return to homepage
return to updates


by Miles Mathis

I often get emails, from fans and opponents alike, asking why I seem to be so angry and confrontational. Can't I just present the facts in a scientific manner without all the emotion? No, I can't. It isn't my style, for one thing. And I have no desire to change my style. Many will think this is just caprice or ego, but it isn't. I keep my style, and even play it up, not from ego but from a firm belief that it is both called for and necessary. If you are one of the ones bothered by my anger, my reply to you is, “Why aren't you angry? You should be. Given all the lies you have been told, all the misdirection you have been hit with, all the dodging and fudging and faking you have been presented with as science, you should be furious. You should be just as mad at the current scientists as you are at the current politicians, and for the same reason. You have been sold a bill of goods, taught a bunch of fake and false equations in high school and college, heard decades of loud and obnoxious promotion for novel theories that turn out to have been created from nothing, been presented with new heroes who are nothing more than conmen, and been taxed to support all these careerists and their bloated projects. What you are told is true is not, and what you are told is false is often full of promise. While bad new ideas from entrenched phonies are shoved down your throat in all the magazines and other media, good new ideas are slandered, belittled, and buried, to protect these same phonies. If you aren't mad, you either aren't paying attention, or you are taking too many sedatives.

Still, I often hear that “anger is not productive.” Scientifically, that is false. Anger is one of the most productive things. It is one of the primary engines of human action. Anger and sex are the two biggest motives of human action, and anger may have even more potential than sex, especially in extraordinary situations. The modern or contemporary belief that anger is unproductive is actually just one more lie you have been fed, to keep you quiet. Along with all this fake and false science, you are taught to be embarrassed by your own emotions. This keeps you from channeling your anger into positive action. Instead, you sit on it and try to squelch it, as something low and unscientific. This is just what your teachers and handlers want. They want you to spend all your time reacting against your own natural emotions, and no time reacting against their theories and projects. They need you to be docile, so they teach you there is something wrong with anger. This insures you do nothing. Instead, you rationalize your inaction as some sort of emotional purity. You are “above all that.” You are not a coward, you are a yogi or a Zen master, enlightened and above the fray. While you are doing that, they sell you an upside-down world as some advance. While you are admiring the purity of your navel, they steal the food from your lips, the socks from your feet, the very air from your lungs. That's not hyperbole, either. They are stealing the air from your lungs and the lungs of your children, whether or not you have the gumption to be angry about it.

But the only thing wrong with anger is bottling it up. Instead, you should use it. That is what it is there for. We don't need any more yogis or Zen masters or other purists. We need some people with some fight left in them, people who can't placidly watch the world crumble while they coddle themselves and talk of objectivity.

“All right,” you will say, “maybe so, but it doesn't have to make its way into the actual research. Be angry if you want, but give us a paper that is calm and objective.” Again, that tends to sound good, because it is what we are taught. We are taught to separate ideas from emotion. Reason is good, emotion is bad. But I don't buy it, because it is false. Emotion is not bad; and besides there is no possible way to separate reason and emotion. In reality, they are always informing one another. Therefore, a writing style that tries to excise the emotions must be a falsification. It is a sort of lying to the audience, trying to convince it that you are emotionless when you can't be. In that sense, any “objectivity” is fake. A writer cannot be objective, because a writer is a single person, a subject, who has opinions and emotions. Any objectivity is a pretense. It is better to just say what you intend to say, with the emotion in it, and let the reader see the two together.

It is actually easier to judge “facts” when they are couched in the emotions they cause. That is to say, it is much easier to spot a lie when a writer is not trying to be objective than when he is. We are taught that scientific writing was chosen as a style historically because it is the most transparent. But again, that is false. Not only false, but a lie. Scientific writing was chosen and kept because it has proven to be a great way to hide. When all emotion is excised from writing, it becomes very difficult to judge the veracity and character of the writer. The writer becomes invisible. The invisibility of the writer would seem to be a good thing, but it actually isn't. The invisibility of the writer is like the invisibility of the magician's hand: it allows for all sorts of things to be passed off in the dark.

To see what I mean, compare what you know about me from my style to what you know about famous physicists from their style. You may or may not like my style, or the personality it exhibits, but you have to admit it tells you who I am. It informs you about my veracity. Many readers will doubt my humility, but few will doubt my veracity. I don't seem to be hiding anything. It's all right there, good or bad. Can you say that about other physicists? I can't. I feel pretty sure, even before I check their facts, that they are hiding something. Their style is a dead giveaway. From the first sentence, they are trying to divert me. They are diverting me not only from the fundamental questions, by taking me immediately into side alleys and unsupported maths, but also from learning anything about their character or veracity. They purposely avoid telling me anything I might be able to use in judging them or their theories. This is because the sentences don't say anything. Most often, they are sentences with form but little or no content. They have no emotional content, of course, because that is forbidden in science. But they also have very little content of any other kind. We don't get science, we get science-speak. We get a lot of lingo, math, and claims of relevance, but no real ideas or opinions.

Readers will tell me, “We don't want ideas or opinions, we want facts. We want data.” Really? Is that really what physics is? Facts and data? No. That is what we have been taught, but it is false. Physics isn't facts and data. We have lots of facts and data now, and almost no physics, since no one can read that data. We don't need more facts and data, although they are always nice to have. We need a coherent reading of centuries of data, going back to Galileo. We don't have it, therefore we don't have physics. We have data, we have facts, and we have math, but we have very little physics, because we have very little in the way of good ideas or opinions about how to explain that data.

Math is not an explanation of data, although many modern physicists seem to think that it is. Any monkey can force-fit data into equations. But if the equations don't naturally represent some comprehensible mechanics, we don't have physics. All we have is the pretense of physics. We have a bunch of big equations that overpaid people can fill blackboards with, but we have no real physics. Physics means mechanics. Look up the definition of the word. We have been sold a non-mechanical physics, but that is about as logical as non-aesthetic art or non-constructive architecture or non-aqueous water. If you will accept a non-mechanical physics, you will accept anything. Basically, the modern world has accepted anything, in all fields. It has accepted everyday, untouched objects as art; it has accepted thuggery and looting as government; it has accepted mobsters as politicians; and it has accepted magic and mysticism as physics.

If this doesn't make you angry, I don't know what to say. You must be under the influence of some strong sedative, and all sedatives aren't pharmacological. Your sedative may be wealth or career or position or prestige. I can't say. All I can say is that I will continue to tone it UP, to sharpen my theories as well as my tongue and my wit and my sense of humor. If that isn't to your taste, you will have to do your science reading elsewhere, I suppose. Good luck with that, since you are unlikely to find healthy opinions or ideas from those who are sitting on their emotions.

If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.