1. Likely Future Scenario: The Era of Total Digital Control

Climate change? Irrelevant – Profit is what matters
“The Earth is burning? Then we’ll sell fire extinguishers.”

• Climate protection as a marketing gimmick: Greenwashing has become state doctrine. CO₂ certificates have become speculative assets – those who can afford them buy a green conscience while emissions continue to rise.
• Climate consequences as a business model: Droughts, floods, and heatwaves are monetized:
  • Water is controlled by corporations (‚premium drinking water subscriptions‘).
  • Climate refugees are used as cheap labor in mega data centers.
• Unlimited energy hunger: The electricity demand from AI, surveillance, and digital entertainment is growing exponentially – powered by coal, gas, and cheap nuclear power.

Total Surveillance:
“Big Brother was just the beginning.”

• Ubiquitous sensors: Every step, glance, and conversation is recorded in real time (facial recognition, wearables, EEG sensors).
• Compliance Score: Dynamic evaluation of purchasing behavior, social contacts, and even dreams.
  • Score < 80: Restricted access to public transport, healthcare.
  • Score < 60: Forced labor in data centers.
• Algorithms as Judges: AI systems decide guilt and punishment – appeals are impossible.

Humans as Tools:
“Humans are the new oil.”

• Precariat 4.0: 90% of jobs are gig economy tasks, controlled by algorithms – without social security or minimum wage.
• Bodies as Commodities: Organ and data trading is thriving; health data is sold to insurance companies.

The Death of Creativity:
“Innovation is only what the algorithm allows.”

• 99% of all content is generated by AI – human artists only exist as ‚curators‘.
• Education only teaches obedience: Operating AI tools, adapting to algorithms, consumer behavior.

The New World Order:
“Tech corporations are the new kings.”

• Three mega-corporations control 90% of global infrastructure.
• Currency: Data and attention (e.g., ‚1 hour of brain scans = 1 meal‘).

2. Development Without Obstruction Using Trusted WEB 4.0

Conservative estimate: Over 50% energy savings in AI data centers while preserving pre-digital achievements.

1. Technical Savings: Decentralized AI by Category

2. User Behavior: Direct Connection Between Providers and Consumers

• No artificial agitation from algorithms → 30–40% less data traffic.
• Quality over quantity: getmySense evaluators filter useless content → 10–20% fewer clicks.

3. Reduced Surveillance Through Participation

• No tracking needed → 40–50% less computing effort for data analysis.
• Decentralized storage → 20–30% less server load.

4. Comparison: Energy Consumption

1. Actual Situation in 2024: NRW Has Not Learned from the Past!

As a plaintiff, I must note after my political application against the Ukraine war and without the possibility of legal representation that remote control by the state of NRW and the failure to provide assistance to me as an entrepreneur create unbearable risks if I continue to offer alternatives to gatekeeper concepts. A past that has not been addressed remains unresolved, as seen in the lawsuit 10 C 367/23 (Amtsgericht Krefeld). The resulting complaint to the ECtHR was not accepted for decision.

The state of NRW sees no way to act against:

• Digital dependency (on US platforms) undermining democratic processes (e.g., disinformation, polarization).
• Lack of digital participation (e.g., due to monopolies like Google) exacerbating social division and economic damage.
• Loss of pre-digital achievements (e.g., anonymity, data protection, equality) that must be preserved in digitization.

2. Development Without Obstruction: Focus on Pre-Digital Achievements

I proved to the Ministry of Justice, Dr. Buschmann (who provided positive feedback), that special digital legislation is not necessary (e.g., for age restrictions in social media), if instead a framework is created for the economy that protects the pre-digital democratic systems successfully developed over decades. Replicating this concept in the digital space leads to sustainable value creation.

At this point, GISAD should function as a clearing house for the economy, ensuring compliance with pre-digital legislation within the Trusted WEB 4.0. An additional grassroots democratic component would emerge through the evaluators in getmysense.

1. Real Situation in 2023: Hindered by a „Organized Gang-Like Pattern of Appearance“

After I filed my application against the Ukraine war in 2022, I once again had to bear the consequences, see Organized Gang-Like Pattern of Appearance.

Mythos was banned by the US government, allegedly due to structural vulnerabilities. From my own perspective, facing 11 years of criminal prosecution without a hearing or legal basis, I ask myself: Is this really about technical security flaws—or rather about structural weaknesses of states that the US government has exploited or even supported since 9/11?

