Double Humanity and the Extraterrestrial Intrusion

[NORDIC HEALER]

Could be any number of reasons, or more than one! He may also be a 'soul in struggle', or simply a soul who has chosen the 'dark side' and with the 'assistance' of other higher density beings, 'inserted' himself in your life to cause trouble. And that may be a karmic thing for you too.

You're right it could be a lot of different things. And no one would normally want to give up on their own brother,


I have seen a lot of changes take place in him over the years but, I also see underneath the polished exterior, much more hidden now, his dark earlier behavior.


At times he seems to have empathy and attributes of a Soul, but it doesn't feel very real to me. I asked him just the other day if I ever desparately needed some financial assitance if he would help me. His answer was a flat "NO." An answer I expected even though he has many more resources than I do.

He is very gifted verbally and can talk about many wonderful Spiritual ideals, but seldom lives any of them out by Action.

 

[domi]

Ruth, every single time a discussion on this forum has entailed OPs, you are triggered like literal clockwork. Every single time.

Which makes me wonder if this is not a program where there is fear of actually being an OP and Ruth is fighting that idea with all her might.

Actually, the post was intended as a warning to expect attack through or via this subject from an external source (that means not me!) and has nothing to do with my previous attempts to critique QFS 'take' on the subject. I think Anart may have consigned these 'difficulties' of interpreting to the past. ("Been there, done that" etc)? Im not sure that is such a good idea.

Domivr, you make me laugh! Fighting OPs, when it is an idea I am completely comfortable with is well beneath me. I seek to understand them that is all.

Maybe I was not clear or you are misreading my comment (because I don't talk about fighting OP's): I am saying that maybe you are running a 'fear of being an OP" program since you are triggered by the subject.

 

[Ruth]

Maybe I was not clear or you are misreading my comment (because I don't talk about fighting OP's): I am saying that maybe you are running a 'fear of being an OP" program since you are triggered by the subject.

No, what 'triggers' me (so often as people say) is that I disagree (quite fundamentally) with some of the ideas that the QFS have about OPs. That in itself is a bit of an assumption, because its not possible to say for sure if all people of the QFS think the same way about this very nebulous idea.

This could be a 'disagreement program' that I run especially when some group or individual 'purports' to be an authority on something. It becomes far more likely to run if I think there is a serious flaw/s or error/s in thinking, perhaps even that the reverse might be true. Thats not to say I disagree with all ideas about OPs, nor does it mean that I think I'm right and nobody else is..... God Forbid!!

This subject is groundbreaking, I think, and needs more research.

I wonder what programs get run in response to my 'outbursts'. Interesting isn't it? Some would say almost predicatable. Well, one things for sure, nobody's going to get anywhere by being predicable. Because they never discover anything new.

 

[Niall]

No, what 'triggers' me (so often as people say) is that I disagree (quite fundamentally) with some of the ideas that the QFS have about OPs.

Please do share. BUT, this time, given that you've by now had years to think about the concept of OPs, explain what it is that you fundamentally disagree with. I'm not asking that you write an essay, perhaps just a short summary of the main sticking point? Looking back, whenever the topic of OPs has come up, what have you observed arising within yourself?

OPs and 'double humanity' is always going to be perceived as controversial, so one must naturally tread carefully with this knowledge, or risk attack. But something tells me that this is not what is uppermost in your mind when you wave the red flag with respect to OPs. There is something else going on there and you are very reluctant to share it with us.

Interesting isn't it? Some would say almost predicatable.

You took the words right out of my mind!

EDIT: I guess you meant to say 'predictable', but your word mix-up in interesting in light of this:

From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary

Main Entry:
2 pred·i·cate Listen to the pronunciation of 2 predicate
Pronunciation:
\ˈpre-də-ˌkāt\
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
pred·i·cat·ed; pred·i·cat·ing
Etymology:
Late Latin praedicatus, past participle of praedicare to assert, predicate logically, preach, from Latin, to proclaim, assert — more at preach
Date:
circa 1552

1 a: affirm, declare b archaic : preach

2 a: to assert to be a quality, attribute, or property —used with following <of predicates intelligence of humans> b: to make (a term) the predicate in a proposition

3: to found, base — usually used with on the theory is predicated on recent findings

4: imply

So again, I ask you, what do you base your 'fundamental' disagreement on? It's ok to disagree! But what are you disagreeing with?!

