WADE FRAZIER : A Healed Planet

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

You will start to see me refer back to the earlier posts in this thread more. The more the information and ideas interlink, the more comprehensive the perspective will be, as I try to form a web. That is the primary reason why I am doing this, and if the energy issue running through it all is not obvious by now, it will be before I am finished.

When discussing energy and civilization, you will hear terms such as carrying capacity and carbon footprint, which measure the human impact on Earth’s systems, which include ecosystems and physical systems. Take the example of those pastoralists before they evolved to digest lactose.

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post543124

When they raised cattle for meat, the carrying capacity of an acre of land was X, as far as supporting the human species. When they evolved the ability to digest lactose, the same land had a human carrying capacity of 5X. The same amount of sunlight hit the pasture, and the same number of cows grazed it. But humans increased the yield by 500%. Cows paid that price. Their biological energy went to humans instead of having calves and other activities. In “return,” humans kept competing predators at bay. So, cow and predator energy was diverted to humans. The biological productivity of the land was the same, but humans consumed more of it.

As I mentioned earlier, in young forests, most energy is used for plant growth, as they try to outgrow each other to get the most energy (sunlight). Maturing forest ecosystems spend most of their energy running their biology. When humans razed a forest and kept it pasture, it kept the ecosystem in an early state of ecological succession, and most of the energy went into growing the grass that the cows ate. It diverted energy that would have gone into running a forest ecosystem into running a cow that provided milk or meat. The energy delivered by the sun is the same. Also, when the forest was razed, all of that stored energy in the tree structure (primarily cellulose and lignin) was commandeered for human use. Some of the structure was re-used to build dwellings and tools (no longer providing a photosynthetic platform for leaves and needles), but most of the energy was released in a fire, to keep humans warm (as they live outside their natural range) and pre-digest their food.

When humans learned to smelt metal, beginning with copper and the other elements used to make bronze, then the deforestation of Earth began in earnest. There was a positive feedback in that wood was burned to achieve the temperatures to melt the metal from the ore, and the resultant metal tools made it easier to obtain trees.

After the ore was mined for it, for an ancient copper ingot made on Crete, which weighed around 20Kg (50 pounds):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxhide_ingot

it took four acres of pine trees to be turned into charcoal to smelt it.

That dynamic became more pronounced when humans created furnaces that reached the temperatures needed to smelt iron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...d_the_Iron_Age

More wood was needed to achieve the higher energy output, and iron made it easier to fell trees.

Metallurgy devastated the forests, and most smithies were out in the woods so they had a nearby supply of fuel. Crete originally had forests of pine, cedar and oak. Nearly five thousand years ago, the Near East had already been so thoroughly deforested that Minoan civilization became coveted for its verdant forests. The resulting Bronze Age Minoan civilization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_civilization

deforested Crete. By 1500 B.C., Minoan civilization was strapped for wood, importing cedar from as far away as Syria, and grazing sheep, not forests, dominated. By the time of classic Greece, arid Crete was the land of cypress, not cedar. Next up was Cyprus, which also had verdant forests before the copper industry moved there. In only about two centuries, Cyprus was completely deforested by the copper industry, and 90% of the island’s settlements were abandoned by 1050 B.C. Accompanying the deforestation was awesome erosion, as the forests stabilized the soils. Then it was the Greek mainland’s turn. The Classic Greek wars with Sparta were basically a fight over the dwindling forests. Athens tried to invade Sicily to plunder their forests but failed, and Athens and the vicinity was a deforested wasteland in the wake of the war. Then it was Rome’s turn, and their depredations were prodigious. They buzzed through Italy’s and France’s forests before they invaded Britain, which was largely about establishing mining operations, and a century of iron mining denuded hundreds of square miles and the Roman British mining operations ceased. The forests of Cyprus recovered over several hundred years, but two hundred years of Roman mining operations completely deforested Cyprus again by 200 A.D. A thousand years later, Christians and Moslems were fighting over the recovered forests of Cyprus.

Deforestation also happened when humans burned them, but that dynamic largely became sustainable. The Great Plains of the USA were partly human-created, by thousands of years of controlled burning, to keep the forest from growing back so grazing animals could live there, and in turn be hunted by humans. In the Eastern Woodlands, the Indians burned the undergrowth to keep the woody growth at bay, to again foster grazing animals. Energy was diverted from growing woody undergrowth to feeding animals that humans could hunt, such as deer. It was always an energy game, although the peoples likely did not think of it that way.

Plants have different reproductive strategies. Some plants spread many seeds, and by the odds of large numbers, some would take root. Those that matured in a season, to die but make seeds, are called annuals. Those that grow for a more than two years are called perennials. Perennials need to survive the seasons, while annuals do not, and surviving the seasons requires various strategies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perenni..._and_structure

Making seeds requires a heavy energy investment. Humans can digest many kinds of seeds, and those that feed the mass of humanity today are mainly annuals (corn, wheat, rice). From a Darwinian perspective, those annuals that dominate the human food supply are highly successful plants, as they are all over the world and actively cultivated by people. But from the perspective of the ecosystems, all other life forms were losers, from the plants that were sacrificed to make way for a wheat field, to the animals that lost their homes and food supply, and the predators that ate them. Human dominance meant that they commandeered the sun’s energy at the expense of the native life forms. Driving the megafauna to extinction was just the beginning.

More on carrying capacity, carbon footprints and global warming (which actually began several thousand years ago) later, but time for bed.

Best,

Wade

[Limor Wolf]

Hi Wade,

I have something on my mind, I am sorry if it will sound like a tough question or unrelated, but I hope you might be able to answer it based on your comprehensive knowledge and your (Painstakingly acquired) worldview.

: would you say that everything would be functioning in a perfectly uniform symbiosis if human beings would not have appeared on this earth ?
is it just man that does not understand its role in nature, or would a system of multitude of organisms would at any one time disrupt the natural flow of everything (just like we do) ?

I am always greatful for your all inclusive posts, Wade, is has so much value and meaningful content. I find myself struggling with trying to grasp what is actually included under the definition of 'energy', are we talking only on the practical term, or does it also include this subtle force that runs the universe? energy seems to run great portions of this world, it cerainly looks as if any process, whether it is natural or not, have a significant impact and implications on our surroundings and on this planet, I am yet to learn in depth how everything is a 'give and take ' when it comes to energy, and how we can use this understanding to better this world and to strive and bring ourselves and this beautiful place to its highest potential.

This what goes in my mind this morning, there are days with more exclamation marks and days with more question marks., today is my Q day

I wonder, what would have happen if we knew everything... ?

(you see, I told you )


Hope you all have an enjoyable weekend,

~^&*~^&

Limor


P.s

Wade, you have an exactly 1,111 posts, please don't post anymore

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Limor:

Sorry to wreck the numeric perfection of the number of posts I have made.

