Discussing Miles W. Mathis

Questions, speculations & updates on the techniques and nature of media fakery
Locked
Wes
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:25 pm

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Unread post by Wes » Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:56 pm

Flabbergasted wrote: I don´t think perpetual economic growth is the ultimate end, but it seems to be the unavoidable corollary of fractional reserve banking. If the economy stopped expanding, not enough new money would be created with which to pay interest and the international banking system would eventually collapse.
Which is exactly why it would make sense that the intelligence agencies have made it their prime directive to keep the show going, regardless of who is giving specific orders from the top, don't you think?

If McDonald's lost it's orders from the top, the menu might become stagnant, but the employees would still keep making burgers. Until such a time came that no more customers showed up. Or the building caught fire.

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2232
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Unread post by fbenario » Wed Nov 11, 2015 1:01 am

Wes wrote:]It seems that the goal and purpose of all of the governments of the world has become to maintain an ever-growing economy. According to my reading of Mathis' research, the intelligence-agencies of the world must hold that as a prime mission statement; to maintain an ever-growing economy, by whatever means necessary.
Both you and Mathis are wrong, since what has gone on in the world over the last 100 years leads to the exact opposite conclusion.

Maintaining growth doesn't require ongoing permanent war, media fakery, ludicrously large expenditures on weapons, and all the hatred, intolerance, racism, and bigotry infesting the entire world.

An obvious example would be the wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghan, Pakistan since 2001, with their unfathomable waste of lives and money, without any accompanying economic gain or improvement.

Further, all the money wasted on NASA has been exactly that: wasted, thus hurting - not helping - economic growth.

Wes
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:25 pm

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Unread post by Wes » Wed Nov 11, 2015 4:49 am

fbenario wrote: Both you and Mathis are wrong, since what has gone on in the world over the last 100 years leads to the exact opposite conclusion.
Do you deny that the economy has grown exponentially, especially over the past 100 years?

Image
Source: http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/fil ... cts040.pdf (page 5)
fbenario wrote:Maintaining growth doesn't require ongoing permanent war, media fakery, ludicrously large expenditures on weapons, and all the hatred, intolerance, racism, and bigotry infesting the entire world.

An obvious example would be the wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghan, Pakistan since 2001, with their unfathomable waste of lives and money, without any accompanying economic gain or improvement.

Further, all the money wasted on NASA has been exactly that: wasted, thus hurting - not helping - economic growth.
While these are all terrible things, they do drive demand. And they drive demand at much higher rates than would be possible in an honest society. The money is not "wasted" as far as economic growth is concerned, but is siphoned from the middle-class and transfered to the super-rich.

My point was not that economic growth is the end-game of The Powers That Be, but that they have successfully programmed all major governments to believe that this is the most important goal, and that all major intelligence agencies have tasked themselves accordingly. All specific orders from the top would be masked by this agenda while accomplishing whatever current goals The Powers That Be are actually trying to achieve. (genocide, mass death, power shifts, who really knows?)

At this point we are so neck-deep in fakery that allowing the truth to be told would mean the undoing of the entire system. And that would constitute an absolute failure in the eyes of the world's major governments. So it seems to me that it is in the perceived best interests of these agencies to keep the economy growing, while keeping the illusion going. And since this has likely been the mission statement since the birth of these agencies, I assume that they would continue on this path even without specific orders from above.


Condensed version: Chop off the head of the snake and it continues slithering along headless. And since the methods of war and graft have so far achieved the goal, I don't think we could expect them to change very much.

I apologize for how off topic this has gotten.

burningame
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 1:21 pm

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Unread post by burningame » Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:09 am

To me the thing that is most important about Miles Mathis is that he is the one who has enunciated what is wrong with art. He has given artists a framework to explain the terrible holocaust of art that has occurred as he says, over the whole damn twentieth century. He is the only one I have come across who even acknowledges what has happened. How artistic skills that used to be regarded highly have been totally sidelined today. I'm talking about art, the art of drawing and painting, and the art of music. The real art, not rock and pop music, not "the music of Bob Dylan", not the latest "Turner Prize". Oh God, the knife really turns around inside the belly on that one. Turner, of all artists, to have been maligned in such a way. And he gave the English people a gift of his art.