 

[Ruth]

No, what 'triggers' me (so often as people say) is that I disagree (quite fundamentally) with some of the ideas that the QFS have about OPs.

Please do share. BUT, this time, given that you've by now had years to think about the concept of OPs, explain what it is that you fundamentally disagree with.

I've posted in the past, many times, some of my thoughts on Ops. They have been constantly dismissed as "being the product of faulty reasoning". I'm not sure how this works, because it seems that nobody can really "prove" anything let alone "see" anything about this subject unless they are using faulty reasoning themselves.

I suppose an example of a 'fundamental disagreement' would be to say that Ops are actually 'garden variety psychopaths'. They are not, they are simply OPs. One could almost assume that some people are looking for a way to blame the machinations of STS on OPs.... I think the main blame for that, goes to those so-called 'souled' individuals who 'fell' (was it 300000 years ago?), or who switched from the STO to STS orientation. Ops are no more to blame for that than my cat or my pot plant! Having said that, they can now can play an 'important' role in keeping STS folkes centered on materiality due to their mechanicalism and physical focus. That is IF 50% of all humans are OPs....

There (I think) are quite different ways that OPs process energy from people who have access to higher centers (non-OPs). This doesn't automatically make OPs BAD, just less able to do what the 'souped up' human can. There seem to me to be fundamental differences in the way each type of human uses 'programming' too. This would not make it a case of 'one size fits all'. To an OP 'programming' is called 'socialisation'. To a non-OP programming produces an entirely different - usually emotionally negative reaction. That has been my observations on the two types of people so far.

I don't see any fundamental conflict between the two, non that can't be laid squarely at the door of STS. :D

 

[anart]

I've posted in the past, many times, some of my thoughts on Ops. They have been constantly dismissed as "being the product of faulty reasoning". I'm not sure how this works, because it seems that nobody can really "prove" anything let alone "see" anything about this subject unless they are using faulty reasoning themselves.

Woah, Ruth - you just sounded a lot like Rumsfeld - what was it he said? Oh, yeah, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". In other words, you are - without question - using faulty reasoning in this statement - it's even circular faulty reasoning - congrats on that one - doesn't happen (from a normie) very often. ;)

I suppose an example of a 'fundamental disagreement' would be to say that Ops are actually 'garden variety psychopaths'. They are not, they are simply OPs.

Nope, I think you are confusing the idea that 'psychopaths are failed OPs' with something all together different. I would find it fascinating to find out that all your protestations come down to you misunderstanding a very fundamental point like this. No one has suggested that OPs are, by definition, psychopaths - even the 'garden variety type'. Do OPs lack higher centers - yes - it appears they do - but that does not make them psychopaths.

One could almost assume that some people are looking for a way to blame the machinations of STS on OPs.... I think the main blame for that, goes to those so-called 'souled' individuals who 'fell' (was it 300000 years ago?), or who switched from the STO to STS orientation.

I've no idea where you got that idea - at no point was that ever even suggested. First of all - we are ALL STS - if we are 'here' we are STS - because here IS STS - so OPs (if they exist) are simply a part of this STS reality.

ps are no more to blame for that than my cat or my pot plant! Having said that, they can now can play an 'important' role in keeping STS folkes centered on materiality due to their mechanicalism and physical focus. That is IF 50% of all humans are OPs....

Well, I'm really glad starsailor asked you that question, because your perception of the QFS understanding of (hypothetical) OPs is really quite far from the truth. OPs can't keep anyone centered on anything - they simply 'are'. Granted, with 50% of humanity possibly being an organic portal there is a lot of 'peer pressure' going on and a lot of muddying the signal - a lot of 'lowest common experiential denominator', as it were - but it was never about OPs consciously 'keeping' anyone anywhere. Can they be used as vectors? Absolutely, but so can a human being with a seed of a soul, if they are asleep and reactionary.

There (I think) are quite different ways that OPs process energy from people who have access to higher centers (non-OPs). This doesn't automatically make OPs BAD, just less able to do what the 'souped up' human can.

When and where did anyone say OPs were 'bad'? Seriously? Understanding the difference and the residual affect on society as a whole by this difference does not make anyone 'bad'. I've personally never heard Laura say - even once - that OPs are 'bad'.

