David Wilcock

[Ali Quadir]

Hey Quantum,

To clarify I meant the word attack not as a violent attack but an intellectual attack. It's probably an over statement. I have remnants of my original language in English. I have a good spell checker, but my way of saying things must be odd at times. I never meant to imply you're a bulldog biting his ankles for bitings sake. I meant to say you're opposed to some of his opinions, to some of his style and to the importance some of us put on him. (This is a better way of saying it I hope) And I understood and understand clearly that you were not undivided, as in uncritically opposed, you're critically opposed meaning that you thought about it and give the man credit where you think it's due and not where you think it's not due.

I could act exactly like you. But I am not exactly sure of your position because there's a lot of confusion between us. I don't grasp intuitively what you mean.

I understand the dangers with having commercial interests. I also understand the requirement for money. Money is just shared belief in the value of green bits of paper and virtual numbers behind plastic cards. It's not good or bad. It's a tool. Just like a knife or a kitchen. You're going to have to learn to live in harmony with them if you want to live a life on earth.

1. He claims he channels Ra? He has in recent years recanted and revised this position by more recently suggesting it is not the same Ra specifically, but now only in fact a "ra" within the group of "Ra"?

I don't know about this. David's channelings have not caught my interest. I cannot verify them personally. However my personal understanding is that groups in groups is an appropriate description of the hierarchy of nature. If we were talking about human beings his statement would be laughable. But we're not... Ra is a social memory complex. Belonging to a group. I don't think this is an easy concept to grasp. Speculating on how this works will always result in conflicting opinions. And since it's above 3d in nature it might not even be fully comprehensible from a 3d perspective. Meaning that what we understand as Ra is merely an approximation of what he is. Egyptians called him God. That was also merely an approximation.

So any discussion about whether David is right or wrong depends on our mutual approximations. We're not capable of deciding if this is correct. We are capable of judging the end result, what is concluded from the process, is it correct? Or is it not? I would rather stick to that.

2. He claims he is the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce. On reading many of his less than flattering posts as regards Edgar Cayce, these involving everything from what he claims are Cayce's co-dependency issues to his personal character, which further include the personnel that supported and surrounded this very famous healer and psychic, is it a small wonder that the A.R.E. (The Association for Research and Enlightenment, i.e. being the Cayce Foundation) refused to accept him as such? One may assume there were undoubtedly many more reasons as well that they refused to acknowledge his claims.

If Jesus were to come back today, the christians would crucify him personally. I don't know about this either. I do know that connections between lives often exist and inspire the later living to do something. And David has been inspired. Whether or not he truly is Cayce is not relevant to me as it is uncheckable and well, it really makes no difference. I'm still going to have to evaluate the man's theories word for word. And wether information is channeled or not, I don't take that into consideration. Without some kind of support for the words (for example common sense) I usually don't accept them channeled or not.

I don't believe in reincarnation in the way most people do. In my opinion there's one soul experiencing trillions of simultaneous lives. What we call past lives is a metaphor for the fact that some of those lives touch in a way that we have access to our "ancestors" memories and experiences. And since we're all one person that past lives metaphor is appropriate enough for me not to object to it. Yet I think it has to do with David's personal journey more than his service to earth. As such it might have been better to have kept this to himself. There is no benefit from it and it can only confuse.

3. Although I have read on the subject matter as regards the very questionable correlation of having certain present physical characteristics in this lifetime as compared to a past lifetime of a famous figure in history, as Wilcock does in great detail to himself as compared to Edgar Cayce, I do not pretend to understand this as 'scholarly' proof that he is Edgar Cayce in as much as being a white athletic male in this life would make for a rather peculiar if not bizarre fact were I to have been an obese African female in my last? Is one then to 'academically' assume that of the many multiple lifetimes an individual may have over the course of his spiritual sojourn that he/she more oft than not resembles himself/herself in most of these lifetimes? Offering this as grounds for a proof to a reincarnation seemingly limits the infinite profoundly, as much as it stretches credulity. It is neither scholarly, nor is it academic.

