John Kaminski Goes Off the Deep End

[JudeA]

Judy, what was your basis for using the term "channeling fraud?" I mean "factual basis", not "emotional basis" or "manipulative basis".>

Kaminksi basis...

 

[JudeA]

Two points: 1) I am really baffled as to why you continue to attempt to send emails to people who have declared they do not wish to receive them.

2) When a person puts a block on an email, it doesn't mean that a message will be sent to the person informing them that the email has been blocked. It also will not bounce. SOME email programs will send the sender a message, but generally, they do not; that is the standard. Otherwise, the net would be flooded with little messages going back to senders.


We were having a "back and forth" I was blocked for awhile. However, after a fashion, I wrote a note about the show and I was no longer blocked (in other words, I no longer got the customary message) I did, however, get messages from sending mail to Victor .....so I figured Lisa no longer had me blocked.

I never talked about "losing my Rense column". Actually, JK would not have lost his if he did not lie to Jeff those three times.

 

[ark]

Judy, what was your basis for using the term "channeling fraud?" I mean "factual basis", not "emotional basis" or "manipulative basis".>

Kaminksi basis...

This is not clear. Please explain.

1) You take uncritically all that Kaminski says?

2) You take uncritically all that some other (well documented) liars say?

and separately:

3) were Vincent Bridges, Jay Weidner or Storm Bear among those 10 or so people that you wrote your hit piece for?

 

[Keit]

We were having a "back and forth" I was blocked for awhile. However, after a fashion, I wrote a note about the show and I was no longer blocked (in other words, I no longer got the customary message) I did, however, get messages from sending mail to Victor .....so I figured Lisa no longer had me blocked.

It seems you didn't answer the question. Why do you continue to try and send your e-mails NOW or even before, after Lisa explicitly told you several times that she doesn't want to get any of your e-mails and she blocked your e-mail address. It's really interesting because if I would get a similar answer from a person as you've got from Lisa, I would get a hint and wouldn't try to embarrass myself by pretending that we are still buddies or close friends who used to laugh together on a balcony. She doesn't want anything with you, so where is your self-respect?

 

[Laura]

Hmmm... very interesting. That's pretty much straight from Vinnie, Jay and Rense.

They sure have gotten lots of mileage out of the fact that I was forced to go to the law and have the transcripts declared my own inspiration in order to protect them from plagiarists and pirates like that gang. (Not to mention, to prevent them from creating a cult around them and using them for financial gain.)

But actually, I would like to return to a different subject here: the curious synchronicity relating to Kaminski's attack on me, showcased as it was in his attack on Judy and others, in relation to my then recently published expose of the Hitler apologists.

I am abso- lo-toot-ly certain that this is a Zionist ruse; just as they did back in the 20s and 30s, they need a boogaboo to keep the Jews scared and a reason to attack the goys. Setting Hitler up as a good guy and thus, justifying his program, is the perfect ploy for them right now. Gotta have that World War, you know. The Israeli gov is rapidly losing the support of the Jews, more people are leaving Israel than are going there... things just are not working out for them. They NEED Hitler's ghost - Hitler as Hamlet!

So again, even if Kaminski THINKS he is "fighting the evil Joos" he is merely serving their agenda.

In my "Mongols" series, I quoted a couple of items that were quite startling, considering some material I had just read by the famous ethnologist, Lev Gumilev. If you follow his thesis carefully, you discover that he is saying that the Turks and the Khazars were basically offspring of the Huns ... From the other side, you read that the Huns were offspring of "Scythian witches, abandoned by their tribe, that mated with devils in the desert." The closest I have come to understanding this is that these "devils in the desert" were Mongols.

Anyway, I'm still digging for clues on that trail, but meanwhile, what interests us here are these two items, one from Nostradamus and the other from Edgar Cayce:

Nostradamus wrote:

L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois,
Du ciel viendra un grand Roy d'effrayeur:
Resusciter le grand Roy d'Angolmois*
Avant apres Mars regner par bon heur. X 72

This has been translated into English as follows:

In the year 1999 and seven months
From the sky will come the Great King of Terror,
Raising again the great king of the Mongols,
Before and after Mars (war) reigns at his pleasure. X.72

Edgar Cayce's remark about Mongols was as follows:

If there is not the acceptance in America of the closer brotherhood of man, the love of the neighbor as self, civilization must wend its way westward - and again must Mongolism, must a hated people be raised.

