Military Empire and Climate Cycle Views

Archive for the month “January, 2016”

Peace Nomination Respect

Some people have difficulty respecting my Nobel Peace Prize nomination.  Most cases of those claiming a Nobel Peace Prize are from the political world, rarely from the scientific world.  Science justifies most of the other Nobel Prizes and is where my strongest claim arises.  Unfamiliarity with physical science is the problem with many of my detractors.  So I am writing this press release to try to explain away the science denial holding many of you back.

Alfred Nobel’s Will

Nobel’s will states that the Peace Prize should be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding or promoting of peace congresses.”  The first and third items get most of the attention, the fraternity between nations and the holding or promoting of peace congresses.  The Hague Peace Conference of 1899 would be a good example of the latter and negotiating peace treaties would be a good example of the former.  Except for the Kellogg Briand Treaty and some of the nuclear treaties, there is little in the middle category, the abolition or reduction of standing armies.  My Peace Economics theories and models argue strongly for the reduction of standing armies due to the lack of national economic growth that comes from local military spending.

Unique Approaches

My unique approach is the next evolution of Seymour Melman’s approach to peace.  This is something I have taken out of the largely word-oriented political economy approach of Melman and turned into the hard science, numbers-oriented approach of my long term economic model based on historic economic evidence.  Ruth Leger Sivard started this hard science empirical approach with her bar charts and I took those expressions to the next level in many ways.  That innovation has made all the difference, as I chose the path less traveled.  That has led to a long list of corollaries, the most significant of which is a theory of empire.  I described how empire starts and impacts everything in the domestic social structure of society along the way.  This is a great innovation in thinking, a movement towards science and away from the more common historical description approach (history is biography) to empires.

Domestic Issue

Military spending becomes the most important domestic issue, not just foreign relation-oriented, and counter-intuitive to the widespread propaganda of military Keynesianism.  Empire theory is a virtually unheard of concept I am building up in many ways.  Finding patterns is quite different from the idea that everything in history is a unique case example.  Tolstoy is the nearest thing to a predecessor in that kind of approach.  However, I am pretty unique in taking an algebraic A leads to B leads to C mathematical approach.  It is a business approach to look at all the decision trees of all possible effects of military spending, such as internationally, regionally, a defense model, future scenarios, latitudinal models comparing several nations over a common period of time, and longitudinal modeling for one nation over a long period of time.  This approach comes from my extensive mathematical skills that have earned me many awards.

Conflicts with Various Disciplines

My interdisciplinary approach to analysis often runs counter to various disciplines.  For example, one economic department head told me that building a model from the data is “cheating”.  The correct way, according to him, is to build a model from logical precepts and then test it on the data.  That could be considered a perversion of the scientific method.  Examining data, coming up with a hypothesis, and testing that hypothesis is the correct scientific method.  However, when you have 50 equations of 3 or 4 variables each to make up an econometric model, of course it is “cheating” to fit it to the data.  The degrees of freedom assure you that any such model can be made to fit.  It turns out that is the wrong way to go.  Micro economics does not build up to macroeconomics:  they need different approaches, just as Newton’s physics is different from Einstein’s physics.  Occam’s razor suggests simpler is better.  My model has three factors for long periods of time with another two catastrophic factors for the US Great Depression and the Oil Crisis of the seventies.  Much of the time there are just two factors, the military spending and the federal deficit.  The long term factor is third, the Kondratiev Wave cycle, which has been discounted by many academics, including the head of the admissions committee of a political science department I once applied for.  And another economics department head of MIT in Cambridge, MA, called the famous developer of Systems Theory and a leading advocate of the Wave in his business school a “charlatan”.  A friend had told me about the cycle and gave me his book on it.  I did not believe it until the congressperson mentioned it while congratulating me on winning the Vice Chairman position in the Democratic Party organization in his District.  That is what I was up against developing my theory, because the Kondratiev Wave cycle is correct, not wrong or the work of a charlatan.  It worked so well that several other spin-off results came into prominence with my new model.  In my model I used the engineering/mathematical concept of a sinusoidal wave being the answer to all differential equations.

Great Development

This model is a great development, not possible without the combination of my political, engineering, and business backgrounds, and a willingness to see through the messy details to a greater whole made possible by my following five different religions at different times in my life.  That religious diversity helped me understand that there is underlying truth between the lines of various orthodoxies.  For example, the golden rule is found in all religions.  Simplicity triumphs again.  The Encyclopedia Britannica came to my aid when I discovered a nine year cycle lay in the long term model’s data.  I tested the predicted model against actual results each year and found large differences.  But the sum total of those differences disappeared every eight nine or ten years.  I learned about this Juglar cycle from the encyclopedia.

