DIRTY SECRETS: Crime, Conspiracy & Cover-Up During the 20th Century PDF

Availability: In Stock
Usually ships In 1-2 Business Days
Price: $6.00

    Here in one volume, are 14 of AMERICAN FREE PRESS correspondent Michael Collins Piper's most explosive articles and essays—many you've never seen in print—along with other fascinating information, including the texts of 5 different question-and-answer radio and TV interviews with Piper, and detailed reviews by popular writer Victor Thorn of Piper's three major works.

    PDF, 256 pages

    Table of Contents

    A Prophet Without Honor—Mark Glenn


    1 The Monica-Gate/Israeli Connection
    2 FDR Knew in Advance About Pearl Harbor
    3 Israeli Attack on USS Liberty
    4 The Holocaust is Over—Enough is Enough
    5 Zionism Moves Against the United Nations
    6 Israel and Islamic Fundamentalism
    7 The Federal Reserve Isn’t “Federal”
    8 The Oklahoma City Bombing
    9 Populist Author Speaks in Malaysia

    10 Israel Linked to JFK Assassination
    11 Controversy Surrounds Final Judgment Author
    12 Peter Jennings and The Kennedy Assassination
    13 Did Chicago Mafia Really Have a Hand in Killing JFK?
    14 Mossad Linked to Martin Luther King Assassination

    15 Final Judgment Interview—June 9, 2003
    16 High Priests of War Interview—May 24, 2004
    17 American Free Press Week—October 29, 2004
    18 The New Jerusalem Interview—June 17, 2005
    19 Oklahoma City Bombing—June 6, 1997

    20 Final Judgment—January 10, 2003
    21 The High Priests of War—May 17, 2004
    22 The New Jerusalem—August 31, 2005

    Author Biography

    Excerpt from CHAPTER TEN

    Israel’s Nuclear Ambitions
    Linked to JFK Assassination

    Did John F. Kennedy’s determined (and then secret) behind- the-scenes efforts to prevent Israel from building a nuclear weapons arsenal play a pivotal part in the events that led to his assassination on November 22, 1963? Was Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad, a front-line player in the JFK assassination conspiracy alongside elements of the CIA and international organized crime?

    Why did Hollywood film-maker Oliver Stone fail to reveal—in his 1993 all-star JFK assassination extravaganza—that the hero of his epic, former New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, had privately concluded that the Mossad was ultimately the driving force behind JFK’s murder?

    As the 40th anniversary of the JFK assassination approaches— with worldwide attention focused on the problems of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East—is it valid or appropriate to raise the question of possible Israeli complicity in the assassination of an American president?

    These are just a few of the hotly controversial questions being posed by Michael Collins Piper in his book, Final Judgment, which has emerged as a proverbial “underground best-seller” in the United States, the topic of heated debate on the Internet, and the subject of angry exchanges in a variety of public forums.

    What follows is Piper’s own comprehensive survey of his findings as published in Final Judgment.
    In 1992, former U.S. Congressman Paul Findley, a liberal Republican, made the little-noticed but intriguing comment that “in all the words written about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, has never been mentioned, despite the obvious fact Mossad complicity is as plausible as any of the other theories.”

    Where in the world could Findley—never known to be an extremist by any means, and certainly not one given to venting conspiracy theories—have ever come up with such an assertion?

     Actually, it’s not so extraordinary a thesis if one looks at the historical record, placing all of the conventional theories about the JFK assassination in a new perspective, calculating in previously little-known details that shed stark light on the circumstances surrounding JFK’s demise and the geopolitical crises in which the American president was embroiled at the time of his shocking murder.

    In truth, even the most recently widely-disseminated exposition of JFK assassination theorizing—Oliver Stone’s 1993 blockbuster film, JFK—did not present the entire picture.

