President of a tourist destination
'Trump causes global chaos' could have been the headline. The president, one talk-show He is a radical, he prays in the Oval Office, but he acts as the high priest of Huitzilopochtli (the god of human sacrifice). He is the architect of a hell where reason and all moral and ethical principles burn. He prays and orders the missiles to be launched. The attack on Iran is not just a military action, but the work of a supreme narcissist who vomits on the ashes of diplomacy and international law. He has followers.
If we observe the character, at first glance, the lack of discourse with a comprehensible semantic structure is striking. He doesn't need to; abusing his position of preeminence, he has supplanted dialogue with coercion and, consequently, has established violence as the ultimate recourse. Lacking all scruples and zero empathy for allies (except Israel), he bombs Iran without knowing what the next step should be. The systematic use of fake To unseat the political adversary, ever since he appeared on the political scene, has been the breeding ground for the current turbulent situation. Lies and outlandish pronouncements are intrinsic to his discourse, which, not arising from a shared dialogue between different perspectives, can never acquire the status of a narrative; in short, there is no continuity or humanistic sense in anything he says or does. Two key characteristics: (1) there is no narrative, and (2) lies are cultivated for personal gain.
The unpredictability of the figure is not a matter of character; it is necessary to consider his context: the collapse of neoliberal discourse and the absence of a coherent argument for globalization. Neither the technological revolution nor AI has been able to produce a satisfactory general doctrine. Even a scholar of the subject, such as the professor and writer Yanis Varoufakis, has not hesitated to borrow medieval terminology to define the current moment of technofeudalism. In this black hole, possessed by megalomania, Trump believes himself to have absolute power; ignoring that such power does not exist, he sublimates it with absolute violence: the murder of the adversary, now transformed into an enemy. It could be said, without fear of being wrong, that Trump is a staunch follower of the doctrine of the 'existential enemy' of National Socialism. Two other characteristics: (3) existential enemy and (4) absolute violence.
Positions are defined according to these four cardinal points. If Trump is leading Spain, it's because Spain has publicly questioned his 'absolute power'. David, once again, may be able to shake Goliath. Spanish skepticism shows signs of spreading to other countries. The international press has referred to Pedro Sánchez as "Trump's nemesis." And the German press criticized Chancellor Merz for his silence when Trump threatened Spain. It was clear that Pedro Sánchez's 'No to the war' was spreading like wildfire and, in a few hours, became an international benchmark. The "right side of history," it was said. Indeed, today, unexpectedly, the dividing line between the two sides of history is located between Trump's misdeeds and the Spanish government's 'no'. However, German weakness and Ursula von der Leyen's sudden existential crisis foreshadow betrayal, as in the Nibelungenlied.
On a domestic level, Sánchez's message evoked memories of the "No to the Iraq War" movement and the lie about weapons of mass destruction, which cost José María Aznar the elections. However, I find President Marga Prohens's reaction on the first day of the attack on Iran particularly curious: "We are a safe destination, and this is a key factor in times of international instability." As if the atrocities taking place at that very moment had nothing to do with her. Above all else, she was concerned about the market. Some called it a prudent attitude; I would say, rather, that the response revealed a certain cunning and shrewdness: she explicitly distanced herself from the event and took advantage of the situation to place intangible Balearic assets (security) on the futures market. In short: she was monetizing the war. She acted more like the president of a tourist destination than of the country.
A basic principle of capitalism: the market above all else; and, consequently, the State and its interests. ius publicum They take a back seat. This thesis is far removed from the constitutional consideration of a social and democratic state governed by the rule of law. Many may wonder what our president has to do with the new "fireman" Trump. Simply put, we're not talking solely about individuals, but about behaviors and principles. And both, from their respective spheres of influence, share a contempt for the existing legal order and the sense of justice. One wants to undermine international law, and the other, to legalize illegal immigrants. In practice, they create a distinction between first and second class, and the law is not applied equally to everyone. It's dynamite for the rule of law! They're not so far removed from each other: they share the same cave of political primitivism.
The president made the statements in question at the ITB Berlin trade fair. She left behind a protean silence. However, a phrase from the employers' association filled and illuminated the entire tourism industry: "We are in constant contact with tour operators to monitor..." the consequences of the war. The connection between hoteliers and tour operators is part of a ritual that has dominated the economic activity of tourism for years. However, tour operators represent less than half the market; the other half circulates online. For that reason alone, one could say that the phrase belongs to another era and another war. Nevertheless, no silence is neutral.