Military Empire and Climate Cycle Views

Archive for the month “February, 2016”

To Hillary Clinton Critics

Alleged Imperialism

Hillary Clinton’s alleged “imperialism” in an article does injustice to the woman.  Critics do not distinguish between the woman’s beliefs and her carrying out her job.  Is it imperialism to get the UN Security Council to impose sanctions on Iran and ultimately get Iran to dismantle the vast majority of its nuclear program?  I think this is Nobel Peace Prize territory to get a reluctant Russia and China to join in this peaceful effort to disarm an aggressive nation.  And it beats the heck out of the alternative strategy of bombing the facilities, so popular on the right.  As Secretary of State it would be very surprising and perhaps unprofessional if aggressive alternatives were not suggested to the Commander in Chief.  Historically Secretaries of State are hawks and Secretaries of Defense are doves, just by the nature of their jobs.  The military is a tool of diplomacy for State, and the military do not like to be used uselessly for Defense.  The Israeli positions are standard American politics like it or not.  The use of the Air Force to defend a defenseless Benghazi civilian population when the Arab League and Europe are calling for it is not THAT hawkish of a position.  The lack of a no fly zone over Syria has lead to hundreds of thousands of civilians dying in barrel bomb attacks and millions fleeing for their lives.  It even led to the creation of a safe haven for ISIS.  Is that hawkish or prudent?  That’s hard to say.

Saying Hillary “enthusiastically supported” the Iraq War is an exaggeration.  As Senator representing the American State hit hardest on 9-11, some hawkishness should be expected.  But she hoped Bush would use the authority responsibly when he had no intention of doing so.  The Downing Street Memos show bombing doubled its pace in May 2002 after the April 2002 agreement with Tony Blair to go after Saddam Hussein, half a year before the War Resolution passed.  Wisconsin Senator Democrat Herb Kohl gave that explanation for his vote when we occupied his office just days before that October 2002 vote, just one year after 9-11.  90% of the American troops going into Iraq the next year thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11.  Bush and Cheney phrased things to deliberately mislead, and many believed them.  Just like in countless wars before that one:  truth is always the first casualty in war.  I had an op-ed published explaining how Bush could be impeached for violating the terms of the war resolution, especially the lack of direct connection to 9-11 required by the resolution.  I think many Democrats hoped Bush would let the inspectors proceed.  Much later Obama/Clinton had peaceful outcomes getting the chemical warfare weapons out of Syria and the nuclear program reduced in Iran.  The duplicity was mainly Bush’s, not the Senator from New York.  Just look at the hawkishness of the other Democratic Senator from New York.  New York took the direct hit on 9-11.

I personally consider Madelyn Albright more of a hawk than Hillary.  As I have tried to explain, that’s typical for the Secretary of State. Bernie speaks in anti war generalities, but is silent about any specific cutting of the military budget on his website, using taxes instead to fund his nine itemized proposals, not a single defense cut mentioned in that section.  Other sites mention his need to keep the F-35 base in Vermont as a reason for his silence.  Similar silence about the military budget bothered me a lot on his campaign stop in Madison Wisconsin last summer.  I’ve seen so many politicians of all stripes avoid the military cut issue over the decades since the McGovern loss.

Women’s Issues                                                                                                                                

Hillary led on health care in 1994 when it was called Hillary-care.  She later led in getting the children’s health care bill passed in the Republican Congress of the late nineties, covering eight million kids.  She criticized China in China at the world woman’s gathering there.  She is supported by Planned Parenthood and the NARAL abortion rights group.  She has the support of the congressional black caucus, with John L Lewis remembering meeting both Hillary and Bill back then, but he never saw Bernie.  She has the support of every woman Democratic Senator except Elizabeth Warren who is neutral.  She has championed women’s rights all over the world as Secretary of State.  She aggressively raises women’s issues while they are mostly an afterthought by Bernie the single issue candidate against Wall Street.  She aggressively visited and defended the people of Flint Michigan just before the New Hamshire vote, while Bernie gave them lip service only.

