• EN
  • FR
  • DE
  • RU
  • TR
  • ES
  • ES Disclaimer

Over the years we have established contacts with some other web sites and their owners who are friendly to our work and goals. In specific, during the past two years, we have developed a mutually supporting relationship with the owner of the site.

When we began researching the issue of Organic Portals, the owner was one of the first to pick up on our research and attempt to extend it.

We had many questions about the approach he took. We were in frank disagreement over many of the things he wrote and published on his site. We have had many exchanges over these issues. The owner’s approach is, we believe, very dangerous. It leads to the quick judgment and labeling of others, pigeonholing people, something we work very carefully to avoid.

We think that life is much more complex than the simplistic “check-list” analyses on would like to suggest.

Our interest in this issue has never been that of “spot the OP”.

This long-standing difference recently led to an in-depth review of the articles on his site.

It is with great regret that we announce the fact that there are extremely important philosophical, political, and ethical differences, differences of a profound character, between the authors of the articles published on and the owners of the site.

These differences are so profound that we wish to state clearly that we in no way endorse as a source of explication of our material.

We cannot, of course, do anything about their quoting of our work under fair use copyright laws, but we want to stress the fact that we find their twisting and distortion to be reprehensible and equivalent to outright disinformation. Moreover, some articles by Montalk, for instance “Quantum God” or “Gravity Explained“, can be qualified only as word-salad and nonsense, in Dan’s Winter style.

As noted, the Quantum Future School has been slowly and patiently observing and working through the issue of Organic Portals and this work has resulted in many insights. We will be presenting this material on this website soon.

Update. 17 August 2003

After we began investigating the subject of organic portals last year, we quickly understood that this subject had to be handled delicately. It is one of the certainties of this world that any perceived difference between people, be it visible or invisible, real or imagined, will be used by someone to discriminate against “others”, to force them into hierarchies where the “others” are made subservient.

Our intent in researching this issue was not to add more grist to this “us against them” mill. Our interest was the greater understanding it brought us in seeing how the world actually works. The concept of the Organic Portal removes one of the most important veils of Reality; a veil that preventsunderstanding and acceptance. In no way is this material supposed to establish a barrier that creates elitism, discord and aggressive separatism.

In the internal discussions of the Quantum Future School, we made it quite clear that we were not interested in making checklists to be able to play the game of “Spot the OP!”.

This was, for us, a matter of the utmost ETHICAL importance.

The appearence of the articles “Holographic Inserts” and OPs for Dummies” on the site disturbed us. In our exchanges with the author, we suggested over a year ago that he was pursuing an approach that we considered not only dangerous, but unfruitful. Singling out individuals as OPs DOESN’T MATTER in the grander scheme of things. It doesn’t matter because until one begins the hard work of actually developing the soul, we all may as well all be OPs! The work on this subject has just begun.

The work is intended not as a foundation upon which to base checklists, but rather as a point from which to begin to work on oneself.

To assume the “Spot the OP” stance is to assume the stance of someone who believes they already have a soul. This is the same error of arrogance as those who would have us believe that “We are all One”, and that we should therefore not look at the evil in the world.

It is to assume the position of God with the power to dispose of the lives and meaning of others with two words: Organic portal.

To think that an OP can be so easily identified is to exaggerate the differences between others and ourselves.

To make the identification of individuals an important element of the work is – in our opinion – to be vectored off the track of the true, difficult, work on the self that is all important; the work of stripping away illusions rather than creating illusory worlds of “superiority.”

In spite of all our efforts to express our concerns to the authors of, no changes in approach were made and a hardening of the categoriesproceeded apace.

The question of ethics – the use of our material by persons without the requisite experiences in life, without the requisite initiatory experiences – inevitably seems to lead to a “Spot the OP” programme that is little different from a gestapo-like witch-hunt mentality.

The authors assured us that this was not their intention. For many months we accepted this.

This remained an internal issue between members of the QFS until recently when we began to read more closely the site.

What we read made us realise that this “us vs them” mentality ran much deeper, was a much more longstanding theme at, than we were initially aware.

As we read, we discovered glaring inconsistencies and failures in logic. These logical inconsistencies began to manifest more sharply in our ongoing exchanges with the author.

The “us vs. them” approach taken on the OP topic appeared to be part and parcel of the methodology used at

Among the things we found on the website are articles by the owner of the site promoting Patriot militia groupsguns, and violence. The site also publishes naïve political anaylses that promote exactly the “us vs them” mentality that we consider to be unethical in our own “research” into OPs.

The site also includes links to song lyrics by the author that are full of violent and repulsive imagery. This might just be the exuberence of youth, but one wonders what role they have in being retained on the website of someone who considers himself a teacher at 22 years of age.

