50 Nation Peace Plan (Part 4) Rewilding and creating economy.

The UK and the EU remaining on the best terms is important for world peace.

Leaving the EU on good terms is the only good option for the UK. A deal whether it is good or ok or not enables the UK to leave and maintain a sense of connection and continuity both to a good future relationship with the EU and the countries within the UK. Leaving without a deal is leaving on bad terms, running away without paying? It’s really not an option that can in any way be good for either the UK or Ireland, Scotland or Wales, or the EU or the rest of the world. A no-deal scenario is putting principle before anything logical. It is as misguided as politics can possibly go and would disrupt everything more than can be adequately seen from the vantage point of today. So  Whilst there are all the business angles to that, there is far more. It’s about really the Uk either leaving the EU as a trusted future partner or as a disrupter. As a disrupter to the EU that then the further rings that flow out would cause more of a difficult time in an already difficult time. A good deal provides the best way to cooperate of many issues that caused the Uk to want to go from the EU in the first place.

 The UK leaving the EU on bad terms would create conditions where there are all the EU countries on one side and the UK on the other. That then creates internal pressures within the union of the UK as countries within the UK already have democratic differences on the subject of leaving the EU in the first place. Leaving under conditions that are bad for anyone or all of the countries would be I believe a risk not worth taking. So therefore, for want of a better example, better to lose the battle and keep the peace.

Maintaining the goodwill and peace between the UK countries and the EU is by far the politically sartest position for another reason. Brexit is a risk, there is no denying it and the circumstances have changed so very much since that referendum vote was taken. The unforeseen consequences of Brexit have already been many and then the unforeseen consequences of the pandemic even more so. Essentially the way the UK and the EU is today could not have even been vaguely guessed at by voters at the time of the referendum. So if good relations are maintained by all parties then there is always the chance to either renegotiate aspects of the deal with the consideration in mind that the EU wants and needs a strong UK too for so much of it’s economy firstly and secondly if there were any more unforeseen circumstances then at least there is the option of being able to have another referendum and re-join the EU. If on the other hand there are major gap in the agreement that never get resolved and if this causes issues and loss of jobs and adds to socio-economic difficulties and is essentially the whole journey into Brexit is simply not working then at least there is the option to vote again. So whilst I was in the reaain position, I did come to accept the results of the referendum.

However, politics requires adapting to the evolving conditions of the wider world and what made sense to many people at that moment in time and what makes sense today or tomorrow could be very different. If an okay or good deal is obtained and there is an acceptance of that and the UK leaves the EU amicably then and only then will Brexit have proven to be a viable option for the Uk without incurring major loses. So the truth is that nobody really knows if Brexit was actually a really good idea or even a viable idea under today’s conditions, we just do not know until the UK is out of the EU and trading in a new way.

All the big issues of the UK and Eu are similar. So ongoing cooperation is the best way to progress.

Learning from history of when there are countries seperated from others and why this should be avoided.

Building a narrative for ongoing great relations between the Uk and the EU is really important and finding a good deal can help unite everyone in a new paradigm of mutual cooperation.

What happens when one country seperates from all the others though is not without risks. Countries can create “them and us” narratives and this is never helpful. It’s always better to find ways to inter-dependency, win-win narratives and cooperation. The future being good for us as it’s good for you. This is the essense of what is required currently in the Armenia and Azerbajan situaion. There needs to be a really, really good peace strategy created so tht both countries and people including those in the areas under question have a new good clear roadmap forward. A truce is good for thinking time, yet that thinking time should be used very well and strategists brought in to really understand the complexities of that particular situaion. Every peace deal and roadmap to peace is different, yet al have the common thread of seeing possive good will gestures as essential ways to keep the conversation rolling. The situaion there is making years in the making and therefore, there should be some patience in working to generate a roadmap to peace.

Trauma in past politics if handled badly can create more issues and complexities. It can create situaions where everyone has to wonder how we all got into this situaion in the first place. Differences between countries and bad deals for one side inevitably become bad deals for all sides unless handled effectively and imporved upon. The making of a peace roadmap to any scenario should be seen as a process. Good will gestures going beyond past issues. 1000 reasons to welocme talks and new creativ einput does prevent one or two issues becoming more contentious than they need to be.

 Whilst Edward Bernays created what became known as Public Relations, was responsible for consumer culture and debatably has been the most influenctial man of decades in how he entained collective thinking. He was the nephew of Sigmond Freud. He was the first marketing man for the fields of psychology, sociology and many other fields. However, it’s highly likely that the work of Freud and Bernays was used firstly to manipulate people into the political landscape that caused the invasion of many countries includng Poland in the 1940s.

However, it was also Bernays who acompanied President Wilson to Germany after the war. From that the narrative of freedom internationally has been created. So the fields of pychology can be used either for possitive means or for manipulating people to think in ways they never nomally would under different circumstances. What prevents at every stage negativity being projected agains one group of people or another are Good Will gestures. It breaks the victim/tyrant mindset within people to become something more of a mutual understanding of each others position. Seeing situaions from both or all sides is so important to keeping and building peace and good relations.

In a way their is only one example in modern European history of one country being put into in a very different position to the other countries in Europe and that was with the economic reparations after WW1. The result of this would goo on to affect every country in the world for decades afterwards. It can be well debated that had there been a better post WW1 situaion for Germany then that would have prevented a second war, which was actually predicted by an MP at the time the post WW1 deal was done. Essentially b putting down any one country, creates hostility. Where that all goes and ends up is not easy to even know or guess. However, the implications can last for decades and affect even the entire worlds population. So therefore, getting a good deal between the UK and Eu that keeps relations good in the UK and the EU is essential posibly not only to just EU and UK interests but to world interests in ways that we cannot see or percieve from todays vantage point.

How wrong can a bad, one sided deal actually go?

The unfair deal for Germany after the peace brought after the war, which many on all sides admitted, caused resentment and paved the way to so much discontent it resulted in providing the socio-economic political conditions taken advantage of by Nazi’s to use years later to obtain power.

The fuller picture of the issues of WW1 and WW2 are that many countries blamed Germany for WW1. Germany did not see itself as the loser of the war yet more as the victim of other countries and then built a power base by blaming particular groups of people for causing the problems. From the continual “blame” and through bully tactics and feasibly the reading and use of Freud’s work in psychology. The German people were coerced through propaganda to comply to a regime that at the time few understood until they were inside a situation they could not get out of.  The result of this would be so much suffering for people and there was little way once in the situaion to do anything other than comply. It was a case of see things from this perspecitve or suffer, even when people knew the perspecive was causing increasing amounts of chaos.

However, for most people they only began to realize just how badly they had been manipulated towards the end of the war and then after the war.  There are images of German soldiers clearly traumatised watching film footage of concentration camps. So all the way through the second world war the people in Germany and the soldiers had no true perception of what had really been going on. That is how people can be manipulated by their leaders and the media if they are not incredibly vigilant and actually question everything. By the time the people participating in creating the situation knew what was going on it was too late. However, they did know in the end.  

So to ensure that these types of events never occur again where both the victims and the oppressors became the victims in the end.

It’s crucial to see the good in other people. To look beyond labels and perceived paradigms. To see through propaganda. Just because enough people think in one way does not make that the correct way. It’s really important to seek to see things from other peoples perspective and retain a real sense of awareness and humanity however we think and feel. WW2 was a knock on effect directly of the trauma of WW1. We have the ability to be able to see that now in ways that at the time they could not. They were so stuck into that evolving reality and there were no previous events to be able to draw reference from. We can be better than that today.

So being aware of others and preventing doctrines that divide people combined with the side that was in some ways the victim, wearing that image and shaping politics around that. So today we have to see how courses of events that do put people onto different sides can create a “divide and rule” situation.

So with this in mind it’s really essential to create deals that work for all sides and not try to use proessure to create one sided deals. That is what occured before and that can affect global politics for decades. So it is in the interests of both the EU and UK to make a good and a fair deal both for the people of the UK and the EU. In addition, it’s important for the countries of Armenia and Azerbajan to do the same, come up with a deal that works for all. For the EU and Turkey to think in these ways too. Building peace is the same as building a wall of stones. The better the stones fit together without the use of a binding agent the stronger the wall is and the longer it will last. So placing precarious pieces into a peace deal makes for a weak peace deal. We have instad to find ways to not just make a peace deal okay between countries, we can start with that, but really try to turn peace deals into imporvement plans for both countries and regions and other countries and regions too.  

