Is it feasible a $2.25 trillion infrastructure plan can get doubled by a new green economy?

An integrated Strategy to double the capacity of President Bidens 2.25 Trillion Stimulous plan to induce and generate a US Green Economy and fund the new Infrastructure program?

The $2.25 trillion stimulous has been described as just the start. It invests in transportation, manufacturing, schools, broadband, water systems, care-giving services and energy transformation to curb climate change. What can be next that can effectively double this investment through the private sector is what I explore here.

Firstly lets appreciate that there was and is a yearning in the USA for a type of next chapter, where all of the most substantive issues that have been properly unanswered for decades are brought out in the open and answered. There is a narrative to going back to be something better. There is a profound inner awareness that things have gone wrong and the need to set things right. This goes beyond the implications of Covid. This goes beyond the content of four year start again electorial politics.

There has been a divided USA in various ways, put another way, there are many USA’s and each one presents in some ways a complimentary and yet contradictory perception to the world. The world has observed  the soap opera of US politics. The peaks and troughs the up’s and downs the talking up of this and the talking down of that. The world has seen the hype, the hysteria, the hyperbole and good sound balanced decisions made towards calming tensions and considering where and how to start to heal the divides. The request to reach across the other side and create a bipartisan way to improve and progress from the stance of going back to the very basics of infrastructure is an excellent plan and I’m totally in support of that and provide some additional content here to help. However to get to get to this strategy requires going into a great many aspects of what has gone wrong and answering the considerations of JP Morgan's annual report in terms of what are cited as the faults in the USA currently.. However, I believe that there are some fallacies that are ongoing media perceptions that are being presented to the world and that these are a very significant part of the problem. 

The world has observed the contradictory narratives. The world has seen so many of the highs and the lows. The world has seen an America that has been reborn from being an America that wanted to reshape the world to an America that pulled back from engagement in the world to an America that wants to reconnect. However, during this time pulling back many issues have changed, there have been new ways to find and make peace sustainable and these have not been considered and reported.  

So there is an inherent contradiction in the belief of having open politics that the public vote in elections on and yet processes at play at least in part that have helped in some ways change outcomes of events that the public are not aware of.  The whole narrative of good country, bad country really is no longer the true landscape of International Affairs. During the Trump Presidency on three occasions or more, at least five of the previously considered ‘bad countries’ took diplomatic decisions that have since proven to have been utterly pivotal in the world security there is now today. Here are a few examples.

1.     North Korea and South Korea meeting and the USA meeting with both.

2.     Russia signaling to the USA that they were ready for a new approach to North and South Korea that could find middle ground and talks.

3.     Russia covering for the USA in Syria, and negotiating with Israel, Turkey and Syria to prevent these three sides from engaging militarily, after the vacuum was left due to the very rapid US pull out.

4.     Russia intervening in the Azerbaijan and Armenia conflict.

5.     China meeting with President Modi during the conflict in India and Pakistan. Then Pakistan and India opening of the Sikh pilgrims path.

6.     Iran taking a broader more balanced view by not responding to air strikes, which ceased and prevented any escalation.

The real truth is that the USA did act as the world’s policeman under President Bush and Obama. It then pulled back from this under President Trump, yet there were various situations that did require the type of ‘third person/third perspective’ position to be taken by something/ some country/someone. You cannot just effectively ‘defund the global police’ overnight without their being huge, world changing implications. So whilst the America, America narrative ran in US politics for four years, the void, the vacuum left was potentially the cause in itself of an unspoken of crisis in foreign diplomacy and relations. The reality is that world peace was kept and maintained due to two factors. 1. There were written narratives of how to get through these situations presented, win-win methods for all. 2. Leaders of countries did take this into consideration in many, most all of the most crucial decisions made. 3. That they covered for the vacant space left by the USA having less involvement or no involvement in the resolving of these issues. 

So the truth is that there was a global re-set in terms of how the world was effectively ‘policed’ or more accurately to say how ‘the keeping of the peace occurred’ yet this has never been openly considered nor discussed in the press as the last administration wanted to keep the attention on President Trump, the decisions that he made for the USA alone.  That is how the Western press have presented everything and that is a complete fantastical, incorrect and dangerously incorrect version of the events that really have occurred in recent years in International relations. Whilst yes, there have been nudges, what has been termed provocations by some countries in actions they have taken individually. It’s really a vast provocation to be reliant on powers in the world to keep politics globally stable and at the same time be presenting them in the International press as being effectively ‘rogue states’.  85,000 Russian troops are close to the border of Ukraine, yes. However, 85,000 Israeli, Syrian, Turkish, North Korean and South Korean troops have stood down in recent years due specifically to the International relations of Russia. And yet that has not been mentioned anywhere in the press.

Now whilst this has not been even discussed, nor considered, whilst this may not have been only due to Russia’s policies alone. The very real requirement for those diplomatic decisions to have been made, that did mediate and that did fill the void is true and is as real as any truth of recent years and decades.

I’m not saying that everything Russia, China or any of the other countries do and have done I agree with, yet that’s not relevant to this. There is very much a consistent misrepresentation of the best decisions, the good actions, the good diplomacy that all of the above countries have taken in recent years, due to the vacuum left by the USA changing it’s own position Internationally and this is all misrepresented in all of the worlds press to such as degree that this is causing to some extent pressures on leaders and countries that should be resolved. There were win-wins for 100% of the people in the talks with the Korea's and in the outcome of other situations, yet International diplomacy today is at risk of reverting back to more ego based narratives which is adding towards potential tit for tat in the wrong way not tit for tat in the right way by there being gestures of goodwill again. Somehow there needs to be some goodwill that goes back into all relations, as a starting point. The issue of climate and environment is a place of middle ground where there is a win-win for all so this is a good place to consider building some bridges from

The misrepresentation of previous good will between leaders in my view is the single   greatest error and risk in the age we live. It keeps world leaders in the good, bad or not relevant to now category and that is risky. The part that is forgotten can always come around later in one way or another was the consideration of ancient Nordic philosophy. It does make sense, consider everything, take a holistic view. Compliments cost nothing yet can pay vast dividends.

The selective criticism and the selective praise when some of the best decisions ever in history have been made in recent years, in order to keep a world order largely at peace ignored is a misjudgment that creates misrepresentation. It;s on a scale of implication that's not even feasible to fully equate.

 There were improved relations in almost ten scenario's, what caused that?. If you do Mathamatics it's sometimes asked that you leave your workings out in the margin. Well think about the Mathamatics for a moment of having kept the world functioning and at peace. The economic gains and the stability have been vast. So just as the working out in the margin is important in maths tests. It's important too in how answers have been created, developed and instigated that kept humanity on a level playing field in recent years.

The question has to be asked that if these countries are acting in ways that are correct, honourable and essential in contributing to maintaining peace and order and yet if only their perceived wrong actions are considered and yet in many cases they are still sanctioned against due to out-moded perceptions and biases that a at least five years out of date. The question has to be asked, why is there a general acceptance by Western governments and the media and the people that it’s ok to put these countries down, to claim they are a disruptive presence on the stage of world affairs when their actions singularly and collectively have helped sustain peace and order in recent years? There are International actions of the Trump administration that did help create and generate resolution of issues, yet there were other decisions made that could have upended world peace in the context both of Syria and Iran. There was a third example where neither the EU nor the USA knew how to or were in a position to mediate peace in the context of Armenia and Azerbaijan and yet Russia did acted with the greatest level of wise mediation, diplomacy and peacemaking wisdom.  

