Energy and the Human Journey: Where We Have Been; Where We Can Go

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

When I did my Project Camelot interview in 2009, Bill said that it was not so much because of Brian why he interviewed me, but that he had read my work back in 2001. I just discovered that Bill was writing about my work in 2001. We have all been at this for a while. That 2001 essay by Bill is related to what I planned to write about this morning.

I interrupted writing this post to comment on an observation about “paranormal” experiences and ability, and it is also germane to today’s post. You can get a pretty thick skin, standing on the world stage as I have for the past 20 years. I no longer countenance the trolls, but as I search for recruits for the choir, I regularly see what is written about me in cyberspace. I have seen many descriptions of my work, as it has been called scholarly, rambling, a pack of lies ( ), and other colorful epithets. Even my allies remark on how I write about scientific and historical topics, and then wax mystically, almost in the same sentence. It utterly confuses some people, and many often seize on one aspect of my work and disappear down that rabbit hole, to never be seen again.

As I have written plenty, if I had to use a label on my work, I would call it Neo-Fullerian, which I did not suspect until after I had finished the 2002 version my site, when I was introduced to Bucky’s work. He was the professional grandfather that I did not know that I had. Bucky was no materialist. As I recall, he was quite the student of Theosophy. As I have written plenty, all of my fellow travelers that I most respected in the FE field had a mystical awakening, and it was a key aspect of their journeys. Almost all of us were either scientists or scientists-in-training when we had our awakening, and it generally ruined us as mainstream scientists, as we could no longer drink the Kool-Aid of materialism, which is the religion of the Fourth Epoch.

A truly comprehensive viewpoint is holistic, and does not exclude matters of the spirit in favor of materialism. But enlightened mystical awareness has to be grounded in experience, not some received teaching or literature review. Do I totally buy the Michael teachings and framework, which I wrote about this morning, as I related it to humanity’s Epochs? I don’t totally buy anything, as it is all subject to revision, the more that I explore and learn. Even the most inspired channeled material comes through humans who are mired in the scarcity and fear of our Epoch. What would “channeled” writings in the Fifth Epoch look like, if the phenomenon survived at all (would writing survive for long?)? Unless people are manifesting the Infinite Spirit, their utterances will always be conditioned, to one degree or another, by the pervasive limitations of our reality on Earth, which has been dominated by scarcity and fear since the Cambrian Explosion (punctuated by golden ages of relative energy abundance, which were generally brief), so I take everything, even my writings ( ), with a grain of salt, realizing the conditions that it was produced under.

We can temporarily leave behind mystical musings and just think about the very real physical, social, and cognitive changes that may well manifest in the Fifth Epoch. But the mystical aspects (our soul-related aspects, and other terms can certainly apply here) will be vital, and more than merely explanatory. A Mature Soul world (with Old Souls like me doing what we do) will look nothing like a Young Soul world, or feel like it. Can love really come to “dominate” that world? I do not consider this world to be fictional, and if there may be one way to sum up the intention behind my work, it is to serve as a beacon for those who want to incarnate into that world in a lifetime not far off on their souls’ journey. We can get there in all practicality, and FE is the key to abundance. I am about giving people the choice to aspire to manifesting that kind of world, and work like mine, if I may be so bold, is about helping blaze the path to that world. If I can just help people imagine that it is possible, I am done. Anything more will be gravy.

Best,

Wade

Edited January 9, 2016 by Wade Frazier

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

This will be a slightly different spin on a familiar theme, spurred by this article that I recently read, in which the author wrote:


“About a third of Americans think that there is no sound evidence for the existence of evolution or benefits of universal vaccination. Our leaders and wanna-be leaders say that evolution is a myth, vaccines cause autism, and a snowball constitutes proof that climate change isn’t a problem. It is tempting to blame such benightedness on lack of education…”


Even though that author (a medical doctor) stated in that article that nearly all cancer “research” is bogus, that scientific literacy should be more about understanding the process of science rather than its facts, he explicitly stated, more than once, that questioning evolution and vaccination was like thinking that Earth was flat.


When I studied the media, perhaps the most common statement from media analysts was that the greatest failure of the media was due to conflicts of interest, and it was pervasive, such as Nightline asking Henry Kissinger for his “diplomatic” views on China, while failing to disclose that he was heavily invested in China. The propaganda model presented in Manufacturing Consent primarily dealt with conflicts of interest in reporting. I find it amazing to see how blinded people can be to conflicts of interest, as if they were just off the turnip truck. I find that professionals can often be the blindest to them. That blindness often relates to their in-group allegiance, which is normal, but it is also related to the ideological aversion to the idea of conspiratorial activities, which even Michael Parenti commented on.

