WADE FRAZIER : A Healed Planet

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Ilie:

Great post, and it gets near the nub of the thrust of my work. Yes, you are seeing it as scientists do, and taking the long view, as I do in my essay, can broach that question, of whether lifeless is the same as life, as far as aesthetics and even ethics go, but I think that we can agree that life is pretty rare. Earth is the only place for light years in every direction that seems to host life as we know it. If it is not special, it is certainly rare. I get the reverence toward life that the best biologists and paleobiologists have.

Yes, all life seems to go for the gusto and grab all the energy and resources that it can, and will reproduce with abandon, up to the limits of what it can wrest from the environment, and the so-called balance of nature is nothing more than the equilibrium of the battle for survival, which whipsaws into mass extinctions and golden ages often enough. This truly is the picture that scientists have drawn. Is it accurate? In many ways, I am not sure that it can be argued against. Scientists readily admit that our human morality has judged a lot about it, and nature may not. Many ecological relationships and behaviors are scary and disgusting for people to consider. Take the wasp that lays its eggs in a caterpillar, and the wasp's larvae eat the caterpillar from the inside out, using the caterpillar as their incubator, kind of like the Alien.

For an example closer to home, male chimps and gorillas will kill any infants they did not father, given the chance, to get the mothers to mate with them, and the mothers do. Imagine that happening in human society.

But bonobos ended that practice, along with male domination, when their food supply doubled when gorillas left the area. It that "good"? If so, then is the practice of infanticide "evil" among chimps and gorillas? Big questions, and it leads to the idea whether humans are a sentient species and what sentience means. On the energy front, we are acting no differently than any other life form: grabbing all the energy that we can, for as long as we can, and anybody in the way will be consumed/destroyed. From a "natural" perspective, humanity causing the Sixth Mass Extinction through our energy practices, and taking ourselves with it, may merely be what "intelligent" species are capable of, and wiping out the ecosphere so that complex life is driven to the brink of extinction might be something that anaerobes would cheer.

Ah, but here comes that mystical perspective. I know that consciousness is not just some byproduct of chemical reactions. I have had many experiences that showed me how false the materialistic models of consciousness are, and while my experiences have often been way larger than "normal" life, I found that anybody sincerely seeking such experiences can have them, at least enough to falsify the materialist models of consciousness.

So, why are we here? Is life some happy accident (if happy at all), and we had better enjoy our chemical reactions while we can, because they will end soon? I was led on my preposterous journey by a voice in my head, and my fervent desire was to manifest something that looked a lot like heaven on Earth. The view of our potential is pretty clear from where I sit, with what I discovered on my crazy journey. But we can put all the mystical stuff aside for a moment and decide: do we want to experience love or fear, abundance or scarcity? I know that we have chosen it already, through our actions or lack of them. How about we choose to manifest and live in heaven on Earth? Why not?

I doubt that anybody down here on this rock called Earth sees much in the way of the big picture, but what I have glimpsed leads me to believe the following:

• We all have a divine origin from beyond this dimension, and I mean all, such as every atom in this universe;

• We are here to learn to develop our consciousness, and the experiences of our beings include "inanimate" matter and "lower" life forms, and we (humanity) are currently on the ensouled species portion of the learning curve that physical reality presents to us;

• The primary lesson that humans are here to learn is how to love; that could be called an "emergent" property of human consciousness, and it is the next step in the evolution of consciousness on this planet;

• Ensouled species that can manipulate their environment don’t make it about a third of the time, as they destroy either their environment or themselves through warfare (battling over energy, as usual), as they failed the love lesson;

• If we choose love, we can partner with nature in ways that are currently hard to imagine (I do not consider this account to be fiction);

• If we do not choose love, a different future awaits us, and some can be pretty grim;

Now, maybe all the above is wrong, and we can kill and be killed, and it has no effects on anything other than making for some "interesting" events, such as a mass extinction that rivals all the others, which an academic might find "interesting." Even if the above is wrong, I prefer to spend my life in helping this future manifest for my species and "nature." Why? Because it would be fun. Is that enough? Again, is that just human morality at play, which is meaningless in the big picture, or is it what we are here for, to learn how to be creators, and taking care of our nest is the "kindergarten" of the creator curriculum?

Those are big questions that deserve many posts in reply and discussion, and maybe we will find the time for them here, but I really want to make FE happen, stubborn fool that I am.

Time for a nap.

Best,

Wade

[Melinda]

Posted by Ilie Pandia (here)
...Run the clocks a few hundred million years into the future... What life form will dominate then?

Preserving "nature" can be seen as an effort to turn this planet into a static. To "freeze in time" the domination of the current life forms present, is it not? But make no mistake... at the fringes the next life form just waits for its chance to take over!

A formidable foe Life is! Ever changing... unrelenting...

I think the points you raised Ilie are huge.

I like where Enishi went with it :

“It is indeed easy to think of preservation or even abundance as equaling a "static" state, but another option is to think of abundance being coupled with "dynamic" change that is a form of coevolution, rather than competitive.”

When I think of how to transcend that state of 'survival of the fittest' – I'm reminded of some of what we possess that sets us apart in the material realm. Our opposable thumbs, capable brains and spirit of endeavour. Trees cannot build mother-ships to take themselves off planet. Other animals are not capable of it yet. They may be able to travel and process in psychic / spiritual ways that go overlooked or misunderstood, but their commitment to this environment means they are still prey for physical predators. You could entertain a philosophy that they are 'spiritually' content to be prey as part of the circle of life. But personally I do not wish to be prey, and would therefore like to find ways for us to be able to create environments where we are neither prey for, nor predator to, other conscious beings.

The stronger your own life force, and connection to source, the greater your ability to be directly sustained by subtler energies (like those freely given by the sun, or accessible in the ether) rather than feeding off life-forms lower in the food chain who store energy (and have absorbed nutrients from other physical forms using processes that required energy.)

Transcending the predator / prey environment could take a variety of routes including, but not solely :

1) Raising our levels of psychic / spiritual ability so that we can roam freely in the earth environment without animals perceiving us as prey, transcend current levels of physical hunger, and realise an ability to be unharmed by environmental conditions.
-- FE can help facilitate this, as abundance takes our focus off survival so it can be applied to psychic / spiritual development in a relaxed, less pressured environment.

2) Building technological environments that enable us to protect ourselves from predators and environmental changes.
-- FE makes this more feasible for all of us rather than a select number.

3) A combination of 1 and 2

4) Building off-world environments that mean we are no longer 'competing' with earth's environment or her inhabitants.
-- FE makes this feasible for all of us. But it may take a long time, over generations, for us to adapt (in numerous ways) to permanent off-world living. So the sooner we explore FE potential, the better.

