Down the Rabbit Hole

Back in my youth there was a TV game show called “Camouflage” in which a large picture board was covered up, and contestants, after correctly answering a question, were allowed to see (as I recall) one-ninth of it. They were then asked to describe the whole picture. Often the brighter or luckier ones would guess right based on just a small portion of the larger screen. But we all know that “evidence” can be interpreted many ways, and without a final unveiling of the total picture, we will never be sure of what is true.

Bob Zherunkel’s original piece on Miles Mathis was surgically shortened to eliminate the part called “Down the Rabbit Hole” as I did not want to make perhaps unflattering speculations based on one-ninth of the evidence. We agreed that portion would be restored with the following proviso – we will use Mathis’ own words and allow the readers to draw their own inferences. We accuse him of nothing, as we do not know the whole story. We are, after all, only seeing part of a larger picture.

Below is the original piece in total, with the excised portion restored. MT

This is not a follow-up or response.  Robert Z., true to his word, will not offer one.  This is simply the original piece in its entirety, with the above-named section restored, along with related remarks throughout.

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Clowns

By Robert Zherunkel

Why do you believe what you believe?

Because you read it in the newspaper?
Maybe at one time in your life. But if you’re here, you’re way past that level of gullibility.

Because someone posted it on the Internet?
Surely all of us have made that big U-turn on the Disinformation Highway when we realized that we were being sent down a rabbit hole.

Because certain advocates claim something loud and long enough, stridently and even viciously?
Haven’t you heard the saying, “If you’re going to tell a lie, tell a big one!”?

Extraordinary claims, it is said, require extraordinary evidence. This saying is a little fuzzy, given that there is no generally accepted measure for “ordinariness.”  But the general idea holds up: if something seems too good to be true, it probably is untrue.

So … here’s a claim that keeps coming up again and again. In Taos, New Mexico there is a man with a mind greater than all the greatest thinkers in history. This man single-handedly is solving puzzles in physics and astronomy and mathematics and world history that no one else has ever solved before, and at a pace that seems superhuman. This man has accomplished these tremendous intellectual feats:

• without the aid of a laboratory or a research library
• far apart from the company of cutting-edge thinkers in the respective fields
• without the help of graduate assistants, or even a receptionist to grab him a cup of coffee in the morning
• without a high-powered computer or even any great programming (or web-design) skills
• with just a basic education, but no advanced degrees or formal training in any of these fields

He just started blogging one day and out of his nappy-headed noggin pours the wonders of heaven and earth—no experiments, no peer support or review, no co-authors—just little old him all on his lonesome, fixing and upgrading the entire field of physics wholesale.

Now, that is one extraordinary claim!

Why the hell would you believe it?

What is the evidence that this man works entirely alone?
That he is not stealing ideas from others?
That he writes up each and every word in his voluminous output without any assistance?
And that he lives apart from others as a semi-recluse because this is his own personal, unconstrained choice in middle age?

Let’s think for a moment about these claims.

Schumerian ‘Pataphysics

First, a definition for the unfamiliar from our friends at Webster’s Dictionary …

‘pataphysics noun plural but singular in construction \¦patəˈfiziks\ [from French pataphysique, alteration of métaphysique metaphysics] : intricate and whimsical nonsense intended as a parody of science

Now … suppose you had a friend that you wanted to make into a great stand-up comic. But suppose your friend isn’t all that funny or creative on his own. What do you do?

Suppose also that you have the time and money to sit in on lots of open-mic nights at big-name comedy clubs in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. You’re going to see a lot of wanna-be comics bomb out. But even the biggest stinkers crack one or two good jokes.

Suppose you collect the best joke from each of three hundred lousy comedians. You write them on 3×5 index cards and hand the stack to your friend and …Shazam! … he has a winning routine! Coach him for timing and delivery. Seed the comedy club with other friends who are instructed to laugh and applaud in such a way as to rev up the rest of the audience. Out of the blue you have created a comic genius.

But wait! What if one of the plagiarized comics recognizes his joke in your pal’s prize-winning routine?!? That’s easy: pull a Cartman and “Tom Brady this thing”—deny and subvert. “Parallel thinking! Two people can come up with the same joke independently, can’t they?” “Sounds like the loser is trying to horn in on the success of a real comic genius.”

