Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement

[Tim Gratz]

I wish to add another question to my short list of Piper questions.

One of the links in the American Free Press web-site is to the Truth Newspaper which apparently supports and endorses several "Southern" web-sites. At least one of these organizations proposes (I am not making this up) that there should be a new nation consisting of the states of the confederacy!

One of the Southern organizations includes this "humour" (its definition of a "damn Yankee):

You are a damn-yankee if:

1. You think you live in a free country.

2. You truly believe that Abe Lincoln freed anyone, anywhere.

3. You think it was “for the best” that the North won the War for Southern Independence.

4. You consider the citizens of the Confederacy to have been traitors to the U.S.

5. You see nothing at all wrong with the union army attacking the South and the union navy blockading Southern ports.

6. You think you have a right to tell Southerners how to live and if they don’t agree to force them.

7. You think it’s funny to depict Southerners as ignorant, slack-jawed, buck-toothed, inbred, violent, backwoods, beer-swilling potbellied rednecks, who just need to lighten-up and learn how to laugh at themselves.

8. You cannot fathom why Southerners would not want to keep company with you.

9. There’s some part of the statement, “Leave us the hell alone!” that you just can’t grasp.

10.You think our struggle for Independence from you people is over.

So my new question to Mr. Piper is:

Do you think the South was right in the Civil War, and do you support the cause of creating an independent nation of Southern states?

[John Simkin]

John wrote:

have no time for people who deny the Holocaust. However, their crime needs to be seen in perspective. Who is worst, the people who denied it happened, or the people who allowed it to happen? What about those British and American politicians who denied Jews entry when they tried to flee from Nazi Germany. What about those British and American military commanders who refused to bomb the transport links to the concentration camps?

John, I think Holocaust deniers may be worse but certainly condemnation is due the politicians and military commanders as you suggest.

The idea that Holocaust deniers are worse than the people who allowed it to happen is completely bizarre. Six million plus people died as a result of the Holocaust. Those who denied it happened are just plan daft. It is only when they begin organizing behind a war criminal like George Bush do they become a problem. Some people, myself included, see George Bush and his Neo Cons as the new fascists. They definitely pose a serious threat to world peace. They are also motivated by a desire to make war profits (see the outrageous contract that Bush has given Halliburton).

Piper:

You believe World War Two should not have been fought. True?

Do you believe there is any moral difference between the murder of 1,000,000 Jews and the murder of 6,000,000?

Do you admit that the Hitler regime was murdering Jews (regardless of the number count)?

Do you agree with the tenets of the Storm Front organization?

I will allow Michael Collins Piper to answer these questions. However, I have got a few for you.

(1) Did you approve of the CIA plot to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954.

(2) Did you support the creation of a blacklist in the 1950s that stopped people with left-wing opinions from working in the media?

(3) Did you approve of the American invasion of Vietnam?

(4) Did you approve of the CIA plot to overthrow the democratically elected government of Chile in 1973?

(5) Did you support Reagan’s decision to fund the Contras in Nicaragua by illegal arms sales to Iran?

(6) Did you support Reagan’s funding of death squads in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980s?

(7) Did you support the illegal invasion of Iraq?

(8) Do you support the illegal occupation of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba?

(9) Do you agree with holding people in prison without without access to any court, legal counsel or family visits? Do you agree with them being tortured?

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng

[Tim Gratz]

Talk about hijacking a thread!

It ought to be obvious to all that I am rather opposed to Naziism. IMO Communism was every bit as evil as Naziism. Many people believe that Stalin killed as many people as Hitler. And there was persecution of Jewish people under Communism as well. But all your questions are doing is attempting to draw attention away from Piper's support of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany (and perhaps the Southern treatment of blacks as well).

You write:

Those who denied [sic] [the Holocaust] it happened are just plan daft. It is only when they begin organizing behind a war criminal like George Bush do they become a problem.

Let us get something clear. I am not aware of Holocaust deniers who support George Bush. Most, like Piper himself, are as anti-Bush and as anti-neocon as you are, and I am confident you knew that when you wrote that sentence. It is well known that the "neo-conservative" movement is very much pro-Israeli, and indeed several of its "fathers" were Jewish. The Holocaust deniers hate the "neo-conservatives" because they hate anyone who supports the right of Israel to exist. Tell me you did not know that when you wrote that sentence.

