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

My Media and Political Studies - What That Ride Was Like

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hi:

I am going to write a series of posts on my media and political studies.  They began in earnest after I had already been radicalized by my days with Dennis.  It is not going to be so much about what I learned, but what the experience was like.  I suppose that my questioning the conventional wisdom began when I was 12 and my father “impossibly” reversed his artery disease by going “health nut.”  My mystical awakening at age 16, along with my cultural awakening and energy dreams, set my future path in ways that I could not have imagined at the time.  That voice in my head knew what it was doing, I am almost sad to say.  When it led me to Dennis, my wild ride began.  I have never heard of a story like mine, and even I sometimes have a hard time believing that it happened.  I can’t even discuss my journey with my family, as it is so far outside of their sense of reality that they cannot begin to grok it, even for some who saw me live through those events, some who even witnessed some of the most dramatic ones.  

When I left my home town in 1990, with my life shattered, I was ready to learn in ways that I previously had not.  Earlier that year, I heard who might have been Uncle Ed, promoting the new magazine that he was the editor of, Lies of our Times (LOOT), and almost immediately after moving to Ohio, I subscribed to it.  It was the beginning of my media and political studies, and the first page of my first issue of LOOT is the one that I remember the best, partly because of the “shock” that the world’s most influential publication could lie that baldly.  If The New York Times could make it up as it went along, which American publication couldn’t?  

Uncle Noam wrote an article in every issue of LOOT, which has been collected into a book.  If you dropped a rock into Noam’s head, I am not sure if it would hit bottom.  Even though I was so ready for his message, it took about two years before I really understood what he was writing about.  It was such a radical departure from anything else that I ever read that it took years to digest the gist of it.  The bottom line with Noam and friends was the high ethical ground that they stood on, which is simply this: “We are all the most responsible for the predictable consequences of our own actions.”  It aligned nicely with my mystical experiences and studies, the gist of which is that our motivation is everything.

What immediately struck me about Uncles Noam, Ed, and Howard was the high integrity evident in their work, which was confirmed when I contacted them.  They were all among my most gracious correspondents.  Just like Jesus’s admonition to remove the logs from their eyes before they look for their neighbors’ splinters, Noam, Ed, and Howard always focused their work on the polity that they were citizens of, the good ol’ USA, as that was where their work could make an impact, not on Soviet, Chinese, or Latin American societies.  Howard in particular was refreshingly confessional as he wrote about his World War II experiences, as he later learned that he slaughtered the people he was supposedly saving.  It takes a keen conscience to admit something like that.  

Soon after subscribing to LOOT, I saw an ad for Ralph McGehee’s book in it, and bought it.  Ralph also took the high ethical ground, finally realizing that he was not one of the good guys, and he devoted the rest of his life to rectifying the situation.  

It is not possible for me to overstate the impact of reading that collected body of work.  I learned more at their collective knee than I did for any other body of work, and their work was just the beginning.   I subscribed to other periodicals, such as Z Magazine (which I have continuously subscribed to since the early 1990s) and Covert Action Information Bulletin, which featured articles by Noam and Ralph, and Ed has written an article a month in Z for many years, only slowing down in the past year or so, in his 90s.  He is entitled to slow down a little, although he would be the last to admit it.

What hit home for me during those studies was how thoroughly I had been lied to for my entire life, so that I could become an unthinking cog in the imperial machine.  I read the newspaper every day for 20 years, thinking that I was getting the “news,” and I came to realize that about all that I had digested were Big Lies.  I had already learned much of that during my days with Dennis, from the day I met him to when I read that disinformation article in the LA Times, but the education that those great men provided me deepened and broadened those lessons in ways that I doubt that I could have attained in any other way.  

This is only the beginning of what will be a long series of posts.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

One of the greatest lessons that I learned early in my media and political studies was merely an extension of my journey’s greatest lesson, which I learned only a few years previously: personal integrity is the world’s scarcest commodity.  As I was learning from Lies of our Times, Uncles Noam and Ed, and the like, I mailed one of my early media studies books, Unreliable Sources, to that childhood friend who was my staunchest supporter during the Ventura nightmare.  It only takes a few chapters of a work such as Unreliable Sources to produce great doubt about the media’s “product” that is served to Americans each day.  After I sent him the book, our conversation on the media’s lies and distortions lasted all of ten seconds or so, when he acknowledged it and quickly moved on to another topic.  The next time we talked, he was parroting the TV news again.  Not only that, from that point onward, he constantly challenged my evolving worldview with his TV version of how the world works. His punchlines for conversations were often fantasies of justified violence against the “bad guys,” as if the world was a Hollywood Western.  He did that at least 50 times over the next several years.  

That went on for several years, until he wrecked our friendship and continued to attack me for years afterward.  The last time I saw him, he admonished me for not being an obedient member of the herd, and extolled his virtues of seeking safety in the herd.  He grew up across the street from the grammar school that we both attended, named after California’s first genocidist, who was literally sainted a couple of years ago.  My friend is Jewish, of all things, growing up across the street from the California equivalent of Adolf Hitler Grammar School, and never having an inkling of the real story, nor did he want to.  

