WADE FRAZIER : A Healed Planet

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I have been reading The Reluctant Messenger lately on my Kindle, and its primary message so far is that everything is energy. What a concept! Free energy will have transformative effects far beyond making energy bills go away, and the dimensions of that began dawning on me when I became Dennis’s partner. There will never be more dramatic personal empowerment of humanity than the arrival of free energy, and when scarcity and fear are no longer the background hum of the human journey, the human potential will flower in ways that almost nobody today can even imagine.

A lot of what I do in my writings is make clear the awesome toll that scarcity and fear inflict onto humanity. For the people I seek, my writings are intended to help them let go of the many modes of today’s thinking that roots them in the paradigms of scarcity and fear that dominate today. We have to let all of that go if we are going to make a dent.

That stated, I also have designed my approach to not be dangerous to the participants. They will only be at risk if they rush out to proselytize to their social circles. Those circles won’t understand, and won’t begin to, until free energy becomes a daily reality. They aren’t going to be talked into it. Only the true freaks, the awakened, will be able to help with this Epochal task. The rest will slumber until the Fifth Epoch arrives, and it is important to not judge their sleeping state. Everybody sleeps, to one extent or another, in physical reality.

I am not trying to reach the masses with my work, and am not trying to interact with, confront, or focus on the GCs and their games. I seek a middle ground that is unexplored territory. It is enough to acknowledge the GCs’ existence, and be aware of their orientation and the games they play, if only to avoid playing them ourselves. Only the heroic or insane (or insanely heroic ) will even want to tangle with them. Combined positive intention is the key, and operating out of an awareness that has already left this Epoch behind, or at least has one foot in the coming Epoch, is a critical achievement for this Epochal task. That is not an easy trick, as I can attest, but it is what I am attempting, and we will see how it goes.

I recently heard about people astral traveling to the GCs’ lairs on Earth, almost directly from the participants. You can’t even anonymously astral travel there, as their technologies will detect and identify you, and then put you under surveillance. It is one more reason why I stated that thinking that we can sneak past them (Level 7 awareness) is pure folly, and counterproductive thinking. I knew long ago that their surveillance capacity was second to none, and that the idea of sneaking past them was an adolescent fantasy. This effort will not succeed by playing their games. It is time for a different approach. Those approaches rooted in scarcity and fear have all been tried, many times. It is time for an effort based on integrity and sentience, and it won’t be easy, but I know of nothing more worthwhile and needed on Earth today. The approach will work, if enough people can muster the energy for it.

Time for a little hiking.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I was recently reading David Stannard’s preface to Ward Churchill’s masterpiece, the one that cost him his career, and he cited Ed and Noam’s worthy and unworthy victim concept. Over the years, I will get out Stannard’s and Churchill’s American genocide books and reread parts of them. My American genocide and American Empire writings owe a great debt to their work. I have been raiding the footnotes to those works since the 1990s. Stannard began that preface with the prophetic, “Ward Churchill is a man looking for trouble.”

I have written about this issue plenty in my work, but Stannard’s take on it hit me as I recently reread it. Even though the Spaniards did not really intend to exterminate the Western Hemisphere’s natives, they nevertheless did so, in their lust for wealth and power, in the greatest demographic catastrophe in the human journey. The natives were expendable assets in that quest, and when the natives died off in the tens of millions, Africans were imported to get the work done. In Spain there were at least debates on the treatment of the natives, although, in practice, they had no effect.

Contrary to at least some troubling moments of conscience among the Spaniards, the English and, later, Americans celebrated the genocide of the natives, nearly from the beginning. The USA’s Thanksgiving celebrations were originally held to celebrate the slaughter of Indian villages, and George Washington began to bring some order to the celebrations, and declared that one day a year would be set aside for Thanksgiving.

The slaughters continued unabated, and after one particularly brutal slaughter of an Indian village, Denver celebrated the conquering heroes, as they displayed their prizes, such as severed women’s genitalia that they adorned their hats with, and captured children. Those celebrations continued all the way until the last one, at Wounded Knee, and then, in Stannard’s words, “There was, at last, almost no one left to kill.” With the Indians virtually extinct and posing no more “threat,” the USA soon embarked on its imperial ascendance.

A generation later, Hitler began making his plans, and he used the Anglo-American experience in North America as his model: exterminate the natives and take their land. Well, Hitler did that to white people, and that was his crime, and celebrating genocide fell out of favor after World War II. Stannard wrote about that change in the USA, and it bears quoting:


“It has been quite an intellectual pirouette to behold from proudly taking credit for mass murder to blaming the victim – from open celebration of genocide to genocide denial – in a few short generations.”


Stannard and Churchill both took on Jewish-American scholars who denied the American genocide, as they tried to take “ownership” of the concept of genocide, to apply it exclusively to Jews. Those are devastating subjects to study, and I did my time, but as I look back at those works, they were among the most important studies I ever made, and helped me see that they never really stopped, as the imperial juggernaut keeps rolling over humanity. That was also one of Ed and Noam’s central concerns in their writings, which is why they were initially censored, then smeared, and it is largely why Ed’s Wikipedia bio today is libelous.

Back to work.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Briefly, the “experiment” in Seattle is quickly coming to an end, as the protest zone has become a shooting gallery. I have stated it plenty, that the entire issue of American racism, the violent police, and our abysmal “justice” system are really sideshows when compared to the millions of people my great nation slaughters, and nations that we turn to rubble. In the 21^st century, we have done it to four nations (1, 2, 3, 4) and counting, and arguments could be made for more, such as Venezuela, which has been under siege by the USA the entire time.

The USA’s military is the greatest force of evil on Earth, and when NFL players began protesting, they all made it very clear that none of them had anything but the utmost respect for the American military, as it “defended our freedom.” What a Big Lie, and I have yet to see any of the recent protests address that issue. The only time in American history that the actual United States was militarily attacked, or attack was even threatened, was during the war of 1812 (and American land-grabbing belligerence started it), if we disregard the Japanese attack on a gas station in World War II. Hawaii and the Philippines were imperial outposts that we had recently stolen from the natives, just like we did to the American Indian.

Tulsi Gabbard made American foreign policy a campaign issue, and the other Democratic candidates tried to make her disappear. Nobody wanted to hear it.

When protestors begin protesting our imperial foreign policy, I am going to get interested. When I see marches for free energy, I am going to get very interested.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

As an addendum to yesterday’s post, I am not entirely alone with my understanding. Martin Luther King, Jr., said that the USA had an evil triplet to overcome, which was racism, poverty, and war. Here is another writer acknowledging the connections that King saw that today’s protestors largely ignore.

In fact, assassination researchers think that when MLK, Jr., came out against the Vietnam War, he signed his death warrant. When Malcom X returned white racism in kind, he was a firebrand, but when he dropped his racism after his visit to Mecca, and adopted a more human rights perspective than the narrow interests of blacks in the USA, that was when he was targeted for murder.

I can guarantee that while protests are focused on the narrow issue of American racism and police brutality, TPTB know that events are well in hand. It is only when people begin to see the bigger picture of what is happening that they become a threat to the status quo.

The arrival of free energy kills that evil triplet. In the Fifth Epoch, not only does racism end, but also race, as well as nations. Poverty ends immediately, and yes, while dark pathers and the idiot men they manipulate want Orwell’s permanent war, I have a higher opinion of the rest of humanity, and when scarcity ends, so will violence and war, which are humanity’s lowest behaviors.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I don’t like doing this much, as I have to play all sorts of formatting games to make it into a forum post, but I drafted the below this evening, as a chapter of my new essay.

Best,

Wade

Herman and Chomsky’s Ethical Stance and Focus of Their Writings

Before I discuss my experiences with Herman’s Wikipedia bio and related articles, first, I need to summarize his and Chomsky’s stances on various issues, so that the misrepresentations of their work, which are actually libelous at times, are clear.

• Herman’s and Chomsky’s primary focus of their political-economic writings has been the USA, because of their American citizenship.

That is a simple ethical principle, and Chomsky made it clear in his work, going back to his first political essay, on the responsibility of intellectuals. In his Powers and Prospects, Chomsky again addressed the issue, and framed it as one of simple ethics (which Chomsky called a “moral duty”), and Chomsky first discussed Soviet intellectuals. If a Soviet intellectual during the Cold War:

• honestly described American crimes, that was fine but not praiseworthy; a Soviet intellectual’s responsibility was to expose and discuss Soviet crimes, not American ones;
• overstated or concocted American crimes, that was contemptible;
• ignored American crimes, it did not matter; an intellectual’s worth is not measured by castigating enemy regimes for their crimes;
• denied or downplayed American crimes, it was also a trivial matter;
• ignored or downplayed Soviet crimes, it was a criminal act.

Chomsky then applied the same framework to American intellectuals, and the greatest crime that American intellectuals could commit was ignoring the crimes of the American state. As Chomsky (and Herman) saw it, the highest duty of intellectuals is to focus on their state’s crimes, as that is how their citizenship becomes useful, as such activities can help mitigate the crimes and help prevent future crimes.