Or easier still … steal your jokes from Canadian comedy clubs and book your friend only at venues in the US. And besides … if you steal a joke from a nobody, that doesn’t make you a bad person, does it?

Whereas … if you steal your routine from good comics, you know what that makes you??

Amy Schumer!
Or Denis Leary … or Dane Cook … or Troy Holm …

So this is an actual thing: creating a comic “genius” out of stolen material.

Now suppose … just suppose … that instead of a stand-up comedian, you wanted to turn your friend into a joke scientist, a smarmy Leonardo, a “rebel with a cause” and an acid tongue who kicks mainstream ass (at least, in the estimation of those not fully trained in the relevant fields of physics and mathematics).

How would you pull that off?!?!?

Actually, it’s not so hard, if you have a merry band of pranksters who pull together to make it work. First, you need material. There’s plenty to poach. Anyone who has spent time at a world-class research university doing doctoral or post-doctoral work knows that among all the very smart and talented people, there are a few … oddballs. The oddballs often come up with grand Theories Of Everything that explain why the mainstream view is all wrong and what it should be replaced with. Generally, their critiques of the dominant paradigm have some validity, but their unique solutions do not. These oddballs labor in obscurity: their papers don’t get published in the peer-reviewed journals, and they don’t get tenure or grants and eventually fade away.

But suppose someone collected all the oddball ideas and held on to them. There are plenty of people in a position to do this: department chairs, journal editors, peer reviewers, grant committee members, department librarians with a closet full of unpublished working papers … If you collected enough of the oddball theories, in time you could write a book. Just one person in the right position at one of the leading research universities (some would say “spook schools”) could collect all kinds of eccentric theories over time.

… And funnel them to our friend, the peerless prodigy, who would then fill a blog with articles of dazzling creativity. He might be hailed as “the Da Vinci of our age” (especially if he has some skill drawing pictures). All he needs is an Amen Corner to applaud like a shelf of … Amy Schumer fans … and promote his “work” on other blogs and AND (last but not least) to attack viciously anyone who suggests that the clown prince has no clothing. Do this … et voilà! You have an Internet science phenomenon of sorts. An Einstein for the uninformed.

Because—think about it—who would be in a position to say otherwise? Except for a few people in that specialized field of study, no one else might be aware that an oddball’s ideas had been stolen. The task of identifying the plagiarism would be even harder if the ideas were stolen from loner oddballs in Europe or Asia, Slovenia or Israel, or maybe even Russia or China.

And if you are that oddball yourself whose idea was stolen … when you noticed that a blogger is saying the same thing you were saying ten years ago during your post-doc … what would you do about it?

Post a nasty comment on his blog? He doesn’t allow for comments.
Send an article to a professional journal to complain? It would never get published.
Take it up with your professional organization? The blogger’s not a member.
Start your own website? Who’s going to find it? And if they did, what would it matter if you persuaded one or two people?
Take him to civil court? In which country? And ask for what in damages?

Indeed, for our friend the joke-science genius, there would probably be very little substantive criticism to be found. Does this mean that our Schumerian ‘pataphysicist is actually right in all his outlandish theories about charges and rainbows and moonlight and kinematic circumferences? Not likely. Rather, it tells you that his ideas are so obviously false that no physicist or mathematician is going to waste even a minute to debunk them.

[A friend recently sent me a video of a guy who makes outlandish claims in my own field of expertise. No professional colleague of mine would offer substantive criticism of the video: it is wrong on so many levels that it is, as we say, “not even wrong”—it is nonsensical. And yet there were enough Likes of the video that someone out there is being taken in by the crackpottery.]

An example of a plagiarized oddball might be the mathematician John Gabriel. Mr. Gabriel has some critiques of mainstream calculus which look very much like Mathis’ claims but which Gabriel articulated years before, and in the same shrill manner as Mathis. These ideas might seem utterly compelling to a non-mathematician. But to someone in the field, Gabriel’s claims are trivially falsified—if you understand how he bends terminology to make his arguments. Suppose you found Gabriel’s (deservedly) little-known ideas a few years later and decided to promulgate them as your own. Not in a peer-reviewed journal and not at an academic conference. Just in a lowly, poorly designed website, which your web-brigade of friends can shove down people’s throats in comment-threads far and wide.

