31 Reply by onionworld (edited by onionworld 2006-04-20 08:09:25)

  • Registered: 2005-09-22

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

visavis wrote:

I belive the war against us IS very real... and 'war' is a great term for it, but we can't fight back on ITS terms.  Also, I've had several dreams that the whole thing is really just prescripted anyways and everything is just playing out as should be.  So I guess my opinion is slanted in that direction, that the 'war' which seems sooooo negative is really ok because it stimulates us to transcend.

I've had a strong feeling for a while that everything is ok too. If you think about, outside of this world,  there is no time. I read a post on another board that said something that really resonated with me, (paraphrasing) "The dark forces have already been defeated." IMHO, that has to be true, I just feel it in my core being. Something came to mind when I was thinking about that, a seemingly dumb little movie called "Bedazzled" which was about a guy who sells his soul to the devil. After the guy realizes what a horrible deal it was he tells the devil that he doesn't want any part of it anymore so she throws him prison to think about it. He meets a guy there who gives him the information he needs to escape. Because of this meeting, the guy who sold his soul decides as his final wish (he was given seven wishes for his soul) he wants the woman he loves to be happy forever. The devil then tells him that she must set him free because "any act of genuine benevolence voids the contract." In the end, he's set free and it's clear that he's a very different and much improved person. At the end of the movie, for just a split second, is the kicker: the devil and the guy from the prison are playing chess together!!! He walks by them and they both look at him and smile, with loving looks on their faces for goodness sakes! Ah, it was all a big game that allowed him a chance to grow. I'm telling you that I believe this is the truth. Please see this movie if you can.

32 Reply by onionworld (edited by onionworld 2006-04-20 08:11:39)

  • Registered: 2005-09-22

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

Marcus wrote:
onionworld wrote:
whywhywhy wrote:

Exactly!  But it is hard to keep even keel.  I wish everybody will remember this statement before responding to a post which they deemed offensive or contrary to their "beliefs".  I have been guilty of it in the past and I am afraid I will transgress in the future but the number of times I do it are reducing and hopefully will continue to do so.

Regards,

Lee

I'm sorry but I think it's nonsense. So, if you see pictures of the torture going on in the mideast and it offends you, then it's no problem because you only imagined it. What garbage.

Maybe it is just a matter of different word usage.  "Offense" to me implies that something has to go against ideas that you hold as important, and that you take the contradiction of those ideas as a personal insult.

What image you describe may cause upset, hurt, anger etc.  But it needn't cause "offense".

But it depends on how the word offensive is being used.  I think you and Lee are using the word in different contexts to each other...

That reminds me of another statement, "You can't argue a belief system." smile

33 Reply by visavis (edited by visavis 2006-04-20 08:44:28)

  • Registered: 2005-10-16

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

Interesting stuff Barefoot Doc, but the parts of that theory that assume any sort of Darwinianism are pure rubbish. smile

"The unknown does not incite fear, but dependence on the known does." - J. Krishnamurti

visavis's Website

  • From: Zion
  • Registered: 2004-09-28

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

This is a very interesting thread. I'd just like to add that what we term a "soul" is not a single energetic entity, but rather a collection of several subtle bodies, layered around the physical, that each provide a specific function. For a really good description of these subtle bodies, take a look at http://www.kheper.net/topics/subtlebody/

So I think that, rather than it being a case of a dualistic soul distancing itself from its corresponding physical body, it is perhaps the case that one or more of these subtle bodies becomes diseased, then either fragments or simply functions incorrectly. In the case of OPs, where there is a definite feeling that the lights are on but nobody's home, perhaps it is simply that the emotional body becomes so diseased that it shuts down completely, disconnecting the individual from their emotional feed.

"Fear is the great barrier to human growth. Unknowns create fears. When these Unknowns become Knowns the fears diminish and disappear, and we are able to cope with whatever confronts us." - Robert A. Monroe

35 Reply by Barefoot Doc (edited by Barefoot Doc 2006-04-20 10:46:23)

  • From: England
  • Registered: 2005-04-20

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

visavis wrote:

Interesting stuff Barefoot Doc, but the parts of that theory that assume any sort of Darwinianism are pure rubbish. smile

I'm with you on Darwinianism smile
The model presented by RAW/Leary seems to be a  more detailed breakdown of mind states for spiritual growth and  many "OP" types  i have observed seem to be stuck in survival, anal/emotional or the intellectual/semantic imprint using the this model.

