WADE FRAZIER : A Healed Planet

[onawah]

Apologies if you have been asked this before, but there is fairly recent data which you may not have seen regarding a Magnetic Pole Reversal which many scientists now think is coming soon, by 2040, and which would make what we know about global warming look mild by comparison, and seems like it could delay the Fifth Epoch quite a bit.
The youtube channel Suspicious Observers has a playlist that covers it all pretty well here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2de...xEEiirgfXwhfsw
If you have time to view it, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in your opinion.
Thanks!
PS Also see: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1444029

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Onawah:

I doubt that anybody on Earth can predict magnetic pole shifts, as they are commonly understood. The last one was nearly a million years ago, so is “overdue,” but these are geological timescale effects, not something that happens in a lifetime. That said, there are fluctuations and temporary reversals, but until now, I doubt that life on Earth even noticed much. Really, what would be impacted by the reversal? Some migratory birds use magnetism to navigate, but I think the list runs short after that.

The idea that magnetic shifts caused mass extinctions I think is a big stretch. Now, would human electronics and electric grids be impacted? Maybe, but the arrival of the Fifth Epoch is going to beat any pole shift. You may recall in recent years, some guys predicted the Sun going into some kind of super-cycle that would cool Earth by now. It didn’t happen, and I was highly suspicious of that prediction when it was made, as it seemed to be something related to playing down Global Warming.

Solar cycles can have an impact, as they did during the Little Ice Age, but the Sun is very stable, as is Earth, particularly on the scale of human lifetimes. There were some big shifts around the Younger Dryas, for instance, and this ice age has seen some dramatic effects, but the biggest variable, by far, has been human activity. What humanity is doing with deforestation, driving species to extinction, and now, driving up greenhouse gases, is far more dramatic than anything that the Sun’s and Earth’s activities have done in the past 10,000 years.

I have seen many dramatic predictions of geophysical and celestial events in my lifetime, beginning with Kohoutek, and I have yet to see one of them pan out, other than what humans are doing to the atmosphere. Remember Hapgood? I have been on the fringes of the Velikovsky issue for a generation, and none of Holocene catastrophism ideas hold any water that I ever saw, other than glacial dams’ breaking when the ice sheets retreated. A bolide event would be a big deal, and we’ll see about any of those before the Fifth Epoch makes those events obsolete, but I strongly doubt it.

So, I don’t pay much attention to those dire predictions, and they really distract from what we can do. Our fate is in our hands.

Best,

Wade

[onawah]

I hope you are right, Wade, but you might want to check out some of the new data, such as Blastolabs listed posted here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1444030
...as follows:

Posted by Blastolabs (here)
If you have been following suspicious observers you will notice that many things he has been saying for years are now getting supported by peer reviewed studies published by geologists.

Nearly every one of his recent video's includes a few of these studies by mainstream scientists in academia.

Here are his points of evidence for a coming magnetic reversal.

FAST FACTS

1) The south pole has already left antarctica and the north pole is racing across the arctic ocean.

2) “Earth’s magnetic poles are getting ready to flip.” -Mission Manager, SWARM/ESA

3) The magnetic field began weakening in 1600.

4) The magnetic field weakened 10% from the 1800s to 2000.

5) Earth’s magnetic field was weakening 5% per century, but now is weakening 5% per decade.

6) The magnetic field is continuing to weaken rapidly.

7) Magnetic reversals can occur in less than 100 years.

8) Magnetic reversals lead to extinction events. This was recently confirmed by the #1 geophysics journal.

Each point includes a link to an actual study the list came from:
http://magneticreversal.org/

...and more on that thread and the Magnetic Pole Reversal thread starting about here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/sho...=1#post1413365

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)
Hi Onawah:

I doubt that anybody on Earth can predict magnetic pole shifts, as they are commonly understood. The last one was nearly a million years ago, so is “overdue,” but these are geological timescale effects, not something that happens in a lifetime. That said, there are fluctuations and temporary reversals, but until now, I doubt that life on Earth even noticed much. Really, what would be impacted by the reversal? Some migratory birds use magnetism to navigate, but I think the list runs short after that.

The idea that magnetic shifts caused mass extinctions I think is a big stretch. Now, would human electronics and electric grids be impacted? Maybe, but the arrival of the Fifth Epoch is going to beat any pole shift. You may recall in recent years, some guys predicted the Sun going into some kind of super-cycle that would cool Earth by now. It didn’t happen, and I was highly suspicious of that prediction when it was made, as it seemed to be something related to playing down Global Warming.

Solar cycles can have an impact, as they did during the Little Ice Age, but the Sun is very stable, as is Earth, particularly on the scale of human lifetimes. There were some big shifts around the Younger Dryas, for instance, and this ice age has seen some dramatic effects, but the biggest variable, by far, has been human activity. What humanity is doing with deforestation, driving species to extinction, and now, driving up greenhouse gases, is far more dramatic than anything that the Sun’s and Earth’s activities have done in the past 10,000 years.

I have seen many dramatic predictions of geophysical and celestial events in my lifetime, beginning with Kohoutek, and I have yet to see one of them pan out, other than what humans are doing to the atmosphere. Remember Hapgood? I have been on the fringes of the Velikovsky issue for a generation, and none of Holocene catastrophism ideas hold any water that I ever saw, other than glacial dams’ breaking when the ice sheets retreated. A bolide event would be a big deal, and we’ll see about any of those before the Fifth Epoch makes those events obsolete, but I strongly doubt it.

So, I don’t pay much attention to those dire predictions, and they really distract from what we can do. Our fate is in our hands.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Onawah:

Never let it be said that I am not sympathetic to alternative hypotheses.