Another example of a plagiarized oddball might be Lawrence Hu and his model of the atom. Or James Carter and his ideas about circular physics, and other such people whose science works predates Mathis’ writings and is identical in its essence. Or if you are feeling lazy, you could just have your Schumerian ‘pataphysicist resurrect some the tired old math paradoxes. Like the one about π = 4, which has been around for a long time (well before September 2008!), and which is just variation of that other old chestnut, the Diagonal Paradox. And the plagiarism need not be limited to writings on science: it could extend to writings on scientists. For example, one might crib a posting on a conspiracy forum from 2013 and trot it out as original work in 2015.

That the genius of Taos comes up with so many original ideas—this is an extraordinary claim. For which there is not even ordinary evidence. In the ordinary case, someone with a novel idea wants to make sure that he or she gets due credit. In the ordinary case, such a person would copyright his or her papers. Ever notice what’s missing from a certain someone’s essays?

But if you are stealing your ideas, you better not try to copyright them. That’s legal trouble down the line potentially. No, instead, you resort to other extraordinary claims that your paper looks like it came out after another author’s recently published essay with similar conclusions, but that in reality you wrote your paper seven years ago. Only, for some inexplicable reason, the Wayback Machine just doesn’t show this. Oh, what a tangled web ….

Nom des Plumes (Pluriels)

WE WILL BE TOLD, HOWEVER … that the ultimate proof that our man in Havana Taos is the sole author of all his essays because the works all have the same distinctive writing style—snarky, biting, polemical, cocksure, and full of asides and tangents.  (As if a smutty joke that Amy Schumer stole from Patrice O’Neal doesn’t sound like Amy Schumer when she tells it.)

But does a consistent style indicate a single hand behind the work? I asked a friend who is a professional ghost-writer. He laughed out loud at the idea. I asked him to write up his response …

One of my many clients is a motivational speaker. He published a book of his talks and hosted a book-signing party. A member of his staff—who knew how much of the book was actually my work—sidled up to me and asked: “Did he sign a copy for you, or did you sign a copy for him?” Of course, for the naïve reader, the book sounded like the great man through and through. He took my material and put his own spin on the diction and syntax, so in the end it sounds like it’s all him and him alone.

Think of the dictionary, which is the product of dozens of hands. Or better yet, of the encyclopedia. The style of exposition is the same from the first page until the last. And yet hundreds, maybe even thousands of people contributed material. That single voice throughout is the work of the final editor.

It would be no trick at all for one person to take basic outlines or rudimentary write-ups on various topics from different people and to produce verbiage with a single distinctive style.

Still not sure that one person’s work could be the product of a committee? This is not such an extraordinary claim. In fact, this is the explanation that our Taos friend himself holds for the output of Noam Chomsky and Stephen Hawking! And let’s be clear—both Chomsky and Hawking have their own very distinctive styles. So why reject an explanation for an author’s prolificness that the author himself advances with regard to others?

Down the Rabbit Hole

Take a picture, Pennywise: it will last longer.

If you read the autobiographical sketch of Miles W. Mathis and browse his photo album, we learn two things: he enjoys travel abroad (especially Belgium) and he seems to know how to have a good time in the company of friends.

Why then would such a person for the last five years or so hunker down in a small house by himself without a car, without companionship, alone in a town that seems to offer him little of what he claims to enjoy? Why no more trips to Europe? To anywhere?  The financial freedom that he once had to travel and study and not be tied down to a 9-to-5 job … why did it go away so suddenly?!?

I knew a guy once who was under house arrest. Remarkably similar circumstances. Was not allowed to own a car or drive. Wherever he went had to be on foot or by bike. Could not leave the city without all kinds of red tape. Absolutely not allowed to leave the country. (His passport had to be surrendered.)

His crime? Sex offender. Kids. Ugly stuff.

Well, say there mister, just a doggone second!! It’s one thing to call out a guy for plagiarizing papers and being the front-man for a committee . It’s another thing to accuse him of having a thing for nude photos of little girls!!

I’m not accusing him of anything (because that might be construed as libel)  I will simply let Mathis speak for himself on this point, as he admits it in his page on the “Guild of the White Stone”:

In the 1990’s I also had an Alice. Her name was Tess, and I did some 50 drawings, paintings and sculptures of her in that decade. She was seven when her mother, one of my agents, brought her over to the studio by chance, and I understood that I had been sent a gift by the Muse. You can see her all over my portfolio.