You are probably correct that people who actually permitted the Holocaust to happen are much much worse than those who simply deny that it happened. As you imply, the latter may simply be daft but some who permitted it to happen turned their backs to the plight of the Jewish people. Clearly, the worst are those who actually perpetrated the Holocaust. But the implication of your thought is that it was morally proper for the Allies to wage war against Hitler if for no other reason that he practiced genocide against the Jews. That is a position that I would support. But Hussein also practiced genocide as well, as you full well know.

Here is just one article I wuiclky found about Iraqi genocide under Hussein:

http://www.gendercide.org/case_anfal.html

Here is one quote from that article:

After a few days of such treatment, without a single known exception, the men thus "processed" were trucked off to be killed in mass executions. According to HRW/ME, the "standard operating procedures" of the gendercidal killings (extended, in some cases, to other segments of the population -- see below) were "uncannily reminiscent of ... the activities of the Einsatzkommandos, or mobile killing units, in the Nazi-occupied lands of Eastern Europe":

Some groups of prisoners were lined up, shot from the front, and dragged into predug mass graves; others were made to lie down in pairs, sardine-style, next to mounds of fresh corpses, before being killed; still others were tied together, made to stand on the lip of the pit, and shot in the back so that they would fall forward into it -- a method that was presumably more efficient from the point of view of the killers. Bulldozers then pushed earth or sand loosely over the heaps of corpses. Some of the grave sites contained dozens of separate pits and obviously contained the bodies of thousands of victims. (Iraq's Crime of Genocide, p. 12.)

The genocide perpetrated by Hussein may not have been as massive as the Holocaust in Nazi Germany but I would argue that there is little moral difference if you genocidially kill ten thousand Kurds or millions of Jews. And I believe that the atrocities committed by Hussein justified the imposition of regime change in Iraq WMD or not. For the civilized nations of the world to turn their backs on the Kurds would be as immoral as the Allied politicians and warriors who as you noted turned their backs on evidence of the Holocaust.

To call George Bush (and Tony Blair) war criminals for helping to rid Iraq of Hussein is the equivalent of calling FDR and Winston Churchill war criminals for their work in WWII to rid the world of the evils of Nazi Germany.

Certainly not every Forum member will agree with my support of the war in Iraq. Most, including you, I would hope, would at least agree that Hussein was an evil man who committed atrocities against his own citizens, even if not on scale with the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin. But your attempt to turn this Piper thread into an attack on George Bush and the war in Iraq is simply a distraction, and a deliberate one I would say, from the issue of Piper's support for the Holocaust.

I think Holocaust deniers may be more than "daft"; they may also be evil. But a demonstration that Piper is "daft" because he denies the existence of the Holocaust is certainly relevant to whether his theory that the Mossad killed JFK is motivated primarily for his hatred for Jews and his desire to sully the reputation of Israel.

As your colleague Andy Walker correctly put it, Holocaust denial is nothing but an attempt to rehabilitate the tenents of Naziism. The members deserve to know whether Piper is simply a Nazi trying to blame the Jews for the killing of JFK, just as earlier Nazis would blame the Jews for the killing of Christ.

Let Piper answer my simple questions so we know once and for all where he stands on the Holocaust.

[John Simkin]

It ought to be obvious to all that I am rather opposed to Naziism. IMO Communism was every bit as evil as Naziism. Many people believe that Stalin killed as many people as Hitler. And there was persecution of Jewish people under Communism as well.

You have said this many times over the last few months. What about discussing this issue here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6140

[Tim Gratz]

Certainly more appropriate on a separate thread but query why my political views relate to anything or deserve the space. Piper's are relevant to whether he is "daft" (your term for deniers of the Holocaust).

You have previously tried to argue that my anti-communism is influencing my belief that there may have been Castro involvement in the assassination and certainly I think members can consider that possibility, even though I have repeatedly reiterated that my opinion re Cuban involvement is not because I on other grounds consider Castro to be a "bad actor".

I assume by your reasoning on my alleged political basis you would certainly agee that if it can be shown that Piper is strongly anti-Jewish that ought to affect his credibility on the issue of Jewish involvement.

[John Simkin]

I assume by your reasoning on my alleged political basis you would certainly agee that if it can be shown that Piper is strongly anti-Jewish that ought to affect his credibility on the issue of Jewish involvement.

I agree. Hopefully he will provide the evidence for his views on Israel's involvement in the assassination of JFK in the thread I have created for him.

[Pat Speer]

As a teen-ager, I used to go to ballgames with my sister's boyfriend and his father. His father had numbers tattooed on his arms from his time in the camps. He had a job dragging bodies to the ovens, and pulling out their gold teeth, etc. That is how he survived. Among the bodies he dragged to the ovens were members of his own family. He said nothing. He survived. You spend time with a man like that and you know the holocaust was real.

Around this same time, I had a friend at school who started reading neo-Nazi propaganda. His best friend was a Jew, who was given twenty bucks a week in allowance. This friend would loan out most of his allowance to other kids and charge interest. I kid you not. Anyhow, in exchange for a couple of bucks a week, my propaganda-reading friend would make "collections" on behalf of his Jewish friend. One day he pulled me aside, and told me that it was unfair how we aryans had been made to feel guilty for the holocaust. He thought because my last name was Speer, the last name of Hitler's favorite architect (and his ideal German) I could relate. When I told him that I believed the holocaust was real, he explained that, at the most, 3 million Jews were killed. When I told him that 3 million or 6 million, it was still a horrible thing, he stopped talking to me. A few weeks later, a black kid and a white kid got into a fight at our school, and all the black kids threatened to walk out in protest. For a few days afterwards, tensions ran high. When the principal checked the lockers to see if anyone had brought any weapons to school, he found a machine-gun in my friend's locker. He was expelled and I never saw him again.

I mention this to explain why I find nothing cute or intellectually challenging about holocaust denial. It's a hateful flat-earth society. That said, I don't think it's impossible that Israel would kill an American President if its future was at stake. I don't believe there's any evidence Israel was that desperate, however. If Mr. Piper believes his theory is as credible as the Mafia-did-it, LBJ did-it, CIA-did-it, oilmen-did-it, and even Castro-did-it scenarios, I say show us the evidence. Maybe it's worth considering.

If he's CONVINCED Israel did it, however, then I must admit I suspect he's a member of a hateful flat-earth society. At this point, I don't see how anyone can be completely convinced of any suspect's guilt, to the exclusion of all others, without their having a personal agenda.

[Tim Gratz]

John, it is always nice when we agree.

By the way I have read most of his book and I am generally familiar with how he constructs his thesis.

You have argued that Cuba would not have killed JFK because it would have been foolhardy for it to have done so. Would you agree that the same analysis applies to the issue of Israeli sponsorship?

Problem with the analysis is that it would be foolhardy for ANYONE (other than a nut) to kill JFK. One exception would be if their back was up against the wall. One can argue this was indeed the case with Castro (since we were trying to kill him) and arguably with the Mafia and Hoffa considering RFK's "war" against the Mafia. In fairness to the "Mossad theory" one could argue that Israel thought a nuclear capability necessary to its long-term survival and was willing to gamble that it could kill JFK and not be discovered (since the discovery that Israel had killed Kennedy would certainly lead to its imminent destruction). But the problem facing Israel was no way near the problem facing Castro.

Moreover, other than the MMO analysis Piper has no EVIDENCE of Israel involvement. It is nothing but his skillful construction of a "scenario".

[Ron Ecker]

At this point, I don't see how anyone can be completely convinced of any suspect's guilt, to the exclusion of all others, without their having a personal agenda.

I agree. I've said before that I don't think "Israel did it" because it didn't have to. (That's in addition to the lack of evidence.) The Mossad would have found out first if any plots were already afoot, and there had to be at least one. And why would that one need or ask for Israel's help?

The Jewish Mafia may have been among the players, but that's not the same as saying Israel participated.

So it looks like there's an agenda here. OTOH Piper's book is now in its 6th edition, and has expanded from almost 400 pages (as in the 3rd edition that I have) to over 700 pages. That certainly suggests that Piper keeps coming up with new evidence to include in his book, almost doubling its original length. It could also mean he keeps adding nonsense to it. Who knows? Has he showed up yet?

