Review of David Wilcocks video of 8th of March. Ref Law of One.

Finally, I have finished watching this video. It was hard work:

Youtube: David Wilcock: David Wilcock LIVE: Our Angelic protectors. Posted 8th of March 2026.

https://www.youtube.com/live/ENce2v48fvQ?si=QeYf35cb5XZSDVfS

I started this idea, of evaluating one of David Wilcocks videos in light of the Law of One specifically. The reason for this is two statements he made that caused a great deal of anger for me, because I do not believe they were correctly interpreted. One was that he once said that everything that happens to us is due to our own karmic life path. Something like that. Like it was all our own fault. The other was something I was sure was in this video actually. About how when a negative thing happens, due to free will, the positive then has the power to exert influence. 

Both these statements have some sort of basis in the Law of One. But the Law of One did not say these things. They could be interpreted in an opposite way. The Law of One was very careful not to commit in a lot of what it talked about. A lot of statements such as 'It can't be known', and such. 

There are also a few statements, like I previously talked about with 'Forgiveness is the stoppage of the wheel of karma", that  is a legitimate quote. But there is a lot more context to it. There is a larger quote 'Process of understanding, acceptance and forgiveness'. The Law of One was also very careful to not violate a law that the contact felt was very important. The Law of Free Will. So there is a possibility that the material is influenced by the need to not state things people cannot yet confront. Or to state truth, but to leave out things that have not yet been realised. (For instance, Carla was a heavy Christian, and if the "truth" was something similar but not the same as forgiveness, it might have conceivably been shortened to "forgiveness"). There are a lot of terms in the Law of One like "forgiveness" that a definition for would have been nice. 

I do not like quoting from the Law of One. I do it on social media when I cannot find other words. But I think it is important here, when I am directly arguing against anothers statement that they are claiming came from the Law of One. That I do in fact quote the whole thing. I understand if the reader doesn't want to read the whole quote. But it will be there. 

There are a few challenging ways people could respond to it. You are not correct, which is why I am fully quoting. The Law of One is all fraudulent anyway. Which I covered in my series from a few days ago called "Defining Morals, parts 1 - 3". Where I use the comparison for faith in general of a tarot reading. And I talk about at what point does it go from faith to fraud. A sub type of this would be criticism from the appeal to authority fallacy that is mainstream Christianity. 

Another option someone could go in could be: This is all a work of faith, and you cannot question works of faith. In that same three part segment I address this. Giving room for statements of faith. But clarifying cases where it is legitimate to question this. Such as a direct statement contradicting the Law of One. Which was claimed to have come from the Law of One. 

That was all rather wordy, but I believe necessary. 

So let's start off then with this:

1:31:05: Again the Law of One and other sources do tell us that, for self preservation. It may be necessary to have to take a life. If someone is threatening your family you can't just ignore that, you can't just leave it alone and do nothing. So I was trying to find this quote in the Law of One, I didn't have time to do it. But it does say, that you can at times defend yourself with lethal force if you have to. That's just part of what needs to be done.  

This is emphatically incorrect. David did a "trust me bro" here. He stated that this statement was in the Law of One. While I might have missed something. I don't think I did, here are two statements directly opposing that:

Questioner: Yes, I do. Then from this I will extrapolate the concept which is somewhat more difficult because as you have explained before, even fourth-density positive has the concept of defensive action, but above the fourth density the concept of defensive action is not in use. The concept of defensive action and [chuckle] offensive action are very much in use in this, our present experience.

I am assuming that if an entity is polarized strongly enough in his thought in a positive sense defensive action is not going to be necessary for him because the opportunity to apply defensive action will never originate for him. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is unknowable. In each case, as we have said, an entity able to program experiences may choose the number and the intensity of lessons to be learned. It is possible that an extremely positively oriented entity might program for itself situations testing the ability of self to refrain from defensive action even to the point of the physical death of self or other-self. This is an intensive lesson and it is not known, shall we say, what entities have programmed. We may, if we desire, read this programming. However, this is an infringement and we choose not to do so.

So, for some people in some circumstances. Self protection is not advised. It's not something I agree with philosophically. I believe the contact is talking about an individual circumstance in this case not a general principle. I think if someone comes after you extreme force is completely morally justified. However, I do not delude myself I can find a direct quote to support this.

Here is another:

Questioner: This motion picture brought out this point of which we have been talking. And the entity, the Colonel, had to make a decision at that point. I was just wondering, with respect to polarity, his polarization. He could have either knuckled under, you might say, to the negative forces, but he chose to defend his friend instead. Is it possible for you to estimate which is more positively polarizing: to defend the positively oriented entity, or to allow the suppression by the negatively oriented entities? Can you answer this even?

Ra: I am Ra. This question takes in the scope of fourth density as well as your own and its answer may best be seen by the action of the entity called Jehoshua, which you call Jesus. This entity was to be defended by its friends. The entity reminded its friends to put away the sword. This entity then delivered itself to be put to the physical death. The impulse to protect the loved other-self is one which persists through the fourth density, a density abounding in compassion. More than this we cannot and need not say.

