An Open Letter to the Radical Left –
Let’s Truly Get Radical and Heal the Planet
By Wade Frazier
A Note to My Readers
Economics, Energy, Scarcity and Abundance
Why the Radical Left is in Position to Make a Difference
Overcoming Ideological Barriers to Comprehension
The Myths of Science
Conscious Control of the World Economy
Healing Humanity and the Planet
A Note to My Readers: This is an introductory essay that links to parts of my website that contain the detailed support for my contentions. If anything in this essay seems unfounded or superficial, I suggest taking the related link to the more detailed discussion. This is one of several “doorway” essays to my 1,200-page site, and is not intended to be a stand-alone essay, at least stand-alone enough to convince readers new to the ideas presented in this essay. I also am limited by my American heritage. Non-Americans may find that this essay has limited relevance and usefulness, particularly those from nations where English is not the official language. For non-Americans, I define radical left, particularly as compared to liberal left, at this footnote.
This open letter has been gestating for seventeen years, ever since I began reading Ralph McGehee’s memoirs and Lies of Our Times, which Ed Herman edited. Before long, I was reading everything I could by Noam Chomsky, including Manufacturing Consent, subscribing to Z Magazine, Covert Action Quarterly and other progressive periodicals. I began enlarging my home library, which today includes several hundred volumes devoted to political writings – largely radical left texts. Due to my adventures while pursuing alternative energy, I became radicalized before I encountered the radical left, so their work was relatively easy to digest, although it took me about two years to really understand what Chomsky was saying. I have received more political education from Chomsky and Herman’s writings than from any other body of work.
My alternative energy experiences began more than thirty years ago, when my first professional mentor invented the world’s best engine for powering an automobile, and continued when two paranormal events (1, 2) radically changed my life’s direction and landed me in what is arguably the most significant attempt yet made to bring alternative energy to the American marketplace. I became partners with the Indiana Jones of alternative energy, and was in for a wild ride. I bounced back-and-forth across the United States, ending up in my hometown of Ventura, California. My adventure culminated with our company being offered about a billion dollars to cease our pursuit of alternative energy, and then being wiped out after we refused it. Being bludgeoned was a nightmare, with my partner spending two years behind bars on fabricated charges and many lives being shattered in the process, including mine. It was my radicalizing experience.
No alternative energy of significance is publicly available today, and that situation is not due to a lack of viable technologies. During my adventures, I came to understand that free energy – virtually limitless, non-polluting, forever renewable, no-operating-cost energy – has existed for generations, but has been suppressed by the same interests that wiped us out. Those people essentially run the world. Steven Greer, who is a leading free energy activist and has had a similarly arduous journey, met with factions of that global-controlling group about fifteen years ago, and they informed him that they had paid out $100 billion in quiet money over the past few generations to ensure that technologies such as free energy and anti-gravity do not become publicly available. Those payouts are part of their “benign” tactics. That controlling group begins playing rough only after fools like us refuse their buyout offers and/or survive their subtle methods of sabotage. I realized long ago that the technological aspect of free energy is not the most important one. The political-economic dynamics seem most important, by far, and many in the radical left are in a position to comprehend them.
After my radicalizing experience, I spent 12,000 hours of unpaid labor performing the research, writing and editing (some professionally hired) that resulted in my 1,200-page web site. However, no matter how thoroughly and conservatively I have documented my journey and the reality I witnessed, the public’s reaction has been one of denial and indifference about 99% of the time, with personal attacks fairly common. People cannot experience the alternative energy milieu’s reality from their armchairs, TVs, computer screens and cubicles, so those in denial pretend it does not exist if they are aware of the situation all, even though it affects their lives, humanity and the planet profoundly. After years and years of largely futile interaction with the general public, I became selective about whom I interact with. A disinformation specialist has also been stalking me on the Internet since 1997.
Some prominent rad lefties have taken my work seriously when I have written about American mythmaking, such as turning Christopher Columbus, George Washington and Junípero Serra into national heroes, but their interest has been mild when I have tried to engage them on alternative energy realities. The radical left is one of the few groups I know of that might constructively engage the alternative energy field’s reality. I have never seen any group beyond the small specialist community constructively engage that situation. A healed humanity and planet can be just around the corner, if enough people can only imagine it.
Economics, Energy, Scarcity and Abundance
One reason for this open letter is that the radical left regularly engages economic issues, and the human journey rides atop our economic reality. Scientists often have a better understanding of economic reality than economists, who tend to homogenize everything with money, perform their abstract analyses and produce misleading results. Energy runs the world economy and always has, and the recent Peak Oil controversy has brought the issue into sharper focus. Richard Heinberg has been the leading Peak Oil spokesman in progressive circles, and an interview with him appearing in Z Magazine inspired two essays (1, 2) on Peak Oil, scarcity and Heinberg’s work.
Heinberg wrote in a semi-ridiculing and dismissive manner about free energy, and then refused to learn more about the very situations he dismissed. Heinberg’s solution to the current energy crisis is eliminating nearly six billion people (any volunteers?). For all of Heinberg’s failures to investigate what he semi-ridiculed/dismissed, he and his colleagues understand one issue very well: the industrialized world is entirely dependent on energy consumption, as have all civilizations for all time. From the richest and most educated nations to the poorest and least educated, energy consumption is by far the most important determinant of their standard of living. Americans currently live off the backs of eighty “energy slaves,” and they are almost entirely responsible for our status as history’s richest nation. Noam Chomsky says that anybody with a functioning brain understands that America’s invasions of the Middle East and Central Asia are about controlling the world’s fossil fuel supplies. All other factors are of minor importance.
After I finished my web site in 2002, I was introduced to R. Buckminster Fuller’s work. Fuller was one of the West’s first “comprehensivists,” and developed a multidisciplinary approach for viewing the human journey and its potential. Although his work has often been neglected, misappropriated and misrepresented since his death, his comprehensivist approach to humanity’s problems and potential is evident in his written work. Only those who see the big picture can envision and pursue the big solutions, and Fuller noted that specialization in science and other pursuits tended to blind those specialists to the bigger picture. Fuller said that such over-specialization was intentionally encouraged and made the scientists slaves to the ruling class. It is another variation of the divide-and-conquer game.
Fuller stated that humanity had reached the technological level a few generations ago whereby we could make an unprecedented transition from a world based on scarcity to one based on abundance. A world based on abundance is necessarily based on energy abundance. Fuller understood the political-economic dynamics that Chomsky has been writing about for many years, but waited until late in his life to begin writing about them, probably to avoid marginalization. Fuller was also familiar with the global energy racket, and one of his pupils, Adam Trombly, pursued free energy and barely survived the experience. Trombly is one of many who have tried bringing free energy to humanity, and all have been prevented from doing so.
