WADE FRAZIER : A Healed Planet

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

More choir Q&A.

Q: Wade, are you going to have a place in your forum where you invite critics in to debate them? There are plenty of "skeptics" and others who criticize your work on the Internet, and it could be educational, for both you and the choir, to engage in those debates and witness them.

A: No, I will not be having those debates, for a few reasons. Probably most importantly, debates are really held for the benefit of the uninitiated, as a kind of easy way to become familiar with the arguments. The choir will not be comprised of the uninitiated who are looking for some easy way to digest my work, by seeing what critics have to say about it. Those writings have been on the Internet for many years, and people can go find them, read them, and then do their homework on them, to see who "won."

I began my public writing career by taking on all comers. I did it for several years, and my first lesson was engaging Mr. Skeptic. He came on as somebody who wanted to know the truth, even with a "skeptical" stance, but it eventually became evident that that was only a façade, and his mask came off when he began publishing Big Lies about Dennis, and when his old lies were exposed, he made up new lies. Mr. Skeptic is a functional psychopath. Soon after Dennis was barred from ever working in the energy industry in the USA again, Mr. Skeptic quietly folded his tents, which I expected, as I am about half-convinced that he was being paid during his 15-year campaign against Dennis.

During those early years on the Internet, when I took on all comers, I interacted with many critics. But I never encountered any of them who were honest, informed, and rational. My best critics have always been my allies, as they helped me make my work better. Eventually, I was able write an essay that was filled with the irrationalities of my critics, to help educate people with how the "critic" game works. I have seen it for a quarter-century with Chomsky's assailants. I am not saying that it cannot be educational to review the criticisms of people like Chomsky, or me, but the critiques always said far more about the critics than it did about their targets.

Dennis's books are filled with official documentation regarding the attacks on his companies by the legal authorities, and obtaining the official documentation is not hard to do, but people like Mr. Skeptic just made it up as he went. What was even more "impressive" is how Dennis's "allies" the FE field would also make it up as they went while lying about him, and I was reminded of one of those liars and his promoters just a couple of weeks ago. To me, all of those lying and irrational critics are just more examples of my journey's primary lesson: personal integrity is the world's scarcest commodity.

As far as the truth of my work, as far as getting my facts right, or my interpretation of them, I provide literally thousands of references to the work on my site, and I would expect anybody in the choir to do their homework, and part of that homework is obtaining at least one of the cited works, and the pupil can judge for themselves my facts and interpretation. They do not really need to hear what my "critics" have to say, but need to do the work themselves. If they want to see me "battle" my critics (there can be some learning accomplished by such an exercise), I provide the grist for it, so that they can compare Mr. Skeptic's words to the official documentation, which I do in my section on him. Then there will be no doubt left to give him the benefit of. Long ago, I read a wise man say that debating fools and liars was always a losing proposition (the Bible even makes that statement), as the audience would not be able to distinguish who was the liar or fool. I interacted with those kinds of critics long enough to understand the truth of that statement.

You can see, hear, and read many interviews with Chomsky over the years, and sometimes he would address what critics had said, and of all the things he said, the one that hit home with me was when he said that he did not mind when his critics had a different interpretation of the evidence than he did, but he did have a problem with all the lying. Chomsky has been lied about regarding his stance on Cambodia for nearly 40 years, and I saw the mainstream media repeat those lies about him just last month.

So, I do not see the point in inviting in critics, as I have yet to encounter one that was honest, informed, and rational. I'll end with one example that I encountered, which was written several years ago in a "skeptical" forum. The writer actually defended Randi's and Sagan's treatments of their skeptical targets, and noted that I was highly unqualified to write about the subjects that I do, as only somebody with the proper training and experience should be writing about the medical industry, history, the media, and so on. Well, at times I contacted world authorities about the subjects that I wrote about, usually when asking for their permission to reproduce part of their work. And when I would, I received nothing but praise, such as Howard Zinn's reaction to my Columbus essay, or one of the world's foremost paleobiologist's reaction to the first half of my big essay. If somebody wants to challenge my take on pleomorphic microbiology or my support for Wrangham's cooking hypothesis, in those areas I am going out on a limb a little and supporting unorthodox positions, they are welcome to, and the science will either prove accurate or not. So, call me "exposed" to criticisms there. On pleomorphic microbiology, the stark evidence provided by the "impossible" microscopes of Rife's and Naessens's is the only way that a critic could possibly try to assail their findings, and I have yet to see even one critic deal in the slightest with the findings of those microscopes and their "impossible" resolutions, but the critics act as if those microscopes and what they saw never even existed. Such "critics" were of the Mr. Skeptic psychopath variety, and I guess that they hope that their audience is pretty stupid. So, if critics want to assail me on subjects like those, they are welcome to, but they need to first deal with the objective evidence that is readily available, not treat it like it does not exist.

On the FE front, I really do not care what the armchair theorists have to say about how FE is "impossible." I know better. A man with experience is not interested in debating a man with a theory.

The "skeptical" forum that critiqued my work never got into any specifics, as is typical of such critics. If they never get into specifics, then nobody can test their statements, as they make their broad claims. That kind of criticism is of the deeply dishonest variety that I am all-too-familiar with. But that critique did mention one "testable" claim, in that I mention Hitler on my site fairly regularly, and the critic then made the claim that I mentioned Hitler in inappropriate contexts, as if I had a Hitler obsession. So, there is a testable claim. Does it hold up?

For one thing, I wrote a book-length essay about World War II, so Hitler's name is going to come up. I do mention Hitler in other areas of my site, and there was always a method to my madness. In Western circles, Hitler is presented as the ultimate in evil, even an anti-Christ, and throughout my site, I show how Hitler was cheered by the West during his rise to power, even heavily funded by American industrialists, and Hitler learned his anti-Jewish ideology from one of the USA's greatest industrialists. Also, Hitler's lebensraum program and his extermination of "subhumans" took direct inspiration from how Europe, and particularly the USA, conquered and "settled" North America.

Also, I have direct connections to the Nazi regime, and it is not inconsequential trivia. The CIA was founded on the Nazi intelligence network, and friends like Ralph McGehee discovered the hard way what the CIA was all about. People in my circles have been subjected to the MKUltra program and its successors, which were invented by Nazi scientists.

My father worked in Mission Control during the Space Race, and I am Brian O'Leary's biographer, and Brian was hired to go to Mars because of Wernher von Braun's influence. Dr. von Braun was a dapper count and one of Hitler's favorites who came over to the USA and became a Space Race hero who hosted children's TV shows and built a ride at Disneyland, which I rode on, and von Braun's spokesperson in his last years replaced me on the NEM board after I quit.

I also mention Hitler and the Nazis in my medical racket essay, as the Nazis had an anti-smoking campaign led by Hitler while American medical authorities were promoting the "medicinal" properties of cigarettes! Goebbels carefully studied the work of the man who architected that cigarette campaign in developing the Nazis' propaganda campaigns against the Jews (and the men who mounted those tobacco campaigns were Jewish (1, 2), of all things).

