Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement

[John Dolva]

Mark S wrote:

My answer depends on whether such an individual has something of value to contribute to the collective knowledge of the assassination. If wouldn't matter to me if its a nazi, fascist, Klan or Bonesman.

I call this moral myopia.

There were Nazis who were excellent architects, musicians, etc. Hitler himself was a good painter. By Mark's moral standards, he would sit down and take painting lessons from the architect of the Holocaust.

Mark's position reminds me very much of Robert Maheu's admission in his memoirs that he liked Sam Giancana because Giancana was a good cook and a heck of a story teller. Never mind that he was also a ruthless killer; his steaks and caviar were excellent.

Mark, it DOES matter if someone is a nazi, a fascist, a Klansman, one who preaches racial hatred, etc. In Germany it led to the Holocaust. In America it led to the lynchings of black people and the bombings of churches killing innocent little girls the age of my daughter.

Racial hatred matters, Mark. It matters very much.

Amen, Tim!

I wouldn't pull any punches on this.

I think this is a special case where a special rule should be applied. Simply because of the anti semitism. There must be persons who can argue the Mossad angle who are proven to be impartial.

This sort of person needs no voice on this forum. He represents a perversion that is so repulsive to humanity that it is possible to see it in a class of its own. For future generations, and out of respect for those who were there, society must be totally unambiguous on its stand on this issue.

There can be no compromise with such filth.

[Tim Gratz]

Right on, John! I can tell from your postings on the Southern racists that you feel strongly about this as well.

It is clearly not the point that Piper is anti-Semitic because he argues the Mossad did it. It is his other incredible and outrageous positions.

One can criticize the Mossad without being anti-Semitic. I have not yet seen the movie, but I understand Spielberg's new movie "Munich" is critical of the Mossad's tracking down and killing the Munich terrorists.

But Piper's anti-Semitism would indicate there is an agenda behind "Final Judgment".

[John Dolva]

Right on, John! I can tell from your postings on the Southern racists that you feel strongly about this as well.

It is clearly not the point that Piper is anti-Semitic because he argues the Mossad did it. It is his other incredible and outrageous positions.

One can criticize the Mossad without being anti-Semitic. I have not yet seen the movie, but I understand Spielberg's new movie "Munich" is critical of the Mossad's tracking down and killing the Munich terrorists.

But Piper's anti-Semitism would indicate there is an agenda behind "Final Judgment".

Tim, this raises an important point I have been looking for an opportunity to address.

I don't like the term 'southern racists'. There is no difference between a southern eastern etc racist. I know that's stating the obvious, but I think it's relevant.

Jews responsible for the death of Jesus and the freedom of Barabbas?

Barabbas and Jesus were BOTH Jews. Jesus represented an anti corruption bloc within the Jewish faith. In other words he presented a front to the Occupation forces that first sought to put the home team in order. Barabbas was a member of the Zealots, or what Engels might have called 'an infantile disorder'. "Divide and rule" is a time honoured tactic. In a sense one could see Kennedy taking a position such as Jesus might have taken, (there is a similarity there with Anwar Sadat and his assassination coming at a time of conciliation) and Barabbas belonging to some extreme grouping.

Lumping all Jews together in an analysis shows where Piper is coming from. Perhaps an analysis that recognises Zionism as an ideology not subscribed to by many religious Jews would be more palatable.

Lumping all whites together as racists is probably more easy to recognise as absurd. This timely realisation was one of Malcolm X's greatest contribution as a muslim. I don't think his soon to come assassination was coincidental.

[Tim Gratz]

Excellent points, John. Obviously a racist is a racist whether he or she lives in Mississippi or Massaschusets. And of course there can be subtle forms of racism that are, nevertheless, racism.

I have of course held my opinions on this for a long time but in Key West I have developed a great friendship with a Jewish couple who have two sons close to my daughter's age. I have often wondered how I would tell my children about the Holocaust if I was Jewish.

