peter dale scott may not be 100% sound on jewish issues

This is from an appendix to Michael Collins Piper’s “Final Judgment” – RB

A possible key to unlocking the mystery of how the Mossad used Cuban exile “false flags” in the JFK conspiracy may well be a comprehensive examination of Cuban exile Paulino Sierra who popped up in Apr 1963, flush with cash, offering to “unite” the exile factions under the banner of a new entity of his own creation, the Junta of the Government of Cuba in Exile (JGCE). In fact, it was Sierra who financed the arms deal about which a federal informant inside the Cuban groups (one Thomas Mosley) said he was told: “We now have plenty of money. Our new backers are the Jews, as soon as they take care of JFK.” Peter Dale Scott seems particularly concerned about the circumstances surrounding the “our new backers are the Jews” story, and claims that this was concocted as part of a scheme by the real conspirators behind the assassination (whom Scott never names) to launch a public relations campaign blaming “the Jews” for the JFK assassination. The problem with this, of course, is that although anti-Semites did make such allegations their remarks were never, not once, given any credibility or promoted outside anti-Semitic circles! The theory that “the Jews” were behind the assassination had no public relevance at all. Needless to say, Scott, and others who make this claim, ignore that quite relevant fact.

However, as they say, the plot thickens. There’s much more to the story. Scott contends further that the story suggesting Sierra’s group, allegedly funded by “Jews,” was involved in the assassination was part of a more subtle plot by the real conspirators (whom Scott never names) to force Robert Kennedy into blocking any serious inquiries into his brother’s murder. In this regard, Scott asserts that Sierra was actually a facilitator of anti-Castro operations being carried out by Robert Kennedy (on behalf of his brother) on a “second track” even as JFK was making other quiet, friendly overtures to Castro. In fact, Sierra’s operation may have been part of the effort, one Enrique Ruiz Williams allegedly being the contact point between RFK and Sierra. The bottom line, in Scott’s scenario, is that the possibility of involvement by Sierra’s group in the assassination forced RFK into backing off from investigating JFK’s murder because it could backfire, exposing Kennedy family plots against Castro.

However, as even Scott points out, Sierra met in Apr 1963, the time he established his suspicious “Junta,” with former CIA Director Allen Dulles, Lucius Clay, a senior partner of Lehman Brothers, the famed Jewish “Our Crowd” banking firm, and attorney Morris Liebman. What Scott doesn’t mention is that Liebman was a major player in several high-level intelligence-connected institutions integral to what is known today as the “neo-conservative” network known for its determination to place Israel’s security as the central concern of all US foreign policy making. So Sierra’s contacts went well beyond his role as an operative for RFK. What Scott strenuously wishes to avoid is the likelihood that either the Mossad was Sierra’s actual handler or that the Mossad co-opted lower-level operatives in a covert Kennedy-sponsored assassination plot against Castro and utilized them for the Mossad’s own purpose, namely, the assassination of JFK. The Mossad would certainly have seen the brilliance in using a top-secret (and potentially scandalous) Kennedy family venture as the “cover” for its own scheme to remove JFK from the White House. Peter Dale Scott has reportedly been fiercely hostile to those who have dared mention Final Judgment in his presence. We can understand why. Final Judgment fills in the missing pieces of the JFK puzzle, those aspects that Scott (and others like him) prefer to avoid or to suppress for reasons known only to themselves…

10 Comments

  1. lafayettesennacherib
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 12:02 am | Permalink

    Does he give a source for the Scott opinions he discusses, like page nos. in ‘ Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, or what’? Scott generally seems determinedly ‘liberal’, like the sort of ‘left’ that thinks if you just explain the facts you can vote someone in to sort it out. Strange, given what he studies. Or maybe just diplomatic.