The question also remains of whether or not we could achieve option 1 collectively as a species without FE, in enough time to clean up and end our environmental destructiveness before we make earth uninhabitable.

There are schools of thought that claim earth is in fact a kind of zoological garden, whether deliberately nurtured that way, or by chance – and that it is overseen and 'tended' by forces that may be invisible to us, who choose to intervene if they see a predator unbalancing the environment in ways perceived as detrimental to the optimum level of variety.

But whatever our philosophical take on that, it still makes sense to me to create options, via an advanced energy culture, to develop non-predatory, sustainable environments (here or off-world) where we can nurture a sovereign way of life that takes responsibility for our existence, rather than leaving it to outside forces. It also makes sense that the more we take that responsibility, the more likely we are to be able to interact with more advanced forces / intelligences, and learn from their histories and philosophies.

To briefly address the inter-dimensional levels of predators and prey, it still ties in with our physical existence both while we are incarnate and before / after. Our physical existence has a significant impact on our spiritual growth, which effects the journey of our souls. A world of abundance can mean less competition and survivalist mentality, thereby raising our vibration while we are here, and assisting our relationship with higher values and our higher selves. Meaning we are less likely to be food energetically for others, both while we are here, and when we slip from our mortal bodies.

I don't know if that addresses what you were exploring, but those are a few thoughts that came to mind.




~

As an additional thought :

The point has been raised more than once on this thread of what might have happened if earth humans had chosen to evolve via psychic means (rooted in love/balance/respect), rather than via dependence on technology. It's interesting to think about the minority groups who have chosen to pursue this path over centuries. For whatever reason - they have in the past and still today come under pressure from external political forces, which is one reason (aside from the possible psychic/spiritual advantages of ley line / specific altitude / remote locations) why they largely choose isolation.

It could be that FE is the missing ingredient.

If the majority who have seemed incapable for so long of joining them in their minimal lifestyles of spiritual discipline are able to reach less survivalist levels of awareness via material abundance and environmental harmony – then we may be more open to the uplifting influence of their endeavours.

Then more of their work can potentially be integrated into the development of the collective. It's a future that would facilitate the collaboration of the spiritual and the technological, for the benefit of the environment and our own growth and self-understanding. Learning over the course of thousands of years what has worked, and what hasn't, both spiritually and technologically, in order to make more informed choices.

It's a collaboration that is open to us, if we choose it. But it starts with knowing it's possible, rather than burying our heads too deeply in the sands of either materialism or mysticism.

I don't know how worthwhile an addition that is, but I thought to share...

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Melinda is responding to Ilie's query in the previous post, but it gives me an opportunity to make an observation that I think I need to make. My work is really not that hard to understand, and my big essay in particular. Melinda is no scientist, but she gets the gist of it pretty damn well. If I had 5,000 engaging this material like she is, I just might have my choir.

I keep hearing from readers about how challenging my work is. Well, it needs to be challenging. We are not going to turn the corner with the usual fluff and stuff, especially for a cyberspace-based effort. I am not out there on the front lines like I used to be, and an effort that begins in cyberspace has to "compensate" for not being where the bullets are flying, and I am taking the high sentience route. Nobody has tried it before that I have seen.

My big essay is an online textbook, college level, but it is conceptually far easier than a physics textbook. I purposely designed it so that people did not need degrees in science to understand it. But I do not expect anybody to breeze through it and understand. It will take hard work to get it.

A lot of my website is very heavy going, emotionally, but my big essay is not. Or, at least not compared to many of my site's essays. When I wrote my war essay, for instance, that took a lot out of me and inspired me to finally stop drinking. Writing that one damaged my marriage. The light finally went on with my editor as she was most of the way through editing my medical essay for the first time, back in 2000. I have told of a professor pal who read this section to his class, and they staggered out of his classroom, and I have seen "peers" blow gaskets after reading that section. I have quite a few essays on my site that either took a great toll on me to write them, or I watched people go through all manner of reaction to them, sometimes even losing their minds. If they were into defending their belief systems, then it was a rough go for them, but if they were open to the information, they could have epiphanies.

It will likely end up costing me about $1 million to write my big essay, but other than the financial cost, it was not a harrowing experience to write it, but it was actually a lot of fun. It was a lot of work, obviously, but a lot of fun, too. It should not be emotionally harrowing to read. Sure, we are on the brink of the abyss, but if there is a more positive practical vision out there than this chapter, I have not heard of it. I have heard from people who searched the world for years, and they never encountered a vision like that. It is not such terrible reading.

Even so, I know that I am looking for needles in haystacks. Only very rare people are going to go deep on that essay, to see where it takes them. I wrote it for them. They are out there in the world, in numbers that will make my choir idea feasible. Finding them and helping them learn to sing the song is the next step, and I have budgeted the next 30 years of my spare time for the task (the rest of my lifetime's spare time), if that is what it takes, but I hope it will not take that long, for humanity's and Earths' sake.

I am not into making my work sexy, what will seduce people to read it, or making my work popular. I designed it to help fill the gaps in understanding that I saw in all FE efforts, and am trying something that I think might help. I know that it cannot hurt, other than to challenge people's cherished beliefs, which is also why I know that my work is not for everybody, but is really only for a select few. And they will choose themselves. Ideally, there is nothing more for me to do, but I plan to help those trying to understand and help them learn to sing the song. That is the point of my public work, such as here at Avalon.

Time for bed.

Best,

Wade

[Nine]

Wade,

All I can say to Melinda's post is wow!

However on to the subject of elections and politics that I can comment upon....

With the republican take over of both the house and now the Senate the stage is set for more energy wars in the middle East and more Austerity here at home in the form of cuts to pension programs and medical programs. To prosecute the energy wars they must cut social welfare programs since the two pursuits can not continue at the same time.

In energy terms this would show a down turn in any energy surpluses.....and in those terms there simply is not enough energy to conduct two things at once so it is either war or social concerns and a choice has been made I believe.

the ultimate zero sum game.....in action...

The old and sick and useless will be sacrificed for the greater good, theirs I suppose....

What I can say for absolute certainty is that Life Terraformed Earth weather or not that will be human life or not seems to be the big question.

And so even the trees that some just love to hug had their part in drastically lowering oxygen levels and causing a mass extinction because they grew to their ultimate limit as to what the sun provided. And in your work you mentioned that this would be of interest to us humans. Of course science it seems says that humans have reached their limits of growth and so with out free energy there will be a mass extinction at some point if something is not done.

I am half way through your big essay and am confident that I can grasp the big picture in your material.

Someday....


Nine


Thanx

Nine

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

There Nine is, a self-confessed "retard," plowing through my essay. Thanks Nine, for proving my point. When you get to the human part of the essay (the second half), you will get to rising and falling pre-industrial civilizations, and Rome in particular. The USA has been called the new Rome many times, and for good reason.

