Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • 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

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

Recommended Posts

G'day Wade,

You mention that the use of wood will become obsolete. As an energy source I can agree but wood has a variety of uses. I can see its use being reduced to a sustainable level but completely stopped?

Or am I misinterpreting your point? I have not read all posts & links but rather just skimmed through rapidly. Don't have a lot of time to read except before bed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Evan:

I think that we can agree that wood would quickly end for producing energy. It is very primitive, not sustainable, and ecologically disastrous. For the other uses, there are none that I can think of that are necessary. Sure, they could be used, but do they need to be used? Human skulls have had many purposes over the human journey, but we generally do not use them anymore. :) With the awakening that the Fifth Epoch can bring, I think that exploiting ecosystems for human lifestyles will largely, if not completely, end. On Christmas Day, I was hiking on a “saved” mountain, but it is still being clear-cut. I am aware of materials that would seem magical to people today, locked away in the Global Controllers’ Golden Hoard, with the rest of the good stuff. Killing any lifeforms, for materials, would soon be seen as barbaric, not to mention unnecessary.

Best,

Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

As I have written, my work hurricane begins now, and I will likely be pretty quiet until spring, with my main writing task over the winter being tweaking my big essay for my reading during the past year, especially the recent Ward, Kirschvink, and Lane books. I intended my big essay to be like a college textbook, which will be revised periodically for new findings, like all science textbooks are. I doubt that I will update the rest of my site much (that 2014 re-edit of my site, to align it with my big essay, I will likely not do again), but the big essay will be updated until I can’t do it anymore or we get to use FE in our daily lives. :)

The big essay covers such vast territory that there will always be material to update, but the basic theme, of the central role of energy, I don’t expect to change. In fact, what I have noticed in recent years is that science and scholarship has increasingly focused on the energy issue, as Lane’s latest book does.

The issue of civilization collapses and running out of energy has really only become a scholarly theme in the past generation, and seeing scientists and scholars focusing on energy being the basis of economics has also been wonderful to see, and way overdue. I did not entirely invent my Epochal Event framework, but I did invent the Second and Fifth Epochs (and my framework is significantly different from others I have seen, in ways), and the day that an enlightened, worldly, and comprehensive, Fuller-ish discussion of the Fifth Epoch is mounted anywhere in cyberspace, my work will be finished. I intend it to begin in my forum, as my recruits begin hitting the notes, but I don’t expect it to stop there.

Because my effort is mostly a one-man show for now, I need to get the material as good as I can get it, before I try to expand my audience much. It is far more about the notes, not the numbers, especially at this stage of the game.

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

“Going quiet,” as I wrote, is relative, for me. :) A few themes have been rolling around in my head lately, and one is a subject of recent conversations with a pal who first heard of FE from me. I have been doing this for so many years that I only talk about my life’s work with people who already know me, and I probably have done it more in my professional life than anyplace else, as far as with “new” people, as I spend most of my waking hours there. I sure don’t walk the halls, spouting Wade’s World tales, but I am a respected professional, and the people I talk to in professional settings are already acquainted with my professional abilities, so they know that I am not crazy. But I definitely choose my spots.

If a person hears of FE and gets past denial, fear, lazy acceptance, or a feeling of hopelessness (when the obstacles are considered), they almost always talk about it with their social circles, which is normal. If they talk with their social circles, just in an inquiring way, not as an advocate, but just asking their social circles if they heard of FE, most people will not have really heard of it at all, but those who have will almost always have denial and fear reactions, and those who first hear of FE also react with denial and fear. People will rarely react positively.

If FE newcomers approach their social circles as an advocate of FE, they should be prepared to be ostracized. The reactions can be quite violent. I have watched friendships end, family relationships get strained and even end, and careers have ended when people proselytized to their social circles. The fraction of humanity that will react positively and in a somewhat enlightened manner to the idea of FE is less than one-in-a-thousand. Those are just the numbers, and it does no good to judge the situation. Since humans can only manage social circles of 250 people or so, the odds of FE advocates finding fellow travelers in their social circles are small. If such people are lucky, they will find one or two who will react productively, but they should also be prepared to lose many times more relationships if they go “fishing” in their social circles that way.

My best students always proselytize to their social circles, even after being warned, as they had to find out for themselves. I always get to hear their stories, but the best of them do not stop there and return sobered up from their initial enthusiasm. Brian O banged on the biggest doors on Earth for five years, playing the Paul Revere of FE, before I got to hear from him how it went, and he began openly wondering if humanity was a sentient species. There is no social circle, no organization not already devoted to the issue, no gathering on Earth that is going to react in anything approaching a positive and enlightened manner to the idea of FE. It took me many years to understand what we were seeing, and I eventually concluded that people were addicted to their survival mechanisms in a world of scarcity, and FE and abundance meant the end of the world as they knew it. Even the least intelligent of them began to understand that pretty quickly, and it scared them. Their niche in a world of scarcity and fear would vanish with FE and abundance, and they could never see beyond losing their niche, not what that world beyond scarcity and fear could look like.

