Blog |
9/4/24
I've made my online morning rounds, which is to say, I've Googled the names of Mathew and Abby Whittier's famous plagiarists, looking for people to write to (chiefly, scholars and journalists); and I've gone through the most recent YouTube posts, where I can leave comments, as well. It's slim-pickin's this morning. I briefly delved into postings and websites for the film, "The Man Who Invented Christmas," based on the book of the same name by Les Standiford. Of course, I wrote to Mr. Standiford some years ago, without receiving a reply. It's the "cold shoulder" from all of these people. They are hoping I'll just go away and stop bothering them.
This whole thing, Charles Dickens' authorship of "A Christmas Carol," is a myth based on a scam. I can prove it, and I have proved it. The question is, what does it actually take to dislodge something like this? It's like trying to move the Rock of Gibraltar. It's as though I'm attempting to take a ballpeen hammer to that landmark.
Here's what I think is necessary: compelling evidence, persistence, time, and help.
I have the evidence, and I've presented it effectively. I'm extremely persistent. I have perhaps 20 years left. But I have very little help. None, where it comes to this specific issue of the authorship of "A Christmas Carol." I am up against a gigantic myth, and some powerful institutions. Do you know what would happen to the book, and the movie, "The Man Who Invented Christmas," if my discoveries were generally accepted? They would instantly become an embarrassing anachronism.
Because Charles Dickens didn't even invent "A Christmas Carol," no less invent Christmas.
I thought I'd show you some recent stats for readership of my paper, "Evidence That 'A Christmas Carol' Was Written by Mathew Franklin Whittier and Abby Poyen Whittier, Rather Than by Charles Dickens." Then, I'll close with a letter I recently wrote to a professor at my alma mater, Florida State University. More on that, in a minute.
This is my current total on Research Gate--360 reads. Most of these people are academics, and 360 is a lot of exposures to high-octane, well-presented, compelling evidence of a groundbreaking discovery. Yet, not a single response. If this paper were nonsensical trash, I could see it. We don't know how many actually read the paper--perhaps 95% just poke their scholastic noses into it, scoff, and click out. Perhaps that was best for them. Some people don't handle massive cognitive dissonance well.
Above are my stats on the somewhat less prestigous Academia.edu. Here, this 435 "views" probably represents more non-academics. It also may be artificially high due to Academia.edu's software sending out e-mail suggestions, which people then click on and peruse very quickly to decide if they want to bother reading it. So the real figure may be closer to what we see with Research Gate. Still, that's a lot of people to be exposed to something this radical, well-researched and logically presented.
Finally, we have downloads from my own server. What we see, above, is only for last month, August 2024. The total of 28 is fairly typical, so, say, over the last three years, the grand total from this source may be as high as a thousand. These might be people who have seen my comments under YouTube videos. I don't mention the paper (after being warned by YouTube), but it is very easily searched by Mathew and Abby Whittier's names, which I do include in my comment. A couple of clicks will take them to the paper as it is posted on my server.
So all told, we have, what, about 1,800 views of this paper since I posted it online. That may not be much by internet standards, but it's enough to start a buzz. Especially in the more limited world of Academia. Again, if this was mere trash, the explanation would be that it was just a matter of morbid curiosity, and a quick perusal convinced them it wasn't worth spending any more time on. It might be the butt of a joke or two in the hallway between professors, that's all.
But this paper logically proves, with strong evidence--most of it drawn from primary sources--that Dickens plagiarized "A Christmas Carol" from two real literary geniuses, hurriedly commercializing it for his own pocketbook.
Well, a few days ago, at the end of last month, I decided to play the "alumnus card." I'd pick the most likely professor in the English department at Florida State University, where I graduated with a master's in Counseling and Human Systems in 1982, and write to him. I wanted to give him a few days to respond. He may, yet, but I'm not holding my breath. What I'm doing, in this e-mail, is an experiment. I'm attempting to eliminate several pesky variables. So here, I'm eliminating the knee-jerk explanation that I'm delusional. I'm also creating what would normally be an obligation to respond. If a 70-year-old alumnus of your university writes a respectful letter, protocol is that you respond. Finally, this fellow also has philosophy as a side interest. I have studied Eastern philosophy for 50 years, so we are both philosophers. That means that my interest in reincarnation--should he look me up online--does not automatically mean I am a lunatic. I'd have to guess this fellow has studied Western (i.e., secular) philosophy--but he is quite aware that reincarnation holds a respected place in Eastern philosophy. Finally, I made it a point to mention that in my master's program, I focused on death and dying. That means, my interest in the paranormal actually dovetails with my degree emphasis.