I encourage questions like that, and thanks for asking. Life on Earth has always been evolving. Complex life that has not evolved much recently is rare, but there is some to find:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post526024

Peter Ward’s Medea Hypothesis:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post522316

is that life wipes out life, and has been doing so for billions of years, so there has rarely been a uniform symbiosis, so to speak, if ever. I am coming soon to where I sit back and don the mystical lenses for a moment, and I consider it possible that possible futures like what Roads saw:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/visions.htm#roads1

is where we finally begin to reach our potential, and we can find out what truly sentient life is capable of. Maybe that is why we are here, to help this species reach that potential. The mystical stuff more than hints that the human potential is to turn Earth’s ecosystems into a paradise that has never existed before. That world that Roads glimpsed qualifies, IMO, and they did it with love. They reached a harmony with Earth that may have never existed before.

Your musings about the energy issue are apropos and part of the conundrum. Energy runs our existence in both obvious and subtle ways. You need food to live, and what the food primarily provides you is energy to run your body, and your brain more than anything else. You live in the industrialized world, so the energy provided by fossil fuels is what your life rides on, and indeed what the lives of everybody in the industrialized world rides on. Look around you. Every machine, virtually every material, was made and brought to you courtesy of the energy released by fossil fuels, which is the energy of sunlight that was captured millions of years ago.

But that is just the obvious stuff. What I think is more important to understand is the subtle stuff. When herders learned to milk cows and became able to digest the milk, none of them thought in terms of “energy” and how the carrying capacity of an acre was increased five-fold, but they came to realize that a cow could feed more people that way. All living things for all time have been primarily oriented around their energy supply, and it has never been different with humans, but as we became “sentient,” and societies became more complex, riding on that energy surplus, people tended to lose sight of that. The basics never change. All of the dominant ideologies in the world today have energy scarcity as their founding assumption:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/paradigm.htm#dominant

but few people are conscious (AKA sentient) enough to realize it. All of that FE denial and those unproductive reactions (Levels 1 to 11 http://www.ahealedplanet.net/paradigm.htm#level1 ) are essentially knee-jerk reactions based on scarcity, as they reject abundance. For levels 5 to 11, it may not seem that way, but those levels are all in denial, in one way or another, of the reality of the world that we live in. Much is due to inexperience, but most is due to being entrapped in scarcity-based ways of thinking and not understanding that you can’t get to abundance from a scarcity mindset. This is the crux of the conundrum, IMO. And when you write of the subtle energy of the cosmos, you are writing about the Creator’s energy, and my understanding is that that is love:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/energy.htm#greatest

That is why I have repeatedly stated that a loving approach to the FE issue is not only the “nice” one to try; it may be the only one that will work. I have voiced my suspicion for many years that the zero-point field is likely divine in nature, and only those civilizations with sufficient divine intention can successfully tap it. Love and FE are joined at the hip in ways that can be exceedingly subtle. Since Einstein, scientists have understood that the entire universe is nothing but energy. Energy is all that we are while in physical reality, so the energy issue had better be front and center, but I find few Westerners who really have any idea of how energy runs our bodies, how it runs all ecosystems, how it runs our societies, and how so much of our culture, belief systems and other things that supposedly make us human are all rooted in the assumption of energy scarcity, because that is all that humanity has ever known. FE means an entirely different reality, and that is what I am trying to get across, and the more people who can understand the ways in which the energy situation shapes our world today, and what the potential of abundant, environmentally-harmless energy is (which I know already exists on the planet (http://www.ahealedplanet.net/camelot.htm#underground ), but we don’t get any while we are collectively asleep), the greater our chance of helping that abundant world manifest. As I have stated before, Godzilla’s greatest triumph is making FE and what can come with it unimaginable. I am trying to throw a monkey wrench in his plans. Can I do it in a way that does not risk my life and those whom I am trying to find to form that choir? I don’t know, and it may be a fool’s errand, but I am trying to find out.

I was going to write a little bit about plow agriculture this morning. It increases the short-term “carrying capacity” of the land, but deforestation and plow agriculture eventually turns the land into desert. There used to be a forest running from Morocco to Afghanistan, but human “civilization” wiped it out long ago, with much of that former forest being desert and semi-desert today. But your question was timely.

Off to work now.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I won’t have much time in the next couple of weeks, but I want to get some of those early civilization posts done. Back before life colonized land, the continents were effectively deserts. Any water that landed as rain flowed off into the oceans in sheets. Rivers as we know them did not exist, except for what are called braided rivers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braided_river

Rivers as we know them did not form until plants colonized land and their roots stabilized what became riverbanks. Until life colonized land, there was nothing to retain the moisture of rain. It is the organic matter of ecosystems that provides the “sponge” that retains water. That water retained in ecosystems is also what sustains them between rains/snows. Most of the rain that falls in the Amazon today does not come from the ocean, but is recycled from the rain forest, as water evaporates from the land or transpiration from the plants, forms clouds, then rains. When a forest is razed, the ability of the ecosystem to retain water is largely lost. If the land where the forest was is then subjected to plow agriculture, the exposed soil is gradually lost to the oceans via erosion. About a quarter of the world’s topsoil has been lost since 1945. It took far longer to make that topsoil. The gradual transition from verdant forest to desert is well documented in the Old World, and scientists have adduced that evidence for prehistoric civilizations. When Europeans began sailing the high seas and conquering the world, that process of deforestation and desertification was often very dramatic, beginning in the islands of the Atlantic. Cape Verde is the “green” islands settled by Portuguese slavers. In about a generation, Christopher Columbus thought them misnamed, as there was not a green thing on them. During Columbus’s lifetime, the Canary Islands became much dryer.

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/america.htm#guanches

When the Spaniards conquered the Aztecs, what is today called the Valley of Mezquital was a fertile valley of forests and Indian settlements. In a century of deforestation and sheep grazing, it became a semi-desert, which it remains to this day:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/america.htm#_edn83

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_...casestudy7.pdf

Grazing animals like sheep and goats are also what helped make deserts in the Old World, as the grazers’ hooves compacted the exposed soils and they ate any attempts for the forest ecosystems to recover. When the British invaded Australia, the same thing happened: deforestation, mass grazing, and desertification. Also the native humans also largely died off, via disease, exploitation, and violence. The greatest catastrophe in human history is when Europe conquered the world, although you will rarely find a white person who will describe it that way. When the English invaded New England, the same dynamics happened, but the more northern climes are more resistant to becoming deserts, so the lush New English biome did not quite become a desert as it was shorn of its forests (see Cronon’s Changes in the Land). The environmental devastation of North America is a recent phenomenon, so the plains and forests have not quite been eroded to bedrock, although it is most of the way there in parts of the Great Plains. The Dust Bowl was an effect of those enlightened times:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl

and it drove my grandparents out of Kansas:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/america.htm#kansas

I was in Kansas just last year, and the river near where my grandfather grew up was bone dry. The ancient aquifer under the homestead where my grandfather was raised:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

is now bone dry. Irrigated farming is dead there, and the town were my grandfather was raised is fast becoming a ghost town. The aquifer in the southern plains will be dry in thirty years at this rate.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...rs-study-finds

But those are tiny problems when compared to other parts of the world.