He says in a letter to a prospective publisher of his photos of young Tess that his fixation on the girl is “an obsession, as it were.”

And again from his bio page.

Miles also works in clay and bronze sculpture, and occasionally develops his own photography prints. These are normally hand-toned 11×14 inch prints of pictures he takes of his painting models, in the same sessions in which he paints. Many but not all of these are nudes. He has offered a whole book of his photographs of the young model Tess to various publishers such as Aperture, with no success. These will have to wait for a future release, like the photos of Reverend Dodgson or Julia Margaret Cameron.

And in case you missed the references to Cameron and Dodgson (i.e., Lewis Carroll of Alice in Wonderland fame), we are absolutely talking about nude photos of an underage model that Mathis has been trying to peddle. No sophisticated, artistic person invokes these two names without knowing what baggage comes with them.  From Wikipedia:

Lebailly claims that studies of child nudes were mainstream and fashionable in Dodgson’s time, and that most photographers made them as a matter of course, including Oscar Gustave Rejlander and Julia Margaret Cameron.

These pictures of Tess will have to “wait for a future release.”  There can be no other reason for this than the reason that Dodgson’s and Cameron’s photos are not in general circulation: they violate the laws of the land.

Mathis fancies himself the new Lewis Carroll, with his own Alice that he wants in his own Wonderland, right down the old rabbit hole. K. Starr’s recent essay suggests that Mathis might be gay.  (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.) And this is possible, too. He certainly gives off a certain vibe, the way he ponces around in the photos he has chosen to present of himself to the world. That, and the fact that he has/had a pal, Van Nielsen—a “brother”—that he used to hang with, and the two would go around finishing each other’s sentences like an old married couple. If you enjoy homoerotic art, then brother, do I have a link for you!  Miles Mathis is certainly a gushing fan of this art.

[Another thing I have noted in my own gay friends is how hopelessly optimistic they are about other people being gay.  Sort of reminds me of a certain someone’s opinion (unsupported by any evidence) that all the actors in Hollywood are gay.]

“But Miles was married once!!”  So Team Mathis will shout at us.  Yawn.  I had a classmate in grad school. He was married too, for about as long as Miles. And he was as swishy as the day was long, in both voice and mannerisms. (Again, not that there’s anything wrong with that.)  Our working group took a trip abroad for research. Wives did not come along. Every night my classmate disappeared with one or another local man, not showing up again until the next morning. One time he came back looking a little bruised and battered. He did not complain. Or explain.

Several years later, though, this classmate got in trouble for an incident involving a young girl. So this is not an extraordinary claim: that a man could be gay/bisexual and still have a sexual interest in children.  (And there is something wrong with that!)

If you’re still not convinced, take a gander at Mathis’ photo page and find the picture of the girl he refers to as “An Amherst stunner.” How old do you suppose his “stunner” there is? No normal guy would ever think of using that kind of description for an underage female. Not even my friends who make their livings as artists.

Or consider his taste in video, as revealed by his reviews on Amazon. Perhaps lending more support to K. Starr’s gayness theory is Mathis’ fandom for the TV show Felicity (as evidenced in this 2005 review), which is surely NOT the kind of thing you would expect a 40-something single heterosexual male to have a strong interest in. But a gay guy … all that banter and drama and fashion and cattiness … oooooohhhh! Bring it, Miss Thing!  Except … Mathis panned the show’s fourth season: maybe Felicity had grown a little too “long in the tooth” for his tastes by then.

