Ron Unz has done an analysis of the Miles Mathis phenomenon, which I considered in a previous post.
Unz concludes that MM is not a man but a front organization, whose purpose is to discredit "conspiracy theorists" by making absurd claims, and that this organization was probably created, and is run by, the CHOAM secret services.
I disagree with Unz's conclusions in several respects, which is why I felt stimulated to write this.
While I completely agree that MM is wrong about most things, and (in particular) very slapdash and inaccurate in both facts and reasoning when it comes to supposed genealogies -
I will stick my neck out concerning something of which I have no direct knowledge; and suggest that Mathis is not an agency but a real person, and a single person, and is pursuing his own agenda.
This seems clear to me from the internal evidence of the writing, which has - throughout the vast volume - a very distinct and consistent personality.
Furthermore; Mathis does say some important, interesting and original things; and demonstrates in the writing itself evidence of a creative and independent thinker - albeit with the kind of "self-absorbed" personality that often goes-with (and indeed generates) such motivated creativity.
Mathis's basic perspective could be regarded as motivated by the true conviction that most of what we think we know, comes (very much) second-hand and via extremely corrupt (and indeed purposively evil) institutions and media.
Therefore most of what we think we know (even at a very basic level of "facts") is either completely false and fabricated, or else so profoundly (and calculatingly) distorted by selectivity and suppression to be grossly misleading.
This message is not just true, but extremely important yet very widely neglected. It amounts to the advocacy by Mathis of a far more autonomous and self-responsible way of relating to the world than nearly-always happens.
To put forward such a perspective is indeed far more important than even multiple specific inaccuracies of factual assertion - which errors are in any case inevitable when dealing with events remote in time and place.
One more thing.
If it is true (and I expect it is true, but not of MM) that in some respects the intelligence organizations of the West are engaged in a strategy of trying to "discredit" conspiracy theories in-general by subsidizing and promoting "far out", false and/or absurd theories (Unz's example is "flat earth") -- then the intelligence services are (I am pleased to say!) making a Big Mistake!
Once somebody has learned Not to trust official and mainstream sources, and think for himself, he has learned something vital; and it does not much matter whether he "goes too far" and makes specific statements that most people regard as (or know to be) wrong.
In other words, the important thing is Not to avoid being discredited by silly mistakes, but instead Not To Care about whether "other people" regard you as having been discredited*.
After all, it is by its control of public prestige that The System controls so much of intellectual discourse - we absolutely must escape this control, and that can only be done by ceasing to care about what They think of Us.
There is a primary need for as many people as possible to escape the toils of The System and think things through for our-selves, taking personal responsibility for our understanding - on the basis of what we evaluate to be the most reliable sources of knowledge (and especially on the basis of personal experience from engaging with the world).
This can be learned from Miles Mathis's example, if we choose to focus on this fundamental aspect of his work; rather than getting distracted by his many, and often wrong and bizarre, conclusions - only perhaps a few of which are genuinely correct.
It is what he does in general, more than what he says in particular, that makes MM a potentially valuable writer.
*By "not to care" I mean in your innermost self. The important thing nowadays is to be clear in one's own mind, and to inwardly take responsibility, about important matters. This does Not mean that we ought to be trying to enter the public domain, nor advertise our personal conclusions, nor argue "other people" into agreement with our conclusions. Maybe we should do this sometimes, for particular reasons, but surely not always.
