WADE FRAZIER : A Healed Planet

[Nine]

Wade,

I just wanted to take a short moment to think about the power structures and I mean human power structures.

I lived in a human power structure for over three decades for my daily bread. And the question that one quickly learns is.. ..."Who Is In Charge!"

It was rarely the direct supervisor but many many levels up above even that and so looking at authority as one who wielded it one must ask "who is in charge" as in do I follow those orders and so service in the Federal Service is a very personal matter if you have any integrity at all...Me thinks the Military folk call it honor...

That I believe is the heart of the whistle blower who's aim is to better his agency or ....to have justice enforced...and those with little integrity are in charge....

You are so right Wade since integrity is the worlds scarcest commodity!

The organizers of government thought that if they wrote it down then it would be followed leaving out the human participant!
And how crazy was that idea and I could live with the anarchist creed but in the end it would become corrupted if established and become just like what we have or even worse....and very shortly.

And Wade to your fine choir idea I think its grand and who knows who might have influence over someone who has power to let us humans build at our own expense a fine free energy device....

And I mean that at our own expense and as a gubberment guy who always fought against privatization since it would eliminate accountability!!

I mean humanity itself being its own private contractor...as it were...

just a crazy no account non fact vision of just maybe...


Nine

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Nine:

Yes, who is in charge? Ultimately, we all are, but that is not easy to see on Earth, in a world of scarcity with our stunted perspectives that do not easily see beyond physical reality. All social animals have some kind of hierarchy and many have specializations. Humans are no different in that regard. For me, the Michael Material adds another layer to it, as souls play different roles, and some are more suited to lead, others to serve, etc. Every soul will learn all of life's lessons by the time it finishes its incarnation cycle, no matter its role. That makes sense to me, but what does not make sense is the why. Why would we leave a place of infinite love for this vale of tears? That is the mind-bender, for me, and the stories of a "Fall" put some sense to it, although it is nothing to be too happy about.

For me, all of those stories are stories, and what I know is that love is the best of all possible feelings, and the one that I want to experience the most. I also know that when we are in fear, we do not feel love, and fear comes naturally in a world of scarcity and a struggle for survival. Teachings such as Ra's show how the love/fear duality is the reason we are here (Michael's teachings do, too), and overcoming fear and finding love is what it is all about. That is also why I say that if a person's heart is not in the right place, the rest will not matter, and why I say that Jesus's "there is no out-group" is the most enlightened message yet given to humanity (which Michael says is the godhead's message, too). Not that hard to understand, but so hard to live.

We all make the self-serving/other-serving choice every day, and when we pass over, all that matters is how we chose. That all makes a great deal of sense (other than asking to be here ), and appeals to our sense of justice. We all reap what we sow.

One of the reasons for writing my big essay the way that I did was to show the path to this allegedly sentient species called humanity. What a long, strange trip it was. And when we look at our closest cousins, the African apes, what a bunch of psychopaths! Chimp societies are run by ruthless male gangs that are genocidal and infanticidal. But one isolated group had its food supply double when gorillas left the region, and the females took over, ended male dominance, and they are more peaceful than any human society ever was. Hmmm… is there a lesson for us in that?

While women's status rose in some societies (primarily those horticultural ones), and they kind of resembled bonobo society, the rest were dominated by men, and those societies were psychopathic and not much different from how chimps operated. Men rose to dominance again with the advent of civilization, which ended those peaceful horticultural days, and women's status again declined. The human journey has been marked by brief periods of relative abundance when a new energy source was tapped, which are humanity's Golden Ages, but they were almost never really sustainable and not abundant in absolute terms. Those who made self-service a science have been able to relatively easily manipulate a humanity that lives in scarcity and fear. They have been around from the beginning, and with the first civilizations they took charge, but the power behind the throne game became the preferred MO. The professions also played ball, and the priesthoods always conferred divine power or sanction to the new elites, in a pattern that has largely lasted to this day.

The self-serving elite principle has been taken to extremes on this planet that can be hard to believe, and they are literally toying with the inhabitability of Earth today. But they do not operate in a vacuum, and the only real power they have was given to them by a humanity that has abdicated its responsibility and plays the victim. The masses almost invariably either deny that such elites exist or think that they are the root of our problems. Neither perception is accurate. Those elites are only opportunists taking advantage of a situation, and they are masters of manipulating the human animal. Since their understanding is the warped negative side of spirituality, they rule by fear, secrecy, deception, and violence, and have actively kept humanity mired in scarcity. And the rest of humanity has played right along, allowing themselves to be herded along with the carrots and sticks that the elite brandish. The elite concocted self-serving in-group ideologies, and they have been dominant for the entire human journey. Masters such as Jesus came along and said that there was no out-group, but those messages largely fell on deaf ears, and the elite and their priesthood servants simply corrupted the enlightened messages from the masters into new in-group ideologies.

The challenge before us is to wake up and finally become a truly sentient species. If we don't, it may very well be game over on Earth for humanity. As Michael says with his eerie sense of detachment, if we make Earth uninhabitable and self-exterminate ourselves, we will "only" find another species on another planet to finish our incarnation cycle, and it would likely be in a species that cannot manipulate its environment, such as something like cetaceans. Other mystical sources say that it would be far more than "only," as it would be a catastrophe for our souls that would take a long "time" to recover from, even though all roads lead back home, eventually.

So, do we wake up and get over the hump, or do we slide back to the bottom of the hill? The middle ground between those poles is shrinking by the day. I know that it would not take many people to make FE happen, and a healed humanity and planet can easily come into being. It is not lost on me that the numbers I envision are not far from the 144,000 that you see in mystical writings, but I did not come up with my numbers with that mystical number in mind; it is just how many are needed in the current environment of apathy amongst the masses and organized suppression from the elite. What I know for sure is that anything short of a loving approach will not work. I have been around the block a few times and saw where efforts of lesser motivation ended up. Making FE happen will not be easy for those few who answer the call, but nothing worthwhile is, and the advent of FE will be the biggest event in the human journey, when humanity turns the corner. Helping it happen is probably why I am here, and the preposterous events of my journey were evidence of it, but I am getting old. I have been burning the candle at both ends for my entire adult life, and I wrote my big essay before my mental faculties deteriorated to the point where I could not do it anymore. If I am lucky, I have another 30 years to amass and train that choir, and we will see how it goes.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

As I mentioned, I was reading Donald Canfield's Oxygen, and it shed light on a number of subjects, and what I found particularly interesting and germane to my big essay is Canfield's adoption of the view of an opponent of his mentor's. Robert Berner was Canfield's mentor and the author of the first model of oxygen and carbon dioxide levels in the deep past, called GEOCARBSULF. Nick Butterfield has been an opponent to the idea that oxygen spurred the appearance of animals. Butterfield argued that animal activity stirred oxygen into the ocean depths, and only after animals oxygenated the oceans did they go "all in" with aerobic respiration. Some anaerobic animals have been found in extreme environments, and they have been argued to be vestiges of the animal past before oxygen.

Canfield argues that oxygen levels did not approach modern levels until animals began colonizing land, about 420 million years ago, not the 600 million or so that had been previously hypothesized. The issue is by no means settled, but those conflicting and changing views are how science ideally progresses.

