I've finished archiving approximately four years' worth of my past-life journalistic work as a young Mathew Franklin Whittier, from 1830-1835 (with a year's hiatus in 1833). It came to something like 350 pieces, and I worked flat-out for--I don't even remember, about two months?--to get them all keyed in. Some remain to be proofread, but I'm setting that aside to give me something to do. I find that the inertia factor is formidable, going suddenly from 60 to zero.
Clues in one newspaper that Mathew was contributing to, or working for, as a young man, led back to another, and so-on. Now, the same thing has happened--Mathew's work in 1830/31 for the New York "Constellation" suggests that when he was even younger, he must have been occasionally submitting to the Boston-based "New-England Galaxy." But I don't expect to find literally hundreds of pieces there, as I did in the "Constellation," because at that point he was, presumably, submitting an occasional humorous sketch. My friend-and-researcher will be checking this out over the holidays. For this reason, there may be a few more items to introduce into my book, "Mathew Franklin Whittier in his own words," but I don't expect very many. They may contain a significant bit of evidence, perhaps confirming one of my speculations, or one of my past-life impressions. But if not, I think I have plenty, now. I'm satisfied. I have evidence, at least to some degree, of just about every hunch and every memory-impression I had previously set down. And I did keep careful track of which came first--the impression or hunch, and the confirmations.
I had thought to offer my readers something a little different--as a young man, before they began courting in earnest, Mathew's future wife--only 15 years old--wrote a poem about marriage and got it published, probably anonymously, in a magazine that Mathew was frequently contributing to. Presumably she hoped he'd see it and get the hint. Her knowledge of esotericism is clearly evident in the poem. She was a child prodigy and already was quite well acquainted with both the paranormal, and the Perennial Philosophy. But at this point, Mathew was a skeptic--both as regards these subjects, and as regards marriage. He was on the rebound, in reaction to an unrequited infatuation with an older girl, and he had bitterly embraced bachelorism. He knew that Abby had a crush on him, but he seems to have been essentially humoring her.
But the editor of that magazine was a slick hypocrite, and seeing Abby's technically superior poem completely undefended, he put his own initials on it. Or so it seems--at any rate, I'm convinced it was Abby's poem, which ended up being published with the editor's initials. Mathew apparently took it to be his, and as they were both bachelors at the time, he critiqued it very harshly. It was soon after this,* based on Mathew's own published poetry to her, that he fell in love with her, and they began a (chaste) courtship. This, I gather from clues in various published pieces. So the thing must have come to a head, Mathew must have apologized profusely, and they must have opened their hearts to each other.
I had occasion to go back to the critique yesterday, and I had the whim to answer it, as I would if it were someone else's piece. Here, you have one incarnation using the same higher mind, which they both had access to, debating with a previous one. I thought that might be interesting.
But I am shy of sharing deeply personal things with this audience. I don't know who reads it, or what their motives might be. I can only surmise that they don't believe me, and hence may be reading for sheer amusement--gawkers, in other words. Otherwise, I would sell a few books. If I was selling a handful of books, I wouldn't know--but since I sell no books, and I have the statistics of who looks at the supporting web page for this book (perhaps half or a third of those who read this blog), and who checks it out at the purchase site in my online store (nobody, for months at a time), I do know. I know that essentially none of the people who read this blog--a mere handful per day--are interested enough, or impressed enough, to even consider buying a $12.00 e-book which I have put eight years of daily work into.
That kind of cools one's jets for sharing too personally. I write because I enjoy writing--but I think I've written enough, for awhile. In the last few entries, I took a different tack, by providing real evidence that certain literary attributions, made by historians, were flat-out incorrect. I also indicated that I had abundant evidence that Mathew Franklin Whittier was the real author, and explained why I believed this. Nevermind proving past-life memory and reincarnation, this is scholarship, and I've demonstrated that I'm right about it. But it did not seem to earn me any brownie-points with my readership. The numbers of daily visitors to this site have gone down considerably--maybe about the time I made some sharp observations about Ancient Alien theory. Perhaps someone of that persuasion cut their link to my site. I can only say, again, that I think they have presented excellent evidence of advanced civilizations in pre-history, but I am not convinced of aliens from other star systems. Every piece of solid evidence they provide can be interpreted to mean previous advanced civilizations on earth, which, perchance, had colonized the moon and Mars. Thus, after some cataclysm, the remnants of the previous advanced civilization may have tried to bring humanity back up--and they may even have had spacecraft coming from Mars--but they weren't necessarily from other star systems. As for the weird depiction of the star gods in so many ancient, primitive societies, well, are we to believe that every wooden African mask literally depicts people from the ancient past? I certainly hope not! If we have science fiction and horror stories, why can't we give the ancient peoples the same art forms? So that's pretty weak evidence. Still, ancient civilizations could have gone amuck with genetics, and some of those artificial mutations could have remained. The Ancient Alien theorists don't have an adquate explanation for at least two things (aside from the aliens' use of "worm holes"): 1) why are the ancient gods running the gamut from sublime specimens of humanity, to bug-like little monsters? and 2) what accounts for their behavior, such that they are credited with everything from providing Moses with the Ten Commandments, to abucting young women and messing with their ovaries? I do know that "Thou shalt not abduct and do experiments without consent" was not actually on the tablets, but it sort of goes without saying.
And these people may have a background in archeology, but they seemingly have no background in esoteric studies. Otherwise, they would not suggest that Shiva was an alien, etc. etc. Finally, their measure of every civilization, and their explanation of every miracle, and even every peak experience and manifestation of genius, is technology (or sometimes, genetics, which was modified through technology). It is the aliens' advanced technology which makes them superior.
I have news for these people--we, ourselves, are more technologically advanced than any civilization in known history--and yet we are abysmally primitive and ignorant where it counts. The era I have been studying, the 19th century, was far more advanced. We have fallen considerably.
For example, in the 19th century, a respected figure could write about maintaining his relationship with his wife, after her physical death, and not be laughed out of the house. (A college mentor to Ralph Waldo Emerson did this, and he wasn't the only one.) By and large, although some of these theories profess a belief in God, their theories are both reductionistic and materialistic. If two inventors have the same idea at the same time, this doesn't mean that there is a mental realm which transcends the material world and the material brain, which minds draw from intuitively. It means either that physical aliens are sending them messages, or that aliens encoded the information, like a time-release capsule, in their physical DNA. This simply suggests to me that someone holding to materialistic assumptions will go to any length to deny the spiritual realm--even aliens are plausible, to them, if it helps defend them against a sneaking suspicion that the entire materialistic paradigm is upside-down.**
I realized that the Ancient Alien theorists were sort of tacking their conclusions onto good evidence about other things, when they got into my own area of expertise, reincarnation and afterlife studies. They presented the Pamela Reynolds NDE case, and by some torturous method or other, used it to confirm Ancient Aliens. Then they did the same with the James Leininger reincarnation case. This is slight-of-hand--the same technique that is used to sell soap, i.e., artificially attach your product to beautiful girls and sunny days and puppies and kittens.
It looks deliberate, to me, or at the very least, sloppy. I don't believe in the concept of "pseudo-science," as though there are two hard-and-fast categories: science, and pseudo-science. This is a convenient dichotomy for those who wish to preserve the status quo. Everybody who doesn't believe like we do, is practicing pseudo-science. But I do believe there is good science, and bad science. When you take strong evidence for reincarnation, and somehow or other attach ancient aliens to it with logical chewing gum and bailing wire, you are practicing bad science. And further, I resent it because it makes the solid reincarnation evidence look suspect, in the bargain.
Okay, I hadn't planned to go there. If people who are this sloppy reject my work because I dare challenge them, let them go. I don't need people coming from that space, anyway. I need people who are so much in love with truth, that they will subject their own pet ideas to the same acid bath that they would subject anyone else's. Not people who cut you off the instant you effectively challenge them (if that is what has, indeed, happened).
I may pick up these entries again after my researcher has the opportunity to search through the "New-England Galaxy"; or I may have the whim to continue writing as I have been. But I think I will give this blog a rest for awhile. The entries I've made for the past year or so speak for themselves, and are available through the Archive link, below. My mother, 98 years old, is now under hospice care, and my caretaking duties have become hugely stressful. If I don't have a heart attack or other health-related collapse, once she passes, I will have to scramble to reinvent myself, at age 63 in a terrible economy, with this internet footprint. (Imagine trying to get a job with these ideas expressed online, being easily and readily searchable.) I am not independently wealthy, and once she passes, I will be on a pittance of Social Security with I-don't-know-how-much savings. That's one reason I was pushing myself so hard to get all this work keyed in and archived. When the shit hits the fan, I need to have everything organized, in case I need to scale way, way back in a hurry.
And that's about as personal as I feel like getting with you guys.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
*Actually, there is an overlap of a month, such that the love poem appears in the New York "Constellation" a month before this critique was published in the Boston magazine. Presumably, he had shared the critique with her privately when he sent it in, and their discussion occurred before it was published, the following month. Whether Mathew requested it be pulled, and the request was denied, or he felt it best not to say anything given the confusion about her poem's attribution, I don't know. He would have had to confront the editor with a charge of plagiarism, in order to explain why he wanted to retract the article, and he might have been reluctant on this basis; or, it may already have gone to the printers. Abby may also not have wanted Mathew to confront the editor because she wanted to remain anonymous, on the basis of Victorian morality and ideals regarding the avoidance of fame. Once they had cleared the air, she probably said, "Nevermind, it doesn't matter."
**Much as the skeptics have even posited "super ESP" to explain away the reality of contact with people in the spirit realm.
Music opening this page: "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor" by Johann Sebastian Bach