The Writing of Pipe the Bimbo in Red: Dean Andrews, Jim Garrison and the Conspiracy to Kill JFK by Don Jefferies and William Matson Law

“Many saw the unleashing of a dark latent psychosis in the national character.” Time Magazine, October 5, 1983

Latent: existing but not yet fully visible or universally recognized
psychosis: a collection of symptoms that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality

Time Magazine cited the hope and the horror of the 1960s as the catalyst for this mass, but still largely hidden psychosis. The hope of the Kennedy’s and MLK among other civil rights leaders, dashed by the horrors of the assassinations, all in the midst of a psychological Cold War, and a land war in Vietnam that divided a nation.

This psychosis was expertly exploited for profit and power in various ways. Via the printed word, via groups collecting fees, via churches, via radio, and via television – with precious and expensive time allocated to extremists, enablers, or front men presenting Colgate Smile faces and offering the entry point into deeper, darker waters.

Then came cable, spreading the psychosis more widely.

And then came the internet – and the potential to reach billions.

Now every man and his dog could see the potential to make money and to become “famous” via the exploitation of this psychosis.

This is the story of one such man: Donald Jefferies (aka Donald Jeffries).

I first encountered Jefferies at the JFK Education Forum. He had just written a novel and was apparently contacting all and sundry to get positive star ratings on Amazon.

At that time, you need not have purchased a copy in order to rate or it or comment on it. I understand that this is how some people operate, but it is not how I operate so I passed.

Over time, I became increasingly disillusioned with the so-called JFK assassination community and some of its more outrageous theories and claims and began fact-checking and posting my findings. My main target became the “Two Oswald” theory, mainly because its army of acolytes took over every thread I started on my research of Oswald and his family.

My threads taking apart aspects of this theory angered Mr. Jefferies who by now, was a “hall monitor” on the platform.

Things really exploded when I caught Jack White in a lie over his friendship with one of the late-arriving witnesses used in the book outlining this theory.

To cut to the chase, I eventually got banned from the platform for making a joke involving parrots and crackers after putting up with personal abuse, gish galloping, and a dazzling and dizzying array of fonts, colors, and photo montages that only someone with a psychosis could possibly follow.

Jefferies eventually stopped posting at the forum as well. He had other plans. Empire building. I am guessing he has now surpassed 10 books – mainly on JFK and history in general, while cozying up to white supremacist podcasters, a spot of dog whistling on his own podcast, a blogsite, followed by a new home base here on substack.

Early in this empire building, I noted this comment by Jefferies, and kept a copy of it as a quote to use in my forum signature. It betrays a man who believes he has a right to make a living out of exploiting his tabloid worldviews and can’t grasp why he is having such a problem getting off the ground as a fan and money magnet. “So what’s an independent-minded populist like me to do? I’ve had to grovel in promoting myself on social media, even begging for Amazon reviews and Goodreads ratings, to no avail.”

But Jefferies is nothing, if not persistent. He can now lay claim to being an Alex Jones Lite and making just enough not to have to work a proper job (selling real estate doesn’t count).

None of this would have been fodder for a story, except that I was contacted a few months back by another researcher named Bob Wilson who had been working on Jefferies last book, Pipe the Bimbo in Red, which has William Matson Law as co-author.

Here is a summary of what Wilson claimed:

• He had previously worked with Jefferies on a book about the Beatles, and other JFK books. No issues over this were mentioned

• He next worked on Pipe the Bimbo in Red with Jefferies (and William Matson Law) but around the time the book was being released, Jefferies wrote an article on this platform called Antisemitism vs Free Speech.

• Wilson said he was so disgusted by the article, he asked for his name to be removed from the book as co-author, which he meant as an instruction to remove his research.

• His name was removed but his research remained – now uncredited. Bob has a copy of the original draft supporting this claim.

• Wilson, whilst still on board, had requested that his cut from the book be donated to the “very ill” Dean Andrews III, (the son of Dean Andrews, Jr on whom the book is based) and who was interviewed extensively by Wilson for the book. Wilson does not believe any money has been given to Andrews.

• Wilson also claimed that he gave Matson Law some discs containing a lot of files which Mr. Law has refused to return, and that there is also a notebook with notes on 30 hours of interviews which has not been returned.

• The claim was also made that Jefferies has been given a lot of information, most of which had to be explained to him, that he does next to no research himself (probably copying the MO of Alex Jones, in that research is beneath him) and that few people he takes research from ever get any compensation or credit.
  
  I put these issues to William Matson law, advising at the start I was writing an article and wanted him to confer with Jefferies in responding to the claims. Matson Law chose to respond immediately without conferring with his writing partner.
  
  Regarding the claims, Matson Law wrote the following:

• Bob Wilson is a nut and I refuse to have anything to do with him

• The files he sent me were things I did not ask for and then he asked for their return. He has tried to do nothing but cause Don and I trouble.

• He was involved with the book, but basically sent Don nothing that you couldn’t get off the internet. He asked to be taken off of the book and not have his name mentioned or any of his materials. We acquiesced to his wishes

• All monies received for the book were given to Dean Andrews.

• Wilson, at one point, contacted my publisher and tried to stop the book from being published

• I still have all of the emails and so does Don where he went back and forth telling us not to and I quote “use any of his ideas” or use his name in any way connected to the book.

My response to Matson Law was as follows:

Thanks for the info.

He may well be a nut – but this community is filled with them, and this does not seem to have been noticed in earlier books he worked on with Don.