I will end this post with an observation on the more sophisticated denial reactions, which usually come from scientists, academics, and the “smart.” The most common are the “laws of physics” objection and the denial of organized suppression as a “conspiracy theory.” They are often accompanied by an outright fear that with FE, humanity would quickly destroy Earth via warfare or strip mining it. I recently dealt with the warfare and strip mining objection, I am living evidence of the organized suppression, as are my fellow travelers – there is no theory to those “conspiracies,” as far as their existence, but who, why, and how are open to debate. I have seen and experienced way too much of it, so I know how real it is, and am decidedly unimpressed with expressions of denial of that reality. But I want to deal a little with the “laws of physics” objection in this post.

As Brian O often said, there are no “laws” of physics, only theories. When anybody says “laws of physics,” they are portraying a body of theory as some absolute fact, which is similar to religious dogma. Science is ideally about doubt, not faith, and that quasi-certitude term “law” really has no place in science, or it has a very limited application that has been greatly abused by people as a knee-jerk response to the unfamiliar. As Einstein said, every theory is killed by a fact. A cousin to the “laws of physics” objection is to try to make reports of FE fit into orthodox physics concepts, or else declare them invalid. Many of the greatest breakthroughs in science and technology had the inventions and data predate the theories that described how they worked.

The steam engine was invented more than a century before thermodynamic theory was developed to state how it worked. The Wright brothers were flying for five years while the scientific establishment ignored and ridiculed them, and even stated that heavier than air-flight was “impossible” (and Brian said that the climate in the scientific establishment is worse today than a century ago). The anomaly of the Michelson-Morley experiment predated Einstein’s special theory of relativity by a generation. Inventions and experiments have regularly gone far past the day’s prevailing theories, and the steam engine, powered flight, and relativity theory posed no immediate threat to economic empires, while FE technology will make all of them obsolete, and the global elite know it.

I have been directly involved with technologies that are still declared “impossible” by people, especially scientists and the technically trained, even when the data has been robust and decades old, and I have looked into others. When people invoke the “laws of physics” to deny FE’s possibility, they are ignorant of the history of science and technology, and when they dismiss organized suppression as a “conspiracy theory,” they are ignorant of how the world really works, and prefer their ideological stances over reality.

What my friend was shown blew his mind, but it was no big deal to Brian, or would be to my fellow travelers who traveled the high road. When the “laws of physics” objection is leveled against FE, such responses are ignorant of what one of Einstein’s protégés theorized, for instance. The “laws of physics” objection is ludicrous.

What all such objections essentially state is this: “When you can deliver an FE device into my hands, I will believe in its existence.” It is normal and Machiavelli remarked on it. Such people need to be left alone until FE can be delivered into their lives. They are not going to wake up before then, and that is normal.

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

As the new year begins and I am about to get relatively quiet, I would like to reflect a little on my approach, what I hope to accomplish, and the people I seek.

I am 57 today and have been on my energy quest since I was 16, when my first professional mentor’s engine began making waves. If I am fortunate, I will have another 30 good years or so in me, to continue along this path. I was trained to be a scientist almost from the time I could walk. I had my mystical and cultural awakenings when I was 16, which led to a paranormal event when I was 19, which changed my studies from science to business. Eight mostly frustrating years later, another paranormal event landed me in the middle of the greatest effort ever made to bring alternative energy to the marketplace. I came to realize that my fellow travelers had similar preposterous events during their journeys, from voices in their heads to remote viewings to mystical awakenings that led to inventing FE prototypes, and other events that were far larger than life. Such experiences can give people a keen sense of purpose.

Very few from the public can believe that such events happened, but when you live them, you know. Even I sometimes look back on the events of my life and wonder if they really happened, so the public’s denial is quite understandable. Virtually all of my fellow travelers had such awakening events, were usually scientists or scientists in training, and we all discovered the hard way how the world really works. Those awakening events were not easy to survive, and most of my fellow travelers are either dead or “retired,” often due to the organized suppression, which was regularly fatal.

The proportion of the population that can even comprehend that milieu is vanishingly small, as people cling to their favorite ideologies, which our experiences blow out of the water. Sometimes my fellow travelers would give up and seek the nearest rocking chair, but the best of them kept going until the end of their lives.

The list of failed approaches that I compiled is not theory or rumor, but what my fellow travelers and I experienced. We have twisted that Rubik’s Cube every way that we could think of. It was from decades of trying and witnessing failed approaches, and trading notes with my fellow travelers, that I arrived at my current approach. Nobody has ever tried it before, and very few people have any comprehension of what I am attempting. With numbing regularity, people approach me, dragging the baggage of their scarcity-based frameworks, thinking that they have the key missing ingredient. Without exception, they are variants of those failed approaches. The free energy field has been in a state of arrested development for longer than I have been alive, very few in the field today have the right stuff, and I no longer have anything to do with the field, nor do I want to.

I recently made a series of posts on what those with the right stuff for this task have in common, made some posts on what has not worked and why, and why my approach just might help. If anything, it won’t hurt, as it seeks to mount a comprehensive, arguably enlightened effort, which will not be very susceptible to humanity’s inertia and the organized suppression. However, it will be a long, slow journey, even while humanity stands on the brink of the abyss. Impatience is my Achilles heel, and this approach has been teaching me patience, in the face of mounting desperation, as my great nation is on the brink of igniting World War III, if it has not already begun.

I am approached all the time by people who want to try this and that, want to drag in their pet ideologies, proclivities, and bright ideas, and when I inform them that they need to leave them at the door, they almost always disappear. Some may return, and I will be here when they do.

I wrote just yesterday that my best pupils invariably try out the idea of free energy with their social circles, even when I warn them to be cautious, but they have to go find out for themselves, and that is OK. If they were lucky, they were not ostracized, and pretty much all of them tell me how they wrecked some relationships (with family, friends, and colleagues), became pariahs in certain circles, and so on. But they came back to me, sobered up from their initial enthusiasm, were more willing to learn, and realized that I was not making it up.

Energy has always been the name of the game on Earth, and the generation of an energy surplus has always been the key measure of the viability of organisms, species, ecosystems, and civilizations. The last days of the Hydrocarbon Age are upon us, and history’s richest and most powerful nation has been declining ever since its energy consumption peaked. If we don’t transition to an abundant and harmless energy source, and soon, it may well be Game Over for humanity, and we might take most of Earth’s complex life with us.

Lockheed’s recent announcement of commercial fusion is an attempt by the Global Controllers to have their cake and eat it too, so that the new energy source will still be subjected to capitalist constraints. I can live with that, but I know that technology exists today that makes such technologies seem like a campfire. The Fifth Epoch will put an end to elites and they know it, which is why they have been so active in keeping such technologies suppressed and sequestered.

People might say that I am attempting to wreck the elite game, and they would be right, but I wish those elites no harm. Some of them will even like living in something that resembles heaven on Earth, but their days of being “in charge” are swiftly coming to an end.

Peace on Earth, goodwill to all,

Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

Before I tackle some more chores, a brief post…

I seek to wreck the elite game, but I also seek to end the game that their slaves play, which is the mass of humanity. Both sides play the scarcity, fear, and survival game. It is baked into our paradigms, and neither side is willing to let go. But it was like this before all Epochal Events, when nobody could imagine anything different from what was familiar to them. The elites cannot be the focus of an effort like mine, and neither can the masses. Neither group has what it takes to make it happen. The global elite are committed to preventing the next Epoch from manifesting, as it means Game Over for them and they know it, and the masses oblige them, with perspectives that rarely extend beyond their immediate self-interest.

For their part, the masses are addicted to their survival mechanisms, which include their favorite ideologies, and that includes the so-called smart. The problem is primarily one of the heart, not the head. Humanity’s social changes have always been a result of their economic reality, not a cause. Slavery appeared with the Third Epoch because it made economic sense, and it ended as a hallowed institution in the Fourth Epoch, when it no longer made economic sense, not from some bout of conscience out of the blue. The social approach has never worked, and never will work, for Epochal change.

Warfare has always had an underlying economic rationale. Warfare as a way of life will end when it no longer makes any economic sense, and that will only happen when scarcity ends. I have written that humanity will become largely, if not exclusively, vegetarian in the Fifth Epoch, and will no longer rape Earth’s ecosystems, because humanity will no longer “need” to, in order to live comfortably. Eating animals will be seen as a close cousin to cannibalism, and razing forests will be seen as incredibly primitive and barbaric, in the Fifth Epoch, as ethical and aesthetic standards leap upwards by orders of magnitude.

But don’t expect the masses to even begin to raise their awareness and ethics to those levels until economic abundance makes it feasible, and don’t expect the elites to willingly give up their games of power and control. Their addiction is arguably the most entrenched on Earth, as the addictions of the masses pale in comparison.

