12/10/25
My AI advisor tells me that my Facebook ad is doing exceptionally well. I've made two sales so far. I'm finding it very difficult to book speaking venues with either libraries or bookstores, because I'm not commercially successful, in the former case, and because my subject is too controvrsial, in the latter. I think this may have to wait until I've created some public pressure, and they are asking me. But I have a talk fully prepared, and I'll be ready for that eventuality. If it comes, it will probably come "out of the blue," so I'd best be ready.

It's been a while since I shared a snippet from the stats page where readership for my papers, posted on Academia.edu, is displayed. There's been a noticeable trend. Fewer people are reading (or, starting to read) my papers; but those who are, are reading the more controversial ones. Above, you see papers proving Dickens was not the original author of "A Christmas Carol," nor what scholars mistakenly believe to be its precursor, "The Story of the Goblins Who Stole a Sexton." There is also a paper introducing Abby Poyen Whittier as an unrecognized literary genius, and proof that Edgar Allan Poe didn't really write "The Raven." Then there is a follow-up, showing that Mathew Whittier wrote precursors to "The Raven," whereas Poe did not; and more.

So far, they seem to be ignoring the rather dry, neutral paper I recently posted concerning the process by which I transcribed the entirety of Charles Dickens' handwritten manuscript of "A Christmas Carol." Instead, they are going for the "Big Boys"--as for example my 116-page paper on the "Carol," the first half or so of which is dedicated to proving, from primary sources, that Dickens was a full-blown sociopath. If that appeals to you, search online for "Evidence that 'A Christmas Carol' was Originally Written by Mathew Franklin Whittier and Abby Poyen Whittier, Rather Than by Charles Dickens." An absurdly long title, right? But there's method to my madness. Since 95% of these people may only read the title, this way they have the gist of the entire paper, which they can sleep on (assuming they can get to sleep).

In that paper, I only examined one small portion of Dickens' handwritten draft, being pressured, as I felt, by Abby. I was reluctant to do even that much. I felt a strong visceral aversion to getting into this manuscript--I even had to force myself to read the published book completely, for the sake of research. But in the end of last June I set all those reservations aside, and plunged into Dickens' handwritten manuscript with ChatGPT as my brainstorming buddy. We transcribed the whole thing from start to finish; all 66 pages of it. And what I found hidden underneath those heavy corkscrew redactions knocked my socks off! Better evidence than I had dared to hope for.

Then I wrote the book. Yes, I ran passages in it by ChatGPT, but I refused to use its suggestions verbatim. I simply wanted to avoid horrific blunders--spelling, grammar, or assumptions about 19th-century history. When scholars are trying their best to discredit me, and they have a great deal more exposure to the history of this era than I do, they will try to catch me out on any mistake. Having done so, they will magnify its importance in an attempt to make me look amateurish. So I used AI--ChatGPT and then Claude AI for second opinions--to avoid such things.

Now, since the two key Dickens scholars I recently wrote to are still ignoring me, I have to go the public. (We'll see about the short, narrowly-focused paper I submitted yesterday to a scholarly journal.) But this is a daunting task, as well, because the usual contact points--bookstores and libraries--won't have it. What, should I stand on the street corner and make a fool of myself, downtown? Once, when I happened to be in what they call "Old Port" here in Portland, I saw a man walking up and down in front of the City Hall holding up large photographs of aborted, late-term fetuses. People were ignoring him as a crazy fanatic. But I happen to agree with him about late-term abortion. At a retreat in 1974, I personally overheard yogi Baba Hari Dass counseling a young couple, saying, "The soul enters the body at 21 weeks." And from my personal experiences with him, I knew that visually observing a soul enter the womb would be child's play, to him, given his psychic abilities. So this was first-hand knowledge, which means, after 21 weeks, it's murder.

I went up to this fellow with his sign and said, "Thank you, sir." He seemed embarrassed, and muttered something in return. He wasn't accustomed to being even acknowledged, no less respected.

Now, here's the thing. For over 50 years, I have been pursuing truth. The vast proportion of humanity doesn't do this. They accept slogans, which they inherit from Society, or some sub-set of Society, as truth, these having been handed down to them "pre-fab." It could be the printed Bible, it could be left-wing ideology, it could be right-wing ideology. Pick your group. But whatever it is, it's not the result of thinking. And it's not the result of intuition, which is actually higher than thinking, because intuition is grounded in direct inner perception.

Note that thinking and intuiting are not a matter of just being different. Merely being different is the poor man's excuse for independent thinking and intuiting. Or, we can be charitable and say that getting outside the box is a necessary precursor to intellectual and intuitive independence, but mustn't be confused with it.

I will never be able to reach this 95% (and I will be merely confused with the people who have only stepped outside the box, but who aren't yet grounded). I will only be able to appeal to the 5%. Eventually (God forbid), when my discoveries become mainstreamed, then the 95% will pretend to agree with me.

But they still won't understand it.

Best regards,

Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.