In the late 20th century, scientific investigation of the age-old issue of vanished civilizations increased, and what scientists found is that those civilizations ran out of energy. Their collapses were similar to mass extinctions in their dynamics and the "trophic cascades" that humans have induced in ecosystems. Complex civilizations, like complex ecosystems, need energy to run their many moving parts, and just like all life, humans have gone for all the energy they could, for as long as they could. Because humans have no predators, other than each other, they changed the game a little, but just like any ecosystem, they reached their energetic limits and even overshot them, which led to a collapse. In early civilizations, wood and food were the primary energy sources, and deforestation, plow agriculture, and even irrigation eventually wrecked the energy supply of those early civilizations, and they collapsed.

Today, academics have fierce debates over the "environmental" contributions, or if the collapses were really collapses, but their bickering misses the point, which is that all of those civilizations ran out of energy, which in the final analysis was food. The moment of collapse was when starving professionals left cities to find food. That was a constant. What scientific study has brought to the table is the concept of energy availability and EROI. As a civilization burned through its energy supply of forests and arable land, its EROI declined, as the hinterland had to expand to feed the urban heartland. So, energy resources were brought in from increasingly distant lands, and the "tyranny of distance" reduced that EROI and energy surplus and the civilization's resilience, which is its ability to weather the unexpected. When the energy surplus and resultant resilience dropped far enough, the civilization became vulnerable to disruptive shocks, which could come in the form of a drought, invasion, or other event, and depending on its severity, the civilization could collapse. Sometimes they went out with a whimper, and other times with a bang, but running out of energy is what did them in.

The same dynamics are playing out today in industrial civilization. The USA reached peak energy consumption per capita in 1973-1974, during its first oil crisis, which ended the postwar boom, which was the most prosperous period in world history. The USA has had a declining standard of living ever since its first energy crisis, and the evidence is all around us, for those with eyes to see. But as Orwell predicted, the propaganda system tells people that it is all better than ever. Just like Rome, the USA has expanded its hinterland to plunder the energy resources of others, and the USA is currently suffering from what is called imperial overreach, as it militarily occupies the oil-rich Middle East. Our invasions have cost the USA trillions of dollars, as we slaughtered millions to keep our greedy hands on the hydrocarbons, oil in particular. Whether the USA and industrial civilization reaches disruptive levels of energy decline in the coming decade or two is on the order of splitting hairs in the big picture. We are following inexorably down the same path as Rome and other early civilizations as we burn through our energy supplies, raping and plundering to the end. The smart money has humanity fighting World War III over the dwindling oil supplies, and World War III may well be a nuclear conflict, and I sure do not want to live to see that one. But if humanity finally became a truly sentient species, a different fate awaits us, and one a lot more fun than going the way of Rome and others.

As a segue to Melinda's post, I see many neo-Luddites who blame technology for our problems, or the worship of them, as they try to live some low-technology existence. As my big essay makes clear, our technology made us. If not for stone tools and the control of fire, we would still be like our chimp cousins, with their relatively small brains. Chimps are still about the most cognitively advanced animals on Earth, but humans took a quantum leap beyond them, and it was due to enhanced energy practices by using technology. So, when people reject technological advance, they are rejecting the process that created humanity. Until the Industrial Revolution, life for all peoples was nasty, brutish, and short. There were brief "golden ages," at least until the energy supplies were used up, but true abundance has never been seen before, and no human society was ever sustainably abundant. FE can change all that.

I regularly encounter a "harmony with nature" concept coming from different corners, such as the paleo people and "organic" advocates. Humans have not lived in harmony with nature since they learned how to control fire, and if your existence is aided by fire in any way, you are not living in harmony with nature, plain and simple. That rejection and/or fear of technology is pretty misplaced, IMO. Our tools made us, and the single greatest event in the human journey will finally see humanity develop an enlightened relationship with technology, which will lead to an enlightened relationship with each other and nature. Going backward to live like chimps (or cave men, or primitive farmers) again is not a viable solution, as far as I can tell.

Back to editing.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Well, that is over with. I only changed style, corrected grammar, and fixed typos, for the most part. I hope that I never have to update that American Empire essay again, but I can see tweaks here and there in the future, but I plan to have them be small ones.

Even though it was just a light edit, if you will, I ended up reading the entire essay once more. That kind of punishment will teach me to write long essays. As I have stated, and Ilie does not believe me, I plan to never again write any essays like those again. I will be doing choir work instead. Two thousand pages of material is enough for me for this lifetime. I am an amateur, after all. Again, the big essay is essentially an online textbook, and I can see updating that every few years, like textbooks are updated.

I may do that revision to some other essays, but I think that I have done just about all the big ones. Whew!

But other than my forum and choir work, I really have said about all that I want to say. If I can get those 5,000-7,000 singers amassed one day, that will be plenty for me for this lifetime. Heck, who gets an opportunity to help the biggest event in the human journey manifest? With all that I have been through, I really am grateful to be alive when I can make a run at this. We will see how it goes.

Best,

Wade

[Nine]

Wade,

Looking at the big picture many here upon Avalon are considering this scenario:

THE ULTIMATE PLAN: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...tory...-maybe-

I can not look at life in that way I am so sorry....

One would think that that perspective would be to give up upon all hope and to go off to a cave or some such hole with ones catch and become the ultimate prepper....

And so maybe they are right but for me I choose to look at life with hope and love and maybe a way can be found, so I have no bright ideas but, giving up is no option....

thanx

Nine

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Nine:

I do not pay attention to other threads at Avalon, or any other forums, and just focus on my work. We do not need to bring up other threads here. I see that the same day that Bill began that thread, I mentioned Dolan's Breakaway Civilization idea. I made my post less than half an hour after Bill did, for some strange synchronicity. I was asked to present my big essay to a gathering that Dolan spoke at in the spring, but I probably will not approach such gatherings. They have a different agenda than I do.

The big difference between what I am doing and what almost everybody else on the fringes is doing is that I am emphasizing what we can do, not what Godzilla does. I am one of the very few out there that Godzilla has stepped on, lived to tell the tale, and is still active, and he is not my focus. Godzilla is a symptom of our malaise, not a cause. A lot of what I see out there is fringe enthusiast stuff, and I do not see it going anywhere. My orientation is always, "What is the point? Can we do anything productive with it? Does it have a loving approach that sees through a creator's lens and not a victim's? Does it hack at branches, or does it aim for the root?"

So, yes, there are plans like Dolan speaks of, at varying levels of execution, but they are all crazy. We have a perfectly good planet right here, and the same people who are planning to leave have been behind making sure that we cannot fix our mess here. How insane is that? That is one of the strange places that the dark path leads to.

If we make Earth uninhabitable, I guess that I am going down with the ship. It only takes 0.0001% of humanity to wake up to totally turn it around. Is that so hard? I am trying to find out.

