David Wilcock

[Monica]

I have this dirty little tendency of knocking threads so far off topic that most people just get disgusted and stop posting in them. It is less common here, but I get my kicks off of trolling around like a 12yo all jacked up on mnt-dew.

I would appreciate it if you didn't intentionally do that here. It makes my job harder!

---

Turns out there wasn't a rock music thread, so I started one:

http://bring4th.org/forums/showthread.php?tid=400

Calling all metalheads: Let's go rock out at the new thread! and leave this one for DW discussion.

[MisterRabbit]

Darkness comes from fear, mostly fear of death. Think about the main characters, vampires that never die but have no soul (nor can they see themselves in the mirror, so no real self awareness, symbolically), and then werewolves which are obviously the animal self ripping it's way out of our socialized shell and taking over. In energetic terms, this would be the orange ray energies breaking out after being supressed by yellow ray social stuff. And of course being a badass action character and things like that are just the triumph of the isolated self over death and life, non-being and being, through physical means. That stuff is so orange ray ;D

[airwaves]

I would appreciate it if you didn't intentionally do that here. It makes my job harder!

---

I promise that if it does for some odd reason happen here, it was completely accidental. I'm never on the net very often these days anyway, and if I am you know it. This is the first place I visit upon connecting. Check out my loggin times lol!

[godexpressing]

Is this David Wilcock guy relieable from a L/L Research point of view?
Sirius
[/quote]

I checked out David Wilcock a couple of years ago and did not see where he brought anything new to the table. Edgar Cayce's group, the A.R.E.does not recognize David as the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce. It is good that he is sharing the LOO with people. But I am not convinced that he is a channel of any sort.

Has any new information been revealed through him, or is he just using information already in the public domain?

[Ali Quadir]

I checked out David Wilcock a couple of years ago and did not see where he brought anything new to the table. Edgar Cayce's group, the A.R.E.does not recognize David as the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce. It is good that he is sharing the LOO with people. But I am not convinced that he is a channel of any sort.

Has any new information been revealed through him, or is he just using information already in the public domain?

I am surprised that you say this... Have you taken the time to explore his material? Because he has actually added a whole lot to the public domain and has been doing so for the past 15 years. Including channeled material.

You'll have to make up your mind yourself if you like him or consider him reliable. But there is no doubt he added new information as much as "gathered and combined" scattered information in a way that most people now can access it.

[Sirius]

Is this David Wilcock guy relieable from a L/L Research point of view?
Sirius

I checked out David Wilcock a couple of years ago and did not see where he brought anything new to the table. Edgar Cayce's group, the A.R.E.does not recognize David as the reincarnation of Edgar Cayce. It is good that he is sharing the LOO with people. But I am not convinced that he is a channel of any sort.

Has any new information been revealed through him, or is he just using information already in the public domain?
[/quote]

When I first came across David he did not bring anything new immediately, but what I feel is more important is the connections he draws. I can't bring to mind any examples, it's been a while since I had a look at what he has been doing. There is alot of info in the public domain, it is decerning which bits, are the important/true parts that is the task by David imo.

I see his stuf these days more like a wanderer/seeker autobiagrapher. Documenting his spreading of the message. Sure some of his stuff is usefull but ultimately for his own journey, bits of which we can benefit from.

Love and Light

[godexpressing]

[quote='godexpressing' pid='5015' dateline='1251083209']

I am surprised that you say this... Have you taken the time to explore his material? . . . You'll have to make up your mind yourself if you like him or consider him reliable. But there is no doubt he added new information as much as "gathered and combined" scattered information in a way that most people now can access it.

I decided that maybe I was haste in my judgement, so I watched the first seven of the Enigma 2012 videos on youtube. I actually planned to watch all ten but I could no longer bear watching them after seven. I also noticed the number of views dropped drastically with each successive video.

I found much of what he offered as having little credibility. The most outlandish was the claim that republicans used stargates to travel forward in time to obtain information needed to win the 2000 and 2004 elections. There is so much at stake between now and 2012, I am concerned that people will be turned away from the LOO due to this type of stuff. The LOO is fully supported by quantum physics and mystical tradition. Why cloud the message?

light/love

[Lorna]

i haven't watched any of his more recent stuff, infact i haven't looked at much that he's done since he launched divine cosmos, but his earlier writings in pulling everything together and interpreting a diverse range of sources i found very valuable. his work since he started divine cosmos does seem more of an ego trip than the material that he collated when he had the ascension2000 site

i see him now as mainly an entry point for the LOO - and he does that job admirably - certainly his forum membership shot up very quickly once he started doing more public stuff. i suspect a lot of people new to this kind of information will be initially drawn to him because of the more outlandish claims, and some of them will then discover and resonate with the LOO. tbh if you've already discovered the LOO then you're probably not david's target audience if that makse sense?