Not long after I sent that friend Unreliable Sources, he called to tell me of that scrapbook that my mother was taking on tour, of her employer’s libelous articles about us, telling the story of her son the criminal.  I was seeing that our society was more like Huxley’s Brave New World than it was Orwell’s 1984, as the truth was out there and not hard to find, but almost nobody really wanted to know it, as they preferred the comforting fictions provided by the social managers.  One day, I was reading Unreliable Sources in the lunchroom at the bank where I was working (where they openly cheered the first Gulf War), and mentioned what I was reading to my boss, who quickly fled, with a disturbed look on his face.  I was discovering that nobody really wanted to know the truth, not if it challenged the delusions of their in-group.  I began learning those lessons in 1991, and by the 2002 publication of my website, I had pretty much learned my lessons.  By the end of the 2004 disaster with NEM, Americans were no longer my target audience.  Americans are Earth’s most brainwashed people, and they are willing dupes.  They will believe any lie, as long as it guarantees a full belly.  Are they really any different from any other people on Earth?  Not at the biological level, as we are all behaviorally modern humans.  It was kind of strange, to immerse myself in the world of “radical” scholarship, to realize that nobody else in my life really wanted to.  I have slowly learned that I can only talk about sports and the weather with most people.  The rest is off-limits, unless I want to be ostracized.

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

There is almost nothing in my work that I write about from a purely scholarly/scientific perspective, but all subjects are related to my experiences, in one way or another, and my political and media studies were always richly informed by my experiences, from the very beginning.  

My first issue of Lies of our Times featured the beginning of the drumbeat to war.  During those days, that same TV-parroting friend called me in a rage over the Iraqi incubator atrocity story, which was later exposed as a fabrication by a public relations firm.  Bernays could not have done it any better.  All wars begin with Big Lies, especially those waged by the West.  It is the nature of the business, and people such as my friend are easily duped into cheering any imperial violence, as long as they are not on the receiving end of it.

Just as my media and political studies began, I had a real-world example rubbed in my face, which led to my first published words.  I suffered from trauma after my Ventura days, and saw a therapist in the spring/summer of 1991.  Our sessions happened in the shadow of the world’s largest Air Force base, and my therapist was also nauseated by what was happening.  He specialized in treating soldiers, I was definitely a candidate for his treatment, and it worked.  Just before I finally found a career job in Ohio, after nearly a year of searching, I volunteered at the national conference of a new science organization that I belonged to, and had my fateful introduction to Brian O.  As I thought about this post, the symmetry of my relationship with Brian hit me for the first time.  We met right after the first Gulf War, and he invited me to help found NEM right after the second Gulf War.  The haunting revelations of Ralph McGehee’s book were also very influential to me in those early days of study, and led to our relationship.  

I was diving deeply into many subjects in those days, and becoming a comprehensivist without knowing that that was what I was doing.  When I began my next career job, it was 60+-hour weeks for the next two years, so I performed my studies in my “spare” time.  They were some of the most fulfilling days of my career, and my years in Ohio were generally happy ones, in those early years of my marriage.

When 1992 arrived, I was working in Columbus, just in time for the celebration of Christopher Columbus’s feat.  It was right around then that I read for the first time something that questioned just how heroic his feat was, as an early chapter of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States was devoted to it.  My deep studies were just beginning.  The year 1992 was not only the 500th anniversary of the “discovery” of the New World, but that year saw revisionist works released, and none were more influential to me than David Stannard’s devastating American Holocaust.  That was my big wake-up call on the subject of what Europe’s conquest of Earth was like for those on the receiving end of Europe’s greed and violence.  The first century of European intrusion into the Western Hemisphere was the greatest demographic catastrophe in the human journey, when perhaps 90% of a hemisphere’s population was killed off as a side effect of history’s greatest gold rush.  How on Earth could American historians present those days as some kind of glory story?  American ideologists incredibly turned the blackest darkness into a tale of light.  Personal integrity being the world’s scarcest commodity is not something new, but it was one hell of a shock to begin realizing the depth of the lies that I had been raised with.  The English/American conquest of North America inspired Hitler’s genocidal programs for Europe, but that bald truth will never play in the USA.  

In American Holocaust, I first read that the pious padre that my grammar school was named after might not have been so saintly after all.  Very ironically, my wife is a direct descendant of Christopher Columbus (and Coronado), and ever since the early 1990s, when I visit with in-laws, I often have to sit and listen to talk about the greatness of Spain.  Can you imagine me sitting there with a smile and listening to such stuff?  

While my years with Dennis were radicalizing, those years of study led to the writings that became my site today.  For me, the most amazing part, initially, was how virtually nobody wanted to hear any of it.  We have been told Big Lies for our entire lives, and I could hardly find anybody who seemed to care.  I learned lessons on how people don’t want their self-serving delusions challenged, even when believing in them means certain death, back when I was twelve, but coming to understand the universal belief in easily disproved lies was one hell of an experience.  

After moments of disgust with my benighted species, which is typical, I eventually learned to relinquish my judgment and simply accept humanity for what it is.  People with the right stuff are very few and far between on Earth today.  It is just what it is, and railing against it, or believing that it is different, is unproductive at best and disastrous at worst.  This is a big reason why I caution free energy newcomers from going out and proselytizing to their social circles, but they almost always just have to do it.  Nearly invariably, my best pupils come back to me after that experience, sobered, chastened, and willing to begin learning what it is going to take to manifest the biggest event in the human journey.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

I want to focus a little on Uncles Noam and Ed regarding my media studies.  They are the two most influential writers of my media and political studies, and over the years, Ed has been even more influential than Noam.  Ed is a better writer than Noam is, and I love Ed’s dry wit.  Noam and Ed got their starts in political writing during the Vietnam War.  I recently read two of Ed’s earliest Vietnam books (1, 2), and his themes can be seen in the first work that he and Noam wrote, which became a famous case of censorship, which I have written about before.  

Noam and Ed developed a number of easy-to-understand frameworks for their work, and in their initial writing partnership, they created a framework of “bloodbaths”:

  • Benign (ones that we don’t care about)
  • Constructive (ones committed by us or our allies)
  • Nefarious (ones committed by our enemies)
  • Mythical (ones attributed to our enemies, but they did not even happen)

Their landmark Manufacturing Consent contained Ed’s propaganda model, of how the media is structured to deliver the results that it does, and one aspect of their model is worthy and unworthy victims.  A worthy victim is from one of those nefarious or mythical bloodbaths, and an unworthy victim is from one of those benign or constructive ones.  