Now, it strikes me that the quatrain from Nostradamus could very well be a description of the 9/11 event given in a kind of code. Obviously, 9/11 happened in 2001, not 1999, but if you deal with the number numerologically, you end up with 1. And then, you have "seven months" or the "seventh month" or SEPTember.

What is in common with the two is, of course, the word "mongols." And if Gumilev is right, and other traces I have followed are correct, then there is a strain of Ashkenazim that are probably genetic psychopaths - and that strain is passed through the female line.

Next, The fact is that, while Hitler may never have written or said anything directly about annihilating the Jews - the point that is often used to get him off the hook of genocide - he did, in fact, definitely say genocidal things about Poles:

In a famous secret speech Hitler gave to his SS troops shortly before he launched the invasion of Poland, cited in Beritman's "Architect of Genocide," Hiter said:

"Our strength is in our quickness and our brutality. Genghis Khan had
millions of women and children killed by hiw own will and with a gay heart.
History sees in him only a great state builder. Thus, for the time being, I
have sent to the east only my Death's Head units with orders to kill without
pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish race or lineage. Only
in such a way will we win the vital space that we need. Who still talks in
our day of the extermination of the Armenians?"

Now, notice that the context for this assertion of forgetfulness as assurance of genocidal success was in invocation of Genghis Khan and Mongolian bloodshed. The Mongolian reference goes further than the Armenian: mass murder is not merely forgotten (as in the case of the Armenians) but becomes (in the case of the Khan) the foundation for an exalted reputation as a "state builder." Hitler was invoking Genghis Khan as a role model for the successful, triumphal mass murderer, the Ur-precedent for genocide, the model he set for his troops to follow.

Now, if you have read my recent piece about Therese Neumann vs Hitler, you will note that I have cited Fritz Gerlich's piece about Hitler's "Mongolian nose" and his "Mongolian soul". It suddenly seems not so satiric, eh?

Notice also in the above that there is not a word about Jews.

I am more and more convinced that Hitler was backed by "Zionists" and infused with THEIR agenda in the guise of the "Thule Society," and that the intent was to massacre mainly those individuals who had the potential for great soul manifestation; Poles and Jews alike, but mainly those of Slavic origin because there is something about the Slavs that terrified the Huns/Mongols/Khazars/Ashkenazim.

I am also convinced that the whole "revisionist history" thing - including the revising of the image of Hitler - is a deviant tactic and that many sincere individuals are being taken in by this because they, as do we all, use the "critically corrective" approach to reading and perceiving reality.

Quite often, out of politeness, we neglect to focus on the differences which may, initially, seem to be quite small. However, it is often in these small differences that are key, that reveal the nature of the ice-berg of differences underneath our attempts to just "get along," and on which all our good intentions eventually are wrecked.

As Norman Finkelstein wrote in his book, Beyond Chutzpah:

"In the course of preparing the chapters of this book devoted to Israel's human rights record in the Occupied Territories, I went through literally thousands of pages of human rights reports, published by multiple, fiercely independent, and highly professional organizations - Amnesty International, Human Rights Watchs, B'Tselem (Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories), Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, Physicians for Human Rights - Israel - each fielding its own autonomous staff of monitors and investigators.

Except on one minor matter, I didn't come across a single point of law or fact on which these human rights organizations differed.

In the case of Israel's human rights record, one can speak today not just of a broad consensus - as on historical questions - but of an UNQUALIFIED consensus.

All these organizations agreed, for example, that Palestinian detainees have been sytematically ill treated and tortured, the total number now probably reaching the tens of thousands.

Yet if, as I've suggested, broad agreement has been reached on the FACTUAL record, an obvious anomaly arises: what accounts for the impassioned controversy that still swirls around the Israel-Palestine conflict?

To my mind, explaining this apparent paradox requires, first of all, that a fundamental distinction be made between those controversies that are real and those that are contrived.

To illustrate real differences of opinion, let us consider again the Palestinian refugee question.

It is possible for interested parties to agree on the facts yet come to diametrically opposed moral, legal, and political conclusions.

Thus, as already mentioned, the scholarly consensus is that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948.

Israel's leading historian on the topic, Benny Morris, although having done more than anyone else to clarify exactly what happened, nonetheless concludes that, morally, it was a good thing - just as, in his view, the "annihilation" of Native Americans was a good thing - that, legally, Palesitnians have no right to return to their homes, and that, politically, Israel's big error in 1948 was that it hadn't "carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan" of Palestinians.

However repellant morally, these clearly can't be called FALSE conclusions.

Returning to the universe inhabited by normal human beings, it's possible for people to concur on the facts as well as on their moral and legal implications, yet still reach divergent POLITICAL conclusions.

Noam Chomsky agrees that, factually, Palestinians were expelled; that, morally, this was a major crime; and that, legally, Palestinians have a right of return. Yet, politically, he concludes that implementation of this right is infeasible and pressing it inexpedient, indeed, that dangling this (in his view) illusory hope before Palestianian refugees is deeply immoral.

There are those, contrariwise, who maintain that a moral and legal right is meaningless unless it can be exercised and that implementing the right of return is a practical possibility.

For our purposes, the point is not who's right and who's wrong but that, even among honest and decent people, there can be a real and legitimate differences of political judgment.

This having been said, however, it bears emphasis that - at any rate, among those sharing ordinary moral values - the range of political disagreement is quite narrow, while the range of agreement quite broad."

In other words, we seem to be quite often "critically correcting" things that are not just "technical" differences, but things which are fundamental differences of principle.

It is in our communications that we are likely to find these differences, and they ought not to be shoved under the rug as Judy would like to do. As George Steiner wrote:

What are the relations of language to the murderous falsehoods it has been made to articulate and haoolow in certain totalitarian regimes? Or to the great load of vulgarity, imprecision, and greed it is charged with in a mass-consumer democracy? ...

I realize that historians are right when they say that barbarism and political savagery are endemic in human affairs. ... My own consciousness is possessed by the eruption of barbarism in modern Europe; by the mass murder of the Jews and by the destruction under Nazism and Stalinism of what I try to define as the particular genius of "Central European humanism."...

The blackness of it did not spring up in the Gobi desert or the rain forests of the Amazon. It rose from within, and from the core of European civilization. The cry of the murdered sounded in the earshot of the universities; the sadism went on a street away from the theaters and museums... the high places of literacy, of philosophy, or artistic expression, became the setting for Belsen.

I cannot accept the facile comfort that this catastrophe was a purely German phenomenon or some calamitous mishap rooted in the persona of one or another totalitarian ruler. Ten years after the Gestapo quit Paris, the contrymen of Voltaire were torturing Algerians and each other in some of the same police cellars. ...

We know now that a man can read Goethe or Rilke in the evening, that he can play Bach and Schubert, and go to his day's work at Auschwitz in the morning. ...

In what way does this knowledge bear on literature and society, on the hope ... that culture is a huanizing force, that the energies of spirit are transferable to those of conduct?

...The established media of civilization - the universities, the arts, the book world - failed to offer adequate resistance to political bestiality; they often rose to welcome it and to give it ceremony and apologia. ...

Why?

What are the links between the mental, psychological habits of high literacy and the temptations of the inhuman?

This is what Ponerology is designed to study, the questions that it is set up to answer.

 

[JudeA]

In answer to Ark's question.
John K told me about Laura. He said that she channeled herself in the future and he laughed about it.
I did not know Jay Weidmar and Vincent Bridges.


I never gave it much thought after John and I parted. When I read the piece about my being a "gay Wiccan, I was really upset" That is when I wrote my response.

 

[JudeA]

<<It seems you didn't answer the question. Why do you continue to try and send your e-mails NOW or even before, after Lisa explicitly told you several times that she doesn't want to get any of your e-mails and she blocked your e-mail address. It's really interesting because if I would get a similar answer from a person as you've got from Lisa, I would get a hint and wouldn't try to embarrass myself by pretending that we are still buddies or close friends who used to laugh together on a balcony. She doesn't want anything with you, so where is your self-respect? >>

I have never held a grudge and I guess I do not expect that anyone else would. I have tremendous faith in human beings. After I got the messages that Lisa had me blocked, I did not write to her for quite sometime. However, one day I was moved by her show and I wrote a response to both Lisa and Victor. I was surprised that it went through. (on Lisa's account) When the 911 event at Ground Zero happened, Victor announced that we would all put aside our differences for that day. I must say that he was very gracious and we shook hands. Lisa showed me how angry she was. I am learning disabled in this area.

