David Wilcock

[yossarian]

"sham acupuncture" is a technical term for using an acupuncture needle on a place that is not really a known acupuncture point. This is how you compare "real acupuncture" to "placebo acupuncture"

[Phoenix]

Perhaps you should look at what the Law of One says about acupuncture Yossarian.

I would call this Secular beliefs.

I once dated someone like that the relationship was devoid of any joy. Where is the joy and magic of life when you just think everything is a biological mechanism devoid of any soul.

fairyfarmgirl

I think that is a great ... 'quote' there.

I come from a family of atheists. I don't talk in a way that people can really argue with me effectively (i.e. Law of One and scientific studies, Edgar Cayce etc.) without flat denying what I'm saying with no evidence, and I usually don't argue with people. But I have noticed that atheists have a lot less joy, and inner peace. And sometimes, say with a dead close relative. Rather than look at evidence of NDE's or anything, the person sticks with their belief.

It causes a lot of suffering, real repeated suffering that is almost COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.

Another thing I also read from remote viewer Joseph Mcmoneagle, whom I respect and think genuine. Is that it takes a surprising small amount of 'bricks' out of a persons fundamental belief structure to cause a complete mental breakdown.

[Monica]

"sham acupuncture" is a technical term for using an acupuncture needle on a place that is not really a known acupuncture point. This is how you compare "real acupuncture" to "placebo acupuncture"

Oh! Thanks for the explanation! I hadn't heard that term before.

[yossarian]

Perhaps you should look at what the Law of One says about acupuncture Yossarian.

What exactly do you mean by that?

I'm pretty sure the LOO doesn't say anything about acupuncture.... is there something incorrect about the way I used the term?

[Monica]

...I have noticed that atheists have a lot less joy, and inner peace. And sometimes, say with a dead close relative. Rather than look at evidence of NDE's or anything, the person sticks with their belief.

It causes a lot of suffering, real repeated suffering that is almost COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.

I've noticed that too. Very sad, especially when it's a family member. I wonder what the psychology is...that predisposes people to cast aside any sort of spirituality whatsoever. I can understand discarding organized religion, but why throw away an open mind towards dimensions beyond the physical? Especially now, with all the buzz about M Theory...Harvard scientists now discussing multiple dimensions! So it's hardly 'fringe' anymore.

Another thing I also read from remote viewer Joseph Mcmoneagle, whom I respect and think genuine. Is that it takes a surprising small amount of 'bricks' out of a persons fundamental belief structure to cause a complete mental breakdown.

Do you think this applies to showing an atheist evidence for spirituality? It seems that this would give them hope and joy...but it is still changing a belief structure. (By 'atheist' here I mean secular humanism...ie. belief in only the physical.

---

Perhaps you should look at what the Law of One says about acupuncture Yossarian.

What exactly do you mean by that?

I'm pretty sure the LOO doesn't say anything about acupuncture.... is there something incorrect about the way I used the term?

I too was wondering what was meant by the reference.

Here is the only reference to acupuncture found in the Law of One:

49.4 Questioner: Will you expand on the positive and negative polarizations in general and how they apply to individuals and planets, etc.? I think there is a correlation here, but I’m not sure.

Ra: I am Ra. It is correct that there is a correlation between the energy field of an entity of your nature and planetary bodies, for all material is constructed by means of the dynamic tension of the magnetic field. The lines of force in both cases may be seen to be much like the interweaving spirals of the braided hair. Thus positive and negative wind and interweave forming geometric relationships in the energy fields of both persons, as you would call a mind/body/spirit complex, and planets.

The negative pole is the south pole or the lower pole. The north or upper pole is positive. The crisscrossing of these spiraling energies form primary, secondary, and tertiary energy centers. You are familiar with the primary energy centers of the physical, mental, and spiritual body complex. Secondary points of the crisscrossing of positive and negative center orientation revolve about several of your centers. The yellow-ray center may be seen to have secondary energy centers in elbow, in knee, and in the subtle bodies at a slight spacing from the physical vehicle at points describing diamonds about the entity’s naval area surrounding the body.

One may examine each of the energy centers for such secondary centers. Some of your peoples work with these energy centers, and you call this acupuncture. However, it is to be noted that there are most often anomalies in the placement of the energy centers so that the scientific precision of this practice is brought into question. Like most scientific attempts at precision, it fails to take into account the unique qualities of each creation.

The most important concept to grasp about the energy field is that the lower or negative pole will draw the universal energy into itself from the cosmos. Therefrom it will move upward to be met and reacted to by the positive spiraling energy moving downward from within. The measure of an entity’s level of ray activity is the locus wherein the south pole outer energy has been met by the inner spiraling positive energy.

As an entity grows more polarized this locus will move upwards. This phenomenon has been called by your peoples the kundalini. However, it may better be thought of as the meeting place of cosmic and inner, shall we say, vibratory understanding. To attempt to raise the locus of this meeting without realizing the metaphysical principles of magnetism upon which this depends is to invite great imbalance.

[yossarian]

What does that have to do with sham acupuncture though?

[Phoenix]

Well. with that quote, it is difficult to quantify sham acupuncture, because if you put a needle somewhere in a persons body, you may correctly find a point that isn't on a chart but is correct because each person is unique.

Joseph Mcmoneagle dealt a lot with people who discovered remote viewing by accident. I don't think it applies so much to telling atheists about spiritual evidence, because they can choose to believe or not believe, you are presented as a fallible option. It would apply if you maybe forced it down their throats.

Atheists, who knows. I have thought about it and I think a belief in the god that Ra puts forward. An energetic heirarchy etc. God. Cannot be negative in the slightest to anyone. As far as I'm aware.

So, it's about people subconsciously not wanting to raise their vibration. Not walking into the light because it may be too glaring sort of thing.

In my estimation. But I could very easily be wrong. Infact I've heard other people who's opinoins I suspect to be more accurate on this.

[Ali Quadir]

Atheists, who knows. I have thought about it and I think a belief in the god that Ra puts forward. An energetic heirarchy etc. God. Cannot be negative in the slightest to anyone. As far as I'm aware.

So, it's about people subconsciously not wanting to raise their vibration. Not walking into the light because it may be too glaring sort of thing.

Are you sure this applies just because someone refuses to believe in the supernatural? Atheists are by no means automatically of a low vibration. And neither are spiritually minded people automatically of a higher vibration.

You don't have to call something God or see it as a God to appreciate it. We're all wired in different ways, we experience the subjective in many different manners. And each of us will draw slightly different conclusions from it. These conclusions we draw to describe our world might not require the word God but it could still very well contain the understanding that love compassion and service are required to be good persons. On the other hand there are people that have integrated the God principle as a threatening principle as some kind of evil and jealous father.

[Quantum]

Is this David Wilcock guy relieable from a L/L Research point of view? i.e Can he really channel Ra? .....Could he confused Spirits for UFOs? rather than vice versa on my part? ...it is really important I get some sence into how reliable this character is...

What do you mean by reliable?...He publishes a lot of really good scientific discoveries that you might find meaningful.....There are a few iffy places...
"Reliable" is not really a word that can be used for ANY channeled info.

Although as a physician I am tempted to speak to the last several interesting posts, I admit I found Sirus' original thread more intriguing. Without intending to step on the toes of those that are David Wilcock fans, I wonder if it is possible to gracefully, academically, and openly question the gentleman, or his credentials, as this thread originally requested? This is a longer post to be sure, and no one is requested to read it unless interested. I've come back to it over the course of several days and have had the benefit of time to put some energy into it after acquiring very recent specific points for references. Is it possible in this attempt, given the sensitivity involved, to remain focused on the issue as requested, and not each other? Mr. Wilcock has set himself apart by leaps and bounds by not making himself so much as a participant in study as much as he insists he is an authority, these by his many words to that effect, such that he brings upon himself scrutiny as a self appointed celebrity of the LOO, if you will. I specifically question his credentials in as much as I remain baffled by the many David Wilcock self-professed "scholarly" and "academic" claims he repeatedly feels the need to make for himself. These are well documented and memorialized in writing by his own hand.

It has been my experience that an academic is regarded as one solely by his peers and contemporaries, and this without one's own opinion as substance. I submit that many of his assertions are simply opinion as opposed to fact, and that these opinions moreover often run counter to the scholarly authority he claims he possesses as regards "The Law of One" of which he adamantly claims to be a foremost authority on. Again, these are his words and his testaments.
To continue:
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"?
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.
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.
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:
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?
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.
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. Using a "Negative Greeting" as a defense, this to openly contradictory statements made as regards the LOO while claiming authority on the LOO wipes out and destroys any semblance of any attempt at an academic or scholarly discussion which he claims himself capable of, this by suggesting he is in fact an academic and a scholar? It is akin to holding up a crucifix at a town-hall meeting while accusing one's neighbor of being a vampire for nothing more than questioning a 'so called' academic opinion, and for participating within the town hall in friendly and open discourse which is presumably the reason for the town-hall? It's just downright comedic if not silly.
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? 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.

Now, if one wishes to put oneself out there as a celebrity of sorts, and furthermore hold oneself out as a foremost authority on a particular subject, as well as being the reincarnated soul of perhaps the greatest psychic that ever lived, all while channeling Ra simultaneously no less, and further make these self-proclaimed self-serving commercials for oneself while doing so, then one must fairly and equally be willing to be challenged academically for having done so, particularly when one in fact claims the mantle of being an academic and a scholar for it no less, whether this subject be politic, science, or the esoteric. In Mr. Wilcock's case, they are all the above.