The emphasis that Noam and Ed have always taken is not to debate the reality of those situations, or who the good and bad guys are, but how the American media deals with those situations.  For benign bloodbaths, the media can sometimes even get the facts right, because none of their dogs are in the fight.  

A constructive bloodbath is one where the American media heartily approves of the bloodbath, such as Suharto’s, and his victims were so unworthy as to be unmentionable, such as the people of East Timor, who were subjected to one of the greatest proportional genocides in the past century, and as the slaughter reached genocidal proportions (using American weapons), the American media was completely silent.  

In Manufacturing Consent, Noam and Ed found a tripled example, even better than a paired example, to show their model in action, of the USA in Central America in the 1980s.  The USA supported some of the most evil regimes in the past century, and when one nation overthrew its American puppet in a revolution, we waged a proxy war against them, which led to a big scandal in the USA, as the CIA used drug-running into the USA to finance the support of their mercenaries.  

Since Manufacturing Consent, Ed has taken on the same distortions regarding Yugoslavia and Rwanda, in which the imperial dynamics are alive and well.  

It was very educational to read the critiques of Ed’s and Noam’s work.  Like anybody sane, when I encountered their radical work, even though I was ready to hear it, I sought out critiques of their work, and that will be a subject for a coming post.  I never encountered an honest, rational, and informed critique of their work, at least that tried to invalidate their theses.  Similarly, I have yet to receive an honest, rational, and informed critique of my work, which tried to invalidate it.  My best critiques came from my allies, as they tried to make my work better.  Without their help, my work would have been a lot weaker.

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

Before I get to the criticisms of Noam and Ed, I’ll give a relatively benign example of my work that I have seen, to show the fallacy of logic, at best, that has been aimed at Noam and Ed over the years.  

My Columbus essay is all about the USA’s naming a national holiday after a greedy, mass-murdering, raping, genocidist.  Columbus initiated the greatest demographic catastrophe in the human journey, and we celebrate his amazing feat of “discovery.”  When I first drafted that essay in 1998, the complete extermination of the Taino was accepted among scientists and scholars.  That is one of history’s greatest crimes, and that is the point of my essay.  I saw criticisms of my essay by people who claim descent from the Taino.  So, if they are right, then Columbus and crew killed off only 99.9% of the Taino, and not 100%?  Does that mitigate the crime?  While I am sympathetic to claims of “we survived!”, the point of my essay is not the 0.1% of the Taino who might have survived to produce descendants, but the 99.9% who died, and how such a crime is swept under the carpet so that Columbus’s mighty feat can be celebrated.  So, criticisms of my essay, which takes my culture to task, which focus on the victims and how some might have survived, entirely avoids the point to my essay, to argue about issues that really have no bearing on my arguments.  The claims of Taino survival are also contentious, and while important to the claimants, really have little bearing on my essay.  

From the very beginnings of Noam’s and Ed’s political writings to this day, their focus has always been on the USA and its propaganda and indoctrination systems, not its imperial victims, other than noting how they have suffered and doing what they can to prevent more of them.  When they wrote a monograph that highlighted the USA’s imperial ideology and how the media plays its part, it was subjected to one of the most outrageous instances of Western censorship in my lifetime.  It was amazing.  

When they finally published a pair of books to replace the suppressed monograph, they devoted one volume to the reconstruction of the USA’s imperial ideology in the wake of its genocide in Southeast Asia, and the book’s largest section was on the treatment of Cambodia.  The book was published in 1979, before the West generally knew about the “killing fields” in Cambodia.  But, as usual, the focus of that section was not on who the good guys and bad guys were in Cambodia, but on the American media’s treatment of the facts, which Noam and Ed were explicit on.  This has been a consistent position that both men have taken for more than 50 years. Their work is about illuminating our system, not anybody else’s, which again puts them on the high ethical ground.  

Virtually without exception, every critique that I have seen of Noam and Ed’s work turns their work on its head, making the case that Noam and Ed have it wrong on who the good guys and bad guys are in the nations that the USA intervenes in, which Noam and Ed have always said is not the point of their work at all.  In fact, from Ed’s earliest writings on Vietnam, going back at least to 1965, the entire point of his work is challenging the imperial conceit that the USA uses to intervene in other nations, portraying themselves as the good guys fighting bad guys, as the self-appointed policemen of Earth, spreading and defending freedom.  It is the standard imperial conceit.  We have no right to be anywhere outside of the USA’s national borders.  Chomsky did it regarding Iraq nearly a decade ago, noting that the USA’s rhetoric about “foreign fighters” in Iraq only make sense if the USA assumes that it owns the world.  

In writing about Cambodia, they could not have been more explicit:


“It is a common error, as we have pointed out several times, to interpret opposition to U.S. intervention and aggression as support for the programs of its victims, a useful device for state propagandists but one that often has no basis in fact.”


But Noam’s and Ed’s critics do their best to turn their work on its head, and dishonestly or irrationally (or both) turn Noam and Ed into apologists for the “bad guys” in the nations that we bludgeon.  What is true about Noam and Ed’s work is that they point out the USA has consistently supported the most reactionary and violent factions on Earth.

In The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism, Noam and Ed noted that torture had been a historical curiosity for centuries, which largely vanished with Stalin’s death, but had resurged in the “free world,” and that three-quarters of the nations that used torture as standard government practice were client states of the USA.  

