Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Is it fair to call [Piper] an anti-Semite?

I gather that Michael Collins Piper, author of "Final Judgement," has agreed to join this forum and comment on this thread. I have learned to be suspicious of books that carry titles or sub-titles claiming to be the "final" or "definitive" word on the JFK assassination, so I am in no hurry to read this one, but I have read the Piper article, posted earlier in which Piper defends his JFK book, and I have read some of Piper's other offerings on the web. I must say that, from the little I do know about his "Judgement" in writing about world events, including the JFK assassination, I am unable to muster the same warm welcome to Mr. Piper that I extended to another author who recently joined this forum, namely Josiah Thompson.

Is Michael Piper an anti-semite as some suggest? In a web essay entitled "Christians under attack" Piper repeats an assertion that would surely baffle Old Testament Bible-thumping Americans from the pilgrims on down. Piper concludes this essay by endorsing Christian evangelist, Dale Crowley, Jr:

"[Crowley] concluded that America's heritage is, in fact, based on Christian teachings and that the term "Judeo-Christian" has no rational or actual applicability to the reality of American history or tradition."

Quite apart from the profound influence that Judaic culture contributed to the rise of western civilization, it beats me how anyone could write about Jewish influence in American history and culture without mentioning the truly remarkable and ongoing Jewish contribution to America's historical, economic, social and cultural development. Imagine American music, or medicine, to cite just two examples, minus the contributions of Jewish composers, conductors, musicians doctors, and public health officials.

(incidentally, the website featuring this Piper eassay looks very informative. It also features "a narrative of the calamities which befel the Jews, so far as they tend to verify Our Lord's predictions relative to that event (sic)").

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Jesus_is_I...ael_th_01.html)

In an online posting entitled "Auschwitz - The Final Count" that was linked to an earlier post, Piper tries to make it clear that he is not interested in denying the Holocaust "whatever that means," although he is clearly very interested indeed in pooh-poohing claims that millions of people were murdered in Nazi death camps.

I cannot tell for certain, based on this random and very limited review, whether Piper

really is an anti-Semite, but if he is not, as far as I am concerned, he will do until a real anti-Semite comes along.

But it is Piper's "judgement" about the JFK assassination that I am interested in. It seems the CIA did not have the wherewithal to accomplish this operation with purely domestic help, so they felt obliged to bring in the Mossad to assist.

Getting down to where the rubber hits the road, Piper says:

"The Mossad Role in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy

by Michael Collins Piper

"[W]hen New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison prosecuted trade executive Clay Shaw with conspiracy in the assassination, Garrison had stumbled upon the Mossad link.

Although (after his acquittal) Shaw was revealed to have been a CIA asset, in 1963 Shaw served on the board of a Rome-based company, Permindex, which was actually a front for a Mossad-sponsored arms procurement operation."

If this passage is representative of the caliber of reasoning that Piper brings to 'Final Judgement" then I dread to think what the rest of his book must be like. In this passage Piper reveals himself to be remarkably unsophisticated, not just in his understanding of the evidence in the JFK case, but even in his understanding of how intelligence agiencies operate and even in his understanding of the comparatively uncomplicated matter of corporate wrongdoing.

It is a very rare case indeed where outside directors -- usually figureheads who visit the company a few times a year to rubber-stamp the quarterly or annual reports -- are made privy to wrongdoing by corporate insiders. I have never seen or heard of any evidence that Clay Shaw was made privy to any covert acts that may have been committed by insiders at Permindex, but by all means let Piper present such evidence to this forum, if he has it. Upon my solemn honor, if he can produce such evidence from credible sources, I will not only buy his book, I will chew it up and swallow it after I finish reading it.