[Ali Quadir]

I am surprised that you say this... Have you taken the time to explore his material? . . . You'll have to make up your mind yourself if you like him or consider him reliable. But there is no doubt he added new information as much as "gathered and combined" scattered information in a way that most people now can access it.

I found much of what he offered as having little credibility. The most outlandish was the claim that republicans used stargates to travel forward in time to obtain information needed to win the 2000 and 2004 elections.

This is a different objection to the one you made earlier. First you said he never states anything new, now you state his words have little credibility. I am not going to disagree with you that some of his statements are outlandish. But I've studied his divine cosmos books, and I've checked many statements that I thought were outlandish myself.. Most checked out and some I haven't been able to verify. But in most of those cases I could only accuse him of possibly exaggerating. One example is his suggestion that they put a salamander brain in a blender, turned it into jam and then pushed it back in the animal in this completely messed up state. Lo and behold the salamander recovered and even remembered things from before the intervention. I was able to find the experiments with the salamander, some inducing extreme damage like swapping brain halves, taking it out and putting it back, and cutting it into bits, then putting it back. All that is real science I can point you at the articles. But not to the extent where they turned it into something resembling jam. His conclusions would not have changed if he had been more precise in his words.

And this is typical, the research is of course out there, and often not new. It is however unknown and not integrated into a coherent picture. Building a greater picture from these fragments is what he is good at and the service he offers.

However, I too doubt he's correct in all cases. Just like every other big wig involved he's likely to make mistakes. We all do.

His channeling doesn't concern me. I never looked at it and I have no interest in it. I think that's part of his personal journey I understand the objection is that he Channeled Ra but a different one that was the same but different or whatever. I think if he'd called it not Ra but Sa no one would have objected. This is however how his psyche offered it to him. It is unfortunate that so many in the Law of One can only see this and project this big negative halo on the man for it.

There is so much at stake between now and 2012, I am concerned that people will be turned away from the LOO due to this type of stuff. The LOO is fully supported by quantum physics and mystical tradition. Why cloud the message?

Wilcock is actually the reason I and many others found the Law of One in the first place. He's like a journalist, he makes messages available. You're fully justified to disagree with him off course. Let every one follow their own heart. I only objected to the idea he never puts anything new on the table. He most certainly does, much of it is fringe science that seems to support the Law of One. Heck as far as I can tell a lot of it is actually true.

The point is maybe that Law of One and Wilcock are connected, if you go to one you find the other. Law of One and Wilcock are also very different. Attracting people from different audiences. In effect not reducing the amount of people that make it to the Law of One but probably amplifying it.

The amount of people who heard of the Law of One today is turning into a movement. And like so often happens, the oldskool members don't always like it. I've seen it happen in wicca when a young and sexy journalist suddenly popularized the movement among young people, in my branch of sufism at one point a young teacher did the same in most of his pictures he's dancing with girls something that is understandably frowned upon by the more traditional groups, and I think I see it around the Law of One. In each case my position was that we don't have to agree but we do have to respect each other and be true to ourselves and the other. In the end diversity is a strength, not a weakness as you suggest.


Lorna I agree about the feeling of the ego trip. It doesn't put me off much. My mother taught me every person has their own crazy bits. But I do note it. And I realize there are some potential problems there mostly related to PR. I have the feeling his ego was pretty dent and bruised in his early period, I think I see that in the time he sometimes takes to verbally "prove" his detractors wrong. It means they're in his mind, he is (overly?) sensitive to them. But on the other hand that also motivates him to reference and cross check sources. It's normal for late bloomers to develop a strong ego and a big self image. Especially when they become admired by so many. I would still judge his motivations, his message and his behavior as positive and not selfish. Even if his opinion of self is pretty big. And in the end in my opinion his material should be judged more for what it is and less for it's author.

Look at David Icke, whether you like that chap or not he certainly has done a great deal to expose the NWO and was doing it long before most of his colleagues are doing it. He was also considered mad as a hatter most of that time.

At any rate he has his good and bad sides like the rest of us. I like to think of him as a journalist. He describes more than he adds. But the making accessible of unknown material to a large audience is one of his key strengths.

