David Wilcock

[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.