Adamic and Pre Adamic Man/Organic Portals - The NPC Meme of Ancient Times?

#1
I've always wanted to revisit this, but have avoided doing so. There's probably various reasons for that, one being that I think it describes something that I wanted to forget about and just have a normal life.

But the NPC meme came to life, 2020 happened, and I think it's time to revisit the whole gamut. And maybe it may interest those who want to study the roots of evil.



So I don't know if anyone here at Skeptiko is familar with the works of Gurdjieff, Boris Mouravieff, and others of the same ilk, but I would say that basically the materials from these individuals are forms of Gnosticism, though it's possibly not quite so narrowly defined. It has been a while since I've read their stuff, and so I've forgotten a fair bit, but the internal understanding and general concept has never left me.

The gist is that in the context of an extended consciousness realm, there exist two separate 'races' on earth from the ancient days so to speak.

Adamic man and Pre-Adamic Man. Organic Portals and Souled Beings. These are substantially the same concepts.


https://montalk.net/matrix/157/spiritless-humans

Tom Montalk said:
Boris Mouravieff has written on the subject of spiritless people most extensively. See his three volumes of the Gnosis series, particularly the second and third volumes. His approach is based on Esoteric Christianity, and thus it quotes heavily from scripture while bearing much in common with the Fourth Way tradition of Gurdjieff, which itself seems to trace back to Sufistic teachings. According to Mouravieff’s interpretation of the Book of Genesis, there existed humans before Adam and Eve, but that only Adam and by proxy Eve and her descendants received the breath of spirit from God. Thus nowadays there exists two mingling sub-races of humans, the pre-Adamics without spirit, and the Adamics who have it. Mouravieff explains that pre-Adamics serve the purpose of harvesting energy from Adamics as part of the cosmic food chain. He also explores the metaphysical differences between the two, in regards to pre-Adamics missing certain “centers”, which are analogous to chakras. Mouravieff believes the pre-Adamics have a group soul unique to their collective, and that only after further aeons of evolution will their collective soul differentiate into individual spirits like what the Adamics already have.
Tom Montalk said:
Their behavior tends toward being glib, shallow, egotistical, narcissistic, mundane, predatory, and materialistic. Sometimes these traits are camouflaged by a polished social exterior, but anyone with a discerning eye can see through the disguise. They lack individuality, independent thinking, and are strongly biased toward holding a herd mentality. They lack comprehension of anything beyond the material sphere of the five senses, and have no interest in such metaphysical matters except as flashy accessories to boost their social image. They also appear entirely incapable of empathy, soul-searching, and willful self-sacrifice. Nevertheless, in the presence of others they can put on a flashy show of concern, distress, or altruism for purposes of social manipulation; for example, crocodile tears to elicit sympathy, or doing something nice for another solely to guilt trip them later and extort a favor.


Now just take those paragraphs and consider it in the context of our world today. Is it just me, or is there a striking parallel to be made? What else did this guy say?


Mouravieff said:
“Comfort, the prevailing word for Progress in its many different aspects and to varying degrees, forms a sufficient aim for the majority of civilized men of our era. Under these conditions of our times, man is only open to divine values in carefully measured doses, kept within limits so that they do not trouble his bourgeois or socio-communist conscience or threaten the material well-being he has acquired.”
Tom Montalk said:
Mouravieff gives us examples of how the existence of the two “races” has been distorted and misused by means of racism and social control. Adamic and pre-adamic men are mixed throughout all humans from all over the globe. There can be even both types in the same family. The difference has nothing to do with racial, cultural or national characteristics. The true meaning of the two “humanities” goes back to the idea of “blue blood” and the “pollution of the bloodline” when both “races” intermingled, after “the fall” of adamic man from his original state and his identification with his false “I”, the “I” of the personality/ego.