Doesn't it appear as if I am on trial? I did get one very lovely letter, hoewever, telling me that I am a "class act". Sometimes I feel as if I am not communicating at all.

 

[Laura]

Rec. an interesting email this morning from a correspondent who is not aware of this present discussion. He does research and doesn't have much time for forums. Anyway, the email was not exclusively to me; it was to several people he communicates with now and again and to whom he occasionally sends interesting links. Today's cache was quite synchronous. Ya'll might want to check the links out that he includes. (TBR and AFP are run by the same group):

"Brian Harring" is another of the pseudonyms of 'Gregory Douglas' aka
'Walter Storch', the proprietor of "TBR News":

http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a2547.htm

This man has a long and well known record as, Mark Weber's words, "a
known fabricator of documents who has used a variety of names over the
years, including Peter Stahl, Samuel Prescot Bush, and Freiherr Von
Mollendorf. His real name, apparently, is Peter Norton Birch or Peter
Norwood Burch."
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n2p40_Douglas.html

Incidentally there is a real Brian Harring, who nearly lost his career
and got Gitmoised as a result of the 'Gregory Douglas' etc appropriation
of his name:

http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/blog/archives/2005-07.html#e2005-07-10T00_43_59.txt

"Update: Aparently there is
another Brian Harring who is the real author - amazing the crap you have
to go through to clear up a point- must admit the clarification from
their end was pretty much a middle finger, but neh, so it goes."

All this was thrashed out among revisionists a year or so ago. Not that
it matters ; the project of embargoing this person is pointless, what
one should do is confront his patron, Willis Carto.

Irving's own pages on him are here:
http://fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/Peter_Stahl/

Read the blog item at:
http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/blog/archives/2005-07.html#e2005-07-10T00_43_59.txt


note especially the thread of emails between him and the perpetrator
http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/long_term_saving/lifted_name/email
whom he identifies as Storch/Douglas/Stahl/etc. Walter Storch is the
name the guy uses as editor of TBR News, which is where the fake "Brian
Harring" stories appear.

 

[Alana]

Hi JudyA

Reading this thread and being that you are a woman, i recalled the editorial i read this morning on SOTT and i very much encourage you to read it, after you finish with the other recommended readings. It's here:

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20061024_Misogynyandfascism.php

What you don't understand it seems to me, is the whole terror of the situation we find ourselves into as a species. We see it everyday, live it everyday no matter where in the world we made "home" and it is based on facts that no matter how much we would like them to be false, all evidence points that they are true:

Fact: a group of psychopaths is on their way of completing the artpiece they've been sculpting for millenia - their domination of the whole world.

Fact: we will most probably live through extreme weather conditions due to climate changes, and suffer hunger and deaths, as also the resources of the earth are reportedly reaching a point where they will not be able to sustain us all anymore.

And said psychopaths above know this. And they will wipe off the earth those that are not like them, so that they can remain, because they have the power to do so.

Now, we might be a couple of millenia late, but what we CAN DO, is to NOT LET those psychopaths fulfill their plans as best we can. And these psychopaths, they will not just come out and reveal their plans and just take over, because they KNOW they are less in number than normal people and that if normal people knew, they would revolt and take the power back in their own hands, which would basically mean the end of them, because other than lying, manipulating and being in control, psychopaths are good for nothing else. They would starve to death from their inability to make ends meet, due to lack of creativity and skill. So they have to devise a plan (which they did) and take over the world little by little (which they are doing), under the nose of normal people, who will be convinced by psychopaths' lies and manipulations and paramoralisms that it's for their own good (which is working pretty well) and "infect" other normal people into spreading their lies also. Going back to what we CAN DO, since psychopaths' weapon is lying, our job is to EXPOSE those lies. Period!

