Comments on "Robert Anton Wilson: Spook-Baby" by M.M.

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.
Seneca
Member
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Comments on "Robert Anton Wilson: Spook-Baby" by M.M.

Unread post by Seneca »

For my reason to start this topic, see my post and hoi polloi's :
hoi.polloi » 26 Aug 2016, 05:58 wrote:So when I hear that argument, I think it's weaker than the argument that his stuff is really just rather incomplete. Is the output really "impossible"? In my opinion, there are plenty of writers who can write, off the cuff, a large amount of words in their style. Its the content of his writings rather than the style that is important. Is the content good information or not? Often times, I don't think so, and I don't know why he mixes it with the bad. But if we are to believe he's legit, maybe his lack of "peer review" (as we do to each other on this site) contributes to his indiscriminate hit-and-miss info. (I suppose — and not saying anyone isn't doing this but — if there are good points, we ought to just reproduce them in the appropriate threads rather than piling it all in a topic about the writer. After all, the writer should not be important except for a discussion about whether he is legit or not.)
For the essay of Miles Mathis, see here.

I find that Miles is quick to dismiss Silvio Gesell as a hoaxer. Here is all that he wrote about him.
Silvio Gesell is just one more of many hoaxers, most of them Jewish. Gesell worked with Franz Oppenheimer, of the family of prominent Jews in Germany that spun off the billionaire diamond merchants in South Africa as well as the fake nuclear physicists in the US. He was involved in the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic (Munich, 1919), yet somehow was mysteriously spared the hanging that was given to other leaders—indicating he was probably a double-agent. At any rate, like the rest of these people, he was not as he has been sold. We see more proof of that by his late promotion by spook-baby Robert Anton Wilson.
Could be that he is right but I am not convinced. I looked for some more "red flags" in the biography on Wikipedia.

This I find strange:
He gave his business to his brother and returned to Europe in 1892. After an intermediate stay in Germany, Gesell relocated to Les Hauts-Geneveys in the Swiss canton of Neuchâtel. He established a farm in order to finance his living expenses while continuing his economic studies.
I find this difficult to believe even if he had a lot of experience and knowledge in farming. It seems he didn't have any. He didn't grew up on a farm (his father was a clerk). He worked for the postal service and later was a businessman.
From 1907 to 1911, he was in Argentina again, then he returned to Germany and lived in the vegetarian commune Obstbausiedlung Eden, which was founded by Franz Oppenheimer in Oranienburg, north of Berlin.
I didn't find that he and Franz Oppenheimer actually worked with each other as Miles mentioned but that him being there can be considered a "red flag".

In the German Wikipedia is some additional info:
Durch sein Geschäft hatte Gesell ein gewisses Vermögen erworben, mit dem er so zu disponieren vermochte, dass Krisen ihm nicht in größerem Umfang schadeten.
"Through his business Gesell had acquired some assets , with which he was able to dispose so that crises do not hurt him to a greater extent "

Außerdem wurde er von Freunden unterstützt, besonders von Paul Klemm in Siebenbürgen/Rumänien, einem wohlhabenden Holzfabrikanten, der zuweilen die Druckkosten für Gesells Veröffentlichungen bezahlte.
"He was also supported by friends , especially of Paul clamping in Transylvania / Romania , a wealthy timber manufacturer, who sometimes paid the printing costs for publications Gesell"
The name Klemm,here translated by Google as "clamping", could be Jewish.

For me this is not enough to call him a hoaxer. Especially given that his ideas on money are incompatible with usury.
kalliste
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 am

Re: Comments on "Robert Anton Wilson: Spook-Baby" by M.M.

Unread post by kalliste »

M.M has written stuff in his science section on corrections to the heliocentric model
http://milesmathis.com/ellip.html
What we really need is a face off between M.M. and Simon. Two men enter, one man leaves.
patrix
Member
Posts: 707
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Comments on "Robert Anton Wilson: Spook-Baby" by M.M.

Unread post by patrix »

kalliste wrote: Wed Sep 21, 2022 12:53 pm M.M has written stuff in his science section on corrections to the heliocentric model
http://milesmathis.com/ellip.html
What we really need is a face off between M.M. and Simon. Two men enter, one man leaves.
What I would like, is that you explain why you think M.M.s blanket statement "All experiments and observations have confirmed that Kepler's equations are correct and that the shape of the orbit is indeed an ellipse, as he told us" is correct if you, as I presume, have read Simons Tychos www.book.tychos.space
kalliste
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 am

Re: Comments on "Robert Anton Wilson: Spook-Baby" by M.M.

Unread post by kalliste »

patrix wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 12:19 pm What I would like, is that you explain why you think M.M.s blanket statement "All experiments and observations have confirmed that Kepler's equations are correct and that the shape of the orbit is indeed an ellipse, as he told us" is correct if you, as I presume, have read Simons Tychos www.book.tychos.space
Why are you trying to put words into my mouth? You are clearly not arguing in good faith. I pointed out M.M. and SS. have two competing theories. I never said anything about which one I believe. I'd like to see them debate to see which one is more believable is what I said.
patrix
Member
Posts: 707
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Comments on "Robert Anton Wilson: Spook-Baby" by M.M.

Unread post by patrix »

I fail to see how a simple question is "putting words in your mouth".

The reason I was asking is because I've read some of M.M. and concluded he is making false conclusions. And you can read about Miles Mathis on this forum https://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?t=1758

And since you suggest a debate between M.M. and Simon, I was curious about what you find compelling/reasonable about this paper, since I stumbled on one of it's first assertions.

You see, the core axiom of the Tychos is that celestial objects orbit in circles at constant speeds. Elliptical motion, despite being the core axiom in the heliocentric model is unconfirmed since it's irreproducible experimentally and because all apparent observed elliptical motion can be shown to just as well be constant speed circular motion. If you observe a light that moves in a circle at constant speed at night, it will appear to move in an ellipse at a varying speed if viewed from an angle.

And I would really recommend you spend some time reading the forum and use the search function. We all have things to learn.
kalliste
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2022 4:08 am

Re: Comments on "Robert Anton Wilson: Spook-Baby" by M.M.

Unread post by kalliste »

Mansur you're either an idiot or a troll. The very reason that a debate between MM and SS would be so very valuable is because they are in many ways at odds with each other. There are plenty of MM supporters to found on various blogs and forums and there's no surprise that people on the Cluesforum are SS supporters. I, however, trust nobody and believe very little of anything. A debate between MM and SS would be outstanding on so many levels, whatever the truths are in reality.
Post Reply