The whole concept of excellence coupled with education has been thrown out the window. Now art needs a little plaque explaining what you're meant to think. In fact, it's all about thinking. They have eradicated 'feeling', which is the higher sense. But of course that feeling must be nurtured like a seedling in good earth—that is, one has to be educated, dare I say it, 'properly', for such feelings to develop in the first place. Otherwise we have the feelings of the barbarians, which is what we got at the present time. Or maybe it's not so much being educated, but it's about not being uneducated, pushed into bad areas and bad ways of thinking, which is what's happening to our young people and just about everyone else now. Stop the bad, and the good will come. That is nature.

I think Mathis is for real; would a spook or a shill include a reference to an unknown Russian Impressionist that no-one's ever heard of? Knowing this Russian painter's work can only benefit people. Trying to find the exact PDF for a reference in one of Miles' essays is just about impossible, because he ranges widely in the true artist tradition (cheers!), but in one of them he talked about Alexei Savrasov, a fantastic Russian painter from the middle 1800s. I would love it if all agents or shills are this hip.

I don't know about his scientific stuff, I've tried to read it, but I'm pretty hopeless at all that. But after reading here and elsewhere for the past few years, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's right about how everyone got it wrong! If he says it's all about stacked spinning spheres, it sounds good to me. I like round things. And there are many instances where he acknowledges his path of understanding, leaving a previous way of thinking, and going to a more refined view of the situation. But we're all on that path at different stages.

Mathis is no high school standard painter. He can obviously paint. How can you miss the portrait on his home page? You try to do it. And for me as a musician the way he talks about art and how it's been totally co-opted rings true.

Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Unread post by Apache » Wed Nov 11, 2015 11:08 am

burningame wrote:I don't know about his scientific stuff, I've tried to read it, but I'm pretty hopeless at all that.
I recommend reading his paper on rainbows. I'm no good at maths, but he makes a compelling case without it. http://milesmathis.com/rainbow2.pdf

Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Unread post by Apache » Wed Nov 11, 2015 11:37 am

Wes wrote:Do you deny that the economy has grown exponentially, especially over the past 100 years?
Wes, please think about who and what is feeding you that data.
Charles I. Jones is the STANCO 25 Professor of Economics at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and a Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. Professor Jones has been honored as a National Fellow of the Hoover Institution, a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Research Fellow. His research has been supported by a series of grants from the National Science Foundation.

Professor Jones is the author of numerous research papers as well as two textbooks, Introduction to Economic Growth (2013) and Macroeconomics (2014). He graduated from Harvard College in 1989 and received his PhD from MIT in 1993.

Wes
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:25 pm

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Unread post by Wes » Wed Nov 11, 2015 4:00 pm

Apache wrote:Wes, please think about who and what is feeding you that data.
The "economy" is a measure of the rate at which we are converting natural resources into retail products and services. It is fairly plain to see that we have been doing that at an ever-faster rate since the industrial revolution, but that is all irrelevant to my argument. The whole economy has been false since the day that the very rich and powerful began steering public opinion and action. I maintain that the growth of this false economy, however misguided, is a top factor in determining intelligence agency operations. Pretend the graph is a picture of a kitten and my point remains the same.

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2232
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Unread post by fbenario » Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:21 am

Wes wrote:Do you deny that the economy has grown exponentially, especially over the past 100 years?

Image
Source: http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/fil ... cts040.pdf (page 5)
Nice 'post hoc, propter hoc' logical fallacy. Your analysis could stand to be a lot more precise.
Last edited by fbenario on Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2232
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Unread post by fbenario » Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:26 am

Wes wrote:
fbenario wrote:Maintaining growth doesn't require ongoing permanent war, media fakery, ludicrously large expenditures on weapons, and all the hatred, intolerance, racism, and bigotry infesting the entire world.

An obvious example would be the wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghan, Pakistan since 2001, with their unfathomable waste of lives and money, without any accompanying economic gain or improvement.