Never one to be backed into a corner, the contact here. This basically runs along the same idea. As does a lot of interpretation of mainstream Christianity. It would be inconsistent to believe that forgiveness without contrition is a good. But not to then extent that to in the moment behaviour. I do not know where he got the idea that defensive action was explicitly agreed by the contact. Perhaps his own preference in believing it is true?

This is a bit of a pattern I believe. David just says what he thinks. Not what is in the text. 

1:29:45: Eventually these people were able to get out of the negative plain, get back to the positive. But they had to fight their way through the negative heirarchy, the pecking order; and all that. 

Perhaps this is a minor point, and perhaps I am being pedantic. But what he seems to me to be saying here is that the previously positive wanderers had to fight through the negative heirarchy as some sort of barrier to get to the positive? This is the actual quote:

Questioner: Then did they continue striving to polarize negatively for a fifth-density negative harvest or did they do something else?

Ra: I am Ra. They worked with the fourth-density negative for some period until, within this framework, the previously learned patterns of the self had been recaptured and the polarity was, with great effort, reversed. There was a great deal of fourth-density positive work then to be retraced.

We don't know precisely what the contact means here. But it doesn't state anything about getting to the top of a negative heirarchy. It could mean that they decided not to fight anymore and were executed?

29:55: In the Law of One system, in the spiritual teachings that I give. When this kind of calamity takes place it is paving the way for something better.  

I have read and re- read the Law of One. As might be obvious by me being able to quote against Davids thoughts here. I have never heard anything like this. If it was something David was saying from his own "authority", I might have let that go as a sermon/ statement of faith. But he linked the Law of One in here. 

It also doesn't make a lot of intuitive/ instinctive sense. What about World Wars one and two as an example? What about Vietnam or Iraq? A big thing I think Christianity, has to, and hasn't, answered. Is what about all those souls praying for salvation in the World Wars? Perhaps a side note but I think this is how the Boomers suddenly became less religious than previous generations.

I would say the objective evidence is that sometimes, there isn't a positive reason for things. Sometimes the world is gritty, dark and unpleasant and there is no obvious salvation.  

This is getting long. The following statements from him will get one line responses:

18:45: Let's co create a happy environment.

He did not say this was Law of One. But the Law of Attraction (toxic) positivity weirdos are not associated with the Law of One. This is feel good nothingness mixed in with the Law of One. Carla couldn't exactly wish away her Arthritis.

25:48: We want to be able to look at the positive and say, hey, I created this man. I created the foundation for my life, to be healed. I created the foundation for my life to transform. I am the author of my own destiny.

David links in a Law of One concept by name about ten seconds after this statement. Again it is kind of Law of Attraction waffle. The Law of One does not talk in these terms. It talks about handling life through tools such as meditation, journalling, archetypes. 

Also, I see no evidence Davids life is transforming in any positive way. He is, by the reporting of Steven Cambian and Hidden in Plain Sight. In and out of court for various things as well as the company he has given more than a million dollars to. And is in debt with the IRS. 

Is he trying to convince himself of this? 

Conclusion:

There is more I can say here. A LOT more that I can say. I would say I have missed some of the larger incorrect statements. For instance, where David excessively mentions self love. That was mentioned infrequently in the Law of One I believe, and under the term 'self worth'. Whereas, it is likely that any serious work like this, any serious attempt at balancing and psychological work, in fact, starts with 'honesty':

Questioner: I have a question here from Jim. It states: “I believe that one of my primary pre-incarnative choices was to open my green-ray energy center for healing purposes. As I see my compassion developing is it more appropriate to balance this compassion with wisdom in my healing exercises or to allow the compassion to develop as much as possible without being balanced?”

Ra: I am Ra. This query borders upon that type of question to which answers are unavailable due to the free-will prohibitions upon information from teach/learners.

To the student of the balancing process we may suggest that the most stringent honesty be applied. As compassion is perceived it is suggested that, in balancing, this perception be analyzed. It may take many, many essays into compassion before true universal love is the product of the attempted opening and crystallization of this all-important springboard energy center. Thus the student may discover many other components to what may seem to be all-embracing love. Each of these components may be balanced and accepted as part of the self and as transitional material as the entity’s seat of learn/teaching moves ever more fairly into the green ray.

When it is perceived that universal love has been achieved the next balancing may or may not be wisdom. If the adept is balancing manifestations it is indeed appropriate to balance universal love and wisdom. If the balancing is of mind or spirit there are many subtleties to which the adept may give careful consideration. Love and wisdom, like love and light, are not black and white, shall we say, but faces of the same coin, if you will. Therefore, it is not, in all cases, that balancing consists of a movement from compassion to wisdom.

We may suggest at all times the constant remembrance of the density from which each adept desires to move. This density learns the lessons of love. In the case of Wanderers there are half-forgotten overlays of other lessons and other densities. We shall leave these considerations with the questioner and invite observations which we shall then be most happy to respond to in what may seem to be a more effectual manner.

