Yesterday I caught a few more episodes on the History Channel of the ongoing research effort to prove that Hitler escaped Berlin and was brought, via Spain, on land, air and sea, to Argentina. The level of sophistication of their research methods struck me as being on a par with my own, as I attempt to prove that I am the reincarnation of 19th-century writer, Mathew Franklin Whittier; and, concomitantly, as I attempt to prove his authorship of dozens of pseudonyms and over 600 published works--including some claimed by now-iconic authors like Charles Dickens.
These people have assembled a "dream-team" of investigators, obviously at no small expense. I have myself, a volunteer researcher/friend (two different ones, at different points in the study), the occasional paid researcher, hired at a reduced rate through Craigslist, the internet, and--as I described in detail in the previous entry--my wife in the astral realm, Abby.
Early in the study, I also used two psychic readings by two different psychics, and two past-life regressions. I am surprised, actually, that the team chasing Hitler didn't use psychics. All that expertise, all that money, and they didn't avail themselves of a tool that even many police forces use.
I noticed the claim made by one of the researchers in this series, that if they could establish that Hitler did escape, it would be one of the most significant historical finds of the century (or something to that effect). I had to smile--because compared with what I'm proving, that strikes me as small potatoes. It might be on a par with the historical part of my study. Because if Charles Dickens didn't actually write "A Christmas Carol"--the piece that insured his fame on into the 21st century, the piece he primarily read from on his 1867 American tour--then that would be a shocker to the literary community. And what if it was proven that Edgar Allan Poe didn't actually write "The Raven"--likewise his primary claim to fame, as a poet? Or, what if it was shown that Samuel Clemens didn't actually write the piece he read for John Greenleaf Whittier's birthday, the one that got him in such hot water? Or, if Charles Farrar Browne stole the piece he inserted into "The Carpet-Bag," as a young printer's apprentice, which launched his career? Now we are getting into people you may not have heard of--Browne, one of President Lincoln's favorite comic writers, has been called the first stand-up comedian.
I can prove only the last claim, here--but I have strong evidence, if you take my study as a whole, for the other three. Again, these discoveries would be roughly on a par with proving that Hitler escaped to Argentina.
But what of the other half of my study--proving that I am, in fact, the reincarnation of Mathew Franklin Whittier?
I followed this last election very closely, and I was active on Facebook (and with my checkbook), first for Bernie Sanders, and then for Jill Stein. I did so with some trepidation, because my spiritual master, Meher Baba, instructed his followers to stay out of politics. So I was coming very close to disobeying those instructions; but I felt that it was my patriotic duty, and my duty as a world citizen, to make my voice heard in this regard. I have, however, made the decision to discontinue my efforts along those lines, after the election--both for the sake of prudence, and to put myself back in line with my Guru's wishes.
Although I felt most at home with the progressives in the Green Party during this election, I don't really fit with them, either. Whenever I tried to point to deeper causes of social dis-ease, I was rebuffed, as for example the fellow who responded, "I'd like to have some of what you're smoking!" When I tried to explain my reasons for believing that the astral body enters the fetus at roughly 21 weeks, after which abortion would be infanticide, I was ignored. Of course, this information would not be welcomed among the religious conservatives, either, nor any other political group. But as best I understand it--and I have been studying these subjects for many years, from the best sources--this is the truth of the matter.
Politics is the struggle for power; and it is by its very nature, divisive. It does not go deep enough into the root causes of suffering; hence, it tends to create more suffering, like throwing gasoline on a fire. This can be clearly seen in a marriage, where politics--the attempt to leverage or force one's partner to do things--tends to break up the marriage. Politics, at best, creates the situation for external conformity--for the official norms. Remove the controls, and what has been lurking beneath the whole time surfaces once again. We are seeing that, now. It is suddenly no-longer politically correct to be a nice person; so all the people who resented being nice, feel free to express themselves.
One can dive deeper and deeper into the causes of suffering, individual and collective. My approach, my work, is admittedly not the deepest level. For that, one has to go to God awakening within the heart and mind of man; and the ones who are fully conscious of themselves as God, who alone can facilitate that awakening.
But I am taking it a step deeper than politics; and still, I am too far ahead of my time, as it seems, for social recognition. But let's look, briefly, at the significance of what I'm attempting to do, here.