Further, all the money wasted on NASA has been exactly that: wasted, thus hurting - not helping - economic growth.
While these are all terrible things, they do drive demand.
No, they don't drive demand. The money wasted on NASA is akin to taking a pile of bills and lighting it on fire. Nothing is produced, certainly not overall economic growth. You might review your copy of Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

By the way, as you must already know, the very rich spend and invest little of their wealth. Again, no overall economic growth is produced.

Seneca
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Unread post by Seneca » Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:44 am

Miles Mathis did some overdue cleaning of his links page today. He removed his link to "Infowars. Not the corporate media. I visit it every day.", as well as his links to "Zeitgeist", "Natural News", "Clint Watson's Art Website" and "Alan Hart's website"

He also removed his link to "September Clues, probably the second best documentary to date on the subject of 911; by a professsional cameraman, focusing on the faked films. See all parts. Also see the 3-part "911 Amateurs" on the same page, by the same researcher."

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6783
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Unread post by simonshack » Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:57 am

Seneca wrote: He also removed his link to "September Clues, probably the second best documentary to date on the subject of 911; by a professsional cameraman, focusing on the faked films. See all parts. Also see the 3-part "911 Amateurs" on the same page, by the same researcher."
Probably just as well, dear Seneca - I know September Clues hates to be called 'second best documentary of 9/11' !... :P

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6783
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Unread post by simonshack » Thu Dec 31, 2015 3:35 am

*

This is a bit odd. Miles Mathis - whom I have never personally attacked (nor contacted) , just wrote this on his blog :
"Finally, I have removed the link to the film September Clues, although I haven't found any reason to
disagree with its main points. I am severing any alliance with Clues Forum and Simon Shack simply
because I am tired of being slandered on his forum, not just by anonymous posters, but by some of his
closest buddies (like Hoi Polloi)."
http://mileswmathis.com/self.pdf
I don't know that Hoi has exactly 'slandered' Miles Mathis - but even if this is the case, I will now kindly ask Miles if he might like to join Cluesforum - so as to allow a dialogue between his blog and this forum. If there's anything I might say about Miles - it's that I kinda envy his position - what with him having a personal blog without any need for daily moderation! :P

No, no, no - dear Cluesforum members - I'm not complaining about my "plight", I truly enjoy my daily work here - and feel very lucky about it. As I often say, I love you all. The thing is, I still envy Miles Mathis a little bit to be able to just write whatever he likes on his blog - without having to worry about any direct confrontation. Again, I warmly welcome you here, Miles - if you care to spend a little time talking with us - now and then. You don't need to send me a "handshake intro" - as required by our registration rules. Just send me a mail to simonshack@libero.it - stating which username you chose - and I will activate your Cluesforum account.

(I have just forwarded this to Miles' publicly-published e-mail account: mm@milesmathis.com )

PS: For the heavily-skeptical, let me say that I DO believe Miles is a real person - because I have hosted in my house (in the outskirts of Rome, Italy) our forum member Gopi (a wonderful person from India - now in the USA) who has met Miles a couple of times in Miles' home in Taos, New Mexico / USA.

Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Unread post by Apache » Thu Dec 31, 2015 1:49 pm

simply because I am tired of being slandered on his forum
Sorry to be picky with Miles but the correct legal term is libel, not slander.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel
to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion.

starfish prime
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:36 am

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Unread post by starfish prime » Sat Jan 02, 2016 6:53 am

I have been reading through more of Mathis' writings lately. I have in general found them to be quite fascinating, and agree with much of what he says. While the abundance of articles on so many diverse topics initially raised my suspicions, I concur with his statement that his writings have a "wholly consistent" style, or at least that has been the case for everything that I have read so far. I still think that some of his research begins to veer precipitously close to a very sophisticated form of Goldbuggery. I would be less suspicious if he was more willing to engage in open dialogue, but that remains to be seen.