Richard Helms wanted us to believe that Clay Shaw was a CIA "asset, and it seems Piper trusts Helms's word. There is evidence (how reliable I cannot say) that Shaw reported on his foregn travels to the domestic contacts division of the CIA. But there is no evidence, as far as I know, that Clay Shaw KNEW it was the CIA to whom he was reporting. CIA officers typically operate under cover. It is entirely possible, for example, that one or more of the State Department officials that I dealt with at the American Embassy in Dublin were also CIA, but I would have no way of knowing that, any more than Clay Shaw would know if the man who questioned him about his observations overseas, and who presented himself as a State Department official, was really a CIA man operating under State Department cover.

"[W]hen New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison prosecuted trade executive Clay Shaw with conspiracy in the assassination, Garrison had stumbled upon the Mossad link."

Wow1 Who Knew? But really, if Garrison stumbled over anything except the laces of his size 14 shoes, I have yet to see evidence of it. I have read Garrison's books and most of the books about him, and I have studied the transcripts of the Clay Shaw trial, plus the transcript of the preliminary hearing that ended in the indictment of Clay Shaw. Clay Shaw had no more involvement in the JFK assassination than I did, and it took the jury about 50 minutes of deliberation to unanimously say so. My question to the jurors is this: What the hell took you so long?

[Len Colby]

In 2002 Michael Collins Piper attended a conference in Moscow organized by Willis Carto. David Duke was also an attendee. The conference focused on Holocaust denial and resolved that Zionism "aspires to establish world supremacy."

The ADL considers Michael Collins Piper an anti-Semite.

John, what say you re Piper? Is it fair to call him an anti-Semite?

Tim,

I've seen you throw childish tantrums before, but you're really in orbit on this one. I'm beginning to think you might be a paid asset of the Israeli Government.

It's a common tactic of those who wish to silence others to label them as racist, communist, sexist, anti-semite etc, but you're labelling this guy before you know what he's about. He's written a book outlining his theory on the assassination. You've admitted you haven't read it, just skimmed it on the net, like myself.

In case you don't know, John Simkin convenes this debate, not you. One of the great features of this Forum, unlike others, is that everyone gets the opportunity to express his or her opinion, regardless of whether John agrees with them. IMO, he's shown remarkable tolerance in putting up with your regular tantrums and insults.

If you covet the role of determining who is entitled to express an opinion why don't you start up your own Forum and invite people to participate? What a nasty little nest of right wing ratbags that would be.

p.s. I did finish high school and I also have a degree. Unlike you, I try not to bore everyone xxxxless by disdainfully and arrogantly parading this as proof of some kind of intellectual superiority.

Mark Although I agree with you that Tim often spouts nonsense - IIRC he hinted that you might be anti-Semitic and there were the examples cited by John -I think he's right on this one and that you are either misinformed or in denial. Did you read the articles posted by Owen? Piper can be judged by more than Final Judgment, he has spent his either career as I can tell working for Willis Carto America's most important anti-Semite/Holocaust denier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Carto http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=48229 (see posts 36 - 39)

You could take the position that a neo-Nazi like Piper is welcome here to discuss his book whose thesis is basically that "the Jews killed Kennedy" (Mossad, Lansky, Bonfman) as long as he is not overtly anti-Semitic, but to say he isn't anti-Semitic is denying the obvious. He can swear on a stack of Bibles or copies of Mein Kampf that he isn't but that will only show how intellectually dishonest he is.

If this forum is truly open to all, even the likes of Piper, why not invite Max Holland, Gerald Posner, Larry Sturdivan etc. Heck why not invite Piper's boss Willis Carto himself to defend his theses that the Holocaust was a hoax, the Jews eeer Zionists want to take over the World etc..

[Mark Stapleton]

In 2002 Michael Collins Piper attended a conference in Moscow organized by Willis Carto. David Duke was also an attendee. The conference focused on Holocaust denial and resolved that Zionism "aspires to establish world supremacy."

The ADL considers Michael Collins Piper an anti-Semite.

John, what say you re Piper? Is it fair to call him an anti-Semite?

Tim,

I've seen you throw childish tantrums before, but you're really in orbit on this one. I'm beginning to think you might be a paid asset of the Israeli Government.

