My Upcoming Energy and Humanity Essay and Related Activism


By Wade Frazier

Revised July 2014


Introduction and Summary

Brian O’Leary’s Last Major Video

Earth’s Energy Revolutions

Bringing Free Energy to Humanity


Introduction and Summary

Note to readers: This essay was originally published in October 2010, less than a year before Brian O'Leary died, and the "upcoming" essay will finally be published in August 2014, and will likely be the last major essay of my lifetime.  It will make this page somewhat obsolete, but I have decided to retain it.  Readers will be able to see the relationship between this short essay and the one that I publish.

In summary:


Brian O’Leary’s Last Major Video

On October 9, 2010, Brian O’Leary made the last major one of his lifetime (the transcript is here).  It is as brilliant and heartfelt a presentation as I have ever saw from him.  Brian realized that the end was near, and being associated with him was one of my life’s highlights.  There have not been many like him.  His presentation addressed many issues that we had in common, and watching it inspired this brief essay.

Although we took different paths to our radicalization, Brian’s perspective was about the closest that I ever saw to mine.  Between when I first finished my site in 2002 and resumed my career, I only performed light editing and published the occasional essay.  After I finished my site, I was introduced to R. Buckminster Fuller’s work by one of his pupils, and the experience was revelatory.  Brian’s appreciation of Fuller’s work is also evident in his video.  Since 2007, I studied, in my “spare” time, in preparation for what will likely be my lifetime's most ambitious and comprehensive essay, and I am delivering it several years later than I originally anticipated, and I hope that the delay was worth it.  The essay's scope and thrust was daunting, and I had to take a year off from my career to write it. 

After I publish that essay, I will begin a publicly available conversation, which will be a by-invitation-only cyber-gathering.  I plan to raise my game, and I will ask the participants to follow suit so that the conversation can become a fire that warms those gathering around it.  Heaven on Earth is my goal, and it is just around the corner if enough people can be found who care enough and can simply imagine what free energy and its attendant technologies can make possible for humanity and Spaceship Earth.  The end of scarcity and the reign of abundance may be very near.  Global catastrophe also looms largely.  It is our choice whether we experience Utopia or Oblivion


Earth’s Energy Revolutions

My upcoming essay covers much of the same territory that Brian’s presentation did, with some key differences.  While Brian mentioned two energy revolutions during the human journey, my essay will deal with several in Earth’s and humanity’s history, along with other critical events, including those listed below.



If I had to describe the human journey in one sentence, it would be something like:


“Each epoch of humanity’s past was initiated and sustained by achieving the social organization and technological prowess that enabled the exploitation of previously unexploitable energy resources.”


The social organizations that enabled the epochal transitions to new energy regimes were also transformed by the new epochs.  Slavery began with early civilization and ended with early industrialization.  Females have been abused by males in the human line going back at least as far as gorillas, with the exception of bonobos.  A woman's relative contribution to the preindustrial economy was the greatest in the horticultural days of early domestication, and those societies tended to become matrilineal, and those were always the most peaceful preliterate societies.  When civilizations and states began to form, agriculture and civilization-building began to value men's physical strength more than women's contribution, and women's status universally declined, and would not rise again until the Industrial Revolution, when slaves were also freed, as machines made physical labor less valuable.  Industrialization also initiated the demographic transition, where the population went from short-lived, uneducated, and with high infant mortality, to educated and long lived, and family sizes declined, for the same reason that slavery ended: brute physical labor was no longer that valuable. 

The signal mark of industrialized societies is the high status of women.[7]  All dominant ideologies in all civilizations for all time have primarily existed to justify the status of that civilization’s elites; they have all been scarcity-based, and will all become obsolete in a world of abundance.  The very existence of elites is based on economic scarcity.  When abundance reigns, the idea of elites becomes obsolete.  Elites appeared with early civilization, and will disappear with the free energy epoch

The free energy epoch, if humanity survives to experience it, will be marked by social organization that is incomprehensible today.  The existence of cities is largely based on energy scarcity.  With free energy and the related anti-gravity and other technologies, there will be little reason to have cities, much less live in them.  The economic magnitude of what free energy can accomplish is difficult for me to imagine, and I have been living with its potential for most of my life. 