I like this quote from RAW

Reichians, disciples of Dr. Spock and the Summerhill School,
etc. have called attention, with some impatience, to the brutality
and stupidity of many of our traditional child-rearing methods.
These methods are "brutal" and "stupid" only if, like the above-
mentioned heretics, one regards the goal of child-rearing as the
production of a sane, balanced, creative [NOT CRATED] human
being. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN THE GOAL OF ANY SOCIETY
IN THE REAL WORLD. The traditional childrearing methods are
quite logical, pragmatic and sound in fulfilling the real purpose
of society, which is not to create an ideal person, but to create
[CRATE] a semi-robot who mimics the society as closely as
possible–both in its rational and its irrational aspects, both as
the repository of the wisdom of the past and as the sum total of
all the cruelties and stupidities of the past. Very simply, a totally
aware, alert, awakened (unbrainwashed) person would not fit
very well into any of the standard roles society offers; the dam-
aged, robotized products of traditional child-rearing do fit into these slots

Its not like we are fractions of the whole but rather versions of the whole.
  • Registered: 2004-10-15

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

Interesting information in that quote Barefoot.  Do you have any links to more information from that source, and other similar ones?  Particually in regards to raising chilren, which I will have a sigificant interest in.

Thought Manifestation

Marcus's Website

37 Reply by Barefoot Doc (edited by Barefoot Doc 2006-04-20 11:16:41)

  • From: England
  • Registered: 2005-04-20

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

Marcus wrote:

Interesting information in that quote Barefoot.  Do you have any links to more information from that source, and other similar ones?  Particually in regards to raising chilren, which I will have a sigificant interest in.

All the RAW stuff came from his book Prometheus rising which is a very interesting read. There is a free PDF version http://www.solharvest.com/cclosers/RAWi … etheus.pdf

I am  raising my own three children and still learning smile we dont follow anyones advise there but just learn by our mistakes, plenty of love and time, lots of nature and tell em to question things. smile

Its not like we are fractions of the whole but rather versions of the whole.

38 Reply by z3n3rg (edited by z3n3rg 2006-04-20 11:30:40)

  • Registered: 2006-03-29

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

onionworld wrote:

We may be talking symantics here but: war is defined as "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."

What you've described is an attack. Defined as "To make an attack; launch an assault"

In order for it be a war (according to the definition), at least two parties have to be involved in fighting against each other.

Definitions from http://dictionary.reference.com

It was an analogy.  The subject of the analogy wasn't war.  It was about the parallels of the visible human toll of a soldier compared to that of your average adult.  I was using a lower level situation to show parallels to a higher level situation.  My post was not concerned with the lower level definition of war.  The subject of the post wasn't even about war.

You took the first two sentences out of context of the post (and the thread).  You then kept the idea at the physical level and presented additional facts to show that we aren't engaged in a physical war unless we are fighting the system.  Then added an Icke quote to back it up.  This has several markings of going way out of the way to be confrontational.

This has the effect of derailing the subject of your own thread.  It got me to jump tracks and talk about war when I was talking about OPs.

I then asked you to further clarify and you give a definition of war.  I'm wondering why you took an obvious analogy out of context and concentrated on it in order to disagree with it.

Beyond that, I agree with your later post that it's all a game to help us ascend.  Even the Cs said that "they" already lost but just couldn't see it because of wishful thinking.  But that's not the level we are talking about (or even the subject).  This is something else I've noticed quite frequently when talking on metaphysical boards.  I've done it myself.  I call it level jumping.  No matter what discussion we have I could always jump to the highest level and say we are all One and totally derail the discussion.  Although my intentions may be the best when doing that, it doesn't do the learning process any good.  I also noticed that people have used this "level jumping" puposedly to derail a thread or to make their ego feel superior to another.

Not saying that's what you are doing at all.  I'm not sure why you jumped multiple levels here and changed the subject.  You took my analogy and jumped to a lower level to show we aren't engaged in war and then you jumped to a level above it later on to show that "everything is ok".  Both instances can be considered correct in their respective context.  But we aren't talking about that.  We are talking about OPs.  I'm not asking for a definition of war.  I'm asking why you took my analogy out of context.