Personally, I find the ideas interesting, but oxygen also obviously played a huge role in the evolution of complex life. The scientists are kind of quibbling over exactly when it became important. I am not saying that the ultimate answer will not be important, but the arguments can seem arcane to the initiated. What all the models agree on is that oxygen skyrocketed because of all the carbon burial that created 75% of Earth's coal deposits, and the subsequent crash is implicated in the appearance of the breathing sacs and unidirectional lungs that dinosaurs developed and birds still use today.

That idea that animals changed their environments through their activity is also relevant in the megafauna extinctions. Today's African elephants terraform their biomes and their activities maintain them. When humans killed off the megafauna on the other continents, there would have been pronounced ecosystem effects, and scientists can see some of that telltale evidence today. For instance, there are fruits in the Americas that probably coevolved with proboscideans (essentially elephants), and many likely went extinct after the proboscideans did, but some survive today. Here is another paper about a fruit on Madagascar that may have had its seeds distributed by a bird that humans drove to extinction. The longest-lived order of mammals ever coevolved with nut trees, as their burying activities spread the seeds (squirrels, who drove that order to extinction, only find about half of what they bury).

I find those connections fascinating, as activities argued for having relevance several hundred million years ago are relevant today.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

A quick one before bed…

Q: Wade, what really interests me is humanity, not so much the 4.5 billion year history before humans arrived. Can we discuss the primate line and how humans appeared?

A: Sure. That is a very prominent theme in the essay. About half of the essay is devoted to before humans arrived on the evolutionary scene, and half to the human era, and I have a chapter titled The Path to Humanity, which begins with simians (monkeys were the first simians). I also sketch primate development before simians appeared. Early primates were close cousins to rodents. You can think of squirrels as tree-dwelling nut-eaters that lived in non-tropical environments, and early primates were tree-dwelling fruit eaters that lived in the tropics. Squirrels face seasons, so buried nuts to get through the lean times, while early primates lived in the tropics, where year-round tree-borne food was available.

The earliest primates likely co-existed with dinosaurs, and monkeys did not appear until tens of millions of years later. Monkeys may have evolved in Asia a little more than 40 million years ago. But when Earth began to cool off in earnest, Africa became their primary refuge about 35 million years ago, and some made it to South America, when it was closer to Africa. Around the same time and perhaps a few million years later, some "loser" monkeys were forced from the canopy and began living nearer the ground, and apes were born. About 16 million years ago, during the warmer Miocene Epoch, African apes spread across Asia, after Africa crashed into it, and it was a spectacular adaptive radiation, with about 20 ape species identified so far. Monkeys were actually scarce then.

Earth began cooling down again, and Africa once again became a primate refuge, and around 10 million years ago, the line that led to humanity lived exclusively in Africa. Orangs were one of those apes that arose from that adaptive radiation, and gibbons also were a result of that radiation, and they were isolated in Southeast Asia. Gibbons split off first, then orangutans, and in Africa chimps split off from gorillas and the human line from chimps. There is lively controversy on when those splits happened, but the human/chimp split was probably between five and seven million years ago. As apes were loser monkeys, chimps were loser gorillas and the human line came from loser chimps. Losers pushed to the margins of their environment, who adapted to and exploited new biomes, are where many of the greatest innovations in the history of complex life happened. Fish likely came onto land the same way, pushed to the margins.

Those loser chimps were pushed to the edge of the shrinking rainforest and learned to walk upright in the more open woodlands, and a series of developments led to humanity. It really is a fascinating story that scientists have pieced together, and controversy abounds in all aspects of that story, but I doubt that the basic story is going to change very radically (famous last words! ), and if the ETs come down and land on the White House lawn and claim that they are our ancestors, scientists are going to see how that claim squares with the DNA and fossil evidence.

Those are big subjects, and I encourage discussion of them.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Back in about 1992, after a couple of years of digesting the Left's work, I was driven from my sleep to write a 17-page letter to Noam Chomsky about FE and the organized suppression that we encountered while pursuing it, which seemed to be a pervasive problem. I received a quick and gracious reply from Uncle Noam, who called my letter tantalizing, but he noted that he was not an expert on the subject and advised me to contact the experts. There aren't any!

I had already written a letter/book that was used in my PTSD therapy the year before, and as I look back at it, contacting Uncle Noam was the beginning of my public writings on FE. In later years, I contacted Uncle Howard and Uncle Ed, and I still communicate with Ed, who will turn 90 this spring. Noam is "only" 86 and still going hard at it.

I write this because I was driven from my sleep this morning from a dream where I was trying to talk to Noam about FE. I have had many Noam dreams over the years, and I think that Noam and FE has been a theme that I have experienced more than 1992 and this morning. Usually, as I did in last night's dream, I meet with Noam on campus or at his home. This time, Noam was lecturing to his students and broke out in a sob, realizing how hopeless the situation on Earth was, and I once more tried to talk to him about FE. As with virtually every intellectual that I ever talked to, that dream-Noam had a million defenses for why FE was either impossible or undesirable. This relates to a recent post, in what we FE revolutionaries encounter.

The masses simply do not care, riveted to the tube, punching the clock, and drinking themselves into a stupor each night. They are interested if they can get rich off of FE or eliminate their energy bills, like winning the lottery, and that mentality was behind the numerous attempts to steal our companies, as greed-blinded fools went for the quick capitalistic kill.

Intellectuals are boxed in by their "laws of physics" and "conspiracy theory" dogmas, and if they ever get to the point of even acknowledging FE's possibility, their immediate reaction is fear, not wonderment at FE's potential.

I have witnessed those kinds of reactions literally thousands of times, and it took me many years to generalize those reactions of fear, denial, greed, and the like. To one degree or another, those people were addicted to scarcity, as their entire being adopted a scarcity-based framework that they were either unable or unwilling to see beyond. This is the part of the crux of the FE conundrum.

Even from groups that you would think would be natural allies, such as environmentalists, the free software movement, and "radical" groups, the responses are the same mix of addiction to scarcity, denial, and fear. Again, it took many years for me to generalize what I was seeing, but in each instance, the person sold out their sentience for an ideological stance that fed and comforted them, and they were not about to relinquish that death-grip on their worldview, which did not have any room in it for FE and abundance. I have seen people paralyzed with fear over what is obviously coming, but they can't give FE the time of day. After watching those reactions thousands of times, it is easy to conclude that those people yearn for their self-destruction. I have literally watched people choose certain death over questioning their beliefs and indoctrination. After years of witnessing those reactions himself, Brian's question of whether humanity is really a sentient species is appropriate.

Then, if people get that FE is possible and desirable, they can't help themselves from chasing down all the blind alleys and dead ends that FE newbies invariably explore, sometimes at great risk that they are usually oblivious to, and they chat up their social circles and so on. Sigh.

So, in the coming days, months, and years, I will reach out here and there to public writers who have stepped out the box far enough to where they might be reachable, but I am already resigned to the reality that any I find will be needles in haystacks. That is just the nature of the beast. Getting a choir going, however, will be something new and unusual, and that will make the job easier. But that choir is going to be built one member at a time. There will be nothing quick or easy about it.