From where we are today there is a brilliant peaceful path forward that can genuinely answer and solve many of the US domestic issues at home. There is a philosophy and methodology that can do the same Internationally. There are countries that have been ready to cover for the USA in the past in vacuums created and left due to the timing of decisions made. We are beyond needing to have such a competitive world in terms of our thinking, we all know that only cooperation can get us through the issues of today, where we either all get through or none of us get through to a better situation for all. We have heard and seen what happens in slow motion where there are great divisions in the world. The Axis of Evil concept has to give way to the Access back to a reset on all International relations. It’s simply the only way to get through this. The good guys, bad guys, good country bad country paradigm has had its day.  For the USA and the UK to be less divided countries, it’s really important to consider and to appreciate that on the global stage they have been at time divisive too. Again, I say this not to criticise at all, the past is the past. I say this to try to see how there is a micro and macro that to some extent has and is playing out. If for a moment we consider that the order of world peace is not maintained ever by the good decisions made by one, but the good decisions made by many. Whilst conflict can be created by the bad decisions of just one party. It’s actually much harder to keep the world at peace in a world of big armies and egos than it is to keep peace. However, there are new ways and new player that have helped maintained an order of peace in the world and these are not only the countries that are considered the ‘good countries’. In fact those that have been widely considered ‘the good countries’ mostly said nothing during some of the most complicated International relations in recent years.

On the playground of world relations did Andorra, Switzerland, Monaco and all those countries which value banking the most seek to maintain stability and peace in the third most important stockmarket in the world, that of Japan, when relations in Asia were on very unsteady ground? No. The people that kept the worlds bank balance balanced were actually mostly the countries that have been considered the naughtiest in terms of International politics. ‘USA. Russia, China, North Korea, The Philippines, South Korea all these countries played a part in either talking out or in some way maintaining balance in Asia in the context of the issues in the Korea’s. The diversion, the interjection away from confrontation and into meetings and talks is what created a first essential precedent that there really can be a way to avoid conflict. Years of saber rattling can progress towards hand shaking.

In order to do that requires two essential qualities in leadership. The ability to be able to reframe the past, see the immediate and the present as the place where improved decisions can be made. Taking an overview of all decisions made, not just those made by one side or another as being not the best decisions at the time. Seeing that there are improved decisions that can be made today, that is where the power to chose actually is, not in the decisions made before. It’s necessary to accept that aspects of the past were either wrong for others or wrong for all of us. Yet, new improved decsions today can b in the interest of all. When national leaders make dicisions they are never making them only for their own people, they are making decsions for everyone in the world. They are all doing that. The decision that President Un and President Moon made were good decisions for the people of The Solomon Islands. They were good decisions for the people of Paraguay. They were good decisions for the people of Alaska and Iceland. Why? All of those people are dependent upon a stability in the world that enables them to be able to make decisions and to run their own lives. Any major disruption to the world order that affects banking affects them.

So it’s not only the bad decisions of one person that affects everyone, it’s the good decisions of various leaders that affect everyone too. So when world leader do make these very, very good decisions, even just one or two. It’s so, so important that the world reciprocates in some way with a sense of acknowledgement and appreciation.

In terms of International relations it’s not only what is said, how and when. It’s as much about what’s not said. It’s as much about leveraging towards peace and order as it is at times in speaking out and saying hold on this is not correct and proper. What’s not correct and proper in my view is the fact that when it comes to internet connectivivity every second counts. If we have to wait even ten seconds longer for their to be a response on an action taken then that is frustrating for us. Yet, when it comes to the most important decisions in the world, made by people there is a tendency to not change perceptions fast enough.

To allow old thinking to drag on for years in terms of how leaders and their countries are perceived even when they make really good decisions that help everyone in the whole world.  This really is not correct, not any more. There should be proper explanation and proper acknowledgement of how we have all narrowly escaped from the most complicated conditions, there should be a reset completely on the issue of sanctions. We should all be generous enough to give ourselves another chance and to give those that have helped provide us with the means to be able to have the power to be able to give ourselves another chance by the decisions they made for peace, for world peace, for peace for all people whatever their thoughts and beliefs are, there should be a sense of appreciation given to them. Without the good decisions of many world leaders to try and make the best decisions they could make at the time I would not be writing this now and you would not be reading this now.

It’s time to say thank you to them and stop this silly narrative in the press as ‘everything is all their fault’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.  Other positions taken in a broad cross section of International issues and we would not be having the same levels of free, easy and happy lives we have today. The changes that could have come from their not being better peace in the world cannot be even fully understood and appreciated, yet they are real. It requires a whole lot of work, just to keep things more or less as they are and how they have been. It’s required real effort to maintain peace and order and whilst that may be what we expect, want and need. Any other chain of events could have played out very differently, so it’s really important to fully and properly study what’s helped get us this far and appreciate the decisions that have been made for peace. 

In recent months.

The World has seen an America opening up to a new world of opportunity and a world now awaits to see how that opportunity can be delivered. There has been more hype than in a hypermarket. There has been an America that has pulled through that has been questioned and pressured from within and yet what has carried through is an America that is better than its even been. It’s founding ideas, principles and the ideals of its founding fathers have resolutely been heard, reassessed and realigned in the light of how those ideal and ideals were always intended.  

The extraordinary insight of the founding fathers of America to protect the idea of America has stood up to every possible modern day consideration, nuance, every modern day interpretation, representation and misinterpretation and what has won through is one very clear consideration. That being that the founding fathers both in all their wisdom and faults as well were actually right all along. They set out hundreds of years ago to create a methodology that would withstand all future challenges and ensure that the USA as a country remains united either due to internal or external pressures.

They sought to see round every corner to know and understand all potential future eventualities and to produce a viable methodology to apply in any circumstance to circumnavigate whatever issues the USA faced . They projected their vision from the time of even horses were a relatively new form of transport in the Americas as far into the future to the time of the self drive electric Tesla car.

 They produced a thesis, theory model and strategy to be able to deal with any eventuality. If the ideas of the Founding fathers of America, the ideas and principles that they agreed upon had any major fault within it then that could have caused in recent days a sequence of events that could have irreversibly caused harm to the USA. However, they had well enough covered each possibility.  However, let’s be as perspicacious with this as we can be with the benefit of a few months between now and what occurred. The eventuality that did occur is where there was an out-coming president and an incoming president with very different perceptions of where America was at that moment in time. Two different narratives about what is the best way to progress as a country presented through the media.  What was the ‘best course of action’ in the context of all that was said was very widely open to interpretation by members the media and members of the public. 

The system of the USA has been tested perhaps more in the past three months than at any time in recent history.  The constitution does not actually cover what happens if there are two opposing perceptions of domestic political events presented by the press. In fact spin doctoring and even public relations were invented centuries after the constitution, let alone the influential effects of the internet and social media. However, the Constitution had put as first priority the ‘common sense of the people’ and the law makers to interpret the course of events in the context of the Constitution. That was enough of a safety valve to enable the balanced interpretation of events and for there to be continuity and a sense of balance restored. 