About a year ago I found a marvelous children's book about when the parents of Martin Luther King, Jr. had to tell him about racism (when he was excluded from something). He was about six or seven at the time, if my memory serves me. The book said that then and there he resolved that when he grew up he would do something about it.

Edited February 13, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Right on, John! I can tell from your postings on the Southern racists that you feel strongly about this as well.

It is clearly not the point that Piper is anti-Semitic because he argues the Mossad did it. It is his other incredible and outrageous positions.

One can criticize the Mossad without being anti-Semitic. I have not yet seen the movie, but I understand Spielberg's new movie "Munich" is critical of the Mossad's tracking down and killing the Munich terrorists.

But Piper's anti-Semitism would indicate there is an agenda behind "Final Judgment".

Tim, this raises an important point I have been looking for an opportunity to address.

I don't like the term 'southern racists'. There is no difference between a southern eastern etc racist. I know that's stating the obvious, but I think it's relevant.

I agree John. I’ve noticed how Tim likes to use the term “Southern racists”. However, the truth of the situation is that the vast majority of the white population in the United States were willing to go along with racist policies throughout the 20th century. It has to be remembered that members of Congress were unwilling to pass anti-lynching legislation in the 1930s and 1940s because they thought they would lose them votes in future elections. The same was true concerning action against Jim Crow laws. It has to be remembered that it was not until the mid 1960s that the law gave the blacks the right to vote in elections. The struggle did not end there. Ethnic minorities in the United States still suffer from discrimination. In fact, the inequality in the United States is worse than any other advanced country in the world.

Only a small minority of whites have been willing to campaign against this discrimination. It is interesting to note that American Jews have played a major role in the civil rights struggle. This is no coincidence as they had themselves suffered from racial discrimination. As a result Jews played an important role in left-wing political groups between 1900 and 1960 because of their views on equality. As a result, they suffered disproportionately during McCarthyism. This still did not prevent them from continuing their role in the campaign for civil rights and as a result they made up a large proportion of artists blacklisted in the 1950s. I have the greatest respect for those Jews who sacrificed so much during the struggle for civil rights.

That is why I consider Tim Gratz a hypocrite with his comments about racism. It seems from his postings on the Forum, his political activity has been restricted to right-wing groups like the Young American for Freedom. Groups campaigning in favour of the rich and powerful against the poor, of whatever colour.

[Len Colby]

I found this interesting dialogue on an Internet blog:

What Are Malays Reading?

Entering the bookstore in the check-in hall at Kuala Lumpur airport, the first book we saw on the table near the door was Hitler's "Mein Kampf." Odd. Then our eyes were drawn to a cover with a caricature of a Jewish financier straight out of Nazi propaganda. Yup, it was Henry Ford's anti-semitic tract, "The International Jew," with the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" thrown in for good measure. Elsewhere on the table was "The High Priests of War: The Secret History of How America's 'Neo-Conservative' Trotskyites Came To Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire" by Michael Collins Piper. Mr. Piper is a Holocaust "revisionist" and JFK assassination conspiracy theorist. It would appear that former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's complaints about the Jews have had their desired effect on Malays' reading habits.

Posted 8 months, 4 days ago on June 8, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: What Are Malays Reading?

It's interesting to learn that my work, THE HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR, which is by far the most precise and concise exposition of what the neo-conservative Zionist imperial war machine is all about is so prominently displayed alongside other significant works. As far as the claim that I am somehow a "Holocaust Revisionist" is concerned, I have been called that so many times that I am going to have to start taking a closer look at what these Holocaust Revisionists do have to say. Since?as we know?there are so many lies and double standards about Israel and its butchering of the Palestinians, it seems logical that the Israelis and their supporters are telling big lies about the period known as the Holocaust. --MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER, author of THE HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR, The NEW JERUSALEM, and FINAL JUDGMENT: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted 54 minutes, 27 seconds ago by Michael Collins Piper • @ • www • Reply

Comment Trackback URL : http://www.feer.com/tales/bblog/trackback.php/98/77/

...