I have also extensively studied Einstein's life and career. He was run out of Germany by the Nazis, found refuge in the USA, but was treated as an enemy of the state by Herbert Hoover's FBI, and "patriot" groups tried to prevent Einstein's coming to the USA as a Jewish "subversive." I also mention another Jewish scientist who had his books burned by the Nazis, escaped Germany, came to the USA, to only have the same books burned in the USA and he died in an American prison after a kangaroo court trial because his investigations were threatening the cancer racket, at the very same time that medical authorities were promoting cigarettes! You could not make this stuff up if you tried.

I also mention Hitler's astute comment on how well Big Lies work on the public, which has been part of the American propaganda playbook ever since.

So, I indeed mention Hitler and the Nazis many times in my work, but I am not sure where it is an irrelevant mention. But the "skeptics" can make claims like that, without any evidence or argument, to dismiss my work. That is the kind of "skepticism" and critique of my work that I am all-too-familiar with, and I will not waste my forum's time dealing with such drivel. We have much bigger fish to fry.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

More choir Q&A.

Q: In looking at the history of mammals, I guess that mammals could be called reptiles, and maybe even birds could be called the same.

A: Good question. In studying evolutionary relationships, the idea of a clade is prominent among scientists. A clade is a organism and all of its descendants. All life on Earth is a member of LUCA's clade. In naming groups such as reptiles, mammals, birds, and the like there is a notion of monophyletic and paraphyletic, which means if the groups is comprised all the members of a clade (monophyletic), or only some of them (paraphyletic). What we call reptiles today is paraphyletic, because the same clade that includes reptiles indeed includes birds and mammals. Scientists prefer monophyletic clades because they are logically more consistent, rather than excluding some members of a clade because they are sometimes seemingly arbitrarily put into a special category in a nod to human conventions that predated the rise of science.

It is somewhat of a quibble, but understandable. The clade that includes reptiles, birds, and mammals is called amniotes, which is comprised of vertebrates that do not lay their eggs in water. That clade includes dinosaurs. Some archosaurs gave live birth, such as ichthyosaurs, and some mammals lay eggs, such as the platypus. There is raging debate on how warm-blooded dinosaurs might have been.

The human ego is certainly wrapped up in the debate, as humans like having some kind of unique distinction, and there has long been resistance to calling humans "animals." Even denial of culture among great ape societies has been very pronounced. Humanity has slowly been growing out of those conceits, and enlightened scientists call humans "Just another species."

Of course, there is fierce resistance from religious fundamentalists of all stripes, but it is a very healthy trend to see the animal nature and heritage of humanity. It certainly does not mean that that is all that humanity is, but it is very healthy to consider where we came from, which partly tells us where we can go.

So, although mammals and birds have a reptilian heritage, I'll go with the current terminology, as it is a term of convention, harmless, and is an easy way to distinguish between three markedly different kinds of animals.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

More choir Q&A.

Q: Wade, you have written that you do not consider popular catastrophic theory to be valid. I suppose that you feel the same way about Young Earth theory. Have you looked into it?

A: Yes I have. I have looked into many fringe areas. I am not a masochist, but poking into those areas has been educational. One thing has become very common in the past century, which is invalid bodies of work adopting the trappings and language of science, but not following the process of science. They are a kind of counterfeit science, and are commonly called "pseudoscience," but I have seen that term greatly abused, too. I have seen this in many fringe areas, from the New Age and conspiracist flavor of the day, to Holocaust Denial, and various fringe "science" issues.

The basic difference between science and that fringe stuff is the process. The scientific process begins with an act of inductive logic that welds together the sum total of evidence regarding a phenomenon, and a hypothesis is formulated. Then the hypothesis is subjected to testing designed to disprove the hypothesis, known as falsification. Those other disciplines generally do not to that. Their "hypotheses" (which is a very generous term to use for much of such "theorizing") are constructed by cherry-picking data that can be construed to support their hypotheses, and falsification testing is never performed or its results are disputed in a dizzying array of logical summersaults. So, in all manner of fringe area, you will find promoters of their hypotheses, as they cite this or that scrap of data that can be construed to support their work. I get emails almost daily on such issues.

Young Earth theory is like that. Over the years, I have somehow gotten on mailing lists for Young Earth and other topics that I sometimes call Redneck Science, as it all has a very predictable bent, and is centered around the literal truth of the Bible, the evil elites that run everything, and myths about American nationalism. Denying the reality of the Jewish Holocaust is one of many topics in that milieu. I have a redneck heritage myself, which partly had to do with my racist upbringing, so I am somewhat sympathetic to that simplistic and paranoid worldview, but it is a false one.

I do not want to tar the catastrophists, especially of the Velikovskian strain, with the same brush that I use on Young Earthers, but what they have in common is a belief in the literal truth of the Old Testament. Unfortunately, scientists and historians can find little support for the tales in the Old Testament, so using them as the basis for reconstructing ancient events is pretty shaky stuff, and Young Earthers believe in the literal truth of Genesis. They really are close cousins to the Flat Earth society.

Five centuries ago, Westerners literally believed that Earth was only several millennia old, because Genesis said so. Eastern religions could go the other way and believe that Earth was unimaginably old. Their ideas were closer to what scientists have discovered. When I finished my website in 2002, I wanted to resume my science studies, and one area in particular that I wanted to explore was the dating issue, and it has been part and parcel of my studies since then. There is damned impressive evidence for how old Earth and the solar system are, and both appear to be more than four billion years old. And there are plenty of converging lines of independently adduced evidence that supports those ancient ages. I have seen various attacks on radioactive dating, but the science appears to be valid and robust. The Young Earth hypothesis is just one of many challenges to the chronologies that scientists and mainstream scholars have developed. A Russian mathematician developed a "reconstruction" of history with a timeline that is creative, to say the least. He also borrowed from his predecessors, but it is safe to say that such reconstructions are invalid.

But the scientific process is far from the end-all, be-all tool that people such as Carl Sagan and the "skeptics" promoted, and the scientific method is like the notion of a free press, a free market, democracy, an objective history, and other ideals that have never been seen in the real world, and the basic rule of thumb is that when science conflicts with the rackets, the rackets win.

That is why we have microscopes that are nearly a century old that achieved "impossible" resolutions for viewing life processes, which orthodox microscopes still cannot achieve, and those microscopes (1, 2) are treated as if they do not exist. That is how an industrial waste and well-known poison was rebranded as "medicine" and is literally forced down America's throat to this day. That is how the cheap, effective, and harmless cancer treatments are all outlawed, while the deadly, expensive, and ineffective ones are the only legal ones, and those that outlawed the effective treatments literally promoted the health benefits of asbestos-filtered cigarettes. That is how free energy and antigravity technology are older than I am but treated as if they do not exist, and are regularly declared "impossible" by today's pundits. That is how the best heating system that has ever been on the world market is treated as if it never existed, even as it heats homes today, with some installations nearly 40 years old, and the man who had the most to do with bringing that technology to market has been pilloried ever since, without even mentioning his heating system, which he put on people's homes for free.

Such is the surreal situation encountered when science meets the rackets. I do not want to pick on Young Earthers too much here, as many social sciences also pose as science, such as economics, and there is probably a method to the madness. History's richest man and greatest energy mogul helped turn Western medicine into a racket, funded the university that promotes the nonsensical economic theories that dominate today, and his grandson is the "godfather" of all American presidents of the past half-century. We ran into that family's handiwork numerous times in our free energy adventures, and they had a hand in at least some of the organized suppression that we encountered. The conspiracy theories about them are not all false.