I advocate open, fair, and respectful discussion always, and would never question one's personality as much as question one's position. This is one of the purposes for a forum such as this. I respectfully therefore welcome the foray this post no doubt may stir. One of the reasons we are here is to further our understanding, verses accepting another's without question. In doing so let us be fair in our assessments. Mr. Wilcock puts himself in a far different position on his positions given his very public claims, and these for commercial gain no less. This makes this discussion altogether different as a result. We are not speaking about private members under pseudo-names rightfully protecting their anonymity. We are speaking about a public figure who makes certain claims, which moreover lack merit, yet while openly professing to be an authority, an academic, and a scholar of a very particular subject, and does so for the enrichment of the purse while doing so no less. Public figures, particularly those claiming themselves as authorities, by their very nature mark themselves as open as fair game to in fact be questioned, and as they should be, given they enter the "fair market" for personal enrichment. Calling someone a communist, a terrorist, an STS'er, or a card carrying member of the illuminati, verses accusing one of sending "Negative Greetings" as a defense is a sophomoric attempt at squashing discourse or academic scholarly investigation through dialogue.

One single and very recent case in point is attached below for reference of the many, many discussions Mr Wilcock has posted: For Wilcock's full discussion, see the web link provided: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=186889

"I have never taken as much abuse for this policy as I have since Obama became a major Presidential candidate, and particularly since he won the election and instantly became the new epicenter of online conspiracy theorists’ "rage against the machine."

"Neither Alex Jones nor Jeff Rense, the two biggest players in the anti-Obama conspiracy media, seem to be aware of the massive amount of lies and propaganda being written and fed to them from within the Neocon and Illuminati factions themselves, causing them to deliberately overlook the vast majority of evidence that counters their established positions. but have far less use and development of these technologies than the rival New World Order faction".

"I seem to be one of the only scholars out there who is simultaneously aware of the insider politics and has not joined the nearly-unanimous anti-Obama internet conspiracy brigade. Does this mean I’m hopelessly wrong and lost? Time will tell. Time will tell."

1.The Illuminati: they have a certain amount of ET-derived technologies(?) and treaties with negative ETs(?) such as the Annunaki (?)
2. The NWO: Responsible for planning and controlling 9/11 to cement their economic and political power, shortly after rigging the 2000 election to install George W. Bush as President. This faction controls a great deal of back-engineered ET technology(?), and thus can do a great deal of damage. The Twin Towers could not have been brought down with so little remaining debris, at free-fall speed, without the advanced technologies this group has." (me: now it's ET technology?).This group was very likely responsible for the recent airline disaster I wrote about, where two women met with Obama about re-opening 9/11 hearings, and their plane went down in flames a week later. No one in the anti-Obama conspiracy crowd has mentioned my article or realized this connection themselves, though it is very obvious that this was no ordinary plane crash(?).
3. The true historic Knight Templars and Davidic Bloodlines: Traditional royal families and their offshoots, most of whom have been deposed and wiped out by the Illuminati long ago (?), and / or replaced with rival Illuminati families who then claimed their own royalty. The Knight Templar group was infiltrated by the Illuminati faction and taken over, though Faction 2 claims to have preserved their original traditions.This group has historically been called the "White Hats" or the "Good Guys" amidst the secret factions. They are far and away the most deeply involved of all the groups in advanced secret projects and technologies (?), and this is because they have apparently preserved this heritage all along. Most likely this is also something that only the people at the top of the organization are aware of, for the sake of security (me: secret?...yet Wilcock knows this information?). Ever since the times of Atlantis they have had stargate technology(?), advanced UFO-style flying craft(?) and other such technology"(?)....According to Rayelan, Faction 2 was behind the King of Bavaria bringing down Weishaupt’s Illuminati in the 1700s. They are also the true American Founding Fathers, the original group that created the American Revolution to throw off Illuminati control. They obviously are putting out movies that expose the Illuminati agenda and / or reveal inside information.This would include 2001, 2010, Eyes Wide Shut (which cost Kubrick his life),Contact, the first Tomb Raider movie, the Lord of the Rings series, the Narnia series as well as the entire Star Wars series of George Lucas. (me: I'm quite sure that the Hollywood Producers of these films would be quite miffed at this as much as astounded).
4. The New International Group — Russia / Asian Secret Societies faction: This Russian / Asian faction has the full use of all the advanced "torsion field" technologies (?) developed by the Russians, largely in secret, over the last century. It is very likely that they are aware of and have worked with the Templar "white hat" Faction (again: DW knows this?), and certainly have worked with the last group (?), the Middle East faction, This group is not occult in nature, nor does it seem to have any spiritual philosophy per se, other than "Do No Harm." En masse, they have so quickly grown into an economic power that we have silently gone from the Group of Eight nations, or "G8," to the Group of Twenty, or "G20" that is meeting right now. This group now has the financial muscle to shut down the others completely, but that is not what they want. They are pushing for a much fairer and saner world financial system, and are very likely going to get their wish.Obama’s administration is almost certainly aware of them and cooperating with them to some degree".
5. The Middle East / Order of Assassins faction. There is a great secret tradition in the Middle East as well, which is most greatly realized in the secret Sufi traditions. This group apparently does not possess much advanced technology, but does retain the ancient magical traditions(?).

Wow. Fair is fair, and credit where credit is due: Mr. Wilcock certainly deserves his kudos for spreading the word of the LOO. Absolutely no question. He furthermore is well read. Certainly no one may question or dispute this. He references and tasks many varying sources together in support for an overall theme. Kudos again. Beyond that however, when he radically veers off the course as he seems to often do, and on what seem to be wild rants and tangents, all while claiming to be a foremost expert and scholar on "The Law of One", well, this is where any semblance of academia falls apart and questions on credibility are naturally raised. He likes the word scholarly and academic very much as pointed out. He makes the self-proclaimed case for himself vehemently and very very often. But where in these rants is there any scholarly or academic position as contained or supported by the very material he lays claim to as one of the foremost authorities as a self professed scholar?

Just as exercise in conversation, if any of these points he made above were even remotely true, it would be staggering in scope, much less his personal wherewithal to be able to have acquired it, as well as put it together to so compartmentalize it? And to do so with such articulation, accuracy, confidence, and congruency? It strikes me furthermore absurd to the extreme, that if true, that a common man, such as Wilcock, would "ever" come close to being in possession of such highly sensitive secrets of state, and thats just this nation state of America, not to mention the nation state secrets of Russia, the Middle East, and Asia as well, much less which faction has what as regards alien technology, even if such knowledge does exist? He's just a guy afterall. I doubt James Bond is so altogether in touch on so many levels. Secrets are named so for a reason, i.e. secret. The dissemination of such knowledge would be contrary to its stated purpose. If two women, presumably on board an airplane, with many other innocent people were caused to crash with all aboard, and this for merely "asking questions" (see entire article if interested as posted above in the link provided), or a Film Maker such as Stanly Kubrick were caused to die for having made a film with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman in it, then how might a fellow such as Wilcock be able to write and broadcast so profusely without so much as a whimper of discord? All the women did was ask questions? Mr. Wilcock does a bit more than this. Wouldn't any prudent individual agree that he does a bit more than this?

Its all far fetched. I'm not suggesting I know anything more than the other guy, but I would have to say that if someone such as a Wilcock were indeed in possession of such secrets, then he would absolutely be the same guy I would definitely allow to continue to go on about them, if you catch my drift. I just don't see it. Almost all of this exact same same information he speaks to has been passed down, this from so so many other authors and sources (as well as the X Files for heavens sakes) and for so many years before Wilcock was ever around, all who have previously conjectured the same, and all who were the recipients of it by others, thus leaving almost nothing as original source. It is impossible to decipher whats what, much less that anyone may claim authority to it, which Wilcock does, and then moreover to claim scholarly knowledge about it to boot (which he does so directly here...again...as noted above in his thoughts).

Where Wilcock is strong and where he is best is where he relegates himself specifically to the task of tasking and compiling others works together. Where he is weakest and most vulnerable is where he attempts to stand his own ground by conjecturing his own opinion as though academic or scholarly. It is perhaps more to this point than most that I find Wilcock to be disingenuous. We've all read of this same same same same stuff for years and years, long before ever having heard of Wilcock, as much as many of us having read the LOO before having ever encountered his name. To those however that did encounter the LOO through Mr Wilcock, he is to be saluted and thanked, as Sirius and others rightly and cordially have. It is to be applauded as I agree. Much of what Wilcock speaks to however has largely all been hashed out by many many many many authors prior to him, and by true scholars of science, history, and archeology I might add. There is a plethora of acknowledged true scholars holding Ph.d's that are able to decipher Sumerian texts, Egyptian Hieroglyphics, decode DNA, speak to geology, astronomy, and discuss technology in terms beyond our understanding as does Dewey Larson. These are individuals that truly pave the way, lay the ground, open thought, and research in depth, from which others then pick up cursory knowledge and create their pieces and opinions from it. That Wilcock may seem original to the novice of these materials may be an altogether different matter. What I can say, with all certainty, is that there is absolutely nothing scholarly about all of this far fetched conjecture. It is the antithesis of being scholarly, this to his scholarly claims.