Best,

Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

I finished Nick Lane’s latest book today. He is always worth reading, and he is held in high regard amongst scientists (Peter Ward gave him a specific accolade in his latest). I’ll be digesting Lane’s book for some time, before I update my big essay for the past year’s reading. The book’s most trenchant statement is at the end, “Incorporating energy into evolution is long overdue…” I have found this idea in recent work on economics and the collapse of civilizations, and energy’s role has also been underplayed in biology. Energy is the ballgame, but on many fronts, even scientific, it has been underplayed, even to the point of invisibility, such as in neoclassical economic theory. I have to wonder how conspiratorial that situation has been.

I can only hope that my big essay is only slightly ahead of its time. :)

Best,

Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

This barrage of posts is coming to a screeching halt, and soon. :)

There are times when I sit back and wonder about what I am doing, how I got here, etc. If I look at my site as it stands today, I can see how I was groping toward what it became back when I began hitting the books in 1990, after my life was shattered and I was radicalized. But it was by no means a straightforward process. I now know that I was a comprehensivist-in-training, but I did not even know what that meant until after finishing the 2002 version of my site, which is still the site’s meat today (everything from here down was part of that 2002 version, and some above it, such as the introductory and visionary essays), and one of Bucky Fuller’s pupils had me read some of Bucky’s work, and the lightbulb finally went on. My work has been more consciously comprehensive ever since, and I can look back at those early essays and see what I was struggling toward. I did not need to revise them much during my 2014 editorial process, to get them aligned with my big essay.

What I was doing, which I could not have articulated back in 2002, was deflating all of the in-group ideologies that I had been imbued with. You don’t see me take on organized religion, mainly because I was not really raised with it, thankfully. Also, it is a Third Epoch ideology that is increasingly irrelevant in Fourth Epoch societies, and I was more concerned with deflating the Fourth Epoch ideologies. Materialism is the religion of the Fourth Epoch.

Today, I can see what I was heading toward, by deflating all of the in-group ideologies, which always justify ill treatment of the out-group. The most enlightened message to humanity was given by Jesus most famously: there is no out-group. That is what I was aiming toward, in a kind of backdoor way, by deflating all of the in-group ideologies of my culture. If we can begin to see all of humanity, all life on Earth, even all of Creation, as our in-group, we are on our way to enlightenment, IMO. Even the Global Controllers are one of us, as much as conspiracists hate to admit it, as much as structuralists continue to deny their existence.

Anthropologists have said that if there has truly been any social “progress” in humanity during the human journey, it has been a continual expansion of people’s in-groups.

A major goal of my work is for those in the choir to relinquish all in-group ideologies, or actively work on shedding them. Another key goal is for the choir to gain a comprehensive understanding of the central role that energy has always played on Earth, and especially how each energy source the humanity has tapped has formed the foundation of each of humanity’s Epochs. It takes some scientific literacy to understand. I wrote my big essay for laypeople (I am one myself), and doubt that people need to be professional scientists to understand. When that comprehensive, energy-centric perspective is developed, people can focus on what is important, and be immune from the million distractions that beckon in today’s world.

Then, the combined positive intention of people with the right stuff just might be able to make a dent. That is really what I am doing, but it took decades of trial and error for me to come up with my approach. There are plenty of other approaches, but nobody has tried mine yet that I know of, and we will see how it goes.

Best,

Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

Not long ago, I wrote a series of posts on vaccination. I wrote of the damage caused by free radicals, industrial toxins, the garbage that Americans ingest and call food, and such drugs as cigarette smoke (the active ingredient is nicotine) and alcohol. I mentioned that I finished reading Nick Lane’s latest book yesterday. I feel compelled to make an early comment on his book, and to also comment on something that I see all the time in the mainstream media.

Anybody who questions vaccination’s safety and effectiveness is not only called crazy, but is portrayed as an active threat to public health. There is a huge illusion promoted that medical science is above the fray, simply seeking what is the highest and best for human health. Bigger lies have seldom been told. Western medicine is a huge racket, and it is not all that hard to find MDs and scientists who publicly admit it. Of course, their careers are over when they do that, but they are out there. They often challenge the dogma of heart disease, cancer, and the approved treatments. Once in a while, the establishment will embrace the work of the crucified pioneers, without giving them any credit, of course. It recently happened with heart disease.

Rife and Naessens developed optical microscopes that attained “impossible” resolutions, but you will almost never see an establishment scientist admit it, like Galileo’s contemporaries who refused to look through his telescope. Those scopes’ findings confirmed the pleomorphic reality that Pasteur’s contemporary documented, whom Pasteur seems to have plagiarized in his quest for fame and fortune. Not only did their findings threaten the very foundation of modern medicine, but they developed highly effective disease treatments based on their findings, especially cancer. They performed many experiments that achieved “believe it or not” results, and those results have been studiously ignored by Establishment science.