“First constated [realized] very long ago, this fact, although it has been distorted because it is generally seen in a false light, was part of the national, social and judicial consciousness of many ancient and modern peoples. One finds its influence in the Indian idea of the Untouchable, the Greek Helot, the Jewish Goy, the medieval European white Bones and black Bones, the German Nazi Untermensch, etc…​
Incidentally, the legend of blue blood does not belong to the domain of pure fantasy. The error is not in the conception of blue blood as a ‘psychosomatic’ phenomenon, but in the naive medieval belief that this so called aristocratic blood passes automatically from father to son….​
We must also note that the other extreme, the equalitarian conception of human nature, so dear to the theoreticians of democratic and socialist revolutions, is also erroneous: the only real equality of subjects by inner and international right is equality of possibilities, for men are born unequal.”

Are these clues to my own personal battle between the spiritual and the clear physical realities that exist? What if it is not about nations or cultures, but that the original division between peoples was this?


And what of the "Biological Robot in a Meaningless Universe" thing?


Tom Montalk said:
The Organic Portal (OP) in his role of scientists is bound to come to a materialistic explanation for the workings of the universe because that is all they know and are able to see.


Tom Montalk said:
This is very clear when we look at the question of consciousness itself. The answers are very revealing.

The apparent ability of humans to be “self-aware” and the question of consciousness is one that has troubled the minds of philosophers, psychologists, scientists and the odd layperson, too, since time immemorial. Today more than ever consciousness is one of the most perplexing problems outstanding in science, and one that reflects on our very nature and relation to reality.

Western culture has seen various theories put forward as to the nature of human consciousness. Most of these can be included in one of two main schools of thought, i.e. the materialistic, Darwinist, evolutionary/”survival of the fittest” approach which proposes that mind/consciousness is an epiphenomenon which arises on top of material existence. From this scientific viewpoint the brain is a computer, with neurons and synapses acting as basic switches and “bits”, and consciousness is thought to “emerge” as a novel property of complex computation.

On the other hand, we have the more “spiritually” inclined school of thought, which holds the above to be wholly inadequate in explaining the phenomenon (undoubtedly fuelled by various religious teachings and creeds), and which holds to the concept of an ethereal spirit inhabiting the body/mind and expressing itself in the form of consciousness and that this is the fundamental aspect of life. Other schools mixing and matching from the two also exist.

To this point, it is interesting to look at just who are the various exponents on opposing sides of the argument. In one camp we have the many scientists and MDs of various disciplines such as the “neural Darwinism” of Edelman and the “memes” of Dennet and Dawkins. In the other camp we find “new age” gurus and authors and the odd respectable scientist such as David Chalmers, as well, of course, as the Church and the many twisted turns of Christianity.



We find there that many OP concepts have been utilized to coopt spiritual truth. We find many OPs, imitating souled beings in their “spiritual searching,” promoting ideas and theories that are fundamentally flawed because they are “imitations” of the real thing which the OP can never, by his very nature, perceive accurately.



Tom Montalk said:
Again and again, I can only point to the New Age Movement and popular easy-to swallow pseudo-spiritual half-truths. In light of the information we just examined, could it be possible that certain popular New Age Gurus, many of them who are millionaires and feed off attention in multiple ways, are in fact OP’s, imitating something they are not and do not posses? Be it the successful yoga teacher who has his/her following, marketing him/herself shamelessly or the typical self-help guru on Oprah selling millions of books based on re-washed spiritual half-truths. The idea of Organic Portals opens up a whole can of worms and questions if someone really is who he/she claims to be or just pretends to be.
Tom Montalk said:
Startling figures recently released show that 50% of all medical and scientific papers are published by the same small group of academics, who account for just 6% of the total number. If we take it as real that our reality is manipulated to a large extent, then the logical step to keeping the scientific world under control would be to ensure that it is populated with people that will reflect the views and opinions that suit a specific agenda.



The same is true for the spiritual and esoteric world. 4th Density STS makes sure that the religions, spiritual concepts, and nearly the entire metaphysical “world” is dominated by OPs to keep the “cattle in the fence.”

4D STS (Service To Self) is a concept that stems from channeled writing, along the same lines as The Law Of One materials. Basically there exist an extended consciousness realm that feeds on the people and events that occur in our reality which is 3D STS. They feed on our loosh, or emotional energy. So I guess the 4D STS could be described as the Archons or as the Alien Controllers or whatever you want. The real PTB. The Illuminati. The source of energy and power to which the satanic pedophiles are supposedly sacrificing and worshipping to. And honestly? It could be a shout. It's worth investigating more I believe.


