Following Nobel Norwegians
When I first wrote Peace Economics in 1986, I had hoped to be recognized with the Nobel Peace Prize, but a friend of mine thought I should be nominated for the Pulitzer. Neither happened for a very long time as I tried various ways to get the word out. Recognition was sporadic for many years, then I finally earned a doctorate in 2009 and things started happening. In 2013 I began a press release campaign using the ExpertClick.com vehicle to reach 7000 members of the press. In five years, I’ve had 160,000 views of my 200 press releases. After two years of work on this project, I asked for my followers to nominate me for the Nobel Peace Prize in January 2016 a couple of weeks before the February 1 deadline. An old friend came through for me and I sought a second nomination to separate me from the pack of over 300 nominees. That seemed to work when suddenly something unusual happened on my website. The website shows view totals for each release whenever I check it. I check it several times a day and divide the day in thirds for my records. Suddenly the totals of all 50 of my most current releases showed an increase of one about 9am February ,2, 2016 Norway time. Apparently, I was being checked out by the Norwegian Nobel Committee. Excited, I sent them a copy of my 40-minute video with a 24-page booklet enclosed of the latest compact version of my work Peace Economics. This led to 22 views from France that had also never happened before on the WordPress.com website. I did not expect France instead of Norway, but it turns out one of the committee was working in Strasbourg, France as Secretary General of the Council of Europe. He also was educated in economics, the natural one to vet the Peace Economist. And my email preceding the video shipment had mentioned “proof of peace economics” which was one visit to the home page of my WordPress.com site in March 2016 and 21 months back to July 2014 to that press release.
Silence Before the 2017 Award
Nothing much happened after the February March 2016 initial burst of interest until the twelve days before the 2017 announcement. Then a new pattern of looking at the most recent 24 releases emerged three times, on Saturday afternoon Europe time 12 days before, Monday evening Europe time 10 days before, and the Thursday night before the 2017 announcement. This looked like two people on the five-member committee double-checking first then searching for a third vote the night before. Although the 2017 award to ICAN made some sense because of the prominence of the nuclear weapons issue thanks to North Korea and Trump, it was largely ignored by the world press. Hence some misgivings about that award would justify looking for another recipient.
Emerging Favorite with 2018 Award
This third year has been amazing as the new pattern of reading the latest 24 press releases has repeated itself about 48 times compared to twice the first year and three the second year. Despite not getting the award this year, clearly, I’ve reached the short list of favorite nominees. In the year of the ME-TOO movement of women, it was logical to give the award to activists against the use of rape as a weapon of war. Perhaps my time will come in a year of world recession or war. Cyber war, the war on democracy, the war on crime, the war on injustice and inequality, the war on climate change, the war on immigrants and refugees, the war on poverty, are all topics worthy of consideration for an award. I have shown how many of those are related to high levels of military spending. My two new scientific theories of economics and climate change all feed into the second clause in Nobel’s will about “reduction of armies” as a goal for the Peace Prize. Reducing armies’ fights poverty and strengthens the national economy while reducing tensions and making a nation more immune to attack. Clearer understanding of climate change mechanisms leads to a better understanding of both natural threat cycles and war cycles. Knowing when hurricanes tend to repeat in a geographic area leads to better preparation. Knowing when major wars tend to occur between major economic powers leads to better management of defense resources. Less uncertainty leads to lower levels of armaments. Of the 48 “hard looks” at my work this last year, the patterns are revealing. Interest starts slow and accelerates over the course of the year. In the fourth quarter of 2017 only two. In the first quarter of 2018 ten hard looks. In the second quarter of 2018 sixteen hard looks. In the crucial third quarter of 2018 twenty hard looks before the announcement. Interest in my candidacy by the committee has never been higher than right now.
Others Showing Interest Online
In the very first year of these press releases, October 2013, multiple site viewers made five views on academia.edu October 20-22 indicating interest by the Pentagon (Alexandria, Virginia) in my climate cycle theory. This makes sense because the Pentagon is worried about global warming leading to many new conflicts around the world. Then October 28-30 the CIA showed interest in my military economic theories with eight views from various sites but mostly Fairfax, Virginia.
Then Google started showing lots of interest with 76 views over five years 2013-2018, seventy from Mountain View, California. Those Google views were mostly in 2015 and 2016 with 65 in those years.
Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize 179 years after the scientific discovery of the greenhouse effect. Copernicus so feared retribution by the church that his work was not published until his daughter found it upstairs in the attic after his death. Gandhi never won a Nobel Peace Prize because he died before it could be awarded. Yoko Ono said on the 30th anniversary of John Lennon’s death that 1 million homicides had occurred in America since that day. My finding that homicide rates are proportional to a nation’s military spending percentage of the economy suggests that cutting military spending in half could cut homicides in half, saving 500,000 lives over that thirty-year period. That fact alone looks to me comparable to creating peace in a war that cost 500,000 lives over thirty years in Columbia. Using economic incentives to reduce military spending worldwide should reduce both the tendency to have war and the human cost of wars. How valuable is that? Understanding that the solar energy imbalances caused by different evaporation rates over oceans and lands affects natural disasters, economics, and wars with untold costs to humankind. Better understanding of this cycle could save many thousands of lives every year. How valuable is that? How much more important is it to change these patterns now than to wait another year or two for a timely event to justify such an award?
Ten Pages Showing 56 Power Point Frames of Key Lectures:
Please cite this work as follows:
Reuschlein, Robert. (2018, October 8), “Following Nobel Norwegians”, Madison, WI: Real Economy Institute. Retrieved from: https://www.expertclick.com/NewsRelease/Following-Nobel-Norwegians,2018162846.aspx
Dr. Peace, Professor Robert Reuschlein, Real Economy Institute
Nominated Vetted 2016, Given Odds 2017, Strongly Considered 2018 Nobel Peace Prize, Possible Favorite in 2019 Nobel Peace Prize Announced October 4th.
Contact: email@example.com, Info: www.realeconomy.com