Image Source: Pixabay
 

Well, more bombs from Putin yesterday.  Looks like he really is going to try and make this a cold winter.  

Things are not going to end well for Putin.  He is nuts to try and fight his way out of the situation that "he, himself, set up".  I am glad our defense guys are talking with their defense guys.  

I should mention that Nancy Pelosi announced that she is stepping down from her democratic leadership role.  She has received many accolades and deservingly so--also going out on a high note.

What surprises me these days is how far the "general press" is behind what is really going on today.  I watched Morning Joe yesterday and talking with David Ignatius and i was surprised that they were behind the curve.  They did talk about Biden in Truman-like terms, but they are way behind the chance for "world peace", a new world federation, and globanomics.

I can understand that to a point, but how hard is it to look around the world and see what really is happening.

The truth of the matter, there are only two-relatively small hotspots left to fix in the world: (1) Russia/Ukraine; and (2) China/Taiwan.  In each case, the United States military might is so more advanced than the other militaries, trying to take over these countries by force makes no sense at all.  (Although i must admit that Putin is going against what i just said).  But the final outcome of the Russia/Ukraine war is already fixed in stone.  Putin is not just fighting Ukraine any more.  He is fighting the "world".  He is causing problems all over the world with his stupid war--economically, agriculturally, energy-wise, etc.

I do think Joe and David do understand at least to some degree how dominant our military machine is over all other countries.  After all, think about Ukraine.  Everytime, Putin came up with another weapon or strategy, we countered it by "upgrading" Ukraine's capabilities.  And in the process, Putin drained his entire military and the United States didn't even have to use any part of its "military air capabilities".  Can you imagine, if we had put jets into the air initially and started attacking Russian troops.  We didn't do it, because we wanted to avoid a "nuclear holocaust".  Just the same Putin was defeated without inserting "land troops" or using Western air power.

Now come on.  Everybody should see this.  Then you have China watching this all the time, wondering how it would fair in a similar situation like between  China/Taiwan.  What do you think this Russia/Ukraine thing is telling China?

It's telling China to forget trying to take over Taiwan militarily.  A better strategy is to let time settle the China/Taiwan thing without weaponry.  Everybody should see this, too.  Our leaders view the situation the same way that i do, so why don't the press and experts take the next step and ask what such a situation would mean.

Because here is what it means.  There would be "no more hotspots" in the world to fix.  The world can begin to disarm.  We could achieve real "world peace" for the first time in humankind recorded history.  A new world federation could be set up using the principles as noted in globanomics.

One of the reasons, no one is thinking in this way other than Biden and his staff is because "no one in the press" have a fucking idea just how dominant the United States is in just about every area of consideration that you want to consider (e.g., militarily, business wise, financial wise, economic wise, education wise, etc. etc. etc.)--the America the Great thing.  

But the question is this: why don't the "wise guys" in the press know this.  I think a big part of the problem is the press has come to think of China as an "equal" competitor that might even become the "dominant" player in the world.  But there is no justification for this kind of thought.  China is a paper tiger, like i have been saying for a long time now.

None of this is very hard to see, so why are the networks and press so far behind the possibilities--you never hear the words "world peace" today.  All you hear is the opposite.  

One of the reasons why is this: no one has heard of the Electronic Global Stock Market Board (EGSB).  I don't even think the guys on CNBC have ever heard of the EGSB.  I know Fox Business has not.  Well folks, the EGSB might just be the missing link that the press and pundits are missing.  Because its the EGSB that makes globanomics and the world run in a peaceful world.  And once one has achieved dominance on the EGSB there is absolutely no reason to ever lost that dominance in a peaceful world.

Boy, there is a real negative viewpoint of humankind that we need to solve.  That negative viewpoint always exploits the "bad traits or nature" of humankind rather than "the good traits" of humankind.  We always expect our species to do the "wrong" thing rather than the "right" thing.   That needs to be fixed, even if we do achieve "world peace", a new world federation, and globanomics.  

Globanomics does not look at the human species as being "bad in nature", but just the opposite.  Globanomics says by nature, humankind is more loving than hating, more peaceful than warlike, more respectful than condescending, etc.  I am reading a book right now that somewhat talks about "chaotic sci-fi future" that i mentioned in Globanomics.  I am not too far into it, but i already am beginning to see "negative thinking" creeping in with such a future.  Humans doing "bad" things with this new freedom of power of the mind.

That is why we need globanomics.  Do no harm.  The Ethic of Reciprocity,  Love is the Highest Knowledge.  The pursuit of Happiness.  etc.  These are the rules that should help humankind shift there thinking on the "positive side" while monitoring the few conditions where humankind is thinking on the "negative side" (e.g., Putin and his war on Ukraine, weaponizing medical science, cloning, eternal life, etc.).

BTW, eternal life for humanity is in fact one of the visions of the future with world peace.  I just cannot bring myself to desire such a condition of state.  I think humanity must accept death at a reasonable age, so humanity can continue to rejuvenate itself on a regular basis.  Life forever or life to 150-years old seems unnecessary to me.  I think starting out, that medical science should address this issue upfront.  What is humankind or any kind without death?  Sounds kind of selfish to me.  

We don't want to overpopulate the Earth (we may already have) with longer life spans, that result in the decline in "new births" with new energy and new ideas that they will develop on their own.

The world and humankind will always be complicated, but the more we think about what we want the future to actually look like, the better we will be when we get there.  And it's time to start thinking in broad based terms what future we want while implementing the principles of globanomics throughout all levels of government--at least as far as they can reach from a willing perspective.

You cannot have "world peace" without the principles of globanomics.  Period.

More By This Author:

Why It's Time For U.S. Business To Pay Their Fair Share
Is China's Influence Around The World Really Growing?
The Performance Evaluation Report Card (PERC) Methodology Explained