There has been a great deal of romanticizing of Stone Age peoples, their diets, living the hunter-gatherer ideal, or those quiet villagers living in peace and plenty. There is no evidence of some Golden Age of the human past, and humans are not all that well adapted to their diets – evolution does not move that fast. There are plenty of myths and legends of Golden Ages, but no credible evidence that a scientist would take seriously.

I wrote about early civilization in the Old World, and how environmentally devastating it was. Not only was it environmentally devastating, the human situation almost beggars the imagination. One of the oldest texts is the Code of Hammurabi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

and its “eye-for-an-eye” justice was civilized for the times. Execution was the standard sentence meted out for all manner of crime in that code:

http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm

What might be the bloodiest book of all time is the revered holy book the Old Testament, which is filled with genocidal slaughters, with the Jewish god regularly cheering them on:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/savings.htm#joshua

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bib...lence#Genocide

Rome’s great architectural feat was the Coliseum, where people were forced to murder each other for entertainment. Megafauna of Northern Africa were devastated by Rome, even driven to extinction, such as the Northern African elephant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_African_Elephant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venatio

so they could die in the arenas. There were even bears in Northern Africa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_bear

Not exactly tales to inspire, I know, but this is the West’s past, and those dynamics still echo today.

My point is that energy sustainability was not even a concept back then. From their earliest days, humans were windfall energy gain opportunists, and they plundered energy resources until they ran out. Many civilizations collapsed that way. Even the “water mountains” of the Mayans were sustained by energy-delivered water supplies (sunlight powers the hydrological cycle), with the civilization at the mercy of the weather. The weather was not merciful, and the Mayan civilization collapsed, as did the Anasazi, as did Angkor Wat:

http://www.livescience.com/17702-dro...ty-angkor.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angkor#Natural_disaster

Until industrialization, all civilizations were at the mercy of the weather, always subject to starvation if the harvest was poor. There are no exceptions that I know of. Their energy situation was always precarious, and that slim margin meant that there was little freedom, by definition:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/lessons.htm#_edn5

Contrary to popular opinion in my great nation, the USA did not invent freedom. In fact, it was the last nation of significance to abolish slavery:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/america.htm#tyler

Slavery has always been an economic institution above all else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Economics

OK, I plan to take a break from this tough sledding and don the mystical lenses for a moment, in the next post.

Best,

Wade

[Chris Gilbert]

There is a fair amount of over-romanticization of stone age and hunter-gather cultures to be sure, I noticed this in a Native American anthropology class I took in my final semester.

One key difference that could be noted however is that inspite of the higher levels of violence and homicide, members of hunter-gather and horticultural societies did not have corporate wage slavery with long hours in the sense that we do. Their animist views of reality, though filled with a fair degree of myth and superstition, were also arguably closer to the holographic nature of the universe than the crass materialism and theism that are now the norm.

For those reasons, acute psychological suffering was probably less, an argument that has some weight given the fact it was generally Europeans who "went native" of their own will, while the reverse was almost never true minus coercion.

Ultimately though the society of the future will have to be something entirely different and we really can't "turn back the clock" anymore.

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Enishi:

Yes, just who was primitive, the Europeans or the Indians? I once asked a channeled American Indian what the point was with Europe’s conquest of the world, and he said, “The dilution of bad ideas.”

I spill quite a bit of ink on my site on the meeting of European culture with the New World ones:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/lies.htm#more

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/columbus.htm

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/america.htm#before

It was one of the first areas that I began researching twenty years ago. Yes, the European way of being had little allure for the American Indian. This is an area that I keep reading up on. I live in Seattle, and I see plenty of what it is like for American Indians today, and it is a very sad thing.

During the research for his 1491, Charles Mann asked a bunch of anthropologists working in the field of American Indian studies and the invasion by Europe which culture they would have wanted to live in, and all chose the Indian lifestyle. Yes, no American Indians went “European” of their own accord, but “going native” was an epidemic problem for the European invaders, and places like Jamestown made it a capital crime to run off and live with the Indians.

Yes, the USA can’t all get on boats and move back to Europe, and the hunter-gatherer lifestyle can only support a few million people on Earth, and there is no going back to it. It is the same with Bronze Age village life. The Fossil Fuel Age will be seen the same one day, if we survive it. As Albert Einstein said, if there is a World War Four, it will be fought with stones and spears. We either go forward or fall all the way back to the bottom. There is no in-between. That can kind of segue to that mystical post that I am planning to make. There is a great deal of speculation, but little evidence, that technically-advanced civilizations existed in the past, and they perished, and humans started over with stones and spears. While I can see the logic of it, and I have been told that I helped melt down Atlantis, there really is not much evidence, at all, of any civilization like that existing on this planet. It would have left artifacts, if it was in any way extensive. The evidence in books such as Forbidden Archeology is far from convincing. I may not get that post made this weekend, but we will see.

Best,

Wade

[Ernie Nemeth]

I am going to try one last time to make a point that I see as fundamentally important to this discussion.

First of all, to address the veneration of scientists and the denegration of the layman. This seems to be the theme on this thread - a point made to ensure we all know our place. Who is to listen and agree and who may develop ideas and topical trends.

Then there is the house-cleaning approach to any topic refuted with shakey evidence. As if only the thread-touted conclusions have merit. No civilizations of any sophistication before the Egyptians, no beings from other worlds, no punctuated historical periods of rapid evolution or geographical upheavals, no universal template for intelligent species to explain our own species rise to civilization, no ancient writings and records have any truth to them, etc., etc. Yet white-skin appearing in a mere 20,000 years is considered acceptable - yet no record of the reverse happening to prove it.

Tossing that all aside, since it is all just background work anyway, we arrive at the crux of the issue. Why this tremendous delay? Why one and a half years later have we not left the arena of rewriting history and the lauding of the scientific method? For one who admits to impatience, sure a lot of patience being observed. Now we are into a crisis from which we cannot back away and still no new direction to turn in, no great new technology to give us hope. Instead we are shown the irascible nature of our kind and convinced of the mushy-brained individuals we all are.

Like usual, I probably make this post just as things pick up around here - and for that I am sorry. I don't understand this thread - and yet I continue to hope for a game-changing post.

I want to erase, I don't like to rock the boat. But more, I want to make clear, although I understand no one really cares - that I have not been convinced and I have not given over my ability to think for myself - even if I am "only a layman".

There is only this thread that holds out any hope for us humans on this forum. The rest are all speculations and fear-mongering. Only the "here and now" thread offers immediate results and only this one offers us hope for the future. I will not give up hope, but I will not give up my ability to rationalize and think for myself either.

