• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Wade Frazier

Members
  • Content count

    622
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Wade Frazier

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

6,841 profile views
  1. Hi: Another subject that I began studying near the beginning of my media and political studies was organized skepticism. I gradually became appalled. I could call them the politically active arm of mainstream science, but that is too gentle a term. I eventually realized that it was largely a criminal enterprise, after I interacted with a leading “skeptic” who made a career out of libeling Dennis. His initial 15 minutes of came in the house organ of organized skepticism. He stalked me for a decade on the Internet, heaving disinformation bombs at me and anybody who promoted my work. Not long before encountering Mr. Skeptic, I stumbled into the Velikovsky issue while pursuing Carl Sagan’s debunking career. I do not consider much of Velikovsky’s corpus of work to be valid, if any of it, but Sagan’s behavior was scandalous. It even served to keep the Velikovsky issue alive much longer than it should have. Virtually all theories eventually end up in the dustbin of history. That is how science ideally works. Velikovsky’s work deserved to go there long ago. That comprehensive perspective that I was developing crossed disciplinary boundaries, and I could see that they were all related, in one way or another. As I have written, Ed Herman was the witty end of his partnership with Chomsky, and while Noam’s books had covers of academic respectability, Ed wrote Beyond Hypocrisy in 1992, with its Doublespeak Dictionary, and had a political cartoonist illustrate the book, as well as its cover. Ed wrote that the American establishment, along with its Orwellian media, had gone so far beyond hypocrisy that a new term had to be used, and Ed chose chutzpah. In his Doublespeak Dictionary, Ed defined the Chutzpah Factor thusly: “Self-righteousness, arrogance, and a sense of superiority so great that gross double standards seem entirely reasonable and no self-interested action is beyond rationalization. This factor is positively correlated with size, power, and per capita income.” Ed also is not overly structural. In his Doublespeak Dictionary, he defined a “conspiracy theory” as “A critique or explanation that I find offensive.” Ed even defined a “magic bullet” this way: “One that wends its way through several bodies, smashing bones on the way, but ends up in pristine condition, conveniently located for police attribution to the gun of choice.” Ed gets big points for that, being about the only person from the Left that gave any credence to the conspiratorial aspect of JFK’s murder. He was interested in Gary’s tale. Best, Wade
  2. Hi Invictos: One big problem with economists is that they often pretend to be scientists. It takes only a little scientific literacy to know that humanity is having an impact on Earth’s atmosphere. From oxygenating Earth’s atmosphere to sequestering so much carbon dioxide that it brought on an ice age to wiping out all of Earth’s easy meat, which had profound ecosystems impacts, it is obvious that life can greatly alter the “parameters” of Earth’s surface, ocean, and atmosphere. My experience with economists is that they are usually worse than worthless on those subjects, like that article that you linked to. Julian Simon was another great example of a clueless economist, with his soul-sold stable of “scientists.” As far as that tale that you posted, there are lots of grand galactic and interdimensional yarns out there, and I even wrote one of my own, but they are just stories and not guides to action, as far as I am concerned. I am often approached by people selling me their particular yarn, and while some can be interesting, it is what we can do, here and now, which is important. Love is always the answer, and I don’t care what galactic Nazis might be out there. When they come into the open, then we might have something to talk about, or any evidence is provided beyond tall tales which might have some validity, but which might be outright disinformation or simply wild imaginings. As far as systems go, my work is about what runs any system, which is energy. Second Epoch systems had their own political-economic processes (and their so-called religious practices simply reflected them, as with all Epochs), as did the Third’s, as does the Fourth’s, and each Epoch’s systems were radically different, as they ran on an order of magnitude or greater energy difference from their neighbors’. I am not too interested in dissecting the current economic systems any more than I already have, and as Uncle Bucky said, today’s political-economic systems don’t really matter, as they are just different ways of slicing up the scarce economic pie. All of today’s systems will become obsolete in the light of true energy abundance, which has never been seen on Earth before. I give some ideas of what they may look like, but on this side of the hump, it is only speculation, no matter how informed we think we are. We’ll see what the view is like after we get over that hump. Best, Wade
  3. Hi: In those early years of immersion in my media and political studies, I was also studying a vast array of other material, including thermodynamics, Mr. Mentor’s and Fischer’s patents, alternative medicine, mystical material, and so on. I did not know it at the time, but I was developing a comprehensive perspective. Along with the radical left, I studied the far right. I subscribed to The Spotlight for years, and one of its staffers was the only person that I know of who featured Gary Wean’s story of the JFK hit in a JFK assassination book. That writer got the idea for his book from Gary, and when his initial effort did not properly attribute Gary’s testimony, Gary complained, and the final book, Final Judgment, gave Gary’s testimony proper weight. It has been “interesting” to see Gary’s testimony be dismissed like it has over the years. I am not all that interested in Gary’s theories about who did it; he thought it was Jewish gangsters, which is not easily dismissed, given that Jack Ruby was involved, as well as “magic bullet” Arlen Specter. For me, what was far more important was