Hindsight is always easy to see later and adapt. Societal hindsight can require years or decades after any situation. That is why foresight is so vitally important to politics.  However, foresight is typically treated by limited thinking people in power as unproven speculation, yet how many times have these types of people been proven wrong in the past. So the ability to have foresight and this being listened to and discussed in the media is the best way for us to find a good path forward in this world. Without broad perception, people perish and countries get stuck in the doldrums.  

Whilst more than 50% of people voted to leave the EU approximately the same amount of people considered an invasion of Iraq was justified at the time. Today if the same questionnaire was done on Iraq there certainly would be very few that believed that decision was in hindsight a good decision. So the truth is that both small and very large groups of people do make misjudgments in how they think and this is a part of the process of democracy and yet to enable democracy to work effectively does require providing a voice to all perspectives. The book “Wisdom of Crowds” cites where in the past large groups of very intelligent people have overlooked information and made really wrong decisions. One example of this was the space shuttle in the mid 1980’s. There had been a voice that had cited the possibility of the actual cause of the accident and was not listened to at the time as they based safety upon an estimated percentage of perceived risk rather than all suspending judgment at the time long enough to fully consider what the voice outside of the group paradigm was actually saying.

So having the foresight and using that foresight well, in hindsight frequently does not occur. This is similar to what occurred with Iraq although then there were very strong voices and a case presented and agreed upon very widely of not going into that war with the largest protests in history at that time. 

What’s clear to see today with hindsight is that the scale of the implications of Iraq are so broad and so global that the greatest certainty of what occurred in Iraq was that that really is not how to do International relations.

Integrated Strategy documents where it began.

A few months prior to the Invasion of Iraq, the first “Integrated Strategy document was sent to the UK government. The Integrated Transport System document” This presented how to solve London’s transport crisis which the Prime Minister openly cited that he did not have an answer for at the time. The document was applied and used, and yet the truth of the originator of that document being myself and my partner was never presented in the UK press. 74 major concepts from the work were used. We were not paid, the work was copied during the course of the next four governments.

Yet it was the copying the use and the application of that in London that provided me with the knowledge to know that these Integrated strategy documents work in practice. It was only from that that I was able to draw upon the insights to know that if they can solve a seemingly “Impossible to solve transport crisis” then the same methodology could be applied and used end a seemingly “unsolvable diplomatic crisis that was otherwise inevitably going to lead to a war, possibly a world war and this was what the next generation of “Integrated Strategy document” was able to help prevent.

However, President Trump and his administration used my document well for building peace. In contrast Tony Blair used some of it, but only in terms of transport. Prime MInisters Brown, Cameron and Johnson all benefited from the work, and so this gave us the findings to know that the concepts work.

 The government used the document by for solving the transport issue for London and asked could you write a document that can provide an answer to the diplomatic situation with countries including Iraq, then the situation in the Middle East, EU and Uk today could be different, however at that time the value of “Integrated Strategies” I knew myself, yet could not adequately communicate this. I had already generated one for climate change.

So the transport one was written as an example of how one of these documents could provide a structured method to solving a very complex issue such as how do you improve mobility in a large capital city when all existing transport modes and running to full capacity and the roads filled with vehicles. It was no wonder that there had been this question of their being no clear way forward as there was seemingly no space available, buses, trains, taxies, cars, lorries all running to full capacity. So it was the incremental answer of many small new adjustments and measures that work both with transport, lifestyle and climate change needs combined that was the answer then and that is a model of what every Integrated Strategy has been to date. Solving the problem in a new way and simultaneously feeding in environmental and people benefits. 

Whilst the Uk government must have perceived my work as a catalogue of good ideas, it was more than that. It was really about the entire theoretical process in which these ideas had been formulated. They were looking at the food on the plate and not considering at all the process of how it got there.

So as they saw the document only a sa a collection of ideas, ideas are ripe for copying and using. So what was actually missing was firstly the fully correct use, secondly the valuing of the methodology. If it was possible to greatly improve the transport system in this way, the same prcess could be used and applied for anything. Thirdly, the full potential of the idea was something inside of me that I just have tired to communicate for years. As I try to explain what this “thing” is in terms of conceptual methodology it just was not perceived. So over the years I have just reapplied the formula in order to provide a way to solve as many world problems as I could. Her in this document I put many of them together in brief, however there is much more content on each of these answers. I felt the more I tried to explain, write, present, talk about this the more people would not quite get the actual formula methodology I’m using they would simply think that’s a good idea and go and borrow or adapt the idea.   

Trying to progress with this.

I have had to spend almost every day since then in 2004 trying to get the correct use and application of this work used and yet have watched with interest how the concepts did come into being and then did actually solve issues and improve transport and therefore peoples lives. The improvement to actually faster and more efficient mobility for everyone in London did not come at a cost to the environment but as a benefit. Being able to see that being stuck in traffic can be slower than walking and much slower than cycling. This being especially so when there are added facilities to help cyclists in the city. 

Whilst there have been benefits to the use of the work and I could cite dozens of these, the “full science” of this work remains thirty years into this largely unknown and un-recognized. The amounts of spin offs from both the work used and the work being increased in its original form have essentially produced an ongoing experiment and improvement process that has been playing out in the real world and yet the dots of how this has all been occurring has never been getting actually fully perceived.  Moreover, the use of the work although that is known in many cases has never been attributed correctly to the right source for many years people would be picking up using and providing new, adapted an din some cases improved meanings to words and phrases we would readily make up and apply to the attempted presentation of this. A good example of this was Plan B For Copenhagen. There is no Planet B emerged from this. The Plan B we were talking about was the “Integrated Strategies” content being used together as an alternative answer that trying to obtain multilateral agreement. 

Another example of this is “Green Deal” which was a concept which originated in that first “Integrated Transport Network” document. David Cameron then used this as a slogan and created various initiatives in the context of that and yet the full concept of what the Green Deal is and how and why it can benefit everyone in its original form is not widely known. However, today that has progressed onto being New Green Deal, which was an adaption of our original concept of there being a win-win deal we are all a part of, that benefits the environment through a multi=prong approach across a great many industries.

The use and improvement of ideas is fine, however when the originator is trying to communicate an actual methodology that is generating these ideas and repeatedly trying to do this is quite tiring when this has been a repeat pattern for thirty years.   

The situation the UK has since been through Prime Ministers from Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson

. To have your work copied is in some ways a compliment, yet when the copied version is thousands of percent less effective than it otherwise could be then that is complimentary and debilitating simultaneously and when that is over the course of decades it makes more of a difference. Yet, today where all the pressures of what was “normal” life is jeopardized  by so many pressures, not using the best structural thinking methods to provide new and realistic solutions is misguided and misjudged beyond the best abilities I have to even be able to explain here how and why. The human race is struggling in too many ways today. We can find ways to make things easier for more people through this.

There is a new paradigm which can be jumped onto whilst that certainly does not change other paradigm it just simply generates new answers to the biggest issues much faster more efficiently.  A paradigm, a set of tools, methods and technologies to help generate new answers and reduce many of the pressures, needs and requirements of today’s world. Seeing this work in the context of anything in the past is simply wrong. Never before has there been a methodology created that can simultaneously generate answers to so many of the world’s most complicated issues on a continuing and ever expanding basis. Holding this work back could be like stopping the electricity supply to silicon valley. What Silicon valley is to computer advancement this work is feasibly to every other form of advancement in times of ecological, social and economic balance that has been lost in recent years.

 Metaphorically speaking,  What The Taj Mahal and El Alhambra are to physical structure, this is to conceptual structure. Whilst those buildings can protect a few thousand, this can and has protected significant proportions of the world’s population.

Yet, all too frequently these “Integrated Strategies” have been seen as just a collection of good ideas ripe for using where seen appropriate and relevant. Yet, taking a few good ideas from a system that generates good ideas as a part of a production process, yet not perceiving the production process as being of validity is a travesty of wasted opportunity.

This is why as some of the ideas of this work have been getting known and applied, there is always a reserve and portfolio of this work building and so there is today enough strategies and content to fill many books. This is unknown data. This is not due to anything other than the methodology I use and this can be learned. If this method was applied by many then answers to so many issues in the world would be more readily perceived. The answers that exist more effectively supported and instigated, in pretty much every situation. 

In terms of what the 50 articles and two books I have written provide answers for it is all of the main problems in the world. If these were applied then the process of doing that would answer a many more.

It is little wonder that this work has attracted the interest and the use of leaders to solve issues and that this I’m sincerely appreciative of. These are issues that have never been resolved for really two reasons. Firstly method, ie “Integrated Strategy” secondly that people generally are not attuned to sitting and thinking about a subject full time for up to three months at a time.

