David Wilcock

[Quantum]

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

This is due to the fact that I respect what he has done, as much as I question it. He is confusing at best for it, and therefore a study in contradiction as a result.

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,
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.

You are correct in your bolded assertion above. But you are incorrect in as much as he speaks much more than to the quarantine alone. It is primarily to the LOO that we are here. As for the word Attack used repeatedly in your response above? Thats more than overstated Ali Quadir? I know it is just a word, but words are powerful. Perhaps what you really mean is that I address. In the small event that there is any confusion, may I please refer you to review my past posts where you will more than clearly see unequivocally that this is not so? I don't know how much clearer I can be than in my several posts to state that we absolutely not attack anything, or more importantly anyone, but that we painstakingly and with great caution and respect instead address and only question academically many of the assertions that are made by this gentleman, and as importantly one that has self-appointed and self-nominated himself as a scholar of the LOO, this to seeming information that is nowhere remotely contained within the LOO? One must pick one's poison and is not allowed to have it both ways, without at least being questioned for doing so?

Is the questioning of certain assertions impossible in an academic sense, and more particularly in as much as the gentleman to my knowledge is "singularly the only speaker, author, or celebrity of the LOO" that has self-appointed himself as an authority, as much as a scholar on the LOO, who yet simultaneously goes on at great length with respect to what is termed transient information at best, if not very questionable information at worst, and information which moreover is undeniably identified as transient in any event by Ra? Is there not a contradiction here? I question the contradiction, as much as I do the information, as much as I do the self appointed authority, all disseminated as though factual. The accusation of an attack reduces if not wipes out and destroys any intelligent opportunity as discussion or intelligent discourse. I have repeatedly stated the intent is to question?

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.....

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

Feel free to discuss any or all of my previous 7 points made in post #39, one at a time per post should you care as pertains to my closing question "How do theories and statements such as these stack up in light of the LOO?" This was/is my first position. It is my only position. Questions. It might make for interesting conversation in the effort at arriving at interesting conclusions? Bear in mind I am further challenging that in conclusion you also agree that any answer you would offer on behalf of the assertions made also contain the position that these self same assertions are are either offered as scholarly, and as though authority, and these with greater certainty as scholarly than is any other conspiratorial viewpoint offered as wild conjecture or opinion. The conundrum is two-fold in as much as if you support the assertions without evidence then you too run the risk of only promulgating the same wild opinion and may not therefore defend them as scholarly or authoritative, or that you support the assertions but yield that they are indeed not authoritative nor scholarly, and more to the point for this forum being primarily for the further study of the LOO is nowhere contained within the LOO. Lets us be clear that we accept the LOO and that there exists other life in the universe. Prologues such as these do not end in epilogue to treaties, weaponry, the murder of Stanly Kubrick (who is reported to have died in his sleep), ET technology bringing down the trade towers, beaming STO'ers on board alien spacecraft at the final moment of the Harvest, or aliens sitting in discourse with world leaders.

Bear in mind also that were any member of any forum hiding behind their rightful anonymity without seeking notoriety, fame, the enrichment of their name or personal purse, it would not raise so much as a whimper. But this in contrast to making a name, and the enrichment of self, and notoriety, all while claiming authority on the LOO no less while doing so, and all while registering these very questionable assertions to the general public as their introductory entrance into the LOO, it does raise questions. There is no anonymity here. Quite the contrary. As a celebrity of sorts, whether minor or not, he is very much then the subject of discussion as a result of having purposefully placed himself as a property of the public domain, and has done so with full intent. This is what indeed makes it controversial. Carla has exemplified what in my opinion is a true and exemplary study in humility in as much as she has placed the LOO before herself, and not herself before the LOO. When a teacher places himself above his teaching, may one not academically question? Having claimed authority on the LOO as many times as he has, is the LOO his first priority, or is it relegated to second by mixing it with other conspicuous conjecture, speculation, and questionable information which oft are in contradiction to the LOO? It is therefore fair game to question, and only respectfully so. As a businessman, investor, and entrepreneur, I understand and encourage profit, but also perhaps reserve certain fields of thought and endeavor as somewhat better than this, even while rightfully pursuing profit in them.

I do not question what he does right. This would be a frivolous exercise. I question what he asserts as though authority where glaringly questionable, if not wrong. Sensationalism and the LOO would seem to at best be in contradiction? Where there is contradiction, there is confusion. Where there is confusion, there is little scholarly authority.


Let us stick then with an academic discourse to the 7 questions only. I eagerly await your response(s) and thank you Ali Quadir,

Q

[Yoda1]

To my opinion after reading the book "The Reincarnation Of Edgar Cayce". I did enjoy it and his readings are encourging in the book. In this 3D world through his scientific mind in getting the word out in his way is brilliant. I don't agree with everything , but mostly I think he does some pretty good work.


Yoda1

[yossarian]

The real question is what makes an authority.

It's absolutely true that David is by no means 100% and solely dedicated to the LOO. In fact most of his effort is only tangentially related.

He was a "UFOlogist" before reading the LOO, and once he read it he considered it to be the best source he had ever heard that confirmed all the things he had independently discovered to be true.

So I mean what is the criteria to be an authority? David, first and foremost, was a UFOlogist, then a psychic giving psychic readings, which led to him supporting the idea of ascension and being a megaphone for the harvest, and then a "consciousness science" guy spreading the teachings of Russian torsions fields and sacred geometry.

What attaches him to the LOO is not that he is a "LOO proponent" so to speak but rather that he bases his own life and philosophy on the LOO and considers the LOO to verify the stuff he independently believes.

So I mean again, just what is necessary for someone to be considered an authority? When it comes to the question, "What does the LOO say?" I would say that David is an authority just because he has read it in depth and lived it for so many years. In his private life he talks about transient information but this is not forbidden by the LOO, it is just said that transient information must be dealt with delicately. Specifically though Ra was saying you shouldn't ask a channelled entity for transient information, but David isn't doing that since his information on transient information does not come from channeled sources but from Earth evidence and documents and people and events.

It is transient to make any kind of mundane living on Earth, not just David's work in alternative politics. For instance if you are a baker it would be equally transient to become well-versed in the best techniques of bread baking, and Ra would discourage asking a channeled entitiy for advice on bread-baking. This is just as transient as politics.

Most humans do not have the luxury of speaking about non-transient issues for their livelihood. 99.9% of us have transient jobs. For instance Jim and Carla are mainly supported by Jim's gardening job - which is transient. Jim isn't going to ask Q'uo for advice on growing plants just like David does not ask channeled entities for advice on exposing the shadow government or sharing the new science of consciousness with the world.

David meditates and uses his dreams to receive input from higher sources like we all do in all parts of our life, but he isn't channeling Ra and asking "How best can I grow tomatoes" or "Where should I look to find documents exposing the crimes of the Bush administration."

So anyway again, what makes an authority? When it comes to the LOO anyone who has been studying and living it, and making it their "primary document" for over a decade would, IMO, be an authority on it.

[3D Sunset]

I personally am grateful that DW is out there, even though I disagree with many of his concludions and his focus on the transitory. The reason I am greateful, is because he was instrumental in my finding the Law of One. I always read his ideas with a somewhat jaundiced eye, but I found that when he spoke about non-transitory material, his messages resonated with me very strongly. This is what lead me to follow up on his suggestions to read TLOO. I cannot thank him enough.

I believe that many here are of a similar mindset. They are grateful for his being there and acting as a beacon to which they were attracted, but having found him, subsequently found that he pointed to a much more valuable resource than himslef. That being the Law of One.

Perhaps my disdain for conspiracy theories and focus on the transitory material is due to my status as an "older gentleman" as yossarian would put it (since I'm older that Quantum, then I must be one too). Perhaps with age comes wisdom, perhaps with age one simply loses the vim and vigor of youth and the desire to avenge the wrongs of the world, perhaps one gets more comfortable with their place in the world, or perhaps we simply are following different callings. For whatever reason though, I have never been attracted to the transitory aspects of David's or any one else's theories. Even less so after having read TLOO for myslef.

There is one philosophy of David's that I have really embraced, that isn't really stated in the Law of One, per se. That being his view that whatever are the problems that are in your face each day, these are the issues you need to examine and deal with. Although this is obvious when you think about it, I find myslef constantly in denial of them, the real issues I need to resolve NOW, in this incarnation. I wake each day and remind myself that this is my last chance to get it right here on planet Earth, and I use his observation to rally my efforts to synthesize these catalyst now, so that I can move on when the time comes.

For this and many other things I thank David, and offer back to him my love and light as he moves forward along his own path, sometimes parallel to, sometimes tangential with, and sometimes divergent to, but always visible from, mine.

3D Sunset

[yossarian]

What I notice when it comes to age is that older people are not as interested in politics, and yet it's ironic because older people tend to have more money and influence.

Younger people are interested in politics because... it's our future we're dealing with. I also think there is an effect with young people where young people are closer to the womb and so remember a "better place" with more clarity than older folks. People who remember a better place tend to be more dissatisfied. It seems normal for young people to be dissatisfied with the negative aspects of the Earth, and for older people to get used to them and become complacent with those negative aspects.

I'm sure when you guys were in your 20s you were probably interested in politics too.

I don't see either way as "bad". Most of our lives are spent in transient activities - making a living, eating, sleeping, getting an education. These are all transient according to Ra. Just because it is transient doesn't mean we should shun it - what it does mean is that we should be careful not ascribe to these things too much importance.

The same applies to politics for me personally. I think politics is important because I feel I have a responsibility and honor/duty to be aware of what is going on in the world. I also think it is my responsibility to not get caught up in it, or to fall into fear like many do, but rather to be aware of it while still maintaining a high vibration and keeping my eye on the goal which is not the future but the higher goal of Union with God.

So to me saying something is "transient" is a good reason to not ask a channeled entity about it, but we still must engage in transient activities and we still must become aware of transient facts. (Whether those are political facts or just mundane facts of how to cook brown rice so you can eat.)

The fact that David's livelihood is earned from transient activities does not discredit him in my eyes, because everyone's livelihood is earned in transient activities, including Carla and Jim. David himself is not a rich guy either, he pretty much lives on the edge of poverty.

By the way, David's most recent release is a music album called "Wanderer Awakening." It is 50 narrative songs telling the story of a Wanderer who came to Earth to lighten the planet and then detailing his journey back into Oneness with all things. It's pure LOO stuff, and that was the bulk of his activity during the last 10 months.

So I mean with this album he just released, he is probably now the only person besides L/L Research to have created such an extensive and expensive piece of art that is directly and completely inspired by the LOO. Nothing in Wanderer Awakening is transient.. it's all pure LOO philosophy on spiritual evolution put into a form that is easily digestible by the population. It expresses a bunch of archetypes as well.

[ayadew]

Transient money is needed, indeed. But also they are a catalyst for magnetic or radiant activities, although I rather not deal with money at all... situations with money-business makes me uncomfortable, since you are forced to be a bit selfish in money to survive in our western society. I want to get away from all that, but it's here in my western society that I feel I am most needed, for it's here the global separation grows from. Here is the beginning and end of materialism.

[Yoda1]

The real question is what makes an authority.

It's absolutely true that David is by no means 100% and solely dedicated to the LOO. In fact most of his effort is only tangentially related.

He was a "UFOlogist" before reading the LOO, and once he read it he considered it to be the best source he had ever heard that confirmed all the things he had independently discovered to be true.

So I mean what is the criteria to be an authority? David, first and foremost, was a UFOlogist, then a psychic giving psychic readings, which led to him supporting the idea of ascension and being a megaphone for the harvest, and then a "consciousness science" guy spreading the teachings of Russian torsions fields and sacred geometry.

What attaches him to the LOO is not that he is a "LOO proponent" so to speak but rather that he bases his own life and philosophy on the LOO and considers the LOO to verify the stuff he independently believes.