Back to work.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I was asked today if my work is channeled, and below is my response.

If I am channeling anything, it is surely not consciously, and I really doubt it. My writings are the product of somebody who was raised to be a scientist, mentored by a modern-day Tesla, who had his mystical awakening at age 16 at the same time that he got his dream of changing the energy industry, who had a desperate prayer answered at age 19 that changed his studies from science to business, who prayed for the second and so far last time in his life, after several years of postgraduate disillusionment, and was again answered, and the answer landed him in the midst of the greatest attempt ever made to bring alternative energy to the marketplace.

Then his wild ride began, and four years later, his life was shattered and he was radicalized. If I had the liberty to publicly disclose more, the above summary would seem even more preposterous, but all I can say is that it happened, and I provide plenty of documentation for my tale.

As ridiculous as my story might seem, it pales beside that of my partner, who is the Indiana Jones of alternative energy. As I recovered from my traumas, I eventually met fellow travelers such as Brian and Mark, and our stories were all remarkably similar. We were usually scientists or scientists-in-training, we had a mystical awakening that woke us up beyond the materialistic paradigm that mainstream science operates under all-too-often, and we all discovered the hard way that the world does not work at all like we were taught that it did. None of us began our journeys thinking in terms of FE, but we all eventually ended up there.

I have had many psychic readings over the years (but not many in the past 15 years, as I kind of left that phase behind me), and they were all similar in ways, and some were by public and famous channels. I'll buy that Michael channel reading, and I have been told by a channel of amazing prescience and omniscience (who I was later told was an archangel) that I helped plan Earth School and am trying to get humanity over the hump so it does not destroy the school. However, that channel specifically said that channeling was not in the cards for me in this lifetime, but that I would have a different orientation. I cannot recall off the top of my head exactly what the channel said (I have the tape, and may one day digitize those many tapes of readings and channelings), but the channel said that studying and integrating a vast array of material, including mystical, was going to be my mission in life. And that was all before I commenced the study that has resulted in my public writings. Looking back, I would have to say that that channel was right again. Other channels and psychics have said similar things, and I'll buy it. Some have said that what I will do will be critical in helping humanity turn the corner, but that could just be psychic chicanery.

But if you think about the first half of my big essay, it is all mainstream science. Almost no mystical stuff in it. World-class scientists are impressed, so I at least was playing the science game by the rules. But my work does not stop there, and if I had to put a label on my work, it would be neo-Fullerian. I would like to think that if Bucky could read my big essay, he would say something like, "That is what I was talking about!", although I am sure that he would have points of disagreement and we could discuss our differences and each come away from the experience more enlightened.

My writings are all my own, and I do not claim that any "spirit" is giving me any information or guidance, although as with many events in my life, I can tell that my "friends" are playing with the parameters of my life, and it has been particularly noticeable in recent years, and I have very mixed feelings about that. I do not know about others, but those "interventions" have always been a word here and there (only when I asked for it, except for that last time, and I do not want to hear from the voice again), or crazy events that I was thrust into, but they only set the stage for me, and it was up to me to deal with it. I can tell that I have been "chosen," by something or someone, and I cannot regret my journey, but I certainly would not recommend it to anybody else. It has not been an easy ride by any means. I have been greatly blessed in my life, but it came with serious "demands" that have pretty much burned up my life. But if I can in any way help steer humanity away from the abyss, and come into an era that I sure would like to live in, then it will have all been worth it for me. I also eventually learned to put out what I sought and put my cards on the table, but then relinquish any expectation of the outcome. That is not an easy trick, seeing where humanity is heading, but it sure helps keep the blood pressure down.

Does that answer it?

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Q: Hey Wade, I want to discuss sex some more. Are you saying that women should run things?

A: Well, they do in my household. I have mentioned Riane Eisler's work on my site, and I read quite a bit of feminist literature in the 1990s. Eisler argues for something she calls gylany, which is the blending of the genders, appreciating and valuing the differences in each, as opposed to any gender dominating. When she wrote The Chalice and the Blade, the peaceful savage meme had not yet been overturned in anthropology, and coming on the heels of the women's lib movement, I eventually wondered if those feminists were not overdrawing the situation. We are probably all aware of militant feminists who were also lesbians as part of the "job description" (there may have been mystical reasons for that) but it turns out that feminist writers were not far off base. There has never been a matriarchal society that anybody ever found, even though feminists hunted for them, but as I have written, anthropologists have found a radical difference in violence levels in preliterate societies, depending on if they were or patrilocal or matrilocal (which have been called Type A and Type B societies), and this goes back to our ape ancestors.

As I have written plenty, when their food supply doubled, female and non-dominant male bonobos ended the practice of their societies being dominated by violent male gangs. All Golden Ages of the human past were the result of the easy energy that came from tapping a new energy resource, and the good times rolled until the energy ran out, and then it was warfare, genocides, population collapses, etc.

When women had high status, it was always the mark of a healthy society. When men dominated, it usually turned violent. I write about the demographic transition and the liberation of women and slaves, but we still have a long way to go. Racism is still alive and well in the USA and elsewhere, and we have yet to see a woman as president, for instance (even though the position is largely ceremonial). And the women who have risen to prominence in Western politics usually operate on the male model, such as Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, and the like. Women acting like men to get ahead (or only women who act like men can get ahead) is a far cry from gylany.

The fact is that men dominate in the violence department, and I advocate a global peacekeeping force of grandmothers, grandmotherly grandmothers, in the FE transition, who will be empowered to take the toys away from the boys who cannot play nicely.

I doubt that there will a matriarchal society anytime soon, but women need to step up to help FE happen. The Boys' Club approach to FE has not worked and is unlikely to.

So, sex is important in many ways, but maybe not how you had hoped, you lecherous dog.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Q: Wade, can we discuss endothermy?

A: Sure. That is a great subject. As with so many aspects of biology, this was an energy cost/benefit decision that became quite important when animals colonized land. Early marine life did not have to contend with diurnal temperature changes or even much in the way of seasonal changes, but land animals did, as one of the many challenges they faced when leaving the water. Few marine phyla were able to make the transition. And for those that did, they faced the challenges of desiccation, breathing air, supporting themselves without the buoyancy of water, and so on.

Enzymes, which speed up life's chemical reactions by millions of times, are rather delicate structures, and wide temperature swings wreck them. Too cold, and reactions cease happening (why people die of hypothermia), and too warm, and enzymes begin to come apart (called denaturation, which is why high fevers kill people). Animals have crafted numerous strategies to cope with wide temperature swings, and one of them is to internally regulate their temperatures.

Amphibians never quite left the water, so they could still use water as a refuge from temperature swings in the air, but it is thought that basking was one of the benefits of leaving the water. As a child, one of the plastic toys that I had was of Dimetrodon, and that big sail on its back is thought to have primarily served a thermoregulatory function. As many biological features had multiple uses, scientists think that that sail was likely also an instance of display, in which a gender flaunts its biological wealth in an attempt to attract a mate. We see it today in humans, so this is a very old trait.