Even if they are told by our friends, or our loved ones, and especially when they are told by US. Because Judy, being that you are (as you promote) friendly, caring, good hearted human and all, because you are a mother (of what i read), you care about this world and it's people right? And so what if you loose a "friend" or apppear "impolite" in the process of exposing a lie or two, since you know the gang and have relations with them, for the sake of us all? For your children's sake? You are a woman, remember. "They" don't respect women. "They" just use them and despose of them.

Now, if you are refusing to expose your "friends'" lies, doesn't that make you one of them?

Irini

 

[Laura]

Doesn't it appear as if I am on trial?... Sometimes I feel as if I am not communicating at all.

It actually feels that way from this side also. I've written about this extensively, that there seem to be two broad divisions of human beings and each "type" literally lives in a different "reality bubble" and never the twain shall meet. So, the best way to understand the interaction is that it is an attempt to discover which reality bubble you live in, if there is colinearity. As Finkelstein wrote:

This having been said, however, it bears emphasis that - at any rate, among those sharing ordinary moral values - the range of political disagreement is quite narrow, while the range of agreement quite broad."

It seems that the range of disagreement between us is quite broad and the range of agreement quite narrow. Just the way it is. My suggestion is that people should hang around with their own kind. And I don't mean "kind" in terms of color, religion, ethnicity, or whatnot. I mean "own kind" in a very interior sense of the word.

If an individual is in a reality bubble to which they do not inherently belong, it doesn't matter. No one ever decides to leave their reality bubble for a different one unless and until they are "bankrupted."

You are happy enough with yours and you don't have any reason to change it. Nothing any of us have said has penetrated your bubble, and what you say is nonsense to us because it has no deep, intrinsic meaning. For us, understanding means action. For you, understanding means entropy, inaction. That's just the way it is. Not bad, not good, just is.

My suggestion is that you and whoever thinks that you are a "class act" should find your own kind and hang out there and leave us poor deluded, action oriented people to our errors.

 

[Lisa Guliani]

Here we go again:

No email from Andreas has come through on my email account. She continues to insist that mail has gone through, with nothing to base that upon.
I'm telling you directly, Judy, I get no mail from you and I prefer it that way.
Let's clarify something else here: You were an ACQUAINTANCE and nothing more.
I never laughed with you on a balcony, unless you were sitting on a balcony during one of the occasions you called me.
The only time I ever saw you in person was at Ground Zero this year for a matter of a few minutes, in passing - when you ran up to me, Thorn and Michael Langston and literally grabbed Thorn by the arm and made some comment about us all being "friends".
And I gave you a withering look, and Thorn detached you from his arm, told you bye-bye, and we all walked away from you, but not before I snapped that lovely photo of you, remember?
Yes, Thorn can be gracious and he didn't scream when you ran up from behind and stopped us.

Okay, back to this:

JA: I have tremendous faith in human beings.

Lisa: I do not.


After I got the messages that Lisa had me blocked, I did not write to her for quite sometime. However, one day I was moved by her show and I wrote a response to both Lisa and Victor. I was surprised that it went through.

Lisa: Your mail does not go through. Don't waste your time.

(on Lisa's account) When the 911 event at Ground Zero happened, Victor announced that we would all put aside our differences for that day. I must say that he was very gracious and we shook hands. Lisa showed me how angry she was. I am learning disabled in this area.

Lisa: Thorn said that we were all there for 9-11. He did not say he was your friend. We don't need to be friends with you or vice versa, to stand at Ground Zero on 9-11.
What does it matter to you if we're your "friends" and why do you INSIST on pursuing us like this?
Get a life already.
Incidentally, that's not supposed to be why you were there, Judy. It wasn't supposed to be about schmoozing with "friends".
Or didn't you get that part as you raced around trying to get pics with Alex Jones and the other psychos?

I did not show you how "angry" I was. I was not "angry", I was disgusted.
I was disgusted because once again, you were trying to latch onto us like a tick, only in person.
You can't seem to get it through your head that we don't want to be your buddy.
Don't you have any self-respect? I don't get why you put people in a position to be brutally blunt like this.
It's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for you.

I address you here because things need to be addressed.
In this way, you get what you have been trying to get for a long time now.
My attention. Yeehaa. Happy now?

I do want to know on which forum you say you saw the email of the person with the SOTT email address.
the one you mentioned earlier in this thread. Who did you send your Laura hitpiece to?
At least 10 people.
Which people?