Global Warming Theory

The next great task I faced was to explain and reconcile the three great manifestations of the long cycle and its length.  Long cycle theorists varied greatly in their estimation of the length of the cycle.  Most consider it a fifty year cycle but Calleo considers it forty years, Ravi Battra thinks it is sixty years, and J. W. Forrester considers it to be seventy years.  I found the cycle to be exactly 54 years without a doubt in the industrial revolution period since 1750.    The three great manifestations of the cycle were in the three worlds of the natural cycle, the economic cycle, and the war or political cycle.  No one but me dared to think all three cycles were actually the subsets of the one great cycle.  Here the enemy was academic disciplinary silos.  Linking the economic and political cycles was problematic but relatively straight forward.  Linking the economic and natural cycles was quite difficult and took me three years to figure out in detail.  When I was done, global warming theory had met and merged with empire theory.  What also emerged was a super long cycle of hundreds of years that greatly varied in length.  This natural cycle was bounded in amplitude, hugely variant in period, and had five turning points in the last three thousand years.  This super cycle explained much of modern human civilization history quite well.  Global warming theory doesn’t exactly fit the mold of Nobel’s will, but it is a political scientific mixture like my own work, good enough to award Al Gore the Peace Prize.  Here is the link to my most googled, most popular academic article on line:

Nature of my Fans and Doubters

Jerry Rust was my earliest supporter in December 1985, offering to nominate me to the Pulitzer Committee, but I’ve never considered myself a great writer, just a great scientist in the sense of the STEM skills.  What sets Jerry apart is his practical side, as an early Peace Corps volunteer and later leader of the Hoedads, a tree planting cooperative.  You have to know your science to be a good tree planter and overseas volunteer helping others.  Then he added the political side, parallel in a rough way to my own development.  I started as a wargamer math wiz who went into engineering accounting and business before my political career.  We are both pragmatic idealists who got into politics.

Another early supporter who got me into teaching a college class was a CPA in the Beyond War movement.  Another was the founder of Radio for Peace International who got me to come to Costa Rica and later offer my course on his shortwave radio.  Always the mixture of technical skills, politics, and idealism in my key supporters, including the incoming and outgoing congresspersons in Eugene in 1986, when I published my first book, Peace Economics.

Doubters usually do not have the math and science skills I have.  When I joined MENSA in 1977, a woman who wondered why I was there later came to appreciate my skills and published a poem of mine in “From Oregon With Love, Volume II”.

This is a 90% numbers-phobic world, so my strong skew to math skills leaves many word people to doubt me.  Economics and business are so looked down upon by most in the peace community that peace economics doesn’t fit into either of the two main camps, the environmentalist anti nukes and the human rights anti interventionists.  One tormentor who headed Physicians for Social Responsibility was so focused on nuclear weapons and global warming to the exclusion of everything else, he could not see the resemblance to my work and the Copernican Revolution.  Copernicus died unpublished, with his daughter finding his work in the attic leading to his fame.  Unfortunately, many are not recognized in life but only after death, and I sometimes wonder if that will be my fate.

Another doubter recognizes my innovation but compares me to other peace writers and says I fall short.  Here again, the hidden strength of my math and science ability does not transfer well with my weaker writing skills.  To judge me by my writing is to miss the main point of my science.  New ideas are always resisted as Thomas Kuhn points out in the Nature of Scientific Revolutions.  Another doubter writes against anarchism, clearly biased against the business community I have long been associated with.

Two of my current supporters are a mathematician and an information technology professor, again, if you don’t relate well to numbers, you probably won’t understand me.  And the IT professor took a very long time to appreciate the global warming cycle aspects of my theory.  This isn’t easy stuff, or they would all understand me.  Another long time critic has a doctorate in history.  History is the field you go into if you are afraid of math requirements, because those degrees let you avoid math courses.  Number phobia strikes again, he even casts aspersions at me with the term numerology.  After 9/11 he said in a speech that Boeing stock went up.  Actually it went down, because Boeing is only part defense contractor, it is mainly a commercial airplane manufacturer.  Flying became dangerous to many after 9/11 and airplane sales went down as the airlines suffered.

Peace Prizes

The Nobel Peace Prize is one of seventy peace prizes listed on wikipedia.  Guidelines for the prize are here:  Social Science Professors, Congresspersons, and many others eligible to nominate can send their nomination here: .

Reasons to nominate this Peace Economist can be found here:

Click on the word “read” to read for free.

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace, Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin

CONTACT: MESSAGE: 608-230-6640


Nobel Peace Prize Nominee

Someone has just nominated Robert Reuschlein for the Nobel Peace Prize.  Alfred Nobel’s Will says “to the person who shall have done the most or best work …..for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and ….”  Nothing argues for the reduction of standing armies better than solid proof that military spending reduces economic growth each year by the amount of the military spending of a nation in that year.  Nothing makes a nation vulnerable to others faster than a high military stagnant economy over period of several decades.  Now is the time to add your own voice for his nomination by the February 1 deadline to get the attention of the Nobel Committee.  Professors and directors of peace institutes are qualified to nominate.  Privacy is maintained by the committee for fifty years, details below.

The First Nomination 1/24/16

Dear Nobel Prize Committee,

It is my great pleasure to nominate Professor Robert Reuschlein for the Nobel Peace Prize in Economics.  Professor Reuschlein, Known as Dr. Peace, works out of the Real Economy Institute located in Madison, Wisconsin, USA.  He is also the author of “Useful Peace Economics.”

Professor Reuschlein has worked tirelessly to expose the myths about military spending in the USA.  His body of work effectively shows that increased military spending leads to lower manufacturing jobs; also influences heath and crime statistics (negatively); and leads to a vanishing middle class; and eventually the fall of the US empire.