Comment pending moderation

Note that Piper refers to "Mein Kampf" and "The International Jew" and the infamous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as "other significant works" and he is evidently proud to have his work displayed with such trash.

Remember this is the guy who says World War II should not have been fought since the Nazis ONLY killed 1,500,000 Jews!

Mark Stapleton exhibits the typical liberal attitude: I cannot impose MY moral views on Piper. There is such a thing as making a moral judgment and acting on it. Anti-Semites and racists deserve scorn. To treat their sick views as equivalent to the views of healthy socialists, liberals and conservatives is ridiculous, IMO. Make a moral judgment, Mark. Is what Piper preaches immoral, or not?

Tim,

You don't seem to be able to accept that others may look at things from a different perspective than yours. Your thundering speeches mean nothing to me.

I'm interested in what this guy has to say about the assassination. I believe Mossad involvement is a possibility. The assassination is what I am interested in. All the rest is just a lotta noise.

You seem to be outraged when others don't share your world view and moral indignation. Amazing.

Mark I find your position here curious. Tim objects to Piper's anti-Semetism and this upsets you? Tim doesn't have the right to object to anti-Semitism but you have the right to object to objection? Amazing indeed.

This raises a important question are all POV's equally valid?

Len

[Len Colby]

Len,

I'm glad to hear that you don't fear what Mr. Piper may have to say.

If Mr. Piper's theories on the assassination prove to be nothing more than an extension of anti-Israel bias, this will become apparent at an early stage

[...]

I request the lynch mob wait until their victim shows up before lighting the fire.

If Piper were merely anti-Israel he would not bother me so much, it's the fact that he is an anti-Semetic Holocaust denier that upsets me.

If he were openly a member of the Klan or the Nazi party what would be your position on him being invited to join this forum? That question is for you to John.

The "lynch mob" does not need to wait for Herr Piper to show up here he has made his views clear already. If Posner ever shows up here I think most members of this forum will know his POV before he starts posting.

Len,

I'm not sure I understand your meaning when you state, "That question is for you to John". If you have a question for John I suggest you direct it to him. I won't be addressing questions to John on your behalf.

However, I can answer your loaded question if you like.

"If he were openly a member of the Klan or the Nazi Party what would your position on him being invited to join this forum?

My answer depends on whether such an individual has something of value to contribute to the collective knowledge of the assassination. If wouldn't matter to me if its a nazi, fascist, Klan or Bonesman. Listen to the argument and evaluate its merit. If a Nazi, Klansman or holocaust denier wished to argue the dubious merits of their philosophies, then they could do that--elsewhere on the Forum--and would no doubt be heavily criticised by those members, myself included, who disagree with such philosophies. However, I doubt if I would waste time arguing on those threads.

Now I have a hypothetical for you. If Piper presents arguments which are logical and cohesive, based on detailed research and not blind ideology, which may lead to a greater understanding of the factors involved in the death of JFK, would you still try to silence him?

Sorry Mark that was a typo I meant "If he were openly a member of the Klan or the Nazi party what would be your position on him being invited to join this forum? That question is for you too, John."

As to your question to me, as I've already stated I'm not trying to silence him.

John - You are skirting the most important questions and issues to have come up in this thread, as moderator of this forum you really should address them.

What is happening with Piper? My position is that you shouldn't invite him to join if you haven't done so already but accept him as a member if he requests it.

Len

Edited February 13, 2006 by Len Colby

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

That is why I consider Tim Gratz a hypocrite with his comments about racism. It seems from his postings on the Forum, his political activity has been restricted to right-wing groups like the Young American for Freedom. Groups campaigning in favour of the rich and powerful against the poor, of whatever colour.

What exquisite logic. Clearly if one were to favor the rich over the poor of whatever colour, as John suggests, one would not be a racist. Why then is it hypocrisy for me to oppose racism?