Edited February 16, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Mark Stapleton]

I wish to add another question to my short list of Piper questions.

One of the links in the American Free Press web-site is to the Truth Newspaper which apparently supports and endorses several "Southern" web-sites. At least one of these organizations proposes (I am not making this up) that there should be a new nation consisting of the states of the confederacy!

One of the Southern organizations includes this "humour" (its definition of a "damn Yankee):

You are a damn-yankee if:

1. You think you live in a free country.

2. You truly believe that Abe Lincoln freed anyone, anywhere.

3. You think it was “for the best” that the North won the War for Southern Independence.

4. You consider the citizens of the Confederacy to have been traitors to the U.S.

5. You see nothing at all wrong with the union army attacking the South and the union navy blockading Southern ports.

6. You think you have a right to tell Southerners how to live and if they don’t agree to force them.

7. You think it’s funny to depict Southerners as ignorant, slack-jawed, buck-toothed, inbred, violent, backwoods, beer-swilling potbellied rednecks, who just need to lighten-up and learn how to laugh at themselves.

8. You cannot fathom why Southerners would not want to keep company with you.

9. There’s some part of the statement, “Leave us the hell alone!” that you just can’t grasp.

10.You think our struggle for Independence from you people is over.

So my new question to Mr. Piper is:

Do you think the South was right in the Civil War, and do you support the cause of creating an independent nation of Southern states?

Tim,

So now this guy must justify his position on the Civil War?

I am without speech.

[Mark Stapleton]

At this point, I don't see how anyone can be completely convinced of any suspect's guilt, to the exclusion of all others, without their having a personal agenda.

I agree. I've said before that I don't think "Israel did it" because it didn't have to. (That's in addition to the lack of evidence.) The Mossad would have found out first if any plots were already afoot, and there had to be at least one. And why would that one need or ask for Israel's help?

The Jewish Mafia may have been among the players, but that's not the same as saying Israel participated.

So it looks like there's an agenda here. OTOH Piper's book is now in its 6th edition, and has expanded from almost 400 pages (as in the 3rd edition that I have) to over 700 pages. That certainly suggests that Piper keeps coming up with new evidence to include in his book, almost doubling its original length. It could also mean he keeps adding nonsense to it. Who knows? Has he showed up yet?

Ron,

I disagree. I believe Israel may well have participated in the assassination and for the exact reason you cited--only in reverse.

I believe they did have to--if they wanted security and survival. JFK couldn't be moved on Dimona. If he won in '64 it would have to close down, an option unthinkable to the military and political leadership of that nation at the time. However, with LBJ in the White House it becomes a whole new ball game.

In '63, the memories of the holocaust where a lot fresher to Israel's leaders than they are now. And Israel knew about the enemies JFK had within America. I don't believe any theories about the World Jewish Congress ordering his death etc. It was simply a matter of the most powerful groups disaffected by JFK's agenda establishing contact and arriving at a plan.

I think there were definitely alliances established of which we know little. There was undoubtedly alliances formed to supress the truth in the aftermath of the assassination, the Government, the intelligence agencies and the media, to name three.

Large parts of the American media where owned and controlled by people strongly sympathetic to the Jewish cause: General David Sarnoff (NBC), William Paley (CBS), Arthur Krim (United Artists) were examples. I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm just stating a fact.

There were also influential people within the agencies who strongly supported the fledgling nation. According to Avner Cohen's book, James Jesus Angleton refused to pass on information concerning the progress of Dimona to the Government. The existence of the underground plutonium separation plant was thus not discovered officially by the US Government until 1961, four years after construction began.

To me, this and several other factors lead me to believe that Israel was one of the participants in DP. I know that several members think I have an anti-Israel agenda but I've stated my admiration for that country before so I won't bore anyone with it again. I know I don't have such an agenda and that's the most important thing for me.

This is simply what I believe. The more I discover about the assassination (and I admit I'm a beginner compared to some here with a much larger reservoir of knowledge, yourself included), the more convinced I become.

[Michael Collins Piper]

The Afro-Cuba web, which, to the best of my knowledge, is not a white racist or anti-Semitic or Holocaust denial site, posted an essay of mine which summarizes FINAL JUDGMENT. They did not inform me that they were going to post it. It has been on their site for a long time.

