David Wilcock

[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