As the fish line left water behind with the appearance of amniotes, two reptile lines dominated land for the next 250 million years: synapsids and diapsids. Mammals came from the synapsid line, and dinosaurs from the diapsid line. Synapsids dominated the Permian Period, which was still in an ice age, and synapsids had the short, stocky build of animals that adapted to cold environments. Synapsids gave way to therapsids, many mammalian features began to appear in the therapsid line, and cynodonts were direct mammal ancestors. They grew fur, and scientists think that they likely began dabbling in internal temperature regulation via chemistry.

The diapsid line was gracile and lived in the warmer lands of the Permian, and when the ice age ended with a bang in the greatest extinction ever, the few bedraggled diapsid survivors were primed to thrive in the Greenhouse Earth conditions that dominated for the next 200 million years. Diapsids quickly rose to dominance in the Triassic and archosaurs dominated all biomes, from sea to land to air to swamps. The therapsid line dwindled to irrelevance, and mammals became the only survivor of the synapsid line, and they eked out a marginal existence during the reign of archosaurs. There is great controversy today whether archosaurs, and dinosaurs in particular, were warm-blooded. Today, the predominant thinking is that they were mesotherms. In a Greenhouse Earth with their large size, there was likely little need for internal temperature regulation via chemistry. Eventually, some dinosaur lines developed feathers, which aided in temperature regulation, and some lines began to use those feathers for flight, and birds were born. Today, birds and mammals are warm-blooded, and we can see that for more primitive mammals, they do not regulate their temperatures as much as other mammals do.

While endothermy conferred great benefits, it also came with great costs. Birds and mammals burn 10-to-15 times as much energy as reptiles do. So, they took advantage of a supercharged biology with thermoregulation, which led to their dominance, but it came with a great energetic price. That high-energy strategy paid off in bird and mammal dominance, as reptiles were largely forced to the margins. The crocodile line was the only dominant archosaur line to survive the Cretaceous Extinction, probably because their swamp-dwelling life saw enough of them survive the bolide event that wiped out the dinosaurs, and they were able to feast on carrion during the bolide winter that followed behind it. Some birds and mammals survived for similar reasons.

The controversy over dinosaur thermoregulation is ongoing, and I will follow the developments with interest. All in all, thermoregulation is a fascinating subject, and it had a large role to play in the history of terrestrial animals.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

This morning, I was asked for the hundredth (thousandth? ) time if a tinkerer approach to FE could work, such as flooding the Internet with plans of how to build them. My reply is below.

That has been done, but they are far harder to build than people think. The garage inventor approach has never come close to working, for various reasons. One of the themes that Brian O discussed in his later years was the huge gulf between having a working prototype and something that could reliably power a home. Brian put the price tag at $100 million, and it later rose to $200 million. Making free energy happen is going to be an industrial project, not a bunch of tinkerers in garages. And frankly, there is a lot of talk about some underground tinkerer army ready to make it happen, but my experience has been that it is a bunch of boastful hot air. Almost nobody has the right stuff. Understanding the problems that Dennis's heat pump encountered can provide useful lessons on the tinkerer approach. Dennis encountered a market that was in arrested development, dominated by tinkerers, and he tried to industrialize it. The free energy field is in a similar state of arrested development.

There are numerous reasons why the tinkerer approach has not worked, and one is that if the tinkerer ever comes up with something, he immediately comes onto Godzilla's radar, no matter how sneaky he thinks he is. There is no running and hiding, and many free energy newcomers have advocated the "sneak past Godzilla" strategy, which I call Level 7. People like Mark were rudely disabused of their "sneak past them" approach. Today, there are fools in shacks on Montana and elsewhere who think that they are being oh-so-sneaky, and Godzilla yawns at their adolescent efforts. Not one of them presents even a remote "threat."

Another reason is that almost no inventor with the goods has the integrity to freely publish plans. Sparky Sweet is a good example of an FE inventor with the goods who took his secrets to the grave with him, playing the proprietary technology game. I am not sure which is more foolish, that, or applying for patents.

I have never met or heard of the inventor with the goods willing to give it away, and probably more importantly, there has never been a group worthy to give it to. The only inventor's approach that I see with a prayer is an inventor with the goods giving it to a worthy group that can take it forward. My "choir" efforts can be seen as trying to help form that worthy group.

The FE devices that I am aware of would have to be made in Intel-type facilities to be successful. My goal, if it has to go that far, is to develop something that can be made in such facilities and give them away. Most Western cities could readily develop such facilities. Of course, that free energy technology has been developed to the 35th generation by Godzilla, and a "choir" could help create the environment so that such a technology could come into daylight. That is a very possible side-effect and, believe me, Godzilla is watching what I am doing, and the so-called White Hats are probably hoping that I am successful. An abundance choir has definitely never been heard on Earth before, and that is what I am trying to build. I have budgeted the rest of my life's "spare" time to building it, and may have another 30 good years left in me. We will see how it goes, and my effort is only beginning. Four years at Avalon is only a warm-up and choir tryouts.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Q: Wade, why won't an army of FE tinkerers work for making FE happen?

A: I’ll bet that you never worked in technology development. In order to understand, I guess that you first need to understand the difference between craftsmanship and industry. We probably need to go back to the beginning, to make this easier to understand. Animals have been using tools for hundreds of millions of years. Chimps and birds have even made tools, but making a stone tool was a watershed event in the human line, and it happened around 2.6 million years ago. There is also evidence of stone tools being used a million years earlier. If so, the tools were made by just smashing rocks together and selecting useful shards from the broken rocks.

For those earliest stone tools, called Oldowan, there is not much evidence of what we would call craftsmanship or planning. Those tools seem to have been made on-site as needed and then discarded. Monkeys and apes have social learning, and there was some social learning on how to make Oldowan tools, as there was a kind of "standard" way of making them, which highlights why the human line arose. Inventing something and then teaching it is a highly significant aspect of the rise of humans. If every invention had to be learned from scratch each time, and there was no mechanism for transmitting information, there never would have been the rise of humans.

As my readers know, there is a lively controversy over just when fire was controlled, and it was a bigger event than making stone tools. Although one theory is that somebody in or near the human line learned to make fire by mistake, when banging two rocks together that produced sparks, I suspect that making fire was learned once, and then spread among the day's human line, which likely included australopiths. Depending on when fire was first controlled, it could have been the first social-technological accomplishment, as a band was required to keep a fire going. About 1.7 million years ago, a new kind of stone tool industry was invented by Homo erectus, and Acheulean tools are definitely the product of what could be called craftsmanship.

Social animals generally have hierarchies, and chimps formed ranked hunting parties, but tools were made by individuals for millions of years. The Acheulean culture lasted for more than a million years, with little discernable advance in technology. Homo erectus reached a level of technology that did not change much, if at all, and there was nothing that they made that needed more than two hands. Even when spears with stone tips appeared perhaps a half-million years ago, it was still a one-person operation. Humans definitely hunted in groups, and group hunting tactics were probably a situation in which human cooperation in accomplishing a task had to be employed, like maintaining a campfire. The mastery of language would have been a huge quantum leap, and the mastery of language may have been the key event in the emergence of behaviorally modern humanity.

