David Wilcock on "criminal cartel", swine flu etc.

[Dominic]

Originally Posted by judykott

United Serenity I agree with you totally about Obama. I would have to say we have never elected a president, from the very start down to George Washington. If one does research, go to the library of Congress, check out some of Washington's letters.I posted them on another thread a while back
http://projectavalon.net/forum/showp...&postcount=207

http://projectavalon.net/forum/showp...&postcount=209

If you read about how the constitution was set up and by who and peple mistake US for a democracy it was not set up that way and is not now a democracy. It was set up by elites who held huge land grants by the king and families had had the land in their possession for generations.

They, the founding fathers, predominately Masons of high degree, molded the constitution in part to protect their interests from the rabble, Almost half of them wanted America to be another Monarchy. So far the constitution is the closest thing on contemporary paper to a fair republic. We have drifted far from the original paper. Democracy sounds good but is not efficient form of government.The US was not ever a democracy in any shape or form. Would take a whole other thread on that alone. From that day on laws to protect the corporate or elite society have prevailed. If they give you something it is not for the reason you think. "Education" is a good example of that. The way they wish to set up health care is also not for the reason they may implement it, it will be one more way to keep track and give you treatments that are not in your best interest, control.

Every "side" you can think of whether it be political ( this includes the Mason Ron Paul), the churches, the green movement, women's movement, Hollywood, Media even most of the "Alternative" have all been engineered , funded, guided, or false info given to,or infiltrated or taken over by the PTB. It is really very clever on their part, they always give you another choice and control that one as well. Or if you realize that you are being played on both sides then many will just give up their is nothing I can do, apathy and depression so again a great way to neutralize something.

The New Age movement as well was started and funded by the CIA. The Dalai Lama was funded by the CIA and his brother trained and parachuted back in to Tibet, research how it was in Tibet when the Lama's were in power it was a horrible feudal system. I am not saying the Chinese government is better. I just got my eyes opened after I started going to a Monastery and thought I would do some research, I was shocked at many things I found out about it.

I say these things to just say keep your eyes open, if something sounds all love and light does not mean that is what the intent is of all of it. Some of the "lightworker" agenda as well. Many channelings, et contacts, even things that may feel from the heart at first may not be as they seem, tricksters abound in many forms and formless. Many are searching outside to feel and become a part of something to feel connected, to belong, that is what they want. Follow this person or that, they do not want you to look within. One must be strong from within, and attune from within. Take all information, that is all that it is, from what ever source, as not assumed fact, as a possibility, then give it a 360 view the facade on the front does not always match what's behind the curtain. What to do? The start and the finish of all of this is found within.

Great post Judy

Trust no one

Go inside for the truth!!!

[Jonathon]

Wow I can only say that some here seem extremely poorly informed to the body of Wilcock's information. You can't just glance at a few things here and there and then use a singular point (that you happen not to accept) to disenfranchise a near lifetime worth of work. Isn't that the very thing we are all working against? We all cringe and shout out about disinformation, cover-ups and wrongful defamation of character when "they" do it. Are we so comfortable and righteous to feel justified in doing it ourselves?

You do not agree with his points about Obama... yet, you do not know that he is wrong... nor that you are right (although you appear to assert that you are and he isn't). Time will tell. It doesn't make him some sort of lap dog. To date he is probably the most accurate source of information out there. It borders on absurd that you take his positive spin on Obama as some kind of personal attack or veiled motive then use it as evidence to discredit his intentions/work. If you really disagree, it would be more beneficial to see a point by point discussion citing sourced information in an objective argument... otherwise you are simply filling the role of a negative repeater. Certainly Wilcock's data on the whole is extremely well sourced and original.

Which brings about an important question. Why is it that you need Obama to fit your definition? What is it that makes you resist the possibility that he is different? What purpose does your negativity serve? Does it help our cause or hurt it? Do you really know something or are you just repeating something from a source you consider more valuable? These are important points. Don't paint yourself into a corner just because you have a need to view the world in terms of great divisions and fear (you vs the ELITE GODLIKE DEMONS OF HELLLL) The ego certainly loves to feed from the trough of fear and attachment.

Realize that Wilcock is presenting a alternative and more positive view. Even if he is wrong, I don't see what purpose this form of negative presumption serves. In my view, you serve the greater good more so by supporting what he does right than trampling what you think he does wrong. We are all subject to being right and wrong. That fact doesn't define who we are.