A quote at the beginning of the second paragraph then: "To the student of the balancing process we may suggest the most stringent honesty be applied." A way I have heard it described by Stefan Molyneux is: "Truth is the first virtue, because without truth, no other virtues are possible". 

There are a few different lines that say this. And I have at times mentioned things along these lines. But Davids huge emphasis on love, and forgiveness, to me, is more waffle/ word salad. It is the homogenised modern spirituality that should not, in my view, be linked with the Law of One. Even though the Law of one does emphasize Love. Here it is advising people to not be overburdened with empathy, because people might have chosen their life circumstances for a reason:

Questioner: Now, in some cases it seems that this use of catalyst is almost in a runaway condition for some entities; that they are experiencing much more pain than they can make good use of as far as catalytic nature would be concerned. Could you comment on our present condition in the illusion with respect to that particular subject?

Ra: I am Ra. This shall be the last query of this working of a full length. You may see, in some cases, an entity which, either by pre-incarnative choice or by constant reprogramming while in incarnation, has developed an esurient program of catalyst. Such an entity is quite desirous of using the catalyst and has determined to its own satisfaction that what you may call the large board needs to be applied to the forehead in order to obtain the attention of the self. In these cases it may indeed seem a great waste of the catalyst of pain and a distortion towards feeling the tragedy of so much pain may be experienced by the other-self. However, it is well to hope that the other-self is grasping that which it has gone to some trouble to offer itself; that is, the catalyst which it desires to use for the purpose of evolution. May we ask if there are any brief queries at this time?

I wanted to end with a little stronger conclusion. Of course, David did quote the Law of One directly on the idea of a religious war. But I will not also include that in this article that is already very long and fairly heavy if you were to actually read the entire Law of One quotes. 

My conclusion though, is that he is not quoting the Law of One correctly. He is just mixing it in with things that he in general likes to think are true. A message that swerves any kind of honesty, depth and accountability. 

Having done this. I have laid the foundation for doing it again in the future if I want to. Now I have written the Defining Morals three posts, and the one on forgiveness without contrition that links in as well. I have set the tone with back references for the over arching principles here. 

But it was not particularly pleasant to write this specific post. Since it is trying to quote someone who hasn't made a serious argument. I feel it devalues the Law of One slightly to be used in argument like this. but it is important to defend the Law of One as well.  

My nodal behaviours model.

Pretty exhuasted today, from doing an arm workout yesterday evening. Like, weights. a proper workout. Amazing. 

I am to three hours of the David Wilcock video I am intending to review. Strictly for it's conformity to the Law of One quotes. Nothing outside of that. Two surprises so far. One is that I asked Grok to review where in the video David talks about the Law of One and it got the question completely wrong. It gave me information that, now I have watched most of it. Was obviously incorrect. It said David discussed the Law of One in places he did not. It specifically gave time stamps to where he did not even mention it. It neglected times when he actually did talk about it.

It's also interesting. That Davids output. At least the specific video that I am watching is... not that bad. He might be a con artist. He might be someone that chose to associate with Corey Goode. But his material was actually fairly interesting. Some of it discusses bible quotes. I like bible quotes. I like to generally hear about peoples perspective on the bible. 

Anyway, a fair amount to say but physical exhaustion is taking it's toll. It should not take too long for me to start to get in enough of a pattern that my body is adapted to this. But it is only the second week. The third week I am planning to do a full work out on one day. Rather than split it into multiple days.

The main point for me though. Is that I am actually very happy, with how things are going. I feel like saying that is attracting a jinx. But I am. And I am because, in my view, I am applying my own teachings. I am also applying others teachings as well. But that is a little more in the background. 

Previously I have talked about my own model. Where in the human design. The incarnation cross is a kind of conatant. A 'meaning of life' thing. The 4 nodal points are physical, real world behaviours. For me these are: Conscious North Node. Meditation. Conscious South Node Exercise/ Gym. Unconscious North Node, Music. Unconscious South Node: Reviewing Narcissism types of literature. I am wondering if this comes under the general heading "Opposing evil doers"? 

The conscious North and South, then subconscious North and South are very much linked. I wonder if I have had a confirmation of that recently. In a way that I really didn't suspect, and could not have gotten to via "creating a story" with my mind. My energy switched on properly yesterday and I created some real music. I created a new song in a way I haven't done for a while. I have had a few ideas. But properly switching on like that is... rare. 

My theory is that by honouring the unconscious south node, I have tuned in within myself to a kind of passion that comes with opposing negativity in the real world.

The exercise thing is also good. One of my annoyances. I am aware this is pathetic but... so what? Then it is pathetic. I have to swim through the pathetic and confront it in order to get to the powerful. But one of the things that annoys me in life. Is that with my general reclusiveness and sense of loneliness. I often go on X. Then I make a lot of posts that I think are good quality. And have done for about ten years. And they rarely get a lot of attention or likes or anything. Likes are pretty much non existent. With the average being about 0.00001 or something. 