However, when I reviewed that author’s work, plenty of red flags went up. The first is that the person is not a scientist, but an attorney, and the ice age guy, Robert, is also not a scientist. Heck, I am not a credentialed scientist, so I am sympathetic about non-scientists joining the fray, but the Neanderthal extinction is one of those Moby Dick issues, with many scientists going at it. I saw that magnetism paper on the Neanderthal extinction when it came out, and that is a huge stretch, IMO. I hope the ice age guy changed his tune on a growing ice age. The opposite is obviously happening. That Climategate stuff was rubbish. I am not going to spend much time on that stuff, but let me say that I am not impressed.

Last year, I bought this book, to keep up on the catastrophic stuff a little. That one was by a scientist, and I was far from convinced. I never found those fringe theories on bolide events or climate changes to be persuasive, particularly when those extinctions coincided with the arrival of behaviorally modern humans. So, when I see a bunch of very tenuous stuff, arguing that magnetic pole fluctuations precipitate extinctions and evolutionary leaps, call me very skeptical. Lots of chaff out there on the fringes, and it can be a real distraction. For the record, when I have snooped into magnetic pole shift stuff, now and then, nobody that I consider credible is warning of some kind of catastrophe. We have much larger issues at hand, IMO.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

A decade ago, the closest thing I saw to the truth in the mainstream media came from a comedian, Jon Stewart, on The Daily Show. The same thing is happening today, as Russell Brand and Jimmy Dore are speaking up. Dore got vaccinated for COVID, and has had problems ever since. He was one of several like him that his doctor is treating for vaccine reactions, and the trolls and Cancel Culture types have assailed Dore for reporting his vaccine reactions. Many millions of Americans have had vaccine reactions, but the topic is forbidden in the media and nobody is speaking up, for fear of being attacked. Brand is discussing the censorship around the COVID narrative. It is grim times when you have to turn to comedians to hear something resembling the truth.

The coercion to get vaccines is everywhere, such as in the NFL. Mother Jones lost its way long ago, and over the years, I have seen it act as a media attack dog, which it recently did again, over COVID’s origin. In the meantime, a report was issued that casts serious doubt on the “wet market” origin of COVID. Of course, it is partisan, but Biden is asking the “intelligence” community for a report on COVID origins, and asking the spooks for a report is par for the government course, as all they do is lie.

The New York Times keeps up with the hit pieces, and a five-year-old can see through their shtick. Russia-bashing is also being used in the “pandemic,” such as here. If Ed was alive to see it, he would have plenty to say.

As I have stated many times, and the media continually downplays it, if you are under 70 and in good health (mainly are not obese, do not smoke or drink, and do not eat much processed food), COVID’s risk is like getting a bad case of the flu. The people dying are overwhelmingly in poor health to begin with (about 95% of them), and COVID is sending them over the edge, like the common cold does with the old and infirm during flu season.

IMO, we have opened Pandora’s Box with these mRNA “vaccines,” and there are many flies in the ointment of its unmitigated success (1, 2, 3), which the media is not reporting on, as usual. The Great Barrington Declaration’s advice increasingly looks like it would have been the right play for this, but it looks like Americans have jumped on a new vaccination treadmill.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Well, the attacks have taken their toll on Mercola. He announced something like that before, so I generally link to his articles that are on JFK, Jr’s site, as those won’t be removed. We’ll see if RFK, Jr., gets silenced, but he is fighting the good fight, and I like his chances.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

In England, a healthy child has a one-in-a-million chance of dying from COVID. In California, as of July 28, of people who caught symptomatic COVID and were recorded (and only a third have been reported), one in 60 died. I’ll use that as a proxy for the USA. Between the ages of 5 and 17, one in 20,000 died (a much lower rate than measles deaths when I was a child). For people over 80, it was one in four. In my age group (60-64), it was one in 33. But, 95% of those deaths were for people who were already unhealthy. I don’t have any of the “comorbidities” that people are dying of (primarily obesity and its side-effects), so, if I got COVID, my odds of dying of it are about one in 700 (or, really, about one in 2,000, because cases are underreported).

But, I also do not merely have none of those “comorbidity” factors, I am unusually healthy for somebody of my age. I am about halfway to my goal of weight loss, to get back to my college weight, and even I am surprised by how much my cardiovascular health has improved this year, because of my regular hiking, and my diet is better than it has ever been. I hike between two and five times a week, and am in the best hiking shape in several years. A ten-mile day, and thousands of feet of elevation gain, is no big deal for me today, which I doubted I would ever see again. I am in a shape that I did not think I would get in again, and I don’t plan to ever lose it. I now plan to go strong into my 90s. So, my chances of dying of COVID, if I got it, are one in many thousands, probably around my chances of dying of measles, when I got it at age six. I’ll take my chances and won’t get vaccinated.

And it gets better for me. Only about 20% of COVID cases even present any symptoms. I would not be surprised at all if I have already had COVID and never had any symptoms. If I already had it, I am immune for life. I will be socially isolated for a long time still, so my chances of dying of COVID might not be as good as an English child’s, but it is likely not far from it. I have a much greater chance of dying from a lightning strike.

All of these scare tactics, on delta variants and the like, are irrelevant to somebody like me. Now, that is me, not anybody else, and people need to make their own decisions on that.

What has traditionally been called vaccination does not get credit for vanquishing any disease. In fact, it generally made things worse. In the 1980s, nearly all of the American polio cases were caused by the vaccine, according to the CDC! At best, what vaccination seems to do is trade a short-term acute reaction for a long-term chronic one. Chronic reactions are hard to trace to causes, so orthodoxy generally does not even look for chronic reactions. And burying chronic reactions has been a medical racket specialty for many years.