My experience has been that people either suffer from conspiracy-phobia or conspiracy-philia, with little balance between them. What both perspectives have in common is thinking like victims, but we have to think like creators if we are going to turn the corner.


Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

More choir Q&A, but again, it is not really something that I expect to see in my forum, but I have had many exchanges like this.

Q: Wade, you are throwing a lot of information at your readers. Can't you make it easier?

A: I am sorry, but for the task at hand – helping manifest the biggest event in the human journey – I cannot make it any easier. Not for an attempt that is beginning in cyberspace. If I make it any easier, it is not going to work. My work is like an online university class, but there is nothing else like it on Earth. I have an activist/scientist/mystic/historian approach because I am a comprehensivist in the Bucky Fuller mold. The human convention of breaking the world into pieces, to study each piece in isolation, on one hand can make things more comprehensible (to filter the signal from the noise), but it can also lead to tunnel vision. I need people whose eyes are open and who can leave aside their favorite subjects while they grasp a big picture, because only then can the Epochal nature of FE be comprehended. There is a hazard, however; if you truly grasp the Epochal nature of FE, which dwarfs the previous Epochal Events, you will have a hard time thinking about anything else.

So, the seemingly arduous nature of my work helps keep people out of the puddle that they can drown in. My work is not only challenging, in its breadth and depth, but it can pack one heck of an emotional wallop. Everything is magnified by a few orders of magnitude in the FE pursuit. The people that run the world are doing their best to prevent the event from manifesting, as it will make their position in the world obsolete, and almost anybody who pokes into the subject in the slightest soon realizes that FE means the end of the world as they know it, and they react in fear or denial. I have witnessed those reactions thousands of times, as have my fellow travelers, and some openly wondered, in disgust, whether humanity is a sentient species (Brian O was far from the only one). People have gone off the deep end after encountering my work, and I really do not want to do that to them, so there is a method to my seeming madness, which is partly protecting people from losing their minds. I am not kidding, and when people have been institutionalized, have made death threats, have wrecked friendships and family relationships and the like over my work, those were not happy moments for me, or very productive.

I am looking for extremely rare people, who are less than one-in-a-thousand in the general population, but because billions of people have access to the Internet, I like my odds of eventually finding enough people for my idea to work.

I have made the material as easy as I can, and have avoided getting technical and arcane. World authorities in popularizing the material in my big essay in particular have privately raved about it, but I am not going to ask them to get in the line of fire and publicly endorse me. That could give them trouble, and I really do not want my work to become "popular." It was more than enough to just know that I did not fail in making the work comprehensible while also being accurate and comprehensive. I took the time off to write my big essay partly because I did not know if I would be capable of it in ten years, and I now have extra ten years that I would not have had to work on making something happen, while I grow old.

I just traded email with Ed Herman today, who turns 90 this coming spring, and he still publishes a monthly article in Z Magazine, recently published another book, to add to his huge oeuvre, and he and Uncle Noam have put marks so high on the wall that it boggles my mind. Uncle Howard died on a speaking tour at age 87. So, I hope that I have another 30 good years in me, to help my plan along.

I have written plenty of smaller essays that were designed to "gently" introduce readers to my material, but those can only be a warmup for going deep on the big ones, at least for the people that I am looking for.

Making it "easy" is what I call the Level 10 approach, and I have been involved with several of those, and my writings are largely a reaction to the failures of those mass movement approaches. When I began to study for writing my big essay in earnest in about 2007, the truly Epochal nature of FE began to dawn on me, and with that realization came part of the answer for why the mass movement approaches have always failed. If an effort like mine will have any chance of success, it has to aim high, and cannot afford to water it down to play to people's "stuff," which is always rooted in scarcity and fear. We won’t get there by playing to scarcity, fear, and semi-sentient behaviors, but we have to strive for abundance, love, and clear thinking. That is the path that I see laid out before me, and it is the only one that I really am interested in walking, and I seek fellow travelers to help with this truly Epochal task.

Best,

Wade

[Nine]

Wade,

I am now entering the second epoch of the human journey while reading about the first with humanity discovering fire in your journal and while reading I sometimes must ask myself why does he want us to read this stuff?

Then it hit home for me when you talked about what fire really was in a scientific way and how the human eye could see the flames due to the chemical reaction taking place.

Fire and tools let humanity conquer the earth and in that first epoch humanity became a predator. Which led to vast extinctions and even today the debate is not about human responsibility for environmental devastation but always about other things.

Your idea of concentrating on the big picture is the right course and by openly being critical of some of the crazy conspiracy stuff is a good idea and I was about to ask you about those subjects and am so glad you commented upon them and so many will be driven crazy in the alt world not by your views but by the addiction to conspiracy theory.

I know how the game is played due to my experiences with the fed gubbernment for three decades and its dirty and dangerous as you warn people about those issues and "pissing" off the wrong person can make your life miserable for yourself and all around you. I learned first hand long ago that attacking that entity with a frontal assault would be sucicidal and I like how you make no bones about that with folks.

I would say about myself that I am totally unfit to be a member of your singing group due to all the abuse that I have suffered and in retirement being free of the psychopath is simply wonderful and of course I am no coward but for now I just could not handle much in that area.

When they(psychopaths) come and not if they come... that type of conflict is simply terrifying since it can go from cyber space to real life...we called it where I used to work "zero to one hundred miles per hour in a second" when the trouble came your way...

There is a reason why they choose boys to be soldiers Wade....us old guys would never get out of the fox hole knowing what is waiting for us...



thanx

Nine

[Nine]

Wade,

I might have mentioned that I was quite the cyclist when I was young and now I do cycling as a way to remain fit and not about competition and racing.

There is a new type of mountain bicycle tech out there called the "fat" bike meaning instead of a two inch tire the bikes have four inch tires instead.

The major innovation that allowed for over four inch tires was the disc brake as a rim brake was the limiting factor of a bicycles braking system and with disc brakes some of the mountain bikes have over five inch tires.

When I first saw these crazy "Fat" bikes on the trails my initial reaction was what a crock and these things are slow and heavy as the first ones were. My cycling culture and pedigree is hard core bike racing from crits to ultra cycling.

These "Fat" bikes were billed as snow bikes or bikes to ride in the winter months and so that became attractive to me so I bought one of them two years ago but built it up custom with light rims and hubs and I got one with a modern frame design for speed.

The build came in at 28.5 pounds with the earlier versions over forty pounds. That first season I just road it as a snow bike but as we came into summer I just kept riding the bike with my racing pals and I just started kicking there buts on training rides or at least being equal with the fastest guys.

Which led a very very fast pal of mine who is only 40 who decided to get one and he started placing in the top spots with pro mountain bike racers with an even lighter full carbon "Fat" bike which he got the weight down to 21 pounds!

The cycling mainstream was against these bikes but now manufacture them and are seeing declines in sales of the 26 in mountain bicycle and that came about because folks had open minds and were willing to purchase from small builders with good ideas.

The tech was invented and really dedicated folks demonstrated them for over 5 years before I took them up and it was because I got "shown" the tech and that how this was a very good idea.

These "Fat" bike folks have races where you share a bicycle to do laps so that folks that want to try one can do so at a race and man are these events a blast.