Moreover this thread really relates to anti-Semitism, and most Jewish people are not economically disadvantaged. If fact, most may very well belong to the higher income categories. Therefore, economic or political policies which favored the upper income levels might very well, on average, be of benefit to Jewish people. So it cannot be hypocritical to be opposed to anti-Semitism merely because one holds conservative economic positions.

I also think I shall need to teach John syllogistic reasoning. John apparently believes that one must be a racist if one opposed the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. But that reasoning is false. Here would be the syllogism he proposes:

MAJOR PREMISE: All racists opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

MINOR PREMISE: Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

CONCLUSION: Barry Goldwater is a racist.

Both the major premise and the minor premise are true but the conclusion is false. BG was clearly not a racist. He integrated his family-owned department store while that was still a risky thing to do. And he worked for civil rights on the local level. But he opposed the civil rights act of 1964 because he thought it unconstitutional. It is as outrageous to call BG a racist over that issue as it is to label someone as pro-terrorist because he or she objects to warrantless telephone taps.

Moreover, as it relates to me, I have posted, and it is true, that as a youngster I hated the South because of how it treated Afro-Americans and the brutality with which it responded to the civil rights protesters. I was a firm firm believer in racial equality. At the time, because I was an ardent BG supporter, in large part because of his strong anti-Communist stance, I accepted his position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But it did not take me too long to reach the conclusion that progress was being made in the South because of the civil rights legislation passed under LBJ and I knew that I was wrong, and my hero BG was wrong, on that issue.

BG was correct on many issues however. LBJ's War on Poverty was misguided in several respects and however well-intentioned it may have been it led to adverse unintended consequence which in fact hurt many Americans "of color". For instance, it encouraged the break-up of the afro-American family unit and that deterioration had serious and unfortunate results, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan concluded in a prescient analysis. Interestingly, there were indications that Bobby Kennedy also understood this and in his campaign he was emphasizing economic opportunities for blacks as opposed to increasing social welfare legislation,

I am offended that John Simkin has called me a hypocrite in my strong opposition to racism and anti-semitism. There are many intellectual black Americans who support the very same economic policies I favor, and I would vote for any one of them in a heartbeat. John's premise is that anyone who is not a socialist must be a racist. That position is patently absurd and demonstrably false.

Edited February 13, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Was Goldwater a racist? there is some evidence that he wasnt, He called Alabama Govenor George Wallace a "racist thug" And said of protests in Birmingham, "If I were a Negro, I dont think I would be very patient either.. But, by his oposition to Civil rights legislation he sent a clear message to Southern crackers. A vote for Goldwater is a vote for no change. In this he resembles more the consumate right wing politician, than an out and out racist.

[Mark Stapleton]

I found this interesting dialogue on an Internet blog:

What Are Malays Reading?

Entering the bookstore in the check-in hall at Kuala Lumpur airport, the first book we saw on the table near the door was Hitler's "Mein Kampf." Odd. Then our eyes were drawn to a cover with a caricature of a Jewish financier straight out of Nazi propaganda. Yup, it was Henry Ford's anti-semitic tract, "The International Jew," with the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" thrown in for good measure. Elsewhere on the table was "The High Priests of War: The Secret History of How America's 'Neo-Conservative' Trotskyites Came To Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire" by Michael Collins Piper. Mr. Piper is a Holocaust "revisionist" and JFK assassination conspiracy theorist. It would appear that former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's complaints about the Jews have had their desired effect on Malays' reading habits.

Posted 8 months, 4 days ago on June 8, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: What Are Malays Reading?