So, the high ethical stance that Noam and Herman take, of criticizing the nation that they are citizens of, is always turned on its head by their critics, and Sophal Ear, for instance, has made a career out of making the case that Cambodia is not in as bad a shape and Noam and Ed asserted, and that Noam and Ed were really closet supporters of the Khmer Rouge, and Ear does it while being an academic in the USAHere is the best analysis that I have seen of Ear and friend’s distortions of Noam and Ed’s work, as they explicitly ignore the thrust of their work while seeking hidden assumptions, and those alleged assumptions have always been false ones, for anybody with the slightest familiarity with Noam and Ed’s work.  

I have seen this logical sleight of hand many times, as Noam and Ed’s work is misrepresented by their critics.  Ed’s Wikipedia bio is execrable on that score.  In Noam’s Wikipedia bio, a side-box was produced, which stated:


“[Chomsky's] become the guru of the new anti-capitalist and Third World movements. They take his views very uncritically; it's part of the Seattle mood – whatever America does is wrong.  He confronts orthodoxy but he's becoming a big simplifier.  What he can't see is Third World and other regimes that are oppressive and not controlled by America.”


That once again begs the question.  Chomsky’s concern as a writer is not oppressive regimes that the USA does not control, but the oppressive regimes that it does.  Very basic logic, but his critics can’t seem the wrap their minds around it, no matter how explicit Noam and Ed are.  In fact, those critics have always made the imperial assumption that Noam and Ed constantly assail, which is that the USA has the right to intervene anywhere on Earth.  Our hands are the dirtiest on Earth, by far.  Nobody else comes close.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

Just as my political awakening came through radicalizing experience, without which my subsequent studies would have been of dubious worth, my subsequent media and political studies were always leavened with experience, both for me and my fellow travelers.  Here is an example…

One of my friends is a horticulturalist, and he ran the conservatory in Columbus when the city began planning its big bash to celebrate 1992.  He was intimately aware of how difficult it was to run a conservatory, being always strapped for funds.  When the city began planning for the 1992 bash, they chose his conservatory for the site of the celebration.  The first thing that they did was fire him.  To prepare the grounds for the event, they wiped out the plants that were already there.  There were venerable old trees on the grounds, but to make the setting “prettier,” they did things such as bury the roots of the trees, which kills them, but the process takes years.  It was a plant holocaust, to make way for the Columbus bash.  My friend sadly walked through the grounds as a customer of the event, noting the trees that would soon die, where his plants used to live, torn out to make way for the extravaganza, and the like.  It was somehow fitting that the celebration of Columbus’s feat would be mounted in that way.  

Best,

Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

One aspect of my political education worth noting is that is the nation I most studied: mine.  There were a few reasons for that, which included:

  • I am an American, and it was not only the easiest for me to study, but it was the most ethical nation to study.  While studying the problems in other nations could be worthwhile, as Noam and Ed stressed, it is most ethical to work on resolving the flaws in our behavior, not somebody else’s.  
  • The USA is history’s richest and most powerful nation, and it is an empire that is has been slaughtering millions since World War II; as an American, writing about my great nation’s crimes is something that ethics compels me to do.  
  • The greatest instances of organized suppression of free energy technology have happened in the USA, by far.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

In those early years of immersion in my media and political studies, I was also studying a vast array of other material, including thermodynamics, Mr. Mentor’s and Fischer’s patents, alternative medicine, mystical material, and so on.  I did not know it at the time, but I was developing a comprehensive perspective.  

Along with the radical left, I studied the far right.  I subscribed to The Spotlight for years, and one of its staffers was the only person that I know of who featured Gary Wean’s story of the JFK hit in a JFK assassination book.  That writer got the idea for his book from Gary, and when his initial effort did not properly attribute Gary’s testimony, Gary complained, and the final book, Final Judgment, gave Gary’s testimony proper weight.  It has been “interesting” to see Gary’s testimony be dismissed like it has over the years.  I am not all that interested in Gary’s theories about who did it; he thought it was Jewish gangsters, which is not easily dismissed, given that Jack Ruby was involved, as well as “magic bullet” Arlen Specter.  For me, what was far more important was how it was all covered up, and Jewish gangsters did not have the power to do that, but that plot-within-a-plot sure “recruited” many willing “allies” to keep the lid on what really happened.  

About two years into my studies, my wife and I watched Manufacturing Consent at Ohio State.  That movie has never been aired on mainstream TV in the USA, even though it was the most popular documentary in Canadian history to that time, which further illustrated Chomsky’s thesis, like that suppression of his and Ed’s book did.  I was driven from my sleep in late 1992, soon after watching Manufacturing Consent, to write a 17-page letter to Noam.  Noam confirmed who he was by soon replying with a letter of his own, which stated that he was tantalized by my letter (mostly on the suppression of free energy, but my upshot was that I could not find such a discussion anywhere in any media, not left, not right, and not mainstream).  Noam gave me a polite brushoff, stating that he was no expert on that topic, and advised me to consult with an expert.  Well, there were not any experts, so I kind of had to become my own.  That was the same year that Brian nearly died, courtesy of the American military, after snooping into the UFO phenomenon, and his first free energy book was not published until the end of 1995.  I bought 35 copies of it and sent it to friends and family.  Brian later said that I was that book’s biggest fan.  

In 1991, Oliver Stone’s JFK was released, and in 1993, Noam published Rethinking Camelot, which took on the idea of JFK’s being a secret dove on Vietnam, and Noam took on the idea that the CIA would have wanted JFK dead.  In reading Noam’s book, I think that he missed the point, which Michael Parenti brilliantly discussed a few years later, as he stated that the Left has a “conspiracy-phobia.”  

I was gradually seeing how the structuralists, as represented by Chomsky, and the conspiracists, as represented by Gary, both failed to see the big picture, due to their worldviews.  You could call it their ideological commitments.  It was highly educational to immerse myself in those milieus and figure them out, but the process took many years.  