You can also ride solo to win...in your catagory and so many are served and many become educated.

I observed even companys like Trek bikes and Specialized who were at first much opposed to the idea now building quality "Fat" bikes.

They had an event today called "Global Fat Bike Day" could you say they have a big set of nads? http://fat-bike.com/2014/10/global-f...mber-6th-2014/

Nothing at all to do with free energy but an observation of human nature....

thanx Wade


Nine

[Nine]

Wade,

I have a question for you. Have you ever studied the Jefferson bible?

Thomas Jefferson near the end of his life cut out the text of the bible he did not like or feel was true and had a condensed version of the bible...

It would be illuminating to study what he cut out....might be a way to understand him....

How could he be so enlightened as his sponsoring of Lewis and Clark to his immense scientific curiosity to the adaptation of a policy of genocide against the indigenous population?

For us history buffs Jefferson is an enigma IMO...

Yes, L and C was also a military opp as a group of spies.

And so that is why your friend Dennis is such an enigma to me and I read about him upon a search on Google and your story is good and another working class guy got screwed over by the system.....


The rock band called "The Who" had a song with a lyric as goes:

"meet the new boss same as the old boss"....

in my old place of employment we lost count at one hundred and twenty six bosses over the years....





You see they are super war mongers those evangelicals and so Dennis is a red flag for me to put aside...as it were...


thanx

Nine

[Nine]

Wade,

how many books did you read...

I am in awe....

you have a gift...to read and look and to remember and to tell the other....

I look at you as an equal even though I am older than you...

I do not wish to fight nor to battle but am looking for a place of peace to learn....

it looks to me that peaceful places to learn will soon be at a premium....


Nine...

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Nine:

For the biggest event in the human journey, not everybody needs to be a soldier. I get it. Heck, I had no idea what I was signing up for, and do not want to "lure" people into something that they will regret because they got in over their heads. Those who quietly lurk and read my work, making new connections and having "aha" moments, are also doing good work. Ultimately, making FE happen is going to be about love and sentience. There are going to be singers, listeners, and those who end up "doing something." I am going to need 100,000 or so active people to make it all happen.

Darwin called the control of fire humanity's greatest invention, other than perhaps the mastery of language, and 150 years later, scientists have not really improved on it. One was an energy event, and the other was an unprecedented act of sentience that allowed for a rapid increase in human knowledge. Energy and consciousness, energy and consciousness – that is the theme of my big essay.

On your bike story, yes, people resist change. Many of the best ideas have languished for generations before they were "rediscovered" and adopted. Regarding breakthrough technologies, and I am not referring to organized suppression, the resistance to innovation is impressive. In my big essay, I mention how major theories were consigned to oblivion and the author died in obscurity, to only be vindicated generations later. That is actually tame compared to advances in technology. I recall seeing a study on major innovations and how long it took for them to be embraced by the mainstream, and the average delay was several decades. All of my first professional mentor's inventions were either suppressed or stolen, some of which you use in your life today. That is the standard treatment, even leaving aside the organized suppression. It has been particularly brutal in medicine.

The phenomenon of the Wright brothers flying through the air for five years before science acknowledged their accomplishment is actually tame compared to the collective denial that exists today.

On the Jefferson Bible, no, I have not studied it (I just read several chapters, and as I figured, the Sermon on the Mount is prominent), but I know that he edited out anything "supernatural," which included Jesus's "miracles" and his virgin birth and resurrection. The Jefferson Bible is essentially Jesus's ethics lesson to humanity. Jefferson, like other Founding Fathers, was a deist, not a Christian. Right wing Christians can be counted on to have a unique view of the First Amendment and act as if the Founding Fathers were a bunch of Bible thumpers. They weren't, and the First Amendment was only a successor to the English and colonial Tolerance Acts. The USA was never a Christian nation, no matter evangelical Christian pronouncements to the contrary. On Jefferson's leading the dispossession and genocide of the Indians, that just came with the job of being president.

Dennis was raised as a migrant farm worker, of Scots-Irish (redneck) heritage, which is also part of my heritage, although I was spared fire-and-brimstone sermons while growing up (my parents came from Quaker and Lutheran roots). I think that that explains a lot of Dennis's religious stance. He got imprinted with that stuff while young, and while a light bulb later went off in his head, he never got past his initial orientation. That is real common. I am the only American FE activist that I know of who got all of the red, white, and blue Kool-Aid out of his mouth. We are force-fed that stuff from our cradles.

On how much I have read, the references in my essays give a hint. I estimate that I read somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 pages of material to make my site. That comes in at around 1,000 books, if we count them a certain way. Maybe I read more, I don’t know. I really did not keep track, but I was a bookworm from the time that I could walk and have spent most of my "spare" time since 1990 reading the kind of material that became my site, which included quite a few periodicals that I subscribed to over the years. When I wrote the site that became my 2002 version, I spent a great deal of time in the King County and University of Washington libraries, in the periodical stacks, ordering books from distant libraries, and so on. I have a personal library of 2,000 books. I estimate that it took the equivalent of seven full-time years to create the essays on my site, from the study to the writing to the editing. That was all after I was radicalized by my wild ride with Dennis. Today, I spend several hours a day reading. It is not all science, news, history, and the like, as I read fantasy literature all the time, too. My spiritual/channeled section of my person library amounts to several hundred books.

But all the reading in the world does not mean much unless experience forms the foundation of our awareness. As I have written plenty, the people I am looking for have to have had some kind of awakening experience, or they are not really going to understand my work. My personal journey was the result of quite a few factors. One is likely how I came in and my soul's mission. I have had many psychic readings, including by channels, and they were all pretty consistent. I helped plan Earth School and this lifetime is my Big One, as I try to help humanity turn the corner. I am an Old Artisan, and my website is a classic Old Artisan undertaking. On the more "earthly" front, I am a member of history's most privileged demographic group, I received the genetic blessing of a genius-level IQ and a nearly photographic memory, and I had a Boy Scout mentality from the beginning. It turns out that almost all of my fellow travelers on the FE front had similar traits. Those traits were kind of a prerequisite for the journey.

When you chase the biggest event in the human journey, many issues come up, both for you and those around you, and it seems that people have to experience a little of it to understand. I had fleeting delusions of grandeur early in my FE journey, but it was almost immediately beaten out of me, and two years later, my life was destroyed and I sacrificed it to rescue Dennis, which incredibly worked, in the greatest miracle I ever saw.

I had dreams of changing the energy industry as a teenager, and a voice in my head changed my studies from science to business and led me straight to Dennis. It is all so much larger than life that almost nobody in my life can even acknowledge those events, but they minimize them or prefer to act as if they never happened. As Brian O said, this is a very lonely path.

When I have watched FE aspirants go off the deep end in many ways, either through greed, thinking that they were the Messiah, and so on, it was always sad to witness, and further emphasized the many temptations and perils that attend the pursuit of FE, even leaving aside the organized suppression.

