Since the ancient Romans' "bread and circuses," the approval of its
population has always been an essential condition for a government,especially one that claims to be democratic.
Coming to the present day, the appropriate method for ensuring popular
approval was defined very succinctly yet eloquently by Brzezinski in
1995 at a meeting in San Francisco. Speaking before J.W. Bush, M.
Thatcher, and T. Turner (then owner of CNN), he introduced the concept
of "tittytainment" (a portmanteau of "titty" and "entertainment"). In
recent years, achieving this goal has become even more important due to
the abnormally widening gap between rich and poor and the economic
difficulties afflicting many advanced countries. Latest-generation
technologies offer an almost limitless array of tools to control "one's"
population and secure their support. In order, a highly effective tool
developed about ten years ago is the so-called microtargeting of
advertising (and other) content received while browsing the internet.
The enormous amount of personal data that individual users provide, both
voluntarily and involuntarily, allows large tech companies (Google,
Amazon, Microsoft, etc.) to profile people very precisely and thus
influence them psychologically (it's completely illusory to think
they're immune to unconscious biases, as demonstrated by the bias test
developed at Harvard and publicly available).
This methodology was adopted by Cambridge Analytica in 2016 (typically
within the Facebook world) to help Trump win his first presidential term
(using, among other things, data that shouldn't have been available).
Meanwhile, while the GDPR has been developed to protect the
dissemination of personal data, the introduction of AI into everyday
electronic devices (starting with mobile phones) allows us to circumvent
the obstacle posed by encryption, which renders messages inaccessible.
Indeed, the relevant information contained in outgoing messages can be
extracted before being sent (when it has not yet been encrypted), and it
is equally possible that upon receipt it could be extracted and sent
back to the parent company, after being decrypted for reading (all this
without the user's knowledge).
And if this seems at least illegal, we must remember that the EU is
considering issuing provisions authorizing the monitoring of electronic
correspondence to prevent the circulation (read: censorship) of... (the
reader is free to complete the sentence).
The scenario is completed by adding some digital tools under study,
which are effectively Trojan horses that, behind the facade of
simplifying life, would allow for very detailed control. The first is
the introduction of a digital identity (CID), which isn't a credit
card-style format, but a way to make a whole range of information
available to the state, going far beyond date of birth and height.
The introduction of the CID is currently being justified as a tool to
control minors' access to the internet. Prime Minister Starmer is trying
to introduce the CID in the UK, but is facing strong objections: some
have rightly realized that once certain sensitive data is available, it
can be used for purposes other than those initially intended.
Add to this the introduction of the Central Bank Digital Currency
(CBDC), advocated by ECB President Christine Lagarde. Like the CID, the
CBDC is much more than a credit card, because by combining digital
access to money with access to personal information, access to financial
services could be denied if certain conditions aren't met (for example,
you can't buy a plane ticket, when...).
And while this scenario may seem like an overly pessimistic dystopia,
it's useful to recall the recent European Council Resolution 996 (Common
Foreign and Security Policy, CFSP 2025), which, as part of the 19th
package of sanctions against Ukraine, also sanctioned two German
journalists for the opinions they expressed and the news they reported
on the war. It's worth noting that the sanction consisted of banning
them from returning to Germany (their home country) and freezing their
financial assets (bank accounts) and those of their closest relatives.
All this occurred without a trial, that is, without the defendants
having had the opportunity to defend themselves, and without a judge
confirming the validity of the charges.
Still in the context of targeted sanctions, the case of Francesca
Albanese, UN rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, is even
more striking. The US is denying her access to her bank account,
exploiting its control of nearly all interbank networks.
Finally, we should also remember the Canadian government's decision in
2022 to block access to the bank accounts of truck drivers who were, at
the time, protesting mandatory vaccinations. Such more targeted
operations will become much easier if and when these new digital tools
are activated.
Restrictions on individual freedoms have also been introduced in the US
with the National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM7) recently
issued by Trump, which essentially equates dissent with terrorism. The
memorandum authorizes US government agencies to investigate, sanction,
and restrict the freedoms of individuals and/or groups who spread
destabilizing narratives. In other words, an individual can be
prosecuted as a terrorist based on their beliefs even in the absence of
criminal activity. The constitutionality of this memorandum is
questionable, to say the least, but it is currently in force.
Meanwhile, in the heart of the civilized world-Western Europe-former CDU
(the Italian equivalent of the Christian Democrats) MP Jurgen
Todenhoefer is on trial in Germany for tweets criticizing Netanyahu
(accusing him of doing to the Palestinians what the Nazis did to the
Jews), as well as for previously criticizing Scholz for remaining
passive in the face of the attack on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline.
In the UK, the apartments of a couple of pro-Palestine journalists were
ransacked by the secret services, and a teacher was fired and is
awaiting trial (she obviously opposed the dismissal) for what amounts to
a crime of opinion (pro-Palestine, of course). Also in the UK, two BBC
journalists, speaking on condition of anonymity, stated that if they
were to report the truth, they would be fired on the spot.