Wouldn't you agree that if Obama were different, he would have to play the game well enough to avoid suspicion, find out who his friends really are and then covertly execute a plan? What would you do? Run right in and start feverishly rocking the boat? What kind of fool would do that?

If the information doesn't resonate with you, then it is not for you. If you feel it is overtly wrong and dangerous, then please help the rest of us out by making a real case. No need to work up a symphony of assumptions in attempt to discredit something you may have no real grasp of.

Thanks for reading...

[246]

I like Wilcock's stance on Obama and other issues. I support Obama.

[jaby]

Originally Posted by 246

I like Wilcock's stance on Obama and other issues. I support Obama.

I absolutely agree.

I like and TRUST David Wilcock.

I like and TRUST Obama.

Until I personally have a good reason to say differently...no ammount of blah blah blah will sway me to think anything else.

[Sarahmay]

Originally Posted by jaby

I absolutely agree.

I like and TRUST David Wilcock.

I like and TRUST Obama.

Until I personally have a good reason to say differently...no ammount of blah blah blah will sway me to think anything else.

Agree too. Some people just like to go to the dark side about everything.

[Noela]

Very good post Jonathan - very well reasoned.

I was so glad for someone to get in and state
the case positively.

The point you make that anyone who is 'at the top',
as the President is, has to play the game to some
extent, is particularly relevant. So many factions
to consider - so many likely results of any action
taken.

I get the feeling that much that Obama does -
or will do - is covert (in plan) and, as you suggest,
necessarily so. So he disappoints many people
who would like to see action taken immediately.
But such actions would 'rock the boat' of state,
and a President doesn't have the luxury to
act in that way - not if he is wise and compassionate.

[Humble Janitor]

Again, people just can't resist a chance to take a cheap shot at David Wilcock, this time, it's his supposed worship of Obama.

What's next? Are you going to attack the way he dresses? The way he talks? The other things he says?

Move on people. If you don't like what he says, you don't even have to look at his site. Why waste energy typing out an attack response when you can save that energy for something more important to you?

[Humble Janitor]

Originally Posted by Jonathon

Wow I can only say that some here seem extremely poorly informed to the body of Wilcock's information. You can't just glance at a few things here and there and then use a singular point (that you happen not to accept) to disenfranchise a near lifetime worth of work. Isn't that the very thing we are all working against? We all cringe and shout out about disinformation, cover-ups and wrongful defamation of character when "they" do it. Are we so comfortable and righteous to feel justified in doing it ourselves?

You do not agree with his points about Obama... yet, you do not know that he is wrong... nor that you are right (although you appear to assert that you are and he isn't). Time will tell. It doesn't make him some sort of lap dog. To date he is probably the most accurate source of information out there. It borders on absurd that you take his positive spin on Obama as some kind of personal attack or veiled motive then use it as evidence to discredit his intentions/work. If you really disagree, it would be more beneficial to see a point by point discussion citing sourced information in an objective argument... otherwise you are simply filling the role of a negative repeater. Certainly Wilcock's data on the whole is extremely well sourced and original.

Which brings about an important question. Why is it that you need Obama to fit your definition? What is it that makes you resist the possibility that he is different? What purpose does your negativity serve? Does it help our cause or hurt it? Do you really know something or are you just repeating something from a source you consider more valuable? These are important points. Don't paint yourself into a corner just because you have a need to view the world in terms of great divisions and fear (you vs the ELITE GODLIKE DEMONS OF HELLLL) The ego certainly loves to feed from the trough of fear and attachment.

Realize that Wilcock is presenting a alternative and more positive view. Even if he is wrong, I don't see what purpose this form of negative presumption serves. In my view, you serve the greater good more so by supporting what he does right than trampling what you think he does wrong. We are all subject to being right and wrong. That fact doesn't define who we are.

Wouldn't you agree that if Obama were different, he would have to play the game well enough to avoid suspicion, find out who his friends really are and then covertly execute a plan? What would you do? Run right in and start feverishly rocking the boat? What kind of fool would do that?

If the information doesn't resonate with you, then it is not for you. If you feel it is overtly wrong and dangerous, then please help the rest of us out by making a real case. No need to work up a symphony of assumptions in attempt to discredit something you may have no real grasp of.

Thanks for reading...

RIGHT ON!