Gay Julius Caesar who faked his death?

Aeneas

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I looked up Miles Mathis and just from the search results it sounds like he is quite a controversial figure who thinks he has the whole banana.
From your title it sounds as if Miles Mathis thinks Julius Caesar was gay. It turns out he also thinks JFK was gay and a lot of others. From the title of this thread he also think that Julius Caesar faked his death. Well it turns out he also thinks Diana faked her death. Oh, and Dorothy Stratten also faked her death and a lot of others according to Mathis.

He is described by Rational wiki as conspiracy theorist and I get the feeling that in this case, it is not far off the mark. Here is a collection from that site:
Mathis subscribes to quite a number of conspiracy theories, usually by the effect of "X person faked their death", "Y event was a hoax/staged" or "Z is an intelligence asset". Given that belief in conspiracy theories is often motivated by a sense of "special-ness", and Mathis claims to have overturned almost all mathematics and science, this isn't surprising.

  • The Boston Marathon bombing was faked.[13]
  • The Sandy Hook mass shooting is a "scripted tragedy".[14]
  • Unsurprisingly, he's also a birther and 9/11 truther.[15]
  • All major internet sites, NASA, all universities, mainstream physics and basically everything else (like bookstores) are infiltrated by the CIA.[16][17][18]
  • John Lennon faked his death and is currently living in Canada.[19]
  • The Zodiac killings were faked.[20]
  • Stephen Hawking died and was replaced by an impostor years before his reported death.[21]
  • The Lincoln assassination was faked.[22]
  • The English Revolution was faked.[23]
  • That every single historical figure since at least the French Revolution, and perhaps since the Renaissance, Including Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler and the Romanovs has been a "gay Jewish actor" completely controlled by "mostly Jewish industrialists" and had their deaths faked.[24][25][26][27][28]
  • Every event, including the sinking of the USS Indianiapolis, the sinking of the Titanic, the Battle of Iwo Jima, Custer's Last Stand and literally everything else was either faked entirely or almost entirely, with fake photos and storylines.[29][30]
  • That since at least Shakespeare (who was a committee led by the conspirators) there has been an intelligence conspiracy to dumb people down by making entertainment and/or education be crappy or irrational on purpose so that the people who consume it become less logical or rational and thus less likely to oppose or comprehend the conspiracy.[31][32][33][34]
  • That everything above and more that happened since WW2 was a part of "Operation Chaos/Kaos", which is referenced frequently many of his papers. The point is to make people confused, irrational and "turn their minds to mush" so that people don't question physics establishment, resist the conspiracy and buy more things they don't need.[35]
  • Just... you name it, he has a theory about it.

Mathis regularly adds dozens of other equally absurd conspiracies.[36]

He could well be one of those who starts conspiracy theories so outrageous that it tars other alternative theories or distracts from the real look at what happened in a given event. The Boston marathon bombing comes to mind, which he says was fake. Likewise, he is a 9/11 truther which might not be helpful for those looking at what happened at 9/11.

So, I think it is worth looking at his views on Caesar, if one is so inclined, with a grain of salt. It might sound convincing but that does not mean it is close to reality.

@SlavaOn What did you find convincing about the hypothesis since you posted about it and do you think he might be right?
 

Alejo

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I think this guy just likes to pick a historical character and find a way to turn them into the center of a fake death conspiracy, and then just run with it.

I did not quite read through the entire article, but I did find this portion a bit interesting in displaying his depth of historical reading:
[Addendum October 10, 2021: As you know, the assassination famously took place on the Ides of March, March 15. Why? We are told it is because the conspirators found it to be an auspicious date. However, we now have a different explanation, given to us by the Dido/Anna story above. Anna became Anna Perenna, who became a favorite deity of the Romans. Her festival was held in her grove on the first mile marker of the Via Flaminia, on the first full Moon of the year. And when was that? Well, according to the old Roman calendar that was. . . the Ides of March. So the date is pointing back to Anna, “sister” of Dido, who just happened to be the ancestor of Caesar in direct line. Anna/Dido faked her death in both stories, so the writers of the Caesar script thought it would be clever to fake his death on that date.]

More indication the assassination was faked is the way it is still sold by mainstream (Phoenician) historians. At Wikipedia, on the page for Caesar's assassination, they have a section on the three causes of it. This is the first section on the page. But it is ludicrously weak and makes no sense. 1) Caesar allegedly failed to rise for senators visiting him. So what? The senate had long since been bypassed and everyone knew that. Caesar could have gotten up and farted in the face of each senator one by one, and it wouldn't have made any conceivable difference. 2) Two tribunes allegedly removed a wreath from a statue of Caesar, and he deposed them for it. Again, so what? Caesar had been doing much worse things for years, including banishing and killing people, so again this just looks like a
poorly manufactured story. 3) At Lupercalia Antony placed a diadem on Caesar's head, and Caesar removed it. We are told Caesar was testing his popularity, to see if he could crown himself king. But he was already dictator for life, and held all power. So what he called himself was beside the point. Just a few years later the Emperors were calling themselves gods, and no one took offense, least of all the Senate. So the fact that historians have always been trying so hard to sell this assassination is indication it is fake. If it was real, the real story would suffice. The truth sells itself and does not need manufactured fairy tales to embellish it.

