The Curious Case of the Missing Energy Revolution

Distant Radiate Energy Sphere Emitting Smoky Rays And ParticlesEver stop to wonder why electronics, computers, robotics and just about every technology you can think of has advanced light years in mere decades, and yet we still make most of our energy using archaic 19th century motors and electrical generators?

Consider that the gasoline engine was invented in 1860 and the diesel engine in 1897. Modern coal-fired and nuclear plants rely on a steam engine to make their electricity. Wind power and solar energy have found wide use, yet have failed to achieve the level of deployment and versatility that could effectively displace the need for fossil fuels.

So what’s going on here? Why has our inventive genius failed to catapult our energy technology forward at the same breakneck speed of the evolution of the Internet, wireless communications or phone technology?

Unless —- it has, and it did. What if an alternative to fossil fuels may have been invented 100 years ago by a man named Nikola Tesla (1856-1943) who gave us radio, AC electricity, remote control, fluorescent lighting and much more. He famously declared, Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world’s machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas, or any other of the common fuels.

In mid-century, a number of inventors allegedly brought forth an assortment of new energy technologies, none of which achieved commercialization. In 1955, however, Austrian naturalist and inventor Viktor Schauberger (1885-1958) demonstrated an implosion machine that imitated nature’s centripetal forces. He noted that centripetal force far exceeds in efficiency the energy-wasting process of explosive, centrifugal force, which is the basis of our present-day energy systems. Schauberger said, The implosion motor … does not require any other fuel such as coal, oil, uranium or energy … since it can produce its own energy by biological means … through the use of water and air … in unlimited amounts.

Elements of Schauberger’s revolutionary technology made a brief appearance in Germany during WWII in the design of advanced flying machines. But the big propulsion payoff occurred following WWII when a number of unexplained and unlucky flying objects, performing impossible feats of speed and physics-defying aerodynamics, plummeted unexpected to earth. Once recovered, the devices would have subsequently yielded their secrets of advanced power generation to certain parties who classified the knowledge for military advantage and private financial gain.

The extraordinary events of the late 1940s and early 1950s correlates nicely with the sudden and rapid introduction of such innovative technologies as night-vision scopes, printed circuits, microwave overs, fiber optics and lasers. Cool stuff, but strangely no comparative new energy breakthroughs surfaced. Where are the 20th and 21st century energy prototypes and commercial devices that should have resulted from the efforts of our corporate and national labs, rogue physicists and intrepid garage inventors? Why haven’t they stumbled across or figured out how to pull energy out of magnetism, zero point energy, gravity, water or the radiant energy fields surrounding the earth as geniuses like Nikola Tesla, Viktor Schauberger and others have proposed? Those clever Manhattan Project scientists split the atom, releasing awesome amounts of energy, but their successors have apparently so far failed miserably, despite billions of dollars and state-of-the-art scientific knowledge and equipment, to develop a safe, inexpensive, and universal form of carbon-free energy that could serve at the individual household level or provide abundant motive power to a vehicle, train or plane.

Or perhaps they have? According to The Project on Government Secrecy, at the end of fiscal year 2015, the US patent office listed 5,579 patents that are officially “sequestered,” or subject to various levels of prohibition of development and use due to “national security” considerations. Could it be that any form of energy not dependent on fossil fuels remains too great a threat to the financial fortress of the fossil fuel feudal lords and global geopolitical balance, despite the deleterious impact the CO2 detritus of the combustion engine wreaks upon our unforgiving atmosphere?

But how much longer can we wait? How much more carbon dioxide, methane, mercury and other noxious, carcinogenic and toxic chemicals can we tolerate before the planet’s air, soil and water becomes lethal to life? Perhaps the energy technology revolution happened decades ago behind closed doors and high-security hangars and it’s just not being shared with the rest of us?

Learn why this this important information remains hidden from the public. Read Beyond Fire, Book 2 of the People of the Change.


Why I wrote the People of the Change Trilogy


I reject the apocalyptic doomsday visions where aliens in huge motherships invade the Earth, zombies are everywhere, and teenagers must fight to the death to entertain an enslaved and terrified populace.

I think we can do better. Humanity has just as much potential to create a more noble future where we need not own a half-dozen assault rifles and a basement full of canned food and bottled water to survive the next attack by lawless road warriors.

How about we consider a future that offers personal hope and the possibility of slowing global warming, creating a healthier environment, saving endangered species —Homo sapiens included — and successfully addressing the issues of climate, social and economic injustice.

If you think you’re ready to think way outside-of-the-box and are open to exploring truly radical ways of restructuring our world, join the extraordinary team in the People of the Change Trilogy  now playing at this website.


When the economic value of fossil fuels became zero

For those who built fortunes on the black gold, it was clear the grand gusher of global oil revenues would soon dwindle to a trickle. Royal families in Middle Eastern countries feared they could no longer contain the mullahs who depended on generous subsidies. Countries formerly fat with hydrocarbon reserves and fossil profits were finding themselves devoid of leverage and now functionally irrelevant. Terrorist organizations funded with oil- and gas-based largesse were frantically looking elsewhere for support. Now that the oil lanes in the Middle East and the gas lines in Eastern Europe no longer needed protection, the U.S. military was about to lose its day job.

