The Start Of A New World Order
These notes were generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
What has been predicted for a while is coming true: the end of globalization. >> Globalization has failed the West and the United States of America. << The world has changed, and progress in partnerships sets up for the new world order.
After World War II, the world structured the new world order as follows:
- China: factory of the world.
- Japan: lender, keeping rates at zero for liquidity.
- Europe: buyer and consumer, trading productivity and military for stability and social welfare.
- United States: enforcer via petrodollar as world's reserve currency, backed by the military-industrial complex.
Simon Dixon coined this the proof of weapons network: countries must use dollars to buy energy and not mess with US interests to trade or build economies. Petrodollar ensures global dollar demand for energy; military enforces; financial institutions and central banks manage money flow. Play by rules: access investment markets and protection. Break rules: sanctions or war.
Americans benefited indirectly if rich or investors via US company profits. Downside: requires forever war, bad for world. For poor Americans: jobs left via supply chains and factories, concentrating wealth, hollowing middle class, creating fragile dependency. America stopped making stuff, only made money and technology. System still works technically on paper but ending.
Nations teamed up to make their own system, now too powerful for proof of weapons network to enforce without World War III. At recent World Economic Forum in Switzerland (Davos): controllers of power said game over. >> Globalization has failed the West and the United States of America. It's a failed policy... export offshore farshore find the cheapest labor... left America and workers behind. <<
Japan forced to repatriate capital, sell US treasuries like others, weakening dollar due to disappearing perpetual demand. Europe learned depending on others for energy and outsourcing safety/military leaves no power to enforce rules.
World Economic Forum discussed dividing power in new world order. Explanation of players, wants, and future outlook follows.
Hi, Andre Jick. Come for the finance and stay for the new world order.
Old game since WWII (80 years) ending, lines up with fourth turning model: cycles every 20 years—high, awakening, unraveling, now crisis/reset. World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland: largest gathering of global leadership post-COVID.
Financial Globalists (Transnational Capital)
Transnational capital transcends nations, no allegiance to flags. Apex predators: BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street managing tens of trillions. Thrive on capital moving anywhere instantly. Manage clients' money, gain superpower: corporations subordinate for capital access. Vote on behalf of shareholders.
Example: Buying mutual funds/ETFs at BlackRock—money allocated, but individuals don't vote on companies. BlackRock's chart: of $7.4 trillion total index equity in 2025, only $3.65 trillion eligible for voting; of that, only $812 billion voted (11% of total, 89% by BlackRock). Asset managers vote company direction, board hires.
Downstream: access to capital/markets. Larry Fink top of food chain. Controls capital flows, guides decisions without laws/military—CEO grows if money flows, shrinks/fired if not. Ultimate superpower.
Separate apex predator: banks and Federal Reserve. Asset managers and banks have unique interests. Christine Lagarde hint: >> central banks might not always be around. << From crisis experience, central bankers not only game in town for balanced equilibrium.
Bank side apex: Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase, self-proclaimed globalist. >> I'm a globalist. << Wants strong NATO, strong Europe, minimal change, not tariffs, change immigration. Central banks resist change as biggest beneficiaries.
Simon Dixon: FIC (financial industrial complex)—asset managers and banks competing within.
Sovereigns
Leaders of tier one nations (nuclear weapons access). Globalization threatens their power/control. Prioritize laws, borders, tariffs; sacrifice markets for sovereignty/independence, endure economic pain for control over industry/energy/security.
Examples:
- Vladimir Putin: no privatization of resources; Russian government drills oil, not ExxonMobil/Chevron; doesn't care if Russian stocks underperform US.
- Xi Jinping (China): state control, long-term growth over Western capital.
- Kim Jong-un (North Korea).
Sovereigns resist globalization as they can't win; unpredictable/inefficient for capital. Popular for control, obedience, clean streets/order. Block transnational capital to retain leverage.
Technologists (Technocrats)
Care about efficiency, scale, networks. Technology to replace governments/institutions. Not top of structure—no capital flow control. Work with any player for funding, data, permission. Transnational via software. Gain power as globalization breaks: financial power pushes programmable money, digital IDs, social credit, automation, robots.
Military-Industrial Complex
Enforcement layer via force/intelligence. Thrives on instability to enforce system. Subordinate to FIC (financial dominates government), not directly to government.
Financial Industrial Complex (most powerful): asset managers want liquid, fast, controllable capital despite fragmentation. De-globalization adds friction (borders, rules, currencies). Solution: tokenization and fractionalization. >> Movement towards tokenization, decimalization necessary... reduce fees, more democratization. << Tokenization: assets (stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities) on blockchain for instant 24/7 global trade. Fractionalization: break into smaller pieces for faster movement/ownership. Benefits controllers of rails; asset managers control assets/infrastructure. AI manages; blockchain enables real-time visibility/advantage.
Banks: keep system same, avoid privatization of money (disintermediation). Central banker at Davos: first threat privatization of money; answer CBDC (central bank digital currencies). CBDCs provide programmable money to stay relevant amid cash disappearance, private rails, tokenized assets bypassing banks.
Banks careful: corporate CBDCs with interest/yield threaten deposits (e.g., Tesla coin at 5% vs. bank 0.2%). Existential threat.
Competition: crypto lobby wants fair competition (crypto wins). Brian Armstrong (biggest US crypto company): >> Americans should earn more on money. Banks compete on level field; if stablecoins offer more, banks pay higher rates. << Crypto wants CBDC control for higher interest, threatening bank deposits/power. Banks have more money/lawyers/influence; legislation favors banks. Crypto may overtake if regulation shifts (bigger political wallets).
Sovereigns: opposite—seat at table, control resources (energy, food, industry, security), even if slower growth. Some want isolation; others regional consolidation (Russia-Ukraine, China-Taiwan, US-Venezuela/Greenland). Russia to join Trump's board of peace, pay $1 billion using frozen US funds, broker Palestine deal for seat.
Technologists: government contracts, data, bailouts. Develop digital IDs, robots, social credit; trade data/tech with power holders.
Military-Industrial Complex: under-represented at WEF; want instability for spending enriching defense contractors (FIC proxy). Forever war model unwinding: less invasion/occupation hopefully, no WWIII.
Asset managers: programmable money. Crypto: competition. Banks: relevance. Sovereigns: control without destabilization, seat at table. Technologists: funding access. Military: enforce rules.
Overly simplified but provable. Not altruism vs. evil, but power vs. power. Personal opinion: all pre-negotiated; watching political theater (Venezuela, Greenland, Russia). Geopolitical posturing for identity (weak/strong). Algorithms drive engagement. Range of outcomes pre-negotiated. Enjoy celebration/humiliation.
Credit: framework from Simon Dixon (YouTube channel recommended, link below)—rabbit hole on topics.
Keep Andrei Jikh in your library
Save the videos and channels worth coming back to, and find them again in one place.
