Overcoming the Scarcity Paradigm
Wade Frazier is one of the most brilliant and tireless researchers I know. Wade has lived an extraordinary life having come face to face with many real life situations most of us will never encounter. In his recent essay, he covers essential territory for those interested in becoming part of birthing an abundance paradigm and leaving behind the idea of scarcity that has ruled our lives for too many generations.
If you are lazy, in denial or are one of the few making fortunes at the expense of the many and the earth, this article is definitely not for you. If you are willing to open your mind to new possibilities and leave behind many of the assumptions that have dominated Western thought for far to long and led us to the multiple crises we face, you may find this article thought provoking and empowering.
If you begin reading and find yourself not wanting to continue because what you read is disturbing, continue. We grow by moving through previous limits. If you find this information compelling and are interested in exploring more, you’ll find thousands of pages at this writers site. And, if you have not read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, you may also want to check that book out. The author, John Perkins is another man who lived in the underbelly of our economic system, decided he could no longer play that game and felt compelled to share the truth behind the headlines. Both these men are true heroes and patriots living in the New Paradigm. The world needs many more like them.
Nearly all of today’s economic activism is focused on more equitably slicing up humanity’s scarce economic pie, not making the pie a hundred times larger.
Keys to Comprehending Abundance-Based Paradigms
By Wade Frazier
This essay was inspired by many years of interaction with the public, friends, allies and critics on the issues of free energy, healing the planet and attempts to communicate the idea of an abundance-based paradigm. If we cannot even comprehend an abundance-based paradigm, we cannot pursue one. The most formidable barrier to comprehension seemed to be assumptions so deeply ingrained that they are invisible to those holding them. Scarcity-based ideologies are only ideas that were fed us, and we can choose other ideas. Humanity’s survival may depend on it.
Thomas Kuhn was the most prominent writer to begin using the modern definition of paradigm, which describes the framework that science operates within. The term can also describe the frameworks girding other disciplines. Systematic thinking is older than civilization, and today’s various systems of thought are sometimes called paradigms, ideologies or the “isms.” All ideologies have a set of foundational assumptions. The ideologies that currently dominate American thinking include:
Those are all based on the scarcity principle because they exalt one group at the expense of others; the first three do so quite obviously, while the last three are subtler. Other scarcity-based ideologies have been under siege in America during my lifetime, such as racism and sexism, and may be on their way out, largely due to the relatively high standard of living that Americans enjoy. Abundance-based paradigms can make all scarcity-based ideologies obsolete.
All scarcity-based ideologies are rooted, to one degree or another, in economic scarcity, which in turn is based on energy scarcity. Experienced people in the free energy field are aware that abundant, free, environmentally harmless and forever renewable energy technology exists today but is suppressed. If that technology escaped its suppression, all scarcity-based ideologies can fade away, similar to how sexism and racism gradually are. With dismaying frequency, people object to very idea of free energy and abundance, often quite violently. For those critically examining the nature of their objections, it quickly becomes apparent that they are defending their adoptive, scarcity-based ideologies from the threat of abundance-based assumptions. Humanity’s apparent addiction to scarcity-based ideologies is related to the political-economic benefits accruing to their adherents.
While performing the research for this website, striking similarities became evident when comparing the currently prevailing dynamic for how civilizations have collapsed to a compelling alternative dynamic for how the human body succumbs to degenerative disease. Those dynamics can help illuminate the path to free energy.
Joseph Tainter proposed the currently favored dynamic for why civilizations have collapsed over the millennia. Civilizations generally appeared when people became sedentary, which was dependent on a local and stable energy source. Such stationary sources usually relied on the domestication of plants and animals (although not always, such as with the Pacific Northwest culture that relied on salmon swimming up rivers). The energy surplus provided by domestication and the concentration of humans in settled areas allowed for human specialization, and professions developed. Tainter described the increasing specialization and its attendant “advances” as the “investment in complexity” which was paid with the coin of energy, which has been the engine of all ecosystems and economic systems for all time. In ancient civilizations, food delivered most energy. After studying all proposed explanations for the collapse of civilizations, Tainter concluded that collapse came due to energy scarcity. When a hungry urban specialist returned to the countryside for greater food security, the city lost some of its collective skill. When the trickle of exiting specialists became a flood, often taking with them anything they could carry, the urban environments began to collapse. The specialists reverted to more “primitive” behavior in order to survive, which doomed the civilization.
