Expanding on MC Piper – A Discussion of Our Discussion

[RoaminLam]

One of the most troubling observations I've drawn from the skeptics' movement is that the sources we turn to for understanding, and the activist groups we join, have proven, over and over, to be run by wolves in sheep's clothing. This insight has driven all of us, by degrees, and each along his own path, from the mainstream to forums like the present one, where we can at least feel that events are being explored in an ethically above-board fashion. It's therefore doubly disturbing to come across indications that even these cutting-edge platforms are manipulating our discussion through underhanded means.

On September 25th I posted a carefully-reasoned, thousand-word questioning of the Michael ColIins Piper show, which many readers of this forum are familiar with. There was nothing obscene or malicious in what I said, and I think the questions I raised had a lot of force and validity. I would like to ask why my posting was  removed, after being up for less than a week, and I ask other members – whether or not they're familiar with The Piper Report – if they find such behavior acceptable. I cannot help but surmise that some shadowy element is shielding Piper from embarrassing scrutiny. This in turn suggests that the network of collusion we're battling exercises an even broader control than we'd supposed, extending to those marginal sources we've hitherto found most worthy of trust.

Piper himself saw fit to comment on my posting, at about 26 minutes into his September 25th broadcast, though he probably read it as an email I sent out to a couple dozen recipients, and not on the TIU Forum.

Piper raised just one issue: he didn't like being called a ,,Hitler apologist." He then at once proceeded to ... apologize for Hitler. This only underscores the central question of my posting – is anyone else out there picking up on all the **double talk**, tortured logic, and sheer demagoguery that's coming out of Piper's forum? (Quite apart from whatever we may acknowledge as a helpful contribution.)

The gist of what Piper said in Hitler's defense was that Hitler was fighting the New World Order. This whole discussion began with my first phone call, just before, and apropos of, the 70th anniversary of the German assault on Poland, so I think it's fair to ask in what way Poland's destruction (and the corollary slicing up of Finland, the Baltic States and Romania) frustrated the New World Order.

US ,,patriot" Nazi apologists are wont to emphasize the epic German struggle against Judeo Communism, the real vortex of the Second World War, as a noble crusade. Much more compelling, I find, is the hypothesis advanced in Jim Condit's ,,Final Solution to Adolph Hitler," namely, that the war itself was the real Holocaust – fought for its own sake – planned, instigated and managed by some Veiled Agency, directing events from a level higher up than Hitler and the other wartime leaders. This is an interesting line of thought, which Piper dismisses out of hand, much too readily for my liking. If Poland had remained as it was in 1939, the Germans and Russians would have had trouble tearing each other's guts out, as they would have lacked access through a common border. Poland resisted intense German pressure to enlist as a junior partner in Hitler's program of eastward expansion, and, contrary to what Piper's favored caller Carolyn from Texas invites us to believe, Poland was not a threat to Germany. Furthermore, Piper and other Hitler apologists either neglect or condone the 2-year Nazi alliance with godless Bolshevism, which was largely aimed at solving ,,the Polish problem," once and for all, ignoring also that the Western Powers did nothing on Poland's behalf, despite their treaty obligations and notwithstanding the much-lamented declarations of war. These inconvenient truths are a lot more consistent with Condit's analysis than they are with Piper's implication that American patriots, in their present deficiency of a unifying creed, should take Hitler as a model and (in some unspecified manner) emulate the Nazis.

Piper's apologetics here reveal their inconsistency as well in his latest book, The New Babylon, where on page 132 he cites Ezra Pound's reflection that ,,War ... is the most atrocious form of sabatoge [and that] .... Usurers provoke wars." On the same page we learn (from the British Labor Leader) what a ,,bloodsucking screw" the Rothschilds are, and that ,,Wherever there is trouble in Europe ... you may be sure that a hook-nosed Rothschild is at his games." Yet – without explanation – Piper palms off the rearming of Germany and Hitler's subsequent war as a singular exception to these truths. Isn't that just a little hard to accept?

As we teeter on the brink of cataclysms that, by all accounts, will dwarf those of the last great world conflagration, we have every reason to study our tragic past for insights which might spare us at least some of the pain that seems to be in store and which must become widely understood if our world is ever to attain the justice that most of us so ardently desire. I wonder – what stake does (some hidden executor at) the TIU Forum have in drawing bounds around this inquiry?

[Note: I will re-post my original, September 25 posting separately, as a ,,p.s." to the Piper Expansion. Readers may judge for themselves why it merits removal, assuming it stays up for very long.]

[Milton]

I read this and the ps post, I haven't listened to MC Piper and don't plan to. Your account of the events seems credible to me. Thanks for the posts.