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.
No comments:
Post a Comment