Louis Pasteur’s germ theory of disease is a cornerstone of modern biology and medicine. However, there is persuasive evidence that Pasteur’s germ theory is a flawed plagiarism of his contemporary, Antoine Béchamp, whose discoveries pointed toward a different paradigm than Pasteur’s. One consequence of Béchamp’s discoveries was a different dynamic to describe life and decay processes. During the 20th century, a number of scientists, either following Béchamp’s lead or pursuing their research independently, discovered similar if not identical dynamics. Those discoveries are partly based on viewing life processes with microscopes (1, 2) that achieve resolutions considered “impossible” by Isaac Newton’s optical theory. The findings of those microscopes are virtually irrefutable, particularly by a scientific establishment that refuses to look through them, in a situation that recalls Galileo’s detractors refusing to look through his telescope to see Jupiter’s moons.
The dynamic first noted by Béchamp and further developed by his professional descendants begins with the understanding that multi-cellular life forms are made possible by specialization. When life was unicellular, each cell had to do it all: acquiring energy and other nutrients, maintaining its metabolism, expelling waste and living. The human body is filled with specialized cells that form the foundation of every organ, structure and system. When those specialized cells receive proper nutrition (most nutrition is energy) they effectively perform their specialized task. However, as Gaston Naessens precisely documented long ago, when cells do not receive proper nutrition, they begin losing their specialization. If the body fails to live up to the “deal,” those specialized cells take matters into their own hands. They lose their specialization, revert to more “primitive” behaviors to survive, and even begin robbing nutrients from their neighbors, becoming biological brigands. Every degenerative disease that Naessens studied had the same sub-cellular dynamic, the most common outward manifestation being cancer.
In both the collapse of civilization and the self-destruction of the human body, the specialists abandoned specialization when the system failed to meet their needs. When civilizations collapsed, attempts to preserve them included coercing specialists to remain at their urban posts. However, providing them what they needed was both the cause and the cure. Coercing the specialist dealt with the symptom instead of the cause. Similarly, today’s orthodox cancer treatments attack those former specialists that reverted to more primitive behavior in their quest for survival. Naessens’ brilliant treatment feeds the cancer cells instead of attacking them.
Symptom suppression always fails when the cause remains unaddressed. In crisis situations, suppressing symptoms may be appropriate, but the only lasting solution is addressing the cause. A stressed body causes degenerative disease, whether from poor nutrition (dead food is responsible for most poor nutrition), imbibing caffeine, nicotine, alcohol and other stimulants/depressants, industrial pollutants (fluoride and many others), psychological stress and other stresses such as inhaling smoke. The essence of Western medicine is symptom suppression. The U.S. medical establishment rarely compensates people for preventing disease. To borrow from Ben Franklin, why sell prevention by the ounce, when “cure” can be sold by the pound? Virtually every alternative cancer treatment that abandons the “attack the tumor” paradigm of Western medicine (and they are almost all harmless, cheap and vastly more effective than surgery, radiation and chemotherapy) is outlawed in the United States. Western medicine has yet to adopt the paradigm that deals with causes, and even attacks and suppresses it because it is not lucrative. However, the most important issue is not that Western medicine is a racket that only provides symptom suppression, but that nearly everybody plays along, giving their power away to that establishment. Accepting responsibility for one’s health requires self-discipline, the kind that few regularly exercise. The system also indoctrinates people into ceding their power to it. The only viable solution is people accepting responsibility for their health and practicing prevention.
Whether it was an urban specialist returning to the farm or a specialized cell turning cancerous, each specialist bore some responsibility for the system’s failure. Blind specialization, without seeing the whole, is part of the problem. R. Buckminster Fuller observed that specialization in science has served to keep scientists controlled by the ruling class. Activists must distinguish the forest from the trees, branches from roots, and address causes instead of symptoms in order to be effective. Not only could such efforts forestall the looming catastrophe, it could begin looking a lot like heaven on earth if relatively few people began directing their efforts toward causes instead of symptoms.
Global civilization is obviously in crisis, and earth’s environment is increasingly precarious. In July 2008, the global economy is being buffeted by financial and earthly storms, with financial and crop failures gaining momentum, oil is nearing $150 per barrel, gold is nearing $1,000 per ounce, and food prices are skyrocketing. Mainstream analyses are plagued by assumptions girding the dominant ideologies (capitalism, nationalism, scientism, and so on), and have limited validity. For instance, it was easy to foresee the economic catastrophe unfolding today, although few mainstream pundits saw it coming and today often dispense the standard bromides of “all is well,” as extraordinary measures are enacted (such as the Federal Reserve’s interventions in 2008), or “the storm has passed,” before it has even hit shore.
Two schools of non-mainstream analytics have dominated for many years, and are generally associated with the radical “left” and “right.” Noam Chomsky and friends epitomize the radical left. Their analyses are characterized by careful scholarship and rejecting the mainstream assumptions that gird nationalism, capitalism and organized religion. There are almost no scientists in their ranks, but their work adopts a scientific approach that examines societal structures. Their style of analytics is called structural or institutional analysis.
