3/9/25
This morning, in my weekly sweep of the internet, I came across an article about Margaret Fuller written by a prominent Fuller scholar, entitled "How do you like your history? With imaginative leaps or grounded in fact?" It's published in the "NY Times," but I can't get back to it for the particulars, because the "Times" is only giving me free access once. Bernie Sanders sympathizes with older citizens who have to try to live on $15,000/year, and who spend more than half their income on rent. I'm significantly worse off than that--and yet, as an independent, albeit marginalized scholar, I have made ground-breaking discoveries. I deserve to have access to such articles, but I am not in a position to pay for a subscription to the "Times."

I identified the author of this article as one Megan Marshall, author of a book on Margaret Fuller. Here, she is criticizing another Fuller author, Allison Pataki, who wrote a fictionalized account of Fuller in "Finding Margaret Fuller." Dr. Marshall gives several examples where Ms. Pataki's facts are skewed, as for example (from memory) that New Englanders of the 19th century didn't cook with garlic, but Pataki imagines Fuller enjoying a garlic-seasoned dish.

I was about to write Dr. Marshall, but upon checking my e-mail records, I found I had written her twice already, the earliest instance being about three years ago. She didn't respond either time.

So, now, my spiritual training tells me I must leave the matter be. I have to let karmic law run its course. She will have to see her blunder--and the academic arrogance behind it--from the perspective of her life review. She will, perhaps, at that time recognize that she had the opportunity to speak with the reincarnated author of much of the historical material she admired, i.e., mistakenly thinking that it had been written by plagiarist Margaret Fuller. And she summarily dismissed that person as an idiot or a nutcase.

If I were to write her now, I would show her the same kind of logical discrepancies where Margaret Fuller's claimed authorship of Mathew's work is concerned. Never mind garlic seasoning--in one of the reviews claimed for (and by) Fuller in the 1845 New York "Tribune," the author reminisces about a birthday in the middle of "snow-laden winter." Fuller, born on May 23, could not possibly have written it.

I didn't mention this "red flag" to her in my earlier e-mails. Should I write a third time, and put it in her face, now?

I think not. I will take the head of steam off my frustration, by simply sharing it my blog, and then I'm done.

Sometimes the frustration of the whole thing does get to me. This morning, I listened to Ralph Nader interviewed by Amy Goodman. Now in his 90's, he remains eminently clear and sane--the voice of reason against the prevailing voice of ignorance and insanity. But can you take one of these deluded, brainwashed people, tie them in a chair, and force them to listen to Ralph Nader? Will it convince them?

I know what would happen. They would literally fall asleep in the chair, to escape the truth. I've seen it before. Upon being roused from their sleep, having not actually heard anything, they would pretend to take the high ground--they would act the part of the voice of reason, projecting their own ignorance onto Nader in a role reversal.

Thus does the force of human ignorance and denial prevail against the force of reason, in this world. But "God is not mocked," which means, His karmic law is not mocked. Years ago I happened to meet a Cherokee Indian, who told me a little story about his past. He said he had once been an alcoholic, and he got into a near-fatal car accident. He had an NDE and went to the other side. From this experience he learned, "You can't rationalize over there."

Sincerely,

Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.