Homo sapiens appeared on the scene around 200,000 years ago, and by 70,000 years ago, evidence of heat-treated tools made with complex processes is evident. It still was probably accomplished by one person, maybe two. There was not much social organization involved with the process, and it may have been the classic craftsman situation, with a master and apprentice social organization. With a few exceptions, such as building the elite-aggrandizing megalithic structures and Roman industry, technology development and production was a process of craftsmanship, with only one or a few people producing the technology. When domestication made large sedentary populations possible, the stage was set for more industrial development, but it came and went with the rise and fall of early civilizations.

The earliest cities had pottery, for instance, made with specialized and standardized wheels, which created standardized pots, and what could almost be called industrial production began, although they were still mainly operations for two hands. Making large structures called for different skills and coordination, and the acropolis at Giza, for instance, would have had engineers to make sure that the building progressed properly. Even so, in those pyramids, mistakes can be seen that were corrected as the construction progressed. The interior stones were not set all that precisely. Only the outer casing really was, and it was a marvel of precision for its time. It was a far cry from Oldowan technology. But how much technical wizardry was involved in cutting stone slabs and hauling them to make the pyramids? Not much. It was mainly brute force.

Another example is making the Roman Coliseum. In his The Upside of Down, Thomas Homer-Dixon wrote of his analysis of the effort involved to build the Coliseum, which began when he noticed the precision on the keystone holding up one of the 80 arches around the Coliseum's entrances. Homer-Dixon eventually led an effort to calculate just what it took to make the Coliseum, and for all the precision witnessed in the arches, all of that impressive stonework of the Coliseum's superstructure only amounted to about 4% of the effort (measured in energy) to build it. Virtually all the effort and energy went into building what you don't see in the Coliseum, its foundation and below-ground structures. To jump ahead a little for a moment, going to the moon was similar in that the most advanced technology was in the lunar module, as it was the equivalent of the Coliseum's superstructure, with the entire lunar effort focused on getting that contraption down to the lunar surface and back up.

Rome had what we might today call industries, but they were primitive affairs and the people doing the hard work were generally considered expendable. The Romans had quasi-factories for producing pottery, glass, and metals. The Romans did relatively little inventing, but appropriated technologies from cultures they conquered, such as the Greeks. When Rome collapsed, Europe reverted to an agrarian economy for the next millennium. By the late Middle Ages, the most sophisticated technology on Earth was the clock, which again was built by craftsmen. While inventors such as da Vinci dreamed up marvelous contraptions, virtually nothing was built from his designs while he was alive, and some of his bright ideas were just that, and were not really practical.

China engaged in mass production before Europe did, but precision mass-production did not arrive until the Industrial Revolution, and the first machines that began rendering human effort obsolete were for spinning cotton. The commercial heat engine was invented a generation earlier, and energy-driven machines are the Industrial Revolution. That is when industrial production really began, and English factories were where the first mass-produced goods appeared. It was not until metal could be smelted with coal that iron became a household consumer good. As the factory rose, the craft shop declined. New social organization appeared, and industrial production was an invention of England, and they had nearly a century's head-start on their imperial rivals. The American colonies soon broke away, and Yankee ingenuity became a cliché, as inventors were constantly coming up with new technologies. While there are still tinkerers in the world today, and many big breakthroughs came via the lone inventor (think the Wright brothers, for instance), nothing is coming to market via the tinkerer's workshop.

Brian O used to give an analogy of the Wright brothers in his work. When the Wright brothers flew at Kitty Hawk and spent years refining their planes in Dayton, to have their "fabled" claims of flight derided by mainstream science for five years, it was all a far cry from taking passengers and freight across the USA. It took a huge industrial effort to create an air travel industry. Today's FE inventors are like the Wright brothers in their shops, and many have achieved the equivalent of the Kitty Hawk flight, such as Sparky Sweet did. But taking what Sparky created in his home (he was a career scientist for General Electric and had a lot of help in constructing his gizmos) and developing something for the public use is not something that tinkerers can accomplish. Think of an Intel facility for making computer chips, and you have an idea of what it would take to make an FE device for public use. Before he died, Brian estimated that it would take about $200 million of development money. I'll buy that. The development curve for something like an FE device for market is several years through several stages of prototypes. That is how it works in the real world. For a very mundane example, in the Dyson line of products, with the vacuum cleaner as its flagship product, they built more than a thousand prototypes as they developed their vacuum cleaner.

Those who have never developed technology for the market think that something can come out of a workshop and be market-ready. It never works that way. Making the first prototype is hard, and most FE efforts get stuck there. Most FE tinkerers never even come up with anything, and if they do, they run out of money by then and the prototype sits in somebody's garage or basement today. That is a very common fate. The entire FE field is in a state of arrested development, dominated by scientists and tinkerers, all trying to get rich and famous. Virtually every FE newbie that I ever saw immediately got sucked up into that vortex and never left. All of that theorizing and tinkering is going nowhere, especially with an alert and active Godzilla. What Mark experienced after inventing his FE gizmo was gentle compared to what many others experienced. The "lucky" ones got Godzilla's Golden Handcuffs.

What Dennis did is a good example of what it takes. Dennis was an untrained businessman, but is a genius of the likes that I have rarely encountered. His background was sales, and he just wanted to sell cool products as fast as somebody could make them, but he was forced into developing and building the technologies that he sold, and a prelude to his heat pump days was when he got into the insulation business. Urea-formaldehyde foam was the up-and-coming insulation right after the 1973-1974 energy crisis, and when Dennis got involved, the "industry" was one man at a home, who mixed the materials onsite and injected them into the walls of the house. But there was no quality control, and if it was improperly mixed, it could off-gas and make a home uninhabitable. Dennis quickly invented a "battlewagon" concept, in which the foam was computer mixed at the battlewagon, so there was quality control, and they could do an entire neighborhood in a day. That is the difference between a craftsman approach and an industrial approach, and Dennis was ingenious in industrializing an industry stuck at the craftsman stage. Dennis did it on the East Coast, New Jersey in particular, where he went to college, and what a shark tank New Jersey was, with the mob trying to muscle in regularly, and Dennis survived a mob hit attempt there, and the way that he survived it earned the mob's "respect" (more details here) and the Jersey mob left him alone after that (but the New York mob did not).

When some mobsters were looking for Dennis, to break his legs, he came down with Guilaine Barré Syndrome and was nearly killed three times by VA hospital negligence, which left him crippled to this day. As he recovered from his illness, he was introduced to the world's best heating system, but as with the insulation business, it was in a state of arrested development, and half of the buyers installed it themselves. The "industry" was the province of tinkerers. Home-installed exotic technology is a disaster, again because of quality control issues. Improperly built and charged systems would not work very well. Imagine people building cars in their garages from a kit, where they had to braise and solder parts together. That was the equivalent of what was happening. One pal, who worked at Boeing, once told me that I should just go build myself an FE machine and power my home with it. I replied that it would probably be easier to build a 747 in my backyard.

So, Dennis embarked on the long road of industrializing the technology so that somebody could build and install them as fast as he could sell them. But Dennis's big lessons were about the capitalistic shark tank. His associates nearly invariably betrayed him, as they were overcome by greed, and they thought that if they just stole Dennis's company from him, that they could climb aboard the gravy train to riches and fame. After I had seen many instances of it when I was Dennis's partner, I told him how shocking it was to witness, and he told me to join the club. Those were just early incidents that eventually drove the primary lesson of my journey home in no uncertain terms: personal integrity is the world's scarcest commodity.