So I have hand-picked the recipient, and crafted the letter, in such a way as to logically eliminate the obvious excuse, that I am crazy and not worth responding to. That leaves other motivations, which you may speculate upon if you're so-inclined. Here is the letter. I am withholding his name, just to be on the safe side, since lawyers are expensive.
Dear Prof. ----:
Forgive me if I wrote you a few years ago. I haven't retained my list from that effort.
I am an FSU graduate, having obtained my master's in Counseling and Human Systems from the Education Dept. in 1982. I focused, at that time, on death and dying, doing the second part of my internship visiting cancer patients at Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center, under the supervision of the chaplain. I had been a serious student of Eastern philosophy since age 19, in 1973. Although I did not take the thesis option, I wrote a book privately, putting together what I knew of Eastern philosophy with what I had learned in my university studies. I was not able to publish that manuscript, but I did publish an article based on it, which you can find on Researchgate.net, here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381956639_Appropriate_Therapeutic_Intervention_from_the_Mystical_Perspective
All that to say this—I am a sane, intelligent person with master's-level training in the field of psychology.
In 1997, I began work on an independent documentary on the subject of reincarnation. Being underfunded, the project took me five years, but in 2003 I was able to release the film, "In Another Life: Reincarnation in America." It was broadcast on one PBS affiliate in Denver, and was picked up for distribution to the university system by prestigious Films Media Group, which also carries, for example, Bill Moyers' films. You can see my listing with that company, here.
https://www.films.com/ecSearch.aspx?q=In+Another+Life%3A+Reincarnation+in+America Films Media Group - Search Results
Films Media Group, an Infobase Learning Company, is the premier source of high-quality academic streaming video and DVDs for schools, colleges, and libraries.
www.films.com [I think this was left in the e-mail in error, to to be entirely accurate, I'll leave it in place.]
Again, I'm a credible, sane person doing university-level work.
In 2005, I stumbled across what I thought might be a past life of my own, as obscure 19th-century author, Mathew Franklin Whittier. Mathew was the younger brother of Quaker poet John Greenleaf Whittier. He is acknowledged, by scholars, to have written only one satirical series. The official Whittier legacy basically views him as the black sheep of the Whittier family.
Delving into primary sources, I gradually began uncovering a hitherto unsuspected literary legacy. The man had been a child prodigy, beginning in 1825 at age 12, when he was publishing sophisticaled pieces in a major Boston literary newspaper. He launched the entire Yankee dialect style of American written prose humor in 1825. He published exceptional, highly original work in multiple genres—almost all of it anonymous, under a slew of pseudonyms. He was also a social reformer, a philosopher, and a mystic. His first wife, who had tutored him, had similar abilities. However, they were mercilessly plagiarized; and their work was so good, it made several of their plagiarists world famous. These include, as I have determined, Charles Dickens, Edgar Allan Poe, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Margaret Fuller, and Albert Pike. All of these people were imposters. Academia has been royally fooled.
I have 15 years worth of strong, objective, logical evidence. I have reached out to literally hundreds of scholars. All but one, who is a professor of religion and a Vedantist, have spurned me.
I have made a major discovery—but it is too big. It would not only rock the boat, but very likely capsize it.
I am, no-doubt, assumed to be delusional. I am reaching out specifically to you, being an alumnus of Florida State, to tell you that I am most definitely not delusional. The program I went through included a great deal of hands-on, closely-supervised training. Had I shown any signs of this degree of mental illness, they never would have let me graduate. In fact, they never would have let me practice on members of the public! And they would not have sent me into Tallahassee Memorial, effectively representing the college, to visit with cancer patients.
Again, I have made a major discovery. I am now 70 years old, and if I cannot somehow at least start a dialogue, I don't see how I will preserve this legacy. I live on a meagre social security income, and have a very modest inheritance as a nest egg. Recently, I was accepted to join a panel discussion, where I would have been given 15-20 minutes to make a presentation at a symposium in Jacksonville. I had to turn it down, because I had no way to pay my expenses.
I write to three or four scholars per day. I almost never hear back from them, and if I do, it's always two or three patronizing sentences, closing the conversation.
I'll be curious to see if you respond to an alumnus.
Sincerely,
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
843-582-6010
Best regards,
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