Yet what has emerged from that is this.

1. The ideas and the principles as set down in the US Constitution do stand up to challenge, any challenge. 

2. That the people of the USA and their system of law in their own name is protected and that people will, aligned to the directives of the US constitution readily stand up and protect that. Both the people and the law makers interpret that effectively to be in the interests of the people.

3. That common sense won through peace was restored, yet this was only after senitors and their employees who had very clearly done nothing other than do their jobs normally had been having to cower and escape from the group that entered the building. Whilst the later to be broadcast footage showed the protestors, most of which just were walking through the building walking within cordons, others went further and were copying information. Whilst it does clearly seem that in the bulding there were some people pushing the idea of freedom to the limit, others were in the building for all sorts of other reasons. Whilst no senators were harmed at the time they did not know that and there are many that have clearly been deeply affected by the event, including police officers too. To get a clear picture of the intention of all the people in the building is unclear with some reports citing that some were from the Right and the Left.

The fact that hundreds of thousands of people marched on the capital in the name of the USA and the ‘upholding of the US constitution’ by their interpretation and the fact that all those protecting the building were doing so in the name of the USA and the upholding the contitution in the name of government orders makes this an issue that is more complicated than would first appear. What’s clear is that there was not pro and an anti USA situation occuring it was the opposite it was a pro USA and a pro USA situation occurring and the definintion of what Pro USA actually means in terms of content, information and then action were clearly in direct contradiction with each other.  Whilst it’s clearly obvious that the destruction of government property and the harming of people protecting the law is clearly unconstitutional and wrong.

The place that I keep going to in the context of this is the fact that there had been information and misinformation in the context of the election and the people at the protests were acting upon the misinformation and those that went further and entered the building were acting illegally on the misinformation. However, the vast majority of that information was created, perpetuated, considered and discussed by people that are in politics and in the media on the highest levels and the process of discussion had gone on for many weeks prior to the event. So in terms of who is completely correct in their actions and who is slightly wrong, who is dangerously wrong and who was wrong to the degree where there could have been a major International incident as a result of what occured is a spectrum that is so broad and wide it’s actually very difficult to actually be able to say who was in the wrong and who was not in the case of many people.

The fact that both the protecting of the Capital bulding and the protesting outside of the capital building were both completely a part of being on the same side of the law and of reason is very clear indeed. The fact that entering into the building was an action that for those on the protest may have just seemed to be like the next stage of the protest and yet the implications for those inside the building must have been very frightening indeed. I wonder if there was a freezeframe of the moment and the protestors could have seen the fact that there own lawmakers, who were elected to do the job they were doing were actually hiding in utter fear and feeling a sense of panic in evacuating the building some of them with there families. I wonder how many protestors seeing this at that moment would have turned around and left the building immediately. I believe most if not all of them. When looking at the footage of what occurred. The ‘mob’ as it’s been called were there more in my own subjective opinion more from a perspective of one element of the group egging the other element of the group on, more so than with the intent to do real harm. However, within the context of that it’s of course possible to retrospectively rationalise what’s seen on film footage and yet if in that situation at the moment the fact is that neither any of the people either in the building or entering the building had full knowledge of firstly what was occurring and secondly of how the situation would play out. Therefore, I believe that their was an element of gullibility to what occurred. Had there been an announcement at the time that a van had been found with bomb making equipment in, within Washington DC would those protestors have entered the building? Would the protestors knowing this have wanted to immediately leave the protest? The fact is that most of the people on the protest were doing exactly what was correct and right in the situation that hd been presented in the press is clear. The right to protest is vitally important. However, if the protest has people of such differing intentions ranging from doing exactly what they should do to uphold law and order and yet others are doing everything to take away, harm and challenge law and order then there is a problem. When that is further perpetuated by people in positions of power and authority claiming that law and order, rights and freedoms are in jeoardy of being lost then that is pushing the public in to a position of not being able to really truly determine what is actually correct and right and what is not.

What again I have to repeat is that both sides were there at the protest doing exactly what they thought was right, proper and correct in protecting the USA as a country. What can be learned from this very clearly is this. Firstly aside from what actually occurred in terms of practice by a fe, people are on the side of the USA. What that actually means though in practice in my opinion is that in order to actually protect properly the system of government it is important for the news to provide some interpretation in terms of not just ‘reporting the past’ In other words what’s just actually occurred, but look properly at what’s actually occurred and occurring and how that could shape future circumstances. If any news journalist would have actually put the question to President Trump, and news commentators a month before the event of where they thought this ‘double or dual narrative’ would take the country then I wonder what the answer would have been.

 To have two people as influential as a US President and US President elect having a diametrically opposing view and then making contradictory statements in the context of something as important as a Presidential election could never have ended well, it’s obvious. What the world can be thankful of however is that the very robust political structure in the USA calmed the situation America’s ideals, aspirations and government by the people for the people has had one of it’s greatest tests in it’s history and it’s a relief to all that we are a few months beyond this. What is also good and important to consider and to know is that the diplomacy of the Biden Administration since has produced and generated many interesting concepts, ideas and proposals and I believe genuine ways for the USA and the wider world to progress. The path being taken is not jeopardising any of the rights of US citizens.

The fact is that the core message of what occurred and what has followed is that firstly Americans citizens are there for the USA and it’s constitution and it’s ideas and ideals. Secondly, that in fact almost all were on the same side although their actions at that moment appeared to all be in complete contrast, which is not actually the case, the truth is that the actions of a very few were in complete contrast. There are many ways to potentially interpret and to present the course of events that occurred. I would say though that the best way to interpret the event overall is certainly not to see the event in the way of ‘What happens when people believe they have too much freedom’ but more, much more to consider it in this way. ‘What can happen when people perceive their loosing their right to the freedoms they have.’ This is essential to consider particularly at this time.

We are in a time where a biological factor, a pandemic has created stresses, strains and tensions throughout each and every country in the world. We have all lost some of the freedoms we had two years ago not due to what governments have done per say but due to the fact they have been trying to interpret themselves what is the best course of action in dealing with a global pandemic. There is no denial of this. Pandemics do pose a threat to the normal functioning of any human society at any time. They always have and there are many civilizations that have fallen due to the social implications of a pandemic on populations. If humanity worldwide is considered generally the whole world has adapted very well to a world that could not have been percieved just a few years ago. However, it’s also true to say that the USA has faced numerous pandemics, three major waves of Cholera and 1918 Flu. However, none of these were particularly in recent memory.