So, you sent it to all those people, but not to Laura herself. And then "somehow" it managed to end up on GLP, but not on your own website? Explain this phenomenon.

And after all the links people have cited for you on this thread, which of those have you bothered to read, if any?
I'm sure if your eyes work well enough for you to work on an essay or read the posts in this thread, you can surely read some of the stuff you've been strongly urged to read.
I particularly recommend the one about Organic Portals. I read it myself last night.
Read it slowly, Judy.

 

[brainwave]

I read Judy's posts and see shades of my former self. I hate conflicts or what I perceive may lead to one. The difference is I know this about myself and question myself when I tend to want to avoid speaking the truth about something or someone for fear it will cause a conflict. I used to feel so guilty when I saw something not too kosher about someone, that I would shove it under the rug. This meant that often I would defend no so good, in some cases clearly psychopathic people rather than acting for my destiny based on what I saw happening around me.

Not unlike Judy, I had my share of kaminski types. You know, the all talk and take type of guy that attacks you when you no longer have anything left to give. The type that goes off on you when you try and survive their slow soul killing methods. There is also the Rense types who are just slicker about what they do but no less destructive to truth and sanity. In a very painful manner I learned.

There were plenty of warnings about these types as they came into my life. I not only ignored them, I vehemently defended them. Like Judy I was 'loyal'.
When friends and family tried to point something out I would do the "such and such has always been good to me' routiine too. I totally ignored other peoples negative experience with the individual. Once in a while when I saw enough to be disgusted, I still couldn't bring myself to express my righteous anger. It amounted to a brief "that wasn't nice" chat with psyco then it was back to bleeding for them. It was a cop out and the worse lie of all- lying to oneself. It was no wonder I could never complete anything meaningful that I set out to do then. Judy you won't either if you continue with this be nice program when it comes to Rense et al. You are so identified with this image of a 'class act' and nice girl that you only came on this list and began looking at the lies of Kaminski because he wrote something that threatened your image. What about all the other horrible things he has done to you, to others? If this can happen with Kaminski, I wonder how reliable your claims about Rense.

Judy can you see that refusing to admit the crimes of a criminal just because it wasnt against you is defending the criminal? It's ok if that is what you choose to do but if not for yourself, think about the pain to others that the psychos you defend have caused. With all the lies I told myself, I couldn't continue to let my personal sicko get away without speaking the truth to his crimes because he was hurting others I love and care about. I had a falling out with a very good friend because I chose to believe the lies. It took years to repair that and it only happened when I was able to see and admit the truth.

If you considered Lisa a friend you should look at what friendship is. I fully understand why Lisa doesn't want to have anything to do with you. What I don't understand is your behavior after that. Why the need to 'appear' the class act? It is better to be one. A normal person by now would not even bother continuing to contact someone who doesn't want to be contacted. The ethical thing to do would be think about all you have done and try to understand why she doesn't want to have anything to do with you. I have a feeling you and humanity would be better served by you learning that particular lesson.

 

[ark]

In answer to Ark's question.
John K told me about Laura. He said that she channeled herself in the future and he laughed about it.

So, he did not use the term "fraud". You did it. That tells us enough about what quality to expect from all the other stuff that you ever wrote.

 

[Anders]

Rec. an interesting email this morning from a correspondent who is not aware of this present discussion. He does research and doesn't have much time for forums. Anyway, the email was not exclusively to me; it was to several people he communicates with now and again and to whom he occasionally sends interesting links. Today's cache was quite synchronous. Ya'll might want to check the links out that he includes. (TBR and AFP are run by the same group):

"Brian Harring" is another of the pseudonyms of 'Gregory Douglas' aka
'Walter Storch', the proprietor of "TBR News":
"Brian Harring" is another of the pseudonyms of 'Gregory Douglas' aka
'Walter Storch', the proprietor of "TBR News":

http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a2547.htm

This man has a long and well known record as, Mark Weber's words, "a
known fabricator of documents who has used a variety of names over the
years, including Peter Stahl, Samuel Prescot Bush, and Freiherr Von
Mollendorf. His real name, apparently, is Peter Norton Birch or Peter
Norwood Burch."
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n2p40_Douglas.html

Incidentally there is a real Brian Harring, who nearly lost his career
and got Gitmoised as a result of the 'Gregory Douglas' etc appropriation
of his name:

http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb … _43_59.txt

I remembered Thorbiorn did some research on this person in another thread. The thread is http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=1072
It is the 6th post in that thread. An exerpt is here:

Life is very interesting and surprising. I did NOT expect to end up with so many intrigues, feuds, lies, and manipulations which I could not help but uncover when I began searching after reading Godot's post. Today I continue hoping to bring the work to some conclusions.