Bringing Free Energy to Humanity

I will always respect Brian’s efforts (and Dennis Lee’s, and Steven Greer’s), but mine have diverged somewhat.  Brian used his credentials and contacts to try to help make free energy thinkable in the scientific establishment; I will never have such access.  It was educational to listen to Brian’s accounts of the dismissals that he has received from virtually every scientific colleague and institution that he contacted from his scientific establishment days.  On the free energy subject, nobody is home in the halls of institutional science, or even in supposedly "progressive" organizations.  Brian advocated an R&D effort like the Apollo Program to develop free energy technologies.  While I respect that position (and was involved with doing just that long ago), the situation’s surreal aspect is that such technologies have already been extensively developed, but humanity does not receive the benefit of them for now, and some of humanity's worst elements currently possess them.  Only a divinely inspired effort to develop them or obtain for public use has much of a chance, in my opinion. 

Brian was looking for heroes to help develop free energy technology, and was building an inventors’ sanctuary in Ecuador before he died.  I have never seen or heard of such heroes; not for this task.  Far more than a few are needed.  I was the spear carrier for Dennis Lee, who is the Indiana Jones of free energy.  Nearly three decades later, I am still mopping up the blood from those days.  A significant reason why I no longer work with Dennis is the carnage of the wrecked and prematurely terminated lives of those whom I worked with, even though Dennis bore the brunt of it.  While the terrain that the would-be free energy heroes traverse can be incredible, I will never ask anybody to experience what I did; the hero’s path to free energy is insanely dangerous, and nobody has yet come close to the finish line.  Maybe a country outside the USA is safer, but I have worked in three of Dennis’s inventors’ sanctuaries and helped fund and build the one in Ventura.  All three were criminally violated.  The most spectacular violation was perpetrated by law enforcement authorities in Ventura.  

I am not sure that anyplace on Earth is "safe" from organized free energy suppression.  The suppressors' technological and financial superiority can be awesome to behold.  If a hero makes it across the free energy finish line, I will be among the first to cheer, but I am trying something different and what I hope will be complementary to their efforts.  Bill Gates recently called for an “energy miracle” to save humanity, and I recently encountered him, but I would probably not talk to him about free energy if he asked; it would put him at risk.  There needs to be a sizeable pool of heart-centered sentience that can focus on these solutions; otherwise, they will likely never be implemented.  I am trying to help that pool form.

Brian openly acknowledged the organized suppression that keeps free energy technology out of the public’s hands.  My experience and that of my fellow travelers is that the people behind the suppressing, at the global scale (I call them Global Controllers (“GCs”) in my writings), are supra-national and supra-corporate.  There is no publicly-known place to lodge a complaint or make them an offer.  The perceived power in national capitals and corporate boardrooms is down the food chain a ways from the GCs.  Paradoxically, the power is really with us, but we have collectively abdicated our responsibility and freedom for “security,” and are easily and endlessly distracted by the bread-and-circuses sops that the social managers toss our way.  Some have interacted with the GCs, but not many do, and it is extremely perilous activity. 

Over the years, I have witnessed and read numerous strategies, manifestos, and entreaties for pursuing free energy and other disruptive technologies.  In virtually every example that I have seen, the strategist had obviously never been on the effort’s front lines.  There is no substitute for experience.  Most battle plans look impressive until the first shot is fired.  Any free energy effort that attempts to obtain patents and protect inventors' rights, chases after rich benefactors, and so on, is derailed almost effortlessly, either from within or by a little organized suppression.  Self-interest and the free energy pursuit do not mesh, not for something with such overwhelming implications for humanity.  We all need to raise our games in order to get there.  As Brian alluded to in his video, altruism has been the missing ingredient so far.  There is no gathering of saints that I have ever heard of, who can be trusted to take something like this forward; there is only us.  The only chance that I see for a free energy effort to gain an opportunity for success is for the inventor to give it to a worthy group.  I have never met an altruistic inventor or encountered that worthy group.  Sufficient personal integrity is the key to making free energy happen, not playbooks, blueprints, and slogans.  Personal integrity is the world’s scarcest commodity, however, which is a critical aspect of the free energy conundrum.  Coercion will not work for bringing free energy to the world; probably only loving and enlightened action can accomplish it, and is the only path to free energy that I want to assist.  The perspective that I am attempting to help lodge in human awareness goes far beyond free energy and includes stewardship of humanity and the planet.  Are you interested?  If so, stay tuned. 