Rife’s microscope was the world’s most powerful when he invented it, and his lab became a scientific mecca before he was wiped out, but he is an ignored or reviled figure today. Naessens is still around, and scientists come away amazed after visiting his lab. Where is the stampede of scientists and doctors, trying to reproduce their findings? The silence is deafening, and when a man began to play the FDA’s game to have Naessens’s treatment approved in the USA, he was kangarooed into prison. That is standard procedure in the medical racket, but anybody who questions vaccination or fluoridation or provides cheap, harmless, and effective cancer treatment is portrayed as a malevolent threat to the public’s health. Orwell’s world is alive and well.

I finished my series of vaccination posts with my hypothesis on what is happening, as organisms fail. Lane’s latest book supports my view, although that was certainly not his intention. :) The free radical theory of aging has apparently been falsified in its initial conception, but Lane still thinks that it is valid, in a subtler way. Lane returned to the comparison of a pigeon and rat, as they are both about the same size, with the same metabolism, but a pigeon only produces 10% of the free radicals that a rat does and lives ten times as long. Lane advocates a slightly different dynamic. Programmed cell death happens when a cell has been sufficiently damaged. Free radicals and other insults cause that damage. Free radical production in the electron transport chain is the mechanism of programmed cell death, as they react with the mitochondrial membrane and sever the electron transport chain, which immediately halts ATP production, and the cell instantly starves to death, as if it ingested cyanide.

But most cell types can be replaced, so it is not that big a deal to dismantle a cell, feed its neighbors with its carcass, and grow new cells. However, there are highly specialized cells that cannot be made anew, such as brain and muscle cells. When one of those dies, it is not replaced. Lane thinks that programmed cell death in those vital and non-reproducing cells is what brings on aging, as fewer remaining cells try to do the work that more cells formerly did, and they get overworked and break down, meeting their maker through programmed cell death, so there is a positive feedback cascade effect to those cells, and that is why we age.

Birds run such a high-performance and “clean ship” that programmed cell death happens at only 10% of the rate of rat cells, and Lane thinks that free radicals must be part of the dynamic. In the end, high-performance equipment (flying is the highest level of energy performance that any animal can make) is of higher quality and does not wear out as quickly as cheaply made equipment, and that analogy seems to apply to the difference between rats and pigeons. It is an energy game, as always.

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

Before my hurricane at my day job begins, which won’t end until spring, if then, here is a short post. One of the most sober voices on the financial scene just published his latest, and a Peak Oiler recently held forth. In the absence of a new energy source, the Peak Oiler stance is unassailable. The wars in Oil Country are likely just getting warmed up, and World War III may be the outcome, if it is not already.

I have been writing some reflective posts lately, and this will be another one. I have written plenty on what the people I seek will likely have in common and won’t belabor it, but this morning I will touch on some obstacles to my plan. It is a given that almost nobody has what I seek, but for those who do, I do not propose an easy task.

Part of the problem is that humans are social animals, and I have written plenty on the hazards of approaching one’s social circles with my material. But even if my pupils refrain from engaging their social circles, there is a constant pull from people’s social circles, to be a member of the herd, the constant draw to drink the Kool-Aid of the dominant ideologies, to not even question their tenets. People who buy into those in-group ideologies abdicate their sentience to the degree that they do. The siren song of sleep and herd conformity issues from nearly every mouth, blares from Orwell’s telescreens, dominates the Internet anymore, and anything “progressive” or “conservative” is all about slicing up humanity’s scarce and shrinking economic pie a little differently, and not even dealing with how it can be made bigger, etc.

How to avoid getting sucked into that vortex? I work in corporate America and know how hard it is. All I can say is that it is not easy, to know how it can be, while seeing what it is. In order to navigate that terrain, people need ways to be grounded and maintain their internal anchors, or else they are going to go flying off the handle, go off the deep end, become addicted to dysfunctional coping mechanisms, and so on. I have seen so many casualties on my journey. I watched people wreck their lives, lose their lives, lose their sanity, and so on. I will always be picking up the pieces of my shattered life, and am grateful that I did not permanently become a quivering pile of wrecked nerves, drink myself to death, and so on. I have had to eliminate people from my life, such as all of my immediate family, who decided to attack me, generally because they could not handle the realities that my journey encountered. My mother’s “my son the criminal” scrapbook tour was actually a benign event, compared to what others did.

