It is, of course, too early to determine whether my interview is going to stir up any dust. I don't know what the total audience of "Path 11" is; one assumes there is a severe rate of attrition, such that only 5% might listen to it all the way through. If they have 100 listeners, then that means only five people. In order for anything to result from that, there would have to be a word-of-mouth effect (which never seems to happen from my website); and precisely the right person would have to synchronistically stumble upon it. And synchronicity is out of my hands.
It struck me the other day that people generally won't accept anything unless it has the official societal stamp of approval. Unless the people before, behind and to either side are also applauding, nobody is going to risk being the only one in the auditorium. Modern promotion techniques take advantage of this, by mimicking this effect in various ways, creating an artificial "buzz." I refuse to do that. Therefore, I am trying to sell the hardest imaginable commodity--proof of my own reincarnation--without money, and eschewing promotional techniques.
I just had an experience I want to share--this not being a public forum--but I will be as brief and circumspect as possible, because these entries may one day be posted publicly, again.
As a sort of trial balloon, I asked the administrator of an online group having to do with my Guru, Meher Baba, whether I could post a link to the interview. A long discussion followed, in which I convinced her to do so, against her better judgment. Essentially the only response, was--and I'm going to word this carefully--someone I knew, from a previous incident, to be a hypocrite (in this case, a Don Juan). He challenged me with a series of superficial religious platitudes and catch-phrases--much as a Christian fundamentalist would do--and, in typical MFW style (but holding back on MFW's sarcasm as much as possible), I responded at length. Not a single other person in this group stood up for me, or dared cross swords with this fellow. By back-channel, I apprised the administrator of the incident I personally knew of, giving my personal opinion that he had a sociopathic personality.
Well, my Guru specifically warned against backbiting. The administrator, who knows this fellow personally, took my warning to be backbiting, and deleted my entire post, saying she knew she shouldn't have agreed in the first place.
I am not editing out any additional rancor in my communications, here--I kept everything polite. But whatever truth there may or may not be on their side of this, I come away with the feeling, "Et tu, Brute?" There was only one person in that group, who dared speak up in favor of what I was presenting, before this exchange with the hypocrite took place. That fellow used sophistry against me--his entire argument was sophistry--and not a single person dared call him out. I was left all alone to duke it out with this player (whether it was wise to have engaged him, or not).
Now, I have evidence that after Mathew and Abby were shunned and driven out of Dover, New Hampshire,* for their pro-abolitionist views (and for expressing them in the newspaper, in a similar rebuttal), they settled in Amesbury, Mass., where Mathew launched his own radical newspaper. I have evidence that they were afraid for their lives; and that young women stoned the house and broke the glass, while Abby was home alone with their infant son. I also seem to remember that their object in living there, amongst the poor, was to live as they did and with them, and to serve them--you know, like Mother Teresa. And that one of the things they did was to campaign for shorter hours for the factory workers.**
But the factory workers didn't want shorter hours. They saw this--with the help of the Company, and the Company-appointed pastor--as an attack on their income. I seem to remember that Abby went through a tremendous crisis--if she had dedicated her life to helping the poor, and the poor were stoning her house and shunning her and her husband, then what was the point? Why not save yourself, and let them go down, if they didn't want you?
In fact, I think the couple tried to do that, initially, in Portland, Maine, but all of that is in my novel. The point is, I'm feeling very much the same way, today. They don't want what I have to offer. I've built something both deep and elegant over the past decade, with tremendous, continual, daily effort--and nobody wants it. I'm trying to help them, and they want none of it. So why not just let them go down? You can't help them.
I don't generally stay in that place, but I visit it from time-to-time. I am not wrong, I am not self-deluded, and I am not trying to sell a hoax. Neither am I sloppy in my methods.
I re-watched a presentation by Michael Tellinger yesterday. Through theory, or putting several theories together, he has determined that everything, from atoms to galaxies, is based on "toroidal energy" patterns, or fields of magnetism and sound. And this fits, at least vaguely, with what I've studied in Eastern mysticism. Then, he has found ancient stone artifacts in the shape of fat doughnuts, and cones; and from there, drawing on ancient relief sculptures showing similar objects, he has concluded (not theorized) that they were used to channel concentrated energy, perhaps to lift large blocks of stone, etc. He tells the story that he was bringing one of these back in his bag on the plane, and the official searched his bag, because the entire security computer system had crashed. When he unwrapped this stone doughnut, the officials let him keep it and the search was over. He concludes that they must have known what they were looking for (and by inference, believed it), because they didn't search the rest of his bag. However, it is just as plausible that they thought it was so ridiculous, they decided, "This guy is harmless, all he's got is an old rock."
