Play music



People probably think I am out of touch with my head in the clouds, not to write about the current election. Vote for Dr. Jill Stein, because the two major candidates are both sociopathic personalities, and Dr. Stein is intelligent, knowledgeable, and has real, actual integrity.

There, satisfied?

I want to retain the "updates" function of this blog, and I do, in fact, have a new development to report. I got the whim to use a comparison graphic, to show that Mathew Franklin Whittier had used a pet phrase under more than one pseudonym. Since I have many of Mathew's publications photographed, I was able to turn to my archives and crop the needed image from there. All this, in turn, came about because I happened to see the "Penny Magazine" for sale very cheap on Ebay, year 1836--the year Mathew and Abby married. I kept having this nagging feeling I should buy it, even though that magazine contained the sort of thing you'd find in a high school textbook. It was put out in London by the "Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge." Mathew couldn't resist that one--he parodied it as the "Society for the Diffusion of Useless Knowledge" on more than one occasion (three, to be exact)--and this was a handy way to show that he may have written under more than one pseudonym. I was able to find two examples, both written in all caps and smaller type, and they made a nice comparison. This is what I call "cumulative evidence"--not a clincher by itself, but this kind of thing adds up.

While I was in there, cropping and creating this comparison image, I happened to note a travelogue I'd missed when I first went through this volume, many years ago. I vaguely remember looking at the signature, and thinking, "That feels familiar," and then dismissing it. Now, I could see it was probably Mathew's work.

So, I hauled out the volume, and investigated. There were 12 installments, 12 letters to the editor, plus a 13th one that wasn't officially included in the travelogue but had the same signature. They covered a trip, by rail and steamboat, in August of 1856, to the Minnesota Territory by way of Canada.

Now, I already had a travelogue Mathew had written from 1849 to 1852, for another paper--but the authorship was disputed for that one. I finally managed to logically wrest it from the person who claimed it (and the editor who colluded with him) to my personal satisfaction; but whether I had done so to the satisfaction of a skeptic, was another matter. But now, if I could establish that the 1856 travelogue was also Mathew's work, I could compare them.

This kept me busy for about the past week, getting up at 3:30 and 4:00 in the morning. I just finished it today, sans a final proofreading. And did I find some shit! I reported on one fascinating discovery in the previous entry--it appears that at the very beginning of the series, Mathew left a clue that he had been the author of the first travelogue. But more than that, if I read his code correctly--and Mathew did use "code" to convey secret and personal messages in his published works--he was actually attempting to pass this information forward to his own future incarnation--i.e., myself.*

I still think I won't share the particulars of that. You who are skeptical, have already decided that I'm "torturing" the facts to come up with that conclusion. So you will retain that opinion to the extent of irrationality. I've seen it a thousand times, before. You don't consciously know you've entered la-la land; but if I had to tally up how many times "believers" have resorted to magical thinking, vs. how many times skeptics have resorted to it, over the years, I think the skeptics would be ahead about two-to-one. That's because going into denial requires magical thinking.

Well, I don't think I'll go into the details of any of the new discoveries. I was able to take pet phrases that Mathew used, in this travelogue, and back-check them, matching them to previous publications under other pseudonyms.** That's just for starters. But, never mind. That's for those who buy my book. All I'll say about it is, this was a good find.

Oh, okay, since you're twisting my thing I learned is that Mathew Franklin Whittier appears to have traveled from Detroit to Chicago with radical black abolitionist William Lambert. How do I know? It's fascinating. No-one would ever have guessed. Mathew said he was traveling with a "cherished brother" who had moved to Detroit. I knew Mathew's real and only brother, John Greenleaf Whittier, was not in Detroit and had not moved there. So he was speaking figuratively; and I knew that his friends were abolitionists. William Lambert fit the bill; and looking up his photograph, he looked powerfully familiar to me (I do have some degree of image recognition past-life memory). I concluded there was a good chance I was right--and then, two entries later, Mathew is traveling as one of a "trio band." Again, I know he is traveling with fellow-abolitionists; but one of them, whom they have given the nickname "Sir William Wallace," decides to play a trick on the sleeping train passengers. This is August 1856, not long before a hotly-contested presidential election; and "Sir William" begins going down the isle, taking an informal poll of votes. Pretty soon the entire train is arguing! Actually, it is not clear whether he is taking a poll, or pretending to run, himself. The phrase used is "soliciting votes." And the first topic mentioned, which the passengers start arguing about, is "abolition."

I don't know who the third member of the "trio band" was, but I'll bet dollars-to-doughnuts that "Sir William Wallace" was William Lambert. Earlier in this travelogue, is evidence that Mathew, himself, may have escorted a young woman to freedom on the train from Portland, Maine to Canada (he describes talking to her and assisting her financially once she had crossed the border, but there is additional evidence suggesting he had actually escorted her--which was illegal, because of the Fugitive Slave Law).