I was also looking into the Apollo Moon landings, on-and-off, in those years, before finally deciding to go deep on it in early 2001, partly because of Brian’s public statements on the issue.  That I still hear from people who argue for faked Moon landings shows how impervious to the evidence people can be, particularly conspiracists.  

As I have stated, I have sometimes looked back at my journey, especially with Dennis, and wonder if it really happened, and my scholar’s journey was similar.  As I wrote this post, I was amazed by all of the connections and overlaps.  There is much more to come.

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

Another subject that I began studying near the beginning of my media and political studies was organized skepticism.  I gradually became appalled.  I could call them the politically active arm of mainstream science, but that is too gentle a term.  I eventually realized that it was largely a criminal enterprise, after I interacted with a leading “skeptic” who made a career out of libeling Dennis.  His initial 15 minutes of came in the house organ of organized skepticism.  He stalked me for a decade on the Internet, heaving disinformation bombs at me and anybody who promoted my work.  

Not long before encountering Mr. Skeptic, I stumbled into the Velikovsky issue while pursuing Carl Sagan’s debunking career.  I do not consider much of Velikovsky’s corpus of work to be valid, if any of it, but Sagan’s behavior was scandalous.  It even served to keep the Velikovsky issue alive much longer than it should have.  Virtually all theories eventually end up in the dustbin of history.  That is how science ideally works.  Velikovsky’s work deserved to go there long ago.  

That comprehensive perspective that I was developing crossed disciplinary boundaries, and I could see that they were all related, in one way or another.  

As I have written, Ed Herman was the witty end of his partnership with Chomsky, and while Noam’s books had covers of academic respectability, Ed wrote Beyond Hypocrisy in 1992, with its Doublespeak Dictionary, and had a political cartoonist illustrate the book, as well as its cover.  Ed wrote that the American establishment, along with its Orwellian media, had gone so far beyond hypocrisy that a new term had to be used, and Ed chose chutzpah.  In his Doublespeak Dictionary, Ed defined the Chutzpah Factor thusly:


“Self-righteousness, arrogance, and a sense of superiority so great that gross double standards seem entirely reasonable and no self-interested action is beyond rationalization.  This factor is positively correlated with size, power, and per capita income.”


Ed also is not overly structural.  In his Doublespeak Dictionary, he defined a “conspiracy theory” as “A critique or explanation that I find offensive.”  Ed even defined a “magic bullet” this way:


“One that wends its way through several bodies, smashing bones on the way, but ends up in pristine condition, conveniently located for police attribution to the gun of choice.”  


Ed gets big points for that, being about the only person from the Left that gave any credence to the conspiratorial aspect of JFK’s murder.  He was interested in Gary’s tale.  

Best,

Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

Those early days of media and political studies were complemented with the real world, as usual, and in early 1992, Dennis flew me to a conference where he was trying the Madison Avenue approach to free energy.  One of the companies there plotted to steal Dennis’s company, which was typical, but that conference was significant in a way that has helped inform my current effort.  

Dennis’s plan was to runs ads for free energy on late-night cable channels, so late-night channel surfers would stumble into the ad and want to know more.  From the flyer for our first Greatest Energy Show on Earth, Dennis always talked about “cutting the power lines,” which John Eichorn called an “umbilicus.”  That ad had a scene with a woman cutting her power line, which made me laugh when I saw it.  But Dennis was going after couch potatoes, and even back then, I wondered what he thought that he would accomplish that way.  It was one more way that Dennis tried to crack the mass movement nut, trying to find a lowest common denominator.  He was going far too low.  

I had already seen in Seattle, Boston, and Ventura what the mass movement approach had yielded, and Dennis had invented another iteration of it.  It was one more data point in my evolving awareness, and when my second stint with Dennis ended in early 1997, I was forever done with the businessman’s approach to free energy.  It took one more dose of activism with Brian to cure me of all mass movement approaches.  

But in those early days of my media and political studies, as I read Noam, Lies of our Times, Ralph, Ed, Howard, Covert Action, Z Magazine, etc., I was seeing advocacy of mass movement action, generally to overthrow elite rule, or at least throw a monkey wrench into it, such as the Vietnam War protests.  Noam waxed on about “Cartesian common sense” and the virtues of the common man.  Ed was again a refreshing exception to the usual Left views, as he did not absolve the masses of all responsibility and heap it onto the elite.  In one of his books, he noted how the home crowd at football games would yell so that the opposing team could not hear their play calls.  That is not exactly sporting behavior, but it is standard procedure for NFL games, especially in my natal city of Seattle.  Ed at least acknowledged that the masses played their part in the disaster of our elite-dominated system.

My spiritual training came in very handy in those days.  The focus on elite machinations tends to make the rest of us look like victims, when I knew that wasn’t true.  I eventually understood that the victim-orientation is what both the Left and Right have in common, with the Left’s structural analysis and the Right’s conspiracist approach.  Both perspectives were anchored in fear, not love.  Both Left and Right advocate violence (while the masses cheer it), which is always delusional.  While the Right was often trapped in organized religion, nationalism (or “patriotism”), or capitalism, the Left was mired in materialism, scientism, and rationalism.  It took me many years to finally understand what they all had in common: scarcity and fear.  