His research may also be crap – but again, that does not seem to have stopped Don in using him in previous books.

Did you return the discs to him?

He claims he did over 30 hours of interviews with Andrews. Is that true? Is that something you would entrust to a nut?

Glad to hear all money has gone to Dean. A nice gesture.

Lastly, just for clarity – was any of his material taken out of the book or was only his name removed?

Mr. Matson Law has attempted to have it both ways. Either Bob Wilson is a poor researcher and a “nut”, in which case, it reflects poorly on Matson Law and Jefferies in using him as a co-author and/or researcher, or both claims are fallacious.

At this point Matson Law stated he did not wish to answer any further questions. I then reminded him that I was publishing an article on the claims being made. The response this time was an attempt to withdraw permission to publish and reiteration that he wanted nothing further to do with Bob Wilson, and that Don Jefferies was not antisemitic.

Based on the counter-complaints, I have asked Bob Wilson to cease contact with William Matson Law and his publisher, TrineDay. Wilson however, retains the right to use legal avenues in having his material returned. Wilson has asked me to add here that he has not contacted any of them in many months.

The crux of the matter is the accusation that Don Jefferies is antisemitic and a Hitler apologist.

I will reiterate at this point that William Matson Law denies the claims about Jefferies, and Jefferies himself has previously made public denials of such charges.

Here are some quotes from Antisemitism vs Free Speech – and I note up front that the very title indicates that “free speech” is on the side of allowing antisemitic polemics that have the aim of spreading hate based on race, creed or religion.

If you want to know why so many “haters” believe “the Jews” control everything, look at the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Look at how overwhelmingly it passed. It was not a close vote. If someone can explain how a foreign nation holds such power over our elected officials, I’m waiting to hear it.

So what exactly is the Antisemitism Awareness Act?

In summary, This bill provides statutory authority for the requirement that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights take into consideration the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) working definition of antisemitism when reviewing or investigating complaints of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance. According to the IHRA’s working definition, antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.

Now we need to ask what IHRA is and what it defines as “antisemitism”. It is an organization formed by 35 member nations with the single aim of helping to prevent future genocides. One of those member nations is the US.

So right off the bat, Don Jefferies has falsely accused a single foreign nation of being so powerful, it can cause an overwhelming vote in the US congress. We can guess which nation Jefferies is facing while dog whistling.

The fact is that any group of nations that includes the US is pretty much going to be led by the US. I imagine Don’s new argument would be that all the delegates from member countries are Jews. I think there is a family of them living in Don’s crawlspace. Commie Jews at that.

But we have not hit the worst of it. The definition of Antisemitism by the IHRA includes this nugget “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

Don and his ilk want you to believe that any criticism of Israel at all is verboten. It is not. Which is why I can condemn its actions in the Middle East currently, along with the actions of other participants in the slaughter.

Moreover, the Act is limited to addressing complaints of discrimination in programs or activities which receive federal funding.

Jefferies is either ignorant of these facts, or is deliberately trying to give the impression that the Act has universal coverage and application. It most certainly does not.

Here is what Jefferies claims about the Act:

The act goes well beyond the current state of Israel. It warns against any claims that Israel’s creation was problematic in any sense. More importantly, it references Holocaust “denial,” and condemns it. Thus, America now joins every other country on earth in forbidding any discussion of the particulars of the German concentration camps. And finally, it suggests that statements about the Jews killing Jesus Christ are “anti-Semitic.” I was raised a Catholic. I was very small, but I remember the Latin mass, before Vatican II. I’ve read Father Feeney, and listened to Father Coughlin. This act basically repudiates pre-Vatican II Catholicism. There are Biblical passages about the Jews being responsible for killing Christ. This shouldn’t mean that any Jew today bears any blame. But this act in effect makes parts of the Bible “anti-Semitic.”

The above shows that Jefferies has read the definition, so knows it is limited in scope. And once again, he is misrepresenting the facts. The example he gives that stating “Jews killed Christ” is antisemitic completely ignores what is stated in the preface to such examples – to wit

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to…

As always, context is king. It tells us that the examples given may or may not be antisemitic, depending on the context.

It seems Mr. Jefferies views are continually skewed to deceive.

It also seems he hates modern Catholicism and would like a return to Pre-Vatican II days as championed by the disgraced and disgraceful, “Fathers” Feeney and Coughlin – both of whom were true haters of progress and Jews – and Hitler apologists.

The irony is not lost, But I guarantee it is on Mr. Jefferies. You see, Jefferies is a vocal fan, not only of Fathers Feeney and Coughlin, but also of Robert F Kennedy, Sr.

As a Harvard undergraduate, Robert Kennedy attended a meeting of students at which he stood up and challenged Feeney, later storming out following the priest’s assertion that there was no salvation outside the Catholic faith. In fact, Robert Kennedy’s complaints to Cardinal Cushing about Feeney’s teachings eventually led to Feeney being excommunicated.

How anyone can profess to hold both Feeney and RFK in high esteem is possibly a good example of the psychosis Time spoke of all those years ago.

Thanks for reading The New Disease! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

If you like this content, you can keep me going one coffee at a time here!

Liked it? Take a second to support Greg Parker on Patreon!

Facebook Comments

0

0

More Stories

• JFK Assassination

• JFK Assassination
• Media
• Substack

• Law and Order
• Politics
• Society
• Substack
• Terrorism