Am I expected to agree or disagree with any or all of the material on that website? Does their posting of my essay mean that they agree with any or all of my real (or imagined) points of view on issues various and sundry?

Some years ago an African-American student newspaper posted an article I wrote regarding CIA complicity in the global drug racket.

Am I expected to agree or disagree with any or all of the material on that website? Does their posting of my article mean that they agree with any or all of my real (or imagined) points of view on issues various and sundry?

I don't agree with everything that is published in AMERICAN FREE PRESS nor do all the writers of AMERICAN FREE PRESS agree with things that I write in AMERICAN FREE PRESS.

Now I am being asked to defend or denounce some Southern heritage organization that I never even heard of and didn't know, until now, was linked to the AMERICAN FREE PRESS website.

However, I will say this: I believe that the Civil War was a worse tragedy for America than the Holocaust of World War II. And while I would like to be a firm advocate of States's Rights, since I don't like big government (is that a crime?), I think that the secession of the Southern States was a mistake and I also believe that secession---here comes the conspiracy theory, Tim Gratz will love this --was deliberately promoted and provoked by the British Crown and the imperial international banking interests of the Rothschild family and that, if author CHarles Higham is correct, in his new book MURDERING MR. LINCOLN, the Rothschilds were instrumental in Lincoln's assassination through their American agent, August Belmont. I believe Mr. Higham is Jewish. He is certainly an outspoken ANTI against anything that reeks of Nazism or Anti-Semitism. So I warn Tim Gratz not to say that my reference to the Rothschild banking syndicate is "anti-Semitic."

I do believe that John F. Kennedy and his brother Joe were right in aligning themselves with the America First Committee (of which they were dues-paying members) which fought against US entry into the war in Europe—a committee which was supported by some pretty outspoken people generally perceived to be "liberals" in their day. I am also a very big admirer of Charles A. Lindbergh who spoke on behalf of the America First COmmittee and I can't resist pointing out that while she was First Lady, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis wrote a letter to Lindbergh saying that she and the Kennedy family (yep, Jack, too) were very big admirers of Mr. Lindbergh. Was Jackie endorsing an Evil Nazi? She knew full well what his views on the war in Europe were?

I do know that Deborah Lipstadt, the "expert" on Holocaust Denial, says that Holocaust Denial EVEN INCLUDES doubting German war guilt in World War ONE---repeat WORLD WAR ONE---not World War II.

I do know that when I was a high school student I was taught that "of the six million Jews who died during World War II, four million of them died at Auschwitz." However, on July 17, 1990 the Washington Times reprinted an article from the London Sunday Times, saying that Polish authorities had just announced that four million people did not die at Auschwitz, that the figure was 1.1 million and that 900,000 of them were Jews. However, even doubting the figure of "Six Million" in general is called Holocaust Denial and you can get thrown in jail in "democratic" Germany for saying that less than Six Million Jews died in the Holocaust.

Yes, yes, yes, the Holocaust was a horrible thing and I have no doubt that the German government did indeed kill many Jews by many methods. But, on the same token, I think it's pretty pathetic and offensive and disgusting that Holocaust Enthusiasts in the Israeli lobby in Washington actively sided with the Turkish government and its lobbyists in Washington in trying to derail a proposed congressional memorial to the Armenians who say that more than a million of the Armenian people were victims of genocide by the Turks. The Israelis want "their " Holocaust but nobody else is allowed to have one! And even today, in the Washington Post, there is an article describing how some defenders of the Turks say that it is an absolute lie and that there is no evidence whatsoever of more than one million Armenian victims. Surely there must be some middle ground.

But, as Jewish American professor Norman Finkelstein (whose parents were interned in concentration camps during World War II) in his book THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY has pointed out, the Holocaust is now used as a political club by the Israeli lobby.

And as one of American Indian descent, I find it contemptible and vicious and outrageous that the American Jewish Committee published in its COMMENTARY magazine an article DISPUTING that the treatment of the American Indians was GENOCIDE!

The American Jewish Committee—which like its soul-mate, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith—OPPOSES affirmative action for my African-American godson—should be shunned.

