Michael Collins Piper: Final Judgement

[Tim Gratz]

John claimed I accused people of anti-semitism because I could not attack the logic of their views. But with respect to the anti-semitism of Piper Collins, Len wrote:

Gee, John while you’re at it you might want to invite David Duke here to comment on his books too. I don’t know his contact details but you could ask Piper they travel in the same circles. Piper has spent (as far as I can tell) his entire career as a writer working for publications associated with Willis Carto America’s ‘preeminent’ anti-Semite/Holocaust denier, all his books put Jews in a bad light and he frequently speaks at events run by neo-Nazi/Klu Klux Klan types.

John argued that I wondered whether Jeff might be anti-semitic [i did so not merely because of his advocating Phillips' position but also because of his claims of "zionist" control of the media] because I could not attack the logic of Jeff's position [that the nasty Jews were suppressing Piper's book making it difficult for him to find it.

Len's response was excellent:

Jeff – Do have any evidence to support your claim that the “Israel lobby” is making the book “hard to buy”. Tim found it Googling in a few seconds and John didn’t seem to have much difficulty finding it nor did Gary on eBay. I guess you didn’t even take a look at Amazon which doesn’t sell it directly but offers it through 3rd party sellers, or perhaps you did since the World’s largest bookseller was conspicuously absent from your list and contrary to your contention Barnes and Noble does offer it (though only used through 3rd parties).

There are several reasons besides pressure from Jewish groups that could explain why many booksellers don’t offer it.

1) They normally don’t sell any books by it’s publisher.

2) They avoid selling books that are racist, sexist, anti-Semitic etc. they have the right to decide what book they wish to sell. They can decide this for ethical reasons if they find the book objectionable or financial ones if they believe the sale of such books will loose them more sales (from customer who find such books objectionable) then they would earn from selling the books.

3) They didn’t expect Final Judgment to sell well enough to be worth stocking. They might only buy books they expect to sell over a certain number of copies.

4) They avoid selling books that are poorly researched or contain factual errors. Papillon was out of print for many years because it was shown that much of the story was made up.

5) A combination of all of the above.

His analysis why booksellers may avoid Piper's book is excellent and further refutation of Jeff's thesis.

[Mark Stapleton]

Tim,

You haven't replied to my challenge that you post proof of your boastful claim of being trained in syllogistic reasoning. Please advise when you will be posting it and in which part of the Forum.

Also, you ignored my question in relation to why you believe it is "immoral" to suggest Israeli Government involvement and not immoral to suggest involvement of the hundreds of other groups and individuals who have been suggested.

Please don't evade these issues. You've done too much of that already on other issues.

[Tim Gratz]

Amazing how people with the least intelligence can be the biggest wise guys!

Mark, you evaded my question. I stated that you wrongfully accused me of calling Cohen's book "useless". You denied it. Then I posted your excat words. You have yet to admit you were wrong.

Mark, it should be clear I consider it immoral to accuse anyone of involvement in the assassination based solely on the existence of MMO.

It saddens me that anyone can receive a high school degree without any training in syllogistic logic. (I here assume you have a high school degree and my statement is meant to decry insufficiencies in the educational system.

I do not intend to teach an on-line course on syllogistic reasoning. You can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_logic

The article states:

Logic, from Classical Greek λόγος (logos), originally meaning the word, or what is spoken, (but coming to mean thought or reason) is most often said to be the study of criteria for the evaluation of arguments, although the exact definition of logic is a matter of controversy among philosophers. However the subject is grounded, the task of the logician is the same: to advance an account of valid and fallacious inference to allow one to distinguish good from bad arguments. [Emphasis supplied.]

P.S. Your bio does not state your educational attainment. Do you have a high school degree?

I suggest it is because you lack basic training in logic that you cannot distinguish between good and bad arguments.

Edited February 11, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Jeff Dahlstrom]

Thanks for all your well informed input, I will have more to say after reading Piper's book. Perhaps John Simkin could invite Michael C. Piper to defend his thesis in this forum against his critics here that have not read the book... yet. I have enjoyed reading the comments other authors here, like Jim Marrs and Larry Hancock and many others. What do you say, John?

He is welcome to join. Do you have his contact details?

Michael Collins Piper tells me he will be joining this discussion.

Gary,

Your post that Mr. Piper will be joining this discussion is welcome news, indeed. It is always refreshing and informative for me to hear directly from the author of a book, even when it is controversial, why and how he came to his conclusions. We might even learn some actual hard evidence that supports his contentions that are new since the book has been published.

After being able to read one of the first rare editions of Larry Hancock's book, Someone Would Have Talked, I enjoyed direct email conversation with Larry and others fimiliar with his research on this Forum. Another person that would be great to have join the discussions on this Forum is Billie Sol Estes to share what he knows about the events surrounding JFK's murder.

Tim and Len, my interest in emailing John Simkin about Michael Collin Piper's book Final Judgement was because I had ordered the book on the internet and was waiting for it to be shipped to begin reading what he has to say. While I was waiting for my copy to arrive, I thought I might browse the book either at my local and county library or in the local national book stores, but was disappointed there were none to be found while I wait for mine to arrive. I did know that several sources had access to used copies, Tim. But I was looking for the latest revised Sixth Edition.