There seem to me to be fundamental differences in the way each type of human uses 'programming' too.

Could you provide data to back this statement up? Of course you can't - yet you don't question your understanding, Ruth - and this not questioning is quite distrubing considering that you don't even understand the QFS take on the subject.

This would not make it a case of 'one size fits all'. To an OP 'programming' is called 'socialisation'.

How could you possibly know such a thing?

To a non-OP programming produces an entirely different - usually emotionally negative reaction. That has been my observations on the two types of people so far.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Did you miss the point that the foundation of most programming is extremely 'pleasant' - thus it's efficacy. It is the moving toward 'feels good' and the moving away from 'feels bad' that is the core kernel of programming - of course there are exceptions - but they are very rare.

I don't see any fundamental conflict between the two, non that can't be laid squarely at the door of STS. :D

Well, thanks for clarifying your understanding. All I can say at this point is that you really are quite far off the mark not only on the QFS take on 'OPs' - if they exist - but also on the whole programming phenomenon.

Can you consider that you might have misunderstood something along the way? I'm sure you can, since you're still here - but consider that what you perceived as being 'bad' is simply being 'not in control' in any way, shape or form of one's thoughts, actions or reactions - which makes one an easily used 'instrument'.

It really is as simple as that. If hypothetical OPs exist - then they are as natural a part of this world as humans with a seed of a soul (utilized and developed or not) or as cats or dogs - they are not, by any means, 'bad' - they simply can only go 'so far' in their understanding and application of certain concepts since they lack the hardware to go further.

Perhaps your perception of 'bad' comes from the energetic draining that occurs between an OP and a potentially souled individual. I would understand that you might see it this way, but again, as potentially 'damaging' as this is - it is still a 'natural' part of our STS existence here. After all, this world IS feeding - the crux seems to be understanding and recognizing when it is happening, in order to limit it and grow one's coat of 'awareness'. Does that make OPs bad? Nope - just makes them OPs. I hope this clarified things a little for you - recognizing and understanding the reality of one's environment and the inherent dangers of such does not make the environment or the dangers 'bad' - it just defines them.

 

[Niall]

One could almost assume that some people are looking for a way to blame the machinations of STS on OPs.... I think the main blame for that, goes to those so-called 'souled' individuals who 'fell'

Some people... who are you referring to here?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth [at least I honestly don't mean to] by doing this, but it helps me to better understand what you have written above; I have broken down your sentence and rephrased so as to see its logic:

you think. that the predominant force. influencing OPs in this STS environment. is those of STO potential?!?

Is the gist of this correct? Is that what you were trying to get across?

And blame, Ruth!?! What are you doing apportioning blame!?!

You have just proved that you in fact cannot have fundamental disagreements "with the QFG take on OPs" because you do not know what fundamentals are involved. You don't have an outline of the parameters of the topic, you've nothing to work from.

And yet, you pronounce:

they are simply OPs

 

[Ruth]

One could almost assume that some people are looking for a way to blame the machinations of STS on OPs.... I think the main blame for that, goes to those so-called 'souled' individuals who 'fell'

Some people... who are you referring to here?

Any person who seeks to blame another for what they are not originally responsible for, rather than looking at what lies behind a situation or deconstructing it.

you think. that the predominant force. influencing OPs in this STS environment. is those of STO potential?!? Is the gist of this correct? Is that what you were trying to get across?

Quite the opposite, I'm afraid. I think that those of STS orientation effect everyone regardless of whether they are OPs or not, because this is an STS environment, as you were saying...

And blame, Ruth!?! What are you doing apportioning blame!?!

Granted, the choice of words in the first paragraph should probably stay at "blame" for the first word, then "responsibility" for the second word (not "blame"). Blame goes to those responsible for apportioning blame where none is deserved. Just because I write the word, does not mean that I condone the action.

You have just proved that you in fact cannot have fundamental disagreements "with the QFG take on OPs" because you do not know what fundamentals are involved. You don't have an outline of the parameters of the topic, you've nothing to work from.

Are you saying that they do and I don't? In case you haven't noticed, no-one has all the answers yet. This is because we are talking about things that cannot be seen or measured, except maybe in ways that could be inappropriate, or less than accurate for what we are trying to define. This means that we do have to question, or run the risk of accepting something in blind faith. Some of the things that I have seen written, I disagree with and do question. Often this is done by formulating or putting forward my own ideas. Are you saying that I shouldn't? That would be a difficult thing for me to accomplish and goes quite contrary to my nature.