One reason why an army of tinkerers won't work is that they are all trying to get rich and famous. Their motivation is corrupt from the outset. There is no underground army of "good guy" tinkerers just waiting for the FE blueprints to make it happen. Go to Rex Research, for instance, and look at the plans to go build FE devices and other gizmos. You can go crazy looking at diagrams and blueprints. There are over a hundred in the Free Energy / Over-Unity section alone, including Sparky Sweet's, and there are twice as many in the Electrics & Magnetics section. If there really was an army out there, we would hear the guns of battle, but the silence is deafening, and even when gunfire is heard, it is the army's soldiers fighting amongst themselves, not scaling the ramparts. The problem is not a lack of blueprints and designs, which almost no FE newcomer seems to be able to understand. Tinkerers are not going to make FE happen. At best, some may get a rickety craft in the air like the Wright brothers did, but that is a long way from running freight and passengers.

When I was with Dennis, we had inventors' sanctuaries in three states, and all were criminally violated, in Ventura most spectacularly, and every inventor that I worked with betrayed us in the end. When I was with Dennis, we gave away the rights to our heat pump, which is still the best heating system that has ever been on the world market, and to this day, nobody is building them. There is a huge mass delusion about how much gumption there is in the world. It does not work the way that people see in the movies.

Similarly, I regularly hear that if somebody just came up with a battle plan, then the war would be easily won. The problem is not a lack of battle plans: there is no army. That is the problem, or when an army is amassed, as Dennis regularly did, it was a mercenary army that sold itself to the highest bidder, and nobody's pockets are deeper than Godzilla's. As Dennis told me when I saw him in 2013, his allies have hurt him more than his enemies have. Brian's experiences were similar, as is anybody's who has ever played on the FE high road. There does not need to be any "plan" today that is any more detailed than what I am presenting, which is largely about amassing that army, but I am really trying to build a choir, first.

Best,

Wade

[Melinda]

I watched another interesting video debate yesterday, from the Institute of Art and Ideas, relevant to some points you've often raised Wade.

The talk was titled Noble Ancestors and Modern Selves and the panel included anthropologist Daniel Everett, adventurer Bruce Parry, bioethicist Sarah Chan and Oxford philosopher Janet Radcliffe-Richards.

Isuues raised included :

- Whether our progression via technology is making our lives better or worse
- The romanticising of tribal society
- Just because something is 'natural' that doesn't by definition make it the best thing for us
- The idea that nature has put a design in the world to make people happy, i.e which we don't need to or shouldn't improve on

Sarah Chan pointed out the need for balance in appreciating the benefits of technological progression, whilst remaining discerning; positing that just because something is 'natural' that doesn't inherently make it better, or better for us, and we risk fetishising this idea of what is natural. She also commented that realising the value of diversity in the world relies on technology (internet communications, travel options etc), and that if we lived in small tribe-like communities with less exchange we would lose much of the diversity we've come to enjoy.

Bruce Parry addressed the obvious problem with our modern economic/political systems, where there is an unhealthy trend of those who work the hardest having the least, and those who do the least having the most. He noted the comparative absence of addictions in more tribal societies, versus the presence of "unspoken" ones like greed in more developed societies, and the accompanying trend towards isolation - a loss of connection with nature and each other. By nature, I personally take that to mean other life forms and their frequencies, including the consciousness of the earth.

Daniel Everett observed that the Pirahã people he spent time with were unique among hunter-gatherer tribes in the Amazon that he knew of, in their lack of desire for technological goods. He noted that where the introduction of outside technologies brought unhappiness within the other groups it wasn't inherently due to the technology, but because the tribes had learned to rely on something new which they didn't yet have the economics to support.

I enjoyed philosopher Janet Radcliffe-Richards perspective :

"...It is a very interesting fact of human history and I presume quite deep psychology, that humans are always looking back to a better state of things before something came and sent it wrong. If you remember when the Victorians... there was this great migration of people to the cities during the industrial revolution - immediately a sentimental view of the countryside started to develop. We have in our background religions the idea of the myth of the fall - everything was fine until we sinned and it went wrong. It's interesting where we get this from. I wonder if it's because life is usually relatively easy when we're children and we feel something's been lost later on, and someone's taken it from us. But it also tends to go with the idea that the things that have come later, the civilising things, the intellectual things, must be the cause of the disappearance of all these good things there were beforehand. And I think a lot of the idea of noble savages, certainly historically, comes from the feeling that all our advances have corrupted things and we'd be better without. Now this is entirely separate from the empirical question of whether these people are in many ways better... [...] ...But what I'm puzzled about is if there's any kind of exempla for what we should do now. We can't go and live in groups of 150 with a lot of jungle round us, there are too many of us and we're getting more and more."

Everett's point about numerous tribes wishing for sustainable progression, and a point made later by Parry about how living with tribes had given him an increased appreciation of his western life's impact on the global environment, raised another point for me. Many in the developed nations who romanticise jungle or tribal life have never met the people who have lived it and wish to progress. Perhaps they gloss over it because they have no awareness of free energy, or a fear of it, and so idealize a more basic life because they consciously fear that they (or unconsciously fear that we as a species) may need to return to it given our unsustainable energy culture.

With a conscientious approach to free energy, we can of course have a life in nature with all the cultural diversity and technological assistance we are capable of imagining. We can stop plundering our shared environment, and have as much or as little technology as we want. The factory worker or forest tribe will finally have as much choice as the banker or doctor, and we can have it with clean air, clean water and a clear conscience.

Chan also addressed the problem of the often heard, generalising cliche, that since we've created all this 'stuff' (my paraphrasing) how come we aren't any happier? I've always taken issue with that. I'd say I'm a great deal happier now than I'd be if I were living within the confines of a bygone era, where travel was more difficult and an earlier death or arranged marriage were more likely occurrences.

As one last little point, I wanted to pick up on what Radcliffe-Richards was saying. She addressed the power of losing innocence or freedom in our personal worlds, and how the residual feelings can be projected onto the macrocosm of history and onto our greater environment, relating it to the religious meme of our falling from divine favour. It prompted me to think of certain mystics and their wary perspective of Atlantis. The idea that there was a time in history when we had extraordinary power, both psychic and technological, but were too irresponsible to handle it with the appropriate wisdom and care. I'm not saying that's impossible or even unlikely, in this dimension or any other. But it highlighted for me how the same tools we use to heal the wounds of our personal, actual loss, in childhood or after, can also be applied to addressing the more ethereal realms of past-lives and potent archetypes. It remains a question of whether we choose to live in fear, or prefer to imagine something new and remarkably healing is possible.

On that note, I made another little future vision. In a world of abundance, regular and open contact with evolved life forms can take place in people's homes. And those homes can be ships of plenty, whose walls come down when they are landed in warm places.

Future Encounter with Beings of Light

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Melinda:

I am more than OK with you putting your visionary art on my thread.

