About the phenomenon Muska writes in “Week Review” Mateusz Mazzini
Come on. On Monday January 20th, quite a few things happened in Washington. and many decisions have been taken on the serious political and economical impact; the accounts of that day dominated a 10-second passage of 1 speech. In addition, it was not a speech by the main character of the inauguration of the presidency, but individual who, in the conventional sense of power and politics, is an actor at most secondary.
Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, the owner of an crucial media platform and an global lobbyist in his own case, went on phase to thank voters for bringing Donald Trump back to power. He did it in a typical way, free from social conventions. On phase he was jumping, screaming, waving his fists like a stone band fan in love with his idols.
The same thing in itself was not strange, Musk acted precisely like this at all run Trump rally he attended. In addition to politics, it can besides be socially embarrassing, frequently in interviews it does not express itself fluently, it does not know clearly how to formulate thoughts. Which is so crucial that it is simply a valuable context for events in Washington. In a word, Elon Musk in many areas is outstanding, but public appearances are not included in this category.
This time, however, he did something on phase that is hard to consider as a consequence of unthinkable behavior. He raised his right hand, hit his chest vigorously, after which he rapidly straightened his hand up. The gest immediately repeated in the same way to those who sat behind him. Twice in seconds, he waved in front of the full planet with his right hand straight.
And the full planet lost control.
A dispute over Elon Musk's gesture
Associated Press/East News / East NewsGest Elona Muska
The net turned, instantly sharing on those for whom it was an apparent Roman salute, and on those who saw the motion of Musk another example of his utmost misfissibilities.
Billionaire is simply a well-known online provocateur, he does not recognise any social boundaries, all ideas he respects – e.g. he misconstrued freedom of speech – he interprets radically. All or nothing. Any effort to interfere in content, especially online, is simply a form of censorship. You can compose and say anything, of course as long as it fits Musk himself, due to the fact that he has a rich past of virtually destroying people who disagree with him. How a billionaire silences his critics will inactive be in this text. For now, let's focus on current events.
Long ago, possibly never, nothing has caused specified fast and strong polarization as his raised right hand. Did he or didn't he? He wanted to or he didn't want to? Did it come out by chance, or was it a deliberate motion aimed at a delicate liberal elite? Is he a fascist or not? What was that truly about? These are just any of the questions that torment commentators, but besides average net users.
Only Elon Musk himself knows the answers, although it is not certain, due to the fact that despite the visionary and strategist's surrounding fame, Elon Musk is frequently guided by impulses, besides in business. But the fact lies nowhere else.
It does not substance whether it was a Roman salute or not. Whether Elon Musk wanted to do it, or whether it was just received. Consider that these questions are completely irrelevant and even wrong.
The only thing that matters in this context is that many people in the raised right hand saw precisely what they wanted to see – a motion of affirmation of fascist ideology. And not only are we talking about progressive commentators, seeing fascism always and everywhere, frequently on growth, which resulted in gigantic inflation of this concept. In Musku, the most powerful man on the planet, fascists have besides seen those who are fascists really. Those who are ready for racial force openly advance anti-Semitism and willingly bring about a fresh anti-democratic order. Looking at their idol, a man of actions hard to embrace with human reason, they saw the praise of their own views, so far marginalized and unacceptable. If he thinks so, so can we. If he's doing it, no 1 can ban us.
Out of an intellectual sense of honesty towards readers, I will take my stand in this dispute and do so early enough. It was a Roman salute, no substance what intentions, which in specified cases, in the performance of individual with specified a gigantic media exposure, are completely irrelevant. What matters is the effect, the perception of the public.
For the last 10 years, I have worked mainly on utmost and extremist right-wing movements in Europe. I spent quite a few time with them, including those who openly admit neofascist views. I went down to Benit Mussolini's grave with a group of over 200 Italian activists, reminiscing with nostalgia the times of Italian fascism. On the day of the dictator's birth, they gathered in the place of his burial and on the signal of the group's chief, all raised their right hands, brought them closer to their chest, and then vigorously straightened them. Just like Elon Musk on January 20th at the Capitol. I've seen besides many of these gestures, in a clear ideological environment, not to be able to call it by name.