So I mean again, just what is necessary for someone to be considered an authority? When it comes to the question, "What does the LOO say?" I would say that David is an authority just because he has read it in depth and lived it for so many years. In his private life he talks about transient information but this is not forbidden by the LOO, it is just said that transient information must be dealt with delicately. Specifically though Ra was saying you shouldn't ask a channelled entity for transient information, but David isn't doing that since his information on transient information does not come from channeled sources but from Earth evidence and documents and people and events.

It is transient to make any kind of mundane living on Earth, not just David's work in alternative politics. For instance if you are a baker it would be equally transient to become well-versed in the best techniques of bread baking, and Ra would discourage asking a channeled entitiy for advice on bread-baking. This is just as transient as politics.

Most humans do not have the luxury of speaking about non-transient issues for their livelihood. 99.9% of us have transient jobs. For instance Jim and Carla are mainly supported by Jim's gardening job - which is transient. Jim isn't going to ask Q'uo for advice on growing plants just like David does not ask channeled entities for advice on exposing the shadow government or sharing the new science of consciousness with the world.

David meditates and uses his dreams to receive input from higher sources like we all do in all parts of our life, but he isn't channeling Ra and asking "How best can I grow tomatoes" or "Where should I look to find documents exposing the crimes of the Bush administration."

So anyway again, what makes an authority? When it comes to the LOO anyone who has been studying and living it, and making it their "primary document" for over a decade would, IMO, be an authority on it.

Does it really matter as long as the message gets out of spirituallity. This world lacks it and TV is a tool used to brain wash the public. So why not use these tools for good causes in his way. This is an issue of who has the biggest EGO I think.

[Richard]

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.

All of the above…is your opinion, of course. None of it resonates with me or the truth I search for. Does this make you wrong? No, but neither does it make you right either.

I read somewhere that 2012 is…or could be…. a splitting of realities for each of us. That at that point, we all travel down the potentials of our personally held beliefs. Is that a true statement? I don’t know, but there is a possible potential that it could be.

Be careful of the realities you imagine (or wish for)…what if they come true?

Richard

[Quantum]

With respect to the last several posts....let me try it another way. I am enjoying this dialogue immensely and am happy to participate in Sirius' original thread, feeling it to be an important if not entertaining one to be sure. Lets forget about David Wilcock entirely as an exercise for a moment. He is unimportant. My intent as repeatedly stated is not to make this about DW per se, or to make this the DW hour (as difficult as this is given he is the author that has purported certain statements as regards the LOO). As difficult as it seems, can we surgically separate him as a person, and all the good he has admittedly accomplished by bringing some to the LOO, and not speak to this as the point. Otherwise no headway or conversation may be made to the point of the assertions made.

I will now will hypnotize all the readers of this post and ask them to forget about DW. Forget..forget...forget....s-h-h-h....forget:

1. Lets assume hypothetically that another participant innocuously made any of the 7 pointed assertions a certain author asserts in my post #39. Period.
2. Lets assume this person claims authoritative knowledge specifically with respect to "TLOO" (btw: I've always liked your twist and creative play with word 3D). TLOO....I like it tloo.
3. Lets assume this person in fact speaks on some level to the general public about the TLOO.
4. Lets assume that this person is in fact as such partly if not largely responsible for secondarily (by 3rd party) relaying general information about the LOO to those that have either never heard of it, or will ever read it, or that in fact have only read the LOO in a general, if not only a nominally cursory manner (we all know your out there).

Taking this certain person out of it entirely, what may we speak to as regards these assertions in light of the LOO? Thats all. Thats it. Its as simple as that. Who cares if this certain person likes potatoes verses tomatoes, reads Kant, Nitzche, Hegel, Spinoza, Goethe, or claims intimate first hand knowledge with respect to reticulans, greys, pleiadeans, arcturians, Mandarins, Arizonians, or prefers blue jeans over dress slacks.

My singular albeit wayward intent is that the LOO may in fact be the best esoteric literature ever delivered. Admittedly, this is my bias. I assume as dedicated students we all share this bias on some level? Lets assume Ishkabibil made any or all of these 7 assertions, and that he is a wayshower, writer, and speaker of sorts as regards the LOO. God help me if there is such an author as ishkabibil..then we'll be speaking to him as a subject verses what he wrote.

I ask philosophically if there is a degree of responsibility that students of any subject at least minimally assume, serious, dedicated, or only generally interested, to keep the material from being impugned? If the LOO is mixed with many such assertions as have been uttered or written, while in the same breath by the same speaker (ishkabibil...ishkabibil...ishkabibil...remember, your still hypnotized) that claims authoritative knowledge to it, and if utilized as even a small backdrop to support such theories, then the LOO is somewhat diluted at best. I dare say I am more than correct in assuming that a goodly number of the folk that are familiar with the LOO are familiar only by 3rd party knwledge, have not read it for themselves, and therefore take in information that has been predigested by another, much like the evening news. Its lazy, its real, but its a true fact, and we all do this on many levels. Given our busy schedules, we're all Congressman and Senators who require Lobbyists to feed us, rather than taking the time to read the entire bill for ourselves. Lets put aside all responsibility and just trust? Heck, CEO's do it, as do our Representatives. Look at Ken Lays's defense to the Enron debacle of a few years ago. Is it any different to the missing bailout monies from our own Federal Reserve? Its a fact that we do this. Its easier to trust. Look where that has gotten us? There needs always be a 2nd voice that simply questions at least the lobbyist's platform if not the legislators or Ceo's? I may love, and yet simultaneously lovingly reject or question at once. I can do the former at 100% without abolishing the requirement of the latter at zero%. To the converse, I can reject 100%, yet with 100% of love in the rejection. Its called discernment as per the LOO manner. Blurring the distinction between the two is often the unbalance of any thought or subject. Zelousness. If not careful, it stifles conversation radically as much as it does the critical thought process.

I use these as examples only and do not advocate anything but to simply be well read and aware of our stated purpose...the tloo...I mean "The LOO" as source. (God..please lets not now talk about the Fed, CEO's, or our dear Legislators...remember only the assertions to a certain hypothetical ishkabibil...ishkabibil...ishkabibil). For the record, I am not that voice. I'm just an old politically antiquated uninformed outta touch blogging internet kinda dude (that's humor yosarrian, meant only as a joke. My killer looking internet blogging wonder of a girlfriend at just 30+ would have a conniption if she read you considered me an old curmudgeon at 40+. Not to worry though, I've locked my computer, protected your identity,and promise to continue to do so. Us bro's have to stick togetha dude).

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?

Your point is well taken Steve. Allow me this short commercial break (this while still hypnotized to ishkabibil as point) to offer the deepest appreciation to all the hard work and creative processes you and all the creators and moderators of this wonderful forum have contributed. It has required dedication, time, energy, and effort. Let us always be respectful to all of you for this. We all salute you. Thank you. Returning to your post above: In light of my comments above yours, I wonder if this is in any way of service to those that are, shall we say, less informed? This position only makes perfect sense if I am only taking care of me. You say: "Are we not here to know ourselves so that the Creator can know itself in a way that only you can uniquely perceive?". Are we not here also to take care of each other? Are we not here to also understand each other? In doing both I would offer that this is how we know ourselves so that the Creator may know Itself. One can not know/love oneself without knowing/loving the other, unless we speak to the left hand path. Even this supposition might be iffy for the left hand path on further thought. I reckon we're all in it together then.This serves as mirrors to ourselves for ourselves. Isn't this exactly what Ra does? Even if by nothing else than communicating , and on what the vast general public of any thought process, be it the Catholic Church, the Muslims, the Atheist, or the Democrat, etc, might at least consider to be on an altogether different position? We're all in it together.

If all of us are able to remain true to a higher ground, and act as a benefit to those that are not altogether informed, or have yet to squeeze it into their busy calenders, but instead rely on synthesizers, aka lobbyists, then offering another truth is as great of a service as is the service offered by the lobbyist/synthesizer. If we as intended students of the LOO are acting from the intended vibration of love, who are furthermore resolved to be so in accordance with the principles of STO, we needn't then be so overly concerned as to being so sensitive to the smaller points of respectful differing opinion, as they may serve the higher purpose as cause for it. It's the reason we're here?

I enjoy the forum. I'm sitting in the wonderful sun of a Southern Florida beach house on the porch overlooking the Gulf, feeling as blessed that life is as good as it is and as blessed to participate and as blessed for what you Steve and all the others involved have created. A voice for the LOO. Lets not stifle it inadvertently for heavens sake. Lets not be so overly concerned about being so politically correct if the vibration and energy of love are as often repeated that we remain respectful. This reminds me very much of the posts where "Biased Views On STS" defenses were so sensitive so much so as to more seemingly only allow a singular opinion verses a challenging one. In that case " tloo " I asked very much same questions as here with regards to the inadvertent blurring of the LOO. It is therefore IMHO more than well that we ask these questions, not just of ourselves, or for ourselves, but for others as much.

Back to the questions then, intended to be about the LOO only: Ishkabibil, Tom, Dick, or Harry notwithstanding, what do we think of the assertions made in light of the LOO and what the LOO states? And if anyone speaks to Tom, Dick, Harry, or Ishkabibil, then clearly your one of those not willing to play like your hypnotized for either sport or insight, or perhaps for those less fortunate than those that are so fortunate as to be harvestable...which might suggest questions about being harvestable.

...you just have tloo love and laugh out loud as tloo the conundrum of being in 3D.

Assertions only as an exercise (see post #39).

L/L from the beach, where theres more of it....

Q

[Ali Quadir]

Hey Quantum,

To clarify I meant the word attack not as a violent attack but an intellectual attack. It's probably an over statement. I have remnants of my original language in English. I have a good spell checker, but my way of saying things must be odd at times. I never meant to imply you're a bulldog biting his ankles for bitings sake. I meant to say you're opposed to some of his opinions, to some of his style and to the importance some of us put on him. (This is a better way of saying it I hope) And I understood and understand clearly that you were not undivided, as in uncritically opposed, you're critically opposed meaning that you thought about it and give the man credit where you think it's due and not where you think it's not due.

I could act exactly like you. But I am not exactly sure of your position because there's a lot of confusion between us. I don't grasp intuitively what you mean.

I understand the dangers with having commercial interests. I also understand the requirement for money. Money is just shared belief in the value of green bits of paper and virtual numbers behind plastic cards. It's not good or bad. It's a tool. Just like a knife or a kitchen. You're going to have to learn to live in harmony with them if you want to live a life on earth.

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"?

I don't know about this. David's channelings have not caught my interest. I cannot verify them personally. However my personal understanding is that groups in groups is an appropriate description of the hierarchy of nature. If we were talking about human beings his statement would be laughable. But we're not... Ra is a social memory complex. Belonging to a group. I don't think this is an easy concept to grasp. Speculating on how this works will always result in conflicting opinions. And since it's above 3d in nature it might not even be fully comprehensible from a 3d perspective. Meaning that what we understand as Ra is merely an approximation of what he is. Egyptians called him God. That was also merely an approximation.

So any discussion about whether David is right or wrong depends on our mutual approximations. We're not capable of deciding if this is correct. We are capable of judging the end result, what is concluded from the process, is it correct? Or is it not? I would rather stick to that.

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.

If Jesus were to come back today, the christians would crucify him personally. I don't know about this either. I do know that connections between lives often exist and inspire the later living to do something. And David has been inspired. Whether or not he truly is Cayce is not relevant to me as it is uncheckable and well, it really makes no difference. I'm still going to have to evaluate the man's theories word for word. And wether information is channeled or not, I don't take that into consideration. Without some kind of support for the words (for example common sense) I usually don't accept them channeled or not.