how it was all covered up, and Jewish gangsters did not have the power to do that, but that plot-within-a-plot sure “recruited” many willing “allies” to keep the lid on what really happened. About two years into my studies, my wife and I watched Manufacturing Consent at Ohio State. That movie has never been aired on mainstream TV in the USA, even though it was the most popular documentary in Canadian history to that time, which further illustrated Chomsky’s thesis, like that suppression of his and Ed’s book did. I was driven from my sleep in late 1992, soon after watching Manufacturing Consent, to write a 17-page letter to Noam. Noam confirmed who he was by soon replying with a letter of his own, which stated that he was tantalized by my letter (mostly on the suppression of free energy, but my upshot was that I could not find such a discussion anywhere in any media, not left, not right, and not mainstream). Noam gave me a polite brushoff, stating that he was no expert on that topic, and advised me to consult with an expert. Well, there were not any experts, so I kind of had to become my own. That was the same year that Brian nearly died, courtesy of the American military, after snooping into the UFO phenomenon, and his first free energy book was not published until the end of 1995. I bought 35 copies of it and sent it to friends and family. Brian later said that I was that book’s biggest fan. In 1991, Oliver Stone’s JFK was released, and in 1993, Noam published Rethinking Camelot, which took on the idea of JFK’s being a secret dove on Vietnam, and Noam took on the idea that the CIA would have wanted JFK dead. In reading Noam’s book, I think that he missed the point, which Michael Parenti brilliantly discussed a few years later, as he stated that the Left has a “conspiracy-phobia.” I was gradually seeing how the structuralists, as represented by Chomsky, and the conspiracists, as represented by Gary, both failed to see the big picture, due to their worldviews. You could call it their ideological commitments. It was highly educational to immerse myself in those milieus and figure them out, but the process took many years. I was also looking into the Apollo Moon landings, on-and-off, in those years, before finally deciding to go deep on it in early 2001, partly because of Brian’s public statements on the issue. That I still hear from people who argue for faked Moon landings shows how impervious to the evidence people can be, particularly conspiracists. As I have stated, I have sometimes looked back at my journey, especially with Dennis, and wonder if it really happened, and my scholar’s journey was similar. As I wrote this post, I was amazed by all of the connections and overlaps. There is much more to come. Best, Wade
  4. Hi: One aspect of my political education worth noting is that is the nation I most studied: mine. There were a few reasons for that, which included: I am an American, and it was not only the easiest for me to study, but it was the most ethical nation to study. While studying the problems in other nations could be worthwhile, as Noam and Ed stressed, it is most ethical to work on resolving the flaws in our behavior, not somebody else’s. The USA is history’s richest and most powerful nation, and it is an empire that is has been slaughtering millions since World War II; as an American, writing about my great nation’s crimes is something that ethics compels me to do. The greatest instances of organized suppression of free energy technology have happened in the USA, by far. Best, Wade
  5. Hi: Just as my political awakening came through radicalizing experience, without which my subsequent studies would have been of dubious worth, my subsequent media and political studies were always leavened with experience, both for me and my fellow travelers. Here is an example… One of my friends is a horticulturalist, and he ran the conservatory in Columbus when the city began planning its big bash to celebrate 1992. He was intimately aware of how difficult it was to run a conservatory, being always strapped for funds. When the city began planning for the 1992 bash, they chose his conservatory for the site of the celebration. The first thing that they did was fire him. To prepare the grounds for the event, they wiped out the plants that were already there. There were venerable old trees on the grounds, but to make the setting “prettier,” they did things such as bury the roots of the trees, which kills them, but the process takes years. It was a plant holocaust, to make way for the Columbus bash. My friend sadly walked through the grounds as a customer of the event, noting the trees that would soon die, where his plants used to live, torn out to make way for the extravaganza, and the like. It was somehow fitting that the celebration of Columbus’s feat would be mounted in that way. Best, Wade
  6. Hi: Before I get to the criticisms of Noam and Ed, I’ll give a relatively benign example of my work that I have seen, to show the fallacy of logic, at best, that has been aimed at Noam and Ed over the years. My Columbus essay is all about the USA’s naming a national holiday after a greedy, mass-murdering, raping, genocidist. Columbus initiated the greatest demographic catastrophe in the human journey, and we celebrate his amazing feat of “discovery.” When I first drafted that essay in 1998, the complete extermination of the Taino was accepted among scientists and scholars. That is one of history’s greatest crimes, and that is the point of my essay. I saw criticisms of my essay by people who claim descent from the Taino. So, if they are right, then Columbus and crew killed off only 99.9% of the Taino, and not 100%? Does that mitigate the crime? While I am sympathetic to claims of “we survived!”, the point of my essay is not the 0.1% of the Taino who might have survived to produce descendants, but the 99.9% who died, and how such a crime is swept under the carpet so that Columbus’s mighty feat can be celebrated. So, criticisms of my essay, which takes my culture to task, which focus on the victims and how some might have survived, entirely avoids the point to my essay, to argue about issues that really have no bearing on my arguments. The claims of Taino survival are also contentious, and while important to