    Although Stone portrayed former New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison as a hero for pointing the finger in the direction of elements of the U.S. military and intelligence net- works as the guiding force behind JFK’s murder, what Stone didn’t tell his audience was something even more controversial: that privately, after some years of research and reflection, Garrison had reached an even more startling determination: that the driving force behind JFK’s murder was no less than Israel’s feared intelligence service, the Mossad.

    As astounding as it sounds, there’s actually good reason to conclude that Garrison may have been looking in the right direction. And in this day when the debate over “weapons of mass destruction” is in the forefront of global discussion, it is not so extraordinary a thesis as it seems.

    The 40th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy approaches; and the fascination with the murder of America’s 35th president won’t go away. Assassination “buffs”—not just in the United States, but around the globe—continue to chip away at the conclusions of the two official U.S. government investigations into the affair.

    Although the 1976 report by a special committee of the U.S. Congress formally contradicted the earlier 1964 finding by the presidentially-appointed Warren Commission that alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was acting alone, and concluded instead that there was indeed the likelihood of a conspiracy behind the president’s murder—hinting broadly at the involvement of organized crime—the congressional committee’s final determination actually raised more questions, in some respects, than it answered.

    In 1993, Hollywood’s Oliver Stone entered the fray with his blockbuster all-star extravaganza, JFK, which presented Stone’s interpretation of the widely-publicized 1967-1969 JFK assassination inquiry by then-New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.

    Stone’s film—featuring Kevin Costner as Garrison—raised the specter of involvement by elements of the so-called “military-industrial complex,” along with a scattering of anti-Castro Cuban exiles, right-wing militants, and rogue Central Intelligence Agency operatives. The film told the story of Garrison’s investigation, and ultimately unsuccessful prosecution, of New Orleans business-man Clay Shaw (then suspected of being—and later proven to be—a collaborator with the CIA) for involvement in the JFK conspiracy.

    However, as we now know, not even Stone was faithful to his hero. Long-time independent JFK assassination investigator A. J. Weberman has since revealed that during the 1970s—well after Garrison’s prosecution of Shaw—that Garrison was circulating the manuscript for a novel (never published) in which Garrison named Israel’s Mossad as the mastermind of the JFK assassination conspiracy.

    Garrison never said anything about this unusual thesis—at least publicly. But beginning in the mid-1980s, and well into the present day, new evidence has emerged that not only points to good reason for Mossad motivation to move against John F. Kennedy, but also to the likelihood that not only Clay Shaw (Garrison’s target) but other key figures often associated in published writings with the JFK assassination were indeed closely tied to the Mossad and doing its bidding.

    And what is particularly interesting is that none of the individuals in question—Shaw included—happened to be Jewish. So the allegation of Mossad involvement being somehow “anti-Semitic” in nature falls flat on that fact alone. But Mossad complicity—as the record indicates—is a very real possibility.

    Garrison’s critics continue to assert that the New Orleans District Attorney couldn’t make up his mind as to whom he thought had orchestrated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. This indeed was the primary complaint against the rambunctious, outspoken, and quite colorful prosecutor: that he simply couldn’t make up his mind. And this is one of the reasons that even many of Garrison’s supporters not only began to question his sincerity, but even as to whether Garrison’s investigation was worth the trouble.

    In truth, Garrison did tend to shoot from the hip. That may have been his biggest mistake—one of many—in the course of his controversial inquiry into the murder of America’s 35th president.

    At one time or another during the course of that investigation, Garrison pointed his finger at one or another of the various possible conspirators—ranging from “right-wing extremists” to “Texas oil barons” to “anti-Castro Cuban exiles” to “rogue CIA operatives.” Occasionally, Garrison went so far as to say that the conspiracy included a combination of those possible conspirators.

    When Garrison finally brought one man to trial, widely respected New Orleans trade executive Clay Shaw, Garrison had narrowed his field, suggesting, primarily, that Shaw had been one of the lower-level players in the conspiracy.