What I ask of my readers is no mean feat, to shed our mind-and-soul-entrapping ideologies and conditioning while not becoming estranged from our social circles. To keep our eyes on the ball and refrain from getting entangled in the million distractions that beckon, to maintain our sanity through it all – not many have what it takes to do that, and I am here to help my pupils stay on the straight and narrow, and it is not easy, given the limitations of the Internet, as awesome a communication tool as it is.

Best,

Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

I am reading Steven Kinzer’s Overthrow and may read the whole thing, but he is definitely from the liberal side of the house. I have a few of his books, as he focuses on the USA’s foreign policy. Kinzer was a New York Times correspondent, with all the bias that entails, and his work is strange. It criticizes the USA’s foreign policy, but does it benignly enough that it gets glowing reviews from the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets such as the Washington Post. Kinzer acted as hagiographer for Paul Kagame, whom Uncle Ed depicted as another genocidist on behalf of American interests, picked from the small ruling class to rule the majority, in standard imperial style. I did some digging and located one of the damning documents, showing that the USA knew early on that the killings were of the majority Hutu by the Tutsis, which Ed used in his work. Uncles Noam and Ed tellingly revealed Kinzer’s reporting biases in Central America in Manufacturing Consent, and you won’t find Kinzer citing William Blum (or Uncle Noam! :) ), who is the dean of dissecting American foreign policy.

Over the years, I have noticed a spectrum of awareness, and it goes back to that in-group awareness. People can almost always be counted on to defend their in-group, with the most strained logic and selective use of the facts. In my experience, only saints like Uncles Noam, Ed, Howard, Mike Parenti, etc. have the personal integrity to lay aside almost all of their in-group loyalties and ascend to the ethical high ground of taking their in-group to task (e.g., Americans taking on American foreign policy). Those on the “right” are generally the most irrational defenders of their in-group, and the non-elite right also tend to make the elite into an out-group, and conspiracy theories are their stock-in-trade.

In the end, Kinzer is an opponent of American intervention, but too often seems to mix up ultimate and proximate causes, although, for instance, for the USA’s invasion of Iraq, which spurred Kinzer to write Overthrow, he mentioned that Bush the Second and Cheney were oil executives before occupying the White House, and mentioned it prominently, but then moved on to other issues. He is frank that the primary motivation for overthrowing foreign governments is corporate resource exploitation, but keeps it kind of faceless, except when he is writing hagiography for butchers such as Kagame. Kinzer writes critiques of American foreign policy for listeners of NPR and viewers of PBS.

As one example of many that I could provide, on page 208, Kinzer cited the American death toll of its invasion of Southeast Asia: 58,168, and his description of the native suffering was: “The Vietnamese toll was far heavier.” The native death toll in Southeast Asia was in the millions. Kinzer toted up the invader toll down to the individual, but did not even estimate the death toll of the invaded, when it was orders of magnitude higher. On the same page where he began the Vietnam discussion, he counted the bodies in Guatemala as at least 200,000, and right after his Vietnam section, he once again got precise and reported 2,796 murders in aftermath of the Pinochet coup in Chile. So, he’ll report our casualties to the man, and can get precise with small numbers of deaths that we were responsible for, but the slaughters in the millions he cannot bring himself to even estimate. Those kinds of emphases depict Kinzer’s imperial biases. Is it so that he could be published? In a mention of Kinzer, by Ed and Noam, they state that Kinzer was aware of the unsavory imperial facts, but is silent on the most damning of them. It is like the bias of historians that I write about.

I wonder how aware Kinzer is, or if he came to peace with his role, but he seems to be one of the shills that Noam refers to, as his views represent the extreme “left” of analysis and opinion, and anything to the left of that is “crazy,” so that people such as Noam, Ed, etc., are placed in the loony left, completely ignored when they are not being attacked, with their views misrepresented. Noam and Ed have always stood on that highest ethical ground of taking their in-group to task as it abuses the out-group. There are not many like them, and they are going to leave insanely large shoes to fill when they are gone. Ed is going to be 91 in April (and that Wikipedia article is a disgusting imperial broadside against Ed), and still produces an article a month for Z Magazine, and still churns out books. Incredible.

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

I would like to make a post on a subject near and dear to me. My approach is a low risk one in ways, but high risk in others. Giving up our comforting delusions is not easy to do. Not only are we inculcated into them almost from our cradles, but they “work” in that if we adhere to them, material and egocentric rewards beckon, as we benefit from our in-group status. Almost nobody on Earth today possesses enough personal integrity today to even question their in-group ideologies. The most crazed attacks that I have received over the years were about people defending (or denying) the crimes and lies of their in-groups. Few were honest enough to admit it, so they found other reasons for their attacks, but they were irrational and thinly veiled, virtually without exception. As Orwell noted, finding a new orthodoxy to dogmatically adhere to is not an advance. We need to become fully sentient beings, in order to jettison that baggage, and it always begins in the heart.