In addition, I was looking for intelligent discussion of the book by others here on this forum that had read Mr. Piper's thesis and had a critical evaluation or comments about it's credibility in comparison with other researchers on the topic of this Forum, the Assissination of JFK.

Honesty, open mindedness, and willingness to see the other man's point of view might be helpful in the balance of the discussion in this thread.

Jeff D.

[Tim Gratz]

Jeff, I do appreciate the tone of your post but alas I regret it if John will allow an anti-Semite like Piper to join the Forum.

I can tell you how Piper came to his conclusions: through a twisted mind poisoned by his anti-Semitic beliefs: the Jews killed JFK and there was no Holocaust. Right! LOL!

One clear reason why the Mossad did not do it: had its involvement been uncovered, it would have meant the death of Israel. The US was Israel's strongest ally despite the disagreement over Israel's interest in acquiring nuclear weapons to protect itself.

Is it possible that the Mossad killed JFK? Well, yes, in the same sense that many things are possible. But I think it wrong to besmirch the reputation of a country merely because it had a major policy dispute with JFK. As I have said before, even Jackie had a motive to kill JFK. Why not a thread speculating on her involvement? Because it would be wrong to sully the reputation of our former first lady. I would say the same thing with respect to LBJ but there is some scant evidence he might have been involved.

[John Simkin]

Is it possible that the Mossad killed JFK? Well, yes, in the same sense that many things are possible. But I think it wrong to besmirch the reputation of a country merely because it had a major policy dispute with JFK.

I assume this means that you will now be withdrawing your accusations against Cuba and the Soviet Union.

[Tim Gratz]

John as I said before no one has ever claimed there was a Mossad agent in Dealey Plaza.

And the PM of Israel did not threaten the life of JFK less than three months before the assassination.

And no Israeli intelligent agent ever flunked a polygraph question asking him whether Oswald was on a mission from the Mossad.

By the way, are you hijacking this thread to give me an opportunity to post all of my arguments in support of Cuban/KGB involvement?

And as I said in a previous post, I do not object to discussion of a person or state's posible involvement if there is at least some scant evidence beyond MMO.

By the way, I was hoping in your post you were either going to be man enough to apologize for your earlier post in which you accused me of "repeatedly" calling people with whose views I disagreed Communists or Communist sympathizers. You see, hope still springs eternal . . .

And how about your false charge that I was unable to counter the "logic" of Jeff's post that the evil Jewish conspiracy was controlling the distribution of Piper's book? I think Len did a masterful job in demonstrating the absurdity of that claim. For you to even characterize that claim as "logical" astounds me!

[John Simkin]

By the way, I was hoping in your post you were either going to be man enough to apologize for your earlier post in which you accused me of "repeatedly" calling people with whose views I disagreed Communists or Communist sympathizers. You see, hope still springs eternal . . .

As I pointed out, you often attempt to smear people you disagree with as being “anti-American” or “communist sympathizers”. You proved this on this thread by accusing me of being “anti-American” because I disagreed with you. As a libertarian socialist I have spent my political life fighting against communism. As my political compass scores show, I am at the opposite end of the spectrum to the authoritarianism of communism. (It was noted that your own scores put you in the neo-fascist category).

Michael Collins Piper may or may not be an anti-Semite. However, he does not become an anti-Semite because he has written a book suggesting that the Israeli secret service might have been involved in the assassination of JFK. Nor is Jeff Dahlstrom an anti-Semite because he wants to read Piper’s book. What I do know is that some people want to stifle discussion by accusing people of being anti-Semites or communists. This will not be allowed. If I catch you doing it again I will delete your membership.

[Tim Gratz]

John, you have YET to cite ONE instance where I wrongfully accused someone of being a Communist or a Communist sympathizer.

You claim some people want to "stifle discussion". Well, your threat to delete my membership certainly constitutes the "stifling" of discussion. You say you will do it if I AGAIN accuse someone of being a Communist but despite several requests you cannot cite a single instance where I have done so.

It is fairly clear that Piper is an anti-Semite is it not (and not because he authored a book positing Israeli involvement in the assassination)? That is certainly the opinion of Len Colby as well.

Let me talk about Jeff. I never accused him of being an anti-Semite but I wondered about whether he might have such tendencies NOT as you write because he wants to read Pipers' book but because he claimed (clearly falsely) that a Jewish conspiracy was suppressing the distribution of Piper's book. I think there is indeed a concern about anti-Semitism in people who harbor such views.

As I recall, there is a great outcry a few years ago when tapes emerged showing Richard Nixon and Billy Graham discussing Jewish control of the mass media. It was widely seen (and properly I submit) as evidence of anti-Semitism. Billy Graham apologized to Jewish people for his involvement in those conversations.

If you are as liberal as you claim I would think you would be concerned about racism and anti-Semitism. I would ask you this: In all fairness, John, should warning flags be raised when people talk about secret Jewish conspiracies controlling things? If you disagree with that proposition, do you then believe that the brouhaha over the Nixon-Graham talks was overdone?