Not only is there active suppression of anything that can upset the energy racket and the greatest lever for controlling humanity, humanity readily plays into the racketeers’ hands. Fuller provided a plausible explanation why people such as Heinberg refuse to imagine abundance and instead propose hyper-austerity “solutions” to humanity’s problems. Fuller wrote that for almost the entirety of human history, only one-in-a-thousand people lived to a ripe old age, and only one-in-a-hundred-thousand became an economic success, so scarcity and failure have been deeply embedded into human consciousness. All the previously proposed Utopias and solutions such as Heinberg’s have been based on shared austerity, and Fuller noted that they have always been doomed strategies. The only Utopia with a realistic chance of success is based on abundance, and an abundance-based economic system is perhaps the only chance we have of averting global catastrophe. Fuller said that if humanity’s scarcity paradigm was not overturned by the 1980s, our chances of survival might be less than 50%. His estimate might be accurate, which is partly why I am writing this essay. It would not take much effort to topple the scarcity paradigm, but first people must imagine it.
If all humans had access to a thousand “energy slaves” and their use caused nobody any harm, including the environment, that abundance-based reality will beckon. I have spent more than thirty years pondering it, and I know that I can barely imagine what it would look like. However, I discovered during my journey that humanity is currently addicted to scarcity and most people are truly afraid of abundance. The radical left may be in position to begin making the change, and what follows is why.
Why the Radical Left is in Position to Make a Difference
It took a gradual awakening, culminating with my radicalizing experience at the hands of the energy gangsters, to understand that the reason why we do not have free energy today is because personal integrity is the world’s scarcest resource. It was the primary lesson of my journey, and a sobering one. If humanity cannot muster sufficient collective integrity, we may be doomed. A world civilization with people such as George W. Bush on center stage will not survive much longer. People’s level of caring also seemed directly related to how much awareness they displayed.
After my radicalizing experience, I researched, wrote and edited my web site. The process was often spent comparing my “education” while young to my adult investigations. Much of what I was taught as a child and young adult was a compendium of lies, whether it was the “news,” history, or my professional training as an accountant and its related economic “education.” I began seeing a common thread, but not until I read Fuller’s work could I fully articulate my perception: my indoctrination was designed to imbue me with egocentric, scarcity-based ideologies. I was white, male, intelligent, educated, scientifically trained, American, human and a capitalist, and each designation elevated me above my fellow creatures, in order to justify exploiting them, usually economically. If I was a Christian, that could be added that to the list, because only Christians go to heaven.
Those scarcity-based ideologies undermine a person’s ability to comprehend an abundance paradigm. The people I encountered had invested their economic survival strategies and egos into their ideologies, and anything that challenged their position was to be avoided at best and attacked-and-destroyed at worst. Very few could or would comprehend that they were ignoring/attacking the keys to healing the planet because they would make their survival-oriented ideologies obsolete. I came to call those scarcity-based ideologies “mind crutches.” Greer recently made almost exactly the same observation.
Laying aside those scarcity-based ideologies is necessary for imagining a world of abundance. Some ideologies are blatantly obvious in their scarcity-based nature, while others are subtler. I eventually learned that only those with sufficient integrity can question their indoctrination and eventually lay those mind crutches aside. What immediately struck me when encountering the work of McGehee, Chomsky, Herman, Howard Zinn and friends was the high personal integrity evident in their work. In their analyses, they always pointed the finger toward themselves, which is a basic ethical principle that few actively practice. My initial impression of their integrity was reinforced when I eventually contacted them: they have all been among my most gracious correspondents.
Until abundance can be imagined, it cannot be pursued, and the global controllers realize this. Perhaps their greatest triumph in preventing free energy and abundance from becoming a reality has been making the ideas unimaginable to the vast majority of humanity. The radical left is in an auspicious position to begin imagining abundance, because they have already cast aside the most crippling mind crutches, such as nationalism, capitalism and organized religion. Other ideologies must also be cast aside, which can be difficult, because ideologies do not seem like ideologies to those adhering to them, but reality. Beliefs come from being told something is true. Knowledge comes from the experience of something being true.
The American ideologies which are obviously scarcity-based – nationalism, capitalism and organized religion – comprise the triune “faith” of most Americans, and are seemingly impossible for people to relinquish these days. In times of fear, politics shifts to the right, not the left, as people become more self-centered for survival reasons. If most Americans are currently addicted to their scarcity-based ideologies, then what? Even in these days of expensive energy, energy wars and Al Gore playing spokesman for the idea of human-induced global warming, nobody on the global stage is even hinting that there may be solutions that dwarf all others. For somebody who has survived the suppression efforts of those who manage the global energy paradigm, it is surreal that virtually nobody is mentioning practical solutions to our civilization-threatening problems.
What follows is a discussion of the subtler, scarcity-based ideologies that have trapped most scientists, intellectuals and the educated. Those subtle ideologies are more insidious than the obvious ones, as they seem to have solid logical and empirical bases. However, my experiences and research have shown me that they sit on foundations nearly as flimsy as those that support nationalism, capitalism and organized religion. Some of those subtler ideologies can be summarized under the categories of scientism, materialism and rationalism.
An august MIT academic recently stated that he never saw a scientist say how science should be done – they just do it. I doubt that professor ever encountered Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov and the “skeptics,” because he would have heard plenty about how science is supposed to be done, and the difference between “real” science and “pseudoscience.” Sagan devoted a great deal of his professional life to attacking “pseudoscience” and its practitioners. With disturbing frequency, Sagan’s attacks were dishonestly performed. My Internet stalker is a prominent member of the “skeptical” community, and his work’s dishonesty is its most salient characteristic.
Sagan’s “skeptical” work is a prime example of scientism, which is the belief that the methods of science comprise the only valid path to knowledge. In scientism, science itself is made an object of worship. The so-called scientific method is like democracy and free markets – ideals that have never been seen in the real world, similar to unicorns. In the West, the official creation story used to be in the book of Genesis, with God saying “let there be light,” and Adam being created from mud, and Eve from Adam’s rib. To a significant degree, the Big Bang and evolution is Western science’s answer to Genesis. The Big Bang is as fantastic as anything in the Bible, with everything coming from nothing in an instant. Astronomers have challenged the notion of a Big Bang and expanding universe, and the most prominent Big Bang heretic had to leave the U.S. to pursue his theories. Darwinian evolution also has its problems.