However, the use of this work whilst improving the quality of politics and diplomacy today is still a way to go before being fully realized and yet it’s needed fast and yet there really is so much to this work. . Essentially we live in a world where there is “a conceptual science” operating that is improving politics and yet so few actually know or fully appreciate what has been really going on. I have found myself in a unique place, caught between the different interests of different countries and trying my best to provide genuine answers for all.

Whilst various countries would like me to present my work from one perspective or another more so, it just works better if it is with the full and genuine intention of helping all.  I’m essentially providing is apolitical philosophy for the benefit of all. How that then gets used and applied is completely beyond my control as the media have not been helping to represent, critique or provide insight to the ways in which the work has either been used, how it can apply to a current issue or how it can help reposition for a more optimum position in future.  

This work has grown to function Internationally as in the UK it has only used this in a few ways and never presented as generating a single coherent system to meet the needs of a particular issue. 

From 2004 onwards there was a realistic economic and political theory that could have propelled the UK to being the most advanced country in the world in terms of the creation of the green economy, this opportunity was taken up enough to essentially produce “proof of concept’. The entire greening that could have occurred and positioned the UK and then Europe ahead of other regions was not taken up coherently and was effectively given to Asia as they filled many niches that the UK chose not to utilize. However, neither did Asia use this to it’s full capacity, so there are latent opportunities in many countries that are some way towards the potential of this in their own countries and yyet not a single place applying anywhere near all of this content.  

 In Asia seemingly, they looked more at the environment issue as both an opportunity and as an inevitable evolution that would occur across all business and all societies. Europe too, yet again the thinking and rethinking the processes of how you can convert “small local green thinking” and extrapolate that type of thinking onto very large groups of people like countries and continents in a way that is creating benefits and advantages to all through the instigation is a science, a paradigm of society of business of humanity. The consideration is that the more progress that gets made, the more progress gets made. With the whole greening of the environment there was a situation where for many years it was who is going to go first, we will if you do, we will in this way and not that way. Yet, now that’s all changed where there is an acceptance that the green transformations that can occur can be generating massive benefits and advantages to a country in the process of becoming greener. It is simply a case of a great many adaptations rather than massive changes. How to make those adaption’s and create benefits and improvements on the way is a creative process and what is so wonderful about this is that nobody actually has all the answers. It’s simply a case of being willing and able to be able to create templates for people to be able to use and benefit from participating in. There are changes in the world and the realization has dawned that actually the ideas written in the bible of land and regenerating the land are just as important as is mentioned.

There was incredible wisdom in the past and this is true whether people follow a particular faith or not. The wisdom in all of these books is as important today as ever and yet the difference is today we have the scientific measuring equipment to prove the logical written. When passages of leaving ground fallow to regenerate were read in the middle ages, the people may not have known then why that was so important. Yet today we can physically see the soil and measure the productivity and it’s as simple as this if we do not preserve and regenerate the soil then we do not produce the scale of healthy food required. It’s the same as putting oil into an engine. It’s equally important to regenerate the land. This they knew 2000 years ago and that knowledge is more than common sense it’s scientifically proven common sense as much as the teachings of so many holy books. So adapting back to recognizing the bond and link to the Earth which was perhaps first lost when the Monasteries were closed an destroyed by Henry V111.

The Monastic culture for Christianity until that time saw gardening and growing plants and herbs as a part of the Christian faith. Inseparable from the quiet contemplation, silencing the busyness of the mind, prayer and gardening was where the thinking was at the Monasteries for centuries. The connection to food and spirituality continuing with giving thanks for the food when saying grace before meals. 

So adaption to this older thinking yet within in the context of the modern world is a journey we are on.

Like with the Swiss watch manufacturers that were ready to adapt when conditions changed when there were these  new digital watches created in Japan in the 1970’s being sold at a fraction of the cost of Swiss watches. The watch companies in Switzerland accepted and embraced the changes, the fuller reality of the situation and adapted survived and thrived and then there are the companies that did not perceive the shifts and changes early enough, did not adapt and in many circumstances went out of business. So it has been the unwillingness of the countries and areas to really embrace the new emerging paradigms, to be blasé with innovation and innovators which have some or many answers which can leave a vacuum for the manufacturing base that resulted in the decline of manufacture when there could otherwise have been a transition from older industries onto the latest new ones. Whilst the UK may not have been able to compete in every way with Asia, the UK’s unique ability with innovation in the past is very much in the script of the country and  if supported would enable it to have competed more effectively than it otherwise did in many other areas.

So with a new fledgling branch of science that was emerging, it was all seen just as a group of good ideas rather than a legitimate and teachable methodology of perpetuating good ideas on an ongoing basis. A single science that links peace making to ecology, house building to ecosystem regeneration to refugee answers to history in order to generate new progress for the most diverse peoples of the most divergent political systems is not easy to explain in order to be understood, better to use the method and just create the answers and people look at the answers and say, yes that makes sense. 

So the wrongful understanding, misinterpretation of the actual structure was inevitable, to some extent yet never something I could understand or feel settled with.

There was not fair assessment in the UK press which has resulted in there simply being a massive information gap in terms of answers to so many issues that have been increasingly required at an ever quickening pace. Whilst ideas were copied it was completely random as to whether or not they were properly understood. Sometimes they were, frequently not and the concept of creating a structure from which to build entire systems of interweaving and connected concepts which as dependent these are upon the correct positioning of each are the components of an engine in a car. The way in which they were perceived and introduced was actually really ramshackle in many circumstances.  However, the peace strategies for the most part were successful in their use, and yet not completely. There were mistakes made in their instigation and yet what could I do other than post up more strategies and have them used only a ideas.

The groundswell calling for peace growing through the availability of information.  

However, irrespective of this, with the voices opposed to war increasing from all sides, with the leaks from Wikileaks proving that what was being said and the reality were different. With so many destroyed homes, businesses and live and so much loss of life all over the globe both from those in the countries that created the wars and those that suffered as a result of the wars, the narrative against wars became worldwide. The geopolitical changes, the bringing of democracy and yet a few companies profiting from that came as a cost of putting the world out of kilter and balance and a sequence of events that it is not easy to even think your way around for the world to escape from that ever decreasing circle of fewer choices. This could have only gone one way and that is to enough people of all political backgrounds saying enough to promote peace, yet they did in so many different ways.

Whilst the West spent so many resources on these wars in the past and now spends on the implications and lasting effect, the unforseen circumstances of these wars, the East in all Asian countries kept their politics on the side of reasoning and reasonable and on the side of diplomacy.  Whilst the West expended more resources. Asia did not and as a result the continent benefited over the longer term. 

The West put its resources into situations that became conflicts, in the name of promoting western models of democracy and yet years on this came at a cost to stability and stifled and slowed progress and improvements in the West.

The constant effort on shaping the development pattern of the world and do so within the context of predetermined agendas whilst ignoring or actively putting down or manipulating new perspectives coming through has produced a whole catalogue of errors and mistakes. What was once the so called “coalition of the willing” has resulted in the EU having one perspective, the Uk variable perspectives and US other perspectives. 

The cost of the undoing of the peace obtained after peace in Europe and Asia in the 40’s, the fall of The Berlin Wall, The creation of the EU, The Good Friday Agreement and so many other notable achievements went into full on reverse with the wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. However, there have been various stabilizing factors to the Legacy of The Democrats in the USA the most notable of these was The Paris Climate Accord, which actually began to answer more than 30 years of debates and discussions between all the countries in the world over the best way to progress with climate change. This for many of us that had dedicated much of our working lives to the obtaining of an agreement to solve the climate issue was a unique success. The lack of detail though in how to enact the Paris Climate Accord was feasible by the introduction and the use of all my Integrated Strategy work.

The truth is there did not need to be an agreement that within that agreement had all the answers of how to solve the climate issue. There just needed to be an agreement to get everyone on the same side with the issue and then the full support of the incremental mechanisms that turn the toothless Paris Climate Accord into an outer structure that is filled with hundreds of sub models. Or “Integrated Strategies” that enable countries, regions, councils, companies, community groups to be able to work together coherently and cooperatively. In a way that actually is viable and functional. President Obama by instigating the progress on The Paris Climate Accord had actually been the first President to actually realise that the whole chain of events that had led up to the signing of that document had been wrong.

Endeavoring  to get The USA, Ghana, Lichtenstein, Costa Rica and Australia onto the same adaption and mitigation plan was always a nonsense and yet this is what the so considered “best scientists in the world” had been trying to do for more than two decades. It could be likened to trying to arrange collections of triangles, circles and squares together to make the same pattern. It’s like trying to get a collection of two hundred people together to agree upon what is the best way to use a car. The clear truth is everyone is going to have a different perception and that is dependent upon their own values and needs. When it comes to the worlds resources, not all countries are created equal at all. Ecologically Brazil, Equador, Uganda, Indonesia and Iran are among the most valuable countries in the world.