It's a common tactic of those who wish to silence others to label them as racist, communist, sexist, anti-semite etc, but you're labelling this guy before you know what he's about. He's written a book outlining his theory on the assassination. You've admitted you haven't read it, just skimmed it on the net, like myself.

In case you don't know, John Simkin convenes this debate, not you. One of the great features of this Forum, unlike others, is that everyone gets the opportunity to express his or her opinion, regardless of whether John agrees with them. IMO, he's shown remarkable tolerance in putting up with your regular tantrums and insults.

If you covet the role of determining who is entitled to express an opinion why don't you start up your own Forum and invite people to participate? What a nasty little nest of right wing ratbags that would be.

p.s. I did finish high school and I also have a degree. Unlike you, I try not to bore everyone xxxxless by disdainfully and arrogantly parading this as proof of some kind of intellectual superiority.

Mark Although I agree with you that Tim often spouts nonsense - IIRC he hinted that you might be anti-Semitic and there were the examples cited by John -I think he's right on this one and that you are either misinformed or in denial. Did you read the articles posted by Owen? Piper can be judged by more than Final Judgment, he has spent his either career as I can tell working for Willis Carto America's most important anti-Semite/Holocaust denier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Carto http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=48229 (see posts 36 - 39)

You could take the position that a neo-Nazi like Piper is welcome here to discuss his book whose thesis is basically that "the Jews killed Kennedy" (Mossad, Lansky, Bonfman) as long as he is not overtly anti-Semitic, but to say he isn't anti-Semitic is denying the obvious. He can swear on a stack of Bibles or copies of Mein Kampf that he isn't but that will only show how intellectually dishonest he is.

If this forum is truly open to all, even the likes of Piper, why not invite Max Holland, Gerald Posner, Larry Sturdivan etc. Heck why not invite Piper's boss Willis Carto himself to defend his theses that the Holocaust was a hoax, the Jews eeer Zionists want to take over the World etc..

Len,

It all comes down to how much one wants to see the JFK assassination solved. Guys like Holland, Posner etc can join the Forum and defend their theories anytime they like, as far as I'm concerned. As for Carto, that analogy is irrelevant because it doesn't relate to JFK. Anyone who theorises that the holocaust was a hoax is wrong, of course, and I wouldn't waste my time reading such a thread.

You've failed to make a valid case for why Piper shouldn't be given the opportunity to defend his opinions the same way that John extends the invitation to any others who believe they can contribute to closure on this confusing imbroglio. Tim's almost frantic attempts to have him silenced before he has spoken a word indicates to me that he has a profound fear of what Piper may have to say. It's Tim and those who support his stance who are in denial. The guy hasn't spoken a bloody word yet.

[John Simkin]

It all comes down to how much one wants to see the JFK assassination solved. Guys like Holland, Posner etc can join the Forum and defend their theories anytime they like, as far as I'm concerned.

I have spent a considerable amount of time inviting lone gunman theorists such as Posner to join the Forum. Posner has told me several times that he will defend “Case Closed” on the Forum “as soon as I finish my latest book/article”. This never happens. He knows he will not be unable to deal with the combined knowledge of our members. The only lone gunman theorist who has been willing to join and defend his views his views is Mel Ayton. However, he did not stay for long.

I think Mark is right about it all depends on whether you want the case to be solved. Tim Gratz clearly doesn’t. His role is to distract from the topic at hand. He is also interested in evidence that appears to show that Castro was behind the assassination. I suspect you are playing a similar role. However, you are brighter than Tim and therefore you are reluctant to take us on. Maybe you should concentrate on the threads on moon landings.

[Len Colby]

It all comes down to how much one wants to see the JFK assassination solved. Guys like Holland, Posner etc can join the Forum and defend their theories anytime they like, as far as I'm concerned.

I have spent a considerable amount of time inviting lone gunman theorists such as Posner to join the Forum. Posner has told me several times that he will defend "Case Closed" on the Forum "as soon as I finish my latest book/article". This never happens. He knows he will not be unable to deal with the combined knowledge of our members. The only lone gunman theorist who has been willing to join and defend his views his views is Mel Ayton. However, he did not stay for long.