More to my point is his review of Lolita:

Another movie based on the Cliff Notes, this movie gets everything wrong. It is even worse than the Sue Lyon movie, since that older movie created a parallel story which, while nothing like the book, almost stood on its own. In that one we got a 21 year old Lolita to satisfy the censors. In this one we get a 15 year old Swain who looks 18. She is not a Lolita regardless, by Nabokov’s definition of nymphet. She is too curvy by far and entirely too seductive. Lolita is supposed to be 12, weigh 84 lbs soaking wet, with “unflared iliacs” and dirty hair. Instead of this “pale little gutter girl” we get Swain, a “big-breasted and practically brainless baba.” Irons is no better. A great actor, he has been wonderful in many roles, but he is not Humbert Humbert. Humbert was big and dark and hairy, handsome and educated but the opposite of Irons’ catfoot delicacy. Beyond this, Irons and Swain have no heat regardless. The love scenes have this golden Hallmark falsity to them that could not possibly be further from Nabokov’s intent. This movie is a misfire in all ways, an absolute disaster. I can envisage a wonderful adaptation of Lolita; what I cannot envision is where it will come from. The US and UK are more uptight now than they were in the 50’s and France isn’t much interested in American stories, even when they are penned by a Russian internationalist. Hopefully the world will survive into a new age where some true artist can rediscover this masterpiece and tell it faithfully.

Ick. I think I need a shower after that.  I guess I am “uptight” in that modern American way about the sexual exploitation of children.  Mathis might distinguish between pedophilia and ephebophilia in his writings, but in practice it appears that his visual interests run the full gamut of (under-)ages, all the way from 7-17.  I’m not saying that he has molested anyone; we have no ready evidence for that.  What I am saying is that, by his own admission, he has been involved in the production and attempted (?) distribution of child pornography, as the law would define it.  Team Mathis will say it is art; but it seems obvious that the authorities have deemed it smut.  Team Mathis will call this an “ad hominem attack”; it is not.  Homo ipse loquitur.  IT speaks for himself on this matter, as you can read for yourself.  I have never seen any member of Team Mathis distance himself from this aspect of his champion’s character.  But there it is, in plain view for all to see.

So I am glad Mathis is confined to the environs of Taos, New Mexico, where his allergies afflict him so sorely. He can stay far away in the Bohemian part of that town (perhaps under modified house arrest). Such extreme isolation is often voluntary in a person traumatized by life’s cruelty, but Mathis gives no evidence of such trauma. Rather, it appears, though we cannot know, to be a way of life imposed on him by outside forces.

Is a middle initial W a red flag?

[NB: Mathis asserts in one of his most recent posts (subsequent to this piece being offered to POM) that he now owns a car.  That may be.  House arrest rules can be relaxed over time.]

Team Mathis

Recall that part of the formula for turning our not-so-funny friend into a prize-winning comedian was to have plants in the audience to amp up the laughter and convince others that this guy really was funny (even though he isn’t) via the snowball effect. Mathis has friends like that. Or maybe “allies” is the better word. Or maybe “handlers”? Or “minders”? Or “suppliers”?

(Let’s avoid the word “spook.”  Someone can claim not to be a spook [=intel agent, I guess] and still be a paid troll for some concern, corporate or governmental.)

These cyber-friends charge into any forum and defend their guy tooth and nail. Even to the point of doxxing other commenters—or at least, threatening in a devilishly sly way to out someone’s identity .

They are the ones who tout these extraordinary claims on behalf of their boy, and who dismiss the standard objections to those claims, and who deny and subvert with all their might. These are the ones who try to reassure us that Mathis’ extraordinary output is actually somehow reasonable. Who try to convince us that he is re-writing the fields of physics and math.  And who insist—insist—that Mathis comes up with all this stuff by himself … a claim for which they offer not a shred of evidence.

They also claim to be from around the world, Europe and Asia and such. It is, of course, in our cyberworld, impossible to verify any of these claims. People can assume false identities and even multiple identities.  Why would you accept the testimony of a witness without having first established the credibility of the witness?  But what do you know for sure about the credibility of any member of Team Mathis?  Zero. Zilch. Nada.

It’s a good guess that some of the players on Team Mathis are just Mathis himself under an alias. Maybe there are only one or two other guys putting on fake identities and affecting foreign accents when they write.  Maybe there are two dozen of them. They all write like they are getting paid by the word, and it is pretty clear that the whole Mathis Project is a subset of the Waste Of Time psy-op.

