Yesterday's entry ended on a sour note...I thought maybe no-one had read it, but no, the website stats tell me that in the last two days, nine people have read this blog. I think I'm right--the stats for last month indicate that people really like my method, but they like my study, which is based on it, less, and they like me, personally, even less. But Abby tells me this reaction is fear-based; not just greed-based, as it first struck me. In my past-life in the 19th century, I strove for anonymity. I won't go into the reasons, fully, here. It had to do with Quaker virtue, and Victorian virtue, and perhaps a promise to Abby before she died, that I wouldn't seek fame. It went to grief, as well; and also there was a practical side, inasmuch as it was safer, given the radical causes I was promoting. I wrote satire against slavery, militarism, nationalism, materialism, and academia, or what Sylvie Iwanova, the ancient archeology expert, calls "penguins." The anti-militarism/nationalism satires were, as it appears, particularly dangerous.
I can never get a clear bead on what people actually think of me, and my presentation. But this is my best guess. They are profoundly ambivalent, because basically, you have someone who appears to be "nucking futts," and yet he's done good work on cutting-edge reincarnation research. His indie documentary was clearly ahead of its time (though hardly the first); and now, it seems that his proposed method is viable. Not only is it viable, it's one of those things that causes you to scratch your head and say: "Why didn't I think of that, before?" Meaning, we have had people who tried hypnosis; and we have had people who tried to match up memories (both unprovoked, and artificially-induced) with the historical record; we have had people who used psychics; and we have had lots of people who tried to match up coincidences and traits between a past-life and a current life. But no-one, before myself, that I know of, has suggested bringing all of these tools to bear on a case, to identify it and then study it in a systematic way. In other words, we have had the tools--but we haven't believed it enough to really use them properly.
That is, I think, at least partly because there has been a deliberate effort to force a meme down our collective throats, which says, "Reincarnation can never be proven."
Obviously, it can, and all that is needed is the will.
Now, here I am at the cutting edge, and last month 414 people read my article explaning my method, but none of those 414 people thought to purchase my book, to see what I, personally have done with that method. That doesn't make sense. The only logial conclusion is that they believe--irrationally--that a madman has somehow come up with a logically sound method. You know, like the ape who, given enough ink and paper, has somehow written Shakespeare.
An alternative is that not one of those 414 people took the article seriously. But a third explanation--the one that bothers me--is that everyone is greedy. No-one wants to help you get ahead. Every one of those 414 people who read my article last month, is thinking to him- or herself, "How can I use this to get rich with it?"
Case in point. I published my book about how Abby and I got together across the Great Divide in the same year I published my book about my reincarnation case, 2012. I started trying to channel Abby in her own online journal, soon after. Dr. Jamie Turndorf came out with "Love Never Dies" in 2015, and began promoting a packaged method to contact one's loved one on the other side, involving guided imagery. The difference is, that my method cannot be packaged, and a profit cannot be made off it. Another difference is that guided imagery insures that the person will have some kind of result--real or imagined--so that the person cannot say, "Nothing happened, I want my money back." I get spam from Dr. Turndorf, classic commercial-type spam. When she first came out with her book, I wrote her an e-mail, innocently suggesting to her that guided imagery wasn't necessary (actually, in my opinion it's totally irrelevant). The reason is, as Abby has taught me, intuitive communication with a loved one on the other side is a matter of noticing something that's already there. Either you perceive it, or you don't. Say you are trying to tune in to a channel on your TV. It does no good to imagine you have tuned in to it. Either you get the channel, or you don't. Once you get it, it comes in quite clearly.
But you cannot package and sell a method for tuning into a TV channel, because it is so simple. Okay, here's another example. Have you ever tried to open a door to someone else's house, with their key? Say, you are supposed to water the plants over the weekend. You have seen your friend open that door with that key a hundred times--but it won't work for you! Not, that is, until you get the "knack." Then you can't see why you ever had any trouble with it.
But guided imagery is not going to get you into the house to water those plants. You either get the knack of it, or you don't. When you do, it's easy.
I once videotaped a series of seminars about a method of curing cancer. It was so simple, and so cheap, that it couldn't be commercialized. The group was disbanded by the authorities--this was some 15 years ago, or more. If the testimonials were to be believed, it had the potential to rescue people in Stage 4.
So that's why I got disgusted at the close of yesterday's entry. But even if Abby is right, and people are scared of me, they still imagine that a madman could somehow come up with an advanced method for studying reincarnation. Only, his application of it, for his own case, must be entirely fanciful. Apparently, he has fits of sanity, and then lapses back, again. He must have been in one of those "sanity spells" when he interviewed a number of top researchers for his former internet radio show, "Metaphysical Explorations," including Dr. Jim Tucker. But then he lapsed back again, when he started researching his own case, and found that in his past life, he co-wrote "A Christmas Carol" and probably was the real author of "The Raven."