There are no economic empires that I am aware of that are based on foisting a “belief” in evolution on the public. I have read plenty of challenges to evolution, and I did not find any of them to be persuasive, and they often came from critics grinding the ax of organized religion. I consider the idea of descent with modification, which was the bedrock of Darwin’s theory, to be one of the most battle-tested ideas in science. That is one of the most solid areas of science, and I know of no conflicts of interest that might have distorted the issue. Anybody can go out and dig up fossils. Nothing was ever dug up that I ever heard of that contradicted Darwin’s idea, and the rise of disciplines such as genetics and molecular biology have powerfully supported Darwin’s idea.

But vaccination is a radically different issue. The medical racket is one of Earth’s greatest, and the roots of vaccination are very shaky, going back to the beginning and the first great vaccinator. The person whose work provided the theoretical foundation for vaccination had no biological training and was consumed with ambition to become rich and famous, and the evidence is not only strong that he plagiarized and stole on his way to the top, but that he fraudulently cooked his data on vaccination. The man was far from a saint. Yet, in microbiology classes today, students are taught a complete fairy tale on their first day of class about that giant of science. That is not even disputable. It is very much like the fairy tales (1, 2) and lies of omission (1, 2) regarding the USA’s greatest Founding Fathers.

Today, huge biomedical empires are built on vaccination, and I have even seen dissident MDs describe vaccination as a “loss leader” for the medical racket, as vaccines don’t make vast sums of money by themselves (it is still in the billions of dollars each year), but they so compromise people’s immune and related systems that it sets up a long-term cash flow for the medical racket, treating the chronic diseases that vaccination sets in motion. The author of that article seems completely oblivious to all of that, equating questioning vaccination’s safety and effectiveness to questioning evolution. I recently wrote a series of posts on vaccination and won’t belabor the issue in this post, but conflicts of interests are the bane of knowledge and the scientific ideal.

I have been writing about McLuhan’s book lately, and he devoted plenty of ink to Sheldrake’s work and went deep on an example of it, related to the “skeptics,” to show how “paranormal” research works and how the “skeptics” operate. He dealt with Sheldrake’s experiments on telepathy between dogs and their owners. A noted “skeptic” claimed to have reproduced one of Sheldrake’s experiments and invalidated his findings. To this day, “skeptics” cite that invalidation in their arsenal of “facts” to debunk the paranormal. The situation with that debunker’s experiment became so confusing to McLuhan that he went deep on the issue, closely examining the experiments and their data. The “skeptic” played so fast and loose in his experiment that McLuhan was dismayed. To wit:


“I was initially impressed with the methodical way that Wiseman set the parameters for the experiment. But as I started to grasp what he was doing this feeling evaporated, and I experienced that growing incredulity that sceptics [the English spelling – Ed.] themselves complain about when critiquing the work of parapsychologists.”


McLuhan summed up the Sheldrake/Wiseman issue with:


“As is so often the case, a poorly thought out, misinformed, and opportunistic enterprise yields a result that becomes part of the critical literature and can be referred to as if it was the last word.”


The house organ of organized skepticism stopped doing any original scientific work because of a scandal in its early days, when its members were caught cooking the data during a paranormal “investigation.”

McLuhan wrote the following nugget regarding scientific practice, in response to Thomas Huxley’s statement that scientific practice needed to sit down before fact, “as a little child,” seeing the world’s wonders with fresh eyes.


“We aren’t innocent children, alive to any new ideas and experiences that come our way; on the contrary, by the time we reach thirty most of us are primed to repel anything that does not fit with that bundle of facts, assumptions, preconceptions, prejudices and half-truths that we call a worldview. Scientists are certainly no exception to this, however eminent…A respect for objective truth, and a passion to identify it, however unpalatable, are vanishingly rare: most of us, most of the time, busily arrange the facts to suit our self-interest.”


The scientific ideal is about forming testable hypotheses to explain the causative mechanisms behind a phenomenon, and that is a worthy ideal, as long at the limitations of such an enterprise are acknowledged and scientists refrain from trying to make science into the religion known as materialism (AKA “physicalism”), which the best scientists always try to avoid.