I don't believe in reincarnation in the way most people do. In my opinion there's one soul experiencing trillions of simultaneous lives. What we call past lives is a metaphor for the fact that some of those lives touch in a way that we have access to our "ancestors" memories and experiences. And since we're all one person that past lives metaphor is appropriate enough for me not to object to it. Yet I think it has to do with David's personal journey more than his service to earth. As such it might have been better to have kept this to himself. There is no benefit from it and it can only confuse.

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.

Actually I don't believe in past lives like this. But this point 3 is really an extension of point 2. To me everyone carries Cayce's soul. You linear past life believers must work out your differences among yourselves.

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:

I don't see your issue here. As far as I can see Wilcock references all his claims. If you hear him on an interview or on a blog page he might occasionally forget to mention a reference, but if you read his material it's still there. I have personally checked a lot of them. At first because I didn't believe him, later because I wanted to see if I could catch him in an error. I don't think he ever takes credit for inventing the stuff. Only for gathering it and making available to a larger public. Which is essentially his role. It's a role he's good at but not one no one else can fulfill.

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?

Basically I think you're saying here that a scholar should agree with the material he is a scholar in.. That's not true for the obvious reasons. I am a scholar in psychology. I still read up on it and study it long after my studies are done. But I still don't agree with all of it.

Also that rapture by aliens idea, I don't see that in Davids work can you reference it? I may not be aware of everything he's ever said but I enjoy reading his posts and hearing him talk so I am of the opinion I'm at least reasonably informed. I think he's talking about the harvest Ra is also talking about. The contact with ET's will be after or during that. Not before as some kind of messianic figures. I don't see him making the claim that some white knight will come and whisk us away in his Ufo. Though he does suggest they are active in ensuring the free will of mankind can not be harmed.

If things go as they should we won't see them until after the 2012 events.

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.

I don't seem to agree much on whether or not he openly claims the "above points". Or in what amount he contradicts Ra. Can you exemplify this? The "above points" is vague to me I just have a minor understanding of what it is supposed to be.

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.

Please supply the documentation. I don't see this your way. David gets the negative greetings like we all get them. He's also criticized. I think he's not exaggerating by stating any of this. Did he really use it as a defense? I haven't seen him have the need to grab any lame or non lame defenses. Usually he just regurgitates the usual material which slowly evolves over time and in my opinion is quite well structured. Often new research corroborates his previous story and is incorporated. He repeats himself a lot. You could accuse him of being remotely autistic. Which isn't a bad thing by the way, a lot of intelligent people are.

But can you exemplify this, can you make hard that "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?" is more than your opinion and something he believes himself? He has stated that the illuminati nwo and the works are not a concern and therefore not an enemy. He says in different ways that he holds no hatred towards them. And while he does state that some of the sources out there are fed information by the so called negative elite. He doesn't go as far as to call anyone who does not share his opinion is negative elite.

That whole "either with us or against us" principle doesn't ever work.

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?

Criticism doesn't make a person wrong. It just makes them dislikeable. And with all the love I have for Carla I owe her more than I owe David. David gave me the scientific basis. Carla told me it was alright to accept myself as a wanderer. So I have got nothing but love for her. And because of this I'm not going to go deep into this discussion. I understand his points. Just like I understand the idea that mr Wilcock has a strong ego, is sure and full of himself and considers himself right about most everything. If people say this they make me smile, because in a way, they're right. These are matters of personal style. Every person has a style, and we just have to deal with that. The bottom line, their conclusions, are far more important than their individual personalities or opinions about each other. Even if those opinions do state something about the individuals and their understanding.

Isn't it smarter to see where they agree than where they disagree? If the truth is in the middle, it's likely to be something they agree on.

I'm personally not interested in picking sides. Like I said, I owe both of them big time.

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.

I heard David say that any ANY channeled information or dreamwork, including his own is not 100% accurate. Only after analysis and understanding of the patterns and the bigger picture can you get to accurate predictions from a channeling session.

I would agree, I have channeled personally. The first was a long relationship as a child with something that was also a multitude and not an individual. It was something that was undeniable to me but for much of my life I didn't understand what it was, just that it payed to listen. Both because it was better than books and because the practical advices worked.

The second was not a positive high density entity like Ra or Quo... More the immortal remnants of an aristocrat who'se life was for some reason connected to mine. A past life you might call it. He wasn't good, and in spite of the fact that many would dislike his style much more than they'd ever dislike david or Carla he wasn't evil either, he also wasn't particularly knowledgeable just more knowledgeable than me. He had insight though. And he told the truth as he knew it. I think from his negative perspective he tried to do me a service. And from him I learned to never blindly trust anyone. Some of the things he said worked out like he said, some things did not. Eventually it was my own choices that broke some of his bigger prophecies. He wasn't so much an entity or me myself he was a tangled mess of him and me. And that happens in my opinion a lot but it must be said that Carla and David are clearer channels than I ever was. Usually if I'd invoke him he'd just be there.

[yossarian]

Personally I think the assertions made by Ishkabibil are in line with TLOO.

Perhaps those assertions need elaboration, but I for one was a TLOOer before I was a Wilcock fan, and I find everything David says EXCEPT for a few points to be in line with the TLOO.

The main thing David was wrong about was the idea of STO people being beamed aboard a ship in some kind of pretribulation rapture. I think this was a negative entity that snuck into some of his channeling.

Since doing this channeling in 1999 however, David has recanted this statement and is now in favor of a very different (but more complex) theory on specifically how The Harvest happens, a theory that is much more in line with TLOO.

This is why I suspect that you (Quantum) read Ishkabibils stuff a long time ago, because Ishkawhat hasn't supported the pre-trib-rapture-via-UFO since the 90s. I'm guessing you used to argue with him on Hoagland's website.

His stuff now is much improved for my tastes. All the conspiracy stuff may sound at first glance to be fear based but it really is not. David is always supporting a positive view of the future. We don't have to get lost in despair just because we recognize the existence of evil.

You don't make evil go away by closing your eyes and refusing to see it. Evil is not an opinion, it's a fact, and the evidence is physical evidence, not opinion. We can recognize that it exists and reject the service that it offers without succumbing to fear or hatred.

I might sound like a fear-based conspiracy theorist and I can see how some would think that, but I'm not in a fear-based mood whatsoever. I'm in a TRUTH based mood and a HOPE based mood -- truth because I respect the truth and am not scared of speaking it boldly and hope because even though the truth has negative parts, I also see the positive parts. STS people exist but they are not in control and they are in fact losing power as we speak. This isn't an "opinion" this is based on facts. I understand if some people aren't interested in politics, but I don't understand why some people would close their eyes to the truth simply because they don't like what the truth has to say.

I guess my point for Quantum was just that all the stuff Ishkawhat says these days is in line with my interpretation of TLOO. (And I've read it multiple times over in great excruciating detail.)

[Quantum]

Personally I think the assertions made by Ishkabibil are in line with TLOO.
Perhaps those assertions need elaboration, but I for one was a TLOOer before I was a Wilcock fan, and I find everything David says EXCEPT for a few points to be in line with the TLOO.

We agree. There is nothing to speak to as regards our agreements. It is to the assertions and the exceptions that we speak?

Since doing this channeling in 1999 however, David has recanted this statement and is now in favor of a very different (but more complex) theory on specifically how The Harvest happens, a theory that is much more in line with TLOO.

This is incorrect. All 7 assertions were made as late and as recent as roughly 2006.

This is why I suspect that you (Quantum) read Ishkabibils stuff a long time ago, because Ishkawhat hasn't supported the pre-trib-rapture-via-UFO since the 90s. I'm guessing you used to argue with him on Hoagland's website.

You are wrong on each and every single count thus far ascribed to me in this and your other posts.
1. See above with respect to the rapture statements of roughly 2006.
2. Although I am intimately familiar with Hoagland, have his tapes, visit his site, respect his work greatly, I have never participated on Hoagland's site.
3. I hope I am quite politically informed. In my line of work I need to be.
4. I hope I am quite savvy with respect to the internet. In my line of work I better be.
5. I am quite aware of whistle blowers and blogging.
6. I am hardly an elderly gentleman. I won't be until at least 3 more months from now when I turn another year older than I am...lol.

Given that you have now suggested no less than twice that the assertion of "aliens as saviors" was dropped in the 90's, and that this seems to be a focal point for your position, and restated no less again here, I can only suggest that if your premise is wrong that so too may be the balance your remaining conclusions? The author of these assertions argued for it quite vehemently as recently as 2006. (Yikes...don't even ask me to dig into his archives, as you self-admittedly are the greater reader of his works than I. I assure you if you dig you will find)

Lets keep it lighter. C'mon? It seems like in the attempt at invoking the humor of ishkabibil, and this with a stated and purposeful intent, and with the exasperated and repeated suggestion that we leave the personages from the conversations but instead remain with the assertions that it is proving difficult at best? I also once was 23 years old as well (just 20 seconds ago) and full of hubris. You have no idea. You are forgiven for your youth for which I will one day be jealous of. But only when I become the elderly gentleman of your previous assumption. But not just yet, I'm in my prime babe...hahahaha (I hope this reads as funny and as light as I mean it to be).

That's one down (1990's vs roughly 2006) and we still have 6 assertions yet to go?

Q

[yossarian]

Lol, well if neither of us are willing to dig out the archive we're at an impasse I'll go look up the spaceship thing.

Sorry for calling you old.

When I said you're not familiar with the internet, I just meant you aren't familiar with the internet generation. No one expects blogs to be well-referenced, so I didn't understand why you were criticizing a blog post for not being up to an academic standard.

If you aren't familiar with the stuff David mentioned about the factions etc, then you just aren't familiar with a huge chunk of whistleblower testimony and behind-the-scenes politics. This is expected though... no one can do everything. We all have to specialize. This isn't an insult.

Edit: What can I say. The only references to pre-trib-rapture-via-UFO that I can find and know of made by David are in 1999 readings and possible some later allusions to those readings in blog posts. I know for a fact he has since contradicted this idea by saying he believes 2012 represents a spontaneous shift into time/space which is a hyperdimensional physics thing that he and Hoagland worked out. So I mean whether you agree with this particular theory or not, it's not pre-trib-rapture-via-UFO anymore.

Pre-trib-rapture is an interesting question on its own though. What do the STS people have to gain by pushing that? Clearly they have been with the Darby bible and all those protestant sects which believe in it, as well as lots of channeling that seems less than positive, but wtf? Why bother? Do we really believe they have the capabilities to abduct people if they give consent like Peter Newton believes? Seems outlandish. I have no idea why the STS people push pre-trib-rapture but it sure seems that they do.

---

Concerning the other 6 assertions that you think are contrary to TLOO...

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"?

I really don't see how this is contrary to TLOO. Did Ra say somewhere that Ra can only be channeled by Carla?

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.

Again, this just doesn't seem contrary to TLOO. Could you be specific as to how this is contrary?

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.

It's true that he doesn't engage detractors directly, but how is this contrary to TLOO? Isn't this just a personal sort of beef you have against him? Like it peeves you that he doesn't let people criticize him on his forum?

This is a legit complaint as are many of your complaints, but I just don't see how they "run contrary to TLOO" (again, except for pre-trib-rapture)

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.

It's true that he does these things and maybe he is wrong to do so, but how does it contradict TLOO?

As far as I can tell the only assertion you've made that has anything to do with TLOO is the pre-trib-rapture, which is why that is the only point I addressed.

These other things are legitimate criticisms of his style, criticisms that I share to an extent, but they don't seem contradictory to TLOO to me.

I've wracked my brain to think of anything he's said that runs contrary to TLOO. He says stuff that is not included in TLOO, but it's rarely contrary or contradictory to TLOO philosophy. As least as far as I can tell.

You copied and pasted his blog post but I really just repeat my question for each of your "question marks". David mentions that humans have ET technology - this doesn't contradict Ra. In fact Ra supports it in the first book, except Don Elkins removed the part where Ra supported it in the initial editions.

