A Response to
Michael Collins Piper
25 August 2006
updated Nov 2007
If it's OK for WingTV to swing,
why can't we?
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.
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
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
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
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,
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
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
Piper listened to this show of ours:
Why can Piper question our
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
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:
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?
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
Why does Piper insult me?
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!"
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
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
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
He repeated this accusation several times. One more example:
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
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
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
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:
Only one article was censored?
At the end of his phone call, Piper told Bilk to give his regards to
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.
Lane is a Jewish lawyer who has written several books, such
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
Update: Christopher Bollyn no longer
trusts Mark Lane, either:
• 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?
Can Goyim trust Mark Lane as
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 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.
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
In my document that criticizes WingTV, I also criticized the
American Free Press for not publishing four of Christopher Bollyn's articles:
I am a liar?
Piper says that of those four articles, three of them were eventually
printed. That means only one of them
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.
On 24 August, Piper explained that I am a liar
because I wrote that four of Bollyn's articles were censored by the American
A lie, as I define it, is making a false statement in order to deceive
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
Eventually I noticed that I can read most of Bollyn's articles on the
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
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
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
My other articles related to this one: