Español

Protection against the storm

Written by Pablo González and Pedro Nonay, trying to find what we can do in our adaptation to changes in world order.

Entry 5

Musk won. Beyonce lost. 

Changes are accelerating.

November 19, 2024

We finally know the result of the US elections. 

It is the data that all the powers of geopolitics and economics were waiting for to make their decisions on the future of the world.

The fact is that Donald Trump has won. By far more than the polls predicted. Whoever likes it.

That, rather, is what has formally happened. If you look a little deeper, a different way of looking at world power has won. It consists of making it official that, now, the control of everything will be led by technology companies instead of the financial world.

In staging, the winner is Elon Musk, which is nicely depicted in the photo below.

Thousands of articles have been written about the election results (some interesting, many not so interesting). 

These articles talk about what may happen next. About inflation, protectionism, immigrants, the outcome of the wars, …

Beyond what these articles say, I would like to try to analyze the underlying aspects of the situation. I will do so below.

Different paradigms: Elon Musk vs Beyonce.

Until now (and for centuries), factual power has been exercised by the financial world and the conventional media.

What has now been demonstrated is that the new powers that be are the technology companies (not the financial world), and the social networks (not the mainstream press or tv). 

A very relevant fact is that Trump was interviewed on Joe Rogan’s podcast, and it is estimated that the interview had 3 billion followers worldwide. Those followers are not even close to those of any of the conventional media. You can see the information here.

On the other hand, and within the world of social networks, Elon Musk’s (owner of X) support for Trump is well known. 

In fact, it is worth noting the tweet that Musk published on November 7 to celebrate Trump’s victory. He did so with three Latin words, and a photograph. The words were carefully chosen. They were: Novus Ordo Seclorum. That, translated from Latin, means the new order of an era. Something like: a different world begins. It is very well chosen, because it is the same thing that the founding fathers of the USA decided on as a slogan for the creation of the USA. In fact, it is what is written on the old one dollar bill under the pyramid drawing, as you can see below.

Musk’s tweet is as follows:

@elonmusk

The photograph that Musk has chosen provides the basis for a whole sociological and psychological analysis.

In contrast, Kamala’s campaign has been based on mainstream media, and the support of the “old” powers that be. The paradigm is the support of Beyonce at her rallies.

We are facing a situation of historical change. The “old” system was: “I give the people bread and circuses (as in Roman times), I entertain them with Beyonce and the like, I make them sleepy, and … then I decide”. 

It turns out that the current system is: “I have a better way to communicate with the people (maybe to manipulate them, too), and get them to think about what matters most to them”.

The message has been: “bread is more important than the circus”. And the instrument to send the message has been: social networks are more important than the control of the old press. In other words, Musk has worked better than Beyonce. 

Another way of looking at the same thing is that what Marx called the “opium of the people” has changed.  He was referring to religion, which was the old way of getting messages to the people. Marx made it so that the main message was not that of religion. After his influence, even in countries where Marx did not succeed, the “opium of the people” was the traditional media. That is what has changed now.

It is a very relevant change. And it is normal that the same thing will end up happening gradually throughout the West. However, we must bear in mind that this does not mean that the same ideology will win in all countries, but that the winner will be the one who uses the same powers.

My previous entries.

In this regard, I cannot resist copying what I wrote last August 30 in this entry. There I said:

• The effect of all this on the speed of changes can be summarized in the fact that, if Trump wins, and is able to agree with the “enemies” something like: “I recognize that the USA is not the world power, and I let you rule your part of the world, if you let me rule mine“, the risk of world war will be avoided, and all the changes will be activated more quickly.

I think that’s what’s going to happen.

In that entry, I talked about being attentive to the speed of change in order to decide on personal, business and political strategies.

Now it is clear. The speed is going to be very fast. So we have to accelerate our adaptation strategies.

We still have to wait a little while to confirm that the transition of power in the USA will take place in a non-confrontational manner. That seems likely, given that the votes were not as close as expected, and given that Biden has declared it so. We will have to keep our fingers crossed until then. We must also wait for the transition to be effective (it will be on January 20) and for the new government decisions to begin to be taken.

New trends.

If that transition occurs without conflict, and if one is to try to summarize what is going to happen (based on what I have been studying since the pandemic in my entries), I think the key events will be:

• Bipolarism will be established. The USA will exercise power over one part of the world, and China over the other.

• The real factual power, above governments, will be lost by the financial world and gained by technology companies.

Along with this, there will be many consequences of a lesser degree (compared to the above), but very important as well. They can be summarized as:

• Europe will lose what little power it had left, and it will have a hard time, but little by little. It will be something like the slow decline of the UK since its imperial era and throughout the 20th century.
  
  I have already said in previous entries (more and more people are saying it now) that Europe is going to be little more than a museum or a theme park. The fact is that we Spaniards are somewhat lucky in that case, because Spain can be defined as the bar of that museum, the fun and relaxing place. And that is always good for the economy and for peace of mind.
  
