Who Really Shapes the Next World Order? The following reflects my current personal perspective. Even if a new global system like the Blue Planet System (BPS) emerges, it won’t mean the end of traditional power. Those who already hold historical legitimacy — royal bloodlines, old global institutions, heritage elites — will not simply give up their influence. Most people assume they will only be interested in “soft roles” like Emotionics — the emotional and cultural layer of the future system. But the truth is more subtle: They won’t let go of structure, either. They will move behind the scenes of NWO — not to build it, but to shape its meaning. Emotionics is how people feel. NWO is how the world agrees. And those who were always good at managing “meaning” and “agreement” will see both as their natural territory. While Big Tech connects the wires and builds SIGMA, existing power will focus on  who decides what is meaningful , and  who writes the global narrative . It may ...

BPS: A Cooperative Upgrade Path for the Existing Global Leadership Structure 1. Introduction This proposal is not a challenge to the current global leadership structure, but an offer of strategic cooperation . The goal of the Blue Planet System (BPS) is to extend the longevity, stability, and adaptability of the existing top-layer circle by introducing a parallel, future-compatible framework—rather than replacing the current one. Modern society is still operating on structures designed for the previous century: hierarchical control, selective access to information, and a “divide and rule” strategy that has been effective but is now reaching its natural limits due to technological acceleration, emotional transparency, and global interdependence. BPS is designed as an upgrade layer , not a revolt. 2. Current Global Structure (as observed) • Each nation or sector operates its own hierarchy (bottom → top layers). • The global top layers form a shared transnational circle of in...

Disclaimer: This article reflects my personal opinion and observation, not an official or institutional view. Global Castling: How the U.S. and China Prepare Their Strategic Defenses In chess, castling is a move that serves two purposes: to protect the king and to reposition the rook for future attacks. It is both defensive and offensive—an elegant form of preparation before real conflict begins. Today, a similar logic seems to be unfolding on the geopolitical board. The American Castling The United States appears to be rearranging its alliance pieces before the next phase of confrontation. Its “king,” once directly engaged in the front lines of global trade wars, is quietly stepping back, while its “rooks” — Japan and India — are being placed forward. • Japan acts as a shield , institutionalizing trust, rule-based diplomacy, and defense integration in East Asia. • India plays the mobile rook , offering a flexible counterweight across the Indo-Pacific, Africa, and even in t...

How to Distinguish Between “Feign Interest” (Type A) and “Feel Interest” (Type B) Introduction Emotionics explores how people perceive and move their emotions. However, within this framework there are broadly two behavioral patterns: “Feign Interest” (Type A) and “Feel Interest” (Type B) . They may look similar on the surface, yet the emotional mechanisms behind them are completely different. Type A — Fear-Based Hierarchy People of Type A have survived within fear-based hierarchies. They learned that safety depends on control, secrecy, and dominance. Their interest is often strategic — a tool to read or anticipate others. Type B — Trust-Based System People of Type B live in trust-based environments. They believe that safety emerges from understanding and cooperation. Their interest is genuine — a movement of curiosity that connects rather than controls. Differences Between Type A and Type B Observation Axis Type A – Fear-Based Type B – Trust-Based (Emotionics-Mature) In...