Yet all for different reasons. The many small countries with very high GDP ecologically are less important. If Luxemburg made it law that every garden in the country had to be planted with the same density of forest as The Amazon. Every wall had to be vertically planted and every roof a green roof. If the only mode of transport was public transport ecologically powered then that would make very little difference globally. However, if Brazil did the same then that would change the weather patterns across South, Central and North America.

That is not to say that Luxemburg is not an important country of course it is, every country is important in so many different ways. Yet we have to look at the big picture as much as the small picture. What Luxemburg can bring to the table in terms of a deal is economy. With  very a high GDP per capita. Iran is also one of the most important ecological countries in the world for completely different reasons to Brazil. The reason that Iran is so important is due to the fact it has such vast areas of land that can be regenerated and it has populations in its own countries that can replant on massive scales. So Iran can potentially have areas that can potentially be ecologically regenerated and be vast new carbon sinks.  

In addition to that it has Pakisaan next door which could provide almost unlimited labour for replanting. So the main ecological asset of Luxumberg is funding, the ecological assett of Iran is land and the principle ecological asset of Pakistan is labour. When the know how of Peru, Israel, India and China is added to this then between Luxumberg, Iran, Pakistan and Israel we potentially have an ecological answer for helping the world.

In terms of what both China and the USA have is actually similar. Both have vast amounts of land that can be better used ecologically and economically. The focus on the best land in terms of economic value so frequently ignores land that if better used ecologically becomes a major economic benefit too, when that is considered over entire state sized areas, the economic waste due to ignorant ecological management is a great unnecessary loss. China’s areas for vast ecological economic improvement could be the decertified regions that have already been to some extent regenerated.

The USA in the southern states seemingly provide the greatest opportunities. The land considered the least important can be turned around using the best of the technology combined with social development models in conjunction. The mindset historically of very high levels of production has been a clear skill in both countries. It’s been applied brilliantly in business, yet never in renewable business. Where the creation of resources far outweighs the taking of resources and yet the profits are built up from nothing and continue to increase. Traditionally resources had to be found, obtained, and mined.

Today resources can be created when there are “ecosystems of ideas’ created for that land that every estate agent sees only as wasteland. That wasteland is being wasted when it could otherwise be transformed back into ecologically rich, diverse and productive land. This done so in a way that is as beneficial to business needs as it is to social needs. By creating the new business you solve the social issues of poverty and neglect simultaneously. By building society back up from the some of the most seemingly “worthless land” you create resources that simply have never existed before.

Agave to regenerate desert, 3D printing to clean the pacific.

Many countries are spending on weather related issues there will be many waste materials, upcycled materials can reduce the cost significantly and thirdly there are many jobs in both self-sufficient and agricultural industries that can be created that give people jobs and reduce the cost and better utilise waste materials. When there have been natural disasters on both coasts in the USA for example that have produced waste materials, nearly all of those materials up to 90% can be reused and upcycled to rebuild temporary and emergency housing. Incorporating these can reduce costs. Added to that the The Great Pacific garbage patch is not far from the coast of California, there is an abundance of waste materials that could be utilized in some way, all that plastic can be reused into materials that can be used in construction of rapid build houses, and or 3-D printed into reusable and sellable products and assist in cleaning up the Pacific. The benefits of partnering of both usused desert land for replanting and the pacific garbage pach for upcycling simultaneously is vast.

Agave Cactus is one of the most productive plants in the world and produces, plastics, bags, composite materials for cars, sisal carpet, furniture, plastics, electricity, wine, food supplements, agave syrup, diabetes medicine, tequila, bio-diesel and electricity.  

Agave can be grown with minimal to no irrigation, the plant multiplies where one can create one million pups. The plant carbon sequesters and can produce vast array of industries and therefore can create employment and assist in the diversification of land use. It creates really secure jobs too as the crops uses are so dexterous that if markets change it's feasible to simply adapt to another industry. Many types of handicrafts, souvenirs and even musical instruments can be made from the wood. 

So with such an extraordinary useful plant all that is required to pay for the wall is to find the use for the products and sell licences to grow this near to the wall. Contracts for the products could even be pre-agreed. This therefore create programmes for people to set up small businesses and obtain guaranteed incomes when they plant and harvest from the Agave cactus they grow. Partnering these when planted with other rapid growth programms which produce resourses faster.

There are various ways to play with the economics of this however, just to emphasis that the income from these ecological cactus can help cover costs and add new ecological products into the market place. It creates a vast new ecomomy, it creates economic diversification, reduces imports, at the very least reduces the cost of the wall substantially, keeps jobs in the USA. So what can be made from Agave plants? Rope, bags, composite materials for cars, rugs, cosmetics, furniture, plastics, electricity, bio-fuel, wine, tequila, bags, natural sweetener, food for diabetics, probiotics, natural sisel carpets, curtains.

Its very easy for any desert country to establish a massive Agave industry? Easy, each plant creates a million “pups” and the plants do not need irrigation nor any special care. Five years in and they begin being productive. So they can generate incomes fast, yet when partnered with other specialist plants incomes for the program can be derived immediately. One example is bamboo, another is Hemp 

Hemp is a secondary crop construction this can again create a vast aray of products from cloth fabric to fiber used in car production, composite plastics to fuel, cement alternatives, paper and then the use of shuttering and my innovation Bubblehomes can solve world refugee housing issues. This design can be used to help provide an alternative answer to people who are recovering from natural disasters and have lost their homes. So the desert states combined with the plastic in the ocean are potentially resources that can help create new employment yet also provide for those that have housing needs after natural disasters. However, its just an answer for the USA, it’s an answer for any country in the world which has semi desert that is unused and housing needs, which just about sums up many of the countries in the world. This includes both well countries with some and many economic and extreme weather needs.

 There are vast tracts of land and the climate mitigation capacity of Agave, Bamboo, Hemp and Cork is unequalled by any other plant species on Earth. When they are combined through different climatic regions applying the particular species most suitable to that region we create an economy and climate mitigate simultaneously.

2. Recycling of construction waste materials on both the Texas and California coasts. This uses shuttering panels for construction.

3. Vast areas of Agave planted. 

4. Vast areas of Aloe Vera, hemp and forest products planted to compliment each other and to start to regenerate desert and reduce desertification. This therefore starts to regenerate soil and therefore solves famine in ways never achieved previously.

Utlising plastic gathered from the Pacific and then construction materials reclaimed from weather events. Using these as resources to re-construct through the Rapid build housing shelter  housing housing method I invented, (Bubblehome) this solves micro and low cost housing needs it cleans up after weather events and prevents people from either being displaced and through the displacement that occurs today costs the government and or NGOs or friends and relatives costs. So therefore, when combining these many new approaches, methods and technologies together we can generate more effective, housing, environment, climate, displacement, refugee and famine answers simultaneously in ways never accomplished ever before.

 It is true to say that to solve any one issue requires creating an “Ecosystem of ideas” that enables us to simultaneously to start to solve all these issues together. These are not complete and full answers they are a process into answers yet what is the most extraordinary facet of this is that all of the countries and regions in the world with the most needs today, through this plan have some form of better answers to work with and through the application of all this together we are able to master the ability to live in balance with our environment in ways never achieved before. The answers are here, we just need the support to enable them to happen. Some are long term and medium answers however, the short term benefits are enough to be able to perpetuate the process.  

In addition, both the USA and China have immediate needs for ecological stability and yet both countries have in different ways been the best green technology innovators in the world in new ways. So this partnering of countries where one countries resources and partnered with anothers and one countries needs are met by another is exactly how best to solve the climate issue. What President Obama did with obtaining the Paris Climate Accord is a very good first step to ending the unproductive nonsensical debates of how to get so many triangle, circle and square countries to agree. However, what should have happened is that “Integrated Strategies” should have been taught on the global stage and then countries, towns, companies and regions considered how they can create with partners their own small agreements between each other.

Whilst I cite above that if Luxemburg planted the country top to toe it would not make much difference it is in terms of comparison to Brazil. The reality is that we need to be able to think in terms of ourselves and systemically at the same time. This is for various reasons, however what we do as individuals helps and inspires others. What we do collectively super-powers change and by doing that helps motivate us as individuals. So both are important and synergistic both the individual and the group.