In fact the truth is that 1918 flu was so bad, that it has effectively been mostly written out of the history books and overshadowed by world wars, yet was actually worse in terms of the death toll of both world wars in terms of the effect it had on the worlds population. However, aside from that pandemics can create stresses that the generations of today have only just woken up too. So whilst all societies of the world have been highly stressed within due to the pandemic, the very much freedom aware USA was affected in two ways in terms of the perceived idea of loss of freedom. One from the clear reduction of freedom that is clearly evident and temporarily necessary due to a biological reason, a pandemic and secondly this was then exasperated by the news and information of their beign yet a second potential loss of freedom. Ie the right to vote and have your voice heard in an election that was presented as not being proper and correct. So whilst I’m not in any way trying to justify what occurred, simply to try and understand it. To look at all the information and look at the very evident ways that peoples lives across the USA and the world have been sociologically affected in recent times. I believe that these are all factors worthy of consideration and yet are not excuses. However, having said that it’s equally important, perhpas mroe important that equally governments do not use the effect of the virus as an ecuse to change freedoms that are not related to the virus. We have to be very clear in understanding that pandemics themsleves do not ‘affect, ruin, destroy civilizations. It’s what goes along with the pandemic. In the case of ancient Rome, it was totally disfunctional politcs at the time. In the context of the fall of the Inca empire it was due to their being a dual narrative in Peru when the Spanish arrived. Where they the long awaited ‘return of the gods’? or were they their for conquest. This question created additional confussion, leading to non acton in the wake of a pandemic. In the context of 1918 it was the pandemic combined with the spreading of the pandemic caused by the WW1. So, pandemics in themsleves yes they are a threat and a concern to all civilizations. However, in each and every one of the cases cited here it’s the disfunctional politics, and or the ‘media’ perceptions at the time that are the deciding factor as to how well any civilization can actually cope with and deal with a pandemic. 

If we were to take a single concept and idea of what can calm and what can guide a civilization optimally through a pandemic it is clearly and evidently a very clear open and broad interpretation of what is going on so that the people have good clear, solid information. What is the greatest danger is when there are very differing narratives occurring and there is suspicion and division in terms of interpretation of what they best course and courses of action actually really are. So whilst I have gone on a tangent here with this away from what actually occurred in the Capital building, I believe that this is important as this is one event that will be interpreted in all media and actually legally too from the stand point of what actually occurred within the context of an immediate why remit? Yet, the why remit in reality, should be seen within broader terms. When it comes to pandemic there are genuine rational fears, those can be exacerbated by any type of politics whether these were the politics of the Inca empire or the politics between the presentation of political events by media outlets. What I would say in terms of courses of action in terms of the genuine fears of society and government and in terms of both the rational, irrational and perceived fears within government and society is this. Do not exacerbate the situation. If you stand up too fast and feel giddy the best course of action is to go back down. Grab the ground, remain grounded. It’s the same with this. The whole of society is feeling a bit giddy a bit wobbly over all the certainties we have which have all been affected. It’s better by far to remain slow, calm and measured.

Hyper excitable energy, the sense of fear uncertainty and imbalance is not good. Whilst we can be normally attracted to excitement to interest, high energy events and thrive to some extent on stress. Stress is not good today. Whilst there are correlations that my work and others work has found that link stress to the pandemic of COvid19 itself. The link to this sociologically is also very clearly a factor in charting the best ways to progress. Effectively with a lockdown situation, many of the distractions of every day life have been calmed in peoples minds. The distractions of busy normal life have been slowed, the immediate chit chatter lessened. So what has actually occurred in reality is that there is a global calming affect of this virus, there is something out of our control going on and that in itself takes us into a deeper, more reflective place within ourselves. That can be good and it can be not so good in some ways. The superficiality can fall away and what really matters to us as living, breathing thinking, functioning human beings can come to the surface. The deeper parts of us are accessed and aligned with. Therefore, it’s of no great surprise that there have been major political movements that have been becoming vast since the pandemic. Once the tinsel of everyday life is stripped away with people spending so much time at home, they go to a more value based part of their own psyche slowly methodically and daily and therefore many of the issues that people just put to the backs of their minds due to their usually being the chatter of every day issues considered simply fade. So therefore, there is the possibility of more cathartic deeper issues arising in people. Therefore, I repeat what I said before, as much as possible it’s essential to really consider how responses either individual or collective can be seemingly more spontaneous, yet this is due to the fact that many people are thinking in similar ways and are accessing parts of their own deeper and inner thinking that they would normally put to the side. So therefore, when it comes to the issue of politics and protest this is not an issue to just be dismissive of. It does require thought. Yet when that thinking occurs there can be so much more than positives created. I would suggest that this is exactly the ‘level’ of consciousness shift, that we actually require to start to properly fix the more profound and deeper issues that affect our lives. I would say that the proposal and plan for the US infrastructure to be improved and then using this as a vehicle to create job and improvement in terms of deeper issues that affect all of us not only makes perfect sense, it’s at the perfect time too. Whilst President Biden has been considering the basis of what’s important for the USA, people generally are more inclined to be considering what’s important for them. It’s no coincidence that it’s becoming incredibly difficult, to be able to buy a semi-mature native British tree on the internet. Every garden centre and supplier is mostly sold out. People are considering what’s most important to them and this is reflected both in terms of planting trees, doing the gardening, planning for the future and in terms of protecting rights and even protests. They are all symptomatic of the same. So therefore, aligning to this idea of improving the basics of how we live is very important in this time.

So returning to the Capital Building event.

The protecting of the Constitution in the way in which people considered important to them is a factor in what occurred. That is something that all Americans should be embracing and yet the more ‘radical actions that occurred in that moment are not actions that anyone really considers were correct and right today. I believe whe the full picture of what actually occurred was seen not from the heat of the moment, but more from the very wide implications of what actually occurred afterwards there was a sobebroader realization I believe in general.

However, when the event of a protest turned into a set of events that put one group against another both taking their actions in the name of what they considered the best interests of the USA. The situation became very wrong as people fought people and people were injured and killed. The events were incredibly traumatic to those that experienced them and also those that witnessed them from afar both in the USA and Internationally. 

The idea of a country that is fully democratic run by the government for the people is a concept that is the working principle of one democracy and yet that is parallel and central in its importance in the USA, and Europe, Asia, Central and South America, Australia and far beyond to hundreds of countries and tens of thousands of islands. This is a principle that a substantial part of civilization is built upon. In terms of Monarchy’s and the unions of countries in cooperation with each other in many ways whether that is through The COmmonwealth, EU, ASEAN, BRIKS or with structures and practices and diplomatic unions is also another form of this. With Monarchy’s the Head of State are the voice of reason and part of that is in the protecting of the county and it’s people. The alliances between different forms of government systems, different in infrastructure yet aligned in idea’s ideals and values of the interconnection between all countries is what gives all human civilization all of the security we actually have in the world. So yes, there are issues that one country has with other countries, there are relationships that play out in the media world as this country in contrast to that country and yet there are a great many interconnected relationships that go on between countries that the media and the public do not even know anything much about. So there are a great many levels of diplomacy and interaction which occur in the world. All of this is based upon countries being open and honest about some of what they do and how they interact and some in ways that will never be known. Human communication worldwide is a very complicated. Simply keeping global relations in all it’s many forms and with so many differences and eccentricities aligned, mostly peaceful and mostly on course for the progress of all is a major effort in itself and all of the strings, levers and cogs to how this all occurs perhaps none of us will ever know fully and properly. The good news is though that overall it continues and by it continuing this actually gives all of us people in the world that capacity to some extent to be able to chart, course and define much of the content of our lives. When you eat in a restaurant you do not usually consider the seed that was planted that generated the 1/5th of a piece of broccoli on your plate. You do not readily consider the restaurant owner that day having to discus on the phone the electricity bill with the utility company or the fact that the chef over slept ten minutes, but made it into work on time by a bit of additional effort partly due to the fact that his partner the night before had prepared his chefs uniform, just before going to bed. Similarly, we tend to only llok at the resutl of having what we consider a normal straigt forward life where we have the freedom to decide wehter we go to work in the morning or spend the day in bed as we cannot really be bothered to go to work. We have the chocue to deterine if we are going to work towards something better in our lives or if we are going to spend more time socializing or debating on the internet. Whether we are going to do the small or the larger actions in ‘putting the world to rights’ or whether this is time for more ‘me time’. 

