Our primary plea and wish for this site is to use it to expose the "Nutwork" or "omnimedia" (to expose the mainstream and alternative media spouting uniform lies about our world — their using of their big money, their power, their threats, their bribes, and their deliberate psychological manipulation) and to expose their attempts at mass deception. We seek to empower the average person with defense measures so well meaning people can protect themselves from the mass deceptions. I think we can even agree that most of us intend to promote the free expression of speech from the basis of a renewed study of the sciences once the mass deceptions of science are (hopefully) eradicated. Even if much of that free speech does not end up on our site, we hope to help people do their own research and create their own media based on the foundations of science and truth, which we help to discover and demystify.
Miles Mathis seems to serve a pseudo-intellectual opposite idea: art must not be controlled by the non-artist. The implication is that the deceptions are art, and that the artist must be protected from those incapable of making it. (Strangely or not, this argument would kind of work out to be a form of technofascism.)
This is a bit of a stretch if you consider bombing other countries, manipulating people's emotions negatively en masse and taking over sovereign governments, nations, tribes and peoples a worthy form and role of "art".
I do not intend to set up a straw man in case Miles Mathis would not, in fact, overtly represent the apologist viewpoint. However, the glaring presence of certain "hanging chads" or glaring absences of certain clarifications of his point implies he is either bait for us to invest our time or meant as a "grass" type infiltrator to the new slew of "conspiracy researchers" who would attack everything for the sake of attacking it, rather than taking slow, logical, reasoned approaches to the delicate situation revisionists find themselves in.
This article is my attempt to make a case for the following position: Miles Mathis may be a character either designed (or innocently born) to draw attention away from our hopes. His function, if one can call it that, is to touch upon the most controversial subjects and frighten, frustrate or dumbfound people away from these subjects by acting slightly superior to them (in regards to intellectual strength and charisma) while providing slightly inferior content to what might be uncovered (in regards to the truth).
Points about Mathis from his websites (mileswmathis.com and milesmathis.com) to consider:
- He claims to be an amateur 'realist' painter, but his work resembles that of an art student, and he calls himself a new "Leonardo" despite his studio partner Van Rainy Hecht-Nielsen being a vastly superior painter — this works against him, but may attract certain "follower" personalities.
- Is his piano music, cartooning, painting and (really bad poetry) writing a mockery of Simon's, CluesForum users' and Fakeologists' art talents? Is it a mockery of our artistic dabbling? Is his arrogance meant as a subtle insult to those who are not masters of their art form? Perhaps interest in the visual arts can be chalked up as a general quality of those interested in visual Psychological Operations. If not, one may argue that the people who 'created' the Miles Mathis personality are going on what they have studied. And many of us are artists in one way or another. Could it be a convincing cover?
- He claims to admire Lewis Caroll and have had his own "Alice" (little girl) he uses as a model — perhaps this is only natural of an artist, but does it increase controversy? Does it point to the undeniable tendency of many artists to think unconventionally, by holding up something that makes many people uncomfortable? Why did he create and name his "society" after Alice's underage outings with Lewis Caroll?
- He uses numerous pseudonyms, which in itself is not weird in this field of research — after all, he apparently writes reviews of his own book which is not much different from users of our forum taking CluesForum points to other forums or the subject of our thread "Getting The Word Out". The only problem is that he may be writing under multiple invented legal names rather than mere user names or handles — in roughly the same format, under his own book, on the same Amazon page, in the "third person" voice, while referring specifically to himself. Not the worst offense, I suppose, but odd.
- In a biography from the site http://mmathis.fineartstudioonline.com (which claims to be as old as 2001 but which resembles a mockery of the fine art world with shite like this: http://faso.com/about/us ) it states that Mathis enrolled in LBJ School of Public Affairs. He apparently received a "full merit scholarship" and was given a class with Barbara Jordan.
- Barbara Jordan was the first female Black Senator elected to Texas' Senate, and her name brings up a number of papers specifically about the handling of military exercises. The LBJ school is named after JFK's replacement after the assassination PsyOp.
- He has written pieces on various proposed PsyOps, including some popular hits questioning artist Shepard Fairey, John Lennon (claiming he is the same person as Mark Staycer), the OJ Simpson trials, and others — all with some good points and some bad. A big problem is that while correctly identifying Dallas Goldbug's comparisons as fraudulent, Mathis himself seems to freely mix good and bad points, and writes at length about cases that are mildly but not very convincing.
- Some of his science is laughable to scientists who follow him and use him for derision. His most infamous point (that I've gathered from looking at his existing online reputation) seems to be something about "Pi = 4", which is a bit of an innocuous (if somewhat Masonic) call for a complex time-space equation to accompany/replace the otherwise useful constant (3.14159... etc.) such that the number 4 can be used within his newly proposed equation to calculate circles. Why "square the circle" in such a way? Is this not a goal of the religiously "kooky" Masons?
- He has apparently been around for a while, promoting his dull, flat looking paintings but only gained recent notoriety by changing from a focus on art and science to a focus on PsyOps.
- He claims to admire Nietzschian nihilism, a perfect philosophy for running into a topic and wreaking havoc for "fun". It also happens to match the occultic belief in the mantra "do what thou wilt" regardless of consequences, something that may work as the general life philosophy of some while being somewhat useless to any collective search for scientific truth.
The (in my estimation) cool but slightly deluded web site "Thunderbolts.info", which posits and debates the promising Electric Universe Theory (if it could get its head out of NASA's ass), has a number of users on it calling out Mathis' most egregious (in their estimation) and plain wrong uses of scientific language. I found some of these critiques valid and healthy food for thought.
I think Mathis might be something like a wild-card "damage control" personality to create attractive but somewhat nonsensical (or sensible but useless) theories as a distraction from the "evidence creates the incentive for research" position of CluesForum. I think he may also be attempting to challenge the legitimacy of our critique by subtly taking the occasional anti-critique or apologist stance, or endorsing the most logical big names — e.g.; Chomsky.
I think we should expect this kind of character to soon populate revisionist, philosophical and scientific debates as a means of dominating these interesting subjects with personality cult and/or pseudo-celebrity intrigue.
This isn't to say interesting characters can't and don't come along once in a while to change the debate. But I believe something valuable about the "leaderless" state of this research may be lost should a know-it-all do-it-all braggart successfully bore the average reader into a familiar submission to idle chat. We could face a new and much needed logical approach to the mysteries of science, or we could face more scientific celebrity-ism. I hope the former gains on and overtakes the latter.
I hope that I am entirely wrong about Mathis by asking the tiring "Is he a shill?" question before he can even establish much of a foothold in the arena of truth, that he can see what he is doing wrong and change for the better. If I am not wrong, however, I hope that you will forgive my observations and understand why I say this kind of thing has become a familiar barrier to meaningful discoveries; and I hope you understand my wish for him to not pollute a much-needed sea change in science and media with his disingenuous intrigues and — quite possibly — shameless mockery of those genuinely in the pursuit of real knowledge about our world.