I believe Professor Reuschlein is deserving of your consideration.  He can be contacted by e-mail:

Very Sincerely,

Jerry Rust

Lane County (Oregon) Commissioner 1977-1997

Professor of English, Literature, Public Speaking and Culture at

Ningbo University, Zhejiang Province, China.

Jerry Rust Addenda:


Fighting Bob deserves our support.


His material is great.

Send in a nomination!


Who Can Nominate

This is the first of three sections from the official website 

The Nobel Peace Prize is open to nominations by February 1st of each year by professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes; Members of national assemblies and governments of states; University rectors; among many others.

50 Year Secrecy Rule

The Committee does not itself announce the names of nominees, neither to the media nor to the candidates themselves. In so far as certain names crop up in the advance speculations as to who will be awarded any given year’s Prize, this is either sheer guesswork or information put out by the person or persons behind the nomination. Information in the Nobel Committee’s nomination database is not made public until after fifty years.

How to Nominate

The nomination need not be lengthy, but should include:

  • the name of the candidate,
    • an explanation of why the individual or organization is considered by the nominator to be a worthy candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize,
    • and the name, title and academic or professional affiliation of the nominator.

Submission Methods

Common ways of submitting nominations include


Reasons to Nominate

This page of high accuracy correlations has eight of the thirteen key measurements within one percent of perfection.  Together with good logic and internal consistency, this makes for a compelling new way to evaluate the enormous true domestic cost of armies.  This makes the need to reduce armies especially urgent.

Here are the key statistics and relationships:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on

Here is an exciting eleven page proof of the long term military economic model:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on

Best evidence of the long global warming and war cycle:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on

Movement Building

Just as psychologists and religious people can see how the self-destructive seeds of hate consume a person, the self-destructive seeds of empire can be recognized by some but are very poorly understood by many. This gives rise to many amateur interpretations by many with the partial knowledge of just their own academic fields, philosophies, or religions.  It will probably take a very strong social movement to overcome the inertia and false ideology of empire.  Such a movement would get a great boost if Robert Reuschlein’s Peace Economics was widely recognized due to being nominated for the Nobel Prize.  Please consider doing so.

Several Nobel Prize nomination pathways are suggested here:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace, Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin

CONTACT: MESSAGE: 608-230-6640


CIA Presidents: Obama, Clinton


In the seventy years since World War II America has risen to be a mighty empire, the so-called indispensible nation towering over all nations in the world.  Eat you heart out, Rome.  As such, it has long had the strongest military in the world, devoting far more than other nations in terms of the percent of the economy or just plain outright in money.  So it comes as no surprise that presidential candidates from above average per capita military spending states won all eleven elections of the Cold War and since then the only two presidents from below average military spending states each had worked with the CIA in their college days and since.  This is poorly understood by most Americans, as secrecy even from one’s spouse is asked of agents.

The Press and the CIA

The Church Committee investigation of the CIA in the seventies exposed the deep connection between the agency and the press.  Many of the most prominent journalists in America started their careers in the CIA, and one CIA head boasted he had had close ties to 400 of the top journalists when he was in office.  There is no evidence that things have changed since then.  CIA recruitment features the same 1% type ivy leaguers that go on to dominate politics, business, and the press.  These elites know each other.  Bob Woodward and Ted Koppel were once Naval Intelligence, Walter Cronkite was OSS during the war, and Phil Graham and Ben Bradley, editors of the Washington Post, were CIA.  Stories come more easily to those with connections to the most secretive agency in the country, so these people easily rise to the top.  That Bush the father, Clinton, and Obama used the CIA to propel their careers is really nothing new under the sun.  Ford reported proceedings back to J. Edgar Hoover while on the Warren Commission, and the CIA kept Carter and his CIA head Admiral Turner out of the loop according to one Bob Woodward book.  Funny how he knew that, see what I mean?

Obama and the CIA

When Carter was elected president, Hamilton Jordan, his campaign manager, said in his book that the election would be futile if Zbigniew Brzezinski was appointed national security advisor.  Sorry about that Hamilton.  When Brzezinski retired to teach at Columbia, he soon chose this student Barack Obama as a young protégé.  The article shown below suggests Obama visited Pakistan twice in the eighties, once as a student, once working for CIA front company Business International for three years just out of college, most probably as a CIA agent. At the time Pakistan was the staging ground for mujahideen warriors against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.  No wonder Barack Obama tripled troop strength in Afghanistan in his first year as president.  He was a good disciple of Brzezinski who went on to write The Grand Chessboard about that part of the world.  So when Saturday Night Live made fun of the press fawning over Obama in 2008, they were probably criticizing members of the same intelligence fraternity:  Obama and the press.  As the famous quote in the movie “JFK” states, “once CIA, always CIA.”