Session 8 of The Law of One by Ra, An Humble Messenger
January 26, 1981

Questioner: There was a portion of the material from yesterday which I will read where you say “there is a certain amount of landing taking place. Some of these landings are of your own people; some are of the group known to you as Orion.�? My first question is what did you mean by the landings are of your peoples?

Ra: I am Ra. Your peoples have, at this time/space present, the technological achievement, if you would call it that, of being able to create and fly the shape and type of craft known to you as unidentified flying objects. Unfortunately for the social memory complex vibratory rate of your peoples, these devices are not intended for the service of mankind, but for potential destructive use. This further muddles the vibratory nexus of your social memory complex, causing a situation whereby neither those oriented towards serving others nor those oriented towards serving self can gain the energy/power which opens the gates to intelligent infinity for the social memory complex. This in turn causes the harvest to be small.

Questioner: Are these craft that are of our peoples from what we call our--planes that are not incarnate at this time? Where are they based?

Ra: I am Ra. These of which we spoke are of third density and are part of the so-called military complex of various of your peoples’ societal divisions or structures.

The bases are varied. There are bases, as you would call them, undersea in your southern waters near the Bahamas as well as in your Pacific seas in various places close to your Chilean borders on the water. There are bases upon your moon, as you call this satellite, which are at this time being reworked. There are bases which move about your lands. There are bases, if you would call them that, in your skies. These are the bases of your peoples, very numerous and, as we have said, potentially destructive.

Questioner: Where do the people who operate these craft come from? Are they affiliated with any nation on Earth? What is their source?

Ra: These people come from the same place as you or I. They come from the Creator.

As you intend the question, in its shallower aspect, these people are those in your and otherselves’ governments responsible for what you would term national security.

Questioner: Am I to understand then that the United States has these craft in undersea bases?

Ra: I am Ra. You are correct.

Questioner: How did the United States learn the technology to build these craft?

Ra: I am Ra. There was a mind/body/spirit complex know to your people by the vibratory sound complex, Nikola. This entity departed the illusion and the papers containing the necessary understandings were taken by mind/body/spirit complexes serving your security of national divisional complex. Thus your people became privy to the basic technology. In the case of those mind/body/spirit complexes which you call Russians, the technology was given from one of the Confederation in an attempt, approximately twenty-seven of your years ago, to share information and bring about peace among your peoples. The entities giving this information were in error, but we did many things at the end of this cycle in attempts to aid your harvest from which we learned the folly of certain types of aid. That is a contributing factor to our more cautious approach at this date, even as the need is power upon power greater, and your peoples call is greater and greater.

Questioner: I’m puzzled by these craft which have undersea bases. Is this technology sufficient to overshadow all other armaments? Do we have the ability to just fly in these craft or are they just craft for transport? What is the basic mechanism of their power source? It’s really hard to believe is what I’m saying.

Ra: I am Ra. The craft are perhaps misnamed in some instances. It would be more appropriate to consider them as weaponry. The energy used is that of the field of electromagnetic energy which polarizes the Earth sphere. The weaponry is of two basic kinds: that which is called by your peoples psychotronic and that which is called by your peoples particle beam. The amount of destruction which is contained in this technology is considerable and the weapons have been used in many cases to alter weather patterns and to enhance the vibratory change which engulfs your planet at this time.

Questioner: How have they been able to keep this a secret? Why aren’t these craft in use for transport?

Ra: The governments of each of your societal division illusions desire to refrain from publicity so that the surprise may be retained in case of hostile action from what your peoples call enemies

Questioner: How many of these craft does the United States have?

Ra: I am Ra. The United States has 573 at this time. They are in the process of adding to this number.

Questioner: What is the maximum speed of one of these craft?

Ra: I am Ra. The maximum speed of these craft is equal to the Earth energy squared. This field varies. The limit is approximately one-half the light speed, as you would call it. This is due to imperfections in design.

Questioner: Wouldn’t this type of craft come close to solving a lot of the energy problems as far as transport goes?

Ra: I am Ra. The technology your peoples possess at this time is capable of resolving each and every limitation which plagues your social memory complex at this present nexus of experience. However, the concerns of some of your beings with distortions towards what you would call powerful energy cause these solutions to be withheld until the solutions are so needed that those with the distortion can then become further distorted in the direction of power.

Questioner: You also said that some of the landings at this time were of the Orion group. Why did the Orion group land here? What is their purpose?

Ra: I am Ra. Their purpose is conquest, unlike those of the Confederation who wait for the calling. The so-called Orion group calls itself to conquest.

Questioner: Specifically, what do they do when they land?

Ra: I am Ra. There are two types of landings. In the first, entities among your peoples are taken on their craft and programmed for future use. There are two or three levels of programming. First, the level that will be discovered by those who do research. Second, a triggering program. Third, a second and most deep triggering program crystallizing the entity thereby rendering it lifeless and useful as a kind of beacon. This is a form of landing.

The second form is that of landing beneath the Earth’s crust which is entered from water. Again, in the general area of your South American and Caribbean areas and close to the so-called northern pole. The bases of these people are underground.

Questioner: The most startling information that you have given me, which I must admit that I’m having difficulty believing, is that the United States has 573 craft of the type which you described. How many people of United States designation are aware of this, including those who operate them?

Ra: I am Ra. The number of your peoples varies, for there are needs to communicate at this particular time/space nexus so that the number is expanding at this time. The approximate number is 1,500. It is only approximate for as your illusory time/space continuum moves from present to present at this nexus many are learning.

Questioner: Where are these craft constructed?

Ra: These craft are constructed one by one in two locations: in the desert or arid regions of your so-called New Mexico and in the desert or arid regions of your so-called Mexico, both installations being under the ground.

Questioner: You say that the United State actually has a manufacturing plant in Mexico?

Ra: I am Ra. I spoke thusly. May I, at this time, reiterate that this type of information is very shallow and of no particular consequence compared to the study of the Law of One. However, we carefully watch these developments in hopes that your peoples are able to be harvested in peace.

Questioner: I am totally aware that this line of questioning is of totally no consequence at all, but this particular information is so startling to me that it makes me question your validity on this. Up until this point I was in agreement with everything you had said. This is very startling to me. It just does not seem possible to me that this secret could have been kept for twenty-seven years, and that we are operating these craft. I apologize for my attitude, but I thought that I would be very honest. It is unbelievable to me that we would operate a plant in Mexico, outside of the United States, to build these craft. Maybe I’m mistaken. These craft are physical craft built by physical people? Could I go get in one and ride in one? Is that correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. You could not ride one. The United States, as you call your society divisional complex, creates these as a type of weapon.

[ayadew]

How can anything contradict the LOO except the mere thought of that it does not exist, that all is madness and there is no sense to anything. Although this thought is also part of the LOO.

[Quantum]

To clarify I meant the word attack not as a violent attack but an intellectual attack. It's probably an over statement. I have remnants of my original language in English...And I understood and understand clearly that you were not undivided, as in uncritically opposed, you're critically opposed meaning that you thought about it and give the man credit where you think it's due and not where you think it's not due.

Hello Ali Q. Thank you for a most respectful and intelligent reply. Language is indeed a most peculiar if not formidable means of communication. But alas, it is all we have to rely on for the moment. As a Euro-American I can more than appreciate and well understand your challenge my friend. No apologies required with this bit of shared understanding. All is well.

..my personal understanding is that groups in groups is an appropriate description of the hierarchy of nature. If we were talking about human beings his statement would be laughable. But we're not... Ra is a social memory complex. Belonging to a group. I don't think this is an easy concept to grasp. Speculating on how this works will always result in conflicting opinions. And since it's above 3d in nature it might not even be fully comprehensible from a 3d perspective. Meaning that what we understand as Ra is merely an approximation of what he is. Egyptians called him God. That was also merely an approximation.

The larger point was that his point initially was that he channeled Ra, i.e the same Ra. This was more than "presumably understood" as much as stated as the same Ra as the Ra of the LOO. Invoking the name of Ra while speaking about Ra while claiming authority on Ra while all at once channeling in the same name as Ra, is cumbersome, complicated and confusing at best if not at least, on any level. Thats all. I questioned it then as much as I do now. Given the high and stringent requirements of the combined group of the L/L remaining as pure and "faithful to the message", comprised of Carla, Jim, Don and the L/L in general, and as being such a narrow band communication, and that this was referenced repeatedly over and over again by Ra, it was as academically suspicious then as it is now that this would have been possible by one single man vs a the group that was as "singularly dedicated and faithful to the message". With all this in mind, it's unlikely that any single person might be able to effectively channel Ra unless he were as likely to effectuate this very same stringent and narrow band communication requirement as was the case in and with the matrix that the L/L group seemed to emit. Either we accept the stringent requirement as fact or we do not. If we do not accept the requirements made so often by Ra, as to even the simple placement of a candlestick or a book as much as the integrity of the group, then we may accept his claims and reject Ra's, verses the seeming logic of winning the day to question his and accept Ra's.

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.

...I don't know about this either. I do know that connections between lives often exist and inspire the later living to do something.

You are in some senses of the word more in agreement with me here than not. I too do not know about this and therefore as a result question it as much as accept this as a truth. In the larger context you are correct in surmising that connections between lives exist to inspire others later. It is however not the point made. The point made is that much like the Ra claims specifically, he too claims specifically to be "The" reincarnation of Cayce in the flesh, not that Cayce merely inspired him. Thats all. And that moreover as evidence to this same present incarnation he offers physical resemblance to the man? I only respectfully question the credulity of accepting that one may be all things simultaneously so much so as to not only channel Ra, who speaks in contradiction to Ra (i.e. aliens as saviors during the Harvest - even if only on one single point), but then accept that one is also "the one and only Edgar Cayce" in the flesh. The first claim, even without the questions posed, is incredulous enough. The second claim compounded with the first makes it at the least all the more incredulous. The one redeeming factor to all this is that he claims to be a scholar. Thankfully as such he therefore as a result must be quite agreeable to the scrutiny that scholarly thought and debate require to any academic claim made.

I think it has to do with David's personal journey more than his service to earth. As such it might have been better to have kept this to himself. There is no benefit from it and it can only confuse.

Once again, we are in agreement. It confuses, this as suggested in my previous posts

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.

Actually I don't believe in past lives like this. But this point 3 is really an extension of point 2. To me everyone carries Cayce's soul. You linear past life believers must work out your differences among yourselves.

These are his his statements, not mine or yours, therefore we are not at liberty to reinterpret them. He does not feel as you do.

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.

I don't see your issue here. As far as I can see Wilcock references all his claims.

My apologies for not being more clear. Allow me to be more specific. He opines on certain references which are often no where made in the references of the LOO so as to sometimes seemingly stretch or bend these references, these as made in the case of the LOO with specificity.

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?

Basically I think you're saying here that a scholar should agree with the material he is a scholar in.. That's not true for the obvious reasons. I am a scholar in psychology. I still read up on it and study it long after my studies are done. But I still don't agree with all of it.

Thank you for this Ali. It opens up for the first time thus far a real and intellectual dialogue on what it means to be a scholar of a very specific study, such as the LOO, or the Dead Sea Scrolls for that matter. This is no small claim as has been suggested by another participant in his post that "anyone" may call himself a scholar. We may have a very basic first disagreement if you too believe this in any manner, given we seemingly agree in most other areas of what we are speaking to. A scholar who professes a certain authority, while yet claiming to channel this same source (as the truer authority), all while suggesting he seemingly as a scholar knows more than the average individual on this certain study, but then all at once disagrees with the very study he is an authority on and which he channels no less, may hardly be named as a credible scholar in support of his scholarly pursuit, as much a critic of it. This is confusing. There is a vast distinction between the two positions of advocating and furthering a particular study, verses being a critic of it. Attempting to have it both ways once again creates confusion. I may for example be a scholar of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Essenes. It would be futile for me to be their critic and be in dispute of anything that was written in them or by them, unless I were disputing them or impugning their authenticity. It would be opining as opposed to further studying and pursuing their intent. As you stated earlier, it creates confusion at the very least as opposed to clarity and further understanding which is the goal of a scholar.