The idea of understanding the universe through one’s physical senses and logic has existed at least since the ancient Greeks. The Catholic Church eradicated the Greek teachings in the West as pagan, but when the “Reconquest” of the Iberian Peninsula began almost a thousand years ago, the great Islamic libraries of Moorish Spain became available to Christian scholars, beginning with the Christian conquest of Toledo in 1085. The ancient Greek teachings were then gradually reintroduced to the West. Those Greek teachings helped lead to the Renaissance, Protestant Reformation and diminution of the Church’s power. From Roger Bacon in the 1200s to Francis Bacon in the 1600s, logic and empirical investigation gradually rose to prominence. During the Enlightenment of the 1700s, science and reason largely supplanted religion as the interpreter of how the universe functioned, and by the late 1800s, scientific inquiry had fully triumphed over religious dogma. The rise of science was integral to the Industrial Revolution.
However, science began acting like a religion from the early days, and its terminology reflects it. Today, we have “laws of physics.” There are no laws of physics, only theories, but to call a theory a law invests it with a quasi-religious certitude, and today’s scientific establishment punishes its heretics with the same zeal as medieval inquisitors did, if not with the same inquisitorial equipment. For instance, the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics has significant experimental data that calls it into question.
However, the initial discovering scientist of a possible second-law-defying phenomenon (who had Einstein’s interest) had his equipment destroyed, his books burned, and died in a U.S. prison. Ironically, he was a Jew who escaped Hitler’s Germany, and as he watched his books burn in a U.S. government bonfire, he expressed his dismay that after escaping Hitler’s Germany, he never suspected that he would see his books burned again. I encountered another scientist (from MIT) who produced experimental data that contradicted the hallowed Second Law of Thermodynamics, and he was murdered in 2004. I believe that the dire fates of those scientists who challenge the entrenched dogma may be best understood by comprehending the political-economic dynamics surrounding those “laws” of physics.
An informative example of how theories become prominent, dogmatized and the foundation of economic rackets is Louis Pasteur’s career. He was a chemist whose life’s ambition was becoming rich and famous. His initial discovery that led to fame – discovering chiral molecules – may have been his discovery, although Pasteur’s published account of his discovery was self-serving. Pasteur’s forays into biology and medicine, however, are haunted by the suspicion that he may have plagiarized others in his quest for fame and wealth, Antoine Béchamp most notably. A Harvard professor wrote a book in the 1970s that demonstrated how the story taught to college students about Pasteur’s first triumph in the life sciences – his disproval of spontaneous generation theory – was a deplorable example of “Whig history” in science, where students are taught expedient fairy tales. A review of microbiology textbooks written a generation after that formidable work demonstrates that Whig history is still practiced regarding Pasteur’s triumph. Howard Zinn capably wrote about how damaging such “history” is to those who believe it.
Such mythmaking about Pasteur is not innocent, and economic empires have been built on the Pasteurian paradigm. The fairy tales about Pasteur may be far more damaging than those told American schoolchildren about George Washington and Christopher Columbus because Pasteur apparently had a poor understanding of what he may have plagiarized, and his work arguably placed modern medicine on a false foundation. His germ theory of disease may be critically flawed, vaccines probably do far more harm than good (if any good at all), the short-lived antibiotic age may soon come to and end, and harmless, cheap and effective cancer and other disease treatments have been developed by those pursuing biology and medicine beyond the Pasteurian paradigm. The doctors and scientists who pioneered and used those treatments have been subjected to breathtaking suppression efforts by organized medicine.
The life sciences and medicine are rife with that kind of mythmaking and outright lying in the service of economic empires. For instance, today’s orthodox cancer treatments do not extend the lives of those they are used on, but make many billions of dollars each year for the medical establishment. Similarly, the most lucrative surgery in America, coronary bypass surgery, also does not appreciably extend the lives of those it is used on. If those immensely lucrative treatments do not extend the patients’ lives, can we call them complete failures, particularly since they are also agonizing treatments? Also, can we suspect that those worse-than-worthless treatments are also part of a racket, especially when treatments that do extend the lives of the patients, and do so cheaply and harmlessly, are mercilessly suppressed? Does it really stretch the imagination that far to suspect that the right and left hands are aware of each other and may be directed by the same brain?
Life sciences are not as “hard” as the physical sciences, so maybe we really know something in the physical sciences. By the late 1800s, the rationalist-materialist paradigm was firmly entrenched as the West’s new “religion.” Scientists believed that they were dealing with the real world with their methods. Then something strange happened. An obscure, 26-year-old Swiss patent clerk proposed the special theory of relativity, and twentieth-century physics was born. Everything became relative, with no absolutes, except perhaps change. A generation later, a number of young scientists proposed a theory to describe how atoms behaved. Quantum physics was thus born, and one of its cornerstones was the uncertainty principle, authored by a 23-year-old scientist whose theory became clear to him during a fevered weekend. Relativity and quantum theory are the two primary pillars of today’s physics. Einstein and Heisenberg had to thank flashes of creative insight for their theories, not cold reason. I have known some of the greatest inventive minds of the 20th century, and they also had instants of creative insight to thank for their breakthroughs, not reason.
The most influential study of the scientific milieu in the past fifty years is Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn was another MIT academic, and he coined the modern definition of the term paradigm. Kuhn argued that scientists did not adopt new paradigms because of the persuasiveness of the scientific evidence, but because scientists chose to believe the new paradigm. The dominant theories of today’s physics arrived through moments of intuitive insight and state that everything is relative, that little, if anything, is certain, everything changes, and that scientific paradigms prevail because scientist have chosen to believe in them. Of all of today’s theories of physics, Einstein had perhaps the most confidence in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If that one falls, which ones might not? The so-called Second Law helps define the scarcity-based paradigm that prevails today among the scientifically trained.
Einstein and Heisenberg were, to one degree or another, mystics, as have been almost all of physics’ giants. Einstein believed that the universe was intelligently designed, and he cheerfully admitted that modern science knew almost nothing about how the universe worked. Einstein and friends largely rejected the West’s rationalist-materialist paradigm. Isaac Newton is considered history’s most influential scientist, but devoted most of his life to alchemy and likened his work to a boy playing on the beach, being diverted with pebbles and shells, while the vast ocean of the universe had yet to be explored. James Jeans wrote that the twentieth century’s breakthroughs in physics demonstrated to scientists that they were still imprisoned in Plato’s Cave, still watching shadows on the wall. If the leading figures of the hardest of sciences did not believe that the picture that science tells us depicts reality, why should anybody else? A mystical/spiritual perspective has nothing whatsoever to do with organized religion, and organized religion is often the mystic’s greatest assailant. Ken Wilber argued that the giants of physics became mystics because they had seen how science failed to explain the universe. It may be the other way around, and their mystical orientation produced their breakthroughs. Nearly everybody whom I respect in the free energy field is also, to one degree or another, a mystic.