So in order to run a restaurant, whether that is a really excellent restaurant or not a very good restaurant at all. I know this as I have run both and fortunately the later became the prior. However, in order to run any restaurant or a burger stand or a pop up stall selling cakes and coffee. The truth is that at least 50 to 70% of the entire picture of running that restaurant every person that dines at that restaurant has no way of actually perceiving or knowing. The behind the scenes aspect to all that needs to be done in running a restaurant is vast. So if it’s like that for running a restaurant it is clearly much more like that in running a village, a town or a city. In fact, to run a country much more so. Even if it’s a tiny principality of a few thousand people. So there is a vast amount of effort, checks, balances rules, guidelines, principles and actions that occur in symbiosis to run a country. When the US constitution was written the primary consideration of all those involved was from a USA only perspective. How and what is required to give birth to a new nation that is redefined and redefining what and how a nation should actually be. What’s viable, what’s fair, what’s workable.

So that’s the type of thinking that would have been occurring at the birth of the USA. What ideal and ideals can we use, borrow and align with from Europe. Whilst the first days of the USA would have been more aligned to France than the UK, there soon was an alignment to the France, The UK, Germany, Ireland and of course Central and South America, Canada, Africa, Asia, Australia and many other countries. Then there was the progression of the USA towards not only taking on the influences of other countries the USA was putting out into the world influences of it’s own. The first major one was something as seemingly unexciting as ‘standardization’. However, it’s standardization that enabled the USA to be able to manufacture in ways never previously known. It was standardization that influenced the most the formation of the USA into being the USA and not only that it was the incredible standards of standardization that gave the allies in WW2 the capacity in terms of airpower in the second world war. It was then the adapting of standardization from military to domestic that then effectively created the suburbs of the USA and the manufacturing of the fifties that effectively led to fashions and changes in society that influenced and affected the late 50’s and 60’s that then went on to form and create the content of what modern life from a Western perspective and largely an Eastern perspective too has become.

However, behind the scenes of all of that and in order to have been able to carry forth the by now old document of the US constitution to have been able to uphold this in the context of all the changes, so many changes in the USA and in the world since the time it was written would in itself have been a near herculean effort that has continued behind the scenes and yet whilst that has gone on that has then since seeded and affected so many other countries in a positive and freedom generating way.

So with the hub of all of that stability that has occurred and been created, all of the improvements and adaption’s that have occurred there wil have been a vast effort, yet more than that as the use and application of these ideas spread out throughout the decades and centuries from Washington there would always have been a vast effort of a great many people chosing not more ‘me time’ but more ‘We time’. Whilst they may have been doing that in part to pay the loan, keep the family going etc. They were also simultaneously in their own way keeping the country and the world progressing forward.

So with the consideration that all this effort to have created a free country and then a wider free world. To have then aligned this with older and more established forms of government in Europe, to have enabled may countries to all be on the same page, and yet to enable those countries not on the same page to have been able to progress in their own ways too and yet still all be on the same page enough to be able to have reasonable to good speaking relations mostly is a vast effort. Just as your dinner in a restaurant does not just magically appear on the plate neither too does your right to vote on a piece of paper for you to put your mark on in an election. To have got to that place has required a vast effort by a great many people. It’s required people putting a sense of responsibility before their own needs, wants and desires for a significant part of their entire lives. Keeping things normal, relatively normal or actually anything other than completely awful in a world of people with in many case overly self-centered, selfish, self-serving wants, needs and ideas is a massive task of a great many people. To be able to counteract all the selfishness in the world really is not a burden that has ever been fairly carried. Yet, more so than that it’s a burden where a great deal more people today do need to think in terms of others and the interests of others if we are to progress along this path of improvement for more people more. The fact is that the worlds security in an age and time as complex as today is not reinforced by the strongest powers only but more so by the weakest links not breaking.

That weakness at risk of breaking is not the type of weakness that we readily think of. It’s a weakness towards being selfish rather than more selfless.  We have all habitually been brought up to believe that strength is the man that knows himself, that has his own opinion that wil fight tooth and nail for what he think, what he believes and what he considers his god given right to have to hold and control. Yet that in all truth and with all the subtle levels of reality, human reality in the real human world is about as accurate to the real world as any caricature actually is to real life. That is an untrue misconception of reality as accurate to reality as a cartoon actually is. The real truth is that you and I have the ability to vote in elections as there are checks and balances going on between the leaders of countries worldwide. Whilst you may consider that you have the choice to do anything you want today. You choose, you decide. You can eat what you like for dinner, you can go shopping, you can dress up like bat man and jump around the local park if you want. However, you have the ability to do that not due to the laws and rights in your own country. You can do that as overall International leaders have a very clear consensus of wanting to keep the world functioning more or less as it is though with general improvements to all countries. Whilst the Americans are looking out for Europeans, the Chinese are looking out for the interests of the Koreas, Whilst Russia is looking out for the interests of Syria and Venezuela. Whilst France is looking out for Germany, Germany is looking out for Spain. Whilst Spain is looking out for Morocco. Whilst the UK is looking out for The Commonwealth countries, The Commonwealth countries are looking out for each other. Whilst ASEAN is looking out for Asia the EU is looking out for Europe. These alliances unions that are both on paper, and obtained and maintained by nods is what gives us all our real freedom. Without these International alliances there would be no peace in the world. Without peace there would not be government, nor voting, nor internet, nor the ability to have fashions, opinions that can be heard, free speech much beyond what you can say to a few people around you. So there is a vast array of checks and balances in the world that is at play just to keep things as they are. Freedom and peace have always been and will always be a part of a process they are not a destination. They need to be worked upon continuously and if it’s not you doing that work then it is someone else having to do that work whether you realize that or not.