• When discussing foreign events that the USA was involved with, Herman’s and Chomsky’s purpose was two-fold: discuss the crimes of the American state, and the media’s treatment of them.

From their earliest political-economic works, Herman and Chomsky contrasted American rhetoric and actions, and the double standards that the powerful use to justify their crimes. In their first joint work, they repeatedly noted the double standards of reporting that the New York Times used, particularly regarding the wars in Indochina. They also unveiled a framework that classified “bloodbaths” based on their political-economic utility, which are:


Constructive: crimes that directly advanced American interests, so were celebrated;
Benign: crimes perpetrated by allies and client states, so were ignored;
Nefarious: crimes committed by enemy regimes, so were denounced;
Mythical: a subcategory of nefarious bloodbaths, which were crimes that were either not committed by enemy regimes or were minor events that were inflated into legendary status by exaggeration.


Those categories turned Chomsky’s ethical principles on their head, as they reflected the ethical bankruptcy of the American state. While their initial work emphasized the American state’s crimes more than the media’s treatment of them, their later works began exploring media complicity in the American state’s crimes, particularly since their first work was suppressed in spectacular fashion.

In their second work, which was an expansion of their first censored one, the first volume largely focused on the American state’s unrivaled crimes, while the second investigated their presentation through the American media, and particularly how the American media castigated enemy regimes, with exaggerations and fabrications. Chomsky and Herman showed how the media regularly committed the two greatest crimes that intellectuals can make: downplaying their state’s crimes while overstating or inventing the crimes of enemy regimes. That is what wartime propagandists do. The second volume finished with the observation of the media’s Orwellian feat of turning the USA from a genocidal invader into a bystander of events in Indochina, and even a leader in advocating human rights. In their second joint work, the outline of what became Herman and Chomsky’s PM was evident, which they called a "general theory of the Free Press" at the time.

• Herman’s work in particular was focused on the media’s double standards, not so much on the objective truth of events, other than to highlight American crimes.

More so than Chomsky, whose range of thought may be unequaled on Earth today, Herman tended to focus on the media, as that special case of American intellectual behavior. Herman admitted to me that he neglected the connections between energy and economy, which is one of my work’s primary themes, and I readily forgave his tight focus on the media. Herman was arguably the best media analyst on Earth, even into his 80s, so he had plenty on his plate.

Chomsky and Herman began their After the Cataclysm with the statement that their focus for that book was not on the objective facts of postwar Indochina, but how the media dealt with the available facts, and they repeated that approach several times in the book. Their focus was not on who the heroes and villains were in postwar Indochina, but how the media treated the events. While Chomsky and Herman wrote After the Cataclysm, Time tried to bait Chomsky into expressing support for the Khmer Rouge, in preparation for their Cambodian genocide article. Instead, Chomsky sent Time a list of media fabrications about postwar Cambodia, some of which Time was responsible for. Time could not find any academic who supported the Khmer Rouge, when it wrote its article.

The next chapter will explore the double standards that Wikipedia’s editors and admins have applied, primarily on situations that I was involved with. Herman’s “chutzpah factor” is arguably only an outcome of the other filters at work, and not a filter in of itself, but the implementation of spectacular double standards is an important dynamic in how Wikipedia gets filtered.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I drafted the below chapter this morning. The first thing that a writer has to do is write. The editing comes later, and I have been playing editor lately, moving around sections and the like. But the essay is taking shape, and it is the kind of creative exercise that makes Artisans happy.

Best,

Wade

The Propaganda Model’s Predictions

In Manufacturing Consent, several case studies were presented, which tested the PM’s predictions, and Herman and Chomsky’s first and most famous was on “worthy and unworthy victims,” which was primarily Herman’s work. That study was on media attention paid to priests who were murdered by governments. The study showed that a priest’s murder in an enemy regime was given more than 100 times the media attention that a priest’s murder in a client regime received. Also, the quality of coverage was dramatically different, as worthy victims were given sympathetic, even hagiographic, coverage, while unworthy victims could be portrayed as deserving their murders, even American churchwomen who were raped and murdered by members of El Salvador’s national guard, when the Reagan administration was promoting El Salvador’s “fledgling democracy.” The next case studies were on subjects that Herman had previously written about: the contrast in election coverage in client and enemy regimes, and the media’s coverage of alleged KGB involvement with the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II, which had no basis in reality, but was prominently promoted by the media until the fiction collapsed in the courtroom.

Today’s scientific ideal is proposing hypotheses and then adducing evidence to test their validity. The social sciences present challenges to hypothesis testing not generally found in the physical and biological sciences, and Herman and Chomsky examined paired examples in most of their PM testing. Chomsky thought that the PM was “one of the best-confirmed theses in the social sciences.” After Manufacturing Consent was published, Chomsky talked and wrote about the PM at length, and made several observations and predictions.

Chomsky posited three orders of predictions, the first of which was on how bloodbaths would be treated in the media. That prediction has always been confirmed, and particularly that “nefarious” bloodbaths were subjected to all manner of exaggeration and fabrication. The second order prediction was that studies such as those found in Manufacturing Consent would be absent in the media, and that even a mention of them would not be found, as such discussions would threaten the foundational assumptions of the entire media enterprise. Chomsky called such discussions “dysfunctional” to the organizations, and that: “The ‘Propaganda Model’ in fact predicts that it won’t be discussable in the media.”

Chomsky observed that in testing the PM, they had to let the media choose their turf, in situations for which they argued that they were checks on power, not subservient to it. The Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal were two examples in which the media portrayed themselves as public-interest servants who earned popular victories over the corrupt elite, even taking down a sitting president. However, when those events were studied, they still strongly confirmed the PM.

The PM’s third-order prediction was that exposure of the facts would elicit no reaction for constructive bloodbaths, “occasionally noted without interest in the case of benign bloodbaths; and it will lead to great indignation in the case of nefarious bloodbaths.” That third order prediction is the most germane to this essay, as the bulk of Herman’s Wikipedia bio is devoted to his exposure of the facts in three “nefarious” bloodbaths: Cambodia, the former Yugoslavia, and Rwanda.

The next chapter will explore the double standards that Wikipedia’s editors and admins have applied, primarily on situations that I was involved with. Herman’s “chutzpah factor” is arguably only an outcome of the other filters at work, and not a filter in of itself, but the implementation of spectacular double standards is an important dynamic in how Wikipedia gets filtered.

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Boy, does my new Kindle ever get a workout. For somebody who reads as much as I do, reading that Kindle is now a daily experience, especially since I am stuck at home. I finished reading this last night, which is another afterlife book that I loaded up on my Kindle. I have been kind of surprised at how much channeled/afterlife/NDE stuff I have been reading lately.

No two afterlife experiences are the same, and every afterlife book I have read has been different, too, but there are definitely common themes. We all live forever. That much, is clear. I guess that one thing that has kind of surprised me is how much trouble people often have after they pass over. It is rarely some kind of transcendent experience of being ushered into the presence of God, but more like just another chapter in existence, and the importance of living physical lives comes through clearly in all accounts I have read, as important lessons are to be had here that can be had nowhere else. But does it have to be so hard?!

One takeaway from that book that I finished last night was that the author stated that humanity was on a brink of creating its own self-extinction (a common hazard of being an ensouled species), brought on by our rape of the planet, and Global Warming, most importantly.

What my studies make clear is that if humanity does exterminate itself, while Global Warming may be the ultimate cause, it is really “only” going to be the catalyst for other events, such as global famine, pandemics, and maybe World War III. We definitely have our toes out over the edge of the abyss, and I know how to solve all of it, almost overnight, but I can’t do it by myself, so I keep seeking those needles in haystacks.

I am barreling along on my new essay, and it is going well. Maybe I’ll publish it, along with the update to Ed’s bio, in the coming week.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I drafted this chapter of my new essay today.

Best,

Wade

The Structural Failings of Herman’s Wikipedia Biography and Related Articles

Before discussing the treatment of Herman’s bio and related articles, the articles’ structural failures merit review, particularly Herman’s bio, which is far more distorted than the other articles. Comparing the version I wrote versus Herman’s Wikipedia bio today should make the structural failings of his current biography obvious, but is worth some comment. On a positive note, before my involvement, his bio was worse than it is today.

Today, in his Wikipedia bio, his academic career merits one sentence, even though he authored or co-authored some landmark works, which had far greater importance and notability than most publications presented at Wikipedia. But, Herman’s primary “notability” remains his work with Chomsky, and understandably so, although Herman’s political writings were notable before collaborating with Chomsky. In the preface to the 2014 edition of After the Cataclysm, Chomsky and Herman wrote that, by far, the most important part of their first uncensored joint books was their work on the American-sponsored genocide in East Timor, as the exposure of American-backed crimes could have spurred the American government to stop supporting the genocide, which in fact happened 20 years later. The authors noted that East Timor was rarely mentioned in reviews of their work, as well as their coverage of the USA’s many other imperial crimes, which was the focus of The Washington Connection. However, they noted that in “dramatic contrast,” a huge literature was devoted to their chapter in After the Cataclysm about postwar Cambodia, as their critics tried to find an error in their work or made the case that Chomsky, and to a lesser extent, Herman, were Khmer Rouge apologists. Not only were all such charges clearly false, Chomsky later stated that with all of the scrutiny devoted to their chapter on Cambodia, nobody has been able to find even a “missed comma.”