I really don't understand why he would feel so betrayed. It is only natural that prominent figures in conspiracy research will be treated with skepticism, especially when they are making relatively extreme claims. There is even a thread here on Clues Forum concerning whether or not Simon is a shill: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1271. Eric Dubay also talks about nuclear weapons not existing, spaceflight being fake, dinosaurs being a hoax, etc., but does that mean Simon or the other researchers here should form an alliance with him?

I find his policy of ”only tend[ing] to write when [he has] something to say [he hasn’t] seen anyone else say” a little convenient. It is not that I disagree with this principle in itself, as it keeps his writing interesting, but I merely wonder if it couldn't be used as a "cover," allowing him to act under the pretense that he has been researching a topic for a very long time, but is only now bringing it up (coincidentally shortly after it was raised elsewhere). As far as I know, he has never discussed "Holocaust denial" before his recent paper on David Irving, which came out not long after the question of Holocaust denial trials being hoaxed was briefly discussed in the "Hiding in Plain Sight" thread (though I suppose he hinted at addressing the Holocaust in an e-mail to jumpy64). He tells us, "I supported Irving for years. Not really for the so-called Holocaust denial—since I have left that question pretty much open for the past two decades—but for free speech." If he has left the question open for two decades, how could he not by now have realized that there is no evidence for the NSDAP gassing and cremating 11 million people (or gassing humans at all)? Has he not seen the doctored images, heard the incredible tales of the "eyewitnesses," or pondered the absurd logistics? I completely agree with him about David Irving being controlled opposition; however, he implies that the purpose of this is to discredit those who "question mainstream history,” instead of Holocaust revisionists specifically. But, as Mathis suggests, Irving has never even been a “denier” of the Holocaust; like those who claim that NASA fakes spaceflight because they actually use secret alien technology, he’s always “acknowledged” that several million Jews were killed, just that they were killed by means other than gas chambers; though now he doesn’t even deny homicidal gassings:
How were they killed, and where? On a small scale, unwanted Jews were put to death by gassing in two small units at Auschwitz, the White House and the Red House, which is now in Poland. It was a death camp as well as a slave-labour camp. A Polish court in 1947 found that its German officers, who were mostly hanged, were guilty of running a camp in which "up to 300,000 people" of all nationalities had died from all causes.

That Judgment is hard to reconcile with the propaganda language used later about "4 million victims" of Auschwitz.

In fact the most intensive killing (i.e. extermination) operations were done at four other sites in eastern Poland, Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka and Majdanek (Lublin). One top-secret Nazi radio message which we British decoded in January 1943 reveals that these camps had dealt with 1,250,000 in 1942 alone; they probably killed about the same number by October 1943. Any argument about numbers seems immaterial, even obscene, given a death roll on such a scale.
Notice by the way that although I have repeatedly stated the above, and have published the documents on my website (e.g. at http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz ) you and school pupils around the world are told that I am a Holocaust Denier. The big money is on their side, and it is useless, and hopeless, to argue against them. But the truth remains on my side, and stays here.
I also think it is a bit strange that this paper is called "Looks Like David Irving is Jewish," when his ethnicity is perhaps the least compelling aspect of Mathis’ argument. David Cole is Jewish as well, but does that in itself imply that he is controlled opposition? Here is an excerpt:
Years ago I read some of the alternative literature on the Holocaust, including the claims of Irving. Still not feeling confident enough to take a side—the arguments on both sides being weak or inconclusive, it seemed to me—I emailed Norman Finkelstein. Everything to do with this question seemed misty, so I thought I would ask a Jewish person who I admired. Not being Jewish myself, I thought maybe I just didn't have the proper eye for this stuff. It was grasping, yes, but that is what I did. For those of us on the left, Finkelstein—like Chomsky and Zinn—was a minor hero. His arguments with Dershowitz were enough to make him shine in my naïve eyes. Anyway, Finkelstein said he was pretty sure the Holocaust had happened, but that it was possible the figures had been inflated by some margin. So I adopted that stance quietly, not really having any reason to broadcast it. It wasn't actually that important to me one way or the other, I just wanted to know the truth. I like to know things.