The next section at Wikipedia is even worse, though again it sticks pretty close to written history. We are told there were around 60 conspirators, and that they even considered propositioning Antony. Really? We are told Trebonius had already approached Antony a few months earlier, but Antony declined. That makes no sense. Antony was Caesar's second in command. Approaching him to be in the conspiracy would have been the stupidest thing imaginable, since it would have gotten immediately back to Caesar.

But the biggest problem is the one we have seen many times before, from Abe Lincoln to Bobby Kennedy to Olof Palme: lack of a guard. We are supposed to believe a few middle aged senators with knives would be able to bypass Caesar's guard, made of trained soldiers. You are supposed to believe Caesar was walking around by himself, with no other protection than a toga, but that is ridiculous. Things didn't work that way, not in 1986, not in 1968, not in 1865, and not in 44BC.

So, his source is Wikipedia, and his method of developing a theory for historical revision is something along the lines of:

"I want to prove that Caesar faked his death, thus I will declare it and dismiss data randomly" Boom, a theory was born. He obviously hasn't done much reading into roman history or the life of Caesar, he's using today's thinking to read through historical events (much like those people bringing down statues), he dismisses data with one criteria that he then ignores when other data happens to be convenient for whatever narrative he's attempting to establish.

In short, this guy's mad and writes for himself, for his own amusement.

What this really makes me think about is people like Josephus, who must have used similar techniques in writing during his time, making the whole time period so convoluted and full of confusion.
 

Ina

Dagobah Resident
In short, this guy's mad and writes for himself, for his own amusement.
And if it were to count others amused by his writings, I'd be one of them. I like Mathis' writings, I like his art, and if I'd have enough money to spare I'd even commission a portrait. If anything, he is honest besides being intelligent and having a free spirit attitude. So what some of his opinions are far fetched and idiosyncratic? Is he really asking to be given a blank mental 'health certificate'? Harsh judgement, hopefully meant as a joke, though.
Regarding his opinions, one that Caesar was gay and, two that he faked his death. I do not know about the second, but the first is a misnomer. Caesar was not gay, as such. What we call today 'gay' was differently regarded in the times we call antiquity. From my fairly inaccurate general knowledge , because it is difficult to know with certainty, regular and refined features in a man that might apply to the notion of a woman's beauty of were highly appreciated in a man's appearance. Sexual relations were not equated to marriage between a man and a woman and marriage itself was more a transactional affair rather than a moral social institution.
With this understanding of the aesthetic preferences and habitual sexual practices roman society in antiquity, today, many people would have an instantaneous 'Eww' reaction. For me Julius Caesar was an important historical figure for many different reasons. So, what if he was what we call today 'gay', I say good for him, if that made him happy. Certainly, the revelation makes no difference for me today.

Interestingly enough, I wonder, what would the people in one thousand years from now, think about our aesthetic preferences and habitual sexual practices today?
 

SlavaOn

Jedi Master
What did you find convincing about the hypothesis since you posted about it and do you think he might be right?
Miles Mathis is a controversial figure. Some people think that there is a collective behind that pen name. Some people link him to MI6 based on the Britishisms he sometimes uses in his essays. I was following his web site for a couple of years and made an offline copy of hundreds of PDF pages for future reference. A tell tale sign that he is not liked by MSM is the Google search results. He would be smeared as a cook and conspiracy advocate at any opportunity.

Besides the historical and social commentary, he has a separate web site dedicated to science, with 400 papers on various topics: Homepage for Miles Mathis science site Someone did a brief count of how long it would take to write all these papers (they are dated) and concluded that it requires a team and would be impossible to do for a single person.

I do take what he said with a grain of salt. He quickly connects and judges people based on their surnames and that is something that I find hard to accept. There are some people that I have a deep respect for (like Alexander Solzenitcin, for example). Miles concluded him to be of the jewish origin and summarily judged him to be an unknowing pigeon stool for the West against communist Soviet Union..
Miles could have went overboard with false flags and people faked their own deaths meme...

On the other hand, he is the only researcher that even digs in that direction. He often favors"cui bono" and not "occam razor" rule to follow a particular rabbit hole or make a conclusion. If he is wrong in some cases that doesn't mean he is wrong in all cases. So, if we talk about something or someone, let's not generalize and let's not kill the messenger.
 

moyal

Jedi
The problem is that the list was simply copied and pasted from Rational Wiki, simply out of a nebulous "feeling" of hitting a theoretical mark (of truth). Now, instead of simply looking at Rational Wiki's evaluation of a particular lady and her witch board, it might be more interesting to look at Mathis' comments about Rational Wiki:

-> http://milesmathis.com/ratdik.pdf
 

Attachments

  • ratdik.pdf
    86.5 KB · Views: 3

Ant22

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
I think this guy just likes to pick a historical character and find a way to turn them into the center of a fake death conspiracy, and then just run with it.

