David Wilcock

[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.