By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The American administration has reportedly denied accreditation to French MP Éric Bothorel for a planned trip to Washington, preventing him from attending a parliamentary delegation. This action is understood to be in retaliation for Bothorel’s role in flagging the social media platform X, owned by Elon Musk, to prosecutors regarding alleged algorithmic changes and foreign interference. Bothorel, a specialist in digital affairs and foreign interference, believes this denial signifies a broader stance on free expression from the MAGA sphere.
Read the original article here
The United States has apparently taken a punitive stance against French Member of Parliament Éric Bothorel, a move that raises significant questions about impartiality and the role of governmental bodies in supporting corporate interests. This action, detailed through reports that have surfaced, suggests a pattern of the US State Department acting as an enforcer, a dynamic that’s been observed in relation to other nations as well, indicating a broader trend of favoring certain technology companies. It begs the question of whether governmental favoritism towards a specific company is an appropriate use of state power, especially when that company is facing serious allegations.
The specific context for this sanctioning of Éric Bothorel appears to stem from his involvement in reporting X, formerly known as Twitter, to the authorities. The core of the investigation reportedly centers on non-consensual deepfake pornography and potentially child sexual abuse material (CSAM) that X’s AI generated and subsequently distributed through its platform. This is a deeply concerning area, and it’s highly probable that MP Bothorel was not the sole individual to voice concerns, highlighting the gravity of the issues at play.
The United States’ actions, in this light, appear particularly ill-timed and problematic. In more stable geopolitical periods, such a demonstration of apparent favoritism would be viewed unfavorably. However, within the current political climate, it seems to be perceived as business as usual, underscoring a perceived tendency towards impulsive and disproportionate reactions from the US administration. This situation is seen by some as yet another instance that reinforces the need for global dependence on US technology and services to be re-evaluated.
From a French and broader European perspective, this sanctioning of MP Bothorel is viewed by some as a potentially positive, albeit harsh, development. For a considerable time, many in the French and European elite have been perceived as overly aligned with Atlanticist policies, which some argue have been detrimental to their economies and global influence. The strong, even rude, approach taken by Bothorel and his colleagues, in contrast to whispers behind closed doors, is seen as having been a wake-up call for certain American billionaires and political elites. The hope is that this moment of friction will prompt a genuine shift, rather than a temporary return to more diplomatic, but less impactful, dialogue.
There’s a strong sentiment that this situation serves as a stark reminder of the importance of independence, particularly in technological domains. The experience of facing personal humiliation and harm from the very system one might have previously sought to align with is intended to impress upon individuals that true independence requires more than just rhetoric; it demands substantial technological investment and courageous political choices. The notion of being sanctioned by a nation that is itself allegedly protecting a platform accused of severe offenses adds a layer of irony and hypocrisy to the situation.
The treatment of Éric Bothorel is framed as a clear example of the American administration’s complex relationship with billionaire Elon Musk, particularly following his alleged financial support of Donald Trump’s campaign and subsequent perceived alignment with his administration. Bothorel, who specializes in digital issues and foreign interference, was denied accreditation to enter the United States, a decision communicated by the trip organizer. This effectively barred him from participating in a scheduled parliamentary delegation to Washington, indicating a deliberate exclusion.
The refusal of accreditation by the Secret Service meant that, unlike his colleagues, MP Bothorel would not be permitted entry. This exclusion was not merely a bureaucratic hurdle; it was interpreted as a strong discouragement of his travel and a clear signal that his presence was unwelcome. Faced with the prospect of being turned away upon arrival, Bothorel prudently decided to cancel his trip altogether. The underlying reason for this targeted action against him is not officially stated, but it is widely understood within the context of his and his colleague Arthur Delaporte’s actions.
The French MPs had filed a complaint with the public prosecutor concerning “the recent changes to X’s algorithm, as well as the apparent interference in its management since its acquisition by Elon Musk.” This specific complaint led to an investigation and searches at the French offices of the social network. When Elon Musk himself was summoned to court and publicly denounced the investigation as a “political attack,” the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through its counter-account French Response, issued a sharp rebuke. This sequence of events strongly suggests that Bothorel’s sanctioning is viewed as a retaliatory measure, a deliberate attempt to curb his activism and to remind him, and others, that despite claims of upholding freedom of expression, certain political factions maintain a more selective approach.
The situation has been characterized as a “mad mango tanty,” highlighting a perceived immaturity and emotional response from the US administration. The criticism extends to the deeply unsettling accusation that a country which has purportedly elected a leader twice is now, through its governmental actions, seen to be protecting a company accused of facilitating child pornography. This contradiction is viewed as shocking and indicative of a systemic issue, particularly given the individual who remains in power. The irony of a country whose foreign minister advocated against conforming to rules now sanctioning those who are enforcing them is not lost on observers.
Furthermore, there’s a concern that this instance, coupled with other perceived US foreign policy actions, suggests a vested interest in fostering division within Europe. The erosion of trust in a nation where individuals, rather than a rules-based order, are seen as being protected, raises questions about its long-term stability and reliability on the global stage. The United States is, in this perspective, perceived to be entering its final, albeit dangerous and destructive, stages as a declining empire.
For those who view these actions as excessive, the best course of action is suggested to be one of calm detachment and firm, clear, and kind boundaries, much like one would navigate the “terrible twos” of a toddler. In this light, Monsieur Bothorel’s situation is seen as a brave stand, and receiving a sanction from the US administration is considered by some to be a sign that one is on the right side of history, albeit a painful and humiliating one. It is suggested that such a sanction should be worn as a badge of honor, a testament to standing against problematic policies.
The implication is that if one’s actions are met with approval from figures like Donald Trump and his associates, it strongly suggests that those actions are fundamentally wrong. This perspective posits that capitalism, or perhaps more accurately, corporatism, has superseded genuine political considerations in the hierarchy of power, leading to actions that are not even subtly disguised attempts to exert influence. The parallel is drawn to a “Nazi v1” approach, with a strong denunciation of both Trump and the billionaires the US government appears to protect, extending beyond Twitter to companies like Tesla, and their alleged involvement in politically motivated actions.
The broader context of US foreign policy is also brought into question, referencing actions such as the DOJ allegedly targeting individuals for damaging Teslas as domestic terrorists, and the International Criminal Court’s investigations into alleged war crimes, including those potentially involving US service members. This paints a picture of a nation wielding its power in ways that are seen as overreaching and self-serving. Calls for the EU to take more decisive action, such as banning platforms associated with figures like Musk and Zuckerberg, are made, reflecting a growing frustration with the perceived unchecked power of these entities.
The sentiment that the US is ruled by corporations, thus compelling its government to act in their interests, is a recurring theme. While acknowledging that in normal times such favoritism would be unacceptable, the current era is characterized as anything but normal. The idea of the DOJ protecting individuals accused of heinous crimes, like pedophilia, is brought up as a grave concern. This perceived willingness to overlook or enable such behavior is seen as a deeply disturbing aspect of the current landscape.
A historical understanding of Western alliances suggests a tacit agreement to avoid such detrimental actions amongst themselves for the sake of business. However, the International Criminal Court’s actions, and the US’s ability to effectively block access to digital services without rigorous oversight or due process, is seen as a stark warning. This lack of accountability and the arbitrary nature of such sanctions are expected to accelerate a decoupling from the US, with long-term implications for US corporations heavily reliant on international markets.
The wisdom of figures like Charles De Gaulle, who advocated for French and European independence, is invoked. The hypothetical scenario of Elon Musk suing France for not allowing a platform rife with child pornography is presented as a stark illustration of the perceived moral bankruptcy. Authoritarian figures are often characterized by their desperate attempts to appear strong, which ultimately results in them appearing weak and ineffective. The historical association of fascism with corporatism and the integration of divergent interests into the state for the perceived common good is highlighted, suggesting a long-standing trend in the US towards a quasi-fascist model where corporate lobbying heavily influences politics.
The EU’s efforts to develop its own credit systems, independent of Visa and Mastercard, are seen as a direct response to the perceived weaponization of financial sanctions by the US government, aiming to mitigate their impact. There is a palpable hope for a future reckoning, where such blatant corruption and manipulation of rules for personal gain will be addressed. The description of the situation as “open corruption at its finest” encapsulates a sentiment of profound cynicism and disgust.
The idea that attacking “oligarchs” in the US is akin to attacking their highest values underscores the perceived prioritization of wealth and corporate power. The notion that being sanctioned by the Trump administration is a positive indicator, suggesting one is on the right path for honorable reasons, is a sharp critique of that administration’s policies.
The issue of the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction is also raised, questioning its authority over nations that have not signed the Rome Statute, particularly populous countries and nuclear-armed states. This highlights a broader debate about international law and the selective application of its principles.
The desire for swift and decisive action is evident, with a preference for a single, impactful “trump punishment” rather than drawn-out consequences. The sentiment of simply banning problematic platforms is expressed, indicating a desire for more direct measures. The unfolding events are likened to a circus, suggesting a spectacle of absurdity and drama.
The question of why the US government isn’t fixing Elon Musk’s perceived issues is posed, implying a failure of oversight. The criticism of capitalism is acknowledged, but a distinction is made between liberal capitalism and a move towards corporatism, where Big Tech companies allegedly reject liberal ideals in favor of a closer relationship with the state for absolute power. The call for the elimination of billionaires is a radical proposal stemming from the belief that they are a fundamental problem preventing global progress.
The argument is made that these companies never genuinely embraced liberal capitalism, but rather favored monopolies, subsidies, and state intervention when it suited them. Their previous espousal of free markets and democracy is seen as mere public relations. The underlying desire is for the removal of these powerful figures and entities, regardless of the method, to address systemic issues. The “circus” metaphor is reiterated, suggesting that while the events are concerning, they are also a source of morbid fascination.