Brussels' Internet Neo-Feudalism: Sledgehammer Or Stiletto?
Submitted by Thomas Kolbe
The European Commission is relentlessly advancing its project to subjugate independent media. Beyond classic censorship, sophisticated technologies like algorithmic search control are being deployed. Alternative outlets such as Tichys Einblick are thus increasingly blocked from public reach. The republican spirit is quietly dying.
In recent months, there has been intense debate over Brussels’ dangerously anti-civilizational tendencies and its growing obsession with control. It is telling that EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen herself has highlighted the stark contrast between the EU citizen’s impotence and a bureaucracy operating with ever fewer limits.
Currently, Brussels is pulling every lever to scrutinize private chats via invasive algorithmic mechanisms, restricting and censoring public communication across digital and social media. Meanwhile, von der Leyen has refused transparency in the Pfizer vaccine scandal.
This behavior can only be described as neo-feudal and post-Enlightenment. Where else in the world do sovereign nations allow their governments to spider-web their own repressive bureaucracies across member states—except in EU-Europe?
London as a Dark Lab
Anyone wanting a glimpse into Brussels’ current trajectory should look to London. Since Brexit, the UK has served as a kind of laboratory for the EU’s centralizing project.
Several years ahead, Britain has enacted some of the harshest censorship laws in the (still) free world. Authorities are no longer focused on uncovering Islamist plots, dismantling rape gangs, or implementing a necessary remigration process to preserve English culture.
No—the state’s attention now targets opposition activity. Leveraging the broad definitions of “hate” and “incitement” online, thousands of law-abiding citizens have been raided and arrested simply for criticizing migration policy or urban chaos.
Under the deceptively benign Communications Act and Malicious Communications Act, the British executive now makes over 30 politically motivated arrests per day for online posts deemed offensive or threatening by authorities—a direct assault on citizen liberties in the birthplace of liberalism.
The Algo-Filter
A similar approach is envisioned by the EU Commission and its loyal satellite capitals. It serves as the center, the guiding spirit of this policy. As political opposition rises—from Germany’s AfD to right-conservative forces in the Netherlands, Czechia, and Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz in Hungary—the narrative foundation for climate socialism and open-border policies risks dissolving in public perception.
Through ever-expanding definitions of “hate and incitement,” framed as shields to immunize social developments—Islamization, economic decline due to Brussels’ growing centralism, or urban decay—from critique, the EU attempts to crush a resurgent conservative bloc before it can form.
This tendency was already noted in February by U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance during his Munich Security Conference speech. According to Vance, the partnership with the EU is at stake if this institutionalized attack on free speech is not firmly blocked.
Enter the Stiletto
To avoid international scrutiny, Brussels also employs a second strategy: the stiletto—finer but equally effective. At the center of censorship remains Google’s dominant search algorithm, where control operates occultly, invisible to the average internet user.
Under the euphemism European Democracy Shield, a practice has emerged of monitoring online content and politically defining “disinformation” to cleanse the digital space. The EU funds allegedly independent fact-checkers who alert national authorities to supposed hate speech, triggering legal actions.
It is a malicious intimidation apparatus. Erich Mielke could not have orchestrated it better.
Submission to EU Dictates
For Google, this architecture effectively forces submission to the EU regime: content rated positively by EU-accredited fact-checkers is prioritized, while alternative publications—like Tichys Einblick, Apollo News, NIUS, or Junge Freiheit—are algorithmically demoted. This occurs even when posts generate substantial traffic that would normally place them at the top of search results.
What happens when media discourse is pressed into a state corset? Power shifts from the sovereign to a limitless, invasive political elite that—particularly in the EU—can advance its eco-socialist project farther than ever conceivable under normal conditions.
A broadly informed, critically awake society would never have allowed entire populations to be driven into unemployment and poverty under the destructive dictates of man-made climate alarmism. Nor would open-border policies have persisted in the face of Europe’s visible Islamization, threatening social security systems and the cultural ferment of the continent.
Trump Ended the Censorship
In the United States, this practice ended with President Donald Trump’s election. As a result, people using VPNs navigate a completely different news environment from those unaware of such manipulations.
Through this, the EU controls public discourse and seeks to reduce the spectrum of opinion into an EU-compatible monologue. It mirrors the so-called Tal der Ahnungslosen (Valley of the Clueless) during the GDR era, where people around Dresden had no access to West German TV and believed in socialism’s blessings.
If von der Leyen and her commission are not stopped in institutionalizing this regime EU-wide, freedom will vanish. Public discourse will be silenced. The iron cloak of dictatorial lethargy will descend over EU-Europe. What we observe in the UK now threatens EU citizens.
The Snake Bites Its Own Tail
So, to answer the opening question: is the EU wielding a sledgehammer or a stiletto in its censorship campaign? Both tools are used simultaneously in the fight for interpretive dominance online. If the right-conservative opposition does not intervene in time, public debate will be brutally stifled.
New cryptographic communication methods may emerge to preserve rudimentary free speech—until Brussels’ own arrogance strangles it. The cynical consequence: people will self-censor even in private, cultivating a climate of mutual distrust. This is utterly condemnable.
Add in the digital control euro, and the picture becomes clearer. An institution that dictates both public discourse and citizen transactions is a dictatorship. In Europe, it is an eco-socialist dictatorship, economically so weak that we can hope both attacks on freedom will literally starve mid-course.
* * *
About the author: Thomas Kolbe, born in 1978 in Neuss/ Germany, is a graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.
Tyler Durden Sun, 11/23/2025 - 07:00
Recent comments