Also that rapture by aliens idea, I don't see that in Davids work can you reference it? .... I think he's talking about the harvest Ra is also talking about. The contact with ET's will be after or during that. Not before as some kind of messianic figures. I don't see him making the claim that some white knight will come and whisk us away in his Ufo.

It would require an exhaustive search for me to direct you specifically to any one point made as opposed to speaking about them generally. They are there. You may search the archives, or perhaps others might assist by concurring or helping to reference. Perhaps Yosarrian who has made it a point to read everything he has written may assist, in as much as he agrees he said it. Yosarrian is however incorrect by stating he made these statements in the 90's. He made all of the 7 assertions far far more recently than the 90's. He made them all as recently as roughly in 2006. He presumably archives and documents all of his comments and posts. This aside however,thank you for making my larger point for me as regards this point specifically. It suggests that one may blur, stretch, or simply opine on, or innocently misinterpret the information, but then not be expected to be challenged for it by simply suggesting one is a scholar and therefor presumably correct.

David gets the negative greetings like we all get them. He's also criticized. I think he's not exaggerating by stating any of this. Did he really use it as a defense?

Yes he has and does. Again, I can not direct you specifically to such posts. Would that I could. Again same point as above. Perhaps others may add to your request better than I, or at least corroborate.

But you bring up another very profound and interesting point Ali Q. You are most insightful, engaging, and this as a result is proving to be much like a post I was hoping to receive. Suggesting that if one questions, as in an academic, intellectual, or scholarly sense, and then further suggesting that this is a "Negative Greeting", well, this profoundly kills any semblance of ever having any reasonable or intelligent discussion on anything...unless you concede that by now disagreeing with me you are sending me "Negative Greeting?" This is absurd if not preposterous, as much as if I do not believe in a certain legislated principle enacted by the sate I must now therefor be an enemy of the state. Surely we all know where this may lead.

I suggest that when Ra utilizes the term "Negative Greeting" that it was invoked more to mean a Negative energy sent from a higher plane and source to a lower plane such as ours, this by a higher more powerful entity(ies), and not to be misconstrued as by your next door neighbor. For heaven's sake. Yes, if we wish to be pedantic, one may indeed infer that a higher entity is manipulating your next door neighbor of a lower energy as a minion of his highnesse's higher STS energy, but I would suggest that this is a weenie higher entity engaged in something as frivolous as your dog that didn't poop in his yard that he wishes to have an argument over nonetheless, as much as all my or anyone else's words in "respectful" question to a certain assertion or points. Yes, we may engage in pedantics, and that it may mean anything, but this is exactly one of my points as relates to either blurring or over-reaching, both as a result minimizing the message of the LOO as a consequence so as to make it mean anything. What I can suggest is that when Ra used this term it was utilized in reference to Carla and the L/L group being greeted/attacked so as to prevent an extremely powerful message from being conveyed and disseminated to earth's population, and this directly by first party, and not a dog, or a neighbor. One may suggest that you cant send a boy to do a mans work, but that one may send a boy to do a boys work (i.e. said non- pooping dog vis-a-vis crazy angry small minded neighbor). I might be a sight more concerned about the real deal visiting me 1st party under my bed when the lights are out, or when I'm under trance, than the silly trite of day to day life's turmoils and conflicts, much less the rigors imposed by academic scrutiny. Let us be reasonable? Turning my candlestick or Bible in a certain direction would have no effect on my neighbor Bubba only in as much as Bubba is not as finely tuned as to understand my intent much less be affected by it. Sadly for Bubba, he's just too dense. But I love him anyway and might as well reach him on his level by offering him a beer and a feigned apology for the dog I don't even own. To expand on this concept as relates specifically to your suggestion that one may be a scholar of a particular subject but then also disagree with it, this logic by proxy would extend itself to a critic of the LOO claiming to be a scholar of the LOO while sending a Negative Greeting to the information of the LOO by simply disagreeing, or extending (over-reaching), or innocently blurring it? I don't subscribe to the fact that this is what was ever implied by Negative Greeting.

He doesn't go as far as to call anyone who does not share his opinion is negative elite.

Yes he has.

That whole "either with us or against us" principle doesn't ever work.

Again we most emphatically agree!

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?

Criticism doesn't make a person wrong. It just makes them dislikeable.

Well, perhaps the latter comment is true. The former opinion however is extremely questionable only in so much as if one is casting certain comments while simultaneously speaking to the very principles of STO and the LOO while claiming their authority of opinion over the others (Carla/L/L), well, it creates confusion again. I keep reading certain references being made as to two camps ala the Carla Camp vs the Wilcock Camp? I've never so much as even once seen a single comment from the former camp. One might be hard pressed to even find so much as a pebble much less a stone in their yard. See my point? It again creates confusion at best if not questionable authority at least. The standards and principles of the LOO are without question far more paramount than are the teachings, so much so that as an authority, scholar, or academic one should be cognizant of this, if not altogether congruent with it? I would hope there is absolutely no dispute in this? It otherwise creates confusion. There are no camps. There is no authority. There is no spoon (the Matrix). Ra is the singular authority on the LOO. He /they would in no small doubt even certainly dispute this.There is only the teaching made available as a book with principles. Simple. Period. I speak with a great degree of certainty and conviction, albeit my profound bias, when I respectfully offer that the LOO was not offered as a treatise to be made into a scholarly material reserved for academics as much as it is a candle in the dark offered for all, whatever station in life they may hold. It is my bias and I'm sticking with it...lol.

I'm personally not interested in picking sides. Like I said, I owe both of them big time.

You are strongly encouraged by this writer not to pick sides. That would infer a separation principle of STS as opposed to a unification principle of STO. We are attempting to speak academically to assertions only, not about individuals or sides.

Thank you Ali Q for a most well thought out post and response. I deeply appreciate your humility, as much as your intelligence, and most of all your willingness to engage in intelligent dialogue.

I return now to my continuing vacation in the aqua colored waters and gulf sands of the beach where all is still.

Peace my new friend,

Q

[Monica]

The larger point was that his point initially was that he channeled Ra, i.e the same Ra. This was more than "presumably understood" as much as stated as the same Ra as the Ra of the LOO. Invoking the name of Ra while speaking about Ra while claiming authority on Ra while all at once channeling in the same name as Ra, is cumbersome, complicated and confusing at best if not at least, on any level. Thats all. I questioned it then as much as I do now. Given the high and stringent requirements of the combined group of the L/L remaining as pure and "faithful to the message", comprised of Carla, Jim, Don and the L/L in general, and as being such a narrow band communication, and that this was referenced repeatedly over and over again by Ra, it was as academically suspicious then as it is now that this would have been possible by one single man vs a the group that was as "singularly dedicated and faithful to the message". With all this in mind, it's unlikely that any single person might be able to effectively channel Ra unless he were as likely to effectuate this very same stringent and narrow band communication requirement as was the case in and with the matrix that the L/L group seemed to emit. Either we accept the stringent requirement as fact or we do not. If we do not accept the requirements made so often by Ra, as to even the simple placement of a candlestick or a book as much as the integrity of the group, then we may accept his claims and reject Ra's, verses the seeming logic of winning the day to question his and accept Ra's.

I think this is a very important point. If the name of his channeled source was anything other than Ra, we would not be dealing with all this confusion. He would be offering another channeled source, along with all his other sources of info, his intellectual expertise, his intuitive dreamwork, etc. and some of us might view it collectively just as we view any other person's contribution - a rich assortment of interesting info, some of which is clearly based on the Law of One, and some of which may resonate and some may not. But we wouldn't have people wondering "Is this the same Ra?" or possibly getting confused when Ra is mentioned...and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Which leads to the question: Is it common for anyone's Higher Self, when channeled, to use the name of its corresponding SMC? Does anyone know of any other cases in which this has happened? We all know of many other channeled sources, which have names...are these names of their SMC's?

---

I respectfully offer that the LOO was not offered as a treatise to be made into a scholarly material reserved for academics as much as it is a candle in the dark offered for all, whatever station in life they may hold.

I emphatically agree with this!

Religions have authorities because they have doctrine...their recognized authorities claim to be scholars of their respective doctrinal texts. I don't think Ra ever intended for the Law of One to be any sort of doctrinal text. This is clear by the amount of effort and care taken by Ra to not infringe upon anyone's free will, but to only answer direct questions, and even then sometimes refrain from a complete answer, due to concern about violating the Law of Confusion.

That said, we can only speculate as to the intention behind the words of an other-self.

You are strongly encouraged by this writer not to pick sides. That would infer a separation principle of STS as opposed to a unification principle of STO. We are attempting to speak academically to assertions only, not about individuals or sides.

Indeed.

[Ali Quadir]

Hello Ali Q. Thank you for a most respectful and intelligent reply. Language is indeed a most peculiar if not formidable means of communication. But alas, it is all we have to rely on for the moment.

Thank you for the chance to think deeper on the subject and to practice communication. While language is peculiar it has the side effect of improving our own understandings by formulating them.

As you may see I removed a lot of the issues and tried to focus on the ones I think would clarify our differences most easily. There's big messages going around and I'm not the only one talking to you. So brevity is good for you and me as long as we stick to the real points. But if I left something important out bring it back up and I will respond to it.

As a Euro-American I can more than appreciate and well understand your challenge my friend. No apologies required with this bit of shared understanding. All is well.

I am glad no apologies are needed because I offered none. I would offer them gladly and repeatedly to you if they somehow made you feel better. I did not get the feeling that they would. But the fact is I did not offer them. Please verify and see the possibility for us, every one of us, to read something that isn't actually said. I only clarified my position. The reason I think you experienced it as an apology was because you felt a strong change from what you believe I previously said to what you believe I said now. Meaning that I did find a better way to formulate my words. And that my first attempt did not come across right.

The reason I bother to mention this now is because it's exactly in line with our understanding that language is indeed a barrier. And our current problems.

With that out of the way NOW I apologize for not being clear enough the first time. You felt that in the best of world I would give them, even if you did not need them. But the best of worlds is cool right?

Lets call it ambiguity. And I want to empathize that because it is important for the rest of my response.

A problem I am having is that you state something as factual. While I don't believe it to be true. You don't give references to back up your claims. You say it would cause too much work for you. I concede that it's a bit of a chore. However you raised the issues. And it would be tremendously easier for you to find one single point to discuss that reflects your objections than it would be for me to read ALL of Davids work and ask my self at each line. "Is this what Quantum meant when he said .... ?"

This ambiguity means that I could easily read a passage that you strongly object to and not recognize it as such.

Basically I think I understand you on all points. I just experience them differently. If we are intent on discovering the source of our differences and really learn something then we need to understand the experience we talk about. I cannot get that experience from your descriptions of yours alone. I need the original passages where he really states these things.

Unless we short circuit this ambiguity by finding a clear example to discuss I must always value my own opinions over yours (Regardless of absolute truth) because ambiguity not only means that you and I see David's opinions different from how he sees it. It also means that my opinion of your opinion of Davids opinion is not likely to be any closer to the truth than my own opinion. The reference takes the ambiguity away.

This is why scientists and scholars use these references. Let us do the same, especially since part of the "accusation" (Strong word I know) is that David calls himself a scholar, yet is not.

On channeling and confusion
Even Carla's channels where we can probably say that the words are exactly as Ra meant them due to the minute control over the variables in the channeling (Move that bible 5 millimeters to the left to improve reception) David does not use this strict methodology and therefore his channels should be expected to be filtered though his understanding that grew over time.