the claimants, really have little bearing on my essay. From the very beginnings of Noam’s and Ed’s political writings to this day, their focus has always been on the USA and its propaganda and indoctrination systems, not its imperial victims, other than noting how they have suffered and doing what they can to prevent more of them. When they wrote a monograph that highlighted the USA’s imperial ideology and how the media plays its part, it was subjected to one of the most outrageous instances of Western censorship in my lifetime. It was amazing. When they finally published a pair of books to replace the suppressed monograph, they devoted one volume to the reconstruction of the USA’s imperial ideology in the wake of its genocide in Southeast Asia, and the book’s largest section was on the treatment of Cambodia. The book was published in 1979, before the West generally knew about the “killing fields” in Cambodia. But, as usual, the focus of that section was not on who the good guys and bad guys were in Cambodia, but on the American media’s treatment of the facts, which Noam and Ed were explicit on. This has been a consistent position that both men have taken for more than 50 years. Their work is about illuminating our system, not anybody else’s, which again puts them on the high ethical ground. Virtually without exception, every critique that I have seen of Noam and Ed’s work turns their work on its head, making the case that Noam and Ed have it wrong on who the good guys and bad guys are in the nations that the USA intervenes in, which Noam and Ed have always said is not the point of their work at all. In fact, from Ed’s earliest writings on Vietnam, going back at least to 1965, the entire point of his work is challenging the imperial conceit that the USA uses to intervene in other nations, portraying themselves as the good guys fighting bad guys, as the self-appointed policemen of Earth, spreading and defending freedom. It is the standard imperial conceit. We have no right to be anywhere outside of the USA’s national borders. Chomsky did it regarding Iraq nearly a decade ago, noting that the USA’s rhetoric about “foreign fighters” in Iraq only make sense if the USA assumes that it owns the world. In writing about Cambodia, they could not have been more explicit: “It is a common error, as we have pointed out several times, to interpret opposition to U.S. intervention and aggression as support for the programs of its victims, a useful device for state propagandists but one that often has no basis in fact.” But Noam’s and Ed’s critics do their best to turn their work on its head, and dishonestly or irrationally (or both) turn Noam and Ed into apologists for the “bad guys” in the nations that we bludgeon. What is true about Noam and Ed’s work is that they point out the USA has consistently supported the most reactionary and violent factions on Earth. In The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, Noam and Ed noted that torture had been a historical curiosity for centuries, which largely vanished with Stalin’s death, but had resurged in the “free world,” and that three-quarters of the nations that used torture as standard government practice were client states of the USA. So, the high ethical stance that Noam and Herman take, of criticizing the nation that they are citizens of, is always turned on its head by their critics, and Sophal Ear, for instance, has made a career out of making the case that Cambodia is not in as bad a shape and Noam and Ed asserted, and that Noam and Ed were really closet supporters of the Khmer Rouge, and Ear does it while being an academic in the USA. Here is the best analysis that I have seen of Ear and friend’s distortions of Noam and Ed’s work, as they explicitly ignore the thrust of their work while seeking hidden assumptions, and those alleged assumptions have always been false ones, for anybody with the slightest familiarity with Noam and Ed’s work. I have seen this logical sleight of hand many times, as Noam and Ed’s work is misrepresented by their critics. Ed’s Wikipedia bio is execrable on that score. In Noam’s Wikipedia bio, a side-box was produced, which stated: “[Chomsky's] become the guru of the new anti-capitalist and Third World movements. They take his views very uncritically; it's part of the Seattle mood – whatever America does is wrong. He confronts orthodoxy but he's becoming a big simplifier. What he can't see is Third World and other regimes that are oppressive and not controlled by America.” That once again begs the question. Chomsky’s concern as a writer is not oppressive regimes that the USA does not control, but the oppressive regimes that it does. Very basic logic, but his critics can’t seem the wrap their minds around it, no matter how explicit Noam and Ed are. In fact, those critics have always made the imperial assumption that Noam and Ed constantly assail, which is that the USA has the right to intervene anywhere on Earth. Our hands are the dirtiest on Earth, by far. Nobody else comes close. Best, Wade
  7. Hi: I want to focus a little on Uncles Noam and Ed regarding my media studies. They are the two most influential writers of my media and political studies, and over the years, Ed has been even more influential than Noam. Ed is a better writer than Noam is, and I love Ed’s dry wit. Noam and Ed got their starts in political writing during the Vietnam War. I recently read two of Ed’s earliest Vietnam books (1, 2), and his themes can be seen in the first work that he and Noam wrote, which became a famous case of censorship, which I have written about before. Noam and Ed developed a number of easy-to-understand frameworks for their work, and in their initial writing partnership, they created a framework of “bloodbaths”: Benign (ones that we don’t care about) Constructive (ones committed by us or our allies) Nefarious (ones committed by our enemies) Mythical (ones attributed to our enemies, but they did not even happen) Their landmark Manufacturing Consent contained Ed’s propaganda model, of how the media is structured to deliver the results that it does, and one aspect of their model is worthy and unworthy victims. A worthy victim is from one of those nefarious or mythical bloodbaths, and an unworthy victim is from one of those benign or constructive ones. The emphasis that Noam and Ed have always taken is not to debate the reality of those situations, or who the good and bad guys are, but how the American media deals with those situations. For benign bloodbaths, the media can sometimes even get the facts right, because none of their dogs are in the fight. A constructive bloodbath is one where the American media heartily approves of the bloodbath, such as Suharto’s, and his victims were so unworthy as to be unmentionable, such as the people of East Timor, who were subjected to one of the greatest proportional genocides in the past century, and as the slaughter reached genocidal proportions (using American weapons), the American media was completely silent. In Manufacturing Consent, Noam and Ed found a tripled example, even better than a paired example, to show their model in action, of the USA in Central America in the 1980s. The USA supported some of the most evil regimes in the past century, and when one nation overthrew its American puppet in a revolution, we waged a proxy war against them, which led to a big scandal in the USA, as the CIA used drug-running into the USA to finance the support of their mercenaries. Since Manufacturing Consent, Ed has taken on the same distortions regarding Yugoslavia and Rwanda, in which the imperial dynamics are alive and well. It was very educational to read the critiques of Ed’s and Noam’s work. Like anybody sane, when I encountered their radical work, even though I was ready to hear it, I sought out critiques of their work, and that will be a subject for a coming post. I never encountered an honest, rational, and informed critique of their work, at least that tried to invalidate their theses. Similarly, I have yet to receive an honest, rational, and informed critique of my work, which tried to invalidate it. My best critiques came from my allies, as they tried to make my work better. Without their help, my work would have been a lot weaker. Best, Wade
  8. Hi: There is almost nothing in my work that I write about from a purely scholarly/scientific perspective, but all subjects are related to my experiences, in one way or another, and my political and media studies were always richly informed by my experiences, from the very beginning. My first issue of Lies of our Times featured the beginning of the drumbeat to war. During those days, that same TV-parroting friend called me in a rage over the Iraqi incubator atrocity story, which was later exposed as a fabrication by a public relations firm. Bernays could not have done it any better. All wars begin with Big Lies, especially those waged by the West. It is the nature of the business, and people such as my friend are easily duped into cheering any imperial violence, as long as they are not on the receiving end of it. Just as my media and political studies began, I had a real-world example rubbed in my face, which led to my first published words. I suffered from trauma after my Ventura days, and saw a therapist in the spring/summer of 1991. Our sessions happened in the shadow of the world’s largest Air Force base, and my therapist was also nauseated by what was happening. He specialized in treating soldiers, I was definitely a candidate for his treatment, and it worked. Just before I finally found a career job in Ohio, after nearly a year of searching, I volunteered at the national conference of a new science organization that I belonged to, and had my fateful introduction to Brian O. As I thought about this post, the symmetry of my relationship with Brian hit me for the first time. We met right after the first Gulf War, and he invited me to help found NEM right after the second Gulf War. The haunting revelations of Ralph McGehee’s book were also very influential to me in those early days of study, and led to our relationship. I was diving deeply into many subjects in those days, and becoming a comprehensivist without knowing that that was what I was doing. When I began my next career job, it was 60+-hour weeks for the next two years, so I performed my studies in my “spare” time. They were some of the most fulfilling days of my career, and my years in Ohio were generally happy ones, in those early years of my marriage. When 1992 arrived, I was working in Columbus, just in time for the celebration of Christopher Columbus’s feat. It was right around then that I read for the first time something that questioned just how heroic his feat was, as an early chapter of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States was devoted to it. My deep studies were just beginning. The year 1992 was not only the 500th anniversary of the “discovery” of the New World, but that year saw revisionist works released, and none were more influential to me than David Stannard’s devastating American Holocaust. That was my big wake-up call on the subject of what Europe’s conquest of Earth was like for those on the receiving end of Europe’s greed and violence. The first century of European intrusion into the Western Hemisphere was the greatest demographic catastrophe in the human journey, when perhaps 90% of a hemisphere’s population was killed off as a side effect of history’s greatest gold rush. How on Earth could American historians present those days as some kind of glory story? American ideologists incredibly turned the blackest darkness into a tale of light. Personal integrity being the world’s scarcest commodity is not something new, but it was one hell of a shock to begin realizing the depth of the lies that I had been raised with. The English/American conquest of North America inspired Hitler’s genocidal programs for Europe, but that bald truth will never play in the USA. In American Holocaust, I first read that the pious padre that my grammar school was named after might not have been so saintly after all. Very ironically, my wife is a direct descendant of Christopher Columbus (and Coronado), and ever since the early 1990s, when I visit with in-laws, I often have to sit and listen to talk about the greatness of Spain. Can you imagine me sitting there with a smile and listening to such stuff? While my years with Dennis were radicalizing, those years of study led to the writings that became my site today. For me, the most amazing part, initially, was how virtually nobody wanted to hear any of it. We have been told Big Lies for our entire lives, and I could hardly find anybody who seemed to care. I learned lessons on how people don’t want their self-serving delusions challenged, even when believing in them means certain death, back when I was twelve, but coming to understand the universal belief in easily disproved lies was one hell of an experience. After moments of disgust with my benighted species, which is typical, I eventually learned to relinquish my judgment and simply accept humanity for what it is. People with the right stuff are very few and far between on Earth today. It is just what it is, and railing against it, or believing that it is different, is unproductive at best and disastrous at worst. This is a big reason why I caution free energy newcomers from going out and proselytizing to their social circles, but they almost always just have to do it. Nearly invariably, my best pupils come back to me after that experience, sobered, chastened, and willing to begin learning what it is going to take to manifest the biggest event in the human journey. Best, Wade
  9. Hi Evan: Ah yes, images. That is a tough one. Lots of images out there, but what are they, how were they acquired, are they genuine, etc. I doubt that any image is ever going to be “credible” by itself. The better the image (or footage), the more likely that the fabrication suspicion will come into play. What Cooper and Sheehan testified to is highly impressive, but they were unable to produce the images they saw, for obvious reasons. Credible testimony and evidence is the most dangerous combination to keeping up the cover-up, so when those twain meet, the suppression activity goes into overdrive. Evidence has disappeared, as have people, when that deadly duo threatens to come forward. It is very similar to what we have in the free energy field. The good stuff is almost immediately removed from circulation, and what the public generally sees is the chaff that is left over. These are the toughest nuts to crack on Earth. Thanks for writing, Wade
  10. Hi: One of the greatest lessons that I learned early in my media and political studies was merely an extension of my journey’s greatest lesson, which I learned only a few years previously: personal integrity is the world’s scarcest commodity. As I was learning from Lies of our Times, Uncles Noam and Ed, and the like, I mailed one of my early media studies books, Unreliable Sources, to that childhood friend who was my staunchest supporter during the Ventura nightmare. It only takes a few chapters of a work such as Unreliable Sources to produce great doubt about the media’s “product” that is served to Americans each day. After I sent him the book, our conversation on the media’s lies and distortions lasted all of ten seconds or so, when he acknowledged it and quickly moved on to another topic. The next time we talked, he was parroting the TV news again. Not only that, from that point onward, he constantly challenged my evolving worldview with his TV version of how the world works. His punchlines for conversations were often fantasies of justified violence against the “bad guys,” as if the world was a Hollywood Western. He did that at least 50 times over the next several years. That went on for several years, until he wrecked our friendship and continued to attack me for years afterward. The last time I saw him, he admonished me for not being an obedient member of the herd, and extolled his virtues of seeking safety in the herd. He grew up across the street from the grammar school that we both attended, named after California’s first genocidist, who was literally sainted a couple of years ago. My friend is Jewish, of all things, growing up across the street from the California equivalent of Adolf Hitler Grammar School, and never having an inkling of the real story, nor did he want to. Not long after I sent that friend Unreliable Sources, he called to tell me of that scrapbook that my mother was taking on tour, of her employer’s libelous articles about us, telling the story of her son the criminal. I was seeing that our society was more like Huxley’s Brave New World than it was Orwell’s 1984, as the truth was out there and not hard to find, but almost nobody really wanted to know it, as they preferred the comforting fictions provided by the social managers. One day, I was reading Unreliable Sources in the lunchroom at the bank where I was working (where they openly cheered the first Gulf War), and mentioned what I was reading to my boss, who quickly fled, with a disturbed look on his face. I was discovering that nobody really wanted to know the truth, not if it challenged the delusions of their in-group. I began learning those lessons in 1991, and by the 2002 publication of my website, I had pretty much learned my lessons. By the end of the 2004 disaster with NEM, Americans were no longer my target audience. Americans are Earth’s most brainwashed people, and they are willing dupes. They will believe any lie, as long as it guarantees a full belly. Are they really any different from any other people on Earth? Not at the biological level, as we are all behaviorally modern humans. It was kind of strange, to immerse myself in the world of “radical” scholarship, to realize that nobody else in my life really wanted to. I have slowly learned that I can only talk about sports and the weather with most people. The rest is off-limits, unless I want to be ostracized. Best, Wade
  11. Hi: I am going to write a series of posts on my media and political studies. They began in earnest after I had already been radicalized by my days with Dennis. It is not going to be so much about what I learned, but what the experience was like. I suppose that my questioning the conventional wisdom began when I was 12 and my father “impossibly” reversed his artery disease by going “health nut.” My mystical awakening at age 16, along with my cultural awakening and energy dreams, set my future path in ways that I could not have imagined at the time. That voice in my head knew what it was doing, I am almost sad to say. When it led me to Dennis, my wild ride began. I have never heard of a story like mine, and even I sometimes have a hard time believing that it happened. I can’t even discuss my journey with my family, as it is so far outside of their sense of reality that they cannot begin to grok it, even for some who saw me live through those events, some who even witnessed some of the most dramatic ones. When I left my home town in 1990, with my life shattered, I was ready to learn in ways that I previously had not. Earlier that year, I heard who might have been Uncle Ed, promoting the new magazine that he was the editor of, Lies of our Times (LOOT), and almost immediately after moving to Ohio, I subscribed to it. It was the beginning of my media and political studies, and the first page of my first issue of LOOT is the one that I remember the best, partly because of the “shock” that the world’s most influential publication could lie that baldly. If The New York Times could make it up as it went along, which American publication couldn’t? Uncle Noam wrote an article in every issue of LOOT, which has been collected into a book. If you dropped a rock into Noam’s head, I am not sure if it would hit bottom. Even though I was so ready for his message, it took about two years before I really understood what he was writing about. It was such a radical departure from anything else that I ever read that it took years to digest the gist of it. The bottom line with Noam and friends was the high ethical ground that they stood on, which is simply this: “We are all the most responsible for the predictable consequences of our own actions.” It aligned nicely with my mystical experiences and studies, the gist of which is that our motivation is everything. What immediately struck me about Uncles Noam, Ed, and Howard was the high integrity evident in their work, which was confirmed when I contacted them. They were all among my most gracious correspondents. Just like Jesus’s admonition to remove the logs from their eyes before they look for their neighbors’ splinters, Noam, Ed, and Howard always focused their work on the polity that they were citizens of, the good ol’ USA, as that was where their work could make an impact, not on Soviet, Chinese, or Latin American societies. Howard in particular was refreshingly confessional as he wrote about his World War II experiences, as he later learned that he slaughtered the people he was supposedly saving. It takes a keen conscience to admit something like that. Soon after subscribing to LOOT, I saw an ad for Ralph McGehee’s book in it, and bought it. Ralph also took the high ethical ground, finally realizing that he was not one of the good guys, and he devoted the rest of his life to rectifying the situation. It is not possible for me to overstate the impact of reading that collected body of work. I learned more at their collective knee than I did for any other body of work, and their work was just the beginning. I subscribed to other periodicals, such as Z Magazine (which I have continuously subscribed to since the early 1990s) and Covert Action Information Bulletin, which featured articles by Noam and Ralph, and Ed has written an article a month in Z for many years, only slowing down in the past year or so, in his 90s. He is entitled to slow down a little, although he would be the last to admit it. What hit home for me during those studies was how thoroughly I had been lied to for my entire life, so that I could become an unthinking cog in the imperial machine. I read the newspaper every day for 20 years, thinking that I was getting the “news,” and I came to realize that about all that I had digested were Big Lies. I had already learned much of that during my days with Dennis, from the day I met him to when I read that disinformation article in the LA Times, but the education that those great men provided me deepened and broadened those lessons in ways that I doubt that I could have attained in any other way. This is only the beginning of what will be a long series of posts. Best, Wade
  12. Hi: I was traveling last week, picked up some airport reading material, read an article about the migration of vertebrates to land, and the current focus on Romer’s Gap. What a way to waste time! I ended up diving back into it, which is one of the more fascinating times of Earth’s history for me. Not only is Romer’s Gap under siege, but so is Peter Ward’s oxygen hypothesis for it (1, 2). That is supposed to be how science works. My essay update will include the recent findings. There is quite an opposition among various paleobiologists to the idea that oxygen levels had much to do with many key evolutionary events. How much of Ward’s Out of Thin Air will become a dated relic? Maybe a lot of it will, but I think that oxygen levels will eventually find an important place in paleobiology and evolutionary theory. Watching the debate and crossfire of scientific papers can be very educational, and is really one of the most important aspects of what I am trying to do, choir-wise. Science is arguably more about the questions than the answers. It can be enthralling to watch how scientific questions are raised and pursued, and how the answers lead to evermore questions. Science is ideally a process of discovery. Understanding the process is important, maybe more so than the findings. Best, Wade
  13. Hi: One of the joys of developing a comprehensive perspective is that so many subjects become highly interesting, and following their development can be edifying, and not just to satisfy one’s curiosity, but it can help with what I am doing. For all of its limitations, today’s science progresses on many fronts, and the various disciplines can interrelate in important ways. I have been reading Scientific American every month for years, and the sites I regularly hit also help keep me abreast of the latest findings, in many disciplines. Also, I get bombarded by my circles on various topics. One pal is sure to email me on the latest findings in astronomy, another on various fringe topics, especially medicine, another on free energy developments, and so on. I get on distribution lists for which I have no idea how they got my email address. Even though I have tried to pull in my horns and be fairly quiet on the correspondence front, as I concentrate on many important tasks in my life, and I am not getting any younger, I can’t help but hear about the latest