If one is to be persuaded by a scholarly argument, then one must be given scholarly evidence. This is the X Files. It is entertaining at best. In order to believe this argument in defense for Obama, one would need first to believe all the conjecture about aliens and technologies, treaties, factions, weaponry, and alien conspiracies to begin with. If one were to be in the camp that 'Obama is in fact a bad dude', but assuming an individual had neither this knowledge, nor believed in all of this far fetched alien technology high state secret conspiracy as to whose in possession of what, then that person would be neither dissuaded nor left to feel any more comfortable that Obama is an OK kinda guy. Wilcocks argument above is incredulous to say the least and does absolutely nothing whatsoever to dispel the original argument of an Alex Jones in any event to begin with? It is not even so much a defense for Obama as much as it is an incrimination of a different sort left unspoken? For those of you that are Obama supporters, this entire defense only goes so far as to suggest that Obama doesn't have it all together in as much as there are so many factions that he can't, but that presumably he's trying nonetheless as one of the very factions that Alex Jones in fact claims he is? This is scholarly? I am dumbfounded that this is openly offered as scholarly? Assuming an Alex Jones were reading this argument as academic grounds to dispute his original argument, which he (Jones) at least makes painstaking attempts to document, it would no doubt bewilder Jones himself.

Is it your opinion that any of this alien otherworldly state secret conspiracy dialogue may be true? Perhaps there is enough smoke so as to cause panic that there is fire? Going deeper, is it your opinion that certain camps and factions may be in possession of this or that alien technology, or worse yet treaty, while other factions are not? If it is, then one must ask how much of the quarantine principle of the LOO one believes in. I don't even pretend to understand how one STS faction may be in possession of a treaty, and that this would not effect or hold true for the other, much less the entire planet (?), or that the other faction as a result is not apparently also affected? Its a wild paper on any level. That is exactly what makes it seem so out there, particularly when attempting to color a President no less one way or the other? I can only hope that reasonably intelligent students of the LOO would discern their way by demanding far stronger basis's for believing in an argument for alien weaponry, and far more bizarre treaties with them against the backdrop of their studies as regards the quarantine. The problem becomes, as regards the Wilcock defense for Obama, is that if someone uses weird science, and even weirder unsubstantiated comic book facts to defend a man, a President no less, and a President of the Free Nation State of the World, is this truly helpful? I have a strong feeling that were Obama aware of either side of the argument, that he would disassociate himself as quickly from his defender Wilcock as he would from an accuser such as Alex Jones. Where has Wilcock even defended him in any event as has been speculated on these sites? I have to confess that I have no idea who Alex Jones is, nor that I knew of anything about a smear campaign against Obama on Facebook until Wilcock spoke to it. See my point? But I'm certain Obama wouldn't be any happier that a Wilcock defense were flying about out there any more than he is about the accusation by an Alex Jones. Either both are as absurd as the other, or both make Obama seem as silly, or both make the authors on either side of this coin seem wacky. All three of these statements are probably sadly true. Were one an educated Obama believer, it becomes difficult for me to see this as either scholarly, helpful, or academic, in the face of using the crazy information Wilcock uses to defend him? As I say, its a segment from a page right off of the X Files.

To continue to the LOO: Wilcock states he is a scholar of the LOO? OK, once again if true, I would challenge that Ra clearly shares that the Council was established by the Guardians, and that a quarantine was established by them for this planet to be protected and to preserve our free will. As such, and allowing for degrees of entry through the quarantine, STS crafts are figured to be allowed through the quarantine of the protective net to some extent, but this only in degrees, and that the entire reason for said quarantine is to protect and preserve earth, it's inhabitants, and most importantly our free will. Now, if you believe this, particularly as a Scholar of the LOO, you need then to bend the Ra teachings rather profoundly to believe or accept that the STS 4D, 5D, or 6D craft, and moreover it's occupants, are not only entering earth in 3D by sightings, and agreed to abductions of fellow STS in 3D (but only agreed to contractually by 3D STS earth inhabitants), but then go far outside of this understanding that one must grossly extend the quarantine principle taught, this by then going extremely beyond what might be assumed is free will preservation by then believing that the STO goodies will infringe on free will by beaming you aboard, or that STS nasties are literally sitting with world leaders, sharing tea and crumpets, and trading in technology secrets while entering into treaties with them, this over repeated and extended conversations presumably for years, which surely affect the entire planet of not only 3D STS, but 3D STO, and all inhabitants in between as well? How does this keep in definition with a quarantine as defined by Ra? It flatly doesn't. Where is the scholarly understanding then as to the LOO principles as prima facia evidence? It dissolves entirely, this due to many other beliefs systems entering in. See? And this muddies the waters of the LOO significantly, if not preserved by it's students by remaining vigilant.

Keeping in form with the LOO, its one thing for craft to be seen, it's another for craft to leave crop circles, its another for them to land for shock purpose, and it's another to abduct by consent (whether for STO rescue or for STS surgical procedure). But it's totally absolutely contrary to the Ra teachings to believe that these aliens are sitting in deep discourse with world leaders, sharing technology secrets, all on how to presumably control the world, and this against the free will of abiding STO citizens, and against the preservation of free will, all of which is acting totally out of the bounds of a quarantine protection as outlined by Ra through Confederation principles? These are such outlandish claims against the Ra teachings as if to suggest that not only is an attempt being made to take over the earth, if not at least to believe that there is more than a bit of subtle to strong overt influence vs control to manipulate it, so much so that it flies in the face of the LOO altogether as a result.

Would Obama, or any politician, advocate a Wilcockian defense such as this? Would any academic scholar of any subject, particularly given a Wilcockian defense or attack would no doubt utilize as many wacky defenses or criticisms to argue any point, advocate this? It becomes incredulous to believe Wilcock as a scholar of anything as much as a student of everything.

For myself, the most important point I make is as regards the LOO. I have made it in several posts before, and do so here again. It should be our primary concern. It is why we are here. I advocate that we as students not blur or allow it (The LOO) to be distorted so much as to confuse one set of teachings and principles with another, so much so as to not be able to distinguish what was given by Ra, as to be mixed by and with another opinion or philosophy. Wilcock is opinion, not reference, and certainly in no manner is he source. The LOO and Ra are source. If we utilize opinion as source we're in deep trouble. Fox news and Bill O' Reilly are examples of what has shaped up as opinion masquerading as source. It may even be argued that TV and media, and now the internet alone in a world of it's own, has changed what we are willing to accept as source. Opinion is just opinion. Its hardly source.

It is clear by the many admissions that many of the participants on bring4th, or even asc2k (wilcock's web forum), are only just beginning students, or ones that have yet to even begin, as much as only expressing an interest to do so. But to the ones that have been students, and have read, and yet allow the murkiness to creep in without engaging their discernment, or be bold enough to question the statements as in just the quarantine vs alien conspiracy as example..well...its akin to falling asleep at the wheel, with brothers on board no less. We not only owe it to ourselves to stay awake in these remaining years, particularly and especially in these coming years, but we owe it as much to the newcomers to assist as brothers, and as Ra assistants, if you will, for their awakening and for the benefit of all, as much as for our catalyst into STO for assisting, not just for some, but for all in the cause that took it upon themselves to come here to bring4th by openly asking and searching as do we all, and for us to do so without a nickel of profit requested or for a book or movie deal for doing so. Its easy. Just get involved.

I hope that if indeed this thread stimulates response that we may stay focused to the issue that Sirius originally asked as to is Wilcock real, and not become a focus on each other or whether we are on the blue team or the green team. Let us if interested give evidence and speak to the issue only, and not become engaged on commentary on or towards ourselves. It also doesn't matter a whit if one is an Obama supporter or not, or if there are even alien technologies or treaties out there as regards this discussion. A discussion such as this would be best left for a conspiracy site rather than here on bring4th. We are here to discuss the LOO and a specific sincere openly asked question by a brother who is in question. Let us establish a ground rule to remain academically to the point and to the issue:
How do theories and statement such as these above stack up in light of the LOO? I would welcome any and all participants to this discussion whether they be members from this forum or invited from others. The LOO surely does not encompass a wide core of the population of the planet. As such neither does bring4th. The more the merrier then as there are only a few sites that speak to the LOO.

Question everything! Discern all. It is one of the reasons we are here in 3D, as much as bring4th.

L/L from the heart ...with an equal amount of intelligence illuminating our paths,

Q

[DyerHarris]

it isn't difficult for "me" to sift through the distortions in davids stuff. "he" brings it down on 3-d style and allows the fruits of understanding to ripen at ones own pace. scientific proof for ascension is really good reading for "me"

[yossarian]

Quantum - first I just want to say, all your tactful disclaimers are unnecessary - at least with me There are no sacred cows as far as I'm concerned.

I appreciate the perspective you bring to this, because it is very much a different perspective from where a lot of us see this stuff. I gather you are an older gentleman? I'm 23, for reference. I have a very different perspective on David Wilcock.

David, from my perspective, is a synthesizer. When I read his website, I'm not looking for impartial unbiased analysis, I read it as a blog. There is no pretext made that it is unbiased or impartial, or that it is 100% based on provable facts. It's a summary, a "big picture" based on his opinion, a synthesis. It's a blog - very 21st century.

Some of his stuff is based on physical evidence, some not. He tries to point out which is which, but blog posts are by nature informal and incomplete.

The LOO itself, to me, is (basically) unprovable, and itself is just opinion. I don't see the LOO as "source" but rather just another blogger, just another opinion.

This is a very internet-based kind of approach. My generation is the blogging generation. We replace impersonal academic rigor with thoughts that are conceived, written, and published all on the same day. It is a very different intellectual world.

David is a synthesizer. He synthesizes:

- The works of others as they relate to spirituality, religion, conspiracy, government, history, science, philosophy. These come from books, whistleblower testimony, articles, and every other source that exists.
- His own personal opinion a.k.a. his own discernment
- Interpreting his dreams
- His own channeled info
- Whistleblower testimony that he has personally received

When you read David Wilcock's Blog, you are reading the melting pot of the above things. If you don't like the stew you don't have to chew :p

He is an academic in the sense that, on occasion, he has written articles that used mainstream authorities (like NASA) as references to make a specific scientific point. He hasn't done this for a long time though.. years and years.