There are many related dogmas that accompany the rationalist-materialist paradigm. Two common reactions among the scientifically trained to the idea of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe are that it would not or could not come here. That first reaction is a projection of human motivation onto extraterrestrial intelligent life, in a vacuum of knowing just what may influence such extra-terrestrial thinking, and the second projects our primitive understanding of the “laws of physics” onto what technologies are “possible.” Both objections beg the question. Two years ago, I stood in a field with aerospace and military personnel and watched intelligently piloted, almost certainly extraterrestrial (ET), craft reveal themselves in the sky on request. I went again the next year, and received a similar show. There is still debate and controversy on an issue that is easily settled for those who simply go see for themselves.
Greer is also a leading ET activist, because ETs and free energy are conjoined. Greer staged U.S. Congressional hearings on the ET issue in 1997 (co-chaired by Apollo 14’s Ed Mitchell, and they had several hundred witnesses willing to testify, mostly military personnel) and he nearly died soon thereafter of artificially induced cancer, while other members of his team did not survive the experience. In the early 1990s, he briefed the sitting director of the CIA, and the sitting U.S. president avidly read his briefing materials. He was then invited to meet members of the group that runs the world, and they told him that sitting U.S. presidents and CIA directors were completely ignorant about how the world is really run. They also told him about the $100 billion in quiet money they have paid out to prevent free energy and related technologies from becoming publicly available.
That recently murdered free energy scientist resigned from MIT in protest when he discovered that MIT had fraudulently manipulated its experimental data in order to dismiss cold fusion. Arthur C. Clarke called the dismissal of cold fusion possibly one of the greatest scandals in the history of science.
The ideologies of scientism, rationalism and materialism are all scarcity-based and have served to straightjacket the minds of scientists and others into believing what is possible and what is not, and those blinded scientists have almost completely abandoned a principal tenet of scientific investigation, that of observation. The scientific establishment ridiculed reports of Edison’s light bulb and the Wright brothers’ airplane, claiming that both were “impossible,” and could not be bothered to go see it for themselves. Such mindlessness is alive and well today in the halls of science and technology, and may well be worse today than it was in the days of Edison and the Wright brothers. I have had numerous interactions with physicists and scientists regarding free energy realities, and I can never get them dislodged from their armchairs long enough to look into it. Instead, they engage me in circular arguments that run like this:
Free energy is contrary to the laws of physics and therefore impossible;
The suppression of free energy is an unbelievable conspiracy theory, and you can’t suppress something that does not exist;
If you can give me a working free energy device that I can study, then I might believe that free energy is possible;
If you cannot give me a free energy device, it means that free energy’s impossibility is the most likely reality, not its suppression, because I cannot imagine anybody wanting to suppress something like free energy, even if it was possible;
Thank you for your time, but my armchair is very comfortable; I’ll sit here and wait for you to deliver me a free energy machine, but I doubt you will deliver one to me, because such a device is impossible.
I had a similar exchange with a famous person in the high-tech field in 2006. After more interaction with various people in 2006, something I had seen Herman and Chomsky write about finally became clear: most people are incapable of being rational when their survival-based ideologies are challenged, especially those who fancy themselves to be intelligent and educated; their defense mechanisms are just slightly more sophisticated than most. That situation leads to the question of whether humanity is really a sentient species, and if so, if sentience really means much.
The reasons for such responses from the scientifically trained, I believe, are several. One is that many scientists have mental and physical attributes that have been described by many terms over the years, including “nerd.” As psychology has been “advancing,” they have found that the qualities that make people “nerds” are partly a reflection of their particular talents. There seems to be a range of these qualities, with autism on the far end, Asperger’s Syndrome next to it, with hyperlexia and other “disorders” nearer to “normal.” People in the autism spectrum often have unusual mental and creative abilities, but also tend to have poor social skills and other problems (such as clumsiness or poor dexterity). Today, it is surmised that Newton, Einstein and Bill Gates had/have symptoms that place them in the autism spectrum, possibly with Asperger’s Syndrome. Those scientists in the autism spectrum relatively easily understand the abstract concepts common to math and science, but can be oblivious to body language and other cues required to socially navigate. They consequently tend to have poor social lives and a stunted understanding of the human condition. That dynamic is probably related to the naiveté of scientists that Fuller observed.
Another reason is their political indoctrination. About half of all American scientists work for the military-industrial complex. If we add the medical-industrial complex and civilian high technology, that group probably includes more than 80% of America’s scientifically trained. I work in the civilian high-technology field myself, and right wing political views predominate. The military-industrial complex is also heavily right wing in its political orientation. I have many friends and relatives who work in those environments. For instance, one relative works for a military contractor and recently said that the only show that played on the lunchroom television was Fox News, and nobody really seemed to mind. One day, he changed the channel and fled the room when nobody was around. It was turned back to Fox News almost immediately. Most people will never overcome their indoctrination, and when their bread is buttered by a highly slanted political culture, there are few incentives to ever learn any differently – except a love of the truth. The likelihood of a scientist waking up to political reality in that environment is almost zero. I have subscribed to Z Magazine since the early 1990s, and have read all manner of progressive periodical and book. I cannot recall ever seeing an article in any of those publications that was authored by a scientist in the physical sciences. As Noam Chomsky has discussed for many years, the U.S. military establishment heavily funded American universities during the Cold War, and his fellow MIT faculty are mostly right-wingers.
Ironically, Chomsky’s peers at MIT find his political views strange but non-threatening, but a few miles away at Harvard, the seat of the liberal establishment, Chomsky is regarded as the devil incarnate. That is because Chomsky is a true leftist, and his positions expose the liberal left’s fraudulent stances, which are every bit as imperialist as right-wingers’ are, but they concoct more humane rhetoric. That Chomsky’s work even exists demonstrates that the liberal left’s work is not very left at all, and is just more apologetics for empire.
Related to the political indoctrination of the scientifically trained is their economic indoctrination. I work near Microsoft, almost in sight of Bill Gates’ house, and the prevailing economic viewpoint of Microsoft employees is a belief in the unbridled “free market” as they try to get rich by working for a monopoly. They also have strongly “libertarian” views.