I have Dm'd about five people in the past year. All of them have pretty much ended the conversation mid flow by just ignoring me. 

I resent being in a position where I give any kind of positivity of attention to people that so reliably ignore me. I have made some comments recently that, I have just randomly thought to myself later... "Wow, that was a really nice thing to say to someone". Like, I realised I have said something original and made an effort. None of those posts have been liked or responded to.

It is hard to change a habit. So many times I have tried to change a habit, but then it has revealed the need that habit fills in a very raw way and I have been forced back to said habit. So I don't try and change habits. Even if they are dysfunctional. But I DO notice when some behaviour I am doing naturally changes a habit that I think is less than good. 

This is one of those times. Exercise. Weights. Not only do I think long term it will improve my social life. People that love exercise like to relate over that sometimes. But, it gives me this internally produced good feeling that means I am less likely to put up with this kind of thing on social media. It also means I am less annoyed about it. 

Ironically. Reddit, that is notoriously left wing. Is far better than this. I get a lot of likes and some responses to said posts. I share an enjoyment with others at sci fi shows and things. 

We'll see how it goes. I think, that social media like twitter has always depended on those ostracised by society having a need to connect. When the left were dominant this was even worse. But a lot of the engagement and user numbers are created that way. It puts those people in the place of continually attempting to offer value for no reason. 

I have also heard people say before that when the stopped social media, their dreams improved. Also, the Law of One was not at all in favour of a lot of that kind of thing, by my reading.

So I will see how it goes. But my faith is that exercise, or something else, will remove me from social media in general.  

Human Design and the Undefined Ego.

 

This will likely be a short blog today. Until I am finished watching the David Wilcock video I was reviewing, I will not mention it. I did half an hour more yesterday, so only one hour more to go.

I had a dream, this morning, about the undefined ego. 

The ego is the seat of the will power in human design. About 2/3rds of people have it undefined. And the other 1/3 defined (obviously!)

Within human design, the mythology is that people with an undefined ego have a lot of negative self talk. They have a lot of things like imposter syndrome. 

It is quite amazing to consider. I have three full channels off the ego. So I have a lot of energy there. It is quite a thing to consider that a lot of peoples psychology and such, really is that different. 

It has a lot of meanings as well. A lot of implications. For instance, if you have a defined will power person, communicating with a single or group of undefined ego people. Then, the undefined ego people, that construct rituals and communicate politely to offset the feeling of internal confusion. Might feel that the defined ego person was "arrogant". Because the defined ego person, simply communicates their needs as though it were no big deal. 

It is also a very one sided perspective. The Human Design markets itself as philosophically neutral, and perhaps Ra Uru Hu was. But if you are saying that people with undefined egos have the "illusion" of inferiority. Then it throws out the feedback that sometimes, they might not actually be providing anything of value. 

A lot of people are being employed on DEI like policies. Directly or indirectly. So they are imposters in a sense. If meritocracy, which we instinctively feel to be the correct way to do things, is not used. Then who is placed in the position instead is an imposter. 

Forgiveness and the Law of One. David Wilcock video thoughts.

Following on from the previous posts. "Defining morals" in relation to this area. From David Wilcocks video, dated 8th of March. We have this quote:

34:57: So I want you to do your best, to honour the good in yourself, and remember, that in forgiveness lies the stoppage of the wheel of Karma. 

Also this:

1:34:00: At the forefront of this process, as soon as all the most important needs are fulfilled. You would practice forgiveness, compassion, patience and understanding. 

I have only perused up to 2 hours of this video of Davids (It is three hours thirty three minutes!) There may be more quotes I should have included. Owing to having 85% chocolate yesterday that apparently, causes my heart to want to thump out of my chest. So I could not watch further or concentrate yesterday.

But from what I have watched so far. It seems to me that David is just kind of throwing a whole lot of kind of word salady feel good terms and link them to the Law of One. To gain the authority of being a teacher of the Law of One. Of being a person with spiritual authority. But his explanation, and likely, understanding of all this, is so bad, that it is laughable.

In a way, Davids understanding of the Law of One here goes no further than the basics. When he says "forgiveness, compassion, patience and understanding". He does not know what these things mean. 

I just pulled up a Law of One quote showing the subtleties of balancing (85.16). I believe I understand what it means. But to go through it on this blog and make the argument is not the right direction I don't believe. So I will make a larger argument that forgiveness without contrition is not legitimate, and that people that make those statements usually do not know what they are talking about, and are spiritual bypassing. After that, it should become clear what is missing from Davids explanation. Or lack thereof. 

Forgiveness without contrition. 

When there is an argument between someone that knows what they are talking about, and someone that doesn't know what they are talking about. It goes in a predictable way. One person is engaging, giving reasons, adapting to the conversation. The other person is inflexible. Giving no explanations. But infuriatingly just having this assumption they are right, and that the other persons input is irrelevant. Or giving bad, transparent reasoning, that was clearly thought up in the moment. 