Women have the advantages under 30, while men have the advantages over 40.  This has been true for a long time.  Older women know the deck is still stacked against them, younger women are still idealistic.  Just look at the local nightly news, young women have privileges older women do not have.  Just possibly, older women know the score and desperately want things to change, with all the benefits having a woman national leader has given to other nations.  Michael Moore notes in his new film that women leaders have changed over thirty other nations since 1979 for the better, and could do so here as well.  Replacing the male “me” ethic with the female “we” ethic has made huge differences around the world, the women leaders of Iceland told Michael Moore.  They explained that it’s in their DNA.

Hillary has helped revive the American economy by securing deals for US companies overseas.  She saw this vacuum and filled it.  That’s why businesspeople have a soft spot in their heart for Hillary.  Conservatives who say they’d never vote for Trump have not ruled out voting for Hillary, and with as many as four Supreme Court vacancies in the near future, gambling on a candidate without foreign policy gravitas could doom the Democratic ticket.  Like it or not, the American President is part Emperor also.

The two society types in this link should include male friendly and woman friendly:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read”

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

CONTACT: 608-230-6640,


Communicate Peace Economics

Although is my hub website, three others provide detailed responses to my weekly press releases.  Each of the three tends to represent a different group of people. represents the press, represents the academic world, and represents the public in general, often people I know from political activism send out links to to their friends.  To see how different these groups react to my press releases I put together a chart of the first eight press releases of 2016.

Website ExpertClick Academia WordPress WordPress
Date Name Press Academia Direct Complete
2-Jan CNNTop5 228 27 4 12 CNN Top Stories: All Empire
9-Jan PEPolitics 662 9 7 18 Peace and American Politics
16-Jan UsefulPE 618 16 9 14 Useful Peace Economics
23-Jan CIAPresidents 519 31 10 13 CIA Presidents: Obama Clinton
27-Jan NobelNomin 143 6 20 30 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee
31-Jan Respect 203 23 4 20 Peace Nomination Respect
6-Feb NorwayRes 201 30 5 15 Response from Oslo Norway
13-Feb Invade 127 40 9 17 Where To Invade Next
Totals 2701 182 68 139
Press 1.00000 -0.36940 -0.10340 -0.37359
Academia -0.36940 1.00000 -0.47038 -0.59451
Public Direct -0.10340 -0.47038 1.00000 0.74561
Public Complete -0.37359 -0.59451 0.74561 1.00000

As indicated in the above chart, the favorite of the press was “Peace and American Politics” and this also seems to be a favorite of the Nobel Prize Committee.  The favorite of the academics is Michael Moore’s new movie “Where To Invade Next” although least popular with the press.  The favorite of the public is “Nobel Peace Prize Nominee” although least popular among the academics and second lowest for the press.  So each group has very different tastes and prejudices.  Overall, according to the correlations, the public and academics are the most different.  The second biggest disparity is between the academics and the press.  The press and public were closest in taste.  The disparity in numbers comes from the press going out to 7000, while the academic peace and justice list serve goes out to 750, and my local list is about 250.  Also, the press list is direct, while the academic list largely comes from academics who read a press release and then pursue further information with a link on the bottom of the page.  The public list mostly comes from those on my personal list and some academics who send out a link to their friends and followers.  People I meet at conferences or on the street and random googles can add to all of these totals.  The two publics come from those who directly link to a new release and those who look at a variety of releases in that week that starts with a new release.

This second chart shows how well each release appealed to the various audiences relatively.

The strongest overall result comes from the direct public for the “Nobel Peace Prize Nominee”.