In summary, scientists and technical professionals receive ample rewards from their membership in America’s more lucrative establishments, and rarely have the motivation, ability or opportunity to successfully study evidence that contradicts the paradigms they have been indoctrinated into. In addition, there is often a genuine fear of straying from the herd, and great rewards reaped for quietly serving in their soft berths. That is not a pointed indictment of scientists, as this dynamic has long been observed to be common to all Americans, if not all people. Few have ever had a productive reaction to the evidence of how the energy racket really works. The danger is thinking that scientists are less susceptible to such irrationalities, when sometimes they are more susceptible. Very few of them have what it takes to effectively investigate/evaluate/pursue free energy.
My baptism-by-fire in the alternative energy field taught me many lessons. That the global controllers existed and were vigilant was not my journey’s big surprise, although they inflicted great suffering onto us. My big surprise was how easily humanity plays into their hands, and my primary delusion took me the longest to shed because I did not want to believe what I was seeing. I finally had to admit it, after having my face rubbed in it for years. To revisit the high ethical ground that Chomsky and friends regularly stand on, the most ethical position regarding the situation is not to focus on what they do, but on what we can do. The global controllers cannot be beaten at their game, and exposing them is a perilous and probably futile task. The best we can do is making them obsolete.
When numerous family members and friends attacked and/or abandoned me and/or my partner, as he sat in jail and I was going bankrupt, I was in shock and dismay for a long time. I thought they knew what motivated me, if not my partner. In their worldview, only criminals go to jail and greedy get-rich-quick artists usually get what they deserve, and they chose to believe the blatant lies spewed by the prosecution and local media over my testimony. Some never even asked for my side of the story, because the newspaper and TV news are obviously paragons of truth. Greer cited a similar situation with an ET whistleblower and his son. The son thought his father was crazy, until he encountered the identical situation during his career. If sons think their fathers are crazy for telling the truth about what is really happening, what chance does somebody like me have of convincing the general public about the stark realities behind the world economy?
When I began engaging the public via the Internet after publishing my original website in 1996, people’s reactions were educational. They either completely denied that the kinds of suppression efforts we were subjected to even exist, or they believed the global controllers were the reason why we do not have free energy today. In my experience, neither perception is accurate. I estimate that the global controllers and their antics only account for about 5-10% of why humanity does not benefit today from free energy, anti-gravity and an abundance paradigm.
Putting golden handcuffs on ten thousand people is an impressive effort, and $100 billion dollars is a tidy sum. The global controllers have probably also spent hundreds of billions of dollars on their surveillance efforts and bludgeoning people like my former partner and me. They have a lot of blood on their hands. Half a trillion dollars, however, is a pittance to pay for ensuring that humanity is mired in economic scarcity and easily manipulated. Far more important is how humanity plays along. In 1984, George Orwell wrote that the masses could throw off the elite manipulators like a horse shakes off flies, if they woke up only a little. After the ordeal in Ventura was over, I realized that a hundred people of high commitment and integrity could easily bring free energy to the public. I also slowly realized that those hundred people might not exist. Therefore, I have tried a strategy that is less risky to its participants – it only asks that people become aware. If enough collective sentience and integrity can be applied to merely attempting to understand and discuss the free energy milieu’s reality, it may catalyze enough awareness so humanity can go over the top. However, I have yet to find a group willing to lay aside its scarcity-based ideologies in pursuit of a healed humanity and planet.
As I began reading Chomsky’s work and digesting the radical left’s perspective, it quickly became evident that structural analysis was preferred over “conspiracy theories” to explain how the world works. I noticed a visceral, almost violent, aversion amongst the radical left to the notion that aspects of the global political-economic system are consciously managed through surreptitious means. I also noticed that, with rare exceptions such as David Edwards, there were no religious people among the radical left’s members, and the rationalist-materialist paradigm seemed firmly entrenched, as it is with most scientists.
In early 1989, before I mortgaged my life to help free my partner from jail, I met a policeman who helped prevent me from wasting my time begging the federal government to intervene. His advice directly led to my partner’s release from jail. That policeman also wrote a book about his adventures in Southern California, adventures that he almost did not survive. In his book, he recounted an extraordinary event that transpired in late 1963. The policeman was Audie Murphy’s friend. Murphy was America’s most decorated war hero and a friend of Bill Decker, who was Dallas County’s sheriff. Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald as he was being transferred to Decker’s custody. In December 1963, Murphy, Decker, my policeman friend and his partner met with a frightened John Tower, who revealed Oswald’s true involvement in the John F. Kennedy assassination: Oswald was a military intelligence operative involved in a covert operation led by E. Howard Hunt that planned to stage a fake assassination attempt on JFK and pin it on Cuba, to justify invading it. The operation somehow backfired, and a fake assassination attempt turned into a real one.
When I read that story in 1989, it spurred my interest in the JFK assassination. Since then, I have read about ten thousand pages of JFK material and analyzed a great deal of the JFK assassination evidence. The center-of-gravity of my research was comparing how the evidence fit with my friend’s story. I never found any piece of credible evidence that contradicted his story and, over the years, new evidence has sometimes provided stunning validation of it. For instance, Hunt’s brainchild seemed like an offspring or parallel effort to Operation Northwoods. After I wrote the first draft of this essay, Hunt’s “deathbed confession” was published in Rolling Stone Magazine. While his confession’s veracity is suspect, even doubted by his son, it is another strand of evidence that makes it increasingly difficult to swallow the “lone nut” story of the JFK hit. In 2006, I became aware of serious investigation into the Tower/Oswald story, and I briefly joined the best discussion I have encountered on the issue. One impressive investigator informed me that he also knew of no reason why the Tower/Oswald story would not be true.
Because of my proximity to the situation, I was about 99.9% certain that Oswald was not JFK’s “lone nut” assassin. The goal of my JFK research was never to “solve the crime” and unmask the conspirators, but to challenge the legitimacy of a system that produced the fiction known as The Warren Commission Report. It has been educational to see how various factions have dealt with the issue. Chomsky wrote a book that debunked any possible CIA motive for involvement in the JFK hit. Parts of his thesis I tend to agree with, because the CIA’s leadership may not have been behind the real assassination. However, the JFK hit created a small firestorm amongst the radical left, with Michael Parenti criticizing not only Chomsky’s analysis of the power structure’s motives regarding JFK, but Parenti also wrote that the left had a “conspiracy-phobia.”
I immersed myself in the JFK assassination evidence and interacted with the independent researcher community. There are undoubtedly disinformation specialists in the JFK researcher community, both free-lance and on somebody’s payroll, and many varieties of establishment defenders. However, as with free energy, the collective behavior of the sincere JFK researchers may be the biggest reason why they have not gained much traction on the issue. I became involved with other “conspiratorial” milieus, such as the controversy surrounding the moon landings, and I have interacted with independent researchers of the events of September 11, 2001. I had seen enough similarities to generalize about what I saw. With striking similarity to people’s reactions to free energy, few have had balanced reactions to the idea that Oswald was not a lone nut or that the attacks on America on 9/11 may have been at least partly an inside job.