As I continually stress, people need to have already had awakening moments before work like mine makes sense. Otherwise, people view it through the distorting prisms of their in-group ideologies, so that they really can’t comprehend my work, other than it seeming like an “attack” on their very existence. I have fielded particularly crazed responses from my “peers” – white, educated, American men – on this section of my site, for instance. For those who get past the denial and fear reactions when even hearing about free energy, I have yet to encounter a proposal to “do something” that is not one of the failed approaches that has been tried many times, even thousands of times, for some of them. Proposing those failed approaches reflects an unwillingness, inability, or inexperience in breaking out of in-group ideologies.

I often refer to Michael Road’s visit to a heavenly future Earth, and even I get new “aha” moments when reading it. The Shepherd stated this:

“Yes. Human life is an expression of consciousness…If you choose love, then love is your reality. If you do not choose love, then your conditioning will determine your reality.”


during Roads’s visit to the hellish future Earth. I did not truly appreciate the truth of that statement until many years after first reading it, as I studied for writing my big essay. The Shepherd was stating what I and my fellow travelers discovered the hard way during our journeys. When Brian got all of those crazed reactions of denial and fear, from many of the world’s leading minds, as he played the Paul Revere of Free Energy, he was encountering people who sold out their sentience for their in-group ideologies. In those instances, they were the more sophisticated ones, which deny free energy’s possibility, desirability, and deny that organized suppression even exists, which reflects their allegiance (if they were Americans, and most were) to American nationalism, capitalism, and materialism, which are the primary population control ideologies in the West, during our Fourth Epoch. In short, none of them really chose love, but chose their conditioning, and were then trapped by their choices, unable or unwilling to see past the bars of their cages, or even thought that those bars were there to protect them, not imprison them.

If somebody has not yet had their mystical awakening, what follows will not mean much, but our awareness is all that we take with us when we go. Evolving consciousness seems to be the very purpose of physical reality, and sentience is never wasted, and acts from the heart are the most powerful that we can aspire to while in physical reality. I have had dramatic confirmation of that in my own life, so I am not chattering a bunch of theory and bright ideas, but I used them in the real world and they worked.

My experiences on the high road to free energy, more than anything else, by orders of magnitude, led to my approach, not a received teaching, literature review, or empty theorizing, although I began my wild ride with some stars to steer by, and only had the truth of such wise statements confirmed during my journey, as I carried the spears of the best of the best.

I make no apologies for my writings being as challenging as they are. They are relatively formidable on the intellectual level, but not really all that much. The emotional challenge is the greatest, as it challenges people to relinquish the innumerable egocentric conceits that our societies run on. I often warn people against trying to turn their social circles onto my work and the idea of FE in general. I have had way too much experience with how that works, and have seen what my fellow travelers encountered. I structured my work so that those who are not ready for work like mine run away almost instantly. That is quite intentional on my part, as my work can make people go insane. I just heard at Christmas about somebody who was institutionalized because he encountered me, and now he openly disparages my work. The risks are very real, for those who are not awakened, with their feet firmly planted on the ground, as they failed to choose love and are subjects of their conditioning. Becoming truly sentient in a world of scarcity and fear is no easy trick. The masses are not going to begin to awaken until the means of abundance are delivered into their lives. It is just what it is, and does not good to judge the situation. We are all on the endless journey, and no part is really any better or worse than any other, although that is not easy to see from here.

But I am not going to apologize to anybody who studies my work, to help them gain a comprehensive perspective, and then complains that it was wasted effort, to break through the illusions of their conditioning. That kind of awareness, if it is truly achieved, is anchored with integrity (love) and is the most precious and powerful commodity on Earth, as achieving true sentience is the name of the game in physical reality. Those who complain have not gotten there yet.

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

As I wrote that previous post, I daisy-chained through my writings and ended up at an NDE site, where people post their NDE accounts, and exceptional ones are here. This one from Iran is appropriate, and this part is important:


“One example of my life review was when I was a little kid. We were traveling by car and stopped somewhere along the way. There was a river not far from the road and I was asked to go and bring some water in a bucket from that river. I went to fill up the bucket but on my way back, I felt that the bucket was way too heavy for me. I decided to empty some of the water to make the bucket lighter. Instead of emptying the water right there, I noticed a tree that was alone by itself in a dry patch of land. I took the effort to go out of my way to that tree and emptied some of the water at the tree base. I even waited there a few seconds to make sure the water is soaked in the soil and is absorbed. In my life review, I received such an applaud and joy for this simple act that it is unbelievable. It was like all the spirits in the Universe were filled with joy from this simple act and were telling me we are proud of you. That simple act seemed to be one of the best things I had ever done in my life! This was strange to me, because I didn’t think this little act was a big deal and thought I had done much more important and bigger things. However, it was shown to me that what I had done was extremely valuable because I had done it purely from the heart, with absolutely no expectation for my own gain.”