Upon reflection, a more plausible theory might be that there was technology like this in the more-distant past, but that these stone artifcacts are primitive imitations of what was only dimly remembered by that time. The point is that an objective scientist should be generating his own normal theories, and trying his best to shoot down his own ideas, before jumping to the paranoid conclusion that the officials knew he had a dangerous piece of ancient technology that had just shut down their computer system, and still let him keep it.
So that's fine, he has theories, which he states as being more than theories, and he's going to test these objects if he can put together the funding. My point is, what we have is untested theories, but they are being presented as facts. I want to see the results of the tests, and the methods used in the tests, and I want to see those results replicated by other honest researchers, and so-on. That's science, meaning, uncorrupted science. Which is hard to find, these days.
I didn't do what Tellinger is doing. I did nine years of exhaustive research, documented all my findings, and proved two things beyond any reasonable doubt: that my proposed past life (and the memory-impressions I had of it) are genuine; and that in that past life, I, as Mathew Franklin Whittier, was the original author of "The Raven." I came close to proving that he and Abby Poyen Whittier were the original authors of "A Christmas Carol," and I also proved or nearly proved quite a number of other misattributed works.
If I stand next to Michael Tellinger--or Walter Semkiw, for that matter--they are presenting theories as if they were facts; whereas I am presenting proven facts.
If Michael can prove that his stone doughnuts and cones were energy-concentrating technology, that works for me. He hasn't done it, yet, so far as I can tell.
But nobody wants the real thing. Hardly anyone will give me the time of day. Out of about 15 hand-picked radio shows I contacted, so far, only this one has interviewed me. Maybe five or 10 people will listen to it, I'm guessing.
So why do I bother? I won't gloss over that question--really, I wonder. I want to preserve Mathew's reinstated legacy. I want to set this right for him, even if I wasn't his reincarnation. I want to tell the story of this courageous couple. And I want to leave, for the world, what is, to date, perhaps the most in-depth study of an individual reincarnation case ever presented. No-one, to my knowledge, has delved into a proven past life in the depth that I have. I know that Joan Grant wrote novels--but she admittedly used a technique of "stretching" her memories that I don't trust, so that these memories, while extensive, are almost entirely unverified. I wrote my novel after I already had the proof.
I think we are living in an age when people don't have enough discernment to even recognize what I'm doing, for it to get past their boggle threshold--no less to discern it from other, similar presentations with far less evidence supporting them. The analogy I got from Abby, in a burst of thought, is probably the correct one. The children come into the room, find all the marbles on a table, and play with them. One little girl notices the rough-cut diamond amongst the marbles, and picks it up with curiosity, but then sets it thoughtfully down again. That evening, there is a meeting of the Mineralogical Society held in the same room, and of course the diamond is immediately recognized.
This analogy says that perhaps one person out of thousands will even be briefly curious about my work, in this era. It will take an entirely new generation of more advanced souls, incarnating here over the next 100 or 200 years, to have the discernment to recognize what Abby and I accomplished. But how to preserve it for them? This is the part I don't see, yet. I don't know how to get it to these people of the future, intact.
Whether or not this is in someone else's hands, clearly, it isn't in my hands, because I have done my best. I rose to the challenge of the interview; but so far, at least, nobody wants it--not even my own faith community, no less the general public. But with luck, that interview will be preserved (I made a copy), and at least the people of the future will be able to hear what I was trying to say to people in my current lifetime.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
*Dover's economy was based on a large cotton mill, so it was truly naive for Mathew and Abby to have championed the cause of Abolition, there; and they used a playful pseudonym which was too-easily deciphered.
**Whoever bought the only volume of Mathew's newspaper at auction for $7,000, has not made it public or shared it with any institution, so I was only able to access a few bits of it which were reprinted in "The Liberator." Thus, I have no direct evidence that they included articles asking for shorter hours for the workers, but rather, have inferred it.
Music opening this page, "First Snow," by Skywalk,
from the album, "Silent Witness"