My approach tries to avoid those pitfalls, and on this thread, you can see the arrested development in the FE field, as I was asked dozens of times about the inventor of the hour and other meaningless FE-related topics. That post that I wrote yesterday sums up the reactions that I get a lot of, in that people get overwhelmed by the information, get lost in the weeds, wonder what good any of it is, and all that I can say to that is such people are likely not in my target audience. People do not need to be scientists or geniuses to understand. I have had people from all walks of life, from all levels of intellectual achievement, from world authorities to the subject matter that I write about, to English majors to people who can barely string a sentence together, who did the work of digesting my writings, and eventually a light bulb went off for them. Some were brighter than others, but some kind of light bulb went off for them.

My editor was a case in point. She immediately understood that my work was something different (we met in a forum), and I got the lesson of my writing "career" from her red pen, but she was most of the way through editing my site, and on the last third of my medical racket essay, when the paradigmatic light bulb finally went off for her. Over the years, I have tried to keep her out of trouble, as she tried to navigate issues such as Global Warming. I hired her again to edit my big essay, and she and others really wondered what I was trying to accomplish with the first half of my essay. I got that a lot. As she edited the last half of the essay, the method of my madness finally became clear. So, your comment about wondering about why I would write about fire, to eventually understand, is a pretty typical reaction for those who do the work. But it will only be in the essay's final chapters that it will really all come together and the essay will make sense as a whole. The understandings that I am trying to impart to my readers are not trivial, but will be critical for helping manifest the biggest event in the human journey. I will do another choir Q&A on what the point of my work is and why I think it is important. It is not the only game in town, but there is no other game like it on Earth.

Best,

Wade

[Chris Gilbert]

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)
Hi Nine:

On the Jefferson Bible, no, I have not studied it (I just read several chapters, and as I figured, the Sermon on the Mount is prominent), but I know that he edited out anything "supernatural," which included Jesus's "miracles" and his virgin birth and resurrection. The Jefferson Bible is essentially Jesus's ethics lesson to humanity. Jefferson, like other Founding Fathers, was a deist, not a Christian. Right wing Christians can be counted on to have a unique view of the First Amendment and act as if the Founding Fathers were a bunch of Bible thumpers. They weren't, and the First Amendment was only a successor to the English and colonial Tolerance Acts. The USA was never a Christian nation, no matter evangelical Christian pronouncements to the contrary. On Jefferson's leading the dispossession and genocide of the Indians, that just came with the job of being president.

Dennis was raised as a migrant farm worker, of Scots-Irish (redneck) heritage, which is also part of my heritage, although I was spared fire-and-brimstone sermons while growing up (my parents came from Quaker and Lutheran roots). I think that that explains a lot of Dennis's religious stance. He got imprinted with that stuff while young, and while a light bulb later went off in his head, he never got past his initial orientation. That is real common. I am the only American FE activist that I know of who got all of the red, white, and blue Kool-Aid out of his mouth. We are force-fed that stuff from our cradles.

Although I now consider it to be one of the most wretched religions in existence, one slight upside to being raised a Jehovah's Witness was that I was mostly free from indoctrination in nationalistic and patriotric ideology (the JWs regard world governments as all being controlled by Satan). That made it much easier for me to digest the material in your American Empire essay when I read it shortly after 9/11. It caused no cognitive dissonance for me. The way I feel now is that I like some of the Enlightenment values in the original Constitution, but agree that it was mostly only on paper and only applied sparingly in the real world.

[Melinda]

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)
...Many of the best ideas have languished for generations before they were "rediscovered" and adopted. Regarding breakthrough technologies, and I am not referring to organized suppression, the resistance to innovation is impressive. In my big essay, I mention how major theories were consigned to oblivion and the author died in obscurity, to only be vindicated generations later. That is actually tame compared to advances in technology...

As fate would have it, I came across this issue whilst reading a piece by Tom Bearden earlier.

A relevant snippet, for everyone's pleasure :

"Arthur C. Clarke said it this way [...]:

"If they [quantum fluctuations of vacuum] can be [tapped], the impact upon our civilization will be incalculable. Oil, coal, nuclear, hydropower, would become obsolete — and so would many of our worries about environmental pollution." "Don't sell your oil shares yet — but don't be surprised if the world again witnesses the four stages of response to any new and revolutionary development: 1. It's crazy! 2. It may be possible -- so what? 3. I said it was a good idea all along. 4. I thought of it first."

It's a part of human nature to strongly resist new ideas, and particularly upsetting ideas. Even Sigmund Freud, the founder of modern psychology, pointed it out in these words:

"There are three steps in the history of a great discovery. First, its opponents say that the discoverer is crazy; later that he is sane but that his discovery is of no real importance; and last, that the discovery is important but everybody has known it right along."

Just now, COP>1.0 energy science and notions are still largely in that first stage prescribed by Freud, just a little bit into the second stage, and struggling to get on into and through the second stage and into the third."

http://www.cheniere.org/articles/clean%20electrical.htm

In the piece Bearden looks at :

- How the mainstream science currently taught results in our building self-defeating electrical circuits, so that more fuel is needed to work our generators.
- How and why the science contradicting this outdated, perpetuated methodology is overlooked and suppressed by the scientific community (which is aside from the more direct, suppressive interventions from elite agencies.)
- Methods used by murderous agents to silence the inventors.


To clarify, if anyone doesn't know what I'm referring to, the intro to the article makes it clear :

"No electrical engineering department in the Western World presently teaches what powers an electrical circuit, or what actually powers the electrical power grid. None ever has. It also does not appear in a single electrical engineering textbook in the Western world, nor has it ever appeared in one.

All the hydrocarbons ever burned, nuclear fuel rods ever consumed, steam turbines turned, and generators rotated, have not directly added a single watt directly to the external power line and to the power grid. Nor has any windmill, nuclear power plant, battery, or hydroelectric generator or solar cell array. None ever will.

Every electrical circuit ever built — and those built today — are in fact powered by electrical energy extracted by the circuit dipolarity from the local seething vacuum, from active space itself. But our engineers are trained to build circuits which also self-destroy the extraction of that vacuum energy, faster than they power their loads."

I respect that you don't wish to delve into free energy science in this thread Wade. But I thought to share the first quote and then explain the context. The entire piece is engaging. Although I haven't been through all the references yet. Since there was no-one around to turn to in order to share my excitement with the optimistic realms of its content, I ventured here.

P.S. This shorter article addresses some of those same points Bearden makes about flawed electrical systems : http://www.rense.com/general75/simpl.htm


* * * * * * * *

P.P.S. One of Bearden's article references lead me to look up the wikipedia page of David J Bohm, the theoretical physicist, where the section on 'Thought as a System' quotes Bohm questioning what will happen to the human race with its growing technological power and creative/destructive potential. It goes on to quote his ideas about how thought has been evolving. How thoughts are shared, passed from one to another, adopted and adapted amidst the collective – and how that interconnected grid or sea of thoughts in which certain features seem to become relatively fixed (what Bohm referred to as 'the structure') probably consisted of very simple thought before civilisation. He suggested that with the increasing complexity of this structure our thought has more incoherence than before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_B...ht_as_a_System

When I think of what this 'structure' contains, with our thoughts as its evolving constituent parts, I think of how it includes our awareness of history (artistic and political), of geography, of earth's systems, of constructed systems (economics, law, engineering...). How technology has helped grow our educational tools and freed us from drudgery in order to utilise them more. It was a reminder of how misguided it can be to judge the people of the past (both oppressors and oppressed) based on how we think today, and how much we can shape our future by altering our quality of consciousness.