On JFK, the radical left has largely dismissed any relevance of JFK’s death to U.S. foreign or domestic policy or world events, so they do not really care if JFK was murdered by Oswald or not. The liberal left is less dismissive of an American president’s significance, but generally cannot bring itself to believe that our government has covered-up the evidence that shows that Oswald did not act alone. The right wing has its factions too, and one of their predominant themes is that JFK’s presidency was some kind of Golden Age, and the American nation has been going straight down the toilet since his murder. Those perspectives can be endlessly debated, but what interested me was the radical left’s aversion to the idea that such events might be consciously orchestrated. I have now seen it many times in leftist writings. An astute, longtime observer of Chomsky’s work and the fervor surrounding it believes that Chomsky accepts the official stories of JFK, 9/11 and Pearl Harbor partly due to his “need to ensure a minimum level of personal security in his professional life, in other words plain survival for one who is consistently challenging conventional assumptions.” If true, it is understandable and something that Chomsky may not even be consciously aware of.
Not long after 9/11, Z Magazine made its editorial position clear: it preferred structural analysis largely to the exclusion of the consideration that power structure members consciously orchestrated events towards a desired end. In their article, Stephen R. Shalom and Michael Albert provided some common critiques of the conspiratorial mindset and how it can go astray. However, they also use labels such as “conspiracy buff” and “right wing crazies” as they dismiss the evidence that 9/11 might have partly been an inside job. Other leftists have produced startling, Limbaugh/Coulter-style invective regarding those who consider the “inside job” angle of 9/11. George Monbiot, who seems more liberal left more than radical left, wrote in The Guardian in February 2007 that to even consider the “inside job” aspect of 9/11 was to become a “gibbering idiot” (here is a rebuttal). Alexander Cockburn, one of Chomsky’s colleagues and an editor of Counterpunch, which I consider one of America’s best political publications, has launched vitriol at the “9/11 Conspiracy Nuts” and other “conspiracy buffs” for a long time. Ironically, Counterpunch has recently advocated the “Israel knew about 9/11 in advance” theory. The Israel-involvement theory is no more or less tenable than many other 9/11 angles, but it appeals to Cockburn’s political sensibilities (here is a competent response to those articles).
My point here is not to debate the facts of 9/11 or the JFK hit, but to demonstrate how the radical left’s position on those issues is ideological. In their article, Shalom/Albert explicitly state that “religious beliefs are not rational or scientific,” as they observe that “conspiracy theorists” tend to behave like religious zealots when confronting contrary evidence, and that such theories “lead us to counterproductive and wrong priorities,” and they state near the end of their article that “If everything is under the control of powerful and incredibly evil forces, there is no point in fighting injustice.” They seem to be saying that even acknowledging those “evil” people and their deeds is to land on the slippery slope that leads to hopelessness and paranoia. As anybody knows who has actually played at the high levels, those “evil” people indeed exist, but their control is far less than total, and is really not that much control at all. For the herd’s size, the shepherds’ task is surprisingly easy.
Greer has encountered those who clandestinely run the world and became aware of activities that he will not disclose publicly, except in passing, because they are so horrific. Again, very few have a healthy and balanced reaction to that situation. Most deny that such people and activities exist. Those that suspect or know they exist try to expose and/or punish the perpetrators. Both reactions operate from the victim principle, not from a position of responsibility. A spiritual perspective may be necessary to both acknowledge the situation and put it in its proper context, but those operating within the rationalist-materialist paradigm seemingly cannot accomplish it. Those “bad guys” are an integral and arguably necessary part of the human family, and cannot be beaten at their game. Making them obsolete and becoming immune to their manipulations seems to be the only productive strategy (and one that can eventually redeem them too), a strategy that few have attempted.
There is a vast and crucial difference between placing appropriate emphasis on a phenomenon and downplaying/denying its very existence. “Conspiracies” exist, on a scale that can be difficult to comprehend for those who have not been on the receiving end of such efforts. Pretending they do not exist misses the bigger picture. For instance, about the only reason I mention the global controllers’ efforts to suppress free energy, anti-gravity and related technologies is to answer the most common response that I receive to my tale: “If free energy devices were possible, I should be able to buy one.” Most scientists respond with something similar. Such responses reflect a belief in the magic of capitalism and the greatness of America, two pillars of America’s triune faith. If people can move beyond their denial (and few do), then most of them have other unproductive reactions.
Some of the more thoughtful rebuttals to the analyses of Cockburn, Shalom/Albert and friends move beyond the false dichotomy of structural analysis or conspiracy theories. Peter Dale Scott has been integrating the two perspectives with his “deep politics” analytics, as have others. Here is an excellent rebuttal to Cockburn and friends’ analysis of the 9/11 evidence. Various commentators have noted that the radical left’s increasingly caustic attacks on the 9/11 researcher community are partly due to the growing irrelevance of political-economic analysis that denies the “deep political” aspect of today’s reality. The good news is that not all rad lefties are disparaging efforts that challenge the official version of 9/11. A few years ago, Howard Zinn signed a petition that questions the official 9/11 story, as did Michael Parenti. Bill Christison, a former CIA officer and regular contributor to Counterpunch, wrote that attacking the 9/11 researchers was counterproductive, and the issue was well worth being made the subject of intense investigation, as 9/11 has been the casus belli for all U.S. wars and international aggressions ever since, as well the ongoing shredding of the Bill of Rights.
It took me several years of studying a vast array of material, as well as interactions with many activists from both sides of the divide, to arrive at my current understanding of the conflict between the “conspiracy theorists” and the “structural analysts.” The “conspiracy theorists” are often active members of an organized religion, and Shalom/Albert compared them to religious fanatics. The notion of conscious manipulation of the global situation by the elites is consistent with the cosmology of those religious “conspiracy theorists.” They believe that the universe was consciously created. On the other hand, those subscribing to the rationalist-materialist paradigm almost invariably subscribe to the Big Bang and evolution as their creation myth. Even though Einstein believed the universe was intelligently designed, leading radical leftists have dismissed the notion. With the Big Bang and evolution, the universe is one big accident, with nobody planning anything. Consciousness is merely some poorly understood byproduct of chemistry. The competing notions of the universe being created consciously or randomly go a long way toward understanding the mutual antagonism between the “conspiracy theorists” and the “structural analysts.” My worldview has room for evolution and creation. The greatest science is the science of consciousness, and until scientists begin factoring consciousness into their equations, they will be playing a small game.