It comes down to this: if it was wrong for Nixon and Graham to talk about Jewish cabals controlling the media, it is also wrong if done in this Forum. Is it not? If I am wrong, don't threaten me, simply explain why you disagree.

And I STILL await your post documenting your claim that I "repeatedly" accuse people of being Communists.

Edited February 11, 2006 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

From the Wikipedia article on anti-Semitism:

The rise of views of the Jews as a malevolent "race" generated anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that the Jews, as a group, were plotting to control or otherwise influence the world. From the early infamous Russian literary hoax, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, published by the Tzar's secret police, a key element of anti-Semitic thought has been that Jews influence or control the world.

I would not consider it as necessarily anti-Semitic merely to believe or assert that the Mossad killed JFK because of a dispute over the Israeli nuclear program. However, a person who was anti-Semitic could reach that conclusion based not on logical reason but on his prejudice. Which is one reason why Piper's clear anti-Semitism is an issue.

It is when one posits Jewish (or Zionist) conspiracies controlling the media or international finance or whatever that fears of anti-Semitism arise. As the Wikipedia article suggests, those fears are not necessarily unfounded.

[Tim Gratz]

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 Gratz]

John I noted that your Spartacus article on anti-semitism ranked #11 on my Yahoo search on anti-Semitism.

Are you certain you want Mr. Piper as a member?

[John Simkin]

I must say I resent having to spend time responded to your posts. However, here are a few recent examples where you have accused me of being a communist sympathizer.

On 24th January, I posted a long account of the role that Eisenhower, the CIA and the United Fruit Company played in the overthrow of the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5945

As I had provided evidence against your beloved Republican Party and the CIA, you immediately attacked my posting claiming that Arbenz was a communist and that he was not democratically elected. You also stated that the CIA had every right to overthrow governments in order to “protect the interests of the citizens of this country. That is its purpose.” It is this arrogant use of power that makes the United States so hated in the world. Not that the CIA was working in the interests of the United States. They were working for the United Fruit Corporation. That is why Harry Truman ordered the CIA to stop trying to overthrow a democratically elected government in Guatemala. However, once Eisenhower and the Republicans gained power, under pressure from United Fruit, gave permission for the CIA to carry out their plan.

Pat Speer and Larry Hancock pointed out that your account was far of basic errors. Pat suggested you had been drinking “Kool-Aid” and Larry politely suggested you should do more reading on the subject.

You then attacked me by saying that in my originally posting I had not mentioned the murder of Aranz in 1951. According to your sources, Aranz had been murdered by the “communists” and that if this had not happened, Arbenz would never have been elected.

You then suggested that I had political reasons for defending the communist role in the election of Arbenz. Then came the bizarre statement that as I did not mention this event this raised the question: “Is the Simkin Forum now dedicated to the support of the assassination of right-wing politicians?

This debate was then continued on the CIA and Democracy

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6059

Once again you attempted to defend the CIA role in attempts to overthrow democratically elected governments throughout the world (including the UK). After taking an intellectual and moral hammering from Robert Charles-Dunne, Ron Ecker, John Dova, Stephen Turner and Nathaniel Heidenheimer, you retreated with your tail between your legs.

On the 24th January I posted an account of how Cuba was offering free eye-surgery for those people in America who did not have health insurance.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5942

Once again your response to this information was extremely bizarre. You posted the comment that members who had responded to the thread were a lot of “lefties” and that we needed to know that the supermodel Helena Houdova had got into trouble for taking photographs in Havana.

Later in the debate you accused me of being sympathetic to the communist regime in Cuba. On 4th February you wrote: “I favor human rights in all countries. You (John Simkin), however, seem to be tolerant of the well-documented human rights abuses in Cuba.”

This is of course completely untrue. The only difference is that I oppose human rights abuses wherever they take place, including my own country. You are a right-wing nationalist who is incapable of acknowledging the crimes carried out by Bush or the CIA. In fact, as the debates on Guatemala and the CIA and Democracy show, if any illegal act carried out by people from the United States, have been ordered to do it by a Republican president, it is ok with you.

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."

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

The idea that someone is an anti-Semite because they attended a conference held in Moscow is similar to the justification used during McCarthyism when American citizens were blacklisted because they attended meetings organized by the American Communist Party.

No I would not describe someone as an anti-Semite because they attended some meeting or they associated with right-wingers. My judgement will be based on what Michael Collins Piper actually says. However, it should be pointed out that I do not consider someone who criticises Israel as being anti-Semite. This is an idea being promoted by Bush in order to defend his policies in the Middle East.

[Owen Parsons]

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?

The ADL also called Norman Finkelstein a "holocaust denier," which is pretty much total BS. The ADL is a joke organization at this point, and I say this as someone who supports Israel.

Irrespective of what the ADL says, however, I think Piper can be reasonably classed as a holocaust denier. See this little article he wrote. Then, lest any of you are taken in by this sort of argument, see here.

Edited February 11, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[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.