And yet, you pronounce:

they are simply OPs

That's right, they are. If you are telling me they are actually some sort of 'monster' in disguise, to be avoided and shunned at all costs, I shall be most disappointed! Afterall, one cannot become STO if we are constantly avoiding and shunning the O (even if we don't know what exactly they are).

 

[Niall]

I suppose an example of a 'fundamental disagreement' would be to say that Ops are actually 'garden variety psychopaths'. They are not, they are simply OPs.

Nope, I think you are confusing the idea that 'psychopaths are failed OPs' with something all together different. I would find it fascinating to find out that all your protestations come down to you misunderstanding a very fundamental point like this.

Sorted then. Ruth obviously misunderstood the QFS position on that one.

I disagree (quite fundamentally) with some of the ideas that the QFS have about OPs.

Ok, what other ideas do you disagree with?

 

[biggreenpea]

I have just started Nigel Kerner's new Grey Aliens and the Harvesting of Souls...The Conspiracy to Genetically Tamper with Humanity and thought I would google Kerner to see what I could find. This led me to the forum and this discussion.

I have nothing to add but wish to thank the forum again. Anart...you are a tough cookie, but I sure did feel like I gained an insight into conducting my thoughts/studies. I have begun work with the Gurdjieff Foundation here and am uncertain about what I believe exactly anymore...though my thoughts keep returning to Lobaciewski and Gurdjieff and the forum.

Once I feel a bit more confident that I have a question or something to add I will hopefully leave behind the role of 'lurker'. But again, I must thank the moderators and members for this information and work you have done/provided.

 

[flashgordonv]

I have begun work with the Gurdjieff Foundation here and am uncertain about what I believe exactly anymore...

Hi Biggreenpea
It took me a while to get my head around this, but the position taken on the forum is that rather than holding various beliefs, we hold working hypotheses, constantly looking to verify the data and update our understanding of each hypothesis. As you will have noticed in the thread above, there is a constant call for people to show the data, to validate what they say, to be able to prove it, rather than just stating an opinion or a belief.

As Ark's signature block says " And so, let me repeat: who wants to believe - let them believe. But I do not want to believe, I want to know." http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=540.0

 

[ambienttransient]

This is really, really interesting to me. I'm curious to read more about it. I've always felt that I was an 'intuitive' person... chalked it up to 'women's intuition' or my 'esoteric nature' or whatever term seemed appropriate at the time... Whatever you may want to call it, I've always had this sort of sixth sense about people... Some I trust, and some I do not trust, and whenever I have truly listened to this inner instinct, it has served me well... Any time I've ignored it, I've gotten hurt in some way. And not necessarily by a malicious intent of the other person, they simply did not have the capacity to accommodate my love. I've always sort of 'felt' this or 'known' this on a gut level, that some people just aren't capable of 'going there' with me... But never had a rational explanation for it before. It certainly carries heavy implications. I look forward to studying more.

 

[biggreenpea]

dear flash...

i think 'belief' may have been a poor word choice...perhaps i am more into that process of questioning than i had been, is what i mean. attending meetings at the foundation represents a committment to this type of work i had not committed to and it is revealing. so i am reluctant to say much as technically i have not verified much of what i was reading through my life, 'understanding' intuitively. so i am learning a new way to work and study...and i am not sure i have the disicpline even. but i do still peruse this forum as part of my reading.,.but offer little. and i am grateful...that is all i meant.

 

[lord jim]

if anyone's interested in nigel kerner's new book "grey aliens and the harvesting of souls: the conspiracy to genetically tamper with humanity", there is an interesting little audio interview with him here: _http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2010/02feb/RIR-100228-nkerner.mp3

i haven't had a good chance to really dig in to his thoughts, but i admire the attempt to connect two seeming disparate ideas like gnosticism and aliens.



Edit=Link

 

[Vulcan59]

Hi lord jim,

Use the Search function and search for "Nigel Kerner" and you will find some topics discussing him. Also like to remind you that we recommend all new members to post an introduction in the Newbies section telling us a bit about themselves, and how they found their way here. Have a read through that section to get an idea of how others have done it. Thanks. :)