On the energy issue, Z Magazine published an article a few years ago that lauded a work of TV fiction that depicted the Rockefeller Empire suppressing alternative energy a century ago. Such activities are happening today, and are critical to the human journey and our near-term prospects.
The people controlling humanity do not need to micromanage the situation. Only a few leverage points really matter. The primary one, energy, has run all economies for all time. That is something that Heinberg and friends understand. They also know that human civilization is doomed if we run out of energy. Just as most of the giants of physics and those I respect in the free energy field were/are mystics, the global controllers do not operate within the rationalist-materialist paradigm. They have a fairly sophisticated understanding of consciousness and the human condition, and they sometimes use incredible and often diabolical technologies to keep their stranglehold on humanity. For the initiated, it is obvious that if humanity burned up all the fossil fuels and did not find another energy source to replace it, today’s global civilization has several billion “excess” people in it. That is why Heinberg and friends are called neo-Malthusians, and their solution is for humanity to immediately shed more than five billion people.
As people are currently addicted to scarcity and failure, most truly do not want to hear about free energy and the abundance paradigm, and abundance remains an unimaginable concept to them. If I had not observed that reaction countless times, I would not have believed it. Under an abundance paradigm, all scarcity-based ideologies evaporate. If free energy became publicly available, it would be “game over” for the global controllers. They understand that situation, which is why they offered us about a billion dollars to cease our efforts.
The problem with paradigms is that they rest on assumptions, and once assumed, principles are rarely examined afterward. That is how scientists tend to be blinded by the paradigms they were raised with, as Max Planck observed. The rationalist-materialist assumptions can be very seductive, and I have seen irrational dismissals of spirituality by prominent rad lefties, calling it “irrational.” Spirituality is not materialistic, but can be the pinnacle of rationality, yet the spiritual masters also realize rationality’s limits. Again, the giants of physics did not subscribe to the rationalist-materialist paradigm and their breakthroughs did not rely on rational thought processes. When my mentor invented the world’s best engine in an instant, he knew that something other than his intellect was responsible. Scientists tend to call the phenomenon “creativity.” I had a more mundane flash of creative insight long ago, and knew it did not come from my intellect. Einstein was fond of calling that inspiration “God” (as have others I have known), but he did not mean a man in a white beard. Einstein reveled in his “cosmic religious feeling.”
For the American masses, their checks clear the bank, they punch the clock, watch the tube, eat at McDonald's and are history’s fattest humans, but they are also all a few missed paychecks from being homeless. They are Orwell’s proles. Only when people try to do something that might alter the paradigm do the global controllers venture out of the shadows and intervene, such as when they froze $20 billion that some radical activists had in the bank.
In summary, the global controllers exist and they are vigilant, but you will never encounter them unless you begin getting close to the levers of power, and those levers do not reside in governments. Their organization is a deeply private one and does not have a name that you would recognize. They stand far above the alphabet soup U.S. government agencies, transnational corporations and even international elite groups such as the Bilderbergers and Trilateral Commission. The sitting U.S. president is just another pretty face.
As Fuller said, a new political system is not an answer to our problems. All political actors are “stooges” of the economic interests. All of history’s political-economic systems have been based on scarcity and will fade away in the light of an abundance paradigm. Becoming radical in economics means solving the energy issue and making humanity’s economic pie a hundred times larger than it is today, instead of fighting to preserve/enlarge the small slice that the economic “losers” currently receive. All other economic issues are of secondary importance, and I am asking the radical left to truly get radical. The left’s current radical economic manifesto is Michael Albert’s Parecon, which does not even mention energy. There is an economic reality beyond capitalism that is also beyond scarcity.
When Greer’s ET witnesses are asked why there is a cover-up, the most common answer is so that free energy, anti-gravity and other technologies do not make it into the public’s hands, and not due to benevolent intent – keeping potentially-dangerous technologies from an irresponsible public – although that argument can be cogently made and is worth considering (here is a video of him talking about the situation). I have seen leading leftists disparage the entire ET/UFO situation as one of “little green men.” I doubt that such disparagers have actually tried to see a UFO for themselves, which is easy to do. Their ideological objections to the notion that we are not alone in the universe, and that such beings are here, now, serve to blind them to the significance of free energy and its suppression. There is nothing inherently unscientific about those situations and, in fact, those realities shatter the worldview and professional egos of most scientists, just as The Brookings Institute warned NASA about many years ago. People need their feet firmly anchored on the ground in order to pursue these issues. I have watched people unravel when simply pondering these issues, and there is plenty of chaff amongst the free energy field’s wheat.
If you are a radical leftist and made it this far, you may be asking yourself, “Why us? Why would this guy try to interest us in free energy, abundance and conscious control of the world economy, which are all such strange ideas?” I do so because every group I have encountered so far has proven addicted to their scarcity-based ideologies, and they leave the job to somebody else to pursue the truth and bring free energy and abundance to the world. Not enough people care enough. Explaining the predicament that humanity finds itself in today is as simple as that, something I learned at great personal cost. There seems to be a greater proportion of people with high integrity in the radical left than in any other group I have encountered. I hope the radical left has what it takes to develop a discussion of such novel concepts as abundance and a realistic Utopia. I know it is feasible, but one person or ten cannot make it happen, not with the global controllers’ vigilance and the masses’ inertia. A hundred heroes could, but I do not advocate that approach either. How about if thousands of the awake and awakening simply discuss it? That may be enough. I do not ask that anybody accept anything on faith. If a worthy discussion is started, I will invite some highly qualified people to it.
I was once a board member of the New Energy Movement, founded by a former astronaut. They are currently beseeching the American government for help. While I honor their motivation, in today’s environment that approach, like all others I have seen, has a faint chance of success. This open letter can be seen as a complementary attempt in pursuit of a healed humanity and planet. I have not seen any approach that seems likely to succeed in today’s world, but we keep trying. Sometimes the miracle happens, but it generally manifests for the persistent.
The ideas presented in my work are easily explored. People come from earth’s four corners to a ranch in Washington State to watch UFOs reveal themselves on request. Discovering your mystical abilities is easily done with a little training. I do not need to convince rad lefties that such ideologies as nationalism, capitalism and organized religion can be very limiting and damaging. The radical left has an advantage over those still worshipping at those altars. Can anybody think of anything with more potential than bringing free energy to humanity? Is there anything close?
Using the world’s scarcest commodity, personal integrity, to bring about an abundance-based reality is a paradox, which is not necessarily a bad thing; Niels Bohr said that wrestling with paradoxes is where scientific progress is made.