A Dr. Karl Kolcheck has written a strong critique against David Irving, see http://www.davidirving.8m.com/ called "Suffering Fools Gladly? David Irving & Revisionism" which I found via http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2004/12/living-forever.html where it is listed as: "David Irving debunked" under the heading "Combating Holocaust denial" There you will also find a long list of sites about how to do that, if you like to study further.

When I looked on Googel it turned out that Dr. Karl Kolcheck's article is mirrored on many of websites. Having learned a bit of a lesson from posting the link to the books of David Irving, I decided to find out who this Dr. Kolcheck is. Google gave quite few listing, I began to doubt the person existed, and the suspicions turned out to be supported, especially as I looked at http://www.vho.org/GB/c/GR/StahlDouglas.html where Germar Rudolf refers to him in note 34 and 46. He writes:

Stahl has repeatedly stated that he possessed these documents and had posted them on his website. The names appearing there are: Walter Storch,[33] Karl Kolcheck,[34] George S. MacAlister.[35] ...

The charge that Stahl initiated personal attacks under cover of pseudonyms is valid, as shown by his sometimes tasteless, below-the-belt attacks on Irving.[46] However, they occurred only after Irving's attacks on Stahl had been published.

Footnotes to Germar Rudolf's article:

[34]: This name is given as the author of an article about, which is almost identical with the one posted at www.gregorydouglas.com, but in this case, the author is G. Douglas.
[46] Cf. his article under the pen name Karl Kolcheck, note 34

Germar Rudolf on David Irving:

Evaluation
David Irving has earned the reputation of suing everyone who dares to say anything uncomplimentary about him. As a consequence, the matters which we mention here in passing have never come to the surface. Since I have no desire to expose myself to David Irving's malicious attacks and ruinous lawsuits, I will abstain from evaluating his person as well as the nature of his charges against Gregory Douglas/Peter Stahl. The facts will have to speak for themselves. ...

Furthermore, Irving is mistaken when he claims that Stahl has a compulsion to be acknowledged as an author and historian; Irving is describing himself when he asserts that. Unfortunately, Stahl's desire to be taken seriously is sadly underdeveloped.

What is the link between Gregory Douglas and Peter Stahl? Germar Rudolf writes:

In other words, Weber's and Irving's charges represent unproven, apparently unprovable accusations. Stahl could charge them with defamation if he were so minded. All three are chronically broke, however. Stahl is unable to sue either Weber or Irving because he could never rake up enough money for a trial. The same goes for Gregory Douglas, Stahl's son, who is vilified in the same breath as his father. However, he has already won several civil suits with corresponding monetary damages.

What about Stahl? Germar Rudolf:

Stahl casually reveals much to those whom he instinctively trusts. This includes documents and material evidence, plus eyewitness accounts of his trusted friends, who affirm everything he says. However, he certainly does not share with those who insult him and call him a liar, counterfeiter, swindler, etc.

Stahl has a terrible reputation for dealing ruthlessly with those who make his life difficult. He has ways of ruining their economic and social lives by means which are legal and yet very effective. As a trained secret agent with many influential connections he has both the abilities and opportunities to do this. He seems to derive real pleasure from carrying on private feuds.

...

Thorbiorn wrote it on 20060411, and a few things have come to light since then.

Anders

 

[JudeA]

I did not show you how "angry" I was. I was not "angry", I was disgusted.
I was disgusted because once again, you were trying to latch onto us like a tick, only in person.
You can't seem to get it through your head that we don't want to be your buddy.
Don't you have any self-respect? I don't get why you put people in a position to be brutally blunt like this.
It's embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for you.>>

Not true. I was meeting my friend Holly there and was just walking around saying "hi" to people. You know that is ridiculous. I saw many people and was friendly to them all.