Press Academia WordPress WordPress Average
ExpertClick Academia Direct Complete
CNN Top Stories: All Empire 8.4% 14.8% 5.9% 8.6% 9.4%
Peace and American Politics 24.5% 4.9% 10.3% 12.9% 13.2%
Useful Peace Economics 22.9% 8.8% 13.2% 10.1% 13.7%
CIA Presidents: Obama Clinton 19.2% 17.0% 14.7% 9.4% 15.1%
Nobel Peace Prize Nominee 5.3% 3.3% 29.4% 21.6% 14.9%
Peace Nomination Respect 7.5% 12.6% 5.9% 14.4% 10.1%
Response from Oslo Norway 7.4% 16.5% 7.4% 10.8% 10.5%
Where To Invade Next 4.7% 22.0% 13.2% 12.2% 13.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


The next two strongest results come from the press interest in “Peace and American Politics” and “Useful Peace Economics” followed by the academic interest in the Michael Moore movie “Where To Invade Next”  The extremely low interest in “Nobel Peace Prize Nominee” by the press and academics stands in stark contrast to the high public interest in the same.  That reflects my personal experience as my radio host wanted to go with me to Oslo if I win and the UW alumni office wanted to announce my success in the coming summer newsletter.  Yet the academics gave me no encouragement, just a snarky comment by a self important academic that the nomination meant nothing.  But I did get one encouragement from another Peace Education Institute attendee where I spent a week in Toledo last summer.

Nobel Peace Prize Watch

Continuing unusual activity on my websites reveal intense scrutiny and vetting by the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee.  Until now, the activity has all been on, but Thursday February 18, someone looked at one of my papers from Ekero, Sweden, 47 minutes from the Nobel Museum in Sweden. It came at 2:23pm Swedish time and was on the paper “POLITICAL Military Presidency”.  This was just two days after an unusual 10 views on the press release called “Peace and American Politics” February 16, 2016.  Most views come in the first month, slowing down after a hot start.  One week into the second month views seldom exceed one or two a day.  Press releases have a hot three day start, then slow down.  That fourth day Tuesday showed a 40% increase over the second and third day.  Also, the pattern looked like someone reading to evaluate me and the writings rather than to just enjoy the readings.  All this came after a Sweden entry on the same paper February 10 at 10:53am Swedish time.  Both viewings came from one of my 67 followers on the site.  This also comes at a time when I’m in the top 3% on academia.  The idea that the Nobel committee was watching me hadn’t occurred to me before.  Apparently this goes back to long before I was nominated.  I know the Pentagon and the CIA are aware of my work, and Google seems to go to academia nearly every time I issue a press release lately, with over 30 contacts from Mountain View in the last six months or so.  In addition to the “Peace and American Politics” burst last Tuesday seemingly coming from Scandinavia, “Peace Economics, Only Way,” “Low Level Military Defense,” “Solstice and Peace Shopping,” “National Security State,” “Reuschlein World View,” “Peace Is Very Hard to Sell,” “Violent Change Period Cycle,” and “First They Ignore You, Then” were all showing high levels of interest for old press releases.

Here is the 24 page booklet included with each of my video dvds:

Hint: to read this paper for free, you must click on the tiny word “read”

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin

CONTACT: 608-230-6640,


“Where to Invade Next”

This brilliant new movie by Michael Moore may be his best yet.  Michael sets out on his tour of Italy, France, Finland, Slovenia, Germany, Norway, Tunisia, and Iceland after meeting with despondent Pentagon generals tired of losing wars.  In the process of reclaiming America’s lost history he shows how the American Dream is alive and well overseas.  He discovers eight weeks of vacation per year, nutritious school lunches, little homework in the best K12 school system on the planet, cost-free higher education, worker controlled corporations, rehabilitation oriented prisons, a woman’s revolution in an Arabic country, and countries transformed by female executives from “me” oriented to ”we” oriented.  The only thing he doesn’t do is explain why America has become such a backwards country lately.