Under ordinary circumstances, we might be able to explain away any particular element cited here as merely the follies of youth, the lack of experience, the total assurance of one who has never suffered, never experienced those things that would lead to growth of compassion and human insight. However, taken all together, it formed a pattern we could not ignore.

What all of this boils down to is this: There is an immense ethical divide between and

This was the fundamental issue when we added this disclaimer to our site.

It is so important to us that we felt compelled to warn our readers when this new data was discovered and – after repeated efforts to urge a more compassionate style, a more open approach, and certainly a “cleaner” website that would not confuse the unwary or inexperienced seeker – it was clear the author was either not understanding our attempts to clarify the issue, or had an altogether different agenda.

We present here some examples.

In an article on The Liberal Mind, we read:

“Why Liberals Love Gun Control

Trust of authority and identification with the child victim make liberals ideal candidates for gun control advocacy. It is not that they fear guns themselves for some freudian reason involving phallic archetypes, but that the context in which guns have been placed by the media opportunize on their infantile vulnerabilities. To understand liberals, understand the child. Give a stubborn child the resources to influence the world financially and politically, and there you shall have created a liberal.”

“Why Liberals are Tree Huggers

Inability to empathize is also why liberals are found in such ridiculous causes as saving the spotted owl, white footed ferret, or pink elephant. These things evoke emotions in them, but such emotions are incongruent with the reality of that which they “synthetically empathize.” This linear evocation is one of stimuli-response, as when the idea of an endangered species is presented and immediately an emotion of pity arises in the liberal, or when the word “gun” is mentioned and the liberal salivates like Pavlov’s dog with spiteful hatred. In the initiated adult, a stimuli is presented, but his two dimensional thinking allows him to see it from the stimuli’s point of view, to consider the peripheral factors, and aknowledge the stimuli’s context.”

“Liberalism is Psychotic

Hitler is a great example of liberal emotive thinking. He could send two million jews to death, without flinching, and yet break down in tears at the sight of a dead bird. His emotions were incongruent with reality.

When one’s view of the world is skewed beyond excuse and resulting actions show it, such is called psychosis. Liberalism is a mental disease, a dysfunction, and can be classified as a psychosis. Hitler was a psychopath, and most liberals are also psychopaths to a degree. This is not name calling, but an accurate identification using common psychological terms.

Now, it is not the purpose here to demonize liberals by association with Hitler, or to demonize Hitler by association with liberals for that matter — might as well have chosen Clinton. But ‘mein lieber Wolfie’ just happens to be the epitome of liberal thinking resulting in cruelty under the mistaken identity of genuine benevolence. It can be said that Adolf loved his race, his nation, his people just as liberals love their government, trees, owls, and wetlands, but the price of such irresponsibility and short sightedness is obvious in the first case, and won’t become obvious in the latter case until it is too late.”

An article on assault rifles has this to say:

“Assault Rifles

An assault rifle is any rifle specially equipped to kill a large number of people in a small amount of time.

At home, assault rifles are appropriate since SWAT teams use them in urban environments.

On the battlefield, all rifles in the military are technically assault rifles.

Thus, assault rifles are a Militia-friendly weapon and are hence protected by the Right to bear Arms.

The AK-47, M-16, AR-15, and other automatic weapons defined as assault rifles are all suitable for Militia purposes. Interestingly, it is these very weapons which have been eliminated from the hands of ordinary Americans due to the +++++++. While the public argues over whether concealed weapons should be allowed, assault rifles have unobstructedly been banned from use, importation, and selling.”

These few citations from articles that are still on alarmed us. They reveal an ethical stance in complete opposition to ours.

The picture we were beginning to discern here was unfortunately corroborated by the following:

From A Message to Patriots and Militiamen

montalk June 2000

Because our patriot/militia groups have done so little in the way of PR campaigns, we lack public support and are headed toward failure. The will of the people shall either make us or break us.

But this is no time for guilt. It is time for action, time to realize that propaganda is only evil if used to propagate evil and uphold tyranny.

We patriots must execute an all-out public relations assault upon the ignorant public, employing truth-based propaganda techniques to plant seeds of republican principles within this corrupt majority-rule democracy.

What we have uncovered at is the same line of thought as that pushed by Schwaller de Lubicz. It is the belief that an “elite” can save the world – physically. And the implication that the author of is one of the elect who is going to undertake this revolution.

We do not believe that there is any need to rescue this world or to revolt against it. It is as it is. Our work is to understand what it is, to show others what it is, to SEE, but not to anticipate what should be.