This is an opportunity to again stress what I am attempting and how it might go. I have found that those who poke around at what others are doing, and try to find "allies" for me (especially YouTube watchers), without doing the work of digesting my big essay, are looking for some easy way out. There is no substitute for doing the work. While those others out there may be doing good work, I have a highly specific intention for my work, and those whom I seek will understand its uniqueness and do the work.

Again, the social circle approach will not work for what I am doing. Only very rare people are going to have what I am looking for. While perhaps the world's leading connoisseur of the subject matter covered in my essay's first half said that it was one of the best efforts that he ever saw, my own social circle is not going to read my essay. There may be one or two exceptions, but that is about it. If my social circle is not going to read it, how many in the social circles of my recruits are going to? About none, and that is normal. Those in my choir will understand that. It will not make us any "better" than anybody else. I just see a way to make a dent and am going for it. Others can do what they can, but I have never found focusing on Godzilla to be productive. I treat him like a force of nature, similar to a thunderstorm. I can't fight him, I can't expose him, I can only try to do my work and stay off the high ground when the storm comes through. I have been zapped by the lightning and lived to tell the tale, but you cannot fight a thunderstorm or negotiate with it.

Here are a couple of anecdotes to help make it clear how the social circle approach will not work for what I am attempting. My Columbus essay got a lot of play about a month ago on this thread, as Columbus Day approached, as it does every year. I have seen about twenty teachers and professors use that essay in their classes over the years. There is nothing quite like it on the Internet, as I discovered lately, and that is too bad. The Internet is not being used like it could, and my choir idea is trying to exploit the Internet's potential in a way never tried before, and we will see how it goes. It is not the reason why I wrote that Columbus essay, but I have a bunch of relatives who are direct descendants from Columbus, and I have actually had to sit and listen to laments that Columbus Day in the USA is no longer the glorious celebration that it used to be, and I sat there, biting my tongue.

My final anecdote will be about my mother. Years after my mother took that scrapbook on her "My son the criminal" tour and I let her back into my life, one day I spoke to her, and she decided to talk about a common subject in the USA in the past 40 years, which is gasoline prices. She boasted that she had the energy game figured out, as she knew where to buy the cheapest gasoline in town. My own mother. I just nodded my head and quietly sighed. I have had numerous encounters that have been similar, by people with some idea of what I have been through and even have some familiarity with my public writings. Just this past summer, a pal began to preach to me about the energy situation, and I had to remind him who he was talking to. I get that in my own social circles, and I sure do not expect people in the choir to suddenly have people in their social circles wake up to FE and abundance because they chatted about it. If I cannot do it, I doubt that anybody else can. That is one of the lessons that FE newbies need to learn ASAP. It is not only a timewaster to chat up FE with one's social circle, it is dangerous.

Time for chores.

Best,

Wade

[Dennis Leahy]

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)
Hi:... When I wrote that voting in elections was about one-millionth as important as helping make FE happen, I am not exaggerating and am probably being conservative.

...

The energy issue is the big one, especially FE and the Fifth Epochal Event. All the rest is noise, including voting.

Back to editing.

Best,

Wade

I concur, and I have spent a LOT of time since 2009 trying to summon support for a non-violent US citizen takeover of the US electoral paradigm.

It's really one of those comparisons that defy numerical quantification, but I'd say that even if The Reset Button was 100% successful (with other countries succeeding in their own version of taking election control away from the Elites), and citizens could actually vote for independent candidates not tied to the Elite and their corporations, that THEN we would have reached a state where FE was one million times more important than voting. At present, I'd say that FE is a trillion times more important than voting.

Again, this can't really be quantified, but the numbers serve to stress how important FE and the 5th Epoch are. With FE, any changes in governance accomplished by citizens taking over the electoral paradigm would soon become historical, as FE would remove much/most need for the functionality in governance.

Dennis

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Dennis:

I decided to spend the morning revising my Dennis essay (the other Dennis ), and am about halfway done. As I write about his adventures, and the most preposterous parts of them, when I got involved, I have yet to get to, it is truly mind-boggling to think about his journey, and for all of us who persisted, we all had a long learning curve that took us to places that we could not have imagined.

Brian O began playing the Capitol Hill game back in 1970, and got into his self-admitted co-dependent relationship with Washington, D.C., and only after about 40 years of playing those games did he realize what a dead-end retail politics was, especially at the presidential level.

Dennis started off as a migrant farm worker who ended up in Vietnam with dreams of becoming a surgeon, who then took the businessmen's path. Nobody ever made a better attempt through the business path than Dennis, but it is rigged game and dead-end, similar to what Brian discovered on the political end of it.

I came down the inventor/mystic/businessman's path, and barely survived that learning curve. We ran into other fellow travelers on our ridiculous journeys, but we discovered that there were not many like us, and what a lonely feeling that was.

We all lost our naïveté honestly, and we learned what will not work. Because Dennis and Brian drank far more of that red-white-and-blue Kool-Aid than I ever did, they still approached the DOE, and I carried their spears for it (1, 2), but what a dead-end all of that was. But, I respect learning honestly attained by chasing after one's dreams, and I have always respected work like The Reset Button, and you learned a lot in the doing, and learned some more of what does not work.

As I have written lately, neither Dennis, Brian, nor I began our energy journeys thinking in terms of FE, but if you are the milieu for long, the path leads there, whether you are trying to go that way or not, if you care and are really trying to make a dent. As I have also written plenty, the economic magnitude of FE quickly becomes evident to even the dimmest among us, and it does not take much thought to begin to realize that FE means the end of the world as we know it, and that is behind most of the denial and fear reactions to the idea of FE.

So, we all realized that FE was something with a pretty tremendous magnitude, but the epochal significance of FE really did not hit home with me until I wrote my big essay. I am not saying that I did not have a pretty good idea before I began writing it, as my work shows, but that epochal perspective, of not only FE but the previous epochs, did not come into clear view to me until I wrote that essay, as strange as that may seem. I knew that the process of writing that essay would lead me to new insights, and I was not disappointed.

As you note, what we think of as governance will be unrecognizable under an FE regime. You know, if enough people "got it" like we do, the electoral process to FE could work, but that is the conundrum. People sold out their sentience for the promise of a full belly, so their inertia is the most formidable force on the planet today. As George Carlin said, the most powerful force in the universe is inertia. George weighed in on electoral politics, and this one is not safe for children's viewing, but what classic George.

So, you learned valid lessons on your journey, and with the current level of integrity and sentience, trying to seize the Titanic's steering wheel is too little and too late. As Bucky said, there are really no political solutions to our problems, and my fellow travelers discovered the hard way that there is no path to solutions via Washington, D.C. They are part of the problem, not the solution, and they do not answer to the public, but regard the public as a herd to milk. That so-called Breakaway Civilization sits far above the petty concerns of politicians, and the American president is little more than a lackey.

