Final_Judgment

731 Final Word?
As we have seen above, what Hersh said (cited by the STDL librarians)
does not conflict with the thesis of Final Judgment. Other material
appearing in Hersh's book certainly coincides with facts unearthed by Israeli
historian Avner Cohen and does not conflict with what the librarians called
my "conspiracy theories" in any way.
The bottom line is this: JFK was adamantly determined to stop Israel from
building the nuclear bomb. LBJ simply looked the other way. JFK's death did
indeed prove beneficial to Israel's nuclear ambitions and the evidence
proves it.
SO MUCH THEN for the efforts by the librarians to refute what they
rightly perceived to be the foundation of the thesis of Final Judgment—that
JFK’s refusal to countenance Israel's drive for the atomic bomb resulted in
Mossad participation in the JFK assassination conspiracy. The one energetic
effort to refute the thesis fell miserably flat.
Although one of the STDL reviewers, Tom Holmberg, later posted an
anonymous vicious smear of this author on amazon.com, he finally had the
guts to put his name on the review. However, the favorable reviews of Final
Judgment far outweigh (and certainly out-class) the ravings of Holmberg,
Uri Toch and friends.
UN-CORRUPTED MINDS WEIGH IN
With all of this in mind, we can see why the Israeli lobby is so
determined to suppress Final Judgment. It really is a "dangerous" book, at
least in their perception. The Israeli lobby is concerned that people just
might believe that the theory presented in Final Judgment does make sense.
The fact is that when I have been able to present my thesis unhindered,
to those who haven't actually read the book, people do say that the theory
makes sense. A good example came when in the spring of 1999 (a year
before the Schaumburg affair) I was invited to speak before an accelerated
seniors honor course in political science at the Thomas Worthington High
School near Columbus, Ohio. Although the teacher who invited me, Tom
Molnar, was aware of the previous frenzy that had erupted in Southern
California, Molnar, to his credit, was unfazed. Despite all of this
controversy—or perhaps because of it—Molnar still invited me to speak.
In previous years, the ADL had objected to other speakers Mr. Molnar
had invited. However, when Molnar offered the ADL the opportunity to
appear in debate with those speakers, they refused to debate. He also
refused to "dis-invite" the speakers. The ADL gave up.
The students' written reviews of my presentation were in stark contrast
to the anti-intellectual rantings and ravings of the ADL and their shills at the
Schaumburg Township District Library. Here's a sampling of what four of
these intelligent, young, sincere uncorrupted minds had to say:
Michael Piper . . . seems well read and well versed
in history. He adopted his beliefs from connections