That ignoring of East Timor and obsessive focus on Cambodia exactly conforms to the PM’s predictions, as the East Timor genocide was a “benign” bloodbath, while the Cambodian genocide was a “nefarious” one. Ironically, the media produced defamatory propaganda as a response to the exposure of the media’s propaganda. Herman’s Wikipedia bio mirrors that propagandistic treatment, as there is no discussion of Herman’s writings on East Timor, the largest section of Herman’s bio is on Cambodia, and that section leads with a link to “Cambodian genocide denial.” Not only that, there is no discussion in Herman’s bio that the PM predicts that treatment. The Cambodia section of Herman’s bio also stated that After the Cataclysm was “one of the most supportive books of the Khmer Revolution,” when it explicitly wasn't. Where did that libelous statement come from? Time unsuccessfully tried to bait Chomsky into voicing support for the Khmer Rouge, so who could make such a preposterous claim? That statement came from Sophal Ear’s master’s thesis. Ear’s primary “notability” comes from attacking Chomsky. But that false statement is presented in the Cambodia section as responsible criticism. The source is not notable, and the claim is libelous. The other critique of Chomsky and Herman’s Cambodian writings came via a self-published site, Mekong.net, which is about as “notable” as my site, and is far from what Wikipedia deems a “reliable source.” In Ear’s master’s thesis, which is also quoted in that Cambodia section, he also claimed that Chomsky and Herman’s media critique was a ruse, so that Chomsky’s “favorable position towards the Khmer revolution would be hidden by the cloak of criticizing the print media's biases.” Ear ignored the explicitly stated purpose of After the Cataclysm (and subsequent work, such as Manufacturing Consent), to instead read Chomsky’s and Herman’s minds and declare that their work was secretly about supporting the Khmer Rouge. That is a conspiracy theory about Chomsky and Herman’s work, which has no supporting evidence. That is hardly the stuff of a respectable biography, but more like tabloid fodder.

The other sections of Herman’s bio also focus on his treatment of “nefarious” bloodbaths, in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. It is only in the last discussion of Herman’s bio that the terms “constructive” and “nefarious” are even mentioned, when that framework was established in Chomsky and Herman’s first joint work. Perhaps predictably, I had to introduce that framework at Wikipedia, and I did it twice (1, 2). It won’t be allowed in Herman’s bio, as the presentation of that framework would expose the bio’s ideological nature, but, so far, my additions have not been reverted.

In summary, the structural failures of Herman’s Wikipedia bio are that of emphasis. His academic career merited a sentence, his vast writings on “terrorism,” the media’s propaganda treatment of elections, depending on whether client or enemy regimes held them, his editorship of the award-winning Lies of Our Times, his three decades of writing for Z Magazine, his writings on Russia, Latin America, and many nations that the USA has targeted and militarily attacked, are barely mentioned, if at all. Instead, most of his bio is devoted to his exposures of “nefarious” bloodbaths, while not admitting that they are “nefarious” bloodbaths, while also libeling him.

The book which initiated the global campaign to falsely portray Chomsky and Herman as Khmer Rouge supporters has a small article, which does not mention that campaign. That campaign was very high profile, with a far higher profile than the actual book had, so at least mentioning it seemed prudent. When I made the revision to that article, I added a section on that campaign, which was quickly reverted. Instead, the Cambodia section of Herman’s bio links to a section on “Cambodia Genocide Denial,” which is a very curious denial, as nobody denies it today. The only “denial” was when nobody outside of Cambodia really knew what was happening. The extent of the genocide only began to become clear after the invasion by Vietnam overthrew the Khmer Rouge in 1979, and then the USA supported Pol Pot into the 1990s. The primary supporter of the Khmer Rouge was the American government, after they knew that Pol Pot and crew were genocidists. As Chomsky has written, Cambodia was the target of a propaganda campaign, and the central claim of the campaign – that the Khmer Rouge committed genocide – later turned out to be accurate. However, that does not reflect well on the media. Chomsky has stated that deliberately lying and being right by accident is not the same thing as telling the truth.

Interested readers can see my article revisions before they were erased, for what more reasonable article structures might look like, particularly the greatly skewed Herman bio.

[Chris Gilbert]

Over the past month I've been reading up on the BLM protests and riots here in the US, along with attempts in some precincts to defund the police, and the CHAZ over in Seattle.

For the most part, I've been shaking my head.

So much youthful energy being wasted hacking at branches! For many, especially when young, it's tempting to take out one's frustration at the world and adopt a "BURN IT ALL DOWN!" mindset. Easy enough to say until your business gets looted or your own family is hurt! On that note, I have to remind myself that some of that anarchist/libertarian silliness might have appealed to me as recently as ten years ago. It takes time to develop comprehensive awareness. The really frustrating thing though is observing people who I thought knew better get led around like Pavlovian dogs by either right-wing or left-wing echo chambers.

In terms of bringing about change via comprehensive awareness and free energy, I'd say that the adoption of cancel culture/social credit style tactics is of major concern. Discussion is imperative to develop comprehensive awareness, and that can't be done if one is constantly at risk of being cancelled due to being accused of one of the growing -isms, or simply going against what the medical/academic "experts" deem to be gospel truth. As has been noted before on this thread, "educated" "smart" people are actually the biggest hindrance to bringing about free energy, far more so than any covert group or organization!

Normally I'm very selective about who I discuss given topics with, but this is a recent post from my facebook wall:

On a more sobering note, I'd say that most attempts to end racism or any other -ism or injustice largely go nowhere relative to the amount of energy people invest in it. Even when it doesn't spiral into violence and cancel culture nonsense, the main benefits occur in person to person interactions and growth, but the actual root issues are unchanged. It's similar to how "fighting terrorism" was a futile smokescreen.

The reasons are, people generally hack at branches and don't have comprehensive awareness. Studies show that even babies display in-group preference towards similar faces. Old school slavery was the norm for thousands of years, and didn't really go away until the Industrial Revolution and machine power rendered it obsolete.

In-group preference is hard coded into the unconscious as a survival fail safe, and to alter those unconscious parameters of what an in-group encompasses, there generally has to be a MAJOR change in environment and available resources/economic organization. For that reason, I would say most problems today won't disappear until we switch to a different energy resource that can't be as easily centralized, which will in turn restructure how society functions. Said changes would probably take 3-5 generations, just as the Civil War and the end of slavery in the US occurred 100 years after the Industrial Revolution began in 1760."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/28/polit...4hcb02byimlkus

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

As when I wrote Ed’s bio, I feel a lot of pressure to produce something worthy of Ed’s life and work, as I work on my new essay. There are none of my smart-assed comments in it, which abound in my forum writings, and I have also had to be very careful to try to keep my journey out of it, as this is about Ed. Well, the new essay is about Ed, me, and Wikipedia, so I can’t keep all of it out. Below is the introduction to my adventures with Ed’s Wikipedia bio.

I’ll go pretty deep on specific incidents, and will begin that narrative with Phillip Cross’s edits. He is probably Wikipedia’s most infamous editor. That comes next, probably later this week, as my day job gets busy once again.

Best,

Wade

Wikipedia: In Theory and Practice – My Experiences

There are many accounts on the Internet that address Wikipedia’s hypocrisy and other failings. For instance, in that previously mentioned Atlantic article on Wikipedia’s sexism, when a female editor was sexually harassed, she complained to Wikipedia, which resulted in Wikipedia’s banning her. But the below narrative will primarily focus on my experiences with Wikipedia.

I produced an unabridged version of my experiences with trying to improve Herman’s Wikipedia biography, here. To make a very long story short, I was an alternative and free energy revolutionary in the 1980s, and my former partner made the biggest run ever made to bring alternative energy technology to the marketplace, as he put the world’s best heating system on people’s homes for free. I met my future partner as his effort was being wiped out by a government-media alliance in my natal city, waged on behalf of the local energy interests. I soon became his partner, and we pursued free energy, which means abundant energy that is harmlessly produced. We soon attracted global interest, and after my partner rejected a billion-dollar offer, delivered by the CIA on behalf of “European interests,” to shut down our operation, our nightmare truly began, which was inflicted by another government-media alliance (with provocateurs infiltrated into our organizations (1, 2)), waged on behalf of private interests once more.

My partner was lucky to survive the experience, while my life and the lives of many others were ruined and even shortened (1, 2). My youth and idealism allowed me to survive that experience with my health and sanity relatively intact. At the tail-end of that ordeal, I went to work for the largest privately owned medical laboratory in the USA, which was almost immediately attacked by a similar government-media alliance.