For example, I simply do not understand why there is no upper limit to the number of lawyers that can be reasonably imposed, and why, in this case, there is no option for self-representation (2BvR 1668/25). This forces me to achieve a result in the first instance. This blog is my only protection, as I now have to conduct every legal process publicly to secure my rights. Since 2022, I have been financially damaged by alleged moisture in a rental property—my main source of income—where I had to relocate a bathroom and kitchen to avoid suspected moisture entering through a co-owner’s balcony.

Mythos might also provide evidence of unfair US methods to exploit the corona situation for anti-democratic digitization through US products. Undeniably, Corona led to significant growth for gatekeepers and simultaneously to an economic downturn in Europe.

There is also provable evidence of a missed opportunity for digital migration integration through Trusted WEB 4.0:

The corona pandemic led to isolation among EU states, costing economic growth and jobs. Instead of using this crisis as a catalyst to establish digital work models and inclusive value creation, the opportunity to linguistically and digitally integrate migration applicants into the EU-D-S Digital Union was missed. A functional Trusted WEB 4.0 would have allowed qualified workers worldwide—regardless of their location—to be integrated in their native language, their performance evaluated digitally, and only the best selected for later immigration. This would have prevented deportation centers, skilled labor shortages, and social tensions.

2. Development Without Obstruction: Europe as a Digital Role Model

What could Trusted WEB 4.0 have prevented?

• Digital Integration of Migration Applicants:
Trusted WEB 4.0 could have provided a language-independent, decentralized platform, as described in 2018, where migration applicants could receive and process digital work assignments in their native language. Through AI-supported performance evaluation and blockchain-based certification, skills and reliability would have been objectively measurable—without physical presence.
→ Result: Only proven workers would have immigrated, improving migration quality and making deportation centers obsolete.

• Economic Resilience Through Digital Work Models:
The pandemic-driven shift to remote work could have been made a permanent solution for global talent. Trusted WEB 4.0 would have enabled companies to collaborate with migration applicants regardless of location before their physical arrival.
→ Result: Economic growth and jobs would not have been lost but strengthened through digital value creation.

• Social and Political Stability:
Transparent, fair digital evaluation processes would have avoided accusations of arbitrariness in migration. Decentralized data sovereignty would have ensured that applicants‘ personal data remained protected and only released upon successful validation for immigration.
→ Result: Social tensions from uncontrolled migration or deportations would have been reduced.

• Prevention of Deportation Centers:
Preventive digital integration would have ensured that only individuals who had already demonstrably contributed to European value creation would enter.
→ Result: This would have significantly reduced the need for deportation centers and complex asylum procedures.

1. The Real Situation in 2022: No Proactive Concept Against Hybrid Threats

In 2022, I experience a Europe stuck in a defensive posture. The digital dependence on gatekeepers—Google, Amazon, Meta—has long been a reality. At the same time, the Ukraine war escalates, fought not only militarily but, above all, digitally: disinformation, cyberattacks, and digital surveillance are the weapons of autocracies. The EU responds with regulatory attempts like the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the Digital Services Act (DSA), set to take effect in 2023. However, these measures primarily aim for fair markets, not the digital sovereignty we urgently need to assert ourselves against the power of gatekeepers and autocratic states.

The costs of inaction are becoming increasingly clear:

• Cyberattacks and data breaches are on the rise, while Europe cannot present its own secure infrastructure.
• Ukraine is fighting for its existence, yet instead of creating a digital alternative that strengthens resistance in Russia, the West relies on military solutions.
• The gatekeepers dominate the market and, with it, political opinion-forming. Their platforms have become instruments of power that undermine democracies.

On June 13, 2022, I submitted the resolution proposal against the Ukraine war to the FDP. In it, I demand:

• Financial support for Ukraine to build a digital highway (1:1 VPN connections) between exile Russians and resistance forces in Russia.
• The establishment of GISAD as a central authority for developing standards that transfer pre-digital democratic achievements into the digital world.

The resolutions, supported by liberal EU delegates, were unanimous. But since Wissing was elected Digital Minister, seemingly important short-term challenges have shaped him. Since politics cannot prescribe proactive action to ministers, it is increasingly incapable of acting in an unshaped digital world.