I think I mentioned recently, that I got a new TV for my Mom. I was driving to the store before Hurricane Mathew hit here a few weeks ago, and noticed this set being thrown out, on the curb. They are a dime a dozen, of course, meaning, the big heavy outdated ones. But this was a delux model. It was flat-screen, wide format, and HUGE. Normally I don't like to have anything in the house I can't move by myself, so as not to be dependent on people (I don't have a lot of friends). But in this case, a jogger happened to be jogging by, and I got him to help me load it. Then, back at the house, a neighbor saw me struggling with it and helped me get it inside. Now, I only pay Time Warner for the basic channels--but when I hooked it up, suddenly I had the full 70-channel range. What's up with that? Did somebody put an illegal device in it? I have no idea.

The sad thing is, 70 channels and nothing to watch. It's all garbage, meaning, it's all "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Very dark energy, very worldly, very sensationalized, and lots and lots and lots of commercials. Yecch.

In the old days, Discovery Channel might have a documentary; same with the History Channel. Now, couples are hunting on the Discovery Channel, or digging up natural surroundings for gold; and there's a pawn shop owner hogging the History Channel, in answer to PBS's "Antiques Roadshow," presumably. But when he's not on, it seems that History Channel is now "et up" with extra-terrestrials. They made the pyramids as energy sources; they bio-engineered mankind; they're descended from reptiles, and so-on. Half of the narration is made up of questions: "Could it be that this? Could it be that that?"

And there may be a bit of truth in some of it, just as there is a bit of truth in everything. But it strikes me, seeing this stuff, "This is why no-one believes me." They have all been innoculated by this kind of garbage. They think that's what I'm doing. They are desensitized to radical truth, by having been overexposed to these imitations.

Given that I may conceivably be mistaken, here is my response to the reptilian aliens theory. I created this in haste, in year 2006: (cut-and-paste URL, per policy)

FYI, I knew very little about the life of Mathew Franklin Whittier at the time I made this video. I knew he had been a satirist, but this isn't an attempt to be like him--this is just me.

You do know, don't you, that any time something radically new appears, it is imitated. Those imitations put off everybody except the few who are determined to sort through the mess. This is what happened to Spiritualism in the 19th century; and Mesmerism, before that. The imitators, in short, give the real thing a bad name.

So what you see on the History Channel with the alien conspiracy theories, and the "flash and thunder" editing, and the barrage of questions that never really get answered logically, and the evidence that looks really good but probably is mostly bogus, is not what I'm doing. This, here, is the real thing. I really have spent seven years painstakingly investigating my own reincarnation case, being as rigorous in the process as I possibly can. I really have tried to shoot down every theory I've put forward, honestly. And I really have gotten results.

Well, people read this blog, a few look at the book's supporting page, and almost no-one buys my book. They do, however, read my article, describing my method. Here's the truth--and I used to say this about the trailer for my documentary, "In Another Life: Reincarnation in America," too--if you read the supporting page, or the article, you've got the information. You have the important take-away points. If you're not ready to allow me to prove reincarnation to you, then that's all you're going to be able to absorb now, anyway. So why read the book? You can get that from the free supporting page.

When you are ready to risk letting me prove the case to you, then buy the book. This is not a "joy ride," like you see on mainstream media, which excites you and then leaves the question deliciously undecided. As I mentioned recently, this is a transformational work. You will not come away from it, if you read the entire book, the same person you were when you picked it up. I guarantee that.

Best regards,

Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.

*This would mean that I have achieved two "firsts"--I am the first person to film an interview of a man in front of his past-life grave (Jeff Keene, in my documentary, "In Another Life"); and I am the first person to receive a message targeted to me by my past-life personality. For all I know, I may be the first person in modern times to channel my past-life wife's blog, online (though in my past life, I did publish two of her channeled letters to the editor--which means I essentially scooped myself). I say this not so much to boast, as to point out the irony that I am almost entirely ignored by my peers, the press and the public, despite having achieved not one, but two significant firsts, because they don't believe me.

**I have over 600 of Mathew's published works digitized, which means they are searchable. If I see that a particular piece uses one of Mathew's pet words, like a variation on "palladium," I can search his other works to see how many times he used it (19, in this instance). I also know the back-story of his use of that term, including his extensive knowledge of ancient Greek history and philosophy, and his apparent identification of his first wife, Abby, with Athena (also, Pallas), the goddess of wisdom whose statue stood guard over Athens. This is just one example among dozens.

Updates Archive


Music opening this page: "Channel Z,"
by the B-52's, from the album, "Cosmic Thing"



purchase VHS and DVD copies of documentary reincarnation stories streaming video interviews links to reincarnation related sites home