  • Registered: 2004-10-15

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

Barefoot Doc wrote:

I am  raising my own three children and still learning smile we dont follow anyones advise there but just learn by our mistakes, plenty of love and time, lots of nature and tell em to question things. smile

Thanks for the info then.

Just about to send you an e-mail...

Thought Manifestation

Marcus's Website

  • Risen
  • Risen
  • The Anti-Ism
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2005-09-30

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

z3n3rg wrote:
onionworld wrote:

Definitions from http://dictionary.reference.com

It was an analogy.  The subject of the analogy wasn't war.  It was about the parallels of the visible human toll of a soldier compared to that of your average adult.  I was using a lower level situation to show parallels to a higher level situation.  My post was not concerned with the lower level definition of war.  The subject of the post wasn't even about war.

Screw what he said, and the dictionary too.  You might have just used it as an analogy, but it IS a war.  And I disagree that you need 2 sides on offensive for a war.  We should just scrap the shallow 3d-oriented dictionary here and just say that war is something along the lines of :

"a sustained series of attacks by one or more parties in attempt to reach a particular goal or goals".

Reference.com can kiss my entire arse.  Quacks like a duck.

This is no time for the righteous
Only the wicked survive
Bake up a batch of the Yellow Cake
Bake up a batch of the lies
- - - - -[ Yellow Cake - Ministry - Rio Grande Blood (2006)

41 Reply by SednaSphere (edited by SednaSphere 2006-04-20 19:33:23)

  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

Speaking of Organic Portals, I went to the drugstore last night for an item, and I brought a bottle of water with me (one of those vitamin water bottles with the label still on, refilled with my own water). I went to the register with a 4.99 item, and
the guy scans it and tells me that I owe him 6.50. I assumed he was either incompetent, tired, or messing with me deliberately. But I politely asked him why
the charge was as it was, explaining it was a sale marked item, and maybe that was the problem. He mumbled something back about tax, other things that made no sense. So I said I'd get another, less expensive version of the item, figuring there was some mistake, and feeling the need to get the heck out of there, as sardonic smirks were being exchanged by several males who looked suspicious, including the guy who rang me up.

So I get the item and I go back to the register again. He scans it, and then he scanned the water bottle I brought with me. "Oh, no, this is mine," I said, "It's a refilled bottle I brought with me." He looked like a deer stunned by headlights for a second, then he went back to acting all cool and robotic and unresponsive. "No wonder it was so crazy" I said. NO RESPONSE. Just a blank look. A slight shrug:
Hear no evil, see no evil, blah blah blah. All with no words. I swear the hive minds at this place know I'm coming from a mile away. It's funny at this point. So with my head slightly spinning, I said "Thanks so much." and left. As soon as I was outside, I muttered "And go f*** yourself" under my breath. I'm a bit of a hothead
that way...I really don't like being f***** with, especially under such stupid circumstances.

Sure, it could have been an honest mistake, but I've had problems with this same
guy before, and he never knows how to do anything, he never makes any gesture
of even mild interest in customer satisfaction to save his own hide, or even appears to know exactly where he is or what he is doing. It's really like a robot with limited function, like "huh, wha? I know how to type these numbers, scan things...I scan I scan I scan whatever comes in front of my eyes eyes eyes eyes
bluuuuurp bleeeeep bliiiiiip ftzzzztttttt!!!!! I know nothing! I know nothing!

God. It grates on one, it does, it does.

By the way....wasnt' there an original Organic Portals thread somewhere with alot of our experiences. I did a search, and I didn't see it. Perhaps I missed it?

  • Registered: 2005-09-22

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

z3n3rg wrote:

It's War!  Adults are like the soldiers that have been on the front lines for months or longer.  They have that 1,000 yard stare.  Operate in fully automatic mode.  And suppress their personalities.

My own thoughts are that the soul goes into a coma after awhile.  It turns dark.  The childhood spark is gone.  The human disconnects and starts to show the signs of a soldier in the battlefield.  It replaces the soul with the ego.  The ego can be fed quite easily.  Where as the soul is more difficult to feed in our society.  Once that spark has went out it takes a lot to respark it.  It looks like so many have just given up and go on autopilot.

