Hufschmid's main page

A Response to
Michael Collins Piper

25 August 2006
updated Nov 2007

On the 23rd and 24th of August 2006 Michael Piper had a truly interesting radio show. The complete files are here:
Look for the shows for 23 and 24 Aug 2006

Excerpts of the show with comments are below.

If it's OK for WingTV to swing, why can't we?
Piper complained about me and Daryl Smith, but he defended WingTV with a very interesting comment:
They're very rambunctious; they're very audacious. They come out swinging. But you know, sometimes maybe that's necessary.

On the 24th of August, Michael Piper defended WingTV's behavior again by saying that when we get involved in public issues, we must expect criticism, and that Victor and Lisa are tough people who don't play games.

I agree with Piper! Everybody who gets involved with influencing our world is walking into a boxing ring that doesn't have rules or referees, so they better expect to get punched, and they can assume that the fighting will be deceptive, abusive, and dishonest.

Piper defends WingTV's attacks, but he reprimands us for questioning the honesty of the American Free Press.

However, if it is sometimes necessary for WingTV to come out swinging with their rambunctious and audacious behavior, why isn't it sometimes necessary for the rest of us to question people in positions of authority?

Why isn't it sometimes necessary for us to come out swinging with evidence of criminal behavior?

Actually, I would not describe WingTV as rambunctious or audacious. Instead, I would say they offer "childish insults" and attempts to intimidate and manipulate.

By comparison, everything Bollyn and I say is backed up with evidence. This is why our articles, books, and videos hurt so badly. The truth can be painful, especially to a liar.

It seems to me that Piper is trying to intimidate us into being docile Goyim who quietly tremble in fear while WingTV swings their club of insults and intimidation.

However, if it is acceptable for WingTV to criticize us, then it's acceptable for each of us to criticize them! If WingTV doesn't have to play games, then why do we? If it's acceptable for WingTV to be tough, why can't we?

I think that one of the reasons a small group of Zionists have gotten control of America and Europe is that the Zionists have taken over the political parties, truth groups, newspapers, magazines, and even the Nazi groups. They reprimand the Goyim who dare to question or stand up to the people in positions of authority.

Well, I'm not going to sit quietly.

What is wrong about questioning the integrity of American Free Press?

Piper says he is coming under heat because he denounced us for raising questions about the integrity of the American Free Press.

Well, then why did you denounce us? How do you justify your demand that we give the American Free Press blind obedience?

How about explaining the harm in questioning the integrity of American Free Press?

On the 24th of August, Victor Thorn announced that we should look at every angle of every story:

I agree with Victor Thorn! We should look at every angle of every issue, including the issue of whether the American Free Press is under Zionist influence!

Why is Mike Piper so upset that I question the integrity of the American Free Press?

An investigation of the American Free Press would prove to the world that the AFP is indeed America's most honest, courageous, and valuable patriots. Why would they worry about that?

Could it be that the employees at the AFP are panicking because this is the first time in their history that Goyim have had the guts to look critically at them and ask:

Who are these people at the AFP? How much money are they raising, and what are they doing with it? What are their real goals?


Why is it wrong to question Piper's friends?

Piper listened to this show of ours:

Piper complains that we question the honesty of numerous people that he considers honest researchers and/or friends, such as Mark Glenn, Mark Farrell, and David Duke.

Piper points out that David Duke has written lots of critical remarks about Israel. Piper implies that Duke wants to expose crime, and that he is willing to expose Israeli crimes.

Piper accuses me of saying that Duke believes Osama did 9/11, but I never said that. Rather, I am complaining that we have been struggling for years to expose 9/11, but Duke and many others are hurting our efforts by ignoring our information rather than encouraging their members to consider it.

It seems to me that Duke and most other "truth seekers" are trying to keep their Flock of Sheeple ignorant. They provide some old information to their sheep, but ignore a lot of the new information.

Please think carefully about the significance of this:

Why can Piper question our integrity?
Piper says that he thought he had our support, and now he wonders how much of our material is reliable.

This is exactly what we are saying. We thought Piper was on our side. Now we wonder how much of what he says is reliable.

How does Piper think I feel? In 2002 I saw his book "Final Judgment", and I thought he was helping us. I defended him and promoted him. Doesn't he realize how disappointed I am to watch him support suspicious people?

Why is it that when we question him, we are "parasites", but when he questions us, he is a good person? And when WingTV insults us, they are "rambunctious" and "audacious"!

Piper goes on to tell us that he finds "absolute lies being told" on our site, or "expressions of opinion" at the very least, and these opinions "are not founded on fact", and are "refuted" by his work.