I am prepared to admit that:

• Vaccination is safe and effective;
• The presently conceived germ theory of disease is the only valid paradigm;
• That the attack-the-tumor approach is the only effective way to treat cancer;
• That there is no evidence that we are being visited by ET civilizations;
• That the universe is really less than 14 billion years old and is expanding from the Big Bang;
• That the appearance of humans on the evolutionary scene had no ET help,

if I ever saw all of the evidence for those issues credibly dealt with. But I have not, and here are some flies in the ointment. First, a few points on vaccination:

• The very conception of the germ theory of disease was formulated by a scientist with no biological training, whose first claim to fame in the biological sciences was undoubtedly a mythical and dubious rendering of the facts, and there is substantial evidence that that giant of science stole from and plagiarized his colleagues on his rise to the fame and fortune that he so craved;
• There is no credible evidence that vaccination ever vanquished a disease; all communicable diseases were on their way out, both in incidence and mortality, long before the vaccines were introduced, and the effect of vaccination on the mortality curves is not even discernable; the “champion” of vaccination’s success is smallpox, but the data paints a very different picture;
• There is no doubt that many people have had serious and even fatal reactions to vaccination, and the biomedical industry has performed a logical sleight-of-hand regarding vaccine safety;
• The so-called immune system response of vaccines has failed to demonstrate clinical immunity;
• The so-called childhood diseases in the West today seem to be key events in developing immune systems, and are almost never fatal, so trying to prevent them with vaccinations seems to set dynamics in motion that impairs a child’s immune system;
• In the 20^th century, several scientists independently stumbled into reproducing the findings of Pasteur’s contemporary (which challenge the entire germ theory of disease), and most impressively, two scientists developed microscopes with “impossible” optical resolutions (1, 2) that clearly show those subcellular dynamics that call the germ theory into question; I have yet to see mainstream science even look through those microscopes.
• There are huge conflicts of interest in the field of vaccinations, but I have never seen them even considered by vaccination’s proponents, almost all of whom had conflicts of interest; the sordid conflicts of interest regarding fluoridation, the medical establishment’s promotion of cigarettes, and many other scandalous issues should make any thinking person at least question the conflicts of interest that abound around the vaccination issue.

Until I see that contrary evidence dealt with in anything like an objective manner, I am going to have serious doubts about vaccination.

The same man who was the avatar of cigarette promotion (whose greatest triumph was promoting an asbestos cigarette filter, believe it or not) waged a “war on quacks” as he wiped out all alternative cancer treatments, all of which abandoned the violent and lucrative attack-the-tumor paradigm, and one of his greatest “successes” was wiping out one of those scientists with an “impossible” microscope, after his attempts to buy into the company were rebuffed. All such treatments have been wiped out in the USA, in a style reminiscent of Al Capone. Orthodox cancer treatment appears to be one of Earth’s most lucrative rackets.

Until I see those alternative treatments receive a fair hearing (and since they are all harmless, there is no sane reason to outlaw any of them; the situation looks just like what the founder of the American medical establishment warned against), I will have grave doubts about the attack-the-tumor paradigm of cancer treatment, not to mention the alleged worthlessness of treatments that abandon that paradigm.

When an astronaut colleague hosted a UFO conference back in the early 1990s, the year after I met him, he was soon approached by the American military, to perform classified UFO research. Immediately after refusing their “offer,” he nearly died in an incident that shortened his life. I have gone to see UFOs fly overhead on several occasions, including 2015, and I was never disappointed. There is far more to the UFO/ET issue than is officially admitted, and more than a few of the exotic technologies that my close friend was shown, which included free energy and antigravity technologies, were almost certainly developed from reverse-engineering “captured” ET craft. After barely surviving what he thought was a murder attempt, my astronaut colleague (I became his biographer) became prominently involved in an effort to form a safe venue where UFO witnesses could testify, most of whom had “national security” restrictions that prevented them from testifying, and other legendary astronauts were involved (1, 2). I recently heard of an incident at the ISS, from a very credible source, in which a UFO “harassed” the astronauts within, for days, and such incidents are always covered up, with a highly sophisticated protocol.

Only when such people can safely testify, and when the ET issue makes its way past the official secrecy and obfuscation, and ETs can hold Q&As with scientists in a public forum, and the evidence can be dispassionately examined, will I gain some satisfaction that the current orthodox theories of the universe’s creation, age, and dynamics (such as if it is really expanding as is stated by today’s orthodox position) are in any way valid. We have yet to leave our star system, and we think that we have it all figured out? That will also apply to the idea that the evolution of humanity was not somehow assisted by such ET visitors, both regarding the origin of life on Earth and the evolutionary journey that led to humanity. Until the lies, secrecy, coercion, and violence end, the prevailing theories rest on very dubious foundations.

Until mainstream scientists can even acknowledge those limitations, they will be playing a small game.

It is time to begin a very busy day, to begin a very busy week, when I will likely be fairly quiet on the posting front.

Best,

Wade

Edited January 11, 2016 by Wade Frazier

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Interesting dialogue today with somebody who used to work in NASA’s Mission Control.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Oh boy, there are some days when I feel the years moving on me, and this morning, reading that David Bowie died, is one of those days.

I am studying Nick Lane’s latest. His work is great, but is also dense with meaning, and it can get rather technical. When I update my essay to reflect his book and Ward/Kirschvink’s, it will be less technical, “dumbing it down” a level or so. People can go deep on his work, and it would be rewarding, but for my purposes, I do not need to get as technical as he does.

I’ll give an example of some of the good stuff in his book. Lane has long written about the life expectancy of birds and bats, and how they live far longer than their earth-bound relatives, although birds have no cousins left, with the crocodile being their closest relative. Lane has long used the pigeon and rat analogy, as both have about the same body mass, have the same metabolism, but pigeons live ten times as long and produce only 10% as many free radicals. There is definitely a connection, and the research continues.

Sexual selection explains why monkeys, apes, and humans are dimorphic, and also explains why male birds are colorful while females are not. Richard Francis’s Why Men Won’t Ask for Direction deals with avian sexual selection at length, and is a good read. The heart of Lane’s latest book is mitochondria, which are the energy generation centers of all animals. The role of mitochondria will get perhaps the biggest makeover in my big essay, when I tweak it in the coming months. One of the more fascinating “fun facts” in Lane’s book is a hypothesis on that colorful plumage, which is a form of display, which scientists think advertises reproductive fitness. For instance, the standards of beauty that humans have derive from signs of reproductive fitness. All men are most attracted to 25-year-old women, as they are at the ideal reproductive age.

In Lane’s book, he discussed the tradeoffs between mitochondrial efficiency and reproduction. A flying bird has awesome aerobic demands, compared to landlubbing mammals, and its mitochondria have to be in tip-top shape. Mitochondrial efficiency is dependent on the genetic match of its nuclear and mitochondrial DNA, and poorly matched DNA will result in inefficient mitochondria, which is likely a key aspect of aging. There is still plenty of controversy on free radical production and aging, but for birds, highly efficient mitochondria are essential. It turns out that the pigments in bird plumage are mainly produced by the mitochondria, so that male that wins the plumage contest and gets to mate has successfully advertised his mitochondrial health. Fascinating.

Best,

Wade

Edited January 11, 2016 by Wade Frazier

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

My time will be limited until spring, but I have been have in a Star Wars discussion over here.

Another “feeling older” moment, with Rickman’s death. Same age as Bowie. I had better get used to this.

Not enough time for a good post this morning, but…

In today’s world, about 4-to-5% of us are on the psychopath scale (AKA dark path), in this world, it might be 95%, and in this world, it is zero. If you lived in a chimp society, you would call it run by psychopaths. But when some isolated chimps had their food supply double, they became more peaceful than any human society ever has. When all the easy meat was gone and women began bringing in more calories than the men, it broke up the male gangs, and those were the most peaceful preindustrial cultures.

I see people argue all the time that FE won’t have any transformative effects, that human “nature” is to be violent and psychopathic, that humans are somehow fatally flawed. Environmentalists are notorious for that stance, with their fear of FE. Science and history have invalidated those ideas. Star Wars is one of those shows that takes potentially transformative technologies and uses them as simply backdrops for cowboys and Indians stories. Star Trek is far more realistic, IMO, about what kinds of civilizations, and people, that the Fifth Epoch will produce.

Time to run.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I am going to quote McLuhan again. His book is one of the sanest ones out there on the “paranormal.” He ends the book with his views on psi and the survival of consciousness upon physical death. Again, he has not had his mystical awakening yet, but is more like a layman who decided to snoop into the issues.


