Introduction - How to deal with the U.S., which elected the worst president in history
I am writing this in the early morning of January 5, 2021, Japan time, which means it is still the afternoon of the previous day, the 4th, in the United States.
On January 5, a significant event awaits us in the United States that may affect the world's political economy for the next four years.
On January 5, the U.S. will hold a runoff election for two U.S. Senators from Georgia. However, they were unable to decide by a narrow margin in the U.S. Senate race held at the same time as the presidential election.
In most cases, however, when two seats are up for election simultaneously, one of the two major parties, the Democrats or the Republicans, often wins both seats.
The Georgia primary is essential because if the Democrats win, it will be a 50-50 tie, with the vice president holding the casting vote.
If that happens, the Democrats will take the President, the House, and the Senate outright, but if the Republicans can hold just one seat, they will retain a Republican majority in the Senate only.
During the presidential election and in the chaos that followed, social networking services (SNS) such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn were all in favor of the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. The government was controlling the situation.
All anti-Trump information was given a free pass as objective news. All claims on the Trump side were removed as fake news or interspersed with notes such as "This is information with a questionable factual basis."
Facebook was blatantly obstructive in this Georgia Senate race, freezing posts to the Republican Campaign Fund's account when the vote was close to the question.
On the 4th, the day before voting day, a Facebook spokesperson made a cozy comment that this was a simple mistake and that they had no complaints now that the system was back up and running.
The major media reported this "fact" without any commentary.
The result was a two-seat Democratic sweep of the House. Still, the supporters of President Trump who called for a march to the U.S. Capitol exceeded the bounds of a peaceful pledge demonstration and stormed into the Capitol.
There was also a clear over-security issue when a female demobilized soldier in her mid-30s, an ardent Trump supporter, was shot and killed by a police officer. She tried to enter the plenary hall through a window unarmed.
Public opinion, however, turned to criticism of Trump for calling for a protest rally in front of the hallowed Congressional chambers.
Although the vote count results were shrouded in suspicion, the Democratic Party, with the full support of the founding CEOs of major social networking sites, is almost sure to be the next president of the United States. What policies will be promoted by candidate Joe Biden, who will face a congressional composition with a ruling party majority in both the upper and lower houses?
The two pillars will be "reduction of carbon dioxide emissions to prevent global warming" and "strengthening of lockdowns (city blockades, curfews, etc.) to prevent the spread of the new coronavirus and promotion of vaccination.
Although there was a weakness of opposition without knowing why he was against it, Trump was almost the only head of state in the world's industrialized to claim that the earth is warming. He continued to oppose the perception that the virus is a primary plague. "
These two policies would cause more significant loss to humanity than perhaps Trump instinctively felt.
The "anthropogenic global warming" theory, which has gradually gained strength since the 1990s, is roughly constructed.
Since humans began burning fossil fuels in large quantities, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased dramatically, and atmospheric temperatures have continued to rise.
If this trend continues, sea levels will rise sharply, submerging many island nations and causing a plethora of extreme weather events and natural disasters.
To prevent this, humanity as a whole must shift to energy sources that do not burn fossil fuels and do not emit carbon dioxide.
Over the past 30 years or so, countless predictions have been made about the damage that global warming will cause.
In 1989, for example, the United Nations warned that unless urgent action is taken, low-altitude plains worldwide will be underwater by the year 2000.
However, none of these pessimistic predictions have come to pass.
No southern paradise islands have been submerged, and the ice sheets in the Arctic Ocean and the mountains of ice piled up thickly in Antarctica have not melted.
Nor have the remaining glaciers at high latitudes and altitudes worldwide disappeared.
On the contrary, in December 2000, Canada, China, Spain, and other parts of the world recorded the lowest temperatures ever recorded for a December month.
The controversy surrounding the new coronavirus has a very similar composition.
Initially, pessimists argued that the high lethality of this new virus necessitated extreme measures such as city blockades and curfews to slow the spread anyway.
However, after a slight dip in the summer, the number of infected people began to rise again in early fall. Still, the number of people who died among those who tested positive, or the case fatality rate, has dropped almost universally.
The stronger the push for testing, the fewer cases of infection and recovery occur without symptoms, so the number of infected people for which data are being collected is increasing.
However, it is clear that the number of deaths among those infected is only about 1 or 2 per 1,000 among those in their 60s or younger. It is a weak infectious disease that rarely kills anyone in their 70s or older, except those suffering from lifestyle-related diseases.
There is no reason why small, medium and microservice businesses clustered in large urban areas should be put on high alert as if they were going bankrupt and going out of business.
Nonetheless, after Trump is gone, the global political trend is overwhelmingly toward hypervigilance.
What's more, we now live in a world where even freedom of speech is not guaranteed to those who defy the banners of stopping global warming and minimizing the damage caused by a coronavirus.
Readers also wrote on Twitter and LinkedIn that "The new corona is not a pandemic that causes fluttering and casualties" and "I'm more afraid of drug-related harm caused by inoculation with a vaccine that has not been properly tested than I am of the damage caused by the new coronavirus."
You know that such claims have been deleted as disinformation that could be life-threatening, and I am sure you are aware of this.
However, the claim "There were irregularities in voting and voting and voting in this presidential election." It may be deleted or marked with "This is not confirmed, i.e., the information is likely to be factually incorrect." But do you know?
The opinion that "there was fraud in the election" is not a contentious issue that would be life-threatening to anyone who believes it and acts on it.
Yet, most of the significant social networking sites have lined up and proudly asserted that they have the right to determine what is correct and what is false about the news and comments.
And since newspapers and major TV networks are dependent on advertising revenues, they cannot even raise their voices against this kind of speech control.
And that's not all. At the president's official press conference, when the major mass media reported the "Biden victory" by so-called newspaper resignation before the presidential election results were even available, there was this. As soon as Trump pointed out the possibility of "election fraud" as the incumbent president, reporters and cameramen from newspapers, television, and other major news organizations all left the room at once. The president's official press conference ended with an interruption.
In other words, an extraordinary situation had occurred in which the U.S. major media did not allow the incumbent president freedom of speech. Yet, the media hardly covered this fact in the U.S. and other countries.
How did this happen?
This book clarifies why not only the major mass media and the Democratic liberals in the United States, but also the Republican conservative mainstream, which should be the ruling party of Trump, were united in blocking the two elections of Trump.
I will then deduce what policies they wanted to pursue, even if they had to remove the Trump bump from their eyes.
This article continues.