    Do you rate Ruppert’s ‘Final Judgment’ then? How about his books ‘ the Judas Goats’ and ‘New Jerusalem’? Have you read them? I’ve come across references to Ruppert often enough, but I’ve so far had the impression that he might be a careless sensationalist (the sloppy end of ‘conspiracy theorist’); do you rate him generally?

    Have you any thoughts on the new JFK book that’s generating some buzz lately, ‘JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why it Matters’ by James W. Douglass?

  2. lafayettesennacherib
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 1:52 am | Permalink

    And ‘Crossing the Rubicon’, of course. I forgot that was by Ruppert. I own it, but hesitate to start it out of a fear it will be a long slog for nothing much new – nothing dependable anyway. What do you think of Rubicon?

  3. niqnaq
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 5:19 am | Permalink

    It’s Michael Collins Piper we’re talking about here. Nothing to do with Michael Ruppert.

  4. lafayettesennacherib
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 5:40 am | Permalink

    Oh, sorry, my mind wandered. Well, do you think Piper’s ‘Last Judgment’ is worth a read? And have you read, or got any assessment of, his books on the jewish influence in the USA – ‘ the Judas Goats’ and ‘the New Jerusalem’?

    And again, have you got any thoughts on Douglass’s (yes, it seems to be 2 s’s) book, JFK and the unspeakable?

  5. niqnaq
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 5:55 am | Permalink

    The book is called “Final Judgment” and I’m reading it currently. It’s online, as are Piper’s “Best Witness” (which is about Mel Mermelstein’s Holocaust denial lawsuit), “Jerusalem” (not ‘The New Jerusalem’), “High Priests of War” (about the neocons) and “Judas Goats”. He seems lucid and well-informed. Bear in mind he is a long-time associate of Willis Carto’s Spotlight magazine and not ashamed of the fact. I’m not aware of Douglass but I tend to pursue things one at a time and I have no immediate reason to be interested in him. You haven’t told me what his thesis actually is.

  6. lafayettesennacherib
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 6:16 am | Permalink

    ” What his thesis actually is” ? That’s the thing. From the reviews, it seems to be that Kennedy was planning to pull out of Vietnam, and go for detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba; and the ‘defense establishment’ didn’t like that. That’s nothing new. I gather he’s pulled together all the previously explored threads – like the ‘2 Oswalds’ – but whether it’s anything more than a collating and updating for the new decade I don’t know. It seems to be getting a lot of attention though.

  7. lafayettesennacherib
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 6:22 am | Permalink

    Worth a look is Robin Ramsay’s little ‘Pocket Essentials: Who Shot JFK?’ http://tinyurl.com/7an9mgn
    At the time of writing, Ramsay was quite confident he’d cracked it – it was done at LBJ’s behest. I can’t remember the argument, but Ramsay later backtracked, expressing some reservations about a vital linchpin of his thesis – can’t remember what again, but it’s a short, entertaining and easy read.

  8. niqnaq
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 6:38 am | Permalink

    Piper argues quite convincingly that everybody except him is avoiding the Jewish angle. And Meyer Lansky was quite a kettle of fish. It seems that he ran the supposedly Corsican and Sicilian mafias, and that he was a zionist fanatic, and that he had close links to Mossad. The CIA itself, given that J J Angleton controlled the Israel desk, was practically an extension of Mossad, rather than the reverse. I don’t see much point in discussing all this: the books are there, believe what you wish.

  9. niqnaq
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    At a hearing of the board of directors of Christopher Bollyn’s local library, to which he had attempted unsuccessfully to donate a copy of “Final Judgment,” a furor erupted when Bollyn pointed out that several directors were partisans of Israel, suggesting the book was rejected because of the Israeli lobby’s fervent objections to the book. When Bollyn raised First Amendment concerns, one pro-Israel partisan, Debbie Miller, dismissed him, proclaiming rather candidly: ‘We own the First Amendment.”

  10. lafayettesennacherib
    Posted June 6, 2012 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

    Nauseating. Is there no end to it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.