Clinton and the CIA

When the CIA was looking for a place to manufacture guns for the contra war in Nicaragua, they picked a backwards state not on the border to minimize interference with other government agencies like Customs or Firearms (ATF). The $100 million annual revenue from this activity created Clinton’s claim that Arkansas had the strongest economy of any state under his leadership during that period of time, a big boost to his presidential campaign.  Terry Reed witnessed an unhappy Clinton being assured by Bob Barr that he was “number one on the list” for the position he really wanted.  That evidently meant the CIA would help him get the presidency.  By the way, the $100 million a year came from crack cocaine sales in Los Angeles as explained in Gary Webb’s 1998 book Dark Alliance and the 2015 movie “Kill the Messenger.”

For more information about the military presidency and politics:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on

Important Note:  George Bush, Sr. was also an important CIA President as a former CIA director under President Ford.  The difference then was he was elected during the Cold War and the two Democrats were elected after the end of the Cold War.  Weaponry and the military budget were more important during the Cold War, while post Cold War foreign relations were more important.  For example, MIT was the top pentagon research institution in the Cold War with its engineering orientation, while John Hopkins became number one after the Cold War with its wargaming foreign policy orientation and the CIA became more important in the new more nuanced foreign policy and terrorism world.

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin

CONTACT: MESSAGE: 608-230-6640



Here is the Progressive Review story on Obama:

The Strange Rise of Obama

Progressive Review 3jan2009

As we have noted, one of the unanswered questions about Barack Obama is how a young politician of such little achievement got so far so fast — from state senator to president in four years. Bill Blum provides new light on the subject. To understand this phenomenon, it is important to recognize that if a young Obama was vetted or otherwise used by the CIA, it was not all that unusual. From the 1950s on, the agency repeatedly interfered in the education of the talented young by recruiting or co-opting them for its own purposes. Yale’s Skull & Bones Club, for example, was a classic case of a recruitment camp for future intelligence types. The purpose — for the short run — is more information, and — for the long run — a supply of US future government officials whom the agency trusts and can use. And it often begins with a bright college student an insider thinks might fill the bill. . . .

Bill Blum, Anti-Empire Report — The question that may never go away: Who really is Barack Obama? In his autobiography, “Dreams From My Fathers”, Barack Obama writes of taking a job at some point after graduating from Columbia University in 1983. He describes his employer as “a consulting house to multinational corporations” in New York City, and his functions as a “research assistant” and “financial writer.” The odd part of Obama’s story is that he doesn’t mention the name of his employer.

However, a New York Times story of 2007 identifies the company as Business International Corporation [1]. Equally odd is that the Times did not remind its readers that the newspaper itself had disclosed in 1977 that Business International had provided cover for four CIA employees in various countries between 1955 and 1960. [2]

The British journal, Lobster Magazine — which, despite its incongruous name, is a venerable international publication on intelligence matters — has reported that Business International was active in the 1980s promoting the candidacy of Washington-favored candidates in Australia and Fiji. [3]  In 1987, the CIA overthrew the Fiji government after but one month in office because of its policy of maintaining the island as a nuclear-free zone, meaning that American nuclear-powered or nuclear-weapons-carrying ships could not make port calls. [4] After the Fiji coup, the candidate supported by Business International, who was much more amenable to Washington’s nuclear desires, was reinstated to power.

In his book, not only doesn’t Obama mention his employer’s name; he fails to say when he worked there, or why he left the job. There may well be no significance to these omissions, but inasmuch as Business International has a long association with the world of intelligence, covert actions, and attempts to penetrate the radical left — including Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) [5] — it’s valid to wonder if the inscrutable Mr. Obama is concealing something about his own association with this world.

[1] New York Times, October 30, 2007
[2] New York Times, December 27, 1977, p.40
[3] Lobster Magazine, Hull, UK, #14, November 1987
[4] William Blum, “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”, pp.199-200
[5] Carl Oglesby, “Ravens in the Storm: A Personal History of the 1960s Antiwar Movement” (2008), passim
William Blum – Homepage:

Colony Net, 2008 — In an effort to shore up his foreign policy credentials during the primary campaign, the junior senator from Illinois — then in a tight primary contest with Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania — bragged about the time he had spent in Pakistan. He argued that Clinton’s foreign policy “experience” consisted only of quick photo ops, while he had spent “quality time” with “real people.” Not only that, he had actually gone on a partridge-hunting trip near the Pakistan city of Larkana. His partridge-hunting apparently impressed the gun owners of Pennsylvania very little, inasmuch as Clinton won that primary by 10 per cent.

Eager to impress the Pennsylvania crowd with his “foreign policy experience” and knowledge of guns, Obama thus let slip the fact that he’d been to Pakistan. (It is believed that he made two trips to Pakistan.) There must have been more to that trip than meets the eye, however, because the candidate has said virtually nothing about it since. You won’t find anything on the Obama campaign site. . .

Astute readers may have begun to wonder how a struggling young college student with a divorced, middle-class mother managed to fund a three week trip to Pakistan. . . But Barry Obama-Soetoro was off shooting partridges in Pakistan, hosted by a young man named Muhammed Hasan Chandio. Chandio’s family owned a substantial amount of land in the region, and Obama apparently met him while both were students. (Chandio is currently a financial consultant in New York, and a donor to the Obama campaign.). . .

Another of Obama’s hosts in Pakistan was Muhammadian Mian Soomro, Obama’s senior by about 11 years, son of a Pakistani politician and himself a politician, who became interim President of Pakistan when Pervez Musharraf resigned in August of 2008. Soomro has said that “someone” personally requested that he “watch over” Barack Obama, but will not name that individual . . .