[godexpressing]

Wilcock is actually the reason I and many others found the Law of One in the first place.

Hi Ali. I have enjoyed the dialogue so far. If Wilcock is bringing people to the LOO, that is a good thing. The intent of my original post was the initial question by Sirius (post #1) asking if David Wilcock was reliable. Judging by all the posts, there is plenty of feedback pro and con to this question. I can understand where you are coming from considering David has been instrumental in lighting your spiritual path.

I reached the LOO via a different path. I began with Seth, Messages from Michael, New Thought, A Course in Miracles and then Edgar Cayce and the A.R.E. (I am a member). I checked out Children of the Law of One by John Peniel a couple of years ago and that was also my first exposure to David Wilcock. I consider myself a mystic Christian and I seek out material that affirms our oneness and the need to love and forgive each other. I did not get a sense of that either Peniel or Wilcock had anything new to offer me. I've only recently begun reading the Ra material and I finally feel I am getting new information that helps me along my personal path.

When I read Cayce, ACIM or Carla's work, I get a sense that the LOO message is the focal point. When I check out what David has to offer, I get a sense that he is the focal point. I guess I need to spend some time thinking about why that is such an issue for me.

light and love

[Quantum]

When I read Cayce, ACIM or Carla's work, I get a sense that the LOO message is the focal point. When I check out what David has to offer, I get a sense that he is the focal point. I guess I need to spend some time thinking about why that is such an issue for me.

Hello G.E. :exclamation: (I couldn't resist the light-bulb after G.E. Your handle as well as the pun of G.E. (General Electric) seemed apropos to both, particularly as both suggest light. I've never had the pleasure of exchanging dialogue with you. Rest assured that you are far from the only individual that feels as you do. I might offer that, perhaps like myself, it is indeed his hubris that often over-rides his message. Although much credit is given to him for bringing many seekers to the LOO, and rightly so, it may also be noted that he may turn as many off and away from it as well. Little if anything has ever been said to this point. It is an equally important point. It stands to reason that such a fire-starter would ignite the flames both ways rather than just the one. It is to this point that I question most. If by the Ra message that even but one soul brought to the calling is sufficient, might it not equally stand to reason that such hubris also effectively turns but one off and is sadly as effectively important? Of course it will be argued that the seeker seeking humbly and sincerely will continue to seek, and thus a Wilcock will assuredly never prevent such a seeker from finding, but nonetheless it might be argued that the LOO is cast in the same shadow as is Wilcock for those that came to it through him and as quickly were turned away from at least the LOO as a result. I believe this is a large point not to be overlooked and as such one that can not be argued away. Something is surely amiss in such an equation.

Typically one only speaks about the dogs that did run away verses the ones that didn't. By the same logic in this case one only speaks about the ones that didn't verses the ones that did. The reasoning is easy enough to understand given that the ones that didn't are largely the only ones that report they didn't. In short, if it is the messenger's position that he is as paramount as is the message, it then clearly effects the message as much as the delivery of it. If this too is your sentiment not yet put to word, then this is not an issue of yours as much as it is the messengers.

Q

[Lorna]

Lorna I agree about the feeling of the ego trip. It doesn't put me off much. My mother taught me every person has their own crazy bits. But I do note it. And I realize there are some potential problems there mostly related to PR. I have the feeling his ego was pretty dent and bruised in his early period, I think I see that in the time he sometimes takes to verbally "prove" his detractors wrong. It means they're in his mind, he is (overly?) sensitive to them. But on the other hand that also motivates him to reference and cross check sources. It's normal for late bloomers to develop a strong ego and a big self image. Especially when they become admired by so many. I would still judge his motivations, his message and his behavior as positive and not selfish. Even if his opinion of self is pretty big. And in the end in my opinion his material should be judged more for what it is and less for it's author.

Hi Ali Quadir
Ooo i probably did sound a bit judgemental - not my intention. David's personality and ego actually reminds me very, very much of a dear friend. i don't feel negatively towards him when he sounds all pumped up and egotistical, quite the opposite, my reaction is more of an 'ah bless' because you're right, he has taken a lot of knocks. i remember clearly how strongly he reacted against people putting him up on a pedastal on the old ask2k forum. For me I guess I just find his message less helpful or maybe less relevant to me now than i once did.

[Ali Quadir]

We're all different guys I didn't interpret anyones words as judgmental. And I can really understand how a certain style sometimes totally fails to connect with people.