He is a scholar in the same sense we all are, in that he reads stuff and interprets it. Anyone can be a scholar, and his claims are indeed based on "sources" even if he doesn't reference them in his blog. (Blogs are informal. Me being up to date on the latest sources though, I can give you references for all the question marks you entered. David isn't just making the stuff up, he is distilling/synthesizing the info of various other sources that he has investigated and considered reputable, and then combining it with his particular spiritual perspective.)

He is an authority on the LOO in the sense that he has read it many times and spent over a decade thinking about it. So whatever amount of authority this gets him, he's that much of an authority. Your claims on what he thinks about the LOO are slightly off but you do have legitimate points of criticism.

You have a major issue with David's interpretation of the quarantine because of the fact he mentions ET technology. The quarantine is not violated if ETs are invited in by certain individuals and only communicate with certain individuals. Clearly, Ra makes room for STS ETs to enter, and according to whistleblowers, documents, and lots of other data, the rulers of the world on a certain level co-operate with ETs. A large amount of the communication is channeling-based and so does not have to get through the quarantine, although there are certainly whistleblowers (who David considers credible) who have talked about the many ETs that live on planet Earth as part of the power structure.

One issue you have with the quarantine is the advanced tech idea. This doesn't violate the quarantine. If humans have access to alien tech, that doesn't violate the quarantine because it is humans doing the perpetrating. The idea is that humans have back-engineered a lot of tech from a few crashes as well as developed some tech themselves with the help of both negative and positive channeling and ancient texts. This "idea" isn't based on the LOO, it is based on research done by many many people and a lot of whistleblower testimony and documents. The stuff that David in particular supports basically does not conflict with the LOO. There are whistleblowers and stuff out there in the conspiracy community who make claims that contradict the LOO philosophy and David actively criticizes these people and does not believe them. Stargates, free energy, looking-glass, etc are all technologies that humans are capable of creating themselves with the proper know-how. Aliens are the source of the information but this does not violate the quarantine since the quarantine allows for a certain level of information and other stuff to get through. The main issue of the quarantine is to protect the "reality" of the humans until the humans are ready to open to a bigger reality, and David believes this aspect is sustained by higher dimensional beings constantly and endlessly influencing our reality to "maintain the illusion".

The info in blog post that you quoted is not original to David. None of it is. I knew all of that stuff before I read it on David's site. To me David does a nice job of summing it up, giving a big picture perspective, and sometimes synthesizing connections that I didn't see before. That information is available from multitudinous other sources all over the place. David's summation is high quality because he does use discernment, he does filter out a lot of bad info, and he does put it in the proper philosophical and spiritual context as fits in with the LOO.

In my opinion, as one person who thinks the LOO is correct, none of that stuff contradicts the LOO and all of it has evidence from other places even if the evidence is often very weak. Some of the evidence is original to David in that he has had some contacts with government whistleblowers as well as has done some of his own scientific research. (In this case "scientific" borders on occult though, in my opinion science and religion are just two different attempts to express the same thing, and David's "occult science" is the attempt to synthesize these parts.)

The nature of real-time politics is that everything is based on fuzzy judgments. The blog post David made there is a real-time moment in history, he is summing up the latest info from MANY various sources that provide info, and in a timely manner that is meaningful at the moment. He doesn't reference it because in this case it's such a major "Cliff's Notes" that he wouldn't be able to... that sum-up of the factions is based on literally hundreds of different sources. Hundreds of hours of video and audio and thousands of pages of documents, combined with a spiritual philosophy.

One major weakness of David is his Ra Readings, which are very easy to criticize and he himself has made criticisms of them, although not nearly enough to address everything. The idea of a "rapture" where ETs come and take everyone away is outdated, he hasn't espoused that idea since pre-2004. 99% of his Ra channeling was done pre-2000 and has many negative influences as David himself attests to. When there is a contradiction between little-Ra and big-Ra David goes with big-Ra. He has dismissed a lot of his own channelings, but at the same time he does recognize many of them as valuable additions to the LOO philosophy. So I mean it is what it is - it's more channeling. It's purely a subjective and unverifiable process.

The reason you can't find common ground with David is because you really are coming from a very different perspective. You are not a politically informed person -- you aren't up on the conspiracies and whistleblowers and so on. These things are a major, major part of David's work. The other biggest part of his work is his own personal style of exposition of the consciousness science. His commentaries on the LOO are one of the smallest aspects of what he does and he hasn't done much of that since pre-1998 anyway.

If you watch his movie "2012 Enigma" you'll see the focus of his work. It's a combination of new-politics, new-spirituality, and new-science.

I get the feeling you used to talk to the guy way back in the day and haven't followed his work in at least several years. You're part of the "Carla Camp" which seems to be an older age group that is less politically involved and a lot more inward looking. A lot of people my age (not me) have actually found the LOO and heard about wanderers through David. Their interest in politics and conspiracy led them to David, who then led them to the idea of wanderers and LOO. So the approach is different.

Most of David's audience comes to him already knowing that the government does have flying saucers (as Ra stated in Book 1 of the LOO but was redacted by Don Elkins in the first draft) and other advanced tech which they have used to control the population. That the government was complicit in 9/11, Pearl Harbor, JFK, and basically every major political event.

The amount of information that pertains to all points in history that has come out during the Bush years is staggering. For the last 10 years of my life, I have spent the majority of my free time digesting incredible volumes of material. The internet provides raw data in a scope that was unheard of just 20 years ago. People of my generation are information sponges. Every month there are countless new disclosures that require a full-time job to stay abreast of. These aren't spiritually important, they are politically important, and David's aims are deeply political, but they combine politics with science and religion.

Personally I can't help but see this as a generation gap. I see such a massive gap between children of the internet and people who grew up pre-internet. Most of David's audience is my age, and he isn't trying to prove to us about the Annunaki or the Illuminati or 9/11 or saucers because we already knew it before we found his site. To us, David combines all that knowledge with the spiritual precepts of the LOO.

Personally I do think he is the reincarnation (the evidence is overwhelming) but I don't see Edgar Cayce in David. I actually see Pythagorus more than anything. I have vague recollections of Pythagorus, lol, and I constantly think of Pythagorus for some reason when I'm reading David's stuff. Pythagorus was a musician, mystic, scientist and mathematician. He wasn't much of an academic or scholar - although neither was Edgar Cayce for that matter. And neither is David Wilcock. His niche is hard to describe. A bit of a polymath combined with political activist.

[Ali Quadir]

Quite a post Quantum... I've read all of it. In spite of the fact that I have the attention span of, well an internet user.

You've added together a lot of questions about the man. And you have some points. The man has his quirks we all do. I could just respond and word for word answer any point you posted. But considering the size of your post and the uncertainty I often experienced about where you were trying to go with your statements this is going to take a very long time and likely ends up with me barking up several random trees.

Could you pick your own strongest arguments and summarize your post please?

From my perspective at this time it seems you dislike the guy and have added a whole lot of reasons that together form some kind of negative halo around the guy. I'm not sure exactly what your intent is, at one point you attack his person, at another you attack his theories, and yet at another point you attack his sources which are at one point too elusive (secret information). And at other points you consider him only recompiling existing information out there. Yet you also repeatedly state good things about him.

Considering the topic of our discussion I would suspect you to primarily aim at his academic value. Yet if I ask myself to point at the arguments you use to discredit him in that area I only find the Law of One (LOO, sounds too British for me) notions where David states that in spite of the quarantine and free will we're being visited by aliens. Which is true, but David didn't invent the stories about visiting aliens. He just reports on them. What is he to do ignore the stuff from the real word for something Ra said decades ago? Who is to say the agenda has not changed? Who is to say that these incursions do not remain below the accepted level of infiltration? Also David referred to the quarantine as a reason why the Blossom Goodchild prophecy about mass landing at the end of last year could not be true.

So not only is he not denying the Law of One in this regard, he's actually using it to strengthen the point you're saying he's breaking.

I'll give you that he's a character. Rockstar, movie producer, public speaker. Full of himself and his material. From a distance this comes with all the ego and self promotion associated with such a role.

However, just because he sounds arrogant doesn't mean he's unreliable. Just because he is incredibly certain of his material does not mean he's unreliable. Just because he's controversial and not as friendly to Carla as we'd all like doesn't mean he's unreliable.

Let me rephrase the most important request in my message. "Please put forward one or more concrete points that you're willing to clarify and defend in an open discussion."

I could just cherry pick random points to respond to from your message. But I'd rather have a real conversation instead of the strawman argument I'd make of it.

[Monica]

Although as a physician I am tempted to speak to the last several interesting posts, I admit I found Sirus' original thread more intriguing. Without intending to step on the toes of those that are David Wilcock fans, I wonder if it is possible to gracefully, academically, and openly question the gentleman, or his credentials, as this thread originally requested? ...<snip>...Mr. Wilcock has set himself apart by leaps and bounds by not making himself so much as a participant in study as much as he insists he is an authority, these by his many words to that effect, such that he brings upon himself scrutiny as a self appointed celebrity of the LOO, if you will. I specifically question his credentials in as much as I remain baffled by the many David Wilcock self-professed "scholarly" and "academic" claims he repeatedly feels the need to make for himself.

I think it is entirely valid to question the credentials and viewpoints of anyone in a leadership position, whether they be a pastor, politician, or anyone else who has put themselves in the public arena in a position of influence. Especially in this case, being that the name of Ra is being used, the Law of One referenced...I think it is important to recognize that there are fundamental differences in his views and interpretation.