Best, Bro,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Quickly, because chores beckon, I just saw Interstellar. It was at the same theater where I bumped into Gates, and the same screen, as I saw the IMAX show. The theater was packed with nerds, and some high tech company in town gave a bunch of them time off to see it.

What to say about that flick? It presents plenty that is maddening and inspiring about Hollywood. While at the moment, at Wikipedia, they laud its scientific accuracy, for any scientist or space professional, there had to be a great deal of suspension of disbelief, sometimes even at a "nuke the fridge" level, for even the space adventure parts of the movie to make sense. Darting around star systems with chemical rockets and skimming black holes – I don't think so. That said, on IMAX, the space sequences could be overwhelming, and I wonder what Brian would have thought. There are some interviews of Brian on the Internet in which he talked about the planned Mars mission and how they would do it, and rotating ships simulating gravity was on the board back then, which they use in the movie.

There were many aspects relating to my life and work, and I sat there wondering if it is all kind of the archetypal American experience that so much of it touched on my life, from dust bowls to faked moon landings to running out of energy globally, so that everybody had to become farmers again, to love bridging the dimensions, and so on. Anyway, that was an experience that I will be digesting for a while.

Time for chores.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Well, another one down. Again, these are largely only grammar, style, and typo fixes. But revising each one takes me into a different reality for a while. Many thoughts and feelings come up when editing an essay like that and, for that essay, what may have come up the most is that we certainly gave it the college try. I know of nobody who ever made a run at it like Dennis did. That essay (or Dennis's books) should be required reading for any FE aspirant, but instead, prominent members of the FE field lie shamelessly about Dennis, give undue credence to people such as Mr. Skeptic, newbies like Foster repeat the lies, and the lessons are not learned. That is a big reason why the FE field is still in its state of arrested development. It is similar to the state of arrested development that the super heat pump field was in when Dennis arrived on the scene.

Scientists and inventors generally have a very limited view of the milieu, and get stuck in their perspectives, due to their conditioning, denial, naïveté, greed, and the like. In the end, it is another aspect of the fear/love dichotomy. Everybody who grinds their particular ax (almost always a self-serving ax) fails to see the bigger picture. The ego cannot see the big picture. People need to aspire to a soul-centric focus, in order to see the big picture, and that can only be done through love.

Back to chores.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

As an addendum to the previous post, Adam mentioned it and I have witnessed it myself. In the FE field, you will encounter people who scoff at organized suppression, or who have said that they were investigated and the investigators did not find anything, so those "conspiracy theories" regarding organized suppression were incorrect or paranoid.

As Dennis discovered the hard way, if they want to take you out, they can simply make it up as they go, as I saw in Ventura and Seattle. In Seattle, the Attorney General got him when one person in the state misunderstood one that that Dennis said. In Ventura, Dennis spent two years behind bars for failing to file a form. Dennis had been investigated many times, when the government was not following orders and being hit men, and the USA's Attorney General called Dennis "squeaky clean," and Dennis was invited by the White House to demonstrate his wares, but then robber barons got involved and Dennis was then run out of the USA, The Land of the Free.

So, when an FE aspirant says that nobody suppressed him, the way I see it, there are three possibilities:

• He does not have anything worth suppressing (by far the most common case);

• He is about to get suppressed, or the suppression was of the subtle variety so far; most who were suppressed had no idea that they were suppressed;

• He works for Godzilla or a similar party, posing as a legitimate FE aspirant, but is either running a honeypot operation or is a distraction to help keep the three-ring circus atmosphere intact and healthy.

Every FE aspirant who denied organized suppression that I have seen or heard of fell into one of those categories.

Best,

Wade

[Melinda]

Some thoughts for today...

The way in which FE can provide almost inconceivable levels of power to humanity is obviously a huge one. So vast in potential that it can cause our thought processes to shut down, where we feel we've reached a philosophical impasse.

For example :

When people read talk of abundance as a cure to scarcity they sometimes respond with queries around examples such as :

- but material abundance doesn't prevent two siblings with differing abilities competing for the affection/approval of a parent
- but material abundance doesn't prevent two people lusting after the same person and therefore competing
- but material abundance doesn't prevent two scientists competing to be right because they believe their work is about higher-minded goals for assisting life's progress
- But material abundance doesn't stop men / women grappling for god-like status, and pursuing the thrill of power because they lack spiritual maturity

(and so on and so forth.)

My response to this is that it is not a valid enough reason to shut down the FE conversation.
Firstly - in a world where environmental degradation, poverty, wars for resources, the roots of much physical disease and population imbalance are obsolete - the ego can take a much needed breath and a back seat. The role of the ego, and its survivalist traits, can diminish in potency / importance.
Secondly - a collective more at peace is one that can encourage collaboration. Since earth's environment is in a dire state, when I picture a planet and culture healed by application of clean, abundant energy-tech - a few bickering scientists or lovers is the least of my worries.

In a culture where we have repressed our shadow - and where so much superficial, persona-related noise is focused on, disguised as substance - we have come to fear that our repressed or unprocessed self is lurking in the wings, waiting to find us (where we sleep) and do damage, like some kind of punishment for our lack of awareness. A culture rife with distraction, escapism and paranoia, that fears its own shadow.

But a world of abundance facilitates more integration of that shadow, which is how balance can be found. Balance and greater clarity - of thought and of purpose. Balance with the environment, with community and within ourselves, is the most logical and uplifting state. Trying to achieve it via forceful politics amidst scarcity can lead to repression and backlash. Nurturing it via abundance is a whole other story.

Even if some of our competitive traits are deeply-rooted and genetic, our most natural wish is to heal ourselves, and a world of abundance can facilitate far greater healing - either via ethical, scientific practice not muddied by the distortions and seductions of capitalist mentality - and / or by spiritual methods where our psychic abilities are honed to transform our physical imprints.

A world where the populace is lifted out of survival mode with local, individual resources to pursue and share extensive research, is one where purer motives can take precedence; becoming a driving force behind millions and millions more scientists and spiritual practitioners who seek cures to the wounds we might inherit.

Although it can be easier to have faith in visions of a 'healed' future, some of us shut down our consideration of FE due to transition fears. How can we guarantee we won't be destructive with FE before reaching the idealised healed state? One way of processing that is to return to the understanding that it will be gradual. That is where love, patience and the subtle frequencies come into play. Rushing at it does not cultivate a peaceful environment for the transition to grow. Steadying our hearts and our gaze with comprehensive study of its roots, stands a far better chance. We're already witnessing a spiritual growth in our times, with vast numbers opening up to new scientific, political and spiritual ideas and sharing them through the internet and travel. The layers of support are falling into place, if a caring vision mindful and sober enough, and worth supporting can be conceived.