I'm from a group of people where poking fun of something is an expression of appreciation. Jokes about the self is the way you show that you appreciate yourself. And while in this mood I once stated "I'm also a proud producer of crappy software" and the other person actually tried to persuade me that my work could not possibly be that bad. She actually felt bad for me and tried to make me feel better while she was the one with the negative associations.. Not me, I was just having frivolous fun!

I've met people who get totally offended when you poke fun of some topic close to their hearts. And I've met people who just get nervous and stressed when a topic is treated as very serious and sacred. If you were to poke fun of it even for just a minute they laugh (usually loudly) and feel so much better.

Its unfortunate if style stops us from getting the message. But that certainly happened for me too. I started to read the Seth material and just didn't believe it. I started to read the course in miracles and I thought "yeah right". I changed my mind since, but the style of those works didn't convince me.

Fact is that Wilcock's style rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I'm not sure there is an alternative for him though if he wants to be himself and pursue his fancies. Fortunately we don't have to like him. He's not the only one out there.

[Eddie]

Only recently having the pants bored off me by ACIM (A Course in Miracles, for those who dont understand that.)
Much Love and Light,

LOL! You too, eh? My sister lent that book to me a while back. I managed about 2 chapters, and then realized that it was all redundant, having read the Law of One as I did.

As dense and idiosyncratic as it is, the Law of One is a much better read (particularly the 3rd time through).

---

For me personally, I feel so many distortions when reading any consciously channeled material that I frequently can't find the real intended message at all. Thus, much of David's as well as Carla's other material doesn't resonate with me because there's just too much noise in the message.

*******************************************

You are correct in saying that all comes down to what resonates. I would suggest that I have never seen a more pure touchstone of minimized distortions than Carla's trance channeled LOO material. As such, I always look first to TLOO for the purest message, and make every effort to exclude any and all transitory material from all channeled material.

Exactly! Well put. I was about to say the same thing, until I came upon your post.

This is a great discussion board! I don't have to create anything.....just point to what's already here!

[fairyfarmgirl]

I have the Course in Miracles as well... And when I tried reading it... I fell asleep mid-sentence! I awoke with my face in the book... LOL

The only thing that I got from the Course of Miracles--- even today when I try to read the material my eyes get heavy and I just can not stay awake! Was that all lessons are repeated until it is understood. ---

--fairyfarmgirl

[Questioner]

In another thread on this forum, I had a question about David's work and the moderator referred me here. It seems that this thread has kind of petered out a while ago. Maybe it would be better for me to ask my question about his work on his own forum, and then report back here. I signed up for an account there, and got a reply that when the moderators get around to approving my account, I'll be able to post.

By the way, for those who are interested in David's work, his site had a major redesign since the previous message on this thread. The content is the same, but it is much more organized to find it than ever before. If people were merely put off his site by the confusing navigation, it's a good time to give it another try. Also, his recent Coast to Coast AM appearance gives a good summary of his current ideas. His blog entry links to the complete audio interview on YouTube and to a follow up audio.

[Monica]

Maybe it would be better for me to ask my question about his work on his own forum, and then report back here.

Please feel free to ask any questions you like! Perhaps someone here knows the answer, based on comments DW has made previously. But of course if he answers your question directly, that's all the better! You might want to ask the question in both places.

I haven't kept up with DW much lately, but I did read something he wrote about current political events. Although I don't particularly resonate with his channeled stuff or the amount of focus he has put on the 'negative elite,' I do really like how he is choosing to view many world events (and certain leaders) as positive rather than negative. I find this refreshing, amid all the panicked cries about Armageddon, the return of the anti-Christ, etc.

[Ali Quadir]

Maybe it would be better for me to ask my question about his work on his own forum, and then report back here.

I'm still following the guy with interest. So I'm available too

Btw, if you post a message to a thread that hasn't been active for a while people will still see it and the thread will likely reawaken for a while.

[Questioner]

By the way, if you haven't kept up with David's material because of all the negative conspiracy material, you might find the Coast segment and follow-up to be more to your taste. These days he seems to have a generally uplifting, hopeful message about positive changes occurring all around us at this time.

Alright then, I'll repeat my question about David here. I am trying to understand an apparent difference between how Carla Rueckert and David Wilcock each got started with channeling.

On to my question.

