On May 16, 2006 Michael Collins Piper faced-off against Eric Jon Phelps on RBN Live in what was termed “The Great Debate”. In actuality, this debate was so one-sided in Mr. Piper’s favor that if seen in boxing terms, it would have been ruled a “unanimous decision.”
As we said in yesterday’s preview of this debate, we like and have interviewed both participants – Piper and Phelps – and this analysis should in no way be seen as a slight against either man. That is not my intent. But Piper’s mastery of facts – especially in regard to the JFK assassination – so outshone Phelps’ various stances that there is no other way to frame the debate.
So, since I mentioned this subject, let’s examine what unfolded in terms of John F. Kennedy’s murder. As Piper stated at one point in the debate, Vatican Assassins hinges on the theory that the Jesuits were behind JFK’s assassination; but he relates that at least 50% of the information Phelps provides was error-prone and just plain “wrong wrong wrong.”
Piper even went so far as to say that he read Vatican Assassins in its entirety over the past weekend, and “more often than not it had so many errors in regard to the JFK assassination that it led him to question everything else he had written.”
On top of that, Piper conveys how Phelps relied on a number of biased sources for his documentation, including Dr. Emmanuel Josephson (a known disinformation agent) and John Loftus (a Zionist propagandist).
To his credit, Phelps rightly admitted that he had been mistaken on the JFK assassination, and that he didn’t understand Kennedy’s war with Israel. This revelation was huge, because one of the fundamental premises of Vatican Assassins was that Cardinal Spellman and the Jesuits masterminded this crime. But Phelps admitted he was wrong, and that he now intended to update the third edition of Vatican Assassins to include this material.
Piper then questioned Phelps by asking, “If the Jesuits considered JFK to be such a good friend of Israel, then why would they have the Mossad kill him?” Piper called this premise forwarded by Phelps “illogical,” for Phelps himself also admitted the Mossad’s role in killing Kennedy.
Furthermore, Phelps stated in Vatican Assassins that one of the key figures in Kennedy's assassination – Clay Shaw – was a Knight of Malta. But the only sources available to document this crucial point are all people reflecting back on Phelps’ book using him as the source. Phelps also claimed that CIA director John McCone worked in unison with James Jesus Angleton to murder Kennedy. But Piper retorted (unequivocally) that this point didn’t stand, for McCone was a close personal friend of the Kennedy family, and that is why he was appointed CIA director after Kennedy fired Allen Dulles. Plus, Kennedy directed McCone to do all his intelligence work separately from Angleton (who he didn’t trust), especially in regard to Israel. So, even though McCone was a Knight of Malta, he certainly didn’t plot to kill Kennedy.
In reality, the main premise of Michael Collins Piper’s Final Judgment still stands – that Kennedy was assassinated because of a secret, behind-the-scenes war with Israel over their clandestine plans to develop nuclear weapons. During the course of this debate, Phelps revealed that he felt this scenario was accurate, and that he would incorporate it into his future work.
A final note on this subject: Phelps explained at one point how he felt the Black Pope was in charge of illegal drug trafficking and the Mafia; but Piper countered with the fact that Sam Giancana’s son recently wrote in two different books that the very clear head of organized crime in Chicago was a Jewish man named Hyman Larner, who was a partner of Meyer Lansky. Lansky was the real head of organized crime, and he was Jewish, not a Jesuit agent. And Sam Giancana, as we all know, had obvious links to the Kennedy assassination, and he worked for the Jewish Lansky.
In all, Piper concluded – almost half-jokingly – that Vatican Assassins could almost be seen as a “put-up job” in regard to the Kennedy assassination.
Surprisingly, Phelps didn’t credibly contend, object to, argue with, or dismiss even one point Piper made throughout the debate. Instead, what Phelps seemed to do too often was string together a slew of dates, countries, names, and biblical references that were never qualified by substantive (or significant) facts. An example would be as such: in 1832 a Bavarian Archbishop named XYZ said blah blah blah. Then he’d quote the Book of Revelations about a great city on the hill, gentiles, and Roman rule. In all honesty, though, all these obscure references started to make my head spin and I was having trouble following his train of thought.
Piper even addressed this issue by saying that he couldn’t have a serious debate if it was all based on one man’s interpretation of the Bible (precisely because there are so many different interpretations), especially where the Book of Revelations is concerned. Instead, he said their exchanges should be based on facts, not interpretations.
There was also quite a bit of discussion during this two-hour debate on subjects other than the JFK assassination, and what follows are a few other observations that Piper made which seriously questioned the Jesuit/Vatican’s supposed role as controllers of the New World Order.
ONE: If the Roman Catholic power base in America is so inordinately strong, then why is abortion still legal? Remember, Catholics have been adamant in their opposition to abortion, so don’t you think it would be outlawed?
TWO: Phelps stated that the CFR and ADL were subordinates of the Jesuit order (in the past with Cardinal Spellman, and now with Archbishop Egan). Piper replied that such an assertion was “a lot of nonsense” for the CFR is a division of the Rothschild Empire and serves as the American branch of England’s RIIA (Royal Institute of International Affairs). In addition, Piper continued, the Rothschilds are not an adjunct of the Jesuits, and any argument to the contrary “falls on its illogical face.”
THREE: Piper also said that Phelps assertion that the ADL was an agent of the Jesuits “falls flat” because the ADL stands virtually in direct opposition to nearly every stance of the Catholic Church.
FOUR: Also, any examination of mainstream media ownership will reveal that it’s not the Jesuits who are in control of the major networks and magazines, but some very powerful Jewish families.
FIVE: If the Jesuits truly ran the world and its war machine, then why were the Pope and Catholic Church so adamantly in opposition to the Iraqi War, while Israel and the Zionists were 100% behind it (even promoting it with zealous glee)? If the Vatican was such a driving force, wouldn’t Catholics have supported the war? Plus, is this the real reason why Catholic priest sex scandals were finally exposed after so many years – as retaliation by the Zionists for their vocal opposition to the war?
SIX: Finally, why can The Washington Post freely ask if there are too many Catholics on the Supreme Court; but if they asked if there were too many Jews in Bush’s cabinet, the Israel Lobby would raise holy hell until the end of eternity?
In all, Piper concluded at various points during the debate that Phelps' claims that Israel and the Rothschilds were shills of the Jesuits was “absolutely extraordinary,” that he made “egregious errors based on pro-Zionist sources,” that the problem with Phelps was that “so many crimes are attributed to the Jesuits, but nothing could be further from the truth,” and that “the Jesuits are not the substantial influence in this country; the Zionists are. "
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.