These COVID “vaccines” are not vaccines at all, in the traditional sense, but some kind of Frankensteinian experiment that hijacks the ribosomes. There is a great deal of contrary data to the unmitigated “success” of these mRNA “vaccines,” not the least of which is thousands of deaths from those vaccines in the USA, and maybe tens of thousands.

I don’t give medical advice, I am the only person in my family who did not get the COVID “vaccine,” and people need to make their own decisions, if they can. The current coercion to get the “vaccines” is something to behold (1, 2, 3, 4). The fact that this “pandemic” may well be the result of experiments gone awry makes this situation highly ironic: Frankensteinian experiments gave rise to a disease that only Frankensteinian treatments can prevent.

I have written plenty on what medicine in the Fifth Epoch will look like. It will only have a faint resemblance to what passes for “medicine” today.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

After my essay update and a book, I’ll update my site’s essays like I did in 2014. So, I’ll not incorporate much, if any, of IBM and the Holocaust until I update my war essay, which is years away. Like Ford, the Rockefellers, and others, Watson of IBM eagerly helped Hitler, providing logistical help that enabled the Holocaust, and IBM handsomely profited from it.

However, I will remark on an observation that the author made at the book’s end. People can’t read IBM and the Holocaust without being impressed at the book’s level of detail, and it has great respect in scholarly circles. However, the book garnered some scathing reviews. But those reviewers could make up contrary “facts” from the thin air, and engage in sophistry and launch ad hominem attacks on the author, Edwin Black. What Black reported was reminiscent of the reviews and attacks of Zinn’s A People’s History. Black was shocked to receive that kind of treatment from those reviewers, whose behavior was sometimes criminal.

Black wrote: “Although I was astonished by the statements of a few historians, my friends in academia simply chuckled. They had seen it many times before.”

That is my journey’s primary lesson on display once again. The reaction of Black’s colleagues could be summed up with, “I used to be disgusted, but now I am only amused.”

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

In a world of scarcity and fear, freedom will always be a fragile concept. America’s Founding Fathers were a bunch of white, male land-owning slave-owners, and their great nation-building chore was dispossessing and annihilating the Indians (which inspired Hitler), with a fraudulent strategy crafted by George Washington. But American propagandists call them the inventors of freedom. Well, freedom for white, land-and-people-owning men, I’ll grant that.

A major theme of my work is that as the energy surplus of each epoch increased, human societies became more humane, because they could afford to be. The Industrial Revolution, not some bout of conscience, freed slaves and women, but it is still a fitful struggle. The world economy is dominated by global rackets, and the name of the game is to pretend that they don’t exist, just like there is no such thing as the American Empire, at least to Americans. But for the nations that the USA has bludgeoned, they know it all too well. Rackets are always inimical to freedom.

More than 50 years ago, my family radically changed its diet to save my father’s health, and it worked. The booklet that provided the information for that change, however, was banned in the USA in the next decade, for being “unproven and contrary to the weight of informed medical and scientific opinion.” It turned out that that booklet’s advice was accurate, and the “weight of informed medical and scientific opinion” was spectacularly wrong. That booklet’s advice forms medical orthodoxy’s first line of defense today. I am amazed that I lived to see that. All areas of Western “medicine” have similar conflicts of interest and racketeering, and this so-called “pandemic” is becoming a textbook case of the medical racket at work, which has truly gone global.

Doctors and scientists have been terrified to state anything contrary to the dogma, and research has been censored like never before. Now, outright coercion to get “vaccinated” is being inflicted across the USA, The Land of the Free. It began as carrots, and now it is sticks. The vaccines may well make things worse. I have a better chance of dying from a lightning strike than I do from COVID, but here comes the coercion. Like clockwork, new COVID “variants” are “discovered,” as the human herd is stampeded this way and that. It is all so familiar.

Until the Fifth Epoch arrives, we can count on these kinds of situations, which may keep getting more extreme, as a dress rehearsal for a global dictatorship, to “protect” humanity, in the greatest protection racket of all. The conspiracism around that is not so deranged, unlike the crazed QAnon fantasies. But retail politics will never be the solution, as Bucky, Brian, and others discovered.

I know who I need for my little plan to succeed, but it is not easy to keep our eyes on the ball with today’s mayhem, which might get far worse, and soon.

Best,

Wade

[avid]

When I die, (despite resisting toxic jabs/manipulated GMO foodstuffs etc etc), my first choice destination is ‘return to source’, if I am allowed, but my next one is to resurrect in the ‘Fifth Epoch’, so fingers et al crossed for my future, and all in our dire circumstances at the moment. Looking forward enthusiastically!

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Avid:

A little returning to source does a soul good, but the Fifth Epoch is certainly worth returning for, if we have to come back to physical reality. That vision and potential has helped sustain my journey, through all the horror I have witnessed. These are amazing and horrific times to live in, but I long ago accepted that I am on some kind of special assignment, and we’ll see how big a dent my pals and I can make.

Hang in there!

Best,

Wade

[Ewan]

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)
Hi Onawah:

I doubt that anybody on Earth can predict magnetic pole shifts, as they are commonly understood. The last one was nearly a million years ago, so is “overdue,” but these are geological timescale effects, not something that happens in a lifetime. That said, there are fluctuations and temporary reversals, but until now, I doubt that life on Earth even noticed much. Really, what would be impacted by the reversal? Some migratory birds use magnetism to navigate, but I think the list runs short after that.