I did not quite read through the entire article, but I did find this portion a bit interesting in displaying his depth of historical reading:


So, his source is Wikipedia, and his method of developing a theory for historical revision is something along the lines of:

"We are told Caesar was testing his popularity, to see if he could crown himself king. But he was already dictator for life, and held all power. So what he called himself was beside the point."

It is interesting that Mathis considers Caesar's death to be fake, and yet he does think Caesar was a dictator? This tells me enough about his historical research skills to conclude that his theories are far from being accurate. @SlavaOn, we have a thread on Caesar that will debunk this whole 'dictator' claim pretty effectively - or at least it should.

Regarding his opinions, one that Caesar was gay and, two that he faked his death. I do not know about the second, but the first is a misnomer. Caesar was not gay, as such. What we call today 'gay' was differently regarded in the times we call antiquity. From my fairly inaccurate general knowledge , because it is difficult to know with certainty, regular and refined features in a man that might apply to the notion of a woman's beauty of were highly appreciated in a man's appearance. Sexual relations were not equated to marriage between a man and a woman and marriage itself was more a transactional affair rather than a moral social institution.
With this understanding of the aesthetic preferences and habitual sexual practices roman society in antiquity, today, many people would have an instantaneous 'Eww' reaction. For me Julius Caesar was an important historical figure for many different reasons. So, what if he was what we call today 'gay', I say good for him, if that made him happy. Certainly, the revelation makes no difference for me today.

I think you've fallen for the LGBT agenda of pushing homosexuality into the mainstream, which is often done by claiming that rejection of homosexuality is something modern, that people of the antique had no issues with homosexual practices, and that such relationships were in fact something perfectly normal.

There are two bits of information that were discussed at some length in the Gay "Germ" Hypothesis thread that you may have missed. Let me sumarise them for you.

The first one contradicts the wide-spread claim that homosexuality during the antique times was something considered normal and was widespread. You may be interested in reading the article quoted in this post to learn more about it. You will see that contrary to the popular belief homosexuality is a modern term and men who had sexual relations with other men during antique times were in fact stigmatised. You will also see examples of efforts to paint men who had a well documented track record of heterosexual relationships as gay. Not as bisexual - but as gay. This on its own smells of bending historical facts to make a square peg fit a round hole.

The second one is research that found that straight men have a reaction of repulsion when seeing homosexual acts, or even two men kissing, one that is compared to seeing maggots or rotten flesh. This reaction was observed among the entire tested sample, not just a proportion of it, and not just straight men who were homophobic. It is therefore fair to conclude that this is a built-in mechanism that discourages sexual behaviours that do not serve nature's interests (i.e. propagation of species into the future).

Given that the response is instinctive and subconscious in nature we can conclude that men of the antique times also had it. As you may know, there is no evolution of the body, only evolution of consciousness, and therefore the bodies of men who lived a few thousand years ago most likely responded the same way.
 

BHelmet

The Living Force
Why this thread has any legs at all is beyond me. Mathis can be quite amusing and his thought process interesting but his Constant theme that everyone who was anyone faked their death and is a crypto Jew Member of the royal peerage is tired. The gay thing is a big fat “whateverrrrrr”.

Also interesting is Mathis fixation on Langley. His thesis that the bulk of what we are told and taught is Fake propaganda Does hold water. But The ultimate irony would be if he himself was sitting in a cubicle at Langley.
 

Mike

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Yeah, just doesn't make sense at all.

This discussion did remind me of something I found and made me pause and note it while reading online in relation to looking up some things while reading Laura's new book.

About Caesar's father:
Caesar died suddenly in 85 BC, in Rome, while putting on his shoes one morning. Another Caesar, possibly his father, had died similarly in Pisa.

Pliny the Elder said:
Two of the Cæsars, one of whom was at the time prætor, and the other had previously discharged that office, and was the father of the Dictator Cæsar, died without any apparent cause, in the morning, while putting on their shoes; the former at Pisæ, the latter at Rome.

I thought this was curious and that it might be pointing to or saying something about Caesar's male heritage. Like there was a weakness of some kind. And I have to admit that the thought did cross my mind, but with no other data to support it in any way, that maybe Caesar's father was gay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ina

BHelmet

The Living Force
Miles Mathis is one of those cases where the skeptics are 100% correct. The guy is certifiable.
I think it is worthwhile to note that almost everyone on this forum could be viewed as 100% certifiable from an array of various outside perspectives.

For the record, some of his essays are highly aligned with viewpoints expressed on this forum such as regarding: Covid, the cultural attack on masculinity, the destruction of artistic values, his opinion of Alex Jones and theosophy to name a few. He may be certifiable but I'd say about 20% of what he does is actually worthwhile. (maybe I am being too generous: 17.5%? 16.7% at least) I just want to add that perspective. His writings are not 100% dross and he does make me think even if it is just to disagree with him. OSIT.

That said, the fact he always falls down the same rabbit hole is a bad sign. Buyer beware.

(But not 100% thumbs down, as long as we are talking about ancient Roman history... whenever that was.)
 
Top Bottom