This ruling basically does say that embedding any third-party resources in your page is a GDPR violation. It is silly, and I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted. This ruling can't be allowed to stand.
Sounds like a great ruling from a security and user perspective. Just changes a design paradigm. If it kills a business model that's based on intrusive user-tracking and the user being totally unable to know who has their data and who their computer should vs shouldn't be connecting to - great.
Trying to figure out from traffic analysis alone these days whether a website is malicious or not is an absolute nightmare as every single site pulls in 20 or 30 externally-hosted resources for totally impenetrable purposes.
Let's migrate to an easily understandable model where sites host 100% of their own resources. If that means the site engine has to run CI behind the scenes and pull in those resources, great, it centralises responsibility.
What are you talking about? You can always block whatever you want, and we're not talking about "intrusive user-tracking" here but literally just an IP address. You can have the opinion that websites shouldn't use third-party resources, but legislating that requirement is beyond ridiculous.
There are countless good reasons for using third-party resources on websites, and disallowing it will absolutely make the web a worse place regardless of any "privacy" benefits it could have.