The idea that magnetic shifts caused mass extinctions I think is a big stretch. Now, would human electronics and electric grids be impacted? Maybe, but the arrival of the Fifth Epoch is going to beat any pole shift. You may recall in recent years, some guys predicted the Sun going into some kind of super-cycle that would cool Earth by now. It didn’t happen, and I was highly suspicious of that prediction when it was made, as it seemed to be something related to playing down Global Warming.

Solar cycles can have an impact, as they did during the Little Ice Age, but the Sun is very stable, as is Earth, particularly on the scale of human lifetimes. There were some big shifts around the Younger Dryas, for instance, and this ice age has seen some dramatic effects, but the biggest variable, by far, has been human activity. What humanity is doing with deforestation, driving species to extinction, and now, driving up greenhouse gases, is far more dramatic than anything that the Sun’s and Earth’s activities have done in the past 10,000 years.

I have seen many dramatic predictions of geophysical and celestial events in my lifetime, beginning with Kohoutek, and I have yet to see one of them pan out, other than what humans are doing to the atmosphere. Remember Hapgood? I have been on the fringes of the Velikovsky issue for a generation, and none of Holocene catastrophism ideas hold any water that I ever saw, other than glacial dams’ breaking when the ice sheets retreated. A bolide event would be a big deal, and we’ll see about any of those before the Fifth Epoch makes those events obsolete, but I strongly doubt it.

So, I don’t pay much attention to those dire predictions, and they really distract from what we can do. Our fate is in our hands.

Best,

Wade

Hi Wade,

I know the world is full of misinformation, and was so long before the term became adopted and employed by the modern purveyors of sacred knowledge. Trying to sift through the bull**** becomes an onerous task yet one which you seem to handle with such dedication.

In your opinion, does any scientific paper suggesting anthropogenic factors play a minor part in climate change hold zero weight? (I think we know ice cores show historical CO2 levels have been much higher at various times in the Earth's past)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...64682620301115

Highlights

•

Correlation of AMO, NAO and sunspots with European temperatures was studied for 1901–2015 based on correlation coefficients.
•

Seasonal changes were mapped out with NAO dominating in winter and AMO in summer, exhibiting systematic regional shifts.
•

Direct solar correlations are regionally-seasonally restricted; greatest solar impact through interaction with NAO and AMO.

Abstract

European monthly temperatures undergo strong fluctuations from one year to the other. The variability is controlled by natural processes such as Atlantic cycles, changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions, unforced internal atmospheric variability, as well as anthropogenic factors. This contribution investigates the role of key natural drivers for European temperature variability, namely the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and solar activity changes. We calculated Pearson correlation coefficients r for AMO, NAO and sunspots compared to monthly temperature data of 39 European countries for the period 1901–2015 in order to search for ‘fingerprints’ of the natural drivers. A cross correlation window of 11 months was chosen for AMO, NAO and of 120 months for SILSO to account for possible time lags or phase shifts. The r coefficients were mapped out across Europe on a monthly basis to document regional and seasonal changes of the correlation strength. The NAO dominates European temperature variability during the winter months, with strongest relationship in February. The AMO modulates temperatures in March to November, with best correlations occurring in summer, but also in April. Regions of strongest AMO and NAO impacts shift across the continent from month to month, forming systematic patterns. Direct correlation of the solar 11-year Schwabe cycle with temperatures was identified only in some countries in certain multidecadal intervals during February, March, June and September. Previous studies have suggested a significant solar influence on the AMO and NAO. It is likely that the greatest impact of solar activity on European temperatures is of a non-linear, indirect nature by way of interaction with Atlantic cycles.

Edit: To add, I suppose the more money involved the greater the risk of funded bull!

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Ewan:

Well, that is timely. I had a long conversation with Michael Hyson yesterday, and we discussed Global Warming and the human contribution. Call me pleasantly surprised over the years, but some big time scientists take my work seriously.

Yesterday, I talked with Michael about how I began to understand the Global Warming issue a lot better, when I began studying ancient climate, going back billions of years. Earth has seen several ice ages and hot periods. The Sun has gradually brightened over Earth’s history, but the biggest variable on Earth’s surface temperature has been carbon dioxide concentrations. Historically, carbon has been introduced to the carbon cycle by volcanism, and it has been taken out by sedimentary deposition. Earth has been cooling off for 50 million years, as the balance tipped toward more deposition than volcanism, and the rise of the Himalayas may be responsible for the deposition part, as the exposed rock gets weathered.

It is hard to find any credible scientists who dispute the basics of what is happening today:

• Carbon dioxide and methane trap infrared radiation, and when they are in our atmosphere, they warm it by trapping outbound infrared radiation;
• Carbon dioxide and methane have been increasing rapidly in Earth’s atmosphere;
• Human activities are nearly solely responsible for the rising levels of those gases;
• Earth has been rapidly warming since the late 1800s.

Mining and burning Earth’s hydrocarbon deposits are almost solely responsible for the rise in carbon dioxide, which is the most dramatic rise in Earth’s history (by a third in my lifetime so far, which is surreal, from a scientist’s perspective – there is nothing remotely like that in Earth’s history). We can debate the Sun, natural fluctuations, and the like, but the human contribution is undeniable. The human contribution is something that we can do something about. The technologies to completely halt that dynamic, and even remove the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, to reach pre-human levels, are older than I am, and fixing that would just be a side-effect of the arrival of the Fifth Epoch.

Sure, the Sun has its impact, as it did during the Little Ice Age, but the only ethical conversation that any human could have about Global Warming is the human contribution and what can be done about it.

Does that answer it?