My statement of personal integrity being the world’s scarcest commodity is really another way of saying that fear governs humanity, not love.  All of the failed approaches to free energy are all, in one way or another, based on scarcity and fear, not love, and all failed due to a lack of integrity.  I could not really put them all under one roof until the lightbulb went on after reading some of Uncle Bucky’s work.  That understanding can easily lead to judgment of humanity, but that is also a fear-based perspective.  I had to learn to let that go and just accept humanity for where it is, as dismaying as that realization initially was.  Our ultimate nature is divine, but manifesting that divinity in a world of scarcity and fear is extremely unusual.  Almost nobody on Earth today has the right stuff to help mount a free energy effort with a prayer.  It is just what it is.  But, are there enough people on Earth with enough of the right stuff for an approach like mine to have a chance?  I devoted all of my “spare” time since 1989 to that path (although I did not initially know it), I might have another 30 good years in me still, and we will see how it goes.  If my effort does not bear fruit, maybe another’s will.  What I am certain of, however, is that if enough people with the right stuff can form that strong nucleus, and develop a comprehensive perspective, free energy is a done deal.  It will not matter what Godzilla and friends do.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

During those days of media and political studies, I studied a lot more than just Noam and Ed, as you can tell from the notes to that media section of my essay.  The single best volume on the USA’s imperial behavior since World War II is William Blum’s Killing Hope.  Blum’s wit was like Ed’s.  Blum led off a chapter on the USA’s repeated interventions in Greece with:


“’It’s the best damn government since Pericles,’ the American two-star general declared.  (The news report did not mention whether he was chewing a big fat cigar.)”


The general was reacting to a military coup that the USA instigated in Greece in 1967, which was followed by martial law, torture of dissidents, slaughter, and so on, to prevent a “communist takeover,” which was the standard lie that the USA supplied in those days to explain its interventions, and it installed “The best damn government since Pericles.”  

In those days, President Lyndon Johnson summoned the Greek ambassador to the White House, to tell him how it was going to be, regarding Greece’s ongoing battles with Turkey over Cyprus (I was in Greece during its war over Cyprus).  When the ambassador replied that Johnson’s “solution” was going to violate the Greek parliament and constitution, Johnson made a memorable reply:


“Then listen to me, Mr. Ambassador, f**k your Parliament and your Constitution.  America is an elephant, Cyprus is a flea.  If these two fleas continue itching the elephant, they may get whacked with the elephant’s trunk, whacked good…We pay a lot of good American dollars to the Greeks, Mr. Ambassador.  If your Prime Minister gives me talk about Democracy, Parliament and Constitutions, his Parliament and his Constitution may not last very long.”


That was how the USA treated its vassals, and the cradle of democracy in that instance, while it was in the midst of a genocidal slaughter in Southeast Asia.  A generation later, the USA devastated the cradle of civilization.  When the Bush administration vended its endless lies about its upcoming invasion of Iraq, after all of its weapons of mass destruction arguments were exposed as lies, their military propagandists came up with a clever name for the invasion operation: Operation Iraqi Liberation.  Before they could officially append that name to the invasion, somebody noticed that the operation’s name formed the acronym OIL.  :) Truth can be stranger than fiction.  Everything that the West is doing in the Middle East is all about the oil, and it has been that way for more than a century.  Westerners have to cultivate some deeply held delusions to think otherwise, but most Western pundits have accomplished it.  

Those are just a few of the endless examples of the USA’s imperial behavior, while it pretended that it was not an empire.  After the USA invaded Iraq, even a White House official boasted that the USA was an empire, but the USA never comes out and officially admits it, just as it never officially admits that Israel has a nuclear arsenal.  It is in keeping with the Big Lies that attend the USA’s brand of imperialism, with a brainwashed citizenry, just as Orwell and Huxley predicted.  Orwell found his explanations of how the Western system operates censored by the corporate interests, not the government, as if the censors were trying to illustrate the truth of what Orwell wrote about.  Uncle Noam was not being rhetorical when he wrote about how Western censorship works.

As Noam wrote about, the brainwashing by Western systems, particularly the British and American ones, began after England’s civil wars, when violence was no longer a viable way to keep the rabble in line, so the ruling class began controlling what people thought, as a way to keep them obedient.  That practice became a science in the early 20th century, with the rise of public relations, when the term “propaganda” had a positive technical meaning.  

When the USA overthrew the Guatemalan government, setting the stage for the genocide of its citizenry, Ed Bernays provided the propaganda to justify the overthrow.  Among Bernays’s other accomplishments were addicting American women to tobacco and helping turn a deadly industrial waste into “medicine” that is compulsorily fed to most Americans today, which “coincidentally” damages American brains.  Few Americans can read this post, for instance, without going into convulsions.  

When the sitting American president was murdered in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses, a huge cover-up ensued, and all subsequent American presidents know that they are expendable, after that instructive lesson regarding JFK.  They are nothing more than imperial puppets.  

The USA is a plutocracy that parades as a democracy, but it has been that way since the nation’s founding, when its richest citizen became its first president.  While the brainwashing is a constant phenomenon, not everybody is so fooled, and most Americans know that it does not matter whom they vote for, as the plutocrats will always get their way.

If I had not had my real world experiences with how the American system really works, how receptive would I have been to those radical perspectives?  Perhaps not very.  But I woke up the hard way, and those that I seek have to have already been awakened somehow.  My writings will not awaken the sleeping.  People do not have to awaken how I did, or Ralph, or Dennis, or in the business world, but all people in all societies are imbued with their in-group ideologies, and they all prevent true sentience from manifesting.  

To be asleep means to lose one’s sentience, and the vast majority of humanity slumbers today, with their minds imprisoned, and they sleep the fitful sleep of ignorance.  It takes a lot of integrity to even admit the state of affairs, and it also takes a lot to learn to let it go and relinquish judgment of it.  It is just what it is, as humanity has abdicated its sentience in favor of security.  

What I slowly came to understand was that the news is merely the first draft of history, and what I was taught as history was the same pack of lies that serves as the “news.”  Mass-murdering thieves became national heroes and saints, literally, and the vast majority of Americans never learn any differently, nor do they want to.  And once again, I had to learn to relinquish my judgment of the situation and just accept humanity’s benighted condition.  It is just what it is.