A trip to Pakistan is no doubt more than a jaunt to a Florida beach. Few Americans would consider traveling there now, thinking it to be a dangerous place. In 1981, when one of Obama’s possible two trips there occurred, it was less safe. Because of the war between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union, millions of Afghan refugees fled to Pakistan, which was under martial law. The Afghan “mujahedeen” fighters had bases in Pakistan, and they moved back and forth to fight the Soviets. . .

In the early 1980s, Pakistan was one of the destinations Americans were prohibited from visiting — it was on the State Department’s list of banned countries. Non-Muslims were not welcome, unless they were on official business, formalized through the embassy of the country of origin. The simple truth is that no young American would have a reason to or be able to visit Pakistan in 1981, unless he was on official government business of which the State Department was aware. . .

Adding to the mix is the fact that Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, had visited at least 13 countries in her lifetime, and had worked for companies that required travel to Pakistan. Her employers appear to have included the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Ford Foundation, Women’s World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank. Note that USAID and the Ford Foundation have (allegedly) been used as covers for CIA agents. . . .

The story of Business International also includes its 1960s joint meetings with members of SDS at the prodding of Carl Oglesby. Not everyone was happy at the idea — including Bernadette Dorn — and probably for good cause.

Obama also was one of eight students selected to study sovietology by Columbia professor Zbigniew Brzezinski who, if he wasn’t a CIA official, was as close as you can otherwise get. Brzesinski is now a member of Obama’s inner circle.

If the Obama Pakistan story sounds somewhat familiar, it may because the Review was one of the few places that reported one of Bill Clinton’s similarly interesting trips:

“1960s: Bill Clinton, according to several agency sources interviewed by biographer Roger Morris, works as a CIA informer while briefly and erratically a Rhodes Scholar in England. Although without visible means of support, he travels around Europe and the Soviet Union, staying at the ritziest hotel in Moscow. During this period the US government is using well educated assets such as Clinton as part of Operation Chaos, a major attempt to break student resistance to the war and the draft. According to former White House FBI agent Gary Aldrich Clinton is told by Oxford officials that he is no longer welcome there.”      source: 6jan2008


Here is the text from the Amazon listing of the 1994 book Compromised: Clinton, Bush, and the CIA by Terry Reed and John Cummings:

Compromised is the true story of Bill Clinton’s political sell-out to the CIA.

Clinton’s unbridled political ambitions and his campaign pledge to create “jobs for Arkansans” led him to compromise his ideals in exchange for CIA support in his bid for the Presidency.

He permitted the “Agency” to use Arkansas factories to make untraceable weapons and he allowed CIA contract agents to train Contra pilots on rural airstrips in support of the war in Nicaragua – effectively evading the Congressional ban on military aid to the Contras.

This expose unfolds through the eyewitness account of Terry Reed, a former CIA asset whose patriotism transformed him into a liability when he refused to turn a blind eye to the Agency’s drug trafficking. While helping the CIA set up its secret “black” operations, he unwittingly compromised his family’s safety, ultimately forcing them to become fugitives. Realizing that Reed witnessed the making of a counterfeit President and knew too much about its drug operations, the Agency set out to destroy him and his family.

This Arkansas-CIA connection became Clinton’s darkest secret – a secret he shared by then Vice-President Bush, who himself was compromised by his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. Their shared guilt kept them silent and tied their hands as they faced off in the 1992 Presidential election with neither mentioning Iran-Contra.

The Justice Departments of Reagan, Bush – and now Clinton – have orchestrated an ongoing cover-up of the Arkansas-CIA connection, which has gone undetected for eight years with Bill Clinton its major beneficiary. Clinton’s reward for this Faustian pact? The White House.

Reed puts Clinton directly in the “Iran-Contra loop”. Both attended a secret meeting where CIA arms arrangements, illegal Contra training and money laundering were discussed. Involved with Clinton in this cabal were Colonel Oliver North, William Barr (George Bush’s attorney general), Felix Rodriguez (Bay of Pigs veteran and George Bush’s CIA contact) and CIA contract agent Barry Seal, who used the cover of a high-profile drug trafficker to carry out his missions.

“Compromised” reveals the details and names of all who were involved, including these faceless power brokers now in positions of public prominence in Washington, D.C.

When the CIA learned Reed had more patriotism than they bargained for, forces within President Bush’s Justice Department, the CIA and the State of Arkansas decided he had to be neutralized. People close to Clinton conspired to set Reed up on false federal criminal charges, forcing him and his family into hiding. But Reed was acquitted, and now wages a one-man legal war to bring those who framed him to justice.

Found innocent by a court of law, Reed was then convicted by TIME Magazine, which aligned itself with a Clinton campaign consumed with protecting its candidate from scandals.

Why did Terry Reed, who performed intelligence services for the US Air Force, FBI, and CIA, come forward with these revelations now? – to set the record straight and to clear his name.

“Compromised” reveals one of the most clandestine operations in recent U.S. history. It also offers behind-the-scenes insights into the sordid world of intelligence, where things are seldom what they seem and powerful people disguise greed and ambition behind the convenient mask of national security.