Systems external to us are often conceived by a minority, but experienced and perpetuated by a majority. As they become more complex, so does the bulk of information digested by our busy minds. Much of it possibly lingering, unprocessed, in our subconscious not unlike a dull weight or an itch. This lead me again to think of the benefits of simpler systems in people's lives that can result from benign free energy application. The way goods manufacture, food cultivation, and homes made in the simplest and most effective way can be put in place locally in future, by individuals who are only making or growing what they need. Less clutter. Less infrastructure. Less hidden sources, hidden casualties, less hoarding. Less clinging to paperwork as proof of our connection to objects and situations in the physical world. More clarity. More elegant simplicity. More room for breathing in the beauty that naturally lives within and without. A lightness of being, not distorted or imbalanced by a contrast of exorbitant pain and inequality like we see in the world today, but supported by a world of shared abundance and of peace. Less guilt. Less noise. More connection to love, and to life. To the subtle sounds of our hearts and the divine pulses of the cosmos. How beautiful that could be for us.

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Enishi:

Call me surprised that you first read my work more than a decade ago. I encounter that once in a while, but not very often. Thinking that the world's governments are controlled by Satan is really not that far from the mark.

Kind of funny about the JWs. The gnostic sects considered the Old Testament's Jehovah to be Lucifer, and I see their point.

My American Empire essay was written as an antidote to American nationalism, which is really an imperialist ideology. All imperial ideologies are childish in their conception, and American children being forced to worship a flag beginning in kindergarten is a classic instance of "get them while they are young." The Founding Father myths can be as much of a fairy tale as many Bible stories are. Congratulations on escaping your indoctrination. Really, not many accomplish it.

I'll write more later, but yes, the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are something to look at with some appreciation, but those slave-owning Founding Fathers (about half of those who signed the Declaration of Independence owned slaves) sure did not invent freedom. I'll write a pretty big post on how I see all of that all these years later. The studies for my big essay broadened my horizons beyond just thrashing childish belief systems, and the encounter of Europe with the Western Hemisphere, while it was history's greatest demographic catastrophe which can definitely be called a genocide, was a watershed moment in other ways, too. I have gained a deeper appreciation of the trajectories of the peoples on both sides of the Atlantic, and the events that led to that inevitable collision of two peoples. As always, those with the superior energy practices (carrying capacity, in that instance) prevailed.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Yeah, Melinda, here is a better thread to do that about Bearden. Tom's work is a mixed bag. That heat pump COP of greater than one is not a good example to use for "overunity", IMO, and I show why here. That said, I saw Mark C. holding his battered copy of Bearden's FE tome, and Bearden's mention of the truncation of the Maxwell's equations I see quoted all the time by FE folks. Some close to me think that Bearden is not who he appears to be, but he gained a bit of cred with me when he talked about the sting that almost got him, when a similar one almost got me the year before.

Tom also worked closely with Sparky Sweet, and Sparky had the goods, which Tom unsuccessfully tried to reproduce for many years. People who have hung out with Tom say that it can be a bizarre experience. So, I don't know about Tom, and when he used heat pumps to introduce overunity, that kind of stuff really makes people wonder about Tom. Lots of FE theory out there.

That Arthur C. Clarke quote is an updated version of others that preceded it.

Best,

Wade

[Melinda]

Thank you Wade!

I understand the concept of what Bearden put forward, but definitely don't have the scientific nous to test it enough to analyse the logic / potential. Having started to read the text that you linked to (re: thermodynamics etc), I think it could take a while for my non-scientist brain to digest, but it will doubtless help, and save me a lot of time surfing or flexing my brow muscles at various internet debates. So I appreciate the pointers.

I think I was updating my post as you posted yours - hopefully with more relevant content. I'd be interested to know if you have any thoughts about it, but it's probably nothing new so I understand if you've got new text to post instead.



Thanks again

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Melinda:

You are highlighting the problems with citing theorists such as Bearden. My interest really lies in helping people understand how energy runs the world, and we do not need to get into esoteric energy concepts, which may be inaccurate, to do that. If you cannot understand my thermodynamic explanation for why a heat pump's COP of greater than one has got nothing to do with FE (a totally orthodox explanation), then you surely will not understand Bearden's critique of the physics of electricity that is taught in universities today, or if it is a valid critique.

In my work, I do not discuss theories that are not either accepted by orthodoxy or posed by orthodox theoreticians. Bearden cited Bohm, and so do I. But I do not make more of it than that. I am far more into a working piece of technology than I am the theory behind it. Most of such technology does not have much orthodox theory behind it. Actually, according to orthodox theory, the technology is not supposed to work at all. All FE technology defies the "laws of physics," which is partly why it is denied like it is.

You can buy a video from Bearden which shows Sparky Sweet's device putting out a million times the energy that went into it. It is only a video, not some peer-reviewed test, and if that video was all I had to go on, I would not recommend it. But somebody very close to me met with Sparky, watched his gizmo working, and the man was a world-class expert in electricity, and he said that Sparky's device should not have worked, and Sparky agreed, but then got it running as ice formed on it. I will never forget the awe in Mr. Advisor's voice as he described it operating. If that was the only account of Sparky's device, it would have been impressive enough to me, but Brian O was also Sparky's pal. Sparky began receiving death threats not long after he mailed working prototypes of his gizmo to the big energy institutions, and the death threats escalated to the point where Sparky fled into hiding, and Brian visited him in his hiding place a week before Sparky died of a "heart attack."

Tom worked with Sparky, and that is another reason why Tom has some cred with me. Watching Tom's video also shows another problem with the inventor's route to FE, in that a "proprietary technology" warning flashes on the screen several times. The proprietary technology route is one of the many doomed paths that inventors have tried.

I even cite a paper that Sparky wrote to try explaining how his device worked, and Bearden has a paper just below it on the same page. If Sparky's device did not work, and I did not hear Mr. Advisor's tale of watching Sparky's device operate, and he did not tell me how impressive the technical explanation was (he read a book that Sparky lent him, which that paper was likely an excerpt from), I would not be mentioning Sparky's device.

Also, in my circles, ice forming on an FE device as it cranks up is one of the best pieces of evidence that it is tapping the ZPF. Max, who worked with James Gilliland, had a device that also got cold when it operated and cranked out that energy, and it stumped every scientist that looked at it. It should not have worked, but there it was, cranking out the energy. Max received the standard cloak-and-dagger response of organized suppression, the kind that orthodox debunkers scoff at.

Similarly, nobody can really explain how Brown's Gas can transmute radioactive material, but the experiment has been performed by several national governments, and the experiment has been performed about a hundred times that I know of. China built Brown a city to research Brown's Gas and build Brown's Gas machines, and Dennis bought more than a million dollars of such machines from that city. I was the accountant for those transactions. So, again I was close to something that orthodox science has declared impossible (just as it declared man-powered flight "impossible," even as the Wright brothers were flying their planes through the air). The authorities declared Edison's light bulb "impossible" even it lit up the night at Menlo Park, as the public strolled under the "impossible" lights. Brian O told me that the denial in orthodox science is more entrenched today than it was when the Wright brothers first flew.