    According to Garrison, Shaw was essentially doing the bidding of highly-placed figures in what has roughly been described as “the military-industrial complex” —- that combination of financial interests and armaments manufacturers whose power and influence in official Washington—and around the world—is a very real force in global affairs.

    Garrison suggested that Shaw and his co-conspirators had multiple motivations stimulating their decision to move against President Kennedy. Among other things, he asserted:
            • The conspirators opposed JFK’s decision to begin withdrawing U.S. forces from Indochina;
           • They were angry at his failure to provide military cover support for Cuban exiles attempting to topple Fidel Castro in the botched Bay of Pigs invasion;
           • They were bitter at JFK for firing long-time CIA Director Allen Dulles, a grand old man of the Cold War against the Soviet Union; and
           • In addition, Garrison hinted, JFK’s successor, Lyndon Johnson, may have wanted JFK removed from office for the purpose of claiming the crown for himself, but also because JFK and his younger brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, were not only plotting to remove Johnson from the Democratic national ticket in 1964, as well as conducting federal criminal investigations of many of Johnson’s closest associates and financial backers—even including those in the realm of organized crime.

    In the end, after a relatively brief deliberation, the jury hearing the Shaw case acquitted Shaw. It was only later—much later—that evidence emerged that Shaw had indeed been a CIA informant, despite Shaw’s protestations to the contrary.

    Only in recent years has it been determined, for example, that the American CIA was deliberately sabotaging Garrison’s investigation from within, not to mention providing assistance to Shaw’s defense. And although there are those who continue to say that Shaw’s acquittal “proved” that Shaw had nothing whatsoever to do with the JFK conspiracy, the bigger picture suggests quite the contrary.

    Shaw was involved with something very murky, and so were others in Shaw’s circle of friends and associates. And they were, in turn, directly connected to the strange activities of Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans the summer just prior to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, before Oswald’s sojourn to Dallas. Dozens of writers—many with differing points of view—have documented all of this, time and again.

    So although the “official” legend is that Jim Garrison believed that the CIA and the military-industrial complex were the prime movers behind JFK’s murder, when all was said and done, Jim Garrison had privately reached quite a different conclusion, one that remains largely unknown even to many people who worked with Garrison throughout the course of his investigation.

    In fact, as noted, Garrison had decided—based on the entirety of everything that he had learned from a wide variety of sources—that the most likely masterminds of the JFK assassination were operatives of Israel’s intelligence service, the Mossad.

    The remarkable truth is that—although Garrison apparently didn’t know it at the time, precisely because the facts had yet to be revealed—Garrison may have been on to something far more than he realized.

    The public record now demonstrates that in 1963 JFK was embroiled in a bitter secret conflict with Israeli leader David Ben-Gurion over Israel’s drive to build the atomic bomb; that Ben- Gurion resigned in disgust, saying that because of JFK’s policies, Israel’s “existence [was] in danger.” Then upon JFK’s assassination, U.S. policy toward Israel began an immediate 180-degree turnaround.

    Israeli historian Avner Cohen’s new book, Israel and the Bomb, confirms the conflict between JFK and Israel so powerfully that Israel’s Ha’aretz declared Cohen’s revelations would “necessitate the rewriting of Israel’s entire history.” From Israel’s perspective, writes Cohen, “Kennedy’s demands [on Israel] seemed diplomatically inappropriate … inconsistent with national sovereignty.” In any case, Cohen pointed out, “The transition from Kennedy to [Lyndon] Johnson … benefited the Israeli nuclear program.” CHAPTER 10 97

    Ethan Bronner, in the New York Times, called Israel’s drive to build a nuclear bomb “a fiercely hidden subject.” This explains why JFK researchers—and Jim Garrison—never considered an Israeli angle.

    While all of this presents a strong motive for Israel to strike against JFK, even maverick Israeli journalist Barry Chamish acknowledges that there exists “a pretty cogent case” for Mossad collaboration with the CIA in the assassination conspiracy.