But, as I mentioned, it doesn't matter.
What matters most about Musk, Trump and the full fresh American administration is knowing the dynamics of power there. The sooner we realize that This is the founder of Tesla, not the president of the United States, who has more power today., the better we will manage our own attention, so precious at the threshold of the term, which will flood us all fewer minutes with shocking information, and this for the full 4 years.
PAP/EP/WILL OLIVERDonald Trump
Donald Trump has power through institutions. Unlike Elon Muska
Over 100 years ago, Max Weber, a German sociologist and 1 of the founding fathers of modern social sciences, created taxonomy of types of legitimacy of power. He selected 3 human sources of power. Political leaders, Weber wrote, regulation us through charisma, tradition or law. The first 2 types of legitimacy relate alternatively to pre-industrial communities and historical contexts, although it cannot be hidden that charisma can aid to gain power by democratic means. However, Weber was more afraid with people who direct another people due to the fact that their position is due to historical continuity. Here a good example are monarchs, frequently operating in systems without very precise legal authority. And yet they inactive hold their executive powers.
The legitimacy of charisma is simply a feature of leaders of social movements, especially those without an institutionalized, circumstantial structure – specified as the Fridays for Future climate protests or the already forgotten populist-left spur of Occupy Wall Street from the 2008 financial crisis.
However, the vast majority of leaders of today's planet regulation on the basis of legally regulated mechanisms. They win choices, whose course is defined in codes and laws. Just like the degree of their later power. Democratic legitimacy is the most desirable form of justification for power. Even autocrats, clearly looting the full state apparatus for themselves, strive to accomplish it. What can be seen from the examples of Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán, or another satraps who inactive hold elections, even if they are purely façade votes.
The second theoretical component essential to realize the difference between Musk and Trump is the distribution of the action of modern democracies. fundamentally they have 2 qualities: they are typical and deliberal. In short, voters in democracy do not exercise authority alone, but through their representatives operating within the institutions. The second of these qualities means that no democratic majority, and surely no one, can regulation or make decisions without even proceeding the arguments of the opposition and number groups. Deliberation means thought, conversation, dialogue. Whoever has more swords in parliament wins, but everyone has the right to vote.
Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States operates within the paradigms cited here. Of course, the deliberality of democracy is minimal in him due to the fact that Republicans control the presidency, both the chambers of legislature and the ultimate Court, but at least theoretically the Democratic organization can signal its opposition to his policies. However, it is worth to thin over representativeness and institutions. due to the fact that they're the reason Trump has any kind of powers at all. Calling things by name, Trump can change reality only due to the fact that he is the president of the United States – not due to the fact that he is Trump. He can't do anything of his own.
The decrees he wholesaled in his first week of presidency are truly worthless cards. They are only given the importance of the institutions which the president directs, due to the fact that they will be his decisions to implement. Trump exists in an organization context and only thanks to the institutions it has power. Unlike Elon Musk.
Elon Musk. A man who likes to confuse
The thought that he is simply a billionaire with strong right-wing views is more dangerous than the fresh president of the United States can be justified just after analyzing their actions. In the case of Musk, it is greater due to the fact that it does not operate in the organization space, but in its own companies, which it full controls, as does the attention of millions of people around the world.
Although Donald Trump makes rather frightening threats about the invasion of sovereign states, openly undermining the foundations of global order, he himself will never be able to fulfill them. To put these crazy ideas into practice, he needs a legislature that will support him. Generals who will not obey him. Military, who will logistically conduct operations. And soldiers who will be willing to die for him. Of course, all these criteria can be met rather easily, especially in the current political strategy – but there is simply a margin of uncertainty. And above all, the time slide, due to the fact that the complexity of this process is incomparably greater.
In the case of Elon Musk, no of these things apply. It is not due to his position or to his democratic mandate. He may be very much not due to the fact that he is co-chair of a national commission, president of a company or owner of a medium. Musk can be a lot due to the fact that he's himself.