Sorry Wade, I felt I needed to sound off.
I'll tune out again.

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Ernie:

I am not a credentialed scientist myself, so I am not sure who you think is being denigrated. I spent a long time on this thread distinguishing between White Science, Fringe Science, and Black Science. Each has its upside and downside.

If I was not working killer hours in my day job, and fighting burnout and other challenges, I would be a lot further along, but what has really been hampering on this thread are all the inventor-itis posts, which has tested my patience, and I have not always done well with that, especially when I come home from long days at work to see posts like, “I know how to do FE (you made a post like that here once, as I recall).” “What do you think about this or that inventor?” “He has it!” and so on. Those are all naïve, early stage perspectives, and they have their place, but not here. Fortunately, that has died down, and Ilie has been moving those kinds of posts to the appropriate thread. I am trying to raise the bar, and I am shooting for quality, not quantity.

From my long years in this field, I noticed that there is not an aware and engaged public, and its scientific illiteracy is a big part of the problem. Scientifically illiterate truth seekers have been easy prey to all manner of huckster, charlatan, the incompetent and the deluded in what I will charitably call Fringe Science. People should at least understand what the orthodox position is before they go chasing after Fringe Science topics, and this is something that I learned myself long ago, as I sifted through Fringe Science topics. There is a mountain of chaff for every kernel of wheat in that milieu.

Almost every time that I look at a different Avalon thread, it is recycling disinformation on the moon landings, getting all hot and bothered over a SOHO lens flare being a stargate in the sun, and other tabloid topics. Obviously, few Avalonians are in my target audience, but Bill, Ilie, Paul and friends keep the trolls at bay, which I have never enjoyed before. I am set on by professional trolls if I get into public forums, and my work is challenging to almost all dominant ideologies (http://www.ahealedplanet.net/paradigm.htm#dominant), so everybody’s ox gets gored and I am attacked by all sides.

I think that I have been very clear on what my goal and strategy is, and just when I really get to the meat of what I am trying to do, I get a post from you wondering what it is all about.

What I am trying to do is help people, especially non-scientists, think comprehensively, because when they do, they will understand the central importance of the energy issue, and they will not be distracted by the New Age flavor of the month, or the elite herd management, and so on. Almost nobody that I have ever encountered has achieved productive understandings of the issue. That is the problem that I am trying to address, and it may be a lost cause, but I had to try. For those who want to go out and “do something” about FE, like go and try to build an FE prototype and hawk it to the public or an institution, this is not the thread for them. Been there, done that, and I am trying to do something different, and I have made it clear in my site’s writings:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/paradigm.htm#developing

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/lessons.htm#pursuing

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/scarcity.htm#summary

in interviews:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/camelot.htm#imagine

and I have done so many times on this thread. Ernie, I think that you need to do something else with your time other than read this thread. There is a lot of good to do in the world, and I wish you the best in doing it. What I am trying to do is certainly not for everybody.

Love,

Wade

[wynderer]

i thought this article might be relevant

Free Energy Technology Could Destroy the Natural World (But It Doesn't Have To)

Friday, April 24, 2009
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) As the editor of NaturalNews, I've long been a proponent of free energy technologies and research. I've written about the reality of cold fusion for more than ten years, braving the incessant whining of ignorant scientists who said it was all a hoax, year after year, right up until the U.S. Navy recently announced its own cold fusion breakthroughs.

But in the world of free energy, cold fusion is where things are just warming up. The really interesting stuff is more in the realm of zero point energy -- tapping the vast stores of pure energy woven into the fabric of reality, even absent any physical matter whatsoever.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that free energy research has been blocked, discredited and suppressed by an organized cabal of fossil fuel pushers, but that's a different story altogether. This story is about something more pressing: What happens if we succeed in commercializing free energy technology?


Can Mr. Fusion become a reality?
There are many good candidates for free energy technologies that could be commercialized and sold for a few thousand dollars per household. Theoretically, such a device would be installed in a home (or office) and simply channel electricity day after day, year after year, with no moving parts and without ever using up its energy source.

Note, carefully, that this does not by definition violate any laws of physics. These devices aren't creating energy from nothing; they're simply channel energy from one form to another, much like solar panels do.

The pop-culture rendition of this concept is the "Mr. Fusion" machine in the Back to the Future movie series: Feed it banana peels and you get enormous amounts of energy along the lines of Einstein's famous equation: E = MC2.

That's a lot of juice from banana peels.

Let's leapfrog past the question of whether a Mr. Fusion type of device can actually be commercialized and go right to the larger issues here: What happens if Mr. Fusion machines could be purchased for a few thousand bucks?

I say that unless something radical changes in the ethics and behavior of humankind, such an invention would result in the near-complete destruction of nature and the eventual collapse of human civilization.

Why? Read on, dear friends...


Cheap energy unleashes a population bubble
Think about how we got where we are right now: We live on an over-populated planet that's been over-developed, mined, exploited, polluted and devastated by the sudden presence of a ballooning human population. In the year 1750, the world population was around 800 million. By 2050, it's estimated to reach nearly nine billion people -- a growth rate of over 1000% in just three centuries (the blink of an eye in terms of planetary history). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population)

How was this population growth made possible? Cheap energy.

Yep: Cheap energy is what made the industrial revolution possible -- and with it came cheap food and an ensuing population bubble. The discovery and harnessing of fossil fuels resulted in the most astonishing population boom our planet has ever seen. Along with it, of course, came the organized destruction of nature. All those people have to live somewhere, after all. Their food has to be grown somewhere; their home construction materials have to be harvested from somewhere; and they have to poop somewhere, too. As the population bubble was fueled by cheap energy (fossil fuels), so did the destruction of nature and the paving over of our natural world.

Cheap energy gave us mechanized agriculture, low-cost ocean fishing and affordable ways to level mountains, dig canals and engage in serious terraforming activities (like the construction of the Hoover Dam or the Panama Canal).

And yet there is a limit to all this. It's a limit imposed by the practical costs of drilling and refining fossil fuels. There's also a limit to how much fossil fuel is contained in the Earth (peak oil is upon us). As a result of these real-world limits, there are mountains that cannot be profitably turned into condos. There is beach front property that cannot be profitably transformed into vacation resorts. Mother Nature benefits from a margin of safety simply because further destruction is beyond the economic reach of developers.

Free energy would eliminate those barriers. With essentially free energy powering a new generation of electric cars, trucks, planes and earth-moving equipment (with their Mr. Fusion devices on board), there is no longer any natural barrier to property development. Electric-powered personal aircraft would become practical and affordable, allowing the commercialization of previously remote sites. Even the paving of new roads and railways becomes remarkably cheap when energy costs nothing.