When I hear of the insights from panels like that, I wanna ask them if they can groove to the FE idea. I have never seen one who did, and some were pretty idealistic, but I might throw my line in with them.

One thing that I would say to them is that there were some Golden Ages of the human past, but they were all based on tapping a new energy supply, and they were all relatively short-lived. I was raised in one, which ended with the first oil crisis. Yeah, I am not complaining, and those who yearn for the "good old days" usually yearn for a fantasy. My grandfather was frank about the "good old days" of his youth.

Obviously, taking hunter-gatherers to an FE world will be a shock, but in a world of abundance, that transition does not need to be painful.

I am going to segue to another topic. Melinda, you have expressed your amazement that some people cannot seem to understand the connection between energy and our modern lives. It is one of the many situations in my work that are hard to believe but true. Again, part of it is that economic ideology in general demotes the real world in favor of social theories of market equilibrium, and that if you price something high, there is always enough of it. Of course, the institution funded by history's greatest energy mogul is where that dominant ideology was born. Hmmm.

Scientists see the connection clearly, which is why they do not have much respect for economists. That is partly why my big essay takes the scientific, real-world approach. But you might be amazed at people who dismiss my work as unimportant, attack it, and so on, even supposedly "enlightened" people. One recent comment that I am getting is that I do not seem to have anything new or important to say at all. Well, I can agree with that, if the reader already knows:

• That there are only two things that we know exist: energy and consciousness;
• The biggest events in the journey of life on Earth were primarily energy events;
• The most significant events in the human journey were energy events, and the biggest had epochal significance;
• Humanity's big social, political, and even cognitive changes resulted from the energy events;
• Our energy practices are quickly making Earth uninhabitable, and we are quickly running out of the energy resources that run the industrialized world, in a "choose your poison" future;
• The technology to make the biggest event in the human journey happen has been on the planet for generations, which can eliminate the looming catastrophe and usher in an unprecedented era of abundance and healing;
• Nearly all of humanity lives in ignorance, denial, or fear of its existence;
• That technology is sequestered by the global elite, however, and organized suppression from their level and lower has defeated all attempts to independently develop such technology;
• The approaches taken by independent efforts have not worked and are unlikely to;
• I advocate a never-before-tried approach, and the people that I respected the most in the field immediately understood that it was something different and had promise.

If you understand all that, then what are we waiting for?

If that message is being communicated anywhere else on Earth, I do not know where. If people understand all of that and am not interested in what I am doing, then we can mutually go our separate ways, and best wishes on their journeys.

There are many related issues, and people often get strung out on them, which is how they hack at branches and so forth. The ET/UFO cover-up is related to the FE cover-up, but only because those technologies will come into the open if the ETs do.

The inventor's route will not work, for several reasons, and I run through the litany of what has not worked and why. It all comes down to the primary lesson of my journey: personal integrity is the world's scarcest commodity. It extends to the global elite, the masses they milk, and those mounting independent efforts to make FE happen. I am not looking for heroes, because there are not enough out there to find, but I am looking for semi-heroes who are brave enough to be real people on the world stage, who can shed their scarcity-based indoctrination and imagine a world based on FE and abundance, and learn to sing with me, and we will see what it shakes up. If I can find enough of them, making FE happen will be easy. Finding them is the hard part.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Today, it was really refreshing to realize something. There has been a scandal recently with reporter Brian Williams admitting that he gilded the lily about the danger he was in during the invasion of Iraq. Of course, that was the least of his lies. But the refreshing part is that I did not even know who the guy was. I went from watching TV while growing up to giving it up at age 18 (and never looking back), so TV careers have come and gone and I never knew who they were, but I still knew who Dan Rather was, for instance, even though I probably only saw him speak for a few minutes during my lifetime. I read the newspaper every day for more than 20 years, but after the Ventura experience and the beginning of my media studies, I stopped reading newspapers in the 1990s. But this is the first time when I realized that a major "news" figure could have his career come and go (he might be done, we will see), and I never knew who the guy was. I consider it a great triumph that I did not even know who he was.

Best,

Wade

[Nine]

Wade,

To the brian williams deal...

I missed led zep and the beatles and the who and dr. who and even star trek due to my ideologies and so now I am awake....

look at it from his point of view...

bad as that is and then think about that average "new" soldier that they send to Iraq on our "generous" education program where you go to war and we pay for your school..."plan" and of course anyone with just a tad bit of personal integrity opts out of that program...as it were...

Duff has a new article out that just is bugging me...

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02...-die-with-you/

Hard hitting for sure...

For me it was like your article on American history only hard truth in a very few seconds...

thanx


Nine

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Nine:

Yes, the dark underbelly of the USA and friends is dark indeed. When people like Rosen sign up with the forces of darkness, they find out that they are expendable. Part of me wonders why they are shocked, but they are. My relative who was the contract CIA agent was expendable. Contract agents are readily expendable, but when employees speak out, like Ralph McGehee did, their lives are made hell. Duff's writings remind me of Rodney Stich's as far as the subject matter and how black it is.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

This morning, I would like to address "revolutionary" thinking, and its distinction from "epochal" thinking. I read this article this morning, and it is a great example of how the more thoughtful view political "revolutions." Like that anarchist writer that Robin promotes, the writers of that article realize that there is a dance between the elite and commoners, in which one gives away its power and the other takes it. This seems to be the name of the game on Earth, as we learn to manage our self-responsibility. Recognizing the dance is good work, but the best insights are about how we all play the game, at varying levels of awareness, and the only real solution is to wake up to the nature of our participation in the game, and then decide if we want to keep dancing. We are all responsible for the world we live in.

What you will find with all "revolutionary" thinking, however, is that it never really addresses the root of the economy, which dictates the structure of all that sits atop it, such as political and social dynamics. They just assume farming, money, government, etc., and do not question them. Why would they, when they are as old as civilization? It is only when people begin to develop epochal perspectives that they can reach a level of awareness that supersedes mentalities such as "revolutionary" thinking. The point of my big essay is to encourage people to learn to think epochally. When we can do that, the view becomes radically different from how "revolutionaries," "radicals," and other political stripes view the world. Another way to view those early layers of the FE Onion is to see them as various perspectives within the current epochal framework, and each is trapped within its framework, unable and unwilling to see beyond it.

Level 0s have no idea that anything exists beyond what they are fed by the primary indoctrination systems. Most do not even care to know. Level 1s have at least heard of something that could end today's epochal phase, but they immediately dismiss it with their ideology of choice. Level 2s are more thoughtful, and Level 3s are probably the most vociferous and sophisticated defenders of the current epochal phase, and their arguments of denial can be quite involved. Of course, all of those Levels, to one degree or another, are afraid of anything that can end the current epoch, and those early levels amount to more than 99% of humanity.

As that article that I began this post with observed, unseating the retail elite is no solution at all, as they are not really where the "power" is. American presidents are little more than actors. The system continues as before, no matter who the retail elite are. Cuba unseated the national elite and tried to change the exchange aspect of economics, and they have been subjected to economic siege for nearly as long as I have been alive, which nearly led to a nuclear holocaust and those dynamics caused the death of the last American president who was not an outright puppet. However, the exchange aspect of economics is not where our problems lie, but in the production aspect. Every person living in industrialized nations has the equivalent of several hundred people waiting on them hand and foot, and those energy slaves are about to starve to death. Next to that, everything else is noise, other than the realization that our energy practices are also rapidly making Earth uninhabitable, which the global elite fully realize.

