46 Reply by z3n3rg (edited by z3n3rg 2006-04-21 04:32:53)

  • Registered: 2006-03-29

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

Back on the subject of OPs for a minute.  There's a particular stance I used to always take when the topic came up over in CassChat.  This will be quite a long introduction so I'll reintroduce this main point when I get down to it.

First, I wanted to address belief and it's opposite disbelief.  On the other board I frequent, I see these words used all too often.  I personally see these as self-created mental boxes used to keep the mind comfortable instead of embracing infinity.  I neither believe nor disbelieve anything.  If I believed something then anything that didn't fit would have to be rejected.  If I disbelieved something then any proof to the contrary would need to be rejected.  That mode of thinking is too boxified for me.

I prefer to deal with possibility and probability.  In an infinite existence possibility is taken care of as everything would be possible.  So I'm left with probability.  So I look at a theory, such as OPs, and guage the probability against the reality that I can perceive.  I lend the same weight to any other theory.  As the theory fits with more pieces of objective reality then it's probability increases.  Given that my perceptive abilities are limited, I can never lend a full 100% to any theory.  Hence, I operate with no belief/disbelief systems.  All are merely probabilities of possibilities.  Many people I've been in contact with are not comfortable with the ambiguity.  They require strict rules and laws.  For me, I am not comfortable with strict rules and laws but need ambiguity and openendedness.

Next, I would like to add the definition of the theory of OPs as given by the Cs.  That way, there is no ambiguity of the theory and my position can be understood.  Then discussion can involve where the theory may not fit with objective reality.

An OP is fully human and has the 3 lower energy centers.  The 5 main centers, as given by the Cs (and still in theory land), are as follows.

1.  Basal (moving)
2.  Lower Emotional
3.  Lower Intellectual
4.  Higher Emotional
5.  Higher Intellectual

The Cs further state that there can be more centers as necessary but those are the main operating ones.

An OP has the 3 lower ones.  As the individual proceeds to learn more about the emotions and intellect they grown the density of the centers.  As some point, completely dictated by the individual's motivation and will to learn within the objective reality framework they find themselves in, they will start to get glimpes of the higher centers.  Once that initial glimpse is seen then it's the snowball effect.  And soon they will be solidifing the higher centers and connecting all the centers to each other.  How "fast" this is done is up to the individual.

Ok, back to my stance whenever the subject came up over in the Cass group.  People would come in and be like "what if I'm an OP", "how can I tell", blah blah blah.  I would always say, "Who Cares?".  If you are an OP and you are in here seeking higher spiritual lessons then by god you are doing much better than I probably did.  Then I would say, "If I'm an OP then I would seek to grow my higher centers as quickly as possible".  I would seek to be around the non-OPs.  As they say in the business world, fake it until you make it.  If I knew for sure I was an OP I would imitate and integrate and learn as much as possible.  What a jump on 3d lessons I would have.  Can't find the quote but Jesus once said, "Be better than I".  Well, it's said he made it to 5d in about 1,000 incarnations.  So, name that "tune", in 500 incarnations!  There's nothing stopping you.  Surpass me in 4d.  And I'll just sit there in awe of how quickly you made it, and rejoice.

A quick backtrack to the "sub-human" thing of it, I'll provide an example.  Let's say there's an entity in 4d that's just about to transition to 5d.  Would they think of me as a "sub-entity" because they are farther along?  Should I feel as any less of a god-unit because they are where they are?  The only difference is I was birthed later in the expanded present moment.  They just had more opportunity to learn the lessons.  The same potential exists for each of us.

Anyway, that's my expanded dissertation concerning the theory of OPs as I see it personally.


Edit to add...

Ok, I need a slap.  I need to connect this with David Icke.  I'm going on the theory presented by the Cs.  I'm wondering which came first, Icke's theory or the channeling of the Cs.

Montalk, could you help out and show the parallels and incongruencies between Icke and the Cs?  Maybe Icke does present the theory as OPs being something less than they are.  That could lend fuel to egos that seek to think themselves better than others.  I've read what you quoted and it's kind of iffy.  Is there other Icke work specific to this that presents it with a better foundation?

  • Registered: 2006-03-29

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

1) First there are the software programs whose only consciousness is the DNA/RNA receiving instructions from the Matrix. They are constructs of mind, not consciousness. All energy/consciousness is Infinite Oneness, but not all expressions of this are at the same level of awareness. The 'human' interactive software programs are sophisticated robots following a 'life' program dictated by the Matrix and their free will is basically zilch. I'm sure you must have met many. They appear to be the same as everyone else in the way they look, but the best special effects studios can now put digital 'people' into advertisements and you can't see the join. There is a television presenter in Britain who is famous for being enormous and she appeared in a commercial with a far slimmer body to sell a food product. You could not see the join and anyone who didn't know what she really looked like would believe the body in the ad was hers. This is why we have to be extremely wary about 'Bin Laden' videos that suddenly come to light at just the right time from the agenda's point of view. Producing a fake Bin Laden saying fake words is a cinch to the state-of-the-art special effects houses. The same principle applies with these 'Red Dress' programs, as I will call them. They are bodies without consciousness, interactive software programs. The lifeless look in their eyes is one way of picking them out, as is the lack of energy coming from them. They resonate to a different frequency to conscious awareness and again you can symbolise them as the horses on the carousel with no one on board. These interactive software programs can malfunction, go off message, and 'hack' into other programs - as with the Agent Smith character in the Matrix movies. A lot of that is going on, too.