2. Development Without Obstruction: Digital Democracy Offers Resilience Against Power Concentration

As I keep repeating: As early as 1999, the Finder technology could have laid the foundation for a secure digital identity. In 2002, getmysense—a system enabling social control through digital participation without sliding into surveillance—could have followed. In 2003, GISAD would have created the infrastructure for decentralized, anonymous, and structurally relevant standards. In 2004, the EU-D-S (European Digital System) could have served as the backbone of a European Digital Union. And in 2007, WAN anonymity would have added another building block for secure, manipulation-resistant communication.

Had we consistently implemented these technologies, Europe would not be dependent on American platforms today. Instead, we would have:

• Built a digital highway between exile Russians and resistance forces in Russia. For just 30 million euros (30 € per connection), one million exile Russians could have established secure 1:1 VPN connections with Russians in resistance—and thus accelerated the internal disintegration of the Putin regime.
• Used Ukraine as a pilot project to test a digital democracy infrastructure. The cost? Laughably low compared to the billions spent on weapons and reconstruction.
• Established GISAD as a central clearinghouse coordinating cooperatives for digital participation in every linguistic region—though this would require the executive to be willing to confront its past mistakes. This could generate billions in savings through more efficient use of EU funds.

1. Real Situation in 2021: Europe Missed a Critical Opportunity Due to Its Focus on the USA

Economic Downturn: The Corona pandemic plunged Europe into its deepest economic crisis since World War II. The EU responded with unprecedented rescue packages worth billions to mitigate the recession. The EU’s SURE program alone amounted to €100 billion to protect threatened jobs and workers.

Recovery Programs: In May 2020, the European Commission introduced a €750 billion stimulus program („Next Generation EU“) to address the economic and social damage caused by the pandemic. Of this, €500 billion was allocated as grants, and the rest as loans. These funds were intended to flow into climate protection, digital transformation, social support, and strengthening the EU as a global actor.

Sector-Specific Damages:

• Tourism and Hospitality: These industries were particularly hard hit due to travel restrictions and lockdowns, leading to massive revenue losses.
• Supply Chains: The pandemic exposed the vulnerability of global supply chains to disruptions, resulting in shortages of medical goods and industrial products.

2. Development Without Obstruction: Capital Would Have Promoted Resilience and Sustainability

Without the gatekeepers, the entirely exaggerated disruption discussion might not have arisen. There was a belief that everything had to be dismantled. Capital complied and was rewarded in the short term by the FOMO effect.

During the Corona pandemic (2020–2022), Europe faced concrete issues with cash supply. Bank branches were closed, ATMs were overloaded, and cash was considered a potential transmitter of the virus, leading to a reduction in cash usage by up to 50% in some EU countries (ECB data). Many retailers refused cash. Online banks were overwhelmed, phishing attacks increased, and transfers were delayed.

For the WAN-anonymous Trusted WEB 4.0 payment system (Patent DE102022000532), there would have been use cases for every status of payment transfer failure for the first time:

• Status 1: Full internet connection – transactions proceed normally.
• Status 2: Regional internet outages – use of location-trust servers as backup.
• Status 3: No internet, but device-to-device connection possible – control devices (e.g., smartphones) handle validation.
• Status 4: Complete blackout – direct connection between two devices (e.g., via NFC/Bluetooth) enables emergency transactions.
• Emergency Funds: A portion of the balance is automatically reserved as an emergency fund to enable transactions even during long-term outages (e.g., power blackouts).
• Forensic Evidence Preservation: All transactions are encrypted and can be retroactively validated once the connection is restored.

Citizens who do not rely on a full-supply mentality from their state would have to deal with significantly less bureaucracy. Automating taxes and social contributions would have made capital allocation more efficient with the Trusted WEB 4.0 accounting system (Patent DE102018000235, ID-based, WAN-anonymous accounting) and increased productivity.

Events in Europe that would have changed with EU-D-S:

• Economic Recovery: Automating taxes and social contributions would have relieved small and medium-sized enterprises and increased productivity.
• Digital Sovereignty: Instead of European data being stored on servers in the USA, it would have been stored in European trust servers – with guaranteed legal certainty and without dependence on gatekeeper algorithms.
• Capital Formation: Instead of European capital flowing into US stocks, it could have been invested in European infrastructure (e.g., Trusted WEB 4.0) – thus securing long-term value creation in Europe.

If the EU-D-S had been introduced in 2004, WAN anonymity and getmysense would have been established as standards by 2021. The pandemic would then not have led to a concentration of power among the gatekeepers but to a strengthening of European digital competence. Instead of FOMO-driven speculation, there would have been investments in resilience – and Europe would be not only economically but also digitally sovereign today.