We can facilitate peaceful transition, if we hold in both heart and mind how it is technically possible for the ideal to be attained, and we grow and ground that ideal with love

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

A key concept in my work is that of interrelatedness. Nothing sits by itself in our universe, but everything affects everything else (but there are primary and proximate causes). As I have stated plenty, energy and consciousness, at their root, are the only two things that we know exist. Is consciousness some ephemeral and emergent property of brains, solely reliant on the brain's chemical reactions for its existence? A materialist may think so, while others are not so sure.

I have had many experiences that convincingly demonstrated, to me, and others around me, that materialistic theories of consciousness are false. But does that mean that the manifestation of our consciousness in our physical reality is solely a non-material phenomenon? I doubt that anybody can convincingly argue that, as all of us have brains, and if our brains are damaged or incapacitated, our conscious minds are impacted.

That kind of philosophical divide is ancient, but has really become a heated controversy with the rise of science. While far too many scientists have been seduced by materialist tales, the more enlightened ones say that the story that science tells is one of history and process, not intent. I am not sure why it is, but nearly everybody picks their pole and stays there. I think that it has to do with fear and perhaps the inability to hold two ideas in one's head at the same time.

Take Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, for instance. He shows how the assumption of no intrinsic differences between the sexes, for instance, or races, is false. Biological study has shown that men and women develop very differently, even in the womb, and that races are only speciation in action, and many genetic features are already baked into racial DNA, but the political climate has largely forbidden the subjects, for fear of their misuse. But that is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Pinker surveyed the attacks that sociobiology received when first proposed. The two poles are either that we are 100% programmed biological automatons or biology has nothing to do with our consciousness. Few reside entirely at those poles today, but materialists are near one, and religious fundamentalists and ungrounded "mystics" are near the other. Pinker has his share of critics, but he tellingly portrayed some of what happens near those poles. Pinker himself is a materialist, but it is a relatively nuanced materialism. Pinker is one of many who tried to make materialism exciting. I have never seen anybody accomplish that.

For an example of where the "blank slate" has led, in the USA, many women are in prison for "sex crimes" such as having sex with juvenile boys. I'll bet that not one of those boys ever needed help to heal the wounds of having sex with his teacher, but was disappointed when it ended. Turn it around, with a male teacher having sex with his juvenile female student, and few would hesitate to call it a form of rape and the woman would probably be scarred for life. Sex has vastly different consequences for men and women, and to equate sex "crimes" like that is one of the downsides of "blank slate" thinking. I recall George Carlin (been on a Carlin roll lately ), again the late voice of common sense in the USA, remarking on that situation when it began to become a crime for adult American women to have sex with adolescent boys. As I recall, he said it in reaction to the Letourneau case here in Washington, and he said:


"Stop saying that teenage boys who have sex with their hot, blonde teachers are permanently damaged. I have a better description for these kids: lucky bastards."


Letourneau married the "damaged" kid after she got out of prison. A teenage boy's life is not wrecked by sleeping with his teacher. Sure, that should mean the end of the teacher's career, but prison? I don't really believe in prison anyway, especially the punitive ones that we have, but the USA's prisons are full of people who did not commit what anybody would reasonably call a crime, which is when somebody else was hurt. And ignoring the difference between the sexes is far from enlightened. Our biology matters.

What Karl Marx called dialectical materialism is partly described by scientists today as positive and negative feedbacks. The enlightened mystic just takes the feedback concept further, and sees feedback effects between physical and immaterial reality. At this time, today's science does not have the tools to begin that kind of investigation and generally denies that those realities even exist. I am sympathetic, but falsifying materialism is pretty easy to do. Falsifying materialistic theories of consciousness does not mean that the Bible is literally true, which is that other pole, and as I have written here before, it has been very dismaying for the past 40 years to see the debate polarized that way, as materialists go at it with religious fundamentalists.

As I show in my big essay, the energy event led to the cognitive/social changes, not the other way around. Slavery did not end until it became economically obsolete. There was not even any stigma to it until then. That was where Marx was right in that social structures were based on their economic reality.

If the pressure of survival was removed from humanity with FE, what kind of people would that world produce? Bonobos ended male dominance when their food supply doubled. If FE became a daily reality, I see no reason why this kind of world could not quickly come into view. Godzilla is doing his best so that that kind of world does not appear, as he plays his evil-minded games. And call me sympathetic that his game would end, but since we are all his toys, I think that we have a right to say how we want our world to be. Really, how many people on Earth today could glimpse this world and say, "Nah, a life of quiet desperation is what I desire. I want some more kill-or-be-killed."? I also know that they will refuse to see it until they can truly see it, which is why they will not be talked into helping that world manifest. It all hinges on FE, which Godzilla knows well, hence his suppression activities.

A key message of my essay is that ecosystem and civilization collapses had the same reason: running out of energy. Those complex systems had several levels to them, and energy made them run. When the energy ran out, the system collapsed, and we are in the early stages of the collapse of industrial civilization. It is simply the same dynamic, but we will have far further to fall.

For no Epochal Event did the masses have any idea what the event might mean, even the inventors. If it comes to pass, the FE event will be the first Epochal Event in which those making it happen consciously created it. That is in keeping with humanity's increasing sentience (a truly emergent property), and I believe that it would not take long after the appearance of FE before those "ideals" in my vision just became the normal course of business and everybody's birthright. Again, almost nobody today can imagine it, but before the end of slavery, people born into slavery were supposed to accept that they would be property for their entire lives. Even though it happened in the not too distant past, most people today have a hard time imagining it. So, I am sympathetic to people's inability to imagine ways of being that have never really been seen before, but they become feasible with FE. That ends my sermon for the day.

Best,

Wade

[Nine]

Wade,

Many people on alt sites think that Oil is unlimited do to a theory called Abiotic Oil and I did a Google upon the subject and found that in the world of science that this is very controversial to say the least. Many upon 9/11 truth sites do not believe in global climate change nor in the theory of peak oil.

From reading your fine essay on energy I already can see many problems with such ideas and of course it looks like 9/11 truth and peak oil denial are firmly linked.

A great article by Richard Heinberg came up on the subject:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/20...9D-controversy

I think that many alt media sites probably get funding from sources in the oil business since on many sites that I have read for years this is a kind of mantra.

Many like me are weak on science matters and so it points out the importance of your article on energy issues and correct information....

I am learning from your work to think in deeper and clearer terms about the many processes that made life and the cycles of carbon, and oxygen that make life possible on this planet and I would say that Abiotic oil theory is a theory of the denial of some real science accepted by most. It is a denial of the fact that we are burning through our hydrocarbon resource thousands of times faster than it took to create it in the first place.