You do not want to know the mess I would have been in if I had just accepted the verbal content of my own work literally. I had the intuition that some if not all of the messages would not be literally true to another human being from a very early age. I had trouble with integrating realities and was thus forced to psychologically live in multiple versions. However these problems are less than I would have had if I accepted myself as a clear channel. In spite of this the information was worth while. For example as a child I knew because I was told that I was a literal cut/past of the mind of an alien being into the body of a human being. I was eight years old and unable to understand complex theories at the time. So they were very practical. Much later, half way my teens I started to understand the deeper implications of reincarnation and I was told I was the reincarnation of this alien. Then when I started to uncover reincarnations on my own and interacted with one of those past lives and figured out I actually had two lines (Not in reality obviously thats billions, but I could only see the two and knew only what I saw) I was explained that I was part of a sympathetic link between two entities. Which later with the help of the Law of One evolved to my current understanding that my IAM presence is the IAM presence in all entities in existence. But also that my personal presence around this IAM is naturally attuned (like a pitch fork) to entities in past present and future. And I would experience those as my other lives. The fact that I perceive this alien as my own past life and that this was apparently a matter of choice simply means that I am attuned to it because at some level I chose to be.

IAM means "I AM" but also "I Am Many"... "I Ambiguify? into Many"

But this also means that if two person channel the same source. And no specific care is taken to eliminate the influence of the channels then the message is going to be distorted.

A scholar who professes a certain authority, while yet claiming to channel this same source (as the truer authority), all while suggesting he seemingly as a scholar knows more than the average individual on this certain study, but then all at once disagrees with the very study he is an authority on and which he channels no less, may hardly be named as a credible scholar in support of his scholarly pursuit, as much a critic of it.

I think this is your biggest point. David seems to disregard some areas that you think he should not. Basically authority would mean you should take his opinions as true. Clearly making the authority label a mismatch for you concerning David.

Lets just say I believe the man is good. He's not the final word on the subject. Though I would personally be hard pressed to find a handful of those that are closer. And while he is pretty consistent over time you have to learn and change opinions to remain relevant in a world where we are constantly growing towards higher levels of understanding. A literal interpretation of the bible today does not work anymore. The Law of One or better our understanding of it is also subject to growth. Basically while the text remains the same our interpretation of it has evolved over time and will continue to do so. This also means differences in interpretation can emerge. We see in our own writings that we cannot rely completely on what our eyes read or our fingers write. Communication is a messy process. Ambiguity just is.



As an example of ambiguity

I suggest that when Ra utilizes the term "Negative Greeting" that it was invoked more to mean a Negative energy sent from a higher plane and source to a lower plane such as ours, this by a higher more powerful entity(ies), and not to be misconstrued as by your next door neighbor. For heaven's sake. Yes, if we wish to be pedantic, one may indeed infer that a higher entity is manipulating your next door neighbor of a lower energy as a minion of his highnesse's higher STS energy, but I would suggest that this is a weenie higher entity engaged in something as frivolous as your dog that didn't poop in his yard that he wishes to have an argument over nonetheless,

I love your analogy. If I summarize you believe David believes that a negative greeting is sent by a powerful higher dimensional adversary who pushes pawns around on a chess board just to annoy him. And all these human pawns are really just pawns of a negative force.

But is that actually what he believes? Or is it what you believe he believes? If it turns out that he does not believe this himself then clearly your consequent objections to this belief do not apply to him. Language as we saw earlier is severely distorting. So your opinion is based more on your expectations than fact. If I were to follow you in the notion that he believes some high up in the food-chain negative entity is in fact active in creating negative outcomes by invoking negative greetings then I would agree that david believes this. However I tend to think (through my ambiguity) that he considers the negative greetings a logical result of a divided population. Not necessarily one you don't name when seen.

If we want to cut through the ambiguity we're going to have to use a clear example. How about this one?

He doesn't go as far as to call anyone who does not share his opinion is negative elite.

Yes he has.

Please reference this one, you are very clear so there must be a clear reason for you to say this. And that makes it interesting. To convince me you do not need an example where with some creative reading I might come to this conclusion. I just want to see where he unambiguously says it. If you want to convince me give me the chance to see something new.

I return now to my continuing vacation in the aqua colored waters and gulf sands of the beach where all is still.

Well, your life sucks doesn't it? I have a somewhat murky brownish greenish canal near here!

Enjoy your vacation!

[Quantum]

My apologies for my absence. I have been traveling the last 2 days.

As a Euro-American I can more than appreciate and well understand your challenge my friend. No apologies required with this bit of shared understanding. All is well.

I am glad no apologies are needed because I offered none.

My apologies for misconstruing the explanation as the same?

If we are intent on discovering the source of our differences and really learn something then we need to understand the experience we talk about. I cannot get that experience from your descriptions of yours alone. I need the original passages where he really states these things.
As an example of ambiguity:

I suggest that when Ra utilizes the term "Negative Greeting" that it was invoked more to mean a Negative energy sent from a higher plane and source to a lower plane such as ours, this by a higher more powerful entity(ies), and not to be misconstrued as by your next door neighbor. For heaven's sake. Yes, if we wish to be pedantic, one may indeed infer that a higher entity is manipulating your next door neighbor of a lower energy as a minion of his highness's higher STS energy, but I would suggest that this is a weenie higher entity engaged in something as frivolous as your dog that didn't poop in his yard that he wishes to have an argument over nonetheless,

I love your analogy. If I summarize you believe David believes that a negative greeting is sent by a powerful higher dimensional adversary who pushes pawns around on a chess board just to annoy him. And all these human pawns are really just pawns of a negative force.

He has as much as stated repeatedly that this is one of the definitions he believes as such? You are free to read his material.

But is that actually what he believes? Or is it what you believe he believes?

It is what he has written and stated? I don't think there can be any dispute here. Again, you are invited to read his material.

....If we want to cut through the ambiguity we're going to have to use a clear example. How about this one?
He doesn't go as far as to call anyone who does not share his opinion is negative elite.

He has.

Please reference this one, you are very clear so there must be a clear reason for you to say this. And that makes it interesting. To convince me you do not need an example where with some creative reading I might come to this conclusion. I just want to see where he unambiguously says it. If you want to convince me give me the chance to see something new.

It is proving extremely daunting if not impossible as an academic exercise as an unattached "thought experiment only" to move away from being "married to a name" or a "personage" verses "a simple general conversation on what the assertions may mean". The reason for my request seems self evident? I have attempted to humbly ask, then to humbly implore, then with all humor intended by utilizing the "Ishkabil hypnotic trance" with tongue in cheek attempt, and now I will attempt to plead if not beg: Let us move away from the personages entirely as to "WHO" said what...verses the simple "What" of the information given alone. It doesn't matter who. I am not an investigative reporter, nor do I play one on TV. I would hope it does not matter as much to you either? If it does matter as much then I would suggest there is more of an importance attached to the name than seemingly the conversation as to what the assertions may imply? If it still matters as much, then perhaps someone may yet come forward as I suggested earlier, this to either corroborate or refer you directly to a given source. Yosarrian has already corroborated at least one point.

With that in mind, may we not attempt to simply speak to thoughts and statements? Period? If we need to marry them to a name, then lets attempt it in an altogether different manner, as yet again another attempt. Let us assume now instead that it was not humorously Ishkabibil that made any certain assertions, nor was it anyone other than in fact myself. Let us assume that a certain person by the name of Quantum (i.e. me) made several certain assertions as stated in post #39.

If we need a martyr, guilty party, or need simply to ascribe a personage to these statements in order to have an intelligent conversation, then what are we doing? Lets simply assume that Quantum either humbly posed these statements as certain questions, or that Quantum definitively and/or adamantly made these certain assertions as a self appointed authority, either as relates to the LOO, or with the LOO as backdrop. The thought experiment may now stand alone on it's own merit as nothing more than a thought experiment and possible conversation, verses the need by necessity of ascribing it to anyone.

Does it matter who said what only in so far as a discussion on principles of the LOO, which is the larger reason we're here?

You may just indeed be fortunate enough to receive your proof. Assuming that indeed you were to have your proof, I would be curious as a secondary thought experiment and question: what would you do with it? Would it change your mind? Would it then allow an intelligent conversation? Would it then resolve everything you seek and then as a result eliminate any further conversation, which is the only stated intent? Asking for proof, if the intent is to defend, is noble, but may have secondary consequences, in as much as the door swings both ways. It undeniably incriminates, leaving no doubts.

Examine your motives, if indeed not more impotantly the consequences. Then examine how such a proof would change any such discussion? Am I being naive? Do you feel I am being evasive? Or might you consider I am attempting to be delicate?

A surgery performed with a hammer is a bit more of a blunt procedure than one performed with a scalpel.

[Ali Quadir]

Surgery performed with a scalpel can kill as easily as surgery performed with a hammer. There is also use for a hammer in surgery. If you pick a scalpel over a hammer every time, you'll end up killing people.

I by now am reaching terminal confusion. We're talking about David Wilcock, The topic name happens to be David Wilcock, you made statements about David Wilcock. But we have not come to actually exploring the truth of these statements because you do not wish to back up these statements.

Instead you want to take a step back and consider if in a hypothetical situation we'd object or not object to the things you objected about initially? If this sentence sounded confusing it reflects how I feel.

Sorry but no... I am not interested in talking about a hypothetical situation while the name of a real person is on top of this thread. Because while we're not really talking about that person we're still drawing conclusions that are going to rub off on that person. And we'll secretly be talking about him anyway. Or very likely some of us will and some of us wont. It's best to talk about what we talk about. As the Americans say: "Say what you mean and mean what you say."

I have explained to you that I HAVE read his material, and have not come to your conclusions. Rereading will obviously not change my mind unless I know what I am looking for. I told you that I cannot re-read all of his material asking myself at every paragraph. Is this what Quantum meant? If it is so clear you can come with references in 10 minutes tops. Which is a fraction of the time that you have already spent on this highly ambiguous discussion.

If I hear you its easy for you to come up with evidence for your claims. You're almost surprised that I have not discovered this myself. So it won't take you long. And then we would be able to come to conclusions as opposed to all these theoretical hypothetical cloaked vague accusations. Which are about a real human being who is not here to defend himself. So come up with real accusations. Real statements of fact. Or at least references that explain to me why you believe this.

Your accusations are about David not being Scholarly enough. Yet you yourself refuse to support your statements. What do you expect me to conclude? That you're right? I would if I could. In spite of my confusion I think you're a gentleman Q... I'd be very happy to agree to disagree. But how can I make any statement about what I feel about your position if I do not know what it is? I'd really understand if you don't like his style or personality. I think his style is easy to dislike. But do not elevate this dislike (Or whatever your disagreeance is) to "Scholarly disagreeing" unless you can back up your words with evidence. Because without evidence, it is not.

I don't have to agree with you. I just want to understand you. I would much prefer it if you did not hide your motives or confuse the issues.

[3D Sunset]

If I may interject a brief observation followed by a question. Observation: I am a simple man, with a simple mind and, quite frankly, I keep getting lost in all the words being bandied about here.

Now, my question to Q (hello again dear friend, hope the vacations aren't taking too much of a toll on such a fine, elderly gentleman), am I correct in summarizing the issue that you want to discuss as follows:

"If a person, call him/her Ishkabibil, DW, or even Arthur (extra points if you get that pun, it helps if you have young children) claims to be performing their life's work from within the broadly defined framework of the Law of One, (as laid out by Ra, the Humble Messenger of the Law of One), but on occasion acts or makes claims in a way that is contrary to the Law of One (or indeed may even appear to undermine some aspect of the Law of One) then, especially, given that the person is a public figure (as are Ishkabibil, DW, and Arthur, well public figure or at least cartoon characters), are they indeed providing a valuable service worthy of our time and attention?"