Personally, I would never belong to any religion, because I dislike being told what to believe. But, interestingly, many people who have discarded mainstream religion then turn to 'New Age' gurus and readily accept their views without question.

I think it's healthy to question! And it's nothing personal towards the leader...In fact, any student of the Law of One should encourage questioning, being that Confederation entities always stress how important it is for us to accept only that which resonates, and that those on the STO path not infringe upon the free will of others.

Therefore, I think it's a valid point of discussion, as long as we remain focused on intellectual discourse of ideas, and not lower ourselves to insults of anyone personally. All of my previous comments, and those about to follow, are of my own personal opinion. I will now put on my 'moderator' cap for just a second and ask that everyone please keep this discussion respectful.

[yossarian]

Lol, these forums are so unique.

I haven't seen anyone be disrespectful or act in a heated manner on Bring4th. Everyone on this forum is incredibly cautious about even slightly offending others with their opinions. It's such a distinct difference from every other forum on the net, where people get extremely violent with their opinions and go into narcissistic rages when others disagree with them.

It's a good thing.

[ayadew]

Lol, these forums are so unique.

I haven't seen anyone be disrespectful or act in a heated manner on Bring4th. Everyone on this forum is incredibly cautious about even slightly offending others with their opinions. It's such a distinct difference from every other forum on the net, where people get extremely violent with their opinions and go into narcissistic rages when others disagree with them.

It's a good thing.

I agree, my friend. It's a truly joyous sight. Perhaps those which would want to spread havoc and negative intent are disencouraged when they see our positive exchange of energy, and understands that such actions would have little meaning or effect here. Hopefully, they are also inspired by it to a more loving and harmonious life!

My friends, you are all an inspiration to me and all of us. Your loving and accepting intention is a light in the dark for many, and to visit this place always lightens up the darkest moods.

Do not get used to this sight, Monica. If you become a moderator of another forum you might end up banning the whole user base, lol!

[Monica]

Lol, these forums are so unique.

I haven't seen anyone be disrespectful or act in a heated manner on Bring4th. Everyone on this forum is incredibly cautious about even slightly offending others with their opinions. It's such a distinct difference from every other forum on the net, where people get extremely violent with their opinions and go into narcissistic rages when others disagree with them.

It's a good thing.

Yes, definitely a good thing! Everyone is so wonderful here!

[Richard]

I’ve read some of his material. It doesn’t resonate with me though. Similar in some ways to LOO, but too commercial for my tastes.

Richard

[Bring4th_Steve]

I would also like to add that whenever I see others becoming critical of something or someone, it is best to remind those (who will listen! :-) that we are here on 3D Earth to "experience". David is no more special than any of us. He is simply a tool, a catalyst, an experience that has crossed most of our paths at some point during our truth seeking.

My strongest point is that it doesn't MATTER what Wilcock says, even if he is outright lying! If one seeks the truth, one will find it along his/her individual path at some point. Maybe it ultimately won't be by Wilcock, but by another person that you found through him. In other words, DW's contributions to 3D Earth are no different than our own contributions--to provide a means for us to see a reflection of ourselves and decide if it is who we are, or who we are not.

That's it, guys! We don't need to analyze anyone any further or to judge others as to whether the information we take in from day to day is credible and truthful, or fake and imagined. If we are asking ourselves to find truth, we will encounter experiences that lead us down that path. If others are looking for lies and fear-based information, that too will align and begin to resonate with them. The information we perceive serves as triggers and path marks, guideposts and suggestions in helping us to see what resonates with our own selves. Are we not here to know ourselves so that the Creator can know itself in a way that only you can uniquely perceive? Ok! Well? Think! Whatever truth/trash we perceive is helping us to understand who we are by our own will to accept or deny what we perceive. We then follow what we resonate with by further pursuing information of similar characteristics. For many, this becomes recognized as our life path, or our path of seeking. And on this path we all will come across information that might seem truthful to one person, but not to another, just as 3D Sunset pointed out. Certainly while we are all one, we are infinitely different in the various ways of pursuing information that is presented as "truth". We are all picking and choosing off the grand buffet table of life experiences, chewing on or spitting out these unique experiences in order to better understand ourselves as only we can.

If you can appreciate this attempt to drag us all back to the "big picture" or even sit and think about these words applied to everything in life and not just DW, I am confident that you will realize this thread has become a matter of ego and separation, and not of appreciation and unity.

For the record, I am neither for or against David. I have read tons of his material, which at one point resonated very strongly with me. A few years later, here I am, no longer resonating with his material and not caring one bit to pursue his interests. For me, he was a stepping stone. I literally loved him when I was excitedly visiting his web site for his next big blog post, and now I am honoring his efforts as a reflection of me that can no longer tolerate his material. He offered me just what I needed to get to the next step in my seeking of truth. Perhaps that is you, too! Or perhaps you are comfortable enough that you have found your truth in him, and are happy living the rest of your life that way. There is no right or wrong.

That is your decision, the beauty of free will, and the brilliance of being able to seek truth in a million different ways, no matter how truth might get to us.

Please, all... Even though we are politely debating, please take a step back and consider renewing some appreciation or "agreeing to disagree", and moving on from these comparisons and judgments. Bizarre or brilliant, DW is part of the same tapestry of life experiences as you are.

Peace out!
Steve

[Sirius]

I would also like to add that whenever I see others becoming critical of something or someone, it is best to remind those (who will listen! :-) that we are here on 3D Earth to "experience". David is no more special than any of us. He is simply a tool, a catalyst, an experience that has crossed most of our paths at some point during our truth seeking.

My strongest point is that it doesn't MATTER what Wilcock says, even if he is outright lying! If one seeks the truth, one will find it along his/her individual path at some point. Maybe it ultimately won't be by Wilcock, but by another person that you found through him. In other words, DW's contributions to 3D Earth are no different than our own contributions--to provide a means for us to see a reflection of ourselves and decide if it is who we are, or who we are not.

That's it, guys! We don't need to analyze anyone any further or to judge others as to whether the information we take in from day to day is credible and truthful, or fake and imagined. If we are asking ourselves to find truth, we will encounter experiences that lead us down that path. If others are looking for lies and fear-based information, that too will align and begin to resonate with them. The information we perceive serves as triggers and path marks, guideposts and suggestions in helping us to see what resonates with our own selves. Are we not here to know ourselves so that the Creator can know itself in a way that only you can uniquely perceive? Ok! Well? Think! Whatever truth/trash we perceive is helping us to understand who we are by our own will to accept or deny what we perceive. We then follow what we resonate with by further pursuing information of similar characteristics. For many, this becomes recognized as our life path, or our path of seeking. And on this path we all will come across information that might seem truthful to one person, but not to another, just as 3D Sunset pointed out. Certainly while we are all one, we are infinitely different in the various ways of pursuing information that is presented as "truth". We are all picking and choosing off the grand buffet table of life experiences, chewing on or spitting out these unique experiences in order to better understand ourselves as only we can.

If you can appreciate this attempt to drag us all back to the "big picture" or even sit and think about these words applied to everything in life and not just DW, I am confident that you will realize this thread has become a matter of ego and separation, and not of appreciation and unity.

For the record, I am neither for or against David. I have read tons of his material, which at one point resonated very strongly with me. A few years later, here I am, no longer resonating with his material and not caring one bit to pursue his interests. For me, he was a stepping stone. I literally loved him when I was excitedly visiting his web site for his next big blog post, and now I am honoring his efforts as a reflection of me that can no longer tolerate his material. He offered me just what I needed to get to the next step in my seeking of truth. Perhaps that is you, too! Or perhaps you are comfortable enough that you have found your truth in him, and are happy living the rest of your life that way. There is no right or wrong.

That is your decision, the beauty of free will, and the brilliance of being able to seek truth in a million different ways, no matter how truth might get to us.

Please, all... Even though we are politely debating, please take a step back and consider renewing some appreciation or "agreeing to disagree", and moving on from these comparisons and judgments. Bizarre or brilliant, DW is part of the same tapestry of life experiences as you are.

Peace out!
Steve

what else is there to say?
I totally agree.

[yossarian]

Personally I think "agreeing to disagree" is the plague of modern peoples.

This is valuing agreement over truth - conformity and placidity over experiencing the ideas that others have to share.

Arguments should be enjoyed and "opponents" should be honored for the service they are providing by contradicting you. Instead of hiding from the argument or begging the participants to stop arguing, one should cultivate the ability to love the people you argue with, to love despite active disagreement, and to appreciate someone's contradictory opinion and yet still respect them enough to present your own contradictory opinion.

Self-effacement is failing to honor your own value and is a denial of the One Infinite Creator.

I always find it incredibly ironic how people will go to an internet forum, a place where the entire purpose of existence is discussion of diverging opinions, and ask people to stop discussing the diverging opinions. I sense zero hostility from any of the participants in this thread, so why are so many mods stepping in?

A healthy forum is a lively forum.

Don't be so squeemish! This is a very polite discussion. Disagreement is not inferior to consensus.

