Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement

[Mark Stapleton]

If this meeting is the only evidence of Israeli participation in JFK's assassination, then it's a pretty thin case, although the Israelis demanded secrecy. It proves no more than the fact that in November 1963, Israel had great concern for its safety.

The meeting could also have been in part an excuse for Rabin to come to DC, and travel on to Dallas, on what his wife called a tour of U.S. military facilities. Rabin never told us what he was doing in Dallas, as he left the whole second half of 1963 out of his autobiography, in which he never even mentions John Kennedy.

Pretty strange, that's for sure. Things like that are what arouse suspicion. It's only natural.

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark,

What makes you so sure that Cohen's book is 100% accurate and thus when the other two books contradict it they must be wrong?

You quote Piper's book what was his source?

All - see my post on Tim's "Book" thread that undermines Piper's thesis and I think raises some interesting questions.

Len

The book has over 1200 footnotes so I'm not getting into the process of citing all the references. It's the result of a ten year project and much of his documentation was courtesy of Israel's thirty year declassification rule. But still much is not available. It's a genuine research work, IMO. But don't take my word for it--get it and see for yourself.

p.s. Cohen was arrested by the Israeli Government when he went there on a speaking tour in 2000. Held for a few days and interrogated about his sources, I believe. I read this on the net somewhere so I can't say it's gospel truth.

Edited February 24, 2006 by Mark Stapleton

[Michael Collins Piper]

For anyone who is interested, for whatever reason . . .

WELL WELL WELL,

WE'VE FINALLY GOT TIM GRATZ BY HIS BIG FAT BALLS.

He says that Andy Walker published some "evidence" about me being in attendence at an American Renaissance Conference and elsewhere he has talked about me being at a Stormfront conference.

Well, as I've noted previously, I did speak at a conference organized by David Duke and again, make no apologies for it. David Duke received the votes of some 60-65 percent of the white voters of Louisiana --- whether you like that fact or not --- when he ran both for the US Senate and the governorship of that state.

I have NEVER spoken or appeared or visited ANY conference of Stormfront.

So Tim Gratz and anybody else who says I did is either a very poor researcher or a xxxx.

And now we have finally got proof that Tim Gratz is a xxxx when he says that he has a copy of my book FINAL JUDGMENT for here's an interesting little fact . . .

This xxxx, Tim Gratz, says that I spoke or appeared at an American Renaissance Conference. Well, anybody who has a copy of FINAL JUDGMENT knows, there is a picture of the head of American Renaissance, Jared Taylor, in my book, pointing out that Taylor attempted to scuttle one of my speaking engagements in the Washington, DC area precisely because he objected to my allegations (a la Gratz) of Israeli Mossad involvement in the JFK assassination conspiracy.

I have written critically of Taylor in FINAL JUDGMENT and in my book THE HIGH PRIESTS OF WAR, thrashing him for his bigoted anti-Muslim rhetoric, and I have been severely criticized by Taylor's followers for my repeated criticism of him.

I have pointed out that the company (Carroll & Graf) which published Taylor's book (PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS) which claims that Blacks are inferior has also published Harrison Livingstone's books which absolve the CIA of involvement in the JFK assassination.

I have suggested repeatedly, based on evidence brought to my attention, that Jared Taylor is CIA.

I do know that his book (TOUTING BLACK INFERIORITY) was favorably reviewed by COMMENTARY, the vicious racist voice of the vicious racist pro-Israel American Jewish Committee.

I call upon Gratz and Colby to repudiate the pro-Israel American jewish Committee (which opposes affirmative action for my African-American godson) to repudiate the AJC's endorsement of Jared Taylor!

So, folks, here we go again----absolute proof that Tim Gratz is a xxxx, an EGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGREGIOUS xxxx, a big fat xxxx. a dirty xxxx.

[Guest]

WE'VE FINALLY GOT TIM GRATZ BY HIS BIG FAT BALLS.

I would like to remind Mr Collins that this forum is for teachers, researchers, educators and students .

If he can't, as it were, use his "indoor voice" and communicate in a civilised fashion and in a standard of English recognisable as such, he will be asked to leave.

[Tim Gratz]

Well, Andy, at least I have them, which may not be true for Piper whose rants sound more and more like a castrated tomcat!

Edited February 26, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Well here is the meeting at which Piper was a featured speaker:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/calendar.p...-5-20&e=205&c=1

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Well, Andy, at least I have them, which may not be true for Piper whose rates sound more and more like a castrated tomcat!

Interesting post, Tim. Once again, puerile attempts at humour must substitute in lieu of any meaningful substance to rebut Piper's book... which you clearly haven't read, despite your protests to the contrary. If you had a copy, or had even read the damned thing, you'd be demolishing the data he presents, rather than tarring him for the company he keeps.

As for whether or not you "have them," were this true, you wouldn't keep running away from uncomfortable posts, such as the one I've resurrected below.