I have a master's degree in counseling from FSU, graduated 1981, but unused professionally, at least in part because I graduated just as President Reagan cut the social services budget. I know from my study of psychology, that mistaken assumptions and beliefs are toxic. The toxicity radiates out until it poisons the person's entire life. A lie, swallowed and assimilated, causes the person to have to shift everything else in order to accommodate it, in much the same way as a person has to shift his posture in order to accommodate an old injury to the spine. In psychology, one sees this principle clearly with family secrets. I watched, on YouTube recently, a reading by medium Lisa Williams. All her life, a woman was told that her real mother, who was a young unmarried girl at the time, was her older sister, and that her grandmother was actually her mother. Her mother had been raped by a family friend. She said she had known these things, on some deep level, the whole time. Lisa Williams got all of this, by the way, without external clues. You can watch it, yourself. There's no way it can be explained away as "cold reading."
Reincarnation is true; its removal, and replacement with alternative, fanciful theories like having one life followed by heaven or hell; resurrection; or Materialism--have necessitated unhealthy compensations. These lies each create a toxic condition, both on the individual level, and on the collective level. I could write an entire book on just this premise. But if the first alternative explanation is accepted, i.e., one life and then heaven or hell for eternity, you have a God who would assign a person to eternal torment on the basis of one lifetime's mistakes. This makes of God a cruel despot--far more cruel even than Hitler, if you think about it. Because Hitler was incapable of doing anything to anyone for eternity. At the worst, he could do something horrible to you for a few years.
Obviously, no-one could love this God; so the people who truly love God are either tormented with confusion, or they throw out the entire package. The religion, with this being a central tenet, then tends to attract people who actually don't love God at all. Thus, the religion develops a reputation for cruelty, because increasingly, those claiming it are actually hateful people. They are the people who would believe that God could do such a thing, you see.
What about resurrection? Well, it's absurd. It forces people to adopt an absurd fairy tale, which then trains them to accept any nonsense uncritically. It trains up generation after generation of intellectual sheep. And it attracts weak-minded people who are subject to any superstition, and who are easily manipulated by political leaders who step in and put on the robes, pretending to be spiritual leaders.
Then there is Materialism. Now, when I was Mathew Franklin Whittier, I primarily fought fundamentalist religion, where it became an enemy of Spiritualism, and of rational inquiry in general. That's because Materialism had not yet conquered the mind and heart of society as its new religion. Today, I fight Materialism, itself. I leave religion alone for the most part, though I have crossed swords with it on rare occasions. Materialism leads to the conclusion that life is essentially meaningless; that everything is relative (i.e., to everything else), with no spiritual, philosophical or moral pole star. This, I believe, is at the root of many of the social problems we are seeing, today. It is not the loss of religion that is killing us--it is the loss of respect for spirituality.
One practical place you can get a handle on this problem, is evidence for the afterlife. As Mathew, I understood this, as well. Since his day, there has been strong evidence for what we disparagingly call the "paranormal"; but it is marginalized by society, and in the press. For example, how many of my readers know that President Lincoln made his decision to emancipate the slaves, because he was told to do so by spirits in a seance? This may be a bit simplistic--for the matter of that, I can document that as Mathew, I tried to tell him to do that, too, in a humorous open letter published in "Vanity Fair." But he seems to have listened to the spirits, where he wouldn't listen to me, or the other progressive voices at the time.
That's just an example. How many of you know that Benjamin Franklin definitely believed in reincarnation? You can see my proof here (read all the way through it--but do so after you finish this entry, please). The point is, society has been fed a bucket of lies as regards good evidence--including good scientific evidence--that Materialism is a mistake.
Did you know that Alfred Russel Wallace, a Spiritualist and psychic investigator, was studying evolution at the same time Darwin, the Materialist, was? And that evolution is hardly a new concept? Two men took this ancient concept; one of them retained its spiritual interpretation, and one of them twisted it to fit his Materialistic assumptions. Society accepted the latter, and used this toxic mixture to justify "social darwinism." And you can readily see the social repercussions that had.
Here is what Wallace had to say about Materialism:
For my own part, I am convinced that at one period in the earth's history there was a definite act of creation, that from that moment evolution has been at work, guidance has been exercised. The more deeply men reflect upon what they are able to observe, the more they will be brought to see that Materialism is a most gigantic foolishness. And I think it will soon pass from the mind. At first there was some excuse. Into the authoritative nonsense and superstitions of Clericalism, evolution threw a bomb of the most deadly power. Those whose intelligence had been outraged and irritated by this absurd priestcraft rushed to the conclusion that religion was destroyed, that a little chain of reasoning had explained the whole infinite universe, that in mud was the origin of mind, and in dust its end. That was an opinion which could not last. Materialism is as dead as priestcraft for all intelligent minds. There are laws of nature but they are purposeful. Everywhere we look we are confronted by power and intelligence. The future will be full of wonder, reverence, and a calm faith worthy of our place in the scheme of things.