[1] As with all areas of Earth's distant past, there is plenty of debate and conjecture about all early events.  That all early life forms appeared to be heat-loving extremophiles leads to the idea that the increased energy available for chemical reactions (hotter temperatures make most chemical reactions easier to attain) is why life initially evolved in hot environments.  However, recent research suggests that the oceanic volcanic vents were fertile because of the dynamic interface between Earth's interior and the oceans and the rich chemical brew that it afforded.  See Nick Lane's Life Ascending, p. 17.  Because of certain aspects shared by all life forms today (right-handedness of all chiral molecules in all life forms, the use of DNA and certain biochemicals), it is also theorized that that all life on Earth today descended from one organism.  See Nick Lane's Oxygen, pp. 147-170.


[2] Today, the prevailing theory is that all chloroplasts on Earth descended from a single instance of a photosynthetic bacterium being enveloped into a eukaryotic cell, by either predation or colonization.  See Oliver Morton's Eating the Sun, p. 206.  Mitochondria are thought to be the result of a bacterium being similarly enveloped.  A prominent theory (of several that have been proposed) posits that the envelopment of a hydrogen-producing bacterium into a hydrogen-respiring archaean cell gave rise to eukaryotic cells (called the hydrogen hypothesis), with the archaean “host” becoming the cell, and the enveloped bacterium becoming the mitochondria.  Also, this union is currently believed to have happened only once (see Nick Lane’s Power, Sex, Suicide; Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life, p. 25, and on the archaean/bacterial union that led to eukaryotic cells, see pp. 38-64), which was the ancestor of all complex life on Earth.  According to that theory, the offspring of that original union eventually learned to respire oxygen, which was rising in the atmosphere due to the activities of photosynthetic bacteria.  It was earlier thought that the global oxygen event was one of Earth's mass extinction events that killed off most life forms, which were anaerobic at the time.  However, recent research has cast doubt on the extinctions associated with the Great Oxygenation Event, although it remains an area of healthy debate.  See Nick Lane's Oxygen, pp. 16-75.  All of those events that are believed to have only happened once (life appearing, chloroplasts and mitochondria appearing, and even the suitability of Earth to host complex life (see Ward and Brownlee's Rare Earth, for instance)) lead to the impression that there was some divine intervention or that complex life on Earth is a miracle of chance.


Even for a materialist, it is easy to suspect that all those seemingly "coincidental," "accidental" miracles that led to today's situation are just a little too fortuitous, and that something else is happening besides all of those happy accidents.  On the evolution versus creation debate, the “skeptics” who battle the creationists, such as Michael Shermer, are not very representative of professional scientists, but are part of the scientific establishment’s politically active arm.  Andrew Knoll wrote in his Life on a Young Planet that scientists see the ancient religious texts as parables, and that, “Science’s creation story accounts for process and history, not intent” (p., 245).  On science and religion, Knoll wrote, “That these two ways of comprehending should be confused in either form or purpose strikes me as both absurd and unfortunate.”  Shermer states, “Just as one would not say, ‘I believe in gravity,’ one should not proclaim, ‘I believe in evolution.’”  (In Donald Prothero’s Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, p. xi).  That style of argumentation epitomizes the approach of organized skepticism.  I am experiencing gravity as I write this, as does every awake human on Earth.  There is nothing to believe about it.  But nobody experienced speciation today.  The dismissal of human experience is a hallmark of organized skepticism.


[3] I have read many books on energy, Earth, and humanity in the past several years, and perhaps the most succinct summary of Earth and humanity’s energy revolutions is Frank Niele’s Energy: Engine of Evolution, published by Shell Global Solutions; an oil company deserves some credit in the discussion.  In none of the energy books that I read did I see any mention of free energy as a potential solution to our current energy problems, other than Richard Heinberg’s facile semi-ridicule and subsequent dismissal of the entire milieu. 