Actually I don't believe in past lives like this. But this point 3 is really an extension of point 2. To me everyone carries Cayce's soul. You linear past life believers must work out your differences among yourselves.

4. He is without question a prolific writer. I would acknowledge this openly, and furthermore commend him for it. He further without question is of service as regards making "The Law of One" a wider known subject matter, this through his many speaking engagements, talk radio spots, and his web posts. But, here comes the sticking point, in as much as the vast majority of his writings are those largely based on the works of others, and on information which is largely already out there. He unequivocally in a herculean manner tasks these works of others together by compiling and weaving them into a theme. But this is not original thought or material. This is simply the dissemination of previous information woven together of other writers works. True scholarly academia in any event "always" utilizes quotes, footnotes, and gives all due credit where credit is due, rather than compiling these notes together and 'sometimes' referring to them when convenient, verses at other times taking credit as though largely original, and then turning it into personal opining on those works no less. Several examples:

I don't see your issue here. As far as I can see Wilcock references all his claims. If you hear him on an interview or on a blog page he might occasionally forget to mention a reference, but if you read his material it's still there. I have personally checked a lot of them. At first because I didn't believe him, later because I wanted to see if I could catch him in an error. I don't think he ever takes credit for inventing the stuff. Only for gathering it and making available to a larger public. Which is essentially his role. It's a role he's good at but not one no one else can fulfill.

4. He strongly advocates the position for those individuals, presumably being of a proper makeup, as candidates for "being raptured or rescued at an appointed time" by alien space brothers in their craft, which is tantamount to another "rapture scenario" by any other name, but which more importantly as a self professed scholar of "The Law of One" is no where mentioned whatsoever within the LOO. This "opinion" furthermore seems to entirely dispel the "quarantine" non-interference initiative 100% as specifically contained within the LOO as established by the Confederation? Alien spacecraft beaming people aboard as relates to the LOO, which is nowhere even so much as hinted at within the LOO, and this against the backdrop of the quarantine of the Confederation, all while simultaneously maintaining he is one of the foremost authorities on the LOO is at least minimally difficult to grasp as scholarly?

Basically I think you're saying here that a scholar should agree with the material he is a scholar in.. That's not true for the obvious reasons. I am a scholar in psychology. I still read up on it and study it long after my studies are done. But I still don't agree with all of it.

Also that rapture by aliens idea, I don't see that in Davids work can you reference it? I may not be aware of everything he's ever said but I enjoy reading his posts and hearing him talk so I am of the opinion I'm at least reasonably informed. I think he's talking about the harvest Ra is also talking about. The contact with ET's will be after or during that. Not before as some kind of messianic figures. I don't see him making the claim that some white knight will come and whisk us away in his Ufo. Though he does suggest they are active in ensuring the free will of mankind can not be harmed.

If things go as they should we won't see them until after the 2012 events.

5. May one openly make a claim that he is one of the foremost authorities on "The Law of One", and yet nonetheless make further claims, as above, as though contained or drawn from "The Law of One", which are in fact nowhere mentioned in the LOO, and then offer as defense when challenged on these claims that they emanate from the little Ra his own channeling verses the "Ra of the LOO"? This defense muddies which Ra is which, as much as it does the "Ra of the LOO", this as specifically seen by Sirius's very opening question of whether he channels Ra. This defense further muddies which Ra is which in as much as his Ra contradicts the Ra of the LOO, and in as much as he also claims himself to be a foremost authority on the teachings of Ra and the LOO.

I don't seem to agree much on whether or not he openly claims the "above points". Or in what amount he contradicts Ra. Can you exemplify this? The "above points" is vague to me I just have a minor understanding of what it is supposed to be.

6. When questioned as an academic on these points as relates to the LOO he utilizes a rather poor ubiquitous if not lame defense that he is being attacked by a "Negative Greeting" as if to suggest that one may not question his opinion, less the one questioning him be construed as a minion of the STS agenda, if not directly in league with the illuminati itself? This again is all very well documented and is in no manner conjecture.