    The fact is that when Jim Garrison prosecuted Clay Shaw with conspiracy in the assassination, Garrison had stumbled upon the Mossad link.  

    Although (after his acquittal) Shaw was revealed to have been a CIA asset, in 1963 Shaw also served on the board of a Rome-based company, Permindex, which was (the evidence suggests) actually a front for a Mossad-sponsored arms procurement operation.

    Who is Michael Collins Piper?

    A statement from Ryu Ohta,
    Chairman of the Tokyo, Japan-based
    Society for the Critique of Contemporary Civilization

    In a time of tsunamic ideological shifts, in which audacious propagandists are relentlessly engaged in frenzied efforts to rewrite the facts of history, to challenge these truth-twisters Michael Collins Piper arrives: the American Voltaire, an enlightened thinker and polemicist who has no fear of confronting harsh realities, doing so with elegance and verve.

    In recent years Piper has emerged as the unrivaled ambassador of the American nationalist movement to peoples all across the planet: from Moscow to Abu Dhabi to Kuala Lumpur and on to Tokyo and Toronto and Tehran.

    In no uncertain terms, he has issued a clarion call—a rallying cry—for all of us to join together, to reclaim our heritage and to sweep away the corruption of international capital and the consequent malign force that’s come in its wake, driving our world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.

    Piper’s message is loud and clear: Real Americans do not support the Zionist scheme to exploit America’s military might to conquer the globe; that good people who oppose the Zionist Imperium must put aside differences and close ranks, united for the final battle.

    Passionate, making no pretense of being without bias, Piper identifies and savages those who manifest attitudes of open hatred for nationalism and freedom.

    Having fashioned historical writing into an art form, Piper has few peers. Nor are there many who speak truth to power as Piper does so well.

    Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center has said that, because Piper criticizes Israel, he is “anti-American.” In fact, Piper’s work proves precisely how pro-American he is.

    A Prophet Without Honor
    By Mark Glenn

    “If you want to know what’s going on in this country, this is where you’re going to find it,” the man behind a table at a gun show told me. I could see that his table was full of all kinds of material similar to what was on the paper that he had just handed me, as well as many other books and newspapers. I looked over the publications that he was selling, and remember seeing a book entitled Behind Communism, and I made a mental note to come back to that one. The Controversy of Zion was another, which looked to be a little too heavy to digest at that moment. There were newspapers as well—one entitled Criminal Politics—and another that really caught my eye because of its professional-looking appearance.  It was very simply named The Spotlight.

    I started scouring The Spotlight and realized that a lot of the information dealing with banking, the United Nations, and Israel was very foreign to me; but not so foreign as to be alien. I came across an article about the JFK assassination, which would have been interesting enough all by itself, but it was the name of the writer that caught my eye due to the fact that he proudly included his middle name.  This is in a country where people rarely do so. There was no hyphen anywhere separating these names, and for whatever reason this middle name was something that he considered an integral and indivisible part of who he was, and that was how he wanted to be known. What this told me was that his middle name, which he so proudly carried with him, was probably that of someone important in his family, and that he was proud to associate himself with this individual. His name was Michael Collins Piper.

    Besides the fact that he used his middle name, there was something about his first name as well that beckoned me towards his article. Michael was the name of the Archangel whose picture I had always seen as a young boy in church. I had always loved that image of an angel who was wielding a sword, ready to strike downwards with it into his mortal enemy, the devil, who was prostrate beneath the feet of this heavenly warrior—powerless to do anything about it. I had always loved that name and had planned that my first son, if I were blessed enough to have one, would bear that name as well.

    Whether the man behind the table knew that I was a big fish or not didn’t matter. I was interested, and he had hooked me. I shoved the wad of money back into my pocket and stood there reading the article about JFK, unaware of those who were milling about around me. If the man at the gun table behind me did or said anything that indicated his disappointment, I didn't hear it.