I also must present a concept that is at odds with the attitudes of many radical activists. It relates to realizing ideals. Bringing an abundance paradigm to humanity would dwarf everything that came before it. It can be difficult to imagine what a world based on abundance would look like. It is as idealistic a project as was ever conceived, and the means become the ends. I have seen too many in the radical left, all men, advocate violence as a solution. Humanity has a deep-seated belief in violently redressing grievances, and I have seen prominent rad lefties advocate coercing the elites (AKA “enemies”) into relinquishing their power. What they have yet to understand is that the elites’ power has been given to them by a humanity that refuses to accept responsibility for the world they live in. The relationship is symbiotic, if dysfunctional. Coercion and violence only lead to more. As a great master once said, the way to utterly destroy one’s enemies is by loving them.
If enough people simply became aware and made sufficient noise about free energy and abundance, the global controllers would probably disappear. They live in the shadows and cannot abide the light of day. With enlightenment, there does not need to be any “struggle.”
The human condition these days is not pretty, and virtually every activist I know of, who has played at the high levels, has become disgusted with humanity at some point on their journeys. To one degree or another, they all recovered from their dismay and disgust, and I believe that their larger, usually mystical, perspective was instrumental in their recovery. An enlightened mystic sees the divine spark in us all, and fanning that spark into flame has been the goal of all spiritual masters.
Free energy, abundance and a healed planet can be just around the corner if enough of us can only imagine it. Is anybody interested in discussing these ideas and pursuing the evidence supporting them? It does not take very many of us to help humanity over the hump and heal the planet in the process, and I hope that some of them may hail from the radical left.
Peace and well being.
 The United States was founded during the era of classic liberalism, as exemplified by Adam Smith’s writings and those of other Enlightenment philosophers. Classic liberalism immediately became a dominant American ideology, with considerable and enduring influence. Classical liberalism is notable for its focus on rationality, personal freedom and its deep intertwining with economic theory. What we today call radicalism was born in the same era as classical liberalism, and it took the ideas of liberalism further and tended to challenge the legitimacy of all governments and economic institutions. Radical means “going to the root.”
In these neo-Orwellian days, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” have been often stripped of their original meaning and even inverted at times. Radicals tend to operate from a cleaner slate than liberals do, by rejecting more mass assumptions. An informative recent contrast between liberals and radicals, both in the United States and Britain, has been their stance regarding the American-British invasion of Iraq. Liberals have tended to align with the mainstream in defending the American/British right of unilateral invasion in defiance of the entire world (while none of the official rationales have withstood scrutiny), while radicals reject the notion on principle. Recent liberal (and “conservative” and mainstream) revulsion with the Iraq invasion is that it is “not successful” in achieving its stated goals, not that the entire enterprise suffered from corrupt motivation at the outset. Mounting aggressive wars of invasion was the primary crime that the Nazi officials were convicted of at Nuremburg after World War II. Ed Herman has described those “liberal” invasion defenders as the Cruise Missile Left. Today’s liberals also tend to defend the corporate order and capitalism, while sometimes proposing mild reform; radicals tend to challenge capitalism in toto. Parecon is the latest challenge from the radical left to capitalism. Regarding the invasion of Iraq, liberals tend to completely ignore the economic motive for invading Iraq – i.e., capturing the world’s most accessible and lucrative energy deposits – while radicals say that the economic motive, as with all wars, was paramount, and extremely so. History often vindicates the radical perspective, and is already doing so regarding America and the West’s multiple manipulations and invasions of the Middle East.
American radical leftists have a relatively unfettered view of world events and have discarded the ideological crutches that cripple comprehension in America, such as nationalism, capitalism and organized religion. The liberal left tends to embrace nationalism and capitalism, although usually with less fervor than the mainstream and those subscribing to right wing political-economic ideologies. Right wing philosophies are generally self-serving, while left wing philosophies tend to consider everybody’s welfare. I see the contrast as a measure of their spiritual maturity.
 See “Plan War and the Hubbert Oil Curve, An interview with Richard Heinberg,” by Dave Ross, Z Magazine, May 2004, pp. 47-50.
 Henry Bauer wrote Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method to address that issue.
 See an easy-to-read presentation of how Greek teachings were reintroduced to Christian Europe in James Burke’s The Day the Universe Changed.
 This is a subject of immense, if marginalized, controversy. There have been many theoretical challenges to the second law in recent years (see also here; a more accessible argument is here). The data surrounding Reich’s discovery is controversial, accompanied by the typical acrimonious exchanges at the margins (the conflict between Paulo and Alexandra Correa and James DeMeo being a recent example). However, others have adduced data that brings the second law into question (for instance, here and here). Most of the free energy technologies that I am aware (see, for instance, 1, 2, 3) of do not violate the Second Law, but are tapping into an energy source that science does not currently recognize, which is called the vacuum and other terms.
 See George Orwell’s 1984, chapter VII.
 See Chomsky’s Rethinking Camelot.
 See Steven Greer’s Hidden Truth, Forbidden Knowledge, p. 119.
 See Z Staff’s “Quiddity,” Z Magazine, November 2003, p. 5.
 I have been asked what would happen if enough people imagined abundance in an enlightened manner. What would the outcome look like? There are many ways it could look. The simplest would be somebody mounting a free energy effort (there are plenty of potential technologies) and having the support of those who can imagine an abundance paradigm and realize that free energy would be its cornerstone. It would not even have to be financial help, just the light of their sentience (and they would not stay quiet about it). They would not be easily dissuaded/deluded by the power structure’s suppression efforts. The biggest and most painful lesson I learned was how low the integrity level of the average American was, and how easily an effort like ours was derailed, largely with the help of our “allies.” If a hundred people had supported the effort the way that Mr. Professor and I did when the gangsters in Ventura lowered the boom (almost certainly at the global controllers’ behest), the effort would not have been smashed, but would have been successful. It could be that simple. Again, a hundred heroes could do it, but the cost extracted from them can be rather high. I doubt that the hundred heroes exist, but maybe thousands of the awake and awakening could simply hold the vision. The disinformation and outright lying about Dennis Lee’s journey has been a significant reason why he has not been able to successfully rebuild his effort. Sterling Allan’s critique of Dennis’ efforts is the only honest, intelligent and somewhat informed one that I have ever seen, and I have seen a hundred of them. Again, if enough people simply loved the truth enough to pursue it, it might be enough. When the disinformation and attacks come, they hold their vision, because their understanding is rooted in a love of the truth and the desire to make the world a better place. Those who readily believed all the lies and/or helped the “bad guys” bury us do not have the integrity and discernment to help. If enough people came together with sufficient integrity and sentience, taking action will be the easy part, because it will be obvious. The hard part is finding those people.