Free energy could unleash the most drastic population explosion and development boom ever seen on our planet. And the result, I fear, would be the near-complete destruction of our natural world.

This is the pessimistic side of the free energy story. But there's another side...


Look on the bright side
On the bright side of this equation, free energy would allow the global reclamation of deserts, turning them into oasis farmlands with lush natural life. How is this possible? Through free energy powered desalination of ocean water.

If energy is essentially free, processing ocean water into fresh water and pumping it into deserts for agriculture, reforestation or property development is dirt cheap. Suddenly, you could see the world's deserts being reforested with the help of free energy technology.

At the same time, all this new farmland would actually contribute to the population problem by creating new sources of cheap food. The food bubble, in other words, would grow even larger, and the population densities of the cities would increase substantially.

Then again, if energy is really free, we could shut down the world's coal-fired power plants, essentially ending the carbon emissions that now threaten the planet with global warming. This would directly reduce the carbon footprint associated with energy use, indirectly increasing the carrying capacity of the planet.

Stated another way, if energy is clean and (nearly) free, then the planet can probably handle a larger population.

Free energy could also replace all the nuclear power plants in the world, eliminating both nuclear waste and the potential for nuclear reactor disasters. It could even replace the electricity generated from hydroelectric dams, which were once thought to produce "clean" energy but in reality have proven to be ecological disasters.

So there is a potential bright side to free energy. But how do we know whether such technologies will be used to create rather than destroy?


What's lacking: Ethics
The human race has not yet achieved the level of consciousness and ethics that would seem to be prerequisites for the handling of such powerful technologies. Free energy is no toy -- it is a planet-changing technology that could be used for either tremendous good or endless evil. It all depends on the intentions and self-imposed limitations of those who use the technology.

This point has not been missed by free energy inventors. One inventor in a remote village says his device already powers the entire village, but he refuses to release it to the world for precisely the reasons I've mentioned here: The world isn't ready for such advanced technologies. Humans didn't do too well handling fossil fuels, after all. Handing them even bigger toys to play with might be disastrous...

Another potential concern is that free energy might not really be free. Perhaps a zero point energy device appears to produce energy from nothing, but maybe a million light years away some star is winking out of existence because the zero point device is somehow sapping its energy and tunneling it across the universe to power your personal helicopter.

Even if humans can invent free energy devices, it's no guarantee we understand the ramifications of using them. This is the story of fossil fuels, after all: Cheap energy colliding with poor planning. Oil seemed endless for a while, and the environment seemed fine for a while, too. But now that we've come to realize how the burning of fossil fuels is destroying our future, it's too late to undo the damage.

Furthermore, the availability of cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels has taught the citizens of advanced nations to be extremely wasteful. Even cheaper "free" energy would terminate any efforts to teach energy conservation, resulting in a world of wasteful energy consumers who think nothing of leaving the electric car running all night just so the heater works in the morning without any warm-up delay (as an example).

Making energy free means there is essentially no cost to wasting it. So why not build homes without insulation and use free energy to run all the air conditioners? Why not populate the oceans with cruise ships powered by large-scale free-energy devices? There's no limit to the waste when energy is essentially free.


Humans are not yet ready for free energy
I agree that free energy sounds like a panacea, especially at first glance. Replace the coal-fired power plants and ditch gasoline vehicles for quiet, clean electric vehicles! Sounds great, right? But once you look more closely at the root cause of the current human population bubble -- and the destruction of nature we've caused in the last century -- it becomes obvious that unless humanity suddenly gains a whole new set of ethics, the introduction of free energy technology could be disastrous for the future of human civilization.

The fact that energy actually costs something right now is, in effect, putting the brakes on many of the activities of human beings. So it acts like a natural limiter of development and population. Lifting that cost and making energy "free" would unleash a whole new era of population growth and destructive exploitation of nature.

I believe human beings may be ready for free energy someday, and without question certain individuals or communities may have the wisdom to use these technologies wisely right now, but in no way is the human population as a whole ready to be handed this technology. For the most part, humans are a race of narrow-minded, short-sighted infants who have proven themselves incapable of long-term planning or even respecting life on the planet. Before humans are given free energy, they need to demonstrate the responsible use of existing resources and technologies, and sadly, humans are far from that.

Virtually all major technological advances on planet Earth have been motivated by WAR. Nuclear physics? It was all about war. Space exploration? It was about war, too. Exploring the oceans? War. Microbiology advances? War. Robotics? War. Solar technology? The U.S. military is the largest customer of solar tech. Even the Internet was originally developed as an information grid designed to send military messages during a nuclear attack.

Human beings have proven themselves to be preoccupied with war, profit and self destruction. Given such traits, the very last thing humans need right now is breakthrough energy technology that produces endless energy at virtually zero cost.

Handing this over to human beings now would be like giving a child a set of big red buttons for launching nuclear missiles.

What could be a possible solution for all this? An energy device that only works in conjunction with high-vibration intention from open-hearted individuals. If a device could amplify positive human intention into cheap energy -- while not working at all for those with dark hearts -- it could change everything for the positive. Love, after all, is the highest vibratory energy in the universe. It's not beyond imagination that love might someday be tapped as a conduit for clean, renewable electromagnetic energy. Need to recharge your laptop computer? Just send it some love!


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/026116_en...#ixzz24a8RqMTL

[Chris Gilbert]

Alternative archaelogy is one topic that has often interested me as well. A site I used to go to frequently in relation to such topics was this one: http://davidpratt.info/. There's some interesting info therein, and at one point the author had me 90% convinced, but as time went on it became clear that he's guilty of the very thing he accuses mainstream scientists of, cherry picking and shoehorning the evidence all in favor of his own theosophical belief system.

My conclusion at this point is that if Atlantis did indeed exist, the two most likely proposed sites are Thera, and the vast region of the Sunda Plate, which was above water in the previous Ice Age. I agree however that there is no substantial evidence that such civilizations were technically advanced in the sense of possessing factories or electronics like we do. Rather, their strong points may have been in the area of esoteric knowledge, along with some advanced strongworking techniques that could have been dissiminated to ancient Egypt, thus explaining the amazing engineering work of the Sphynix and Great Pyramid.

Ultimately though, such matters are a sideshow, and it's good to not get too distracted by them. Debates over now dead civilizations may mean little when the turning point is reached of the environment dying and society collapsing into worsening poverty and feudalism...

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Wynderer:

Adams interviewed Brian O, and he published one of the few obits for Brian.

http://www.naturalnews.com/033197_Br...ee_energy.html

I respect Adams’s work, but he is an FE newbie and it shows in that article.

Hi Enishi:

Yes, Pratt is one of the fringe ax-grinders for his creed. There is a lot of that out there on the fringes, and you usually have to go deep, like you did with him, to eventually see that he was not exactly playing it straight as a scientist out to amass data and see where the chips fell. White Scientists get enamored with their theories, too, but the fringe ax-grinders can take that fervor to a new level, and play fast and loose with the data.