And the truth is that between 1980 (when I first started writing for The SPOTLIGHT, published by Liberty Lobby) and 1994, I had only ever written two articles (out of literally thousands) that touched on the Holocaust; one of them was about the controversy surrounding the election of Kurt Waldheim as Austrian president. The other article, actually, I didn't write. I only did some minor editing, but because I had made some substantial changes, the editor suggested that my name be added as co-author. The article happened to be a very generalized report about the activities of the Institute for Historical Review, the so-called "Holocaust denial" organization. It was a report hardly different from anything you might read in ANY NEWSPAPER.

Yet, I am still labeled a Holocaust denier since that is a convenient tag to shift focus from what my book FINAL JUDGMENT really does say.

And I should note, too, that on a previous JFK assassination forum on the Internet, I was ATTACKED by someone (who would be considered a "Holocaust denier" for NOT mentioning the Holocaust in FINAL JUDGMENT, although that reasoning is about as tortured as the insistence that what I do or do not think about the Holocaust has ANYTHING whatsover to do with what I think about the JFK assassination.

Whether 1 Jew died or whether it was 6,000,000 or 11,000,000 as some "experts" now claim, I do believe that anyone who advocates putting people in jail for questioning the Six Million figure deserves to be sent to jail themselves. I refuse to buy the theme that the Jewish tragedies of wartime Europe are "unique" and are any different from the mass murders of millions of people under the communist heel.

I reject the racist theme that the Jews are God's Chosen People.

I happen to believe in freedom of speech and the biggest foes of freedom of speech are Holocaust Enthusiast outfits such as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, which, incidentally, scoffs at ALL JFK ASSASSINATION CONSPIRACY THEORIES, not just mine.

Another point: Gratz and company -- while claiming that I am somehow "affiliated" with the KKK seem to carefully not mention the fact that the introduction to my book was written by Robert L. Brock, a veteran African-American civil rights activist who is known as "the Reparations Man" since he is the early pioneer of the slavery reparations movement.

In fact, I endorse reparations for slavery.

I believe that America should cut its multi-billion dollar subsidies to Israel and redirect those funds into carefully crafted programs to provide homeless shelters, drug treatment programs, job-training programs and other systems to save the urban poor who are, of course, largely Black.

Yes, I spoke at a conference organized by David Duke. I was also preparing to speak at a California unit of the Jewish War Veterans at the invitation of a gentleman whose father was a JWV member, but some of the other members kicked up a fuss and the affair was scuttled.

And for those who want to rant and rave about my book being "anti-Semitic," I will tell you that one of my Jewish friends who read the book said that while he didn't buy my thesis (although he admitted a certain bias), he didn't find the book "anti-Semitic" at all.

I can tell you that a somewhat infamous Jewish American lobbyist and wheeler dealer in Washington—who has been personally connected with some of the oft-alleged masterminds and conspirators in the JFK assassination and whose name is probably familiar to a lot of people on this forum—is an old friend of mine and after he read FINAL JUDGMENT he said: "I think that's pretty much what happened."

That endorsement MEANS A LOT. it's what you might call "informed opinion,"

I can also tell you that Philippe Rockholt of Seattle, Washington wrote me this after he read FINAL JUDGMENT: "The book is a great service to the Americanpeople and the world. This book truly ties everything together. The missing link I've been looking for. As a French citizen and a Jew, I found the French-israeli connection fascinating and a logical conclusion."

I can tell you that Mark Lane, who is Jewish and who is an outspoken critic of Israel, said that FINAL JUDGMENT makes a "strong case" for Mossad involvement in the JFK assassination. Once, when I was visiting Mark, I was delighted to learn that he had been showing FINAL JUDGMENT to Steve Jaffe who cut his teeth as an investigator for Jim Garrison.

(Mark and Steve and I were getting ready to go to a tribute to Dick Gregory at the kennedy center, about which I have written—along with some other data involving the Israeli lobby's war against Martin Luther King—on another post on the Education Forum relating to a post by Tim Gratz regarding the death of Coretta Scott King. There is information there, I believe, that will interest those who are interested in FINAL JUDGMENT and its thesis.)