After Brian O visited FE labs across the world for several years, he then played the Paul Revere of FE for several years. After five years of playing Paul Revere, and receiving only fear and denial as a response (the denial was usually of the "laws of physics" variety), Brian openly wondered if humanity was a sentient species.

Similarly, the microscopes of Rife and Naessens achieved optical resolutions that are even today considered "impossible," even though micrographs survive that prove Rife's "impossible" resolutions, and Naessens is still around. I have yet see orthodoxy even acknowledge the undeniable resolutions of those microscopes, which "defy the laws of physics." If those microscopes only achieved those resolutions, it would be news enough, but they also confirmed the work of a 19th-century scientist whose work Pasteur apparently plagiarized in his quest for riches and fame, and those discoveries point to an entirely different foundation of microbiology than Pasteur's germ theory of disease, which may be a poorly understood plagiarism of his contemporary. I present some of the theory, as it is not hard for laypeople to understand, and those "impossible" microscopes show those dynamics. Call me impressed, and any attack on their work has to attack their microscopes, first, and I have yet to see such an attack that was the least bit rational.

That is all the long way of saying that I'll take data over theory, and Tom has some cred with me, but far from total, and if, as Martin Gardner said, Tom's "PhD" behind his name was a mail order PhD, then that is more of the kind of behavior on the fringes that does it no favors. Tom makes many blunders in his presentations, which either means that he is incompetent or is playing some other game, the kind that has made people close to me suspicious about Tom.

In the end, FE physics discussions can go down the rabbit hole, and people like you will have no idea whether the ideas are valid or not, and the fringes are full of that kind of tripe and lead to Delusion Land. I stay away from it as much as I can. I try to present either data that I know to be robust, theory from orthodox theoreticians (even if still controversial), and theories that laypeople can understand with a little work that have empirical support for them, but they first need to understand the orthodox theories before they go flying off into fringe land. There is a mountain of chaff out there, and some of it may well be Bearden's theorizing.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Before I get into Europe's genocidal invasion of the Western Hemisphere, I want to briefly revisit my prior post. I have been encouraged to turn my site into a PhD, and I probably could try to, but I have no interest in playing that game, and that kind of self-seeking is the devil's flypaper for people like me. So, when I see Tom Bearden claiming a PhD that could be a mail order degree, the red flags definitely go up.

I am a layman addressing a largely lay audience, and earning a bunch of letters behind my name is not going to help get my message across to those I seek. The material can speak for itself. For the record, scientists and academics are the most avid readers of my work so far, and arguably the world's leading authority on the material covered in the my big essay's first half said that it was one of the best efforts that he ever saw (and that scientist is a "popularizer," too), and there is certainly nothing else like it on the Internet, for free. That essay's first half would be the crowning effort for a popularizing scientist's career, and I gave it away. It likely cost me $1 million to write it, and it is worth reading.

My big essay's first half also forms the foundation for the essay's last half, which is where I am really imparting the paradigmatic understandings that I am trying to help future members of the "choir" achieve. My sock-puppet Q&A of recent weeks on this thread is showing future choir members the kinds of discussions that I am planning to have, and they will be good discussions to have. I am not interested in discussing the fringe flavor of the day, the FE inventor of the hour, other threads at Avalon or anywhere else in cyberspace, except where it is really relevant to my work. Much of what people think is relevant is really extraneous. A lot of what I have seen posted on my thread is almost on the level of gossip, and we need to aim far higher if we are going to get anywhere, and that is one reason why I had to begin my own forum. The material in my essay is more than enough to tax somebody's mind for the rest of his/her lifetime. It will tax mine, and understanding that material is going to form the choir's foundation.

OK, on to Europe's invasion of the Western Hemisphere. The first work that I encountered that tried to deal with the scientific reasons for why Europe conquered the world was Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, back in the 1990s. I would not call myself a big Jared Diamond fan, but his work can be helpful. I was already several years into my studies of Europe's conquest of the world when Guns, Germs, and Steel was published, but that book helped open up a few new avenues in my thinking, and my studies since 2002, after crystallizing my paradigm after reading some of Fuller's work, went deep on many areas that Diamond touched on, as well as other subjects that helped me see a bigger picture of Europe's invasion of the Western Hemisphere and conquest of the world.

The bottom line is that Europe used the greatest energy technology yet invented, the ocean-going sailing ship, to turn the global ocean into a low-energy transportation lane. Without that energy breakthrough, the conquest would not have happened. Until that time, the only ocean regularly sailed was the Indian Ocean, which was a far easier proposition than the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. All sailing on those violent seas were short excursions along the coasts, and none of that really happened in the Americas or Australia. Heck, Tasmanians and Australian aborigines were completely isolated by relatively small stretches of water, and while one route to the Americas was along the coast, it was via canoe, and the seafaring of the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere was never much more than canoes. The peoples of Eurasia had a huge lead over the peoples of Africa, the Americas, and Australia. Why? That is where books like Guns, Germs, and Steel can shed some light.

Take the two centers of civilization in the Western Hemisphere, the "pristine" civilizations of Mesoamerica and the Andes in and near Peru. They were both Stone Age civilizations (although the Incas began working in bronze a little before Spaniards arrived), but neither one knew anything about the other, as their geographic isolation was great, because the Americas align along a north-south axis, so the spread of people, technology, and ideas would have to cross varying and often hostile biomes. While maize eventually spread from New England to Chile, seeds were easy to transport. Nothing else traveled like that that I know of. The potato and llama (the only pack animal in the Western Hemisphere) stayed in the Andes. That isolation kept those societies from "progressing" like those of Eurasia. In Eurasia, innovations from China, India, the Fertile Crescent, the periphery of the Mediterranean, and Europe could spread between those civilizations and mutually stimulate each other in ways that did not happen in the Western Hemisphere.

Not only could the peoples of Australia do no boating of any consequence, they never even developed agriculture, and were "stuck" at the hunter-gatherer phase, and were in constant territorial battles when Europeans "discovered" them. It looks like Australians never had the confluence of circumstances that allowed agriculture to be invented on other continents, so would likely have remained hunter-gatherers in a state of constant warfare for the next 100,000 years if not for the invasions that began in the 1700s.

When humans settled Australia and the Western Hemisphere, the animals on those continents never encountered humans before. Since large animals represent the biggest energy windfalls that a hunter-gatherer can hope to achieve, humans quickly hunted the easy meat to extinction wherever they could, and virtually all of the megafauna of the Americas and Australia was quickly driven to extinction. For the peoples of the Americas, who did independently invent agriculture in at least one place (Mesoamerica) and maybe two (Peru), killing off all the megafauna also killed off almost all of their candidates for draft animals, which played a prominent role in the rise of civilization in Eurasia, and it was an energy event. The muscles of draft animals came in very useful for early civilizations, and Australia received no benefit and the Americas only a little.

The reason why Africa retained almost all of its megafauna, and Eurasia retained a significant portion, is that humans had been hunting there for hundreds of thousands of years, and large animals became wary of humans and were harder to hunt. However, Neanderthals, and later behaviorally modern Homo sapiens, learned to survive in cold climates and hunt animals along the tundra near the ice sheets, and those animals were driven to extinction, with mammoths most prominently.

