4/7/25
Recently, I've communicated with a retired professor who has stated many of the same opinions that I've expressed here in this blog, concerning the state of Academia. He confirms that there "are a few good ones," but they are afraid for their jobs.

Every once in a while, Academia.edu gives me their full service for a dollar--presumably, they're hoping I won't mark the end of the month-long trial period on my calendar (I always do). The full tier has the added benefit that I see how many pages a visitor has read of one of my papers. It doesn't necessarily tell me how many pages have been read by all viewers, because downloads aren't recorded; but it does show me how many pages were read online, before the reader either clicked out or downloaded the paper for later study.

Here we have proof that someone has read an entire paper online--all 26 pages. This is the one which challenges Albert Pike's claimed authorship of Abby Poyen's poetry, which she wrote while a 14-year-old student in his class. If you are so-inclined, you can read it here.

As with all of my papers, the evidence is both cumulative, and compelling. One has to have one's head in the sand not to see the logic of the thing.

I'll say it again--I think that my presentations and conclusions, truth-based as they are, will not seem quite so fantastical to people after the current political dust settles. These famous authors--Charles Dickens, Edgar Allan Poe, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Margaret Fuller, and Albert Pike (the ass) were all imposters and criminals. Had Margaret Fuller had her way, she would have published 23 of Mathew Franklin Whittier's reviews and essays as her own, in her 1846 book, "Papers On Literature and Art." That qualifies her as a criminal in my book; I don't know about yours.

But Albert Pike was a real piece of work. He published his brilliant student's poetry under their coincidentally joint initials, "A.P.," having "plausible deniability" that if caught, he could always say he was publishing them for her. He didn't get caught, and he became famous as a poet on the lie that he had written them.

In a few months, this kind of "logic" will be quite familiar to everybody. Maybe they will understand why I am careful to always designate Mr. Pike as "the ass." (It is no accident that Pike is admired in certain circles.)

And speaking of criminals, I have just today hit 500 views of my video announcing my discovery that Charles Dickens inadvertently admitted having stolen "A Christmas Carol," in the very letter in which he famously described having written it. If you haven't viewed it, you can see it here.

"Now," on the timeline, means an hour or two ago, as I write this. (And no, it wasn't me checking it.)

As I said recently, this is high-octane material. People who read these papers, exposing themselves to the evidence, know I'm right, denial notwithstanding. Multiply that by the figures I cited in my previous entry, allowing for partial reads, and you have at least hundreds, if not thousands of people who, on some level, understand that these famous literary figures were actually criminal imposters.

How long can that go on?

Incidentally, the following disconnect has just occurred to me, after having posted this entry. It's difficult to express--see if you can catch it.

The whole rationale for ignoring me, and my work, is presumably that it is utterly absurd and not worth bothering to seriously consider. Right? Very few have actually said so, but I'm assuming that's what they tell themselves.

But occasionally, we have someone who sees fit to read an entire paper at one sitting, online. This is 26 pages. My AI copilot just told me that skimming such a paper might take half an hour; whereas an in-depth reading could take 4-6 hours! Some years back, I remember seeing that someone had read my then-59-page paper on "The Raven" in its entirety. And no, I don't think anyone digitally flips through 26 pages. Maybe three or four, to get a sense of it, but not all 26. So these were readers. (I am assuming, here, that there is not some technical caveat, as for example that scrolling down to the bottom page to look for footnotes counts as reading 26 pages.)

Now, here's the disconnect. Allowing for personal taste, still, no paper which someone remains engaged with for 26 pages, or 59 pages, could possibly be sheer and utter nonsense. Nobody spends hours reading utter nonsense.

Therefore, the rationale that all of these scholars use to casually dismiss my papers is spurious. And being spurious, it is subject to the epiphany that I actually know what I'm talking about, having made real historical discoveries. And that, friends, can turn on a dime.

Sincerely,

Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.