Materialism, as a world view, is a scam, perpetrated on Society by propaganda and by force. One is ridiculed if one tries to go against it; and one sacrifices one's career, if one tries to do so in many fields, like academia and science. And if you read Chris Carter's book, "Science and Psychic Phenomena: The Fall of The House of Skeptics," you will see that some of this propaganda has been presented in an organized disinformation campaign.
Yesterday I happened to watch a documentary on the Tibetan Book of the Dead. They mentioned that Dr. Evans-Wentz was the one who discovered it for the Western world. I know of Dr. Evans-Wentz, because he wrote a favorable review for my Guru's masterwork, "God Speaks," and met Meher Baba in his late 70's, in 1956. Baba asked him to write the Preface to one of his smaller books.
But as for the Tibetan Book of the Dead, at least as it was presented in this documentary, something struck me which has bothered me for a long time. It's wrong. That is to say, its description of the after-death state does not, actually, true with the research and anecdotal accounts I am familiar with from other sources. Nobody mentions this--it's like the elephant in the room. The documentary said that it reflects the many testimonies of people who describe their near-death experiences--but actually, it doesn't. People don't describe benign deities which turn into wrathful deities, for example. They do describe a white light--but pursuing that light, they come to "summerland" or heaven, and find either a wise, advanced Being, or their relatives and loved ones, or both. The wise Being, if trusted, in these NDE's, doesn't suddenly turn on you. Nor do I recall any NDE experiencer reporting coming upon demi-gods making out and enticing them; or a kind of bad acid trip, where everything is confusing and one is projecting everything, good and bad. In fact, the Tibetan Book of the Dead seems far more apropos to the use Timothy Leary put it to--a guide to LSD use--than it does to the actual experience of dying.
So one must be honest. I can't explain these discrepancies, except to suggest that either Dr. Evans-Wentz wasn't shown the real teachings; or else, that they had already been distorted; or the original author was actually using psychedelics, rather than perceiving the other world through healthy and normal psychic means.
Some of these grand scams can persist, undetected, for thousands of years. Mathew appears to have accepted St. Paul as a genuine spiritual authority. In this life, however, I am convinced he was a fraud. He appears to have been infiltrating the Christian community, since frontal attacks had proved unsuccessful.* I do not believe that his purported experience on the road to Damascus was real--I think he made it up, as his passport into that community. I think there were people who could see through him--just like there were people who could see through Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in this recent election--but the majority of innocent early Christians ate it up, and he became something of a rock star, while those with more wisdom despaired of the situation. I also think that Paul retained his Pharisee beliefs. He appears to have borrowed partly from what he heard the apostles preaching (just as Trump borrowed from the language of progressives); and partly from the Pharisees. It was this diluted, toxic mix he presented to the gentiles as "Christianity"--complete with resurrection.
Well, I could be wrong. But when scams become unquestioned beliefs--when they reach the bedrock--they are very hard to dislodge. It is dangerous even to question them, if one wants to avoid being marginalized and ostracized.
I do, in fact, find myself marginalized and ostracized, even by my ostensible peers and colleagues. I don't mind it so very much. I just keep on telling the truth. Since my days as Mathew, I enjoy true friendships, but I am also just fine on my own. I still have enough writing talent, left over from that lifetime, to write an entertaining essay here and there. You can enjoy them as the amusing rantings of an eccentric; or you can get that I know what I'm talking about, am ahead of my time, and am speaking the truth. Perhaps you will find the courage to immerse yourself in my book with an open mind. If you do, you may find the foundations of your conceptual world crumbling beneath you. That's okay--at least the one I'm offering you, in exchange, isn't toxic.
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
*You may know that St. Paul accused St. Peter of being a hypocrite. Logically, this is impossible if Jesus said he would build His church on Peter ("this rock"). Why? Because even a good psychic would know if Peter was a hypocrite, and wouldn't build his legacy on such a person, no less the Christ. Therefore, the obvious answer is that Paul, as a sociopath and a pathological liar, whose first line of defense is always projection, accused Peter of being what he knew he was. See also this story by Rumi.
Music opening this page: "Nerve Up," by Billy Goodrum, from the album, "Weightless"