Carla intended to channel, didn't know who would show up to use her service, and so she had a challenge for entities. She asked herself what was the highest and best she could imagine, the ultimate truth worth living and dying for. For her, this was the unconditional love of the Christ consciousness, as demonstrated by but not exclusive to Jesus. Before accepting the Ra contact, she insisted that she would only channel an entity that affirmed this love, three times. Ra did affirm, so Carla let Ra channel through her.

If I understand David's history, he had no intention or desire to channel, but he had been increasingly hearing/feeling the voice/guidance he later identified as his own higher self, the same higher self of Cayce who David sees as his own earlier lifetime. As far as I know, David has never channeled any other entity than his version of Ra.

Now maybe I'm mistaken about any of that, if so I'd welcome more informed perspective. If I do understand this right, my question is: has David ever challenged his own version of Ra with Carla's same channel? Has he asked that his own Ra contact affirm the unconditional love of Christ consciousness, or whatever else David might think of as even more important? Or has he just relied on his own feelings or analysis to show him that the contact is valid and brings the truth?

I don't mean any disrespect, I simply want to understand some of the differences in process between his work and Carla's.

[Ali Quadir]

I would not actually know that. I'm not certain if it would make a difference other than of course the huge effect any declaration of intent would have.

At any rate, David's work like most channeling work should not be taken literally all of the time. Basically I always try to judge the information for it's content, not so much for it's source.

[Monica]

By the way, if you haven't kept up with David's material because of all the negative conspiracy material, you might find the Coast segment and follow-up to be more to your taste. These days he seems to have a generally uplifting, hopeful message about positive changes occurring all around us at this time.

That's good to know! I'll check it out!

...my question is: has David ever challenged his own version of Ra with Carla's same channel? Has he asked that his own Ra contact affirm the unconditional love of Christ consciousness, or whatever else David might think of as even more important? Or has he just relied on his own feelings or analysis to show him that the contact is valid and brings the truth?

That's a good question! Please let us know what you find out, if he answers you over there.

I agree with Ali that, ultimately, I judge the info on its own merit, and not by any supposed safeguards the channeler claims to have implemented. It is entirely possible for someone to claim to have challenged the source, but not really have been sincere, and so the challenge might not have been very effective. Or, their perception of their challenge might be entirely different from ours.

For example, let's say a corrupt, greedy mega-church pastor might pray in the name of Jesus in words only, but doesn't really mean it...I wouldn't automatically assume that his opinions are necessarily resonating with Christ Consciousness just because he claimed to have prayed to Jesus. His perception of what is meant by the name 'Jesus' might be entirely different from what I perceive it to be. I actually met someone who used the name Jesus to back up his assertion that war was acceptable, citing a Bible quote attributed to Jesus about him coming to bring not peace but a sword! For this person, Jesus represented war, not peace.

Having said that, I admit I am curious as to what DW's challenging process might have been, or if he had one at all. So I really would be interested in the answer to your question! I'm just pointing out that, whether we might happen to know what their challenging process is or not, and even if the challenging process might sound really good on the surface, I think the content of the info (and whether we resonate with it) takes precedence.

[Questioner]

I'm still following the guy with interest. So I'm available too

Thanks Ali, that's good to know.

By the way, if you post a message to a thread that hasn't been active for a while people will still see it and the thread will likely reawaken for a while.

Also good to know.

I'm not certain if it would make a difference other than of course the huge effect any declaration of intent would have.

Now that's what I'm trying to figure out, in my thread in the "Strictly Law of One" forum here on "Understanding Carla's challenge." I wanted to start my participation here with appreciation of what is distinctive about the Law of One material, and I think Carla's challenge of entities is unique.

I got a response on David's forum that I am in the queue for moderator approval of my request to join. Apparently they have a more intricate process than here. When I get approved I will ask my question there.

As with Carla, David does have quite a bit of material on his web site about his personal history with the spiritual work. However, I think my particular question hasn't come up before, so I hope he will see it once I post there and we'll find out the answer. I do agree that whether or not there is such a challenge is only one point to consider when assessing channeled information.

[xlsander]

Carla as well as david stated it - "david's ra" is his higher self - meaning his soul is part of the Ra group consciousness - take a look at the chat sessions of Carla - not too long ago she replied to this very question - and as far as it goes about david - i like his message - i like his style - i like the info he converges - i am certainly aware it is not all "the truth" but i also think there is no substitute to david and his work at this given time known to me - so i thank him for doing what hes doing and being so straight up with his way doing it. I certainly want to believe what hes saying and i certainly believe in the soon occuring harvest and the human (cosmically timed) evolution on planet gaia.

