The European Commission has just decided to give Elon Musk a showdown: EUR 120 million punishment for X for alleged deficiency of transparency in the blue stamps, advertisements and access to data for researchers, the first specified sanction under the DSA (Digital Services Act, Digital Services Act). Musk responded precisely as could be expected from a man who has more rockets than patience — attacked the EU as murderous left-wing commissioners — after the fresh "Woke", after the old "Stasi" — called for the European Commission to liquidate and cut off her advertising account on X, making the conflict an open political-civilization war.
In the media mainstream, the communicative is simple: good, caring Brussels seems to defend citizens from misinformation, and bad Musk breaks the law due to the fact that he does not want to comply. However, if we halt pretending to care about Kowalski and see DSA as being — as an instrument of central control of information flow — the image becomes different. X is present the only large global platform whose owner openly says that states do not have the right to dictate to a private company the policy of content moderation in the name of combating alleged hatred. This must have ended in a frontal collision.
DSA, censorship and function X
Formally, allegations against X look technical: a misleading blue tag strategy (you pay, you have a stamp, but nobody knows if it is you at all), a deficiency of a decent advertising repository and limiting access to data for researchers. Nevertheless, the real problem of Brussels is different: Musk demonstrated that he was not afraid to give an antenna to the far right (interview with AfD leader), conservatives, libertarians, all who did not fit into the EU bubble of liberal democracy, and X algorithms are not as easy controlled as in the old Twitter era.
In practice, the DSA privatises censorship: work for misinformation and harmful content is passed on to platforms that are either to clean everything as officials expect, or to pay penalties to 6% of global turnover. If the platform is distributed ownership, like Meta, it is easy to compression it – the general shareholders' gathering is afraid for the course. If the owner is 1 guy with rockets, koparks and satellites above his head who has a declarative political correctness, the problem is getting bigger.
Starlink as a actual conflict rate
In the foreground we have X, but the real stakes are Starlink – a global, private, satellite communications network, which is already critical infrastructure in many places of the world. In Ukraine Starlink became the nerve of the Ukrainian army and administration after Russian attacks on infrastructure, and European governments abruptly discovered that their digital sovereignty hangs on the decisions of 1 eccentric billionaire.
The EU in panic is so beginning to build its own Starlink: IRIS2, Eutelsat OneWeb and another projects are intended to guarantee Europe's strategical autonomy in satellite communications, with emphasis on the needs of governments, troops, border guards and safety systems. In another words, the state apparatus will have its controllable net from orbit, integrated with surveillance and control systems, while the average citizen is to politely sit on regulated, filtered by the DSA net terrestrial. In this arrangement, Starlink is not only a technological competition, but above all a systemic competition: a private channel of communication outside the direct control of Brussels committees.
Escalation as a strategy, not an emotion
Musk could humbly accept the punishment of EUR 120 million, nod, install offices in Brussels and pretend to be a meek corpo player who respects European values. Instead, he publically ridicules the DSA, calls EU Climate Commissioners Stasi and introduces retaliation actions in the kind of blocking the European Commission's advertising account on X. At the pierceal level, it looks like a billionaire ego explosion, but if you look at it from the position of playing a fewer moves forward, it gets more interesting.
The more the EU presses the regulatory screw, the more openly it demonstrates that freedom of speech is just a decoration for a controlled narrative, the more people begin to consciously wonder how to circumvent the system. Masks are falling: there is no more pretending to fight Russian propaganda or defend children from hatred. There is an open conflict: on the 1 hand a central censorship apparatus, on the another hand the owner of a global platform and a global satellite network, which says explicitly that the states are not its master.
Musk needs people to see this conflict in terms of civilization, not technical. No: the blue stamps were not transparent, only: the EU punishes a platform that does not want to censor illegal content. all subsequent Communication from Brussels, all conference on enhancing information safety works for its communicative – and for request for solutions that by definition are beyond the scope of the DSA.
Censorship, chaos and the black net market
In parallel, the West of Europe pays the bill for years of mass, uncontrolled immigration from Muslim countries. No-go zones, gangs, muslim patrols, explosions, riots – these are no longer propaganda Facebooks from right-wing portals, only everyday life reported even by mainstream, from the suburb of Paris to Swedish cities. The districts where police enter only in convoys are real proto-enclades of parallel order, frequently de facto based on the local Sharia version.
Under specified conditions, the classical terrestrial telecommunications infrastructure becomes an easy target: fibre optics can be cut, central lighting, transmitters devastated as well as cars and shops. This is what we have seen in miniature on the occasion of riots and blackouts, and the experience of the war in Ukraine has shown how fast states and armies begin to scope for the satellite net erstwhile the cable in the ground stops working.
However, satellite net is not neutral. Islamist groups want it too: propaganda, recruitment, coordination of actions, escape from the supervision of services that control ground operators. On the another hand, state structures, civic militias, local communities want it to organise self-defense, crisis communication, independent circulation of information. In a planet where, in the large agglomerations of western Europe, the low but chronic level of chaos will continue, communication from orbit will become as desirable as erstwhile the black marketplace of decoders for satellite tv – only on a much more serious scale.
Starlink as Underground Internet
At this point we enter the core of my theory: the increasing regulatory murderism plus the increasing physical chaos make perfect conditions for the satellite net as an underground, parallel communication system. The DSA and another regulations will cut off the full spectrum of content from the authoritative net – everything that will be marked as "hate", "extremism", "disinformation" – and at the same time the migration crucible will physically destruct the infrastructure on which this authoritative net stands.