In early 1990, I heard an interview on talk radio in Los Angeles, which announced a new magazine that Herman edited, and my media studies began later that year, when I subscribed to it. The next year, I met a former astronaut who was beginning his own free energy investigation, and we eventually co-founded an organization to educate the public on the free energy issue. During those years soon after my revolutionary days, I learned that free energy and related technologies such as antigravity are likely older than I am, and that became common knowledge among my associates, although the media will never report on any of it. In 1992, I first contacted Chomsky. I first contacted Herman in 2001, when I also contacted Howard Zinn. They were all among my most gracious correspondents, and some of the greatest humans that my nation has yet produced.

In 2008, I tried to improve a massacre list at Wikipedia that was racist and wildly unbalanced. A friend and I introduced massacres of Native Americans that were omitted from that list. We provided the first additions to that list with scholarly support, to watch them all be reverted by the editors and admins in mere days.

In 2009, I became my astronaut colleague’s biographer, and got his NASA bio published, as well as improving his Wikipedia bio, which was a sorry excuse for one before I got involved. It took several years before I was finished with trying to improve his bio, but it finally became something that I could live with.

So, I was well-acquainted with Wikipedia’s shortcomings when I wished Herman a happy birthday on what turned out to be his last, in April 2017. As part of that greeting, I observed how abysmal his Wikipedia biography was, offered to help improve it, and showed him my astronaut colleague’s Wikipedia biography. Herman admitted how disgusting his Wikipedia biography was, asked me to help improve it (but insisted, with his characteristic integrity, that I was under no obligation to), and that was all the encouragement that I needed. I immediately devoted my spare time to studying his work, in depth, to prepare for writing his biography.

Herman soon went silent as his health failed. He died later that year, and never got to see my efforts. For several months after Herman’s death, I worked on his biography, and then I spent about 100 of hours of effort in preparing improvements to his biography and related articles at Wikipedia. In July 2018, I finally published them, to see them all be erased by that admin in mere hours, as he used flimsy and faulty logic, while making false accusations, insults, and even swearing. Other than being Herman’s fan who had corresponded with him, none of the other admin’s charges regarding my work on Herman’s bio were valid, as he played policeman, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. When I began the process, Herman did not have a Wikiquotes page, so I made one, and it is about the only fair treatment that his work gets in the Wiki-universe today, as his voice is finally heard, free of libel and misrepresentations. So, not all is lost in the Wiki-universe.

That rude admin also erased much of my work on my astronaut colleague’s biography. Fortunately, even as a stub, my astronaut colleague’s Wikipedia bio today is not libelous, and is a vast improvement over what it was before I got involved. I’ll have to live with it as is. But his biography is now silent on what he considered his most important work: free energy and its transformative potential. My remedy will be to make a Wikiquotes page for him, as I did for Herman, and at least some of his free energy views will be in the Wiki-universe, especially since his personal website disappeared from the Internet in 2020, despite my repeated offers to host his site. I saved some pieces of it (1, 2). I believe that the only editorial “crime” that I ever committed at Wikipedia was on my astronaut colleague’s biography, that is a little story in of itself, and that situation is doubly ironic, as the words that the admin erased were that astronaut’s own words.

One of my pupils witnessed what happened, protested my treatment, and was banned from Wikipedia himself, once again on false pretenses. But he persisted, enlisted famous help (who was surprised by the “aggressiveness” shown in erasing my work), and five months after the original erasure of my work, Wikipedia unerased my changes. They are all still reverted and may never appear in Herman’s bio or the related articles, but at least Wikipedia’s readers can see what I wrote, if they do a little digging.

[Wade Frazier]

Thanks Chris!

Great post, and grist for the mill. Always good to hear from you. Yes, lots of hacking at branches these days, and as one pal recently wrote, Americans would have to wake up A LOT to even begin to understand American foreign policy, much less free energy and its implications.

If I may be so bold, however, I think that the transition to the Fifth Epoch will happen faster than several generations, or at least the important changes. The basic changes will happen within two generations, I believe, at least the ones that take us away from the edge of the abyss and raise everybody’s standard of living far beyond today’s industrial lifestyles.

Once we turn that corner, the rest can be leisurely, and I doubt that there will be much “struggle,” as there will be plenty for everybody. So, yes, I’ll agree that it will likely take a century or two before nations and races end, cities as we know them, and the like. But coercion will play no role in the transition. People are just going to start figuring it out, and quickly, and see what works best. I think that the nuclear family will become quaint.

I agree that there will be a certain “cultural momentum,” such as idiot men wanting to weaponize it, which is why I recommend those peacekeeping grandmothers, for probably only a generation, so that the stupidity of weaponizing free energy is obvious to everybody, and nobody will need to be reminded any more. Oh, there may always be some kind of vigilance for misuse, but I don’t expect that to be a big effort, similar to trying to prevent people from playing Russian roulette. People are just not that stupid, to keep doing something destructive and self-destructive when it serves no purpose and its stupidity would be obvious to everybody. I see a quick end of weapons in general, as they would no longer make any sense.

So, I’ll agree that all of the transition to the Fifth Epoch may well take centuries, but the really important changes, those that end the threat of the Sixth Mass Extinction, that might take humanity with it, will happen in about a generation, maybe less. Maybe God will let me live to see it.

While the Industrial Revolution indeed made slavery economically obsolete, it wasn’t like peace and plenty immediately reigned. The South is still relatively unindustrialized, compared to the North (think blue states). Newly freed slaves became direct competitors to poor southern whites, and that is where the KKK, Jim Crow, and the like arose from.

The free energy technologies that I am aware of could be mass-produced cheaply, and would be that ideal decentralized power that you refer to. I have written that the day after the USA gratuitously nuked Hiroshima, journalists began writing about the transformative potential of a new energy source. That enthusiasm only lasted a few years, as the Cold War escalated and the hazards of nuclear power became clear. IMO, people would quickly awaken to the potential, once it arrives. Before then, only a tiny proportion will.

In my lifetime, I have had relatively affluent periods, and adjusting to affluence is pretty easy to do. So, I think that the arrival of free energy will almost immediately solve our most pressing issues, on the order of maybe a decade or so. I am referring to a scenario in which free energy, antigravity, and other technologies were freely available, not struggling to get past the organized suppression. The commercial-level technology is already here.

My current thinking is that the people alive if and when free energy makes its appearance may never quite shake all of their scarcity-based conditioning in their lifetimes, but they can come close. I think that their children, however, will easily discard the scarcity mindset, if they ever adopt it in the first place.

You bring up a very important topic, and I encourage more discussion like this, as it is the fun part!

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Briefly, J. K. Rowling is making the news again (1, 2), and good for her. I’ll make a point that she does: the primary reason for separate-sex facilities is to protect women from men. Seattle went off the deep end on this issue before CHAZ/CHOD had its day in the sun. This is a subject that I have long written about, and recently.

I see this as all just part of the challenge of becoming a truly sentient species, and the insanity of the current times, when we either get over the hump or slide all the way back down to the bottom of the hill. I recently wrote about Wikipedia’s racism and sexism, but what should we expect? This stuff is baked deeply.

As long as we live in a world of scarcity and fear, we are going to create in-groups and out-groups, and all of our dominant ideologies elevate one group at the expense of others. I didn’t even put racism and sexism on my list of scarcity-based ideologies, as they were too obvious and primitive.

In my home state, men can be accused out of the thin air of committing some kind of sexual crime, and away they go to jail and a ruined life. I have seen it happen, and I know men who are terrified of dating because of this, as the pendulum has swung way, way out there the other way. It is all about winners and losers, not justice, but that is nothing new, as laws get used as weapons.

In the Fifth Epoch, this craziness will end. People are not going to be mutilating their bodies for fashion or trying to ape the other gender, and their skin color won’t matter (and that difference will soon disappear, anyway). Long ago, Seth said that pouring our identities into our sexuality was quite limiting, as gender is down the hierarchy a ways, as far as qualities that matter to our human expression. In the Fifth Epoch, we may well see a lot more androgyny, and a person’s sexual orientation won’t be important. There will be plenty of procreation and no need to breed farmhands, so the angst around all of that should disappear, and I expect the nuclear family to also wither and maybe vanish. What will replace it will be vastly more enlightened, and nobody will be abused for any reason. We will have better things to do with our lives.

But just like how I can’t become black or Indian ( ), no matter how much I might want to “identify” in those ways, a man can’t really become a woman, or vice versa. That is a journey that comes with our DNA, and is non-negotiable. People are free to deny their biological realities or try to change them, but that comes with a cost, which can be a great one, and the medical racket loves catering to this current trend, as they get customers for life. That, IMO, is a huge, neglected aspect of what is happening, as the medical model goes into overdrive, as we have surgeries, drugs, and hormones to suit anybody’s fancy. As long as that aspect of it remains unquestioned, I don’t see this getting better anytime soon, or before the Fifth Epoch arrives. As long as we have capitalism, we will have a medical racket.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I just finished the last heavy lift of my new essay, which is my section on Philip Cross. So, it is looking good to get the new essay and the update of Ed’s bio done in the next week or so. Below is the draft of that section. It is going to tick off some Wikipedia folks.