When he asks the Norwegians why they have such a humane penal system, they cite the US constitutional proscription against “cruel and unusual punishment”.  He then goes on to cite the State of Michigan in 1846 as the first English speaking government on the planet to abolish the death penalty. When in Germany, he points out how Germans teach the school children the dark history of the Holocaust, and even shows plaques in the cement remembering each Jewish family that once lived in a house before being taken away.  He notes that we do not teach the genocide against Native Americans nor the building up of much of America by slaves. The history of the US women’s movements is also missing from US schools. In Iceland he interviews a female executive who points out that one woman on a board is a token, two is a minority, but with three or more the nature of the board of directors changes.  The only bank that survived the recent collapse of banking in Iceland was run by women.  The economy there is back stronger than ever and the legislature is not allowed to have more than 60% of either men or women.  He cites the more than thirty countries that have had a woman leader and how that transforms a country.

How America Regressed

Michael Moore shows scenes in his movie of prisoners being brutalized, the black man in New York whose last words were “I can’t breathe” over and over again as he is being killed by police assault, and the tanks advancing on the marchers in Ferguson Missouri.  Here is the link to my most visited article on my website about how we got that way:

Like the tale of the frog that will jump out of a pot of boiling water, but will stay and boil to death if the heat is gradually raised over a long period of time, America did not get this way overnight.  The tale of the emergence of the modern American empire was at once sudden and gradual.  Some have cited how the prosecution of a pro Nazi priest from Croatia by the Soviets was reported as religious persecution in the West.  The 1947 Paris conference was instrumental in changing European attitudes of revulsion towards war after the World Wars to fear of the Soviets as 2000 US journalists descended on that conference.  Then there is the history of the 1947 National Security Act passage, which renamed the Department of War the Department of Defense and created the Central Intelligence Agency.  This Act overturned centuries of American military tradition to keep a small army between wars and depend on volunteers to fight wars.  This Act violated the Founding Fathers’ fear of a standing army and launched the age of the American worldwide empire that now has some 800 bases worldwide in about 130 countries.

Consequences of Empire

Michael Moore, like most of American society and even much of the academic world, doesn’t understand the direct link to high levels of military spending as the prime cause in America’s economic, political, and social decline.  Even great writers like Seymour Melman have only an imprecise understanding, providing strong evidence but lacking in a precision model like the one I have created, that shows military spending is the key domino in the chain of effects.  Most analysts, lacking clear and convincing evidence, resort to anecdotal accounts to explain modern empire.  They do not establish a strong chain of causality from one inference to the next.  Philosophers, Physicians, Nonviolence Experts, and Conflict Resolution Experts all seem to have a partial monetary, violence, and international relations-related understanding of the nature of military spending.  Few of them see the withering away of economic strength that is the direct result of high level of military spending maintained for long periods of time.  The real genius of what I have done is in the nuts and bolts of establishing the various tentacles coming from the octopus of non productive military spending.  Manufacturing and Regional Effects are poorly understood and rarely related to the political machinations.  Social consequences of empire are also seldom directly connected to the prime overall cause of high military spending.  The right wing often inverts the causal chain suggestion that moral decay leads to the other decays, but the negative implications of the high military spending stagnant economy lead much more directly to the moral decay.

Here is a broad description over time of the consequences of empire, the twelve stages:

Episodes of Empire

Nature and global warming also have a big role to play.  The 54 year cycle is too easily misunderstood and ridiculed by looking at only part of its effects.  Only by showing the deep natural roots of the cycle and connecting the natural, economic and political phases of the cycle together is it possible to show there is no alternative to understanding those cycles.

Here is my presentation to the World Future Society:

Here are some key statistics and relationships:

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

CONTACT: 608-230-6640, INFO:

Response from Oslo Norway

A second Nobel Peace Prize nomination was emailed to the Norwegian Nobel Committee just five hours before the deadline of midnight Oslo Norway time on February 1st.  Then something extraordinary confirmed interest in my nomination.