Radical political, social, and cognitive changes only came about via radical economic change, and I keep returning to the example of bonobos, who overcame male domination when their food supply doubled. Thinking that any fundamental change is going to happen by more equitably re-slicing the scarce economic pie is how "revolutionaries," "radicals," "progressives," and others think. Socialism has had great success in producing people who are far healthier than other political-economic systems, but they were not very feasible until industrialization. It was higher economic production that allowed for a more equitable sharing to occur, but those societies are still burning through their primary resource a million times as fast as it was created.

As Bucky Fuller said, political systems competition is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If people don epochal lenses, they will understand that elites did not appear on the scene until civilization appeared, and they appeared in all four pristine civilizations and all established their rule violently, which shows a kind of convergent evolution when a social animal like humans were at a certain level of economic development. The institution of slavery appeared when people became sedentary, and when the Industrial Revolution began producing what became the equivalent of hundreds of machine slaves per person, then human slavery became an obsolete institution. An FE Revolution will make elites obsolete, and they know it, which is why they have so ardently suppressed it. Elites, like slaves, only make "sense" at a certain level of economic development.

Slavery was made obsolete by industrialization, not by emancipation movements. If you had tried to tell the world about how slavery was an evil and inhumane institution in 1720, before machines began to make the institution obsolete, everybody would have looked at you like you were crazy. Elites will only be made obsolete by an abundance-based economic system, and that can only happen if energy is abundant. When people see elites as the source of our problems, they are thinking like victims and not clearly seeing the situation. Only a creator-oriented perspective can see the tableau, and creators create with love. The elite cannot be the focus of a successful FE effort. They need to be treated like the weather: something that cannot be avoided except maybe during storms, but respected.

The FE conundrum is the biggest one on Earth and the toughest nut to crack, and I have devoted the rest of my life's "spare" time to gnawing on it. I am resuming my career this month, so my "spare" time is about to become a lot more limited. For those who aspire to be in the choir, it is time to raise our games. Time is short.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

As I have mentioned, I am resuming my career this month, and on my writing list of things to do is get that day in Roads World finished, and I will also be publishing version 1.1 of my big essay. It is more like version 1.01, as not a whole lot will change, but I am adding some pieces to reflect what I have been reading since I finished the essay. There will be a little tweaking on the first ice age more than two billion years ago, some on early human migrations and domestication, and how FE talk is similar to atomic bomb/energy talk in the last half of the 1940s. I do not plan for much more than that.

After that, I will likely not be revising that big essay for years, other than the odd typo, and I will be concentrating my limited spare time on finding and training that choir.

Best,

Wade

[Robin]

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)
Hi:

As I have mentioned, I am resuming my career this month, and on my writing list of things to do is get that day in Roads World finished, and I will also be publishing version 1.1 of my big essay. It is more like version 1.01, as not a whole lot will change, but I am adding some pieces to reflect what I have been reading since I finished the essay. There will be a little tweaking on the first ice age more than two billion years ago, some on early human migrations and domestication, and how FE talk is similar to atomic bomb/energy talk in the last half of the 1940s. I do not plan for much more than that.

After that, I will likely not be revising that big essay for years, other than the odd typo, and I will be concentrating my limited spare time on finding and training that choir.

Best,

Wade

You deserve a good break for the Great Work you've done, but I understand the needs of society are calling! Thanks for all the work you've put into compiling your website and especially the Big Essay, Wade. I can't even imagine how much time and energy it would have taken to compile that encyclopedic website. Even though most of humanity is unaware of your work and the importance of it, I like to think that their Higher Selves, or their collective subconcious, is thanking you for your selfless act on the benefit for humanity and the planet.

As they say, there is no rest for the weary. Evil doesn't rest, so how could we, right? Every chess square that is vacant and we do not make a move on, evil has the chance to make its move. Thus far, evil has been the key player of the chess game, gladly taking up the empty squares while their opponent (rest of humanity) is turned around on their seat staring at their i-phones blissfully unaware that they are playing chess whether they like it or not.

I find it ironic that our day-jobs are more in tune with fantasy-land while our underground work is reality, don't you?

Thanks again for your work, Wade.

Robin

[Wade Frazier]

Thanks Robin:

The sentiment is appreciated. When I began with Dennis, way back in 1986 in Seattle, all that I wanted was to make a living while I helped heal the world. But it doesn't pay! When I mortgaged my life, which sprung Dennis from jail, I knew then that parenthood, owning my own home, and other middle-class aspirations were not going be in the cards for me in this lifetime. Ever since then, I have basically juggled earning a living and helping others (putting my wife through grad school, supporting family members) with the study and writing that resulted in my site, and I essentially took six years out of my career to do it. So, my pattern has been to work for free (and barely survive the experience, such as my days with Dennis), dig into debt/burn through my savings, and then work in corporate America digging out. I have played the last round of that game, and now need to see to the family once again.

I have passed up the opportunity for at least a million dollar payday five times on my FE journey. In the end, I suppose all of that was just listening to my conscience, and while I have screwed up plenty on my journey (where many important lessons are learned), I have no regrets. I put my mark on the wall, and while I am not quite done yet, it is going to be up to youngsters like you to save humanity's bacon.

On good and evil, that famous Edmund Burke quote is highly pertinent:


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."


I found this over and over again on my journey, as people abdicated their responsibility and sentience for the promise of security, and the so-called evil ones were happy to oblige. One of the surreal findings of my journey was that the fraction of humanity needed to prevail over "evil" was so small, on the order of 0.001%. Is that asking too much? If it is, then we just may be doomed, but it might be a fitting fate. But I have not given up yet, and judging the sleeping or those who feast on them is a trap. The "bad guys" are just doing what bad guys do, and if there were as many "good guys" as "bad guys" (the entire GC organization is likely smaller than the numbers I seek), and they united their efforts like the GCs do, except in the service of love, the GCs don’t stand a chance, and the fun can begin, and the GCs who decide to stay might find that they like it.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

As I have stated, I am resuming my career this month, and I just mastered up version 1.1 of my big essay. As it was, I only updated a few places in the essay for recent reading and small tweaks that I had been meaning to make for some months.

The sections were primarily:

• The Great Oxygenation Event and the first ice age;
• The absorption/displacement of hunter-gatherers by early farmers;
• The lack of rainforest civilizations;
• The similarity of atom bomb/atomic energy and FE reactions.

I do not anticipate any significant changes for years. Version 2.0 might be five years out, but I do not see any radical changes to the essay. Even if FE arrives on the scene, I kind of doubt that I would greatly revise the essay. Another possible event is ETs landing on the White House lawn. If they do, FE and antigravity will come with them, and those will be the most important developments, and maybe we will get the straight scoop on any influences they may have had on the journey of life on Earth, including the human part. Until that day comes, I will play the cards in my hand.

On the writing front, I'll only have time for high-quality forum interactions, and particularly choir-related ones.

Best,

Wade