It is the ultimate denial that we need another source of energy or free energy. And it is a denial that we are heading for disaster....

Of course I might be preaching to the choir....


https://youtube.com/watch?v=cajNIzLO3IM


The other thing that I was thinking about is your statements regarding personal integrity being in short supply and this certainly could apply to this controversy....


thanx

Nine

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Nine:

Quickly, before I go to bed, and I'll write more tomorrow, but I do not write about abiotic oil in my big essay because it really is a dead theory. There are quite a few reasons why it is not tenable, and I decided to have my big essay focus more on how and where the oil deposits came from. There are all sorts of dead theories out there. Yes, if you digest my essay, the reasons for why oil is found where it is become evident. Most was formed along Tethyan shores.

We can get into 9/11 truth and abiotic oil, and various conspiratorial topics, but that can be a rabbit hole and I think that what is important is realizing how coal and oil formed and how fast we are burning them up. There has been very little coal formed for the past 300 million years, and very little oil for the past 90 million years. They are in very strong senses non-renewable resources, and oil and gas will be completely depleted in this century at the current trajectory, and we will reach peak everything in this century. We are currently experiencing the mother of all energy depletion scenarios.

Of course, Heinberg and I are old pals.

Yes, those who deny global warming are often those who buy the abiotic oil theory (and even abiotic coal), and also buy the 9/11 inside job angle. But Heinberg buys it too (and denies FE suppression, surprise of surprises), to show that it is not all monolithic and different factions have different reasons why they buy one hypothesis over another.

But if you achieve the comprehensive view that my big essay attempts to impart, it becomes evident that greenhouse gas effects on hothouse and icehouse Earth conditions are pretty clear to scientists, and we are toying with turning it into a hothouse Earth. The last time that happened, Earth had its greatest mass extinction event. That has climate scientists, paleobiologists, and others scientists terrified.

Time for bed.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I'll continue more on Nine's post, and respond to Melinda's. Even if the abiotic oil hypothesis was correct, not enough would seep upward to replenish what is being removed, so even abiotic oil is no answer. Also, if you study oil extraction, you find that only about a third of all oil in an oilfield is extracted because the remaining two-thirds is thermodynamically irretrievable, as the EROI quickly falls to one for that remaining oil, which means that it takes as much energy to extract and refine it as is obtained from it. The deeper a well, the lower its EROI, not only for the cost of drilling, but for the force of gravity that has to be overcome to bring it to the surface. So, that deep, theoretical abiotic oil is going to have a low EROI, just like we see with shale oil and tar sands. So, even if there was a bunch of abiotic oil down there in the mantle and lower crust, we cannot effectively extract much of it, and it will not seep upward and replenish the current oil fields in meaningful amounts. Again, there is a fringe out there that argues differently, but the evidence does not support their views, as far as I have seen. The evidence is that anoxic events along Tethyan shores made the oil, just like the lignin of early trees, before any life forms learned how to digest it, made most coal on Earth today. Plate tectonics could make coal and oil deposits thousands of feet thick. The continual movement of Tethyan shores northward, which squeezed out the Proto-Tethys, Paleo-Tethys, and Tethys oceans, led to the Middle East's thick oil deposits and those elsewhere, such as in Texas.

But the big if is whether that abiotic oil even exists, and it does not appear to, for many reasons. One big problem with the abiotic oil hypothesis is that it was formed before the science of plate tectonics was developed, and the oil that has been theorized to be abiotic because of where it was found has been shown to be "normal" oil that has moved due to geological activity. The geology does not support the abiotic formation hypothesis. Another strike against abiotic oil is that all oil discovered so far has the carbon-12/carbon-13 enrichment that is indicative of it coming from living matter, not inanimate. Studying the controversy is a good way to see how science operates. The abiotic oil formation hypothesis is not taken seriously anymore and was always on the far fringes, although, as usual, there is a loyal cadre of Russian scientists who still support the hypothesis and it has been embraced by various political factions, and yes, they are often the same people who also argue that global warming is a hoax and that 9/11 was an inside job. For me, that is an example of the hazards of the conspiracist mindset. Their political views overwhelm everything else, so they end up embracing the ends of scientific controversies that conform to their worldview, in a phenomenon called confirmation bias. The oil companies were the most fervent global warming deniers, not promoters, and they employed those geologists who do not support the abiotic oil hypothesis. So, the oil companies are on one side of one issue that the 9/11 Truthers support, but on the opposite side for another. It takes some pretty convoluted conspiracy theorizing to square that one. The oil companies are not Godzilla, either. Just like American presidents, they are down the food chain a ways. David Rockefeller is not at the top.

Godzilla is real, as are his manipulations, but he does not have monolithic control over everything. He just has to control a few key chokepoints to control the world economy, and hence humanity. Energy is the big one, particularly keeping FE at bay. Again, that chokehold mentality is as old as history. The global warming issue and geology, like paleobiology and archeology, do not appear to be areas that Godzilla is concerned with, as far as corrupting the science, but plenty of paranoid people think that he is. Also, if you look at those positions, on 9/11 "truth," global warming, and abiotic oil, what they have in common is a denial of personal responsibility. Those Arabs did not attack the USA because of our evil foreign policy, but because of evil Godzilla (or similar interests). If we deny global warming and embrace the abiotic oil hypothesis, then it is perfectly OK to keep burning oil with abandon, as there is a limitless supply of it and it has no environmental impact. It is all egocentric and refuses to take responsibility for our actions, and I will use that point to segue to Melinda's nice post.

Again, Melinda sees keenly. I also need to need to reiterate my journey's primary lesson, as it is critical to understand where the public is coming from, and I learned my lesson the hard way. I found that when people bring up transition fears, they almost never really fear misuse of FE. They just fear any change at all. The bottom line is that almost nobody really cares. I have written about it many times at Avalon, so I do not need to belabor it, such as Dennis telling me in early 1987 that people really cared, but had nothing worth caring about. A decade later, Dennis admitted to me that almost nobody cared, but he saw his job as sifting through the humanity's mine tailings, looking for gold nuggets. He rarely found any. That is not a judgment, but just an acknowledgement of the reality on our planet today. It is not a fun realization, but it is our reality.

I see this as a cousin to the head-scratching over people not understanding the connection between energy and economic activity: it is hard to believe at first, but is nevertheless true. Today, humanity is an egocentric animal ruled by fear. Few people see beyond their immediate self-interest, nor do they care to. Those with their hearts in the right place exist, but are exceedingly rare. How people got that way can be a source of debate, but it appears to be baked pretty deeply (maybe even at the soul level, as souls incarnated here to play kill-or-be-killed; if that is the case, I am going to ask for reassignment for the next lifetime ). In-group/out-group dynamics, in which anybody in the out-group is fair game, is at least as old as monkeys. Fuller found, however, that younger people were not yet totally under the spell of that in-group/out-group "thinking," and when thinking in comprehensive terms, such as pondering the subject matter of my big essay, college kids quickly see themselves as "Earthians," abandon in-group thinking, and see all of humanity as their in-group, much to the consternation of their elders who are more invested in their in-group ideologies. That is one reason why my work will likely have a better reception with the youth, although their parents are going to hate a "subversive" like me.

