did you know that the size of an erect penis doesn’t tell anything about a size of the same organ in flaccid state? Men comparing their tools at the showers don’t know what they compare. There are penises that have 13 cm when flaccid, but only 16 cm when erect; and penises that have 9 cm when flaccid, but 18 cm when erect. Which one is better? Then, did you know that, until relatively recently, the statistics about the penis sizes across countries were using measurements of semi-flaccid, not completely flaccid items? That is, not erect, but not at the minimum size. Apparently, size matters a lot to most people.

As for women’s breasts (which, culturally, socially and erotically, are more important than… that thing), their size is much more difficult to occult, especially when they’re rather large; but at least the “details” can remain a mystery.

5·Something some of you will not understand

As we’re living in a world of morons, I have to add a few other explanations.

Dressing oneself with decency is important to women for a simple reason that is nothing else than the self-preservation instinct, which seems to be absent in recent generations.

Why, nobody would kill you neither for looking too sexy, nor for looking too pathetically, right? Sur, but there are two phenomenons:

  • Bullying, something that seems on the rise. When I was a kid, this term didn’t exist. You could get mocked, intimidated, or aggressed, but there was no need for a specific term for that. Snowflakes or not, now there is such a thing as bullying. And it’s often related to one’s physical appearance and perceived weaknesses.
  • Rape, which isn’t new, but with the Islamization of Europe, there is an increased risk that radicalized Muslims pretend they “couldn’t resist” when seeing summarily dressed women, as their culture might deem them provocative. But non-Muslim people could also have a lack of restraint and be tempted to rape women that are exposing too much of their flesh.

Without trying to excuse any such morons, wouldn’t anyone want to minimize such risks, even if being aggressed is a crime, and wearing light clothing no matter the circumstances can be perceived as a right? When you’re crossing a street on a pedestrian crossing, are you saying “fuck them, it’s my right to cross, I don’t even look whether the incoming cars are stopping,” or you’re trying to stay alive? It doesn’t help if you get killed, no matter the justice will sentence the irresponsible driver!

That was all about common sense and good judgment. But who still has them nowadays?

6·But what has this to do with breastfeeding mothers?

It does. It has. First, I described the general framework of a civilized society, with all its flaws. Too prudish in the past, unable to avoid the outcome of the human flaws today.

Secondly, I also mentioned that people nowadays are dressing so carelessly that they’re an eyesore. They’re visually aggressing me, and I don’t like being aggressed.

  • I don’t want to see buttocks that don’t fit in the shorts. Make up your mind: are you dressed, or naked? Don’t stop halfway.
  • I don’t want to see leggings and stretch pants that show the underpants and the deformity of fat, ugly thighs in uglier ways than if the person were completely naked.
  • I don’t want to see navels when there’s no reason to expose them other than showing to other people how sexy you are. The bitches who claim that other people are sexualizing them are the very ones that are over-sexualizing themselves!

And then, I don’t need, nor want, to see huge breasts full of milk while performing their functional activity. Women had babies 50, 100, 150, 200, 300 years ago, and they were not breastfeeding in public!

Now, I know that even the nonagenarians seem to have come to terms with the contemporary indecency because, the heck, what could they do? Even if they were born in times when even the men couldn’t be seen shirtless in public, unless they were working in the fields or in construction, times have changed. OK, but is there really no limit? Has clothing become optional?

If you were not aware of that, decent people weren’t supposed to wear shirtless tank tops outside beaches and swimming pools (commonly referred to as tanks in Britain in the 1920s), until Marlon Brando made such a way of dressing popular through the 1951 film A Streetcar Named Desire. Before that, in the 1930s and 1940s, only the “wife-beaters” were shown in the American movies as wearing them. In the sexually liberated 1970s, women too started wearing tank tops. Nowadays,

  • Many men are wearing “muscle shirts” or “athletic tank tops” not at the gym, but on the streets (and not only in Cuba), which is highly impolite, as they show too much of their “toxic masculinity”; frankly, they look like thugs.
  • Many women are wearing tank tops that are more like the chemises of yesteryear. Slip dresses looking like nightgowns are also worn in public as outfits instead of being used as undergarments. Totally indecent!

So fuck you all, and stop aggressing my eyes and giving me bad karma! If I want to watch porn of questionable quality and value, let me do it, don’t show me your flesh when I didn’t ask for it!