This is like listening to a Stefan Molyneux livestream. Someone will come in and ask him questions and he will answer clearly. Occasionally, a caller will come in with their own opinion and he will ask them questions. Like, from the perspective of a relaxed, natural place. It is only the other person that breaks the facade of civility. 

Another one of these arguments. Might be when someone has a perspective on Christianity, where they have done the research. And the other person is responding based on just what the mainstream idea is. It is a similar thing. Anger, making up quotes. On the part of the person that is trying to hold up the consensus viewpoint, but has clearly never thought about it before. The example is when someone is confronted with Aaron Abke's research, or Paul Wallis'.

There is a pattern and a feel to people who do not know what they are talking about. And that is the feel of a person that refuses to be challenged. Whom a carefully placed question would unravel their argument. Who contradicts themselves perhaps when they speak. Who says things that are obviously wrong from a common sense place to defend a position (Leftist redditors!)

This is the situation that I find myself in when I ask people questions on the forgiveness without contrition argument. Questions and logical points, there is a wall against them. One of the questions that I would ask, the one I got from my only discussion with Stefan Molyneux (and this was the topic!) Is; If you want to define forgiveness as forgiveness without contrition. Then what about people that go through a process to achieve forgiveness? Like, those where someone admitted fault and etc. Are you using the same term for these two things? Because obviously that would be incoherent, right?

This is where the discussions starts. There are many other points that layer on top of this. But this is where it starts.

But this post is specifically about the Law of One. So let's go back there. Taking one single quote from the book like that is taking one out of context. Early in session 34, the Law of One actually defined it as a PROCESS, including understanding, acceptance and forgiveness. 

This is another question to ask someone in this discussion. Can you define understanding?

A lot of people on the left, the political opinions that have decided that Marxism's 100 million death toll in the 20th century is clearly not enough. Define themselves as not being able to improve morally. Their ideas, that we should take money from some people to give to others make them the pinnacle of morality and no further movement forward is possible. 

I say this vaguely, but it is something I have observed in left wing individuals. Perhaps this deserves another article. But the right wing free market viewpoint does not set up the same limitations in my view.  

Peoples definition of understanding is like this, but I do not agree. I will give two examples of what I think understanding is in this context. Bear in mind, I am now arguing from a perspective that the Law of One is true, not from the perspective of this is the technically correct way to use the quotes. Since if the definition of understanding within this process, can be found in my own life experiences, then there is some reality to this outside of the Law of One books. 

Examples of understanding:

Example one 

This is the most instructive one I think I can think of. I once listened to a Stefan Molyneux call in. Something like, "My father tried to kill me". It was a guy who was in a bad position with his wife. She had falsely accused him of something. I cannot recall. Perhaps domestic violence or something sexual, and his daughters had been turned against him. Obviously we cannot fully know he was telling the truth. It sounded like he was. 

The first hour or so of this discussion was agonising. Because, every time Stefan would ask questions of the guy he would create a new story. It was like: "So when you worked away from your children for ten years did you miss them?" "Yes, after about two years it did start to sting". "OK, so when you started to miss them did you not think of changing your work situation?" "Well no not really, I was actually working from home three days a week and we would go to the park on Saturday". It was contradictions like this the whole time. The guy could not communicate coherently. Could not stand potential conflict. He folded and made new stories every time, and it was not even clear that he knew he was doing it. 

The story ended up that when this man was young. His father had been very abusive, and had almost killed him even. Lifting him off his feet, strangling him. Throwing bricks at him etc. So he had grown up with the survival imperative that he could not answer in a way other than what the abuser might prefer. 

Where this fits in with this process then. Is that the guy did not know this was his motivation. He did not know he was answering people in such a confusing manner and that this was the mechanism for that. So, this casts a different light on the situation. This way of communicating is going to alienate the good people, and even normal people, that won't be able to stand it; and attract the bad people with their own similar problems. Those that for whatever reason, do not want the communication to be sincere.  

This potentially changes the entire situation big time. In seeing his own part in it. And communicating in a better way in the future. But it is understanding. It is dear bought. 

Example two:

This is a personal example. The first example is preferable. But has the drawback that honesty cannot be definitively known. This is my own example. So even though I COULD be lying, and this is a relatively low stakes example. It is unlikely that a reader would both want to read my words, and also think I was the type of person to lie about this sort of thing. Since if I made up my own personal experiences, then there would be no value to reading this blog. 

My experiences with women, in the sense of looking for dates or any other particular thing. Have not been... "good". I suppose good might not be the right word, but I hope it suffices in explaining my point. 

When I was a teenager. I had a very idealistic "blue pill" view of women. The kind of view that does not see women as having any particular sex drive, as an example. Sees them only with divine motives (to be psychologised like a romance film).  

My real experiences were what brought me out of this. I watched videos on absorbed via social media the red pill, some of my understanding was from real life. It was my objective, every day experience of trying to be romantic and getting rejected. That formed my idea of women to be one that was very ruthless and sexually based. 