At Wall Street, it was a day for the history books. After the closing bell, traders staggered onto the street reeling, breathlessly recounting the drama. They used terms such as “apocalyptic,” “total madness,” and “meltdown.” Pension, insurance and mutual fund managers crashed communications lines as they scrambled to protect their remaining fossil fuel investments from evisceration. Environmental organizations, church groups, progressive colleges and green mutual funds that had already divested themselves from fossil fuel companies watched amused from the sidelines, savoring the sweetness of vindication, trying hard not to shout “I told you so” from the rooftops.

And, of course, there were losers and winners: Oil, gas and coal companies and countries that had long relied on exporting fossil fuels faced a crisis of epic proportions, but for fossil fuel importers it was party time. The Great Global Reset Button had been pushed. The Fossil King was dead. It was a newly-ordered world now.

— Excerpted from Beyond Fire and Primal Source

Gaia has a fever

The news just keeps coming: 21A Global Warming Concept Image with cracked earth in front of a polluted city04 was hot, setting a new record in the period of instrumental data, but 2015 blew right past it, shattering the previous high mark. 2016 is on track to intimidate both 2014 and 2015.

Thanks to El Niño, errant tornadoes have raked Texas, Florida and Virginia, snow smothered parts of the East, and floods drowned towns in the South. Monster 50-foot waves in Hawaii provided kick-ass surfing opportunities for those crazy enough to risk freefalls of 30 feet into bone-crushing surf.

Perhaps Gaia (the self-regulating, life-system of Planet Earth), is trying to get our attention. It seems she has a fever. So what’s the purpose of a fever? Fever is a protective mechanism. Raise the body temperature sufficiently to enable healing by disabling or killing off hostile bacteria, viruses, and other unwelcomed biological interlopers. Ideally, the temperature is increased enough to rid the body of the offensive agents but not so high as to fatally endanger the host.

So scale up from body to planetary and what have we got? Planet Earth or Gaia senses her highly complex and multi-billion-year-old web of life is now seriously threatened by a single species – Homo sapiens. Then what’s Gaia gotta do in such a situation? Defend herself by using a proven natural response — fever.

Those who study the rapid escalation of Earth’s body temperature have termed the phenomena “global warming.” And they’ve accurately identified the root causes – combustion of fossil fuels, deforestation, release of methane by industrial plant and animal agriculture and the rapid melting of permafrost—all of which add gases into the air that cause excessive heat to be retained in the atmosphere.

But there are those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious — that Gaia’s fever is a perfectly natural and expected response to short-sighted, human activity, which is clearly lethal to the planetary fabric of life. How then will we respond — if humans are the disease and climate change and global warming is the “cure?”

“Humans do have an amazing capacity for believing what they choose and excluding that which is painful.” — Leonard Nimoy

Climate change is not political science


Climate change is not political science; it’s physical science: biology, chemistry and physics.

It’s obvious weather patterns are changing—the warmest ten years in recordkeeping have occurred during the last two decades; glaciers are melting rapidly, and by 2060 or so CO2 levels are due to double relative to the start of the Industrial Revolution. Climate scientists warn CO2 levels could reach 1,000 parts per million by the turn of the Century if we do nothing to change course.

I suspect denial is so attractive to some because the challenge of climate change and global warming represents such a profound existential threat to a cherished mindset that outright denial is the path of least resistance. Indeed, in the eyes and minds of those so deeply wedded to maintaining the world-as-it-used-to-be, the political, social and environmental issues posed by climate change simply cannot be considered even discussible.

Why? Because to open the mind and heart to the reality that a climate-changed world poses forces one to admit that the current social/political and economic paradigm is badly broken. Likely beyond repair. No longer viable. And certainly not sustainable. It’s the problem, not the solution. Simple fixes won’t be enough. What’s needed is a radical pivot, as Naomi Klein has so clearly stated in her recent book about climate change, This Changes Everything. In it, she calls for the total refutation of global capitalism.

So here’s the hot spot. This is the core of the matter for the deniers—the inviolable center that must be protected at all costs; that which must be defended to the death. Nothing else matters. Not the future of diverse species or the long-term habitability of the planet for one’s children and grandchildren.

But is this true for all the deniers? For some, yes. For many others, no. For those folks raking in the trillions of dollars from the final fossil fuel fire sale, it’s all about massive monetary gain. The dollars easily trump the physics of atmospheric chemistry and dead, acidic oceans. For the other giant reapers of mindless profit—the pharmaceutical and agricultural industries, and the military industrial complex, business as usual is all that matters. For the conservative religious-minded, the more people on the planet, the better.

But all of this is glaringly obvious to anyone who’s open to seriously examining the issue. The Big Question though is: how should/could reasonable, caring people respond to a situation where an immovable object is about to meet an irresistible force. The problem is: Anyone reading these words is currently resident at the point of impact. The good news is: For those who believe physical science trumps political science regarding climate change, options do exist for mitigation of the worst case impacts.

I’ve proposed the 80/80/80 Plan. The Plan calls for reducing fossil fuels, meat and dairy consumption and world population by 80% each. If such a plan were to be implemented soon, along with a similar reduction in material affluence, we’d dramatically lessen the human impact on the environment. We wouldn’t dodge the bullet completely, but the wound would not likely be fatal.

How might this play out? Well, that’s the tale that’s told in Beyond Fire and Primal Source. We’ll look more closely at this in my next few blogs.