So what President Trump did was he did not like either the Iran deal or the Paris Climate Deal. By stopping both of them these was disruptive, whilst I can agree that they both required improvement a deal of any kind can be improved upon rather than left completely. The Iran deal could have been improved as I explain later on how and the Paris Climate Deal should have been used as a way to draw the line used the largely senseless approach of trying to get such different countries to be able to agree on everything when the economic, social and ecological resource and potential balances in each country are so completely different.

So Paris Accord Part 2. Should have been Infrastructural content, what I refer to by that is what is in this document, specific methods that can function with differing resources and requirements of countries. To have grouped countries in terms of what they have and what they can bring to the table ecologically and then created an environment for them to be able to match together resources, abilities and potential. So that the Green Deal is not some form of national deal. It is a deal between everyone. What can a country bring to the table, what can a region a community, a household, a school, a university a retirement home a train station. When we all think of what we have and what we can offer and we communicate enough within that context we will find that solving all of the major problems is nothing more complicated than a very large jigsaw. In order to make that collection of concepts work requires only that the goal is set and the communication methods for that global collaboration is made possible.

Yes, regional and national politics are important, yet also the ability to be able to work cooperatively with the people we chose to work with in this. However, a prerequisite to being able to create a world again with stable weather patterns, a world where we are aligning humanity to be able to find and support the best newest innovation that helps turn this big problem into a process of solution building firstly requires wider peace worldwide and that has been accomplished to a very significant extent in recent years. However, there is a way to go from here so it’s important also to again further consider how we got into the situation we are in. However, before doing that I just want to look at both the Obama and Trump Presidencies together.

So the world achieved a deal with Iran and with Paris. The tensions with The Koreas, Syria and with Russia at the time were not in good shape. However, President Trump for the most part improved these.

However, the benefit of Paris had been lost, rather than stepping forward and improving the Paris and Iran deals they were both pulled out of. Under both Presidencies there have however been race issues in the USA that neither have been able to resolve. In addition the Pandemic. From here the optimal response could be to 1. Improvements to International peace deals and the creation of them, increasing incentives reducing sanctions. The climate situation requires set a new series, a new trend of bi-lateral deal making so that the abilities of each country, region, companies and groups are coherently aligned.

This alignment would create exponential improvements from day one as we would see how it really is feasible for countries as diverse as Luxemburg, Brazil and Peru to find ways to work together and help each other and by doing so help the world simultaneously. Whilst one other small wealthy country sees the scale of improvements that can be made by partnering in this way then others can do the same with other countries. Soon we will be able to see environmental regeneration programs that are regenerating low and no cost areas planting with both ecological and economical criterias applied simultaneously. Today we know how to best use resources in so many new and innovative ways. 1000 new products from one simple plant or tree that provides us with everything from home produced energy to heating. When what I term superplants are used together than can create thousands of new products and new ecological markets to replace the markets that are generating the most pollution yet doing so in a way in which it is feasible for companies in those industries to be able to adapt and therefore save jobs.             

The long and winding path that has been travelled away from global conflicts into multiples of new peace making processes.

What has helped to stifle and stop that cycle of ever greater downward destruction most profoundly has been a combination of two factors. 1. The truth of the real scale of the issues and problems being known, all the press were instrumental to that. Whether Wikileaks is loved or loathed. The truth is without the full truth being known the cycle of chaos across the world would have continued.

President Trump who’s primary goal was to bring resources back to the USA from all over the world by stopping the cycles of wars achieved this firstly by not instigating a no-fly zone in Syria. The No-fly zone in Syria could well have created the same scenario as was created in Libya, except with all the different groups in Syria which included contributions from Russia, China and Israel.

President Trump being voted in and that no-fly zone prevented from happening was a significant  step in stopping the cycle of ever increasing wars which had been occurring for the decades prior. However, personally I believed Hilary Clintons domestic policy ideas were really excellent. I could see that the wall was not a complete answer and in terms of actually providing answers for refugee issues Hillary Clintons concepts would have been starting to solve the issues where they begin rather than where they finish. However,  the second, good outcome that President Trump helped nurture and went with, was to listen and use “The Integrated Strategy for The Korea’s”.

This was written with the full knowledge that there had not been all the potential pitfalls of Iraq ever cited and put into one place with the chance of a way out of that situation. So that is what I did. I looked at all the potential implications of a war in The Koreas. So therefore, in a way President Trump did have an advantage that neither George Bush nor President Obama had in making any of the decisions they made in terms of foreign policy. President Trump had access to a document that was not pushing any agenda other that peace and the protection of all and was doing so from the perspective of saying there is something that could happen if this is misjudged which is worse than is being probably considered and yet there is a way out of this which is much better for all without their being a conflict at all and that helps keep the world going along the lines of peace. So I believe the strategy content that President Bush and Obama saw would have been looking from the perspective of the position of the USA and it’s allies, what changed with the sending of Integrated Strategy documents was looking at the situation from a much broader perspective. A perspective of if that happens, then that could cause this that affects that essentially looking at the implications for all. However, the truth is that President Trump made very good use of what was on the table in front of him. From where we are today, we do not know the result of the next US election however either President could continue on the path towards greater peace, environment protection, social and economic renewal and do so simultaneouly with the content of this work best utilized.

In the document I cited that I did not agree with any of the paths being presented by any of the countries. Usually the narrative to going to war has a level of we are right and they are wrong. This was the first time I believe where there was an interjection saying all the thinking is wrong on all sides as it’s not complete enough and there are so many factors that require consideration. Here they are, doesn’t it look bad for all if that paths taken, here is another path instead that is good for all, a true win-win-win-win-win.

So being able to envision ahead and do so really effectively in terms of implications actually has proven that entering into any major war in this day and age is completely counter-productive, to the level where the entire concept of going into a conflict in order to benefit in any way in today’s world is an absurdity, The truth is even the justification for conflicts on the basis of conquest or greed does not work anymore as the losses far outweigh the gains. How much money has the EU, UK, USA lost due to the implications of the wars and the refugee issues, and then the political time and expenditure as a result of all that. 

I provided a way out that no sides were voicing. Yet all side were winning. However, it was the all important discussions that began to emerge which were the essential progress.

 I mapped that out in detail. So from the time of all the conflicts there have been in recent decades, for the first time ever in the context of the Koreas there was a document that looked at the situation not just from the side of “The Coalition of the Willing” not just from the “anti war perspective” the document looked at the situation from the perspectives of The USA, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, Uk, The Philippines, Vietnam, United Nations. People, business environment, logistics and the implications and thank fully great decisions towards peace were made.

 The document looked at the situation from an economic perspective, a communications perspective, a geographical perspective a cultural perspective, a communications perspective, a historical perspective. That new quantity of data is something that no military advisor worth his wage would have put together. I put in information there that had to be taken very seriously indeed and I also put in their information that was speculative and yet made logical sense as the situation could evolve and change. Whilst the no-fly zone for Syria as a policy may have come into effect due to just military advise. The reasoning for talking back and solving the Koreas situation was looked at from the very most diverse information that I could consider and source. I had to present the argument of the potential true cost of that conflict that being in alignment and with the fuller knowledge that had been obtained by knowing and seeing just how disruptive and costly the wars in the Middle East had been.

What history has shown us and world leaders have learned this in recent years is this. There may be three or four very good reasons to have a war. Yet inevitably as soon as that threshold is crossed then firstly that war can be unstoppable and secondly, there can be more than 100,000 reasons to have not have had that war become not only widely known but actually completely obvious later on. That is the essence of what happened in Iraq three or four reasons to have the war and yet once the full implications became known thousands of reasons to have stopped it. That number may seem like an exaggeration and yet its actually an under statement. The implications the losses are actually well into their millions. Nobody benefited from these wars in the end, a few people may have gained some money yet the loss has really been to the whole world.

The benefits of Integrated Strategies, though being applied by President Trump and by leaders have helped prepare the world for a better response to Covid19. Having had politics that had gone from the threats of wars to a general theme of even the most diverse political systems in the world can progress in their conversations and start some forms of diplomacy has been of help to each and every one of us in terms of helping to provide some new stability in times where there had otherwise been a taking away of stability in so many ways for two decades previously.

The need for something new in the world after Iraq and all that came from that was clear. The notion of a one sided narrative taking the world into an abyss is hopefully now something of the past in terms of human development. This can be seen as something that one set of wrong decisions can cause. Yet to escape from that can require years of seeking and pushing to change course. Hopefully the truth and the complete picture of what Integrated Strategies are and what can be achieved to help improve life and existence on this planet will be known. So that there really is some proper academic discussion, awareness and knowledge of what these Integrated Strategies are and how they can be produced.