This ALSO went into my sexual fantasies. My fantasies are not just what I want. They include fairly complex ideas as to how to get the best results out of women. Like a natural instinct of how best to exploit any particular situation. How to identify the greatest value in any situation. 

From about the beginning of 2020. Right around lockdown. Up until June 2022. I had a friendship with a woman. We were both very single. I was not well but did not really have a lot of insight into that. The end date of the friendship is when she died via suicide. I was not actually friends with her by that time, as she had broken it off a few months prior. 

We did talk about sexual matters and my ideas of women were reflected in that. They were also heavily reflected in my fantasies. Sometimes made into erotic stories but not written down usually. 

I was reading the Law of One a few days ago, and session 84.20 discusses relationships. Away from the red pill kind of attitude. It talks about how sex that includes "green ray energy" is the most valuable thing a person has to offer, and that relationships should be to try and court this from the partner. 

This has created a sudden change in the way I think of women. Even fantasies. It has also allowed me insight into this friendship I had with this girl. The insight also allows additional insights. 

BUT, this is coming up on four years after the end of our friendship. It is a little bit of understanding, but it is certainly not clear that it is the "end" of my understanding. 

This is the point I wanted to make. I have other examples where insights into events even further back were important. Without understanding, no meaningful work on a situation can continue. But understanding, takes YEARS. To just assume one understands a situation, like leftists assume they understand morals. Both of these perspectives include a kind of belief in ones inherent perfection, and a complete lack of humility. Is not at all functional. 

Conclusion:

For David, to just put words up on a slide like "understanding" as though that explains anything, is pretty useless. For him to selectively quote the Law of One in order to gain spiritual authority is also, pretty useless.

I suspect the Law of One was only offering enough to point people in the right direction, but a lot more is needed to truly make a workable system. 

This was my first blog post, analysing Davids use of the Law of One. There were two things he said about it that gave me enough rage to start writing this. Two things he has said which were badly quoted and confused, destructive even. 

My next post specifically on David will literally use direct quotes of his and show where in the Law of One it shows his quote is not correct.  This blog post was on an overarching point. Forgiveness and contrition. So it's not quite yet into the analysis of Davids use. But on the philosophy of the Law of One and its practical meaning. 

Like I said, 85% chocolate DOES NOT, agree with me. I would have been three hours through had I not had to take yesterday off and I am still not well today (going to miss todays gym session, fallen off meditation routine!) So I might leave it a little while before following up on Davids video further, and perhaps write a few other articles in the mean time. Or perhaps get straight into Davids video and the Law of One sooner than that.  

Defining Morals Part 3.

Two last point then. 

The tarot analogy.

If we are talking about things that relate to morals, but within a framework where mystical thought like tarot is relevant. I think it is important to define the specific point where things stop becoming faith, and start becoming fraud. 

So, as I see it. When a tarot reader and their client meet to read cards and produce life advice from that. What are they agreeing on? They are agreeing that the cards are producing wisdom guided by a higher force. 

This is not like psychology. Where we have a certain skillset, agreement, of where the information is coming from. A science. There isn't a science to tarot that is agreed by secular sources. There is an agreement with it's adherents. An unprovable, and ultimately unfalsifiable faith. It is like a Christian church in a sense. The service is relevant because the people that go there believe there is a higher positive force called Jesus/ God, that they relate to.

Of course, there is some wiggle room here. What about if the reader doesn't actually believe it but the client does? Is this fraud? I would say no. While it would be if it could be proven. Faith is not a binary. It is not an on/ off. At any church there are some people that kind of think it's probably true but are not actually sure. People in the process of becoming atheists. 

Faith, or the lack thereof, is one of those things that can never be known. People can falsify that kind of thing for their whole life if there is something in it for them. It is rather like a bunch of excuses that generally abusive people have when confronted. "I did the best I could." OK, but is there any proof of that. Did you have private thoughts that "Maybe I won't do this crappy thing today" on the days when you did do the crappy thing?

Strictly of course, the act of lying, is like cheating in a sense. The client might not go to a reading if they knew the reader didn't have faith. But assuming the reader is reading in good faith, and is not condescending to the clients behind their back or giving them bad advice. Then I would not define lack of faith in itself as bad, because it is unprovable. 

The point where it gets unethical is when the tarot reader says something like: "There is a ghost in your house and for £2000 more I can remove it". The problem here, is A) that he reader knows there is not a ghost in the house. So this has become a lie. B) That they are making a claim to specialised knowledge that another person cannot confirm or deny. That cannot be objectively proven (unlike say, faith healing). This is inherently maddening as it disconnects people from said objective reality.

If you go to a tarot reader and they pull cards. You can buy a book on tarot and confirm what they have said. The knowledge is accessible. There is a lot of the new age that does not have this. 

Glass ceiling on spiritual teaching.

The video I am intending to review. at 35 minutes, David Wilcock talks from a Law of One quote: "In forgiveness lies the stoppage of the wheel of karma". 