So again reverting back to the events that occurred at The Capital building. The people that were in that building were playing their part in not only maintaining the order in the USA but in maintaining the order to a very significant extent in the world. With the stability and normal function of that building being affected, that action was affecting the normal functioning of all the other countries that are in some way affected by the work that is done in that building. That protest and situation was everything other than just about America and all the people working in that building would have been aware of that. So for those hours that this event went on the reliable partner the USA is and has always been to Europe was not functioning, nor the diplomatic relation to The Middle East, South America, China, Russia or anywhere else. Those few hours, put the USA in many ways into possibly the most vulnerable position it has been in for how long, fifty years, one hundred years, who knows. If there would have been any country with really wrong intentions towards the USA that would have been their moment. A moment where the USA was in the most confused situation and therefore it’s most vulnerable. Having a country as powerful and as much of a reliable partner to so many other countries effectively ‘out of action’ for even a few hours was in one way a major risk to the entire world. Yet what it actually in reality proves is something very interesting. The fact that even when the USA is effectively ‘disarmed’ for a few hours. People worldwide are still on the side of the USA. This shows that when everything is considered it’s the power of diplomacy that is actually the real power in the world over that of weapons, at this moment in the world we are in today. That is reassuring to know. Other countries did not try to use the USA’s moment of vulnerability for their own agenda or needs. This shows there is really today a vast amount of goodwill, yet the truth is that for anyone within the USA seeing how this could potentially gone wrong, so completely wrong. How this could have ended up in a crisis and a situation that could have been outside of anyone’s control had circumstances been very different when that occurred. So whilst that even may have occurred due to a narrative of wanting to keep and maintain a sense of freedom, that was perceived as being lost. If the events of that day would have not been for the most part handled impeccably well in terms of diplomacy by all International leaders, had that not occurred then today we could actually all be in a world where the notion of a free society based upon votes, opinions and discussion could have been jeopardized for everyone. Whilst no man is an island, nor too is any country especially the USA no matter what anyone says. The USA is today and has always been since the day the term USA came into existence and for many years prior to that an integral part of world affairs and world politics. The only way that the USA could ever be anything other than that would be for the USA to give all its weapons away, disband its army, close all of it’s International offices and ban press about any other country in the world. That clearly is an absurdity and would never happen. If anything like that ever did happen then that too would upset the International balance of power in ways that cannot even be conceived, So the truth is whatever actions occur in the USA in the context of politics always has had and always will have much further International implications, that’s the case no matter what anyone either believes or wants to believe.

The USA can have a USA national style perspective, yet in truth to maintain that the USA requires very substantial amounts of International relations work.  Much of the International policy strategy work President Trump used during his Presidency a very significant amount of that was derived from my work. Yet never once was that ever known or presented. The idea of ‘foreign players’, would not have been politically palatable in the perceptions of the American voters so all of this occurred without there being awareness of this occurring. There was a reductionist approach presented to Americans by President Trump from the moment he began. US voters were unaware at the time of voting in the last US election that the original strategy documents that provided many answers to most of the difficult International issues that President Trump answered and resolved during his time at the White House had been derived from published strategy documents. So when it comes to what is wise and what is not wise to do in terms of International relations I generally have a pretty good idea. 

The protestors at protesters at the Capital building could have created sets of implications that affected the USA and other countries too.  The photographing of private documents, the theft of computers to name two of the factors that either one could have irreversibly changed International relations for the worse. Whilst this may not have been the consideration or even a consideration at all of the protestors in the building at the time.

 However, with information and computers taken, this could have resulted in any country perceiving it’s more vulnerable than it is and as a result of that a chain of events could have occurred that could have been outside of the ability to diplomatically negotiate through.  Whilst this is a speculation in this case, what is on some computers is clearly of secret for everyone’s wellbeing.  

What is important to consider is that Internationally there was a sense of common sense  that prevailed in the interpretation of what occurred with International leaders. No country wants or wanted to see the USA in such a contradiction within itself. The silence of International leaders did clearly speak volumes in proving that the USA, really does have friends Internationally and that the world’s leaders are on side of the United States of America and the American people even when America is temporarily in a disadvantaged position.

When a sense of calm was reestablished and there was the Impeachment trial. The law makers again presented common sense at that time to the situation and a very broad amount of information was heard and considered. They interpreted the law in the interests of good balance and reason at that time. There are however other personal cases at the time being considered.   

The main consideration is that this did occur due to their being two narratives in the press.  Two interpretations of what was actually occurring in the USA during the preceeding years and particularly the two months prior. This shows and proves the power of the press and also is the first real clear evidence of just how harmful wrongful, misleading interpretation of real life events particularly in terms of the legitimacy of the electoral process can actually be.

So in short yes those that marched on the capitol to protest were doing what they believed was correct and in alignment with the law.  The going into the capital building was not correct. Whilst it’s clear that people on both sides were patriots.  The primary difference between the two is the media that they were listening too and how they have interpreted all the news at the time and additionally for a long time. I hope there will ever be a situation again like that that has just occurred.  I hope that this is due to the fact that people are aware that there are truths and half truths in the media whichever channel you listen too. There is an additional pressure that is created by the media when they do not actually bridge gaps in reporting representing such differing narratives in the press when there are such differing narratives in the views and opinions of the public.

Whilst the faults and the causes of what occurred is potentially an ongoing discussion which only maybe fully appreciated, known in many years to come.

If anything I would say that the most important lesson from this is that the press should make a concerted effort to see, interpret and report wider more fully representative views than they usually do in order to be able to have a dialogue rather than a monologue that is a more accurate representation of how people really think. 

It’s when people feel like they are not being heard and their views are not accurately represented that they lose faith in governing systems. It’s when people feel like their rights are being lessened and reduced that people respond negatively and in ways that people consider to be so clearly wrong. Whilst I have consistently cited in all my documents that ‘talks’ are essential in today’s world Internationally to bring, build and maintain peace. Allow people to voice what they think and how they feel and to provide the platform for other slightly differing or contrasting views makes good sense. I consider that this is important Internationally and domestically. I believe that this is as important for both the right and the left to consider and the mainstream media. When there are broader perspectives voiced there is an improved chance of more people feeling that their thoughts are represented and therefore common ground found. Not only common ground but viable answers that answer issues from both or more than both left and right perspectives. The best example of this is in the context of refugees, the point where President Trump cited to the United Nations when he was President aline of thinking that had been presented in my documents though said very much in his own words. That being the best way to reduce a refugee crisis is ‘for countries to make their own countries great again’. That effectively summarizes in a single phrase what much of my work if instigated fully can help do. This can help any country. This however always requires both the very best sustainable use of the land and the regenerating of the land as this is always the first step towards stability and that is food stability, agriculture, the soil. Any country in today’s world that is potentially failing in terms of the use of the environment to be able to feed it’s own people should be helped. If there is one single achievement necessary in the world today it’s to know that we do always have enough expertise and knowledge available to be able to sustain any and every country in terms of food aside from International politics. A famine in any country is actually a potential future risk to all. The 1/3 less farming productivity in Europe must not be a trend towards another continent losing it’s capacity to farm effectively and efficiently.