Useful Peace Economics

People sometimes have the mistaken impression that peace economics is a fanciful concept, like world peace, that is unattainable and unrealistic. Actually peace economics is a very real and useful tool to understanding the world as it really is.

Military States

The popular notion that military spending stimulates the economy depends on a misunderstanding about high military spending states.  Yes those states do benefit from military buildups, but it is because the federal government is spending on those states much more than it is taking from those states in taxation.  Where the government takes more away in taxation, mainly the industrial Midwest, than it spends on military spending, those states suffer as much as the military states benefit.  I’m sure a very profitable mutual fund could be set up based on this principle alone.  Invest in low military spending states when wars end or the military is reduced, and invest in high military spending states or military contractors when there is a military buildup.  Adjusting a portfolio according to these principles would consistently beat the market, because the military factor is very poorly understood this way.


Cycles are all around us.  We all recognize the day and night cycle of 24 hours. We all see the seasonal cycles of the 365 day year.  More of us are beginning to recognize the nine year Juglar investment cycle recessions, especially now that the three year inventory cycle recession has all but disappeared after the eighties.  But almost none of us see the work-life long Kondratiev cycle of 54 years.  Even many of the long cycle followers see it ranging from 40 years to 70 years, leading them to think the cycle is manmade.  Investors are less interested in the long economic cycle than the long inflation and interest rate cycles that result from these economic fundamentals.  The idea that these cycles are naturally caused is very difficult for many to accept.  That the planet and the sun may be the prime cause is laughable to many.  Yet the evidence is consistent across climate change, economic change, and the major war cycle.

Best evidence of the long cycle:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on

Forecasting Short Term

Two factors under the control of the federal government dominate short term changes in the national economic growth rate.  The federal deficit puts money into the economy and causes the national economic growth rate to increase approximately dollar for dollar.  This is like using a credit card to have a good time:  the pain does not occur until the debt is paid off.  Roosevelt in 1937, Carter after 1978, and Bush after 1990 found out that reducing the deficit with tax increases led to recession.  The second factor is military spending.  When there is a substantial increase in the military spending the manufacturing economy will lower by that same amount.  When there is a substantial decrease in military spending the manufacturing economy will grow by that same amount.  Military spending is non productive so it delivers resources to local economies and adds to the deficit giving the appearance of economic growth in those areas.  But at the same time it takes resources and jobs away from the manufacturing economy reducing the economic growth rate of “high manufacturing” “low military” regions of the country.  War budgets usually avoid the pain of paying for the military in wartime, leaving a deficit lift to offset the military drop in the economy of the nation as a whole.  But regional differences are enormous and poorly understood as the negative consequence of a military buildup.  Military builddowns in the early sixties, seventies, and late nineties created national growth booms in the Great Lakes industrial states.  This led to football dynasties in Green Bay in the sixties and Pittsburg in the seventies.  The Reagan Bush military buildup of the eighties and early nineties led to the military city football dynasties of San Francisco, Washington DC, and Dallas.

Forecasting Long Term

The Kondratiev 54 year cycle shows in the American economy as a peak in the economic growth rate in 1898, 1952, and 2006.  Economic growth bottomed out in 1928, 1982, and will again in 2036. The interest rates and inflation rates will bottom out at the economic peaks and stagflation with both high unemployment rates and high inflation will peak at the economic growth rate bottoms.  Short term factors will influence these events somewhat in timing and severity.  The current low inflation and low interest rates will steadily increase in the next twenty years.  The end of the 1994 to 2021 “high growth” and “high wealth creation” period is coming to an end soon.

Reinterpreting History

Certainly humankind has had an impact on history, and that story is complex and seemingly random.  Yet certain strong threads emerge along the way, that strongly impact the timing and severity of events.  The details remain endlessly varied.  Those patterns can be recognized clearly in long term data with the proper yardsticks and measures.  There is a physical science to be found among the various social sciences.  Likewise the rise and fall of empires and decay of empires has a method to its madness often overlooked by historians.  The seventy year period of high military spending by America after World War Two has led to a steady long term erosion of manufacturing, economic growth rates, and health and crime statistics.  Lotteries and drugs have become much more popular ways to escape the misery of the vanishing middle class.  All this is the decline of empire, and moral erosion is a result of these factors, not a cause as the right wing believes.  Military spending is the prime cause.


            That this useful theory is not just another theory is shown by the accuracy.  This page of high accuracy correlations has eight of the thirteen key measurements within one percent of perfection.  Together with good logic and internal consistency, this makes for a compelling new way to look at the world.

Here are the key statistics and relationships:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on

Here is an eleven page proof of the long term model mentioned in the above list:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on

Movement Building

Just as psychologists and religious people can see the self-destructive seeds of hate consume a person, the self-destructive seeds of empire can be recognized by some but are very poorly understood by many. This gives rise to many amateur interpretations by many with the partial knowledge of just their own academic fields, philosophies, or religions.  It will probably take a very strong social movement to overcome the inertia and false ideology of empire.  Such a movement would get a great boost if the Robert Reuschlein Peace Economics work was widely recognized due to being nominated for the Nobel Prize.  Please consider doing so.

