May, 2007

N. Huntley, Ph.D.

We are using the term 'polarity' in the sense of separation, as opposed to unity, which then gives us a mechanism for explaining conflict, where it applies to human behaviour. We will take the conspiracy argument as an example and thus accomplish two purposes in one discussion: 1) clarification of the conspiracy conflict (that is, its authenticity and justification for utilising such a term), and 2) using it as an example of how polarity and subsequently conflict is manipulated.

Examples of creating polarity would be 1) introducing false information to person A, about another, B, derogatory to person B, and consequently placing these people at loggerheads and in a position of hostility. Whole groups can be manipulated in this way (for example, racial or managerial/workers conflicts). Religion/science is a major example of a powerful polarity that in its present form has no hope of reconciliation (see article The New Education, Part III: Reconciling Science and Religion).

Various negative events on our planet have been understandably referred to as conspiracies. However, this word has now become a charged label and cleverly (or idiotically) generalised; a trigger to take sides in a conflict which shouldn't even exist---except maybe in a relatively few cases.

Consider for a moment the horrendous chaos in our world: the wars, atrocities committed, diseases, and the incredible suffering occurring every split second, 24 hours a day. In particular, consider the massive corruption on all levels from the public to the highest authorities; a serial killer would be insignificant. Now does anyone really believe it is possible to have such a world without so-called conspiracies? It would be impossible!

Another important point is that one can't generalise with a word like 'conspiracy', as mentioned above. There would be cases where a conspiracy theorist will agree with the anti-conspiracist's examples (for instance, whether man really did land on the moon). Every example must be isolated individually for correct rational assessment. A technique to confuse people is to produce fakes of an event (say, UFOs) and have people believe it, and then prove to them they are fake (or let them find out), causing them to generalise and now disbelieve the genuine examples. Thus these can also be examples of false conspiracies deliberately planted to fuel the anti-conspiracists, but often recognised by the well-researched conspiracists as being fake.

This is a widespread programme and a weakness of society to generalise and group everything into superficial unjustified categories ('They did that . . . 'Who did?' . . .'Oh . . . he did', etc.). There are many tricks to polarise a society (and also nations, resulting in wars; and national conflicts following '911'). One is encouraged to quickly form opinions about something (one may know nothing about), take sides and attack the other side.

Of course the very explanations regarding setting up polarities implies the presence of conspiracies. A dictionary definition of conspiracy is: An agreement among conspirators; a plot, secret scheme.

For example, supposing we have a person whose mail is regularly intercepted (and lost). This satisfies the term 'secret' since the source will not admit it. But what is the purpose? Let's suppose it is to eavesdrop on the nature of the communication with a view to stopping the sender from communicating information which might expose or disseminate the nefarious deeds of the source. Is this a plot? But what if the sender is a criminal and the purpose is to intercept and stop a crime? Is this also a plot, a conspiracy? What about honest people conspiring to improve the world, to expose government corruption, etc.?

One can see how irrational it can be to generalise on the word 'conspiracy.' One must take each case and example for its own contents; unless this is done people are arguing unnecessarily. To confuse matters further, regarding the question of what constitutes a conspiracy, one might observe that most major conspiracies on this planet are not really conspiracies---at least in the present stage of development of them. Let us give a simple analogy presented in a previous article to clarify this.

Consider, say, a manager of a company informing the president of suspicious behaviour within the company from, say, a couple of groundfloor workers and a further manager. This might be termed a conspiracy. Now, as a second version and to simulate our real circumstances more closely, the president, who is, say, with his executives in his office, thanks the manager for the information and promises to investigate the matter (which might be certain staff members' unethical dealings with another company). But as the manager leaves the president's office, the president turns to his executives, smiles and murmurs, 'If only he knew . . . we're running the company' (meaning the heads of the company are involved). It thus may be a very big picture in which the term 'conspiracy' is inadequate.

Let us now present a few examples of what could be called 'conspiracies;' beginning with a couple which are (or may be) a mere hint of deeper and more sinister underhand motivations.