However, when industrialization made slavery economically unproductive, people gradually grew consciences, and today’s humanity looks at slavery with revulsion, when it was a hallowed institution for the entire Third Epoch.  In the Fifth Epoch, hallowed Fourth Epoch institutions and features, such as corporations, nations, cities, armies, elites, and the like will all become meaningless and seen as barbaric, much in the same way that industrial peoples view slavery, but the masses will not begin to wake up until the Fifth Epoch arrives.  It has been that way for all Epochs, and there is little reason to think that it will be different this time.  Looking for needles

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

There is much more to come on my political and media studies, but this post will be on how they relate to my free energy approach.  My previous post would be hard medicine for almost any American who read it.  An American perspective that can accept that reality, and not deny it, argue against it (usually quite irrationally), or go on personal attacks of messengers like me, are extremely rare.  Most are oblivious, as Orwell noted.  Americans may pretend innocence of our vast crimes, but it is largely a charade.  

I found that the very same people who were most trapped by their nationalist indoctrination also gave the most reflexive denial of free energy.  They could not imagine that what Dennis and I lived through could happen in our great nation (American minorities, such as blacks, Native Americans, Mexican-Americans, and the like are not too shocked, as they have been on the receiving end of our system’s evil for a long time).  A related delusion is the idea that if free energy was possible, that the magic of capitalism would have already delivered it to humanity.  That is similar to my Easter Bunny perspective when I got out of school.  

A slightly less naïve reaction comes from “liberals,” the kind who listens to NPR, watches PBS, and donates to environmental groups each year.  They are more thoughtful, and when the subject of free energy comes up, they might not immediately dismiss it but will reach out to the “experts,” such as those environmental groups, their scientist pals, and the like.  Since environmental groups are well aware of free energy and consider it the enemy, you can imagine how that conversation goes.  Their scientist friends will usually declare that free energy is “contrary to the laws of physics,” blithely oblivious that some of the greatest names in physics doubted that.  

The most vociferous deniers of free energy’s possibility and desirability are usually the “experts” themselves, who not only play the “laws of physics” card, but deny the very possibility of organized suppression as a “conspiracy theory,” and also argue that even if free energy was possible, it would be undesirable, as humanity would only strip-mine the planet or have wars with free energy, as they project their fears, and quite irrationally, I might add.  Virtually all mining on Earth would cease with the arrival of free energy and related technologies.  Wars are all born of scarcity, and free energy means abundance.  

To one degree or another, those deniers are trapped by their indoctrination and conditioning, and have a delusional worldview.  Almost without exception, Americans in thrall to those delusions blow a gasket when faced with something like my previous post.

But the more subtle and ultimately pernicious entrapment by their conditioning is those who get over the hump of denial of free energy’s possibility and desirability and try to “do something.”  When a free energy inventor applies for a patent, he is already done, but does not know it yet.  When he goes the proprietary technology route, he is nearly as foolish as those who apply for patents.  For those a little worldlier, they understand that organized suppression is real, so they have abandoned the “better mousetrap” canard that is founded on the “magic of capitalism” delusion, but when they think that they can sneak past the organized suppression, they labor under one of the deadliest delusions of all.  

You will never see anything in Greer’s work like my previous post.  Greer advocates that the masses rise up and “demand” ET disclosure and related technologies from the elite, and free energy and antigravity chief among them.  I call that the beseeching approach, and it is just one more way to give away our power, and such approaches rest on the delusion that people in power really care for the common good and answer to it.  They never have.  As Uncle Noam says, stories of the elites’ judicious use of power is the stuff of folktales, not reality.  They are all in power for themselves, not the welfare of the masses.  

What was educational about Greer’s approach, but not surprising, was that not only did he never receive a scoffing or “skeptical” reaction to any of his briefings (only the masses and “skeptics” do that), but none of the briefings’ recipients were ever willing to do anything about it.  There are no heroes in those ranks.  Doing the right thing is not in their DNA, not if there is any risk to themselves.  I am not picking on them, as they are normal, but thinking that they are going to be anything other than what they are is delusional.  

All of those failed approaches to free energy, to one degree or another, are due to an inability to escape one’s delusions, which is related to the integrity issue.  If people have a love of the truth, they will eventually find it, and will never settle for the comforting fictions of their in-group conditioning.  The journey can be a long and painful one, but provides the ultimate reward: true sentience.  It could also result in a healed humanity and planet.  

Best,

Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

Here is a short one on my media and political studies before it is back to work.  While Howard Zinn and David Stannard were my early influences on what Europe’s “discovery” and “settling” of the Western Hemisphere was really like, in 1997 Ward Churchill published what will likely go down as his greatest work, A Little Matter of Genocide, and an essay in it, “Nits Make Lice,” I consider to be his masterpiece.  It was about the European extermination of North American Indians, from the first English “settlers” to when Churchill wrote that essay in 1996.  With great works of scholarship such as that, I raided his footnotes in doing my own work, and Churchill’s work always held up great on that score.  

There were some problems with his work, such as he could be too fervent in defending the American Indian, such as his denial that the first American Indians exterminated the megafauna soon after they arrived, and he had other problems when he ventured into scientific areas, but as a historian and scholar, he has few peers in the area of what the American Indian suffered under the European/American onslaught.  

Stannard wrote the book’s preface, and began it with:


“Ward Churchill is a man looking for trouble.”


Stannard was prescient, and it was precisely Churchill’s masterpiece that was the focus of a witch-hunt that ended his academic career.  They put some of Churchill’s footnotes under a microscope and tried to get him for the equivalent of Dennis’s failure to file a form.  What triggered it was an essay that Churchill wrote that made the case that 9/11 was a classic instance of imperial blowback, and that the technocrats of empire who died in 9/11 were not wholly innocent, however great the crime that killed them.  