Ooops, looks like I'm guilty of over-complicating it myself. Let me try once again, with a more efficient use of words:

"If a person claims to be performing their life's work from within the Law of One, but on occasion acts or makes claims in a way that is contrary to the Law of One then, especially given that the person is a public figure, are they indeed providing a valuable service, worthy of our time and attention?"

I suggest that we agree first on a simple statement, such as this, that represents the crux of the issue. With that accomplished, I think it will be much easier to discuss it. Is this the real question that you want to address, dear friend, or have I failed at distilling the issue?

3D Sunset

[Quantum]

If I may interject a brief observation followed by a question. Observation: I am a simple man, with a simple mind and, quite frankly, I keep getting lost in all the words being bandied about here.

Now, my question to Q (hello again dear friend, hope the vacations aren't taking too much of a toll on such a fine, elderly gentleman), am I correct in summarizing the issue that you want to discuss as follow:

"If a person, call him/her Ishkabibil, DW, or even Arthur (extra points if you get that pun, it helps if you have young children) claims to be performing their life's work from within the broadly defined framework of the Law of One, (as laid out by Ra, the Humble Messenger of the Law of One), but on occasion acts or makes claims in a way that is contrary to the Law of One (or indeed may even appear to undermine some aspect of the Law of One) then, especially, given that the person is a public figure (as are Ishkabibil, DW, and Arthur, well public figure or at least cartoon characters), are they indeed providing a valuable service worthy of our time and attention?"

Ooops, looks like I'm guilty of over-complicating it myself. Let me try once again, with a more efficient use of words:

"If a person claims to be performing their life's work from within the Law of One, but on occasion acts or makes claims in a way that is contrary to the Law of One then, especially given that the person is a public figure, are they indeed providing a valuable service, worthy of our time and attention?"

I suggest that we agree first on a simple statement, then I think it will be much easier to discuss. Is this the real question that you want to address, dear friend, or have I failed in distilling the issues?

3D Sunset

Hello to you as well dear 3D. Good to hear from you. Yes, vacations are hell, but hey, somebody's gotta do 'em, and I'm just that man as the responsible committed type that I am. It's actually pretty good work if ya can find it. BTW: thank you for the elderly gentleman dig Yosarrian first offered. I'm getting a kick out of it too. We can tax and milk that one for a while yet getting as much miliage out of it as we can; case in point: never forget, I shall always be younger than you...na-na-na-na-na (with intellectual emphasis intoned). Thank you as always 3D for your participation and your insights, oft combined with the play on words and lightheartedness as seen above, as much as for the joy and analogies you use of being a father (it shines through in more than one of your posts as much as it does here). They are refreshing. I am more than sure on some level, if not all, that were I to know you personally I would find you quite likable and knowable.

As to your question: Yes, a person claiming to be performing their life's work from within the Law of One, but on occasion acts or makes claims in a way that are/is contrary to the Law of One, especially given that the person is a public figure, may nonetheless be providing a valuable service that is indeed worthy of our time and attention.

So, a resounding yes. Lets be more specific to your question without the use of 3rd party references, either in humor or otherwise. 3rd party references and/or humor are being refused in these threads as a tool for purposes of discussion in any case. Specifically then, does Mr. Wilcock provide a valuable service? Yes. Correct me if I am wrong. I think you need this for your purposes in order to have a more fluid conversation in the effort of distinguishing from which vantage point I may be coming from?

With that said, there are several distinct points made to your closing as regards the words "especially public figure", and especially as relates to "time and attention". These three combined (public figure, time, attention) are highly worthy of our scrutiny. It may be argued that "anyone" as a public figure, whether providing a valuable or dis-valuable service, is indeed worthy of our time and attention. History proves this. It is the nature of being in the public. It is incumbent upon us (the public) that we in fact pay particular attention to a public figure, not just because he/she is in fact public, but moreover exactly because he/she may indeed as a public figure be providing a service that is either for the benefit or for the detriment of the public, as much as to the cause for which he/she stands. These figures are seldom thrust into the spotlight as much as that they actively seek it. The one thrust into the public is more often than not a non-willing participant, if not a victim. The one seeking said spotlight is generally acting either in the capacity of an STS-Victimizer/Beneficiary vs an STO-Assistor/Benefactor, both of whom are bestowing a service nonetheless and both of whom need be scrutinized for doing so. I would certainly hope that simply because a man suggests that he is providing a valuable service, or even that were most to agree or perceive that in fact he is, or more to the point that he almost definitely is, that he needn't be scrutinized? Scrutiny of oneself, or of one's statements, goes with the territory of going public. I still scrutinize and question Ra, as much as Jesus, as much as God. Doesn't everyone? Well, let me re-phrase that. I suppose fundamentalists, and personality worshippers, and the non-thinking don't. But other than the vast majority of the world that fall into either of the three former categories mentioned, doesn't everyone scrutinize?...lol. That's meant to be very funny.

Now, having said this, a great many figures in the public, whether prominent or not, have attempted to act for the benefit vs the detriment of the public, and in so doing made graven mistakes in their efforts as a result for doing so. The list of these well intended figures is no doubt as endless as it is tragic, this in our own history, as much as in the Ra teachings of the STO'ers who in their zealous attempt to teach STO ended up polarizing to a rather unexpected result. I am sure that Mr. Wilcock is attempting to act more as a benefactor than as a beneficiary.This is not to say that both objectives may not be accomplished for the good of the many (the public) verses the good of the one (self). But it is hard to imagine that one may truly be successful in accomplishing both objectives as elegantly or perfectly as one, this without expressing a bit more of a bias for oneself than for the original stated mission as simply for the benefit and/or value of the public. Attempting both makes such a man his own beneficiary while attempting to be a benefactor in doing so. Its a conundrum which more often than not can not be accomplished equally or in balance. One may not serve two masters, and thus the admonition to pick one's master, in this case of either in service for self (through profit) or in service to the public (through donation). This statement will no doubt cause discussion and opinion, creating nothing but words, in as much as the proof of this statement is self evident were one simply to distill this position to it's most extreme, i.e. serving both creates conflict. Its difficult enough for the public to remove the message from the messenger in the best of cases, point in fact: Jesus. It becomes more difficult for the messenger to remove himself from the message if he has a benefit for delivering it. In other words, he has a great deal at stake to be correct, as it may affect his image or his pocketbook if he is incorrect, and he may therefore need to fight for the position of correctness to protect his stated position, verses the purity of the information, even if misstated. These are not giant leaps of logic as much as they are self evident behaviors of man in 3D.

Its just not possible to remove the messenger from the message, unless the messenger makes a concerted attempt, such as indeed an Edgar Cayce (the very man he claims to be), or the like, who request nothing, sell nothing, but instead allow for donation only. One simply can not serve the message in purity while also serving oneself as the messenger. God knows the church can't do it. God knows public servants in office can't seem to do it. No one can. It is perhaps more for this reason than any other that we need pay attention to one that claims he is either an authority, or assumed to be valuable, this for either side he chooses, if indeed there's something in it for him to be right. I am more inclined to align myself with someone professing a message who claims no authority, position, or self serving interest, who moreover has nothing to loose, as they don't have a dog in any fight for anything to gain. Cayce had no dogs, nor does Carla to my knowledge, nor did Mother Teresa, or so many more. There was nothing for them to gain in being correct, as there was nothing to loose. If there is ever something to loose, then there is without question something to be scrutinized. It would be futile to argue this logic. And please, as a self-professed capitalist, I'm not suggesting one may not engage in capitalism. I am however strongly suggesting that if one does, one needs to be scrutinized closely for doing so whether by one's partners, or shareholders, or the public, which one professes one serves. On this little subject I could write a dissertation, as could any capitalist. The book would be free of course as my service to the public for all interested. Shipping and handling would be offered at a cost of only $99.00.

I think we can rest assured that Mr. Wilcock is not an angel as much as we can certainly rest equally assured that he is not a devil. He's just a guy, i.e., one of us. He makes mistakes. More than a few. This does not impugn his work on the whole. This only impugns his authority as much as his scholarly claims. That's all. What sets him apart is perhaps himself, in as much as he claims himself as a scholarly authority of a certain something one can in fact not be an authority of (The LOO). It is an absurd claim. No one is an "authoritative interpreter" or authority of any esoteric information, be it the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, or the LOO. It is a preposterous claim. Ra is still a student, albeit at a higher grade. Were a priest to tell a parishioner he were a Scholar of the Bible, and therefore an Authoritative Interpreter, and then moreover, or more importantly, take issue with anyone for their challenges to his interpretation, which most, including Wilcock, do, I would think any reasonable man would leave that church, if the unreasonable authoritative interpreter is not more apt to first show him the door. When push comes to shove, this is where the self serving interest exhibits itself most profoundly as the mechanism of protecting self, verses the message/information.

Has Mr. Wilcock gone through a painstaking and personal effort to dedicate himself to this information. Yes. It is my bias therefore that I think we can rest assured he is attempting with great pains to be acting for the benefit verses the detriment. This however in no way confers upon him the benefit of neither being questioned, scrutinized, or corrected. Were Carla, Jim, or Don (God rest his soul) to have assumed this, it would be as presumptuous. Its just wild hunch on my part, but I think Carla and Don would strongly agree. I'm sure I just saw them both smile (at least for this) from their respective positions out of the corner of their respective mouths when they read this.

Allow me in closing to turn the table to your question if I may, this with the understanding of the resounding "yes" above: Does a person who claims to be performing their life's work from within the Law of One, but on occasion acts or makes claims in a way that is contrary to the Law of One, especially given that this person is a public figure of the LOO, and may indeed be providing a valuable service, not worthy of our time and attention, as well as our scrutiny and correction when either mis-stating, mis-quoting, or innocently mis-representing the LOO?

If the answer is not self evident, then "Houston, we have a problem".

Now...to Ali Quadir's request: After deliberation, and more than a few private e-mails, both from members of bring4th, as well as more than a few from present and past members of Mr Wilcock's own forum, I confess it is not unreasonable, and that were the tables turned, I would be as strong of a proponent as is Ali Quadir for proof and specific references. I concede Ali, and Yosarrian, that your requests, like a chess game, have me in a corner. If I continue to evade the requests, then I appear as if I may be disingenuous, or worse, fabricating. My concern was to be humble, perhaps protective of an STO attempt on my part to speak to concepts/assertions verses personalities, and therefore attempt to speak through a veil of hypothetical assumptions as to hypothetical assertions. Clearly it doesn't work. I am waiting for several of these specific members mentioned to provide me their input, references, quotes, etc., if not possibly their participation. Nothing like controversy to boost membership. That's a joke too...sorta. But once offered, what will we do with it remains my question? The original intent remains on my part only to stimulate thought, scrutinize assertions, as well as authority, if not singularly interpretation, notwithstanding that they emanate "especially from a public figure of the LOO".

The LOO is a study, not a dogma.

Reminds me of a joke: Get your karma off my lawn or I'll run it over with my dogma.

Q

[yossarian]

What's so bad about being old?

If I knew it was such an insult I'd never have said it. Surely most old people are proud of their age and experience, rather than treating it as a wart to be ashamed of and resisted?

[Quantum]

What's so bad about being old?

If I knew it was such an insult I'd never have said it. Surely most old people are proud of their age and experience, rather than treating it as a wart to be ashamed of and resisted?

Yosarrian, be of good cheer. For all I wrote, this is all you read, even after I conceded to yours and Ali's request? All is well dear friend. 3D and I were having some fun at our own expense entirely. I'm actually starting a non-profit fund for raising monies towards the purchase of his first wheel chair. I'm even thinking we could place bright shiny Tarot Cards in the spokes of his wheels to make that really cool noise that playing cards make in bicycle wheels, and maybe throw in a little rubber balled horn under the arm rest he can squeeze to get the other geriatrics out of his way.