I think Mark is right about it all depends on whether you want the case to be solved. Tim Gratz clearly doesn't. His role is to distract from the topic at hand. He is also interested in evidence that appears to show that Castro was behind the assassination. I suspect you are playing a similar role. However, you are brighter than Tim and therefore you are reluctant to take us on. Maybe you should concentrate on the threads on moon landings.

John,

I hope you forgive me if I don't thank you for your (backhanded) compliment. I should also point out you are in violation of you own rules. "iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned."* Do you have any evidence to support what you are insinuating? By saying Tim and I are playing rules indicates you think we are acting on someone else's behalf and are not sincere, I can't speak for Tim but in my case it is most certainly not the truth

In my last post I did not say that Piper should not be allowed to participate in this forum, what I would like from you is an admission of the obvious that Piper is almost certainly despite his protestations to the contrary an anti-Semite. When have I tried to stifle the truth? Is asking Fetzer, Healy and White to produce evidence in support of their claims "distracting"?

It is not my intention to 'take you or anybody else on', I don't take any position on who killed JFK. Now that accusations of ulterior motive have come up I would suggest that Piper is more interested in perusing his anti-Semitic agenda than getting to the truth about the assassination**. I now actually believe it would be a good if Piper comes to this forum to defend his 'thesis'. I suspect he will have a hard time convincing the knowledgeable members of this forum and that many of his claims will not withstand scrutiny.

While it's true it wouldn't be fair to accuse someone of being a Communist just because they attended one meeting organized by the party, it would be reasonable to assume that some who: worked as a writer for a party newspaper, wrote several books published by the party and was a featured speaker at meeting organized the party, was indeed a party member. I also find it odd that you would equate being a Communist in the 50's with being an anti-Semite in the 21st century.

I also hope that if Piper does indeed join the forum that you don't make a point of saying what a honor it is to have him here. When my mother was an undergraduate student at Wake Forrest University (in North Carolina) she objected when a local Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan was invited to speak as an "honored guest". Since she, having fled Nazi occupied Europe, fully appreciated the importance of free speech did not object to him being allowed to speak at the school she objected to him being treated as a VIP.

* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243

** Since Piper is not (yet) a member of this forum let alone a 'poster' he is not covered by rule iv.

[Len Colby]

It all comes down to how much one wants to see the JFK assassination solved. Guys like Holland, Posner etc can join the Forum and defend their theories anytime they like, as far as I'm concerned. As for Carto, that analogy is irrelevant because it doesn't relate to JFK. Anyone who theorises that the holocaust was a hoax is wrong, of course, and I wouldn't waste my time reading such a thread.

You've failed to make a valid case for why Piper shouldn't be given the opportunity to defend his opinions the same way that John extends the invitation to any others who believe they can contribute to closure on this confusing imbroglio. Tim's almost frantic attempts to have him silenced before he has spoken a word indicates to me that he has a profound fear of what Piper may have to say. It's Tim and those who support his stance who are in denial. The guy hasn't spoken a bloody word yet.

As I said to John my position is not that Piper should not be allowed to defend his opinions but rather that he and you should admit that he comes here with a stong bias. I can't speak for Tim but in my case I don't fear what Piper has to say as much as disdain for what motives him.

While inviting Carto to the JFK Assassination sub-forum obviously would not be appropriate there also are History Books, Nazi Germany, History and Political Conspiracies sub-forums which in theory he could be invited to join. You say you wouldn't read a Holocaust denial thread, by the same token wouldn't you question the motives of a Holocaust denier who blames the Kennedy assassination on a 'Jewish conspiracy'?

Len

[Tim Gratz]

Len is of course correct that in attacking my motivation ("Tim clearly does not want to solve the assassination") John is violating the Rules of the Forum. This is not, of course, the first time he has done so. But perhaps, since it is indeed his Forum, he has the right to waive the rules re his posts.