The definition of organic portal as given by the Cs was a human body that was ready for graduating animal souls.  They also stated that it's currently balanced;  3 billion souled and 3 billion OPs.  The OPs could possibly be inhabited by animal souls. 

The other thing is that if the OP theory is correct, these are humans.  Humans have massive brain capacity and all the wiring for emotions.  They are in no way "sub-human" as they are by definition human.  And any advanced intelligence will attract soul matter and create a soul imprint.  The more seeking and learning the denser the soul imprint will become.  The denser the imprint the more ability to attract more soul matter.  It's a snowball effect.

However, given the extreme pervasive negativity in society, I can see how it would be difficult to use this soul energy for positive purposes.  Most likely it would be used to seek additional power to compensate for the feelings of disempowerment.  Society is a constant attacking mechanism.  The ego is the response to this mechanism.  Any higher energy aquired by an individual may be used to compensate for the energy taken from it throughout it's childhood.  In other words, it would seek to become the predator instead of the prey.


Edit to add...

I can't directly comment on Icke's words.  To be completely honest I don't like reading his work.  It's like when I tried to read IT by Stephen King.  It's just way too wordy for my taste.  Get to the friggin point.  It's an evil clown that lives in the sewer and feeds on fear.  But yea, I don't think I'll ever read any large amount of Icke's work.  I don't find it necessary.  Give me the basics and I'll test them in real-life in real-time and use my own mind to fill in the blanks.

I'm sorry, I can see now that you used those first two sentences as sort of like how reporters use a lead in newspaper articles. They use the first couple of sentences to get people's attention but it doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with the rest of the article. In this case, your first two sentences led me astray and led me to come to the wrong conclusions regarding your post. I'm sorry for that.

  • Registered: 2006-03-29

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

onionworld wrote:

I'm sorry, I can see now that you used those first two sentences as sort of like how reporters use a lead in newspaper articles. They use the first couple of sentences to get people's attention but it doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with the rest of the article. In this case, your first two sentences led me astray and led me to come to the wrong conclusions regarding your post. I'm sorry for that.

No problem, onionworld.  Thank you for clearing it up.  smile

Just so it's understood, I have no issue with going off topic or jumping levels as long as there's a clear cut path so everyone can be on the same page.  This is something I have to be aware of for myself.  I find that if there's a higher level lesson that relates to a lower level discussion, I add that in without a clear path or connection to the subject.  Such things can be frustrating and I certainly don't want to frustrate anyone.  So I have to be aware and offer that clear transition so that everyone is able to see where I'm coming from.  As the old cass group would call it, external consideration.

  • Registered: 2005-09-22

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

z3n3rg wrote:
onionworld wrote:

I'm sorry, I can see now that you used those first two sentences as sort of like how reporters use a lead in newspaper articles. They use the first couple of sentences to get people's attention but it doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with the rest of the article. In this case, your first two sentences led me astray and led me to come to the wrong conclusions regarding your post. I'm sorry for that.

No problem, onionworld.  Thank you for clearing it up.  smile

Just so it's understood, I have no issue with going off topic or jumping levels as long as there's a clear cut path so everyone can be on the same page.  This is something I have to be aware of for myself.  I find that if there's a higher level lesson that relates to a lower level discussion, I add that in without a clear path or connection to the subject.  Such things can be frustrating and I certainly don't want to frustrate anyone.  So I have to be aware and offer that clear transition so that everyone is able to see where I'm coming from.  As the old cass group would call it, external consideration.

I understand, I really appreciate your contributions, thank you. smile

  • Registered: 2005-09-22

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

visavis wrote:

Isn't there a school of shamanism or something that says the infinite soul can 'see' the first 13 years of life before it incarnates?  It seems to me that if we were gonna put an age number on an averaged-out turning point, that might be a good one.  Perhaps that has something to do with it.  Perhaps if it ain't really anchored in there by 13, it starts to checkout slowly (or not so slowly).  Like it "fulfilled" the 13 year deal...  Hmm.

I had a teacher in college who said that 13 seemed to be the key age for a lot of people. He said that people who "go bad" seem to do it invariably when they hit 13 years old.