    The article on JFK resembled a beautiful young woman I had seen in Italian class a few years ago; and like her, I couldn’t take my eyes away. I devoured every word in this article as fast as I could, not thinking of the intellectual indigestion that might result later. I was floored by what Michael Collins Piper was saying: that a foreign government—supposedly an ally of America—was responsible for the murder of our president. He laid it all out very succinctly and professionally, and there was nothing in his presentation that smacked of academic sloppiness. He wasn’t covering UFO’s or Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. His thesis (and the presentation of it) was unlike anything I had ever encountered in my college history courses, regardless of the fact that it was obviously not a mainstream theory. I turned to the man behind the table who had lured me over.

    “You mean it was Israel who killed John F. Kennedy?” I asked in shock. He must have been watching me the whole time as I read the article, because his eyes and mine met as soon as I looked up at him. The man’s face was grave as he nodded his head slowly up and down a few times without blinking his eyes. “There’s a lot more than that, son,” he added.

    I scarfed up as many of The Spotlight newspapers as I could without cleaning him out. I also looked over the books he had for sale, but decided that the newspapers would be enough for now. Although I didn’t realize it at the time, this was one of those life-changing moments upon which individuals look back and can chart all the secondary effects that follow in its wake. In The Spotlight I began reading the words of a writer named Michael Collins Piper.

    Without Mr. Piper realizing it, I would eventually become—over the ensuing years—his understudy, and he would become my mentor. From a distance of many miles, he tutored me as a Jedi master teaches a Padwan learner. While other ‘cutting-edge’ writers were talking about UFOs and the Reptilians, he was methodically and meticulously fleshing out the image of a beast that had taken control of the most powerful nation in the world. Like a special prosecutor, he charted the names, events, dates and peculiarities of the most dangerous criminal conspiracy that has existed in history, and was getting very little recognition for doing so. The rest of the resistance movement was more interested in black helicopters and UN troops who were stationed in the national forests rather than under- standing the mechanics of the Zionist agenda. After years of listening to what my grandfather had said, something finally snapped into place and I began understanding it all.  This was in no small part due to what I had learned from Michael Collins Piper in a weekly populist newspaper called The Spotlight, later to be replaced by American Free Press.

    Without knowing it, Piper had taught me how to read the tea leaves of what was taking place in the political world, and in particular the involvement that this entity known as Zionism played in it. As a result of his analysis, it was as if I had been given special glasses, not unlike the ones needed to watch a 3-D movie; without which the picture remains fuzzy and two-dimensional. By now it had been a long time since I graduated from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy, for the information these men (who had somehow become extremely popular in recent years) were attempting to peddle to the American people was child’s play, comparatively speaking. They were lightweights, and that was putting it as politely as possible, since it became obvious that what they were really doing was protecting the beast by deflecting attention onto other matters.

    Finally, the day came for me to put all these years of study to the test. Like any graduate student seeking an advanced degree, a dissertation must be presented to the review board. One does not receive their advanced degree by simply attending classes for many years.  He or she must take what has been learned and put it to practical use. I was about to be cut loose from my mentor and sent out to wage war, using the techniques he had taught me, but with my own particular style and flair.

    My dissertation began on a date that changed America for- ever—September 11, 2001—and whether such a change will be for the better or for the worse remains to be seen.  To be honest, I was not as surprised at what happened on that day as was the bulk of America. Like many others who had lived with the knowledge that an evil agenda was clawing its way to the top in this country, I had come to recognize the hand of this agenda in many things … Ruby Ridge, Waco, the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and the mother of them all up until that point, Oklahoma City.

    The fact that I wasn’t surprised didn’t keep me from watching the news coverage which was taking place all day. I had learned from reading Mr. Piper’s works that the agenda can be very sloppy in the immediate aftermath of such operations, and that it was in this early period that the most important information makes its way past the censors. Piper had shown for years in his pieces how, in the early hours following any operation, there remains crucial material in ferreting out the truth of what really happened. I learned this lesson after Oklahoma City when reports surfaced in the immediate hours after the explosion that there were multiple bombs still inside the Alfred P. Murrah Building. Yet by day’s end there was no mention of these items, despite the fact that there had been raw video footage seen by millions of people in the opening hours that showed bomb squads gingerly carrying out explosive devices.