  
• Fossil energy will not be as discredited as it is now. It will eventually disappear, but much more slowly.

• Renewable energies will advance more slowly, but they will not be abandoned (let’s not forget that Elon Musk owns Tesla, … and they manufacture electric cars).

• Banks will have problems (especially European banks).

• Bitcoin will improve in its support by institutions.

• It will be a difficult time for companies that need suppliers or customers from the other bloc of countries, unless they have their contracts (and contacts) very well tied up.
  
  

The new world order.

The above can be summed up much more by saying that an attempt will be made to establish a new world order. With rules very different from the ones we know, and with the intention that it will last for a long time.

This is not to be compared to a change of government between a party of the old left and a party of the old right. It is something else. It is an epochal change on a grand scale.

Above I have used the Word “attempt” because it is not certain that they will succeed. There will be forces against the attempt. The forces in favor may also misguide their approach. We must be very attentive to this evolution.

Balance of forces.

Simplifying a lot, it can be said that the forces in favor of implementing this new world order are:

• The new US government, and those of the BRICS+ countries. 
  However, with the risk of not finding common agreements valid for both sides. 
  
  
• Technology companies, with their social networks and their ability to “manipulate” the tastes (and votes) of the masses.

• The power of fossil energy-related companies.

And the forces against are:

• European political power (and that of some other minor country). 
  Although we may not like to see it that way, that power is far inferior to the political power of the pro-change countries.
  
  
• Conventional media. 
  These maintain some power, but it is far inferior to that of social networks in terms of their influence on mass trends (the US elections have shown this).
  
  
• Conventional financial power. 
  It remains very powerful, and will be a major force against change. It is likely that, in order to diminish their power, a financial crisis will be fomented to weaken them. This is not difficult given the global debt situation, the expected inflation, the loss of strength of the dollar, and the increased strength of cryptocurrencies.
  
  It may also happen that part of the financial power “goes over to the other side” when their problems become clear. For that, as it is a fact that their infrastructures are inefficient for the new era, they have few other options than to be absorbed by a large technological company.
  
  
• Companies closely linked to the rapid growth of renewable energies. 
  In this case, as their current strength is still lower than that of fossil energy companies, and as renewables are not going to stop growing, but their growth speed will be a little slower, they will probably not be a great enemy and will adapt to the circumstances.
  
  

In view of the above, it appears that the forces in favor of change far outweigh those against. But there is an additional force against change that is very important: inertia. Everywhere, even in those I have cited as favorable to change, there are a multitude of institutions, signed contracts, treaties, customs, … and individuals who will not want to lose their privileges. In other words, there will be many internal obstacles.

Therefore, adding inertia to the aforementioned forces, it turns out that things are more balanced. We will have to pay close attention to events.

First stage: the pact with China – Thucydides.

In order for the above-mentioned changes to be implemented, the first step is the negotiations between the new US government and the Chinese government.

The aim is to share world power; to establish the “silk curtain”; to divide the world into two blocs of countries, with very different rules of operation in each of them.

The key issues to be agreed upon are:

• The scarce interference of the countries of one of the blocs in those of the other. I say scarce, because it can never be null.

• How to organize peace on the seas (fundamental for trade) and space (the new frontier).

• The way to resolve conflicts between blocs by means of new supranational bodies, with new distribution of power in these bodies.

If there is agreement on these pacts, change is almost guaranteed.

If there is not, what will be guaranteed will be great turbulence.

Actually, all this derives from the so-called Thucydides trap. It is when one power is in decline and another is on the rise. History shows that, if there is a pact between them, there will be relative order, and if not, a lot of disorder.

To know what is most likely to happen, one must remember that Trump is a businessman (not a politician). Therefore, he will act with a businessman’s mentality. He will do what he thinks is best for his company. And that company, today, is the USA empire, of which Trump is the CEO.

Second stage: the new design of the West.

There is an important risk, which is that of having a bad design of this new order in the West. A design that is not good for humanity.

Regarding this, we must accept that being good or bad for humanity is something very abstract. It will always depend on one’s point of view. Moreover, it will not be equally good or bad for everyone at the same time. It is a philosophical issue.

The fact is that, for now, we have little data on what this design is like. I am referring to the details, because the main features of the trends are clear. They are the ones I have been describing in my entries and have summarized above.

This will have to be monitored as it evolves. If there is a majority that considers the design to be inadequate, the force of inertia can be used to prevent its implementation.

Glasnost as a bad example.

As I said, what is coming is a revolution, not a simple change of government. 

These revolutions sometimes succeed and sometimes fail.

Pippa Malmgren (a leading analyst) has suggested a striking comparison. She gives the example of Gorbachev and his glasnost. 