Several Nobel Prize nomination pathways are suggested here:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on

If you would like to further this cause read the following:  The Nobel Peace Prize is open to nominations by February 1st of each year by professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology, or members of national assemblies and governments, among others.  Alfred Nobel’s Will says “to the person who shall have done the most or best work …..for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and ….”  The deciding committee is in Oslo, Norway.  The Nobel Economics Prize is decided and awarded in Sweden, and the Nobel Physics Prize is decided and awarded in Sweden.  The names of the nominees won’t be revealed for 50 years.

The official website is 

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace, Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin

CONTACT:  MESSAGE: 608-230-6640


Peace and American Politics

The American people are peaceful most of the time.  Yet they are easily aroused and have a very low kindling temperature if you will.  It takes very little for America’s national security state to swing into action and gin-up the next intervention or war.  The national security state is perpetually poised to go into action, with large portions of the academic, media, consultant, lobbyist, elected official complex ready to support jingoism at the drop of a hat.


When President Reagan’s military buildup was engineered, an article in the Journal of Peace Research showed that opinion in America about military spending was about 40% before and after a two year period, 1979-1980.  But during that two year period of the presidential campaign, opinion suddenly switched to about 60% in favor of military spending.  What had begun the process was the Lewis Powell memo of 1971 that triggered resurgence on the right of pro big business advocacy.  That led to the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the CATO institute, and other largely right wing major think tanks.  Lewis Powell later went on to be appointed Supreme Court justice by President Nixon.  Cedrick Smith in his book Who Stole the American Dream? pinpoints this Lewis Powell memo as the starting point event.  But I cannot separate it from the times, when military spending was declining in the last half of the American Vietnamese War and the Peace Movement and the Civil Rights Movement were in ascendency.  Looking back it now seems that reduced military spending in the early sixties, the seventies and the nineties led to countermeasures by the military industrial complex to perpetuate itself.  That seems to be the prime reason for the largely fruitless and self-destructive wars of the last 50 years, including Vietnam, Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq.  That seems to be the prime reason for the largest peace time military buildup in American history, the military buildup of President Reagan’s first term 1981-1985.

Current Affairs

The Iraq War has destabilized the Middle East with al Qaeda and Iran moving eagerly into the void.  That and the Afghanistan War have been so disastrous that Secretary of Defense under both President Bush and President Obama, Robert Gates, has said (and I paraphrase) no more Asian Wars, you would have to be crazy to get involved in another Asian War.  Two thirds of the American people agreed with Gates not to put ground troops into combat over there.  While the right wing is eager to blame President Obama for the President Bush war aftermath and claim he took the troops out too soon, in fact, President Bush negotiated and signed the deal for complete troop withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011.  Now, a few beheadings by ISIS later, the majority of the American people are now willing to put ground troops into Asia again.

The Republican Presidential Candidates

In 2012 Mitt Romney was proposing a $2.5 trillion military buildup, and most of the current candidates on the right have similar proposals.  This includes Trump, who seems to have the biggest military buildup in mind although he seems reluctant to use the military unless it can be quick and decisive.  Jeb Bush seems to have in mind a more modest military buildup, but they all seem pretty hawkish about ISIS.  Rubio seems to be placed between Jeb Bush and Trump.  Cruz has followed Rand Paul somewhat in that he wants to restrain the civil liberties invasion by the National Intelligence Agency and excessive military spending, getting fierce criticism from Rubio.

The Democratic Presidential Candidates

Both Sanders and Clinton agree to varying degrees with President Obama’s policy against ISIS.  When Sanders came to Madison, Wisconsin July 1, 2015 before a crowd of 10,000, he spoke in favor of tuition free college and universal health care, but was largely silent on how to pay for it.  No mention about tax rates on the rich or cutting the military budget.  Since then he has called for a small tax on stock trading to fund college tuition.  Clinton has taken slightly more hawkish positions in the past, especially advising a “no fly zone” in Syria in 2011.  250,000 have died in Syria, mostly from barrel bombs dropped by the Syrian Air Force in civilian areas.  What either candidate would do with the military budget is not clear.

The Military States

All eleven elections in the Cold War period were won by high military spending states candidates.  Military spending states are determined by per capita military spending to measure the degree of economic militarism of a state.  Those states were Missouri, Kansas twice, Massachusetts, Texas, California twice, Georgia, California twice, and Texas in chronological order. All seven times low military states candidates were nominated by a major party resulted in losses.  Those were New York, Illinois twice, Minnesota, South Dakota, Michigan, and Minnesota.  Four times both parties nominated high military spending states candidates and one of them had to lose.  Those losers would be California in 1960, Arizona in 1964, Georgia in 1980, and Massachusetts in 1988.  After the Cold War, Clinton came from a Deep South slightly below average military state, and Obama came from low military Illinois, but both had clear CIA connections.  National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski taught Barack Obama at Columbia in 1981 and he then worked three years for the CIA front company Business International in New York.  During that time Obama twice went to the Pakistani staging grounds of the Afghanistan Soviet War.  The military preference for Obama showed in the fact that of the top 15 military states and DC, Obama won more delegates than Clinton in 14 of the 15.  Obama then fulfilled his campaign pledge by tripling troop levels in Afghanistan, even though he allegedly was the peace candidate.  He maintained high levels of military spending through his first term, then reduced somewhat.  This is consistent with the slow initial recovery picking up steam as the military was reduced.