“Here I part company with those who believe that psi can eventually be explained with a modified and expanded version of scientific materialism. I’m glad that some people do think this; psi is much easier to debate if it is not automatically seen to be destructive of current assumptions. And of course the principle of Occam’s razor positively requires that we start from this point.

“Nor do I mean that there can never be scientific explanation of psi, and it will forever remain a mystery, belonging in the despised category of ‘miracles and magic.’ On the contrary, I believe that one day we will understand the principles behind it. I do however maintain that the science that explains it could not be science in its present form. If the majority of scientists were to acknowledge that it exists, this would be because the materialist paradigm had metamorphosed into something rather different, a process that psi helped bring about. And since scientific materialism underpins its structures, secular society in turn would have undergone a fundamental alteration in its philosophical outlook, and in the ideas about origins and development of life.”


Brian O had the quality, for those who met him, to inspire instant trust. Mr. Professor was like that, and Dennis (which was why he is the world’s greatest salesman). That quality was their souls shining through, which is why they are so prominent in my work.

In reading McLuhan’s work, I get a similar feeling, of implicitly trusting what the author has to say. Ralph McGehee was also that way. So were Uncles Howard, Noam, and Ed. They all lived up to my trust and then some.

Anyway, if you ever want to digest about the most level-headed perusal of the paranormal literature and the “skeptical” reaction to such, I cannot recommend anything more highly than McLuhan’s effort.

Time for bed.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

My time is limited because of my day job, but I have been writing lately on the Star Wars, Star Trek, science fiction, and reality subjects. This is the tidiest thread on it, and below is from my latest post, appropriate to this thread.

Best,

Wade


Science fiction has been working on imaginations for a long time. Jules Verne not only anticipated many developments in science and technology; he inspired them. Almost before computers were invented, science fiction stories warned of their power gone awry, especially combined with robotics. Battlestar Galactica is merely the latest iteration of that theme. Star Trek depicts a different trajectory, at least through TNG. Science fiction is also part of a broader umbrella called speculative fiction (“spec fiction”), as writers imagine what the future can be. From what I have seen, there have been far more dystopian than Utopian futures presented in spec fiction. They can throw in magic and other fantasy elements, and if people can stay grounded, such exercises can be very good work.

Too often, spec fiction is used as an escape from our world, on a more-or-less permanent basis, and it is an understandable reaction. The movie Trekkies shows people who left the real world behind for Star Trek fantasies. The guy who got his ears surgically made into Vulcan ears took honors for most fervent Trekkie. Ranking up there is a woman who wears a Star Trek uniform in her daily life and prefers to be called “Commander,” if memory serves me. Such people should not get involved with FE efforts. At New Science and New Age conferences are many ungrounded people who would be a danger to themselves and those around them if they got involved with an effort like mine.

While my work deals at length with the human potential and FE’s, I don’t consider it fantasy, nor do I consider Michael Roads’s visits to future Earths to be fantasy. I know accomplished psychonauts who have taken similar journeys, and they sometimes come back with earth-shaking inventions.

Technology has played a central role in the human journey. In very real ways, our tools made us, from stone tools and fire onward. All Epochs of the human journey were founded on a few members of the human line achieving the technological prowess and social organization to tap a new energy source. There are no exceptions, and the next one will be no different. Technically, it has already been achieved, but humanity’s collective sentience and integrity deficits, combined with organized suppression, has kept FE and what can come with it in the realm of fantasy to many, and truly unimaginable to the vast majority, who react with denial and fear when even hearing about FE.

Because humans are social animals, they almost never break out of their in-group conditioning, especially in our world of scarcity and fear, and almost every FE newcomer does exactly the opposite of what I seek: they proselytize to their social circles while playing the anonymity game in cyberspace. Both activities are unhelpful or counterproductive to what I am trying to do. The greatest dangers to FE activists come from themselves, their social circles, and their “allies,” not organized suppression. People who join my effort need not fear organized suppression, unless they try to fill their social and financial needs through an FE effort. Then they will become easy marks for the Global Controllers' minions, helping wreck any effort that they get involved with.

The great social changes in the human journey were all a result of tapping that new energy source, not a cause. In that way, Marx was right. This is the way that almost all FE newcomers get it backwards. Many delusions of our in-group conditioning need to be shed before a person will become helpful for manifesting the biggest event in the human journey.