On a previous post John suggested I was calling Piper Collins an anti-Semite because he attended a conference in post-Communist Russia. That is of course poppycock. I took that information straight from the ADL web-site. It obviously makes no difference if the conference was held in London, G.B.; in Key West, FL or Pettycoat Junction. What counts is who organized the conference; who were the participants; and what was being preached at the conference. Any astute member will see through John's game.

I object to Collins Piper being a member not because I fear what he has to say (I agree with Len and J. Raymond Carroll (for once we agree!) that Piper's views would be easily demolished. However, inviting him to the Forum adds legitimacy to Piper and to his anti-Semitic views. I would similarly object if John invited the leader of the Aryan Brotherhood to join the Forum to debate the genetic inferiority of African-Americans.

Moreover, although much more often than not I disagree with John's political positions, nevertheless I respect the legitimacy of the Forum and also respect its work in educational areas and have found John's postings on many historical matters to be remarkably even-handed. For the Forum to provide a platform for someone of Piper Collin's ilk would, in my opinion, be a disgrace to the Forum.

And of course the anti-Semitic views of Collins Piper and his crowd add fuel to the flames of those who would express their hatred of Jews, blacks and other inferior races through cross-burning and violence.

One cannot infer anti-Semitism, of course, merely because one posits the view that the Mossad killed Kennedy. But as others have pointed out, we have a lot of evidence of Collin Piper's other views that are clearly anti-Semitic (e.g. a Jewish conspiracy controlling the media). And the ADL clearly considers him an anti-Semite.

Revilo P. Oliver was, as some may remember, a highly educated professor of classis at a large public university in Illinois. And he was a member of the John Birch Society who published articles claiming the assassination was a communist plot. But despite his clear intelligence, he was a vicious racist and anti-Semite and for those reasons he was kicked out of the John Birch Society.

I would shutter to think that the John Birch Society imposed higher standards for religious and racial tolerance than this Forum.

It should be clear to all members who have read my posts that I despise religious and racial bigotry.

I assume that John does as well and I hope he will reconsider his invitation to Piper Collins.

In my opinion, it would be morally wrong for this Forum to add legitimacy to Piper Collins by granting him membership and it would as well be a disgrace to the Forum and hurt its reputation.

One other matter: am I attempting to "stifle discussion"? The law is clear that libel does not constitute free speech and no one has a right to make deliberately false statements against others. I think it is wrong through innuendo and suspicion to suggest participation in the assassination by a person or group merely because the person or group had an arguable motive to seek "regime change" in America in 1963 without any evidence of that person or group's participation in the assassination. Sen. Joseph McCarthy was censured for recklessly calling people Communists. Did that constitute "stifling" McCarthy's ability to label people Communists without any evidence? Of course it did. For his conduct injured people. Well, it injures people to be called (or suggested) assassins with no evidence.

Edited February 13, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

I reviewed the "Serendity" web-site posted by James with the favorable review of Piper Collins' biook and encountered an article with this verbiage:

In the end, the chief priests who conspired against Jesus resorted to the lowest level of psychological and political terrorism in order to force Pilate's hand, which he quickly washed publicly in a basin to proclaim that he had no blood on his hands in the matter of the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Pilate even went so far as to make use of a special appeasement to the people, as it was the time of the feast of Passover, and offered the people their choice between a convicted zealot insurrectionist, Barabbas, or Jesus, to be set free. The crowd, urged on by the ruling class of Jews, cried out for the crucifixion of Jesus, and the release of Barabbas.

If this is not blatant anti-Semitism, blaming the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus, I do not know what is.

By the way, the quote came from an essay called "Zionism: The Occult Guild of Antichrist." (The title shows the writer's perspective rather well, I should say.)

So now Piper Collins wants to add the blood of JFK to the hands of the Jews as well.