And the next paragraphs showed the ripple effect of our actions:


“Another example of my life review was when I was a 10 years old boy. I had bullied and mercilessly beaten another boy who was also around my age. He felt tortured and deeply hurt. In my life review, I saw that scene again. The boy was crying in physical and deep emotional pain. As he was walking in the street crying and going back home, he radiated negative energy which affected everything around him and on the path. People and even birds, trees, and flies received this negative energy from him, which kept propagating throughout the Universe. Even rocks on the side of the street were affected by his pain. I saw that everything is alive and our way of grouping things in categories of 'alive' and 'not alive' is only from our limited physical point of view. In reality everything is alive. I felt all of the pain and hurt that I had inflicted upon him inside of myself. When this boy went home to his parents, I saw the impact that seeing him in that state had on his parents. I felt the feeling and pain it created in them and how it affected their behavior from that point forward. I saw that as a result of this action, his parents would be always more worried when their son was out of home or if he was a few minutes late.

“I saw that whenever I had done something good to anyone or anything, that I had done it to myself. And whenever I had hurt someone, I had done it to myself while actually doing that person a favor because they would receive some form of compensation or help from the Universe as a result. This universal gift would be bigger than the damage I had caused to them.”


For those who feel caught in the materialistic mire of our world, reading such accounts can be a rejuvenating tonic. Most are thematically similar, and reinforce what I mean about how all that we take us is our awareness, and the power that each of us has to influence our world.

In early 1987, I lived with Dennis’s family, in a house that the rent check was going to bounce on, as his investor pulled the rug out from under him. I was on day 37 of a fast because it was cheaper than eating, and we were recovering from the aftermath of being wiped out in the greatest effort ever made to bring alternative energy to the American marketplace. That day, I became Dennis’s partner. The nucleus of the effort was three of us, and Dennis’s wife really did not want to be there. A few months later, we were offered $10 million for our bright idea, and a year later, they raised it to $1 billion. We had the attention of the people who run the world, and Dennis has had their full attention several times that I know of. I have lived through what a few committed and talented people can do, and am well aware of how people think that my effort does not stand a chance of making any headway. I know better, so I keep plunking along with what I do.

The biggest event in the human journey is no small beer, is worth at least one man’s life to try out this approach, and we will see how it goes. All that we take with us is indeed our awareness. :)

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

With these recent mystical posts, I have been rereading parts of McLuhan’s book, and he comes across as a reasonable Englishman who looked into the paranormal and found the “skeptical” pronouncements wanting, and found that there was plenty of intriguing evidence on the paranormal (but, of course, nothing beats direct personal experience). Those so-called “skeptics” are actually anti-scientists, in their Orwellian orientation to the issues. They pose as scientists, but produce absolutely no scientific work on the subjects that they weigh in on. When they do propose scientific hypotheses to explain the evidence within a materialistic framework, as Blackmore did for NDEs, their efforts were generally so shoddy as to collapse inward on their weak foundations. The skeptics are notorious in that area.

Sheldrake noted the same thing when trying to engage people such as Dawkins on scientific evidence that flies in the face of materialistic theories. That the “skeptics” got Sheldrake’s tame TED talk banned is par for the “skeptical” course. As far as the “paranormal” goes, Sagan and Dawkins were/are phonies, parading as experts in areas where they had zero expertise and had done no scientific work at all. They were actually anti-scientists, as their attitudes showed, when making the case with their actions and attitudes that the “paranormal” was not worthy of being subjected to scientific testing. The antics of stage magician James Randi are grotesque.

There is a vast body of scientific literature on paranormal investigations, with robust data, going back to the 19th century, but you would never know it by looking to the pronouncements of the “skeptics.” I consider organized skepticism to be a criminal enterprise (I have plenty of firsthand experience, unfortunately), but what is really damning to the scientific community is that I have regularly encountered scientists looking to the “skeptics” for their pronouncements on the paranormal, and then conclude that there is probably nothing there worth pursuing. That is like skimming tabloid headlines. Materialism (AKA “physicalism”) is a philosophy, not a scientific stance.

McLuhan brilliantly summed it up with this analogy:

“The difference between parapsychology and Randi’s prize is the difference between a fleet of boats heading out to sea equipped with radar and large nets, and one man sitting beside a muddy stream and waiting for fish to jump into his lap.”

McLuhan’s book is filled with nuggets like that.

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×