Closure.

I am holding off on a blog post. A certain subject. It is something I have posted before, changed my mind on, and deleted. Something that is very important. But because I have made the decision and changed my mind before. I do not want to write about it and commit to it, because I do not want to change my mind and delete it. I want to flesh out the experience of this change. Get more data. Make a better case. Hopefully it will only take one more full day. 

I do like to post everyday though. Else why make this post? 

So I will lay to rest a kind of boring subject. I have realised I don't care a great deal about David Wilcock and what was going on with him. Yes, it was a shock, and yes, it gave me a little bit of insight ref my predator/ victim post. (This has reflected into other people).

When I was young I attached to him a lot. When I grew older and realised he was a fraud (whether legitimate or pathologically naive). It essentially set up two different people. Two different people in a sense that related to him from myself. One was the young and naive person. Then was the freshly skeptical adult. 

I had some feeling for him left over from my childhood. You could kind of feel his desire for things to change positively and I wondered how he would be in that world if it did happen. (Him being a criminal). 

Despite him being connected to the Law of One. Despite him having opened my eyes to a lot of those things. He went from fraud to fraud to fraud. There is a kind of law that Stefan Molyneux discovered. "Love is our involuntary response to virtue, if we are virtuous". I don't really feel like I can have any particular positive feelings for someone that engaged in all that fraud. 

Synchronistically perhaps. I was watching one of the last season of one of the best shows I have ever seen today. Person of Interest. This will be a spoiler. But not of any overarching plot. Just of one episode. In it a conspiracy theorist, who is actively searching and runs a radio show. Stumbles on real evidence of something powerful/ supernatural. The evidence is not conclusive though. It is a strong and significant clue in the right direction. 

The protagonists try to explain to him, after he is nearly gunned down a few times. That he cannot reveal this information. Which the conspiracy theorist agrees to. Then changes his mind. 

But when he puts it all on the air, there is a different response than what was expected. The first person that phones in wants to talk about his own abduction experience. He isn't engaging with the material. The second one is bringing in some ridiculous idea. Some wacko idea not at all correct. It becomes immediately clear that even though the conspiracy theorist radio host really cares about the subject matter. His audience do not really. They are just wackos.