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I am reading a book on the Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment. The author is an economist, and I read economist books very warily. He cited this paper, and concluded that the exploitation of coal had very little importance for the Industrial Revolution. It is a good example of why I don’t have much respect for economists. In one way, I can kind of see where they are coming from, and in a very narrow sense, their arguments made some sense, and, to be charitable, they are pursuing different questions than I am. But they used cliometrics to make their cases, and when I see economists break out their formulas and regression analyses, their “physics envy” becomes clear, and I quickly lose interest. You can’t substitute a bunch of math for scientific literacy and worldliness.

What I noticed long ago about economists is that they nearly always miss the forest for the trees, as they slice and dice economies into shipping, food, manufactures, services, and the like, homogenize it all with money, perform their advanced math, and never see the underlying energetic basis of all of it. IMO, the Industrial Revolution is best seen in an epochal framework.

The Third Epoch was based on the energy provided by domesticating plants and animals; both provided food, which is almost all about calories (about 80% of nutrition is the calories), and draft animals also provided energy in the form of work. The Domestication Revolution was several thousand years old before civilization was invented. In my big essay update, I am going to break the Third Epoch into three chapters: domestication, civilization, and the rise of Europe. Cities are big energy-concentrating devices, always built on low-energy transportation lanes (nearly always water-based), to feed the energy into the cities (food, fuel, water is an energy-based resource, taking advantage of the hydrological cycle, and materials, which are all energy-based)). Less than four millennia ago (late in the Third Epoch), in the Old World, events began that led to Europe’s rise to industrialization.

Achieving the high temperatures needed to smelt iron was a key innovation, and the low-energy transportation “pond” known as the Mediterranean allowed for the rise of maritime powers like never before. Thousands of years of competing maritime powers culminated in Rome, which gained absolute control over the entire Mediterranean. Rome is still the longest-lived republic and the longest-lived empire, and I don’t need to belabor how its legacy still influences the West. Heck, some of its infrastructure is still being used.

Beginning around 800 CE (when the Medieval Warming Period began), Europe began its rise to industrialization with a “proto-industrial” revolution with the expansion of watermills. It was the first time in the human journey when land-based power was not generated by muscles. Watermills had been around for centuries, but never anything close to the scale that northwest Europe used them, as it took advantage of all of that water. I have seen it estimated that England got a third of its power from watermills in the medieval period. That alone was unprecedented in the human journey. In the 1400s, Europe achieved the unprecedented technical feat of turning the world’s oceans into a low-energy transportation lane. Europe used that lane to conquer the world. Without that low-energy lane, all of the ballyhooed global “free trade” that economists extoll would have never happened. So, Europe had already been riding an unprecedented energy wave long before the Industrial Revolution.

One scholar that those economists took on was E.A. Wrigley, and particularly his book on energy and the English Industrial Revolution. In that book was a table that I never saw before. I had long wondered if anybody ever did it. He calculated all energy inputs into the economies of England and Wales, including the calories that humans and draft animals ate. In 1560, coal provided about 10% of the energy consumption of England and Wales. By 1700, it was half. By 1850 (about when England’s Industrial Revolution was considered complete), it was 92%, and between 1560 and 1850, per capita energy consumption rose by a factor of nearly five. Nothing close to that happened before in the human journey. But those economists played their math games and argued that coal was irrelevant to the Industrial Revolution. How did they manage that?

The primary reason why England turned to coal was because there was little wood left. England, Wales, and Scotland were almost completely deforested. Nobody used coal if they could avoid it, because it was so filthy and noxious. So, on the eve of the Industrial Revolution, England (I’ll leave Wales and Scotland out of this, for the sake of convenience, and it does not change the argument), England got half of its energy from coal (coal provided four times the energy to England that firewood did in 1700, and by 1850, it was 800 times as much). Right there, any arguments on how coal was irrelevant to the Industrial Revolution collapse, as no society had ever been so dependent on coal before. Take away the coal in 1700, and the English economy would have collapsed, everybody would have starved, etc. What could have possibly substituted for the coal? Only wood could have. In the late 1500s, the English invaded Ireland and deforested it, which the Irish are still irate about.

Those economists had to play several games to write coal out of the story. One was that they focused on the early Industrial Revolution’s cotton mills. They were in the countryside and ran on water power. The cotton only came to England and displaced wool because of that low-energy transportation lane. Originally, the cotton came from the Middle East, but the British conquests of India and North America, with subjugated labor, made them the cotton source. Cotton is pure cellulose, which was part of the reproductive strategy of the cotton plant, and it took a lot of energy to do that. So, England commandeered that energy-intensive reproduction strategy, and subjugated people, to make a skin-friendlier fabric than wool, mainly to conserve body heat – that is what clothing is all about, especially beyond the tropics.

It is true that powered factory production began in those mills, which was a key aspect of the Industrial Revolution, and coal did not play much of a direct role in it, other than provide 60% of England’s energy in 1750, when cotton watermills took off. So, to carve out the mills, and argue that coal had nothing to do with them, is a huge stretch.

In 1700 coal’s most famous innovative roles in the Industrial Revolution had not yet happened, which was generating power and smelting iron. It is true that wind and water power were competitive with coal until about 1850. Those economists then made the case that wind and water power were enough for industrialization, and coal could be safely ignored. Again, that is a huge stretch. Coal allowed for powered factories in cities, instead of the countryside. Also, coal power’s first use was in coal mines, to remove the water from them. The economists argued that draft animals could have removed the water, instead of Newcomen’s engine, so again, coal was unnecessary for the Industrial Revolution. What such charmed logic elides is that those draft animals would have had to be taken from some other part of the English economy.

