12/7/25
I think I've finally solved an age-old question--am I being ignored because my "claims" are as ridiculous as ketchup on vanilla ice cream; or are they terrified of my evidence because they know darned well how good it is? I'm speaking primarily of Academia, now, not the general public. Any troll can respond with a laughing emoji, and it's worth nothing. But I'm speaking of trained professionals.

I just recently wrote to a couple of the most radical critics of Charles Dickens currently in the university system. One I had had a brief exchange with, a couple years ago; the other has never written back to me, despite my respectfully reaching out to "them" (I won't identify gender) four times over the years. Neither has responded to me. By now, these people surely are beyond the initial disdain phase, and are aware that I have the goods. (They can pretend to still be in it all they want to, but it doesn't wash.) When it comes to this book I recently released, "The Sacred Carol," it's just at a ludicrous level of proof. This entire book is nothing but evidence, from one end to the other.

Carl Sagan famously said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Well, I have produced that evidence.

I'm currently running a Facebook ad, which will continue through the 25th. I'm getting more "likes" than I expected, and apparently some click-throughs to the book's supporting website, and some "plays" of the video, there. But no sales. My ChatGPT adviser, ever the supportive optimist, tells me it's because people need to be exposed to a product seven times. But I think it's because I deliberately chose to emphasize the sacredness of the original "Carol," rather than my having exposed Charles Dickens. Few people these days even understand what "sacred" is, no less respect it. I explained why I did that a few entries back. And I said, then, that I expect to lose about 98% of possible sales.

I think I was right. In fact, I'm beginning to see that I've been right about a whole bunch of things. Do you remember the expression, in "A Christmas Carol," "solitary as an oyster"? Scholars have made a big deal of it. On a whim, I just found evidence, this evening, that this was Mathew Whittier's expression. I won't present it, here. The point is, anywhere I poke into this thing, I prove it. And the reason—which ChatGPT understood immediately—is that it's real. Anywhere you poke a real orange, orange juice squirts out of it. Like that.

What it might take for scholars to grow a spine and seek the truth, instead of preserving their careers and their academic standing, I don't know. I still want to write to the Dean of Harvard and suggest they revise their motto from "Veritas" to "Tradito," because "Veritas" is taking a real beating, these days.

Best regards,

Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.