Moving to Scandinavia, it's also worth mentioning the case of Swedish
freelance journalist Kajsa Ekman, who worked for a local newspaper at
the start of the war in Ukraine. Intrigued by the fact that mainstream
media outlets were reporting news via a news agency she didn't know and
described as independent, she began her own investigation (finally, a
journalist who works as a journalist). She published her report in an
article, explaining that the agency in question was certainly biased,
having been created at the start of the war and staffed primarily by
British or Western journalists. The woman was fired by the editor of her
newspaper, not for the article (in that case, the editor would have had
to fire himself for authorizing its publication), but because they found
some negative criticism of Israeli politics on her social media.
European cases aside, a long article could be written on the many
examples of people in the US who, simply for expressing minimal support
for the Palestinian cause, have lost their jobs, been expelled from
university, or even the entire country, thanks in part to the
peculiarity of the American legal system, whereby the Constitution (and
therefore constitutional rights) do not apply unless you have a US passport.
In any case, despite the gag placed on traditional media, in the US, as
of 2022, the percentage of people who distrust these media has surpassed
that of those who do (39% versus 32%). But this isn't the end of the
story, because the world is now permeated by social media: 170 million
Americans, for example, have an account on TikTok. Precisely in
reference to TikTok's ownership, the narrative has circulated that the
Americans wanted to acquire it, worried that the current (at the time)
Chinese owners could exploit the mass of data collected by TikTok.
While this concern is valid, the main reason for TikTok's sale to Larry
Ellison (Oracle's owner) is entirely different and related to the large
number of posts published on TikTok that testified to Israel's repeated
crimes. Larry Ellison is an arch-Zionist; he is the largest private
donor to the Israeli military (the IDF, to be clear)-yes, because there
are private donors to the military of a state other than their own.
Furthermore, a recent leak revealed that Larry Ellison is such a key
figure in Israel (Israel, not the US) that he was tasked with evaluating
Marco Rubio's resume to decide whether Israel could trust him.
Moral of the story: after Larry Ellison's acquisition of TikTok, some
posts by independent commentators are starting to be removed from
TikTok, and it's to be expected that the authors themselves will soon be
blocked altogether. Add to this the fact that his son David Ellison owns
Paramount (recently merged with Skydance), which controls various
traditional media outlets (including CNN), and the circle closes: Oracle
has the ability to analyze the data collected by TikTok and influence
traditional media outlets as well.
Paradoxically, at the moment, the platform that offers the greatest
freedom of expression is X (formerly Twitter). Elon Musk bought Twitter
to remove it from the Democrats' control and remove the type of
censorship they found convenient; let's see how long the current setup
holds up.
Finally, a quick analysis of population control in relation to war, a
very timely issue, given the many ongoing conflicts and the need to gain
citizen consent in highly charged contexts. In 2022, NATO created a new
department dedicated to Cognitive Warfare. Public documents released by
NATO itself reveal that the human mind is considered a war zone, hence
the need to manipulate the mind in every way possible thanks to advances
in neuroscience and neurotechnology. It's noteworthy that these
applications are not aimed at the military, but at the civilian
population (including its own population). This is in direct
contradiction to the Geneva Convention, which stipulates that civilian
populations should never be the direct target of warfare.
Why is NATO taking on such an activity? They are clearly aware that they
are losing legitimacy, despite all their efforts to secure support.
The decline in support for Israel among young Republicans in the US is a
strong indication of this and suggests that perhaps there is a limit to
the lies one can tell when reality is so far removed from what is being
narrated.
Some of the behavior of the mainstream press, in fact, shows clear signs
of weakness. Corriere della Sera's recent decision not to publish the
newspaper's own interview with Foreign Minister Lavrov demonstrates
their inability to convincingly counter the Russian diplomat's claims.
Specifically, Lavrov claims that Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, presented
Putin, before the Alaska meeting, with an American plan similar to the
one Moscow presented in Istanbul. Putin considered it a reasonable
starting point, which is why the Alaska meeting took place; at that
meeting, Trump partially backtracked (on his plan, sigh!) and
essentially stalled. These claims completely undermine the narrative
that the Russians are unwilling to negotiate. Publishing them is
unfortunate and very difficult to dismantle; so far, there have been no
American denials of Lavrov's claims, and he reiterated what he said in a
previous press conference.
Finally, a consideration of the countries of the so-called global south,
and in particular China and Russia, where freedom of thought is
certainly limited and population control (especially in China) is
advanced. These are not the countries that set the standard for a
democratic society. However, while (for example) Russian citizens are
aware that their government often provides manipulated information, we
Westerners are convinced we live in the best of all possible worlds and
that the information disseminated by the mainstream media is pure gold.
Addendum
Meta has just announced that starting in mid-December, it will use AI to
scan all direct messages sent by users (this applies to Facebook,
Instagram, and WhatsApp); Europe will follow (the New Year is uncertain
when).
X has just disabled the automatic translation option from Hebrew to
English. The reason? To make the exterminatory language used in many
posts directed at the Palestinian population inaccessible to much of the
world.
Antonio Politi
https://www.ucadi.org/2025/11/30/il-tramonto-delle-democrazie-occidentali/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten