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 ExpertClick.com, 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: “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>
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: firstname.lastname@example.org
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: email@example.com MESSAGE: 608-230-6640