The main source of information about my work these last two years has been, which sends out emails to 7000 media people who are on their list.  Total viewings this way of my 115 press releases was up to 57,500 on February 1st.  My personal website on this vehicle shows the six most recent press releases, so people often add to their interest with the next four after seeing the most recent one sent out.  Then if they really like my stuff, they look at the whole list of press releases and sometimes read or look at fifteen, twenty or thirty right down the page, clicking on each, one at a time. My account management records show the totals of the most recent 50 press releases.

People tend to pick and choose, so after the first five or so they may take a break and then pick and choose from the longer list.  So when the second nomination email came in just before 7pm Oslo time the night of the deadline, they apparently looked at the first five most recent releases immediately.  Then sometime between 8am and noon on Tuesday February 2 Oslo Norway time, someone looked at 45 press releases in a row.  This indicates serious Nobel Committee interest.  In two years time no one has looked at more than 37 in one day, and always with a pattern of pick and choose with many gaps in the record.  Only seven were in the thirties this way.  Never even close to 45 in a row.  So someone had decided to look at my whole press release record.  That is a sign of being taken very seriously.  There may be 290 nominations, but how many are nominated a second time?  A few dozen at most.  So with several top contenders, I’m not that far off the intense scrutiny list.  I may not win this year or the next, but at least I’m in the queue for further consideration in years to come.

The Second Nomination

From:    Anonymous Professor

To:       “” <>
Date:     Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:49 AM

Subject:   Nobel Peace Prize Nomination

Nobel Peace Prize Nominee
… concerning Professor Robert Reuschlein

Dear Nobel Prize Committee:
It is my great pleasure to nominate Professor Robert Reuschlein for the Nobel Peace Prize.  Professor Reuschlein, Known as Dr. Peace, works out of the Real Economy Institute located in Madison, Wisconsin, USA.  He invented the term “Peace Economics” in 1986.  He is also the author of “Peace Economics” and “Real Economy” with the following one page summary of key findings:
Professor Reuschlein has worked tirelessly to expose the myths about military spending in the USA and around the world.  His body of work effectively shows that increased military spending deprives the economy of capital investment and manufacturing productivity and negatively influences heath and crime statistics.  Alfred Nobel’s Will calls for “to the person who shall have done the most or best work for” “the abolition or reduction of standing armies”  Nothing argues for the reduction of standing armies better than solid proof and rigorous argumentation 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 a period of several decades.  In the long run this excessive militarism is leading to the fall of the US empire.

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

Anonymous Professor

Reasons to Nominate Robert Reuschlein
State of the world modeling reasons:
1)The Reuschlein model of the US economy for the last eighty years of the twentieth century is correlated with actual data 99.9% based on military spending reducing economic growth dollar for dollar.  The model includes deficit spending as a stimulus and has Kondratiev 54 year cycles and Juglar 8 to 10 year cycles.

2)Crime dropped about in half in the nineties, but most criminologists don’t have a good explanation.  Reuschlein’s “social decay of empire” model explains that crime is proportional to military spending, so when military spending dropped in half (as a percent of the economy) during that period, so did crime with a time lag of the time it takes to raise a child.

3)Global warming panels like the IPCC in 2013 could not explain the 15 year pause after 1998, but the Reuschlein model does.

Brief summary of the Reuschlein models:
This page of correlations has eight of the thirteen key measurements within one percent of perfection.  They make a compelling new way to evaluate the enormous domestic impacts of military investment and related opportunity costs.  They also present the need to reduce armies as especially urgent.

Here are the key statistics and relationships:

Here is a detailed eleven page proof of the long term military economic model:

Best evidence of the long global warming and war cycle:

This graph completed the month after Hurricane Sandy in the US in 2012:

(End of second nomination letter by a professor who wishes to remain anonymous.)

Professor Robert Reuschlein, Dr. Peace,

Real Economy Institute, Madison, Wisconsin

CONTACT: MESSAGE: 608-230-6640


Post Navigation