            Trump and Clinton appear overwhelming favorites for their respective nominations.  But Cruz, Rubio and Bush come from high military spending states.  But New York is Wall Street.  Yet military or CIA connections are crucial to past presidencies, Texas or Florida could trump Trump, and moderate military Vermont could edge low military New York.  Has the military dominance in America finally changed post Cold War and post Iraq War?  We’ll see.

Here is a more detailed paper on the cultural dominance of militarism in America:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin

CONTACT: MESSAGE: 608-230-6640


CNN Top Stories: All Empire

The top five stories of 2015 according to CNN cable news network all have clear links to the empire theme.  The top story is the rise of ISIS, second is gay marriage, third is the Paris attacks, fourth is mass shootings, and fifth is cops killing unarmed blacks.

Rise of Islamic State

Those of us from the peace community recognize how violence leads to more violence, a vicious circle that needs to be broken.  Thus when world empire America invaded Saddam Hussein’s Iraq there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, but in the ensuing chaos their quickly arose a chapter of Al Qaeda that sought to promote war between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam.  The Sunni awakening temporarily led to improved relations in Iraq, for which the subsequent “surge” was credited.  President George W. Bush negotiated and signed a treaty of withdrawal from Iraq by the end of 2011. This led to the corrupt Maliki regime imposing pro Shia and anti Sunni military and other policies in 2012.  Meanwhile the Al Qaeda forces went into the vacuum in Syria and opposed Assad until they regained enough strength to take advantage of the negative changes in Iraq.  This lead to the birth of ISIS, the Islamic State.  Actually the Islamic State has faced setbacks on the border with Turkey, the capture of Sinjar cutting supply lines from Mosul to Raqqa, and ISIS then telling Jihadis to go to Libya instead by the end of the year. Nevertheless ISIS visibility has risen with more international terror against France, Russia, Lebanon, and America in the last months of the year.

Gay Marriage Supreme Court Decision

The main theory of empire from right wing sources is that moral decay has led to the current state of America. Tolerating gay marriage is a sign of the moral decay of America. This will lead to other signs of decay such as crime, social decay, and economic decay.  God’s wrath is working his will against America for her sins, according to this point of view.  Those who interpret the scripture from the Gospel or Jewish traditions are more likely to see gay marriage as an affirmation of God’s love coming from the simple commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself.

Here is an alternative to the right wing theory of religion and empire:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on

Paris Terror Assaults

Beginning the year with the assault on Charlie Hebdo, and ending with at least 130 killed in Paris, the terrorists have provoked France to increase its air assault on the Islamic State, even sending its only aircraft carrier.  Because of the prolonged colonial involvement (i.e. “empire”) of France and Britain in the Middle East, decades of chickens coming home to roost greet these powers in the form of terrorism.  Specifically, with French planes joining the American coalition and the Russians propping up Assad in Syria, those three countries were specifically targeted for retaliatory terrorist actions.  All three have encountered Muslims in the past and killed them in large numbers in the name of power politics.

Mass Shootings

Mass shootings of four or more individuals totaled 355 late in the year, but many were domestic family disputes.  President Obama has made up to twelve statements about mass shootings, mostly in his second term.  Research shows that five of the G7 economic powers show crime and murder rates proportional to their long term military spending levels.  Using prolonged high levels of military spending as an indicator of empire shows that crime is a function of empire.  More specifically, the San Bernadino massacre of 14 people is an example of home-grown terrorism as Westerners are portrayed as Crusaders attacking Moslems in Arabic countries.  Hence ISIS recruits volunteers based on a “war of civilizations” concept in opposition to the American empire. Mass shootings, whether internationally or domestically provoked, represent a reaction to empire or a consequence of empire.

See details in these papers:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on

Cops Killing Unarmed Blacks

The nature of our police forces have changed over the decades to include tactics heretofore reserved for our overseas forces.  Modern “shoot first and ask questions later” tactics show an adversarial indifference to the civilian communities police are meant to serve.  This strongly resembles the occupational tactics of our overseas armed forces.  Divisive politics domestically resemble the unconditional surrender tactics America has followed since World War Two.  Once again the domestic and international scenes are confused.

This paper was written and published in the week after Ferguson shooting of Michael Brown:

This second paper was written and published in the week after the grand jury refused to indict the policeman who shot unarmed Michael Brown:


As America devolves into the de-industrialized, crime ridden, controlled politics of empire, the ugly side of the news remains ascendant in CNN’s five leading stories of the year 2015.  American economists stubbornly cling to the notion that military spending has short term stimulative economic characteristics but is a long term hindrance to economics.  This “moon walking” theory is as empirically wrong as it is absurd.  Clear thinking and documentation can lead us out of this muddle, but those who benefit from the money are apparently entrenched.

Here is a more detailed power point about the stages of empire in the American situation:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read” in the middle of the bottom of the screen after you go to the above link on

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin



MESSAGE: 608-230-6640

Post Navigation