His assets are now estimated at $400 billion, which is beyond human imagination., and literally, due to the fact that you truly can't visualize that amount or what you can do with it. As late noted in the fresh York Times by writer Ezra Klein, Musk's financial wealth is enormous, but his attention is even greater. Since becoming the owner of X/Twitter, most likely the platform algorithm has been modified to artificially increase the function of Musk entries. At the moment, each of the 225 million followers opens their app on the smartphone and immediately at the top of the page sees the words of a billionaire, placed there artificially and intentionally.
Therefore, if its tremendous popularity is simply a fact, then its organic origin in the planet should be considered nonsense. In addition Musk is simply a transnational oligarch who can mess with any country in the planet if he becomes interested. He interfered with U.S. elections, handing out million-dollar checks to voters outside the authoritative channels of political organization sponsorship. He threatened to do the same in the UK, suggesting that Prime Minister Keira Starmer's position was invalid. He besides dug up an old scandal involving a group of Asian men who committed sexual crimes on English teenagers. It does not change the fact that the judgments in this case began to fall in 2013, Musk felt that authorities in the Islands were hiding a pedophile net.
He then suggested that they would fund an account of the far-right UK improvement organization with £100 million. For the context: the most costly electoral campaigns of the largest parties cost up to 20 million, or 5 times less. For now, however, the group has disappeared from Musk's radar interests, as the billionaire no longer liked UK's chief of reform, Nigel Farage. The politician dared to go to the BBC and in an interview to say that not all of Musk's ideas agree, so he wrote on X about the request to change leadership in the party.
ADAM VAUGHAN / PAPNigel Farage
On the occasion, he demanded the release from prison of Tommy Robinson, an authentic British fascist and radical, founder of the English Defence League (English Defence League), for years encouraging force against the white British and regularly threatening journalists and researchers. Robinson is serving 18 months in prison for contempt of the court and breaking the ban on the sale of hatred speech material, but Musk would like to see him free, possibly even in parliamentary benches.
Germany can be added to this list, where Musk promotes the pro-Russian AfD party, and Italy where Glorifies Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, while doing business with her in the telecommunications sector.
His latest victim is Wikipedia, ideologically tilted to the left. Billionaire called for the end of contributions to the online encyclopedia until “the ideological balance has been restored”. So until the articles describing the utmost right just as the utmost will disappear.
Elon Musk is dangerous due to the fact that he does everything himself
Musk is dangerous just due to the fact that he does it all on his own as Elon Musk. Just a fewer online entries to teardrop the full political scene in a large European country. partially guilty of this, of course, are liberal commentators and netizens who respond excessively to any provocation, but this is just a part of truth. Musk now has much more ability to mobilize the crowds than even Trump. besides due to the fact that the MEGA movement is heterogeneous, composed of groups with different motivations: economic, racial, religious. In turn, Muska fanatics believe in him due to the fact that he is who he is. A politician, a businessman, a genius, a messiah, and a prophet of technooptimism in one. And all these roles play just as well.
The proof of this thesis is simple intellectual exercise, crucial from the point of view of the Polish recipient. erstwhile asked about the worst possible thing that could happen as a consequence of Trump's actions, most people in our country will most likely answer that this would be a halt to support Ukraine. But even if the president of the United States did so completely, the Ukrainian military would not capitulate overnight. There's inactive a fewer more weapons supplies, any of the deficit would most likely be covered by Europe. Ukraine would lose, but not immediately and without a fight.
Weekly ReviewFor comparison – Elon Musk could usage respective moves, most likely even from his own smartphone, to turn off the net to Ukrainians. After all, the connection to the network is mainly thanks to the Starlink satellite system, which is simply a technology entirely owned by Elon Musk. If 1 day he decided that the Ukrainians no longer want to help, they would lose most of their defence and offensive abilities. They could forget drones, rocket tracking systems, effective neutralization of Russian shelling.
Moreover, Musk would most likely be able to do it himself, literally, due to the fact that he is technically perfect, he knows and understands the way the strategy works, he would most likely make specified a change himself. He wouldn't wait for a decree to sign, a majority gathering in Congress, or a military mobilization.
Elon Musk, therefore, present has power that no 1 had before him. We had the first global emperor to put a crown on his head.