You will see people advocating vertical tectonics and other theories, and it is usually to make some channeled information or belief system “right.” There is a lot of Christian “science” out there. Einstein and Brian O were that rare breed of open-minded scientist who entertained wild theories like Velikovsky’s (although Einstein never bought the Young Venus theory of V’s), and Brian eventually came to regret getting dragged into various scientific controversies by the ax-grinders, whom Brian saw not playing fairly, such as Hoagland stretching the data points in making the case for the Cydonian “city.”

I’ll buy that many ancient peoples probably explored consciousness in ways that you don’t see today. All of the Infinite Spirits manifested thousands of years ago, although a bunch are probably on their way. When I have dipped into the Egyptian monuments issue, I have usually come away seeing fringe folks making shaky cases. Pre-industrial peoples were good at working in stone, as it was the primary “permanent” material that they had to work with. I think that invoking some extraordinary, advanced technology is selling those people short. They did advanced stonework all over the world, independently, like they domesticated plants and animals. I think that there is less than meets the eye with a lot of that ancient technology speculation and, yes, we have much bigger fish to fry. The solutions to the big problems facing us are not going to be solved by decoding the Quipu or getting those last Mayan glyphs deciphered.

OK, that mystical post is coming soon.

Best,

Wade

[wynderer]

thanks for response, Wade -- a quote from your link:

'Originally trained as a conventional scientist, Brian O'Leary's investigation of the universe opened his eyes to many advanced theories that aren't yet recognized by conventional scientists (who remain far behind the curve on over-unity energy research). He eventually bucked the system, left the stifling world of academia and set out on his own to explore alternative science and free energy research.'
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033197_Br...#ixzz24b4MXq00

as a right-brainer, i often struggle to grasp your concepts, tho i recognize them as a bridge between 'matter' & 'Spirit' --

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Wynderer:

It is OK to struggle with it. I have plenty of years of my head hurting as I grappled with this stuff. As I have stated plenty, if not for my radicalizing days with Dennis, I doubt that I would have very much worth saying. It took that experience to blow my indoctrination to shreds, to be brutally awakened from my naïveté, and realize that I probably did not know anything about how the world really worked. I am not saying that I do today, but I know a lot about how it doesn’t work.

Like Brian, it took that mystical awakening to really begin to expand our horizons:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianmem.htm#remote

The rough ride came later.

Best,

Wade

[Melinda]

Posted by wynderer (here)
i thought this article might be relevant

Free Energy Technology Could Destroy the Natural World (But It Doesn't Have To)..

...Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/026116_en...#ixzz24a8RqMTL

I hope it's alright to post my thoughts about this here Wade. I wrote it as a way to help me think things through.

I came across this article on August 20th on another website where it was recently posted, and it has stayed with me.
http://www.wariscrime.com/2012/08/19...r-free-energy/
Now I see that Wynderer has posted what appears to be the same 2009 article (by Mike Adams, editor of NaturalNews.) So I thought I might share my response.

Adams writes: "...With essentially free energy powering a new generation of electric cars, trucks, planes and earth-moving equipment (with their Mr. Fusion devices on board), there is no longer any natural barrier to property development. Electric-powered personal aircraft would become practical and affordable, allowing the commercialization of previously remote sites. Even the paving of new roads and railways becomes remarkably cheap when energy costs nothing. Free energy could unleash the most drastic population explosion and development boom ever seen on our planet. And the result, I fear, would be the near-complete destruction of our natural world..."

I understand Mike's fears (and have benefited from many more of his articles, for which I'm truly grateful.) So it's not that I dismiss his points, which are important ones. I understand many humans aren't yet ready for FE. It's just that reading it made me feel very sad. It reminded me of many of the people who would, as Mike points out, be more than ready to abuse FE. Perhaps I'm wrong, but at a first glance I put those people somewhere between the world's darkest power-mongers (who probably already have FE at their disposal for nefarious purposes) and the rest of us (who given a chance would mainly wish to use it to feed and house ourselves and our fellow earth-beings effectively.) Even though there is this greedy lot of 'inbetweeners,' I still believe they are in a minority compared to most people. I also believe that with the right preparation, the right education about the higher, cleaner quality of life and reduction of 'survival-stress' that can accompany FE, most people would feel relieved and more empowered, and it is a shared feeling of empowerment that could be key to standing up for both ourselves and the natural environment to prevent its further degradation. I don't mean to oversimplify the human condition; this aspect (of how most people might react) is a complex one that could be delved into in much greater detail, but I feel this may not be the time or the place. At least your upcoming essay and other related efforts take us one step further in the direction of giving people a chance to grow this conversation.

Mike's point about fearing increased planetary destruction is obviously a potent one. When I think of the world's current state, the imagery of current destructiveness that comes most immediately to mind is: vast amounts of garbage in landfill, the plundering of natural environments for fuel and farming, and the polluting of our air, land and water due to manufacturing, fuel emissions, and waste processing. In theory, I would have thought free energy technologies would provide a solution to these dilemmas in ways never before seen. I think this was even mentioned much earlier in this thread. Mike himself mentions the potential end to nuclear waste and carbon emissions. Still, I would have thought that with FE technologies the potential for waste reduction and reduced environmental destruction goes beyond even that. The ways we build, farm, manufacture and transport could be revolutionised in ways that are far less destructive or materially permanent in relation to the environment, compared to what we have now.

Adams makes the point that with cheaper energy will come bigger population issues. Someone commenting under his article claims that "Over-population is a myth, raising the standard of living causes fertility rates and population to stabilise." It's a shame, because It's difficult for the world's best and brightest, along with people like me, to be engaged in this debate in order to thoroughly address these things if most people aren't even aware FE exists. When I talk to people about FE some of the questions they raise are fairly easily answered, enabling us to move on to another aspect of the discussion, and yet they may have carried around that stumbling block in their mind for years prior, purely because the discussion was unavailable to them. I like to picture a parallel universe where there are entire universities given over to studying the historical, scientific and social implications around FE in order to lay the foundations for its safe introduction. Scientists, historians, architects and philosophers, all under one roof. What a world that would be. I don't mean to write excessively. But now and again I enjoy imagining these things.

I think the main reason Mike Adams' article stayed with me, is that it reaffirmed for me how I wish to see a more comprehensive discussion about FE than the ones I've been able to have (present company excepted.) If free-energy is not what is best, let's, as a collective, work out why. But if it is potentially the best solution let's start imagining the most effective and safest ways it could be implemented.

My understanding of your intention Wade, is your wish to grow the very heart-sentient approach to FE that Mike Adams fears is lacking in the world. And, crucially, you want to combine that heart-based approach with the necessary scientific understanding and historical context; envisioning that if enough people can get the comprehensive ball rolling then perhaps a significant move forward can be made. Truly I hope so. Because I don't want to believe that writing most of us off in a world of enforced scarcity (that crumbles beneath us) is our only option. Fool though I may be, I choose to be an optimist. As Adams himself says, "human beings may be ready for free energy someday." But that readiness won't come without some of us, somewhere, being prepared to explore the possible, positive implications.