    On September 11th, I watched with fanatical concentration the initial coverage just to make sure that it wasn’t an accident of some sort. When I heard about a second plane hitting the Trade Towers, I knew that an operation was in full swing. From what I had been reading before and after Bush’s election, everything indicated that America was going to war again in the Middle East, only this time in a much larger fashion than had taken place in the previous decade. I had read newspaper reports of the planned operations that were brewing in Afghanistan two months before 9- 11 took place. George Bush Jr., son of the man who in 1991 had first taken America to war for the benefit of the Jewish state, had now (under his father’s direction, no doubt) surrounded himself with people who were all tied to big-time oil interests. He had been given a “thumbs up” from the Israel First Lobby, and had an unprecedented amount of money in his campaign.

    What all of this meant was obvious to me: it would only be a matter of minutes before the Zionist-owned media in America was going to blame this on some swarthy, smelly, murderous Muslim organization in order to justify a full-scale war in the Middle East. As it turned out, it only did take minutes.

    Within hours of this taking place, my phone was ringing off the wall. All my friends who knew of my Middle Eastern descent wanted to know what I thought of all this. It was a maddening experience, in all honesty. Even the ones who had come to distrust the government/media complex over the last few years still possessed an inclination to ‘run home to momma’ at times such as these and refused to afford any credibility to what I had to say. As I explained things such as Zionism and the agenda it possessed to eventually grab up all the land and oil in the Middle East, all I received were uninterested stares and uncomfortable silences. Like the rest of America, they preferred a ‘drive through’ version of the truth that was quickly prepared and easily digested. Besides, Islamic fundamentalism sounded so much more interesting to individuals such as these with their politically uneventful lives. They were, for the most part, conservative Christians who were fed-up with their faith and values being attacked, and therefore vented this pent-up anger at what was at that time a very convenient target, meaning those in the Muslim world. Despite my best apologetics, there was no convincing them of the fact that they were being snookered by the same people who were responsible for dragging Christian culture into the sewer in the first place.

    And it was at that moment, in a very small way, that I under- stood what an exhausting task it was trying to bring truth to a people who did not want to hear it … of trying to make them see an elephant in a room that was impossible to miss, yet which they refused to acknowledge. I was pulling my hair out, and this had only been over the course of a few months. It was then that I came to hold in awe those individuals who had been doing this same thing for years, and yet who kept on going. They were, in the words used by Jesus, the first to stand up against the Jewish supremacist agenda, prophets without honor in their own home; and for me, the one at the top of that list was Michael Collins Piper.

    At that moment I recognized my responsibility in this matter, It was to not sit by and watch as these men, the Michael Collins Pipers of the world, do all the work for our benefit. They were the watchmen trying to expose the nature of this beast that threatened to devour us all. Were it not for the fact that they were, literally speaking, risking life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for the rest of us, we would have been mere statistics by now. The gangsters whom they were trying to expose were like vampires who feared the light of day more than anything, and in this case the light of day was the truth that men such as Michael Collins Piper was shining on their actions. He and the others like him were not supermen, they could only do so much and could only go so far, and if there weren’t individuals who were willing to take up the torch for them at the end of the day, then the fire was going to die for sure … and it was at this moment that I decided to take up that torch as well.

    Mark Glenn
    September 11, 2005 
    Mark Glenn is the author of No Beauty in the Beast: Israel Without Her Mascara.


    • AFP BOOKSTORE   1-888-699-6397    bookstore@americanfreepress.net

    • Return Policy: AFP Bookstore will accept returns on all books/DVDs/CDs within 30 days of purchase for a full refund minus shipping & handling, no questions asked.