A while back on POM someone referenced this forum where Mathisites discuss ideas with one another.  It is a curious place to stroll through.  First, because Mathis himself never seems to weigh in at the forum to absorb the adulation and answer the questions of his fans. Truly odd, and utterly inconsistent with the huge ego that he projects otherwise.  Second, when the forum members talk about MM they seem often to be alluding to an entity rather than a person.  One forum member, Cr6, for example, laments that Mathis has been putting out too many papers in 2017 not concerned with physics: He asks the group, “Just wanted to see if we could at least get a new physics paper out of him before end of 2017. Any ideas?”  That sounds like a low-ranking member of Team Mathis complaining that his area of interest is getting ignored, and a plea for the Team to produce/plagiarize a new physics paper soon.  Because if that’s NOT what he meant, then he is apparently talking about showing up in Taos and threatening to break Mathis’ kneecaps unless he gets off the genealogy and back to science.

How these various people, seen and unseen, got involved with Miles Mathis is anyone’s guess. One guess might be that they met Mathis somewhere on that Dark Web (that some of them seem to know so much about). Perhaps Mathis has taken to peddling his Tess photos there, and perhaps they are patrons of this work.  They appear not to be of an artistic bent, so it is unlikely they met when Mathis was traipsing through Europe in his more carefree days.  They claim to understand all his science papers, even though the most vocal partisans evince no special training or knowledge of the fields concerned.   I doubt all of them on Team Mathis really comprehend the material, but they effectively bully anyone who honestly admits honestly that astrophysics is not their strong suit, as in fact it is not for 99.99% of the population.

[As an aside, let me add: any time that Mathis has written on a topic that I have direct, personal knowledge of, he has gotten it wrong. Dead wrong. He has an indifference to precision that is the exact opposite of the scientific mind. Surely if his fan club really understood his science stuff, they too would have spotted one or two errors to correct, if only in wording or use of terminology. That this never happens is an indication that they too are simply cheerleaders on the sidelines, who yell rah-rah but can’t tell the difference between a free kick and a punt.]

Given K. Starr’s recent paper about Mathis’ genealogy, though, I think it is just as likely that this whole Miles Mathis fraud is just a big game for children of the Elites. Dungeons and Dragons role-playing for the scions of the super-rich.

One of their own maybe got into some legal trouble with the proles, and to help him pass away his time in Elba, they put together this little game.  Maybe they get some cash from their daddies for helping out with the larger psy-ops of rewriting the past and fomenting paranoia and confounding the portion of the populace that is aware of the Matrix but unsure of what out there is real.

It was a ripping good game while it lasted, but I think with K. Starr’s paper turns over the game board.  Because he shows: Mathis lies.  And therefore nothing else about him matters.  He is just one more of the deceivers in the grand deception that is modern life.  So it’s back to polo or badminton or making spirit cakes or whatever it is that you Mathis fans really do.

That reminds me … there’s something Team Mathis has in common. They all point us away from the idea that there might be an occult angle to the Elites operations, that there might be something to Pizzagate or the other rumors of pedophilia that swirl around London and Washington. “Nothing to see here!” they tell us time and again. But it is an assertion without a supporting argument. We smell the smoke but they insist there is no fire.  “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”  And on that note ….

Hoist with One’s Own Petard

They must sweep my way and marshal me to knavery. Let it work, for ’tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard.
William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, Scene IV

A petard was a kind of bomb, used in medieval warfare to bring down a heavy door or gate to a castle. To be hoist is to be lifted up from the ground. To be hoist with one’s own petard is to be blown up by one’s own bomb.

Some will read this essay and accuse the author of innuendo, insinuation, guilt by association, argument by assertion, and just general knavery. To this I say, then let Mathis be hoist with his own petard. For these are the very things he supplies in spades as he plants his red flags on the forehead of everyone he means to demean.  If you don’t like my methodology or K. Starr’s methodology, then you can’t possibly stomach Mathis’ methodology, can you?

To take just one example: this business of pretending that one can read Jewishness off noses. Has the man never met in his life any Turks or Greeks or American Indians or Ethiopians or Ainu or Italians or … ?!?!?! You’re brain-dead if you are convinced by such a strange claim. Artistic eye or not, big schnozzes are not the exclusive domain of the Hebrew people. But Mathis builds many a case for his genealogies and spook tales based on the size of someone’s nose. Rubbish. Turns out, per K. Starr, that Mathis with his dainty nose is pretty Jewish himself genetically. Fancy that!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Name the one incontrovertible piece of evidence that you have ever seen put forward for the idea that Taos is the home of the greatest mind in human history?