[4] In 2009, Richard Wrangham published Catching Fire; How Cooking Made us Human.  His audacious and compelling hypothesis is that the ability to control fire may have led to the appearance of homo erectus almost two million years ago.  Fire allowed our ancestors to sleep on the ground, and cooking food may well have led to many of the evolutionary changes that mark the journey from upright ape to human.  In the end, it is a story of using fire energy to create more readily digestible food.  Wringing more calories out of cooked food for less effort was an evolutionary advantage, and the less energy devoted to digestion meant that the brain could use it, which led to the rapidly increasing brain size of the human lineage.  Works such as Wrangham’s are hallmarks of the increasingly multidisciplinary nature of recent scientific inquiry, and they are rolling back the frontiers of science.  While the less processed the food the better, I consider the “Cooking Hypothesis” to be a strong one.


[5] This note is a preview of the material in my upcoming essay.  Of all of anthropology’s controversial topics, the debate regarding the megafaunal extinction events is one of the fiercest.  Paul Martin first proposed the “overhunting” hypothesis in 1967 for explaining the Quaternary extinction event.  The hypothesis was first applied to the extinction of North American megafauna soon after humans first migrated from eastern Asia.  Martin’s theory coincided with a cultural awakening in the USA, particularly regarding how the rise of the United States was accomplished by dispossessing American Indians of their lands


American Indian scholars, with Vine Deloria prominent, have strenuously disputed that American Indians contributed to the extinction of the Western Hemisphere’s megafauna.  They partly saw that theory as enhancing the European rationale for conquest: if the American Indians’ settling of the Americas was so destructive to native life forms, then the European conquest and settlement of the Americas is more “natural” than it might otherwise seem, and the Indians might not have quite the heritage of revering the environment that is popularly imagined.  I am sympathetic to the American Indians’ plight and ashamed of my ancestors’ behavior.  The first century of Europe’s conquest of the Americas is history’s greatest demographic catastrophe, and is arguably a genocide that continued for centuries until there were no more Indian lands remaining to steal/conquer.  Those denying or minimizing humanity’s role usually attributed the mass extinctions to climate change, diseases, or catastrophic celestial events.  There is evidence for “super-Tunguska” events in the North Hemisphere, and prominent proponents include Victor Clube and Bill Napier, who have argued since the 1982 publication of The Cosmic Serpent that cometary debris impacted Earth during the Holocene, particularly the North Hemisphere, which may have precipitated the megafaunal extinctions of North America and northern Asia.  The works of Emanuel Velikovsky (a psychiatrist and Biblical catastrophist), Clube and Napier agree that such events could be the root of humanity’s long-standing fear/worship of comets and other celestial objects.


However, in the years since the “overkill” hypothesis was posited, evidence has been amassed from across the planet, and whether it was fifty thousand years ago in Australia, in all of its wet, dry, hot and cold environments, or ten thousand years ago in South America (neither continent had continental ice sheets during the Pleistocene epoch), or the Pacific islands, including New Zealand, during the more recent Polynesian Expansion, the arrival of humans closely coincided with the extinction of all large mammals and birds.  The decimation of Earth’s species continues to this day


The only continent that retained a large portion of its megafauna was Africa.  The leading theory for why some African megafauna survived while the megafauna quickly went extinct on other continents (Asia also kept some) is that the African megafauna evolved alongside humans and learned to fear people (and to a lesser extent, Eurasia).  Wherever humans arrived as they migrated across the planet, the native megafauna either had no natural predators or the few they had bore no resemblance to the bipedal, weapon-bearing newcomers, and they did not learn to avoid humans before becoming extinct.  They comprised the easy meat that sustained the hunter-gatherer lifestyle during its “golden age.”  There is impressive evidence for that theory; some is in the records of European encounters with animals with no previous human contact, as Europe conquered Earth.  The North Atlantic had a penguin-like bird known today as the great auk.  While they had been eaten by Neanderthals and other Continental humans, when European sailors found them on North Atlantic islands that humans had not yet visited, those great auks had no fear of people and were easily killed and herded aboard ships for slaughter.  They never feared humans and became extinct around 1850.  The dodo of Mauritius is another instance of the quick extinction of a meaty animal with no previous exposure to humans; Europeans discovered uninhabited Mauritius in the 1500s, and the Dutch began colonizing it in 1638.  In the first ten years of Dutch colonization, the dodo was rendered virtually extinct, and the last dodo was seen in 1662.  Even today, Antarctic penguins and Galapagos Islands animals are unafraid of humans. 