Mark Lane, incidentally, was quite interested to learn that the moneybags behind Oliver Stone's JFK was Arnon Milchan who was and perhaps still is, Israel's largest arms dealer, and a key player in its nuclear weapons program. I note that some person outrageously posted something on this forum saying that I found it significant that Milchan was a Jew. his religion had nothing to do with it. Instead, the significance was the fact that he is a big player in the Israeli nuclear weapons program that JFK was working to stop. However, that point didn't matter to the poster who was determined to make me out the Big Jew Hater. Just another way in which my totally INNOCENT comments have been eggregiously twisted by my critics.

And by the way, while I am bending your ear: the excuse that Israel would never have become involved in or otherwise instigated a plot to kill JFK because 1) it is our great ally and 2) Israel depends on the US for its lifeblood and 3) what if they got caught? --- just doesn't wash.

First of all, the "special" relationship between the US and Israel did not emerge until AFTER the assassination of John F. Kennedy. It came about during the Johnson years -- actually almost instanteously upon the death of JFK, if Jewish-American writer Stephen Green, a former fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is to be believed. (See Green's book, TAKING SIDES).

In fact, JFK was planning to CUT aid to Israel in the weeks before his death. (I don't have the source on that handy, but I didn't even discover that until AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT was first published and someone sent me a yellowed news clipping.)

In addition, the idea that Israel would "get caught" makes about as much sense as saying that the CIA wouldn't kill JFK because "what if they got caught." LBJ and his Warren Commission were COVERING UP THE CRIME and LBJ was the chief individual beneficiary of the crime. LBJ was a hard-nosed long time ally of Israel who even actively aided in the smuggling of illegal Jewish immigration into the United States (via Texas) before World War II, accorind to Israeli writer Michael karpin in his new book THE BOMB IN THE BASEMENT.

Texas, by the way, was a major outpost of the smuggling of arms to the Jewish terror groups in Palestine prior to the establishment of Israel, according to the official history of the Sonneborn Institute (which was the Israeli arms smuggling network) and the city of Dallas Texas is, contrary to Hollywood legend, not run by a bunch of John Birchers. Instead, the rulers of the city's Citizen's Council (not to be confused with the segregationist group of a similar name) were dominated by a handful of Jewish businessmen such as Julius Schepps, a partner of the Bronfman family, whose ally and attorney, Louis Bloomfield, was chairman of the board of Permindex of which Clay Shaw of New Orleans Garrison fame was a director.

One of the key elements smuggled out of Texas in those years were aircraft parts. Jack Ruby was an aircraft mechanic during World War II—after which he went to Texas, allegedly on "Mafia" business. Dr. William Pepper (as noted elsewhere in one of my postings) says that Ruby was part of a smuggling network involving an Israeli Mossad official. Is all of this significant or is it the ranting of an anti-Semite with an agenda.

And no, I haven't stopped beating my wife or kicking my dog, Mr. Gratz.

[Owen Parsons]

I do know that when I was a high school student I was taught that "of the six million Jews who died during World War II, four million of them died at Auschwitz." However, on July 17, 1990 the Washington Times reprinted an article from the London Sunday Times, saying that Polish authorities had just announced that four million people did not die at Auschwitz, that the figure was 1.1 million and that 900,000 of them were Jews. However, even doubting the figure of "Six Million" in general is called Holocaust Denial and you can get thrown in jail in "democratic" Germany for saying that less than Six Million Jews died in the Holocaust.

In case you missed the memo, the inflated Auschwitz figure was recognized to be inflated by just about all holocaust historians long before it was officially lowered and was not used to obtain the standard six million figure. Andy has already gone over this in this very thread and I posted a link a while ago. Are you willing to admit that you were wrong?

Don't complain if people focus on the Holocaust to the exclusion of your assassination theories. You brought this on your self by trotting out the Auschwitz red herring in an article. Also, although I was not yet ready to label you an anti-Semite (your holocaust denial could just be an outgrowth of your anti-Zionism, after all), I think I can do so now. The fact that you see Rothschild involvement in the Lincoln assassination, before modern Israel's founding, raises an eyebrow (the fact that you came across this in a book you claim was not written by an anti-Semite is hardly relevant). In addition, your classifying the Jews' claim to be God's chosen people as "rascist" (a thing reiterated, oh, I don't know, how many times in the Old Testament?) is also interesting.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Michael Collins Piper]

Tim Gratz asks if I support a breakaway republic of southern states.

