David Wilcock

[Ali Quadir]

Dear Quantum,

You're stretching my understanding with your choice of phrasing things. So if I misunderstand somethings pardon me, just restate it simple, with words less is often better.

IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTED THAT WE ARE SPEAKING WHOLLY AND SOLELY TO THE PRINCIPLES AND TO THE MATERIAL OF "THE Law of One" ONLY. THIS MEANS THAT ONLY "THE Law of One" MAY BE USED AS REFERENCE, AND THAT NO OTHER MATERIAL OR CHANNELED INFORMATION MAY BE INVOKED AS DEFENSE FOR A BASIS OF CONVERSATION, DISCUSSION, OR DEBATE EITHER IN SUPPORT OF THESE ASSERTIONS, OR AGAINST. THE PRINCIPLES OF "THE Law of One" HAVE BEEN INVOKED.

I decline. I won't stick to the Law of One. That suggestion is unfair. If David claims to cite ONLY from the Law of One then you have a point however he no where does that. Telling us that we can judge ALL his comments purely from the Law of One knowing that he has multiple sources is in effect sabotaging the process and judging him unfairly.

Is this the issue? Are you assuming he is ONLY a scholar of the Law of One? He can be nothing else? And must keep his eyes and ears closed to the rest of life and may only cite from the book? If you're just saying that not all his sources are Law of One then you're correct. But please explain why this is relevant on figuring if the man is a scholar or a fraud.

The way I see it you're quoting him stating from a non Law of One source, then claim that this is not a Law of One source, and therefore his understanding of the Law of One is flawed...

This line of reasoning of course doesn't hold.

So I see two directions, either you try to make clear to me why we should judge Wilcocks (statements that are not sourced in Law of One) ONLY from the Law of One or I must reject this restriction as unfair and without basis in reasoning.

Also you're misrepresenting the quote you're giving.... Let me cite it completely.

"This is a quite spontaneous event when it happens, and will have an effect of popping us into time/space similar to the Bermuda Triangle and / or traveling through a ‘stargate.’ The process is not at all painful — it is like the energetic equivalent of a sudden dive into a pool of cold water. It is apparently the most spiritually ecstatic moment we will have ever experienced, and ancient mystics eagerly looked forward to it many thousands of years ago.

If you do graduate, you will most likely move into "fourth-density space/time" and stay with the Earth in this totally new plane of existence that is now about to be born.

If you do not graduate, you live out the rest of your life in Earth’s third-density time/space — what most people call the ‘astral plane’ — and your next life will be on another third-density planet, custom-built for everyone on Earth who will still need it after the end of Earth’s third-density cycle.

Only recently have we discovered that apparently a small number of people — most likely those involved in secret government programs and leaning towards the negative path — do stay in "third-density space/time" — i.e. the physical Earth as it exists now — after 2012. Some of them are in underground bases and others stay on the surface of the Earth.

Some of these people who remain in third-density space/time also evolve into fourth-density, but as far as we can tell they graduate into the negative path.

Witnesses who have interacted with these "future human extraterrestrials" — including Dan Burisch in private conversations I have had with him — describe them as being threatening and fear-invoking, which is vastly different from how the Law of One series says it feels to connect with a fourth-density positive being."

So David mentions another as his source one you declined to mention. Instead you pretend he claims he gets this from the Law of One. Then state that the Law of One does not say this.

David only states here that the Law of One describes the contact with 4d entities as vastly different from the contact with the current batch of 4d humans visiting earth. And ascribes this to polarity.

You kind of mention the other source, but jokingly call it x-files. You consider them irrelevant and worthy of ridicule. The fact that you consider these other sources ridiculous is possibly from ignorance, it certainly is not from fact established in our conversation. The fact that you can joke about it does not make it wrong. Sadly as you already forbade us to talk about these other sources that's basically it for the discussion isn't it?

Let me put it this way, I disagree with your line of reasoning.

You say he claims something he does not actually claim, (Quoting from the Law of One, he's not doing that, he's not even referring to it except in one final case that you ignored) and then you sort of misrepresent what he actually claims. Sort of, because I can't confidently figure out what it is you're trying to say he says. However it somehow includes the "fact" that David says everyone will die in 2012.

He does not say this. Certainly not in the quotes you give, and as far as I can tell, never ever does he state this. He says "This is a quite spontaneous event when it happens, and will have an effect of popping us into time/space similar to the Bermuda Triangle and / or traveling through a ‘stargate.’ The process is not at all painful — it is like the energetic equivalent of a sudden dive into a pool of cold water. It is apparently the most spiritually ecstatic moment we will have ever experienced, and ancient mystics eagerly looked forward to it many thousands of years ago."

To me this does not sound much like death. And it certainly is not a quote from the Law of One... If you ask me it sounds like harvest and this a valid Law of One principle.