Alright, this seems to be the sticking point I think.

I think what Icke is presenting here is actual 4d holograms like the Men In Black.  If they are actual human bodies then they may be of the sort that have been completely taken over from a very young age as not to have their own consciousness.  A human body will gain consciousness after about 4 years of random data input.  This is how the first AI was made.  They just fed it random data input for several years.  After that they asked it a question and it found the answer in a way that no normal programmed computer would.  So, here's what I see as possibilities.

1.  Actual holographic inserts from 4d technology.
2.  Human bodies that may have been engineered in a vat to keep out random data input - then inserted with programs and released
3.  Human bodies that were abducted from near birth so no consciousness of their own was created - then programmed and released

These are highly possible.  I've experienced some of the lower levels of the higher technology in use and this stuff would be simple to do.

Maybe this is what Icke is meaning and not being specific about.  Without specifics and explanation, then it can be construed as some type of "sub-human" classification system.

  • Registered: 2006-03-29

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

Another parallel to the above "number 1" classification...  It seems to be what the SOTT team (Laura, et all) term <"defective" OPs> or physchopaths.

Now adding in Tom's research, Laura's research and David's research we can come up with a pretty good picture of this aspect of the theory.  Tom provides a physical grounding to the theory by offering actual physical examples of what these entities could be.  Such an example would be a holographic insert.  Laura provides a more socio-interactive slant and shows how they operate and are used against other people.  David seems to provide a more philosophical view of how they relate to the illusionary matrix and our exit strategy out of it.

Additional thoughts?

  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: The theory of Organic Portals and David Icke

z3n3rg wrote:

Montalk, could you help out and show the parallels and incongruencies between Icke and the Cs?  Maybe Icke does present the theory as OPs being something less than they are.  That could lend fuel to egos that seek to think themselves better than others.  I've read what you quoted and it's kind of iffy.  Is there other Icke work specific to this that presents it with a better foundation?

From what I understand of Icke's latest book, he views all life as software programs and all reality as holographic. When the C's were asked whether holographic beings existed among the general population, they said such being were extremely rare, but commented that aren't we all holographic in a sense? So it depends on the "level" of holographic-ness that you have in mind. If all reality is a hologram, what do you call those 3D works of art made with lasers? Holograms, but a hologram within a higher order hologram. The question is what "level" Icke has in mind when referring to these Red Dress entities. Are they equally holographic as everyone else, but just lacking consciousness? Or are they additionally holographic like MIB projections?

Regarding OPs, they are physical like everyone else. Fourth density projections, whether reptilians trying to appear human or temporarily popping into 3D for a blood feast, or grays becoming fully physical for whatever reason, as far as I know these are temporary projections. The MIB accounts in the Mothmen Prophecies tended to involve very brief appearances, some with mention of energy running low. The C's explained that 4D STS entities require lots of energy to project fully into our 3D reality, and we know from the efficiency and dodgy nature of 4D STS that they are energy starved. That's where I find Icke's mention of reptilians appearing at human sacrifices to be more plausible, since the lifeforce energy concentrations are enough to power their full manifestation in the physical.

So I currently do not believe that 10%-50% of the population are any more holographic than the rest, rather that they are simply missing some of the nonphysical components or layers that make up a complete self-aware individual. Bringers of the Dawn mentioned the idea of holographic inserts, saying that event sequences can be artificially generated and inserted into our reality, but that these have an odd vibe if you interact with them.

If I had to make an educated guess, I would say that the energy-intensive holographic projections are a specialized applications that allow for direct-causal-tangible interaction without regard for freewill, while the other stuff like remotely manipulating a vacant human or doing cut-n-paste jobs into the linear timeline is a more indirect-acausal-subjective attempt at manipulation requiring less energy. The OP phenomenon would fit more into the latter category, and I am guessing that Icke's "Red Dress" beings are the same thing, though it gets confusing with his referring to everything but Infinite Love being a holographic illusion.

Barefoot Doc wrote:

Possibly another explanation of OPs from Robert Anton Wilson book Prometheus Rising.

That is helpful information, thanks. The question is whether being stunted at a stage of development fully explains the OP phenomenon, or whether the OP phenomenon naturally comes with stunted stages of development. For instance, lacking the higher chakras would result in certain behavioral circuits not developing. Or, you could say that being stunted from further imprints or circuits creates the appearance of lacking the higher chakras. It would appear impossible to determine either way were it not for the other characteristics like the uniform flat vibe, the lack of depth to the eyes, the lack of life script or synchronicity or divine intervention in their lives, nor does strictly a behavioral dysfunction explain the hive-mind or energy-sucking component. But if the configuration of their brain hardware is a consequence of something more fundamental and metaphysical, then that would explain things more completely and consistently.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website