I don't think much about it one way or the other. I'm kind of inclined to stick with the Union myself.

However, in regard to the problem of Israel, and it is a problem, I do have a solution:

In all seriousness:

Since the United States is so rich and evidently so able to absorb so many immigrants, legal and illegal, I would suggest that the American government used its considerable resources to invite and pay for the massive immigration of Jews from the state known as Israel to the United States and that we carve out a Jewish state here in the United States—maybe in Dick Cheney's Wyoming (that gun-toter is a big fan of Israel's) or in one of the big Western states, possibly in the Southwest (where the climate would be reasonably close to that of Israel) and then if we MUST continue subsiding such a Jewish state, at least the funds would never leave the Continental United States.

Now being of partial American Indian descent myself, I might get a lot of my fellow American Indians in the Southwest mad, since it was originally their land which would be given to the "new" state of Israel here on American soil, but considering the fact that Israel as it is now constituted is essentially "stolen" property, there would be a precedent for it.

Since the founders of the Zionist movement once seriously considered Uganda and Madagascar as possible Jewish homelands, why can't the modern-day leaders of Zionism be a little flexible and consider relocating here to the U.S.?

A Canadian Jewish scholar, Professor Michael Neumann, has written a new book entitled THE CASE AGAINST ISRAEL, published by Counterpunch (which is the organ of progressive writer Alexander Cockburn --- he no anti-Semite or Holocaust denier either -- and in the book he advocates that the United States save Israel from itself by leading an international coalition to take out Israel's nuclear bomb. Not a bad idea. Those mad bombers in Israel's Likud are capable of anything.

What say ye, Tim Gratz?

(Oh, by the way, you want to know if I share the tenets of Stormfront. First of all, I am not a member of Storm Front. I've looked on the site several times when I've done Internet searches about my book, and on that site I saw at least one person BASHING me --- so your conspiracy theory that I'm somehow a part of it and that, as you would suggest, it is a base of my support, so to speak, just ain't true, fella!

You can keep playing your "link" game and name every conceivable group that you don't like that happens to have someone who might be connected to someone I'm connected with or who has written something nice about me, but your gimmick is getting tired and worn.

Actually, it's pretty interesting to see that otherwise seemingly intelligent people just lose all touch with reality when they are confronted with my thesis regarding Mossad involvement in the JFK assassination. On the one hand they say: "Oh, it's foolish, it's a lie. It's crazy. he's an evil anti-Semite and he's got an agenda. But nobody takes him seriously. So don't pay any attention to him. Don't listen to him! Stop."

Why pay me all the attention if nobody takes me seriously?

The problem is precisely that those who read my book say it does make sense. And that's what there's all this hysteria.

Even if I am completely wrong there are a lot of serious, intelligent people who don't think I'm wrong.

And that includes people of all political stripes, not just "right wing anti-Semites" and "Holocaust deniers."

And in this context, I was very honored to receive an email from the widow of the late Ace Hayes, the firebrand publisher of the Portland Free Press offering me his entire archive. Mr. Hayes was no "right wing Jew-hating Holocaust denying anti-Semite" and he was very supportive of my work and obviously enough so that his widow would make such a generous offer.

Let's just put it this way: If being "anti-Semitic" is objecting to an uncontrolled and powerful foreign lobby dictating America's foreign policy and getting us into a needless and bloody war in Iraq, then YOU BET: I AM ANTI-SEMITIC. And you can take that to Bank Leumi.

[Owen Parsons]

A Canadian Jewish scholar, Professor Michael Neumann, has written a new book entitled THE CASE AGAINST ISRAEL, published by Counterpunch (which is the organ of progressive writer Alexander Cockburn --- he no anti-Semite or Holocaust denier either -- and in the book he advocates that the United States save Israel from itself by leading an international coalition to take out Israel's nuclear bomb. Not a bad idea. Those mad bombers in Israel's Likud are capable of anything.

Michael Neumann has damned himself with his own words. See here. I am somewhat surprised that the anti-Zionist movement still regards him as credible enough to do their cause good.