But the most strained logic that those economists used was for the other key innovation for coal of the early Industrial Revolution: smelting iron. Before coal was used for smelting (the Chinese also did, centuries previously, also because of deforestation), it was done with wood. After Rome collapsed, the iron industry in southern England died, until it was revived by Henry the Eighth, as he tried to join the Low Countries in their modernization. Within a few years of reviving the iron industry, the local forests were denuded and there were actually riots over it. Only draconian suppression by England’s elite kept the iron industry alive in England. Iron operations regularly closed down due to a lack of wood, and England turned to the Baltic States, particularly Sweden, which had not yet been deforested. By the late 1600s, the Baltic States had been so deforested that they stopped selling large timber to England. In search of new forests to rape, the English found that New England had the trees it needed for sailing-ship masts, as it rose to imperial dominance. By 1700, New England was the sole source of mast wood for the English navy. The “king’s trees” in New England became a key source of contention, leading up to the USA’s Revolutionary War, and by the Revolutionary War, New England had been completely deforested.

By 1850, Sweden had been completely deforested, and like the Irish a few years earlier, starving Swedes began migrating to North America, which is part of my family heritage. But those economists made the case that England could have gotten all of its iron from the Baltic States. If so, then the Baltic States would have likely been completely deforested by 1800 instead of 1850. As I read their analysis, I wondered what they thought about their clever games of substitution. Under their logical exercise, the Baltic States would have willingly subjugated themselves to England, by providing all of the iron while ruining themselves. Of course, those economists played down iron’s importance also, as they saw the Industrial Revolution in almost purely social terms, of reorganizing labor in factories and the like, and the clever machines that replaced human hands, and coal played no direct role in that.

The fact that the Industrial Revolution didn’t happen that way at all seemed lost on those economists. As best I could tell, it was a purely intellectual exercise, whose purpose was, it seems, to see if any other peoples in history could have industrialized without the benefit of fossil fuels. They also had to assume factors such as a great increase in energy efficiency, in using wood and the like, and using much more water and wind power, to get England to industrialize without coal. It was one of the craziest exercises that I ever witnessed, a navel-contemplating exercise of pure fantasy, to see if coal could have been written out of the picture.

Even if we accept those many assumptions of those economists (some of which are dependent on other assumptions, so much that it quickly becomes nonsensical), that meant that England had to subjugate the Baltic States, Ireland, and North America’s Eastern Woodlands in order to industrialize on wood. The peoples of those lands would not have industrialized, but formed a slave class that raped their forests on England’s behalf, kind of like the role that India served. And then it would have all collapsed, as the wood ran out. Or maybe then, England would have finally discovered the virtues of coal.

Nobody ever did or ever could industrialize on wood, and if they did, they would have had to subjugate and rape vast lands, to provide the raw materials for industrialization. Wood-powered steam engines were always short-lived, lasting as long as the forests did, so that so-called Industrial Revolution would have largely stopped at cotton mills and sailing ships. That could be called an “Industrial Revolution” in an extremely limited sense, and not one that really would be recognizable. Thinking that the Industrial Revolution could have been based on wood and wind and water power is deeply deluded; maybe on a different planet, but certainly not in England.

I had to think of a contemporary analogy to make the nonsensical nature of that exercise clear. The USA has been an imperial juggernaut since World War II, committing or abetting many genocides, as it kept formerly colonized lands in bondage. I doubt that that can be credibly disputed. Imagine that some pundit argued that the USA has not mattered in the past 75 years. Whatever it did, could have been done by some other imperial power (nature abhors a vacuum, and all that), so the USA has really not been important, geopolitically, since World War II, because if it was not them, it would have been somebody else.

That coal-dismissal argument for the Industrial Revolution is far less tenable, as there was no energy source to substitute for coal in any meaningful way. Those economists had to make many assumptions to make their case, such as England’s smelting migrating to the Baltic States, what energy was used was used much more efficiently, use more draft animals, and the like.

I have a book in my library that imagines postwar European history if the USA had not invaded Europe in World War II, and the Soviets conquered all of it. Exercises like that have their place: in the realm of fantasy. But it is not the real world and what happened. To dismiss coal’s importance because an imaginary house of cards can be built, to dismiss the energy source that provided more than 90% of England’s energy, is like some small German boy playing with toy soldiers and arguing that the Nazis could have conquered the world.

I began this post trying to be sympathetic to those economists and their fancy math, but the more I thought about what their exercise had to ignore and assume for that exercise, the angrier I became. I may deal with their exercise in my essay update, but just long enough to demonstrate how farcical it was. The author of that book accepted that exercise at face value, which put a huge dent in his credibility. Most economists live in a world of their own, IMO.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

After writing the previous post, I found myself reading Hitler’s War Aims. It was from there that I cited Hitler’s inspiration of how the “Nordics” secured North America. On the page after that discussion of Hitler’s imperial inspiration was Hitler’s further consideration of his great goals…


“There would be war. The attacker would have to overcome the proprietor. Professors and other intellectuals might talk of peaceful economic conquest, but such folly could only emanate from the wishful thinking of those unacquainted with life. Only naïve idealists could believe that through friendly and civilized behavior a people might gather the fruits of its ability and endeavor in peaceful competition. Where had economic interests not clashed as brutally as political interests? There were those who pointed to Britain as an example of the success of peaceful economic penetration, but it was precisely in Britain that this theory was most strikingly refuted. No nation had more savagely prepared its economic conquests with the sword, and none had defended those conquests more ruthlessly.”