For an average, reasoning European, the arrangement is simple: either you sit on a state-owned, censored, blackoutt-like terrestrial Internet, or you buy yourself access to a private network from an orbit that may be formally banned in a given country, but works independently of the local minister of digitization. Starlink has a economies of scale here: thousands of satellites, expanding capacity, falling terminal costs. If request explodes – whether due to censorship or chaos – the economies of scale can push the end-user's prices to a level where buying them to the left will be as apparent as downloading MP3 from Napster once.
The EU may formally effort to block Starlink: licenses, regulations, penalties for operators and users. Only at a time erstwhile a million people in 1 country will buy plates and modems, no government has the real ability to enforce a ban without turning into an openly totalitarian model (air seizures, raids, police theatre on roofs). And all step in this direction will only strengthen Musk's narrative: I am not the tyrant, they are afraid that people will talk and think without their consent.
Poland as a bastion and beneficiary
Against this background, Poland looks – paradoxically – like the natural beneficiary of the euro-absurd decades. The deficiency of no-go zones, a marginal Muslim minority, a comparatively conservative society and traumatic memories of communism make Western European Islamism much little likely. At the same time, geopolitics, nearshoring (business strategy consisting in transferring operations, production or services to close countries) and the war in Ukraine made Poland a logistical and production hub of Central Europe – billions of investments, transferring supply chains from Germany, France, Italy to the Vistula River.
If the West of Europe continues to decision towards a mix of caliphate and police censorship zones, the most valuable capital – human and business – will start looking for a safe haven. And this will not be oppressed in the knowing of the left, but people who see what is happening: entrepreneurs, IT specialists, engineers, those who can number and think, not just quote slogans about diversity. Poland has already simplified migration rules for highly qualified third-country nationals and EU residents, and consulting companies straight advertise the country as a safe, inexpensive and unchangeable hub for the West.
Such people will not come here to politely submit to another local DSA variant. They will come with the mentality “I escaped from this shit” – and will look for tools that warrant them real information sovereignty. Starlink is simply a natural component of specified a package: a home in a quiet Polish city, a business in a nearshoring zone, and a private constellation over its head, which does not depend on the whims of another European commission.
Political feedback
If we set up a script in which in only 1 country (e.g. Poland) 1 million people buy Starlink's sets, no ban can withstand a collision with reality. specified a mass of users are not a fistful of pirates, but a real, organized electorate that votes against parties defending the DSA and European information standards. all effort to legalize Starlink, all media attack on the dangerous satellite net automatically pushes these people into the arms of anti-system groups, Paleolibertarian, anti-Brussels. In Poland, he is simply a Confederate.
The mechanics is simple and beautifully free marketable, in line with the Austrian school in economics: the marketplace first gives birth to a grey area of technology that gives people freedom, the state tries to strangle it, but the more it pushes it, the more political opposition it generates, yet it has to go back, or else it will lose power. In this model, Musk does not gotta win in European courts or negociate in Brussels – it is adequate that it will lead to a situation where millions of European voters have a personal, financial and existential interest in ensuring that its infrastructure survives.
Musk as a civilization entrepreneur
My explanation depicts Musk as an entrepreneur of civilization: not only the owner of respective large techs, but individual who consciously conflicts with the political construct he sees as an enemy of freedom, due to the fact that he knows that at the end of this conflict there is simply a mass request for his private alternative. A punishment of EUR 120 million for X, IRIS2, DSA, no-go zones, nearshoring to Poland, migration chaos and censorship – all are elements of 1 process: slow centralist decay, EU utopia and the birth of parallel communication, economy and migration structures.
If this process goes as I describe it, Starlink will not only become another telecommunications service, but a real skeleton of a parallel, non-state Internet, which will be utilized by all – from Islamists to their opponents, from libertarians to average people who have had adequate of the state version of reality. And Poland, with its full pathological interior policy, has the chance to become 1 of the main nodes of this fresh civilization: comparatively homogenous, not yet infiltrated by caliphates, technically competent and geographically crucial.
From this perspective, Musk does not go crazy, but understands that the most certain way to mononetize the future is not to fit nicely into the DSA, but to velocity up the minute erstwhile people say: thank you, we get off this EU bus and get on a private spaceship with the Starlink antenna on the roof.
Palestinian Epilogue
The Musk–EU conflict becomes only an episode in a much larger process of civilizational reconfiguration. My Paleolibertian diagnosis that states fall not as a consequence of revolution, but as a consequence of technological erosion, takes concrete shape. erstwhile the communication infrastructure moves from state ownership to private ownership, erstwhile the flow of information becomes resistant to regulation, erstwhile the citizen gains technology independent of the administration, the state does not lose 1 tool – it loses the foundation of its existence, that is, the monopoly on information, force and infrastructure.
Satellites alternatively of government, private networks alternatively of bureaucracy, parallel decision-making circles alternatively of ministries. This is all the material from which the planet I have long written about is born: a planet where countries will step back step by step until they stay exclusively anachronistic relics, and their functions will be taken over by private systems, free communities and voluntary contracts. If Musk accelerates this process even by a decade, his satellites will turn out to be the first bricks under the architecture of upcoming anarchocapitalism.
Grzegorz GPS Swiderski
https://t.me/CanalBlogeraGPS
https://Twitter.com/gps65
https://www.youtube.com/@GPSIFriends