The internet has given the world generally a means and a way to greater free expression. However, it’s also created other narratives within society and there are some truths of events that have occurred and occurring that never do make it through the editing rooms of the world’s journalists into the public domain.  What exactly is fake news and what is not is a discussion in itself. I would say that any news that does not accurately depict the broad cross section of both content and in terms of important issues opinion in the context of any given subject is in fact not only biased news is fake news.  More frequently Fake News is what’s not said rather than what is said. What is said therefore appears to be the whole truth when in fact through selective reporting it’s already biased and presented in a way to engineer opinion. It’s also important to note that the positioning on subjects is also always communicating a message and therefore sometimes reporting on the implications of positions taken by leaders to help calm situations should also be reported and interpreted in the press more in order for people to be able to have a more rounded opinion. The fact is that if Russia did not step in at the same time at Vice President Pence going to Turkey to meet President Erdogan. If Russia had not also brokered peace with Syria, Israel and Turkey and positioned it’s troops between advancing armies then the newspaper headlines just few days later could have been three of the more larger armies in the Middle East in direct conflict. The foreign policy of Russia during the Trump administration covered for both the USA, Europe and in Asia too, yet this has never been properly reported ever in any of the International press. Which is very unfair not only towards Russia, but also countries which benefited from the positioning that Russia took in interjecting and helping calm tensions. The same is actually true of China in Asia both in the context of The Korea’s. So in reality when you have countries that are also effectively superpowers not acknowledged fully for when they do take actions that are positive that have actually covered for all of us that want the world to be a more peaceful place then this unfairness does if anything cause a motive towards there being other actions they take that can be considered provocative. When the press spent years considering if Russia had influenced elections or not the real underlying truth is yes Russia did. If Russia had not have intervened diplomatically in both Asia and Syria then there would have been possibly chaos which could have affected all elections. So without a doubt both Russia and China have in these cases during the Trump Presidency been positive forces on the world stage and covered for both Europe and the USA and yet this goes unreported and unconsidered by News media that did not have to send their own journalists into harms way very much as a result of the actions of both China and Russia in these scenarios. The only reason that this was not voiced and cited in the press is due to biased reporting from an America-centric either left or right perspective in all of the mainstream Western press. So this is a great example of what I cite as what really is ‘fake news’. The fact is that that fake news is selective media programming that is only possible due to the fact that leaders of countries such as Russia and China can see and know that there is a propaganda game going on.

This propaganda game also stretches to North Korea too in some ways. If Chairman UN fires a rocket into the sea leaders notice North Korea. If he says in al sincerity that he has plans for North Korea to adapt and change in future and become much more of a mainstream socialist country, a mainstream socialist country perhaps more along the lines of Scandinavian countries if given the chance. The world tends to ignore this. Whilst I make that comparison I do so to fill in the gap that no media organization in the world has actually asked Chairman Un. In some ways the selective programming of the media is the single most provocative action taken simply by ignoring one sort of peaceful and peacemaking offer, one offer of reconciliation made and yet focusing only on what’s termed as ‘the provocations’. How fully have the media covered the potential famine in North Korea? They have covered it, yet not enough to help provide any answers, any way out of the situation. Have any media speculated what a new reset to US and North Korea relations could perhaps look like with the knowledge and understanding that whilst North Korea wants to adapt and change and does have long term tourism aspirations post Covid. Does have a desire to be more aligned with other countries and yet does have a looming famine? There is nothing more concerning is any militarized country facing famine. Whilst South Korea and North Korea do in fact have relations where there are constructive exchanges between the two countries and South Korea is it not wise at this moment in time to reevaluate and provide an answer, a way to see if improved diplomacy is in fact feasible once again between the West and North Korea. We have at this time I believe got to go beyond the idea of Axis of Evil paradigm to Access to resources and improved relations. What always has to be considered with North Korea and Chairman Un is that he inherited the situation in North Korea, as did his Father. It’s clearly not easy for the leader of any country to openly and publicly ask for help and North Korea has done this and so I very much hope that there is the chance and opportunity in North Korea reaching out ot the world asking for help now that there is the consideration and the appreciation given that the events of a few years ago were talked down, were very much improved upon and that is feasible to continue. 

When there are broader narratives in the press. When questions are asked about how to bridge gaps and divides to people that have such different views both Internationally and domestically then better answers can be at least considered and derived. People may have an overall perspective about any given subject that’s formed from thousands of bits of data they may have heard and considered that came to them from a lifetime of experiences thoughts and consideration. It’s though frequently the new information from a slightly differing perspective that can provide improved perspective and awareness. By having a media that is more open to questioning not only what happened, but what could happen if given the chance, there is the chance that entrenched popularism on both the right and the left can find at least some new ways to progress with some of the issues that both consider so important. If there is a way for North Korea to regenerate it’s resources and become more resilient to famine then it’s the same for all the countries without economic opportunities caused by agricultural pressures that also enable countries to be able to not only prevent refugee crisis’ in both South and Central America, but also in Africa and The Middle East. The world was too slow in acting for Ethiopia in the 80’s, some positive actions were taken and then Ethiopia took a very long arduous meandering journey towards greater stability. However, in the 80’s the drought famine issue was in Africa and now against exacerbated both by climate change and the pandemic it’s potentially anywhere. Therefore, its vital, really vital that if there is any one issue that mankind gets a whole lot better at dealing with today than we have ever dealt with in the past, its famine. Famine should not be allowed or permitted to take root in any location in the world. Famine itself is caused by desertification which causes less humidity elsewhere which spreads more drought and more famine. Famine is as much a pandemic as Covid19 is if left unresolved. So with similar levels of urgency in dealing with the pandemic actions should be taken to prevent famine and simultaneously stabalize climate. This is in all of our interests.  This again is not an angle to a situation that by scientific evidence is good science, yet is not habitually considered in any form of media. The media leave North Korea as one subject, famine as another, answers to famine as another and climate change as another. All apparently completely unrelated and yet that is in itself completely ‘fake news’ they are all interrelated and by not making the links that have really go to be made in order to solve any of the issues the media is acting itslef in a way that could be described as ‘popularist’. It’s presenting singlular lines of thinking without providing the answers that it otherwise could. So whilst some say that the media just reports the news, by it not implying or edging towards answers it’s actually reporting the news that it helped to create yesterday through reductionist perceptions provided. It’s of no surprise that today’s broader thinking people that sense that something is very wrong in the press are increasingly either not watching the news at all or if they are then immediately cross referencing what they see and hear on alternative media sources either on the left or the right or both. I believe again by the press having this perception of how they should provide only prescribed perspectives of what occurred, rather than what could occur they are limiting the thinking of populations to be able to make the connection and bridge the gaps in terms of innovation that could otherwise be generated.

If the links were more effectively made between the loss of green infrastructure, ie the capacity of the world and the causes or answers to issues such as refugees linked with the productivity of land and famine. Then there would be a whole new desire, need and capacity generated for the Green collar economy both in terms of innovation and in terms of manufacturing. So in order to help empower the new green economy requires going beyond only limited perceptions provided of current events. By implying the required answers this open more thinking in the direction of answers that can generate new enterprise and also solve issues better, faster and more completely than has been previously achieved.

So the diversity of press I believe is very important it’s both a preventative measure to future bad news and a part of the answer that can help generate a wiser more in-tuned and compassionate society where when the issue of famine arises we no exactly how to be able to stop it and we know why that’s in all of our interests to do so. Yes, we have learned how to make Agriculture work for us when there was a stable global climate, yet in the midst of an instable global climate this is still very much a work in progress.