BTW: I also stepped on my own joke in the previous post. It should have read: "Get you dogma off my lawn or I'll run him over with my karma".

Its the senility thing that goes with the age juxtaposed with the Alzheimers compounded by the dsylexai.....

[yossarian]

You were responding to the other people, or so I thought.

---

I guess you did ask me a question, sort of.

There is nothing for me to say though because as far as your hypothetical situation goes, I think it's a minor point.

Does David have a conflict of interest because he profits from his work? Yes, of course he does.

Does this make David wrong? Of course not.

I'm grateful that David is willing to receive money because if he didn't, he couldn't do the work. This is the capitalist trade off and I think it was worth it.

Maybe in your case, if you were willing to charge more for your theorized book, you would actually be able to write it! You'd be able to quit your dayjob and write it! But since you're unwilling to charge for it, it is relegated to fantasy.

So I mean yes there is a conflict of interest, yes it is fair to scrutize David, and we agree on that much. Yes David has, on occasion, made tiny statements that appear to contradict TLOO, but on the whole IMO like a good 99.9% of his stuff perfectly fits TLOO.

So I mean to be of the greatest service possible, I would have to recommend the guy, because that 99.9% outweighs the .1% by a lot. It also outweighs the inevitable conflict of interest that every professional faces. So if a random person on the street were to ask me, I would "highly recommend" David's work. Both his free stuff and his products - his products are really great by the way. Science of Peace and Wanderer Awakening are VERY good. You'd be surprised.

[Ali Quadir]

Quantum, just to clarify, my position is that you express an opinion. An opinion that I do not share. But like I said, I am willing to take on this opinion if it is grounded in real facts that I can verify myself. The problem I am having at this point is that I cannot verify the facts.

My naive assumption at this point is that the ambiguity that is always present in any type of interaction leaves room for our own interpretation of what the others intent is.

This means that your opinion of David is formed by the facts you perceived of him plus the ambiguity that we all experience. If you can support your opinion in a clear and unambiguous way then I'll have to accept them as a valid interpretation of the facts. If you can't then you're either right, wrong or missing the point. I cannot conclude which, so I must follow my own conclusions.

I want to stress that from my point of view this isn't about you being right or wrong. This isn't a chess game I am not playing with you and we are not adversaries. You just asked me to accept a conclusion that I cannot support. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying I cannot accept your conclusion based on the evidence you're willing to supply. I'd be happy if all of us leave this discussion with an improved understanding of why people think differently than us.

As far as I'm concerned authority is there to be challenged. And you're right to do so. And as such I'm always interested in views that challenge the people whose advice and ideas I admire. However, claims need to be backed up or we fall back to the level of blindly following popular opinions.

If this evidence comes in. I suggest we all keep our heads level. Try to be objective. And most of all remain the friendly bunch that we have been so far. Since Wilcock's status as a scholar is challenged. I suggest we all act scholarly and reject gut feelings and other logical fallacies.

If this turns into a lynch mob I'm going to leave the discussion and ask moderators on their own judgment to close it.

The evidence will most likely be a collection of stronger and weaker points. I hinted at this before. The evidence needs to be as unambiguous as possible or the conclusions will be diverse. Something once said that could be taken in a certain way but is quoted out of context is clearly not good enough. Something that refers to personal style "He isn't being very nice" is a valid point about personal style, but style does not make us right or wrong as scholars. As far as I'm concerned I don't much care about the man's likability. So I'd suggest we treat that as a separate category.

The problem with experts is that people usually don't like them much... And they tend to come across as "obnoxious" whenever others are talking rubbish. People don't like it when someone states the obvious and shatters their illusions. I'm not saying you guys are like this. I'm saying there are many of these, and mr Wilcock is bound to meet people like that. You can't be an expert and universally liked.

[3D Sunset]

I have pondered the David Wilcock question for some time and I’d like to share my thoughts, especially in light of Quantum’s query, because it seems to have value in the abstract (i.e., independent of the specific person) as well as in the corporeal.

So, given the statement: “If a person claims to be performing their life's work from within the Law of One, but on occasion acts or makes claims in a way that is contrary to the Law of One then, especially given that the person is a public figure, are they indeed providing a valuable service, worthy of our time and attention?”

It seems to me that the answer is yes, at least to some degree. You see, in order to determine if they are providing a valuable service, then we must first provide them our attention. Only after we have provided them our attention, in sufficient quantity to digest their message, can we determine whether or not the service they are providing is valuable. For value, at least in esoteric matters, is quite a personal experience.

Given such an opportunity to partake in their perspective, we can, and do, constantly reassess our “taste” for that person’s spiritual cuisine, as it were. And just as with any cuisine, we will, over time, experience varying appetites for the given variety. This is particularly true for me, of David Wilcock’s fare. I find his cuisine too “peppered”, if you will, with transitory statements and speculation which is distasteful to me, personally, right now.

I do see that he serves a significant purpose in regards the Law of One, however, in much the same way that a trawling net serves to catch fish. He is like a fairly large, public scoop, if you will, that attracts awakening souls and helps them find their place in this world. As such a lure, he has several aspects that may attract different interests. His purported relationship to Edgar Cayce being one, his purported association with whistleblowers trying to expose the various conspiracies that have occurred and continue, his scientific slant and attempts to bridge the gap between eastern and western scientific philosophies, his practice of channeling and involvement in many new age movements, and not least, his embracing of the Law of One as a foundational philosophy. I propose that one could not invision a more effective, multifaceted, “lure” for seekers of “truth” and awakening souls than our dear David Wilcock.

Once attracted to his many wavelengths of light, the awakening soul is offered a smorgasbord of spiritual delicacies. A veritable banquet for the soul. Some of it is delectable to everyone, little of it is of interest to all. But at David’s banquet are also recipes for your favorite dishes and references to many of his source cookbooks, thus, to bring these tangled analogies full circle, both providing us with fish, and teaching us how to fish.

Does he transgress and does he misinterpret the Law of One, on occasion, probably unconsciously, in ways that are manipulative and self-serving? I do believe so. But so what? I am certain that I do the same, as do we all. Is this a more serious issue given that he is a public figure? I think not. I believe that in our culture, we try to hold public figures to too high a standard. We’re all human, and we are all responsible for everything we do, and for making our own decisions. I think a greater sense of personal responsibility would be most beneficial for everyone in the world, especially those in western cultures. But that’s just my opinion.

As to his public persona, I find it entertaining, and perhaps necessary (even adding to his cachet of "lures", that of rock star and movie writer/producer), but also potentially dangerous to him and his work. It is certainly easy for the ego to take over and allow one to be totally misdirected and taken off path, and thus publicly discredited. This is certainly the preferred modus operandi of the opposing forces, and one to which I hope David is superior. I fear, however, that he has forgotten that fame and success are by far the more seductive and damaging of “negative greetings” than is any amount of criticism and disagreement that he may have with the guests he has invited to his banquet.

I was attracted to David’s banquet through his purported connection with Edgar Cayce. I have sampled many of his tables, and still drop by for a snack now and then. But very quickly after finding him, I found that most of his material didn’t rest well in my stomach. His favorite cookbook, however, called the Law of One, quickly became one of my primary sources for spiritual sustenance.

David, I think, is doing fine. I send him light and love and hope that he is able to distinguish and appropriately respond to all negative greetings that may come his way. He is currently serving an invaluable purpose, and I wish him Godspeed and all success that is appropriate.

3D Sunset

[3D Sunset]

yossarian Wrote:
What's so bad about being old?

If I knew it was such an insult I'd never have said it. Surely most old people are proud of their age and experience, rather than treating it as a wart to be ashamed of and resisted?

The thing about inside jokes, is that you don't get them if you're an outsider. Suffice it say, my good friend (and I do consider you one, my youthful colleague), that when you referred to good Q as an "elderly gentleman" or to he and I above as "old people" it was received by both of us to be as preposterous as my referring to you as "middle aged" (which I hasten to point out would have been precisely correct if you were living a mere hundred years ago). Unfortunately, although we can protest loudly to your categorizing us as such, we understand that there is nothing we could possibly do to convince you to the contrary. So, please allow us the opportunity to savor the irony of the many similar statements and thoughts we have harbored between our youth and our now "advanced state of life experiences", shall we say.

On the bright side, as elderly gentlemen, we will without a doubt soon forget whatever it was we were laughing about, and simply move on. Please forgive us this exercise in self deprecation, which has become, in our mutual dotage, one of the few joys that Q and I can share.

I'm actually starting a non-profit fund for raising monies towards the purchase of his first wheel chair. I'm even thinking we could place bright shiny Tarot Cards in the spokes of his wheels to make that really cool noise that playing cards make in bicycle wheels, and maybe throw in a little rubber balled horn under the arm rest he can squeeze to get the other geriatrics out of his way.

Thank you, dear Q for that kind gesture. Please make sure that it his powered by a gas guzzlin' 454 under the hood, and has room enough for any babes I may be able to attract (in spite of the bib I must wear to control the drool that incessantly drips from the corners of my mouth ever since I turned 40).

Love and Light and racing wheelchairs,

3D (hopefully not riding too soon into the) Sunset

[yossarian]

So basically you guys don't consider yourself "old". Fair enough. I guess to me anyone who is twice my age is considered old, but to you guys 80 year olds are old and you guys are not.

I really do think there is a generation gap based on age. I think growing up on the internet has had a huge affect on the way people think. Imagine how your life would be different if at 4 years old you had been surfing the net.. now realize there is an entire generation of people growing up who are doing exactly that. It's a new world.

[3D Sunset]

I guess to me anyone who is twice my age is considered old, but to you guys 80 year olds are old and you guys are not.

The best definition I have ever heard for "old" is: "15 years more than my current age". As such, I would agree that to me, being 64 seems almost unimaginable. And, by extension, I would propose that 38 would seem to you to have "crossed the line", so to speak. I accept that as reason enough not to try to convince you otherwise.

I really do think there is a generation gap based on age. I think growing up on the internet has had a huge affect on the way people think. Imagine how your life would be different if at 4 years old you had been surfing the net.. now realize there is an entire generation of people growing up who are doing exactly that. It's a new world.

To this point, I would reply that it is a necessary part of youth to always feel that the world is new and that the current environment, handled now properly, will unavoidably lead to an ever better world. This is both the blessing and the curse of youth, since it emboldens the young, but frequently causes them to ignore the lessons of the past. History is so breeming with examples (at least one per generation) that entire libraries have already been written on the subject.

To state that there is a "generation gap" though, is to me, simply an excuse to discount our perspectives and create a artificial divide that need not exist. Are we not all one? To paraphrase Ronald Reagan "I will not make an issue of your youth and inexperience in this discussion." I suggest that you offer me a similar courtesy and ignore my "old fashioned" ways. We all bring something valuable to this process and are much stronger together than artifically divided along generational lines.

All is well, my friend, now please let us move forward as one, in mutual respect of the pasts, presents, and futures that we each bring with us.

3D Sunset

[yossarian]

When I say there is a generation gap I don't mean that young people are smarter or that the world is going to be better.

And I don't mean that old people are stupid.

I mean that there is a perspective gap. In my early posts in this thread I was trying to explain my perspective, and Quantum responsed in a way that seemed to indicate he thought it was insulting for me to imply that "old people" would have a different perspective on things.

I give the opinions of old people MORE credit, not less. I don't discount old people whatsoever. I literally do give them more credit because I figure they should have the experience to make better decisions on fuzzy issues.

The reason I brought up the issue of age is because I believed that there was misunderstanding due to perspective. For instance I think Quantum thinks that people take David Wilcock more seriously than they do. David himself has said that most of his fans are under 25 years old.