I was thinking about what Ernie said. (Having read through the thread I am always curious to read your comments Ernie.)
I am often nourished, and my thoughts are often healthily shaken-up, by numerous fringe theories (on numerous subjects) that clearly and even fundamentally ruffle the feathers of established or proven mainstream outlooks. Still, I can't help but feel that in order to take the discussion of FE into the mainstream the discussion may need to be brought in a language, and with a historical/scientific context that people entrenched in the mainstream can relate to. It may need to be brought in a way that scientists and historians won't throw out immediately due to 'shaky' or contentious theories or evidence. When I am trying to discuss the potential pitfalls and advantages of FE with most people, I really try and focus on our shared understanding of why life is as hard as it is and whether there are other options to cure the planet of the ills we see evidenced in the mainstream. Poverty, war, man's history of competition over resources and the power of love and decency to overcome these things, all fall within the mainstream, and are therefore a language that most people can relate to when discussing the potential implications of a technological breakthrough. My research into ancient ETs however is my own business, and if mentioned to someone of a particular nature may in fact send them running a mile, ending the FE discussion before it's even begun. So I sympathise with Ernie's frustration about what may have been deliberately suppressed and kept out of the mainstream, but I also wish to see the FE discussion someday make its way into the mainstream in a way that gives it staying power.

If anyone knows where there is another comprehensive discussion (of the issues raised in Mike Adam's article) taking place on the web, feel free to PM me and let me know. I don't mean to take up room on this wonderful thread. All the issues I've raised simply reaffirm for me both the necessity for a thorough discussion, and my wish for it. Perhaps I just need more of that most useful virtue. Patience.

[CdnSirian]

Re Ernie's post, I'd like to say some things, but not on this thread.

OK, just one thing. Ernie, Wade does offer a solution, the heart-centered envisionment of a new paradigm. Abundance vs scarcity.

He's not the only person to arrive at the conclusion that a new paradigm is needed, but he is the only person I've read who addresses the topic in relation to FE. And since we all eat on this planet, it is indeed an energy centric culture.

I have to do something else right now, but perhaps I'll start thinking about starting a thread about optimism, or visioning what we want. The visioning of a positive reality has been mentioned many times on this forum - and shot down as well, many times. But it's mention is scattered among many threads.

Perhaps all mentions of optimism can be linked to on one thread. I know, what kind of homework am I thinking of?

Wade I agree that the forum here is burdened with tons of the standard and acceptable disinfo. I read some of it, the best conspiratainment available.

Regards all.

[modwiz]

My very simple reply to the Adams article is it bases its suppositions on the behaviors that have developed in the world of energy scarcity and the controlled world view that gets promoted by all media. I do not believe we are largely sociopathic, but just the opposite. One of the biggest challenges of Wade's work, IMO, is getting the imagination to a very new place and new world. True abundance is a paradigm shift and consciousness/behavior will be part and parcel of that shift.

Thinking differently, in new ways, is the password for entering the world that can then be called forth. Adams is stuck in a view that he projects into the FE future world. His fears are the ones he puts into his own vision.

FE and loosening the grip of controllers will allow for using the old media in new ways. Just as they have been tools of negative programming, they can be used positively. The same passive receptivity would allow for a positive planetary consciousness shift that has never happened before. At least that I am aware of.

The FE future is not one to fear. The Adams article made me wonder if he has been compromised.

[sandy]

Posted by wynderer (here)
i thought this article might be relevant

Free Energy Technology Could Destroy the Natural World (But It Doesn't Have To)

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/026116_en...#ixzz24a8RqMTL

Dear wynderer

Here is what I posted on another site re this article

Ran across this earlier today in my travels and it has many valid points for sure. But the bottom line is total disaster in the long run at the rate we as a civilization are going>>>>>>>>>>>>so what is the difference in the end.

Free Energy is the only answer to all the worlds problems and I want to believe that if the average human with a heart and not psychopathic was given the chance at a life free from slavery that they would stand up to the plate and become sentient and cooperative versus competitive.

One's view of what a future of FE may be, come's from one's own perceptions and projections of what today looks like.

When people are relieved of some of life stress's such as stark survival needs one becomes kinder, gentler, more compassionate and more giving. This is seen in our own lives and reality of today and in those who we know who have been relieved of some stress in their lives.

This has been my experience, perception and thus projection to date.

Free Energy is a process just like daily life and the challenges would be great initially. In time and I would say in less than 20 years, one would see a world that was much more full of abundance and equality for all which would result in greater compassion and love for one's fellow human being, Mother Earth and all her creatures and fauna. It will be the beginning of the Age of Aquarius.

P.S. For the life of me I can't figure out how people cannot see that the path we are on is doomed and if we don't totally and comprehensively change this paradigm completely, humanity's demise is the final outcome. Where is plain old common sense these days???

It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to figure this out and there in may lie the problem>>>>>>>>the answer is just to simple to comprehend, release and implement FREE ENERGY!!

[Wade Frazier]

Hi all:

Big subjects that you are bringing up, and I don’t have the time at present to address them in the depth they deserve, but briefly, AWP, that conversation that you are looking for does not yet exist.

I agree with Modwiz that Adams is dragging along his paradigm with him. I am not saying that he is not perceptive, and he definitely sees some facets of the conundrum, and is even being somewhat comprehensive in his perspective, and his heart is in the right place. We need a lot more like him. But FE is obviously a new idea to him, and he has a ways to go on the thinking-it-out front, a front that I have really barely breached at Avalon yet, because I can’t find hardly anybody who can get to the higher levels of the conversation, which is why I am doing what I am doing. Nothing that I have done on this thread is really much beyond the elementary levels. I need people to go deep with me. Inventor-itis, Young Warrior delusions, thinking that patents and a capitalist approach has a prayer, “protest,” and the rest of levels 5 to 11: http://www.ahealedplanet.net/paradigm.htm#level5 ) - I am trying to help people get past that stuff, because they are all dead ends. Once I finish this human journey narrative, I plan to make posts that flesh out all those levels. The ones to Level 11 are not theoretical, nor are Levels 13 to 15. I am all-too-familiar with them.

The conversation that I am hoping to get going will never be a Prime Time conversation, and certainly not for establishment members, at least until FE appears on the scene. That is part of the conundrum. White scientists, Joe Average, politicians, etc., are not going to begin to understand until FE devices are delivered to their homes. The conversation that I envision will not be for the masses or the establishment, but they will be able to see it. Some may get it, but the vast majority will have no idea of what the conversation is about. It will all seem insane or incomprehensible to them. Godzilla, however, will be keenly interested, and there is a risk that he will try to sabotage it, especially if it looks like it will be successful. Avalon is no threat, not now. But the effort will be anything but Godzilla-centric. I treat him as I would a thunderstorm. I can’t fight him; I can’t negotiate with him; I can only try to avoid the high ground when the storm comes through. No denial; no obsession.

