Introducing Miles Mathis

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?


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.

Leave a Reply

6 Comments on "Introducing Miles Mathis"

Notify of
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted

Sadly, oftimes lately, it is the loudest and most vociferous who are noticed – or heeded. I honestly don’t remember when this change occured. But it did, and more’s the pity, because there is no open/honest/intelligent discourse any longer…
Swept away on the current of “what’s happening now” – we as a civilization are about to find out “what’s happening now” – and most will likely not find it pleasant.


This fits almost exactly what happened to the doctor who discovered that the H.Pylori bacterium was the chief cause of stomach ulcers, and not stress or acidic foods, the way that the medical establishment had thought for many years. The doctor was ridiculed, scorned, and mocked harshly, until it was proven that he was right, then he was hailed for his work, with people jumping on the bandwagon, saying that they suspected something along these lines all the time.
It was at that point, after seeing how they treated his discovery, that my opinion of the scientific community was formed and it is now, seeing how the scientific community treats anyone who dares to ask for scientific proof of any hypothesis, that my opinion is only reinforced. Ask a climate change scientist for proof of their theory, and you might have just as soon called their first born child the son of someone else. They will tell you that you are not a scientist like they are, and you should not be questioning their expertise by asking them to follow the scientific method.
Just last week I read an article that praised Bill Nye, saying that even though he was only a mechanical engineer by training, since he has spent his entire life studying science, we can’t fairly call him an engineer, but have to admit that he really is a scientist. They didn’t say anything about the true scientists who have graduate degrees in the hard sciences who disagree with Bill Nye, I assume because that would mean that they would have to admit that there are intelligent people who disagree with climate change dogma, and they simply won’t do that.


>They will tell you that you are not a scientist like they are

I see those people all over my facebook feed, which is mostly people I worked with in previous eras. Most of the ones I see vouching for the science of man-made CO2 driving planetary weather patterns spend their days designing web pages–they are not even *computer* scientists, let alone close to being a scientist appropriate to weigh in on how the planet works. They are barely even engineers.


I would not even care if the climate scientists were at least honest in their assertions. But they are so adamant that the world is getting warmer only because of causes of human activity. They conveniently forget the fact that temperatures were much hotter just a couple thousand years ago, when we didn’t have our industries.
My favorite is when they say that the climate has changed .2 degrees centigrade since 1840. These brilliant scientists actually think that we believe that they had instruments capable of measuring to the tenth of a degree centigrade in 1840. But we are to stupid to accept their theory of global warming, I mean climate change.
Not to mention the word theory too much, but a theory back when I took college physics was a proposal which you then came up with experiments designed to disprove, not to prove. That was the only way you could be assured of not having any bias in your research. Now the only way these people continue to get funding for their projects is to write drivel that gets published in journals, and praised by the rest of their cronies in the same business, who also write boring papers, that also get published, and peer reviewed, and the circle of life goes around and around, just like the Lying King.
I spent most of my adult life working in a steel producing factory, due to choices I made when I was younger. I did so willingly, although I could have done something else. What I learned in working with those men was that many of them were limited by lack of education, but for most of them, they too, had chosen that way of life, with some of them having a bachelor’s degree from recognized college or an associated degree. I knew some of the smartest people you would ever speak with, the most articulate and the most informed, working pouring steel, processing steel, or other related things having to do with molten steel. And several of them were there the same 35 years that I was.
When these intelligent people start to tell the people like me and some of my friends just how little we actually know and understand about some of the things they are talking about, it makes me want to sit them down and explain to them that I qualified for Mensa, at the last college I attended. That one of the guys I worked with graduated from college summa cum laude, or some of the other things to try to explain that we understand more than he would know. But I realize that number one it is not worth it,and two, I have found that it is always best to be underestimated than not.
I have gone on for long enough, but I want to thank you both for this topic. I obviously am sort of passionate about it. I will leave you alone now. Best wishes.