Thomas — or whomever he is — might benefit by reading this, as well as reading Jesus’ teachings on one’s negative judgments against others, which is what I was also attempting to communicate to Robert David Steele.  These teachings’ essence is, that those who seek constantly to remove the beams from others’ eyes are usually only seeing the far ends of their own beams — and I do not mean beams of light.  — REC

I am being asked about the David Wilcock/Linda Moulton Howe copyright issue so just reposting this status from Simon Esler (thanks to Jordan Sather for posting this) as I wholeheartedly agree with the points made here. 💙💜💙💜
 
Simon Esler Post:
I want to offer some perspective on the response Linda Moulton Howe gave in reference to removing David Wilcock’s analysis of her Antarctica disclosures.
This is not as black and white as most want it to be so let’s unpack it properly.
Her stated concerns on the surface have to do with David presenting her copyrighted material without her permission. Additionally she was upset that he went through her material without linking her video in the description of his.
Superficially this seems to be reasonable, and it’s fair to say a link is something to be expected.
That being said, David went out of his way to repeatedly, verbally reference LMH as the source and even directed all his viewers to watch the original and follow her channel. He was blatantly excited to support her work and was clearly aware of the draw this overlap of information would have in terms of helping her reach a new audience. It was not hard to observe that his genuine intention was to support her work.
Considering that David and Linda communicated about this material on the phone (a fact that she omitted in her statement) her reaction is strange and way over the top. Despite their communications Linda painted a picture of David surreptitiously timing the release of his video while she was “busy at Conscious Life Expo,” and then proceeded to publicly shame him for using her material, going as far calling him a “parasite.”
Once she finished her outbursts about protecting her copyrighted content she made bold statements declaring that she never has nor ever will be involved with David Wilcock, Corey Good or Emery Smith.
Firstly, almost anyone who uses YouTube understands that exclusive news like this naturally spawn countless analysis videos across YouTube that reference the original material. In fact this his how news and research work in general.
David taking another researcher’s discovery and extrapolating it within the context of his own extensive body of work is nothing but the natural process of a new discovery expanding into the community surrounding it.
Will LMH really track down every Youtube account that analyzes her findings and accuse them of being parasites?
She won’t because none of this is really about protecting her copyright.
This was about trying to publicly sever any connection between her work and their work. It had nothing to do with copyright, that was merely the drama she used to drive her agenda.
But let me be very emphatic about something. Devolving this event into community vengeance in which LMH is shamed is not a beneficial response.
Extensive debates about whether she’s caught up in her own ascension related darkness or whether she’s a deep state agent emerging from the Rockefeller Initiative are also potential traps for the community’s focus.
Why? Because no matter what the truth of her motivation is, the result is the same.
COINTELPRO programs thrive on dropping big dramatic bombs on truther communities ensuring that an elaborate web of our skills and energies get ensnared in the polarization of public and interpersonal drama. She has had the impact of a COINTELPRO agent, even if she isn’t one.
So if this was just her darkness, it’s now none of our business.
If she’s an agent, we give her division tactics none of our energy.
Our response to this needs to be steadfast in its focus no matter what opinions emerge about her true motivation.
Drop the drama. Go back to the research. We can integrate all her findings despite her stance. She has a wealth of info that needs our discernment, so we follow her with non attachment. We maintain our awareness of her obvious inability to consistently follow a logical research path, and gather the gems of her info.
The overlaps of her work with the figures she’s dismissing are escalating and need our eyes, they need dissemination.
Don’t lose an ounce of your energy to the drama and division that is often so successfully used to derail our good efforts at engaging disclosure and staying clear.