Please supply the documentation. I don't see this your way. David gets the negative greetings like we all get them. He's also criticized. I think he's not exaggerating by stating any of this. Did he really use it as a defense? I haven't seen him have the need to grab any lame or non lame defenses. Usually he just regurgitates the usual material which slowly evolves over time and in my opinion is quite well structured. Often new research corroborates his previous story and is incorporated. He repeats himself a lot. You could accuse him of being remotely autistic. Which isn't a bad thing by the way, a lot of intelligent people are.

But can you exemplify this, can you make hard that "suggest that one may not question his opinion, less the one questioning him be construed as a minion of the STS agenda, if not directly in league with the illuminati itself?" is more than your opinion and something he believes himself? He has stated that the illuminati nwo and the works are not a concern and therefore not an enemy. He says in different ways that he holds no hatred towards them. And while he does state that some of the sources out there are fed information by the so called negative elite. He doesn't go as far as to call anyone who does not share his opinion is negative elite.

That whole "either with us or against us" principle doesn't ever work.

7. Mr Wilcock has furthermore on more than one occasion cast personal and disparaging remarks in his posts not only against Carla's Quo, but more importantly against Carla herself, and the L/L group itself, this as regards their personal character and their personal behavior?

Criticism doesn't make a person wrong. It just makes them dislikeable. And with all the love I have for Carla I owe her more than I owe David. David gave me the scientific basis. Carla told me it was alright to accept myself as a wanderer. So I have got nothing but love for her. And because of this I'm not going to go deep into this discussion. I understand his points. Just like I understand the idea that mr Wilcock has a strong ego, is sure and full of himself and considers himself right about most everything. If people say this they make me smile, because in a way, they're right. These are matters of personal style. Every person has a style, and we just have to deal with that. The bottom line, their conclusions, are far more important than their individual personalities or opinions about each other. Even if those opinions do state something about the individuals and their understanding.

Isn't it smarter to see where they agree than where they disagree? If the truth is in the middle, it's likely to be something they agree on.

I'm personally not interested in picking sides. Like I said, I owe both of them big time.

Again, this is memorialized by his own hand? Now, just for scholarly entertainment, why would a scholar question the legitimacy of information on Carla's Quo who is the same person that in fact channeled the Ra of the LOO, while he channels a familiar named source such as little Ra, who originally was thought to be big Ra, but now has been made more clear to be a Ra within the group of Ra (?), and this is to be assumed to be a more reputable source than Quo? I am lost as to the scholarly thought processes? I am further lost as to why a scholar or academic would mask or glove a personal attack on Carla, or the L/L personnel as regards their character? Again, this is all memorialized in writing by his own hand.

I heard David say that any ANY channeled information or dreamwork, including his own is not 100% accurate. Only after analysis and understanding of the patterns and the bigger picture can you get to accurate predictions from a channeling session.

I would agree, I have channeled personally. The first was a long relationship as a child with something that was also a multitude and not an individual. It was something that was undeniable to me but for much of my life I didn't understand what it was, just that it payed to listen. Both because it was better than books and because the practical advices worked.

The second was not a positive high density entity like Ra or Quo... More the immortal remnants of an aristocrat who'se life was for some reason connected to mine. A past life you might call it. He wasn't good, and in spite of the fact that many would dislike his style much more than they'd ever dislike david or Carla he wasn't evil either, he also wasn't particularly knowledgeable just more knowledgeable than me. He had insight though. And he told the truth as he knew it. I think from his negative perspective he tried to do me a service. And from him I learned to never blindly trust anyone. Some of the things he said worked out like he said, some things did not. Eventually it was my own choices that broke some of his bigger prophecies. He wasn't so much an entity or me myself he was a tangled mess of him and me. And that happens in my opinion a lot but it must be said that Carla and David are clearer channels than I ever was. Usually if I'd invoke him he'd just be there.