It's interesting to learn that my work, THE HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR, which is by far the most precise and concise exposition of what the neo-conservative Zionist imperial war machine is all about is so prominently displayed alongside other significant works. As far as the claim that I am somehow a "Holocaust Revisionist" is concerned, I have been called that so many times that I am going to have to start taking a closer look at what these Holocaust Revisionists do have to say. Since?as we know?there are so many lies and double standards about Israel and its butchering of the Palestinians, it seems logical that the Israelis and their supporters are telling big lies about the period known as the Holocaust. --MICHAEL COLLINS PIPER, author of THE HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR, The NEW JERUSALEM, and FINAL JUDGMENT: The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted 54 minutes, 27 seconds ago by Michael Collins Piper • @ • www • Reply

Comment Trackback URL : http://www.feer.com/tales/bblog/trackback.php/98/77/

...

Comment pending moderation

Note that Piper refers to "Mein Kampf" and "The International Jew" and the infamous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as "other significant works" and he is evidently proud to have his work displayed with such trash.

Remember this is the guy who says World War II should not have been fought since the Nazis ONLY killed 1,500,000 Jews!

Mark Stapleton exhibits the typical liberal attitude: I cannot impose MY moral views on Piper. There is such a thing as making a moral judgment and acting on it. Anti-Semites and racists deserve scorn. To treat their sick views as equivalent to the views of healthy socialists, liberals and conservatives is ridiculous, IMO. Make a moral judgment, Mark. Is what Piper preaches immoral, or not?

Tim,

You don't seem to be able to accept that others may look at things from a different perspective than yours. Your thundering speeches mean nothing to me.

I'm interested in what this guy has to say about the assassination. I believe Mossad involvement is a possibility. The assassination is what I am interested in. All the rest is just a lotta noise.

You seem to be outraged when others don't share your world view and moral indignation. Amazing.

Mark I find your position here curious. Tim objects to Piper's anti-Semetism and this upsets you? Tim doesn't have the right to object to anti-Semitism but you have the right to object to objection? Amazing indeed.

This raises a important question are all POV's equally valid?

Len

Len,

My position has been clear and consistent throughout this thread, although I probably haven't explained myself very clearly.

I don't object to Tim's objection to Piper's anti-semitism (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt because I haven't read his book, but judging from the excerpts I've read its a pretty safe bet that he doesn't like Jews and the nation of Israel). Tim can object all he wants. He can make it his life's calling if he wants to. I have no problem with that, by itself.

But Tim and others not only object to his apparent racism--they want him silenced. This I object to. I would like to hear Piper's views on the assassination. His views on matters unrelated to the assassination may be highly objectionable but it doesn't automatically follow that everything he says about the assassination is wrong. There's no law in criminology that states, "all unsolved assassinations must be solved by the virtuous".

I've yet to be convinced of the logic of the argument being used by the "Ban Piper" advocates. ie. "he's an anti-Semite therefore he cannot possibly solve the riddle of JFK's death". You can't prove that argument because it's completely illogical.

p.s. no worries about that typo.

[Len Colby]

Fair enough Mark!! But I don't understand why Tim's stance so upset's you. John Dolva's stance is similar but you didn't say anything to him. Could it be your pre-existing hostility to Tim and his politics is what really caused such indignation? I hope you can show similar antipathy for Piper if he reveals his prejudices here.

Jeff I see you're reading again, ditto the unanswered questions I've asked you a few times already.

Edited February 13, 2006 by Len Colby

[John Simkin]

John - You are skirting the most important questions and issues to have come up in this thread, as moderator of this forum you really should address them.

What is happening with Piper? My position is that you shouldn't invite him to join if you haven't done so already but accept him as a member if he requests it.

I have not invited Piper to join the Forum. However, he did request to join the Forum at 21:18 on 10th Feb 2006. As it is not our policy to reject proposed members because Tim Gratz disapproves of them, his application to join is currently being processed.

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark S wrote:

My answer depends on whether such an individual has something of value to contribute to the collective knowledge of the assassination. If wouldn't matter to me if its a nazi, fascist, Klan or Bonesman.

I call this moral myopia.

There were Nazis who were excellent architects, musicians, etc. Hitler himself was a good painter. By Mark's moral standards, he would sit down and take painting lessons from the architect of the Holocaust.