[Monica]

Just as exercise in conversation, if any of these points he made above were even remotely true, it would be staggering in scope, much less his personal wherewithal to be able to have acquired it, as well as put it together to so compartmentalize it? And to do so with such articulation, accuracy, confidence, and congruency? It strikes me furthermore absurd to the extreme, that if true, that a common man, such as Wilcock, would "ever" come close to being in possession of such highly sensitive secrets of state, and thats just this nation state of America, not to mention the nation state secrets of Russia, the Middle East, and Asia as well, much less which faction has what as regards alien technology, even if such knowledge does exist? He's just a guy afterall. I doubt James Bond is so altogether in touch on so many levels. Secrets are named so for a reason, i.e. secret. The dissemination of such knowledge would be contrary to its stated purpose. If two women, presumably on board an airplane, with many other innocent people were caused to crash with all aboard, and this for merely "asking questions" (see entire article if interested as posted above in the link provided), or a Film Maker such as Stanly Kubrick were caused to die for having made a film with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman in it, then how might a fellow such as Wilcock be able to write and broadcast so profusely without so much as a whimper of discord? All the women did was ask questions? Mr. Wilcock does a bit more than this. Wouldn't any prudent individual agree that he does a bit more than this?

Eh, good point!

There is a plethora of acknowledged true scholars holding Ph.d's that are able to decipher Sumerian texts, Egyptian Hieroglyphics, decode DNA, speak to geology, astronomy, and discuss technology in terms beyond our understanding as does Dewey Larson. These are individuals that truly pave the way, lay the ground, open thought, and research in depth, from which others then pick up cursory knowledge and create their pieces and opinions from it. That Wilcock may seem original to the novice of these materials may be an altogether different matter. What I can say, with all certainty, is that there is absolutely nothing scholarly about all of this far fetched conjecture. It is the antithesis of being scholarly, this to his scholarly claims.

I agree with your definition of 'scholar.' However, I don't think the application of the term 'scholar' has anything to do with whether something is 'far-fetched' or not.

For example, some people think that the idea of the twin towers and WTC7 being felled by controlled demolition is far-fetched...many even to the point of accusing anyone who suggests it as being 'wacko' and 'unpatriotic.' They consider the idea not only farfetched but preposterous and even treasonous!

Yet, there are indeed scholars - university physics professors and the like - who are studying the issue of 911 and they have published detailed, scientific, peer-reviewed lab reports which show indisputable (to anyone who dares to look at them!) evidence of controlled demolition of the 3 skyscrapers which all collapsed at near-freefall speed on 911.

I do not wish to turn this into a discussion or debate about 911, but I offer this as an example of how something might be both farfetched (which is subjective) and scholarly (as evidenced by rigorous, academic research).

The term 'scholar' is often used in reference to those who study the Bible. What makes them scholars? The ability to cite Biblical references...quote chapter and verse upon demand...or are they 'scholars' because their views are accepted by their peers? Is a Jehovah's Witness Bible 'expert' considered as such by, say, a Baptist?

My point here is that the very term 'scholar' implies an inherent acceptance of the person's credentials by someone...some other person or entity. It would seem that in order to be classified as a scholar in any discipline of study, there would need to be some sort of definition of accepted dogma/doctrine; ie., someone who studies the Bible might be considered a 'scholar' only within the confines of his/her respective religion.

Being that we, as students of the Law of One, do not have any such structure...being that the Law of One is not a religion, and being that even Ra has referred to themselves as 'students' then I think 'student of the Law of One' is a more accurate term than 'Law of One scholar.'

It has nothing to do with how far-fetched it is...most mainstream people would think the Law of One is far-fetched! But it has everything to do with whether there is a predefined and agreed upon structure of belief that is being studied.

We have no such structure, so I don't think any of us can claim to be scholars. We are all students/teachers and, even then, mostly students!

Having said that, are those ideas of aliens being in control of the world far-fetched, from a Law of One perspective?

I think a distinction should be made between the idea of aliens visiting our planet vs. aliens being in complete control of our planet.

Have some aliens penetrated the quarantine? Absolutely. We know that from the Law of One. But that is a far cry from being in total control of the planet!

I've been accused of being a conspiracy theorist because I acknowledge the scientific analysis by physics professors regarding tangible evidence of explosives in the 3 towers. I also think the idea of a lone gunman killing JFK is laughable.

I too once obsessed over stuff like the Illuminati, the CFR, and other so-called factions of the alleged power elite. But I soon found that, the deeper I looked, the deeper the rabbit hole got! I now wonder how much of that stuff is really true, and how much of it is just fabrication, designed to confuse everyone and, more importantly, instill fear.

And what do we know about those who instill fear? That is the hallmark of mixed polarity, at best. Those who knowingly and intentionally instill fear are decidedly operating under an STS agenda. I think there are indeed STS entities out there, whose agenda is to instill fear with all this doom-and-gloom stuff. These entities want confusion, chaos, fear, and violence on our planet. They want us to distrust anyone who seems to work towards peace, whether that be President Obama or anyone else.

In order to believe this argument in defense for Obama, one would need first to believe all the conjecture about aliens and technologies, treaties, factions, weaponry, and alien conspiracies to begin with. If one were to be in the camp that 'Obama is in fact a bad dude', but assuming an individual had neither this knowledge, nor believed in all of this far fetched alien technology high state secret conspiracy as to whose in possession of what, then that person would be neither dissuaded nor left to feel any more comfortable that Obama is an OK kinda guy. Wilcocks argument above is incredulous to say the least and does absolutely nothing whatsoever to dispel the original argument of an Alex Jones in any event to begin with? It is not even so much a defense for Obama as much as it is an incrimination of a different sort left unspoken? For those of you that are Obama supporters, this entire defense only goes so far as to suggest that Obama doesn't have it all together in as much as there are so many factions that he can't, but that presumably he's trying nonetheless as one of the very factions that Alex Jones in fact claims he is? This is scholarly? I am dumbfounded that this is openly offered as scholarly? Assuming an Alex Jones were reading this argument as academic grounds to dispute his original argument, which he (Jones) at least makes painstaking attempts to document, it would no doubt bewilder Jones himself.

As someone who is familiar with the likes of Alex Jones, I will say that they do indeed believe all that stuff. These are the people who insisted that the US would be in a state of martial law by Oct. 08, and everyone would be rounded up in concentration camps. They are now saying that the swine flu is an evil plot to kill off most of the population. (Never mind the little detail of past plagues that, though they killed millions, affected only some 2% of the total population, thus making hardly a dent! Oh, and I might as well raise that annoying little question of: Just how do the bad guys avoid getting the flu? Don't say 'vaccines' because vaccines are not 100% effective...it's simply not believable to me that any human (barring terrorist fanatics) would jeopardize his own life and that of his loved ones for some such agenda.)

When I first read DW's article, I actually felt relieved that someone was daring to question the 'Obama is evil and will round us up into concentration camps' mindset. Among conspiracy theorists, it is quite fashionable to believe that Obama=Bush! (which I personally find outlandish) and that there is 1 single, cohesive entity - called 'them' or, at best, 'the power elite' who is working as 1 being...seamless and harmonious...and in total control of everything, all the way down to hurricanes and viruses. The deeper one ventures down the rabbit hole, the more one tends to think that nothing ever happens by chance...every seemingly 'natural' event is actually an insidious plot to control our minds.

I find this mindset to be feeding the very darkness they think they are exposing.

On the one hand, articles like DW's are welcome breeze, because they dispel the notion of 1 single power structure in total control, and outline the concept that there are factions at odds with one another, which is more accurate, since we know that STS entities cannot get along! How can they be in total control? This would presuppose that they are capable of working harmoniously for a common goal, and STS entities clearly are not! Rather, they fight amongst themselves, constantly vying for power. So, I ask again, how could they be in total control? So, in that respect, regardless of whether his alleged 'facts' are indeed facts, which I do indeed doubt, I do think DW's article may be very useful among the 'conspiracy theorists' community, since, as pointed out, they already believe that stuff.

On the other hand, just how is focusing on that stuff, whether true or not, even remotely in alignment with Law of One principles? It just seems like there are more important things to talk about...as in, instead of discussing the STS agenda, why not discuss how we might utilize catalyst to become more loving and increase the Harvest? That's what we're here for, right? We already know that there are STS entities polarizing too...so I really don't see the value of getting too caught up in that stuff. It seems to me that it could even be counter-productive, in the sense that it can spread a lot of fear. Some current, tangible things for which we have evidence, as in the case of 911, I am in agreement that exposing them can be good, but the rabbit hole seems to keep getting deeper, the more you dig. I realize that it's a gray area as to how deep we should dig! And likely an individual thing. For example, I might personally feel guided to do what I can to expose the 911 coverup, but others might think even that is pointless. We all have to do what we feel is in alignment with our own mission. I have not kept up with DW's views on this, so I cannot address him specifically. I have no doubt that his intentions are good. What I will say is that, regarding psychics and channels in general, those who just keep digging and digging ever deeper down the rabbit hole...ie. focus on transient topics like politics and the so-called 'power elite' are likely feeding the very thing they seek to expose, though unwittingly and inadvertently. I truly believe the rabbit hole is bottomless, and our main task is to reach upwards to the Light...not sink lower into the intricacies of darkness.

---

I sense zero hostility from any of the participants in this thread, so why are so many mods stepping in?

Not sure what you mean by 'stepping in' but so far only 2 mods have participated in this discussion...we generally do participate in discussions.

I voiced concern that the discussion be kept respectful because the thread itself is about a real, live person.

I would have said the same, regardless of who the person was. My comment was precationary; I agree that everyone has been respectful and there is no reason for concern.

---

David, from my perspective, is a synthesizer. When I read his website, I'm not looking for impartial unbiased analysis, I read it as a blog. There is no pretext made that it is unbiased or impartial, or that it is 100% based on provable facts. It's a summary, a "big picture" based on his opinion, a synthesis. It's a blog - very 21st century.