Contrary to Piper's implication, we don't want any lies or refuted opinions on our web sites. So please, Piper, why don't you tell us what the lies are? We will correct them.

I suppose Piper will say that there are too many lies to mention, so why doesn't he expose one lie a day? Is that too much to ask?

Instead of telling us about our refuted opinions, he instead spends a lot of time boasting about how many of his books have sold.

However, if book sales determine the honesty of the author, then the author of the Harry Potter books is far above Piper in honesty.

After boasting about the sales of his books, Piper mentions that Daryl Bradford Smith "came out of nowhere". Didn't almost everybody come out of nowhere? Is this Piper's idea of an intelligent analysis of Smith?

Update: In case you haven't noticed, since September 8, 2007, I no longer trust Daryl Smith. Although Piper never provided any intelligent information about Smith, take a look at my information if you trust Smith:
Piper goes on to say Smith suddenly announced "that he is the arbiter of all that is true". When did Smith make that announcement? That remark by Piper seems to be an "expression of opinion" that is "not founded on fact".

Piper goes on to accuse us of creating "outrageous messages attacking everybody, questioning their integrity".

Wait a minute! Isn't the term "outrageous" an "expression of opinion" that is "not founded on fact"?

Furthermore, what is wrong with questioning people's integrity? Is that against the law? Or does it violate one of the 10 Commandments? "Thou shalt not question Piper's integrity, or the integrity of his friends!"

Why does Piper insult me?
Piper announced that I have "bizarre and baseless accusations", and that I "proclaim to be a friend" of Bollyn.

What does it mean to "proclaim" to be a friend? Does this even make sense?

And what are the bizarre and baseless accusations and I have made?

Piper is insulting me, not providing a serious analysis of my work.


We accuse everybody of being a Jew?

Have you listened to the discussion that he is referring to:

Does it seem to you that we imply that "everybody and his brother is a Jew"?

He repeated this accusation several times. One more example:

Another one:

Piper is not providing a serious analysis of anything we have written or said. Rather, Piper is trying to create the impression that we have some inherent hatred and suspicion of Jews.

Piper also tries to imply that we are making senseless accusations, whereas he is discussing fully documented facts.

When John Kaminski made similar absurd remarks about Jews, Daryl Smith decided to cut off all ties to him. You can read about it here:

The people who make these type of accusations seem to be Zionists who are trying to promote the idea that there are crazy white supremacists who have inherent hatred of Jews and other people. I describe this here:


Piper received an email from his friend

Piper reads an e-mail he received from his friend. This friend criticizes WingTV for repeating the lies of the Police Department, but he understands their hostility towards Bollyn.

Piper's friend would be worth listening to if he provided a serious analysis, but he has nothing but praise for WingTV and insults for us.

Piper is using a proven technique to manipulate people. Specifically, Piper is saying:

"Look everybody! Other people think the same way I do! And I sold lots of books! Please, come join the crowd!"
However, it doesn't matter how many people support him, or how many books he sold. Pat Robertson may have more support than Piper.


Mark Lane is a friend of Ralph Schoenman

One of the callers to the show on the 24th was Mark Bilk. Mark Bilk is a friend of Russell Pickering, as I mentioned in my article about Sam Danner:

At the end of his phone call, Piper told Bilk to give his regards to Ralph Schoenman, who is a friend of Bilk. Piper also mentioned that he and Schoenman have a common friend, Mark Lane.

For trying to make sense of that, consider that Mark Bilk and Mike Piper both seemed to be hoping that Mark Lane would become Bollyn's lawyer in his lawsuit against the police.

What does this all mean?

Now that Michael Piper is behaving like a Zionist, we have to wonder about all of his friends and all of the people he promotes, such as Mark Glenn, David Duke, and Ralph Schoenman.

However, I never criticized Mark Lane because I only looked at him briefly when I looked into the history of the American Free Press, and I quickly decided that it was so confusing that I had better things to do. I now think we need to take a closer look at this person.

Mark Lane is a Jewish lawyer who has written several books, such as Plausible Denial and Rush to Judgment, which supposedly exposes the President Kennedy assassination.

I never had any interest in his books or his friends, but now I wonder:

Who is he blaming the assassination on?
What is his relationship with Mike Piper and Ralph Schoenman?
Does he have any relationship with other people at the American Free Press, such as Willis Carto?
Update: Christopher Bollyn no longer trusts Mark Lane, either:

Can Goyim trust Mark Lane as a lawyer?

Since Mark Bilk and Mike Piper appear to be Zionists, is it safe for a Goyim to take their suggestions for lawyers in a fight with Zionists?