Not long before those discussions Winston Churchill privately admitted as much. Even though it did it blindly, England initiated the Fourth Epoch. But it used its economic superiority to bludgeon and subjugate peoples all over the world. The USA is committing an even greater crime today, although largely unwittingly. Free energy technology was largely, if not solely, developed in the USA, but is being kept under wraps for reasons of power. We have the keys to the Fifth Epoch, for all of humanity, but instead, we race to oblivion. The evil and insanity is breathtaking.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I just read this article on stupidity, and it bears some comment. The article makes the case that the smartest people can be the stupidest, and that stupidity is more of a social phenomenon than what any one person manifests. The article’s author framed stupidity as operating from a conceptual framework that does not work for the problem at hand, and that framework is stubbornly adhered to. The article led off with the British field marshal who directed the troops in World War I, but could never shake his cavalry conditioning. I thought that I wrote about it on my site, but could not find it. For the entirety of World War I, the Allies kept a cavalry in readiness behind the trenches, for the charge that never came. That is an example of the aphorism that generals are always ready to fight the previous war. Butler’s statement is timeless, on the enforced stupidity in the military.

Of course, being the media, that article could not help from taking a “stupid” swipe at what is called “anti-vax” these days. I wrote about those party animals at Lake of the Ozarks, and I won’t strenuously argue against the “stupid” epithet, but those extreme positions are excuses to use a broad brush to portray anybody who won’t get “vaccinated” as dumb or stupid. Is Moskowitz stupid? Humphries? The credulity of the media on that issue is mind-boggling. The entire vaccine issue is filled with staggering conflicts of interest, which the media can never seem to detect. The media may be the stupidest party of all, on the vaccine issue, and as Ed and Noam noted with the Propaganda Model, it is a structural issue. Scientific American, multiple times in the past few years, has mentioned Flat Earthers and “anti-vaxxers” in the same sentence, as it takes big money from the world’s biggest vaccine-maker, Pfizer, which is a criminal organization.

All of the dominant ideologies in the USA are stupidly adhered to. That is how it works in a world of scarcity and fear. I frame it as issues of integrity and sentience, and those qualities are conjoined. All of the failed paths to free energy are about people’s inability or unwillingness to relinquish their conditioning. As I developed my epochal framework and wrote my big essay, it became very clear to me why people cannot even imagine what is coming. My journey made me far more sympathetic to how stuck they are, nearly everybody, and I gave up judging the situation long ago.

Best,

Wade

[avid]

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)
Hi:

I just read this article on stupidity, and it bears some comment. The article makes the case that the smartest people can be the stupidest, and that stupidity is more of a social phenomenon than what any one person manifests. The article’s author framed stupidity as operating from a conceptual framework that does not work for the problem at hand, and that framework is stubbornly adhered to. The article led off with the British field marshal who directed the troops in World War I, but could never shake his cavalry conditioning. I thought that I wrote about it on my site, but could not find it. For the entirely of World War I, the Allies kept a cavalry in readiness behind the trenches, for the charge that never came. That is an example of the aphorism that generals are always ready to fight the previous war. Butler’s statement is timeless, on the enforced stupidity in the military.

Of course, being the media, that article could not help from taking a “stupid” swipe at what is called “anti-vax” these days. I wrote about those party animals at Lake of the Ozarks, and I won’t strenuously argue against the “stupid” epithet, but those extreme positions are excuses to use a broad brush to portray anybody who won’t get “vaccinated” as dumb or stupid. Is Moskowitz stupid? Humphries? The credulity of the media on that issue is mind-boggling. The entire vaccine issue is filled with staggering conflicts of interest, which the media can never seem to detect. The media may be the stupidest party of all, on the vaccine issue, and as Ed and Noam noted with the Propaganda Model, it is a structural issue. Scientific American, multiple times in the past few years, has mentioned Flat Earthers and “anti-vaxxers” in the same sentence, as it takes big money from the world’s biggest vaccine-maker, Pfizer, which is a criminal organization.

All of the dominant ideologies in the USA are stupidly adhered to. That is how it works in a world of scarcity and fear. I frame it as issues of integrity and sentience, and those qualities are conjoined. All of the failed paths to free energy are about people’s inability or unwillingness to relinquish their conditioning. As I developed my epochal framework and wrote my big essay, it became very clear to me why people cannot even imagine what is coming. My journey made me far more sympathetic to how stuck they are, nearly everybody, and I gave up judging the situation long ago.

Best,

Wade

A lot of us are extremely aware of what is forthcoming, and yes, it is futile in most circumstances, to make people aware without being ostracised, so some of us will hopefully ‘ride the storm’, and at least pass our knowledge on to less ‘conditioned’ recipients. Forever hopeful….

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Avid:

Yes, in absolute numbers, plenty, in relative numbers, no. My plan will work with as few as one-in-a-million, so I like my chances.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Today, I have been reading Dissolving Illusions, by Humphries and Bystrianyk, on vaccines. Moskowitz’s book is brilliant, and so is Dissolving Illusions. The best books to challenge vaccination take on officials and their pronouncements, letting them hang themselves with their own rope.

Dissolving Illusions examined claims made by Paul Offit (AKA “Mr. Vaccine”), who has prodigious conflicts of interest. Offit constantly wrote of miraculous vaccine campaigns, such as one which reduced annual whooping cough deaths from 7,000 to 30, in a book in which he attacked anti-vaccination activists. Humphries and Bystrianyk tried to verify Offit’s numbers, and found that instead of 7,000 deaths, the real number was 1,200, for a six-fold exaggeration. What Offit also neglected to mention was that in the 20 years before the pertussis (whopping cough) vaccine was introduced, the death rate from whooping cough declined by 85%, to less than one-in-100,000. And that was the tail-end of a long decline that began in the late-1800s, as you can see from the attached slide that shows English whooping cough, as well as other diseases that were not vaccinated for, which similarly declined. Smallpox declined when vaccination did. By the time the vaccine was introduced in the 1940s, whooping cough deaths had almost entirely vanished (a more than 99% decline in the death rate since the 1800s). And charting the decline after the introduction of the vaccine showed that the impact of the vaccine was not even noticeable on the trend.