Some of his stuff is based on physical evidence, some not. He tries to point out which is which, but blog posts are by nature informal and incomplete.

The LOO itself, to me, is (basically) unprovable, and itself is just opinion. I don't see the LOO as "source" but rather just another blogger, just another opinion.

This is a very internet-based kind of approach. My generation is the blogging generation. We replace impersonal academic rigor with thoughts that are conceived, written, and published all on the same day. It is a very different intellectual world.

David is a synthesizer. He synthesizes:

- The works of others as they relate to spirituality, religion, conspiracy, government, history, science, philosophy. These come from books, whistleblower testimony, articles, and every other source that exists.
- His own personal opinion a.k.a. his own discernment
- Interpreting his dreams
- His own channeled info
- Whistleblower testimony that he has personally received

yossarian, you have brought up some good points about the difference in which info is perceived by different generations.

I think the concern here is that, while anyone can blog, there are several layers of seeming authoritativeness inherently involved in this situation. For starters, use of the terms Ra and Law of One.

Discernment is key. This discussion might be helpful for some, as we mirror to one another our own perspectives of discernment.

[yossarian]

I can answer some of your questions. (I read a lot.. and have read 100% of David's published writings lol)

One thing that is nice about David is that he is an opponent of the theory that says "aliens are in total control". You're right that the "aliens are in total control" theory just isn't true.

What is true is that the human hierarchies of STS are just extensions of Orion hierarchies. The Illuminati is pledged to the Orions, even if the Orions are not physically on Earth, they contact one another through magical means. In the LOO Ra mentions how STS entities will contact STS people on Earth to give them useful information on how to control the population. This is precisely what is happening.

The Orions don't have total control by any means. The world is determined by the collective consciousness of humanity. The STS rulers are just the shadow side manifested of the collective shadow of humanity, and so it is definitely wrong to say "the aliens are in total control." Humans have the final control - the ultimate control. Humans, at the moment, have decided to give away a lot of their power to STS hierarchies unfortunately, but it is still the humans who are in control.

There is definitely a LOT of false information out there, and you can't believe everything you read. The stuff that David presents is generally the higher quality information. The most contentious stuff David presents is Dan Burish and Henry Deacon testimony which is related to Montauk and Star Gates. These things are basically totally unproven - the only evidence are these whistleblowers who David has spoken to personally and he trusts.

One of the biggest points David always makes is that by fearing the STS people, you are worshipping them. This is obviously a major influence from the LOO. He always talks about how we need to see the STS people as reflections of our shadow side and how to learn to love them while rejecting the service they wish to provide. Straight from the LOO, of course.

Why is David still alive while Kubrick is assassinated? Kubrick had a giant audience. He is the most celebrated filmmaker in human history. David Wilcock is a lone conspiracy nut who only appeals to fringe lunatics (like all of us on bring4th, lol ).

Killing David Wilcock would actually give his work MORE credibility, not less. They killed Kubrick because Kubrick was insisting on adding even more damning disclosure into Eyes Wide Shut. The version you see now is actually the censored version! It is all a direct exposure of how the high-level Illuminati cults operate and he had originally filmed a lot more stuff. The most sensitive stuff was cut.

There is also an aspect of spiritual protection. In order for Kubrick to be murdered, he had to agree to it on some level. The reason many of these people who attempt to bring us the truth are alive is because there are spiritual laws that protect most people from being murdered. Also, the STS people have better ways to discredit people - everything from blackmail and intimidation to propaganda campaigns to attacking their funding and the people around them. They truly don't have the spiritual capital to just murder everyone - or they would have done it already.

It very much is true that the elites want to reduce the population to 500 million, but the essential point is that they can't and won't be allowed to. Humanity will ONLY receive as much catalyst as it can handle, and that isn't going to include decimation of the population now or any time soon. It's just not gonna happen because the ultimate law is not the material laws that bombs and guns are made of, but spiritual laws that put people in the right place at the right time and so on.

The elites have been trying very hard for the last 100 years to reduce the population, but the exact opposite has happened. Their population reduction policies are always failures. The most they've managed to achieve is cause white people to shrink - right now the white race is the only race on earth that is shrinking in numbers - but absolutely every other demographic is growing and so you can see how the elites are not and never have been in total control. They may be at the top of the pyramid, but that doesn't make them God.

[Monica]

Why would the elite try to reduce the population?

[yossarian]

They are serving their Orion masters who want to enslave humanity and take the Earth as their spoils.

It seems that the Earth is unique for its diversity and life. A major goal of the elite is to protect the diversity of the Earth from humans -- as long as their total control can be maintained / achieved. They'd rather destroy the Earth than lose control. (Luckily they don't have this option)

To accomplish the goal of preserving the unique Earth's environment while retaining total control of all humans, they need a smaller population. 7 billion people is unmanageable.

Right now using free energy we could eliminate pollution in like 6 months, but free energy also means free people. The Orion's goal for the Earth was to enslave the humans and also gain dominion over all the various lifeforms which seem to have a lot of value.

Part of this program is eugenics. The elite are eugenicists and have specifically implemented plans to speed up human evolution by selection pressure. A lot of the social systems they've set up are specifically designed to speed up human evolution by weeded out the genes of the inferior. It's unclear if this is an Orion thing or just an Illuminati thing, but anyway this is one reason.

Basically there are lots of reasons, but "the lie is different at every level." Many of the elite just say, "It is necessary to reduce the population, I know it's cruel, but there is no other way. We have to. We have to save the Earth. There is no other way."

They'll repeat "there is no other way" over and over because that is the lie that has been programmed into them. Most of these people are good people at the core, most are not very STS polarized, they are just slaves. A large part of the "elite" who are in these STS hierarchies don't even want to be in them anymore, but they are stuck because all their family is in it and it's all they've ever known, they are bound by various evil magical rituals and entity attachments, and on top of all that, you aren't allowed to quit because they'll murder you.

Some of them have managed to escape though. But it's very very difficult. Most of them just reluctantly follow orders and rationalize to themselves that the stuff they do isn't so bad.

[ayadew]

I will not take an active part in discussing Wilcock and STO/STS concepts. I would like to add this excerp from the Law of One book 5.
Do not take it factual, instead consider the concepts it presents.

Many groups become fascinated with transient information of a specific,
mundane nature and have their information polluted by negative entities
who gradually replace the positive entities that began their contact.
Pursuing information of this kind is like moving the dial on your radio so
that you end up with another station altogether from the one with which
you began. This change in desire for the kind of information that the group
seeks from its contact is the signal to that contact that what it has to offer is
no longer desired, and the Law of Free Will requires that only hints of this
de-tuning process be given to the group so that all choices that the group
makes are totally a product of its free will. When a group continues to seek
the transient information, the positive contact gives hints here and there
that such information is not of importance, but when the group persists in
seeking this kind of information, the positive contact, in order to observe
the free will of the group, must slowly withdraw and is then eventually
replaced by a negative contact which is only too happy to give this kind of
information, but with less desire for accuracy and with maximal desire to
remove the group from the ranks of those who serve others. When the
group has been discredited by false information—such as dates of future
disasters which are publicized by the group and then do not occur—then
the negative entities have been successful in removing the power of the
group’s light and have gathered it for themselves.

We still feel that this information is totally unimportant, and the only
reason that we include it now is to show how easy it is for a group to get off
the track, shall we say, and to lose the focus of desire for that which is
important and that with which the group began: the desire to serve others
by gathering information which may aid in the evolution of mind, body,
and spirit. Ten thousand years from now it will not matter one whit who
did what to whom on this tiny speck of whirling dust. All that will matter is
that love may be found at any time in every person and particle of the one
creation, or any illusion thereof. Hopefully information gained through any
effort such as the Ra contact will help some other third-density entities to
discover more of that truth and to move one step further on their
evolutionary journey to the one Creator.

Why did you begin, my friends?

Much love to all of you.

[Monica]

They are serving their Orion masters who want to enslave humanity and take the Earth as their spoils.

It seems that the Earth is unique for its diversity and life. A major goal of the elite is to protect the diversity of the Earth from humans -- as long as their total control can be maintained / achieved. They'd rather destroy the Earth than lose control.

Thanks for the explanation, yossarian.

Respectfully, I emphatically disagree. According to the Law of One, the Earth is not all that unique. Lots of 3D planets exist; In fact, the Guardians are preparing another 3D planet right now to be the home of those wishing to repeat 3D.

Additionally, according to the Law of One, STS entities feed on negative energies such as fear. The more humans in a state of fear, the more food for them!

It is true (according to the Law of One) that STS entities gain polarity by enslaving others, so it doesn't seem logical to me that they'd want to reduce the number of souls available for enslavement. Of course, that's just my opinion! I could be wrong...but I really don't see how it's even important, actually, as to what the STS 'agenda' is.

An important point to realize is that it is the soul of the person they wish to enslave, not just the body! The popular 'power elite' scenario as you described just doesn't jive with the Law of One. There is too much emphasis on the physical. Higher density STS entities know that 3D is just a school. They know it's not the end-all...they know there are other densities. The scenario as described seems to be coming from the mind of someone who thinks 3D is all there is...and Earth is unique in all the heavens...quite frankly, it seems to have religious dogma woven into fear-based tactics. I think they accomplish much more evil with the myth of their power than they do with the reality.

That's not to say that STS entities don't exist...we know that they do! But I just don't buy into that whole "the power elite has it all neatly wrapped up and have had a global agenda for a long time" idea.

---

I will not take an active part in discussing Wilcock and STO/STS concepts.

Thank you for the reminder, ayadew!