I am looking to eventually help 0.0001% of the global population “get it,” and they will then help 0.001% of the global population “get it.” Right now, I am just trying to help about 0.000001% “get it.” To a surprising degree, Ilie gets it. If I can help that many people “get it,” FE would be unstoppable. I am not asking for much, not really. Every FE newbie wants to mass market the idea, and Dennis was the master of it. That dog won’t hunt, which is partly why I took a different path. Watching what Brian tried, and carrying his spears, further reinforced to me that this is not something for the masses, not now. Machiavelli was right:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#machiavelli

and I bow before his wisdom. It was not until after sifting through the ashes of our efforts that I encountered that quote, and it hit me right between the eyes, and I have seen nothing in the twenty-two years since then to change my opinion. FE is going to be brought forward, if it is brought forward at all, by a tiny fraction of humanity, as all great breakthroughs have been, and this would be history’s biggest breakthrough by far. It would dwarf everything else that has ever happened, and anybody who begins thinking in the slightest about FE starts to see glimmers, but they almost invariably bring their scarcity-based baggage with them, and that is where they lose it. We can’t get there by dragging along our baggage. So, trying to make it tempting or palatable to scientists or the sleeping masses is a pure loser that I no longer have any interest in. I am trying to do something different. That conversation will certainly not have anonymous members in it, Avalon-style, and it will be a conversation between real people, scattered across the planet. Once that nucleus is formed, it will attract those who need a little more help to “get it.”

Hi CdnSirian:

This thread is the best that I ever saw on that optimism that you refer to:

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...by-Free-Energy

and this one is not too bad, either:

http://www.projectavalon.net/forum4/...A-Future-Earth

At Avalon, you may not be able to get one more on point than those. There are not too many stray notes on those threads.

Gotta get back to chores.

Best,

Wade

[Melinda]

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)
...The conversation that I am hoping to get going will never be a Prime Time conversation, and certainly not for establishment members, at least until FE appears on the scene. That is part of the conundrum. White scientists, Joe Average, politicians, etc., are not going to begin to understand until FE devices are delivered to their homes. The conversation that I envision will not be for the masses or the establishment, but they will be able to see it...

I understand Wade, and thank you, truly, for your response.

When I spoke of what may be more palatable to, or easily understood by, a more 'mainstream' reader, I was thinking (optimistically) of the future in the long term; thinking, as a starting point, of those you say will be able to view the conversation you are planning. Even though I'm not qualified to participate I feel I'm going to learn a great deal from it.
I also had in mind the numerous people with whom I have discussed free-energy and the scarcity versus abundance paradigms. Most of them have no personal frame of reference for more mystical or fringe subject matter, or at least they prefer not to make it known that they do. They appear to have a more 'mainstream' perspective. Reading your work has already given me more tools with which to address the subject with people who claimed to have no prior knowledge of free-energy or its implications, and I'm very grateful for that. So once again, thank you.

I just read that astronaut Neil Armstrong has passed away, may he rest in peace. He is so famously associated with the words: ""One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." It is with the deepest respect that I say I often think of those words when contemplating free-energy, and the extraordinary far-reaching potential that it has.

[Wade Frazier]

Hi AWP:

Briefly, the people who are going to bring FE forward, at least the people who I think have a prayer of bringing it forward in today’s environment, are going to have a mystical aspect to their awareness. That is part of having a comprehensive perspective. Everybody whom I respect in the FE field has a mystical awareness. Some came to the milieu as materialists, but either they broadened their perspectives or they didn’t last long. It is going to take whole-brain thinkers to get to the finish line, especially in this environment. They will also be heart-centered. They will have left behind their scarcity-based baggage, or they know it is baggage, and they will be actively working on shedding it. How many people are there like that on the planet? Not many. I have not met many in my lifetime, or heard of many. That is partly why I say that I am looking for needles in haystacks. The main reason why what I am thinking might not work is that not enough of those people can be found. If so, then humanity is likely not ready for FE, and that could spell our doom.

And again, this is not some requirement list that I dreamed up, but it is what I saw was needed to navigate the minefield, and it is a surreal minefield to navigate. For the average people who are in thrall to our conditioning systems, they won’t be able to break free until they can actually see something different, and experience something different. Only then are they going to begin to awaken. The “good news” is that if FE makes it into the open, a lot is coming with it, such as the ET presence, anti-gravity, and a bunch of mind-boggling technologies. This is a key part of the conundrum and why the lid is so tight on all of it. The Big Boys know how quickly it can all unravel, and they have all sorts of contingency plans, and one of them is allowing an “outsider” to bring this stuff forward, so the masses don’t start asking obvious questions like, “Just how long have they had this under wraps?” That is why my friend got the show:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/camelot.htm#underground

from the so-called White Hats. He was tagged as a contender to be that White Knight on a steed to be the front man. Greer was treated similarly back in the 1990s. This is all a long time ago, and I don’t keep up on what the current thinking is, other than hearing that most of the Global Controllers favor FE coming out. They don’t want to try to live on Mars if we crash the planet.

But even if they have the “White Knight” plan, they are not going to be able to keep the other stuff under wraps for long, and so much is going to come out that Joe Average is going to have the top of his head blown off. A lot of stuff like Star Trek has apparently been intended to get people used to the idea of ETs, and if that is the case, it has worked. The polls show that most people figure that we are not alone in the universe and we have likely been visited, so that revelation may not be so big. But it will quickly become evident that there are deep spiritual dimensions to the situation, and that is going to be the big challenge for people, IMO, especially the materialists, and that includes nearly all scientists. As the Brookings Institute warned long ago, the group to likely be most threatened by the ET disclosure will be scientists:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/advent.htm#brookings

and that is leaving aside the spiritual aspect. Most people are going to have their belief systems evaporate quickly if FE comes out. That is also a big reason why I am trying to form this choir. If a nugget of true sentience is formed, that contains all of that in its awareness and integrates it, it will be able to be a big anchor for the changes that will attend the advent of FE.

To say that that is big stuff is my understatement of the day.

What I am trying to do is get the ball rolling so that such a group has a chance of forming. Anybody else is also free to try what they can, but this is something that I saw was needed and missing. FE will be its primary focus, but the other stuff will be on the table, too. And Joe Average is not going to get it until he gets to see it and touch it. I don’t like calling it faith, but the parable of Doubting Thomas and the other apostles is an appropriate analogy, I think.

Time for bed, and the mystical post is coming, I promise.

Best,

Wade

P.S. Amen, Sandy, amen.