While technology, especially energy technology, will be the foundation of the coming Epoch of abundance, what intrigued Brian and I the most were the social and cognitive changes. We can barely imagine them, but it was also that way for every Epochal Event. The best of Star Trek hints at what those changes might look like.

Edited January 23, 2016 by Wade Frazier

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I don’t often comment on the situation surrounding my friend’s underground technology show, which included FE and antigravity, but I did today.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I unexpectedly have a little time this morning and want to discuss a subject that I saw in McLuhan’s book. After exposing the faulty logic, failure to fairly assess the evidence, and other deficiencies in the “investigations” of the “skeptics,” McLuhan stated something that I have seen towering Lefties such as Uncle Ed state: the “investigators” and pundits have been blinded by their allegiance to their self-serving belief systems (because that is how they eat) and are literally incapable of seeing beyond them. According to that view, when “skeptics” leave rational analysis far behind during their debunking exercises, they are not doing it with conscious dishonesty, but they simply are incapable of rational thought when their cherished beliefs are challenged, even when they portray themselves as the voice of reason and honest inquiry, maybe especially when they portray themselves that way.

I agree that this likely explains most of those kinds of “investigations” and pundit exercises, but it does not explain all of them. It is similar to my observation that organized suppression is 10% conspiratorial and 90% structural. Very few doing the dirty work are really in on it, but they don’t care. They are there to get paid, and well, and really don’t care if they are helping destroy their planet. When IQs of 200 and scholarly and scientific training meet self-serving beliefs, the beliefs almost always prevail. Few can handle the cognitive dissonance for more than moments. That kind of behavior is what led Brian to speculate whether humanity was really a sentient species. IMO, that seeming lack of sentience is really a lack of personal integrity, which was my journey’s primary lesson. The belly wins over the head almost all the time, in a world of scarcity and fear, as nearly all people are only interested in defending their in-groups, even the “smartest” among them.

That is why I say that people’s hearts have to be in the right place, first, and they have had to be awakened to the lies of their in-group conditioning before they are going to be candidates for what I have in mind. Otherwise, they simply drag around their baggage of scarcity and literally cannot comprehend abundance.

While McLuhan’s and Ed’s views explain the vast majority of incomprehension, not only among the “skeptics,” but from intellectuals and all walks of life, when you get down to it, it does not mean that it is all just some delusional failure to deal with the reality of our world. Some are quite aware of what they are doing, and are being very consciously dishonest. That is how psychopaths (AKA dark pathers) play the game. Mr. Skeptic is a pathological xxxx, simply making it up as he goes, as is Mr. Texas and Bill the BPA Hit Man. They were all likely on Godzilla’s payroll, and Mr. Deputy was handsomely compensated for his evil deeds. What amazed me about their behavior was not just how easily they lied and played deceptive games, but how easily they duped people, people supposedly far wiser and worldlier than me. That was the big surprise of my journey, not that evil-minded people run the world. The psychopaths only run the world because in their almost non-existent personal integrity, the masses have abdicated their responsibility for the world they live in, playing the victim. The dark pathers have simply picked up abdicated responsibility lying on the ground, and are playing with the power that the masses have unwittingly given them. The nightmare future Earth that Roads visited is that principle taken to its logical conclusion.

I was initially amazed at being handed that libel tract on Dennis, written by a big name in the FE field, as an example of great writing on the FE issue! My dismay increased with each instance of it, for the first several times, but as I began to understand what I was seeing, I was no longer as distraught. That Mr. Skeptic effortlessly gulled big names in the FE field with his affable skeptic charade (the classic psychopath MO) is one reason why I don’t want to have anything to do with the FE field today. Almost nobody in it has the right stuff, and when the latest FE hopeful announces that he is the Messiah and gathers a fervent following, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Such antics also epitomize the excesses of the New Age and conspiracist crowd. That lack of personal integrity and discernment is endemic in all walks of life on Earth these days.

Again, finding people with the right stuff for the Epochal task that I have in mind is like looking for needles in haystacks, but I have this new tool called the Internet, with a global reach. I have devoted the rest of my life’s “spare” time to this task, so I like my chances of making some kind of dent. It is probably similar to what Bucky Fuller would be doing if he was still alive, and we’ll see how it goes.