After the 100.000 consequences of Iraq, there needed to be something else, that helped decsion makers see from many more perspectives the folly of war. In fact even the term folly of war is folly itself. War isn’t folly, it’s humanity and civilization breaking itself apart. An injury to the concpet of humna improvement and development on this planet.

Any civilization in history that has had too many wars has regressed substantially or like in almost ever case collapsed completely. There are no exceptions to this unshakable rule of civilization, we could real off more than thirty civilizations that have been ruined in this way. Civilizations collapse almost as much from being conquered as by conquering others and losing balance. This creates both internal and external and internal pressures that cannot be measured, appreciated or even fully perceived easily until they occur. Then containment in the long term can become unfeasible.

What can begin as misguided decisions made can create implications that create a wobble, that wobbles more and more until there is some form of collapse. In the last attempts to mitigate the wobble increasingly desperate measures can be taken that may be seen on one level to be reducing the wobble, yet in fact actually exacerbate the wobble towards a collapse. Therefore in times of difficulty it’s good to look back and consider how similar difficulties were overcome before. Yet, in times of crisis it is essential to stop and look at everything and then to reposition appropriately. The power of argument to create peace becomes far stronger than the “impression of strength” that is obtained in the short term by creating drama on the political stage and then incomplete answers to meeting the issues created.  

Sometimes the best strength obtained is found in simply stopping. Allowing for the winter of thinking to slowly unwind new perspectives that generate truth not just on the surface level that sounds correct, but on a more profound level. So that the shaking up of a situation is not added to with a shaky response, the shaking up of the situation is a catalyst for going inward in thinking and into silence. Therefore, what can be obtained is a real deeper truth of the best ways to progress. This is why when doing a construction project it is frequently the best option to do some work and then to stop.

Stop and allow for space and then a better improved answer can be perceived. This interrupts the requirement of hindsight and actually creates something that is half way between hindsight and foresight. Lets call this “progress-sight”. Whilst planning everything from before is better than trying to plan once it’s too late. The half way point of when a task is half done gives us the opportunity to re-position and sometimes from this sometimes mistakes are avoided, yet usually what is accomplished is something that could have been very good, becomes excellent. When we do this form of coherent and yet disrupted thinking process we frequently generate better results than we ever thought possible.

People who pray or meditate or do completely different activities such as sports to relax access other quieter parts of their minds. This space can allow for a time of renewal and regeneration of thinking.

This trait is something that people who are ADD have a natural tendency to do in any case. This is why people that are ADD, if they have found a way to control and master this trait and use this for its best advantage are frequently far more effective in business and in many other areas than people who are not what is termed “ADD. In many cases, especially in a world where there are so many complicated and interconnecting factors for any leader to have to be able to contend with in any form of leadership situation having people that have ADD traits within management or research and development of almost anything, including a country can actually very substantially improve performance.

Having a mindset that places too much emphasis on thinking is straight lines only, without the ability to be able to stop and think in many different ways is simply thinking that is not conducive to meeting the ever increasing complex needs and requirements of society and the facets that make up an ever evolving collage of complications in our modern day existence,.it can be said that the trait of ADD is not a disorder but actually a benefit to the whole of humanity in such as disordered world that requires thinking to look at everything in an unfocussed way then try are find paths back to an order that works in these and future times. There is nothing more disorderly than a one hundred and twenty mile an hour wind approaching your town, how we prepare best for that and recover require great future planning and preparation and that is obtained today by being able to look as creatively as possible at all living systems and try and find ways for us all to be more resilient to the conditions of the planet today.  

 Creative and critical thinking, analysis of thinking and positioning are essential for being able to not only ride upon an ever moving carpet but to be able to dance upon it. Our world is fast moving, so fat moving it can be hard to keep up with it. However, diplomacy norms that look only towards the long and medium term in the world we have today may have created a sense of stability in the past, yet today I believe they create instability in some ways.

Being able to go back to a dysfunctional situation that is not working in International affairs with a new mandate for finding resolution makes perfect sense. The notion that sanctions should remain in place as they have been there for so long with some countries to my mind is preventing us from best utilizing the moment of now and today to generate something much better than has been ever achieved in the past. The more business based approach, or should I say entrepreneurial approach that President Trump has provided to some issues in the world has been very refreshing and has obtained better results in some cases that the methods used in the decades previously.

To be able to say lets develop a relationship and lets talk, lets look at things we can agree upon rather than taking the approach there is nothing that can be agreed upon and therefore no conversation is a better approach to International diplomacy. The tit for tat, action, reaction nature of so much political maneuverings in the past is not allowing for the healing and the process towards improvements to occur. Tit for tat is a tactic and not a strategy. Tit for tat can breed resentments that go on for ever. It is a case of having to add a level of maturity to International diplomacy that does not just allow for the chance to draw a line on the past and to reassess everything, this is actively encouraged. Seeing from the perspective of both sides is the only way for both sides in situations to progress.

In my work there are no real goodies or baddies, there are only dysfunctional conversations and paradigms that are being taken. Yet, there are leaders that do stupid things yet this is always due to the fact that they did not have enough faith in themselves to actually be able to make a true and real leadership decision. That being leading their own country out of a negative situation and being able to do that in a way that defuses angst and issues with other leaders. There are win-wins feasibly possible in every single diplomatic situation. What makes this win-win much easier to be able to find and achieve is when the environment needs are also factored in.

This provides a way for their being a higher purpose that is actual in the interests of everyone as a means of being able to progress. The reality is that there is only good reason to have any land or territory if there is a world stable enough to maintain the continuity of being able to benefit from that land. When we look at the fires around the world issue, when whole villages and towns are being destroyed by fires such as in California what level of lifestyle do those people have, whether they are living on the breadline or millionaires. Either way their entire lives are being overran by a condition of nature that they are powerless alone to do anything about. That power of nature is affecting every aspect of their lives.

We so frequently consider that the developing world is becoming more like the developed world, however a 20 million dollar house in California burned to nothing, how much more is that really worth than an average sized house on the outskirts of a shanty town in developing country. Similarly we have to look to all the major weather factors worldwide and realize that we either change the houses we live in or we change the way we live to some extent. The typical house of thirty years ago is increasingly obsolete in many parts of the world as these houses are just not up to the weather anymore. We need to think and plan and use technologies that help. If people work their entire lives for a house that can be destroyed in a single day by the weather we do need to rethink how we live our lives to avoid that scenario or how could there ever be anything like a stable economy built upon that level of uncertainty. A level of uncertainty where well paid executives living in commuter land overnight become penniless and homeless. 

Our lifestyles, whatever they are under threat and every house in the world not built of stone or not near a river, valley, the sea is under threat. The fact is that the USA, Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, Central America and South America have proportionately many more houses built of materials other than stone and concrete than the rest of the world. So with the way our weather is going are we going to look to re-house some 50% or so of the world’s population into housing that is suitable to the shelter needs of the world in the next fifty years or are we going to have some “progress-sight” today and see we can adapt very substantially by simply taking two courses of action.

1. Stopping wars and improving all diplomacy. The truth is that when it comes to Covid19 and Climate we are all on the same side.

2. Improve communications through the quite that gets created by substantially reducing the International disagreements and use this method of “Integrated Strategies” to find ways to help and support each other and therefore help and support ourselves in very much improved ways. This therefore, providing us with the time we need to innovate long term answers to climate as they arrive by creating a global environment that is conductive to this process of innovation. 

To consider the wealth of a country short term the best way to do that is look at the stockmarket. To do this medium term best to look at International politics. To do this long term best to look at the materials from which that country is constructed. In short the countries with the least buildings made of stone and concrete will be the countries which become the most vulnerable and become refugees. So the only way to ensure that this does not occur, that we do not have to ever have the question of how do we rehome half the countries population into buildings that are practical in the now age not the last age. Ie the last Millennium.

So the reason we live in houses in the first place is to protect us from the natural environment. By not considering the natural environment enough we take away the ability for our houses to be able to protect us. Not only that we do that in a way that deems that we will become economically bankrupt in the process. So by the time our houses are no longer suitable to the weather any more we will also not have the resources to pay the costs of doing anything about it. So in fact the entire quality of life of the next generation the one factor that will prevent them from being pushed into a struggle from the bottom is sound environmental deal making today that is built upon the effective peacemaking Internationally that has been achieved. We can adapt a lot and do so very fast indeed if their are economists that are heard that properly understand the environment and teach the other economists how we can once again become the masters of our environment.