Bring4th's policy is to focus on the positive study of the Law of One, and our guidelines very explicitly state that info from other channeled sources, though mentioned in passing, are not to be the focus of discussion on this forum. There are plenty of other forums for those other sources to have full expression!

However, there seems to be a bit of a gray area in regards to others, such as David Wilcock, who may seem to be promoting the Law of One and even reference Ra, yet combine that with other material. Whether that other material is valid or not is not really the issue; what is important, imo, is to just be aware that there is other material being represented in that case, and to not assume that all his viewpoints are necessarily representative of the Law of One. The same is true for all of us! All of us have other experiences and resources that we bring to the table. It's a matter of discernment as to how much of that we want to accept, but at least we usually know that it is other material! The question, imo, is how to distinguish the continuity of the Ra contact from 'other' sources...or is that even possible? I don't know if there is a clear answer to that question. We certainly don't want to make the Law of One into a religious dogma, of course, which means that we will have to be content with engaging in the process of discernment. I think it is a valid point of discussion, to try to sort it out, as long as it is concepts that are being discussed, and not actual people.

The 'STS agenda' was brought into the discussion in the context of the Law of One...ie., the piece written by DW, a self-proclaimed promoter of the Law of One, had a great deal of reference to the so-called 'negative power elite.'

DW's viewpoints, as those of anyone else, should be subject to the discernment of the individual. As Steve pointed out, he is offering his perspective, and each person may decide for themselves if the info resonates or not.

At the same time, I do think it's important to clarify that, as yossarian pointed out, DW's viewpoints are a synthesis of his own experiences, and it is up to each person to discern whether they are representative of the Law of One.

At any rate, I think it's safe to say that the topic of politics/world events, whether STS controlled or not, is certainly of a transient nature.

That's really about all I have to say on the matter...I think you are right, ayadew, in that we should get the discussion back on a more positive track. We definitely need to all help one another avoid detuning.

[Quantum]

Quantum - first I just want to say, all your tactful disclaimers are unnecessary - at least with me There are no sacred cows as far as I'm concerned.

Tactfulness, kindness, and love are prerequisite for friendly open discourse.

......I gather you are an older gentleman? I'm 23, for reference.
......You're part of the "Carla Camp" which seems to be an older age group that is less politically involved and a lot more inward looking.
...The internet provides raw data in a scope that was unheard of just 20 years ago. People of my generation are information sponges.
....Personally I can't help but see this as a generation gap. I see such a massive gap between children of the internet and people who grew up pre-internet.

Whoa dude...lol...I hope being in my early 40's doesn't make me an older gentleman? If it does then I guess my only consolation is having gone the distance 20 more seconds than you, as 20 to 40 only looks that way from where you are...but won't in 30 seconds more...lol...lol...lol....with tongue squarely in cheek and really laughing. You might have surmised my presumed antiquity by nothing more than the fact of my writing style vs my past profession. I'm an American that speaks several languages born and raised in Europe, thus perhaps the style of writing that has been commented on by more than a few (old English?), who has moved on to far more interesting entrepreneurial endeavors as opposed to health care. One of these endeavors by the way involves innovative internet proprietary technology (patents and all) which is another point you address in your considerations as to my perhaps being out of touch with either the internet or blogging etc. as seen below in your commentary.

David, from my perspective, is a synthesizer. When I read his website, I'm not looking for impartial unbiased analysis, I read it as a blog. There is no pretext made that it is unbiased or impartial, or that it is 100% based on provable facts. It's a summary, a "big picture" based on his opinion, a synthesis. It's a blog - very 21st century.
....but blog posts are by nature informal and incomplete.
... My generation is the blogging generation. We replace impersonal academic rigor with thoughts that are conceived, written, and published all on the same day. It is a very different intellectual world.
....David is a synthesizer. He synthesizes.
.....To me David does a nice job of summing it up, giving a big picture perspective

You make the point of synthesizing as many times as you do generational gaps. I agree. David is a blogging synthesizer. I offered as much in a more flowery manner by suggesting that he does a "herculean task of compiling". I agree he synthesizes. This in fact is very much one of my points. But the excellent synthesis of good information synthesized with very questionable to very bad information makes it bad information nonetheless. You make my point for me by suggesting that blogging is different than is the intellectual world. Bad blogging is different than is intellectually founded blogging as much as Perez Hilton is different than a reputable reliable and professional source, either of whom may have a dollar to make by blogging. One makes his dollar very differently than the other however. One sensationalizes, the other does not. Newspapers and the evening news disseminates daily news on the fly daily and regularly and are pressed for time 24/7 to do so. DW ,as does Perez Hilton, both have the luxury of time. Blogging is no different in any way shape or form if it is to be taken seriously. It must be delivered seriously to be taken seriously. The only difference between bad blogging and reputable blogging is that one is just a great deal more intellectual, academic, and responsible for doing so than the other.

He is a scholar in the same sense we all are....
......Anyone can be a scholar

Surely you don't subscribe to either of these statements as truth? A scholar really is nothing at all like a common or ordinary individual. I hold a doctorate, but hardly consider myself a scholar. Those of us who hold higher degrees depend on the scholars, and to continue to do so, as does the rest of the world. Anyone can indeed be a scholar..but not everyone is. Scholars are acknowledged and honored by their peers and contemporaries, not self nominated.

The nature of real-time politics is that everything is based on fuzzy judgments. The blog post David made there is a real-time moment in history, he is summing up the latest info from MANY various sources that provide info, and in a timely manner that is meaningful at the moment.

You make the same point for me again. This is exactly what is clearly wrong with much of the internet, and with many blogs, as we all know. Suggesting that reputable sources such as reputable papers or well documented and true authorities, authors or journalists, when they blog or print, as not having enough time(?) to check their facts is as poor of an argument for them as it is for a Perez Hilton as much as a DW. It is tantamount to bad reporting, bad facts, and therefore "yellow journalism" were it to be seriously or academically scrutinized. This is what distinguishes a true journalist or scholarly author from the common man such as a Perez Hilton is.

The idea of a "rapture" where ETs come and take everyone away is outdated, he hasn't espoused that idea since pre-2004. 99% of his Ra channeling was done pre-2000

Unless DW has recanted this position in its entirety, it isn't outdated and may therefor be presumed to be his current opinion as fact?

The reason you can't find common ground with David is because you really are coming from a very different perspective. You are not a politically informed person -- you aren't up on the conspiracies and whistleblowers and so on.

I leave it to the group to form their own opinion on this comment. I consider myself informed. I can not prove that here, nor can you assess otherwise as a result?

To close, this is exactly what I had hoped to avoid, i.e., speaking to each other verses speaking to the subject of the 7 points in the opening and closing statement of my post #39 as regards specifically the "Law of One" with respect to these 7 points, and my question in closing "How do theories and statement such as these above stack up in light of the LOO?" I salute Mr Wilcock for his compiling of facts. He is a synthesizer of herculean order. I am merely questioning positions by an individual that makes certain claims to the general public and the world at large purporting while doing so that he is a foremost authority on the LOO, and that many of these claims are questionable at best. He is no different than is a forum participant who is also subject to question when posting, but is on the other hand very much different when claiming a somewhat "better than" status, as much as an authoritative representative of the LOO? It certainly needn't strike a cord of being less than STO to be curious or to ask or to challenge written statements that have been promulgated and memorialized to the world, this in the effort of understanding, if not even growing or being convinced to change my mind.

The responses thus far seem to prove this, as they have all been cordial and are welcomed. Thank you Yossarian.

Q

[ayadew]

Monica: Indeed, amusing ourselves with distortions and definitions is a valid path for learning, but not for me currently... my goal now is love in each moment. When I've further realised it is so, I will likely get back to the path of learning in distortions, since spiritual progress is through catalyst.

[Richard]

Monica: Indeed, amusing ourselves with distortions and definitions is a valid path for learning, but not for me currently... my goal now is love in each moment. When I've further realised it is so, I will likely get back to the path of learning in distortions, since spiritual progress is through catalyst.

my goal now is love in each moment.

Well said....ditto.

Richard

[C-JEAN]

Hi, David fans, or not. B-)

I am relatively new in this kind of material, and in my awakening.

I only want to say/show HOW I have found "The Law of One", or
the "Ra material" and Carla:
It was by reading: "Shift of the ages" by David Wilcock.

I want to show that he often times refer to his source(s).
Here are many excerpts from the above book:

MWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMW
[ The capitals show COMPLETE chapters on the subjetc.]

THE TEACHINGS OF Ra
It was at the end of this twenty-year period that Elkins' work with Carla
Rueckert, a very successful channel, broke through to a much more
substantial level. . .
This dream directly led to a renewed interest in studying a series of
books called the Ra Material and/or the Law of One, . . .

and
again this information is precisely mirrored in the statements from the Ra
Material. Viewing all of this information together, and reviewing all the
changes that are occurring around us now, we can certainly see how far the
validity of Ra's statements really goes.

Again, contacts such as the Cayce Readings and the Ra
Material do originate from even higher levels such as 6,7

Here we can see a precise correlation with statements in the Ra
Material where they described

Sources such as
the Cayce Readings and the Ra Material tell us that we live in an octavebased,

Here we check in on the remarkable works of Edgar Cayce and The Ra
Material.

We will see a little later that the
Ra Material covers this in great detail.

THE Ra MATERIAL AND THE GREAT CYCLE

At this point we will again give some background information regarding the Law of One material. . .

. . .etc. . .etc. . . ETC . . .

MWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMWMW
All the above excerpts are in that ONE book only.

After having seen/read so many references, I could NOT
resist to search for Ra and Carla ! ! B-)

Blue skies.