Best,

Wade

Philip Cross’s Edits

Long before I published my changes at Wikipedia in July 2018, I knew that I was in for a battle. For instance, the dominant editing of Herman’s bio was through an account named “Philip Cross,” who might be Wikipedia’s most infamous editor (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15). While the person exists, the edits made under that account are almost certainly not all his. He has not had a day off from editing in several years, and has made far more than 100,000 edits. That Philip Cross account likely represents an operation, not an individual, which may well be intelligence related. “Cross” is very lawyerly in “his” work, understanding all of the intricacies of Wikipedia’s policies, but “Cross’s” work on Herman, for instance, is libelous. Wales has defended Cross a number of times, and they serially edited Jeffrey Epstein’s biography, soon before his “suicide.” It was interesting how much they were both interested in spinning that issue, which tainted British royalty. When the founder of the White Helmets operation was found dead, Cross immediately began editing the founder’s Wikipedia bio, as Cross spin-doctored it on behalf of his deceased ally. Some authors in that numbered list above have noted the happy coincidence that Cross’s political beliefs mirror Wales’s.

Cross has been the most active, prominent, and malicious editor of Herman’s bio, but far from the only one. Below, I will discuss some of his specific edits to Herman’s bio, and the double standards that Cross uses when editing Wikipedia.

• Suppression of Counter-Revolutionary Violence

I covered that issue at length in a post to the talk page of Herman’s bio, which was at least not erased. I published it in conjunction with my changes to Herman’s bio, and similar to Chomsky’s third order prediction of the PM, for the Establishment response to the exposure of the facts for “constructive bloodbaths,” not a peep has been heard from the assailant editors, that rude admin, or Cross. Cross’s editorial crime, which is still reflected in Herman’s bio to this day, has passed unaddressed and indeed unmentioned by that gang of editors of Herman’s bio, or that rude admin. It is also worse than that, as when other editors tried to remove the misleading account of the censorship, the gang of editors immediate reinstated it. One of the most outrageous instances of Western censorship in my lifetime has been effectively censored in the bio of one of the censored authors.

• Double standards on reliable sources

Cross’s misrepresentation of the suppression of Counter-Revolutionary Violence was indefensible, which is why it has passed in silence at Wikipedia, but it was far from Cross’s only editorial crime on Herman’s bio, and Cross was far from alone in making Herman’s biography into the libelous article that it is today. One issue in particular has been used to smear both Herman and Chomsky: their writings about Cambodia. The Cambodia section of Herman’s bio is led by a link to “Cambodian genocide denial,” and in all writings at Wikipedia about Chomsky and Herman’s treatment of postwar Cambodia, the primary sources are Sophal Ear and Bruce Sharp. Sharp runs Mekong.net and is about its only contributing author. Mekong.net is a one-man-show, like my site is. Sharp is a former janitor who self-admittedly does not have scholarly pretentions, and his work shows it, with lurid essay titles, such as accusing Chomsky and Herman of being “evil scholars.” Ear’s work on Chomsky is not notable, and is clearly libelous. Sharp’s work is similarly non-notable, and it also misrepresents Herman’s and Chomsky’s work. On the Internet, the only essay that I am aware of that addresses Ear’s and Sharp’s writings on Chomsky and Cambodia is this one, by Joshua Buermann, which is written in a humorously sarcastic style.

Buermann’s essay was primarily concerned with assessing the accusations directed at Chomsky and Herman ever since After the Cataclysm was published: “Are they genocide deniers and supporters of Pol Pot?” Buermann agreed that Chomsky and Herman were primarily concerned with the media’s treatment of postwar Cambodia, which was made clear in the first paragraph of After the Cataclysm, and the authors repeated that emphasis several times in that book. Both Ear and Sharp dismissed the book’s clearly stated purpose with specious logic and took Chomsky and Herman to task for their presentation of the objective reality of postwar Cambodia, when that was not what they presented, nor was it the purpose for writing After the Cataclysm. After the Cataclysm is the immediate precursor to Manufacturing Consent in the Chomsky-Herman canon, and the themes are similar, if more developed in Manufacturing Consent.

To make matters worse, Ear and Sharp cited works to demonstrate that Chomsky and Herman were wrong about their assessment of postwar Cambodia, but they cited works that were published after Chomsky and Herman’s book was, which Buermann called a “time warp” criticism. Ear and Sharp were silent on what Chomsky and Herman specifically addressed in After the Cataclysm: the media’s treatment of postwar Cambodia. Ear and Sharp’s work was illogical on multiple levels, and they perpetrated a variation of the straw man argument. It is easy to read Chomsky’s and Herman’s work, read Ear and Sharp’s, and see how Ear and Sharp consistently miss the point of Chomsky’s and Herman’s work.

It is noteworthy that Ear was a Cambodian refugee who fled to the USA when the USA supported Pol Pot, but his targets have primarily been Chomsky and the United Nations, with never a harsh word toward his adopted nation or his employers, which has often been the American military, which created the Cambodian catastrophe in the first place. That is a curious focus for his work.

Buermann’s essay concluded that Chomsky and Herman performed reasonably regarding the question that they posed, on the media’s performance. As Chomsky later noted, before they published After the Cataclysm, they sent the manuscript to Cambodian specialists, and nobody made any significant criticisms. There was nothing to honestly and rationally dispute about their investigation of the media’s treatment of postwar Cambodia. But, that did not stop the propaganda bandwagon from rolling over Chomsky, and to a lesser extent, Herman. They suspected what was coming and tried to forestall it, to no avail.

That Ear and Sharp are the two primary authors cited at Wikipedia demonstrates the issue’s legitimacy. Buermann devoted another page of his site to the dishonesty and irrationality of academic attacks on Chomsky’s political work. In 2002, Buermann delved into Chomsky’s writings and criticisms of his work. I did the same thing, a decade before Buermann did. Herman and Chomsky wrote prodigiously and controversially, so what might they have gotten wrong, and did their critics make valid points? I rarely found any criticisms of Herman’s and Chomsky’s work that had any merit. It was nearly all lies, misrepresentations, and fallacies of logic. I eventually fielded similar reactions to my work. Incidentally, about 20 years ago, Ear heard from me about his work on Chomsky. I was not happy with his meritless attacks on Chomsky’s work.

Ear and Sharp are clearly not notable or credible sources for critiquing After the Cataclysm. So, why are they the primary sources of Wikipedia’s critique of it? That is where Cross comes in.

Cross added those libelous statements from Ear’s Master’s thesis, and defended it by stating that it has been “much cited, despite its lowly origins.” Eight years ago, Cross singlehandedly elevated a libelous master’s thesis to a “reliable source,” and that treatment is on Herman’s bio to this day. Cross also added the reference to Mekong.net the day before he added the Ear quote.

The PropOrNot smear campaign, which the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post promoted, was a devastating blow to the alternative media, and the other tech giants joined ranks to reduce the traffic to those smeared sites. AlterNet was a casualty of that neo-McCarthyite effort, as its traffic plunged by two-thirds, and it was sold the next year. I predict that history will not look kindly on the White Helmets operation, which is clearly a propaganda operation that was founded by a member of British intelligence. When that founder died last year, under suspicious circumstances, Cross leapt into the fray, spin-doctoring that founder’s Wikipedia bio, and Cross deleted a reference to an AlterNet article, while calling AlterNet not a “reliable source.” At AlterNet’s own article at Wikipedia, it can be seen that NPR named AlterNet one of the five best news sites on the Internet in 2001, and AlterNet won several awards.

I recently had the “honor” of having Cross hunt for Wikipedia references to my work, and he deleted one, here, soon before I wrote this essay, as my writings have struck a nerve at Wikipedia. Briefly, my site and Mekong.net are roughly equally notable, although my work could be argued to be more notable. For instance, an academic journal published the 2001 version of my Columbus essay, soon after I contacted Zinn about it. What is ironic about Cross’s deletion of a Wikipedia reference to my site, while he adds references to the likes of Sophal Ear and Bruce Sharp, is that my essay that he deleted the link to is considered the last word on the subject, ever since I first published it in 2007. I have seen it referenced in newspapers and books since then, and nobody with any credibility has ever disputed that essay, as the evidence that I used is easily reproducible and in the public domain. On the other hand, Ear’s and Sharp’s works are misleading and even libelous. But Ear and Sharp are reliable sources, while AlterNet and I are not. These are merely some of Cross’s behaviors that cross Herman’s line from hypocrisy into chutzpah.