If you think for a moment we are in charge of the environment in the way our ancestors were just two generations ago then think again. If this does not sound too good to some then I say it anyway. Yes we do have a refugee crisis. That refugee crisis four years ago in the USA was on the border of Mexico. Now part of that same refugee crisis is in California, Puerto Rico, and Louisiana and Florida. That refugee crisis is in the mid-west. To try though and properly understand that or any International refugee crisis by simply looking at it only from a national perspective can be likened to believing you can control a transport network by counting trains. When people are already arriving it’s too late, creating conditions so they do not want to leave in the first place is restoring conditions to how they were before.  The refugee crisis worldwide today cannot even be intelligently discussed without including in the conversation and the analysis many factors including the following,

.1. Peacebulding. 2. International Diplomacy Models. 3. The implications and resolutions of past wars. 4. The use of resources in other countries. 5. The religious issues in countries. 5. The environmental stability in countries. 6. The food costs in countries. 7. The housing needs.. 8. The changes to subsistence farming. 9. Land use. 10. Changes in seas and over fishing. 11. Soil Erosion. 12. Natural Disasters. 13. Efficiency of natural disaster recovery. 14. International Trade Deals. 15. Political stability. 16. Displacement of people. 17. Stability of cities. 18 Capacity in cities for people to be able to relocate there. 19. Crime within cities people are settling. 20. Social dynamics between different peoples and tribal groups and land use.21. Food costs and productivity. 22. Rainfall. 23. Uses of water. 24. Education. 25. Family links and ties due to the past and modern day immigration. 26. The cost and ability of replacement housing. 27. Land use. 27. Attitudes to the displacement of peoples within countries. 28, borders of countries. 29. Incentive creation to provide reasons to stay. 30. Communications presenting a true picture of where people have been considering travelling and many other factors.

The only real simplistic answer to stopping a refugee crisis is to not create politics which creates refugees from needing to leave their homes. That is certainly possible and so to do that requires honest, open and expansive questioning.

So when there is a conversation on refugees that includes all those aspects and then from there looks to provide answers for all of these aspects and then looks to use new ways to use the land for regeneration and re-settlement then you begin to start to generate answers. So my work does look at all aspects of the above and generates answers. However, what is occurring is that there is the narrative of “send them back” from the right. The question is though does sending them back also include sending back the millionaire that lost his home in California? The “Let them in” from the left also keeps this as a “dual polarity discussion”. So let’s look at this in terms of figures.

1.5 Billion Asian people. + 1.3 Billion African people + 700 Million South and Central American people . A USA with 368 Million and Europe with 747 Million people.

These are the main distributions of populations of people so the fact is the south is far more populated than the northern hemisphere. However, wealthier too. Under the wrong circumstances or need, namely climate need then there could be reasons for nearly all of those people to want or need to migrate to climates that are more habitable.

That clearly is impossible and yet many would stay if there life was made feasible there again from where they originated. I’ve met with refugees and most of them realy no have little or no other choice, artful strategy can help create a choice to return to their homelands, families and communities.

So an open door policy in Europe and the USA would increase the populations of both by many times. So this notion of “sending them to their original places that were unviable to live in the first place makes no sense at all. There is a need to bring some as people do need help and with the way politics is today the truth is anyone of us could be refugees in future, so please think of them kindly. If we were born where they were, the the chances are we would be in the same or a similar position oursleves.

The notion or practice of welcoming everyone in is not sustainable either and this is especially so when the costs are considered. Cost of processing and providing housing is based upon need. Yet clearly due to the past conditions that have been created and the conditions today being created by the past they all mostly do have a very genuine need. So the welcome them all in is prohibitively expensive. In terms of practicalities if the population of London for example was 8 times what it is today then there would not be enough room for either housing or business either. There would be no form of social benefits at all. The health system would collapse, there would be no way for those people to earn an income and therefore they together with much of the rest of the population would have two choices. 1. Commit crime to eat. 2 Starve. So of course this is completely unacceptable and yet also it’s equally unacceptable today to treat refugees badly. This is even more so the case when it is the politics of the West that has taken people from their land in the first place due to globalization, trade deals, war, famine and climate. So to solve any one issue requires looking to solve all of them together. This is the way in which the EU is starting to go and this is very promising. To have placards just simply saying on one side refugees welcome and on the other refugees go home is not getting to either the cause nor the potential best answers. By the EU looking at each and every aspect of the entire process that creates the issue and then looking to map together answers that take into account all aspects of this is possible the best progress made so far. I do hope however, that they include into this rapid build housing methods as if we can reduce the costs of housing in the developing world then that can help lift the very poorest out of poverty. This is so in both developing and developed countries.

So to add another layer to understanding the people displacement issues. It is possible to fit the entire world’s population into an area of land the size of Texas and all have space for a tent and a little bit of space to walk around, in theory. So with that consideration, the real underlying truth of the entire refugee issue is this. The way in which we use the vast land resources of the Earth is actually shockingly ignorant. When it comes to the wise use of land and resources in order to keep the world in balance and to keep enable people to effectively make their own countries work and sustainable for them in the past our forefathers principally have not done a very good job of this. However, the past is the past and they never had the needs and the pressures that we have today.

They were working within the constraints of a planet that was not calling out each and every day in different ways for attention from us. They could create these one way resource use and harvesting systems as the world was able to provide that then for them with the resources that they used at that time. Today everything has changed against our favour in this regard. We can today adjust back the balance, part of it is belief and most of it is generating the evidence to support that belief. We generate the evidence very quickly and easily when we find ways to use the best land to serve our new needs in better ways.

If the dry southern states of the US and the cooler northern states of the US were replanted on a massive scale and then the resources used locally this generates environment stability, jobs and opportunities. If this is done in the countries generating the most refugees then the same occurs. So the answer to the areas that are creating the most refugees are exactly the same answers that are required in the most developed countries too. What’s missing in both cases the most is simply the education.

Any and every house or flat in the world has the ability to create more green, more plants, more trees. The cost of planting trees and plants is dirt cheap. A single apple in a fridge could have five new trees that can produce 1000 apples a year. The peelings of the skin of the apple and other fruits, vegetables and food waste are the basis of what can turn that apple pip into a tree. Five minutes work every now and then and there can be four more trees on the planet. This done as a part of people’s routines in life is all that it takes on a wide enough scale to create the changes we can create together.

The truth is that we have to be kind to refugees and help where we can, where it is practical and most importantly be able to see this issue as something that is certainly not a them and us issue. It is an issue that is already affecting people in the developed and developing countries alike. This will continue. With Covid19 we have fulfilled an experiment of a global scale. The question of what would happen if the world dramatically reduced it’s greenhouse gas emissions has for the first time got some real genuine data beyond models alone. It has been shown that this does make a difference and their is a “re-wilding” that is occurring. There are so many negatives of Covid19 which we are all aware of and yet there is also the chance to build upon that new experience of having dramatically less greenhouse emissions by having a dramatic increase in forest and plant cover in the world. Will that make as bigger difference as the reductions caused by Covid19 or could the benefits be even greater? This we do not know until we try. However, what we can be sure of is that for a very sizable proportion of the worlds population to make a concerted effort together to get as many trees and planets in the ground is possible and it is affordable to all. With knowledge there can be really no costs at all or plenty of cost to repairing the environment. It depends only on your level of education in being able to be a survivor and use the world around you well. President Trump and President Macron planted a tree at The White House together.

If they would have asked everyone in their countries to do the same. If people do not have land to plant the tree then find a grass verge, ask a friend or a neighbour. Plant a flower pot instead and put it on a wall. If the entire population of the USA and France did that together, could a measurable effect have been created? Could that action have resulted in less flooding the next year, more absorption of rain. More cloud, less drought? We don’t know. We do not actually have the faintest idea our best scientists are unable to measure this until we try.

What we do know is that plants and trees do create clouds. This is very easy to see when you have two islands together and one island has trees on it and the other does not. Case in point. Tenerife and La Gomera. Tenerife in the south is like a desert and La Gomera less than 100 kms away is covered in forest and you can visually see a completely different climate. The island is the opposite of the south of Tenerife, Tenerife being desert and La Gomera being cloud forest. So the question could be asked how many clouds could the population of the USA and France make all by spending a few minutes planting a tree.

How much cloud and therefore  rain could they make? We do not have the answer to that again such a simple question that is beyond the ability for any scientist to answer as we have never had the population of a country have a day of gardening in this way together. If they did this monthly plant in the USA once a month for a year, I wonder if that would produce enough rain to put out the fires in California? Slow the tornados in the Mid-west of even help create the air pressure to push off from the coast the hurricanes that bring floods to the Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Alabama, Florida, Carolina and New York? Whilst the Americans do not have the belief that they can control the weather like this. The people of La Gomera do as they look at the rain on their island and look out to the parched lands across the sea in Tenerife.