I thought the following was quite juicy...

Tom Montalk said:
Indeed, a perfect strategy might be to ensure that top posts are held by organic portals allowing the controllers to rest safely in the knowledge that all mainstream theories and research will have a definite materialistic and non-spiritual slant, thus perpetuating the Darwinist evolved “monkey clinging to a godless lump of rock spinning in space” shtick and keeping those pesky souled beings under their spell.
Tom Montalk said:
One “top man” with a relatively new axe to grind is Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins, while developing the singular theory that humans were the method developed by genes to perpetuate themselves, coined the term “meme” in 1976 as a way to describe and validate the idea outlined above, i.e. that consciousness is merely a function of groups of ideas or concepts in our minds. What differs, however, in his interpretation is that it is not the “machine” that collects and organises data and then takes some predetermined action based on it, rather these “memes” take on a more hostile attitude and in a “virus”-like way, they invade the human mind (individual and mass) and compete with each other for dominance and, therefore, survival in the fertile ground that is the human neurological network.

In the words of Dr Susan Blackmore (another chief “meme head”):

“Memes are ideas, skills, habits, stories or inventions, that are passed from person to person by imitation. Like genes they compete to get copied, but unlike genes their competition is for space in our memories, and for the chance to get into books, magazines and television programmes. The survivors in this game are the ones we see all around us. Just as genes have created our bodies, so memes have created our minds and our cultures.”
This explains, so the theory goes, our incurably religious nature, our unusual forms of cooperation and altruism, our use of language, and our ability to defy our genes with birth control and genetic engineering. We humans, alone on this planet, are meme machines. The term ‘meme’ (to rhyme with cream or dream) was coined in 1976 by Richard Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene. The purpose of his book was to explain the power and generality of Darwin’s great insight. What Darwin had realised was that a simple mindless process can account for evolution — without a designer. If you have creatures that vary, and if only some of them can survive, and if the survivors pass on to their offspring whatever it was that helped them survive, then the next generation must be better adapted than the first—and so the process goes on. In more modern terms, if you have variation, heredity and selection, then you must get, as philosopher Dan Dennett puts it “Design out of Chaos without the aid of Mind”.And this inevitable process works on anything that is copied—not just genes.

Dan Dennett had this to say about memes and viruses:

Dawkins points out that we can think of cultural items, memes, as parasites, too. Actually, they are more like a simple virus than a worm. Memes are supposed to be analogous to genes, the replicating entities of the cultural media, but they also have vehicles, or phenotypes; they are like not-so-naked genes. They are like viruses (Dawkins, 1993). As with viruses, there is a phenotype/genotype distinction, but just barely. Basically, a virus is just a string of DNA (or RNA) with attitude. And similarly, a meme is an information-packet (the information, not the vehicle) with attitude–with some phenotypic clothing that has differential effects in the world that thereby influence its chances of getting replicated.”
Dan Dennett is one of the most ardent defenders of the theory “mind as program”, although in Dennett’s theory, the mind is not one program, it is a collection of very simple programs which each do one thing very well. This is detailed in his book Consciousness Explained.

Dennett proposes that this collection of programs gives the impression of a unity that is the “self,” but that this self as unity does not exist. Dennett is giving a very accurate description of the way the mind works in an Organic Portal.
Does that remind anyone of the mind virus that is COVID-19? Memes? NPC's? The masses and the hysteria created and utilised so effectively? Now that section of paragraph about Dawkins is probably just a collection of concepts that happen to appear together, and so it seems like a coincidence that it's mentioned together. But I thought it was interesting that, here we are talking about all of this information so far, and these things spring up in relation.



So this was just a brief expose on an idea that has been brewing in my mind again, since 2020 hit us all like a bomb. Indeed because it seemingly ties quite a few things together in my eyes. COVID, Mind Virus, Organic Portals/NPC's/Masses enabling all the lockdowns etc. I'm not necessarily a supporter of all the material. More it sparked questions in my mind, and perhaps will interest others.