So, African and Eurasian humans had a richer biological milieu from which to make domestic animals, and that put them "ahead" of the people of the other continents, who never even got to metal ages before Europeans arrived. Agriculture increased the land's carrying capacity for humans about 200 times over what hunter-gatherers could wrest from the land, and that completely explains why hunter-gatherers never stood a chance when they encountered agricultural peoples. One hunter-gatherer warrior, with his stone weapons, no matter how skilled, was no match for 200 peasants armed with metal hoes, much less steel-armored and armed Spaniards riding horses.

So, those are the economic reasons why Europe conquered the world, but it would be a great mistake to think that Europe was "advanced" in all ways. When all the easy meat was rendered extinct worldwide, where agriculture independently began, women did it as an extension of their gathering activities, and agriculture began in regions that had been particularly overhunted. So, the calories from meat declined (which was the province of men), and the calories from plants increased, and because women began to bring in more calories than men, something happened in the human line that had not been seen in at least 10 million years: societies became matrilocal instead of patrilocal.

Patrilocal societies, going back to gorillas and chimps, are run by male gangs and are exceedingly violent, and females bore the brunt of it. In every place where agriculture began, civilization was a few thousand years behind it, and as the agricultural surplus grew so that redistribution became a "profession," and men eventually rose to dominance again as they used those hunting skills on each other (organized warfare), and got more involved in agriculture (particularly where their physical strength was useful for handling draft animals and the heavy labor needed to build civilization's infrastructure), the status of men rose to dominance again, and the status of women universally declined in all civilizations and did not begin to rise again until the Industrial Revolution's energy-powered machines once again made the physical strength of men less important for a society's economy.

In North America's Eastern Woodlands, maize only made it there less than a millennium before Europeans arrived, so those were societies based on horticulture and women had that high status of early agricultural societies, those societies were matrilineal, and those were always the most peaceful early societies. When Europeans began invading North America, they had a high appreciation for the relatively gentle matrilineal tribes of the Eastern Woodlands, and running off and "going native" was an endemic problem for the first invaders from the British Isles, which had no experience with such matrilineal cultures. Captured white women were never raped by those tribes of the Eastern Woodlands, which Europeans found astonishing, as raping captured women had been an ancient tradition in Europe.

As I show many times in my work, it was always about economics at its root, and economics could provide opportunities to radically change social organization, such as going matrilineal. When the bonobos' food supply doubled when gorillas left the area, females and non-dominant males radically changed the social organization so that males no longer dominated, and those societies are more peaceful than any human societies have ever been, and bonobos settle everything with sex. Bonobos and humans are the only land animals that use sex for recreation (particularly at those levels) and not just procreation.

So, even as they were obliterating them, aspects of those matrilineal societies deeply influenced Europe and may have even led to the Enlightenment. The American form of government was certainly influenced by the Iroquois Confederation.

But the diseases that seem to have come from Europe's domestic animals decimated the natives of all lands outside of Eurasia and Africa, and was the greatest cause of the prodigious death tolls, but the attitude of Europeans was genocidal, even the Spanish. The main difference between the Spanish and English/American experience in the New World was that the Spanish had a century-long lead, conquered and plundered those first and largest civilizations of the Western Hemisphere, and enslaved those peoples for the short-lived plunder of gold and silver, in the primitive economic understanding of Spanish civilization. Spain soon went bankrupt and was arguably worse off after that century of plunder and genocide than when it began. Spanish observers, beginning with Columbus, lamented the vast genocide of Native Americans, as dead slaves cannot get any work done.

The English and Americans, however, encountered unbelievably rich lands that their proto-industrial methods in England could readily exploit, so the genocide of the Indians was cheered the entire time, all the way to the Wounded Knee massacre nearly three centuries later. Designing the plan to swindle the Indians of their lands was George Washington's greatest achievement, but his biographers cannot even bring themselves to mention it.

In summary, the biological/economic basis for Europe's conquest of the Western Hemisphere and the entire planet has been a subject of study for me since the 1990s, and it was highly educational. Any explanation that strays far from those dynamics is going to be dubious, but people regularly ignore ultimate causes to focus on proximate ones. I found that approaching those issues as a scientist rather than a historian or political theorist (or "mystic") is the path to learning the important lessons.

Best,

Wade

[Melinda]

Posted by Wade Frazier (here)
...If you cannot understand my thermodynamic explanation for why a heat pump's COP of greater than one has got nothing to do with FE (a totally orthodox explanation), then you surely will not understand Bearden's critique of the physics of electricity that is taught in universities today, or if it is a valid critique...

That's true. It took a couple of readings yesterday of that section you linked to, before I felt I had an understanding.

I apologise for bringing something so irrelevant to your thread. I don't (and never did) consider myself qualified to discuss the scientific end of things, though I do make an effort to understand it. But with my (very) limited understanding I'll likely be better off (as you say) reading up on more useful areas.

Apologies once again for the irrelevant post. But thank you for the detailed response.

[Wade Frazier]

Hi Melinda:

No harm done. It is a jungle out there.

I have spent plenty of time in rabbit holes, being led astray, and the like as I pursued the truth and what was important. I am hoping to be some kind of native guide who can guide choir hopefuls around the hazards, and there are many.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

I am not writing this to get on Tom's case, but to show how the FE field is regarding Dennis. The best heat pump, and also heating system, ever put on the world market was what Dennis sold, and he put it on people's homes for free. Dennis's Seattle company's being taken out is both the greatest effort that I know of to bring alternative energy to market, and one of the most spectacular snuff jobs of alternative energy technology, exceeded in ways by what they did in Ventura.

Dennis's heat pump got as high as a COP of 12, it regularly got seven, and the inventors actually cut their performance data in half in order to stop being laughed at by engineers for its "impossible" performance. The standard air-to-air heat pumps of the day got about a two, and Dennis's typically got around six and higher. So, in that paper by Bearden, he actually mentioned heat pumps that get up to four. That was written nearly 20 years after Dennis was wiped out. My studies of thermodynamics, as I tried to understand why Dennis's heat pump worked like it did, and whether marrying that heat pump to Mr. Mentor's engine could produce free energy, are what led to my little presentation in my energy racket essay, and show why Tom's use of heat pumps as an example of an "overunity" system, as a segue to FE devices, is a poor one. I also find it ironic that he mentions heat pumps, but not only does he not mention Dennis's, but says that heat pumps can get up to four. It is as if Dennis's heat pump never existed. I see that all the time, so as I read a paper that treats Dennis, or non-treats him like that, I am very used to it, so I did not take umbrage at that article, but the irony is not lost on me.

Another big FE voice went out of this way to disparage Dennis's heat pump, in stating that the heat pump/heat engine combo to make FE that the author referred to was not Dennis's. And in the same article, a few paragraphs later, he libeled Dennis. Those are some of the reasons why I do not want anything to do with today' FE field. Not many in it have the right stuff. Dennis, Brian, and a few others did, but it was only a few that I saw, although I really did not spend all that much time in the milieu. When I saw the big names in action, who were treated like heroes in the field, and saw how they treated Dennis and Brian, it told me all that I needed to know.

Best,

Wade

[Wade Frazier]

Hi:

Akasha began a thread just to discuss my big essay. Maybe that will be a cleaner way to discuss the essay, if the thread is not trolled. Time will tell.

Best,

Wade