• Other Cross edits

Several weeks before adding the references to Ear and Sharp, Cross added another libelous quote to Herman’s bio, on Herman’s work on the Srebrenica massacre, and specifically Herman’s formation of the Srebrenica Research Group. Cross added a statement attributed to Marko Attila Hoare, which asserts that the purpose of the Srebrenica Research Group was to, “propagate the view that the Srebrenica massacre never happened.” Herman wrote prolifically on the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the West’s contribution to it. But a reader will search in vain for even a hint in Herman’s writings that the “Srebrenica massacre never happened.” Readers can see for themselves the report by the Srebrenica Research Group, and Herman wrote the report’s preface, as well as edited it. What the Srebrenica Research Group actually did was examine the evidence on the Srebrenica massacre, which was another “nefarious” bloodbath, and show how the massacre of perhaps 800 men got inflated into a “genocide” (and the Serbs bussed out the women and children before the slaughter began, which alone defeats any kind of “genocide” label). Herman co-authored a book on the media’s double standards for the use of the word “genocide,” and the disparities that Herman and David Peterson adduced are the greatest that I have ever seen in the social sciences.

Hoare is arguably more notable than Ear is, but in an infamous way. Hoare’s greatest claim to fame was working for the Yugoslavian war crimes tribunal, which is notable for its many judicial irregularities. Hoare specifically worked on the tribunal’s indictment of Slobodan Milosevic, which is one of the more outrageous legal maneuvers in the past century, as it was announced during the USA’s unprovoked bombing of Serbia. Hoare’s writings are easy to find on the Internet, to see the tenor of his work. Hoare’s statement on the Srebrenica Research Group’s purpose kind of says it all about his credibility. Herman, as he had done since the 1960s, focused on the double standards of treatment more than the objective reality. Herman wrote that the Racak “massacre” was a “mythical” one, in his and Chomsky’s framework, while the Srebrenica massacre was “nefarious.”

Herman wrote about one event that really was part of a genocide, which happened only a few months before the Srebrenica massacre. Unlike the fantasy numbers of 8,000 men being executed at Srebrenica, Paul Kagame’s forces actually did slaughter around 8,000 men, women, and children in a Hutu refugee camp. Like East Timor and Western awareness, virtually nobody in the West ever heard of the Kibeho massacre, as it was committed by an ally, not a demonized target such as Serbia. Kagame’s forces slaughtered millions of people, but it was a “benign” bloodbath, so it goes unmentioned in the Western media, while Kagame is feted as a heroic figure.

Those are among the chief libels in Herman’s Wikipedia bio today, all authored by Cross. Perusing Cross’s other edits clearly demonstrate how petty and vindictive they can be. One last example should make the issue clear. When Chomsky’s career is finally finished, and the corpus of his work sits beside Einstein and Socrates on the shelf of the history of Western thought, he may well be most famous for Manufacturing Consent, even though Herman was the primary author. Since Herman’s death, I have read three scholarly works devoted to his memory. But in Cross’s view, Herman’s work does not merit the term “scholarship,” so Cross deleted it from Herman’s biography.

[WhiteFeather]

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)
Hi:

I was recently reading David Stannard’s preface to Ward Churchill’s masterpiece, the one that cost him his career, and he cited Ed and Noam’s worthy and unworthy victim concept. Over the years, I will get out Stannard’s and Churchill’s American genocide books and reread parts of them. My American genocide and American Empire writings owe a great debt to their work. I have been raiding the footnotes to those works since the 1990s. Stannard began that preface with the prophetic, “Ward Churchill is a man looking for trouble.”

I have written about this issue plenty in my work, but Stannard’s take on it hit me as I recently reread it. Even though the Spaniards did not really intend to exterminate the Western Hemisphere’s natives, they nevertheless did so, in their lust for wealth and power, in the greatest demographic catastrophe in the human journey. The natives were expendable assets in that quest, and when the natives died off in the tens of millions, Africans were imported to get the work done. In Spain there were at least debates on the treatment of the natives, although, in practice, they had no effect.

Contrary to at least some troubling moments of conscience among the Spaniards, the English and, later, Americans celebrated the genocide of the natives, nearly from the beginning. The USA’s Thanksgiving celebrations were originally held to celebrate the slaughter of Indian villages, and George Washington began to bring some order to the celebrations, and declared that one day a year would be set aside for Thanksgiving.

The slaughters continued unabated, and after one particularly brutal slaughter of an Indian village, Denver celebrated the conquering heroes, as they displayed their prizes, such as severed women’s genitalia that they adorned their hats with, and captured children. Those celebrations continued all the way until the last one, at Wounded Knee, and then, in Stannard’s words, “There was, at last, almost no one left to kill.” With the Indians virtually extinct and posing no more “threat,” the USA soon embarked on its imperial ascendance.

A generation later, Hitler began making his plans, and he used the Anglo-American experience in North America as his model: exterminate the natives and take their land. Well, Hitler did that to white people, and that was his crime, and celebrating genocide fell out of favor after World War II. Stannard wrote about that change in the USA, and it bears quoting:


“It has been quite an intellectual pirouette to behold from proudly taking credit for mass murder to blaming the victim – from open celebration of genocide to genocide denial – in a few short generations.”


Stannard and Churchill both took on Jewish-American scholars who denied the American genocide, as they tried to take “ownership” of the concept of genocide, to apply it exclusively to Jews. Those are devastating subjects to study, and I did my time, but as I look back at those works, they were among the most important studies I ever made, and helped me see that they never really stopped, as the imperial juggernaut keeps rolling over humanity. That was also one of Ed and Noam’s central concerns in their writings, which is why they were initially censored, then smeared, and it is largely why Ed’s Wikipedia bio today is libelous.

Back to work.

Best,

Wade

It's disgusting what they did to the Native American Race. I don't feed into that energy of Thanksgiving and Columbus day any more. Total Bullshyte.
Thanksgiving was renamed to Takesgiving by Activist Russel Means. RIP

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Here are drafts of the last two sections of the new essay, before I write the conclusion.

Best,

Wade

Other Edits, and this Essay’s Inspiration

Before I made the edits to Herman’s Wikipedia bio and the related essays, I was well aware of the editing trend on Herman’s biography, beyond Cross’s contributions, and I saw the same jingoist orientation among the editors that I saw when making those changes to the massacre list a decade previously. I was not very optimistic, but the rudeness and irrationality of the admin who erased my changes was shocking to even me. Having the prosecution make faces at me while I was on the witness stand makes my Wikipedia adventures pale to insignificance, but I admit to being surprised at the reaction’s vehemence, which continues to this day.

The rudeness and dishonesty was memorable, but the incompetence of that gang of editors was also noteworthy. As an example, before the admin erased my changes, another editor bragged about how many times he had edited Herman’s essay, and wrote that I was taking it too easy on Herman. That editor claimed American Indian heritage, which I thought might make him a little more sympathetic to Herman’s work. This can all be seen on the talk pages of Herman’s bio. That Indian’s edits already demonstrated that he did not understand Herman’s work. In early 2019, Herman’s bio could not even get the PM’s number of filters right, as it listed four, when there are five. In late 2019, somebody finally corrected Herman’s bio to list the five PM filters. When that fix was finally made, that Indian editor reverted it! Not only did he revert it, but he wrote, “You’ll have to prove to me that ‘flak’ is a filter.”

When Wikipedia is not erasing contributions such as mine, following the edit history of an article such as Herman’s biography can be an education on how Wikipedia makes propaganda. I also noticed the disingenuous emphasis on process over content, particularly by that rude admin. It is similar to what I have seen Facebook do, as they claim that they are not responsible for the content on their sites, even when exercising editorial control, such as when that admin deleted my astronaut colleague’s work on stellar occultations, dismissing mention of that work as “hagiography,” even though it was published in venues such as Science, which is the house organ of American science, and he was a prominent figure in the field.

Philip Cross constantly stated Wikipedia’s rules, but “his” spectacular double standards in treating sources, while adding multiple libelous statements to Herman’s bio, displayed his fidelity to them. And nearly a decade later, those libelous statements are not only still there, but any attempts to remove them are reverted or erased. So, what are clearly libelous statements stand for several years, inserted by Wales’s favorite editor, with no sign that they will ever be removed, while my corrections of such libelous statements are erased in a few hours, while using faulty logic and false “facts” to justify it, accompanied by insults, threats, and swearing. Chutzpah, indeed.

I am an accountant by profession, and am about the only one who writes publicly about the fatal conflict of interest at my profession’s core. Herman also mentioned it in his work, for an example of how our writings overlapped before I became his biographer. Enron had wonderful procedures in its policy manuals, but their enforcement was lax-to-non-existent, so those policies meant nothing, and so it is with Wikipedia. Laws were passed (Sarbanes-Oxley) when CEOs claimed that they were not responsible for the fraudulent behavior of their companies, in order to hold them accountable. The laws are watered down and barely enforced, but the theory is clear. To hide behind high-minded procedures that are selectively enforced, or not enforced at all, is no defense for fraudulent behavior.