Mark's position reminds me very much of Robert Maheu's admission in his memoirs that he liked Sam Giancana because Giancana was a good cook and a heck of a story teller. Never mind that he was also a ruthless killer; his steaks and caviar were excellent.

Mark, it DOES matter if someone is a nazi, a fascist, a Klansman, one who preaches racial hatred, etc. In Germany it led to the Holocaust. In America it led to the lynchings of black people and the bombings of churches killing innocent little girls the age of my daughter.

Racial hatred matters, Mark. It matters very much.

Tim,

How in the world does my desire to hear if Piper can contribute to this case equate to me taking painting lessons from Hitler? Totally ridiculous and inflammatory.

You're assuming the role of moral guardian. You're not my moral guardian.

I would have thought that members of the Forum are intelligent enough to determine a person's morality (or lack thereof) for themselves. I object to you determining what I may or may not hear.

I don't see why you don't want him to be heard. Isn't it better for your argument that he states his case and then you prove to the Forum that you are right by debating the issues. What have you got to fear? Do you fear that he may state a reasonable case for IDF/ Mossad involvement?

Tim writes:

Mark, it does matter whether someone is a Nazi, Fascist, Klansman, preaches racial hatred etc. In Germany it led to the holocaust. In America it led to the lynchings of black people and the bombings of churches killing innocent little girls the age of my daughter.

Racial hatred matters Mark. It matters very much.

Although this little speech on racial hatred apparently impressed some, I would like to point out why this is very poor form, and a tactic which I believe deserves censure. Injecting your daughter into this debate, especially in this manner, has the implication, however veiled, that I am indifferent to the killing of innocent children. I'm a father too and you and I both know that such an implication is unthinkable and greatly resented. This is a debate about whether Michael Collins Piper's views on JFK's assassination should be heard. Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement--that's the name of this thread. You're taking this debate way beyond its parameters.

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark S wrote:

My answer depends on whether such an individual has something of value to contribute to the collective knowledge of the assassination. If wouldn't matter to me if its a nazi, fascist, Klan or Bonesman.

I call this moral myopia.

There were Nazis who were excellent architects, musicians, etc. Hitler himself was a good painter. By Mark's moral standards, he would sit down and take painting lessons from the architect of the Holocaust.

Mark's position reminds me very much of Robert Maheu's admission in his memoirs that he liked Sam Giancana because Giancana was a good cook and a heck of a story teller. Never mind that he was also a ruthless killer; his steaks and caviar were excellent.

Mark, it DOES matter if someone is a nazi, a fascist, a Klansman, one who preaches racial hatred, etc. In Germany it led to the Holocaust. In America it led to the lynchings of black people and the bombings of churches killing innocent little girls the age of my daughter.

Racial hatred matters, Mark. It matters very much.

Amen, Tim!

I wouldn't pull any punches on this.

I think this is a special case where a special rule should be applied. Simply because of the anti semitism. There must be persons who can argue the Mossad angle who are proven to be impartial.

This sort of person needs no voice on this forum. He represents a perversion that is so repulsive to humanity that it is possible to see it in a class of its own. For future generations, and out of respect for those who were there, society must be totally unambiguous on its stand on this issue.

There can be no compromise with such filth.

What a speech. Nice to see that you speak for all humanity--and future generations as well.

BTW, society must be totally ambiguous on which issue? Please clarify your issue here and tell me how it relates to the thread.

[John Dolva]

Mark, I speak for myself. This is my position. I am under no delusions about myself having any more rights than yourself, or anyone else.

It's entirely up to any society or group to adopt a policy as suits them.

My position on holocaust denial is that it is special case, to which the answer must be unambiguous. I give you permission to take that or leave it as you wish. In fact, while I'm at it, I'll extend that right to all.

In this case 'relates to thread'? Hmm...I responded to the idea of whether such a person should be given voice on the forum with my opinion, which is no. It is not a statement about whether a proponent of Mossad involvement should have voice.