The truth is that this attempt to completely modify the society and the government of the USSR ended in its collapse.

Pippa thinks the same thing can happen here. She exposes it here.

Other examples.

In addition to glasnost, one can think of other historical examples of major changes.

One of them would be the Russian revolution in 1917. There the change triumphed, but a great war and much suffering of the people could not be avoided (I say this without expressing an opinion on whether the proposed system was good or bad, I am only talking about the result). It was later, in 1945, when the division of the world into two blocks was agreed with the Yalta conference. And some stability was achieved, with continuous risk.

Another example to consider is Brexit. There, the UK chose to “isolate” itself from Europe, which is somewhat similar to what Trump is saying, although he almost talks about isolating himself from everyone who doesn’t think like him. There was also a lot of talk in that campaign about immigrants (as Trump has done). But it did not seek a total change of the apparatus of government, which is something Trump does propose.

Arguably, those Brexit changes were small compared to what Trump seeks. And it should not be forgotten that, although the Brexit was done peacefully, the result is that the UK is now no better off socially and economically than it was before that time. There are a lot of regretful people.

A positive example would be the Spanish transition in 1978. There, the whole social and governmental structure was really modified. And it was done without war (although with difficulties and fears). The problem for the USA with this comparison is that in the Spanish transition everything was done with pacts between all the political parties. It does not seem that the Democrats in the USA are going to support the Republicans for this.

In any case, the above are only old examples to make us think. The truth is that every attempt at change is different. This one will be too.

Democracies vs. autarchies.

The future of democracies in the West is at stake in this whole process. 

If the process of change succeeds, democracies may still formally exist, but they will be something very different from how we “idealize” them now.

It is quite possible that we are tending towards more autarkic systems, even if they have the appearance of democracies.

Although it may be uncomfortable to admit, the truth is that, at times when going towards the unknown, it is more effective to have good leaders, with good heads, and with loyalty to the people, than to let the people choose a path they do not know. Of course, in the end, the people will be the ones who will benefit or be harmed by the facts. Here, the big question is whether Trump and the teams he is already nominating have that good head and that loyalty to the people. The answer to this has to be decided by each one, which is what democracy is for; and in the US elections, they have decided that they trust him. … It is up to us to cross our fingers.

Will they kill Trump? 

While we are in the in-between time, from when Trump has won until he takes real control (on January twentieth), and given that there is an old factual power that has lost control (the financial world and the conventional media), there is a significant risk. 

Those who lose control are going to do everything they can not to lose it. That includes the possibility of assassinating the winner (Trump). And it is not out of the question, in fact, they have already tried it twice. If it happens, the problem will be very big, and the consequences very dangerous.

General Flynn has made statements in this regard that lead to concern. They can be viewed here.

A variant of this risk is that of the assassinated (or accidentally killed) is Elon Musk. In that way, it would not generate as much revolution in the institutions, but it would greatly slow down Trump’s ability to implement changes. 

It’s hard to say, but I wouldn’t put it past the forces of inertia to be considering these options.

I’m crossing my fingers that it doesn’t happen. I’m not doing this to support Trump, but to avoid the near civil war that may start if that happens.

Tips for our adaptation.

As I have been saying in previous entries, I do not write this because I consider myself to be a holder of the truth, nor to convince anyone. I do it in my internal process of creating my opinion, in order to make my future decisions.

Therefore, I don’t think it would be honest not to share my conclusions. This is what I do below, but remember that they may be wrong.

What I see is that, as I have already said, I summarize Trump’s victory in that the big changes are going to happen sooner (Kamala was looking to stretch the life of the old system, which was already in the ICU, to the limit). And that they will also be changes with less pain than in the case of Kamala’s victory (because those would be the changes after the total collapse of the system).

I also see that those changes won’t really start until we know if there is a pact with China. And those negotiations will not start until Trump takes real power. Plus it won’t be a two day negotiations, it will be months long.

Therefore, we should not prepare ourselves yet for something that may not happen, but it is important that we organize ourselves, to the extent of our possibilities, to have the greatest freedom and agility of movement until we know the outcome of these negotiations.

In addition, we must prepare our plan for the two scenarios now possible, which are: 

• That of the implementation of the new world order with the new “silk curtain”. With the risk that it will fail, but with the knowledge that it will be in force for a not short time.

• That of generalized disorder and decadence in the West for not being able to create what is necessary.

My personal opinion is that this new order will be achieved. And that this adventure towards a new world will be beautiful, interesting and fruitful. I also believe that it can be done without reaching WWIII, nor brutal economic crises. 

I also believe that it will not be easy, that there will be some disorders and even local wars. Also economic problems (less than the alternative).

Therefore, we have a few months of observation, searching for strategies for either scenario, and generating agile freedom of movement.

*****

As always, I welcome comments on my email: pgonzalez@ie3.org