Robust evidence strongly contradicts the cometary/asteroidal and climate change theories of North America’s extinction event: mammoths and mastodons are the signature species of mass-extinction events, and survived on islands isolated from humans for thousands of years after their continental counterparts became extinct; they lived on Wrangel Island, in the Arctic Ocean, until less than 5,000 years ago, and on Saint Paul Island, in the Aleutian island chain, until less than 6,000 years ago.  Island populations are far more vulnerable than continental ones, and those populations would not have been sheltered from climate changes or bolide events, but they were sheltered from humans for thousands of years longer than their continental counterparts were.  Also, elephants were the most successful mammal ever until the rise of humans, and thrived in the Western Hemisphere’s tropics for three million years until the arrival of humans, whereupon they quickly became extinct.  Other megafaunal island populations survived longer than their continental brethren: in the Caribbean, the ground sloth survived until less than 5,000 years ago, its extinction again closely following the arrival of humans.  Virtually all large mammal species surviving in North America today migrated from Asia, where they evolved alongside humans.  Also, virtually all species that suddenly became extinct following the arrival of humans survived during many dramatic climate changes during the interglacial periods of the past million years, changes at least as drastic as what initiated the Holocene epoch.  Humans are the consistent variable in all extinctions of large animals during the past 50,000 years.  Today’s theories are generally more complex than simply hunting every last animal to extinction.  In a study published in July 2010 (William Ripple and Blaire Van Valkenburgh, in the journal BioScience), evidence was presented that the introduction of a new super-predator into the ecosystem initiated cascading “trophic” failures, which drove both the megafaunal herbivores and their predators to extinction.  In 2009, Ripple produced a study which provided evidence that when the top-level predators are removed, lower-level predators thrive and the situation leads to ecosystem collapse.  This situation could help explain why many smaller mammals also died off when the megafauna did in North America.  Gifford Miller presented evidence in 1999 that the Australian megafaunal extinctions, which closely correlated with human arrival, may have been due to anthropogenic burning of the vegetation, an over-burning that quickly drove all megafauna to extinction. 


The seemingly hidden undercurrent in denying the anthropological aspect of the megafaunal extinctions is the human ego.  People are understandably reluctant to admit that their distant ancestors destroyed so many species, especially those that capture the imagination as the megafauna can.  Also, today’s societies, particularly the industrialized ones, are far more capable of destroying environments and species than humans with stone weaponry and fire-making skills could.  If humans caused the megafaunal extinctions, then we might need to become more introspective and change our destructive ways.


[6] "Mode of production" is a concept introduced by Karl Marx.  Although my early writings were disparaged as "Marxist" by some, I had not read any of his work until recently.  I went to business school during the Cold War, and Marx was a reviled, even demonized, figure during my college years, as I was regaled with the wonders of capitalism.  It was not until I began reading excellent, multidisciplinary works where the authors openly acknowledged their debt to Marx (Mike Davis's Late Victorian Holocausts and Eric Wolf's Europe and the People Without History, for instance), that I began developing an interest in reading his work.  I read Marx's The Communist Manifesto, accompanied with scholarly analysis of it (A Norton Critical Edition, edited by Frederic L. Bender).  There is a lot to write about Marx and Marxian analytics, but not here.  My future writings may discuss his neglected work, his multidisciplinary approach and the failings of the materialistic perspective (it tends to advocate violence - which means that it misses the big picture). 


[7] In Earl Cook’s Man, Energy, Society, p. 186, he wrote: “Perhaps in no other way are the differing social gradations of low energy and high energy societies so clearly calibrated as in the status and appearance of women.”


























































The next section: Lessons Learned from My Journey (110K)


Return to My Home Page (The address on the Internet of my home page is