Triggered by the political shocks of Brexit and Donald Trump’s election, the EU Commission launched a campaign to reassert control over Europe’s political narrative. Central to this is the rhetoric of ‘hate speech’ and ‘disinformation’, framed as threats to democratic stability. The Commission presents these programmes as public-interest research initiatives, but they constitute a form of soft authoritarianism, enshrining speech codes and narrowing acceptable opinion through bureaucratic manipulation. This is a top-down, authoritarian, curated consensus where expression is free only when it speaks the language of compliance established by the Commission.
The Digital Services Act (DSA), which should be relabelled as the ‘Digital Surveillance Act’, is the crown jewel of this strategy. The legal framework enables the EU to regulate online speech under the guise of protection.
The MCC Brussels report underlines a disturbing fact: the Commission spends 31 per cent more on narrative control than on research addressing cancer, despite cancer causing nearly two million deaths annually in Europe. This prioritisation signals that Brussels fears the cancer of free speech more than the disease. Public funds are being funnelled unaccountably into a disinformation narrative designed to shape, limit and manage the terms of public debate.
the first priority of all elites is to maintain their power and status
At least Europe still makes something ☹️
“America innovates; China imitates and Europe regulates.”
JP,
Yes and no. The USA does innovate and the EU does regulate* but does China merely imitate? Increasingly they are also innovating. Just ask the Indian Airforce about that…
*nuclear, GM food, fracking, and now AI…
Fascists who live out the Carte del Lavoro want control of what people think? I am shocked I tell you! Shocked!
Hmmm, what are all those American lawyers doing then?
“Soft authoritarianism” is a misnomer. There is nothing “soft” or “gentle” about it, except possibly in the twisted imaginations of the authoritarians.
A better term would be “Theocratic authoritarianism,” as the goal is to suppress blasphemy and heresy against the creed of Government Almighty.
DL,
Yes. And the gods have always demanded fear and love in equal measure…
I mean it is just more grist for the mill, right? Europe is destroying itself and will collapse under the weight of its own debts and tyranny before long. It seems ironic that western Europe is all up in arms about Putin when every day the EU leaders look more and more like Putin themselves. Their objection is not the takeover of Europe by totalitarians, it is that they might not be the totalitarians who run the show.
The MCC Brussels report underlines a disturbing fact: the Commission spends 31 per cent more on narrative control than on research addressing cancer,
Minor nit pick, of course this is terrible and is a great piece of rhetoric, but me personally? I don’t think the EU should be funding cancer research. There is plenty of profit to be made in the private sector and the fact that the government is in the mix along with all its bureaucracy, mismanagement and toxic asset allocation probably retards the total progress on cancer treatments more than if they weren’t. Even so, medical research should not be the purview of governments.
Well it seems that Secretary Rubio has issued a US visa ban on foreign officials who censor Americans.
Was it my imagination that a British police officer made some form of threat of legal action against Elon Musk not long ago?
“Soft” as in does not have gulags & tends not to murder people by throwing them out of windows.
Excuse me for being critical, but, as Norman Lewis reports, the EU has spent about 650M on disinformation. That is peanuts compared to what USAID spent; including disinformation aimed at EUrope.
That is not to say that EU member states have not spent sums on disinformation comparable to USAID. I don’t know about that, but i doubt it.
As with the United Kingdom, Canada, and other places, the European Union is committed to crushing “reactionary” opinions and to pushing “Progressive” opinions and attitudes.
This is in line with the education people now in positions of power have received – which has taught them that reactionary opinions and attitudes should be crushed, and Progressive opinions and attitudes pushed.
It really is that brutally simple – and is NOT about furthering the interests of the establishment elite, either as individuals or as a class. They really do believe in all this – that is why it is so terrible, it is so terrible because it is sincere.
For example, when the daughter of an establishment politician in Germany was murdered by a migrant, he donated money to a “charity” which brings in more migrants. This was NOT because he hated his daughter or would personally benefit from more migrants – it was because he believed (was educated to believe) that it was the-right-thing-to-do.
Ditto censorship and pushing propaganda.
The establishment really do believe that censorship is “freedom” – see the recent speech opening Parliament in Canada. And that pushing propaganda to shape opinions and attitudes is democracy.
Certainly people can reject what schools, universities, the “mainstream” media, and-so-on teach (namely that crushing reactionary opinions and attitudes is good – and that pushing Progressive opinions and attitudes is also good) – but people who reject this are not going to “fit in” so they are not likely to rise to positions of influence in modern societies.
The United States being a partial (partial) exception to this. Perhaps only someone who has been persecuted for their beliefs can understand how important it is to us that someone like President Trump can say things the international establishment do not like – it gives hope to us, even as we prepare ourselves (each day) for the knock on the door which is now so common in societies such as the United Kingdom, Canada, the European Union, and so on.
Take the example of Poland – conservative television stations have already come under attack from the (International Community backed) government of Poland (the government headed by Prime Minister Tusk) – and should the conservative candidate for President (an historian, already smeared by the Economist magazine as a “fierce ideologue” – if only he was) lose on Sunday (perhaps by a wave of postal votes – coming from who-knows-where) “reactionary” opinions will be increasingly persecuted.
It must-be-so – as how else can Poland be turned into a “diverse” society. If reactionary opinions are tolerated the Progressive agenda might be undermined – so tolerating reactionary opinions would be “Repressive Tolerance” which would be against the agenda of Diversity, Equity (or Equality) and Inclusion.
On truth.
Remember the international establishment do not believe that objective truth exists – everything, to them, is “power relations” and every piece of “news” either exists to push a “reactionary” (boo-hiss) agenda, or a (wonderful) “Progressive” agenda.
So, for example, the objective fact that there are no mass graves of murdered children at were Residential Schools in Canada does not matter – because there are (to the international establishment) no such things as objective facts – only what serves an agenda. A political and cultural agenda.
Ditto the objective fact that Mr George Floyd was NOT murdered – that he died of drugs he willingly consumed. And the former police officer who was falsely convicted of the murder NOT being a racist is also not relevant – as there are no objective facts, only what serves an agenda.
The European Union is committed to truth being subjective – with “truth” being what serves the Progressive political and cultural agenda – but so is the rest of the modern world.
If it served the Progressive agenda (politically and culturally) to say that 2+2=5 that is what they would teach – and they would punish anyone who said that 2+2=4.
“Even if it led to their own deaths – by failed bridges and so on?”
Yes even if it led to their own deaths – faced with the choice between objective reality and the Progressive political and cultural agenda, they (the international establishment) choose the latter.
We are, therefore, ruled by a Death Cult.
“This is a top-down, authoritarian, curated consensus where expression is free only when it speaks the language of compliance established by the Commission.”
Therefore, it will backfire.