[Questioner]

Carla as well as david stated it - "david's ra" is his higher self - meaning his soul is part of the Ra group consciousness - take a look at the chat sessions of Carla - not too long ago she replied to this very question -

Thanks for the note. I also have positive vibes about David's material, I just want to learn more about where he is coming from. Do you happen to have a link to the chat session you mentioned?

[Questioner]

I got approved to post to David's forum and asked my question there. For new members, posts await moderator approval. (It's not clear to me if this is dropped after a while, as members prove themselves, or continues for all members.) I think my question was on-topic and respectful, so I expect it will get approved. When it does, I'll post the link here.

[Wildcat]

My path to L/L Research also goes through David. Starting back in the mid-90's, I went roughly in the following order until arriving at L/L Research in 2006:

Art Bell/Coast-to-Coast
Ed Dames/PsiTech/Remote Viewing
Richard Hoagland/Enterprisemission.com
David Wilcock/Divinecosmos.com
LLResearch - Law of One.

I read the LOO in it's entirety like a good novel I couldn't put down. I still follow David's work though as I find him an interesting guy that I can relate to easily. I've never been comfortable with a lot of the "New Age" stuff and the stereotypes it attracts. David is about a year older than me, dresses like he works in the next cubicle, and uses casual language that is familiar to me. We have a fair amount in common. I feel like I could invite him over to play some Xbox !

I admire that he puts himself and his research/opinions out there. Lord knows I don't talk about this stuff to anyone and would feel pretty uncomfortable doing so. I think he feels a duty and urgency to spread his findings.

I once asked him why he cared about all this Illuminati/NWO stuff when the LOO basically says we're all going to be ok in the end. His reply was that he believes in a previous incarnation as Egypt's human liason to Ra way back, he effectively birthed the whole Illuminati phenomena and it was his duty to right that wrong (balance that negative with positive). The fact that he emphatically related that to me when no one was looking and with no personal gain to be had leads me to believe that he is sincere in what he says. This is not just a means to a financial end for him. Heck, he GIVES away a ton of his stuff for free!

All in all, he is bursting with information obtained from numerous sources which he tries to piece together into one big puzzle. He's almost like a newspaper beatwriter for a favorite sports team. I read his material to see what insights he's finding out that I have no access and/or time to find on my own. Not all of it is of interest to me, and I don't know how much I buy into. At the least, it's entertaining stuff, and at the best, it can be pretty profound.

[Peregrinus]

Carla as well as david stated it - "david's ra" is his higher self - meaning his soul is part of the Ra group consciousness - take a look at the chat sessions of Carla - not too long ago she replied to this very question -

Thanks for the note. I also have positive vibes about David's material, I just want to learn more about where he is coming from. Do you happen to have a link to the chat session you mentioned?

Is it not probable that most sixth density wanderers here are of the Ra group consciousness?

[Richard]

Even though I’ve never been a Wilcock fan, I’ve started reading “Shift of the Ages”. Perhaps it’s the almost blatant commercialism of the website that turns me off. But I find his conclusions fascinating. I’ll continue reading though. And perhaps get to know the man instead of the perception.

Richard

[kylissa]

Is it not probable that most sixth density wanderers here are of the Ra group consciousness?

The idea of David Wilcock being of the Ra soul group or anyone else seems improbable to me because of this quote...

"Ra: I am Ra. We are not at this time incarnate among your peoples; thus, we can guide and attempt to specify, but we cannot, by example, show."

But I could be missing something. I actually heard of the Law of One through David's youtube interviews so I owe him a big thanks. I just don't know if the Ra we know from tLOO and his Ra guidance are the same.

[βαθμιαίος]

The idea of David Wilcock being of the Ra soul group or anyone else seems improbable to me because of this quote...

"Ra: I am Ra. We are not at this time incarnate among your peoples; thus, we can guide and attempt to specify, but we cannot, by example, show."

Maybe Ra meant in that quote that they are not here in their sixth-density form, as they were when they came to the Egyptians. Consider this quote, from session 45:

Questioner: Can you tell me if a large percentage of the Wanderers here now are those of Ra?

Ra: I am Ra. I can.

Questioner: Are they?

Ra: I am Ra. A significant portion of sixth-density Wanderers are those of our social memory complex. Another large portion consists of those who aided those in South America; another portion, those aiding Atlantis. All are sixth density and all brother and sister groups due to the unified feeling that as we had been aided by shapes such as the pyramid, so we could aid your peoples.