Ever since my work was erased, writing another essay on Wikipedia was on my task list, but I was not sure if I would do it before I updated my online textbook. I also had updating Herman’s bio on my site on my list, and the latest travails of a Wikipedia editor, as he tried to improve Herman’s bio, finally spurred me to write this essay. As I write this, that editor has been threatened, chastised, and has gone silent, as I have seen other editors disappear from Herman’s bio when they got attacked like that. What was his crime? He was trying to mention the PM’s predictions in Herman’s bio, which anticipated the attacks that Herman and Chomsky received when they exposed “nefarious” bloodbaths. The predictions are Chomsky’s, from his own co-authored model, and those predictions, just like any scientific hypothesis, provide the basis to test of the validity of such hypotheses. Just as if the bloodbath framework that Chomsky and Herman developed was in Herman’s bio, it would expose the ideological nature of Herman’s bio, mentioning Chomsky’s own predictions in that article would even more thoroughly reveal that Herman’s bio is a propaganda effort. That rude admin calls this logic “gaslighting,” but Chomsky’s PM predictions are the social science equivalent of Einstein’s predictions of relativity theory. To censor Chomsky’s predictions in that way is the equivalent of censoring Einstein’s predictions of his relativity theory, as a way to dismiss relativity. Herman’s biography stands today as a stark confirmation of Chomsky’s third-order prediction of the PM.

Notability Revisited, and Other Issues

Other authors have noted the logic at Wikipedia that will prevent it from being anything other than an Establishment mouthpiece, and the sourcing issue is a key. If mainstream sources are by definition “reliable,” then the mainstream media’s bias will become Wikipedia’s bias, which has happened. If a Nobel laureate could not get a Wikipedia bio until winning the Nobel Prize, as that finally made her “notable,” then Wikipedia has deep structural limitations, and that should be taken into consideration when reading Wikipedia.

Many mainstream institutions are corrupted, and perhaps the most pernicious kind is that found in non-governmental institutions, as they are usually non-profit organizations that profess humanitarian goals, which makes their distortions more deceptive than a Madison Avenue ad campaign or a politician’s speech. The two most prominent “human rights” organization on Earth, Amnesty International (“AI”) and Human Rights Watch (“HRW”), were long ago compromised, and whether it was due to funding issues or other influences, such as the intelligence community, is an open issue to me, and it was likely a bit of both. HRW was corrupted at its founding in the USA in 1978, as it immediately focused on the Soviet Union, when the USA has been the greatest human rights violator on Earth, by far, ever since World War II ended, when the USA enjoyed unprecedented global hegemony. Also, as Herman wrote, the “liberal” definition of human rights that AI and HRW have adopted is increasingly irrelevant in today’s world. HRW has been involved with many ugly incidents during American interventions and invasions (1, 2, 3), and AI has also adopted the imperial framework for “human rights.” Those organizations are actually enabling war crimes, so have become the opposite of genuine human rights organizations. But, at Wikipedia, the reports of both organizations are considered reliable sources. If so-called reliable sources are corrupt, any articles based on their work will be similarly corrupt.

Wikipedia has long been a disinformation source on the subject of alternative medicine, and its double standards are vividly evident on that issue. The Quackwatch effort is run by a non-practicing MD who lost a libel suit over being called a quack himself, and whose articles are primarily “notable” for their juvenility and lack of fidelity to the evidence. If an alternative practitioner becomes “notable” enough for a Wikipedia article, it is almost guaranteed that the article will be dominated by Quackwatch’s often libelous writings. One of Quackwatch’s targets unsuccessfully tried to get his “bio” removed from Wikipedia, through his attorney.

My family went “health nut” 50 years ago, as my father tried to prevent a heart attack, and our diet became mostly fresh food. The change worked, and my father’s health soon became his lifetime’s greatest. His blood pressure went from abnormally high to “abnormally” low (but mainstream medicine would now call it normal), but the booklet that saved his life was banned in the USA in the subsequent decade, for being “contrary to the weight of informed medical and scientific opinion.” It turned out that “informed medical and scientific opinion” was strikingly wrong, and that booklet’s information was accurate, and today, that booklet’s advice is the medical establishment’s first line of defense against heart disease. Similarly, five years after we changed our diets, I began a fasting regimen and was ridiculed. Over the years, I read articles, based on mainstream medicine, which called fasting a dangerous fad that provided no health benefits. This is another area in which mainstream science is finally catching up, as fasting is now going mainstream, and a Nobel Prize was recently won on work on “autophagy,” which fasting triggers. Similarly, I have been a vegetarian for most of my life, and was ridiculed over it, witnessed attacks on vegetarians, and today, vegetarian foods are the hot new capitalist play, with companies such as Beyond Meat making splashes on Wall Street. If a subject or person becomes “notable” enough to be covered by Wikipedia on alternative medicine, the coverage is invariably dominated by Quackwatch attacks and similarly corrupt efforts.

So, what is worse, not being notable enough for a Wikipedia article, or if you are, being libeled if you don’t toe the Establishment line? Last year, Christopher Black’s Wikipedia bio was deleted at Wikipedia. I notified Black of the deletion, and he provided a little history of his Wikipedia bio. It was created more than a decade ago, there was initially an edit battle over it, but it finally ended up as something acceptable and not libelous. Deletionpedia saved the deleted bio, here. Black thought it an interesting “coincidence” that the deletion happened soon after he co-authored a book on the Yugoslavian tribunal. The book’s theme was similar to Herman and Peterson’s work on the subject, and Black was one of Herman’s co-authors. Unlike Hoare, who worked for the Yugoslavian tribunal and participated in the Milosevic indictment, Black helped lead Milosevic’s defense. Black is Canadian and has run for office in Canada, and perhaps most notably, defended targets of the Rwandan tribunal, which was as politically compromised as Yugoslavia’s and even used the same personnel. In an interview in Toronto’s The Star, Black discussed his notification by both Rwandan and Canadian officials that Kagame’s regime placed him on a list for assassination. Kagame’s regime is notorious for its assassinations of political opponents, both domestic and foreign. After my encounters in kangaroo court and with other legal outrages, when even the defense counsel acquiesced to the railroad job, it seemed that the term “heroic attorney” was an oxymoron, but Black is about the only one that I ever encountered. Black achieved a client’s acquittal at the Rwandan tribunal.

Black writes prolifically (1, 2, 3, 4), and in notable venues, is internationally sought for interviews, and amazingly won an acquittal in a high-profile and rigged venue, but is not “notable” enough for Wikipedia, while Hoare is. That situation once again suits Jimmy Wales’s political stance. Wikipedia’s failings are so obvious that Wikispooks was founded to provide coverage of people and subjects that Wikipedia does not find “notable.” Black has a bio there, and Herman has one that is not comprehensive, but it is also not libelous. I may work on Herman’s bio there one day, and maybe even Black’s.

The person whose efforts deleted Black’s bio was also a Toronto resident, and in his motion for deletion, he made Wikipedia’s limitation clear: importance and notability are separate issues; you can be the most important person on Earth, but if the mainstream media does not cover you, you will not be notable enough for Wikipedia. The highest council on Earth has repeatedly deliberated on the threat that my former partner posed to the world order, but that council is clandestine and will never have a Wikipedia article, as few of their identities are publicly known. My former partner had a Wikipedia bio nearly 20 years ago, for a short time, before it was deleted, and it was all libel and gossip. I would rather see that he had no Wikipedia bio instead of a libelous one. There is already enough libel on him on the Internet. The most important issue on Earth is not covered at Wikipedia, because the issue and its participants are not “notable” enough. If they are covered, it is with skewed and libelous articles, or it is all dismissed as a “conspiracy theory.”

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

It is pretty much impossible to do the kind of work I do and not make mistakes. When I find them, I fix them. Some are typos, some are incorrect citations, and some are mistakes of fact or interpretation. Nothing that I am aware of changed anything of significance in my work, but it isn’t perfect.

When I recently wrote that nobody survived the Dachau saltwater experiments, I exaggerated. One person actually did, he testified at Nuremberg, and tried to kill the doctor in the courtroom who extracted a piece of his liver (without anesthesia, of course) for an experiment. The judge sentenced the survivor to 90 days in prison, to be held in the same prison as his torturers. Fortunately, the doctor who got him to testify got the judge to release the survivor into his custody.

What is amazing and disgusting is reading about how so many of the Nazi doctors went on to have illustrious medical careers, even those who were convicted at Nuremburg, including that doctor that the survivor tried to kill. I have linked to this before, of a sampling of death camp Nazis who not only escaped the gallows, but became American heroes.

Kurt Blome, for instance got off scot free, because there were no surviving witnesses, although plenty of documentation survived on experiments that he actually proposed. With all documents of the experiments destroyed and no surviving experimental subjects, Blome walked free, and the USA snapped him up to do similar kinds of experiments for the USA.

I cut my NASA Nazi thread short, as it immediately began to take a toll. I could have written a great deal more, but I’ll leave it alone for now. What a harrowing subject.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I have finished drafting my new essay, and plan to publish it in the next week, along with an update of Ed’s bio. I just drafted the essay’s conclusion, below.