So I believe, that the idea of having a constitution that trusts the people is good and important.  Yet to have that which not fully representing the idea of ‘we the people’ fully in the press could be described as a modern day contradiction to old ideas that do have a clear level of good sense and reasoning, albeit written in times so distant in many ways they were as in-comparable as comparable to the times of today. If however, you have a ‘We the people’ idea the of course you do have representatives of the people both in terms of in government and in the media. However, I believe by the media itself really looking more closely at how people beyond professional commentators in both government and in the media are represented, by bringing in new ideas, concepts and thinking that can help envision ways forward in situations rather than only retrospectively reporting then society can start to look forward rather than only in the present and being so retrospectively cognizant. Whilst this is one factor it’s good practice to consider how the US Constitution is a cornerstone of democracy worldwide.  Yet, when I spent a few months in Hollywood a few years ago presenting a film I had produced Ecoplaza Paradise Oasis and seeking to get the film made into funded feature film I was told I had no chance at the time. The remit of funding was not of films that present a message, but the films being financed were almost mostly children’s animation based films. A film I was told with a message was seemingly almost impossible to get funding for I was told, whether that’s true or not I do not know, however all I can say to that is in a world of such very significant problems which people do care passionately about wanting better and improved answers too if there is only news that reports a part of the story and does not present new ways to theoretically solve issues and even fictional films do not depict this. If the only futuristic films that are getting funded are consistently presenting the future in negative terms, ie an alien invasion, a global pandemic, a totally controlled society where there is no to little hope but the hero partly saves the day amid a time of technological oppression, then it’s really not too much of a surprise to see that societies in the West as a whole are rejecting these ideas, they are seeking to find and forge something else, something better than now. They are looking back to times where there were more wholesome values there is a sense that technology is not the answer to happiness it’s simply a medium of how to obtain a bit more happiness in the moment. So when there is not vision presented clearly of how there can be a better future. A future beyond simply statements and election slogans. A future that is presented and makes sense. A future that does not overly upend society, or disrupt business and crate unemploymnet. A future that does factor in the needs of people more than a total reliance on a consumer culture to create happiness. Where there is a collective envisaging of how things can be better and then how and where the incremental evidence of that is playing out both in the emedia and in peoples real lives then there is a genuine sense of hope. The issues cited by the CEO of JP Morgan in many ways all relate to one factor. A lack of vision presented. Not just a lack of economic vision a lack of a vision that provides a way through for the next two, three four generations without them feeling like their rights are in jeopardy and therefore not responding and reacting negatively towards society itself.

I was in Hong Kong for some of the protests there. The place at the time I cannot easily describe other than to say there was a great fear, an anger, worry and stress throughout Hong Kong on the future. Where there is any society where the people feel that there rights are under threat people react in adverse ways. I believe that is the same in any country. This has nothing to do with Western or Eastern thinking. It’s got nothing to do with cultural influences, it’s more like a biological, a genetic influence. No animal nor person wants to feel trapped without rights and if that is a widely perceived perception then there will inevitably be adverse reactions. A dog bites both due to the fact it’s scared or it’s powerful. It’s the same with people. So, edging away rights at the same time as not reporting as widely at the same time as propelling the ideas of freedom Internationally creates a major parts crisis in people. It’s creating conflict, when that is then further reinforced with news that is occurring that is seemingly out of peoples’ control to be able to affect. Add to that economic and environmental factors, add to that the sociological issues people are having to contend with due to ‘normal life and then that being exacerbated by the pandemic. It’s pretty clear to see that the way in which the world is for many is actually making them stressed into sickness. In others it’s taking them into places where they simply identify with belief systems that they can either in part or more fully identify with. It’s pushing people into a place of desperation by the inch. The world and the life that films have presented for decades is no longer very much relevant to the lives that people are experiencing. So to bring all of these factors into consideration to make a few good choices that help calm tensions I would advocate as part of the infrastructure plan places where people can find and create their own hope and their own opportunities. People are self sufficient more so than they have been led to believe and whilst we can never expect society to present answers to everything, it can create at least the resources, the meeting place for people to be able to better obtain their own answers. It’s better that than people continuously protest against problems expecting the government to be able to provide these. It’s better that there are places created where people can generate their own answers.   

There is a clear certainty in an otherwise uncertain world that the future does look equally or more uncertain than today. So that is not a good place for people’s minds to be. A perceived good future if you work for it is where the thinking was mostly for the past fifty or so years and that can be brought back again if economics and ecology align better.

However along with that, broadening not reducing the scope of what is talked of and discussed is better.  People generally do tend to find their own middle ground and common sense becomes clearer when all input is considered generally. Had there been people that were both Biden and Trump supporters having a detailed discussion and conversation with each other in the press for the two months before the events at the Capital building occurred, those events may never have occurred.  Had there been twenty people in a room half from one camp and half from the other a camera set up just to roll for a three hour discussion people would have been able to have seen and heard all perspectives and common sense would most likely have prevailed.  

If the press of today were being as trusting in the people to be able to chart the best course of events that the founding fathers were when they wrote the constitution then there would have been a better chance for people to have been able to obtain greater consensus on the election.

What instead occurred for two months was that there were two completely different interpretations of occurring from two different perspectives. Before, the march in the Capitol there were enough facts and statistics, enough legislative decisions made across the USA to have not only confirmed the Biden win. There were weeks to have brought people together to discuss this with each other. The fact that that did not widely occur on any of the news channels is a significant part of the problem.

When people speak of a ‘Divided America’. It’s really not that surprising when there is so much divided opinion presented in the press firstly and secondly when after that there is not enough broader public opinion and debate provided. Just as the perception of who really won the election continued up until the protest itself by President Trump. If there would have been both Biden and Trump supporters actually discussing together the election, the result and the fact that even in states where their were recounts that proved the Biden win confirmed and even in states where there could not be ‘votes found’ there really did need to be the conversation that seeking to ‘find votes’ that do not exist is unconstitutional. It’s being anti-representative of the ‘will of the people’. Where their is no vision the people perish, where there is a vision the people can flourish.

 In documents I published prior to this I clearly said that conceding to a President Biden win was very important. The fact that no International leaders actually really questioned the legitimacy of the election and of anything other than a Biden win should have made all US news channels also very much aware that continuing a narrative of their being anything other than a Biden win, with just so much evidence gathered and presented and their being an International acceptance of this by all leaders should have been picked up upon and really emphasized. Whilst the election was clearly a US issue and matter. The fact is that the USA is an International player and if the US as a country is on one hand acting on the world stage and yet secondly only reporting on US opinion in it’s media and that US opinion being prescribed opinion by professional commentators, or should I say professional convincers of public opinion and there is not the space for the voice of the ‘We the people’ within the framing of that then perceptions are going to be inevitably very much interpreted one way or another. There is a very large troop build up on the border of Ukraine. There is the USA and the UK considering sending troops to the Black Sea. There is also a whole lot of narrative missing from all the media of how the most tense situations under the Trump Presidency really got resolved. The media have been so selective with either knowing or presenting the full truth that there is the misrepresentation of some of the best leadership decisions ever.

I seek to provide a way for the Biden Plan for the USA to work really well, however, the fantasy based media coverage of International diplomacy in recent years in my view has to be looked at properly and fully again. Where there have been good decsiions made and one country covering for another country which has repeatedly occured and kept balance and order in the world. It's really important now I believe to fully tell the truth. There is a continuity of looking at elections and saying that Russia has been meddling with these,whether thats true or not I do not know. However, what I do know is there may not have been elections if Russia and China too had not helped the USA and the West out of various scenarios in the past five years. So yes, hold other countries to account for whats considered negative influences, but also say thank you for the good influences. That way a more honest open and truer relationship canbegiin to develop. That way there can be a win-win aintained and continued.