findings in many fields, and lately, I have been repeatedly hearing about new fossil finds in Morocco (and here, for instance). New human-line findings often show that events happened earlier than previously thought, and it is no different with these latest findings. Rather unfortunately, such findings are often delivered with hyperbole, usually directed toward the laity. East Africa, around the horn, has been a hotspot of primate evolution for many millions of years, but anybody who has done much study of the subject knows that South Africa has also been a focus of the human past, and there have been great primate and human migrations in and around Africa for many millions of years, going back to the Miocene apes. During the Middle Stone Age, the human line was all over Africa, Europe, and Asia. It is no surprise that today’s Morocco is someplace where human-line remains would be found, and it is far from the first time. Morocco has been a focus for many years. The Mediterranean’s periphery is rich with human-line fossils. South Africa, East Africa, and North Africa all had similar environments, and were all quite amenable to hosting early humans. The African rainforest and Sahara Desert don’t seem to have been auspicious places for human-line evolution, but everyplace else in Africa hosted the human line, at one time or another. The big evolutionary jump in the human line was the appearance of Homo erectus (and the line from chimps to Homo erectus is also highly important), and everything since then has been relatively minor. As the announcement of that latest finding noted, the evolution of the human brain is the notable aspect of recent human evolution, but it has been that way for the past two million years. This latest find might indeed push back the appearance of Homo sapiens by a hundred thousand years. It is way too early to make sensational announcements, but those are also common in this field. Africa is full of fossil diggers, dreaming of the ultimate find. Will this recent find end up pushing back the accepted appearance of Homo sapiens by a hundred thousand years? It could, but new findings such as these are always put to the test, and we will see how it weathers the challenges that are sure to come. I may update my big essay with this finding, which is an example of how I will be updating my big essay until I am too old to do it anymore, as science is always on the move. Interesting times. Best, Wade
  14. Hi: Those soul-sold scientists who deny Global Warming generally work for the hydrocarbon lobby, in naked conflict of interest. But their message resonates with those who want to deny human responsibility for what is happening, so they can engage in business as usual with a clean conscience. There are also those who just don’t trust scientists at all, and attribute the entire Global Warming issue to some kind of elite conspiracy to tax us or some such plan. Such people are almost invariably scientifically illiterate. The bizarre part of that is that the hydrocarbon companies themselves have sponsored Global Warming “skepticism” in the first place, so it is a twisted conspiracism to have other elites making an issue where none exists, when one of the leading elite cadres has been doing the opposite. Again, the science behind how carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere is basic stuff. Conflict of interest has always been the primary reason for a lying media, governmental corruption, and the like. My introduction to the megafauna extinctions was Velikovskian literature. I stumbled into the issue while following Carl Sagan’s debunking career. I never bought Velikovsky’s hypotheses, but took it seriously enough to immerse myself in the milieu. I believe that the first book by a scientist that I read on the megafauna extinctions was Peter Ward’s. I read it back in 2005, as I was studying for what became my big essay. I began studying for my big essay in earnest in 2007, and mass extinctions were one subject of many that I studied. I also encountered many studies of paleoclimate, and the many faces that Earth has worn over the eons. I did not engage in those years of study to assess Velikovsky’s hypotheses, among which was a bolide (or near-miss) explanation for the megafauna extinctions, but after those long years of study, I thought about Velikovsky’s work again, and there was almost nothing about it that made any sense, when compared to the scientific evidence, and the megafauna extinctions least of all. The idea that Venus is only a few thousand years old, and that it and Mars had near-misses with Earth and caused events that the Old Testament presents, is ludicrous. So, the bolide (or near-miss) explanation for the megafauna extinctions made no sense. But I slowly became aware of another camp on the megafauna extinctions, which argues that climate change did it. For me, what sealed the deal was reading the results of DNA studies, which not only showed where humans dispersed from Africa, but which also had a pretty good idea of when. That map had a nearly perfect fit with the megafauna extinctions. Wherever behaviorally modern humans arrived, the easy meat quickly went extinct, especially in Australia and the Americas, in which the megafauna had never seen anything like humans before, so had no fear of them. They developed that wariness in Africa and Eurasia over more than a million years of human-line hunting. Those animals that never saw humans before did not have a chance. The most successful land mammal before the rise of humans was the elephant family, and they made it to North America from Africa more than 16 million years ago. When humans finally arrived, the elephant family lived the length and breadth of the Americas, and they all quickly went extinct. The same thing happened with Eurasian mammoths, which were also isolated from the human line, which had not yet developed the skills and tools to live near the ice sheets. But mammoths lived on isolated islands for thousands of years after their continental cousins were driven to extinction. There was a major climate-change extinction in the age of mammals, but it happened over 15 million years and ended 35 million years ago, as a 200-million-year greenhouse Earth phase ended. Earth has been in an