Best,

Wade

Edited January 27, 2016 by Wade Frazier

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

As an addendum to my previous post, when I think of how I arrived at my views today and my writings, it was anything but a straight path, and they came together like a mosaic. If you would have asked me what I was doing in the early 1990s, studying the media, the American history that I was not taught in school, and the rackets, I would not have said, “I am discovering the lies of my in-group indoctrination.” I began questioning my indoctrination and conditioning early on, but it took my wild ride with Dennis to really awaken me. I then spent years trying to understand why the world worked starkly differently from how I was taught that it did.

As I look back, I was really seeing how my in-group ideologies were a crock, and they were generally the dominant ones. My mystical awakening exploded materialism and I really did not take on organized religion so much, as I was not really raised with it (it being a Third Epoch ideology), but I took on nationalism (including one of my great nation’s greatest myths), capitalism, scientism, materialism, my profession, my race and culture, my gender, and my “education.” Young artisans likely largely concocted the dominant ideologies, and I may have helped in earlier lifetimes, and I take a meat ax to them. So, I may be helping clean up my own mess.

Not until reading Bucky and studying for my big essay was I able to articulate what I was doing. We have to shed our herd conditioning to become truly sentient, and I demonstrated the lies of my indoctrination. Others have to discover the lies behind theirs, and shed them, if they are brave enough to. Until we can do that, our awareness is trapped in egocentric conceits that are designed to control what we think, to ensure that we are obedient members of the herd. The heart is the key, always. Only those with a love of the truth are going to take that arduous journey to true sentience. The rest settle for the comforting lies of their in-groups. Only people who have taken that journey, or are on it, can help with what I am doing, and they are rare, oh so rare.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

More on the subject of recent posts. Everybody gets in-group conditioning. It comes with being a social animal. My indoctrination was imperial. Imperial indoctrination is one of the more evil, as it justifies violence against and oppression of distant peoples who pose no harm, other than refusing to be compliant slaves. From Akkad onward, people have played the empire game when they could. Just as distant rulers could inflict awesome damage on their subjects and their environments, which Rome epitomized, the conquest, subjugation, and even genocide of distant peoples could be cheered on by the imperial class as long as the plunder rolled in.

The USA has a corporate empire, and once a great while, imperial agents would speak up about the real game being played. Some were in on it from the beginning, such as middle managers, while those lower in the hierarchy only figured it out after many years. The CIA’s headquarters at Langley is full of zombies who figured it out enough so that they counted their days to retirement. Rare are the people who figured it out and spoke out, and they were always dealt with harshly. My CIA contract agent relative probably never really figured it out, but drank himself to death in his cognitive dissonance.

The American masses, however, eagerly drink the Kool-Aid of their indoctrination and can be manipulated to cheer any war. There was some dissent back in the 1960s to our imperial murder of several million people, after the sitting president was murdered, likely because his imperial policy was not bellicose enough, but those days are long gone, and I can hardly find an American who knows or cares how many millions our great nation has murdered in the past generation, mostly children, and the imperial rhetoric was transparently stupid. You had to be an idiot to believe it.

I can best speak to my indoctrination, and I almost became a willing imperial tool, like the rest of my peers, as I was fed the Kool-Aid from the cradle, forced to worship a flag, etc. Peoples of other lands have to deal with their own in-group indoctrination. I never found or heard of a group on Earth that successfully shed its scarcity-based conditioning. I seek to help build one, however, and that can seem like pure folly. But I see no other way to overcome the organized suppression and humanity’s inertia. I helped the best of the best try to enlist the masses, and what disasters those were.

Bucky Fuller found that young adults were the best candidates for waking up beyond their in-group conditioning, as their minds and spirits had yet to ossify into their in-group ideologies, and they could pursue livingry instead of humanity’s “suicidal fixity” on weaponry. That is probably going to be my target audience, too. Older people are generally lost causes, fiercely clinging to their self-serving frameworks to the end. A similar phenomenon can be seen in physics, as the greatest minds were usually done with their greatest contributions by age 30.

If enough of us can achieve sufficient heart-centered sentience, this kind of world can come into view. But all people have their particular flavor of in-group conditioning, and each must deal with his/her own. It is not an easy dance, no matter what the conditioning is.

