This will be another mini-Update, while I eat my breakfast..
If you were to follow through with my presentation in yesterday's entry, you would find that I have proven the historians wrong. You would find that "The Vulture" was published anonymously, and that different authors have been suggested. But the historians seem to have missed this original publication (where it is also anonymous). The earliest they have found is "Graham's Magazine"--the December 1853 edition, or one year after the one I presented--or the British humor magazine, "Cruikshank's," which I can prove also came after.* Meanwhile, I have quite a bit of circumstantial evidence pointing to Mathew as the author (it's a done deal, if one were to get the full context by reading my entire book). And what I have called the superficial historical record for Mathew (as opposed to the deep record), still tells us that he was a "versifier," and gives us one example of his juvenile humorous poetry.
All this is significant because the experts aren't always right, no many how many initials they have after their names. There are three reasons for this. First of all, I have Mathew's subconscious memory at my disposal, meaning, intuition and feeling and recognition memory. But nevermind that, as you, perchance, don't believe it. The second reason is that these scholars have not delved into Mathew's life in nearly the depth that I have. I have spent eight years digging into this one historical person--they have, perhaps, spent a matter of days, or weeks. Even the experts on humorous literature of the period, may have touched on Mathew, while preparing a biographical sketch of him, for only a month or two. So past-life memory aside, I am far-and-away the world expert on this obscure person, by default.
Thirdly, however, the most brilliant scientist, starting with wrong assumptions, goes astray in his thinking. Look at Stephen Hawking, who has concluded there is no God! Talk about a cosmic error.
But there is also a fourth cause, and that is, that these academicians are not free. Suppose that one of them strongly suspects what I have discovered, that Mathew Franklin Whittier was the real author of "The Raven," and that Edgar Allan Poe stole it from him. Or that Mathew and his first wife, Abby, together, co-authored the original of "A Christmas Carol." They would not dare publish their conclusions. If they did, they would lose their position, and be blacklisted from every other college and university. Their book wouldn't be published, or purchased (unless they hyped it and got lucky, which is unlikely); their family would go hungry; his or her spouse might leave him. He or she would be ruined. This is not exaggerated. If you think it is, try openly advocating reincarnation at your work place, and see how long it takes you to be shunned, and then forced out on some pretext or other.**
I, however, am entirely independent. That doesn't mean I'm not hanging over a financial and situational precipice, because I am. But for the moment I am able to complete this work with 100% independence. Here is the insight I wanted to express when I sat down to what was supposed to be a very brief entry. There is a continuum of selling out. The person at the top sells out completely, such that the funding agency, whatever it is, dictates the contents and the advertising. He has to write for the crowd, and for the popular ignorance. He gets the most attention, the most acclaim, the most sales, and is rolling in dough. He dare not displease the public, or the authorities--he dare not present anything too offensive, or too controversial, unless it is couched as fantasy.
The person at the bottom is entirely independent. He is ignored by everyone, even his ostensible colleagues. He is, however, free to pursue the truth wherever it leads, regardless of who it might offend. He gets no attention, no acclaim, no sales, and he is starving.
There are a few exceptions. John Edward comes to mind. I was just watching one of his mature audience readings the other day. He strides forward with confidence. He says, "If I get a name, I might be off by the name itself, but I won't be off by the first initial or its sound." If someone can't remember something, but John is being repeatedly told the same detail, he says, "Yes, you did," or "Yes, it did."
He doesn't compromise anything--but then, there is extremely high demand from the grieving. That is what has fueled his success, once the grieving figured out he was really, actually, getting messages from the other side. They don't care what Society thinks. They are in pain. They don't even care if their family secrets are emblazoned in front of the entire world, in the media, so long as they can get a message from their loved one. But now, take out all the grieving people who pay to see him, or who buy his books. Let's just leave in those people (like myself, on one occasion) who paid to see him out of curiosity (in my case, professional curiosity). How many, say, in the audience of 3,000, are there sans-grief as their motivation? Perhaps 10? John Edward wouldn't be able to pay for his plane fare from one city to the next, if he had to give readings for 10 people.
In my case, not only is there not this driving motivation of grief, but I am proving 100% personal responsibility, as well as sounding the death knell of philosophical materialism. What I'm selling is extremely unpopular. But that doesn't mean it is bogus. Far from it. I have been strictly honest, and as rigorous in my studies as I know how to be. If you think I am a megalomaniac to make these claims, well, that's a theory. You don't know that for a fact, which makes it, ipso facto, a theory. Theories are to be tested, before they are taken as facts, unless you are being prejudiced. Even if you think it's a long-shot. That you are convinced it is so much of a long-shot as not to be worth bothering with, is no excuse. It's still a theory, which you have short-circuited into a supposed "fact."
But it doesn't fit the evidence, meaning, it doesn't fit with the rest of my presentation. I don't sound like a self-deluded person, do I? (I may sound pissed at times, but I'm rational.) In order for me to claim that in my past life, I wrote two hugely popular classics of the 19th century, I would have to be either an immense fraud, or extremely self-deluded. But you can read dozens and dozens of these Updates, if you so-choose--and you will find that I don't fit either category. Certainly, I don't fit the fraud category when I say that the historians are mistaken about the origin of "The Vulture," because I have proven I'm right--and I've proven a lot of other things, too, even if people ignore them. Therefore your snap-judgment theory doesn't look so good. It means, instead, that you have your head in the sand.
I am entirely free, and I am fearlessly exploring the truth of this past-life match, and of Mathew Franklin Whittier's life, triangulating with the different types of evidence, both paranormal and normal, at my disposal. I honestly share some portion of my results, here, and I am ignored.
But the truth will out--and when it does, philosophical materialism is "toast," and so are these two historical literary frauds committed by Dickens and Poe, respectively. I can show that Mathew Franklin Whittier is a much, much better logical fit for these works than either of these two historical authors--one of whom was a proven plagiarist, with the other being suspected.***
Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.
*If you compare the illustrations, you will see that they are not precisely identical, which means that an artist adroitly copied them in England; but in any case, the "Cruikshank's" version omits one of the illustrations, meaning it was not the original. All this you can see for yourself, online, so you don't have to take my word for it.)
**Surely, you are not averse to scientific testing of hypotheses. Let me know your results, please.
***The unspoken and unsubstantiated assumption is made, in Poe's case, that he was a genius, but that when he was financially desperate, he may have plagiarized inferior works from inferior authors. But that isn't logical--not being the genius he is believed to be, when he was desperate, he probably plagiarized his superior works. Keep in mind that when I say "superior," I mean philosophically and spiritually, not just technically. Stephen Hawking is, by all accounts, brilliant, but he's still an ignoramus, spiritually. Comparing Poe to MFW, including these criteria, would be like comparing Stephen King to J.R.R. Tolkien.
Music opening this page: "Awaken," by Eric Johnson, from the album "Up Close"