When Brian received all of those crazed reactions to the idea of FE, which led him to openly wonder if humanity was a sentient species, what he really encountered was people's ego mechanisms as they defended their self-interest, particularly the "smart." That is, as I see it, the crux of the FE conundrum. Almost nobody really cares, but only caring people are going to get us over the hump. When people's sentience seems to short-circuit and fry, as they irrationally defend their ideologies that feed them and their in-groups, it is because of fear. You get to find that out when you try to rationally engage them and their ox gets gored. Almost none will openly admit what their fears really are, such is the seductive nature of fear, but they just fear losing their, as I call it, niche of hell. They prefer the devil they know, have come to terms with him, and even consider him their friend. Maybe in some ways he is, but the lessons that he has to teach are harsh ones (Stephen King's The Stand is a good allegory). As I have stated, I may have to thank Mr. Deputy one day for helping me wake up, as he rubbed my face in evil.

So, this is a tricky issue, probably the trickiest on Earth, and for more than 99% of humanity, they will not begin to wake up and lay aside their fears until FE is delivered into their lives. I learned that the hard way as I played Level 10 spear-carrier for Dennis and Brian.

If I can find 5,000-7,000 people who can learn the abundance song and sing it, they will attract 100,000 who have pined their entire lifetimes for that song, and then we will be able to "do something" and FE will easily be a done deal. Humanity will not begin to wake up until the means of abundance are delivered into their lives, just like with the previous Epochal Events. The energy event came first, and the cognitive/social changes came later. Only a tiny fraction of humanity is going to wake up and help humanity over the hump, but a tiny fraction is all that is needed. Will we blow Earth and humanity up instead of heal them? It could be, but I doubt it. People who want guarantees of a safe transition before they will budge will be no help for making FE happen, and my experience is that they are really operating from Level 5 fears but do not admit it, as they conjure all manner of excuse for why FE is impossible or undesirable. You really have to see it to believe it, and those universal reactions are why the social circle approach will not work for making FE happen. Not enough people really care for that approach to work. As I look back, I can see where I had hints, from people such as Richard Bach, long before I ever met Dennis, of what I would encounter. In his Illusions, Don Shimoda said something like, "You can't make people care," and they watched NASCAR for the wrecks. Richard had a message for me, but I was not really ready to hear it.

That is why I do not seek to engage people who need to be wheedled, cajoled, and seduced to read work like mine. I seek people who recognize that my work is something different, have a love of the truth, and will go deep and not come up for air for months or years. When they come up for air, I will be there, and if I am lucky, as time goes by, when newcomers come up for air, they will hear a growing choir, and they will also learn to sing that song. Hell, they have waited for it for their entire lives. There will be people waiting to hear it, but they are also needles in haystacks.

Best,

Wade

[Chris Gilbert]

The mindset that is inclined to blame the government entirely for 9/11, along with denying global warming and peak oil comes in part from libertarian thinking, which tends to have a negative reaction to the implication that society needs to be organized in any manner that might impinge on "natural rights". I used to be more inclined to think in that manner, but the problem is that "natural rights" is largely wedded to notions of private property that are in turn derived from Calvinist thinking. Further education lead me to the conclusion that Calvinist thought is one of the worst manifestations of mental vomit ever invented. One can still respect the soul's need for self-determination while also recognizing that notions of property are based on relative cultural context even in a world of scarcity rather than being some God given right.

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Enishi:

Yes, Calvinism is grim stuff. In the last half of his American Holocaust, David Stannard dissected the European mentality behind what they did to the Western Hemisphere (and the world), and Calvinism was certainly one of the more toxic ideologies to come out of Europe, but it also had a long pedigree. Yes, the concept of private property was in ways peculiarly European, and capitalism arose from that milieu. There is so much to own!

That famous phrase, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was originally "Life, liberty and the pursuit of property," but Jefferson changed it, to try appealing to the property-less cannon fodder. As you know, libertarian ideology has its own mythology, which I do not consider very valid.

To all:

To clarify, those who deny Global Warming and Peak Oil (buying the abiotic oil idea is part of that denial, but is only part of Peak Oil denial) who also subscribe to the "inside job" angle on 9/11 subscribe to conspiracy theories for all three events, so they are consistent in that way. I was just talking with a pal today about Global Warming deniers. Most of them in the USA graduated from the Rush Limbaugh School of Climate Science and took the Fox News refresher course. Real nutty stuff, but as I think all Americans have experienced, people in my social circles deny Global Warming. It just comes with living in this asylum.

For the record, even if those Arab hijackers were genuine (not fakes or actors, the planes were real, etc. – i.e., the idea that they really hijacked those planes and flew them as officially portrayed, which I know is a stretch), it was an instance of blowback, as the entire jihad concept is an invention of the USA, and Osama bin Laden was our man in Afghanistan as we used those Islamic fighters as cannon fodder to harry the Soviet Union. At minimum, those were people from our programs who flew those planes.

If many of the 9/11 conspiracy musings are true, and many would not surprise me if they were, then it is even more sinister than our own trainees coming back to haunt us, but some kind of inside job. I am pretty familiar with a lot of the 9/11 evidence and the "let it happen," helped it happen," and "engineered the event" hypotheses. There is also one hell of a lot of disinformation purveyed by many different parties. One thing is certain: the USA's government cannot be trusted in the slightest to perform an impartial and competent investigation, and if Americans can understand that, the rest is gravy.

IMO, George Bush the Second was certainly not involved in planning 9/11. Would you want him "masterminding" anything other than his golf swing? I am open to the idea that he had some kind of heads up and was told to play his role, and he obediently did so. How much Rummy and Cheney may have been involved is a more interesting question. Nothing there would surprise me, but we will probably never know. I wrote that a Manhattan pal was skeptical of any kind of "inside job" angle until Bush appointed Kissinger to lead the 9/11 "investigation." Then she had little doubt that the federal government was in on it somehow. Dark, dark stuff, and anybody suspecting federal government complicity has my sympathy.

Basically, not all conspiracy theories are created equal. I think that cui bono is always one of the best questions to ask, and those with huge potential payoffs to the conspirators deserve the most scrutiny, and nothing is bigger than FE. I doubt that Godzilla had anything to do with 9/11, but I have not paid much attention to that angle, either. He sits pretty far above a fray like that, to my knowledge.

Best,

Wade