European Gulag. Chapter 2
Towards total digital control: the logical continuation of the ideological shift in the European Union
( For Chapter 1, see here )
By Serge Van Cutsem for Reseauinternational.net
A logical follow-up to the publication: Economy to Ideology: The Worrying Shift of the European Union.
Where the European Union once claimed to be a model of economic prosperity and political freedom, it has gradually embarked on a path of increasingly assertive ideological control. This shift, initially subtle, is now becoming tangible in concrete projects to regulate the digital world. Freedom of expression, once claimed as a fundamental pillar, is today being redefined in the name of "security," "protection against hatred," and "respect for values."
Alongside this ideological shift, the European Union is heading down an even more dangerous path: that of the forced digitization of identity and the control of private communications. Projects such as the European Digital Identity, ChatControl, and the regulation of VPNs and encrypted messaging services aim to establish a regime where every individual will have to prove their digital identity simply to communicate, browse, or shop online.
This superficial progress conceals a chilling reality: the automatic analysis of private messages, the assignment of a verified identity to each action, with the growing threat of criminalizing the free use of encryption. Under the guise of security and protection, the European Union is building an unprecedented surveillance architecture.
This technical shift thus completes the ideological shift described above.
While Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights1 established a clear and unambiguous prohibition of arbitrary interference with privacy, its spirit has gradually been diluted in national or European legal provisions2 which, under the guise of legality and proportionality, now permit all intrusions as long as they are regulated by a law, even one that is liberticidal. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a perfect example: by allowing exceptions "necessary in a democratic society," it has opened the way to an elastic interpretation of the notion of respect for privacy, sometimes to the point of reversing its logic. What was intended to be a bulwark has become a gateway. This seemingly benign legal shift has in reality legitimized the tools of digital control, mass surveillance, population tracking, and algorithmic collection of behavior, always in the name of security, public health, the climate, or economic order. We are no longer in the realm of defending rights, but of silently reprogramming them. If we base this shift on the reversal of the meaning of democracy, we can reasonably ask the question: What if all this had not been foreseen and patiently put in place? But that will be the subject of another article, which will deal with the criminalization of dissent, because these topics are vast and not sufficiently explained.
So what does this near future actually hold for us? This concerns Europe, the United States, and what claims to be the West, including Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, what our propaganda media call the international community:
1 - Mandatory digital identification for all: Every user will have to be digitally identified to access the internet, use email, make purchases, or consult public services.
2 - Automatic scanning of private messages (chat control): Encrypted messages will be analyzed locally before they are even sent. Any deviation deemed suspicious can be automatically reported to the authorities. A method that is strikingly reminiscent of the STASI's techniques before 1989.
3 - Active censorship via DNS and IP protocols. Certain applications or protocols will be blocked directly at the operator level, preventing the use of non-compliant messaging services.
4 - VPN and TOR under surveillance or prohibited: Only authorized VPNs (and therefore potentially monitored) will be tolerated. The use of independent TOR or VPNs will first become suspect and then illegal.
5 - Criminalization of standalone encryption: Possessing one's own encryption keys or using anonymity tools could be criminalized outside of an authorized framework, drastically changing the standard that separates the lawful citizen from the criminal, reducing the freedom of lawful citizens to almost nothing.
But today, out of nearly 8 billion human beings, more than 2.6 billion still lack internet access, and among those connected, a significant proportion live with limited, slow, or highly regulated access. This observation raises a simple question: How can we impose a global digital identity regime on a humanity that is not fully connected? The answer is obvious: we cannot.
As a result, the future will see the emergence of two parallel humanities, two virtual worlds on the same planet:
A digitized, codified, and monitored humanity, where each individual must obey the standards imposed by platforms, governments, and technology consortia.
A free but technologically ineffective or minimally exploited humanity, still living largely off the digital radar, in rural Africa, certain regions of Asia, and Latin America. This paradox raises an even more fundamental question: Is digital progress, as imposed by the European Union and other Western blocs, still synonymous with freedom, or is it becoming the new form of imposed alienation perceived as voluntary by the magic of crowd psychology, a victim of constant media manipulation?
For those we consider technologically backward today may well be, tomorrow, the last custodians of fundamental freedom: the freedom to think, speak, and act without being tracked, recorded, rated, and sanctioned by algorithms.
The construction of this future is already underway. It is up to each individual to choose whether they wish to accompany it, endure it, or seek alternative paths to preserve what remains of individual autonomy. For soon, freedom will no longer be a self-evident right… It will be an act of resistance. Freedom is not begged for; it is obtained through resistance and victory.
But to achieve this, we must maintain flexibility and adaptability while remaining aware of the challenges and dangers. If one thing is inevitable, it is the continuity of technological progress. No human being, however strong and intelligent, can stop it. It must therefore be controlled as much as possible, and to control it, we must understand it. Let us therefore apply the premise that "excess is as detrimental to acceptance as to rejection" to the context of technological progress and take a philosophical interlude to demonstrate that even in the face of this new challenge, balance is the key to a fair and intelligent position.
Acceptance, when measured, allows for openness, tolerance, and growth. But when it becomes excessive, it degenerates into complacency, the abdication of critical judgment, or even blind submission.
Refusal, in its reasoned form, can be an act of lucidity, a protection against the unacceptable, an affirmation of dignity. But taken to excess, it becomes rigidity, confinement, and a systematic rejection of all innovation, even beneficial ones.
Thus, whether we accept or reject it, excess distorts the original intention. It replaces the considered act with a devastating reflex. To accept too much is to completely lose discernment and freedom; to reject too much is to cut ourselves off from any possibility of change and learning. In both cases, it is our inner freedom that silently falters, because excess subjects the mind to a mechanism of extremes, whereas wisdom invites discernment, nuance, and the right balance.
Based on this observation, it is important to understand and master as best we can the technologies imposed on us, at least their use and the backdoors, because this is the only way to circumvent them. We must know the enemy to thwart their plans, or at least avoid what can be avoided.
There is also the possibility of merging into the other, parallel universe, among populations untouched by technology and controlled within a community in a tribal context9, far from global influence.
Flee or resist? There is still time to choose…
Thanks for the acknowledgment !!! 👍👍👍
Wish my little contribution were for a more cheering topic ...