7·Twitter is no more sincere

Twitter’s mails usually end with “Sincerely, Twitter.” Well, suppose I contested the suspension. Things changed:

  • At 00:25:20 EEST, they said they’re having a large volume of requests, that it may take longer than usual, up to 5-7 days.
  • At 00:30:22 EEST, they said that, “after reviewing for reinstatement” (no kidding?), my account will not be restored.

FOUR FUCKING MINUTES TO “REVIEW” MY CASE AND DENY MY APPEAL! Just like the NKVD Troikas!

Well, fuck you very much, Elon Musk!

8·But who complained about my tweet?

OK, Twitter is a dick. They are outright liars. Their appeal process is a joke, an automated rejection mechanism. (Unless you’re Donald Trump or some other Nazi.)

But there’s something else that shocked me here. I’ve got in the past two situations where I had to delete a tweet. And a number of complaints under Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), but in all those cases when a German retard complained, Twitter said I was not guilty of anything!

The last time, someone even complained about my profile:

Not guilty.

My profile was this one, except that they have deleted the background in the meantime (it featured a picture of myself, which apparently can’t be seen not even by me, now that I am suspended for good):

Totally harmful, that citation.

Joke aside, there are several ways of complaining about a tweet:

  • Directly to Twitter, by anyone, and Twitter is the judge; the “Twitter Rules” and the Terms of Service are “the law” in such a case. The user would then need to remove the infringing content.
  • By the means of a public authority, and Twitter might be forced to accept the complaint and block the infringing tweet in the respective jurisdiction.

In the second case, while in most countries (especially the US), a court order is needed, there are a few exceptions, such as the case of Germany, where a public prosecutor (the equivalent of the District Attorney) can order Twitter to block “illegal” contents. While this seems to be undemocratic (and it certainly is!) because there has been no trial by a court of law, I suppose that the public prosecutor will further investigate the “criminal” person who tweeted, and that a judge will eventually decide. (Should the judge clear that person, would they remember to tell Twitter to unblock the respective content? I have my doubts here…)

But in the case of France, who the fuck complained about this tweet so authoritatively that Twitter has activated the “automatic rejection mechanism”?! The LCEN, Loi n° 2004-575 du 21 juin 2004 pour la confiance dans l’économie numérique, is confusely formulated:

Article 1, IV
L’exercice de cette liberté ne peut être limité que dans la mesure requise, d’une part, par le respect de la dignité de la personne humaine, de la liberté et de la propriété d’autrui, du caractère plurialiste de l’expression des courants de pensée et d’opinion et, d’autre part, par la sauvegarde de l’ordre public, par les besoins de la défense nationale, par les exigences de service public, par les contraintes techniques inhérentes aux moyens de communication, ainsi que par la nécessité, pour les services audiovisuels, de développer la production audiovisuelle.

Article 6-1
Lorsque les nécessités de la lutte contre la provocation à des actes terroristes ou l’apologie de tels actes relevant de l’article 421-2-5 du code pénal ou contre la diffusion des images ou des représentations de mineurs relevant de l’article 227-23 du même code le justifient, l’autorité administrative peut demander etc. etc.

Despite the mentioning in the first article of the respect of the human dignity, I couldn’t find in the law anything that could apply to my tweet. Also, the frequently-invoked “autorité administrative” is never specified! Who the fuck are they?!

Anything is possible in France, though, since the “loi Pleven” (Loi n° 72-546 du 1 juillet 1972 relative à la lutte contre le racisme), modified and “improved,” anything can be interpreted as “incitation à la haine raciale.” Also, since the “loi Gayssot” (Loi n° 90-615 du 13 juillet 1990 tendant à réprimer tout acte raciste, antisémite ou xénophobe), anything can be hatred, racism or xenophobia.

The LICRA (Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme) has obtained the first court conviction based on the Pleven law in March 1973. LICRA and SOS Racisme won cases against famous people such as Jean-Marie Le Pen, Brigitte Bardot (yup!), Alain Soral, Éric Naulleau, Dieudonné, Renaud Camus, Richard Millet, Éric Zemmour. (For a different charge, Islamophobia, Michel Houellebecq was almost tried, but the complaint had been retired in extremis; and I’m surprised that Michel Onfray is still unscathed.)

