Altenative Proganda
The hysteria of French 'alternative' media over issues like the DSA and digital ID makes them the very useful idiots of official propagandists.
Are French ‘alternative’ media truly alternative? They position themselves as opposed to, or even diametrically opposed to, the mainstream media. But can that really be called an alternative, when in practice the mainstream media define their stance and positioning? Are they not simply the other side of the same coin? Might they be, unwittingly, agents of propaganda—playing an essential role in the balance and survival of the ‘system,’ whose propaganda could not be credible without some carefully managed form of contradiction?
We will consider two examples to show how alternative media, often against their own intentions, end up serving as instruments of propaganda.
The powers that be—the establishment, the deep state, the transatlantic caste, the globalists, call them what you like—are now compelled to meddle openly in elections to block the people’s will from ever becoming reality.
Consider Emmanuel Macron. Propped up by France’s oligarchs and their media—showered with more than a hundred glowing covers between 2014 and April 2017—by the senior civil service, the banks, and even foreign powers, he was still languishing at 17% in the polls in January 2016, while François Fillon was riding high with double that score. It took nothing less than the heavy hand of the high judiciary to drag Macron across the finish line—what can only be called a judicial coup d’Etat: the Fillon affair, the front runner endictement for misappropriation subesquently to one of France’s history swiftest investigation in such a matter.
And look no further than Romania and Moldova, those “great democracies” where justice, whipped into line by foreign influence, trampled legality. In Romania, presidential elections were annulled out of thin air; in Moldova, supposedly pro-Russian opposition parties were struck from the ballot just forty-eight hours before the vote. All of it greased with torrents of EU money—schemes ultimately paid for by German and French taxpayers.
Jacques Ellul was one of the philosophers who best described the phenomenon of propaganda.
The fundamental difference between television and social media is that the latter demand active use: you must read and write to post, which reopens the space of thought—without which neither reading nor, above all, writing is possible. You have to make an effort, even to produce the most idiotic nonsense, because that nonsense had to be thought before being written. In front of the TV, there is no such effort. You do not think; you are nothing but a passive receiver. Shut up already—I’m watching the news!
Many people, in their naïveté, believe they are immune to propaganda thanks to their education and cultural background. Convinced they stand above the fray, they become instead prime targets for propagandists—and like everyone else, they find it nearly impossible to backtrack once they realize they have been manipulated. To do so would mean questioning not just a single opinion, but the entire pattern of their past actions and behaviors.
Take COVID and the war in Ukraine, and watch the political-media class gorge on its own propaganda, so intoxicated it cannot admit its lies even when exposed. It’s far easier—and far less humiliating—to smear everyone else as conspiracy theorists.
“Regardless of the country or the methods employed, all propaganda efforts share a single defining trait: an obsession with effectiveness. Propaganda exists primarily as a tool of action, designed to arm political power efficiently and to give its decisions an almost irresistible momentum. (…) Propaganda that fails is not propaganda at all. Propaganda belongs to the realm of technique, embodies its logic, and is inseparably bound to it.” Jacques Ellul, Propagandes, 1962.
Consider the DSA and digital identity. On paper, both are horrendous: they aim to impose norms that could very well end liberal democracy. Yet for now, they are technically unworkable—and will remain so for a long time. Can we then say that, at this stage, the DSA and digital identity exist mostly as propaganda?
The DSA will unleash such a torrent of reports, with penalties so draconian, that no platform will be able to handle them without bleeding money on administrative costs. The only solution will be algorithmic monitoring—an approach guaranteed to trigger even more waves of extra-judicial and judicial complaints. Suspend an account, remove content, and the DSA insists users have the right to demand detailed explanations under Articles 6 and 7 of the GDPR—answers that platforms must provide formally. Mountains of paperwork, armies of staff, and yet no automation can solve it: every single case is unique. The DSA is thus a bureaucratic trap, designed less to protect users than to crush platforms under the weight of its own absurdity.
Similarly, urgent injunctions—emergency proceedings meant to be resolved as quickly as possible, usually within fifteen days—demanding platforms restore accounts or content will skyrocket, along with the associated costs: lawyer fees, court fees, and all the administrative overhead. For the user, no lawyer is even necessary. Just feed an AI a few prompts, and it will draft the entire petition.