Frédéric ABI FARAH

[SightBringer @_The_Prophet__]

⚡️The deeper signal is youth risk did not disappear.

It migrated inward.

Teen drinking fell because the old physical world of adolescence got dismantled. Alcohol belonged to a social ecosystem: unsupervised time, cars, parties, local jobs, malls, basements, boredom, flirting, older siblings, house gatherings, and the chaotic peer world where teenagers learned who they were by colliding with other people in real space.

That ecosystem was replaced by phones, surveillance, parental tracking, algorithmic entertainment, social anxiety, online status games, and a much thinner physical commons.

So the surface looks healthier. Fewer kids drinking. Fewer kids using weed. Fewer kids doing reckless things in public.

The hidden layer looks worse. The young are less reckless because they are less socially embodied. Less initiation. Less unsupervised friction. Less courage-building. Less embarrassment and recovery. Less real dating. Less independence. Less contact with the physical world before adulthood demands it.

The old teenage world produced damage, stupidity, alcohol abuse, pregnancy risk, fights, accidents, and bad decisions. No need to romanticize it. But it also produced social reps. It forced young people through discomfort. It made them practice attraction, rejection, conflict, reputation, risk, repair, and status in the open.

The new world suppresses visible risk while increasing invisible fragility.

That is the trade.

A teenager can avoid drinking, avoid parties, avoid sex, avoid driving, avoid real confrontation, avoid rejection, avoid shame, avoid danger, and still arrive at 23 emotionally underbuilt. Cleaner behavior does not automatically mean stronger formation.

This is why the marriage chart and the teen drinking chart are the same story at different stages. People are not suddenly failing to pair in adulthood. The whole pathway into embodied adulthood has been slowing for years before marriage even becomes the question.

The real truth: society solved part of the teen vice problem by shrinking the arena where teenagers become adults.

It took away the dangerous commons and replaced it with controlled isolation.

The result is safer kids with weaker initiation into real life.

[Sir Sean Sitges @SitgesFranck]

Petite précision en préambule, la clientèle des fast food nouvelle génération style Master Poulet ou Tasty Crousty est jeune voire très jeune et n’a sûrement jamais déjeuné dans une brasserie, un café ou un bistrot. Donc ces nouvelles chaînes de restauration visent une clientèle différente et plus jeune et ne sont pas directement en concurrence avec eux. Par contre les cafés, bistrots et brasseries subissent le contrecoup d’une offre totalement en décalage avec la demande. Les clients de ces institutions dont je fais partie subissent depuis des années : une cuisine souvent banale, quelconque voire mauvaise , des prix qui n’ont cessé d’augmenter et d’un service au lance pierre. À Paris j’habite à proximité de la rue Montorgueil, rue commerçante si il en est. Nombreux bars et brasseries. En 3 ans les prix ont explosé, le plat du jour est autour de 20 euros contre 15 euros il y a peu. Augmenter ses tarifs de 30 à 40% en peu de temps implique des conséquences en terme de fréquentation ! Les clients dont le pouvoir d’achat diminue année après année ne peuvent plus se permettre de dépenser plus de 25 euros pour un plat du jour , une boisson et un café ! Les cafetiers ont augmenté de façon délirante leurs prix depuis le Covid et ils en payent le prix. Donc mettre sur le compte des nouveaux fast food leurs mauvaises performances est erroné. La cause est plutôt le mauvais rapport qualité prix de ces établissements totalement dépassés. Ils doivent se remettre en question sous peine de disparition. On voit d’ailleurs réapparaître depuis quelques années de nombreux « bouillons » parisiens. Des restaurants de grande capacité où l’on sert une cuisine traditionnelle française simple à des prix abordables à l’image par exemple du « Bouillon Pharamond » dans le Centre de Paris. C’est simple , pas mauvais ,les prix sont très corrects et c’est toujours bondé !

[Clément Molin @clement_molin]

Many people are still often saying "France 🇫🇷 surrender", which is completly ridiculous.

Here is the real version of what happened and why France lost the 6 weeks campaign :

🔹From 1919 to 1939, France was abandonned. It helped central Europe to survive against communists and while Germany was not respecting Versailles Treaty, it was abandonned by the allies (UK, US)
🔹When Hitler entered Rhenania and invaded Austria and Czecoslovakia, no one said anything, France was alone and an intervention was impossible due to internal pacifism.
🔹In 1939, France could have done much better against nazi Germany, especially when it invaded Poland and Norway, that's right
🔹In May 1940, Germany had 2 times more population than France and a way bigger industrial capacity. German military strategy was also younger and better.

🔹However, in May 1940, France was the lone country effectively fighting Germans and Italians in Europe : the french army fought but lacked crucial air power, tanks organisation, communication and movement.
🔹In Dunkirk, the french army fought firmly to allow all the british troops to flee to the UK. Part of the french army was captured to save the british. The UK then refused to send more planes and troops to France. They did help a lot and managed to liberate Western Europe later with other allies
🔹At the same time, the Italian army started attacking the french Alps but got crushed and lost 2 300 men against 37 for France.

🔹What was the Soviet Union doing at the time ? It was an ally of Nazi Germany, it was invading Finland, occupying eastern Poland, Bessarabia and Baltic countries, while supplying Hitler with all the goods he needed.
🔹What were the US doing ? Nothing, they refused to step in the conflict and help their old allies, they waited until 1941-1942 to really step in the conflict.
🔹What were the other european countries doing ? Most were quickly occupied (faster than France), others chose to ally with Hitler and some remained neutral.

There were absolut mistakes in the french decision making and war preparation, while the french soldiers did fight a lot, losing 58 000 soldiers, but repeating "French surrender" is simply ridiculous when you know a bit about history.

The truth is (americans and others) are saying this for France (and not Poland, Denmark, Yugoslavia, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg...) because they hate the fact France decided to be politically independant from the US after the war, not because it is the reality, and that's a shame...