The rigged proceedings actually failed to find Churchill at scholarly fault, but then the prosecution changed tactics and decided that the university did not have to justify at all why they fired Churchill, as they could fire anybody on a whim.  That is how the system really works, not the fantasy version that the media and Hollywood feeds the masses.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

As I have written plenty, one aspect of our political-economic systems that gets both Left and Right in a lather is the subject of elites.  I noticed it early in my media and political studies.  Academic studies show how the elite run the show, even in the so-called democracies, and one recent study even used the rabbits-and-wolves model of elite-masses interaction.  Few have suffered at the hands of the global elite more than I have, so I know what they are capable of.  I’ll not deny the role that the elite play in our political-economic systems, but just as judging the wolf for hunting the rabbit is not productive, seeing elites as the root of our problems, rather than a symptom, is one of the greatest failings of both Left and Right.  

Elites are an artifact of the Third and Fourth Epochs, and will disappear in the Fifth, and they know it, which is why they have so avidly suppressed free energy and related technologies.  In a Type 1 civilization, elites will no longer make economic sense, just like slavery only made economic sense in the Third Epoch.  To use that economic model here to make my point, it is what the rabbits do, not the wolves, which will take us into the Fifth Epoch.  That is what my work is all about.  Elites are symptoms, not causes, or to use another scientific analogy, they are only proximate causes, not ultimate ones.  But people have to learn to see like creators, not victims, to understand.  There is a symbiosis happening, and violence and coercion directed toward elites is not the answer, and will make things worse, not better.  That is where Marx blew it, among others.

In ways, my views are not all that radical, as the post-scarcity economy is alive and well in scholarly speculation and fiction today.  My message, however, is that the means to a post-scarcity economy are already here, but under the suppression and control of the global elite.  The Left denies that those elite even exist, while the Right obsessively focuses on them, and neither is a healthy or enlightened reaction, and both are rooted in fear, not love.  A loving approach is truly the only one with a chance, in my opinion.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

I would have to say that the 2002 version of my site was more historical and political than scientific.  I would not even call it that consciously comprehensive.  It was not until reading Uncle Bucky’s work in early 2003 that the comprehensive lightbulb finally went on.  My work was certainly radical back in 2002, but it took another decade before it became Epochal.  

While my media and political studies were invaluable for my developing perspective, I suppose that the Left’s limitations began becoming clear from my first interaction with Uncle Noam.  The Left was filled with Marxist types.  Marx did his work before there was a science of energy.  Neo-classical economics considers energy simply a commodity whose limits are only what the market dictates.  The recent “radical” economic manifesto, Parecon, did not even mention energy.  

Once again, my media and political studies were leavened by my real-world activities.  In 1996, Dennis finally persuaded me to work for him again.  I nearly went to prison for my trouble.  It was an educational time.  After several years of studying organized skepticism, I interacted with a famous “skeptic” for several months (who then stalked me for the next decade), and that, along with other “skeptical” interaction, led me to regard organized skepticism as generally being a criminal enterprise.  We met with Al Gore at the White House, Bill Clinton knew Dennis by name (and hated him), I spoke at Department of Energy hearings, and the man who ran the hearings tried to wise us up to the real game being played.  That disillusioning stint did not last long, and when it was over in early 1997, I was forever cured of trying the businessman’s path to free energy.  

At the same time, Steven Greer was mounting secret Congressional hearings on the UFO issue, which Ed Mitchell co-chaired.  Brian O was a prominent supporter, after nearly losing his life after snooping into the UFO issue.  Several members of Greer’s team came down with strange forms of cancer right after the hearings, and he was the only survivor, but was never the same after that.  In my circles, there was little doubt about what happened.  Godzilla plays hardball when he needs to.  

Brian advised several presidential candidates during his politically active days, and near his life’s end, he told me that electoral politics was a dead-end.  The political experiences of Dennis, Greer, and Brian were so far outside of the Left’s reality that it never even registered with them.  I saw Michael Albert, the author of Parecon, dismiss the entire UFO issue with a “little green men” remark, so the entire free energy and ET/UFO issue was entirely off the table for the Left, and it remains so to this day.  

That is an example of ideology trumping reality.  I still did not entirely give up on the radical left, wrote an open letter to them ten years ago, and correspond with Uncle Ed to this day.  

But I gradually came to realize how trapped the Left was in its worldview.  I am not picking on them, as virtually all groups on Earth are conditioned by their particular brand of scarcity, but I had hoped that the Left could see further along the path.  When I gave up on the Left, it was about the last group that I gave up on.  2007 was when I decided that if any group had a chance to make a dent, I was going to have to roll my own, and my efforts for the past decade have been specifically devoted to it.  

I still carried some of Brian’s spears when asked, although I also generally rejected Brian’s and Dennis’s efforts to reenlist me in their efforts, and I am so happy that I did.  The last thing that I needed was the feds showing up to my house.  

When I read Bucky, the lightbulb immediately went on, regarding politics, which is only about reshuffling the deck of scarcity, and is really useless behavior in the big picture of the human journey on Earth.  The Left, as well as Right, as well as the mainstream, are all firmly ensconced in their Epoch, which is normal.  I know of no group on Earth not trapped in their adoptive scarcity-based frameworks.  The group that can truly help make free energy happen does not yet exist, and I am doing what I can.  If my effort does not form it, maybe another’s will.  But it has to aim high, far beyond the confines of our Epoch.  

As wonderful as my political education and studies were, they only illuminated some important facets of the issue at hand.  A comprehensive perspective puts politics in its place, so that it is understood in a larger framework.  

Today, I try to pay as little attention to retail politics as I can, knowing how meaningless it is in the big picture.  The American president is a puppet and knows it, ever since JFK was set straight.  George Bush the Second’s energy advisor was a fan of Dennis’s, but it did not matter after David Rockefeller got involved.  The White House is not where the real power is.  

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

×