I think that an aspect of my work that helps me reach the lay audience is that I am not that smart. I am studying Nick Lane’s latest, rereading parts of it several times, rolling it around in my head, on the issue of energy and entropy, among other topics in his book. I plan to go fairly quiet soon as I update my big essay with the findings in Lane’s book and some others that I read this past year. In grappling with Lane’s work and its implications, I come up with ways of seeing it that aids my understanding, and I will use those in my writings, so that those high-minded and often complex ideas are more intelligible to the lay audience. Lane seems to assume that his readers took college chemistry, so his book is not exactly written for the lay audience. I plan to come up with some simple ways to view it, replete with diagrams, which helped me understand. Lane somewhat tries to reach the popular audience and has diagrams, too, which I plan to at least partly reproduce.

Coming posts are going to deal more with science, health, and technology.

Best,

Wade

Edited January 30, 2016 by Wade Frazier

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I have been making posts over here on aging, wisdom, and why the greatest scientists were usually done by age 25 with making their greatest contributions. I wrote how by living healthily, we can slow down the aging process, but it is a one-way process that always ends in death. In Nick Lane’s latest book, he made the case that free radical production is the proximate cause of aging, but it happens differently from how the initial free radical theory posited, and I discussed it in that post.

In the end, loading up our bodies with toxins, including alcohol, nicotine, enzyme poisons (most prescription drugs), junk food, fluorine (my dentist wrote a similar paper to my fluoride essay), various electromagnetic frequencies, and industrial pollutants, combined with sedentary lives in which we don’t reach aerobic levels of exertion, rapidly ages us.

For being history’s richest and most powerful nation, the American diet is atrocious, and we are history’s fattest and most sedentary people. It is a scandal. Richard Wrangham’s Cooking Hypothesis is formidable and very likely accurate to a significant degree, IMO. Cooking gave the human line energetic advantages and most certainly was involved with evolutionary changes, and how much it contributed to our huge brains is one of the more fascinating recent scientific controversies. I’ll likely be following that issue with great interest for the rest of my life.

Part of the reason for our atrocious health habits is that for all of our seeming wealth and power, we are still mired in scarcity and addicted to our survival mechanisms. Rackets dominate the world economy, and we are living anything but healthily, not only with our diets and lifestyles, but we are quickly making Earth uninhabitable. If humanity turned the corner and lived in absolute abundance for the first time (not the relative abundance of humanity’s brief golden ages), our diets and lifestyles would be vastly healthier than we see today, and the average human lifespan will likely be around a century, for starters. Even in that nightmare Roads world, those with enough “credits” got DNA makeovers that enabled them to live a long time, maybe even centuries, while those without credits were “given” a painless death when they became diseased or disabled. But in that heavenly Roads world, living in love and with lifestyles that we can barely fathom, they probably lived even longer than the “Rockefellers” of that hellish world, and every day was a happy one.

Science performed under the rubric of scarcity is going to be suspect, for all of the virtues of its ideal. Corporate science, in which the bottom line trumps all, has given us many evil outcomes. Government-sponsored science has given us similar “products,” such as nuclear weapons. The province of Black Science and technology contains wonders and horrors. They shortened Brian’s life.

Best,

Wade

Edited January 30, 2016 by Wade Frazier

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Today’s topic is my nightmare of a midlife crisis. We’ll see if I write anything more today.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Damn, Uncle Ed sent me his latest, but it will not be available on the Internet for a couple of months, about when Ed turns 91! Soon before Ed turned 90, I asked him how he was doing, and replied that everything was working pretty much normally, that getting old was hard ( ), but that he hoped to serve as inspiration to whippersnappers like me that we might have many good years ahead of us.

I put on my calendar to discuss Ed’s latest when it is available to the Internet. For those familiar with Uncle Ed’s work, he is always brilliant in pointing out the West’s hypocrisy. That new article was classic Ed, and for the first time that I can recall in print, Ed pointed out how Amnesty International falls far short of what a human rights organization should aspire to be. Because he took them to task in that article, I will publicly reveal (I kind of did here and here) that Ed was one of those whom I commiserated with way back in the 1990s, when the USA attacked Yugoslavia, on the depressing sellout of Amnesty International. Human Rights Watch is literally a tool of the American Empire. Orwell would roll in his grave.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Speaking of Uncle Ed, there is a new movie with Uncle Noam, which I had not even heard about. The movie Manufacturing Consent never even aired on network TV in the USA, to my knowledge, while it was the most successful documentary in Canadian history at the time. It looks like the new one is not going to be in wide release in the USA. Noam is 87, Ed is 90, and they are still going strong. Truly incredible.

Best,

Wade