I'll leave you with this;

https://theunityprocess.com/a-gnostic-perspective-adamic-vs-pre-adamic-man/#respond

Nathan Martin said:
Pre-Adamics want equality, since they have an inferiority complex in comparison to the potential of Adamic Man, but as long as we Adamics do not embody our true power, they will never be our equals in the hierarchy of life; for it is through our own embodying of our Divinity, that they will be granted the opportunity of this esoteric evolutionary path. They are an evolving creation that does not currently contain the breath of God (Source), but Adamics are aspects (God Sparks) of God coming to earth to merge with manifested reality. Each type of creation is unique and not equal, this does not make Adamics superior to Pre-Adamic Man, but we do have a greater capacity to be self-aware and knowledgeable in comparison to them. Whereas Adamics have individuated higher selves, and are meant to experience our individuality in the manifested realm, Pre-Adamics are a part of a group over-soul, and will eventually have the opportunity to individualize along the esoteric path as they progress.
Nathan Martin said:
Interestingly enough, the Pre-Adamic’s have used Natural Law and the Hermetic Principles against Adamic Man, by hiding (occulting) it from us, since if we were to know the principles, we could access higher insights only available through the Divine. This is not their fault though, we have not remained responsible with our Divine connection, and only have ourselves to blame for our forgetfulness. While they can study the same texts as us, their interpretations of esoteric texts are going to be skewed, since they lack the Divine perspective, so their perspective will remain limited when reading the exact same material compared to our interpretations and usage. They can only use the principles to control us, but we can use them to expand our consciousness.

If the Adamics were to fully step into our power, many of the pre-adamic’s would actually be empowered as well, and would not feel inferior (not that they would suddenly become our equal, but they would no longer feel inferior to us). It is our infinite potential that scares them, but if we were to fully embody that potential, they would feel much safer and relaxed. When we play small, we make it difficult on them to also perform their unique function and explore life. Some will still feel inferior though, and they will experience the natural consequences of that by bringing extinction upon themselves (entropy).
Links to the information used above.

https://veilofreality.com/2011/04/18/organic-portals-soulless-humans/

https://montalk.net/matrix/157/spiritless-humans

https://theunityprocess.com/a-gnostic-perspective-adamic-vs-pre-adamic-man/#respond
 
Last edited:
#2
When I try to assess theories like these, I like to try to understand where they came from. What grounds are there for taking them seriously?

When someone provides information that can't be directly observed or tested they need to provide some evidence that they had access to that information. Evidential mediums can produce verifiable information about deceased people they would have no natural way of knowing so it gives them credibility when they speak on the afterlife. Or, people who were observed by doctors to be dead and then return to life might also seem to have some credibility if they can remember what happened when they were dead.


So, what are the grounds for taking these theories seriously?
 
#3
When I try to assess theories like these, I like to try to understand where they came from.
?
It's a fair point Jim.

Apparently these are old ideas that stem from Esoteric Christianity. I cannot tell you for certain where they exactly came from. And it's been a while since I really dived into it, so this was all done from an intuition to share it at this moment. The point of the post was mainly to stimulate others to look for themselves and discuss the concepts, not to guide them through step by step.

Jim said:
When someone provides information that can't be directly observed or tested they need to provide some evidence that they had access to that information. Evidential mediums can produce verifiable information about deceased people they would have no natural way of knowing so it gives them credibility when they speak on the afterlife. Or, people who were observed by doctors to be dead and then return to life might also seem to have some credibility if they can remember what happened when they were dead.
I know, I get your concern at wanting to know how legitimate the source may be in this age of complete confusion. I don't think you are going to get that kind of evidence with this stuff unless you just compare what is said, to what is going on now. I'm not an academic or a scholar so I'm unable to give you anything definitive in that regard. It's not quite the kind of theory where you can apply a scientific reductionist approach to it. It's more of a "see if it fits the glove' kinda thing.

Jim said:
So, what are the grounds for taking these theories seriously?
Well my own experience and observations. I don't take these theories 'seriously', more that it's just something interesting to note and compare reality to. I wanted to know if others could see if there was 'something there' with regards to it.

What do you think?
 
Top