ice age for the past 2.6 million years, and there were no major extinctions related to the climate changes as the continental ice sheets waxed and waned. But just as humans arrived on the scene, all of Earth’s easy meat went extinct. The elephant-family extinctions in the Americas were only the most spectacular. Horses and camels evolved in North America and lived there for more than 40 million years, to suddenly go extinct when humans arrived. The litany is a long one, of entire assemblages of large animals that suddenly went extinct when humans arrived. I slowly became aware of a clique of scientists who argue that the megafauna extinctions were all climate-related, most of whom seem to hail from Australia. The Australian megafauna extinctions are the least likely to be climate-related, with no ice sheets and plenty of refugia during the climate changes, especially when Sahul was dry during the glacial intervals. The more I studied the issue, the more untenable a climate change explanation became. It is not as silly as invoking Venus and Mars, but the climate-change explanation is a very thin reed for explaining the megafauna extinctions, especially the Australian megafauna, which had lived in splendid isolation for tens of millions of years and survived the ice age just fine, to all suddenly go extinction when humans arrived, as some kind of coincidence. The only credible part of the climate-change hypothesis is that when the lands went dryer during the glacial phases, the populations of some species likely did decline, at least somewhat, as their habitats became less hospitable. But the major adaptations to an icehouse Earth happened more than 35 million years ago, and the past million years saw a dozen or so glacial intervals, and at least one greater than the most recent, and the megafauna the world over did just fine, with no extinctions of note. It did not matter what the climate was doing when humans arrived. Earth had never before seen the juggernaut of super-predator humans, and all of Earth’s easy meat was doomed when behaviorally modern humans arrived. The pattern is so clear, so richly supported, that to argue that anything other than human hunting did it is to risk ridicule, but those Australian scientists churn out their climate-change scientific papers like it comes out of a factory. It kind of gives science a bad name, but no more so than those hydrocarbon lobby shills, and really far less, as those human-agency deniers are arguing for events in the distant past, while climate-change “skepticism” is denying current events that we can do something about. And as with those climate-change “skeptics,” human-agency skeptics are in the fortunate position of defending their species, their in-group. Those denying human agency in Australia and the Americas may also be defending the ancestors of the indigenous peoples of those continents, but denying the highly likely truth is a weak way to go about it. The same debate surrounds the extinction of our closest cousins, the Neanderthals, but once again, the pattern is so clear that arguing that climate change did in the Neanderthals, or some kind of peaceful disappearance of Neanderthals into Homo sapiens’s gene pool, have to be considered at the outer range of credible hypotheses. Every time that I saw scientists without a vested interest look into the issue, they came away thinking that humans caused all of the megafauna extinctions, including Neanderthals. Of course, humanity’s collective ego does not like owning up to that bloody past of our species, but the truth will set us free. Scraping around for some other cause, to deflect responsibility from humans, our ultimate in-group, does not seem helpful, and are acts of questionable integrity. I am all for scientific debate, but when conflicts of interest dominate one side of them, it can become a tawdry display. Best, Wade
  15. Hi: Well, not as quiet as I had planned. One of the more fascinating aspects of studying Earth’s past is pondering the many faces that Earth has worn over the eons. In the Hadean Eon, a naked human could not have survived a minute, and it is likely that one awesome collision created the Moon. Earth began in an eon of fire, and will likely end in one, billions of years from now. But just before the rise of complex life, Earth was a big ball of ice. Many mysteries have yet to be investigated from those times. During the eon of complex life, climate-change events were responsible for numerous mass extinctions, but they usually lasted for millions of years, and some of the more abrupt perhaps happened over “only” 50,000 years or so, and one of the biggest was primarily due to a bolide event, which set the stage for the rise of mammals. Some events were created by life, such as those that led to the highest oxygen levels in billions of years. The biggest extinction in the age of mammals, so far, was due to the transition from a greenhouse Earth to an icehouse Earth, but it took 15 million years to complete. It was anything but abrupt, and when it finished, Earth’s species were adapted to icehouse Earth conditions. There have been no major climate-related extinctions since then, but humanity is on the brink of creating one, by extracting and burning Earth’s hydrocarbon deposits to fuel industrial societies. Humans might turn Earth from icehouse to greenhouse conditions in a few centuries. Compared to the previous climate-change extinctions, this one would happen in the geological blink of an eye. Something that violent may well trigger a mass extinction greater than all the rest, and that is even leaving aside how humanity has hunted species to extinction and wiped out their habitats. We live in awesomely perilous times, but Establishment mouthpieces can be counted on to see the bright side. Yes, if Global Warming continues to gallop along, Canada and Siberia will become arable, if there are any humans left to farm them. You can read those kinds of commentaries today, in many places, even so-called “progressive,” even free energy, venues. It can become surreal to read such blithe prognostications. Surviving the transition to an arable Siberia will be the hard part. Of course, I advocate stopping that all in its tracks, even reversing it, and it would be fun. Best, Wade