So that is where I was on the question until yesterday, when I tripped across the 2011 article on Irving.
So first he just adopts the stance of a Jew he admires regarding the subject, and next he is “calling out” Irving for being Jewish? Seems like a bit of a non sequitor to me, especially when Finkelstein is likely controlled opposition as well. Whereas Finkelstein funnels curious Leftists into critiquing the “Holocaust Industry” instead of the “Holocaust Hoax,” anyone who passes through Finkelstein’s gate is scared off by “discredited historian” David Irving, supposedly thrown in prison for Holocaust denial when he is merely a limited hangout.

Then, in his "Links" update, Mathis says,
The only substantive reason I have seen on that site is that some fear I am Jewish, or a protector of the Jews. I have admitted that my great-grandfather on my mother's side may have been Jewish, but the rest of my family doesn't believe it and it would never have been known if I hadn't mentioned it myself. His name was Moses Mordecai Williams, and if anyone wants to research him they are welcome to. I ask that they let me know what they find, since I didn't find anything and would be interested to know more. But even if he was 100% Jewish back to Adam, that makes me at most 1/8 Jewish.
He continues on in this vein for several paragraphs, as if it means anything. Why is he emphasizing his genealogy when the issue is his strange tiptoeing around all things “Jewish”? His PDF about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion barely even discusses the document in question. His paper on Irving, while making legitimate points, spends so much time going into Irving's background that it almost seems designed so that you will forget that he never addresses the actual claims of Holocaust revisionists. Does he still agree with Finkelstein that the Holocaust happened, but the numbers might be slightly exaggerated? Does he think all Holocaust revisionists are controlled opposition? It's not particularly clear.

Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: Miles W. Mathis — truther or something else?

Unread post by Apache » Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:00 am

starfish prime wrote:I have been reading through more of Mathis' writings lately. I have in general found them to be quite fascinating, and agree with much of what he says.
I too find his work very worthy and I think it's a shame that he equates criticism of his essays on this forum with "slander". When someone puts essays out into the general domain one would expect at least some questioning of the weaker parts of the research.

As you've brought up the Irving paper I'd like to point out at least one misinterpretation. It is a minor one, but I'd like Mathis to see where he has misunderstood something Irving said:
Then notice the lie. England was never invaded during the war, so how could it be “crowded with other people's armies”? It was bombed, not invaded or occupied.
England was invaded and occupied - one by the US Army and two by the Germans in the Channel Islands. In fact, the US Army still hasn't left these shores.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_in_the_United_Kingdom

http://www.caab.org.uk/the-american-bases
Most of the US bases are known and referred to as ‘RAF’, [for example RAF Menwith Hill, RAF Lakenheath, RAF Feltwell] whereas in reality this is not so.

At the large US bases (eg NSA Menwith Hill) there will be a US Commander in post who is in firm control and occupation. In other cases, at a base like ‘RAF’ Feltwell, for example there are no RAF staff present and it is the US Commander who decides who has access to the base – as does the US Commander at all US bases.

The land occupied by the US Visiting Forces and their Agencies is in the possession of the Secretary of State for Defence. All the buildings and infrastructure are owned by the US authorities. On many of the bases they are a complete ‘US entity’ with a school, leisure faclities, commissionary (supermarket), a medical centre, church and housing for US families and military.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_the_Channel_Islands
The Channel Islands were occupied by Germany for most of the Second World War, from 30 June 1940 until their liberation on 9 May 1945. The Bailiwick of Jersey and Bailiwick of Guernsey are two British Crown dependencies in the English Channel, near the coast of Normandy. The Channel Islands occupation was a fiasco, but the only part of Britain to be occupied by German Army during the war.
Although the UK mainland wasn't invaded by the Germans their occupation of the Channel Islands and the US Army's occupation of UK bases is what Irving was clearly referring to. Mathis says "notice the lie", thereby directly accusing Irving of lying and libelling him. :P

When throwing around accusations of "slander", as Mathis has done against this forum, and which is inaccurate as CF members are only giving their opinions, then one has to be careful of being caught out doing the same thing. ;)

Locked