All the Gomerians needed to do to have control over their weather was to not deforest their ancient woodlands. All we have to do is start to put our ancient woodlands back again. We can evolve as humans from simply measuring the weather to controlling the weather one tree at a time, when entire nations participate in this together.

So the refugee crisis overall is overall an environment crisis and a conflicts crisis. The conflicts are increasingly resolved, the environment crisis we are only just beginning to have the awareness and the belief in our own abilities that we are capable of doing something about this. No government in the world has the economic means to be able to fully take on this challenge on the scale required. It really does require the effort and the actions of millions of people, yet that is possible. All that is holding us back is a victim frame of mind that we are not good enough to be able to do this and that who are we on our own, yet the truth of all this is that every single person in the world has a vested interest in us doing this together that is the case whether or not they are smart enough to realize this. We have organized throughout the course of our human evolution more than a million ways to make the Earth work better for us, yet we fail when it comes to being able to coherently instigate a single way in which we can all do a single task together to help the Earth.

 If humanity cannot break out of this self limiting delusional pattern where we are only capable of thinking about just me, just us, and the immediate. Like a child that cannot think further than it’s own immediate oral needs then we really have not come as far as we like to think we have in our development and a conscious and aware species. We really can do better in the school of life. There are only happy gardeners and therefore less time spent as couch potatoes and more time spent replanting is time well spent and if done on a broad enough scale is a vital part of the answer to both the climate crisis and the refugee situation. Whilst this contributes to helping stabalize the weather so people can have the first choice and remain in the countries they wish to as they are able to, it provides us the means to look after ourselves better than we have been doing previously. 

The refugee situation is first and foremost a people issue, then it is both a right and left wing consideration. The fact is that speaking with the refugees they want to remain at home. Their home countries if our countries have played a role in disrupting them then we should make more of an effort today than previously to add stability and provide the means for them to return home. However, we should also be there for those in need, especially from wars until peace has been created again and their countries become viable places once again to stay.

We have to have really logical, sensible and knowledgeable answers to this. Short term political slogans is not the answer now and never will be. If we remain so ignorant to all the intricate causes of the situation then there will ever be realistic answers the problems will only get worse and judging by the way more and more people are becoming environmental  refugees, the problem could become much, much worse. So the sooner that the conversation goes from just a dual polar discussion on two sides to actually listening to what the refugees are actually saying and how they are saying that they do not want to be refugees, they simply want to settle where they feasibly can the sooner there will be an answer that makes true real sense. An answer that helps the people by restabalizing the countries they have originated from and in nearly all cases wish to return to if they can. With the opening up of new vast areas to environmental regeneration programs this again creates more options so this can really be a win-win for many perspectives if all of my work in this is applied and used very well.   

Multi-polar perspective via “Integrated Strategies”.

The “Integrated Strategy” perspective seeks to look at peace and environment from as many perspectives as possible for the reason of presenting a path to what is both the optimal position for both or all sides in the obtainment of peace. Looking not only at outcomes from an A-Z perspective but using lateral thinking and thinking also from a 2,4,6,8 perspective. Looking from a Z-A perspective too and then figuring out how to fit “Good Will” into the present situation. Considering what new or additional information or people can we bring into a scenario in order to create an improvement of the situation.

So after all that, you go back over all information and I start to put forward my best case forward based upon whatever facts I have been able to find and logistical consideration, implications from the perspective of loss of life, economy, ethics, border implications, economic, stock market, refugee, environment implications.

I also look from the perspective of how a conflict in one country will affect neighboring countries, the region, the world and how this can affect alliances of countries. I look from the perspective of history, religion, culture, the temperament and the historical unions and balance of the people. I look from the perspective of the history of both sides and also the history of the relationship. I look from the perspectives on the situation and similar situations that other peacemakers have considered and successfully used in the past to solve conflicts. I look at the situation of how and what the motives are for either peace or war on each side and most importantly of all I seek to find a way to their being middle ground in every case so that there is no loss of life. No loss of human, animal or plant life from every situation I consider. I look from the perspective and seek to do this for the 100% and the planet in finding and creating roadmaps to peace. That is not for the 99% nor for the 1%. That is not more for these people but not those. Nobody really benefited from any of the world wars and even if some did is some ways they lost out in others. On the scale of the complications and implications in recent years nobody would benefit today from a world war as just as they consider what a profit they have made from selling a weapon not only the entire country they live in could change, not only the whole continent but the entire hemisphere. This occurred in a mild form both with Chernobyl and with Fukushima. Both of these events were events that affected as much or more of an entire hemisphere. These were slight leaks in comparison to what could occur if there was a failure in diplomacy. So there today to be the very best and robust and effective diplomacy is essential.

My work is in service and I do the very best I can for all people. From the perspective that I work for all from the person with nothing or little onwards. My work is for the 100% of people. So to be specific here, it is currently today for 7,813,213,493 people. The effects of war affect us all. There are the rants and raves we can have on social media, and yet in reality words are incredibly important for the general maintenance of the world just as it is. Let alone towards improvements as recent years have proven.

The effect of not solving diplomatic, the environment, agriculture or pandemic  situation affects us all. That is true whether we are aware enough to realize that or not. Many live their lives never thinking much beyond their own village scale situations, yet the wider implications are occurring and affecting that from a global, national, regional and immediate basis whether they realized or perceive that or not. So there are invisible links between all. There is a brotherhood of man. If a person becomes made a refugee due to one situation or another that can and does affect the politics in our country and perhaps the type of government we have and the decisions that they make that affect all of the wider implications and decisions in our lives.

So the difference of leaders as to whether or not they allow for multi-polar perspectives at times  rather than mono-polar thinking always can be what’s required to create and maintain the conditions that “all their people” require to thrive and build upon. An element in flexibility and the knowledge that the way that it has always been done does not determine the best way to do everything or anything today. There are reasons to reconsider and find ways to improve, we all adapt and change every aspect of our bodies physically throughout our lives including our thinking. If we didn’t then we would all be in perpetual worry about exams coming up in school or considering the best part of the day is listening to music rather than anything else.

 The quality of everything to do with future human life starts here and today with the best decisions being made by those that are most suitable t be in the positions of power that they are in. Bad decisions of the past last twenty years. We do not have twenty years left of bad decisions being made or actually anything other than very very good decisions made.

My work was firstly socio-environmental and then in order to be able to continue to do that I realized that my models for saving the environment can be adapted towards stopping wars before they occur. My successes have been preventing the war in The Koreas, Stopping a war in Iran and generating an answer to providing a way to end the war in Syria. The success in being able to present a path to peace was obtained mostly by the success of the previous Integrated Strategy. I believe emphatically that there is no difference between murdering people and killing people in wars. If anything killing people in wars is worse as this only causes more retribution “An eye for and eye makes everyone blind.” However, having a map of a peaceful way through is a viable new answer. Mapping out all the reasons for why the war is wrong and misguided which is easy to perceive and all the reasons for why peace makes the most sense and then presenting a map of how to get from the diplomatic impasse to the answer by building upon small and larger actions of goodwill.

So do I question decisions made in the past on wars with justification? Yes, its part of the necessary conditions, positioning and process of finding ways to peace and yet I do not do this to try and say we were right or not write. I do this to trace our steps back and to do this in order to then be able to shine a light on a way forward. We all do a bit of right and wrong each day, yet of course try to do more right with important decisions. So being conscious open and honest of past decisions is of value and part of the healing process.

I write this in order to understand and trace back why and how the mistakes that have been made and yet also the progress that has been made with “Integrated Strategies” and present this with a view of looking clearly at today and in using this new fledgling science to continue to provide and generate the answers this science is obtaining where in fact every other form of science from the past or political belief systems of the past have been not able to meet the increasingly complex needs of modern man and our needs and requirements on this planet where as this new branch of science is consistently producing exceptional answers that work for the benefit of the 100%, for all, everyone.

 For others to see and add and improve towards paths into more peace is a part of this too so everyone can play a part on helping build the security of us all. True security comes from feeling we are being helped and looked after by others when we need this. People have our backs protected when required and therefore we feel secure. By having a good local business that is there for the community or helping an organisation or by being there for those in need either locally or further afield we are all strengthening the good will for others and therefore ourselves. So we are all a part of the answer to improvements in terms of security for all those around us if we want to participate and build this. Helping others is helping ourselves when it’s for a better higher purpose rather than just thinking about the “me”. So many people have been very good at just thinking about “the me” in their lives and ot enough for others too and thats how we got to where we are now, yet the corona virus is teaching us that “the me” only thinking is not good or even viable in the world, we have to do the me with the we together to have the security oursleves.