Isn’t it far more likely that Miles Mathis is a charade?  Maybe the front-man for a committee of plagiarizers who found a clever fellow (that much I grant about him), perhaps a fellow with legal issues and maybe this is the deal he took to stay out of prison (because his life now sure sounds like someone under modified house arrest)? If you have been following the world since 9/11 and all the fakery and all the deception, you know that this is not the extraordinary claim.  Indeed, the extraordinary claim is Mathis’ own insistence that every other guru further down the mountain than himself is misdirection, but he himself somehow is not, with his unacknowledged genealogy and his stolen ideas and his megalomaniacal assertions. (Which is just part of the facade of the amazing savant … because most people have never met a real savant and have no idea how humble and unassuming and unlike Sheldon Cooper they generally are.)

If you fellows on Team Mathis want to tell the world otherwise … where’s all that extraordinary evidence?  You trolls, back up your clownish claims with some verifiable data.  I know that Team Mathis will try to deny and subvert, try to turn the tables and demand a detailed refutation of every paper their group has ever produced under their boy’s name, or that I identify the source of every plagiarism.  Why waste my time?  Besides, whatever their numbers are, there are more of them than there are of me.  They can always produce more sewage than I have time to flush.  This is my one and only statement on the matter, and after this I return to lurker status.  And if you think that not allowing for comments is censorship, then you don’t know what real censorship is.  And if you think that not allowing comments is “spooky,” then there’s no one spookier than your boy, now is there?

And for the rest of you: you’re not being given any extraordinary evidence by Mathis or his Team.  Time to stop buying into the extraordinary claims out of Clown Town, NM.

A Concluding Unscientific Postscript

How do you give medicine to a dog? Stick the pill in a chunk of hot dog.
How would you poison a dog?  Still got the rest of that hot dog?

This encapsulates my view now of the Truther community.  There is out there almost nothing except limited hangouts.  I used to follow dozens of different websites for the “awakened.”  Sometimes sooner and sometimes later, I figured out that they were all compromised sources of information.  Tiffs among Truthers were just sock-puppet shows for the normies.  One gets a little nugget of insight here or there, but always wrapped around some misleading agenda or another.  I was pretty much down to Miles Mathis and Piece of Mindful.  Now there is nothing left but POM.  And to be honest, I think certain of the commenters here are on somebody’s payroll.

Why do The Powers That Be even bother with limited hangouts?  I think it has something to do with what a police officer once told me, about this innate drive in all people, the urge to confess.  Not out of guilt or need for atonement.  Sometimes it’s just to brag, like in the movie Wag the Dog.  Keeping a juicy secret is a strain for the human psyche.  Those who pull off their con jobs on the public want just a little exposure, a little recognition of their brilliance.  When Mark or Tyrone or Steve or Straight or Maarten or Kevin occasionally figure out one of their schemes, I think it only enhances TPTB’s delight instead of diminishing it.

Miles Mathis conned a lot of sincere people before K. Starr had him hoist on his own petard.  Mathis assured us that on our trek up the mountain of Truth, all the other gurus we met were misdirection—but not him.  He assured us he was not fake Guru #46.  In fact, that’s what he was all along.  I imagine there have been a few corks popped in Taos and elsewhere, now that the cat is out of the bag.  The work of dissembling is done; the joy of gloating over the gullible can begin openly.

The upside, for me at least, is that we can maybe get some of our old heroes back. Mathis supposedly outed George Orwell as “one of them.”  Now I realize that part of the larger psy-op is to control the past by giving us no clear sense of history or origins.  The end result of that is a total feeling of rootlessness.  Don’t be too quick to buy into those revised chronologies and take-downs of history.  Some of it is true, but a lot of it is a head game.

As for the Truther movement on the Internet … there are a lot of chunks of hot dog dangled around out there. Watch what you swallow.  The Web is the creation of TPTB; it is their playground and our poison pill.  Keep your bullshit detector well calibrated.  Just because you don’t have a rebuttal for some idea doesn’t mean you are compelled to accept it.  The average person would be hard-pressed to pick out the flaw in Zeno’s Paradox, but the average person also knows, things really do move.

You must, as the Buddha advised, be a lamp unto yourself.  Which is to say, don’t accept anything just on someone else’s say-so.  But then, there was never really any alternative to that all along, was there?