Do you believe that? Do you also believe that the 9-11 disaster went down as the government has told us? And do you also believe the Russian Hackers explanation that's being forced down our throats, now, by the collective media? Did you gloss over the fact that the Democratic primary was stolen from Bernie Sanders; and that rubber bullets were used at close range against the Water Protectors, and against media trying to cover them? Did you bother to look up rubber bullets on Wikipedia, as I did, and see how they were using them, vs. how they were actually designed to be used? Did you notice that they were also using concussion grenades; and that Anonymous shut down the website of the company which makes them, for a day, in protest? Or are you obsessed with Russian Hackers like you are supposed to be, so that you don't look at this other stuff?
But this is nothing. It is the end result of societal ignorance, which starts with the issues I'm addressing. I'm trying to heal the thing at the root causes. Not that I have the power to succeed. But we all have to do our best, according to our best understanding. I'm taking up much the same causes I took up as Mathew--actually, Abby and I together are doing it, with her "there" and me here. You think that's "nucking futts," I know.
Good. It's probably better for me that you do. It would appear that the audience which will take my work seriously hasn't arrived yet--and I have to get it to them, intact.
Actually, I had not intended to go into all that in such depth. It's difficult pouring years of your life into something significant, making a contribution to society, and being so far ahead of your time that you are ignored--except when it suits people. Which is to say, when it doesn't challenge their beliefs too effectively; and when, perhaps, they sense they might be able to make a buck out of it. The real secret is, these people think you are stupid for being altruistic, and for not effectively capitalizing on your ideas. I have no use for them. They--as I suggested last time--can drown in the soup of their own making.
Now, I had meant to get into my next research phase, which came about quite unexpectedly. I learned, by accident, that Mathew Franklin Whittier was a regular contributor to a literary newspaper which ran from 1841 to 1845. This was news to me. I already have some of his work written for other papers from this period, so I know what to expect. But Abby died in March of 1841, and this paper starts in April of that year. I was unable to obtain a copy of it personally--but I can send in a researcher.
I don't think Mathew wrote much the first few months after Abby died; but I am hoping there may be a poetic tribute, or two (I already have one). His short stories--both humorous, and adventure genres--typically have extensive autobiography embedded in them, in code, as it were. So I am hoping to glean some more clues about their marriage, her illness, and perhaps her death. It used to be that I was always a bit afraid of obtaining new historical information, for fear that it might contradict my theories. And at times, it did, at least as regards my extrapolations from my initial impressions. But I've got so much evidence, now, that I'm not too worried. If something does contradict my speculations, or even my past-life impressions, I'll dutifully report it. But here goes more pages added to my already-lengthy tome.
I'll simply add as little new material as I can. What's likely, is that something in this paper will confirm what I've already observed. It has long seemed to me, that Abby likes for there to be at least two supporting examples of each point made in the book. Where I had one, she seemingly would arrange for me to find another. She likes me to have that "one-two punch" when I'm asserting a theory. So perhaps there will be a few "second punches" in there. The paper was avowedly apolitical (and sappy, if truth be told)--so Mathew will probably have saved his political satire for other papers. These will be literary; and his literary works, again, were almost always intensely personal.
That means, where I had reported a past-life impression, say, in 2008--documented in an e-mail, in my journal, or on this website--I can now find proof of it, embedded in coded, personal references in these stories. I didn't even know about this literary newspaper until a couple of weeks ago. So there is no possible way I could have been influenced by it in 2008.
That defeats "cryptomnesia," or false memory, especially if the recorded memory was idiosyncratic enough. For example, I have remembered going on a picnic with Abby, when we were first courting, using a basket which fell open and spilled the contents on the ground, at which we both laughed so hard we couldn't stop. I subsequently found stories by Mathew in which the boy and girl laugh together like this; and I've found references to picnics. I've also found a story in which the boy slips and falls in the mud while proposing. That story matched memories of proposing, as far as the setting is concerned--but not the mishap, nor her laughing at it. Mathew would mix-and-match personal anecdotes in these stories. But what if there is actually a story, in this new paper, of going on a picnic where the latch comes undone (as I remembered), spilling the contents on the ground, whereupon the boy and girl start laughing and can't stop? I recorded that memory years ago (it's mentioned in my video interview); and it's quite specific. I haven't seen it anywhere in a film, or read it in a book. I had a hard enough time finding a picnic basket with the same design. What if this story is actually in that newspaper, written by Mathew, and I only learned of the existence of this paper in February of 2017?
Well, we'll see...
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
Music opening this page: "Baba O'Riley," by The Who, from the album, "Who's Next"