What's more, if you were half the gentleman you feign being, you'd offer an apology to Mark S. and me, for your gratuituous slurs against both of us. [Not that I'd expect one, but politesse requires one to hold out the hope.]

If you were half the scholar you pretend to be, you'd also simply admit that you haven't read any edition of Piper's book, and at least earn minimal points for honesty. I know that Uber-Republicans find it hard to admit mistakes, or stretching the truth, but perhaps you'll be the exception that proves the rule... who knows?

Mark S wrote:

p.s. Judging by the way you have effectively flayed Tim in regard to his rubbish concerning Castro, I wouldn't have thought you needed any 3-D glasses

How laughable. Mark S believes that Israel, who was one of America's best friends, killed Kennedy while he dismisses as "rubbish" the scenario that Castro, the sworn enemy of both the US and JFK (who called JFK such things as a "cretin" and "American's version of Batista"), and whom the US was itself trying to kill, killed Kennedy to prevent his own assassination.

He's hardly alone in dismissing as "rubbish" your raison d'etre. Your fan club of one seems to have limped back to his trailer park.

However, as per your other contention - "Mark S. believes that Israel... killed Kennedy" - you've oversimplified something into farce, yet again, knowingly, deliberately, and - as ever - falsely.

If somebody says they think Douglas Dillon is not above suspicion, you get your knickers in a knot and demand to know the proof for so preposterous a notion. How dare anyone make such charges?

In this case, you've rejected the hypothesis of "FJ," and assailed any and all comers. [One notes that you have not posted anything indicating that you've actually read the book - "It has been a while since I scanned the book" - which puts you rather at odds with your own eternal advice to others.]

You've previously stated repeatedly that you're absolutely convinced that OC played a major role in the assassination. But your depiction of OC is strictly Italian apparently: the only names you mention end in a vowel. No room in your OC for Rothman, Lansky, Siegel, Cohen, et al, despite their well-documented prominence within OC.

When I avoided this thread, you "inferred" that my absence meant I agreed with the book, and perhaps by using guilt by association you could depict me as a leperous anti-Semite of MCP's ilk. That was a real nifty piece of deduction on your part, Sherlock, and I just hope you're rightly proud of trading in such gratuitous slurs, based on nothing but your own imagination.

You must be, because you're back at it again, this time with Mark S. Remedial reading time for you, Timmy Boy. What was Mark's very first post? "I haven't read it but I've read several reviews including the link which James posted. While I don't agree with Piper's theory that Israel masterminded the assassination, the idea that they played a role can't be discounted."

So what do we have: Tim, who hasn't read a book based on an a priori dismissal of its premise, assailing Mark because - although he hasn't read the same book, and though he's already stated he doesn't agree with its central premise - won't dismiss the possibility of some involvement. In order to do so, Tim wrongly asserts what Mark "believes" - despite having every reason to know better - and thereby uses to the broad anti-Semite brush against our esteemed Australian contributor too.

This is the self-same Tim Gratz who admonishes others to keep their mouths shut about books they have not read, but now pontificates about a book that he hasn't read. This is the self-same Tim Gratz who assails others for making baseless ad hominem attacks, yet feels no compunction about baselessly tossing about epithets like "anti-Semite" and implying the worst about others, including - in my case - somebody who hadn't written a word on the topic. [While I don't support the book's central premise either, I at least read the book before reaching that conclusion.]

Mark, I know you live "down under". Are you possibly standing on your head down there?

This, from the same Tim Gratz who infers an "anti-American" bias from "foreigners." Can't imagine why anybody'd be biased against a polite young man such as yourself, Tim. Your manners and etiquette are just so fetching.

Having brought the foregoing to Forum members' attention, can I now expect to read a post about how I "bait" you?

[Tim Gratz]

Well here is the meeting at which Piper was a featured speaker:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/calendar.p...-5-20&e=205&c=1

It was clearly organized by Don Black, the founder of the Stormfront organization.

So Piper what the heck are you quibbling about? It is merely your way of evading answering my question whether you agree with the outrageous statements of Carto, Duke, Black and their ilk.

[Mark Stapleton]

Well here is the meeting at which Piper was a featured speaker:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/calendar.p...-5-20&e=205&c=1

It was clearly organized by Don Black, the founder of the Stormfront organization.

So Piper what the heck are you quibbling about? It is merely your way of evading answering my question whether you agree with the outrageous statements of Carto, Duke, Black and their ilk.

Never mind that. I think you should answer Robert's question:

Have you actually read Piper's book?

Or have you been making all these posts dismissing Piper's thesis without having read the book?

[Tim Gratz]

Mark:

Despite Piper's denials, I am certain that there were numerous chapters of a version of "Final Judgment" posted on the Internet a number of years back and that I read them all. (As I recall there were about twelve chapters.) I may even have printed them out but I have literally two or three file cabinents of printed documents not necessarily in much of an order.

I obviously cannot know remember every sentence or paragraph but I do remember how he constructed his argument and who his major players were.

