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...