In the 1970s, English whooping cough vaccine rates declined from about 80% to about 30%, and there were alarming warnings that there would be a whooping cough epidemic because of the lower vaccination rates. Offit wrote that the subsequent epidemic was “one of the worst epidemics of whooping cough in modern history.” Humphries and Bystrianyk then consulted the official numbers, and a very different picture emerged. In the first half of the 1970s, when the vaccination rate was nearly 80%, there were 55 whooping cough deaths. In the last half of the 1970s, when the vaccination rate fell to half of the early 1970s rate, the very years that Offit wrote that such a deadly epidemic raged, there were 35 deaths. That is the kind of fidelity to the evidence that typifies people such as Offit: they simply make it up as they go.

Dissolving Illusions is full of analyses like that, in which the voices of authority are demonstrated to be fraudulent. That is how deadly myths are made. Like Ed stated about the media, the lies are so big and entrenched in the halls of the powerful that they will never go away, even after they have been exposed, but instead are enshrined as unassailable truths.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Yesterday’s post on the fraud behind the whooping cough vaccine’s “success” story inspired a more comprehensive post on the issues. Offit had to outright lie about the numbers to make his case for the success of the whooping cough vaccine. It is like that with all vaccines. Here is the same story for measles and vaccination. For all killer infectious diseases of the 19^th century, other than smallpox, only because there had been vaccines for it since the 1700s, they declined in incidence and lethality long before any vaccines were developed for them, and before the rise of antibiotics. To give vaccination credit for conquering whooping cough is like some armchair soldier, arriving after the war was won, claiming to have single-handedly won World War II. Not only does the orthodox vaccine story falsely credit vaccination for eradicating infectious disease, it also means that there is something deeply wrong with the theory behind vaccination, namely the germ theory of disease and what immunity means.

The evidence is strong that improvements in sanitation, hygiene, and nutrition get credit for conquering those diseases, not vaccination. For smallpox, vaccinations made no discernable improvement, and, in fact, increased its lethality for those who got it. Smallpox began to disappear when the others did, and eventually became a mild disease that was often confused with chickenpox, before it simply disappeared, while fewer and fewer people got vaccinated, which is the opposite of the expectation of vaccine proponents. It only raged in poor nations that did not have good sanitation, hygiene, and nutrition. Scarlet fever declined like the rest of them, but no vaccine was ever in widespread use for it. A vaccine was developed in the early 20^th century, but it was never popular and its side-effects were so harsh that it was discontinued in the 1930s. That vaccine killed the student nurse test subjects. Today, about 15-to-20% of children have the scarlet fever bacteria, but they don’t get sick from it.

I am currently reading this book, and a few others like it, on fraud in science. Time and again, these books show that medical science is by far the weakest and most corrupt branch of science. The scientific papers are typically produced by scientists with conflicts of interest, nobody tries to reproduce the findings, and even the papers themselves violate a standard principle of scientific papers, in that there is not enough detail in the papers to even allow other scientists to attempt to reproduce them. They can all simply make it up as they go, which is what spurred that statement from the Lancet’s editor.

The leading “philanthropist” of vaccination, Bill Gates, is a textbook example of poor health habits. In the early days of Microsoft, everybody worked 70-hour weeks, and all-nighters were common. My career was a lot like that, and I can testify to how unhealthy that pace is. Gates had legendarily poor hygiene; you could smell him from 20 feet away, as he would not bathe for days. His diet was atrocious, living out of vending machines and on junk food, and he got cancer in his 20s, surprise of surprises. He completely ignored Hygeiac principles and paid the price. He is a fitting vaccine evangelist.

Before I was born a toxic industrial waste got a makeover by scientists working for the biggest polluters of that toxic waste, and they turned that waste into compulsory “medicine” that is added to my tap water today. More than 50 years ago my family changed its diet to fresh food, to save my father’s health, and it worked, while that life-saving booklet was banned in the USA. That was my first inkling on the corruption, and I later saw the medical racket in all its glory.

Dissolving Illusions had a chapter on polio, and it is the same story. The rise and fall of polio almost perfectly matches the rise and fall of arsenic-based pesticides and DDT. As with the rest of them, vaccination receives no credit for eradicating polio, and it was the barbaric treatments that left crippled patients. Sister Kenny invented physical therapy to help children recover from polio, and it worked. According to the CDC, nearly all American polio cases in the 1970s and 1980s were caused by the vaccine!

Moskowitz wrote at length on just what vaccination seems to do. It seems to induce an autoimmune reaction, and may well be responsible for the skyrocketing autoimmune diseases in my lifetime, as children are barraged with vaccines today.

So, step up and get a Frankensteinian treatment for what is likely a Frankensteinian disease? No thank you, but they will make people’s lives a hell for refusing.

As I see it, the entire foundation of Western medicine is flawed, perhaps fatally. But there is way too much wealth and power wrapped up in the paradigm, an easily herded humanity will continue to sleepwalk off the cliffs, and the medical racket, like all the rackets, will roll along until the arrival of the Fifth Epoch collapses all rackets. Medicine in the Fifth Epoch will look almost nothing like what we see today.

Best,

Wade