The author's website, which only contains one article on the free-energy problem, is on the forbidden list, and not accessable to staff members of a large energy generation company in the U.S.---as explained to the author by a colleague who is general manager of this company.

When in the U.S. the author experienced the complete loss of every communication by mail on the subject of spacecraft propulsion, UFOs and ETs. In one case, one large box of books (early book by author entitled The Secrets of Flying Saucer Propulsion) with the title stamped on the box (original printer's box), of a total of ten similar boxes (all, other titles though) sent out to a book seller and author's agent) was lost (only this one) with a brief note from the Post Office stating the box came open and none of the books were retrievable (about $400 worth). Regarding this book, more recently the author received an e-mail from the chairman of a company who had at some earlier period obtained a copy of this book, thanking the author, stating that it was instrumental in their success into electrogravitic propulsion (a form of antigravity). A nondisclosure (of details) agreement was signed and a consultation availability agreed upon if the case arose.

A completely different but important example would be John Swinton's speech regarding the 'independent press'. He was chief of staff of the New York Times and gave this speech at a banquet in his honour. The following is a sample from the speech: '. . . It is the business of the journalist to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, to sell his country and race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it; what is this folly of toasting an independent press. We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our lives, our possibilities are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes'.

The above speaks for itself and doesn't require comment other than that its conspiratorial context of withholding information from the public and manipulating minds is obvious.

What about the 'Father of electricity'? The Smithsonian Museum in America has been severely reproved for its outrageous misrepresentation of Edison as the 'Father of electricity', when it is known without doubt to be Nikola Tesla. It was in fact Tesla who invented the successful light bulb (not Edison) and who developed AC mains, the electric motor and generator, etc. and even a pump and turbine principle which hardly wore out the parts (and therefore not used?). He understood and applied radio before it was put into practice by Marconi, and further he had the correct radio theory early last century, which is not taught today. Nor are taught brilliant physicist Maxwell's electromagnetic equations in the original form. They were altered by Oliver Heavside to remove the scalar and asymmetric terms (which gave a deeper insight into electromagnetic processes) with subsequent loss of vital physics which would have led to a proper understanding of the zero-point free-energy process and a more advanced physics, with all the benefits that would follow. (Note that Heaviside was apparently unaware of the disastrous consequences of eliminating these right-hand terms in the equations.)

Tesla's oscillator tower, intended to bring free energy to the world, was eventually destroyed for scrap, since all funding had been withdrawn. A similar loss occurred for engineer Golka in the 1970s, who was in the process of duplicating Tesla's tower for the same purpose.

There are many instances of the suppression of antigravity, notably John Searle's successful efforts with levity discs over many years (company raided by law enforcement officers), and Otis Carr's two manned 'saucer' spacecraft (confiscated by the covert government).

University projects are being controlled more and more by government funding (this is not the 'visible' government). Research teams are threatened with withdrawal of government funds if they continue with certain projects which had proven valid, such as cold-fusion, and negative resistance (for instance, in carbon fibres)---both of which would lead to abundant energy for the masses.

Similar circumstances hold for corrupt manipulations in the medical field (see article: The Suppression of Knowledge, Discoveries and the Free Energy Problem). Two of the most promising, and in fact successful areas of medical advancements into incurable diseases were the research of Dr Royal Rife and Dr Antoinne Priore. With support and some funding the inventions of these great scientists could have potentially cured all diseases. (Note that there is always the dubious element of the frame of mind of the individual and it is not until 'subconscious' agreement is acquired in the masses that a total cure is likely to be attained; that is, a cure will depend on the absence of such impeding conditional factors as belief systems.)

And what about terrorism? Have we become so naive as to think that there is, or ever was, any real threat from terrorism as portrayed in the media? The war on terrorism, and also drugs, is a hoax (meaning the cause is not revealed). To the informed it is hard to believe that apparently normal, good people (in many cases), can go to some length to defend the anti-conspiracist agenda with articles, books and general dissemination. Who are these people? . . . government agents? . . . programmed selected individuals? . . . or just generally brain-washed by the media? If only these people knew the negative contribution they were making to the proper evolution and survival of our civilisation.

Return to Home Page