Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Charles Drago]

Charles,

It doesn't take very "deep" thought to recognize the huge differences in tone and style between Albert Doyle's posts and Jim Fetzer's myriad of posts and articles that are widely available on the internet.

But since you admitted, earlier on this thread, that you "don't have the expertise that some of you have regarding Albert Doyle's writing style," you have no basis on which to draw this conclusion. In other words, you both acknowledge and trumpet your ignorance.

And to which "Albert Doyle" do you refer?

Again, my argument isn't so much with you declaring that Doyle isn't Doyle, it's that you are now stating as a fact that Jim Fetzer is posting under Doyle's name.

I neither made nor make any such statement. I indicate the striking polemical similarities between the posts of at least one of the "Albert Doyle" personalities and much of Jim Fetzer's signed later output. Greg is spot-on: If we're not reading Fetzer as "Doyle," then we're reading someone who is either influenced by Fetzer or consciously attempting to ape him. Or both.

Deep thinking would require that you factor in Fetzer's past eagerness in being a minority of one; everything about him would indicate he would not shy away from promoting Piper any more than he has backed down from siding with Baker, Cinque, etc.

Don, in this exchange alone you've made it quite clear that your authority as a critic of deep political analysis is the equivalent of mine as a critic of quantum theory.

And how might we compare your superficial knowledge of Fetzer's psyche and Greg's deep understanding of a long-time friend and colleague?

And it gets better: You describe Jim Fetzer, the bold, loquacious champion and ally of the likes of charlatans and/or disinformation agents Philip Nelson and Ralph Cinque, as demonstrating "past eagerness in being a minority of one." And what of the Jim Fetzer of old, who stood publicly and proudly with a host of noble researchers on numerous issues of great importance to our work.

You're not posting on EF, Don. This nonsense you're spouting will not go unnoticed or unanswered here on the Deep Politics Forum.

I believe Jim Fetzer is now about 70 years old. Unless you are willing to postulate that he has always been a disinfo agent, why would he now, at such an age, decide to become one? Why would he choose someone like Albert Doyle, who was vehemently opposed to his Cinque arguments about Oswald in the doorway, for this mysterious, seemingly pointless bit of impersonation? Why would Doyle permit someone he disagreed with to post under his name? Yes, you can urge me to read all the past posts in this thread, but your thesis here is mind boggling. You are inferring that both Fetzer and Doyle never were mere posters on a forum, but in fact some kind of intel assets. How are you comfortable with putting out that kind of allegation publicly under your name?

Your "reasoning" here is so flawed, so absent even the most rudimentary understandings of the subjects you've allegedly studied for years and about which you now have the audacity to publish a book-length analysis, that I just don't know where to begin to tear it apart.

You ascribe to me conclusions I have not reached and allegations I have not made. You proffer psychoanalysis of a man you do not know. You focus on the "is it Fetzer?" issue at the expense of examining the most important matter at hand.

And I must add that, to even a modestly gifted student of Deep Politics, the operation we're examining presents as anything but pointless.

You are lashing out at Albert because you object to the fact he thinks Israel was a primary mover behind the assassination.

You haven't the foggiest idea about my position vis a vis Israeli involvement in the JFK assassination for the simple reason that nowhere on this thread have I discussed it.

Further, you misrepresent the position of the "Albert Doyle" entity on the "primary mover" business -- a position that eliminates "Israel" from Sponsor status.

Other than that -- great analysis, Don!

Then you further attempt to tie him in with someone else you have recently had a fallout with, primarily over his association with Cinque. You're letting your personal bias cause you to forumate [sic] theories that are, to use your own term, laughable.

Your ignorance now extends to the nature of my long-standing problems with Jim Fetzer. In other words, you excrete this shit and then try to sell it as chocolate.