I think I shall start a new thread in the whatever appropriate section of the Forum to support the proposition that "The Jews killed Jesus". I shall then locate the most virulent anti-Semite and see if John will accept him as a members so he can defend that proposition. We can then have parallel threads where anti-Semites can be simultaneously arguing that the Jews killed Jesus and that the Jews killed JFK.

Edited February 12, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Len Colby]

Jeff I see you're reading the thread, you have yet to explain your the "Zionists" control the government comment or support you claim that the "Israel" lobby is to blame for Herr Piper's book not being easily available.

On most forums people are expected to defend there comments and claims when asked to by other members.

When I don't know much about a subject but see that one side or party of an argument avoids addressing the comments of the other my assumption is that the side that is being evasive is in the wrong

Len

Edited February 12, 2006 by Len Colby

[Ron Ecker]

the ADL clearly considers him an anti-Semite.

So what? When Hillary Clinton reportedly called one of her aides a "f**king Jew bastard," the ADL came to her defense! The ADL figured the Jew had to be lying, since everyone knows that a Clinton wouldn't. That destroyed the ADL's credibility for me, but that's what happens when you get mixed up with the Clintons.

I reviewed the "Serendity" web-site posted by James with the favorable review of Piper Collins' biook and encountered an article with this verbiage:

In the end, the chief priests who conspired against Jesus resorted to the lowest level of psychological and political terrorism in order to force Pilate's hand, which he quickly washed publicly in a basin to proclaim that he had no blood on his hands in the matter of the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Pilate even went so far as to make use of a special appeasement to the people, as it was the time of the feast of Passover, and offered the people their choice between a convicted zealot insurrectionist, Barabbas, or Jesus, to be set free. The crowd, urged on by the ruling class of Jews, cried out for the crucifixion of Jesus, and the release of Barabbas.

If this is not blatant anti-Semitism, blaming the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus, I do not know what is.

You have read Piper's (his name, please, is Michael Collins Piper) source for this interpretation, haven't you? It's called the New Testament. The NT blames the Jews for the crucifixion because the Christians who wrote it wanted to get along with the Romans, who were not averse to feeding Christians to lions. When in Rome, do as the Romans do, and say only nice things about them.

[Tim Gratz]

Ron, most emphatically, the New Testament does NOT blame the crucifixion of Jesus on the Jews.

Anti-Semites interpret it that way and have through the ages.

The Jews were and remain God's chosen people. THAT is what the Bible teaches.

Who killed Jesus?

I did, Ron, for He had to die to pay the sacrifice for MY sins. The true "Ultimate Sacrifice".

Edited February 12, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[David G. Healy]

Ron wrote:

[...]

When in Rome, do as the Romans do, and say only nice things about them.

______________

Not so sure, Rome events re: feeding Roman Christians to the lions would entice the Christians to write nice things about the Romans? Or did I miss your point, satire or otherwise....

[Ron Ecker]

David,

I believe that the lion-feeding craze started sometime after the gospels were written. (I'd have to look it up.) Let's just say that the early Christians saying nice things about the Romans, by shifting the blame for killing their leader to the Jews, didn't help.

Ron

[David G. Healy]

Ron, most emphatically, the New Testament does NOT blame the crucifixion of Jesus on the Jews.

Anti-Semites interpret it that way and have through the ages.

The Jews were and remain God's chosen people. THAT is what the Bible teaches.

wow, following that logic; if you disagree with the reasons we're in IRAQ, makes you anti-democracy --

who sent Jesus to appear in front of what Roman magistrate, again?

[Tim Gratz]

Michael Collins Piper has written that World War Two was a war that “need not—and should not—have been fought.” Piper says that WW II was fought to destroy what were “then” “thought to be the perpretarors of the Holocaust”.

What led to Piper’s epiphany that the war against Nazi Germany should not have been fought was his discovery that only 1.5 million Jews had been killed at Auschwitz.

I am NOT making this up!

Should a defender of Nazi Germany (because it only killed 1,500,00 Jews per Piper) be rewarded with a membership on this Forun?