I have had disagreements, in a sense. Not real disagreements. Debates perhaps. With llresearch. In making my case that forgiveness without contrition is not legitimate. I will make this case in my next post. 

But the overall point is that I have quite a long complex argument about what the Law of One really means (They mentioned a "process of understanding, acceptance and forgiveness") It is a lucid argument, that draws off real examples. But it is not the agreed upon argument. 

There is a difference between this statement and when David makes egregious errors with the Law of One. At one hour thirty one minutes, and not for the first time. He makes a statement that the Law of One says something that it explicitly does not say. It says that in many cases, the case is the opposite. One of these quotes is session 33.9. 

I just think there is a difference between these two things. It's rather like going to a bible sermon, or talking to a Christian. I believe that the Apostle Paul, who wrote like, half the New Testament. Is not a legitimate biblical figure and actually taught in opposition of Jesus. But it would not be a discussion that I would bring up in casual conversation.

If Christians were to say... vote left. I might ask them how they square this with the "thou shalt not steal commandment". This is a different argument than one that requires a certain level of intelligence and philosophical backing to understand. 

Conclusion.

Finally, those three posts are done. I have laid the foundation of the philosophical basis under which I can make a moral argument even within the fog of mystical beliefs. Where what David says is a statement of faith, a statement of lack of philosophical grounding, a statement of deliberate lies and fraud. 

Defining Morals. Part 2.

Obviously if I am titling something "Part 2". There is a "Part 1" previous article to this blog, the immediately previous post. Which has set the context and tone of the conversation. 

Defining evil then:

Stefan Molyneux defines evil thusly: Firstly, is an animal that harms another animal, like a Lion chomping on a Gazzelle, evil? He would say no. The reason is, is because animals do not have free will, which he defines as our capacity to compare proposed actions to ideal standards. The lion has no internal ability to create abstractions and consider the utility of processes outside the animal. It has no ability to say that it will endeavour not to chomp on the Gazelle because St Liony wrote a book explaining why this is not ethical. 

Defining evil then, once you have free will. The ability to create abstractions that are in opposition to objective reality. The ability to consider what 'St Liony' had to say about chomping on Gazzelles. The additional awareness can go one of two ways. it can work for virtue. Or it can work for the negative. 

The way the negative works is that it prefers that other people do not use the strategy that it uses. If there is a singular thief in an entire society of honest people. Then he can go around taking what he wants and the populace is very unlikely to suspect what is happening. They will more likely think they lost whatever item was stolen. A society run that has had its thinkers stress the inherent benefit of theft, is likely to have a lot of anti theft tools. Guards, alarms, guns etc. 

Where the animal predator. The Lion. Takes life to sustain itself. The evil being uses it's free will, it's ability to create abstractions etc. To increase it's ability to exploit the environment to levels that are not needed for survival. But the evil act is the act of saying, on the one hand, that theft is wrong, while doing the theft. 

This is the justification for one way that we can catch others on negative behaviour, this taken from first principles, that explains why these sorts of contradiction and hypocrisy are proof of lack of virtue.

Faith:

My god this is turning out to be a longer article than I had envisioned. I wanted to go straight to what will be the tarot card analogy. But I cannot even get there yet. There will possibly be a part 3 on this series. 

I have to diverge from Stefans opinion here, at least what I know of it. There are a lot of people all over the world that have strong, subjective and unprovable (hence unfalsifiable) experiences, that certain things are true. And that they choose to believe in their own interpretation of this, and not question this any further. 

There are people that believe prayer is communing with a higher being, and do not believe that prayer is communicating with the subconscious mind, as one of many examples. There are people that believe that astrology, or tarot, is legitimate. 

In truth, these things are not outside the reach of science to prove one way or the other. I have heard the founder of the Human Design discuss the potential science relating to these issues, in relation to neutrinos and such. But largely, as it stands, fields like astrology do not have that scientific backing yet. But it does have believers. 

Stefan is a hard atheist, to him, God explicitly does NOT exist. I am not a philosopher, I do not tell others what to believe. I don't reach for conclusions. I reach for utility. From my perspective, there is a lot that can be expressed that is "faith". That is not really up for criticism. And the reason being, is that we cannot really know. Atheists and believers of all stripes say they can. But I do not believe we can. The world is too vast and mysterious. 

Conflicts with Objective reality. 

The reason I define faith, is that a good deal of what David says, a good deal of the belief in the Law of One. Is a kind of faith. It cannot be falsified. It is similar, in a way, to a Christian sermon. XYZ is true and should be followed because God said so or Jesus taught x. While some of it might be good arguments objectively. For instance, generally being nice to others has obvious practical utility, and it means you live in a civilised society. A lot of it to do with prayer and faith in a positive future, has no objective grounding.

Some statements though, even in these areas. Are able to be opposed. 