The problem is that today’s judges are twisting the language and the spirit of the law for incriminating harmless opinions. Semantically, xenophobia means fear of strangers, not hatred towards them. Well, today if you’re not openly embracing a foreigner (something that’s a traditional mindset in England, for an example), you’re xenophobic, and you’re inciting to ethnic or racial hatred. Then, should you criticize the Islam, guess what are you doing? No, you’re not persecuting a religion; you’re racist! As if Islam were a race, not a religion! (The only religion that is almost entirely tied to an ethnic group is Judaism.)

As for the race itself… In the article Justification de la censure, I found this definition:

Mais cette interprétation n’est pas sans poser quelques problèmes. En effet, il est évident que le racisme est une opinion, qui peut d’ailleurs prendre diverses formes (il peut être biologique ou culturel, par exemple). Sous sa forme la plus simple, il pourrait se formuler ainsi : « il existe des races distinctes, et il est possible de les hiérarchiser ». Mais que la « race » soit un concept inepte ne fait pas du racisme autre chose qu’une opinion, il en fait une opinion fausse. Que le racisme soit odieux ne fait pas non plus de lui autre chose qu’une opinion, il en fait une opinion odieuse. Ce qu’il faut comprendre, c’est donc pourquoi il est refusé au racisme le statut d’opinion.

Yeah, in the early 1980s, the French police stations had posters stating that racism is not an opinion, it’s a crime. This is not true. One can hold any opinion, they can despise and hate entire categories, but unless and until they effectively discriminate a member of such a group, or entices someone else to do so, there’s no crime! Holding an opinion is part of the freedom of conscience. But, of course, France has invented the délit d’opinion.

Moreover, the aforementioned definition of racism isn’t valid in the globalized Wokistan. It implied two conditions: to consider that there are human races; and to hold the belief that at least one such race is inferior, or superior to others (also, surely, it implied that such opinions were made public). But according to the official truth, there are no human races. Dogs, cats, and horses are species that can have breeds, also called races (especially outside the English language), but the human species has a unique race, no matter how different can be different ethnic groups! To quote ChatGPT, “the concept of human races is a social construct rather than a biological reality,” and “Modern scientific understanding recognizes that human genetic variation does not neatly align with distinct racial categories.” Well, Pluto was a planet until 2006, then it wasn’t one anymore. Eventually, as a political compromise, it was declared a “dwarf planet.” That’s “modern scientific understanding” for you.

Today, simply believing that skin color and other anthropometric differences can define a human race, without any judgment about the respective race, makes you a racist! (Someday we’ll learn that there are no ethnic groups either. This would make ethnic cleansing impossible.)

I’m still curious how will the non-binary ideology affect the feminist legislation that mandates for >50% of women in the boards of larger companies and in national parliaments, and the like. Now that more and more women are non-binary, it means that they’re not women anymore! Will the law mandate a minimum of 33.4% non-binary people, 33.4% women, and the rest “toxic males”? Or will it be >50% non-binary?

When will they put me in jail for my capital crime, the misanthropy?

For now, I’m sure I’ve had my Twitter account canceled because of my inciting to hatred of exposed breasts.

9·Final considerations

  • Was I right in bashing the breastfeeding woman mentioned by Le Parisien? To some extent, yes, but only to a certain extent. As a principle. But the picture they used as a cover was their fault. (Journos…)
  • Was I too harsh, even rude? Most likely. Especially rude. But this is how social networks are.
  • Should I have been canceled on Twitter? Why, but they already poured all their hate on me!
  • Should I have had my Twitter account closed? In a dystopian society, maybe.

Maybe I should see this as a liberation. I won’t waste my time on Twitter anymore. Nor on Facebook. I won’t write angry words, and I won’t receive tons of hatred in response. Twitter’s quality was already abysmal anyway. As for the quality of the people of Wokistan, especially those from Macronia…

What’s worrisome is that this is not a phenomenon limited to France or to the United States. More and more countries are creating their own Ministry of Truth, and the European Union has its own. (For instance, the EU Ministry of Truth says that internal combustion engines are worse than the Holocaust, and that we should all run electric. We won’t have enough electricity for that, but who cares? Most of the resources needed for batteries are owned by China, who will rejoice.)

Are there still countries where they don’t have the religion of the “toxic masculinity”? (And of the electric-only, since I mentioned that.) Maybe in Latin America. If I were 24, I’d probably learn Spanish and try to find a way to make a living in one of the Latin American countries; not all of them are captive to the drug cartels, and most of them are vibrant societies with a huge potential, too bad they’re not well-known here in Europe. (We don’t even read their famous writers anymore.)

We’re fucked-up. Homo idioticus idioticus. If these are our elites…