The radical right’s analytics tend to focus on elite activities as they act in concert and secrecy to manipulate the world’s political-economic systems. Those elites usually act through the world’s dominant institutions, which they may nominally control, but do so for private ends. Such analytics are often called “conspiracy theories” or conspiracism, with those labels usually applied in a pejorative sense.
Those differences exemplify two related schools of thought: the “mass movement” and “great man” theories of history. Mohandas K. Gandhi led India to freedom from Great Britain, and did it with fasting and non-violent civil disobedience. While he was a leader without peer, and the millions who followed him provided the momentum that broke Britain’s grip. However, Gandhi did not invent non-violent civil disobedience; India adopted non-violent forms of resistance only after the British repressed the so-called Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 with extreme violence. Also, British weakness after World War II was the key dynamic in their loss of empire, which also happened to France and other colonial powers weakened by World War II. While Gandhi was indeed a great leader, global political-economic dynamics provided him the opportunity for success. Were Gandhi’s virtues, the movement he led, or British imperial weakness responsible for India’s peoples becoming independent of British rule? The “great man” theory would credit Gandhi. The “mass movement” theory would credit the millions behind him. A more comprehensive political-economic analysis might give greater weight to the imperial trajectory that resulted in British weakness.
People atop steeply hierarchical economic/political/social systems often do act in unison, in secrecy, and quite unethically and even criminally. Here are some examples.
- In 1782, as the American Revolution was ending, George Washington authored the plan that the American government immediately adopted to defraud American Indians of their lands. Washington became America’s richest man by private land grabs, and he led an army into the Ohio River Valley in a land-grabbing attempt, and that time he was captured by the French and their Indian allies, in an event that helped trigger the world’s first global war. Succeeding American presidents such as Thomas Jefferson followed Washington’s strategy quite directly, while never disclosing that plan its victims. Washington’s plan was his crowning achievement; he designed what is arguably history’s greatest swindle, but anybody trying to find mention of it in the standard biographies of America’s greatest Founding Father will be disappointed. Washington’s plan and its execution comprise an abundantly documented conspiracy that the American government engaged in for nearly a century, until there were no more Indians left to swindle.
- As I discovered long ago from somebody who received inside information from John Tower in December 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald did not murder John F, Kennedy. Oswald was a military intelligence operative working under E. Howard Hunt’s direction to stage a fake assassination attempt on JFK and frame Fidel Castro, to justify invading Cuba. Operation Northwoods was either a parent or parallel operation: the Pentagon’s counterpart of what Hunt developed for the CIA. Hunt’s operation was compromised and JFK was killed. While it is of dubious importance to discover who was really behind it, what is important was how the American establishment covered it up, beginning with the fiction known as the Warren Commission’s report. Unlike Washington’s plan, there is no publicly available paper trail to follow regarding those behind JFK’s murder.
- Panama won its “freedom” from Colombia in what is arguably history’s most fake “revolution.” A syndicate headed by J.P. Morgan bankrolled the so-called revolution. The largest payment the U.S. government ever made to that time was to buy the Panama Canal from Morgan’s syndicate, which made a fortune from the deal. While portions of the conspiracy have been uncovered, the Morgan syndicate went to great lengths to hide its involvement, with massive document destruction and other machinations. Historians have a difficult time determining how deeply the conspiracy went with the sitting president, Teddy Roosevelt. Morgan’s partner in the syndicate was William Nelson Cromwell, whose law firm had a heavy hand in Latin America during subsequent generations. Cromwell eventually handed his empire over to his handpicked successor, John Foster Dulles, who became Dwight Eisenhower’s Secretary of State. John’s brother Allen ran the CIA under Eisenhower, and the Dulles brothers jointly mounted the operation to overthrow the Guatemalan government in 1954 on behalf of United Fruit, which the Dulles brothers had a financial stake in. A year earlier, the Dulles brothers helped overthrow the Iranian government on behalf of American oil companies. Teddy Roosevelt’s son Kermit staged the Iranian coup. Kermit’s operation was too easily traced to the U.S. government, so the CIA and friends have been privatizing American-based covert action ever since, making it even more difficult for analysts such as Chomsky to assess the documentation. A family member was a privatized covert soldier and almost tried recruiting me into the family “business,” which I reveal publicly for the first time here. JFK fired Allen Dulles for the botched Bay of Pigs operation (which Hunt ran, as he did the Watergate burglary), but Allen got his vengeance by sitting on the Warren Commission, covering up the CIA’s involvement. Key records of John Foster Dulles’s activities while he was running the Cromwell Empire have either been destroyed or remain private