In the video by David Wilcock I am evaluating, at 29 minutes he says: "The great spiritual teachers tell you you have to love yourself first and foremost."... OK, which spiritual teachers? When Jesus was asked what two pieces of advice did he give? Was this one of them or did he say something different? Does the Law of One agree from the quotes given? Are there quotes that conflict with this? What other spiritual teachings are there?

Statements of faith are things such as: "God has a plan for each of us". Statements that are hung on/ linked to, a more objective claim are things like: "All the great spiritual leaders said this". Because in the latter case, we can review what has been written and given and ask: "Well did they actually say that?"

Wrapping up:

I had planned this to be a single post before I got onto the review of David Wilcocks video and statements. But it is far longer than I intended. Because when wading into this area, there are different viewpoints on it. There are a lot of people that believe that anything from the law of one, any tarot reading, any astrology information. Is all fraudulent, and such people would possibly define any discussion on these things unethical. There are a lot of people that would viciously defend their right to hold such beliefs. 

To wade through what is actually unethical vs. what is unproven, and potentially mad, requires a fair amount of definition of these nuances. I hope there will be just one last post on this before I can get to actually discussing how David uses the Law of One quotes.  

Defining morals. Part 1.

As I said in the last post, I am about to write a few posts with a run down of my thoughts, and corrections, on David Wilcocks videos. Specifically in relation to his quotes and perspectives on the Law of One.

To do this I am going to have to define terms. Much of this thinking, much of the groundwork and my base in philosophy. Comes from Stefan Molyneux. But some of it is original. Since Stefan in general, as a hard atheist, does not believe in, is in fact emphatically against, the kind of mystical thoughts I will explore in its relation to ethics. 

Firstly, I will attempt to explain how I will define a bad way to define ethics first. That without proper philosophical grounding. And then I will discuss, seeing as we are not going to be relying on the 'bad' way of defining ethics, a way we can actually define ethics, and surrounding semi philosophical verbiage. 

The first general principle I want to outline in relation to ethics. This is pretty much copied from Stefan Molyneux. Outside of a secular system (I will explain why!). We cannot define ethics as other peoples conformity with our own ethical belief system. When said like this, this sounds obvious. But it is what people do. It is not as obvious when people do it. Since we are often familiar with these assumptions and don't question them. 

The conscience is perfect and it always informs us of these things. But it speaks often in vague feelings. To really understand ethics it is important for us to articulate why a certain ethical thing is relevant or important.  

Let us take Christianity. Christianity actually has quite a bad record on moral reasoning. Even though it might be the best that we have, based on the behaviour of its adherents. The issue with Christianity is that it relies heavily on "appeal to authority". So when the Christian is questioned. They cannot actually justify why a certain thing is ethical. Why a thing is like it is. They cannot articulate what their conscience is telling them. 

This leaves the door open to people who DO NOT believe in Christianity, to simply say they do not believe in the Christian God and his handed down commandments. From that position, on top of the obvious ridiculousness of insisting on ethical rules you cannot justify. You would have to force your belief system on others in order to make them conform with it. So on what basis can you then justify holding people to your ethical rules? Are they OK to pull you into conformity with theirs? Well, then the foundation of your ethical system begins with tyranny, and possibly the initiation of violence; and of course, where it began, appeal to authority. That is a logical fallacy. 

This applies to each religion and most ideologies of some description. But not secularism. The reason for this, is that secularism requires first principles to justify its moral reasoning. First principles, like everyday observeable reality, and all the objectivity that implies. A person can SAY they don't believe in gravity. But that isn't going to prevent them getting injured when they are pushed down the stairs.  

There is more to say here and I have just marked in "Part 1" in the title here, because I realise it is going to be longer than I expected. I will skip over how we define evil, and put that in a later post, because I want to get to a more basic and simpler point first. 

Skipping a few steps, one of the ways we can define something as immoral, and one that is very habitually and intuitively used, even by kids in a school yard. Is that if the person themselves declares a certain morality, but then is not in conformity with that reality. 

Here, I will say something controversial. If Andrew Tate did do all the things he is accused of, like trapping girls with the lover boy method and such. How would you trip him up? How would you argue against him?

The world has very little objective morality that it submits to. We live in anarcho- tyranny. That system of secular morality is not up and running yet. So, as I said, people can be challenged against the morality they have defined. But Andrew Tate is a Muslim and Muslim accepts the enslavement of women. 

In this situation, you wouldn't then be able to challenge him based on his morality. These behaviours, if he did them, are CONSISTENT with this morality. But you would be able to have your own in group, and freedom of association. To not associate with him for that reason. This might go for other Muslims as well that have not practiced sex trafficking. 

So this is why in my discussion about David Wilcock. I will not be defining his behaviour as amoral in relation to biblical standards. I will be defining said behaviours in relation to his understanding of the Law of One, his own ethical standard. 

Obviously, while I could go through Universally Preferable Behaviour (Stefans moral system, a secular system of ethics) to define every thing that he does do as wrong. Conman stuff in general. I don't really need to do that. For things like theft and egregious hypocrisy and lying, our own conscience speaks loud enough. Nuance and articulation aren't required.