I obviously consider it important to expose the viciousness of Piper's views but I have also tried from time to time to demonstrate the weakness of his arguments.

For instance, he has argued in support of the proposition of Jewish involvement that Ruby went to the Friday press conference claiming to be an interpreter for Israeli newspapers. A rather ridiculous argumnt, I would think. Israel supplied Ruby with false credentials that would link Israel to the plot? Somehow that seems a bit below the intelligence of the Mossad.

[Tim Gratz]

Piper wrote:

Well, as I've noted previously, I did speak at a conference organized by David Duke and again, make no apologies for it. David Duke received the votes of some 60-65 percent of the white voters of Louisiana --- whether you like that fact or not --- when he ran both for the US Senate and the governorship of that state.

Note the cogency of Piper's argument. It matters not the vicious racism of David Duke because he received the votes of many white southernors.

The point of course is exactly the opposite of Piper's. It is deplorable that so many people voted for Duke.

At one point of course a majority of Southern states (including the learned members of their legislature and judiciary) endorsed slavery. Does that make slavery permissible, Piper?

So you proudly spoke at seminars sponsored by the former Wizard (or whatever his title was) of the Ku Klux Klan. You probably would have been proud to participate in a seminar organized by Adolph Eichman for that matter.

Anyone proud to share a platform with the likes of David Duke is an evil man.

[Mark Stapleton]

Mark:

Despite Piper's denials, I am certain that there were numerous chapters of a version of "Final Judgment" posted on the Internet a number of years back and that I read them all. (As I recall there were about twelve chapters.) I may even have printed them out but I have literally two or three file cabinents of printed documents not necessarily in much of an order.

I obviously cannot know remember every sentence or paragraph but I do remember how he constructed his argument and who his major players were.

I obviously consider it important to expose the viciousness of Piper's views but I have also tried from time to time to demonstrate the weakness of his arguments.

For instance, he has argued in support of the proposition of Jewish involvement that Ruby went to the Friday press conference claiming to be an interpreter for Israeli newspapers. A rather ridiculous argumnt, I would think. Israel supplied Ruby with false credentials that would link Israel to the plot? Somehow that seems a bit below the intelligence of the Mossad.

Tim,

So finally an admission, a grudging admission, that you haven't read Piper's book. Duly noted.

[Tim Gratz]

I wrote:

Despite Piper's denials, I am certain that there were numerous chapters of a version of "Final Judgment" posted on the Internet a number of years back and that I read them all.

Mark S replied:

So finally an admission, a grudging admission, that you haven't read Piper's book. Duly noted.

Can Stapleton READ?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I wrote:

Despite Piper's denials, I am certain that there were numerous chapters of a version of "Final Judgment" posted on the Internet a number of years back and that I read them all.

Mark S replied:

So finally an admission, a grudging admission, that you haven't read Piper's book. Duly noted.

Can Stapleton READ?

Why, yes, he can. And he does, something you might consider trying, prior to claiming sufficient knowledge to dismiss the topic at hand.

You claim to have read something on the Internet that the author maintains was never available for reading there. Now, which of these two scenarios is the more likely?

Tim, this behaviour of yours is really rather unbecoming, and growing stranger daily. There was a time when debating with you was fairly good sport; at least you once tried to offer something substantive, no matter how shallow or feeble it might have turned out to be. Those days are gone.

Your recent spectacular displays of petulance and pique are no substitute for a factual argument. It must be highly embarassing for you to be caught in a lie, particularly one that reveals your hypocrisy in advising and all sundry about what they must read, only to have it made clear for all to see that you haven't even read the book you are so intent to trash.

Pride goeth before a fall, dear boy. The more furious your efforts to avoid confronting the obvious, the more pitiful the sight becomes.

[Michael Collins Piper]

Not that the truth or facts really matter to Tim Gratz, but I will re-state again, for the historical record, that despite Gratz's link to some promotion for David Duke's conference (where, as I said, I did speak), the fact is that Don Black did NOT (nor "clearly" as Gratz claims) organize that conference.

So if Gratz can't get his facts right on this, how much else of what he says can be believed.

Gratz is clearly caught in this matter of having claimed to have read significant or "most" or "much" of FINAL JUDGMENT.

He could NOT have because it wasn't until I just posted two chapters (which I considered HIGHLY significant and perhaps even the CORE OF THE BOOK) that such material ever appeared on the Internet.

In short, folks, Tim "Dirty Tricks Segretti" Gratz is a xxxx.

As Gerald Posner might say: "Case Closed."

To Andy Walker: hey, guy, you obviously are either completely disingenuous (which is what I suspect) or you simply don't get "colloquial" talk.

When I said "I got a book" (in reference to that Jerry Foulwell clone, Tim Gratz) I was deliberately using that terminology.

You can make a big issue of it and try to make me sound illiterate, but those teachers didn't think I was illiterate when I was writing that silly essay promoting and hyping Israel, for which they gave me a big fat savings bond.