Best,

Wade

Conclusion

In this essay, I suggest how Herman and Chomsky’s PM could apply to Wikipedia. What makes this situation ironic or fitting, depending on one’s perspective, is that Herman’s biography itself is an example of the PM’s filters on Wikipedia’s content, with perhaps other filters in operation, while the other articles related to his work are not distorted as greatly, but still fall short of credible encyclopedia articles.

Wikipedia hides behind a shield of opaque procedures and anonymity, enforcing their rules like the most capricious kangaroo court judge, and produces libel. In a way, it is similar to Ralph McGehee’s observation about the CIA: it was unsalvageable. Is Wikipedia salvageable? I am not very optimistic, and that really is too bad. Like so much of the Internet, Wikipedia is failing to reach its potential and is well on its way to becoming a parody of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia’s behavior on the matter of Herman’s bio will live in infamy.

This issue is distressing to me, for several reasons. I immediately recognized the Internet’s potential, published my first web site in 1996, and worked for Internet companies for more than a decade. I still believe in the Internet’s potential, and my online textbook often refers to Wikipedia, as I chase the biggest event in the human journey. However, I have had to seriously consider removing all references to Wikipedia. I will likely take a compromise position of using Wikipedia as kind of an index for subjects with little political-economic relevance, such as the extinction of the dinosaurs, but as my story of life on Earth reaches its human chapters in my upcoming textbook update, I will use Wikipedia ever-more sparingly, as anything with any political-economic relevance, which includes many scientific topics, has been corrupted, and often to the extent that reality gets turned on its head. In some respects, this entire essay is only a more robust caution for using Wikipedia than I have already published.

In some ways, Wikipedia is a good idea, but several dynamics have corrupted it, and perhaps the most damaging is the Internet’s culture of anonymity, which I knew was a bad idea from the beginning. I have never written anonymously, and would not expect anybody to take my writings seriously if I did. I always thought that the culture of anonymity was intended to undermine the Internet’s potential, not enhance it, and my incipient effort rejects anonymity. Today, Wikipedia is riddled with conflicts of interest that would make it a laughingstock if they were all revealed, and because the PM is essentially a conflict-of-interest model, it applies to Wikipedia, even if the conflicts may seem slightly different than those that pervade today’s mainstream media. Caveat lector.

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Now that I have finished drafting my new essay, some odds and ends…

The CHAZ experiment finally ended, after three weeks. I did not want to come anywhere near it. Seattle went off the deep end last year, IMO, with its unisex bathrooms, and I have avoided Seattle ever since. None of that stuff is addressing our root issues, the existential ones. It is all at the level of sociality and reshuffling the deck of scarcity, which is worthless for addressing our core issues. Did any of that raise public awareness to any significant degree? Probably not, and I see it as just more of this year’s craziness. The irony is that police brutality against blacks was the catalyst, but the two shooting deaths (1, 2) during CHAZ’s existence were what seemed to be gang shootings of black teenagers.

The water fluoridation trial has been delayed, and the EPA is trying to pull a fast one in the courtroom.

A downside of my Kindle is that I can’t really tell the size of the books I am reading. There are no word counts, but there should be. I can go on the Internet and at least see page counts, to give me an idea. That said, I have been like a kid in the candy store, adding content for almost nothing. For about $1 a pop, I added all of the works (or nearly all of them) of Shakespeare, Twain, Bertrand Russell, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Jane Austen, Melville, Verne, Dickens, and Darwin, plus the entire Harvard Classics collection. I have also bought more than 20 other books and anthologies so far. What I just bought is more than I can read for my remaining lifetime, and I filled up less than 3% of my Kindle’s capacity. Oh boy, this is going to be fun.

Of those 20+ books, most have been channeled/NDE/afterlife, and I am currently reading an abridged version of Swedenborg’s epic afterlife account. Yesterday, I finished this book, which is one of the most dramatic NDE accounts I have yet encountered, and Moody wrote the foreword. And like Angels in the OR, the author caused the accident that led to his NDE, but the accident also killed his wife and son. It is hard to imagine a more devastating way to have an NDE, and the author spent several months in the hospital, undergoing 18 surgeries, to put him back together enough to go home and raise his other son, who survived the accident with a “mere” broken arm and other injuries.

And like with the Angels in the OR author, the I Knew Their Hearts author also had a veridical information experience, and they can come in the most unexpected ways. In his case, he left his body at the accident scene, and was out-of-body, in a place of indescribable joy, and his newly dead wife came to him, telling him that he had to go back, for the son that survived. In virtually every NDE account I have ever read, when NDE experiencers were told that they had to go back to their bodies, none of them wanted to. They were experiencing something indescribable to us earthbound people, and to immediately be told that they had to give it up, to go back to a body that was either dead or on the brink of it, was not fun. But the author’s dead wife was adamant and crying, and the author knew he had to go back. He was soon sailing through the hospital, knew each person’s mind and heart, and saw everybody’s inherent divinity. Then he came to a dark room with a mangled corpse in it, soon realized that it was his body, and then he went into it.

Medically, he should not have survived what happened, but he miraculously did, and the thing that may have saved him the most was his football background, which had him reflexively roll his shoulders at impact, which spared him head and brain injuries. After ten days, he was transferred to another hospital, as the one he was in was not in his medical insurance network, and the transfer to the new hospital nearly killed him. Like Dennis during his VA adventure, the author, Jeff Olsen, was a medical miracle and became a celebrity in the hospital. He had many visitors during his convalescence, and without the loving support of his family, friends, and colleagues, he would not have survived.

One day, a group from his original hospital came to see him. He did not recognize any of them, but they said that they were the first people to attend to him, and he was touched that they would visit him like that. The doctor said that he had never seen anybody arrive at the hospital with his level of injuries alive, much less recover from them. They had a friendly chat, and then the nurse went quiet and began crying, and told him why they really came to see him.

When he was brought in, she was the first person to attend to him, and she felt the most intense feelings of love in her life when she walked into the room. She saw his body surrounded by light, and she saw a woman’s form standing next to his body. She knew what had happened, and she knew that the spirit of Jeff’s dead wife was in the room. The doctor then added that while he did not see the light or the woman’s spirit, he felt a powerful presence as they worked on him, and that he felt his wife in the room, who communicated to him how important it was to save his life. He felt her say “thank you,” as they worked on him.

I in no way want to minimize such an incredible experience, but I almost have to say that it was a “typical” NDE experience, as far as veridical information coming in that way, which renders inert the efforts of Blackmore and friends, as they have to ignore or dismiss a huge body of evidence like that, in order to concoct their materialistic explanations of NDEs. Their efforts are truly ludicrous. It is like what Chomsky says about the Propaganda Model and the media, in that the Propaganda Model is “dysfunctional” to media institutions, so it is ignored as if it does not exist. So, all of that veridical information that attends so many reported NDEs is “dysfunctional” to materialism, so even people who say that they investigate NDEs on behalf of materialism cannot acknowledge even one such experience, as it would blow them, and their religion, out of the water. Their only way out it is to call all of them liars. I see it as similar to Mr. Skeptic’s theories about Dennis’s “criminality.” I call it “empty theory.”

I regard that as just one more example of that dual question, are such people simply dishonest, not quite sentient, or a bit of both?

Getting a mystical awakening is easy to do, for older souls, and my thinking is that the Blackmores of the world are simply younger souls. But it is really amazing how doggedly they can ignore the evidence, while they concoct their ridiculous hypotheses.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I am no Bezos fan, but I have to admit how impressive the Amazon/Kindle experience is. I am on Amazon’s site, looking for books, and I bought four this evening. I literally held my Kindle in my hand as I did one-click buying of a book, and within about two seconds, the book was downloaded onto my Kindle. Geez! Nothing can compete with that, that I know of.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

OK, that egg has been laid. It is my first significant new essay since I first published a draft of Ed’s bio in 2017, a week before he died. I updated Ed’s bio, too. This has set back my big essay update a bit, but it was truly a labor of love to do that. While doing this, Owen and Ralph died, and it is likely that others in my personal pantheon will die before I publish my big essay revision. None of us are getting any younger. But I don’t anticipate any “distractions” like my Ed bio project to take much more time from my task of updating my big essay, which I greatly look forward to doing.

Writing an essay on the Propaganda Model and Wikipedia killed a few birds. I had wanted to write an account of what happened when I wrote Ed’s bio, even if my forum posts covered that territory pretty thoroughly. I wanted to do it essay-level justice. I also decided that Ed’s bio would make a great case study of Propaganda Model and Wikipedia. I also got to flex my essay-writing muscles, which needed a workout before I got back to updating my big essay. While writing forum posts is fun, putting on my academic hat to write in essay-style uses different writing skills.

My next six weeks or so will be busy, at my day job, hiking, and enjoying the Washington summer, in this crazy year. So, I will likely be pretty quiet on the writing front, and before long, my posts will largely be drafts of the essay update, as I get cracking on it. I doubt I will get it done this year, but that will now be my primary focus. It may be the most ambitious essay update that I’ll ever do, and a book will likely follow it. If I can get it all done before I am 65, that works for me, and then we’ll see what’s next.

Best,

Wade