What if the reason they recommend Mark Lane is because they know Lane will do everything he can to sabotage the lawsuit?

Lane was a lawyer for The Spotlight, but what good did he do for them? That newspaper has been destroyed!

Is Willis Carto a victim? Or a Zionist?

A couple years ago, when I first became suspicious of the American Free Press, I wondered how their previous newspaper, The Spotlight, was destroyed.

Unfortunately, I encountered a lot of names and organizations, such as the Liberty Lobby, the Institute for Historical Review, Mark Lane, Mark Weber, and Willis Carto. Accusations were going every direction.

I didn't have the time or the desire to investigate them, so I'm still confused about their history.

However, I noticed that Willis Carto started several organizations that he supposedly lost control of. For example, he started an organization that became the National Alliance, but he lost control of it. He started the Institute for Historical Review, but he lost control of it. He started the newspaper called The Spotlight, but it was destroyed.

Here is the Zionist summary of Carto:

And Mark Lane:

Is Carto starting organizations that get taken over or destroyed by Zionists? If so, we should be concerned that the American Free Press will also be taken over or destroyed by Zionists! Maybe Mark Lane is secretly helping to ruin Carto.

Or is Carto starting organizations for the Zionists, and after he gets them running, he lets somebody else take over? In the case of The Spotlight, did he destroy it because it was becoming too popular? Did he replace it with the amazingly incompetent and rude American Free Press? Maybe Mark Lane secretly works with Carto and the Zionists.

Only one article was censored?
In my document that criticizes WingTV, I also criticized the American Free Press for not publishing four of Christopher Bollyn's articles:

Piper says that of those four articles, three of them were eventually printed. That means only one of them was censored.

Well, I feel a lot better knowing that. It's like having four children disappear for weeks and worrying they were murdered, and then later finding that three of them were merely abducted for a few weeks, and only one of them was murdered.

Piper justifies the censoring of one article by implying that the material in it had already been published by Bollyn in previous articles.

Unfortunately, even if Piper's accusation is true, most articles contain pieces of information that were reported about in earlier articles. Often one article is a continuation of a previous article. This is not justification for censorship. Rather, this is a desperate excuse to explain it.

I am a liar?
On 24 August, Piper explained that I am a liar because I wrote that four of Bollyn's articles were censored by the American Free Press.

A lie, as I define it, is making a false statement in order to deceive people.

If any of my statements were false, I did not realize it at the time, and I had no intention to deceive people, so any false statement I made would qualify as something other than a lie, such as:

How did I make such a dumb mistake?

I decided to subscribe to the American Free Press in 2003 or 2004. After a few months I started noticing that the only authors who say anything of value were Bollyn and Mike Piper.

After a few months I started skipping most of Piper's articles also because most of them seemed useless. It seemed that Piper was repeating the same material over and over, rather than uncover truly new and relevant information.

Eventually I noticed that I can read most of Bollyn's articles on the Internet.

The newspapers would arrive once a week, but I would just quickly glance through them, become annoyed by the propaganda, and then put them away. When it came time to renew my subscription, I thought, "Why waste my money?"

My subscription ran out sometime before May 2006. However, the articles that Bollyn thought were censored were in the May or later issues. Bollyn hadn't received the May issues yet because he was traveling.

Somebody told Bollyn that there was no article from him in the paper for two weeks in May. Bollyn also discovered two other articles were not in the issue he wrote them for.

If I had continued my subscription, I would have been able to look through the issues, and I would have realized that only one of his articles was missing. But neither of us realized what was going on.

Eventually Bollyn was told that only one of his articles was censored, but Bollyn and never thought to pass the information onto me because it never occurred to him that I would make a fuss in public about an issue that wasn't really my concern.

So why did I make such an issue about the censored articles? Because WingTV's behavior was the last straw. I had been disgusted with the American Free Press for years, and WingTV pushed me to the point of letting out some frustration.

Whose fault was this mistake?

Piper says I lied about those censored articles, but I didn't lie. If we want to blame somebody for this mistake, why not blame the American Free Press?

They are the people who delayed, censored, and edited Bollyn's articles which caused the confusion in the first place, and they are the ones who annoyed me so much that I let my subscription run out, thereby preventing me from looking through the issues.

You may respond that the editor has every right to delay, censor, or edit Bollyn's articles. However, take a look at the articles they publish. They are promoting propaganda.

They may justify delaying Bollyn's articles on the grounds that they didn't have space available in the paper, but they would have plenty of space for Bollyn's articles if they stopped publishing propaganda!

My other articles related to this one: