It has been a busy year. We sold our place in Georgia, have been banging away at some short-fused client work, moved to Tennessee, and are in the middle of scouting the location for our new facilities. Been too busy to write much, but wanted to take some time for a long-overdue introduction to Miles Mathis, an interesting guy who came to my attention about three years ago.

For those of you who haven’t heard of Miles, here’s a warning: take everything you read about him on the web with a grain of salt. Instead, if thinking-out-of-the-box science and culture are your thing, then do what I do and just read what the man himself says about his ideas. And then, as usual, think for yourself about what he has to say.

In “Starving the Monkeys”, long before I had heard of Miles, I wrote the following in Chapter 11, “Math and Science”:

Being kept ignorant can only lead to your being more pliable to coercion and fear. Ignorance causes people to perceive the monsters of today as being more frightening and complex than they really are. Which might arguably be the end goal of the witch doctors of our time, who wish for you to bow at their altar and ply them with offerings to keep you safe from shadows.

Yes, I just tastelessly quoted myself. But I’m not done. In the following chapter, “Scholarship and Sadi Carnot”, I wrote:

We often hear one work being described as “scholarly”, and another work being denounced as “unscholarly” or “stream of consciousness writing”. In these cases, what the critic means is that only by heavily referencing the work of others are you capable of writing anything of value. And that the value of what you write is in direct proportion to the amount of content you provide, or reference, which came from others. The implication, of course, is that your original thoughts are of little value. So stop relying on those nasty original thoughts, they say. What better way for the collective to stifle individualism than to deride your thoughts as inherently wrong and dangerous?

and

Scholarship had a noble original purpose, however. And within the context of that noble origin, it remains worthy. This noble purpose has two worthwhile implications, which also remain valid. But these implications have been twisted over time to prevent original thought. The original noble purpose of scholarship was to teach students that they did not have to take the word of their teacher for granted. Wow. Imagine trying that concept out in a public school or university today.

Scholarship was intended to teach students to go out into the world, and find out for themselves whether what they had been taught was meaningful. Go read what others say, and see whether they agree with me or you or not. See whether the intuition you have matches what others have thought or discovered for themselves of God’s creation. And then ask yourself whether you believe them or whether you think they are wrong. Not just gobble their ideas up as if the mystical “someone else said” has final merit. Scholarship was intended to avoid having to take on faith what anyone told you.

I wrote that chapter about Sadi Carnot and other heroes of science, including those whose names are lost in the mists of time. One day, I’ll write about others in that vein, but for those of you who have “Starving the Monkeys”, take another look at chapters 10 and 11 before starting in on Miles’ work. If you don’t have a copy, no problem, I’ll quote enough from those chapters in upcoming analyses.

In a nutshell, this is what I’ve observed about his work, which is roughly divided among science and politics.

On the science side, linked here, he has a very intriguing pair of theories, one about nuclear structure and another about what he dubs the “charge field”, both of which are tightly bound, but either one is intriguing on its own. Most of his papers discuss holes in establishment science and how his theories dovetail into those holes. I was first intrigued by his nuclear model theories, which made a lot of sense on first reading. More on that in a future article.

On the political side, linked here, he has equally intriguing theories about the origins and influence of the deep state on past and current events.

In addition, as a polymath, Miles is also a phenomenal realist artist. And apparently a poet, but I don’t feel qualified to comment on that as poetry has always just been a buzzing in my brain. I remember at the Naval Academy having to do analysis of poetry in literature classes and all I could wonder is “how exactly will this help me defeat the Soviets?” As with macro-economics, the right answer was to just parrot whatever the hottie Lieutenant Commander professor had to say about it and that was good enough. Saved me a lot of effort and let me go back to analyzing her seams. Easy A.

I’ve never met Miles, never talked to him on the phone, but we have exchanged a few emails, most of which consist of me sending him congratulatory emails for some point or another. For the past few years I’ve drilled through just about his entire catalog of articles, and have been very impressed with what I’ve seen. I have disagreements with some of his ideas, but that is what science, real science, is about. In the future, I’ll go into some of these disagreements in particular, but for the most part, I think his content is more good than bad.

The key area in which I think he has a weakness is in math. That is OK, some of the rest of us can do the heavy lifting there, he doesn’t have to do it all. The most oft-quoted ad hominem of his work usually pings on the “pi = 4” idea, which is often taken well out of context. I disagree with him about that one, or at least how it is presented, but we’ll get into that later, also. In any event, his thoughts on pi aren’t at all the kind of math I’m talking about.

One final tasteless self-quote before we go, particularly about why most of what you read about Miles’ work is ad hominem smack rather than thoughtfully critical of his actual ideas. Later in the chapter “Scholarship and Sadi Carnot”, I mentioned the impact that a science outsider could have on the scientific establishment (as distinctly opposed to science itself). The context of that section used speed-of-light as an example, but Miles’ charge field and/or nuclear structure theories would do just as well:

The orthodoxy has good reason to be threatened. Imagine the revolution of thought which would accompany such a discovery. Assume for a moment that it is discovered that Einstein was wrong, and objects can go faster than the speed of light, and without trickery such as wormholes or so on. Just assume that simple push, push, push is enough. Or pull, pull, pull on a gravity string. However the mechanism, suppose that simple faster-than-light is shown to be fine and dandy, just like we can go faster than the speed of sound. Don’t forget that exceeding that barrier was also thought to be impractical not too long ago.

At once, every science classroom in the world would be wrong. Each teacher or professor, who shouted down such questions from their students for decades would be wrong. Each man on the street who didn’t believe or understand what he had been told on TV his entire life is vindicated. Each scientific journal, or author, or lab director or peer reviewer who stifled crackpots would be wrong, each oppression against free thought shown as what it is. And their god lying broken at their feet, revealed to simply be an idol made by men. Trillions of dollars diverted, worldwide and wrongly, into programs which were flawed at their core. Because of a faith.

Miles Mathis is Luther posting at the science establishment’s door (regular readers of his work will understand the irony in that, as well as the ironic nod to string theory, above).

Finally, I would like to thank his detractors who resorted to base ad hominem rather than just simply pointing out errors. To my ears, all of that was a clear ringing of the bell that maybe I should take another, deeper look at what the man had to say. In today’s world, the most reviled men are those who dare to tell the truth.

Even if Miles Mathis is only right about a fraction of his ideas (scientific or political, pick your poison), that would be enough to be absolutely revolutionary, and thus dangerous to the status quo.

No wonder he is the subject of needless personal attacks.